One enormous advantage many of the religious have in terms of mentally coping with life is that they don't believe they will ever truly die. Hats off to those who find motivation to live without that.
My motivation is that the odds of me actually existing in the first place are so long that I'd be a fool to waste my brief time in the universe.
Looked at through that point of view everything is amazing from a tree leaf to the latest giga image of Orion.
"Given enough time, Hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where its going." - Edward Robert Harrison.
Think of all the amount of time and events that had to take place for you to be able to contemplate the universe.
Spend some time looking at https://orion2020v5b.spaceforeverybody.com/ zoom in and realise that everyone of those white dots is a star, they where around for millions or billions of years before the statistically unlikely event that led you to be able to look at the dots, they'll largely be around for billion years after you are gone, to me that is the true meaning of awe - that I can sit here with a coffee and get to in a very small way comprehend a very small part of a vast universe.
I get to appreciate it because a million and a half years ago my ancestor took the left path and not the right, the one with the predator, I get to appreciate it because two thousand years ago my ancestor didn't drink from the strange smelling stream and because 40 years ago the cashier at the petrol station agreed to a date with the security guard doing the cash pickup, it's all random, there is no meaning but what we ascribe.
As Yoda would say, "there is no why" https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJ8KIzkCAto
This kind of thinking is bizarre to me, I genuinely want to understand this. I don't believe we all exist randomly or that our existence was an accident. I am a deeply religious person precisely because I don't believe all of this is random.
If all is random, why does every person who claims to believe this not live as if it were true. Almost all of these people plan out their lives and their retirements, etc. etc. and then claim that everything is random. Why do you say "I'd be a fool to waste your brief time in the universe" if your brief time here is an accident. It's a fluke and nothing you do during your time here matters at all because you yourself don't matter at all, so why pretend that doing good and spending your time wisely is important?
Sorry if I sound harsh, but I really wish to understand this kind of thought, and you just never can talk about this kind of stuff this way with people in real life.
> "I'd be a fool to waste your brief time in the universe"
To me that means the odds of me existing are so small that out of personal curiosity I want to appreciate it.
> It's a fluke and nothing you do during your time here matters at all because you yourself don't matter at all.
Yep - nothing I do one way or the other will meaningfully affect the universe or it's future, only the people/society around me that I care about.
Odds are 100 years from now I'll be utterly forgotten.
> so why pretend that doing good and spending your time wisely is important?
Treat others as you would treat yourself, I treat people well in the hope/expectation they'll do the same, I care about the environment because I don't want my step-son or other kids his age to grow up in a world worse than I did.
Personally, now that I'm secular, I still fear death. But at least I understand that that fear only exists because of my built in neurobiological values, which are there because they helped my ancestors reproduce. That doesn't really change things much either, but at least it's a true explanation. Before there was always a cognitive dissonance: if things are going to be way way better after we die, why do we try so hard to avoid death?
Any religious faith is a faith, even though people like to suggest silly arguments that faith necessarily is blind or unbounded, but it is still a hope in something unseen.
There is a long history of spontaneous religious beliefs throughout history and around the world, which can be interpreted in more than one way.
I don't see it as a poor choice to live to those defined moral codes. The negative association with being religious is due to many people letting other people think for them now days. If one take the actions and words of a person over studying for oneself what the text say then that is exactly what one is doing. If one ascribes negative connotations to the underpinnings, without knowledge of whether those that claim knowledge yet may be ignorant of what the text says, then one acts in the same ignorance. Most of the religious texts, espouse universal love, non-judgment (by other people) and harmony. Most of the people that claim they understand them, have never event read the texts from end to end, much less any of the competing religions text to compare and contrasting one against the other.
For example let's take Abrahamic religions because they are fun to pick on, most Muslims, Jews and Christians (especially Christians) could not even tell you what Psalm 137:9 is, much less explain why someone would be happy to dash child against the rocks. Well deeper understanding would be that this is what the Israelites wanted, revenge for their dead children that were bludgeoned to death. But what happened was not revenge, but rather judgment and that is the lesson being conveyed, our hearts will seek revenge but what puts things in balance is not revenge but judgment. Point being, I have been hard pressed to find a single laymen from any of the 3 Abrahamic branches, that know the verse much less that could explain it (honestly Muslims where the most knowledgeable on the subject). Further most Christians don't even realize that Jesus was a devout pacifist, cavorted with mainly "sinners" and routinely spoke out about the pious.
As a side note Jeremiah 32:35 is another fun one. Why did it not enter his mind? Is he not all knowing and omnipotent?
While it may be a fairy tail, by all accounts Jesus and Buddha were pretty awesome dudes, I want to be like them, even if it's just for the time I am here.
As I'm sure you are aware, most atheists follow similar moral beliefs and, as far as I'm aware, there's little evidence that being religious helps you adhere to these rules any better.
Some of that choice may appear delusional, or may in fact be delusional, but does not make it any less real to the observer. Take for example the monks that claim enlightenment, they believe suffering is an illusion and that basically you just have to not believe in suffering to not suffer. This could be deluded thinking and sounds crazy on the surface, until you see one of them trance and ignore the most extreme pain. Their delusion manifests itself into reality just by their will.
There is similar delusional thinking that comes from Atheistic points of view and they have had real world manifestations. I am hesitant to name some of them due to the fact that it will look like I am claiming them atheism is not a moral choice. Which is not the intent.
How do you know which morals to cherry pick? That would be humanistic morals - you pick the ones that we follows. The ones that encourage being good to others and respect their wellbeing.
Religion provides no benefit or advantage over atheistic humanistic morals. It does provide benefits to the region - money, power, control and the ability to avoid responsibility.
Jesus encouraged people to devoid themselves of personal goods and family and follow him. Well at least in the Bible fables. More cherry-picking.
Your powers of rationalization are substantial.
On the matter of genocide, the texts are very clear that we all have to experience death, no one escapes it. In the text god does not see death as a tragedy. It is the expected outcome, this is exactly why I referenced Psalm 137:9 because most people do not know how to explain what is going on, because they have not read the full text much less many times to understand the context. Again I ask why would someone be happy to bash children against rocks. Did god command them to do it, did he condemn them for it? Jeremiah 32:35 get's to the heart of it. If there is a god and he is eternal and he views our lives as eternal then the death of this life is no more than telling a child to not touch a hot stove but it is clear throughout the text, that he exalts the innocent and the downtrodden. If one makes a habit of abusing these classes he tends to anger, there is no inconsistency here. In the old testament before the time of kings he was in direct commandment of his elect. He exacted judgment on several nations specifically due to the fact that they where sacrificing their children to Baal. While you may not agree with it, this is extremely consistent with the fact that from the outset humanity is to be judged by death.
On rape, I will forgo rehashing it, I would assume that wikipedia is a fairly well vetted war zone. It is fairly well accepted that the Torah condemns rape. Now we can certainly argue over our present day view against the remedies for said act as laid out in the Torah but to say that the book encourages it is not factually true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
As for slavery Matthew 19:1-9 and Mark 10:2-9 describe this very succinctly, and that is man is flawed, man enslaves man or more aptly put man's inhumanity to man. It is clearly laid out that slavery was not by design, but rather slavery is man's desire to be their own gods and subjugate other men. God recognizes that we are fallen but does not condone the practices that we do that are inhumane. The text do not advocate for slavery yet over and over repeat the lesson of exalting the meek. The Jews were slaves exalted out of Egypt. Joseph was of wealth and favor and sold into slavery by his brother. He was a loyal and faithful servant thru his suffering and was in the end redeemed. The text never says slavery = good. It says if you find yourself in that situation, do not lament your situation, be kind, be humble, be of service to people. If we contrast it with Jainism they teach a very similar concept of suffering is an illusion. None of this says slavery is good, rather the lesson to be learned is suffering is part of this life, no matter what you are presented with, try to make the best of it.
Your powers of rationalization are substantial
I find that most people have not taken the time to read all of the major religions texts a least a few times to understand them. So it is hard to argue rationalization when one does not fully comprehend the text. I know because I was one of those people that used to mock the religious but it came from a position of ignorance as I had only cursory reading and cherry picked evidence. When in fact most of the religious text (Pick your religion) are fairly logically consistent, especially when it comes to moral codes. That does not make them true, but it does mean that one does not have to rationalization them. They very well may be fairy tales, but where certainly written by smart men who where logically consistent. The problem is that the texts span thousands of years. Five minutes of reading the cliff notes will not suffice if one wants to truly understand the texts and not listen to what the Baptist or Dawkins have to say is in them, because the reality is they both are flat out wrong.
The funny part is I see the same thinking on both sides and it has been a real eye opener as to why so many sect of the Abrahamic religions can exist. Almost none that "believe" actually read the thing end to end, so they just take what their flavor tells them is the truth as the truth. On the other end, you get the majority of detractors who just parrot Dawkins and have never read the works to decide for themselves if it tells a rational and logical story, or they hear some text that seems really f'ed up and just go yep fruitcakes, or like me they were raised in it, never read it, were told what the text said at a young age, had no interest in reading it, and checked out before that interest could develop, due to other people saying what was in the text.
Jesus encouraged people to devoid themselves of personal goods and family and follow him. Well at least in the Bible fables.
Jesus said this world is temporary and the pursuits of it are trivial. None of that is untrue, it all goes away when you die. Even, if he was a crazy dude that thought he was the son of god, he is still right. None of it matters in the end. He advocated for a full and abundant life and said he was the example to follow to achieve that. It's not that crazy of a thought that the guy placed experiences and happiness about material pursuits, and saw that as the example of how to achieve happiness, as from all I have seen material pursuits are a trapping and we become slaves to our possessions. Meanwhile those that have not succumb to this material world seem to be much happier:
https://www.survivalinternational.org/not-primitive#:~:text=....
I can't handle that thought any more or less than the thought that I'll die - As a cartoon dog said, I just distract myself with pointless stuff, it seems to work.
But the presumption here is that the same “time passage” we’re familiar with here, exists there, and pretty much 100% of NDE accounts (depending on whether you believe thousands of witnesses of it constitute credible eyewitness testimony) state that there’s “no time” there or that “time is weird”. Here’s a simple question: Do you think there are immutable aspects to your person? Aspects that have remained unchanged your whole life thus far? Because those are apparently the things that continue on to the next adventure, as it were. And yet, this is supposedly a learning experience of some sort...
Also it just weirds me out, like I'll end up trapped in an eternal versin of animal crossing or something. Of course religious people don't think of it like that and it's all more sublime and full of unity with god and so on but it still doesn't sound great.
i don't know if this is just the hacky pop-culture reading of Buddhism but I've always liked the idea of Nirvana more than the kind of stories told by the Abrahamic religions.
because eternal life conceptually feels like a coping mechanism it honestly never appealed to me
It's strange but I used to be an agnostic and viewed the idea in pretty much a similar light to you, always dismissed it as wishful thinking, but three things always struck me: 1) The something from nothing paradox. 2) The fact that the universe looks like a data store. 3) The composeability of nature as almost a form of programming e.g chemistry, genetics, light/matter duality.
So I was always an uncomfortable Agnostic I always said that if I had to flip a coin, I would be 70% on heads that there is a design to all of this.
So with that, I kind of just meandered around philosophy and theology for a long time, not really liking religion for the people involved which kept me from really understanding the underlying philosophy trying to be conveyed in them.
As I have grown older and given my being OK with either outcome I have come to understand, if there is a architect intelligent life existing for a period of time and then extinguished seems to be the least logical option. Human knowledge transferred thru generations seems to be the most inefficient way to evolve it assuming knowledge is the only point and usually in nature we see the path of least resistance. So I generally assume we are not ants just here to build something and our lives are insignificant.
If that is the case then a transformed existence after this one seems logical (based on a bunch of faith and assumptions I will give you).
When you look at it in that light the philosophy of many religions has some good reasons, though the explanations may be dated, as to why things are the way they are.
Logical explanations about free will, why death would exist, why we seem to be abandoned to our own fate and a recognition that in our current state, eternal life would not be that great and how transformation is needed if we are to be eternal beings.
Now in saying all this in my flipping coins odds thinking I am less of a betting man on the concept that this is a science project that someone abandoned. That I am closer to 50-50 on.
Now please do not take this as a pitch for hey go find god. I believe every person according to their free will needs to live their life according to that free will. I am just telling you a story of how I got to from where you are, to where I am now. So anyways back to the 50-50 odds I came to the conclusion that we either are abandoned and if that is the case nothing really matters, not happiness, not love, not Hitler, not Stalin, not Gandhi, not Christ. While they all may matter in the temporal, in the grand scheme of things it all burns out and the Architect throws it in the trash bin. There will be no observer for any of it to ever matter.
I for obvious reasons don't like that line of thinking so I figure this Architect either left an manuscript to life or it did not. Either there are instructions or it figures we will learn what we need to learn in this existence.
So I started reading a lot of religious text and I saw a lot of similar themes. For example in Buddhism Nirvana is the final state of enlightenment where one has extinguished the 3 fires (greed, hate, ignorance). It is the destruction of desire. The Sikh's use a little different terminology in that it is the end of suffering. The Hindus see it in a similar light but see it as unity with Brahman.
Now I bring this up to directly contrast it with Abrahamic religions as I really don't see them as all that different I think what is different is the style in which the concept is conveyed. Whereas many eastern religions tend to get straight to the philosophy. Abrahamic philosophy tends to be woven into a tome that is part history, part parable, part philosophy which can make it harder to extract from the text but when one understand that, in my opinion the layers of the philosophy and theology tell a deeper story. Going back to Nirvana for a moment, this concept is played out in the fall of man, the inability of man to see their imperfection, the inability of man to accept devine authority, those that finally do see life for what it is "will see" (enlightenment) and finally according to one sect of Abrahamic religion will unify with creation (i.e the bride of christ). Again not a pitch for christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism. I just find it fascinating that there are many parallels in what they say the lesson is to learn.
Anyway a really long winded post to explain that I don't see an existence after this as wishful thinking anymore, I see the purpose, but only if there is any purpose at all.
What it really highlights is that the will to live is dependent on personal perspective. There are plenty of great reasons to live, and plenty to not live. It just depends on what lens you ultimately choose to view from.
If you're feeling like you don't have the will, there is absolutely a way of reframing your thinking in such a way that you could find the will.