Why do we teach and proliferate the belief in a god?

Question

The belief in a god and/or religion is passed through generations. In most cases it is never questioned, nor the roots of religion ever investigated. We blindly follow religion because we have always done so. If we stop to contemplate what use religion has for us, there are many rationalizations. Many of us are not strong enough to realize the truth nor will accept it as denying our base beliefs, no matter how absurd they really are. The defense for religion is that it provides a basis for a moral life, for people to have values that are good and just. But why do we need religion for that, can we not teach right and wrong without religion, do we need a god to love or know the difference between right and wrong. Love, kindness and caring are human traits after all. Think of all the war and killing that has happened in the name of religion. If we all embraced each other as humans, we will realize it is up to us to make real change. It is up to us to take responsibility.

Answer 1

Personally I don't proliferate that belief. I raise my children to embrace humanistic characteristics like love for each other, tolerance and basic right and wrong. (Things that are otherwise often described as "Christian Values" but in reality are values embraced by all enlightened people regardless of their faith or belief in a God.) I think most people do proliferate a belief because they either don't know any other way or they would rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong. I also think that religion was invented as a way to subjugate the masses and keep them in line. I think it is still working.

Answer 2

Well, firstly it has consistently been investigated and scrutinized throughout history.

"The defense for religion is that it provides a basis for a moral life, for people to have values that are good and just."

The answer to this particular question would be long and tedious. And prolly not absolute.

Without a religion of any sort the basis for determining moral questions would remain in the hands of individuals. They would then be hard pressed to answer some of the more difficult questions in trying times and often critical times. Sure, you could rationalize your moral strength and base it on your sound principles and judgements. But not most people could. Nor could they have the luxury of time to ponder on what is moral and not.

Everybody would then act in such a manner. Each his own game.

True that religion today has become too divisive. Imagine if there were no religion. There would be ultra complexes of moral authority and suasions that conflict would transpire into a whole new thing. Imagine you and me debating whether its morally correct if I touch your daughter. Imagine you and me debating whether its morally correct for me to invite your wife to a date.

Sure, there may be guideline. But you have to remember that there is no standard guideline if you abolish religion altogether. Sure, you may claim that the law will. But what happens when the law becomes controlled by the powerful godless few. Would you like Saddam Hussein to make you your laws?

Answer 3

Religion is not for moral purposes. Sure religion provides us with a moral compass, but as someone who works in a church I would rather that a person love God than act Christian. You don't have to act Christian to go to heaven (look at the theif on the cross).
We teach the word of God because there is a God who loves us. We teach it because we want to have a relationship with God in heaven and we want others to have that opportunity. We teach religion out of love (or at least we wish more people would).

Answer 4

What you are proposing is Immanuel Kant's theory of morality sans God. The problem with Kant's theory is that it is so vague and subjective as to be messed up. For instance, the individual's culture must then dictate moral reality to avoid chaos (otherwise how can you have laws). Both democracies and Stalin have quoted Kant in justification of their morals. In order to have religion without God, you must provide a transcultural satisfactory answer of HOW this can be accomplished. Also, Kant's philosophy of morality without God is dependent on the presupposition that there is a definite moral law which must be adhered to. Who is judge of this standard?

Answer 5

I believe that even putting morality aside, people need spirituality and religon.

they need guidance and to be able to give deference to a being higher than themselves

the wars that are always mentioned are inevitable, all wars are fought over ONE SINGLE ISSUE, and that is economic, religon is used as one of the tools to justify to the masses a reason for going to war, because if you say, tell common citizen that he must go and kill a member of an opposing army just so that his nation can be better off economically, well he's not really going to be moved by that reason

Answer 6

Humans need to believe in something, or else the world seems much more frightening to endure. Questions need to be answered about the afterlife, and the theories of a religion can answer that, even if the religion is not completely substantiated. Humans are too weak to mold their own lives, and it is much more effortless to just let something else do it for them.

Answer 7

I think that there exists in human beings an innate yearning for the divine or a spiritual connection with something bigger than oneself in the universe. Belief in God is about more than adherence to moral values. It is an expression of that yearning.

Answer 8

There's One Major Problem!.......How Do You Actually Know That What These People Are Saying Is True!.....Do You Really Believe Every One Who Says That They Are Of GOD!........ARE!!!!

Answer 9

You seem to miss the point that major corporations (churches) make BILLIONS off of it. They always have and always will. What you are wording as "teach and proliferate" is actually just the original version of "gorilla marketing"

Answer 10

You yourself are proliferating religion with your question.