My brother really hates religion, and frankly, the more I think about it, the more I hear him talk about it, the less I feel like offering any sort of refutation.

I might be becoming a little cold-hearted, or maybe I'm just dropping the bullshit. That's also an interpretation of my recent demeanour, regarding that particular topic. I guess I do also hate religion quite a bit.

Anyway, I wore my black trousers today.

Sometimes hope for a better future is all that keeps a person alive today. That's something most religions bring, be it afterlife, reincarnation, or other forms.

Man's Search for Meaning is an interesting book on that subject. It's not directly a religious book, but it gives insight on how the ideas present in many religions give tools to distract the mind in truely awful, awful, horrible situations.

I'm jealous of people who can use religion or spirituality in that way: as a comfort for active or past trauma.

On the other hand, it's also a set of ideas that can be used to make people act against their own and other's wellbeing. In truely awful, awful, horrible ways. And that use is widespread, too.

In that light I understand your brother's conclusion.

Yeah, I totally get that.

That's usually the refutation I offer -- saying that it's a comforting thought, in essence, and a way to build community through shared ritual -- but my fundamental gripe isn't even that the ideologies and faith end up being used for bad things. After all, you don't really need faith or religion to be moved to do bad things! I'm not sure to what extent that's an indictment of religion, as opposed to an indictment of the human mind, you know?

For me, it's just that it doesn't make sense. It's plainly either incorrect or wholly delusional; it's a life with eyes wide closed; an existence through a veil of fantasy; when, in truth, reality has so much beauty and hope!

For me, it's just that it doesn't make sense

It's the flip side of that coin. A preference for comforting thought, for soothing thought, over measurable reality. For some, what an outsider would describe as a true, recorded, objective fact, musn't be real, in order to continue living. Once you create that lie, you have to fill in the gap.

People who experienced trauma from or in an environment of turmoil, poverty, famine, physical discomfort, etc seem to find their way to religion easier. People who experienced trauma in a calmer, more comfortable environment, tend to find comfort in spirituality such as Law Of Attraction, meditation, art and visualisation.

All of them involve living in fantasy, some of the time, or all of the time.

Well, yeah, that's a point... But it doesn't feel like that's a direct consequence.

It's not that A (pain, tragedy) leads to B (religious thought); moreso that A is fertile ground for B.

I get preferring fantasy to reality, but isn't reality good enough? Maybe I'm just so privileged that I get to experience so much of the good that the bad seems reasonable; or, well, it's not that the bad seems reasonable, but maybe the fact I don't feel it in my own skin makes me less prone to retreating to fantasy. I don't know...

I just feel like there's enough community, comfort, and peace in the reality of nature; of the universe; of existence; that religion is superfluous. It's a crutch! Wouldn't it be better to walk with your own two feet?! Maybe it's just too hard...

that the bad seems reasonable

it's moreso that you haven't experienced the bad.

I just feel like there's enough community

For example, for many people, that same community that brings you comfort, is a source of pain. Group behaviour towards individuals is often horrible, with the group deriving joy from abusing.

Wouldn't it be better to walk with your own two feet?! Maybe it's just too hard...

It would be better of course. But I think everyone lives in a mist of fiction to some degree? Popular ideas such as community, justice, trust, safety are also just that. How long can you believe in those ideas, given contradicting evidence?

it’s moreso that you haven’t experienced the bad.

Well, I guess the really bad stuff, but it's not like only people that have experienced the bad are religious.

How long can you believe in those ideas, given contradicting evidence?

What contradicting evidence?! One thing is particular communities, sure, but as a whole, generally? I think that's just doomerism.

but it's not like only people that have experienced the bad are religious.

Indeed, many are indoctrinated in it. But to claim all religious, as a whole, generally? I think that's just doomerism.

What contradicting evidence?! One thing is particular communities, sure, but as a whole, generally? I think that's just doomerism.

That's a tautological argument. All cars are red, as long as we don't consider the non-red cars. That's living eyes wide shut, no? A fiction?

To repeat, I'm not religious myself. But I do like to strongarm the reasoning as far as I can understand it. I think religion's raison d'etre is to be found in trauma and healing. And as long as a world-view has no solace to the victims it creates, apart from saying you were unlucky, religion will have a foothold.

That’s a tautological argument.

I don't think it's tautological at all. It's like if I said that it's nice to sleep in a soft bed, and you say "well some people have only slept in horrible beds". If anything, that's tautological, no?! There's great community out there; there's beauty out there; there are people you can trust.

The ideas of ultimate justice and that all can be trusted, sure... Then again, I do get what you mean, I think.

I've no illusions about the way of the world -- or at the very least I'm aware that the bad parts exist, even if I haven't experienced much of them -- but I really don't think that somehow nullifies the good parts.

It is tuatological to say: "community brings comfort, if you ignore all the cases when it doesn't".

Or maybe it's a shift in the burden of proof? If one experiences the status quo as easy without a lot of discomfort, then they require a lot of proof that such discomfort even exists?
If a status quo is pain, then it requires a lot of proof that comfort exists?

From each point of view, the other is odd.

i've no illusions about the way of the world -- or at the very least I'm aware that the bad parts exist, even if I haven't experienced much of them -- but I really don't think that somehow nullifies the good parts.

People that have experienced them, disagree.

I think it is more burden of proof than anything else; exactly as you said in your second paragraph there, actually.

I think what I mean is encapsulated pretty well here:

It's a passage from Walden, by Thoreau.

People that have experienced them, disagree.

Some that have experienced them, disagree. Anyway, that's anecdotal... I don't know. I really don't think this justifies religion, anyway.