The Existential Crisis

[Stach77]

Well, just entering in between into your discussion, which has changed into quarreling.

The 'Fear of death' theory about the origin of religions is pretty old and worked upon. It seems accurate if we take many religious (Christianity here) premises, ie. life after death, loving and caring God, equal justice for all, transcendental cause and meaning of the universe etc. In short: religion is a very successful way of making sense of life to many people, and very successful way of helping to deal with death.

To begin with what i agree. It seems, that it works in some cases, and some people might find, that the only reason they go to their church, synagogue etc. is because they are afraid of death and are unconsciously looking for a relief from this fear. There is nothing to deny here, especially if someone had such an experience.

There are, however, many arguments to show, that this reductive approach in a universal manner:

1) Does not proves that God does not exist.
2) Is an insufficient to fully, or even partially explain religion
3) Might be completely wrong outside subjective position
4) Can even turn to aid, not 'explain out' religion (as i understand, many people, including veritas aqueitas, use this argument to prove religion to be a primitive psychological aid, or a superstitious comfort or a kind of natural psychological reaction to the crisis etc.)

1) This one is very simple. Even if a fear of death could push an individual to believe in God, and even if we would find such a neurological or psychological cause-effect mechanism, one can still say, that it is God (especially the 'omni' one) who created such a mechanism to be believed in. Now, one can say, that in this manner theologians and religious can avoid any question. And this is right, because they do it, but it is still logically correct. This is because science, including psychology, psychiatry, neurology and others say 'how' while religion says 'why'. Science says: you believe because you are afraid of death. Religion says: God made a universe in a way, that this happens, and we have no problem with it.

2) The 'Fear of death' thing sounds like Marx's 'all history is a class struggle' or any other reductive theory in humanistic or sociological sciences. Well, both are based on some real - facts observations, but are insufficient to be regarded as true or the only explanations. Apart of a relief from the fear of death, religions offer: an instruction for a conduct of life for a community and an individual (moral code), a transcendental aim (sense?) of life (we know that man is always in movement towards something, but all aims of this life, even if completed, give a temporal relief. Soon after you finish college, you have to work, if you complete a scientific or physical work there are other's awaiting and so on. To believe in afterlife means, that there is something more to it, something, for which it is worthy to go on even in the midst of sufferings and failures).

3) Well, although someone might have such an experience, it might be due to one's misunderstanding of religion. After all, more positive intellectually is the approach, that there is nothing after death. Like Stephen Hawking said - we are like a computers, and there is no paradise for broken computers. Religions often bring more anxiety about death than relief. Take Christianity. Final judgment, hell, demons and eternal suffering. Does not sound like 'look, i have a relief from fear the of death'. Sounds more like: You have a lot to be afraid of if you go astray, man. We can't therefore apply it to everybody, and in fact we do not. I think (although i am not sure) it was Freud to state that religion is 'fear of death' (beside 'omnipotent father' theory) and it does not seem that anybody is content enough with it, for sure not in the psychological community. (Personally i favor Jung's approach to the topic). The only people who seem to accept, support and proclaim this thesis are atheists, anti-theists.

4) If we have a toothache, we go to a dentist, if we have soul-ache, we go to priest. This way of thinking makes of this thesis a discovery completely neutral, if not a positive commentary on religion. We actually have a help to deal with the existential crisis, and this way is religion. Of course as everything, religion can go terribly wrong. Nowadays many people cannot afford for any psychological help. If fear of death does not become an obsession, such a help is not even necessary. And yet everybody, i repeat, every-f******-body, from 7.8 bilion people, has to or will have to deal with the existential crisis. For today, religion seems to be the most aviable, most experienced and most common help. Instead of getting rid of it, better to think how to improve it.

I might have got astray from your main-core topic, but i hope its in a line with whole theme.

What do you think?

[Immanuel Can]

Where did this impulse come from if not from the genetic codes in the DNA and the RNA?

I don't think it's an "impulse" at all. An "impulse" suggests that people are responding to a mere quirk or uncomprehended intuition, something less-than-rational. I think that's obviously untrue, because people do, in fact, have reasons for what they believe.

Now, you may not like or agree with their reasoning...and you may criticize their premises...and that's all perfectly allowable, of course....but it's very obvious that what they're doing is not merely "impulsive." If you ask many religious people why they think what they think, they can tell you...and many can tell you calmly, logically, in sequence...just perhaps not with the premises you currently accept as true.

So DNA is the wrong place to go looking for an explanation, for multiple reasons: they're not being impulsive, we have no DNA code for "religious," and even if we did have one, we'd be committing the genetic fallacy if we said that proved they were in thrall to their DNA -- for the legitimacy of their belief is only establishable on grounds other than "where it came from."

To illustrate, I might have a belief that COVID is infectious. And maybe I only got that idea because I heard from some child that it was so, and I never checked it out for myself, so my belief is entirely superstitious. But let all of that be true, and it still would be the case that COVID is, indeed, infectious...and if someone told me, "Well, your belief is impulsive, and comes from an inappropriate source," they would be entirely right...but it wouldn't stop me getting infected if I conceded them the truth of the illegitimate source of my belief.

[FlashDangerpants]

There are various meanings of what is an existential crisis.
Here is an argument to justify the substance of the existential crisis pulsating from an algorithm with the brain/mind of a person;

• 1. All humans are "programmed" [no God involved] to survive at all costs.
  
  2. To ensure survival, any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death.
  
  3. All humans are "programmed" with self-awareness.
  
  4. Mortality [death] is a "certainty" [99.999999..999%].
  
  5. Self-awareness [3] make one aware of mortality [death] [4].
  
  6. Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions [2].
  
  7. No possibility of a direct solution [6] pose a dilemma - a cognitive dissonance - which cannot be resolved, thus the existential crisis exuding subliminally.

The above cognitive dissonance from the inherent existential crisis drives the majority into the theism and religions which provide instant relief to numb the terrible existential pains [Angst, anxieties, despair, hopelessness, etc.] of the sufferer.

The above existential crisis also drives many other psychological problems for humans, but that is another topic.

Views?

You really need to learn how to construct an argument, that is a complete mess. There is no clear logical relationship between those things that you refer to as premises, and it's hard to even identify which component is supposed to be the conclusion (the word salad at position 7, or the unrelated and unsupported paragraph which follows).

What you have there is, at best, a set of bullet points for a powerpoint presentation for a high school atheism club.

Even when you rework this bullshit in your usual way (pointlessly repeating it in new words without addressing the logical problems at all) you cannot from that structure arrive at a necessary and sufficient case to support the claim that this explains religion, so your argument would be moot even if it were good. Which, I cannot stress strongly enough, it is not.

You are stupid and ignorant.

This is not a thesis paper, rather it is merely a philosophy forum where extreme rigor is not necessary.
What I presented are the main points.
There are loads of nuances to explain and sub-premises to include.

If you had presented an argument with a good structure but some missing supportive evidence that might be true. But you haven't done that, you have written out a mess of unsalvageable garbage. You don't understand argument structure, you've been doing this for years, always making the same elementary errors. So the chances are that you never will get it, and as a result, you will never present a good argument in your life.

The fact that you think sub-premises can help you, merely underlines the fact that you have no talent for this stuff. If it is important to you that you should be good at the stuff you do here, then you need to write off those years of doing nothing but reading Kant that you boast of, and spend a bit of time reading intro to philosophy books instead where you can learn the basic structures.

Or you can just learn nothing and give me another round of how stupid and evil I am for not agreeing with you. I know which to expect and I dont care.

It is SO EVIDENT, the majority of humans 90% have resorted to the irrational belief "God exists as real" or cling to other religious beliefs to soothe the subliminal existential crisis.

It's very evident that you have strong feelings that they do. But that is an assertion of your opinion. It is also evident that you are unable to construct a robust and persuasive argument in support of your opinion. How strongly you feel that you are right is not important to me or to anyone else.

If you are knowledgeable of the doctrines of these theistic and not-theistic religions, you will note they are connected to the points I raised, especially dealing with death and the thereafter. So me which theistic or non-theistic religions do not deal with death as a critical factor at all?

That doesn't make a lot of sense. But what you appear to be getting at would amount to some sort of claim that all religions are about death and afterlives, therefore the cause of religion is fear of death?

If that is the general direction... again, in advance of the detail, the structure is unpromising. Not sufficient, not necessary, depends on a very weak inferential causal chain that amounts to mere insinuation. When you try to tighten that up with your yummy sub-clauses you will become subject to counterexamples where I will, as always, make a point of being vulgar and using rude counterexamples which you will get all butthurt about.

[Atla]

Nowadays, witnessing the state of philosophy forums gives me more of an existential crisis than does my fear of nonexistence. How can I make the suffering go away?

[Belinda]

Nowadays, witnessing the state of philosophy forums gives me more of an existential crisis than does my fear of nonexistence. How can I make the suffering go away?

You can't without compromising your authenticity.

[Atla]

Nowadays, witnessing the state of philosophy forums gives me more of an existential crisis than does my fear of nonexistence. How can I make the suffering go away?

You can't without compromising your authenticity.

What if I wipe my memories until they are empty echoes, nothing more?

[surreptitious57]

I All humans are programmed [ no God involved ] to survive at all costs
All humans are not programmed to survive at all costs as many will when required sacrifice their own lives in order to save others

2 Any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death
The fear of death is not universal because I have had no fear of it for seven years

3 All humans are programmed with self awareness
Most are but not all for there are some exceptions such as the comatose for example

4 Mortality [ death ] is a certainty
Yes it is but it is also something that cannot be experienced so fear of it is irrational

5 Self awareness make one aware of mortality [ death ]
It does not automatically make one aware of mortality as most do not think about it less they have to

6 Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions
Not everyone has a fear of death because as I have already said I have had no fear of it for seven years

7 No possibility of a direct solution 6 pose a dilemma - a cognitive dissonance - which cannot be resolved
The solution is not to be afraid of death and so it is wrong to say it cannot be resolved as it obviously can

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where did this impulse come from if not from the genetic codes in the DNA and the RNA?

I don't think it's an "impulse" at all. An "impulse" suggests that people are responding to a mere quirk or uncomprehended intuition, something less-than-rational. I think that's obviously untrue, because people do, in fact, have reasons for what they believe.

There are various meaning to the word "impulse".
I believe you are referring to this meaning;
impulse= "sudden, involuntary inclination prompting to action"

There are others, what I meant by "impulse" is this;
impulse = an impelling action or force, driving onward or inducing motion.

What I am referring was the 'impulse' for survival, i.e. an instinctual drive that is one of the proximate grounds for one being theistic and religious.
Often, the majority why they are acting as such, it is based on post-hoc that they find reasons to justify what they have done or are doing without knowing the underlying grounds.
The reasons that theists provide are of the post-hoc nature while being ignorant of what is presented in the OP above, i.e. the existential dilemma and existential crisis that 'drive' them to theism unconsciously.

Now, you may not like or agree with their reasoning...and you may criticize their premises...and that's all perfectly allowable, of course....but it's very obvious that what they're doing is not merely "impulsive." If you ask many religious people why they think what they think, they can tell you...and many can tell you calmly, logically, in sequence...just perhaps not with the premises you currently accept as true.

As I had stated above, theists in order to secure their irrational beliefs will come up with post-hoc reasons to justify their acts.

So DNA is the wrong place to go looking for an explanation, for multiple reasons: they're not being impulsive, we have no DNA code for "religious," and even if we did have one, we'd be committing the genetic fallacy if we said that proved they were in thrall to their DNA -- for the legitimacy of their belief is only establishable on grounds other than "where it came from."

The starting point has to be the DNA which provide all the basic infrastructure of being human and the DNA/RNA that drives instinctual actions.
There is no way one should ignore this imperative ground in one's argument for any proposition!

To illustrate, I might have a belief that COVID is infectious. And maybe I only got that idea because I heard from some child that it was so, and I never checked it out for myself, so my belief is entirely superstitious. But let all of that be true, and it still would be the case that COVID is, indeed, infectious...and if someone told me, "Well, your belief is impulsive, and comes from an inappropriate source," they would be entirely right...but it wouldn't stop me getting infected if I conceded them the truth of the illegitimate source of my belief.

Gettier?
Luck don't count in the justification of knowledge.
If your belief and knowledge is not soundly justified, then you have to qualify its uncertainty.

If you note, I have justified my argument based on empirical evidences. The evidence may not be sufficient [due to time constraints] but they are quite obvious for a person with average knowledge.

[Immanuel Can]

As I had stated above, theists in order to secure their irrational beliefs will come up with post-hoc reasons to justify their acts.

Well, you don't know if their beliefs are "irrational," because they certainly have reasons, and you have not, or are not capable of contesting their premises. So you're bluffing on that one.

The starting point has to be the DNA

"Has to be?" Why? That's definitely not obvious. If human being have free will, then their choices are not mere products of their DNA, but of the volition of creatures that just happen to have DNA. Again, you're assuming that which cannot, or have not, proved.

If you note, I have justified my argument based on empirical evidences.

I was noting, but that never happened. When I asked for your basis of the DNA evidence, you couldn't cite a single study. So there was no "justification," adequate or otherwise...none at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You really need to learn how to construct an argument, that is a complete mess. There is no clear logical relationship between those things that you refer to as premises, and it's hard to even identify which component is supposed to be the conclusion (the word salad at position 7, or the unrelated and unsupported paragraph which follows).

What you have there is, at best, a set of bullet points for a powerpoint presentation for a high school atheism club.

Even when you rework this bullshit in your usual way (pointlessly repeating it in new words without addressing the logical problems at all) you cannot from that structure arrive at a necessary and sufficient case to support the claim that this explains religion, so your argument would be moot even if it were good. Which, I cannot stress strongly enough, it is not.

You are stupid and ignorant.

This is not a thesis paper, rather it is merely a philosophy forum where extreme rigor is not necessary.
What I presented are the main points.
There are loads of nuances to explain and sub-premises to include.

If you had presented an argument with a good structure but some missing supportive evidence that might be true. But you haven't done that, you have written out a mess of unsalvageable garbage. You don't understand argument structure, you've been doing this for years, always making the same elementary errors. So the chances are that you never will get it, and as a result, you will never present a good argument in your life.

The fact that you think sub-premises can help you, merely underlines the fact that you have no talent for this stuff. If it is important to you that you should be good at the stuff you do here, then you need to write off those years of doing nothing but reading Kant that you boast of, and spend a bit of time reading intro to philosophy books instead where you can learn the basic structures.

Or you can just learn nothing and give me another round of how stupid and evil I am for not agreeing with you. I know which to expect and I dont care.

It is SO EVIDENT, the majority of humans 90% have resorted to the irrational belief "God exists as real" or cling to other religious beliefs to soothe the subliminal existential crisis.

It's very evident that you have strong feelings that they do. But that is an assertion of your opinion. It is also evident that you are unable to construct a robust and persuasive argument in support of your opinion. How strongly you feel that you are right is not important to me or to anyone else.

If you are knowledgeable of the doctrines of these theistic and not-theistic religions, you will note they are connected to the points I raised, especially dealing with death and the thereafter. So me which theistic or non-theistic religions do not deal with death as a critical factor at all?

That doesn't make a lot of sense. But what you appear to be getting at would amount to some sort of claim that all religions are about death and afterlives, therefore the cause of religion is fear of death?

If that is the general direction... again, in advance of the detail, the structure is unpromising. Not sufficient, not necessary, depends on a very weak inferential causal chain that amounts to mere insinuation. When you try to tighten that up with your yummy sub-clauses you will become subject to counterexamples where I will, as always, make a point of being vulgar and using rude counterexamples which you will get all butthurt about.

From what I note of your posts, you are very ignorant and stupid, at the same time very arrogant and dogmatic of your stupidity.

Note this;

It's very evident that you have strong feelings that they do. But that is an assertion of your opinion. It is also evident that you are unable to construct a robust and persuasive argument in support of your opinion. How strongly you feel that you are right is not important to me or to anyone else.

Where did you get the idea my point is based on strong feelings and not based [best estimate] on fact?

It is SO EVIDENT 90% [my original guess] of the world population are religious.

As listed in this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... ts_in_2020
1.1 billion Secular[a]/Nonreligious [.b]/Agnostic/Atheist which is 14% of the total of 7.8 billion.
Therefore the religious population is 86%!

My rough guess of 90% is not way off.

Therefore you are wrong on your claim my point is based on 'strong feelings' as an assertion of an opinion.
This is why I insist you are ignorant and stupid.

I am confident I have a solid counter against all the counters [based on ignorance and stupidity] that you can throw at me.
All you complain is my arguments are not structured - so what? They can be improved if I have the time.
What is critical you can challenge me on any proposition/premise I have made, and I will show how your challenge is based on ignorance, stupidity, dogmatism, as I have done above.

Btw, I make sure I maintain sufficient above average personal intellectual integrity and ensure that whatever propositions I made are based on justified knowledge from credible and reputable sources.
It is only because of time constraints that I throw in quickie statements without sufficient details because I don't want to waste time especially in dog-fighting philosophy forum like this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated above, theists in order to secure their irrational beliefs will come up with post-hoc reasons to justify their acts.

Well, you don't know if their beliefs are "irrational," because they certainly have reasons, and you have not, or are not capable of contesting their premises. So you're bluffing on that one.

It is common knowledge all the theistic beliefs to justify "God exists as real" are irrational.
To put the nail in the coffin for 'God exists as real' I have demonstrated

'God exists as real' is an impossibility and a non-starter.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The starting point has to be the DNA

"Has to be?" Why? That's definitely not obvious. If human being have free will, then their choices are not mere products of their DNA, but of the volition of creatures that just happen to have DNA. Again, you're assuming that which cannot, or have not, proved.

Yes, it is the default and imperative foundation.
"Free will" [not absolute] is an emergence from the DNA/RNA expressions.
All normal humans will have the capacity to excise their will freely [not absolute].

Assuming??
A baby's actions when born may be mostly instinctual but when the natural self-awareness emerged, the child is free to do what he likes subject/limited to whatever conditions that exist.

If you note, I have justified my argument based on empirical evidences.

I was noting, but that never happened. When I asked for your basis of the DNA evidence, you couldn't cite a single study. So there was no "justification," adequate or otherwise...none at all.

I am surprised you are asking for such empirical evidences which is public knowledge.

The DNA/RNA are the basic ground elements that make all humans, human, i.e. manifest the basic physical and mental traits of a human person.

Genetics is the study of genes and tries to explain what they are and how they work. Genes are how living organisms inherit features or traits from their ancestors; for example, children usually look like their parents because they have inherited their parents' genes. Genetics tries to identify which traits are inherited, and explain how these traits are passed from generation to generation.

Some traits are part of an organisms' physical appearance; such as a person's eye color, height or weight. Other sorts of traits are not easily seen and include blood types or resistance to diseases. Some traits are inherited through our genes, so tall and thin people tend to have tall and thin children. Other traits come from interactions between our genes and the environment, so a child might inherit the tendency to be tall, but if they are poorly nourished, they will still be short. The way our genes and environment interact to produce a trait can be complicated. For example, the chances of somebody dying of cancer or heart disease seems to depend on both their genes and their lifestyle.
-wiki

If you want more details- there are tons of research/articles relating to genes and religiosity, e.g.

The vigor of religious feelings, and the fact that most, if not all, cultures include a system of spiritual belief, suggest that humans have an innate predisposition towards religiousness.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6199800046

Innate = has to be from DNA/RNA as grounds.

It is not intellectual honest in this case to use ignorance as a counter or defense.

[surreptitious57]

If human being have free will then their choices are not mere products of their DNA

You cannot believe in free will if you are Christian because you believe in an omniscient God
As that is one who will know absolutely everything about everyone before they are even born

To believe in free will therefore requires not believing in an omniscient God as the two are mutually incompatible
You cannot deny omniscience while still claiming to be Christian since it is a fundamental principle of Christianity

[Veritas Aequitas]

I All humans are programmed [ no God involved ] to survive at all costs

All humans are not programmed to survive at all costs as many will when required sacrifice their own lives in order to save others

Basically ALL normal humans are programmed [ no God involved ] to strive to survive against odds and threats until the inevitable.
It is paradoxical, but it is true some will even sacrifice themselves when driven by the compulsion to survive at all costs.
Note suicide bombers who are compelled DNA/RNA wise to survive at all costs in clinging to a religion that promise them survival as eternal life in a paradise.
DNA/RNA compelled survival at all costs but the exceptions to the above are due to subsequent epigenetic factors, like altruism, etc.

2 Any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death
The fear of death is not universal because I have had no fear of it for seven years

You did not read what I wrote here;
viewtopic.php?p=456337#p456337

One important point to note,
DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" NOT to be consciously scared of dying at all times. Otherwise they will be paralyzed with fears at all times and thus unable to live effective to produce the next generation.
Thus humans are only triggered by the fear of death momentarily when they are aware of the threat of death or during the period they are under that threat, or at times are reminded of mortality. Most of the time any conscious fear of death will dissipate in time quite quickly.

Those who fear dying and death consciously and persistently are actually suffering from a mental problem, i.e. Thanatophobia, thus the need to consult a psychiatrist.

However the fear of death is suppressed in your unconscious mind which then manifest indirectly as Angst, anxieties and other indirect pains sufferings.

3 All humans are programmed with self awareness
Most are but not all for there are some exceptions such as the comatose for example

I am referring to the basic program from the human DNA/RNA that make an entity 'human'.
If a person is born comatose it is due to something wrong during the gene expression, not because of the supposedly preprogrammed DNA/RNA.
E.g. all human are program with visual organs but due to damage in gene expressions, some are color blind or suffer from synaethesia.

4 Mortality [ death ] is a certainty
Yes it is but it is also something that cannot be experienced so fear of it is irrational

What is critical is fear [that drive actions] is generated regardless it is rational or irrational.
Such irrational fears led the majority to theism and some theistic belief condone the killing of non-believers as a religious duty.

5 Self awareness make one aware of mortality [ death ]
It does not automatically make one aware of mortality as most do not think about it less they have to

It is based on common empirical evidences.
Note how the Buddha was prevented from being aware of mortality but mortality is such a common knowledge, that to be ignorant of it is seemingly impossible.
Somehow 99.99% of people will be exposed to the death of another, i.e. parents, relative, kins, from News, scientific knowledge and make the connection to themselves as being human.

6 Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions
Not everyone has a fear of death because as I have already said I have had no fear of it for seven years

See my point and your ignorance of it.

7 No possibility of a direct solution 6 pose a dilemma - a cognitive dissonance - which cannot be resolved

The solution is not to be afraid of death and so it is wrong to say it cannot be resolved as it obviously can

Note my point, you are programmed NOT to be fear death consciously at all times.
The primal fear of death is suppressed subliminally but there is leakages which are expressed unconsciously as Angst, anxieties and other mental issues which drive a person to seek reliefs.

The dilemma within cannot be resolved.
But one can manage the leakages and ensure they do not drive one to commit irrational act like clinging to theism and other dangerous activities and erode one well being, e.g. drugs, drinking, crimes, etc.

Buddhism [& others] understand the above dilemma and introduce knowledge and practices that manage and modulate the after effects of the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis to ensure the consequences do not lead to evil acts.

[Dontaskme]

From what I note of your posts, you are very ignorant and stupid, at the same time very arrogant and dogmatic of your stupidity.




Therefore you are wrong on your claim my point is based on 'strong feelings' as an assertion of an opinion.
This is why I insist you are ignorant and stupid.

STOP saying other peoples ideas are STUPID AND IGNORANT just because they differ to yours.

That is a really stupid and ignorant thing to do.

Just as you hold very tightly to your own model of reality, so too do other people hold to theirs, you cannot hold to yours and deny others theirs.

That is a really stupid and ignorant thing to do.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Only ignorance is original.

[Belinda]

Nowadays, witnessing the state of philosophy forums gives me more of an existential crisis than does my fear of nonexistence. How can I make the suffering go away?

You can't without compromising your authenticity.

What if I wipe my memories until they are empty echoes, nothing more?

That too would be inauthentic.