What are the benefits of being religious?

placidranger said:Sure, some things lack logic or practical utility, but take prayer, for instance...

People who pray to a deity—genuinely believing help is coming—tend to carry themselves with more self-assurance. That boost gives them a better shot at whatever they're aiming for. The word confidence actually stems from having "faith" (correct me if I'm wrong on that etymology). They're less likely to throw in the towel when things get rough.
Plus, there's a certain merit to the habit of giving thanks for what you have; it forces a focus on the positives.

One thing though—we're talking about an advantage here, right? But compared to what?
I'm looking at the difference between a rational guy (someone who checks in with themselves first—sticking to what they know is true) versus a believer (someone who accepts certain facts as truth without any actual proof).

It kind of feels like you're implying that anyone looking at their future through a positive lens *has* to be a believer...

fadedbison17 said:One thing though—we're talking about an advantage here, right? But compared to what?
I'm looking at the difference between a rational guy (someone who checks in with themselves first—sticking to what they know is true) versus a believer (someone who accepts certain facts as truth without any actual proof).

It kind of feels like you're implying that anyone looking at their future through a positive lens *has* to be a believer...

Look, my angle here is to identify the specific advantages gained from a believer's mindset—and then see if we can replicate those exact results without invoking any supernatural intervention.

I’m drawing a distinction between a rational person (someone who cross-references everything against their own internal sense of truth) and a believer (someone who accepts certain facts as true despite a lack of empirical evidence).

Here's a case in point: there was a study involving rats swimming in murky water—meaning they couldn't see through it (I don't have the link handy, but I'll dig it up if necessary).
They split them into two groups. The first group swam in a pool that had a small island just beneath the surface where they could rest. The second group had no such refuge. Whenever a rat got exhausted and started to sink, the researchers would pull it out.
After a while—once everyone had rested, eaten, and slept—they put them back in the pool. This time, there was no island. Now, here is the interesting part: the rats from the first group kept swimming for twice as long as the ones from the second group. The theory is that because they expected to find that island, they possessed a sort of "faith" that kept them going.

So, it stands to reason that belief in God—or some form of external assistance—provides certain situational advantages that others simply don't have.

Laura Murphy said:I honestly don't get how some of you can claim that faith isn't just a byproduct of a lack of critical thinking.
Couldn't we just as easily argue the exact opposite, right?

And I really don't understand this constant urge to philosophize about believers, acting like they're all just being manipulated... or aren't particularly bright...
Besides, it feels pretty strange how almost everyone here shares this same philosophy driven purely by logic, yet you're still trying to force faith—which is inherently illogical—into those same rigid little boxes.

Look, try defining "faith" yourself—specifically in relation to thought processes. How do you actually reach the conclusions you accept through faith? Let's say someone is a devout Christian—did they use pure logic to conclude that Jesus is the Son of God? Nah, they had to accept it as fact—basically by not overthinking it.

My posts above were just trying to answer the actual question in the thread—why people (believers) act the way they do and what the benefits are. I'm not out here trying to explain faith itself, and even if I were, I wouldn't be preaching to some zealot—I'd be talking to someone who actually cares to learn. And like I said before, I know plenty of believers I truly respect and admire, so let's not generalize...

So, let's get back to the point... what are your answers to the questions in the thread? 😉

placidranger said:Look, my angle here is to identify the specific advantages gained from a believer's mindset—and then see if we can replicate those exact results without invoking any supernatural intervention.

I’m drawing a distinction between a rational person (someone who cross-references everything against their own internal sense of truth) and a believer (someone who accepts certain facts as true despite a lack of empirical evidence).

Here's a case in point: there was a study involving rats swimming in murky water—meaning they couldn't see through it (I don't have the link handy, but I'll dig it up if necessary).
They split them into two groups. The first group swam in a pool that had a small island just beneath the surface where they could rest. The second group had no such refuge. Whenever a rat got exhausted and started to sink, the researchers would pull it out.
After a while—once everyone had rested, eaten, and slept—they put them back in the pool. This time, there was no island. Now, here is the interesting part: the rats from the first group kept swimming for twice as long as the ones from the second group. The theory is that because they expected to find that island, they possessed a sort of "faith" that kept them going.

So, it stands to reason that belief in God—or some form of external assistance—provides certain situational advantages that others simply don't have.

In that case, relying on God or some external savior is just self-delusion. It's an illusion that keeps people thinking they have way more control over their lives than they actually do.

Going back to your scenario—let's say instead of rats, we're talking about people swimming in the ocean (a pool would be way too small anyway).

Most people know—or at least realize—that the ocean isn't infinite and that land exists somewhere. If someone were out there for a long time, they'd be thinking constantly. Either like, "just hold on a bit longer, help is right around the corner," or "I'm thirsty, I'm alone, I'm gonna die."

No matter what they're thinking, salvation (an island, a boat, a plane, whatever) isn't going to magically appear just because they thought about it.
The actual result of their mindset might be whether they swim faster and last longer because they stayed positive, or if they just give up on day one and float there waiting to be eaten by sharks... 🙂

Once you separate thought from reality and accept that humans have limited control over their lives, the conclusion is pretty clear. 😉
A rational person—someone who accepts those limits—is going to live based on knowledge and logic, focusing on what they can actually influence. Like, "I can swim a bit more, I've still got energy, maybe there's land past the next wave..." They know there are things totally out of their hands (like sharks, death, illness, etc.).
But a believer—someone who accepts facts without proof—doesn't have a clear line between where they end and the world begins. They think they have more control over the universe than they do. Because of that, when they lose control, they try to force a result (believing in divine help, praying for rescue). Like, "if I'm good, God will love me, God will reward me, I need a boat to save me..." Whatever happens to that person, it would have happened regardless of their prayers—so there's no actual advantage.

fadedbison17 said:In that case, relying on God or some external savior is just self-delusion. It's an illusion that keeps people thinking they have way more control over their lives than they actually do.

Going back to your scenario—let's say instead of rats, we're talking about people swimming in the ocean (a pool would be way too small anyway).

Most people know—or at least realize—that the ocean isn't infinite and that land exists somewhere. If someone were out there for a long time, they'd be thinking constantly. Either like, "just hold on a bit longer, help is right around the corner," or "I'm thirsty, I'm alone, I'm gonna die."

No matter what they're thinking, salvation (an island, a boat, a plane, whatever) isn't going to magically appear just because they thought about it.
The actual result of their mindset might be whether they swim faster and last longer because they stayed positive, or if they just give up on day one and float there waiting to be eaten by sharks... 🙂

Once you separate thought from reality and accept that humans have limited control over their lives, the conclusion is pretty clear. 😉
A rational person—someone who accepts those limits—is going to live based on knowledge and logic, focusing on what they can actually influence. Like, "I can swim a bit more, I've still got energy, maybe there's land past the next wave..." They know there are things totally out of their hands (like sharks, death, illness, etc.).
But a believer—someone who accepts facts without proof—doesn't have a clear line between where they end and the world begins. They think they have more control over the universe than they do. Because of that, when they lose control, they try to force a result (believing in divine help, praying for rescue). Like, "if I'm good, God will love me, God will reward me, I need a boat to save me..." Whatever happens to that person, it would have happened regardless of their prayers—so there's no actual advantage.

A sense of agency—actually feeling like you're at the wheel—is pretty much the bedrock of satisfaction. People who feel helpless are miserable; it’s that simple. There’s a mountain of research out there on the "locus of control" and how tightly it’s tethered to happiness and general life satisfaction. The question is: can you actually replicate that feeling without just lying to yourself?

Let’s circle back to your example—but let's swap out the rats for people, and instead of a pool, they're swimming in the ocean. A pool would be way too small for that kind of scale anyway.

Most people—the vast majority, anyway—understand that the ocean isn't infinite. They know there’s land somewhere out there. If you were stuck out in the middle of the Atlantic for any significant stretch of time, your mind would eventually settle on one of two tracks. It’s either "hang in there, salvation is just around the bend" or "I’m thirsty, I’m alone, and I’m going to die." Nothing else really matters.

Whatever he’s spinning in his head—it won't conjure up some miracle escape—be it an island, a boat, or a plane. Thinking your way out of a corner doesn't work like that. It just doesn't.
The fallout from his logic leaves you with two grim possibilities—did he push further and swim harder for more days simply because he kept a positive mindset? Or did he just give up after day one, content to drift aimlessly and wait for the seagulls to pick him clean? 🙂

If there’s truly no land in sight—no passing cargo ships or Coast Guard cutters—then nobody wins. Everyone goes down together. It won't matter if you were a saint or a sinner; the ocean doesn't care about your theology. But if some help shows up on day four or five? The ones who didn't give up are the ones who make it. That survival isn't just luck—it's the direct result of that stubborn faith, that gut feeling that God is going to pull you through.
We don't need to resort to extremes—it’s just not worth the burnout. It might take longer, sure—building a business from the ground up or chasing some other long-term goal isn't exactly a sprint—but there's more value in that slow burn than in crashing and burning early.

Once I finally separated thought from reality—and acknowledged that we really have very little control over our own lives—I reached a conclusion. 😉
A rational man accepts his limitations. He understands that there are certain constants—death, disease, the inevitable decline of the body—that simply aren't up for negotiation. Instead of fighting the impossible, he focuses his energy where it actually matters. He uses logic and hard-earned knowledge to improve his quality of life and extend it where he can, focusing strictly on the variables he can actually control. It’s about knowing when to push and when to just accept the hand you've been dealt.

The issue is that we often hit a wall where our knowledge runs dry—so we just accept certain limitations as absolute truths. We get used to the idea that things like death or terminal illness are inevitable, and we stop fighting. We settle for the status quo. But maybe if we kept pushing—even if those actions seemed irrational to the experts—we could actually overcome the disease. Even in modern medicine, you still hear those strange stories about "spontaneous remissions," where a patient’s body somehow defeats an illness on its own through pure biology. To this day, nobody can truly explain how it happens.

A believer—someone who accepts facts without needing proof—lacks a clear sense of where their influence ends and reality begins. They carry this misplaced sense that they have more control over the world than they actually do. Because of that delusion, the moment things spiral out of their hands, they try to force a solution through sheer will—whether that’s through blind faith or prayer. Occasionally, their prayers might actually align with what happens next, but let's be honest: it isn't because of the praying. It's just coincidence.

So, what’s your take on that whole "Law of Attraction" thing?
It feels to me like sometimes precisely because we’ve been praying to hit a certain milestone—say, looking for a bit of help—we start noticing things around us that actually pave the way toward that goal.
Prayer—when you factor in visualization and repetition—basically recalibrates your perceptual filters. You start spotting opportunities that were invisible to you before, giving you the opening to actually grab them. In that sense, hitting the target becomes a subtle byproduct of the prayer itself.

placidranger said:Fine, but if we're aiming for that same psychological impact—some kind of amor fati—it’s unlikely we’ll get there just by "being grateful to ourselves."
Quincy:

People rejected by one circle will hunt for a less critical one, accepting whatever ideology is required just to secure a sense of belonging. Generally, the more radical the ideology, the less scrutiny exists among its followers. Sadly, claiming to believe something and actually believing it are two entirely different things. There are also those who merely convince themselves they believe—but that's beside the point here.

The fear of being an outcast is definitely a factor, I'll give you that. But there's something else at play. Some claim they found a new purpose through faith—a reason to wake up and keep grinding. It would be interesting to see if we could replicate that sense of purpose without dragging religion into it.

I’ve been chewing on everything you said, and honestly, I think you might have missed a crucial detail: people experience the exact same "stuff" in wildly different ways. We're talking about a massive spectrum here—from the folks whose faith makes them kinder, more mindful, and genuinely better neighbors, all the way down to the religious extremists who are willing to throw lives away in the name of God. It's the same story with any ideology, really. To put it simply: if you give high-octane fuel to someone smart, they'll use it to run an engine or heat a home efficiently. You give a bucket of gasoline to a fool, and you end up with a massive fire.

Ethics is the one thing you can't just accept blindly if it ends up being destructive to society—but let's face it, some people will always grab the gasoline over the ethical handbook. As long as people can hide behind "personal freedom" to justify whatever nonsense they want, nothing is ever going to truly take root. The only way to move the needle is to stay critical of idiocy and foolishness; that's the only way we can keep ideologies within a range that actually aligns with basic human ethics. If we do that, then it doesn't really matter what you call your belief system, or even if you believe in anything at all.

placidranger said:A sense of agency—actually feeling like you're at the wheel—is pretty much the bedrock of satisfaction. People who feel helpless are miserable; it’s that simple. There’s a mountain of research out there on the "locus of control" and how tightly it’s tethered to happiness and general life satisfaction. The question is: can you actually replicate that feeling without just lying to yourself?

Let’s circle back to your example—but let's swap out the rats for people, and instead of a pool, they're swimming in the ocean. A pool would be way too small for that kind of scale anyway.

Most people—the vast majority, anyway—understand that the ocean isn't infinite. They know there’s land somewhere out there. If you were stuck out in the middle of the Atlantic for any significant stretch of time, your mind would eventually settle on one of two tracks. It’s either "hang in there, salvation is just around the bend" or "I’m thirsty, I’m alone, and I’m going to die." Nothing else really matters.

Whatever he’s spinning in his head—it won't conjure up some miracle escape—be it an island, a boat, or a plane. Thinking your way out of a corner doesn't work like that. It just doesn't.
The fallout from his logic leaves you with two grim possibilities—did he push further and swim harder for more days simply because he kept a positive mindset? Or did he just give up after day one, content to drift aimlessly and wait for the seagulls to pick him clean? 🙂

If there’s truly no land in sight—no passing cargo ships or Coast Guard cutters—then nobody wins. Everyone goes down together. It won't matter if you were a saint or a sinner; the ocean doesn't care about your theology. But if some help shows up on day four or five? The ones who didn't give up are the ones who make it. That survival isn't just luck—it's the direct result of that stubborn faith, that gut feeling that God is going to pull you through.
We don't need to resort to extremes—it’s just not worth the burnout. It might take longer, sure—building a business from the ground up or chasing some other long-term goal isn't exactly a sprint—but there's more value in that slow burn than in crashing and burning early.

Once I finally separated thought from reality—and acknowledged that we really have very little control over our own lives—I reached a conclusion. 😉
A rational man accepts his limitations. He understands that there are certain constants—death, disease, the inevitable decline of the body—that simply aren't up for negotiation. Instead of fighting the impossible, he focuses his energy where it actually matters. He uses logic and hard-earned knowledge to improve his quality of life and extend it where he can, focusing strictly on the variables he can actually control. It’s about knowing when to push and when to just accept the hand you've been dealt.

The issue is that we often hit a wall where our knowledge runs dry—so we just accept certain limitations as absolute truths. We get used to the idea that things like death or terminal illness are inevitable, and we stop fighting. We settle for the status quo. But maybe if we kept pushing—even if those actions seemed irrational to the experts—we could actually overcome the disease. Even in modern medicine, you still hear those strange stories about "spontaneous remissions," where a patient’s body somehow defeats an illness on its own through pure biology. To this day, nobody can truly explain how it happens.

A believer—someone who accepts facts without needing proof—lacks a clear sense of where their influence ends and reality begins. They carry this misplaced sense that they have more control over the world than they actually do. Because of that delusion, the moment things spiral out of their hands, they try to force a solution through sheer will—whether that’s through blind faith or prayer. Occasionally, their prayers might actually align with what happens next, but let's be honest: it isn't because of the praying. It's just coincidence.

So, what’s your take on that whole "Law of Attraction" thing?
It feels to me like sometimes precisely because we’ve been praying to hit a certain milestone—say, looking for a bit of help—we start noticing things around us that actually pave the way toward that goal.
Prayer—when you factor in visualization and repetition—basically recalibrates your perceptual filters. You start spotting opportunities that were invisible to you before, giving you the opening to actually grab them. In that sense, hitting the target becomes a subtle byproduct of the prayer itself.

I think we're talking about similar stuff, but I feel like you're missing something here.
In this context, are you saying optimism = faith?

I'm strictly talking about what happens inside a person's head, not the actual outcome—hope it's clear I'm only talking about the mindset, since a person can't change reality just by thinking or believing.

To me, in this conversation:
- optimism = the drive for progress and efficiency (more control over reality)—and you gotta respect the facts of reality first for that to work.
- faith = wanting something to happen that I can't explain. And if it does happen, I claim later that it was because of my desire.

I see optimism as rational and good, while faith feels irrational and unnecessary...

placidranger said:A sense of agency—actually feeling like you're at the wheel—is pretty much the bedrock of satisfaction. People who feel helpless are miserable; it’s that simple. There’s a mountain of research out there on the "locus of control" and how tightly it’s tethered to happiness and general life satisfaction. The question is: can you actually replicate that feeling without just lying to yourself?

Let’s circle back to your example—but let's swap out the rats for people, and instead of a pool, they're swimming in the ocean. A pool would be way too small for that kind of scale anyway.

Most people—the vast majority, anyway—understand that the ocean isn't infinite. They know there’s land somewhere out there. If you were stuck out in the middle of the Atlantic for any significant stretch of time, your mind would eventually settle on one of two tracks. It’s either "hang in there, salvation is just around the bend" or "I’m thirsty, I’m alone, and I’m going to die." Nothing else really matters.

Whatever he’s spinning in his head—it won't conjure up some miracle escape—be it an island, a boat, or a plane. Thinking your way out of a corner doesn't work like that. It just doesn't.
The fallout from his logic leaves you with two grim possibilities—did he push further and swim harder for more days simply because he kept a positive mindset? Or did he just give up after day one, content to drift aimlessly and wait for the seagulls to pick him clean? 🙂

If there’s truly no land in sight—no passing cargo ships or Coast Guard cutters—then nobody wins. Everyone goes down together. It won't matter if you were a saint or a sinner; the ocean doesn't care about your theology. But if some help shows up on day four or five? The ones who didn't give up are the ones who make it. That survival isn't just luck—it's the direct result of that stubborn faith, that gut feeling that God is going to pull you through.
We don't need to resort to extremes—it’s just not worth the burnout. It might take longer, sure—building a business from the ground up or chasing some other long-term goal isn't exactly a sprint—but there's more value in that slow burn than in crashing and burning early.

Once I finally separated thought from reality—and acknowledged that we really have very little control over our own lives—I reached a conclusion. 😉
A rational man accepts his limitations. He understands that there are certain constants—death, disease, the inevitable decline of the body—that simply aren't up for negotiation. Instead of fighting the impossible, he focuses his energy where it actually matters. He uses logic and hard-earned knowledge to improve his quality of life and extend it where he can, focusing strictly on the variables he can actually control. It’s about knowing when to push and when to just accept the hand you've been dealt.

The issue is that we often hit a wall where our knowledge runs dry—so we just accept certain limitations as absolute truths. We get used to the idea that things like death or terminal illness are inevitable, and we stop fighting. We settle for the status quo. But maybe if we kept pushing—even if those actions seemed irrational to the experts—we could actually overcome the disease. Even in modern medicine, you still hear those strange stories about "spontaneous remissions," where a patient’s body somehow defeats an illness on its own through pure biology. To this day, nobody can truly explain how it happens.

A believer—someone who accepts facts without needing proof—lacks a clear sense of where their influence ends and reality begins. They carry this misplaced sense that they have more control over the world than they actually do. Because of that delusion, the moment things spiral out of their hands, they try to force a solution through sheer will—whether that’s through blind faith or prayer. Occasionally, their prayers might actually align with what happens next, but let's be honest: it isn't because of the praying. It's just coincidence.

So, what’s your take on that whole "Law of Attraction" thing?
It feels to me like sometimes precisely because we’ve been praying to hit a certain milestone—say, looking for a bit of help—we start noticing things around us that actually pave the way toward that goal.
Prayer—when you factor in visualization and repetition—basically recalibrates your perceptual filters. You start spotting opportunities that were invisible to you before, giving you the opening to actually grab them. In that sense, hitting the target becomes a subtle byproduct of the prayer itself.

In the scenario you described, maybe prayer helps bring the actual issue to light? Sometimes the hardest part of fixing anything is just not knowing where to start or even what the core problem is; you just feel stuck. In those moments, saying "Bog, please help me with X" can actually help identify what that "X" really is.🤷

Joseph Sanchez90 said:In the scenario you described, maybe prayer helps bring the actual issue to light? Sometimes the hardest part of fixing anything is just not knowing where to start or even what the core problem is; you just feel stuck. In those moments, saying "Bog, please help me with X" can actually help identify what that "X" really is.🤷

Hey! 👍

fadedbison17 said:Like I already said, those were just my answers to the questions in this thread, not an attack on believers (go back and read my last post).

Now, let's hear your explanation on how faith improves quality of life and all your other takes on the topic.

I'm not going to ramble.
To put it bluntly:
A sense of inner peace—which makes navigating life's inevitable messes much easier.
An understanding of human frailty, both in myself and others. It allows me to look at my own actions through a lens of actual truth.
Personal integrity.
It's unlikely I'll ever resort to killing, stealing, adultery, framing someone, or becoming one of those selfish types who couldn't care less about anyone else's struggles.
Neither jealousy nor envy touches me—regardless of my social status or financial situation.
A broad range of interests spanning both spiritual and secular domains.

Chris Peterson53 said:I'm not going to ramble.
To put it bluntly:
A sense of inner peace—which makes navigating life's inevitable messes much easier.
An understanding of human frailty, both in myself and others. It allows me to look at my own actions through a lens of actual truth.
Personal integrity.
It's unlikely I'll ever resort to killing, stealing, adultery, framing someone, or becoming one of those selfish types who couldn't care less about anyone else's struggles.
Neither jealousy nor envy touches me—regardless of my social status or financial situation.
A broad range of interests spanning both spiritual and secular domains.

I can manage all of this without any reliance on faith in Bog or divine intervention. My reasons aren't rooted in a fear of punishment, but rather in maintaining my own inner peace—so that I can look myself in the mirror and actually like who I see. Though, when it comes to adultery, I make no such guarantees. 😉

restlessridge36 said:I can manage all of this without any reliance on faith in Bog or divine intervention. My reasons aren't rooted in a fear of punishment, but rather in maintaining my own inner peace—so that I can look myself in the mirror and actually like who I see. Though, when it comes to adultery, I make no such guarantees. 😉

Honestly, that’s a pretty solid "definition" of Bog: like a mirror we gaze into where we feel this overwhelming love (but one we can't even face if we feel unworthy of it).

That's pretty much how Kuzanski saw it:

So, who or what does a person actually see when they look at Bog? Well, according to Kuzanski, someone trying to stare down Bog won't see anything at all, because Bog isn't some kind of entity—it's the act of seeing itself. What that means is: I can look at everything else, but I can't look at the looking itself.
Since I am the one doing the looking, Bog—as the concept of sight—is the thing closest to me. Bog isn't some distant object sitting far away from me like a physical thing you can point at; it moves with me, following me like my own shadow. But really, it's the other way around: Bog is the original image, and I'm just the shadow.

That's why creation is such a head-scratcher: humans aren't the actual sight, just its reflection. Bog is right here, it's the vision that's always part of me, yet somehow it stays out of reach because I can never truly perceive the medium through which I'm looking. I always end up seeing *something*, but never just the pure act of seeing. That's why being human feels so finite. We're basically defined by this constant longing. And the mystery of that longing is that its goal is simultaneously right next to us and miles away, which just keeps us searching forever.

Edward Flores4 said:I’ve been chewing on everything you said, and honestly, I think you might have missed a crucial detail: people experience the exact same "stuff" in wildly different ways. We're talking about a massive spectrum here—from the folks whose faith makes them kinder, more mindful, and genuinely better neighbors, all the way down to the religious extremists who are willing to throw lives away in the name of God. It's the same story with any ideology, really. To put it simply: if you give high-octane fuel to someone smart, they'll use it to run an engine or heat a home efficiently. You give a bucket of gasoline to a fool, and you end up with a massive fire.

Ethics is the one thing you can't just accept blindly if it ends up being destructive to society—but let's face it, some people will always grab the gasoline over the ethical handbook. As long as people can hide behind "personal freedom" to justify whatever nonsense they want, nothing is ever going to truly take root. The only way to move the needle is to stay critical of idiocy and foolishness; that's the only way we can keep ideologies within a range that actually aligns with basic human ethics. If we do that, then it doesn't really matter what you call your belief system, or even if you believe in anything at all.

Hmm... yeah. Morality doesn't stem from faith; it comes from the individual. You're right there.

In that case, we’re left with certain "techniques" developed to enrich spiritual life (a fuzzy concept, if you ask me) that can be utilized regardless of belief—meditation, prayer, gratitude—all aimed at stabilizing one's own mental and emotional state to improve quality of life.

fadedbison17 said:I think we're talking about similar stuff, but I feel like you're missing something here.
In this context, are you saying optimism = faith?

I'm strictly talking about what happens inside a person's head, not the actual outcome—hope it's clear I'm only talking about the mindset, since a person can't change reality just by thinking or believing.

To me, in this conversation:
- optimism = the drive for progress and efficiency (more control over reality)—and you gotta respect the facts of reality first for that to work.
- faith = wanting something to happen that I can't explain. And if it does happen, I claim later that it was because of my desire.

I see optimism as rational and good, while faith feels irrational and unnecessary...

Not quite. Optimism stems from that faith—the faith is the driver. It’s easy to stay positive when you feel like someone has your back—whether that’s Bog, Mother Nature, the laws of physics, or some cosmic harmony. Honestly, the only way I can see someone trying to be rationally optimistic right now is by leaning on the law of large numbers. 😁

I’m talking strictly about the internal mechanics of thought, not the outcome. I hope it's clear why I'm making that distinction—human thought (or belief) doesn't actually have the power to bend reality to its will.

Sure, but not in a cause-and-effect kind of way.
That said, since everyone carries a subjective version of reality built from sensory input—and perception is entirely dependent on individual filters—when a person works to recalibrate those filters, for them reality effectively shifts.

In my view, given our topic:
- optimism = the drive for progress and efficiency (seeking more control over reality)—which requires an honest respect for the facts.
- faith = the desire for something inexplicable to occur. If it does happen, I simply claim credit for it later.

I find optimism to be rational and useful, whereas faith is both irrational and unnecessary.

Optimism tends to hit a wall when it collides with "reality."
When five doctors at the Mayo Clinic tell you there's no hope, where do you find the strength to keep going? You need a reason—something grounded in actual facts.

Joseph Sanchez90 said:In the scenario you described, maybe prayer helps bring the actual issue to light? Sometimes the hardest part of fixing anything is just not knowing where to start or even what the core problem is; you just feel stuck. In those moments, saying "Bog, please help me with X" can actually help identify what that "X" really is.🤷

That’s how 👍
it works—it helps crystallize desires and set life directions. Just by framing the problem and visualizing a goal, you trigger a subconscious mechanism that works behind the scenes to find an answer.

The belief that Bog will provide an answer can basically be swapped for the "knowledge" that your subconscious will crunch all the necessary data. It’s fundamentally the same thing—just without the notion of someone upstairs listening in.

Chris Peterson53 said:I'm not going to ramble.
To put it bluntly:
A sense of inner peace—which makes navigating life's inevitable messes much easier.
An understanding of human frailty, both in myself and others. It allows me to look at my own actions through a lens of actual truth.
Personal integrity.
It's unlikely I'll ever resort to killing, stealing, adultery, framing someone, or becoming one of those selfish types who couldn't care less about anyone else's struggles.
Neither jealousy nor envy touches me—regardless of my social status or financial situation.
A broad range of interests spanning both spiritual and secular domains.

What’s the actual driver behind that composure? Where does it come from?

fadedbison17 said:In that case, relying on God or some external savior is just self-delusion. It's an illusion that keeps people thinking they have way more control over their lives than they actually do.

Going back to your scenario—let's say instead of rats, we're talking about people swimming in the ocean (a pool would be way too small anyway).

Most people know—or at least realize—that the ocean isn't infinite and that land exists somewhere. If someone were out there for a long time, they'd be thinking constantly. Either like, "just hold on a bit longer, help is right around the corner," or "I'm thirsty, I'm alone, I'm gonna die."

No matter what they're thinking, salvation (an island, a boat, a plane, whatever) isn't going to magically appear just because they thought about it.
The actual result of their mindset might be whether they swim faster and last longer because they stayed positive, or if they just give up on day one and float there waiting to be eaten by sharks... 🙂

Once you separate thought from reality and accept that humans have limited control over their lives, the conclusion is pretty clear. 😉
A rational person—someone who accepts those limits—is going to live based on knowledge and logic, focusing on what they can actually influence. Like, "I can swim a bit more, I've still got energy, maybe there's land past the next wave..." They know there are things totally out of their hands (like sharks, death, illness, etc.).
But a believer—someone who accepts facts without proof—doesn't have a clear line between where they end and the world begins. They think they have more control over the universe than they do. Because of that, when they lose control, they try to force a result (believing in divine help, praying for rescue). Like, "if I'm good, God will love me, God will reward me, I need a boat to save me..." Whatever happens to that person, it would have happened regardless of their prayers—so there's no actual advantage.

However,
I consider myself both a believer and a rational person,
and I don't simply accept "facts without evidence"; in fact, you are merely stating your position rather than actually proving it.

There is quite a lot of problematic reasoning in your argument—starting from your initial premise (which seems biased, as it equates being non-religious with being rational, thereby implying a believer cannot be rational) all the way down to your final conclusion.

Still,
once a person accepts their limitations (the so-called "rational man" described by kresho2), they simultaneously lose any absolute clarity regarding what is within their influence and what isn't—after all, what he thinks he "knows" might just be another illusion, much like how one might be deceived about what they "know" they cannot or do not know.

Or,
you don't actually *know* (with any certainty) that "whatever happens to that person would have happened even without their prayer"—that's a massive "what if" scenario.

...

The advantage lies in the fact that a believer perceives events as happening precisely because of their faith (whether it was recovering from an illness, finding a partner, or even having a tire blow out due to a mistake)—everything gains meaning retroactively. That is a subjective advantage.

As for an objective advantage—believers have a better sense of humor.

Gerald Perez5 said:However,
I consider myself both a believer and a rational person,
and I don't simply accept "facts without evidence"; in fact, you are merely stating your position rather than actually proving it.

There is quite a lot of problematic reasoning in your argument—starting from your initial premise (which seems biased, as it equates being non-religious with being rational, thereby implying a believer cannot be rational) all the way down to your final conclusion.

Still,
once a person accepts their limitations (the so-called "rational man" described by kresho2), they simultaneously lose any absolute clarity regarding what is within their influence and what isn't—after all, what he thinks he "knows" might just be another illusion, much like how one might be deceived about what they "know" they cannot or do not know.

Or,
you don't actually *know* (with any certainty) that "whatever happens to that person would have happened even without their prayer"—that's a massive "what if" scenario.

...

The advantage lies in the fact that a believer perceives events as happening precisely because of their faith (whether it was recovering from an illness, finding a partner, or even having a tire blow out due to a mistake)—everything gains meaning retroactively. That is a subjective advantage.

As for an objective advantage—believers have a better sense of humor.

So, basically, faith just gives you a narrative for the chaos of life.
What else is there?

placidranger said:So, basically, faith just gives you a narrative for the chaos of life.
What else is there?

I was speaking in generalities—different believers find all sorts of different meanings.

If you want my specific take, personally, I think life is just wonderful—it’s a total dream—even though I know I'm just a tiny little speck. Since I chose to be a believer, clearly I wasn't "chosen"—my bad.

Anything else?
I mean, what more could you ask for? I've watched almost everything by Bunuel, nearly the entire filmography of Tarkovsky... once, I even hit an eleven-game winning streak in a row. I swim, I run, my wife is beautiful—therefore, God loves me.

placidranger said:Not quite. Optimism stems from that faith—the faith is the driver. It’s easy to stay positive when you feel like someone has your back—whether that’s Bog, Mother Nature, the laws of physics, or some cosmic harmony. Honestly, the only way I can see someone trying to be rationally optimistic right now is by leaning on the law of large numbers. 😁

I’m talking strictly about the internal mechanics of thought, not the outcome. I hope it's clear why I'm making that distinction—human thought (or belief) doesn't actually have the power to bend reality to its will.

Sure, but not in a cause-and-effect kind of way.
That said, since everyone carries a subjective version of reality built from sensory input—and perception is entirely dependent on individual filters—when a person works to recalibrate those filters, for them reality effectively shifts.

In my view, given our topic:
- optimism = the drive for progress and efficiency (seeking more control over reality)—which requires an honest respect for the facts.
- faith = the desire for something inexplicable to occur. If it does happen, I simply claim credit for it later.

I find optimism to be rational and useful, whereas faith is both irrational and unnecessary.

Optimism tends to hit a wall when it collides with "reality."
When five doctors at the Mayo Clinic tell you there's no hope, where do you find the strength to keep going? You need a reason—something grounded in actual facts.

Let's just not confuse rationalization (trying to explain everything—even the stuff that can't be explained) with being reasonable (just accepting reality for what it is).

I don't see any point in worshiping some god of the wind and praying for help when I know he isn't there. When something happens that a believer would call an answer to prayer, I know there’s actually a different reason behind it—maybe I don't know it, and maybe it doesn't matter—but it's not because of my faith. If you're fully aware that God doesn't exist, what's even the upside to believing? Seems better to me to just accept that I don't know certain things and maybe I'll learn them later, maybe not...

placidranger said:Not quite. Optimism stems from that faith—the faith is the driver. It’s easy to stay positive when you feel like someone has your back—whether that’s Bog, Mother Nature, the laws of physics, or some cosmic harmony. Honestly, the only way I can see someone trying to be rationally optimistic right now is by leaning on the law of large numbers. 😁

I’m talking strictly about the internal mechanics of thought, not the outcome. I hope it's clear why I'm making that distinction—human thought (or belief) doesn't actually have the power to bend reality to its will.

Sure, but not in a cause-and-effect kind of way.
That said, since everyone carries a subjective version of reality built from sensory input—and perception is entirely dependent on individual filters—when a person works to recalibrate those filters, for them reality effectively shifts.

In my view, given our topic:
- optimism = the drive for progress and efficiency (seeking more control over reality)—which requires an honest respect for the facts.
- faith = the desire for something inexplicable to occur. If it does happen, I simply claim credit for it later.

I find optimism to be rational and useful, whereas faith is both irrational and unnecessary.

Optimism tends to hit a wall when it collides with "reality."
When five doctors at the Mayo Clinic tell you there's no hope, where do you find the strength to keep going? You need a reason—something grounded in actual facts.

Okay, that's your take—personally, I don't think reality changes just because I believe or want something to be true...

placidranger said:Not quite. Optimism stems from that faith—the faith is the driver. It’s easy to stay positive when you feel like someone has your back—whether that’s Bog, Mother Nature, the laws of physics, or some cosmic harmony. Honestly, the only way I can see someone trying to be rationally optimistic right now is by leaning on the law of large numbers. 😁

I’m talking strictly about the internal mechanics of thought, not the outcome. I hope it's clear why I'm making that distinction—human thought (or belief) doesn't actually have the power to bend reality to its will.

Sure, but not in a cause-and-effect kind of way.
That said, since everyone carries a subjective version of reality built from sensory input—and perception is entirely dependent on individual filters—when a person works to recalibrate those filters, for them reality effectively shifts.

In my view, given our topic:
- optimism = the drive for progress and efficiency (seeking more control over reality)—which requires an honest respect for the facts.
- faith = the desire for something inexplicable to occur. If it does happen, I simply claim credit for it later.

I find optimism to be rational and useful, whereas faith is both irrational and unnecessary.

Optimism tends to hit a wall when it collides with "reality."
When five doctors at the Mayo Clinic tell you there's no hope, where do you find the strength to keep going? You need a reason—something grounded in actual facts.

First, I'd accept what they told me (that I'm seriously ill and dying soon—which is how I took your comment about there being no hope).
Since I have this massive love for life, I'll do everything possible to help myself recover, or if recovery is impossible, I'll just live out whatever time I have left at the highest quality possible.

I don't need to delude myself into thinking "something" is coming to save me when I know it won't, and I'm fine with that. I don't see it as being pessimistic, just irrelevant—waiting on some higher power to step in...