How can you believe in religion?

[FascistLibertarian]

Hey,

I do not mean this to be insulting at all.

I am agnostic, people who think they have the answer or truth scare me.

I have hindu, muslim, jewish, and christian (among others) friends; I am respectful around them but I cant understand why they would believe. It seems like superstition to me.

My question is, what rational reason do you have to believe in religion? Why do you believe?

I will not ask for proof, as this is stupid.....

But I have never seen any reason why I should believe in anything (which is why im agnostic).

To be frank, it does not make any sense to me why people would not be agnostic.

[Bonam]

It gets ingrained into people (by their parents and community) when they are young, on such a deep level that for most people it's never possible to question it.

[Mad_Michael]

My question is, what rational reason do you have to believe in religion? Why do you believe?

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith.

Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature.

And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do.

[Mad_Michael]

To be frank, it does not make any sense to me why people would not be agnostic.

To be frank, it doesn't make any sense to my why poeple watch television, let alone Fox News. It doesn't make any sense to me that that some people have a fanatical obsession with hating gay people. It doesn't make sense to me why some people like President Bush. It doesn't make sense to me why everyone isn't atheist. It doesn't make sense to me why everyone isn't educated and intelligent. It doesn't make sense to me why some people aren't civil and polite.

Indeed, lots of things don't make sense. That's what makes life interesting.

[FascistLibertarian]

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith.

so Mad_Michael what you are saying is that any belief in religion is not a rational belief?

[betsy]

Somebody above mentioned indoctrination. Of course, whatever you believe in comes from what you're taught. What else would it be. Where else would you get your beliefs? Your beliefs, whatever they are (and this is not only confined to religion), obviously comes from your training.

The more astute minds amongst us develop their beliefs on their own as they become more aware.

Children may have been taught they were delivered by a stork. Later on, the quicker child sees the flaw in that belief and adjust according to his abilities. However, if he really likes the stork-story, he might wilfully blind himself to the truth. He might have faith in that bird.

Faith and rationality are opposing concepts. It's like arguing an apple is better than an orange.

What is the basis for that conclusion?

Belief in God doesn't require rationality. It requires faith.

It's only when one decides as a human thought process to justify his faith that he might resort to rational discussion based on such things as biblical evidence. He only needs that to explain it to non-believers, if he feels so inclined. I don't.

[jbg]

This may not totally answer the question posed by this thread, but give my personal take on it. The Jewish rituals revolving around death, in particular, are very comforting, very practical and very believable.

I was Bar Mitzvahed on May 2, 1970. On May 4, I cleaned out my desk at Hebrew School, never to return. At the time, I believed, as did many left-wingers did, that religion promoted irrationality, discrimination and death. My father, pretty much an atheist, though with a Jewish upbringing, helped inculcate this belief.

In late August 1971 he was operated on for colon cancer. At the time, religion continued to be a non-factor in my life. I believe, owing to his recent release from the hospital, we skipped High Holy day services that fall.

I turned 15 in April 1972, and was still a "committed" atheist. This started to change slowly during the summer of 1972. The second half of the summer I went to a camp that featured much travel, and more intellectual discussion than the sports camps I had gone to previously. Some of those discussions concerned religion. I could see from participating in the discussions that notwithstanding media views, and my father's view, many my age continued to be quite active as Jews. While nothing changed immediately, it did pose some questions.

Shortly after returning home, the Olympic Massacres occured. The secular, leftist non-Jews quickly deserted their Jewish friends for a now-fashionable lionization of Palestinian terror. This took away a lot of the festiveness of atheism. It was no longer "flowers in your hair", so to speak. Things were getting ugly for Jews and Israel, as oil shortage fears, well before embargo, spread. Thus, political events were driving many Jews back to their roots.

Unaccountably, though my father was by then sickening rapidly, he wanted not only to take me to services for Yom Kippur, but to walk the one mile or so to Temple from our house rather than drive. To this day, I don't know if it was the political developments I mentioned above, or sense that his days might be numbered, that motivated his sudden apparent interest. He didn't verbalize anything to me, though it makes sense in retrospect. My father died at the beginning of January 1973.

My meetings with the Rabbi, to assist him in writeing the eulogy, brought a sense of intellectual cohesion about the religion's philosophy. I got to ask questions and receive intelligent answers for the first time. I also learned about the strong Jewish belief in a brief, intense mourning period, followed by a rapid resumption of life and growth. My mother took this to heart, and met my soon-to-be stepfather for a first date Valentine's Day, 1973.

Judaism, at least, is a religion that promotes sensible and pragmatic beliefs. While the question of an afterlife is not resolved in Judaism, it yields to the more practical concerns of personal, familial and community betterment.

That is how I can believe in religion.

[Mad_Michael]

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith.

so Mad_Michael what you are saying is that any belief in religion is not a rational belief?

No, I didn't say that particularly. I said that humans quite often act without rational reasons. Or that humans don't need rational reasons to act.

Once you decide you want to believe in God, then many religious beliefs are indeed, rational.

But one cannot claim that belief in God is rational. I hold that it is irrational by application of Ockham's Razor.

[Mad_Michael]

Faith and rationality are opposing concepts.

Your epistemology here seems rather muddled.

There is such a thing as rational faith. It just doesn't apply to God or religion though. But every human being uses it every day.

Believing that the sun shall rise tomorrow, is clear-cut case of 'rational faith'.

Belief in God doesn't require rationality. It requires faith.

Yes, I've already said this.

[betsy]

Faith and rationality are opposing concepts.

Your epistemology here seems rather muddled.

There is such a thing as rational faith. It just doesn't apply to God or religion though. But every human being uses it every day.

Believing that the sun shall rise tomorrow, is clear-cut case of 'rational faith'.

My epistemology seems rather muddled? How much is that doggy innuenndo? Wait for it. The time might come that you'll actually need to use "epistemology" in a sentence.

We say many things in everyday conversation that get their basic meaning across even when they're somewhat imprecise and open to interpretation. I'd characterize "rational faith" as one such thing, although I do confess that I'd never use such an expression myself, and I don't know anyone, personally, who would use it either. I suppose other 'clear-cut' cases are having faith that my friend will be late because she's always been late before, or because I hear the train and know she'll be held up, or that she said she was going to wait for the sun to rise. The topic here is the nature of belief in religion. Unless you're a Sun worshipper or imagine I am, why are you bringing this up? Religious faith is a belief in God based on the authority of His Word - speaking as a Christian. Rational belief is belief in 'whatever' based on reason. That's not to say you can't have a rational belief in God, it only means you don't need a rational basis for faith. Let's not drift off into netherland. FacistLibertarian framed his thread, I think, to limit drifting - let's try to answer his question - "How can you believe in religion?"

[jbg]

I said that humans quite often act without rational reasons. Or that humans don't need rational reasons to act.

And if that's human nature, that's fine.

But one cannot claim that belief in God is rational. I hold that it is irrational by application of Ockham's Razor.

What if G-d exists and doesn't choose to lay an Occom's razor straight path to hie or her door? Is there anything wrong with a little mystery and awe?

[Mad_Michael]

My epistemology seems rather muddled? How much is that doggy innuenndo? Wait for it. The time might come that you'll actually need to use "epistemology" in a sentence.

I already have used "epistemology" in a sentence.

We say many things in everyday conversation that get their basic meaning across even when they're somewhat imprecise and open to interpretation. I'd characterize "rational faith" as one such thing, although I do confess that I'd never use such an expression myself, and I don't know anyone, personally, who would use it either. I suppose other 'clear-cut' cases are having faith that my friend will be late because she's always been late before, or because I hear the train and know she'll be held up, or that she said she was going to wait for the sun to rise.

Such are examples of rational faith. You are illustrating precisely my point. Faith can be rationalised under certain conditions.

The topic here is the nature of belief in religion. Unless you're a Sun worshipper or imagine I am, why are you bringing this up? Religious faith is a belief in God based on the authority of His Word - speaking as a Christian. Rational belief is belief in 'whatever' based on reason. That's not to say you can't have a rational belief in God, it only means you don't need a rational basis for faith. Let's not drift off into netherland. FacistLibertarian framed his thread, I think, to limit drifting - let's try to answer his question - "How can you believe in religion?"

Now you hit the wall. There is no rational basis for religion itself, qua religion.

[Mad_Michael]

I said that humans quite often act without rational reasons. Or that humans don't need rational reasons to act.

And if that's human nature, that's fine.

It is human nature, as far as I understand.

But one cannot claim that belief in God is rational. I hold that it is irrational by application of Ockham's Razor.

What if G-d exists and doesn't choose to lay an Occom's razor straight path to hie or her door? Is there anything wrong with a little mystery and awe?

Certainly nothing is wrong with a little mystery and awe. However, it is by by this very fact that application of Ockham's Razor suggests that it is irrational to believe it. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, only that belief that God does exist, is irrational. And as I pointed out above, humans have a noted passion for irrational beliefs.

Sidenote: The man who originated this famous 'philosophic rule' was a 14th century Fransican Friar named William from the town of Ockham, thus he is styled William of Ockham. It is a town in England. I've never been able to determine the origin of the American passion for spelling it as "Occam" other than it did appear as a Hollywood movie under that name (Occam's Razor).

[Mad_Michael]

This may not totally answer the question posed by this thread, but give my personal take on it. The Jewish rituals revolving around death, in particular, are very comforting, very practical and very believable.

This is called 'rationalising' or 'justifying' your faith. You have your faith (first) and then you seek to create rational reasons or justifications for holding it so.

I was Bar Mitzvahed on May 2, 1970.

...

I turned 15 in April 1972, and was still a "committed" atheist. This started to change slowly during the summer of 1972.

...

Shortly after returning home, the Olympic Massacres occured.

...

He didn't verbalize anything to me, though it makes sense in retrospect. My father died at the beginning of January 1973.

...

My meetings with the Rabbi, to assist him in writeing the eulogy, brought a sense of intellectual cohesion about the religion's philosophy.

...

Judaism, at least, is a religion that promotes sensible and pragmatic beliefs. While the question of an afterlife is not resolved in Judaism, it yields to the more practical concerns of personal, familial and community betterment.

That is how I can believe in religion.

This is an interesting and apparently 'heart-felt' testamonial. I respect that - and indeed, I may even admit to being a bit envious of it.

But with all due respect, I must say that your 'explanation' is described in terms of 'event-based' emotive responses, and ultimately, it comes across as a description of the 'process' by which you became aware of the particular faith that you inherited from your family - which puts you in with the other 85% of the population on the planet.

Nothing wrong with that either. Obviously, that's the 'normal' thing that human beings do on this issue. I'm just pointing it out.

[jbg]

Certainly nothing is wrong with a little mystery and awe. However, it is by by this very fact that application of Ockham's Razor suggests that it is irrational to believe it. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, only that belief that God does exist, is irrational. And as I pointed out above, humans have a noted passion for irrational beliefs.

Just because man has a reasoning mind does not mean we're entitled to know everything.

Sidenote: The man who originated this famous 'philosophic rule' was a 14th century Fransican Friar named William from the town of Ockham, thus he is styled William of Ockham. It is a town in England. I've never been able to determine the origin of the American passion for spelling it as "Occam" other than it did appear as a Hollywood movie under that name (Occam's Razor).

Interesting. However, Canada/Britain has far more mis-spelled words, like labour, harbour, defence, neighbourhood, etc.

[jbg]

This is an interesting and apparently 'heart-felt' testamonial. I respect that - and indeed, I may even admit to being a bit envious of it.

But with all due respect, I must say that your 'explanation' is described in terms of 'event-based' emotive responses, and ultimately, it comes across as a description of the 'process' by which you became aware of the particular faith that you inherited from your family - which puts you in with the other 85% of the population on the planet.

Nothing wrong with that either. Obviously, that's the 'normal' thing that human beings do on this issue. I'm just pointing it out.

Nothing wrong with pointing it out. May I ask what you're envious of, the intellectual content of Judaism?

[Mad_Michael]

May I ask what you're envious of, the intellectual content of Judaism?

Gosh no! I am generally familiar with the 'intellectual content' of all the Abrahamic religions and their variants.

I'm sometimes envious of the passion of religious faith that some experience.

[betsy]

I'm not sure why you're repeating everything I said, just in a less articulate way, but that's cool.

I already have used "epistemology" in a sentence.

Okay.

Such are examples of rational faith. You are illustrating precisely my point. Faith can be rationalised under certain conditions.

I know. When I illustrate something - even something imprecise - I usually illustrate it precisely, even when its your point, not mine.

But you should be more precise if you are serious about your point.

In fact, faith is something that is not based on reasoning. Your 'rational faith', as you describe it, and as I amply illustrated, is in truth not faith, but a conclusion based on reason. That's why I pointed out that we sometimes say things in everyday conversation that aren't precisely what we mean.

To use your original example, you actually reasoned the sun would rise based on your knowledge and experience, not on faith. The reasoning went on in the recesses of your mind, granted, but it went on none the less. But then, you tricky devil, you labelled it 'rational faith' and tried to pass it off as, "see, faith can be rationalised..." But that little piece of skull-duggery wasn't good enough, was it!! You had to go further. You had to try to eliminate 'faith' that you don't want rationalised by qualifying the skull-duggery with "...under certain conditions." Needless to say, in your theory, 'religious faith' (i.e. Belief in God) won't fall under those 'certain conditions'. Very Klever!!

The topic here is the nature of belief in religion. Unless you're a Sun worshipper or imagine I am, why are you bringing this up? Religious faith is a belief in God based on the authority of His Word - speaking as a Christian. Rational belief is belief in 'whatever' based on reason. That's not to say you can't have a rational belief in God, it only means you don't need a rational basis for faith. Let's not drift off into netherland. FacistLibertarian framed his thread, I think, to limit drifting - let's try to answer his question - "How can you believe in religion?"

Now you hit the wall. There is no rational basis for religion itself, qua religion.

What wall? It seems to me the discussion is just beginning. Declaring 'There is no rational basis for religion itself' is not a particularly convincing argument. Further, are we talking about religion as a ritualized behaviour or are we talking about Belief in God or are we talking about something else; that is, what is your 'qua religion'? Whether there is a rational basis for 'religion itself' and, if its basis is not purely metaphysical, what is it's source are interesting philosophical questions that have been debated for centuries by great minds, and others too, without definitive results. But they're not our topic, which is "How can you believe in religion?"

But let me digress for a moment. I am concerned whether I am understanding FascistLibertarian's question the way he meant it. I hope he'll respond through this post. [if you don't, FascistLibertarian, I'll address you directly.]

Does he mean 'How can you believe...' in the sense of 'What do I have to do to believe...' or does he mean

it in the sense of 'Why would you believe...', like 'How could anyone be dumb enough to believe...' And NO, I'm not implying FacsistLibertarian is being rude or disrespectful and he made it clear himself that he was not. I'm just trying to show that his question could be understood from at least two different perspectives.

Anyway, obviously, I've decided to approach the topic from the first perspective.

FascistLibertarian described himself as an agnostic - someone who believes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists- and asks, I think reasonably, "How can you believe in religion?"

From an agnostic's point of view, if my description is reasonably accurate for FascistLibertarian purposes here, it seems to me that the choices are few.

1. You believe solely by faith - faith defined basically as belief without a rational basis - so that reasoning and knowledge aren't required to support your belief (you would still perhaps be agnostic but you would also belive in God),

2. You accept the Scriptures as the factual Word of God and historically reliable and pursue a study of the evidence, scientific as well as historical, to convince yourself one way or the other - like most scholars are now seeing Homeric writings as a reliable source of historical fact (You may convince yourself that human Knowledge of God is possible, in which case you would no longer be agnostic),

3. You don't believe in God and you remain agnostic.

[Leafless]

My question is, what rational reason do you have to believe in religion?

To provide faith in mankind and not to mentally lose oneself like atheist and agnostics do, in a world of nothingness.

Why do you believe?

It teaches man how to interact in a responsible moralistic/spiritual manner, separate from a worldly manner, to fill the many needs to participate in a regulated society.

I will not ask for proof, as this is stupid.....

You don't have to, as it is obvious you are faithless, poor fellow.

[FascistLibertarian]

Does he mean 'How can you believe...' in the sense of 'What do I have to do to believe...' or does he mean it in the sense of 'Why would you believe...', like 'How could anyone be dumb enough to believe...' And NO, I'm not implying FacsistLibertarian is being rude or disrespectful and he made it clear himself that he was not. I'm just trying to show that his question could be understood from at least two different perspectives.

My question was def 'why would you believe'. As to what I would have to do to believe, well I guess I would need some evidence or reason, thats just the way I feel I guess.

This being said, I was not brought up with religion, so the arguement that you are what you are b.c. of your parents works for atheists and agnostics as well.

To provide faith in mankind and not to mentally lose oneself like atheist and agnostics do, in a world of nothingness.

But I have faith in humanity, I dont know that God or gods are needed for this.

You don't have to, as it is obvious you are faithless, poor fellow.

I find it so intresting that people with faith and lacking faith both pity the other side.

I do admit it would be nice to have faith, I would feel more secure of course, there has just never been anything in my life that has given me any reason to have faith.

[jbg]

But I have faith in humanity, I dont know that God or gods are needed for this.

****

I find it so intresting that people with faith and lacking faith both pity the other side.

I do admit it would be nice to have faith, I would feel more secure of course, there has just never been anything in my life that has given me any reason to have faith.

During the French Revolution, some of the revolutionaries decided it was time to create a new G-d, "Reason" to replace the old G-d. The results of that phase of the French Revolution were patently unreasonable and unsustainable. This period was followed by the so-called "Directory", which in turn was followed by Napolean, which in turn was followed by a brief return to monarchy.

Your concept is idealistic, and impractical. People need a greater sense of overarching order than a G-dless system provides.

[fellowtraveller]

My question is, what rational reason do you have to believe in religion? Why do you believe?

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith.

Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature.

And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do.

That explanation - religion or faith is inherited- is more than a bit facile.

I've noticed many people return to their faith or discover faith later in life. They are not inbred hillbillies either, but thinking caring and intelligent people.

There are a couple of explanations for this. The most likely is that as people get older, they tend to move beyond the questions of where the next party might be found.

They ask themselves why am I here?, what is my purpose in life?, does anybody love me, what is the point of it all? Virtually every religion not only has a prepackaged set of answers to these questions, they have a group of people willing to help explain it all in their context. They have a place where you can gather, a worldwide network of support and comfort. You can join a tribe, in a time when families are spread far and wide. It is more than join a tribe, yopu will be welcomed to a tribe, something that has appealed to our forebrains forever and a day.

Mambership is simple, all that is intially required is to accept the first premise of the religion as fact. With Christianity, there are a couple of them, starting with 'Jesus died for your sins' or 'God created Heaven and the Earth". Once you accept one of those, all the rest fits pretty well.

[Mad_Michael]

My question is, what rational reason do you have to believe in religion? Why do you believe?

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith.

Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature.

And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do.

That explanation - religion or faith is inherited- is more than a bit facile.

I've noticed many people return to their faith or discover faith later in life. They are not inbred hillbillies either, but thinking caring and intelligent people.

There are a couple of explanations for this. The most likely is that as people get older, they tend to move beyond the questions of where the next party might be found.

Right.

And quite remarkably, those older people tend to move to precisely the religion that they were brought up in - or atleast, in over 90% of cases where this phenomena is known to occur.

If your theory was even remotely credible, then these 'older people' might be expected to adopt a variety of different religous views. They generally don't.

You are correct in one respect though. People as they age often do 'come back' to the religion that they 'drifted' away from in their younger days.

Mambership is simple, all that is intially required is to accept the first premise of the religion as fact. With Christianity, there are a couple of them, starting with 'Jesus died for your sins' or 'God created Heaven and the Earth". Once you accept one of those, all the rest fits pretty well.

Picking or choosing amongst a hundred various sects amongst the Christian religion is of course equally simple.

Indeed, in well over 90% of cases, they will magically choose the one that they were brought up with. Remarkable coincidence that.

If you are going to assert that religion isn't inherited from your parents (as is the statistical case of over 90% of Americans who claim to be religious), then you have to offer a more convincing argument.

P.S. Your assertion that my argument here is "facile" is troll bait. I replied politely. I don't always reply to troll bait with such politeness.

[ScottSA]

My question is, what rational reason do you have to believe in religion? Why do you believe?

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith.

Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature.

And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do.

That explanation - religion or faith is inherited- is more than a bit facile.

I've noticed many people return to their faith or discover faith later in life. They are not inbred hillbillies either, but thinking caring and intelligent people.

There are a couple of explanations for this. The most likely is that as people get older, they tend to move beyond the questions of where the next party might be found.

Right.

And quite remarkably, those older people tend to move to precisely the religion that they were brought up in - or atleast, in over 90% of cases where this phenomena is known to occur.

If your theory was even remotely credible, then these 'older people' might be expected to adopt a variety of different religous views. They generally don't.

You are correct in one respect though. People as they age often do 'come back' to the religion that they 'drifted' away from in their younger days.

Mambership is simple, all that is intially required is to accept the first premise of the religion as fact. With Christianity, there are a couple of them, starting with 'Jesus died for your sins' or 'God created Heaven and the Earth". Once you accept one of those, all the rest fits pretty well.

Picking or choosing amongst a hundred various sects amongst the Christian religion is of course equally simple.

Indeed, in well over 90% of cases, they will magically choose the one that they were brought up with. Remarkable coincidence that.

If you are going to assert that religion isn't inherited from your parents (as is the statistical case of over 90% of Americans who claim to be religious), then you have to offer a more convincing argument.

P.S. Your assertion that my argument here is "facile" is troll bait. I replied politely. I don't always reply to troll bait with such politeness.

Nor are you own troll baits very polite, although the beatings you've suffered ought to eventually tone you down.

Is it possible that people return later in life to the religion of their upbringing because that is the type of spirituality they are familiar with rather than because of some learned response during youth? Isn't it possible that the object is not a return to a specific religion as much as a quest for spirituality? Is it more reasonable for an elderly European or North American grandma who was raised a Presbyterian to seek out spirituality in an ashram or in a church?

The immediate problem you are having is in the facile assumption that religion is the equivalent of spiritualism...one is a method and the other an object. But your larger problem is that facile undergrad philosophy majors learn in a sort of linear modelling that precludes thinking outside the box. Couple that with the arrogance of atheism and all that ever emerges is strawmen. People returning to the religion of their youth is quite natural, and in no way discredits their quest for faith and spirituality.

[fellowtraveller]

My question is, what rational reason do you have to believe in religion? Why do you believe?

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith.

Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature.

And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do.

That explanation - religion or faith is inherited- is more than a bit facile.

I've noticed many people return to their faith or discover faith later in life. They are not inbred hillbillies either, but thinking caring and intelligent people.

There are a couple of explanations for this. The most likely is that as people get older, they tend to move beyond the questions of where the next party might be found.

Right.

And quite remarkably, those older people tend to move to precisely the religion that they were brought up in - or atleast, in over 90% of cases where this phenomena is known to occur.

If your theory was even remotely credible, then these 'older people' might be expected to adopt a variety of different religous views. They generally don't.

You are correct in one respect though. People as they age often do 'come back' to the religion that they 'drifted' away from in their younger days.

Mambership is simple, all that is intially required is to accept the first premise of the religion as fact. With Christianity, there are a couple of them, starting with 'Jesus died for your sins' or 'God created Heaven and the Earth". Once you accept one of those, all the rest fits pretty well.

Picking or choosing amongst a hundred various sects amongst the Christian religion is of course equally simple.

Indeed, in well over 90% of cases, they will magically choose the one that they were brought up with. Remarkable coincidence that.

If you are going to assert that religion isn't inherited from your parents (as is the statistical case of over 90% of Americans who claim to be religious), then you have to offer a more convincing argument.

P.S. Your assertion that my argument here is "facile" is troll bait. I replied politely. I don't always reply to troll bait with such politeness.

Nor are you own troll baits very polite, although the beatings you've suffered ought to eventually tone you down.

Is it possible that people return later in life to the religion of their upbringing because that is the type of spirituality they are familiar with rather than because of some learned response during youth? Isn't it possible that the object is not a return to a specific religion as much as a quest for spirituality? Is it more reasonable for an elderly European or North American grandma who was raised a Presbyterian to seek out spirituality in an ashram or in a church?

The immediate problem you are having is in the facile assumption that religion is the equivalent of spiritualism...one is a method and the other an object. But your larger problem is that facile undergrad philosophy majors learn in a sort of linear modelling that precludes thinking outside the box. Couple that with the arrogance of atheism and all that ever emerges is strawmen. People returning to the religion of their youth is quite natural, and in no way discredits their quest for faith and spirituality.

It is quite likely that some who do beome religious do return to the religion of their family. I guess it is familiar. But - they rejected it once, so they are equally likely to accept whatever seems right at the time their spiritual quest occurs, which is much more likely to be independent at age 28 than at age 8.

It may be natural to return to the religion of childhood, but it is far from preordained.

Indeed, whacko outfits like Scientology and many others count on it.

And I am not talking at all about deathbed conversions, I'm referring to young adults that seek answers in organized religions - and find them. It does not matter so much that the answers may be rote dogma, it matters that they exist and are consistent. People seek simplicity and stability and fellowship and a sense of belonging. Organized religion provides much of that, it is not hard to see why people seek it.