Every human being has to deal with the constant feeling of unfulfillment in some way. The preferred default reaction is always repression. Many people will mistakenly believe they are not unfulfilled because of either subconscious repression or denial.

If the feeling cannot be repressed, it will drive behavior to relieve it. There are countless options available to try to attempt to alleviate the unfulfillment. What usually happens is people get their hopes up that they have found 'the answer' and they mentally go from unfulfilled to fulfilled until that option has been exhausted, shown to be ultimately unsuccessful, and they are back in the unfulfilled zone where the search continues. This cycle continuously repeats itself.

For a few reasons, religion is a powerful supposed solution to this problem. First, that hopeful feeling people get when they think they have the answer is often very profound. But more importantly, it is even harder to concede failure with religion since the payoff is promised in the future.

Emotion hijacks truth and objectivity when it comes to alleviating this unfulfillment. Trying to reason with people to see the error in their ways when it comes to religion has little chance of success much like trying to convince someone that chasing money won't make them happy or whatever other compulsive activity that a person chooses for relief.

That impulse for resolution is so strong that if you try to take it away, the reaction will be denial. So then is it even possible to influence people in this area?

The ONLY effective way to do this is to skillfully lead people toward the feeling of unfulfillment that remains. Complacency is the enemy of progress. By making people more aware of their unfulfillment, they will inevitably be called to action. Often, this means that they will dive deeper into their chosen religion. This is a GOOD thing. It allows the religious person to go to the limits of what their religion can provide to the point of exhaustion.

As people become more consciously aware of this unfulfilled feeling within, they are less likely to seek harmful solutions. Instead of trying to engage with people on an intellectual level regarding religion (or any other option for fulfillment), it would be more productive to promote self-awareness.

Arguments and discussions based on reason can occasionally be a catalyst for sincere introspection, but more often they perpetuate the denial and make the problem worse - groups are formed and walls are erected. This feeling of unfulfillment UNITES us all and that would be a better area of focus.

As you better understand yourself, you are able to better understand others. As you better understand others and are able to recognize the real issues with greater clarity, only then will you be able to implement effective solutions. The majority of people are constantly engaged in harmful or unproductive activities. They will be stuck in this place until they acknowledge their unfulfillment through self examination, which leads to change. That is what needs to be promoted.

There's a few potential reasons for why it's hard to leave religion.

One is that conditioning, even when irrational, is very hard to break. People are full of superstitious and habitual behaviour and if you've ever tried to break a simple habit like biting your finger nails or something else then it can actually be quite difficult. Now imagine, instead of something trivial, it's years of being conditioned into something. Reason isn't always as effective as we'd like it to be (I assume we've all had those feelings of "Nobody can run this bad" even though we all know rationally that it's a falsehood).

Another is perhaps people aren't intelligent enough, but I try to avoid that one. Conversely, and I do find this interesting, is the idea that the more intelligent we are the better we become at creating compelling arguments and rationalisations. Nobody denies the intelligence of Pascal but relatively few have time for his wager.

The final option I'll offer is in the interests of fairness: maybe they're right to believe either as a result of argumentation or personal experience.

I should have clarified: I don't always see religion as harmful. I only see it as harmful when people mistakenly believe it is the answer for their unfulfillment and think they are 'saved'.

There are a lot of casually religious people that seek fulfillment elsewhere such as in sex/relationships, alcohol, etc. For them, religion is not the primary concern but those other things are. Does that make sense? Regardless, IMO the solution is always the same.

The message I was trying to share in the OP is what I think is the best way to influence people regarding religion. It is for people that want to help even though I realize most people just want to complain about others without attempting to solve anything.

Why is that necessarily harmful?

Your OP should have been titled, "Why it is difficult for some people to break free from religion".

There are many reason it can be problematic. In addition to personal fulfillment, there may be myriad of social reasons. Many people become entrenched in church activities and develop deep friendships and social ties. For some, breaking free may create stressful family situations. For some still, they fear being becoming an outcast or the black sheep of their family, social circle, or even community.

For people who's lives are not so involved with family and community, and who care more about whether their beliefs are true, it can be a simple matter to give up religion along with their religious beliefs.

It's only harmful if there is a solution to the problem and you know their religion is not it. If you don't think that then it's just live and let live as long as they are not harming others right? I'd imagine that's how most view it so I should've said that instead.

The part I wanted people to focus on is HOW to influence others once they've decided that they want to.

Yes, I'm realizing it was a poorly chosen title.

Or maybe, "why won't people admit they're unfulfilled?"

"Denial" is such a great all purpose explanation for contentions like this one. Any attempt to refute it just proves the point.


PairTheBoard

Denial/delusion/ignorance are necessary parts of the growth process that have to be repeatedly overcome. They shouldn't be viewed as character defects from that perspective or at least they don't have to be.

I admit it all the time.

I know it is hard to imagine, but religion is not seen by many people who practice it as something to become free from and many still find various personal liberation in religious study and practice. Now, becoming free from regressive/out-dated institutional and social influences is an entirely other matter.

Why is it difficult to break free from atheism?

We hate God and like sin?

The difference is atheists aren't likely to determine that their atheism is a solution to their unfulfillment. IMO that is a more advantageous position if you agree with me that the whole point is to solve that problem. That is the angle I'm coming from with the OP.

This is like asking why is it difficult to break free from a lack of belief in astrology or unicorns. There's nothing to break free from, unless you consider reasoned thought dangerous.

I found that as I grew older, the causes of my unfulfillment presented themselves in a moral context. For example, I realized that "my own ways" were destroying my life, in general. The thought was that I had abandoned something good and valuable that would have served me much better in life. I looked back on my mistakes, and they were all mistakes a Christian version of myself would never make.

I believe this was 'the beginning of wisdom,' in a way. If you are 35 and an atheist that is coming around to see that everything in the book is there to protect you from making a mess of your life and your society; and not only that, but that the moral program it lays out seems just and right to you, now you have a problem. You are already have faith in God, in a way. You have faith in His ways and his words.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think you can frame these questions within religion/no-religion. I believe the difference between belief and non-belief can be slippery and subtle at times. Sometimes, breaking free means rejecting the ideas, the moral code, the people, the community, etc.

OP:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/...jp.161.12.2303

"Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation."

Talk 'bout unfulfilled!