[clavalle]

>Ultimately, secular thought (agnosticism and atheism included) is just an inferior product compared to religions. It doesn't provide out-of-the-box answers to these really hard questions and as a result can be a very scary and lonely ideology.

Inferior? I'd rather have no answer and keep looking than the wrong answer that stops the questions.

[untog]

I think there's a really interesting debate in the bottom of there somewhere. There are some questions that do not have a satisfactory answer no matter how long you keep looking. You could dedicate your life to answering the meaning of life and you'd fail.

Would that mean you life was better lived than someone who believed in God and that religious meaning of life? Does such a pursuit return any value? It's interesting to think about.

[clavalle]

>There are some questions that do not have a satisfactory answer no matter how long you keep looking.

This is true, but in my view, the act of looking has value in and of itself. It opens at least the opportunity for learning something new as opposed to being given and satisfied with an answer.

It is the difference between growth and stagnation.

I suppose someone could get bogged down in trying to find an unfindable answer, though...

You are right, interesting to think about.

[chongli]

I'd rather have no answer and keep looking than the wrong answer that stops the questions.

This is dependent on the type of person you are. Many people simply can't stand the lack of an answer[0]. This dovetails with the general tendency to accept the first explanation for anything that doesn't contradict what they already believe[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_tolerance%E2%80%93in...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

[jerf]

It is people who stop the questions, not the religions. All world religions with some centuries on them have extensive philosophical and theological writings, some of the younger ones do too. It's a myth some find convenient to propagate that religions require you to uncritically swallow their ideas and yell at you if you slightly disagree. There are some people who do that, there are even places where they group together and form sects, but, well, have you noticed how non-religious people join in such activities quite freely, too?

[clavalle]

Somewhere, though, in those religions is the answer 'Because, God wills it so or says it so.' Everywhere that happens is a dead question.

[AnimalMuppet]

For an argument that that's exactly what we need philosophically, see "He Is There And He Is Not Silent" by Francis Schaeffer.

http://www.amazon.com/There-Silent-Paperback-Schaeffer-Franc...

[vacri]

Not just the wrong answer that stops the questions, but the wrong answer that consumes people's lives. If Christianity is wrong, then a lot of people have had their time and money consumed by it. All those Sunday mornings given away, all that money donated. Following a religion with anything other than lip service consumes resources.

[clavalle]

To be fair, it also creates a great deal of value. Comfort, community, scholarship, good works. It could be argued that these things can be created outside of a religion and they'd be right but religions have created organizational frameworks for these kinds of value for thousands of years.

[vacri]

I agree to some degree, but also it should be noted that religion merely provides a framework to do good deeds in. People still do good deeds outside a religious framework; it's just that having an existing framework in a town makes it easier to work with than start afresh.

I'd also add that those wrong answers also cause a lot of strife, for example, a lot of Catholics feel constantly guilty throughout their life. While Catholicism does provide community and comfort in some areas, it also provides sometimes wracking guilt in others. Not to mention how it treats you if you aren't part of the 'in' crowd (eg: homosexuals), where the 'community' part of the religion mutates into something monstrous.

[LeifCarrotson]

If not having an answer leads some fraction of the population to suicide or depression, then having an answer (wrong, right, or otherwise) which results in fewer suicides and a reduction in fear and loneliness is not strictly worse. I agree that stopping inquiry is very bad, but suicides are also very bad. This isn't mathematics, it's a social issue, so the optimum response is very nuanced and difficult to discern.