This is a pretty broad question, it really depends on what you mean by “believe in religion”:

1. Believe that a particular holy book is literal, historical truth.

2. Believe in the moral teachings of a particular holy book and follow its practices.

3. Believe in the existence of a universal higher consciousness (God)

1 is a vocal minority, and the reasons have been sufficiently explained elsewhere in this thread.

2 is much more common, and can derive from a number of reasons. Cultural identity generally determines which holy book (and interpretation thereof) you follow, but the attraction to moral framework is deeper than cultural identity. Having a set of guidelines to inform moral behavior, and a method of alignment and focus (prayer) is very valuable.

3 is a metaphysical consideration, and pops up even in 2024 because consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Every explanation leads to roughly the same conclusion: if consciousness is an emergent property of complex interconnected systems, then it stands to reason that the most complex interconnected system (the universe) is more likely than not to be conscious; if consciousness is some external force that complex systems can “tune into” like a radio, then it stands to reason that “consciousness” permeates the universe; if consciousness is something else which defies scientific description, then it stands to reason that there exists some agency to dictate the rules.

Those are, broadly, the rational explanations of consciousness of which I’m aware, and they all imply a universal consciousness of one variety or another. If you can think of another I’d love to consider it.

If you meant something else by “believe in religion”, let me know.

They are taught about it from childhood and many of us don’t questions stuff we’ve learnt in our childhood.

Education fails to instil scientific temper in them

Lack of proper mental health awareness and support.

Research shows that we have the innate (ie. without being externally influenced) belief that there is a higher power. So we are socialized/influenced into NOT believing in God.

Atheism and secularism are big now but this only started to be so in the recent hundred years.

Personally I find my religion logically making sense more than what atheistic ideologies bring forth and their misuse of science illiteracy.

The scripture is preserved and I had the chance to learn the original language which allows to assess it firsthand.

In some religions walking away from the church means being excluded from family, social, and business contacts. So cutting ties with everyone you know basically.

It is very difficult to accept mortality if you don’t believe in an afterlife. Religion brings comfort, and comfort improves mental health (at the cost of some delusion).

You have a cult following around celebrities and you are surprised by religion which is older than you?

We’ve proved the popular religions wrong definitively, but the truth’s turned out to be unbearably horrifying for most people.

I can think of four possible reasons:-

• It works on my system - We are shaped by our experiences. To someone who had their life turned around by a religious order (or a religious individual), it would make sense to follow their teachings.

• Opium of the masses - Life is filled with suffering. It is nice to imagine that there is someone looking out for you. An afterlife free of suffering is even better.

• Just following orders - If you want to do something, but don’t think your community will support you, it is easier if you say ‘god told me to do it’. It might also make it easier to justify the action to yourself.

• Church of England - You don’t care much either way, but it’s too much of a hassle to leave. Plus meeting your friends and neighbours every week is fun.

Been religious since I was born, still makes sense to me.

I thought the edgy athiests stayed on reddit, sad to know y’all are here too.

For me its a combination of learning it since childhood and experiencing minor things that i can’t explain differently.

For example once i had a thought in my mind that i should go home that evening when i see the clouds. Later at the bbq i remembered that and looked into the sky and saw some clouds in the distance and just knew that these were the clouds. But it didn’t looked like it should rain, and the weather forecast was also clear. So i stayed. Later when i went to the train, a huge number of people from a heavy metal concert that just finished came, and enough people wanted to take the last train that day that some didn’t make it inside. If i had gone home when i saw the clouds, i wouldn’t have been in that overcrowded train.

Also for me my faith looks consistent internally and with other stuff that i see.

I like how all these answers involving science fail to realize that the scientific method was used exclusively by many scholars and students who had no historical evidence of giving up their religion.

Empirical evidence is as old as humans, and afaik the modern scientific method has been in use since the Islamic golden age if not older.

The key here is that many of these people did not consider religion an empirical issue but a philosophical and ethical one. Particularly with the monotheistic religions, this would make sense because you can easily argue that it would be impractical to test for the existence of God.

I think a better question would be why do people believe in their respective religion if it contains a glaring contradiction(s).

When you’re brainwashed from birth, it’s difficult to recognize you’ve been brainwashed.

Our tendency to perceive agency in ambiguous situations sheds light on the origins of cognitive biases like religion. Our minds, shaped by eons of natural selection, are finely tuned to err on the side of caution. Think of a group of ancient hunters traversing the savanna. A rustle in the tall grass could be merely the wind, or it could be a lurking predator. Those who instinctively assume the worst and flee are more likely to survive than those who dismiss the sound and remain vulnerable.

Over time, this survival advantage has led to the evolution of cognitive models that favor the perception of agency, even when there is none. We are prone to seeing patterns, faces, and intentions in random events because the cost of mistakenly attributing agency is far less than the cost of failing to detect a real threat. This explains why we might see a face in the clouds or feel a presence in a dark room. Religion is a direct byproduct of this phenomenon.

Furthermore, it’s important to keep in mind that every contemporary belief system stems from an uninterrupted chain of development, tracing back to the earliest human societies. This implies that every ideology has enjoyed a measure of success, having endured the test of time. This makes it difficult to definitively assert that one set of beliefs is fundamentally “more correct” than another, as truth is often subjective and dependent on context. After all, the effectiveness of a belief system in enabling a culture to thrive and grow is perhaps the most relevant measure of its “truthfulness.”

If somebody grows up in a religious environment, then religion becomes central to their world model. It’s not an isolated concept, it’s an integral part of the tapestry of their mind. Our brains, like all physical systems, operate within the constraints of energy efficiency. Assimilating a new idea requires mental effort, as it necessitates restructuring our existing cognitive framework to accommodate the newcomer. This, in turn, translates to expending energy to rebalance the connections within the neural networks of our brain. If a novel concept clashes significantly with our established beliefs, the energetic cost of integration can be substantial. Radical ideas that demand a significant restructuring of our mental models, such as challenging deeply held religious beliefs or political ideologies, may be discarded, deemed “too expensive” from an energetic standpoint.

This principle helps explain why it’s often so difficult to change the views of others, regardless of the soundness of your argument. The strength of the argument alone may not be enough to overcome the inherent inertia of our entrenched belief systems.

For the same reasons they always have.

The year has little to do with it. The only things we’ve really undeniably progressed in over the past century are scientific knowledge and the level of technology. Existential philosophy hasn’t exactly made breakthroughs recently, to my knowledge.

Each person still needs to find their own answer to the fundamental questions of “why am I here” and “wtf is death and how do I deal with it”.

Our mechanical, scientific understanding of reality provides fairly depressing answers to these questions. Religion? Sunshine and roses.

Also, on a more practical factor: childhood indoctrination and cultural inertia. Most people are raised in religion and they find it “good enough”, so religion continues.

Since here the answers are split between edgy kids and people repeating a bland, stale narrative about comfort and fear of death, I will try to bring a different perspective.

For context: I grew up in a Catholic country but in a very secular family and in a very secular region. I’ve had an edgy atheist phase that lasted between 8yo and probably around 30yo.

I studied a STEM discipline and have always been surrounded by mostly atheist or agnostic people.

I was afraid of death up until I was 27/28yo, but the cope was gnostic transhumanism, not Abrahamitic religions. At some point I took acid, my gf at the time told me I was going to die, I cried my eyes out for a few minutes and then I was fine and I’m still fine. I had a near-death experience in the hospital that further consolidated the idea that I’m going to die, and it’s chill: if you’re sick, you have a bunch of people looking after you, everybody gives you attention, you spend all your day chilling in bed on drugs. Dream life death.

I was still agnostic at that point. I started approaching spirituality later on, not much because of an emotional need, but because further studies both in STEM disciplines and Philosophy highlighted the limit of reason to explain and understand the world. Reason is a tool among others, with its limits. Limits that can be reasoned about using reason itself. You cannot investigate or explain what lies outside though, let alone change it, something for which you need different tools: faith, spirituality, trust. I got closer to what Erik Davis calls “Cyborg Spiritualism”, but it doesn’t mean much since it’s not an organized movement, but more of a shared intuition and meaning-making process to which, in the last 60 years, more and more people arrived. Especially people dealing with disciplines like system theory, cybernetics, system design, and information theory, but also people disillusioned with the New Age movement or other Western Gnostic practices. Mixed in it there’s plenty of animism.

Atheists believe that all religions are about speaking to God, and hoping for an answer, while many religions are about listening to God because they are already talking to us all the time.