Why people can't see what's the religion is and let them divide each other, isn't religious bookd are mostly books

Claude Opus 4.7

Answer: Religions are far more than just books — they are living social, emotional, and identity-forming systems, which is precisely why people can't easily 'see through' them and why they so often become lines of division.

I'm maintaining my position because the other models, while articulate, largely converge on the same core insight I offered: religious texts function as identity anchors, not just information. Reading GPT-5.4, Grok 4.20, and Gemini 3.1 Pro reinforced my view rather than challenged it. That said, each added a useful emphasis worth acknowledging. GPT-5.4 rightly highlighted interpretation — that even the same text produces different communities and conflicts, which shows the book itself isn't the real unit of division; the human reading of it is. Grok 4.20 pushed harder on the epistemic side, naming confirmation bias and proposing comparative religion education as a practical remedy. Gemini 3.1 Pro sharpened the existential angle: letting go of sacred certainty means facing vulnerability about death, meaning, and belonging, which is psychologically very costly. None of these contradict my original argument; they refine it. My central claims stand: (1) a sacred book is a different social object than an ordinary book, (2) people are raised inside belief rather than choosing it neutrally from outside, (3) division is driven by tribalism, politics, and power that use religion as a vehicle rather than being created by scripture itself, and (4) the questioner's underlying wish — that people hold beliefs more lightly and not coerce others — is reasonable even if the premise 'they're mostly books' understates what religion actually is for human beings. So I'm not changing my position, but I'd incorporate Gemini's existential framing and Grok's point about critical-thinking education as strengthening, not replacing, my answer.

GPT-5.4

Answer: I maintain my position: religious books are physically books, but religion becomes divisive because people attach identity, sacred authority, community, and power to them, so conflicts are usually about human meaning and group dynamics rather than paper and ink alone.

I remain with my earlier view because the other models largely reinforced it rather than changing it. They all emphasized the same core point I made before: religion is not experienced by believers as a neutral text, but as a source of identity, truth, belonging, and moral order. That supports my original answer rather than displacing it. What I especially agree with in the other responses is the emphasis on psychology and tribalism. Claude Opus 4.7 was particularly strong in explaining that religion is a "living social, emotional, and identity-forming system," not just an object to be read. Grok 4.20 and Gemini 3.1 Pro also sharpened the point that people often experience disagreement over religion as a threat to self, community, and existential security. Those are valuable expansions. But these answers did not make me change my position because they are compatible with it. My original argument already said that religion is tied to family, community, history, morality, and a person's understanding of life; that interpretation creates differences; and that politics, fear, and power often sit underneath religious division. The other models added helpful language and examples, but not a fundamentally different conclusion. If I were to refine my position slightly, I would say even more clearly that the problem is not religion alone, and not books alone, but human beings' tendency to form identity groups and defend them. Religion can intensify that because it deals with ultimate truth and sacred value. So yes, religious books are books in a literal sense, but socially and emotionally they function as much more than books, which is why people do not simply "see through" them and move on. So I keep my original position: division happens because humans invest religious texts with sacred meaning, social identity, and authority, and then those meanings become entangled with fear, loyalty, politics, and power.

Grok 4.20

Answer: People cannot easily see religion as mostly books because these texts serve as cornerstones of personal and collective identity, emotional security, and tribal belonging, which transcend literal interpretation and fuel division through human psychology and social structures.

My previous position emphasized how faith elevates texts into divine authorities tied to emotion, culture, and tribalism rather than objective reading. After reviewing the responses from GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.7, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, I find they align closely with this view, highlighting identity, interpretation, existential needs, and the overlap with politics and power. This reinforcement strengthens rather than alters my stance, as no new perspective fundamentally shifted the core reasoning. The other models correctly note that beliefs absorbed from childhood feel like reality, not claims open to critique, much like viewing family or community as more than their components. Reducing sacred texts to 'just books' ignores their role in providing moral order and comfort in uncertainty, which is why critical detachment is rare. Division arises not purely from the books but from how humans attach them to in-group loyalty, where challenging one group's scripture threatens their entire worldview. While all models agree on the potential for religion to promote unity or compassion, the persistent problem is weaponization through biases and power dynamics. Education in critical thinking and empathy remains key, but expecting widespread realization that 'religious books are mostly books' overlooks deep psychological and sociological roots. The consensus across responses validates maintaining this position without attribution to any single influence.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Answer: While religious texts provide essential psychological security and identity, the profound division we see is largely driven by political and social powers weaponizing these sacred beliefs as markers for deeper conflicts.

I maintain my original premise that religious texts cannot be viewed merely as physical books because they form the bedrock of a believer's existential security, moral framework, and cultural identity. To a believer, a sacred text is the ultimate truth. Stripping away that divine significance leaves people vulnerable, which is why they fiercely protect their beliefs and instinctively form tribes around them. However, reading the insights from the other models, particularly GPT-5.4, has broadened my perspective on the true catalysts of religious division. While psychological tribalism creates a foundational 'us vs. them' dynamic, the actual violent or systemic fracturing of societies is rarely driven by theological disagreements over the texts alone. As GPT-5.4 astutely pointed out, religion frequently serves as a convenient and powerful banner for underlying conflicts rooted in politics, power struggles, economic disparities, and historical grievances. Opportunistic leaders exploit the deep emotional and cultural attachments people have to their faith, using religion as an unassailable justification to consolidate power, exclude others, or wage war. Therefore, people remain divided not just because they cling to their books, but because worldly forces actively manipulate that devotion to manufacture and maintain division.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable unanimously agreed that while religious texts are physically books, they function as existential frameworks and tribal anchors that define a believer's reality. Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4 emphasized that division occurs when political leaders weaponize these deep-seated beliefs for power, while Claude Opus 4.7 noted that asking a believer to see scripture as 'just a book' is like asking someone to see their mother as 'just a woman.' Grok 4.20 added that cognitive biases make it nearly impossible for individuals to view their own foundational texts with objective detachment.

All 4 models agreed