General religion

[DrZoidberg]

I agree. I think that is at the core of this. Religious people are more effective in life than atheists. Because they have a given direction for their lives. It can pay off even if it's all a delusion. I think that's the secret sauce to religion.

But religions are fluid and adapting. Creationism is just so dumb. We've had the theory now for 150+ years and it's a brilliant theory, as well as so simple that any moron can understand it. I don't understand why creationism hasn't died yet. It doesn't help the religious in life. On the contrary. It can get in the way. Understanding evolution is helpful in behaving wisely when working out, for instance.

Creationism hasn't died but it has "evolved". It has gone from Biblical creation to intelligent design to guided evolution. Different groups are scattered along this evolutionary path but the Biblical creationist group seems to be steadily shrinking and the guided evolution group growing. This last group accept that species do evolve but see it as happening under purposeful guidance rather than random mutation and natural selection.

Baby steps... Strong held beliefs aren't upturned overnight.

Evolution guided by God is the most fun one. Step 1) accept a theory of design that requires no God. Step 2) insert a God anyway, because, why not. It couldn't make any less sense.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I agree. I think that is at the core of this. Religious people are more effective in life than atheists. Because they have a given direction for their lives. It can pay off even if it's all a delusion. I think that's the secret sauce to religion.

But religions are fluid and adapting. Creationism is just so dumb. We've had the theory now for 150+ years and it's a brilliant theory, as well as so simple that any moron can understand it. I don't understand why creationism hasn't died yet. It doesn't help the religious in life. On the contrary. It can get in the way. Understanding evolution is helpful in behaving wisely when working out, for instance.

Creationism hasn't died but it has "evolved". It has gone from Biblical creation to intelligent design to guided evolution. Different groups are scattered along this evolutionary path but the Biblical creationist group seems to be steadily shrinking and the guided evolution group growing. This last group accept that species do evolve but see it as happening under purposeful guidance rather than random mutation and natural selection.

Baby steps... Strong held beliefs aren't upturned overnight.

I was a pall-bearer at a catholic funeral. Riding back from the cemetery another pall bearer and close friend asked me 'Do you think it's true that our bodies will come back to life, be resurrected, like the church teaches?' The question surprised me because we were in our forties, married, kids, etc. I don't remember how I handled the question but I know I didn't say "Yes."

"Baby steps" is accurate. All the Catholic Schools and most of the churches are gone in my area. Demographics? Partly. They seem to have been replaced with those generic churches that make the pastors rich and tell the members to just be happy.

 

[DBT]

Is there good reason to think that our bodies will be ressurected, come to life, after death as the church teaches?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is there good reason to think that our bodies will be resurrected, come to life, after death as the church teaches?

A scientifically curious and literate person will naturally think that belief in such an absurd claim is evidence of impairment. But a scientifically curious and literate individual will also realize that cognitive differences are real, that it is evidence of natural selection at work. The best course of discussion is to avoid insult and simply engage.

 

[DBT]

Is there good reason to think that our bodies will be resurrected, come to life, after death as the church teaches?

A scientifically curious and literate person will naturally think that belief in such an absurd claim is evidence of impairment. But a scientifically curious and literate individual will also realize that cognitive differences are real, that it is evidence of natural selection at work. The best course of discussion is to avoid insult and simply engage.

That is the best course of action...yet the thing is amusing none the less.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is there good reason to think that our bodies will be resurrected, come to life, after death as the church teaches?

A scientifically curious and literate person will naturally think that belief in such an absurd claim is evidence of impairment. But a scientifically curious and literate individual will also realize that cognitive differences are real, that it is evidence of natural selection at work. The best course of discussion is to avoid insult and simply engage.

That is the best course of action...yet the thing is amusing none the less.

Certainly amusing. But also an experience of the kind of mind-blowing caliber that makes life nothing short of stupefying. I think Bill Murray said at some point that he couldn't be more surprised if he woke up with his head sewn to the carpet.

Check that. It was Chevy Chase.

 

[rousseau]

Is there good reason to think that our bodies will be resurrected, come to life, after death as the church teaches?

A scientifically curious and literate person will naturally think that belief in such an absurd claim is evidence of impairment. But a scientifically curious and literate individual will also realize that cognitive differences are real, that it is evidence of natural selection at work. The best course of discussion is to avoid insult and simply engage.

A scientifically curious and literate person wouldn't write 90% of the human population off as being impaired, they'd recognize that a cognitive make-up that encourages belief is a natural part of human nature. Right? At least they'd have the humility to look at this very argument I'm making now and consider that their understanding may be incomplete, and update their views. If not then they'd be just as dogmatic as the religious, their religion being atheism.

 

[rousseau]

Sure, I don't dispute that what you describe is also a part of the human condition. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the common line of atheistic reasoning, which ironically comes from a place of emotion itself, and fails to realize the complete picture.

This obsession with 'reason' comes from a place of bias and misses the fundamental nature of our species, what it is now, what it's always going to be. It assumes that 'logic' is good, and 'illogic' is bad, that those who believe in religion need to be 'fixed', those who don't believe in religion 'don't need to be fixed'. But most of these people who think this way - they're happy, they live enjoyable lives, they feel purpose, they feel meaning. So who are we to say that their beliefs are wrong or need to be corrected?

You are a new Dad. Congrats, and I mean that sincerely. I'm sure you are a great Dad. I'm curious if you had your child baptized and how you felt about it. The reservation I had was that you are claiming that this helpless, innocent, infant son is somehow filthy and sinful and deserving of a hell. But I grew up in a world where everyone was baptized. You just didn't meet unbaptized people anymore than you met atheists. It was the cultural norm and I did it to maintain normalcy, much as it went against my grain.

If you didn't have your son baptized, which would be me today, I'm curious your thoughts as well, if you are comfortable sharing. Feel free to ignore.

Lion made me think about this with his question above. Obviously slave traders were putting their religion first. It was their license to commit horrible crimes. Likewise I put religion first when I had my kids baptized. They came second. I knew they weren't sinful and dirty and needing cleansed. That's just human ignorance. But I did it, just like the slavers.

Thankfully I didn't have to have our son baptized - the pandemic gave us an out. But I don't see too much harm in the practice itself - if a child grows to find religion agreeable then I don't know that anything is lost. If they're curious they'll likely find their way out.

I could see some of the more extreme sects being a problem, though, when children are literally taught to hate.

 

[Jarhyn]

Is there good reason to think that our bodies will be resurrected, come to life, after death as the church teaches?

A scientifically curious and literate person will naturally think that belief in such an absurd claim is evidence of impairment. But a scientifically curious and literate individual will also realize that cognitive differences are real, that it is evidence of natural selection at work. The best course of discussion is to avoid insult and simply engage.

A scientifically curious and literate person wouldn't write 90% of the human population off as being impaired, they'd recognize that a cognitive make-up that encourages belief is a natural part of human nature. Right? At least they'd have the humility to look at this very argument I'm making now and consider that their understanding may be incomplete, and update their views. If not then they'd be just as dogmatic as the religious, their religion being atheism.

Too often people confuse the value of a razor of doubt with the not-value of simply not believing in god. Belief or no belief in god gets you nowhere. I've been around that horn a couple times now, and the conclusion I reached is that it's simply not valuable either way: you will reach the same conclusions given the shape of the universe as to what is right from either premise, so long as you ask all the appropriate questions (such as examining Euthyphro's Dilemma).

I would say only about 10% attack their world view enthusiastically with a razor of doubt and mostly because only 10% have the time and privilege necessary to sharpen said razor amid the existential crises which come as a product of refactoring one's own worldview so regularly. This is also notwithstanding the ability to tolerate and cope with the pain of doing so. The benefit of enduring existential crisis is the first few times less than the painful cost of enduring the crisis; few people end up being repeat customers and I do not blame them.

Belief serves as a functional way of building a worldview that, at the expense of being less consistently right than philosophical rigor, still gets us most of the way towards being "decent" human beings. That doesn't mean they are impaired. It just means they are human, and possibly more normally human than I myself am.

 

[rousseau]

A scientifically curious and literate person wouldn't write 90% of the human population off as being impaired, they'd recognize that a cognitive make-up that encourages belief is a natural part of human nature. Right? At least they'd have the humility to look at this very argument I'm making now and consider that their understanding may be incomplete, and update their views. If not then they'd be just as dogmatic as the religious, their religion being atheism.

Too often people confuse the value of a razor of doubt with the not-value of simply not believing in god. Belief or no belief in god gets you nowhere. I've been around that horn a couple times now, and the conclusion I reached is that it's simply not valuable either way: you will reach the same conclusions given the shape of the universe as to what is right from either premise, so long as you ask all the appropriate questions (such as examining Euthyphro's Dilemma).

I would say only about 10% attack their world view enthusiastically with a razor of doubt and mostly because only 10% have the time and privilege necessary to sharpen said razor amid the existential crises which come as a product of refactoring one's own worldview so regularly. This is also notwithstanding the ability to tolerate and cope with the pain of doing so. The benefit of enduring existential crisis is the first few times less than the painful cost of enduring the crisis; few people end up being repeat customers and I do not blame them.

Belief serves as a functional way of building a worldview that, at the expense of being less consistently right than philosophical rigor, still gets us most of the way towards being "decent" human beings. That doesn't mean they are impaired. It just means they are human, and possibly more normally human than I myself am.

This is a good post, and I've hinted at my meaning in my past few posts, but am not sure that I'm fully getting across to some other posters. The modern era has ushered in a bias that 'reason and logic' are infinitely virtuous, and valuable, but it's not actually these qualities that make up the defining characteristic of the human race. And it's not these qualities that lead to the most reproductive success. Our species is predominantly defined by something that's not 'reason and logic' - partial delusion may be a feature, not a bug. So it's great to harp on religion, I have no qualms there, but I think it's misleading, if not fully incorrect, to say that believers are impaired. In many ways believers are more successful than the most intelligent - surely they produce more children.

So thinking of everyone who is religious as stupid and broken misses the point, and in itself is dogma and a result of bias that feels atheism and intelligence are number one.

I think you could take this argument even further and recognize that, historically, the rise of reason has been completely amoral, and not necessarily a boon to the sustainability of our species. Mostly we have dim-witted software developers destabilizing Western democracy so they can serve us ads .

 

[abaddon]

A scientifically curious and literate person will naturally think that belief in such an absurd claim is evidence of impairment. But a scientifically curious and literate individual will also realize that cognitive differences are real, that it is evidence of natural selection at work. The best course of discussion is to avoid insult and simply engage.

A scientifically curious and literate person wouldn't write 90% of the human population off as being impaired, they'd recognize that a cognitive make-up that encourages belief is a natural part of human nature. Right? At least they'd have the humility to look at this very argument I'm making now and consider that their understanding may be incomplete, and update their views. If not then they'd be just as dogmatic as the religious, their religion being atheism.

rousseau, I noticed something about the timing of a couple posts yesterday and want to point it out.

You responded just after DrZoidberg had written to T.G.G. Moogly: "I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots".

But your post was submitted in the exact same minute as T.G.G. Moogly's clarification of his stance. And I'm thinking that maybe you missed that, because of the unfortunate timing of posts. So maybe you're stuck on the same error of reading that Zoidberg made (that anyone's calling anyone idiots).

If so, then please review the clarification post.

That people's brains are not "all equally rational and scientifically curious" (T.G.G. Moogly's actual claim) is about controversial as "the sky is blue". The contrast was between 1) people who rely overmuch on emotional thinking and 2) people who've succeeded better at not indulging that emotional thinking.

 

[rousseau]

A scientifically curious and literate person will naturally think that belief in such an absurd claim is evidence of impairment. But a scientifically curious and literate individual will also realize that cognitive differences are real, that it is evidence of natural selection at work. The best course of discussion is to avoid insult and simply engage.

A scientifically curious and literate person wouldn't write 90% of the human population off as being impaired, they'd recognize that a cognitive make-up that encourages belief is a natural part of human nature. Right? At least they'd have the humility to look at this very argument I'm making now and consider that their understanding may be incomplete, and update their views. If not then they'd be just as dogmatic as the religious, their religion being atheism.

rousseau, I noticed something about the timing of a couple posts yesterday and want to point it out.

You responded just after DrZoidberg had written to T.G.G. Moogly: "I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots".

But your post was submitted in the exact same minute as T.G.G. Moogly's clarification of his stance. And I'm thinking that maybe you missed that, because of the unfortunate timing of posts. So maybe you're stuck on the same error of reading that Zoidberg made (that anyone's calling anyone idiots).

If so, then please review the clarification post.

That people's brains are not "all equally rational and scientifically curious" (T.G.G. Moogly's actual claim) is about controversial as "the sky is blue". The contrast was between 1) people who rely overmuch on emotional thinking and 2) people who've succeeded better at not indulging that emotional thinking.

That's fair but I think there is still a framing issue. The underlying assumption is that non-belief is the 'right' way to be, and that belief is the 'wrong' way to be. There is too much focus on ipso-facto rationality as the only human trait worth examining, and the only human trait with any value. I think this is a blinded view that doesn't realize there is more to the human picture.

It ultimately stems from the goal to undermine institutionalized religion, which is fine, but to me it's a sorry state to look at religious believers and see them as broken. On one hand it's just plain wrong, on the other we're missing the humanity in religious belief.

 

[Jarhyn]

rousseau, I noticed something about the timing of a couple posts yesterday and want to point it out.

You responded just after DrZoidberg had written to T.G.G. Moogly: "I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots".

But your post was submitted in the exact same minute as T.G.G. Moogly's clarification of his stance. And I'm thinking that maybe you missed that, because of the unfortunate timing of posts. So maybe you're stuck on the same error of reading that Zoidberg made (that anyone's calling anyone idiots).

If so, then please review the clarification post.

That people's brains are not "all equally rational and scientifically curious" (T.G.G. Moogly's actual claim) is about controversial as "the sky is blue". The contrast was between 1) people who rely overmuch on emotional thinking and 2) people who've succeeded better at not indulging that emotional thinking.

That's fair but I think there is still a framing issue. The underlying assumption is that non-belief is the 'right' way to be, and that belief is the 'wrong' way to be. There is too much focus on ipso-facto rationality as the only human trait worth examining, and the only human trait with any value. I think this is a blinded view that doesn't realize there is more to the human picture.

It ultimately stems from the goal to undermine institutionalized religion, which is fine, but to me it's a sorry state to look at religious believers and see them as broken. On one hand it's just plain wrong, on the other we're missing the humanity in religious belief.

I personally think that calling some manner of thinking that eats up ~25% of all ones waking hours after the age of 15 to be an inappropriate declaration of a "right" way to be. It is frequently exhausting!

Rather I think the right way to be is some way that accepts two sides of the coin: that we need people who are rigorous who inject truth and razor untruth out of the pool of ideas which are then consumed by believers, and to generally encourage belief, if belief will be used, to inform itself based on the observations of those who approach the universe with open eyes and consistent, honest rigor. We should generally listen first to most people even if our rigor happens to be pointed at philosophy, though, since it's a good indicator as to whether or not you have gone off the rails. We cannot escape religion. We shouldn't really be trying. What we should escape is "certainty": the social acceptability of being so certain you are right that you are willing to stake the lives and rights and freedoms of others on your individual beliefs.

 

[ideologyhunter]

And you can't tell me that the conditioned acceptance of religious group-think doesn't lead to bizarre phenomena like Q-Anon, or the 'Anti-Vaxers' (it can't be spelled Anti-Vaccers, can it?) or climate change denial.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is there good reason to think that our bodies will be resurrected, come to life, after death as the church teaches?

A scientifically curious and literate person will naturally think that belief in such an absurd claim is evidence of impairment. But a scientifically curious and literate individual will also realize that cognitive differences are real, that it is evidence of natural selection at work. The best course of discussion is to avoid insult and simply engage.

A scientifically curious and literate person wouldn't write 90% of the human population off as being impaired, they'd recognize that a cognitive make-up that encourages belief is a natural part of human nature. Right? At least they'd have the humility to look at this very argument I'm making now and consider that their understanding may be incomplete, and update their views. If not then they'd be just as dogmatic as the religious, their religion being atheism.

You're right, impaired is the wrong word. But you've got to admit that if someone in their forties thinks that their body is going to come back to life in umpteen thousand million years and then fly away into the sky it isn't exactly a good thing. Maybe a kid believing that a fairy put money under a pillow is to be expected, but a person in their forties? There's probably a better word out there in our lexicon.

 

[rousseau]

rousseau, I noticed something about the timing of a couple posts yesterday and want to point it out.

You responded just after DrZoidberg had written to T.G.G. Moogly: "I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots".

But your post was submitted in the exact same minute as T.G.G. Moogly's clarification of his stance. And I'm thinking that maybe you missed that, because of the unfortunate timing of posts. So maybe you're stuck on the same error of reading that Zoidberg made (that anyone's calling anyone idiots).

If so, then please review the clarification post.

That people's brains are not "all equally rational and scientifically curious" (T.G.G. Moogly's actual claim) is about controversial as "the sky is blue". The contrast was between 1) people who rely overmuch on emotional thinking and 2) people who've succeeded better at not indulging that emotional thinking.

That's fair but I think there is still a framing issue. The underlying assumption is that non-belief is the 'right' way to be, and that belief is the 'wrong' way to be. There is too much focus on ipso-facto rationality as the only human trait worth examining, and the only human trait with any value. I think this is a blinded view that doesn't realize there is more to the human picture.

It ultimately stems from the goal to undermine institutionalized religion, which is fine, but to me it's a sorry state to look at religious believers and see them as broken. On one hand it's just plain wrong, on the other we're missing the humanity in religious belief.

I personally think that calling some manner of thinking that eats up ~25% of all ones waking hours after the age of 15 to be an inappropriate declaration of a "right" way to be. It is frequently exhausting!

Rather I think the right way to be is some way that accepts two sides of the coin: that we need people who are rigorous who inject truth and razor untruth out of the pool of ideas which are then consumed by believers, and to generally encourage belief, if belief will be used, to inform itself based on the observations of those who approach the universe with open eyes and consistent, honest rigor. We should generally listen first to most people even if our rigor happens to be pointed at philosophy, though, since it's a good indicator as to whether or not you have gone off the rails. We cannot escape religion. We shouldn't really be trying. What we should escape is "certainty": the social acceptability of being so certain you are right that you are willing to stake the lives and rights and freedoms of others on your individual beliefs.

That's fair, and I see your point.

I think one of the interesting implications of evolution is that there is no direction to it, no progress. This is something most scientifically literate people understand, and yet we still seem to view history as a progression, that slowly man is becoming rational and transcending his limitations. But these two ideas are contradictory - we can't have both - either evolution is completely arbitrary, or man progresses. Since we know evolution is arbitrary, it can't be true that man progresses in any meaningful sense. Collectively we definitely learn more, but fundamentally our nature is what evolution dictates.

So there is a kind of fallacy among atheist thought that we should be a certain way, that we are meant to be rational, and not exactly what we are given the constraints of the environment and evolution. So maybe to a discerning eye somebody who acts out all sorts of ridiculous behavior is wrong or illogical - but to the process of evolution they are exactly as they should be. And that's what I was getting at by saying that religious thought isn't 'wrong'. That it's illogical is most certainly true, but there is no dictum that says humans are, should, or will ever be completely rational. So the Atheist kind of sits from his own perspective thinking that he who is able to solve problems and understand reality is the measure of what humans should be - but there isn't really a should, and furthermore some of the qualities that the religious have make them effective in other ways. This is why there are more of them, and less of us.

Toward your point, spreading knowledge and injecting reason into the collective body of knowledge is a good thing, I just think we should do this from a place of humility, while recognizing that 'intelligent' people aren't necessarily the guiding model for an effective human.

 

[Jarhyn]

I personally think that calling some manner of thinking that eats up ~25% of all ones waking hours after the age of 15 to be an inappropriate declaration of a "right" way to be. It is frequently exhausting!

Rather I think the right way to be is some way that accepts two sides of the coin: that we need people who are rigorous who inject truth and razor untruth out of the pool of ideas which are then consumed by believers, and to generally encourage belief, if belief will be used, to inform itself based on the observations of those who approach the universe with open eyes and consistent, honest rigor. We should generally listen first to most people even if our rigor happens to be pointed at philosophy, though, since it's a good indicator as to whether or not you have gone off the rails. We cannot escape religion. We shouldn't really be trying. What we should escape is "certainty": the social acceptability of being so certain you are right that you are willing to stake the lives and rights and freedoms of others on your individual beliefs.

That's fair, and I see your point.

I think one of the interesting implications of evolution is that there is no direction to it, no progress. This is something most scientifically literate people understand, and yet we still seem to view history as a progression, that slowly man is becoming rational and transcending his limitations. But these two ideas are contradictory - we can't have both - either evolution is completely arbitrary, or man progresses. Since we know evolution is arbitrary, it can't be true that man progresses in any meaningful sense. Collectively we definitely learn more, but fundamentally our nature is what evolution dictates.

So there is a kind of fallacy among atheist thought that we should be a certain way, that we are meant to be rational, and not exactly what we are given the constraints of the environment and evolution. So maybe to a discerning eye somebody who acts out all sorts of ridiculous behavior is wrong or illogical - but to the process of evolution they are exactly as they should be. And that's what I was getting at by saying that religious thought isn't 'wrong'. That it's illogical is most certainly true, but there is no dictum that says humans are, should, or will ever be completely rational. So the Atheist kind of sits from his own perspective thinking that he who is able to solve problems and understand reality is the measure of what humans should be - but there isn't really a should, and furthermore some of the qualities that the religious have make them effective in other ways. This is why there are more of them, and less of us.

Toward your point, spreading knowledge and injecting reason into the collective body of knowledge is a good thing, I just think we should do this from a place of humility, while recognizing that 'intelligent' people aren't necessarily the guiding model for an effective human.

Here I'm going to have to disagree with you. This is because there are two forms of evolution at play generally: the darwinian undirected kind, and then a second kind loosely analagous to the "Lamarck" process, which I have in the past called "neo-lamarckian" evolution.

Darwinian evolution is very much undirected and not "progressive" towards anything, as you mention.

NL evolution, however, is goal oriented and so "progressive": I have a problem, I LEARN until I overcome the problem, and then I communicate the results far and wide; other people with my problem can then use my solution.

With NL evolution, there are a couple "destinations" of note towards which progress is generally made. Among these are refinement of the NL process (so, things surrounding the methodology and best practices for leveraging this "fast evolution"), refinement of the "model of everything", and generation of a complete "social standard library" that implements all the necessary social primitives, operations, and constants.

It's interesting as that while Lamarck speaks to all of the western philosophical questions, Darwin speaks to the eastern questions in some cosmic dichotomy of "how vs why".

When it comes to what constitutes effective here, there are three thoughts I can see in that question's orbit: effective at sustaining a population? Effective at achieving individual goals? Effective at building/spreading a useful ideological identity? Because one is D success, one is I success, and the other is NL success... Though NL generally supports success in both D and I if those are seemed important.

At any rate, I honestly think that the concept of double-think and cognitive dissonance is actually an important trait necessary for those who lead in so far as they must simultaneously be so capable, but also not for one moment step into the belief that they are somehow special.

 

[DBT]

It could be argued that 100% of the population is impaired, that we all have strengths and weaknesses, that our weaknesses in ability, biases, prejudices, assumptions, blind spots, etc, etc, impair us all in some way.....so it's probably only a matter of degree and range of impairment than absence of it.

 

[rousseau]

I personally think that calling some manner of thinking that eats up ~25% of all ones waking hours after the age of 15 to be an inappropriate declaration of a "right" way to be. It is frequently exhausting!

Rather I think the right way to be is some way that accepts two sides of the coin: that we need people who are rigorous who inject truth and razor untruth out of the pool of ideas which are then consumed by believers, and to generally encourage belief, if belief will be used, to inform itself based on the observations of those who approach the universe with open eyes and consistent, honest rigor. We should generally listen first to most people even if our rigor happens to be pointed at philosophy, though, since it's a good indicator as to whether or not you have gone off the rails. We cannot escape religion. We shouldn't really be trying. What we should escape is "certainty": the social acceptability of being so certain you are right that you are willing to stake the lives and rights and freedoms of others on your individual beliefs.

That's fair, and I see your point.

I think one of the interesting implications of evolution is that there is no direction to it, no progress. This is something most scientifically literate people understand, and yet we still seem to view history as a progression, that slowly man is becoming rational and transcending his limitations. But these two ideas are contradictory - we can't have both - either evolution is completely arbitrary, or man progresses. Since we know evolution is arbitrary, it can't be true that man progresses in any meaningful sense. Collectively we definitely learn more, but fundamentally our nature is what evolution dictates.

So there is a kind of fallacy among atheist thought that we should be a certain way, that we are meant to be rational, and not exactly what we are given the constraints of the environment and evolution. So maybe to a discerning eye somebody who acts out all sorts of ridiculous behavior is wrong or illogical - but to the process of evolution they are exactly as they should be. And that's what I was getting at by saying that religious thought isn't 'wrong'. That it's illogical is most certainly true, but there is no dictum that says humans are, should, or will ever be completely rational. So the Atheist kind of sits from his own perspective thinking that he who is able to solve problems and understand reality is the measure of what humans should be - but there isn't really a should, and furthermore some of the qualities that the religious have make them effective in other ways. This is why there are more of them, and less of us.

Toward your point, spreading knowledge and injecting reason into the collective body of knowledge is a good thing, I just think we should do this from a place of humility, while recognizing that 'intelligent' people aren't necessarily the guiding model for an effective human.

Here I'm going to have to disagree with you. This is because there are two forms of evolution at play generally: the darwinian undirected kind, and then a second kind loosely analagous to the "Lamarck" process, which I have in the past called "neo-lamarckian" evolution.

Darwinian evolution is very much undirected and not "progressive" towards anything, as you mention.

NL evolution, however, is goal oriented and so "progressive": I have a problem, I LEARN until I overcome the problem, and then I communicate the results far and wide; other people with my problem can then use my solution.

With NL evolution, there are a couple "destinations" of note towards which progress is generally made. Among these are refinement of the NL process (so, things surrounding the methodology and best practices for leveraging this "fast evolution"), refinement of the "model of everything", and generation of a complete "social standard library" that implements all the necessary social primitives, operations, and constants.

It's interesting as that while Lamarck speaks to all of the western philosophical questions, Darwin speaks to the eastern questions in some cosmic dichotomy of "how vs why".

When it comes to what constitutes effective here, there are three thoughts I can see in that question's orbit: effective at sustaining a population? Effective at achieving individual goals? Effective at building/spreading a useful ideological identity? Because one is D success, one is I success, and the other is NL success... Though NL generally supports success in both D and I if those are seemed important.

At any rate, I honestly think that the concept of double-think and cognitive dissonance is actually an important trait necessary for those who lead in so far as they must simultaneously be so capable, but also not for one moment step into the belief that they are somehow special.

If I'm understanding you correctly I believe that's what I was referring to when mentioning the collective body of knowledge. If there is any directionality to history it's our ability to absorb and retain new cultural information. Although I'd hate to call that 'progress', and more just a physical evolution where we become more organized and technically proficient as we extract resources from the planet. There's no doubt that injecting new knowledge and understanding into our various cultures is a good thing - and on that point I can get behind atheist militancy, and railing against the dumber aspects of religion.

My perspective is more of a personal and spiritual one than anything. I think there is a tendency for people to spend their lives angsty because they feel the world is broken, that it should be another way. That we need to fix religion. But when you start seeing religious people simply as those with an emotional rather than rational bond with the world, it opens up a kind of commonality between the two spheres. Some people see the divine with a God, some see the divine without a God. Fundamentally it's the same thing with different language. For me personally, I prefer to see the beauty and the uniqueness in the beliefs of others, in the diversity of mankind, rather than feel like everyone needs to think a certain way. In my view, that's a better way to live my life.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It could be argued that 100% of the population is impaired, that we all have strengths and weaknesses, that our weaknesses in ability, biases, prejudices, assumptions, blind spots, etc, etc, impair us all in some way.....so it's probably only a matter of degree and range of impairment than absence of it.

That goes without saying. But is that impairment really because of eating an apple with a serpent in a magic garden?

And does being religious really make a person have more babies? I think environmental factors make people have more babies, not religion.

And we're using this word "religion" like it's something rigid. It isn't. We are capable of inventing religions that are purely rational and scientific in their beliefs and practices. Why does religion have to have so much woo? Why does it need to have dopey beliefs?

ETA: I see rousseau beat me to it.