General religion

[Politesse]

This was in fact the basis of long-standing civil unrest in the ancient Byzantine empire, which caused serious political ruptures and violence in the streets for more than a century.

Can you say more about that? Civil unrest: do you mean fighting between those who supported the Byzantine religious artworks and those who wanted them destroyed? In that case it would be similar to the Puritan movement in England.

More like the Cromwell episode, to make that analogy; two successive emperors listened to the iconoclast argument and ordered all pubic religious artworks destroyed or removed. This did not sit well with to ochlos, the Mob, and the iconoclast movement eventually had to surrrender to inertia. Relations with the Islamic world cooled to an angry and distrustful detent soon thereafter, and any talk of Christians banning religious depictions started to sound seditious within the political framing of the time.

 

[atrib]

Does anybody know how creationists manage to cling to their rejection of evolution even during a pandemic? Doesn't the fact that a virus emerges prove evolution is true?

That question assumes that our brains are all equally rational and scientifically curious, that we all engage equally in critical thinking, are god observers, and can spot inconsistencies in our reasoning. But if that were the case there would be no creationists, no members of our species that engaged in these wholly emotional thoughts and behaviors involving magic. In short, each and every member of our species would recognize the contradiction that is creationism. But we all do not, or if we do, we deny it.

So the obvious answer is simply that we are not all cognitively equal.

I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots. It's too self-congratulatory. I also don't think they are.

There are obviously differences in how our brains are programmed to respond to certain ideas, but I don't think religious people are less intelligent than non-theists as a group. And I don't think that is what Moogly was saying. The reasons why some people find it easy to believe in unsupported supernatural stories while others do not is likely based on many complex factors, some based on our genes, and some based on the environments in which we were raised. I have never been a believer, and I began questioning stories of gods at a very early age. Even if my parents had been believers (which they were not), and had raised me in a religious household, I doubt it would have stuck. I was naturally predisposed to be a skeptic from a very early age. Likewise, a close friend who happens to be a Christian, became a Christian as a teenager, and has remained a devout believer through his early fifties. Our upbringing and childhood environments were very similar (we grew up together in what used to be a small town in Connecticut), but our views regarding God are dramatically different. We are all unique, and wired differently.

 

[abaddon]

If more people are religious or superstitious than not, there's also a risk for atheists to lose sight of their own bias. Atheists think 'rationality' is normal and a base-line, and that the religious have something wrong with them. But if there are more of them than us, than atheists are the outlier, and we're missing something more fundamental about our species.

I see rationality as a goal, a way to overcome the "base-line".

When I watch christians explain the myths they believe in, it's clear they like to feel good as you explain and the beliefs are comforting to them. But the capacity for more critical thinking is there too, however rarely people engage this capacity.

In general, our innate tendencies seem to be problems to be overcome and not consider "well, this poor state is how we are evolved to be, so thus we are". Some people get over their "base-line" of indulging their biases uncritically more successfully than others.

The base-line/normal is a problem to be overcome. The people who don't bother trying, and thus remain that ugly thing - the normal base-line - are missing out on something fundamental to our species.

How creationists cling to a rejection of evolution? It's because they have no incentive to disbelieve. Belief feels good, so they will do mental gymnastics to continue believing. This is the same reason Pagans converted to Christianity in medieval Europe - because the Christian answer sounded better / felt better.

See, this looks like a perversion of reason - to do the mental gymnastics. We're able to think things through but often put the ability to use in self-indulgent beliefs. It's pretty damn blatant in creationists.

In history class, the text claimed that "dark age" pagans converted whenever the chieftain did. And generally he did because of tribal politics. I don't know why Christianity would sound or feel better to pagans. But still, there's this other side to religiosity - its political uses to promote conformity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The reasons why some people find it easy to believe in unsupported supernatural stories while others do not is likely based on many complex factors, some based on our genes, and some based on the environments in which we were raised.

Without a doubt. That's called natural selection.

 

[rousseau]

The base-line/normal is a problem to be overcome. The people who don't bother trying, and thus remain that ugly thing - the normal base-line - are missing out on something fundamental to our species.

I've thought about this a lot over the past few years and I think, fundamentally, it comes down to the mechanics of evolution among our species. The sexually successful person isn't the intelligent one, it's the social/happy/emotional one, the one who feels a sense of divine in their children, and who wants to have as many of them as they can. Where pure rationality recognizes that it's easier to not have kids.

And I think this is the base-line issue, and one that can't be entirely overcome. Ipso-facto religion may decline because the knowledge is there, and most of us are smart enough to say - ok, fair enough. But the reality is that as a species we're not defined by intelligence - 'sapiens' is a misleading tagline. To expect us to do away with superstition is counter to the very mechanics of our evolution.

If you get the above, it explains a lot of what we see in the world. From my perspective the rational thing to do is recognize that this is reality, this is us.

 

[rousseau]

The base-line/normal is a problem to be overcome. The people who don't bother trying, and thus remain that ugly thing - the normal base-line - are missing out on something fundamental to our species.

I've thought about this a lot over the past few years and I think, fundamentally, it comes down to the mechanics of evolution among our species. The sexually successful person isn't the intelligent one, it's the social/happy/emotional one, the one who feels a sense of divine in their children, and who wants to have as many of them as they can. Where pure rationality recognizes that it's easier to not have kids.

And I think this is the base-line issue, and one that can't be entirely overcome. Ipso-facto religion may decline because the knowledge is there, and most of us are smart enough to say - ok, fair enough. But the reality is that as a species we're not defined by intelligence - 'sapiens' is a misleading tagline. To expect us to do away with superstition is counter to the very mechanics of our evolution.

If you get the above, it explains a lot of what we see in the world. From my perspective the rational thing to do is recognize that this is reality, this is us.

I would also add - this idea that 'irrationality' is a problem that needs to be overcome moves back to my point of atheist bias. Most atheists are starting from the framework that we want to do away with religion because it's good for the species. This isn't how we're built.

Atheists have the idea that it's a good thing if the religious see reason and logic, but this presumes that there is something wrong with how these people are already living and feeling. Where for those people - there is no problem. Fundamentally the militant atheist is political - they don't like religion. It has nothing to do with the feeling or experience of the believers themselves.

If someone wants to be militant against religion, more power to them, but you're literally trying to counter human nature.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If someone wants to be militant against religion, more power to them, but you're literally trying to counter human nature.

"Human nature" is a lot of things. Being scientifically curious and developing a very broad-minded awareness of the human condition is as much human nature as being superstitious and writing letters to Santa. Being militantly anti-religious is no less humanly natural than being militantly being anti-atheist. Human nature is not the same thing as the cultural status quo.

Wouldn't we be a much more accepting and intelligent species if we taught religions - yes, religions, not religion - to our children? And wouldn't we be a more accepting and intelligent species if we also taught those children that atheism and agnosticism will not affect your social acceptance, that those positions are just as acceptable as any religious position? Do you think that's what the vast, vast majority of individual religions want?

 

[rousseau]

If someone wants to be militant against religion, more power to them, but you're literally trying to counter human nature.

"Human nature" is a lot of things. Being scientifically curious and developing a very broad-minded awareness of the human condition is as much human nature as being superstitious and writing letters to Santa. Being militantly anti-religious is no less humanly natural than being militantly being anti-atheist. Human nature is not the same thing as the cultural status quo.

Wouldn't we be a much more accepting and intelligent species if we taught religions - yes, religions, not religion - to our children? And wouldn't we be a more accepting and intelligent species if we also taught those children that atheism and agnosticism will not affect your social acceptance, that those positions are just as acceptable as any religious position? Do you think that's what the vast, vast majority of individual religions want?

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?

 

[Lion IRC]

God already did that, yet people still turned their backs to Him as the story goes... meaning, trying by ourselves we'll realise that we WILL need God when the time comes.

...Feel free to explain what time you are referring to when we will come to realize that we need God?
...Is this meant to be a veiled threat?
Toe the line and bow before God, or else...?

Polite reminder - there is a fine line between preaching and discussion. Please be mindful.

I'd love to answer your questions but there's such a "fine line" between preaching and discussion and I'd hate for you to think that you were being 'preached' at.

Feel free to carry on with your atheist proselytising however.

 

[atrib]

If someone wants to be militant against religion, more power to them, but you're literally trying to counter human nature.

"Human nature" is a lot of things. Being scientifically curious and developing a very broad-minded awareness of the human condition is as much human nature as being superstitious and writing letters to Santa. Being militantly anti-religious is no less humanly natural than being militantly being anti-atheist. Human nature is not the same thing as the cultural status quo.

Wouldn't we be a much more accepting and intelligent species if we taught religions - yes, religions, not religion - to our children? And wouldn't we be a more accepting and intelligent species if we also taught those children that atheism and agnosticism will not affect your social acceptance, that those positions are just as acceptable as any religious position? Do you think that's what the vast, vast majority of individual religions want?

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?

It is one thing to debate whether religion provides certain benefits to society, and another matter entirely as to whether religious beliefs are based on evidence and reason.

For the first matter, the benefits of religion are questionable. For the vast majority of the history of our species, religion has been a negative force, oppressing free thought and free expression of ideas in many cultures, often with the threat of torture and death, and fostering conflict between groups that hold different religious beliefs and so on. Even today, the force of religion sometimes empowers school boards to try to suppress scientific education in public classrooms, and makes some people fly airplanes into tall buildings or commit suicide bombings. The "happy, enjoyable" lives you refer to exist only in secular nations, where people are free to worship as they please, and most theistic states do not share this standard of living. Which would lead me to believe that this has more to do with secular emancipation from religion rather than the opposite.

The second matter is more philosophical: is it better to know the truth, or to live in "blissful" ignorance. I submit humanity is better off with an acceptance of reality, where we encourage/enable others to give up their superstitious traditions and educate themselves on the facts.

 

[Atheos]

Wouldn't you expect dialogue that comes from the Creator of the Universe to be clear, concise and completely unambiguous so as to avoid confusion, division or conflict? Yet we have the opposite.

God's word is clear and concise enough for me.

That may well be true but the evidence suggests it's an illusion on your part. People who disagree with you entirely say the same thing about "God's word." I would wager that the leaders of the Spanish Inquisitions felt the same way. Those who crippled and maimed people during the Crusades no doubt felt the same way. Those who believed "God's word" entitled them to own and market slaves felt the same way. Those who preach that "God Hates Fags" feel the same way. Those who believe that "God" loves homosexuals as much as anyone else feel the same way. Those who flew the planes into the trade towers felt the same way. The young man who recently beheaded a teacher in France did so because it was the express will of Allah.

Everyone, no matter what they believe, thinks that "God's word" is clear and concise enough for them.

 

[atrib]

God already did that, yet people still turned their backs to Him as the story goes... meaning, trying by ourselves we'll realise that we WILL need God when the time comes.

...Feel free to explain what time you are referring to when we will come to realize that we need God?
...Is this meant to be a veiled threat?
Toe the line and bow before God, or else...?

Polite reminder - there is a fine line between preaching and discussion. Please be mindful.

I'd love to answer your questions

I don't believe you. I don't recall a single instance where you have attempted to answer one of my questions in the spirit of open discussion.

but there's such a "fine line" between preaching and discussion and I'd hate for you to think that you were being 'preached' at.

.... as in this response right here. You could have answered the question, but you chose not. Instead, you took a cheap shot from the sidelines, hinting that you know the answer, but you couldn't be bothered to provide it because I was not smart enough or worthy enough for you to make the effort. You do this because you don't have any answers - there is nothing of substance to back up the bluster.

 

[Lion IRC]

Wouldn't you expect dialogue that comes from the Creator of the Universe to be clear, concise and completely unambiguous so as to avoid confusion, division or conflict? Yet we have the opposite.

God's word is clear and concise enough for me.

That may well be true but the evidence suggests it's an illusion on your part. People who disagree with you entirely say the same thing about "God's word." I would wager that the leaders of the Spanish Inquisitions felt the same way. Those who crippled and maimed people during the Crusades no doubt felt the same way. Those who believed "God's word" entitled them to own and market slaves felt the same way. Those who preach that "God Hates Fags" feel the same way. Those who believe that "God" loves homosexuals as much as anyone else feel the same way. Those who flew the planes into the trade towers felt the same way. The young man who recently beheaded a teacher in France did so because it was the express will of Allah.

Everyone, no matter what they believe, thinks that "God's word" is clear and concise enough for them.

It would be a huge logical fallacy to claim that because one person is mistaken that therefore everyone's understanding of God's Word (including mine) is mistaken.

It would also be bad reasoning to base an argument on the presumption that nobody ever deliberately misuses God as an excuse to to justify their own political/economic objectives.

The Spanish Inquisition? ISIS? Al Qaeda? Westboro? The Crusades? Really? Those are your examples of sincere, unselfish obedience to God - as opposed to greedy, bigoted, politically motivated sham religion?

Do you really think slave traders were putting God first?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If someone wants to be militant against religion, more power to them, but you're literally trying to counter human nature.

"Human nature" is a lot of things. Being scientifically curious and developing a very broad-minded awareness of the human condition is as much human nature as being superstitious and writing letters to Santa. Being militantly anti-religious is no less humanly natural than being militantly being anti-atheist. Human nature is not the same thing as the cultural status quo.

Wouldn't we be a much more accepting and intelligent species if we taught religions - yes, religions, not religion - to our children? And wouldn't we be a more accepting and intelligent species if we also taught those children that atheism and agnosticism will not affect your social acceptance, that those positions are just as acceptable as any religious position? Do you think that's what the vast, vast majority of individual religions want?

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.

 

[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?

It is one thing to debate whether religion provides certain benefits to society, and another matter entirely as to whether religious beliefs are based on evidence and reason.

For the first matter, the benefits of religion are questionable. For the vast majority of the history of our species, religion has been a negative force, oppressing free thought and free expression of ideas in many cultures, often with the threat of torture and death, and fostering conflict between groups that hold different religious beliefs and so on.

I can accept that this is true, but it's a one-sided view that ignores the reason religion is so successful - people like it, more often than not it makes their lives psychologically easier. The common atheist approach is to address religion like it's an alien, parasitic force, and not something that exists by and for people who actually want it in their lives.

Yes if our goal is the good of the species, then it's been an oppressive force, but that doesn't make religious belief itself bad, it makes the oppressive elements of religion bad. I have no qualms with doing away with the oppressive elements of religion, but I do see a bit of an issue with not allowing the religious their own freedom.

Even today, the force of religion sometimes empowers school boards to try to suppress scientific education in public classrooms, and makes some people fly airplanes into tall buildings or commit suicide bombings. The "happy, enjoyable" lives you refer to exist only in secular nations, where people are free to worship as they please, and most theistic states do not share this standard of living. Which would lead me to believe that this has more to do with secular emancipation from religion rather than the opposite.

I think what you're looking for is a society where religious freedom exists for everyone, including atheists. I have no problem with that, I don't feel atheists should be subject to the ridiculous beliefs of the religious. But I also think there is a benefit in letting everyone be who they are, rather than viewing others as mentally incapacitated because of what they believe.

The second matter is more philosophical: is it better to know the truth, or to live in "blissful" ignorance. I submit humanity is better off with an acceptance of reality, where we encourage/enable others to give up their superstitious traditions and educate themselves on the facts.

That's the thing - that's not really for you to say what 'humanity' is better off with. Humanity is made up of billions of varied people with their own motives and situations, surely a generalized prescription for every single one of those people can't be the right approach.

 

[Elixir]

Wouldn't we be a much more accepting and intelligent species if we taught religions - yes, religions, not religion - to our children?

Yes. Worked for me. My parents insisted that I read the Bible at an early age, then some of the Torah and the Koran, and never evinced any belief or disbelief about any of them. I was brought around to various Masses, Services, Temples and Gatherings. Not a lot, but at least every few months throughout my early years. At some point I got over my disbelief that actual adults were taking these stories at face value, as if literally true. Thanks, but no thanks. The good thing was that knowing just a bit about some religions lent some structural explanation for humans' most puzzling behaviors. Made me so accepting, I despise all of them even though I love some of the people...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Does anybody know how creationists manage to cling to their rejection of evolution even during a pandemic? Doesn't the fact that a virus emerges prove evolution is true?

That question assumes that our brains are all equally rational and scientifically curious, that we all engage equally in critical thinking, are god observers, and can spot inconsistencies in our reasoning. But if that were the case there would be no creationists, no members of our species that engaged in these wholly emotional thoughts and behaviors involving magic. In short, each and every member of our species would recognize the contradiction that is creationism. But we all do not, or if we do, we deny it.

So the obvious answer is simply that we are not all cognitively equal.

I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots. It's too self-congratulatory. I also don't think they are.

If more people are religious or superstitious than not, there's also a risk for atheists to lose sight of their own bias. Atheists think 'rationality' is normal and a base-line, and that the religious have something wrong with them. But if there are more of them than us, than atheists are the outlier, and we're missing something more fundamental about our species.

How creationists cling to a rejection of evolution? It's because they have no incentive to disbelieve. Belief feels good, so they will do mental gymnastics to continue believing. This is the same reason Pagans converted to Christianity in medieval Europe - because the Christian answer sounded better / felt better.

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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

God already did that, yet people still turned their backs to Him as the story goes... meaning, trying by ourselves we'll realise that we WILL need God when the time comes.

...Feel free to explain what time you are referring to when we will come to realize that we need God?
...Is this meant to be a veiled threat?
Toe the line and bow before God, or else...?

Polite reminder - there is a fine line between preaching and discussion. Please be mindful.

I'd love to answer your questions but there's such a "fine line" between preaching and discussion and I'd hate for you to think that you were being 'preached' at.

Feel free to carry on with your atheist proselytising however.

All you need to do is come up with a reply that isn't "becacuse God says so" or "it's in the babble". It's not that hard.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

 

[Atheos]

That may well be true but the evidence suggests it's an illusion on your part. People who disagree with you entirely say the same thing about "God's word." I would wager that the leaders of the Spanish Inquisitions felt the same way. Those who crippled and maimed people during the Crusades no doubt felt the same way. Those who believed "God's word" entitled them to own and market slaves felt the same way. Those who preach that "God Hates Fags" feel the same way. Those who believe that "God" loves homosexuals as much as anyone else feel the same way. Those who flew the planes into the trade towers felt the same way. The young man who recently beheaded a teacher in France did so because it was the express will of Allah.

Everyone, no matter what they believe, thinks that "God's word" is clear and concise enough for them.

It would be a huge logical fallacy to claim that because one person is mistaken that therefore everyone's understanding of God's Word (including mine) is mistaken.

It would also be bad reasoning to base an argument on the presumption that nobody ever deliberately misuses God as an excuse to to justify their own political/economic objectives.

The Spanish Inquisition? ISIS? Al Qaeda? Westboro? The Crusades? Really? Those are your examples of sincere, unselfish obedience to God - as opposed to greedy, bigoted, politically motivated sham religion?

Do you really think slave traders were putting God first?

View attachment 29850

Lion, have you ever noticed that your responses often have little if anything to do with what was said? Seriously.