Religion: Is it a cause or an effect, a symptom of a disease or the source of it?

[GenesisNemesis]

Calling it a "disease" or a symptom would be based on entirely subjective notions of how society should be structured, so I would have to say it's an effect. Religion is an entirely normal aspect of the human condition, so I'm not sure how it would be a "disease" or "symptom" of anything. We didn't evolve to be critical thinkers. We evolved as a social species and religion is an outgrowth of that. That's not to say religion doesn't cause any harm- I just don't agree with the idea that it's a "disease" or a "symptom".

Nonsense.

Religion is a bad epistemology. Every religion teaches that it is virtuous to accept conclusions on insufficient evidence. Obviously, they do this in order to make the "flock" more willing to accept their absurd claims, but the problem is that their followers then go out and apply this same bad epistemology to other aspects of their lives. That's why the results of theism seem so haphazard: extremely helpful one moment, extremely harmful the next, and merely eccentric the moment after that. The followers are essentially arriving at totally random conclusions about things because they are very mistaken about why things are true.

While declaring faith to be a virtue produces bad decisions in other areas of one's life, the very nature of faith makes it extremely difficult to convince someone they have made a bad decision.

So religion does indeed do harm, but religion itself is not the cause of the harm, the bad epistemology is.

How does this make religion a "disease"?

 

[marc]

Well in my opinion, the actual problem is lack of critical thinking. If everyone was good at critical thinking, it would be hard for many religions to even get started. Once started, the religion works to promote uncritical thinking as a way to support and expand itself. In this way religion is not a cause or effect, but an accelerant. Credulous thinking is a flame, religion is gasoline. Without the spark to get it going, religion won't be able to do much. But once started it will try to spread everywhere, and engulf everything.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I agree that the epistemology is the root of the problem. In this case, faith. Pretending to know things you really don't know.

While I also agree that different religious provide different pathways to unacceptable behavior, attacking the epistemology allows you to undermine all religions at once, instead of concentrating on individual traditions. Additionally, attacking the epistemology is easier, as simply providing facts in any counterargument (as we all know) is often an exercise in futility. It's fun to debate, but ultimately, facts are inefficient at changing attitudes. The facts have been in for some time on a multitude of issues, and they are easily re-interpreted, ignored, or hand waved away.

Religion may be the result of a bad epistemology, but it's particularly pernicious. Saying humans will simply always be irrational and find excuses to harm one another is a lousy excuse in my opinion. The less excuses to act badly, the better off we will be.

 

[Brian63]

boneyard bill,

Maybe it is a more minor matter, but I agree with some of what you say here and disagree with other parts, particularly in how you are using the term "arbitrary" when I think the more appropriate term for your context would be "subjective."

...So you knew in advance what was pleasing or displeasing to god. These religions did not have morality in our sense. What was "moral" was whatever god or the gods happened to desire at the moment. It could be entirely arbitrary. God can demand the sacrifice of Isaac, and then change his mind at the last minute...

God demanding one thing and not another, or changing its mind at the last moment about what it desires, is a manifestation of the god's values being subjective (as it is for any living being with values and feelings and desires). Arbitrary would refer more to there being no reason to prefer one choice over another. If you have some decision with 2 options, say, it is effectively randomness or luck which determines the choice in the end. Flipping a coin would be just as valid a means of making the selection. Subjective refers to there being a preference for one over the other though, because one choice brings you more emotional/psychological pleasure and another choice brings you less (or even more pain).

For lunch today I have the option of choosing to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or I can eat a piece of toilet paper (among numerous other options). One of those choices will bring me more pleasure than the other, and I want to experience more pleasure, and so that serves as the basis of making my choice. I want to satisfy my subjective desires, and so I choose the PB&J.



Waaaay back in 2001 on the old IIDB forum, an amazing poster by the name of SingleDad made a somewhat similar argument, but in a context more associated with ethics rather than just minor tastes and preferences like we are discussing, and he obviously explained it much more soundly than I could. Worth taking a read when you get the chance:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?p=140508#post140508

Brian

ETA: Oh, what the hell. I just started a new thread on this subject to avoid derailing this current one.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ory-and-Moral-Strategy-Theory&p=9604#post9604

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Religion is the excuse, not necessarily the cause. Radical Islamic acts are more about isolating the Middle East to prevent the loss of radical Islam (and the ensuing loss of power of those in charge, the real problem) than anything that has to do with the actual religion.

The same hierarchy exists within the Vatican, yet we don't see Inquisitions and Crusades anymore. To me, this means that social pressure on religious hierarchies is very influential. When the Vatican gave up some of their power, their ability to do harm was greatly reduced, of course, they still try (abuse scandals), but once again, it is about holding onto power and protecting the brand, nothing to do with actual Catholicism.

Well in my opinion, the actual problem is lack of critical thinking. If everyone was good at critical thinking, it would be hard for many religions to even get started.

Engineers are great critical thinkers. So good, they can work there way around the logical issues of religion to show how it must be true. Critical thinking skills can be used for good or bad. What matters is the foundation of a premise. If a person wants to believe something enough, they'll work it out.

Once started, the religion works to promote uncritical thinking as a way to support and expand itself. In this way religion is not a cause or effect, but an accelerant. Credulous thinking is a flame, religion is gasoline. Without the spark to get it going, religion won't be able to do much. But once started it will try to spread everywhere, and engulf everything.

Religion may be the gasoline, but the hierarchy behind the religion are the spark, and they control the flow of the gas. These should be the targets. They say and do anything to keep the status quo (their power).

 

[boneyard bill]

Well in my opinion, the actual problem is lack of critical thinking. If everyone was good at critical thinking, it would be hard for many religions to even get started. Once started, the religion works to promote uncritical thinking as a way to support and expand itself. In this way religion is not a cause or effect, but an accelerant. Credulous thinking is a flame, religion is gasoline. Without the spark to get it going, religion won't be able to do much. But once started it will try to spread everywhere, and engulf everything.

That is pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. Religion begins with a world view. The modern scientific world sview didn't overthrow Christianity, which is very much alive. It overthrew the ancient Greek science and has forced Christianity to adapt in many ways.

Catholic and Orthodox Christianity has sought to preserve the Greek tradition as much as possible and reconcile it with modern science while Protestant Christianity has adapted in other ways including liberal Christianity as well as fundamentalism. But the modern scientific world view is contingent on new evidence and new theory, and it will certainly be overthrown some day by a new model because true science is not a world view. It is a method.

In other words, adopting the modern scientific world view is simply the same as adopting a new religion. If one is to accept it, one cannot then accept evidence that would overthrow it. But that is totally against scientific methodology. That is why scientists can easily become as dogmatic as theologians.

 

[doubtingt]

Well in my opinion, the actual problem is lack of critical thinking. If everyone was good at critical thinking, it would be hard for many religions to even get started. Once started, the religion works to promote uncritical thinking as a way to support and expand itself. In this way religion is not a cause or effect, but an accelerant. Credulous thinking is a flame, religion is gasoline. Without the spark to get it going, religion won't be able to do much. But once started it will try to spread everywhere, and engulf everything.

But accelerants are causes of the amount of fire and the amount of destruction. Remove the accelerant and you have less fire and less destruction. The accelerant didn't cause the initial spark but was a causal determinant in what followed from that initial spark.
This is the problem with treating causality as though it requires neccessity and sufficiency, most things we think of as causes have neither. Technically, the only such cause is the big bang. All other things are just "enablers", "accelerants", and "inhibitors".

 

[boneyard bill]

boneyard bill,

Maybe it is a more minor matter, but I agree with some of what you say here and disagree with other parts, particularly in how you are using the term "arbitrary" when I think the more appropriate term for your context would be "subjective."

...So you knew in advance what was pleasing or displeasing to god. These religions did not have morality in our sense. What was "moral" was whatever god or the gods happened to desire at the moment. It could be entirely arbitrary. God can demand the sacrifice of Isaac, and then change his mind at the last minute...

God demanding one thing and not another, or changing its mind at the last moment about what it desires, is a manifestation of the god's values being subjective (as it is for any living being with values and feelings and desires). Arbitrary would refer more to there being no reason to prefer one choice over another. If you have some decision with 2 options, say, it is effectively randomness or luck which determines the choice in the end. Flipping a coin would be just as valid a means of making the selection. Subjective refers to there being a preference for one over the other though, because one choice brings you more emotional/psychological pleasure and another choice brings you less (or even more pain).

For lunch today I have the option of choosing to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or I can eat a piece of toilet paper (among numerous other options). One of those choices will bring me more pleasure than the other, and I want to experience more pleasure, and so that serves as the basis of making my choice. I want to satisfy my subjective desires, and so I choose the PB&J.



Waaaay back in 2001 on the old IIDB forum, an amazing poster by the name of SingleDad made a somewhat similar argument, but in a context more associated with ethics rather than just minor tastes and preferences like we are discussing, and he obviously explained it much more soundly than I could. Worth taking a read when you get the chance:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?p=140508#post140508

Brian

ETA: Oh, what the hell. I just started a new thread on this subject to avoid derailing this current one.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ory-and-Moral-Strategy-Theory&p=9604#post9604

I will stick by my use of the term arbitrary. The gods may have had subjective preferences, the ancients certainly thought that they did. But those preferences were nonetheless arbitrary from the point of view of the ancients because they couldn't know what the gods subjective preferences were. Of course, you had the Hebrew Prophets who railed against the behavior of the Israelites and warned that god would punish them. So the prophets claimed to know the will of god (and that is actually what the Hebrew word means. It doesn't mean a fortune-teller). But those prophets did not agree on what the offenses of the Israelites really were.

It only makes sense to use the term "subjective" if there actually were willful deities making subjective decisions.

 

[Brian63]

...But those preferences were nonetheless arbitrary from the point of view of the ancients because they couldn't know what the gods subjective preferences were.

Then the ancients held a very mistaken view. Not knowing what the subjective preferences in the gods were is no grounds for then concluding that they had no subjective preferences at all. What it does mean is that they did not know what those subjective preferences were.

If some stranger acknowledges that she does not know your food tastes and preferences, is it reasonable for her to conclude that you have none, or that your preferences are arbitrary?

I hope I am just misunderstanding the argument as stated.

It only makes sense to use the term "subjective" if there actually were willful deities making subjective decisions.

I disagree there, but would add that using the term "arbitrary" is what makes no sense. The reasons that various religions have preferences for some behaviors over others, or hold certain beliefs rather than other beliefs, is not arbitrary. There may be some historical basis, or maybe one behavior is more emotionally satisfying than another, etc. Arbitrary, however, suggests that there is no basis at all for preferring one over the other, that it might as well be random. That is not an accurate description of how religions develop, however.

Brian

 

[Underseer]

I agree that it is not really accurately described as a disease. It is a very common (mis)label used by atheists, however. In my view, I see religion as a very powerful BIAS that impacts the human mind. All humans experience a variety of biases on a variety of issues, and religion happens to be a very influential one, both in terms of human psychology and human history. It is not as if atheists are rational while theists are not though. Generalizations like that are flagrantly wrong and misleading, but unfortunately common.

Brian

But the bias and associated problems are not caused by religion, but rather is caused by the same thing that causes religion.

The Soviet Union proves that even if you completely eliminate religion's influence over a nation, the same abuses still happen. The Soviets simply took an economic philosophy, and used it as a political tool, and even used it as an excuse to punish dissenters just like religion traditionally does. Preachers spread the gospel throughout the population, heretics were imprisoned or executed, the whole nine yards. To me, the Soviets were a perfect example showing that getting rid of religion solves nothing. If you want to make anything better, you have to address the types of sloppy thinking that make religion possible in the first place.

 

[jonJ]

But the bias and associated problems are not caused by religion, but rather is caused by the same thing that causes religion.

The Soviet Union proves that even if you completely eliminate religion's influence over a nation, the same abuses still happen. The Soviets simply took an economic philosophy, and used it as a political tool, and even used it as an excuse to punish dissenters just like religion traditionally does. Preachers spread the gospel throughout the population, heretics were imprisoned or executed, the whole nine yards. To me, the Soviets were a perfect example showing that getting rid of religion solves nothing. If you want to make anything better, you have to address the types of sloppy thinking that make religion possible in the first place.

But the Soviet Union did change, and in only seventy years, which is a lot faster than any nation has completely abandoned its traditional religious beliefs. The example of China shows that an economic policy used as a political tool can can evolve into a rational and generally positive way of life. This is much harder for a formal religion, though, since the essential tenet of religion is that things don't change, and the eternal verities remain eternal forever. I agree completely about the pernicious influence of Marx and Mao, but when push came to shove it was possible to admit that Marx and Mao were wrong without completely abandoning those parts of the system that were working. It's a lot harder to convince someone that Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha were wrong when his or her whole system of belief and behaviour is based on their assumed infallibility.

I also agree about addressing sloppy thinking, but I happen to think that religion is such a salient and obtrusive example of sloppy thinking that it makes sense to go after it first, and use it as a teaching example that can be applied to other sloppy thoughts as well. To show why homeopathy is wrong requires at least a minimal grasp of science and physics, but to show why religion is wrong, all that's necessary is to point out that there are thousands of religions and no two are logically compatible. And the evidence is clear: religious belief in the West is falling away rapidly, and if you want to allocate a cause, you can't do better than to point out the enormous amount of criticism and analysis and debate that has been going on and accelerating over the last couple of decades.

Luckily the same three things can get rid of religion, poverty, disease, illiteracy and high child mortality in one fell swoop: free trade, democracy, and the rule of law. Make your leaders' income dependent on the electorate's decision-making skills, and they'll bend over backwards finding ways to improve them.

 

[Underseer]

But the bias and associated problems are not caused by religion, but rather is caused by the same thing that causes religion.

The Soviet Union proves that even if you completely eliminate religion's influence over a nation, the same abuses still happen. The Soviets simply took an economic philosophy, and used it as a political tool, and even used it as an excuse to punish dissenters just like religion traditionally does. Preachers spread the gospel throughout the population, heretics were imprisoned or executed, the whole nine yards. To me, the Soviets were a perfect example showing that getting rid of religion solves nothing. If you want to make anything better, you have to address the types of sloppy thinking that make religion possible in the first place.

But the Soviet Union did change, and in only seventy years, which is a lot faster than any nation has completely abandoned its traditional religious beliefs. [...]

My point of contention is not that the Soviet Union didn't change, but that even without religion, many of the same sorts of abuses happened anyway. What difference does it really make if they jailed, tortured, and/or executed people in the name of communism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy?

 

[Brian63]

I agree that it is not really accurately described as a disease. It is a very common (mis)label used by atheists, however. In my view, I see religion as a very powerful BIAS that impacts the human mind. All humans experience a variety of biases on a variety of issues, and religion happens to be a very influential one, both in terms of human psychology and human history. It is not as if atheists are rational while theists are not though. Generalizations like that are flagrantly wrong and misleading, but unfortunately common.

Brian

But the bias and associated problems are not caused by religion, but rather is caused by the same thing that causes religion.

What is that thing you are referring to there?

Brian

 

[jonJ]

My point of contention is not that the Soviet Union didn't change, but that even without religion, many of the same sorts of abuses happened anyway. What difference does it really make if they jailed, tortured, and/or executed people in the name of communism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy?

The difference it makes is that they did it for decades instead of centuries, and they were able to stop doing it relatively quickly and still maintain a stable society. How long have similar abuses been going on in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? How long will they continue to go on? Even at the peak of its power, there were a high proportion of Russians who were skeptical about the validity of Marxism; what proportion of Pakistanis are currently skeptical about the validity of Islam?

 

[boneyard bill]

Then the ancients held a very mistaken view. Not knowing what the subjective preferences in the gods were is no grounds for then concluding that they had no subjective preferences at all. What it does mean is that they did not know what those subjective preferences were.

If some stranger acknowledges that she does not know your food tastes and preferences, is it reasonable for her to conclude that you have none, or that your preferences are arbitrary?

I hope I am just misunderstanding the argument as stated.

It only makes sense to use the term "subjective" if there actually were willful deities making subjective decisions.

I disagree there, but would add that using the term "arbitrary" is what makes no sense. The reasons that various religions have preferences for some behaviors over others, or hold certain beliefs rather than other beliefs, is not arbitrary. There may be some historical basis, or maybe one behavior is more emotionally satisfying than another, etc. Arbitrary, however, suggests that there is no basis at all for preferring one over the other, that it might as well be random. That is not an accurate description of how religions develop, however.

Brian

I didn't claim that all the ancients practices or beliefs were arbitrary. Certainly it isn't arbitrary to consult the entrails of a chicken. It isn't arbitrary to present offerings to the gods so they won't screw you over. However, claiming that you shouldn't eat pork because god will be displeased IS arbitrary. There is no basis for claiming that this or that practice is pleasing or displeasing to the gods. Yes, the Jews might write down ten commandments, so now they have a "law" but the that law itself is still arbitrary.

There is no contradiction between being subjective and being arbitrary.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Certainly it isn't arbitrary to consult the entrails of a chicken.

How do you figure?
A lesion on a chicken's stomach is, you would say, proportional to the coming plague's affect upon the city?
Loops in the chicken's intestines are formed to reflect the nation's chances in war?
An extra lobe on the chicken's liver can be best explained as the sign of the blessing of the God of the Harvest?

 

[boneyard bill]

Certainly it isn't arbitrary to consult the entrails of a chicken.

How do you figure?
A lesion on a chicken's stomach is, you would say, proportional to the coming plague's affect upon the city?
Loops in the chicken's intestines are formed to reflect the nation's chances in war?
An extra lobe on the chicken's liver can be best explained as the sign of the blessing of the God of the Harvest?

I'm not as up on the finer points of divining the future from chicken viscera as you seem to be but, however arbitrary the actual process of such divination may be, the decision to consult them is not an arbitrary decision. It is clearly motivated by a desire to know something about he future.

It doesn't make it arbitrary just because we know that this is a mindless superstition. (Never use a chicken. It should always be a goat. And only inspect the kidneys).

 

[Petrel]

Hi Petrel, I do have to disagree with you on this point.

...Humans are crazy in so many ways, it will make no difference what percent of the insanity is caused by which social processes...

Except that different social processes (even if they are all irrational) will have different effects, based on the specifics of those social processes. Islam and deism are both irrational beliefs, but the latter is relatively harmless while the former has a history of inspiring people to commit violent acts (like terrorist attacks of flying planes into buildings, as 1 example). The different doctrines associated with various religious beliefs matters, even if they are all irrational.

Brian

Red-striped deckchairs, blue-striped deckchairs. Titanic. April 14, 9:50 pm.