Syntheistic philosophy

[dystopian]

When I say "agree to disagree" it means that I've listened to your arguments and found them NOT convincing. When I don't need to inquire any more but are satisfied with fully understanding your position and still don't agree, it's time to move on. Ie I'll stop replying to further comments from you. It's not up to you to decide what I reply to.

This is simply denialism in action. You claim as an absolute that everyone comes to religion already believing in that religion's values; I point out that this is demonstrably false by virtue of the fact that some people are *raised* in a religion and adopt that religion's values accordingly. There can be no valid disagreement with this basic fact; there can only be denial of the fact that one's claim has been proven wrong. It may not be up to me to decide what you reply to; but if you wish your statements to have *any* objective value whatsoever you'd better well refute any counter-arguments to them instead of waving them off with 'agree to disagree'. Anything less is doing a disservice to your own claims.

I respect your view. I just don't share it.

Yet once again, you fail to address the arguments that refute your absolutist claims. Surely it should be a simple matter to address them if your own views were based on rational arguments instead of gut feeling.

I have actually read all religious texts for all major religions in a variety of translations. This has been my impression.

So the answer is; it's based on your gut feeling. You have not actually attempted to tally it all up in an objective fashion to arrive at the actual truth of the matter.

The difference between us is that I'm aware that words can be differently defined. Many definitions are equally good and/or common. That's just life. Deal with it. I don't think there's much to add beyond this. It may be helpful if you look at it this way; I think that my definitions are correct and your definitions are wrong for all the words.

Oh, I too am aware that words can be differently defined. They can not however, be *arbitrarily* differently defined, the way you're doing. The definition of words change only naturally; over time; and must be accepted by a significantly large enough number of people before they can become accepted. What you're doing is not a natural shift in the definition of the word 'religion', you're trying to force it; and you do not have the numbers for it. Your definition is accepted by you and a handful of people; my definition is the mainstream and academic definition.

Agree to disagree.

This is quickly becoming your catchphrase.

Maybe you should read up on Jewish history? They had plenty to gain from being Jewish in spite of being regularly persecuted.

That's debatable; and entirely besides the point.

Now I think you're just being silly.

Really. Feel free to explain how there is some sort of fundamental difference between a nationstate saying it has the right to kill the people of another nationstate; and a murderer saying he has the right to kill another person. Neither is sanctioned by the higher legal authorities that either the murderer or the nationstate is bound to.

Agree to disagree.

Once again, you throw your empty catchphrase around without addressing the arguments by which your claims have been addressed and refuted. No you don't get to pretend that they're just 'not worth the time to address because you've already looked at them and disagreed with them'; if that were the case you could surely refute them and since you're refusing to do so the only reasonable conclusion is that you can't, and that you're just engaging in a simple psychological trick by which you can maintain your position without the troublesome cognitive dissonance that results from having its foundation shaken.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Good that we sorted this out. Syntheism provides none of the above. So obviously it's not necessary for all religions. Syntheism does provide a platform where members share and discuss existential issues. But I'm not involved with those groups. I think it's boring, and above all, nothing I need help with from Syntheism. That's not what it's about for me. I still prefer coming to this forum and talk about philosophy here than doing it with other Syntheists. One of the beauty of Syntheism is meeting a variety of people I otherwise wouldn't. The the focus is on soft issues. Emotional stuff, psychology and just getting along. I'd argue that a religion doesn't lend itself well to explore the more hardcore subjects, stuff like meaning of life, existential anxiety or ethics. Those are better handled by other institutions and functions in society.

Which other institutions/functions do you have in mind, when it comes to those who are interested in things such as certainty of purpose and lack of existential doubt?

That's very specific. If I try to take a broader picture here all and everything humans do or interact with is part of an ongoing project to generate meaning and purpose of life. So... all institutions. Religion is certainly an institution that helps people deal with the lack of certainty of purpose as well as dealing with the lack of answers for the meaning of existence. Psychologists have increasingly gotten to replace religion in this area. But it's still primarily the domain of religions.

I don't think religions are very good at giving meaning or removing existential doubt. Not really. If that was the case God wouldn't be ineffable and religions wouldn't require (the idiotic concept of) faith. I think all of those passages in all holy books can be lifted straight out with zero damage to the religion. I don't think those passages have any function. I think they're just there because somebody thought every religion needs them. But they don't. I think they pander to the less cerebrally gifted members of every congregation. There's always at least one.

When I read religious theological certitudes I get the same feeling as I get from a salesman who talks to much. This is a person who doesn't quite believe in what he's selling. An example is the forum member Syed. Not to pick on specific members. But there's zero attempt to support any of his arguments. It's as if sounding authoritative enough and repeating himself often enough will prove something. Theistic religions tend to be the same on their certitudes. But most importantly, to me, I get the impression they're more like icing on the cake rather than it's foundation. This is stuff added on the top, rather than the foundational of the religion. That's certainly an insight I've gained through Syntheism. God's certain existence is not required for a religion to be useful.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is simply denialism in action. You claim as an absolute that everyone comes to religion already believing in that religion's values; I point out that this is demonstrably false by virtue of the fact that some people are *raised* in a religion and adopt that religion's values accordingly. There can be no valid disagreement with this basic fact; there can only be denial of the fact that one's claim has been proven wrong. It may not be up to me to decide what you reply to; but if you wish your statements to have *any* objective value whatsoever you'd better well refute any counter-arguments to them instead of waving them off with 'agree to disagree'. Anything less is doing a disservice to your own claims.

Don't care. But here's a counter argument anyway... that's absurd. Nobody would do anything that goes against what they believe was morally justified. Not without some sort of concrete threat involved. Humans are masters of justifying all manner of despicable acts. They still need to share the moral value. Humans aren't as cuddly and fluffy as you might wish they were. We're also quick to switch teams if it blows too hard and then convince ourselves that we never shared that moral value to begin with. Prime example is ex-Nazi Germany. An entire population went from mostly Nazis to nobody was ever a Nazi. Obviously some of them weren't honest. Not to themselves, nor other people.

But I'm proud of you managing to demonstrate an illogical and absurd statement to be true. That's certainly a feat of logic worthy the gods.

Now I think you're just being silly.

Really. Feel free to explain how there is some sort of fundamental difference between a nationstate saying it has the right to kill the people of another nationstate; and a murderer saying he has the right to kill another person. Neither is sanctioned by the higher legal authorities that either the murderer or the nationstate is bound to.

The difference lies in that we're a social species. Social re-enforcement is important for us. Only a psychopath can kill with no remorse. A non-psychopath requires a community to help justify his act and support him psychologically for it. So the difference in how we subjectively experience the acts are total. They could not be further apart.

 

[Unbeatable]

Which other institutions/functions do you have in mind, when it comes to those who are interested in things such as certainty of purpose and lack of existential doubt?

That's very specific. If I try to take a broader picture here all and everything humans do or interact with is part of an ongoing project to generate meaning and purpose of life. So... all institutions. Religion is certainly an institution that helps people deal with the lack of certainty of purpose as well as dealing with the lack of answers for the meaning of existence. Psychologists have increasingly gotten to replace religion in this area. But it's still primarily the domain of religions.

I don't think religions are very good at giving meaning or removing existential doubt. Not really.

Well, is there anything better at giving meaning and removing existential doubt? Because if so, that would be a hell of a lot more useful to me personally than anything Syntheism has to offer. That is why I'm asking this specific question, because with your response to dystopian, you convinced me that Syntheism wouldn't be useful to me. It might be slightly interesting, academically speaking, but it's clearly not for me.

That paragraph dystopian wrote about the function of religion, that's what I too think that religion is about(I'm just not interested in arguing the point like he is). That's what I think is missing from atheism. That's what's missing from my life-- purpose, meaning, a stable foundation. When you say " I'd argue that a religion doesn't lend itself well to explore the more hardcore subjects, stuff like meaning of life, existential anxiety or ethics. Those are better handled by other institutions and functions in society.", that makes it sound like you can actually name some of these other, better institutions and functions.

Is "psychology" your answer? You mention psychology in such an offhand way, I'm not sure if you actually endorse it or if you're just describing a trend.

 

[dystopian]

Don't care. But here's a counter argument anyway... that's absurd. Nobody would do anything that goes against what they believe was morally justified. Not without some sort of concrete threat involved. Humans are masters of justifying all manner of despicable acts. They still need to share the moral value. Humans aren't as cuddly and fluffy as you might wish they were. We're also quick to switch teams if it blows too hard and then convince ourselves that we never shared that moral value to begin with. Prime example is ex-Nazi Germany. An entire population went from mostly Nazis to nobody was ever a Nazi. Obviously some of them weren't honest. Not to themselves, nor other people.

That's great and all, but what the fuck does that have to do with the fact that people can be *born* into a religion which then shapes their morality?

Or, for that matter, how does it negate the possibility of someone not having any strong opinions one way or the other, then joining a religion and adopting the strong positions of the religion? You paint a hopelessly simplistic and one-dimensional picture of how people come to hold their beliefs.

And finally, what fucking history book did you read in order to think Germany was ever "mostly" nazi? Nazi's were members of the national socialist party. Most Germans were never part of the party and thus weren't nazis. The nazi party never managed to get a majority of election votes; and even at the height of power only around 7-8% of Germans were members of the party and thus qualified to be called "nazis". So once again, you've made an absolutist claim that is then immediately refuted.\\

The difference lies in that we're a social species. Social re-enforcement is important for us. Only a psychopath can kill with no remorse. A non-psychopath requires a community to help justify his act and support him psychologically for it. So the difference in how we subjectively experience the acts are total. They could not be further apart.

So war is different than murder by virtue of the fact it's a group activity.

So I guess if I want to go kill people outside of a war context and not have it be murder, I just have to find enough accomplices in order for it to be a 'community event'. Oops. There goes your argument.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's great and all, but what the fuck does that have to do with the fact that people can be *born* into a religion which then shapes their morality?

There's a simple solution to this conundrum. Stop treating it like a fact.

Or, for that matter, how does it negate the possibility of someone not having any strong opinions one way or the other, then joining a religion and adopting the strong positions of the religion? You paint a hopelessly simplistic and one-dimensional picture of how people come to hold their beliefs.

Even if you're right, still doesn't strengthen your case. Not having an opinion about something means exactly that.

The difference lies in that we're a social species. Social re-enforcement is important for us. Only a psychopath can kill with no remorse. A non-psychopath requires a community to help justify his act and support him psychologically for it. So the difference in how we subjectively experience the acts are total. They could not be further apart.

So war is different than murder by virtue of the fact it's a group activity.

You can roll your eyes all you want. If your theory holds up you still need to explain why there are war memorials where the dead soldiers are treated like heroes. There's a long tradition of both sides honouring each other's wounded and dead in war. Your theory makes no sense and is not supported by reality. I suspect that the current tally of memorials to murderers is a big fat zero. Unless you count people who have murdered an excess of a million people. But I think that falls into the same kind of ethical category as "war".

So I guess if I want to go kill people outside of a war context and not have it be murder, I just have to find enough accomplices in order for it to be a 'community event'. Oops. There goes your argument.

Except for the little detail that it's exactly like this how it works. It's simply a matter of finding enough accomplices. And it's not just war. Lynchings work the same way. That's the same psychological mechanic on a smaller scale.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's very specific. If I try to take a broader picture here all and everything humans do or interact with is part of an ongoing project to generate meaning and purpose of life. So... all institutions. Religion is certainly an institution that helps people deal with the lack of certainty of purpose as well as dealing with the lack of answers for the meaning of existence. Psychologists have increasingly gotten to replace religion in this area. But it's still primarily the domain of religions.

I don't think religions are very good at giving meaning or removing existential doubt. Not really.

Well, is there anything better at giving meaning and removing existential doubt?

There is a solution to the question of meaning of life. Since there's no obvious candidate and considering how long this debate has been going on we're not likely to find one. But we all need one to keep going day to day. Even if it's just a simple one focusing on basic needs. That means that any solution, any answer, is equally good. That is why theological religions work at all. Sure, they can't know that their answer is the correct one. But they at least know that their answer is no worse than any other. My only issue with cocksure religions like this is that they're not honest about the arbitrariness of the answer. There is something to be said for just going for one arbitrary answer and using group re-enforcement to make it more emotionally palatable. I understand why religions are doing it. I just don't see why they can't be honest about this. That annoys me quite a bit and is why I've always refused to belong to one such religion.

As far as removing existential doubt. No religion can do that. At best a religion can help us cope with it. Look at how religions design funerals. It's all 100% helping survivors deal with existential anxiety.

Because if so, that would be a hell of a lot more useful to me personally than anything Syntheism has to offer. That is why I'm asking this specific question, because with your response to dystopian, you convinced me that Syntheism wouldn't be useful to me. It might be slightly interesting, academically speaking, but it's clearly not for me.

My goal with Syntheism has all along been to try to re-create the organisation that filled whatever function the church used to fill. But without the dishonesty. But people are different. Also, there are secular alternatives to everything religion has to offer. Nobody needs religion today. I'm not a Syntheist because it's necessary, but because it works for me and because I think it's the best option for me at this point in my life. I'll only be a member as long as it helps me grow emotionally. I've always been honest with the other founders of Syntheism about this. Whenever I stop feeling that Syntheism is worth my while and worth my effort I will stop attending Syntheist mass.

That paragraph dystopian wrote about the function of religion, that's what I too think that religion is about(I'm just not interested in arguing the point like he is). That's what I think is missing from atheism. That's what's missing from my life-- purpose, meaning, a stable foundation. When you say " I'd argue that a religion doesn't lend itself well to explore the more hardcore subjects, stuff like meaning of life, existential anxiety or ethics. Those are better handled by other institutions and functions in society.", that makes it sound like you can actually name some of these other, better institutions and functions.

Syntheism can't provide an answer. But it can give you a club and forum to discuss these things. I don't. As far as existentialism "purpose, meaning, a stable foundation" I'm all set since before coming to Syntheism. So I don't need Syntheism for this. But like I said, I really can't say how many Syntheists have been helped with these issues, since I haven't been part of those discussion groups. But they do exist and I do know they are very popular.

Is "psychology" your answer? You mention psychology in such an offhand way, I'm not sure if you actually endorse it or if you're just describing a trend.

Therapy has certainly helped me in many ways. I recommend everybody try therapy at least some time in their lives. Even if it does nothing for you, it will help you gain perspective. We all have behaviours we default to when we're trying to avoid unpleasant thoughts. Therapy helped me identify what those were. So I could stop myself and reflect on the unpleasant thought and deal with it instead of just pushing it away. Existential anxiety being a category of those thoughts. And you certainly don't need religion for therapy. Therapy is 100% secular.

 

[dystopian]

There's a simple solution to this conundrum. Stop treating it like a fact.

I will not. For it is a fact. No matter how much you may want to believe otherwise; our morality is shaped as much by others as it is ourselves. Perhaps even more so.

Even if you're right, still doesn't strengthen your case. Not having an opinion about something means exactly that.

Your argument was that people don't join religions unless they already believe in the values of their religion. If people can join a group without holding a strong opinion one way or the other on that group's values, then it not only strengthens my case... it establishes it in its entirety. And like it or not, it *is* a fact that people can join groups without holding the beliefs and values of that group to begin with. Beliefs and values, like so many other things, are not immune to the passage of time. They are not static things that don't see change. Even I, as strong an atheist as one will find, can imagine myself finding reasons to join a given religion without actually believing in one; suggesting that not only can one join a group one doesn't particularly agree or disagree with, but one could join a group while strongly disagreeing with them too. I could join for company. I could join for profit. I could join out of fear. I could join simply because I'm bored. I can imagine many more reasons to join, none of which involve me believing a word of the religion's teachings. And after I've joined, my beliefs could very well change to be in line with the religion I am then nominally a part of. It is a basic truth of human nature that we are shaped by those around us.

You can roll your eyes all you want. If your theory holds up you still need to explain why there are war memorials where the dead soldiers are treated like heroes.

What. That's really supposed to be an argument? War is different than murder because dead soldiers are treated like heroes? Whether or not people glorify the soldiers/killers is completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not murder and war are essentially the same thing. Murder doesn't suddenly stop being murder just because the killer has a fanbase. Because oh, that's right, they often do! Why do you bring up hero worship of dead soldiers while ignoring serial killer groupies? If people thinking of dead soldiers as heroes proves something, then the same is proven about murderers who are worshipped by their fans.

There's a long tradition of both sides honouring each other's wounded and dead in war.

There's also a long tradition of honoring murderers who happen to kill the right people. What a society honors or doesn't honor is irrelevant to what we're talking about. Thievery is universally frowned upon. Yet we regard Robin Hood as a hero. Does that make him any less of a thief? He is still a thief. In the same sense, it doesn't matter if one or both sides honor the fallen in a war; it doesn't change the fundamental nature of war. Incidentally, the tradition of honoring each other's wounded and dead in war is neither as long nor as universal as you're trying to make it out to be. It is part of the romanticized view of war, but before the Geneva Convention it was almost unheard of for the other side's wounded and dead to be treated with any particular degree of respect beyond the bare minimum.

Except for the little detail that it's exactly like this how it works. It's simply a matter of finding enough accomplices. And it's not just war. Lynchings work the same way. That's the same psychological mechanic on a smaller scale.

I hate to break it to you in case you were planning one, but a lynching is still defined as murder. Murder is murder; it is defined solely as an act of killing a human being in the absence of legal sanction. It does not matter if it is done by a single person or a crowd of millions; so long as the sanction of a higher legal authority is not there, it is a act of murder. War, when lacking the sanction of international law, is thus an act of mass murder; because while the individual soldiers may not be murderers because they have the sanction of a higher legal authority than themselves, nationstates themselves lack that sanction.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I will not. For it is a fact. No matter how much you may want to believe otherwise; our morality is shaped as much by others as it is ourselves. Perhaps even more so.

I hope you now understand why I said agree to disagree. We disagree about fundamental things. We're not likely to convince each other either. At least we know why we reached our respective positions. I don't think there's anything to add on this matter.

d to be an argument? War is different than murder because dead soldiers are treated like heroes? Whether or not people glorify the soldiers/killers is completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not murder and war are essentially the same thing. Murder doesn't suddenly stop being murder just because the killer has a fanbase. Because oh, that's right, they often do! Why do you bring up hero worship of dead soldiers while ignoring serial killer groupies? If people thinking of dead soldiers as heroes proves something, then the same is proven about murderers who are worshipped by their fans.

The sub-thread is about whether or not murder and war are ethically analogous activities. My point was that wars are socially sanctioned while murder almost never is. The fact that soldiers are treated like heroes proves my point. I'm not sure why you bring up serial killer groupies? I'm not aware of a situation where a serial killer has had enough groupies for him to be let out free as well as honoured for his actions by society at large. What we typically do in situations like this, where the society condones a murder is to exonerate the murderer and clear him of the charges. We redefine the crime so it isn't murder at all. We deny the action took place. In order to protect the honour of soldiers, we don't then create a fiction where they didn't kill anybody. Rather the opposite. They're honoured even more if they killed lots of enemies.

There's also a long tradition of honoring murderers who happen to kill the right people. What a society honors or doesn't honor is irrelevant to what we're talking about.

? It's exactly what we're talking about.

Incidentally, the tradition of honoring each other's wounded and dead in war is neither as long nor as universal as you're trying to make it out to be. It is part of the romanticized view of war, but before the Geneva Convention it was almost unheard of for the other side's wounded and dead to be treated with any particular degree of respect beyond the bare minimum.

I think you just made that up. There are examples of entire armies being punished for being on the losing side. I'm thinking of Ancient Greece. But it's far from universal. Genghis Khan made a big thing about always respecting fallen enemies (if he judged they'd fought honourably). He would routinely let soldiers on the losing side who fought well to immediately join his army as a sign of respect to them. The examples of him exterminating entire cities as punishment was only if they committed some sort of rebellion against him (in his mind) or didn't surrender fast enough when they'd clearly lost. I can think of quite a few pre-Geneva convention examples. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Roman Empire had a similar policy.

I hate to break it to you in case you were planning one, but a lynching is still defined as murder.

So what? That isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing how socially sanctioned it is. Within a community lynchings can be sanctioned and morally justified (to them).

 

[dystopian]

I hope you now understand why I said agree to disagree. We disagree about fundamental things.

And once again, "agreeing to disagree" about objective truths is simply unacceptable. I will no more agree to disagree with you then I will do so with someone about to walk off the edge of a cliff insisting that he's going to be just fine. In the latter example, I would be partially responsible for letting a crazy person kill himself. In your case, I would be partially responsible for letting you fill your head with nonsense. I wouldn't be a very good skeptic if I didn't challenge nonsense when I see it.

The sub-thread is about whether or not murder and war are ethically analogous activities. My point was that wars are socially sanctioned while murder almost never is.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether they're analogous. An apple and a pear are both fruits. It does not matter if apples are more popular than pears.

The fact that soldiers are treated like heroes proves my point. I'm not sure why you bring up serial killer groupies? I'm not aware of a situation where a serial killer has had enough groupies for him to be let out free as well as honoured for his actions by society at large. What we typically do in situations like this, where the society condones a murder is to exonerate the murderer and clear him of the charges. We redefine the crime so it isn't murder at all. We deny the action took place. In order to protect the honour of soldiers, we don't then create a fiction where they didn't kill anybody. Rather the opposite. They're honoured even more if they killed lots of enemies.

Again; the popularity of an act has no bearing on the fundamental nature of that act.

? It's exactly what we're talking about.

It has never been what we're talking about; though it does demonstrate the fundamental reason you can't seem to comprehend my arguments. I deal in facts and rational arguments; you deal in emotional interpretations. I demand our common reality to be objective; you insist on subjectifying it. When I say that murder and war are essentially the same thing, I do not care about how people *feel* about the acts. I don't care whether they think killing in war is justified and murder isn't. That is irrelevant to what I have said; it is a subjective justification of things. War and murder are equivalent by virtue of the cold hard facts, the acts and the legal contexts that define both. These are realities that do not bend on the whim of the masses. The popularity of an action or an idea has no bearing on its nature or validity.

I think you just made that up. There are examples of entire armies being punished for being on the losing side. I'm thinking of Ancient Greece. But it's far from universal. Genghis Khan made a big thing about always respecting fallen enemies (if he judged they'd fought honourably). He would routinely let soldiers on the losing side who fought well to immediately join his army as a sign of respect to them. The examples of him exterminating entire cities as punishment was only if they committed some sort of rebellion against him (in his mind) or didn't surrender fast enough when they'd clearly lost.

You are mistaken. This was not so much a sign of 'respect' as just pragmatism. Taking in the skilled soldiers who fought for your enemy is an excellent way of replacing your own losses and simultaneously ensuring that they don't become a problem for you down the line. If you are a conquerer with any sort of sense, you will either kill the survivors, or bind them to your own side. That has nothing to do with respect or honor. And for that matter, you immediately refute your own claim that him doing so was a sign of respect by explaining that he exterminated entire cities when they 'didn't surrender fast enough when they'd lost.'; being offered the choice between surrendering on your enemy's timetable, or having the city you were defending wiped from the map, is *not* a show of respect.

I can think of quite a few pre-Geneva convention examples. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Roman Empire had a similar policy.

Rome's 'respect' given to vanquished foes was fickle and just as pragmatic as that of the mongols. They showed "respect" to their enemies only when doing so furthered their own interests. It was calculated respect, not genuine. For instance, in my homeland, they showed respect to the Batavi tribe after their revolt (even though a lack of showing respect was exactly what started it in the first place); but this was only because the Batavi weren't just the very elite of Rome's auxilia, but were counted among the most elite troops of Rome period. They didn't want to risk losing their loyalty and support even more than they already had. On the other hand, they showed the beaten Frisii no such respect; and when they vanquished the Nervii they committed genocide against them rather than show them any respect.

 

[Unbeatable]

There is a solution to the question of meaning of life. Since there's no obvious candidate and considering how long this debate has been going on we're not likely to find one. But we all need one to keep going day to day. Even if it's just a simple one focusing on basic needs. That means that any solution, any answer, is equally good. That is why theological religions work at all. Sure, they can't know that their answer is the correct one. But they at least know that their answer is no worse than any other. My only issue with cocksure religions like this is that they're not honest about the arbitrariness of the answer. There is something to be said for just going for one arbitrary answer and using group re-enforcement to make it more emotionally palatable. I understand why religions are doing it. I just don't see why they can't be honest about this.

So your theory of how religion functions doesn't explain all the data?

Maybe they started out honest, but over time metaphors got misinterpreted as truth apt claims. I doubt there's much deliberate, conscious deception, just a lot of cognitive bias; intellectual dishonesty.

Maybe in the ongoing competition of memes, the pretense of non-arbitrariness is an adaptive trait when it comes to memes which serve to provide people with existential meaning and ethical guidance and community all in one. That's a lot of responsibility to hand over to something overtly arbitrary.

Another piece of this puzzle could be that they probably don't agree with this line of reasoning you use to conclude that arbitrary answers are just fine and all equally good.

Syntheism can't provide an answer. But it can give you a club and forum to discuss these things. I don't. As far as existentialism "purpose, meaning, a stable foundation" I'm all set since before coming to Syntheism. So I don't need Syntheism for this. But like I said, I really can't say how many Syntheists have been helped with these issues, since I haven't been part of those discussion groups. But they do exist and I do know they are very popular.

Okay. I see you're the wrong Syntheist to talk to about that.

Therapy has certainly helped me in many ways. I recommend everybody try therapy at least some time in their lives. Even if it does nothing for you, it will help you gain perspective. We all have behaviours we default to when we're trying to avoid unpleasant thoughts. Therapy helped me identify what those were. So I could stop myself and reflect on the unpleasant thought and deal with it instead of just pushing it away.

Sounds like the philosophy behind Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. I've ultimately settled upon mindfulness and acceptance as the missing ingredients without which a great deal of therapy/self help is practically impotent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So your theory of how religion functions doesn't explain all the data?

As I've said many times already, I think the function of religion is to help it's followers deal with emotional issues (as well as grow emotionally). They're all a vast collection of, often contradictory, advice, metaphors, teachings, metaphors and so on, that the follower can pick from. To me I see all religions on a single spectrum. Historically they've shared idea freely, and evolved over time. Some religious advice is to accept not knowing things. Other religious advice is to accept a comforting lie. Historically all religions have done both.

Maybe they started out honest, but over time metaphors got misinterpreted as truth apt claims. I doubt there's much deliberate, conscious deception, just a lot of cognitive bias; intellectual dishonesty.

I don't think anybody can know how this religion business started or why they so often cling to absurd and obviously false beliefs in the face of.... well... logic and science. My theory is that religions provide a valuable service. Since religions have, over time, become wed with the idea of a non-metaphorical God and authoritativeness these are now often seen as inevitable and fundamental part of religions. It's the idea that if we give up God we'll have to give up all the other good stuff religion provides. In Syntheism we learned pretty quickly that all that can be successfully lifted out of religion all together with none of the core functions harmed in any way. Rather the opposite. It frees us. For example, the holy books of Syntheism are all of literature, and all media. Not just all traditional holy texts, but anything ever written or told.

If I'd speculate how religions became authoritarian with ready answers for everything I think it came from below. Any human activity requires leadership of some kind. Even if it's just a question of administration. Each Syntheist mass has a master of ceremonies. This sprang quite naturally from needs. Most of our services have new members. So somebody has to say hello to them and introduce them. Over time we decided to have a designated master of ceremonies for each mass. It was necessary. But we circulate this position throughout the congregation. This is just down to design to avoid any kind of hierarchy developing. But it would be handy to have just one designated person do it all the time. I'm guessing this is how all religions got their priesthoods.

People hate not knowing things. You yourself have said that your main motivation to join any kind of church would be to still existential anxieties and to gain meaning in your life. You are not unique. These are questions that have obviously been asked of priests since the dawn of religion. Whether or not it started as lies, misinterpreted metaphor or just Chinese whispers is anybodies guess. I have no problems seeing how any religion with a theist door open will eventually develop a system of axiomatic answers for all of these questions. I suspect it'd be a pretty rapid development. In Syntheism that door is closed. Firmly slammed shut. It's by design.

Maybe in the ongoing competition of memes, the pretense of non-arbitrariness is an adaptive trait when it comes to memes which serve to provide people with existential meaning and ethical guidance and community all in one. That's a lot of responsibility to hand over to something overtly arbitrary.

Another piece of this puzzle could be that they probably don't agree with this line of reasoning you use to conclude that arbitrary answers are just fine and all equally good.

What I find remarkable is the degree to which theistic religions are honest. Even if Christianity and Islam attribute a lot of opinions to God, God is also ineffable. Think about that for a while. Either we know what God wants in which case God isn't ineffable, or we don't, in which case it is. Wtf is "God works in mysterious ways" if not an outright acceptance of the fact that they don't really know what's going on. Judaism has a tradition where the Torah is supposed to be questioned. They do this in ritualistic ways. Why? If it's true, why question it? If we had an justified and logical valid answer why Kierkegaards "leap of faith"? He was not a stupid man.

Therapy has certainly helped me in many ways. I recommend everybody try therapy at least some time in their lives. Even if it does nothing for you, it will help you gain perspective. We all have behaviours we default to when we're trying to avoid unpleasant thoughts. Therapy helped me identify what those were. So I could stop myself and reflect on the unpleasant thought and deal with it instead of just pushing it away.

Sounds like the philosophy behind Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. I've ultimately settled upon mindfulness and acceptance as the missing ingredients without which a great deal of therapy/self help is practically impotent.

I think the key is to continually try new things. Whatever we find in life that helps us grow emotionally, will eventually hold us back. Either we're busy growing or busy dying. I don't think there's any middle-ground.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And once again, "agreeing to disagree" about objective truths is simply unacceptable. I will no more agree to disagree with you then I will do so with someone about to walk off the edge of a cliff insisting that he's going to be just fine. In the latter example, I would be partially responsible for letting a crazy person kill himself. In your case, I would be partially responsible for letting you fill your head with nonsense. I wouldn't be a very good skeptic if I didn't challenge nonsense when I see it.

The sub-thread is about whether or not murder and war are ethically analogous activities. My point was that wars are socially sanctioned while murder almost never is.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether they're analogous. An apple and a pear are both fruits. It does not matter if apples are more popular than pears.

The fact that soldiers are treated like heroes proves my point. I'm not sure why you bring up serial killer groupies? I'm not aware of a situation where a serial killer has had enough groupies for him to be let out free as well as honoured for his actions by society at large. What we typically do in situations like this, where the society condones a murder is to exonerate the murderer and clear him of the charges. We redefine the crime so it isn't murder at all. We deny the action took place. In order to protect the honour of soldiers, we don't then create a fiction where they didn't kill anybody. Rather the opposite. They're honoured even more if they killed lots of enemies.

Again; the popularity of an act has no bearing on the fundamental nature of that act.

? It's exactly what we're talking about.

It has never been what we're talking about; though it does demonstrate the fundamental reason you can't seem to comprehend my arguments. I deal in facts and rational arguments; you deal in emotional interpretations. I demand our common reality to be objective; you insist on subjectifying it. When I say that murder and war are essentially the same thing, I do not care about how people *feel* about the acts. I don't care whether they think killing in war is justified and murder isn't. That is irrelevant to what I have said; it is a subjective justification of things. War and murder are equivalent by virtue of the cold hard facts, the acts and the legal contexts that define both. These are realities that do not bend on the whim of the masses. The popularity of an action or an idea has no bearing on its nature or validity.

I think you just made that up. There are examples of entire armies being punished for being on the losing side. I'm thinking of Ancient Greece. But it's far from universal. Genghis Khan made a big thing about always respecting fallen enemies (if he judged they'd fought honourably). He would routinely let soldiers on the losing side who fought well to immediately join his army as a sign of respect to them. The examples of him exterminating entire cities as punishment was only if they committed some sort of rebellion against him (in his mind) or didn't surrender fast enough when they'd clearly lost.

You are mistaken. This was not so much a sign of 'respect' as just pragmatism. Taking in the skilled soldiers who fought for your enemy is an excellent way of replacing your own losses and simultaneously ensuring that they don't become a problem for you down the line. If you are a conquerer with any sort of sense, you will either kill the survivors, or bind them to your own side. That has nothing to do with respect or honor. And for that matter, you immediately refute your own claim that him doing so was a sign of respect by explaining that he exterminated entire cities when they 'didn't surrender fast enough when they'd lost.'; being offered the choice between surrendering on your enemy's timetable, or having the city you were defending wiped from the map, is *not* a show of respect.

I can think of quite a few pre-Geneva convention examples. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Roman Empire had a similar policy.

Rome's 'respect' given to vanquished foes was fickle and just as pragmatic as that of the mongols. They showed "respect" to their enemies only when doing so furthered their own interests. It was calculated respect, not genuine. For instance, in my homeland, they showed respect to the Batavi tribe after their revolt (even though a lack of showing respect was exactly what started it in the first place); but this was only because the Batavi weren't just the very elite of Rome's auxilia, but were counted among the most elite troops of Rome period. They didn't want to risk losing their loyalty and support even more than they already had. On the other hand, they showed the beaten Frisii no such respect; and when they vanquished the Nervii they committed genocide against them rather than show them any respect.

I think we've flogged this horse enough. I'll end by reposting this, but a different version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL9oA1LFoMw

 

[dystopian]

I think we've flogged this horse enough. I'll end by reposting this, but a different version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL9oA1LFoMw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUZ5gGO0_Pw

 

[Unbeatable]

Maybe they started out honest, but over time metaphors got misinterpreted as truth apt claims. I doubt there's much deliberate, conscious deception, just a lot of cognitive bias; intellectual dishonesty.

I don't think anybody can know how this religion business started or why they so often cling to absurd and obviously false beliefs in the face of.... well... logic and science. My theory is that religions provide a valuable service.

With this part I agree. Their relationship with the human mind and human society must be symbiotic.

Maybe in the ongoing competition of memes, the pretense of non-arbitrariness is an adaptive trait when it comes to memes which serve to provide people with existential meaning and ethical guidance and community all in one. That's a lot of responsibility to hand over to something overtly arbitrary.

Another piece of this puzzle could be that they probably don't agree with this line of reasoning you use to conclude that arbitrary answers are just fine and all equally good.

What I find remarkable is the degree to which theistic religions are honest. Even if Christianity and Islam attribute a lot of opinions to God, God is also ineffable. Think about that for a while. Either we know what God wants in which case God isn't ineffable, or we don't, in which case it is. Wtf is "God works in mysterious ways" if not an outright acceptance of the fact that they don't really know what's going on.

Rhetoric. Rationalization. A way to reframe ignorance as knowledge so that they can avoid admitting that the whole thing is a house of cards. They have to come up with these sorts of patches to keep the holes from compromising the whole belief system and negating the associated emotional benefits. Unlike you, they don't want people to leave, or treat their religion like your yoga class. There's more dependency with them.

Therapy has certainly helped me in many ways. I recommend everybody try therapy at least some time in their lives. Even if it does nothing for you, it will help you gain perspective. We all have behaviours we default to when we're trying to avoid unpleasant thoughts. Therapy helped me identify what those were. So I could stop myself and reflect on the unpleasant thought and deal with it instead of just pushing it away.

Sounds like the philosophy behind Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. I've ultimately settled upon mindfulness and acceptance as the missing ingredients without which a great deal of therapy/self help is practically impotent.

I think the key is to continually try new things.

That's putting the cart before the horse. I've been hearing "try new things" for a long time, but I've never been willing to do so on a continual basis. It strikes me as Sisyphean madness, and it ends in death anyway. Everything does. What's the key to actually wanting to suffer that?

Whatever we find in life that helps us grow emotionally, will eventually hold us back. Either we're busy growing or busy dying. I don't think there's any middle-ground.

Death is the destination of every journey. Some just drive slower than others.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's putting the cart before the horse. I've been hearing "try new things" for a long time, but I've never been willing to do so on a continual basis. It strikes me as Sisyphean madness, and it ends in death anyway. Everything does. What's the key to actually wanting to suffer that?

Sure, but I doubt you´ll find anything that makes more sense. At least I haven´t. The trick is to enjoy the journey.

Whatever we find in life that helps us grow emotionally, will eventually hold us back. Either we're busy growing or busy dying. I don't think there's any middle-ground.

Death is the destination of every journey. Some just drive slower than others.

I suggest reading up on the Nietzschean concept of Amor Fati. You´ve got to embrace and love your fate because... why not? Not doing so would suck more.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here´s the latest article on Syntheist.org of relevance to this thread.

http://syntheism.org/index.php/2015/04/what-god-would-you-like-to-have-today-sirmadam/

 

[Unbeatable]

Sure, but I doubt you´ll find anything that makes more sense. At least I haven´t. The trick is to enjoy the journey.

Getting busy dying makes more sense to me.

 

[Juma]

Death is the destination of every journey. Some just drive slower than others.

Others deaths are a nuisane. You death just an inconvenience. It is not even part of your life.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sure, but I doubt you´ll find anything that makes more sense. At least I haven´t. The trick is to enjoy the journey.

Getting busy dying makes more sense to me.

You sound depressed? Freud had a thing about our innate striving toward our own obliteration. It never had much purchase with me. But maybe with you?