• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

[TED] Is religion good or bad?

religions responsible for civilizing human

if not for religions human STILL roaming in jungle like apes
 
bilby said:
Syed said:
we are special ape

we are the only ape who can use reasoning and makes computer

ape cant evolve to be like us
Click to expand...

Apes did evolve to be us. :rolleyesa: 0/10 for observation.
Click to expand...
He said "ape", which is technically correct. An individual ape doesn't evolve, at least in the evolutionary sense.

Syed won this round. It's time for a tip of the hat, and wag of the prehensile tail.
 
Interesting interpretation, but he also said 'we are special ape' so for the sake of internal consistency, should it not be considered plural?

I think we should all split up into two groups of ape which will each dogmatically assert one side of this grammatical pluralization issue as an incontrovertible truth thus establishing great stability and cohesion within each group respectively at the expense of fostering xenophobia, and risking conflict and abuse when both groups realize they cannot coexist in the same forum space as the vile cretins from the opposing camp.

(As a side note, I'm not disparaging the grammar here. I understand English may by a secondary language or some such thing).
 
If religion is defined as a set of supernatural beliefs, which are untestable and therefore a matter of faith, then religion is a bad thing. That's not to say that religious people do not do good works, they do, but that the central supernatural beliefs of religion are a matter of self deception (being untestable dogma) and therefore a source of division and conflict between people and societies.
 
DBT said:
If religion is defined as a set of supernatural beliefs, which are untestable and therefore a matter of faith, then religion is a bad thing. That's not to say that religious people do not do good works, they do, but that the central supernatural beliefs of religion are a matter of self deception (being untestable dogma) and therefore a source of division and conflict between people and societies.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the talk is that defining religion as requiring a set of supernatural beliefs is too narrow. It fails to capture plenty of... well... religions that don´t fall within that definition. I say religion because it´s hard to come up with a better word for what non-supernaturalist religious practicioners are doing.

To take the example of the talk. Ghanian religion, ie Akan religion, has a creator god called Nyame. Nyame is omnipotent and omniscient. So it´s easy for a westerner, or somebody with a monotheistic mindset to draw a straight analogy between Nyame and the Christian God. But nobody worships Nyame. Nyame doesn´t listen to prayers. Nyame is just an embodiment of the forces of nature. Just like nature itself, Nyame doesn´t give a shit about anything or anybody. So this is a radically different type of religion. In fact, it´s a form of animism and ancestor worship. Ghanians pray to their ancestors. Not Nyame at all. Akan religion has plenty of room to interpret it supernaturally. As does almost all religion. But the step from theistic Akan religion to atheistic Akan religion is tiny. And all practices are left intact, as well as their function. If Nyame is equated with nature it is perfectly compatible with science. Ancestor worship does not necessarily imply that we think our ancestors are still invisibly floating about doing shit. Everybody has rituals to commemorate the dead, religious or otherwise. Whether or not we chose to call that ancestor worship is a technicality.

He also talks about Judaism. Another religion with long atheistic traditions. He mentions Hinduisms, over a thousand years old, traditions of atheism. Socrates was famously an atheist. But he also (according to Plato) took part in pagan religious festivals. So belief in the supernatural is obviously not required for religion. So that begs the question, how should we define religion? We can define it by function... what it´s for?
 
krypton iodine sulfur said:
Interesting interpretation, but he also said 'we are special ape' so for the sake of internal consistency, should it not be considered plural?
Click to expand...
I don't know if Syed uses the articles "a" and "an". He switched from apes to ape, however.
 
I learned it this way: spirituality is an individual pursuing a practice designed to bring about an altered state considered to be beneficial.

Religion is a group practice believing in a set of saving beliefs.

A person may be spiritual and not religious, or religious and not spiritual, or a combination.

Nowhere is there a requirement that practices or beliefs must be supernatural.
 
DrZoidberg said:
http://www.ted.com/talks/kwame_anth...this_is_a_trick_question?language=en#t-864363

This TED talk answers it. The short answer is, neither because religion is lots of different things. Mostly just cultural practices and rituals that are separated from any belief in anything.
Click to expand...
Is higher education good or bad? Neither, because there is both good education that makes you a more well-informed and productive person but also bad education that misinforms you and sends you into a life of debt.

Is legalized marijuana good or bad? Neither, because it can can save a lot of needless jail time, but it can also increase addiction.

Is legalized pornography good or bad? Neither, because it supplies a high instinctive demand but it is also a highly sexist business.

Is legalized food good or bad? Neither, because it helps you live but if you eat too much of it then it will kill you.

Is religion good or bad? Neither, because it helps people live happier lives but it also encourages extreme systemic delusions that contribute to every widespread social harm.

Neutrality is an answer you give when you want to please an audience, not when you want to inform them or help them think critically, and TED talks have the pattern of pretending to inform the audience when they are really just pleasing them. Even if there are spectral variations from good to evil in a given phenomenon, we can still make sound moral judgments about it that lean to either one side or the other. When you flip a coin, it probably does not land exactly on edge, even if you want it to.
 
Any requirements for what should or should not be called religion are purely linguistic and not essential. There is no such thing as an essential essence of religion apart from what people usually mean when they utter the syllables "ruh-lij-uhn" or its variant in other languages. Thus, it is impossible to be wrong about what religion is. One can hold inconsistent views about religion given a particular definition, but there is literally no fact of the matter about whether religion is belief in the supernatural, community celebration, or a set of ethics. Any definition encloses a set of phenomena under its umbrella to the exclusion of others, and is no more than a label to differentiate them in a convenient or parsimonious way, give-or-take the temperament of whoever is speaking. To say that x, y, or z is true religion while a, b, and c is not... that's just outdated Platonic idealism. Everything is what it is, and has the effects that it has, regardless of what you call it.

Whenever disagreements of this type arise, I suggest replacing the offending terminology with something neutral that both parties can agree upon. For example, two people might both believe that worshipping a supernatural being is delusional and gathering together with friends and family to sing and dance is a lot of fun. However, they may disagree about whether religion is delusional or a lot of fun, based on how they choose to define that word. This isn't an actual disagreement about anything real in the world, is all I'm saying, it's just a matter of preferred vocalizations and tongue movements and the concepts to which they occasionally point.
 
Is bad bad or good?
Is good good or bad?
Is bad or good good or bad?
Is good or bad bad or good?
It's hard to tell you something.
It's hard to tell you something.
 
I tend to think of religion as a mindset, not a spiritual thing or a set of practices. The mindset, however, causes one to hold a particular belief to be true in spite of evidence or logic. "Believing something religiously." I tend to think that on the whole the unwillingness to challenge one's beliefs or subject them to critical evaluation is likely to be a barrier to learning rather than an aid. This, I think, can become a bad thing.

However, holding such beliefs does not always do harm. If one can be respectful and tolerant of others beliefs and values then I certainly don't have a problem with religious adherence to a belief or set of beliefs. When such beliefs result in actions that get in the way of educating our children (science/biology/etc) or causes people to fly airplanes into buildings then it is bad.
 
Syed said:
bilby said:
Apes did evolve to be us.
Click to expand...
no, they cant make computer
Click to expand...
Apes made your computer, Syed. And mine. And the one that issues nuclear launch commands to missiles with more destructive power than you can easily imagine, also made by apes.
You live on a world dominated by apes.
I was raised by apes.
I later raised apes of my own.

Get with the century, dude. 21st would be cool. 19th at a minimum...
 
DrZoidberg said:
DBT said:
If religion is defined as a set of supernatural beliefs, which are untestable and therefore a matter of faith, then religion is a bad thing. That's not to say that religious people do not do good works, they do, but that the central supernatural beliefs of religion are a matter of self deception (being untestable dogma) and therefore a source of division and conflict between people and societies.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the talk is that defining religion as requiring a set of supernatural beliefs is too narrow. It fails to capture plenty of... well... religions that don´t fall within that definition. I say religion because it´s hard to come up with a better word for what non-supernaturalist religious practicioners are doing.

To take the example of the talk. Ghanian religion, ie Akan religion, has a creator god called Nyame. Nyame is omnipotent and omniscient. So it´s easy for a westerner, or somebody with a monotheistic mindset to draw a straight analogy between Nyame and the Christian God. But nobody worships Nyame. Nyame doesn´t listen to prayers. Nyame is just an embodiment of the forces of nature. Just like nature itself, Nyame doesn´t give a shit about anything or anybody. So this is a radically different type of religion. In fact, it´s a form of animism and ancestor worship. Ghanians pray to their ancestors. Not Nyame at all. Akan religion has plenty of room to interpret it supernaturally. As does almost all religion. But the step from theistic Akan religion to atheistic Akan religion is tiny. And all practices are left intact, as well as their function. If Nyame is equated with nature it is perfectly compatible with science. Ancestor worship does not necessarily imply that we think our ancestors are still invisibly floating about doing shit. Everybody has rituals to commemorate the dead, religious or otherwise. Whether or not we chose to call that ancestor worship is a technicality.

He also talks about Judaism. Another religion with long atheistic traditions. He mentions Hinduisms, over a thousand years old, traditions of atheism. Socrates was famously an atheist. But he also (according to Plato) took part in pagan religious festivals. So belief in the supernatural is obviously not required for religion. So that begs the question, how should we define religion? We can define it by function... what it´s for?
Click to expand...
Religion to me is quantifiable superstitious behavior. Someone who tells me he believes in god is not religious unless I see him acting in some way that quantifies that statement.

And religion isn't something binary. It exists in degrees so that no two religious people are religiously identical.

When I see elephants examining the bones of one of their dead that looks pretty religious to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom