[TED] Is religion good or bad?

[Juma]

To me religious =
Not be prepared to change if new evidens arrives.

 

[DBT]

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.

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?

It could be argued that the TED talk guy has broadened the meaning of the word ''religion'' too far.

Given that Judaism, for example, was built around the God of Israel, His wishes and commandments, temples were built in His Honour, and so on, the God of Israel was the central figurehead of the religion.

Now if some Jews moved away from that, but kept the appearance and the label, they are merely retaining the cultural practices of Judaism but not the religious beliefs, and consequently the religion. Their culture is Judaism, but not their religion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It could be argued that the TED talk guy has broadened the meaning of the word ''religion'' too far.

Given that Judaism, for example, was built around the God of Israel, His wishes and commandments, temples were built in His Honour, and so on, the God of Israel was the central figurehead of the religion.

Now if some Jews moved away from that, but kept the appearance and the label, they are merely retaining the cultural practices of Judaism but not the religious beliefs, and consequently the religion. Their culture is Judaism, but not their religion.

That´s a fair definition. But isn´t that in turn a much too broad definition? Culture is just stuff people do; any behavioral pattern that has emerged in any group of people. I´ve a hard time seeing the point of equating religion with what type of toast people eat in the morning, or how it is customary to start a business letter. Religions are a very specific set of behaviors that have similarities, across all religions. It feels a bit weak to say that the reason that family had that specific funeral ritual is due to... just... culture. It explains to little IMHO

 

[DrZoidberg]

To me religious =
Not be prepared to change if new evidens arrives.

Evidence of what? What possible evidence could make... let´s say... a wedding ritual falsifiable? Even atheists get married and usually have some sort of ceremony to commemorate it.

The guy in the video said that each time his grandfather had a drink he would pour some on the ground to commemorate his ancestors. The point is thinking about his dead loved ones. There´s no evidence in the world that can prove thinking about ones loved ones is bad somehow. Also... alcohol is not health food. The less you drink the better. So it´s actually a healthy practice.

 

[DBT]

It could be argued that the TED talk guy has broadened the meaning of the word ''religion'' too far.

Given that Judaism, for example, was built around the God of Israel, His wishes and commandments, temples were built in His Honour, and so on, the God of Israel was the central figurehead of the religion.

Now if some Jews moved away from that, but kept the appearance and the label, they are merely retaining the cultural practices of Judaism but not the religious beliefs, and consequently the religion. Their culture is Judaism, but not their religion.

That´s a fair definition. But isn´t that in turn a much too broad definition? Culture is just stuff people do; any behavioral pattern that has emerged in any group of people. I´ve a hard time seeing the point of equating religion with what type of toast people eat in the morning, or how it is customary to start a business letter. Religions are a very specific set of behaviors that have similarities, across all religions. It feels a bit weak to say that the reason that family had that specific funeral ritual is due to... just... culture. It explains to little IMHO

What's wrong with describing both the cultural practices and the religious beliefs associated with Judaism? Describing how some have kept the cultural practices of Judaism, such as celebrating Jewish holidays and festivals and events such as bar mitzvah alive while no longer believing in the existence of the God of Israel, while other still hold to both both culture and religion?

 

[Juma]

To me religious =
Not be prepared to change if new evidens arrives.

Evidence of what? What possible evidence could make... let´s say... a wedding ritual falsifiable? Even atheists get married and usually have some sort of ceremony to commemorate it.

The guy in the video said that each time his grandfather had a drink he would pour some on the ground to commemorate his ancestors. The point is thinking about his dead loved ones. There´s no evidence in the world that can prove thinking about ones loved ones is bad somehow. Also... alcohol is not health food. The less you drink the better. So it´s actually a healthy practice.

Religion is about beliefs. Ceremonies doesnt have to be religious.

 

[Underseer]

religions responsible for civilizing human

Civilization happened in spite of religion, not because of it. Religion has opposed progress every step of the way. Arabia was once the intellectual capital of the world, then Islam attacked Arab academics, won the battle, and now Arab intellectuals no longer make the important discoveries, and Arab civilization is largely irrelevant on the world stage except for their large population, crushing poverty, and propensity for violence. Islam took a proud culture and made it much worse.

if not for religions human STILL roaming in jungle like apes

Humans are apes.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That´s a fair definition. But isn´t that in turn a much too broad definition? Culture is just stuff people do; any behavioral pattern that has emerged in any group of people. I´ve a hard time seeing the point of equating religion with what type of toast people eat in the morning, or how it is customary to start a business letter. Religions are a very specific set of behaviors that have similarities, across all religions. It feels a bit weak to say that the reason that family had that specific funeral ritual is due to... just... culture. It explains to little IMHO

What's wrong with describing both the cultural practices and the religious beliefs associated with Judaism? Describing how some have kept the cultural practices of Judaism, such as celebrating Jewish holidays and festivals and events such as bar mitzvah alive while no longer believing in the existence of the God of Israel, while other still hold to both both culture and religion?

Judaism is an excellent example. Israel is a Jewish state, but very much multi-cultural. Even if all non-Jews would be kicked out of Israel it would still be a multi-cultural state, albeit mono-religious. Due to the history of Judaism Jews span quite a number of the world´s cultures. I´d argue that a Swede that converts to Islam is still very much Swedish. Even though culture and religion often are orthogonal phenomena, I´d argue that religion is such a specific activity that it needs a separate category.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Evidence of what? What possible evidence could make... let´s say... a wedding ritual falsifiable? Even atheists get married and usually have some sort of ceremony to commemorate it.

The guy in the video said that each time his grandfather had a drink he would pour some on the ground to commemorate his ancestors. The point is thinking about his dead loved ones. There´s no evidence in the world that can prove thinking about ones loved ones is bad somehow. Also... alcohol is not health food. The less you drink the better. So it´s actually a healthy practice.

Religion is about beliefs. Ceremonies doesnt have to be religious.

No, it´s not. Judaism, for example, places zero importance on beliefs. Only on ritual. Same goes for all pagan religion. The idea that god cares about what you believe, or that your belief matters a damn, is pretty unique for Christianity and Islam. Are there any other examples? I can´t think of any. You can be a very successful Buddhist or Hindu regardless of what you believe. Those religions don´t hinge one bit on what you believe.

edit: Oh, look I found a wikipedia article on just this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_belief

 

[DrZoidberg]

if not for religions human STILL roaming in jungle like apes

Humans are apes.

GREAT apes. Don´t forget our greatness. When we fling our poop we do it with dignity and greatness. We eat our bananas with grace... and greatness. When we roam the jungle we do it greatly.

 

[Juma]

Religion is about beliefs. Ceremonies doesnt have to be religious.

No, it´s not. Judaism, for example, places zero importance on beliefs. Only on ritual. Same goes for all pagan religion. The idea that god cares about what you believe, or that your belief matters a damn, is pretty unique for Christianity and Islam. Are there any other examples? I can´t think of any. You can be a very successful Buddhist or Hindu regardless of what you believe. Those religions don´t hinge one bit on what you believe.

edit: Oh, look I found a wikipedia article on just this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_belief

? How can you be a good hindu if you believe that hinduism is bullshit?

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, it´s not. Judaism, for example, places zero importance on beliefs. Only on ritual. Same goes for all pagan religion. The idea that god cares about what you believe, or that your belief matters a damn, is pretty unique for Christianity and Islam. Are there any other examples? I can´t think of any. You can be a very successful Buddhist or Hindu regardless of what you believe. Those religions don´t hinge one bit on what you believe.

edit: Oh, look I found a wikipedia article on just this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_belief

? How can you be a good hindu if you believe that hinduism is bullshit?

Whether or not Hinduism is bullshit or not has zero relation to whether or not the common Hindu supernatural beliefs are true. That´s not how Hindu philosophy, Hindu theology or Hindu practice works. How good Hindu you are has nothing to do with believing in magic. That´s not how Hindu religious texts are organised. Hinduism and Hindu philosophy is a very complex subject. But a short version could be that to be a good Hindu you need to practice self discipline. Pretty much all Hindu practices and rituals are focused toward this one singular goal. Nobody, religious or otherwise, thinks self discipline is bullshit.

At the end of most Hindu prayers they say "namaste". It just means truth. It´s arguable that the most important and fundamental aspect of Hinduism is to be honest with yourself and accept the truth, no matter how hard it is. If that brings you to atheism, Hindu theology has no problem with that.

 

[Juma]

? How can you be a good hindu if you believe that hinduism is bullshit?

Whether or not Hinduism is bullshit or not has zero relation to whether or not the common Hindu supernatural beliefs are true. That´s not how Hindu philosophy, Hindu theology or Hindu practice works. How good Hindu you are has nothing to do with believing in magic. That´s not how Hindu religious texts are organised. Hinduism and Hindu philosophy is a very complex subject. But a short version could be that to be a good Hindu you need to practice self discipline. Pretty much all Hindu practices and rituals are focused toward this one singular goal. Nobody, religious or otherwise, thinks self discipline is bullshit.

At the end of most Hindu prayers they say "namaste". It just means truth. It´s arguable that the most important and fundamental aspect of Hinduism is to be honest with yourself and accept the truth, no matter how hard it is. If that brings you to atheism, Hindu theology has no problem with that.

Hinduism is a lot of bullshit you are suppised to believe in yo be a hindu. As in all religions some of that bullshit may me true. But belonging to a religion means to buy into that religions beliefsystem.
Thats it. Hinduism is not constantly developing throught dissertations or articles in peer-reviewed papers etc.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Whether or not Hinduism is bullshit or not has zero relation to whether or not the common Hindu supernatural beliefs are true. That´s not how Hindu philosophy, Hindu theology or Hindu practice works. How good Hindu you are has nothing to do with believing in magic. That´s not how Hindu religious texts are organised. Hinduism and Hindu philosophy is a very complex subject. But a short version could be that to be a good Hindu you need to practice self discipline. Pretty much all Hindu practices and rituals are focused toward this one singular goal. Nobody, religious or otherwise, thinks self discipline is bullshit.

At the end of most Hindu prayers they say "namaste". It just means truth. It´s arguable that the most important and fundamental aspect of Hinduism is to be honest with yourself and accept the truth, no matter how hard it is. If that brings you to atheism, Hindu theology has no problem with that.

Hinduism is a lot of bullshit you are suppised to believe in yo be a hindu.

Name one supernatural belief a Hindu has to hold in order to call themselves a Hindu?

Keep in mind that Hinduism has a strong atheist tradition that stretches back over a thousand years.

As in all religions some of that bullshit may me true. But belonging to a religion means to buy into that religions beliefsystem.
Thats it. Hinduism is not constantly developing throught dissertations or articles in peer-reviewed papers etc.

You seem awfully confused about what a religion is. Why would it need to constantly develop using methods I assume are analogous to scientific methodology? If you fancy taking up roller-blading you just do it. You don´t consult peer-reviewed published articles on the subject. And that´s pretty much how people convert to a religion. They like it. And then do it. Religions have always evolved over time. No research and dissertations necessary. Religion isn´t really an intellectual activity. it´s about our emotional side.

But as a matter of fact theologians do produce a steady stream of dissertations and articles in peer-reviewed papers. I think it´s total nonsense. But that doesn´t change the fact that they do.

 

[Juma]

Hinduism is a lot of bullshit you are suppised to believe in yo be a hindu.

Name one supernatural belief a Hindu has to hold in order to call themselves a Hindu?

Keep in mind that Hinduism has a strong atheist tradition that stretches back over a thousand years.

As in all religions some of that bullshit may me true. But belonging to a religion means to buy into that religions beliefsystem.
Thats it. Hinduism is not constantly developing throught dissertations or articles in peer-reviewed papers etc.

You seem awfully confused about what a religion is. Why would it need to constantly develop using methods I assume are analogous to scientific methodology? If you fancy taking up roller-blading you just do it. You don´t consult peer-reviewed published articles on the subject. And that´s pretty much how people convert to a religion. They like it. And then do it. Religions have always evolved over time. No research and dissertations necessary. Religion isn´t really an intellectual activity. it´s about our emotional side. .

Sigh.... The problem is that religions aspire to actually say truths about reality. But at the same time they are not intrested to really evaluate how true their beliefs are.

That is what religion is: to not dare to really challange your inner beliefs.

Emotional knowledge is handled by psychology, not theology.

 

[PyramidHead]

My case in point: Juma and DrZoidberg both agree that making erroneous claims about supernatural beings without evidence is stupid. They also both agree that rollerblading can be fun and emotionally fulfilling.

The only place where their views diverge in this matter is that DrZoidberg uses the word 'religion' to refer to the latter kind of behavior, and Juma the former.

Thus, I humbly suggest that instead of saying:

You seem awfully confused about what a religion is. [...] Religion isn´t really an intellectual activity. it´s about our emotional side.

You say:

Emotional activity is about our emotional side.

And instead of saying:

Sigh.... The problem is that religions aspire to actually say truths about reality. But at the same time they are not intrested to really evaluate how true their beliefs are.

You say:

The problem is that supernatural belief systems aspire to actually say truths about reality.

I would hazard a guess that both parties agree on the truth of the modified statements. All that remains at stake is the word 'religion' and maybe the word 'psychology'. That and 8 pages of thread we could all do without.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Name one supernatural belief a Hindu has to hold in order to call themselves a Hindu?

Sigh.... The problem is that religions aspire to actually say truths about reality. But at the same time they are not intrested to really evaluate how true their beliefs are.

This is just assertions based on nothing. I noticed you seem unable to think of a supernatural belief a Hindu must hold in order to be able to call themselves Hindu.

That is what religion is: to not dare to really challange your inner beliefs.

And you base this opinion on what exactly? A huge part of Hindu and Buddhist meditation techniques is to challenge your inner beliefs about yourself. Yes, the Hindu/New Age world is saturated with woo and soft headed thinking. But that doesn´t mean all of it is nonsense. There´s a hell of a lot of gold in that pile of poo IMHO. If you care to look for it.

Emotional knowledge is handled by psychology, not theology.

So you´re saying that all those people who are religious because it gives them emotional comfort do so because? Therapy is like $100 an hour. Not everybody can afford that.

Also, intellectualising emotions isn´t the same thing as dealing with them. The fact that you understand the psychological mechanisms behind you grieving a lost family member doesn´t help you take away the pain. Religions can actually do that.

 

[Juma]

Sigh.... The problem is that religions aspire to actually say truths about reality. But at the same time they are not intrested to really evaluate how true their beliefs are.

This is just assertions based on nothing. I noticed you seem unable to think of a supernatural belief a Hindu must hold in order to be able to call themselves Hindu.

That is what religion is: to not dare to really challange your inner beliefs.

And you base this opinion on what exactly? A huge part of Hindu and Buddhist meditation techniques is to challenge your inner beliefs about yourself. Yes, the Hindu/New Age world is saturated with woo and soft headed thinking. But that doesn´t mean all of it is nonsense. There´s a hell of a lot of gold in that pile of poo IMHO. If you care to look for it.

Emotional knowledge is handled by psychology, not theology.

So you´re saying that all those people who are religious because it gives them emotional comfort do so because? Therapy is like $100 an hour. Not everybody can afford that.

Also, intellectualising emotions isn´t the same thing as dealing with them. The fact that you understand the psychological mechanisms behind you grieving a lost family member doesn´t help you take away the pain. Religions can actually do that.

That is some of the most naive crap I have read on this forum.

So religious intellectualism is good but scientific intellectualism is bad? (Because some may charge for their services)?

Empaty and emotional support is not religious. Religion feed on it though and have "kidnapped" it to lure people in.

But the core of religion is woo. Utter woo.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is some of the most naive crap I have read on this forum.

So religious intellectualism is good but scientific intellectualism is bad? (Because some may charge for their services)?

It´s not a question of better or worse. Religiosity isn´t an intellectual activity at all. All the scientific and supernatural claims any religion make can be disregarded and they still work (ie the point of the TED talk). Doesn´t that prove that they´re not dependent on those claims?

Empaty and emotional support is not religious. Religion feed on it though and have "kidnapped" it to lure people in.

I´m listening. Keep going.

But the core of religion is woo. Utter woo.

As you have repeatedly asserted.

 

[Juma]

It´s not a question of better or worse. Religiosity isn´t an intellectual activity at all. All the scientific and supernatural claims any religion make can be disregarded and they still work (ie the point of the TED talk). Doesn´t that prove that they´re not dependent on those .

No. They doesnt work. They create immense problems. I dont call that "to work".