Religion detrimental to society?

[Puffi]

Is religion detrimental to society? Does the good outweigh the bad? I don't think so.

What religion does is that it makes it OK not to discuss things in a rational manner. You can have a good discussion, but when someone brings God into it, you can't say anything. "It is so because God says it is." Even though they base this idea on absolutely nothing - only their feeling of what God would say - you still can't argue against it in most public forums without being attacked.

The argument has more validity if it's clearly written down in a holy book. This is a fallacy. Just because something is written down shouldn't give it more value. It's only a way to satisfy your emotional need to put things in context and order. It's safe to rely on written text, but that should have no place in a rational discussion. Why do people believe holy books are written/inspired by God? Because it says so in the books. This is circular deduction.

I didn't really like the Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts or the 9/11 attack either by the way...

So what good does religion do? It makes you happy, safe, gives you meaning in life and so on... All the reasons cater to your social and emotional needs.

This is not a utopia we're living in. Some people refuse to accept rational discussion. Only way to change that is to change the social norms and pressure them to talk. The social norm is to treat religion as if it's above discussion, and I think this is wrong and detrimental. If we can't reason with these people violence will ensue. That's how people solve problems. I'm sure most of you have met people who just won't listen no matter what you say. You also know that if you'd hit them in the face a few times they would listen. This is a dangerous thought.

[Heretic]

Religion, as you said, it something for people to cling to. It is what makes life worth living for the more deeply religious; at the end of it all you get a nice cushy place in [afterlife of choice]. Does it cloud judgments and objectivity? Definitely, in a lot of places.

But consider the alternative: where would be the motivation to do anything? The ideals of improving the world (or not destroying it) can be mostly boiled down to a sort of altruism (which is also a large theme of most religions). There is no motivation to be an altruist when you don't believe that your good deeds will actually get you anything. The world we live in is certainly flawed with people trying to help it, what would it be like if nobody did so anymore?

I personally think it would be more detrimental to NOT have religion, personally. It acts as a nice check to keep the moral compass pointing North (even if it is magnetic, not true North).

[Puffi]

If you do something because God tells you to, and not because you personally think it's the right thing to do, you're not really a good person. You're just obedient to God's authority. Much like soldiers are to their superior officers. We all know what happened in Nazi Germany. The men who ran Auschwitz weren't all "bad men" in general. They went home to their wife and kids and were productive to the society.

[Rohsiph]

But consider the alternative: where would be the motivation to do anything? The ideals of improving the world (or not destroying it) can be mostly boiled down to a sort of altruism (which is also a large theme of most religions). There is no motivation to be an altruist when you don't believe that your good deeds will actually get you anything. The world we live in is certainly flawed with people trying to help it, what would it be like if nobody did so anymore?

Altruism as for those who go above-and-beyond the call of Responsibility. There would be motivations without religion, even for the weak-of-mind/spirit: particularly, personal responsibility. If no one helped out, then a lot of "industries" (literally and figuratively) would grind to a halt--many of which produce things that most people tend to enjoy.

I could envision a group "checking out" if religion were to be dismantled as, for example, Dawkins suggests. However, any major change in social-norms/accepted thoughts will require a period of transition, as those who are unable to change lose their positions so those who can change, or were born being educated with the new system, take these positions.

There are some places in the world where religion is still necessary . . . but this is not a good thing. I want it to be that my country (the United States) is a region that would predominantly benefit from a massive shift into total-secularism, but I worry that there are a few too many pockets of population that would be violently resistant to such change.

Religion is not necessarily detrimental to society, but it is detrimental to the continued progress of rational thought--to the sciences, and, in different ways, to the arts.

[Heretic]

Hmm, I would disagree with your conclusion that pawns are absolved of responsibility for their actions. You are ultimately responsible for what you do; there is always a choice, the individual's choice. Sometimes that choice is "kill him or we'll kill you," but it's still a choice.

If we're talking about pre-destiny, then there is no basis to judge good or bad, it is all just based on which way our strings pull us.

And it's hard to comment on what a person claims to do in the name of any deity. Did god X really tell them to do it? Maybe. Are they just out of their mind and following the voice of their own insanity? Maybe.

Religion is not necessarily detrimental to society, but it is detrimental to the continued progress of rational thought--to the sciences, and, in different ways, to the arts.

No argument there, it is just a matter of what level of pervasiveness you're talking about. I would love to see political figures stop waving religion around in our faces and learn to make rational decisions (even if only most of the time). It's right in the constitution, separation of church and state.

[Puffi]

Read Obedience to Authority by Milgram for example. It centers around a laboratory experiment with paid volunteers who were told to give electric shocks to people for not answering correctly to some questions. They were told the point was to study if people would learn better if they were being punished. What they didn't know is that the person receiving the shocks was an actor and didn't receive any shocks at all.

The test subjects were supposed to give a stronger shock every time the actor answered wrong. At the end of the scale the shock would have been lethal. Before that the test subject heard the actor moaning in pain, saying he wanted to stop the experiment, but the experimenters just told them to carry on.

Result: most people would've killed the guy. I think the percentage was around 80%, correct me if I'm wrong. Most people actually thought they had killed the guy because he stopped screaming in pain at some point. This is a clear example of what authority does to people. They shift the responsibility to the authority and wont even realize it.

It's a nice book. Good descriptions of how the test subjects reacted to the commands... Shaking, uncontrollable laughing, mumbling... So they knew there was a moral conflict, but they ignored it even though they weren't pressured at all. They could've left any time and gotten paid just as much if they had from completing the experiment. The experimenters had written down a few lines which they repeated to the test subjects when they showed hesitation. Just stuff like "it's imperative to the test that you do it." Nothing that would scare them or anything like that.

[INTJohn]

While I understand, appreciate and respect the contributions that Religion has made in the evolutionary beginnings of our ancient civilizations......today it is a concept that has outlived its usefulness. I think Religion, today, is the biggest bane known to Humanity and the qwiker we can rid it from the specie the better - to quote a passage from the Bible, "........its time to put away childish things". It no doubt will take at least several more thousand years of the evolutionary process - assuming we aren't blown to extinction beforehand..........

INTJohn

[brewmaster]

While I understand, appreciate and respect the contributions that Religion has made in the evolutionary beginnings of our ancient civilizations......today it is a concept that has outlived its usefulness. I think Religion, today, is the biggest bane known to Humanity and the qwiker we can rid it from the specie the better - to quote a passage from the Bible, "........its time to put away childish things". It no doubt will take at least several more thousand years of the evolutionary process - assuming we aren't blown to extinction beforehand..........

INTJohn

+1

[blueback]

I think the idea of us evolving out of religion is analagous to the idea of us evolving out of body hair.

We still have body hair because there is no pressure to remove it, and I can't think of a situation in which there would be. Ditto for religion.

Religion is obviously in our genes somewhere because there has never been a single documented civilization without evidence of a religion. It's been with us since we started leaving behind traces of our lives and all the science in the world isn't going to root it out.

[Puffi]

There is that famous "religion gene" people have argued about... Also you can make a person experience a religious experience by introducing a strong magnetic field to a specific part of the brain. I think this inspired a study to see if more born again Christians lived around strong magnetic fields. Great stuff ;)

What if one day you see God before you, scolding you for not believing? Only the more skeptical minds will resist this type of phenomena even though they can be scientifically explained. It's not as abnormal for you to "see things" as most people believe.

There is pressure to drop religion in the most educated countries. It simply doesn't fit with academics. If there are two scientists, one of them religious, one not, I'd give the one who isn't more credit because he sounds more rational to me.

A more serious problem is with politics! Most people are religious in many countries and they'll pick leaders who take advantage of that. The leaders preach religious virtues to drown their true agenda, and people buy it. They think that if the person (for example Bush...) is a strong believer, he must be morally sound, hence a good leader. They ignore the fact that he's an idiot - for example.

[OneBadMother]

I think that the idea of a religion gene is about as ludicrous as the idea of an alcoholism gene. There may be a gene or two that might make you PRONE to addictive behaviors as a sort of side effect, but I seriously doubt that we'll ever be able to isolate a gene and say, "Ah-HA! This gene causes alcoholism, and does absolutely nothing else! Excising it from the gene pool will lead to no one ever becoming an alcoholic ever again!", which is what some people appear to make it out to be.

[stasis]

As an ethical/moral system, religion provides a series of norms to which people can appeal. Social norms seem a necessary component of social function. So, there's that, I suppose. On the other hand, though, religion is seated in an irrational dialectic. And I would tend to argue that an appeal to social function is no less important than an appeal to physical function; which means: morality and ethics should be no more the domain of aesthetics and whimsy than the functioning of an engine or the geometry of a building. Which makes the perpetuating of religion for purposes of moral and ethical norms a negative practice, in my opinion. I would rather see social philosophy informed more by empirical sociology and logical dialectic than by mysticism and arbitrary "feeling" and so forth.

[blueback]

Well, there is a higher rate of alcoholism and diabetes among native americans. . .so genetics might have something to do with it.

[TheLoneINTJ]

I think religion will always be there but it will continue to evolve to suit our surroundings. I would argue against the necessity of it but I am sure that it is just one of those things that we humans 'do'. I might take a guess that it will always be there but I could be wrong about that but, if we were to take that leap of non-believing, the world will move along just fine without it.

Take a look at Europe. I lived there for 2 years. They are increasingly secular. Religion for many (and I could even guess most but I only speak from personal observaion) is no more than a cultural tradition rather than an actual belief. Don't bother holding your breath for when they fall into chaos/burst into flames.

[Tarrick]

I love non-religious people taking about religion. It's so...cute!

[SolitaryWalker]

We should clearly establish what we understand for religion to be.

I offer this definition: a worldview that establishes a cosmology, eschatology and ethics, as well as accepts at least some of its tenets as incontrovertible. Authority is a salient aspect of religiosity, and for this reason many, and often all aspects of religious worldviews are immune to criticism. Thus, a religious worldview does not need to be plausible for this reason.

The authority aspect, without a doubt stretches to all entities that religions interact with. This promotes non-critical acceptance of ideas, which in itself is detrimental in a sense it becomes more difficult to change society for the better. As ideas about how this could be done become less accessible.

Religions, do however, promote orderliness in society, that is if we truly are to become as docile and subservient to the proposed tenets and supressed our innovative tendencies, society would become a much more secure place. This, does lead to something akin to a stone age society. A society that is stable, yet immune to change. Such an environment is undesirable because societies need to adapt to changing circumstances in order to thrive, yet arresting all change renders this very difficult.

So, in this respect religion is indeed harmful to society.

[Rohsiph]

I love non-religious people taking about religion. It's so...cute!

hmm . . . so, are you disagreeing with the direction of this thread while refusing to offer any substantive argument to disprove any of the claims therein?

I'm having trouble seeing your point. Please help.

[Tarrick]

I'm just so tickled that so many non-religious people feel the compulsion to post about religion.

I don't feel the need to add too much more at this point; I posted a lot about this earlier and was promptly swamped by responses that, I believe, were not the most polite and questions that people didn't really want answers to.

So there.

[stasis]

I'm just so tickled that so many non-religious people feel the compulsion to post about religion.
Hm? Why? Because organized religion is a mainstream social and political paradigm in the world today, discussing it seems like it should be as relevant as discussing any other socio-political issue which influences people's day to day lives. It isn't as if the influence of religion is limited to the lives of the religious.

[blueback]

I love non-religious people taking about religion. It's so...cute!

I'm just so tickled that so many non-religious people feel the compulsion to post about religion.

I don't feel the need to add too much more at this point; I posted a lot about this earlier and was promptly swamped by responses that, I believe, were not the most polite and questions that people didn't really want answers to.

So there.

Well, I guess it's true what they say about becoming the thing you despise the most.

I mean, come on. You say you want to be respected but then you pull a juvenile stunt like sarcastically calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "cute." I understand that you're an INTJ and you probably don't know much about socializing but, in the future, try not to be "that guy" who chimes into a conversation just long enough to insult everyone there and then sit back with a smug smile that implies he knows why everyone else is an idiot.

When you remove yourself from a debate you give up any claim you had on the resolution of that debate. You can't keep jumping back in, mentioning how much better you are than everyone else, and expect anyone to listen to you. If your ideas are so good then present them.

And don't think that I'm trying to insult you with this post. I don't care what you think enough to try to insult you. You keep claiming that you have answered all these questions before, but I've gone back through your posts and couldn't find anything substantial. If your old answers were so good, why not repost them and teach us all a lesson? If people are treating you badly, why not confront them about it? Or, you know, I guess you could just keep doing what you're doing. . .

[Henry]

Result: most people would've killed the guy. I think the percentage was around 80%, correct me if I'm wrong. Most people actually thought they had killed the guy because he stopped screaming in pain at some point. This is a clear example of what authority does to people. They shift the responsibility to the authority and wont even realize it..

Exactly. S's will do almost anything they're told because they don't have strong minds of their own.

Which is precisely why religion is necessary: to keep them in line.

[Puffi]

I think I should clear some things about the study I mentioned... Firstly, if the guy refused to answer or couldn't answer (because he was dead) they were supposed to treat that as a wrong answer. Secondly, the subjects thought they were randomly chosen to give the shocks or sit in the chair. It's significant because they thought the guy in the chair could've been them. They had a few minutes to talk to each other before the test when they also signed an agreement that they could stop the experiment any time they wanted!

This study has been repeated MANY times, in different countries, in different settings, across decades with different types of subjects and experimenters etc...

It doesn't seem to matter what the test subject was like; what happened is universal. So it's not just the S's. About 1% refused the test outright when they realized how far they were expected to go, and that clearly would've been the only ethical choice.

What varied was the people's reactions to being told it was fake and the guy didn't really die. Some didn't seem to care that much even though they were surprised, while some were extremely relieved. Either way, they still did it.

[Nomad]

Religion is not detrimental to society. What people do with religion( and sports, politics, and peace, and war, and international aid, and loans from the World Bank and power) are detrimental to society.

-Nomad

[stasis]

Religion is not detrimental to society. What people do with religion( and sports, politics, and peace, and war, and international aid, and loans from the World Bank and power) are detrimental to society.
While I can tentatively agree with that logic for the sake of argument wherever it concerns material non-actors, such as guns for example, I don't think this argument can be made with respect to a belief system. It only seems to be useful in ascertaining the bounds of the responsibility of actors. A gun is not a way in which people act, but a belief system is. A gun cannot be regarded as problematic behavior because it is not behavior, but a way of thinking can.

Analogues:
Fascism is not detrimental to society. What people do with fascism is detrimental to society.
Racism is not detrimental to society. What people do with racism is detrimental to society.
Anarchy is not detrimental to society. What anarchists do is detrimental to society.
Schizophrenia is not detrimental to society. What schizophrenics do is detrimental to society.
I don't see how these statements can be considered valid.

[Lucid]

While I can tentatively agree with that logic for the sake of argument wherever it concerns material non-actors, such as guns for example, I don't think this argument can be made with respect to a belief system. It only seems to be useful in ascertaining the bounds of the responsibility of actors. A gun is not a way in which people act, but a belief system is. A gun cannot be regarded as problematic behavior because it is not behavior, but a way of thinking can.

Analogues:
Fascism is not detrimental to society. What people do with fascism is detrimental to society.
Racism is not detrimental to society. What people do with racism is detrimental to society.
Anarchy is not detrimental to society. What anarchists do is detrimental to society.
Schizophrenia is not detrimental to society. What schizophrenics do is detrimental to society.
I don't see how these statements can be considered valid.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the case with religion is somewhat different and racism, schizophrenia and fascism don't work quite the same way.
It seems like most religions, when you get down to their basic tenets are mostly good. Most seem to say, "be nice to people, try to better yourself, try to be charitable to those less fortunate, love your god." And those are hard to find fault with.
However, somehow the "Judge not" stuff gets lost or glossed over. The "be kind to your neighbor" gets forgotten and as a result you have people standing on street corners holding signs saying, "God hates fags" and bombing abortion clinics and trying to teach intelligent design in schools.
It seems like religion can have a positive affect on some people's lives, but often is used to justify things that are terrible, or just plain stupid.


I love non-religious people taking about religion. It's so...cute!
Boy, good thing we non-religious people don't feel that way about when religious people start talking about science, reason, education, politics and most other non-religious topics.
I don't have to be an anarchist to have a conversation about anarchy. I don't have to be a cook to have a conversation about pie.

[Puffi]

I don't think the major religions are mostly good. They're good in some things, but I think the bad outweigh the good. Why was slavery abolished in religious countries? The Bible thinks it's OK. So does the Koran. Any religious person should have voted to keep it. Wasn't God's opinion of it not good enough? How many Christians would stone their wife to death if she wasn't a virgin on their wedding night? They all should.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. -Leviticus 20:13. That doesn't leave much for interpretation. The extremists are often right, whether we like it or not.

Also, Puffi has the cutest avatar ever.

That's why you all should succumb to me.

[Lucid]

I don't think the major religions are mostly good. They're good in some things, but I think the bad outweigh the good. Why was slavery abolished in religious countries? The Bible thinks it's OK. So does the Koran. Any religious person should have voted to keep it. Wasn't God's opinion of it not good enough? How many Christians would stone their wife to death if she wasn't a virgin on their wedding night? They all should.

That doesn't leave much for interpretation. The extremists are often right, whether we like it or not.


Actually, most of what you're quoting from comes out of the book of leviticus, which is supposed to be god's rules for the Jews. It's in the old testament. The whole idea behind Jesus was that he would die for the sins of humanity, and the rules stated in the book of leviticus would no longer apply to those who accepted that sacrifice as their own. Otherwise Christians would have to sacrifice goats and doves, cover their heads in church, refrain from trimming their forelocks and eat kosher.

Technically, according to christianity, all you have to do to be accepted by god is to accept Jesus and sincerely repent your sins.

I should point out that I'm not religious. My father was a lawyer for most of his life and then he went to seminary school and became a pastor. We debate about religion quite a bit.

The extremists are right in a literal sense, but they fail to get that whole "judge not" thing. Or "thou shalt not kill" or any of that. All they hear is "an eye for an eye." And people get like that whether religion is involved or not. Take all religion away and we will still find reasons to kill each other, oppress each other, blow up abortion clinics and stand on street corners waving hateful signs about gay people.

*edit* Actually, you mentioned that religious people should have tried to enforce slavery because their various books said it was ok. I can argue a lot about christianity (from either side :)) because of my father, so I'll just stick to that one. What christians should do is make a point to be kind to other people, to perform charitable acts and worship their god in their hearts and in the privacy of their homes. Yelling horrible things at people going in to abortion clinics, saying that god hates a particular kind of person, all that fun stuff... isn't actually christian. Christian means "christ-like."

To address your point about stoning:
I'm sure you've heard the story about Jesus and the adulteress. A group of people had brought this woman who had been caught committing adultery before Jesus. They were going to stone her to death. They asked him what they should do, since they expected him to tell them not to stone her. This would have been a violation of the law of Abraham (that's the stuff from the book of leviticus you were talking about) and this would give them reason to act against him. He said that famous bit about he who has no sin casting the first stone. All the stoners (hehe) left without killing the woman, who asked Jesus if he accused her. He told her he didn't accuse her (seek to punish her for adultery) and told her to "go and sin no more." The End.

Unfortunately, the point of that story gets lost on the christians and on the strongly anti-religious alike, who can both only see the negative aspects of a religion.

.... it's funny though, usually I'm on the other side of this debate. :D

[Danellian]

I think religion can be good or bad for society. History bears out a lot of atrocities committed by religion, as well as many inspirational stories of religious leaders fighting for justice in an unjust world. The things is this: when we look at the ills committed by religion, it is due to the practitioners of said religion not practicing their religion well and authentically. It is due to being religious instead of spiritual. Look at the Reformation as an example. Martin Luther protested against the sins of the Catholic Church, such as the selling of indlugences and the claim of Papal infallability. The Catholic Church, at that time, was all about establishing itself as an authority as the ultimate intermediary between God and man. With the establishment of Protestantism, we had a new Church that enabled the institutionalization of authentic Christian seekers. I'm not saying the Protestant Church is the only valid Church, but this serves as a historic example of my point. We have inspiring figures like Ghandi who fought for peace with non-violent means under firm spiritual principles, and we also have wars, such as the Islamic conquest of the Middle East, northern Africa, and pushing into Europe, and the subsequent Christian Crusades, all fought in the name of religion and resulting in the deaths and subjugation of thousands and thousands of people. Once we divorce spirituality from politics, we can she our need for religion and step forth to live in the name of spirituality. Then, as individuals, we can make contributions to society that will truly serve the needs of the whole, not only of the parts.

[Nomad]

While I can tentatively agree with that logic for the sake of argument wherever it concerns material non-actors, such as guns for example, I don't think this argument can be made with respect to a belief system. It only seems to be useful in ascertaining the bounds of the responsibility of actors. A gun is not a way in which people act, but a belief system is. A gun cannot be regarded as problematic behavior because it is not behavior, but a way of thinking can.

Analogues:
Fascism is not detrimental to society. What people do with fascism is detrimental to society.
Racism is not detrimental to society. What people do with racism is detrimental to society.
Anarchy is not detrimental to society. What anarchists do is detrimental to society.
Schizophrenia is not detrimental to society. What schizophrenics do is detrimental to society.
I don't see how these statements can be considered valid.

I can be as racist as I like. I can think whatever I like.I can hate someone for nonsensical reasons. If I act on that, then that is detrimental. personally, I think the one who gets the worst deal is the racist. I don't think they know how small they are.

Fascism. What people do with politics.

Schizophrenia is a medical condition, it is neither good or bad. Left untreated or uncontrolled, the actions of a schizophrenic are detrimental. There is a legal defense for insanity.

Anarchy is not detrimental to society. In anarchy there is no society.Thats why they call it anarchy.


You missed my point though. Jesus preached peace. The teachings of Christ taught peace and forgiveness and all that good stuff. Jesus did not teach; "Kill them all, God will know his own." That was someone else misusing religion to justify an atrocity. History is full of this stuff.

Hate the man, not his religion.it's people who use religious/moral authority to justify terrible acts.

I suspect that most of the Old Testament was included in order to consolidate power within the church. because the OT God, and the NT God? Different deity altogether.You listen to Jesus, and you don't need the Church. It's very rare to find someone who practices true Christianity.

I suppose it is, as pointed out, the difference between organized structure, which we recognize as "religion" and spirituality.

For the record, I am not a Christian, I am a pagan.

-Nomad

[stasis]

It seems like most religions, when you get down to their basic tenets are mostly good. Most seem to say, "be nice to people, try to better yourself, try to be charitable to those less fortunate, love your god." And those are hard to find fault with.You missed my point though. Jesus preached peace. The teachings of Christ taught peace and forgiveness and all that good stuff. Jesus did not teach; "Kill them all, God will know his own." That was someone else misusing religion to justify an atrocity. History is full of this stuff.

Hate the man, not his religion.it's people who use religious/moral authority to justify terrible acts.
The same thing can be said about fascism, as a social system. What the two of you appear to be arguing is that religion is basically "good" and therefore it can't be assailed as a system. That it is only the corruption of religion, performed at the individual level, that can cause it to become harmful. But this is false, because the essential criticism of religion is directed at religion as such, as a particular method of social organization and action. A philosophy, a method of understanding and dealing with the world.

To be clear, and perhaps the examples I selected in my last post only cloud my point, I'm not specifically arguing that religion is socially deleterious by comparing it to things that are often or always socially deleterious. What I'm doing is resisting the notion that religion can't be assailed as a deleterious social system, which is the direct consequence of statements like "religion isn't harmful to society, but what people do with religion can be". Social systems themselves are either functional or dysfunctional with respect to society, and so religion as a social system can be fundamentally harmful to society. Calling it "basically good" is only to argue that it is not, and not that it can not.

[blueback]

"religion isn't harmful to society, but what people do with religion can be". Social systems themselves are either functional or dysfunctional with respect to society, and so religion as a social system can be fundamentally harmful to society. Calling it "basically good" is only to argue that it is not, and not that it can not.

I'm gonna have to disagree. There is no inherent power in a system, there is only what people do with it. Systems are tools, they are designed, constructed, fixed, upgraded, etc because they serve a specific purpose.

A screwdriver isn't inherently good or bad for society because without a human it just sits on the workbench, unable to do anything on its own. If I pick it up and use it to fix a wobbly swing-set so that kids don't fall off of it then I have benefitted society, if I pick it up and use it to unscrew someone's fuel injectors so that their car bursts into flames then I have harmed society. I can even pick it up and use it as a weapon, to either defend myself or attack someone.

If you say that religion is fundamentally harmful to society then you must be saying that the human race has advanced IN SPITE OF religion, since there hasn't been a large group of humans ever who didn't have a religion.

[stasis]

I'm gonna have to disagree. There is no inherent power in a system, there is only what people do with it. Systems are tools, they are designed, constructed, fixed, upgraded, etc because they serve a specific purpose.
A social system, unlike a screwdriver, exists only in terms of the social interaction of its proponents in practice. There's no separating it from the people who comprise it.

[Nomad]

Um, I have been to 27 countries. I've studied history and politics and religion.

Could you show me an example of a social system that is not dysfunctional? Where everything goes as planned and everyone gets along and everyones requirements are met and everything is just and fair?

I would like to emigrate there.
Because social systems are designed to make an attempt at these things.They always fail. The systems may be perfectly designed, but people are not. People twist systems to their own advantage. Your system would have to account for every fleeting desire, every moment of every emotion of every living thing within your system. In real time. Zero error.Countervailing systemic procedures in order to countervail itself.

Dysfunctional.

As for immunity to being assailed, you miss it entirely. You can assail anything.Tens of thousands of people and institutions have assailed religion for all of recorded history. ( and countless other systems) without success.

I have wandered this world for 28 years, and seen and dealt with every stripe of human being I can think of. here is one of those things you know and can't explain, because only time teaches it.

It's in the way that you use it.
Respectfully,
-Nomad

[stasis]

Um, I have been to 27 countries. I've studied history and politics and religion.
That's nice.


Could you show me an example of a social system that is not dysfunctional?
The scientific method.


Your system
I am not advocating a system. I'm rejecting a faulty argument.

[Nomad]

The scientific method is not a social system. It is a methodology. Social systems, without exception involve people and their interactions. Please show me scientific method that will predict what a person or a group of people will do in any given situation, that has been peer reviewed and is generally accepted as true in all cases.

Science does not KNOW anything. It has finely honed guesses. That's why they call it the theory of gravity, rather than the fact. Because even gravity operates in an inconsistent manner.

For the record, I did not waste my time while traveling. It was nice. I spent a great deal of that time observing how people react in regards to religion, and whether it is good or bad. It's a serious hobby for me, as well as a professional requirement, because I've spent most of my adult life fighting to people who use religion to justify violence.For me, the subject had potentially fatal consequences. You just dismissed an entire adult lifetime applying critical analysis to religion and it's effects.

Something to consider, if you will. Religion is here to stay, no matter how nonsensical it may be. The question ought to be not whether it's detrimental, but how we keep people from abusing it. Trying to decide if it's detrimental is pointless, and intellectual masturbation. It's here to stay. The fault is in the question.


-Nomad

[Lucid]

The same thing can be said about fascism, as a social system. What the two of you appear to be arguing is that religion is basically "good" and therefore it can't be assailed as a system. That it is only the corruption of religion, performed at the individual level, that can cause it to become harmful. But this is false, because the essential criticism of religion is directed at religion as such, as a particular method of social organization and action. A philosophy, a method of understanding and dealing with the world.

To be clear, and perhaps the examples I selected in my last post only cloud my point, I'm not specifically arguing that religion is socially deleterious by comparing it to things that are often or always socially deleterious. What I'm doing is resisting the notion that religion can't be assailed as a deleterious social system, which is the direct consequence of statements like "religion isn't harmful to society, but what people do with religion can be". Social systems themselves are either functional or dysfunctional with respect to society, and so religion as a social system can be fundamentally harmful to society. Calling it "basically good" is only to argue that it is not, and not that it can not.

I guess I don't see religion as a social system. Or at least not necessarily a social system. I think when it's used as a social system it is detrimental... so maybe we're actually arguing the same point after all. (I do this frequently)
Also, I have to agree with Nomad, no social system is perfect. A lot of them are good ideas, but fall short of perfection in practice. I don't think you can classify them as either functional or dysfunctional. It's just not that black and white the way I see it. I think the varying social systems we have are maybe different degrees of dysfunctional.

[Hypomanic]

Religion will be the end of society, it seems.

[blueback]

In the sense that religion will be around when society ends, yes, but I don't think it will be directly responsible.

[Puffi]

What I don't understand about Christianity is that if Jesus said you shouldn't pay attention to something in the OT... Why is that even taught to or talked about among Christians? Also, wasn't everything in the OT supposed to be the word of God? So why would you take Jesus' word over God? If you did, why would you believe anything in the OT? Why even bother reading it?

This stuff about being Christ-like... Sounds good in theory, but no one does it. Yet they still call themselves Christian. Why? Aren't you supposed to give to people in need for example? And I mean more than 50 bucks a year on thanksgiving. Christ would've given just about everything. You're not really "Christ-like" unless you do that as well.

[Tarrick]

Jesus didn't invalidate the Old Testament, he fulfilled it. We no longer need to sacrifice animals though to repent, because Jesus shed His blood for us.

[Hypomanic]

There are two case scenarios:

1. Religious extremists blow up the world.
2. Natural disturbances (resource depletion, climate changes, pollution ...) destroy us.

[Lucid]

What I don't understand about Christianity is that if Jesus said you shouldn't pay attention to something in the OT... Why is that even taught to or talked about among Christians? Also, wasn't everything in the OT supposed to be the word of God? So why would you take Jesus' word over God? If you did, why would you believe anything in the OT? Why even bother reading it?

No part of the Bible is the word of god. It was all written by humans. Many of whom believed they were writing what god had told them or their experiences with god. But god did not write the Bible and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either lying or stupid. Or both.

Many christians see the old testament as the history of the jews, which is partly why it's still taught. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled and it can be argued that it's important to know your roots.

Just to point it out, although everyone may already know, the New Testament was written by several different people over many years and almost all of them something like 10 or 15 years after the crucification. So that's the reason for it having so many contradictions. Many of the rules and laws for christians in the new testament were decided by the apostles, not by Jesus.
In addition to all that, is the famous (thanks to the DaVinci Code :rolleyes:) council of Worms, held about 1500 years after Jesus's death. Where the leaders of Christianity (at that time) met to decide which gospels to include in the christian bible, which to leave out, and whether or not Jesus was divine, or just an average mortal guy with some good ideas.
Religion is not the magical mystery tour that many would have you believe. Although, for many people knowledge of these things doesn't invalidate their faith and, if you ask me, there's no reason it should.

This stuff about being Christ-like... Sounds good in theory, but no one does it. Yet they still call themselves Christian. Why? Aren't you supposed to give to people in need for example? And I mean more than 50 bucks a year on thanksgiving. Christ would've given just about everything. You're not really "Christ-like" unless you do that as well.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Most of the basics of the religion are really good, but people don't live up to it. Worse still, they use this great idea of being christ-like (for purposes of this conversation, the term christ-like will mean generally being nice and caring for your fellow man) for things like the Spanish Inquisition. You talk about religion being a detriment to society, but even the worst stuff we have these days doesn't hold a candle to the ugliness that was the Spanish Inquisition. It's actually very interesting if you read about it. Then get one of the bibles that has everything Jesus said written in red. Read just those parts and compare it with the Spanish Inquisition. Then I think you will see my point. :undecided:

[blueback]

Maybe people are just going to kill each other until they find something better to do?

I mean, it's a fact that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other. Most of the killing in the world today is in areas where people still live the way they did 1000 years ago. They haven't modernized yet.

Since primitive people only have religion to base their decisions on, it makes sense that when they do the things they want to do they explain it with religion. When science was first being introduced to the public they came up with social darwinism, which is just them doing what they want to do and using science to explain it.

Today, in the most developed countries, with capitalism, people have something new to focus on, like big screen TVs and Hollywood gossip. Their comfort is too much to risk for the reward of killing anyone else. In Darfur and Iraq they don't have anything to lose.

So, basically, what I mean is that people who are primitive only understand their religion, so they use it to justify anything they feel like doing. People that are advanced have science and religion, which they use to justify anything they feel like doing. The difference is that advanced people have too much to lose by killing a lot of other people. The middle class is famous for wanting to preserve their quality of life.

Maybe religion isn't detremental to society so much as it happens to be around when people who do bad things need a justification for their actions.

[Puffi]

First of all... "word of God" doesn't mean God wrote the Bible - just that it was His word that the people wrote down.

Next time I meet a Christian I'll ask him to give half of his money to me, to prove he's a true Christian. Anyone ever tried this? ;) What do they say to that?

[stasis]

You just dismissed an entire adult lifetime applying critical analysis to religion and it's effects.
Your "entire adult lifetime" is an irrelevant anecdote that I have no way of meaningfully assessing over the internet. And the argument from authority is a fallacy.


Something to consider, if you will. Religion is here to stay, no matter how nonsensical it may be. The question ought to be not whether it's detrimental, but how we keep people from abusing it. Trying to decide if it's detrimental is pointless, and intellectual masturbation. It's here to stay. The fault is in the question.
Unless it is your intent to diminish the humanity of atheists, I think you're going to have trouble arguing that religion is an inviolable consequence of human life -- which is no less than what you would have to do in order to uphold this assertion that religion is forever. Along those lines, you'll also have to establish how exactly it is that a complex analytical behavior such as religiosity, all evidence of which I am thusfar aware suggests is socialized, is in fact inherent to the human organism.

[Nomad]

fair enough. What exactly, would you like to discuss? I can back up, with references and footnotes, historical records, philosophical discussions, political treatises, psychological profiles, treaties, countless documented facts written by the individuals themselves, proclaiming how religion motivates their actions or non actions, from nearl every modern religion and quite a few ancient ones ( some have spotty records, I admit) I have nearly two thousand pages of documentation on the IRA alone, where in various places they discuss how to promote religous fervor and hatred in order to forward the IRA and it's goals. Some were authored by my grandfather. I have nine specialists I can call on whom I've consulted with, from specialists in Middle Eastern history and the associated sociology, to priests, rabbis and imams who reside in Jerusalem. I also have regular social interactions with Hindus, modern Pagans, Buddhists, and yes, even atheists, in order to explore these things. All have charming,interesting, quite compelling and valid reasons for what they think.

All of it is verifiable through third party sources. Besides,in and of itself, nothing is verifiable on the internet, not even that fact that you and I are living human beings, not some experimental construct. You dislike my argument, so you take an unassailable position that what you say, is in fact, true, and what I say is not, simply because you say so. You don't seem to understand that I think the original question is flawed and poorly presented (sorry Puffi)

No group of human being are a homogeneous group, if it were we would be extinct as a species. I do not deny the humanity of atheists, nor am I attacking your beliefs. I am simply stating that what you do with a thing determines whether it's good or bad, it has no inherent value on it's own.

I confess to confusion that you SEEM to decide that religion is inherently bad based on historical record, yet, when presented with a different record, just as valid as your record, it seems to have become a problem. Without historical record of religion being bad, your position holds no weight.

I submit, as a proof of my position, that i cannot read the future, however, barring some radical change in the next few centuries that I see no proof of, there are tens of thousands of people who live in pain, and the rituals and prayers and the tenents of thier various religions ease their pain and get them throughout their day.

You argued proof.
please show me proof that this abandonment of religion will occur.

Please show me proof that religion does no provided succor to the poor, the weak, the suffering.

This is an intellectual problem for you. With no consequences. You think it ought to be a certain way, and it is not, therefore all of momentum of recorded history should change based on your opinion.

I know this argument holds no weight with you, because experience means nothing to you, but I have felt their blood seep into my clothes as they wept for salvation from their God.

It's mind curiosity to you. To others, in fact most of the worlds population, through all of recorded history, faith has been a fact. Is that statement factually incorrect?

-Nomad

[stasis]

What exactly, would you like to discuss?
Huh?


You dislike my argument, so you take an unassailable position that what you say, is in fact, true, and what I say is not, simply because you say so.
No, no. To be honest, I don't feel a like or a dislike for your argument. It's just that parts of it are illogical. I could defend logic itself if you care to attack it, but that discussion would surely tread on some strange ground.


I confess to confusion that you SEEM to decide that religion is inherently bad based on historical record, yet, when presented with a different record, just as valid as your record, it seems to have become a problem. Without historical record of religion being bad, your position holds no weight.
My response to you in this thread really has nothing to do with my considering religion to be inherently bad or dysfunctional. I understand that my first post in this thread, although directed at no-one, might be causing confusion. As I attempted to make clear in post #31 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), "I'm not specifically arguing that religion is socially deleterious by comparing it to things that are often or always socially deleterious. What I'm doing is resisting the notion that religion can't be assailed as a deleterious social system, which is the direct consequence of statements like 'religion isn't harmful to society, but what people do with religion can be'." The purpose of my making that argument isn't to advance my position on religion, but to destroy a fallacious premise that has cropped up in the midst of yours. All of this talk of your experience really has nothing to do with anything I've said to you.


You argued proof.
please show me proof that this abandonment of religion will occur.
Why would I want to do that? I can descry the future no better than you can, and that being not at all. The difference, I think, is that I haven't said that the whole thing is intellectual masturbation because something will always be one way or the other. That's the sort of statement that requires proving, and since you're the one who has made it, it seems like you should be proving it. And in order to prove it, since you obviously can not see the future, you'll need to prove that religion is intrinsic to and a necessary consequence of human life. That proof would seem to be impossible, which makes your dismissal meaningless. Notice how at no point here do I actually need to advocate a counterposition for this to occur. What you've said can stand or fail by itself.


I know this argument holds no weight with you, because experience means nothing to you, but I have felt their blood seep into my clothes as they wept for salvation from their God.

It's mind curiosity to you. To others, in fact most of the worlds population, through all of recorded history, faith has been a fact. Is that statement factually incorrect?
Not that the argument from authority becomes any less fallacious the more one argues it, but the hyperbole is equally uninspiring. While I do grant you that I've never had my hand in somebody's brains before, this sort of thing doesn't support your reasoning at all. I mean, the Earth has also existed "through all of recorded history"; are you really suggesting it sound that we therefore conclude the Earth will always exist, or, even further, that the existence of the Earth is somehow a fundamental and inalienable property of existence itself? Does being covered in gore or traveling to every country on the planet and then attaining nirvana somehow make that a valid statement?

Beyond the fact that all of recorded history is pretty much a blip in time relative to the history of even humanlike life, let alone social life, you're still going to have to demonstrate how it is that religion is a necessary consequence of human existence in order to support the conclusions you've gone on to draw. The fact that atheists exist - again, unless you intend to reduce the humanity of atheists (and you say you don't) - seems to make that conclusion impossible. It's evidently not a necessary consequence.

So then you could make a weaker argument in concession, that being religion as something generally intrinsic to human life, although not necessarily arising. But even then, you're still going to have to demonstrate how it is that complex analytical behavior such as religiosity is not socialized (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) along with the rest of the complex analytical behavior that we can observe in social animals -- which would also seem to have to be the case in order for it to be distinguished from any other evolving socialization. You'll need something better than anecdote to do so. Do you have scientific material? Please forgive me for not being an expert on the subject of behavioral neuroscience, but the only evidence I have ever heard of that could even begin to support such a statement was something about a series of experiments dealing with brain activity during 'religious experiences'.

[blueback]

So basically Nomad is arguing that religion is a necessary part of the fabric of human social life because there's never been a documented civilization that didn't have religion.

And Stasis is arguing that religion could disappear at any moment because no one can predict the future and the unique presence of religion in every known human social system could simply be a coincidence.

You're both right.

Of course, you're both wrong too. Nomad is wrong for the same reason everyone who uses Newton's formula's to predict the effects of gravity are wrong. Gravity could disappear at any moment and then the formulas would be useless. Stasis is wrong in the same way every single person who predicted the End of Days has been wrong because it hasn't happened yet.

[stasis]

So basically Nomad is arguing that religion is a necessary part of the fabric of human social life because there's never been a documented civilization that didn't have religion.
That seems to be the case. And also because of blood and traveling and stuff.


And Stasis is arguing that religion could disappear at any moment because no one can predict the future and the unique presence of religion in every known human social system could simply be a coincidence.
Not really. What I'm arguing is that in order for it to be argued that religion is a necessary component of human sociology, that being why we see it throughout history and how we can conclude it will always exist (a conclusion which renders the question "intellectual masturbation", as Nomad put it), it is also implicitly being argued that religion is intrinsic to human sociology.

And in order to support the hypothesis that religion is intrinsic to human sociology, one could either cite its apparent social omnipresence (the existence of atheists making this impossible), or one could attempt to distinguish it from other complex analytical behavior that we know to be socialized and therefore subject to social evolution (which would require some kind of empirical proof - perhaps data gleaned from behavioral neuroscience).

Nomad's assumption, in lieu of this proof, is really nothing at all like Newtonian theory.

[blueback]

Nomad's assumption, in lieu of this proof, is really nothing at all like Newtonian theory.

Yes it is. It's an analogy. You are saying that religion has always been around, but that doesn't mean it always will be. Which is the same as saying that gravity has always been around, but that doesn't mean it always will be. No one is running out to buy tiedown straps in case the gravity turns off tomorrow because no one thinks it is going to disappear within a timeframe that is relevant. The same can be said about religion. No one will seriously argue that it is impossible for religion to ever disappear, but no one will seriously argue that it is possible for religion to disappear overnight.

Every human society has had at least one religion. There are no indications of a mass migration to athiesm.

[stasis]

Yes it is. It's an analogy. You are saying that religion has always been around, but that doesn't mean it always will be. Which is the same as saying that gravity has always been around, but that doesn't mean it always will be.
It's the same as someone saying it, maybe, but not the same as a physical scientist who applies proofs to empiricism in order to extrapolate a projection. Your analogy is bunk:

Simply observing that a thing exists or has already existed for x period of past time is useless for drawing logical conclusions about its future existence. The only conclusion that we can draw from a thing existing and having existed is that it exists and has existed. In order to make meaningful predictions about the future existence of that thing, we need to develop a theoretical understanding of how it is that that thing exists and therefore why it would continue to exist. And the how and why of it is what I'm waiting for.

Moreover, your analogy fails in another respect as well. I'm not predicting an end of religion; I'm rejecting the conclusion that it can never end. As above, the argument presented thusfar has a huge hole in it which precludes this conclusion being made on any rational basis.

[Nomad]

Stasis,
I might have misunderstood your position, but I fail to see the logic of whether religion is intrinsic.

For the record, I think organized religion sucks. It invites abuse.Personal faith is another matter.
May I submit a question?

Since all of recorded human history, in every society that we have even the scantiest information on, religion has been a major component, would it not be logical to assume that it is intrinsic, but not necessary?

And further, since we have no evidence to support the idea that religion is not intrinsic to large human communities, since there has never, to our knowledge been one, would not the the logical conclusion be that it is intrinsic to the human species as a whole to have some form of religion?

-Nomad

[stasis]

I might have misunderstood your position, but I fail to see the logic of whether religion is intrinsic.
If your conclusion is that religion will exist for as long as human society exists, assuming you consider that conclusion a rational one, then you will need to have first ascertained why it is that religion will exist for as long as human society exists. And in order to ascertain why it is that religion will exist for as long as human society exists, you will first need to come to a theoretical understanding of how it is that religion exists. What is the fundamental nature of its existence with respect to human society, that which gives it this quality of being inextricably bound to the existence of human society such that we can conclude that it will always exist so long as human society exists and that the very question is intellectual masturbation.

What you state implicitly when you draw this conclusion, then, is that religion is intrinsic to human sociology. That is the sort of position you'd need to hold in order to regard it as being fundamentally bound to human sociology, inalienable, always to exist. Unlike any of the other complex analytical bits of socialized culture which we know are learned, can come into broad use, can decline or fail and can evolve, as context dictates.

And like I've tried to explain, that's a pretty rough position to support. You can't support it with "religion has always existed" because that doesn't tell us much of anything operable about it. The only way I can imagine you supporting this is by finding some kind of biological evidence specifically necessitating religiosity in human sociology. And again, though I am not an expert in the field, the only thing I've ever heard of that could even begin to be utilized as such a support was some study of an area of the brain active during 'religious experiences'.


Since all of recorded human history, in every society that we have even the scantiest information on, religion has been a major component, would it not be logical to assume that it is intrinsic, but not necessary?
No. As I just said to blueback, simply observing that a thing exists or has already existed for x period of past time is useless for drawing conclusions of that sort. The only conclusion that we can logically draw from a thing existing and having existed is that it exists and has existed. Correlation is not causation.


And further, since we have no evidence to support the idea that religion is not intrinsic to large human communities, since there has never, to our knowledge been one, would not the the logical conclusion be that it is intrinsic to the human species as a whole to have some form of religion?
Religion exists. Human communities exist. If you want to define a relationship between the two, for example by arguing that one is a necessary consequence or component of the other, then that is where the evidence is required. Otherwise, we have logical default with respect to the relationship you posit: no conclusive substance / no.

[Nomad]

Again, I'm trying to understand. If something has no measurable physical qualities, then it does no necessarily need to exist?

Will all respect, not trying tor change your mind, but I think the core of our disagreement is that while you posit religion is not a necessity,and might go away at some point, my position is that speculation on this matter has no point, because religion is here, and it must be dealt with, now, because it is a fact on the ground, and shows no evidence whatever of going away.

Do I have your point correctly?

-Nomad

[blueback]

Simply observing that a thing exists or has already existed for x period of past time is useless for drawing logical conclusions about its future existence. The only conclusion that we can draw from a thing existing and having existed is that it exists and has existed.


You're wrong here. When something has always existed for the whole of recorded time it is only logical, and perfectly acceptable, to assume it will coninute to exist indefinitely. You can always updat that assumption when the thing disappears for the first time, but until it does, there is no reason to assume it ever will.


In order to make meaningful predictions about the future existence of that thing, we need to develop a theoretical understanding of how it is that that thing exists and therefore why it would continue to exist. And the how and why of it is what I'm waiting for.


No, you would need to do that to improve your prediction of whether or not it will continue to exist. I keep coming back to gravity as an example, but if you want another one, how about hatred? People have felt hatred towards one another for all of recorded history. By your logic we would first have to fully explain why hatred exists before we could predict that it will exist tomorrow.


Moreover, your analogy fails in another respect as well. I'm not predicting an end of religion; I'm rejecting the conclusion that it can never end. As above, the argument presented thusfar has a huge hole in it which precludes this conclusion being made on any rational basis.

There are degrees to "never."
There is never in my lifetime, never in a 1000 years, never in the lifetime of the human race, never ever, etc. I assume, because of your rigoruous adherence to pure logic, that when you say "never" you are using the "never ever" definition, as in never in the entire expanse of infinite time. That is a silly use of the word becaues it does absolutely no good to talk in terms of an infinite expanse of time. You can't argue anything on that long a time line.

Nomad said that religion is an unavoidable result of humans gathering in large organized groups, kind of like waste disposal systems. That doesn't speak to timelines at all, just to environmental conditions.


What is the fundamental nature of its existence with respect to human society, that which gives it this quality of being inextricably bound to the existence of human society such that we can conclude that it will always exist so long as human society exists and that the very question is intellectual masturbation.


The fact that there has never been a society without it. There are still many environments for humans to bulid societies in that we haven't experienced yet, but everything up to this point indicates that religion will still result in those environments, too.

The reason it's "intellectual masturbation" is that it's moot. Religion has always existed in human societies and any attempt to argue that it will disappear is baseless.


What you state implicitly when you draw this conclusion, then, is that religion is intrinsic to human sociology.


Yes. Try to prove otherwise. Try to even find an example of a human society that was completely a-religious. I can't think of one off the top of my head and any that you might be able to find would simply prove the rule by being exceptions.


That is the sort of position you'd need to hold in order to regard it as being fundamentally bound to human sociology, inalienable, always to exist.


How can you hold a different opinion? You seem to think that religion is something that humans accidentally stumbled upon before recorded history and simply passed down as a skill from then on, like making fire with sticks.

The word religion can mean a specific set of practices or it can mean the general state of being a system of worship. Humans, especially humans in large groups, have always worshiped something. The specific methods they employed to worship have changed dramatically. So, in the sense that the steps of worship, which are unique to every religion, are passed on as a skill you are right. In the sense that humans have always felt there is something which should be worshiped, like the desire to stay warm when it is cold out (fire), you are wrong.


And like I've tried to explain, that's a pretty rough position to support. You can't support it with "religion has always existed" because that doesn't tell us much of anything operable about it.


Yes it does. Not in the sense of pure logic where you need objective truths to argue anything, but in the real world where you have to make decisions it informs many of your operations.


No. As I just said to blueback, simply observing that a thing exists or has already existed for x period of past time is useless for drawing conclusions of that sort. The only conclusion that we can logically draw from a thing existing and having existed is that it exists and has existed. Correlation is not causation.


So, when you put your shoes on in the morning do you carefully check them to make sure the soles are still there? You should, since the fact that they have been there for the past year is no indication that they will still be there in the morning.

We don't need to know why religion is intrinsic to humans any more than we need to know why gravity is intrinsic to matter. It simply is.

You are the one who needs to find proof to support your position. There is a lot of proof that religion will always be a part of human life because it always has been. There is, as yet, no proof that religion can simply disappear.

[Lucid]

You're wrong here. When something has always existed for the whole of recorded time it is only logical, and perfectly acceptable, to assume it will coninute to exist indefinitely.

No. I'm sorry, but from a scientific point of view, which is how stasis is arguing, it's not logical or acceptable to assume that just because something has always been there it means that it always will be.
Two glaring examples of this are our own sun and the universe itself.

How can you hold a different opinion? You seem to think that religion is something that humans accidentally stumbled upon before recorded history and simply passed down as a skill from then on, like making fire with sticks.

Now we're arguing about whether religion is an instinct.
It seems as though you think that a social convention that most human cultures adhere to, or have some version of is an instinct. This is not the case.

[Nomad]

I get completely how stasis is arguing. My point is that his logic, while completely valid, gets crushed under the weight of reality.

We are talking about social systems that humans create, which, I think, he believes can be measured by objective analysis alone, and no subjective experience should hold any weight. If this is not his position, he is not explaining himself clearly enough.

So lets removes everything that cannot be subjected to objective analysis and rationality. Nothing subjective allowed. I will begin with a short list.

Love, hate, joy, sorrow, anxiety, fear, pain, stress,happy, sad, committed, dissolute, good, bad (which is where we came in the first place Good and bad are nothing but subjective and totally defy analysis within a human context) Every emotion and state of being, any social contract( Thirty years of loyalty and respect in a marriage should be no basis to make a decision of whether to continue the marriage, because tomorrow, a spouse might cheat, conversely, thirty years of abuse is no basis to end a marriage because the abusive spouse might stop tomorrow) I could write a book length post about the things humans use to make decisions that are not measurable in empirical ways.

All logic begins with a premise, and it seems to me that Stasis' premise is that all people are rational, and make no decisions based on subjective evidence. I have seen no evidence, anywhere, in my whole life to support his premise.

People, and the human systems they create, are subjective. Sociology does not lend itself to empirical evidence, because as soon as you have a big enough data pool, that society is changed or nonexistent. I submit that if it did, we would have no social problems.It will never happen because people do not usually yield to rational argument, because they are not rational. they are not rational because the variable are beyond the knowledge of any experimenter.

It's a logical construct, no doubt about it. But it does not work in the real world. if it does not work, it does not work, and no chopping of logic will change that. It's a lovely piece of logic, but completely useless.

-Nomad

[blueback]

No. I'm sorry, but from a scientific point of view, which is how stasis is arguing, it's not logical or acceptable to assume that just because something has always been there it means that it always will be.
Two glaring examples of this are our own sun and the universe itself.


So you're saying that science requires that you not make a decison until you are absolutely 100% certain? Cuz that's not the understanding of science I had.

The problem with your examples is that they don't support your argument. The sun and the universe both came into a state where we can say they "began to exist" at a point we can define relative to the present moment. We also understand, based on observation of many other suns, that our sun will eventually enter a state in which it no longer "exists" in a way that is useful to us. The question of the universe is up in the air, even the experts can't agree on whether or not it will end.

These are different from religion because there is no way to place the date when religion came into existence based on the present time. It definitely existed before recorded history, but there is no way to tell how long ago the first religion appeared. So, unlike the sun and the universe, we don't know when it started. With no way to ever say when or how it began we have no way to say when or how it will end.


Now we're arguing about whether religion is an instinct.
It seems as though you think that a social convention that most human cultures adhere to, or have some version of is an instinct. This is not the case.

Yes, I think we've been arguing that for some time now. It's either genetic or it isn't, that's what we've been debating correct?

You missed the point I made about the difference between RELIGION and the many religions of the world. Humans have always felt the need to worship something and their method of worship takes many diverse forms of action and artifact. No one learns the desire to worship something, but people do learn the actions and how to use the artifacts that other people have developed to indulge that instinct.

blueback added, 0 Minutes and 54 Seconds later...


All logic begins with a premise, and it seems to me that Stasis' premise is that all people are rational, and make no decisions based on subjective evidence. I have seen no evidence, anywhere, in my whole life to support his premise.


Better than I could have stated it myself.

[Lucid]

So you're saying that science requires that you not make a decison until you are absolutely 100% certain? Cuz that's not the understanding of science I had.

Then you don't understand science. If you're not 100% certain then it's a theory.


The question of the universe is up in the air, even the experts can't agree on whether or not it will end.

Yes they can. The general consensus is that it will end by the "cold death" theory. This is a theory, but one soundly supported by math. And they are 100% certain of the math, they just haven't been able to prove it in practice yet. That's how science works.

These are different from religion because there is no way to place the date when religion came into existence based on the present time. It definitely existed before recorded history, but there is no way to tell how long ago the first religion appeared. So, unlike the sun and the universe, we don't know when it started.

When did the universe come into existence, Blueblack? How?

With no way to ever say when or how it began we have no way to say when or how it will end.

These two things are not dependent on one another. Also, we don't need to know when or how it will end to say that it's possible that it could end.

[blueback]

Then you don't understand science. If you're not 100% certain then it's a theory.


Yes, good, right, we agree on the definition of the word theory. However, there is still no such thing as being 100% sure. It is a fantasy, it couldn't possibly happen until the end of time. Therefore, stating that scientists only do things when they are 100% certain, satisfied by pure logic, is just plain wrong. Every conclusion is uncertain, they only differ in the degree of uncertanty.


That's how science works.


I'm not sure whether or not I should be flattered that you got worked up enought to be sarcastic.



When did the universe come into existence, Blueblack? How?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Just an example. The farthest back we can measure is the Big Bang, so that's when the universe as it is meaningful to us came into existence. Roughly 15 million years, give or take.

As to how: everything exploded. Or maybe expanded is the right word.


These two things are not dependent on one another. Also, we don't need to know when or how it will end to say that it's possible that it could end.

I know. It is possible to say just about anything, but that doesn't make it meaningful. Saying "religion could end" is like saying "pink elephants could crash through my window." Neither one has ever happened, and neither one has any evidence to support even the faintest possibility, but it COULD happen.

[Danellian]

Blueback, I have a question for you. I understand your viewpoint about degrees of certainty, and how this is different from bellief. Though one could argue your viewpoint refers to degrees of belief, we can leave that at a semantic issue. My point is this: your approach works great for science, but when you are talking about ethics, if you take your approach, there is nothing that really matters to you, nothing firm that you hold to, and the "beliefs" or "hypotheses" you hold are always subject to change, development, evolution...but there will never be anything firm, beyond the observable, that holds any meaning to you, one cannot base their life on something that is not absolutely true, and without that, we are left without meaning in our lives or anything with objectivity. What are your views on this? Do you believe in a form of ethical reliablism? Is your metamethod on all of this something you see as objective or is it too an ongoing hypothesese that you might alter at some point? If the latter, does not your whole stance become a contradiction? And if the former, you are little different from me.

I am curious about your answers here, but I trust we can keep this conversation civil. If not, you need not even respond.

[blueback]

Blueback, [...] your approach works great for science, but


Are you sure there's a but? Are you sure the scientific method can't be applied in certain situations? If you are, give me an example or two.


...when you are talking about ethics, if you take your approach, there is nothing that really matters to you,


It's interesting that you stated this, rather than ask the obvious question "What matters to you?"

First, why should anything matter to me? Does it matter to you that something matters to me? Does it matter to you that something matters to you?

Second, I'm not quite sure I could say what matters to me. There are a lot of things I've never been tested on. I've never had someone close to me die, I've never broken a bone, I've never failed at anything significant I tried to do. No one can learn about themselves in a vacume.

Third, I guess I can't say much more since it wasn't a question.


...nothing firm that you hold to, and the "beliefs" or "hypotheses" you hold are always subject to change, development, evolution


So you mean that you think there are things I hold to, but that they aren't firm? I'm going to go with that understanding of your meaning.

Why, exactly, do you think the things I hold on to need to be firm? Which would you rather hold on to, an anchor or a boat? The anchor keeps you safely in one spot where you are pretty sure you know what's coming next. The boat keeps you safely out of the waves but you are never sure what's coming next. Or, another way to put it, would you rather be the twisted, stunted, scarred tree up on the hilltop or the tall, straight, unblemished tree down in the valley? I don't think I have to say which one I'd rather be.


...but there will never be anything firm, beyond the observable, that holds any meaning to you,


What could possibly be more firm than the observable?

If I can't observe it, can't even observe it by its effect on things I can observe, why should it hold any meaning to me? Leprechauns fall into that category and they don't mean anything to me. Should they?


...one cannot base their life on something that is not absolutely true,


Says you. But yes, I agree with you in principle. Then the question becomes, what is absolutely true? Are you going to rely on stories you've been told or on the things you can experience for yourself?

I think of myself as an absolute. Whatever the world might do, whatever tricks it might play, I am. I always have a point of reference, myself. I am the only thing I can ever hope to fully understand so why would I go looking for an absolute anywhere else? I base my life on what I think and feel, which is the only thing I know is absolutely true.


...and without that, we are left without meaning in our lives or anything with objectivity.


It's kind of silly to talk about how your values determine whether or not anyone in the world has meaning in their life. I never claimed that anyone else should adopt my values so that they would have a reason to live, they have to find their own reason to live, they can't have mine.

There is nothing in the world with enough objectivity to satisfy your desire. Everything that is capable of making a decision lives in the real world where their decisions will make or break them, therefore they are always invested in the outcome to a certain extent. Reason to prefer a certain outcome = not objective.

[Danellian]

The scientific method cannot be applied to something that is not scientific. This is just a simple method of definition. The realm of spirituality is not scientific. Therefore, science has nothing to say about the existence ot non-existence of anything spiritual.

When I'm talking about something that matters, I mean it in the objective sense, it matters regardless of who it matters to. Given, it may play out differently in the subjective situation of the interaction between objective and subjective realities in each individual. I'm not talking merely in the subjective tense, here.

In your case, you're not even holding on to a boat. What you are holding on to is something that changes over time. Therefore, one moment it might be a boat, the next it might be a clump of sand that dissolves in the water, leaving you to drown. I don't have a problem with holding to a boat, instead of an anchor. Something can be solid and stay the same while at the same time be adaptable. That is a false dichotomy. By the same token, I don't have to be the scarred tree up on the hilltop to hold to something unchanging, for the same reason.

The firmness of something has nothing to do with how much you can observe it. Things exist as they are, in a state of being extremely firm or not at all, regardless of your observation of it or opinion of it. Again, I'm talking in the objective tense, here. My implication is that there are things we can apprehend that are not observeable through the senses. As a side question, belief in something not apprehendable through the senses is an intuitive trait, so you should be right in line with it. Thus, not all things apprehanded not through the five senses are on the equal level of stupidity as is belief in the existence of leprochauns.

I, also start with myself. If you have noticed some of my other posts, I have spoken about the difference between spirituality and religion, and how I base my spirituality on my own experience, not on what others tell me. I am not religous, I am spiritual. Being spiritual does not mean that one doesn't think for himself or that the starting point of reference in inquiry is not the self. This is another false dichotomy.

I am not saying you should accept my values. That is something you are reading into what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is an objective set of values. I am engaging in a philosophical debate with you, giving my opinion, just as you are. I have not, at any point, said that you should believe just as I do. I have, however, presented arguments for my position. Which is the same thing you have done.

How do you know there is nothing to satisfy my desire for objectivity? And how do you know it must be in the world? I agree it is important to be realistic about reality. But it is also important not to lose our idealism. Sometimes, there just is a way things should be, or a way that it is best that things be, a best possible outcome. There are far too many times, in this world, where that best outcome is not realized. That does not prevent it from being the best outcome. I am not willing to settle for less. There is something better out there than the way things really happen.

[blueback]

The scientific method cannot be applied to something that is not scientific. This is just a simple method of definition. The realm of spirituality is not scientific. Therefore, science has nothing to say about the existence ot non-existence of anything spiritual.


I didn't ask about things, I asked about situations.
Situations are events that actually happen in the real world. We can sit around and imagine all sorts of things that science has nothing to do with, of course things that happen in the imagination aren't testable.

Real situations, on the other hand, are always testable. So, based on that expansion of the question, do you have any examples?


When I'm talking about something that matters, I mean it in the objective sense, it matters regardless of who it matters to.


It's not possible to define that something matters without also defining who it matters to and why. If something matters then it's important, it counts, which means you are talking about someone and the reason for "it" mattering to them.


In your case, you're not even holding on to a boat. What you are holding on to is something that changes over time. Therefore, one moment it might be a boat, the next it might be a clump of sand that dissolves in the water, leaving you to drown.


Whew, it's a good thing I kept that life preserver handy.
I know that, no matter what the world throws at me, I will be just fine. I know that because my philosophy is based on the future. As long as I have the ability to move towards it I will never "drown." Sometimes the world seems to turn on you, but it's just chance. As long as I prepare myself for whatever may come (possible drowning) I will get through it. Then I'll build a bigger and better boat.


I don't have a problem with holding to a boat, instead of an anchor. Something can be solid and stay the same while at the same time be adaptable. That is a false dichotomy.


I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you are saying that your boat won't dissolve into sand, but that mine will. Or maybe your boat is a transformer, I'm really not sure.


By the same token, I don't have to be the scarred tree up on the hilltop to hold to something unchanging, for the same reason.


The tree metaphor wasn't exatly the same as the boat metaphor. It was addressing the subject of whether or not you are comfortable testing yourself, in this case I guess it would be your philosophy, against the "winds" of the world. No one encounters the winds without being changed.


The firmness of something has nothing to do with how much you can observe it.


Yeah, it does. If you can't observe it directly and you can't observe it indirectly through its effect on things you can observe, then it doesn't matter. I don't care about it if it doesn't have an effect on anything in the real world. Maybe you can still call it "firm" but that cheapens the definition of firm.


Things exist as they are, in a state of being extremely firm or not at all, regardless of your observation of it or opinion of it.


Lets make sure we're talking about the same thing here. You said that there are "firm" things that can't be observed. I said that nothing which can't be observed matters. Maybe it's as real as the things that can be observed, but until it affects something it doesn't matter.


Again, I'm talking in the objective tense, here. My implication is that there are things we can apprehend that are not observeable through the senses.


I assume you're using the "understand" definition of apprehend here.
Sure, there are things we can understand that aren't made of matter or energy. The laws of physics would be a good example. They don't exist in the sense that a rock does, but they are observable through their effect on rocks. If that's what you mean than we agree on that.
?

[blueback]

Thus, not all things apprehanded not through the five senses are on the equal level of stupidity as is belief in the existence of leprochauns.


So you agree that leprechauns don't exist. How can you be so sure. Just cuz you haven't "intuited" them doesn't mean no one else has either. What if your future self came back in time and told you that you will meet a leprechaun in the future? Would you then think that leprechauns are real or would you still wait until the moment you came across one?

If leprechauns actually existed, like the laws of physics do, then they would have a measureable effect on the world. We would be able to see tiny footprints around mushrooms and the satellites would see post of gold at the end of rainbows.


I, also start with myself. If you have noticed some of my other posts, I have spoken about the difference between spirituality and religion, and how I base my spirituality on my own experience, not on what others tell me.


That, by definition, means your opinion is subjective.


I am not religous, I am spiritual. Being spiritual does not mean that one doesn't think for himself or that the starting point of reference in inquiry is not the self. This is another false dichotomy.



Well, yeah, it is a false dichotomy. . .but it was your dichotomy. I never said anything about spirituality.


I am not saying you should accept my values. That is something you are reading into what I am saying.


Actually, what you said was "...and without that, we are left without meaning in our lives..."

If you check my posts you will find that I am careful to always say "I" when I am talking about my values. Maybe you just made a mistake here, but what you said is that no one has any meaning in their life unless they agree with you.


What I am saying is that there is an objective set of values.


I'd like to hear about it. Where did you find this objective set of values? Can you write them down?


How do you know there is nothing to satisfy my desire for objectivity? And how do you know it must be in the world?


Well, I am not 100% certain, but I am within 5% of 100%, so I just say that I am sure. 5% is the commonly accepted value for the validity of a conclusion. Nothing I have ever experienced supports the idea that there is anything truly objective. Even if something was, it must be interpreted by a thing that is subjective, which causes a bias and strips it of its objectivity.

I know it has to be in the world cuz that's all we've got.


I agree it is important to be realistic about reality. But it is also important not to lose our idealism.


I agree in principle.


Sometimes, there just is a way things should be, or a way that it is best that things be, a best possible outcome. There are far too many times, in this world, where that best outcome is not realized. That does not prevent it from being the best outcome. I am not willing to settle for less.

Sure, I would like if everyone in the world would suddenly realize that they don't have to kill each other, but it's not going to happen. I would like it if the strong worked to their full capacity and gave the excess of their labor to the weak, but it's not going to happen. I would like it if Marissa Miller would fall madly in love with me, but it's not going to happen. There's absolutely nothing wrong with hope, but eventually the real world will demand that you act, and actions are always a compromise.

You should look into systems theory some time. One of the keys is that no sub-system within a system can be optimized without compromising the optimization of the whole system. So, by way of application of that principle, if no one in the world ever killed anyone else ever again the world would become crushingly overpopulated in a few decades, the support systems would collapse, and many more people would end up dying than would have been murdered in the same time period.


There is something better out there than the way things really happen.


Yep, you really are an idealist. I assume that by "better" you mean better for absolutely everyone, not just better for you or a few special people.

What do you think is better than what exists for real

[Beery Swine]

Actually, most of what you're quoting from comes out of the book of leviticus, which is supposed to be god's rules for the Jews. It's in the old testament. The whole idea behind Jesus was that he would die for the sins of humanity, and the rules stated in the book of leviticus would no longer apply to those who accepted that sacrifice as their own. Otherwise Christians would have to sacrifice goats and doves, cover their heads in church, refrain from trimming their forelocks and eat kosher.

I'm sure you've heard the story about Jesus and the adulteress. A group of people had brought this woman who had been caught committing adultery before Jesus. They were going to stone her to death. They asked him what they should do, since they expected him to tell them not to stone her. This would have been a violation of the law of Abraham (that's the stuff from the book of leviticus you were talking about) and this would give them reason to act against him. He said that famous bit about he who has no sin casting the first stone. All the stoners (hehe) left without killing the woman, who asked Jesus if he accused her. He told her he didn't accuse her (seek to punish her for adultery) and told her to "go and sin no more." :D

Luke 16:17 KJV AND IT IS EASIER FOR HEAVEN AND EARTH TO PASS, THAN ONE TITTLE OF THE LAW TO FAIL.

Law, keyword, as in law of the Tanakh/OT.

Here's another one I like, unrelated:
Luke 19:27 KJV BUT THOSE MINE ENEMIES, WHICH WOULD NOT THAT I SHOULD REIGN OVER THEM, BRING HITHER, AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME.
Ahh, to be Christ-like...

As for the Jesus and adulterer story it is completely fabricated and not in our earliest manuscripts.


Don't know if you are a Christian, I was just answering as if you were for simplicity.

[Beery Swine]

I think the idea of us evolving out of religion is analagous to the idea of us evolving out of body hair.

We still have body hair because there is no pressure to remove it, and I can't think of a situation in which there would be. Ditto for religion.

Religion is obviously in our genes somewhere because there has never been a single documented civilization without evidence of a religion. It's been with us since we started leaving behind traces of our lives and all the science in the world isn't going to root it out.

I'm just going to post a quotation as my response.

"This world is simply ablaze with bad ideas. There are still places where people are put to death for imaginary crimes (like blasphemy) and where the totality of a child's education consists of his learning to recite from an ancient book of religious fiction. There are countries where women are denied almost every human liberty, except the liberty to breed. And yet, these same societies are quickly acquiring terrifying arsenals of advanced weoponry. If we cannot inspire the developing world, and the Muslim world in particular, to pursue ends that are compatible with a global civilization, then a dark future awaits all of us."
from The End of Faith by Sam Harris