Religion: The Deuce

[TrlstanC]

Wow, there is just so much wrong with this. All religions aspire to theocracy? So when you get a large group of Christians that reject it, they are not practicing a true Christianity? And these groups of freedom-loving Christians were forced into giving up their belief that Christianity is the best path? And tolerance is not a Christian virtue? Where do you get any of this?

And while I am open to your interpretations on what I'm saying, I'd like to think that I have a better sense of my own stances. I am most certainly not saying that I want people to be less religious.

This actually brings up an interesting point, since I'd agree that while many religions (at least successful ones) try to promote their beliefs, and I think most people would agree that conversion is an important part of many people's christianity (especially many people who preach it), it's not a requirement. In fact, since there seem to be a lot of different ways that people practice christianity, some of them probably hold contradictory beliefs. Is it possible to strip away everything else, and say that anyone who calls themselves a christian believes that christ was the son of god, and that that's the only belief that would be required?

My religious knowledge is pretty limited, but I would guess that many religions could be summed up in a (relatively) simple belief like that, and that the rest of the beliefs are just taking that one belief to it's conclusion.

[guenther]

Whatever made you think I would suggest this is for everyone?

You discussed religion as something stifling and that progress comes from moving past it. As if there's an absolute direction of betterness that moves away from religion, assuming people have the time, purpose and desire to follow it. My point was that sometimes religion is freedom for people and it gives them the very tools they need to progress as a person. Whether religion stifles or helps them improve depends on the individual and on their particular experience with religion.

More generally I have a hard time distinguishing when you mean that something is better for you on a personal level, or when it's better in some broader sense that applies to more than just you. If you are just describing your own personal experience, then I'm not going to take issue with it.

Ok guenther, what does religion mean to you and what useful models do you consider from it?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Do you want to know what the word "religion" means to me? Or are you asking how religion is relevant in my life? Or something else?

I'll take a stab at this. Generally when I want to visualize models of how the world works, I turn to science. I listen to several science podcasts, read books on science, and regularly peruse many science-based news sites. I find it all fascinating, especially the stuff about human behavior and how the mind works. However, if I want to know how to behave, i.e. guiding values and principles, I turn to Christianity. It gives me a structure on goals, how to treat people, how to focus on self-improvement, etc.

This actually brings up an interesting point, since I'd agree that while many religions (at least successful ones) try to promote their beliefs, and I think most people would agree that conversion is an important part of many people's christianity (especially many people who preach it), it's not a requirement. In fact, since there seem to be a lot of different ways that people practice christianity, some of them probably hold contradictory beliefs. Is it possible to strip away everything else, and say that anyone who calls themselves a christian believes that christ was the son of god, and that that's the only belief that would be required?

Well, that's a definitional thing, and you'll get different answers from different people (e.g. some will say that if you don't take X stance, you're no true Christian). But in general I'd say that it requires the belief in Jesus as described in the Bible (i.e. son of God who came to save us from sin), but it also requires asking Jesus to be your savior. In other words you need to believe in Jesus and follow him.

[Zcorp]

Whatever made you think I would suggest this is for everyone?

You discussed religion as something stifling and that progress comes from moving past it. As if there's an absolute direction of betterness that moves away from religion, assuming people have the time, purpose and desire to follow it. My point was that sometimes religion is freedom for people and it gives them the very tools they need to progress as a person. Whether religion stifles or helps them improve depends on the individual and on their particular experience with religion.

Can you explain those specific tools and how they are exclusive to Religion? Or even how Religion was the exclusive place for you to find them? Also which tools are specific to to which religion and which of those tools solve which specific problem?

However, if I want to know how to behave, i.e. guiding values and principles, I turn to Christianity. It gives me a structure on goals, how to treat people, how to focus on self-improvement, etc.

There are all of those things within the knowledge that has been generated by science. I would - and have argued- they are vastly superior to the guides, principles, schemata, structures and goals presented by Christianity. The paths to self-improvement (or specifically self-awareness) are much more formal and more effective (but this is just rehashing old things again).

So why do you turn to Christianity, belief and faith, rather than the acquisition of knowledge and study of reality to guide your behavior and ideology?

Is it possible to strip away everything else, and say that anyone who calls themselves a christian believes that christ was the son of god, and that that's the only belief that would be required?

Aye, I brought this up multiple times over the last 30 pages =). And reasonable definition of Chrisitian: A monotheist that believes the Bible is a book that lays out a path for human prosperity through the teachings of God through Jesus, the Christ.

Without establishing definitions, discourse is often very fruitless and the participants are likely to be discussing different concepts related to the expressed word.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

Because as we know, science will get very far in understanding the observable universe (aka things that effects and influences others), if we assume that science cannot be applied to the religion then it is because the beliefs of the religion cannot be observed. But that which cannot be observed cannot have any effect on the universe, thus it is nonsense to talk about it.

As powerful as science is, it can't answer everything for us. First of all, it's a very expensive process in terms of people, time, money, and energy, and some types of problems are so massively complicated that there's little we can do to provide real answers now or even in the foreseeable future. And secondly, there are a lot of questions that are unscientific yet people find them to be very important (e.g. questions of values and morality or concerns about an afterlife). To say that we don't need religion because we have science seems to be overstating what science can actually do for us. Scientific understanding has massively encroached on the domain of religion over the years, but religion still endures quite well, which means its significance does not hinge on that lost territory.

But questions about values aren't questions about the external world; when it comes to those Science is the only legitimate awnser. Claims about Morality are ones to be infromed by but not decided by Science - basic is/ought distinction here. The problem with Religion is in making a number of claims about the external without the merit of evidince. Science can awnser everything for us, if it's about the external world.

[LaserGuy]

Wow, there is just so much wrong with this. All religions aspire to theocracy? So when you get a large group of Christians that reject it, they are not practicing a true Christianity? And these groups of freedom-loving Christians were forced into giving up their belief that Christianity is the best path? And tolerance is not a Christian virtue? Where do you get any of this?

What does your heaven look like? Is it not a state that is ruled absolutely by God for people of your religion? What are we to make of the fact that Europe was effectively ruled by the Church for over a thousand years, and spread the Word with a sword in one hand and a Bible in the other? Or of the Islamic Caliphates? While it is true that now Christians do not, for the most part, engage in this type of behaviour, this has hardly been the norm--it is a much more recent (and welcome) development. But Christianity, no, has not traditionally been interested in religious freedom. Here's what the Bible thinks of religious tolerance (spoiled for brevity):

Spoiler:

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods [...]Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I could probably pull up a more, but I think that's enough. I'm not making any claims about "true" Christianity or not. I'm saying that by accepting secular values, Christians are moving away from the traditional interpretation of Christianity. Religious temperance has been a necessary modification to Christianity in order to keep it relevant in a pluralistic society. But to say that, on the whole, Christianity is a religion of tolerance is rather laughable. And this isn't even getting into what Christianity has traditionally thought about women (getting better these days, with some reservations) or homosexuals (pretty much still stuck in the 8th Century), for instance.

[guenther]

Can you explain those specific tools and how they are exclusive to Religion? Or even how Religion was the exclusive place for you to find them? Also which tools are specific to to which religion and which of those tools solve which specific problem

I suggest you ask this of someone who is claiming that it's exclusive to Religion. That's not part of my argument. And you've asked me this before and I've given you this exact same answer.

So why do you turn to Christianity, belief and faith, rather than the acquisition of knowledge and study of reality to guide your behavior and ideology?

Why can't I turn to all of that? I was speaking generally. I do use reality to inform me on many behaviors, like for example I didn't learn to drive with the Bible. However, my guiding principles are based in Christianity, and I try to ultimately rely on that.

And again, I've told you all this before. So I'm not sure why you think that now we're going to have some breakthrough. We haven't communicated in months, yet you couldn't get through that first post, the first paragraph, without bemoaning how much time you've wasted with me. So why don't we learn our lessons and stop trying to rehash out old stuff which is most certainly going to end in us both being filled with a sense of wasted effort?

But questions about values aren't questions about the external world; when it comes to those Science is the only legitimate awnser. Claims about Morality are ones to be infromed by but not decided by Science - basic is/ought distinction here. The problem with Religion is in making a number of claims about the external without the merit of evidince. Science can awnser everything for us, if it's about the external world.

It's not about external world versus internal world, it's about testable versus not testable. We could define morality in a way that's testable and thus it could be brought into the realm of science. But people often leave it in terms of the untestable. And the same is true with religion, people are willing to believe in untestable notions. Maybe you find that problematic, but many others do not.

What does your heaven look like? Is it not a state that is ruled absolutely by God for people of your religion? What are we to make of the fact that Europe was effectively ruled by the Church for over a thousand years, and spread the Word with a sword in one hand and a Bible in the other? Or of the Islamic Caliphates? While it is true that now Christians do not, for the most part, engage in this type of behaviour, this has hardly been the norm--it is a much more recent (and welcome) development. But Christianity, no, has not traditionally been interested in religious freedom.

Much of the world wasn't interested in a lot of different freedoms over the ages. Culture evolves and so do our standards of acceptability. I'm not sure what the point is here. My initial claim is that we could get more traction with messages of religious tolerance than one that tells people to push their own religion to irrelevancy. Just because human history is fraught with many examples of intolerance doesn't mean that today these messages of tolerance are incompatible with religion.

But to say that, on the whole, Christianity is a religion of tolerance is rather laughable.

That is not what I said. I challenged your claim that tolerance is not a virtue of religion. But sadly people are not always good at living up to their virtues. And this is true for the religious and areligious alike.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

But questions about values aren't questions about the external world; when it comes to those Science is the only legitimate awnser. Claims about Morality are ones to be infromed by but not decided by Science - basic is/ought distinction here. The problem with Religion is in making a number of claims about the external without the merit of evidince. Science can awnser everything for us, if it's about the external world.

It's not about external world versus internal world, it's about testable versus not testable. We could define morality in a way that's testable and thus it could be brought into the realm of science. But people often leave it in terms of the untestable. And the same is true with religion, people are willing to believe in untestable notions. Maybe you find that problematic, but many others do not.

I've just said in quite point blank terms Morality is only informed by Science, not determined by Science: It is not a Scientific Question. It's a question of "What should be", rather than "what is". I'm in favour of delineating that from Science.

Where your arguement falls apart is in bringing Religion into the same category. Religion makes claims about what "is" and what "should be", the former are scientific questions. Claims such as "the existince of the supernatural", "the effects of said supernaturalia on the rest of the world" or the "power of prayer". All of these things are ones that Science has ruled against, with good reason based on evidince. In awnser, Religion's epistemic has been to assert the claims merely as a given.

[guenther]

And many people are in favor of delineating those religious claims from Science. Again, maybe you find this problematic, but not everyone does.

[podbaydoor]

But it's not an inherent feature of religion. Science is more or less bound to the evidence, it is an inherent requirement - there is no requirement or even much social pressure for religion to pay attention to evidence. Religious folk seeking to find compromises between religion and the science that contradicts key parts of it (who don't eventually buy into that separated magisteria fallacy) are an exception, not the rule. The person who believes in the fairies at the bottom of her garden, along with the person who believes in the omnipotent intelligence outside the sky bowl, both of them are exercising the definition of religion. They can later on seek scientific confirmation and make compromises, but there is no requirement for them to do so to stay religious.

[guenther]

I guess I don't follow your point. Not everyone is particularly science-minded, and that's true for both the religious and areligiuos. Not everyone will seek out scientific confirmation to validate their beliefs. I'm getting the impression that you find this problematic like Whimsical Eloquence, but again not everyone feels the same.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

I guess I don't follow your point. Not everyone is particularly science-minded, and that's true for both the religious and areligiuos. Not everyone will seek out scientific confirmation to validate their beliefs. I'm getting the impression that you find this problematic like Whimsical Eloquence, but again not everyone feels the same.

But the point is that you yourself "seek out scientific confirmation to validate [your] beliefs". Were I to tell you I can drink some ridiculous amount of alcohol and still stand, you would probably scoff unless I demonstrate said feat. Were I to make negative claims about some friend of yours, you'd probably refuse to listen unless I substantiated them with evidence. If I were to tell you partner of yours was cheating on you, you'd once again demand proof. You don't take any claim someone gives you merely on face value, you demand scientific evidence. Indeed, even for things you might yourself wish to be true - that you've passed an important exam - you'll still look for evidence of said fact because only if that claim can be evidence will it actually have the positive affect you wish. The requirement for evidence isn't an arbitrary epistemic it reflects our real acknowledgement that the only sense in which something "exists" is if it actually has an effect on the world around it.

You are science minded - except when it comes to this.

[Kaelri]

I guess I don't follow your point. Not everyone is particularly science-minded, and that's true for both the religious and areligiuos. Not everyone will seek out scientific confirmation to validate their beliefs.

That's because we have specialists whom we trust to do the work for us. I know hardly anything about nuclear physics, for instance, and I probably never will. But there are people who have dedicated their lives to studying the subject, earned degrees from respected educational institutions, and had decades of experience working with radioactive materials, and they all seem to agree that I should not visit Fukushima Prefecture at this time. Although I am not able verify their claims firsthand, I believe them on the basis of their scientific qualifications.

Religious authorities can offer no such qualifications to back up their claims about the physical world. People believe them on the basis of tradition, charisma, confirmation bias, peer pressure and emotional appeal - not because they cohere with anything we know about reality. If one's chosen religious narrative happens to encourage kind and charitable behavior toward others, then great - but there's no reason why another faith can't mandate selfish, deceptive and destructive behavior, and even define those things as "good," on exactly the same basis. I cannot give a believer any meaningful reason to believe that God is right and Satan is wrong. You don't see why that's "problematic?"

[guenther]

But the point is that you yourself "seek out scientific confirmation to validate [your] beliefs".

I should have phrased it better. Most people aren't entirely consistent, myself included. I do seek out scientific confirmation on some stuff, but not all stuff. In fact, if you were to tell me that my wife or friends were doing bad stuff, and you were someone whom I considered reliable, I'd hold that with a good deal of weight. But "my friend saw that neutrino go faster than light" doesn't really cut it in science. On a personal level, we do need to find reasons to believe something, but most of the time we don't hold evidence to the same standards the scientific community uses. If someone at my work sounds like they know their stuff about appliances and says Kenmore stoves are the best, and then I buy a Kenmore and it works great, I'll probably start believing in the Kenmore brand myself. But this isn't really a proper way to actually validate the truth of such a claim. Regardless I know I suffer from stuff like that.

As for the religious stuff, I don't just believe in it because I'll believe anything, or because I have chosen not to think about it. There is evidence for me; it's just a subjective evidence. I've seen the power of the Christian system in people's lives, and I've felt it myself. Because I believe it can create effective results, I naturally have a greater tendency to believe in the truth of the story, especially since i was raised with that story, and because it just feels true. I wouldn't use any of that as part of a solid proof of the truth, but it does fill me with a greater sense of plausibility. And of course I am willing to apply a little faith to bridge the gap between "is plausible" to "is real". If someone told me they were unwilling to apply faith or did not think those things added plausibility, then my case would be pretty weak. (I certainly don't claim to be a great evangelist. )

Religious authorities can offer no such qualifications to back up their claims about the physical world. People believe them on the basis of tradition, charisma, confirmation bias, peer pressure and emotional appeal - not because they cohere with anything we know about reality.

That sounds like a problem with politicians as well. In fact in politics you get all sorts of accusations flying around that get accepted as fact because it appeals to the team narratives, and much of the time people are pretty loose with their fact checking. And it's not just politics. Anytime you get groups of people that share ideas, you get shared narratives that bias people to believe certain things. I think there's such a rigorous process to science because people aren't naturally scientifically minded. And if fact, I bet trained scientists themselves have similar problems as the rest of us outside their field of work (and sometimes in).

If one's chosen religious narrative happens to encourage kind and charitable behavior toward others, then great - but there's no reason why another faith can't mandate selfish, deceptive and destructive behavior, and even define those things as "good," on exactly the same basis. I cannot give a believer any meaningful reason to believe that God is right and Satan is wrong. You don't see why that's "problematic?"

Well, if this specifically were a problem, we should see a reasonable representation of both God and Satan worshipers. But we have a general cultural notions of right and wrong on many things. Helping the needy is good, deception is bad, kindness is good, wanton destruction is bad, etc. While many people may not be happy with all of the positions of many churches, the general sermons from most of these typically have a good message. People like to hear good message, especially from church.

[podbaydoor]

Ummmm...no, historically, humans have justified plenty of "bad" things precisely because they're religious. Human sacrifices, temple prostitutes, kidnapping Jewish children, murdering sons/daughters for loving the wrong person, stoning women, disowning gay children, raping wives, shooting doctors, blowing up hotels, propagandizing, lying to further propagandizing (all the "gospels" that turned up centuries after the fact, televangelists, gold leaves), conquering countries, extortion (ten percent or your soul is dead, indulgences), hypocrisy (it's okay for me but not others because I'm special), subjugating women, subjugating poor people, subjugating slaves, torturing non-believers, killing every man in the town down to the babe that was born yesterday...I'm five minutes into writing the post and I haven't even started.

Every single person who committed these acts was perfectly within their religion when they did these acts. You'll probably claim that they aren't "real" Christians or "real" Muslims or "real" Jews or "real" Buddhists or "real" Greek pagans or "real" Mormons or "real" Aztec pagans but remember, a) they add up to billions of people throughout history and b) they'd claim the same thing about you.

In fact a common feature is religious organizations and individuals justifying their violation of laws with the claim that their religion allows them the privilege - assuming they haven't gotten their justifications enshrined in the law in the first place.

[morriswalters]

Do you think that any of these things wouldn't have happened without Religion? It's about people. Religion is just the casus belli. Had it not been there it would have been something else.

Note: I've taken license with casus belli

[Kaelri]

That sounds like a problem with politicians as well. In fact in politics you get all sorts of accusations flying around that get accepted as fact because it appeals to the team narratives, and much of the time people are pretty loose with their fact checking. And it's not just politics. Anytime you get groups of people that share ideas, you get shared narratives that bias people to believe certain things. I think there's such a rigorous process to science because people aren't naturally scientifically minded. And if fact, I bet trained scientists themselves have similar problems as the rest of us outside their field of work (and sometimes in).

Yes indeed. And whenever bias leads to a failure of the democratic process, or the judicial system or the scientific method, our response is to rebuke ourselves, to analyze it to death, to debate whether the system needs to be changed in order to prevent the failure from ever happening again. Of course we can only approach perfection, never achieve it; we may also overcompensate from time to time. But in general, I think this is the right attitude. Every act of progress involves overcoming some of our natural tendencies - especially the tendency to accept claims without evidence.

So if you regard those biases as "problems" in the context of science and civics, then why not in religion? If you would (rightly) castigate a politician for taking positions that are unsubstantiated by facts, prescribing policy without regard for its cost or observable benefit, and being too quick to embrace a narrative that appeals to their emotional predisposition - because "it just feels true" - then wouldn't you hold a priest to the same standards? Or is religion - an institution which is supposed to tell us how to become better people - somehow exempt from that very expectation?

Well, if this specifically were a problem, we should see a reasonable representation of both God and Satan worshipers. But we have a general cultural notions of right and wrong on many things. Helping the needy is good, deception is bad, kindness is good, wanton destruction is bad, etc. While many people may not be happy with all of the positions of many churches, the general sermons from most of these typically have a good message. People like to hear good message, especially from church.

But religion must have some standing to prescribe moral norms, not just reinforce the ones that people already have. Otherwise, you're reducing the church to the role of a mere community organizer.

[gmalivuk]

Do you think that any of these things wouldn't have happened without Religion?

Do you think that pbd's point was anything remotely like that?

Because it wasn't.

Her point was merely that guenther was wrong to claim that religion gives us general and consistent cultural notions of right and wrong. To support this claim, she listed a fraction of all the examples of religion failing to give notions of right and wrong that are consistent with most of our current cultural notions.

[morriswalters]

In fact a common feature is religious organizations and individuals justifying their violation of laws with the claim that their religion allows them the privilege - assuming they haven't gotten their justifications enshrined in the law in the first place.

My point to you and gmalivuk is that you can't raise the bar on Religion higher than the bar that you place on people generally. This a property of groups period.

Her point was merely that guenther was wrong to claim that religion gives us general and consistent cultural notions of right and wrong. To support this claim, she listed a fraction of all the examples of religion failing to give notions of right and wrong that are consistent with most of our current cultural notions.

Ummmm...no, historically, humans have justified plenty of "bad" things precisely because they're religious. Human sacrifices, temple prostitutes, kidnapping Jewish children, murdering sons/daughters for loving the wrong person, stoning women, disowning gay children, raping wives, shooting doctors, blowing up hotels, propagandizing, lying to further propagandizing (all the "gospels" that turned up centuries after the fact, televangelists, gold leaves), conquering countries, extortion (ten percent or your soul is dead, indulgences), hypocrisy (it's okay for me but not others because I'm special), subjugating women, subjugating poor people, subjugating slaves, torturing non-believers, killing every man in the town down to the babe that was born yesterday...I'm five minutes into writing the post and I haven't even started.

Their positions are consistent within their group, and modern Christian outlook closely aligns with the cultural norms of today at least in European based cultures. They have evolved as society has evolved. And much like any other group they are not homogeneous. The same could be said of almost any Religion. To clarify, you mean cultural norms similar to the ones you possess?

[gmalivuk]

guenther also seemed to think he explained why there are more god-worshippers than satan-worshippers. But of course, once we admit that cultural norms change radically over time, we have to ask what counts as a god vs. a devil.

In other words: of course "god" religions align with cultural norms, because that's how those things are called gods instead of devils.

[infernovia]

You discussed religion as something stifling and that progress comes from moving past it. As if there's an absolute direction of betterness that moves away from religion, assuming people have the time, purpose and desire to follow it. My point was that sometimes religion is freedom for people and it gives them the very tools they need to progress as a person. Whether religion stifles or helps them improve depends on the individual and on their particular experience with religion.

More generally I have a hard time distinguishing when you mean that something is better for you on a personal level, or when it's better in some broader sense that applies to more than just you. If you are just describing your own personal experience, then I'm not going to take issue with it.

Yes, you are correct. I find that religion is not useful for many things and it does stifle progress (greatness, power, etc.), but this does not mean I believe my viewpoint is for everyone. In fact, I fully appreciate the fact that some people need it to survive because religion fulfills so much for them. Yet I do think it is unnecessary and even hurtful for the people who want to go further. In the same way that the luddites needed to destroy the factories for their livelyhood but their needs held back what we see now as the industrial revolution. I understand exactly why the luddites did what they needed to do, and if I was in their position I probably would have done the same thing, but the position of the luddite is still hurtful for the advancement and expansion of human power.

I'll take a stab at this. Generally when I want to visualize models of how the world works, I turn to science. I listen to several science podcasts, read books on science, and regularly peruse many science-based news sites. I find it all fascinating, especially the stuff about human behavior and how the mind works. However, if I want to know how to behave, i.e. guiding values and principles, I turn to Christianity. It gives me a structure on goals, how to treat people, how to focus on self-improvement, etc.

And just how many of these guiding principles, treatment of people, self-improvement can be attributed to the natural science (psychology, neuroscience, medical, chemical), philosophy, and economics? I would say quite a lot.

[podbaydoor]

Do you think that any of these things wouldn't have happened without Religion? It's about people. Religion is just the casus belli. Had it not been there it would have been something else.

Note: I've taken license with casus belli

You're claiming something different from guenther, as Gmal explained. Guenther claimed religious groups *don't* behave the same as general groups of people. I provided examples to the contrary. In addition, I argue that there is nothing inherent in religion that prevents people from behaving the same as general groups of people.

[morriswalters]

His claim is a easy one to make but a hard one to refute. In general they don't. It's fairly easy to show that in broad overviews they certainly don't act the same as say, Muslims. They certainly act differently then say atheists. None of which says that they don't have commonalities. It's easy, if unproductive to point out the commonalities, without exploring the differences.

Edit:
I've decided that I need to be clearer. Guenther has never claimed that Christians aren't human. His claim is to the Philosophy of Christianity. Given the totality of their works it's not very hard to see that the culture that they inhabit has certainly done as well or better as any.

[LaserGuy]

Edit:
I've decided that I need to be clearer. Guenther has never claimed that Christians aren't human. His claim is to the Philosophy of Christianity. Given the totality of their works it's not very hard to see that the culture that they inhabit has certainly done as well or better as any.

Are you including the period from 400 AD to 1400 AD in this assessment?

[guenther]

I wish I could have jumped in a bit sooner to clear this up. Kaelri raised the issue that he didn't know how to convince people that God is right and not Satan. And my point is that we can look at the church landscape of today and see that this really isn't an issue. While my sample size may be low, I haven't been to any churches that promoted human sacrifices or stoning women. And further I was pointing out that we could walk into almost any church on most Sundays and get a benign service that would not offend most people's sensibilities.

So if you regard those biases as "problems" in the context of science and civics, then why not in religion?

I don't regard it as a problem. I think our natural bias to believe what the group believes is an important part of how we work, and likely a part of why humans function better as a group than the sum of all the constituents. It's seemingly part of our nature. However, it can cause problems like in science for example. Another particularly nasty area is when you have two groups that form on either side of a sharp divide. The narratives take on a very oppositional slant where the other side is treated as bad in some way. This fosters all sorts of nasty stuff. We see this all the time in politics. And sadly religion has a bad history of weighing in here as well. But it doesn't have to, and we have all sorts of examples of where it doesn't.

More generally, I don't have a problem with a public person taking position of ideology, making a statement of faith, or promoting their pet conspiracy theory, even when all of these may not be well defended by evidence. However, I would hope that our space for public discourse allows other voices to raise any issues they have with those stances, and ultimately it's up to the individual to decide what to believe. But having said that, when leaders are irresponsible with prescribing policy (e.g. without properly considering costs and benefits), then they should be held accountable since they are not upholding their duties. This applies to priests, politicians, corporate executives, etc.

But religion must have some standing to prescribe moral norms, not just reinforce the ones that people already have. Otherwise, you're reducing the church to the role of a mere community organizer.

First of all, the role of community organizer is hugely important. But second, there's a middle ground between "critical for people to know if wanton destruction is OK or not" and "irrelevant to how people decide morality". There are general cultural trends in right and wrong, but groups like a church can sharpen or weaken particular point, they can push people in directions that they want to go but lack the drive, they give people a framework for thinking about morality that makes things more clear. So it's not as simple as "God says don't kill" therefore we have less killing, but I do think churches do useful things in this realm.

Yes, you are correct. I find that religion is not useful for many things and it does stifle progress (greatness, power, etc.), but this does not mean I believe my viewpoint is for everyone. In fact, I fully appreciate the fact that some people need it to survive because religion fulfills so much for them. Yet I do think it is unnecessary and even hurtful for the people who want to go further. In the same way that the luddites needed to destroy the factories for their livelyhood but their needs held back what we see now as the industrial revolution. I understand exactly why the luddites did what they needed to do, and if I was in their position I probably would have done the same thing, but the position of the luddite is still hurtful for the advancement and expansion of human power.

Well, I don't know that I agree with your take here. But if someone does agree with you that away from religion is a step further, and that's the direction they want to head, I want them to be given such freedom.

And just how many of these guiding principles, treatment of people, self-improvement can be attributed to the natural science (psychology, neuroscience, medical, chemical), philosophy, and economics? I would say quite a lot.

I guess I don't know. But I also don't know why it's relevant. You have your sources of guiding principles, etc. and I have mine.

[LaserGuy]

I wish I could have jumped in a bit sooner to clear this up. Kaelri raised the issue that he didn't know how to convince people that God is right and not Satan. And my point is that we can look at the church landscape of today and see that this really isn't an issue. While my sample size may be low, I haven't been to any churches that promoted human sacrifices or stoning women. And further I was pointing out that we could walk into almost any church on most Sundays and get a benign service that would not offend most people's sensibilities.

I could be wrong, but I think the question here is more fundamental than that. Kaelri isn't asking how do we know that human sacrifice is wrong and charity is good; rather, the question is how do we know that we should associate the evil (human sacrifice) with Satan and the good (charity) with God, rather than the opposite. How do we know that God is the good one and Satan is the evil one?

[Zcorp]

I wish I could have jumped in a bit sooner to clear this up. Kaelri raised the issue that he didn't know how to convince people that God is right and not Satan. And my point is that we can look at the church landscape of today and see that this really isn't an issue. While my sample size may be low, I haven't been to any churches that promoted human sacrifices or stoning women. And further I was pointing out that we could walk into almost any church on most Sundays and get a benign service that would not offend most people's sensibilities.

It does offend many peoples sensibilities. The perpetuating of their faith offends reason, science and knowledge with great frequency. That most people's sensibilities in America are not offended is a large part of the problem that we are discussing.

I don't regard it as a problem. I think our natural bias to believe what the group believes is an important part of how we work, and likely a part of why humans function better as a group than the sum of all the constituents. It's seemingly part of our nature. However, it can cause problems like in science for example...We see this all the time in politics

You don't regard the possible faults in humans reasoning, faults that greatly harm society, as problems? Problems that we have proved can be addressed and addressing them increases individual and societal well-being. I'll again point you to pro-lifers and abstinence only education. And yes we see it all the time in politics, and it is a behavior that is correctly despised there as well.

However, I would hope that our space for public discourse allows other voices to raise any issues they have with those stances

It doesn''t...a Atheist could not win the presidential seat in the States.

ultimately it's up to the individual to decide what to believe.

That would only be true if we had well informed individuals. Which is often exactly what many Religions fight against. I'll again point you to the changes in curriculum within Texas. People are only to free to decide what they want to believe up to an extent of the level of knowledge bestowed upon or available to them and the opportunity to think freely about those problems without being ostracized. Threatening all of the commonly accepted needs humans have.

So it's not as simple as "God says don't kill" therefore we have less killing, but I do think churches do useful things in this realm.

In fact it would almost be the opposite of that. Religiosity has a positive correlation with homicide rates.

And just how many of these guiding principles, treatment of people, self-improvement can be attributed to the natural science (psychology, neuroscience, medical, chemical), philosophy, and economics? I would say quite a lot.

I guess I don't know. But I also don't know why it's relevant. You have your sources of guiding principles, etc. and I have mine.

Why it is relevant? You are asking about causation and when asked about what the cause you think it is irrelevant?


And it is still difficult to have a discussion when you think all of my questions are rhetorical.

Can you explain those specific tools and how they are exclusive to Religion? Or even how Religion was the exclusive place for you to find them?Also which tools are specific to to which religion and which of those tools solve which specific problem

I suggest you ask this of someone who is claiming that it's exclusive to Religion. That's not part of my argument. And you've asked me this before and I've given you this exact same answer.

If it is not exclusive to religion what do we need religion to help people with those problems? Why can't they use other tools?

So why do you turn to Christianity, belief and faith, rather than the acquisition of knowledge and study of reality to guide your behavior and ideology?

Why can't I turn to all of that? I was speaking generally. I do use reality to inform me on many behaviors, like for example I didn't learn to drive with the Bible. However, my guiding principles are based in Christianity, and I try to ultimately rely on that.

You mean besides the conflict between ideologies? One believing we should work toward maximizing life on earth based on knowledge of life on earth, the other maximizing the immortal soul based on a belief substantiated from the Bible?

So why don't we learn our lessons and stop trying to rehash out old stuff which is most certainly going to end in us both being filled with a sense of wasted effort?

This isn't 'old stuff' this is the meat of the entire discussion about the utility of religion and where it's place should be within the future of humanity.

[morriswalters]

Edit:
I've decided that I need to be clearer. Guenther has never claimed that Christians aren't human. His claim is to the Philosophy of Christianity. Given the totality of their works it's not very hard to see that the culture that they inhabit has certainly done as well or better as any.

Are you including the period from 400 AD to 1400 AD in this assessment?

Yep. I thought of leaving that single word as that answer, but I'll expand. At the end of that period of time the society had achieved the enough stability to be able to take the tools that would appear and run with them. Place Christians in the time period from 400 AD to 1400AD. If the idea of slaughtering people because they believed differently from you upsets you, then you would have fared poorly in that period. Turn the other cheek would have been an invitation to lose your cheek, along with your head.

Religious authorities can offer no such qualifications to back up their claims about the physical world. People believe them on the basis of tradition, charisma, confirmation bias, peer pressure and emotional appeal - not because they cohere with anything we know about reality. If one's chosen religious narrative happens to encourage kind and charitable behavior toward others, then great - but there's no reason why another faith can't mandate selfish, deceptive and destructive behavior, and even define those things as "good," on exactly the same basis. I cannot give a believer any meaningful reason to believe that God is right and Satan is wrong. You don't see why that's "problematic?"

Do you know of any philosophical framework that doesn't have this problem? What's the purpose of Religion? The purpose , one among many, is to provide a common framework for behavior for people who believe. Any given faith may believe anything, but the issue is how does your belief system place you among your peers, not outsiders. If you wish to challenge guenthers worldview, then the better idea to question might be why do Religions schism? If the world view of a single God is correct, and if that God is God, then why are there hundreds, if not thousands of sects in Christendom? Each teaching slightly different versions of the word of God. The question more succinctly stated is, Why isn't Christianity more internally consistent to itself?

[LaserGuy]

Are you including the period from 400 AD to 1400 AD in this assessment?

Yep. I thought of leaving that single word as that answer, but I'll expand. At the end of that period of time the society has achieved the enough stability to be able to take the tools that would appear and run with them. Place Christians in the time period from 400 AD to 1400AD. If the idea of slaughtering people because they believed differently from you upsets you, then you would have fared poorly in that period. Turn the other cheek would have been an invitation to lose your cheek, along with your head.

Uh, why do we have to place Christians in the period from 400 AD to 1400AD? They were already there--they were, in fact, the dominant religion in Europe for pretty much that entire period, and were, for the most part, the people doing the violence that you are describing.

[guenther]

I could be wrong, but I think the question here is more fundamental than that. Kaelri isn't asking how do we know that human sacrifice is wrong and charity is good; rather, the question is how do we know that we should associate the evil (human sacrifice) with Satan and the good (charity) with God, rather than the opposite. How do we know that God is the good one and Satan is the evil one?

Well, in that same paragraph he was juxtaposing a religion that encourages kind and charitable behavior with one that mandates selfish, deceptive, and destructive behavior. And then the next sentence is about the problems of convincing people that God is right and Satan is wrong. So I took that as an association between Satan and the bad behavior, which is consistent with the Christian perspective.

But regardless, if the concern is about competing narratives on whether Satan is the good guy or God, then we can again look at the modern religious landscape and see that this is not a hugely critical issue. Very few people go around praising Satan. And if we just lived in a world where the terms were swapped and Satan was generally seen as the good guy, then I don't know that much would be different (except maybe the Satan/Santa jokes would be less funny).

This isn't 'old stuff' this is the meat of the entire discussion about the utility of religion and where it's place should be within the future of humanity.

Then I encourage you to point this meat at someone who wants to have that discussion. I already said that I am done with the utility of religion debate. I am not putting forth the claim that you need religion or that people can't use other tools. In fact, if you had thoroughly ready through my posts you would have seen that I endorse the freedom to do precisely that. And you're welcome to believe that my ideologies are somehow in conflict with promoting greater welfare for life on the planet. In fact, you're welcome to believe anything you want about me. I'm not too concerned anymore.

[LaserGuy]

I could be wrong, but I think the question here is more fundamental than that. Kaelri isn't asking how do we know that human sacrifice is wrong and charity is good; rather, the question is how do we know that we should associate the evil (human sacrifice) with Satan and the good (charity) with God, rather than the opposite. How do we know that God is the good one and Satan is the evil one?

But regardless, if the concern is about competing narratives on whether Satan is te he good guy or God, then we can again look at the modern religious landscape and see that this is not a hugely critical issue. Very few people go around praising Satan. And if we just lived in a world where the terms were swapped and Satan was generally seen as the good guy, then I don't know that much would be different (except maybe the Satan/Santa jokes would be less funny).

Well, yes. But that's only because Christians have thrown their lot wholeheartedly behind God. That assumption is unjustified, however. The evidence that we have for God being the good one is: God told us He's the good one, and wrote a book about it. But if God was the evil one, wouldn't he just lie and say He was the good one anyway? I mean, if God is just the representation of what we consider to be the ultimate good in the universe, then true, it doesn't matter what we call it. But God in this sense is just an abstraction--we aren't dealing with the kind of God that actually exists, we're just talking about an ideal. If God is an actual being with a personality and whatnot, then making the correct association is actually kind of important.

[morriswalters]

Are you including the period from 400 AD to 1400 AD in this assessment?

Yep. I thought of leaving that single word as that answer, but I'll expand. At the end of that period of time the society has achieved the enough stability to be able to take the tools that would appear and run with them. Place Christians in the time period from 400 AD to 1400AD. If the idea of slaughtering people because they believed differently from you upsets you, then you would have fared poorly in that period. Turn the other cheek would have been an invitation to lose your cheek, along with your head.

Uh, why do we have to place Christians in the period from 400 AD to 1400AD? They were already there--they were, in fact, the dominant religion in Europe for pretty much that entire period, and were, for the most part, the people doing the violence that you are describing.

perhaps that should have been "Put yourself in the place of"

[guenther]

If God is an actual being with a personality and whatnot, then making the correct association is actually kind of important.

What are the consequences of getting it wrong, and how do we know if we aren't going to rely on the Bible or some other holy book to tell us? If there is a consqeuense for getting it wrong, and a deceitful God is withholding that information from all of us, then we're really all in the same boat.

[LaserGuy]

If God is an actual being with a personality and whatnot, then making the correct association is actually kind of important.

What are the consequences of getting it wrong, and how do we know if we aren't going to rely on the Bible or some other holy book to tell us? If there is a consqeuense for getting it wrong, and a deceitful God is withholding that information from all of us, then we're really all in the same boat.

Well, under Christian morality, the consequences of worshipping the devil, even ignorantly, is to be sent to hell. So if God is the devil and Satan is god, then anyone who worships God is going to hell, and anyone who worships Satan is going to heaven. It is essentially the same problem as "How do you know you should be following Christianity rather than religion <x>?", except to demonstrate that even within the Christian framework, you still can't even know for sure that you've picked the right option.

For what it's worth, I would say the best option would be not to rely on any holy book, because there is no guarantee that any of them are correct, and trying to figure out the best course of action through observations of the physical world.

[Роберт]

Well, under Christian morality, the consequences of worshipping the devil, even ignorantly, is to be sent to hell.

...are you aware of who C.S. Lewis is?

In the Chronicles of Narnia, there's a character who worshiped "Tash" (basically a demonic idol) who is accepted by Aslan (basically Jesus/God) who said "you thought you were worshiping Tash but you were really worshiping me".

So, you might have to be a bit more specific about "Christian morality". The Catholic church is an easier target because they all have to agree with whatever the pope says, so they have a more formalized central doctrine.

[TrlstanC]

For what it's worth, I would say the best option would be not to rely on any holy book, because there is no guarantee that any of them are correct, and trying to figure out the best course of action through observations of the physical world.

I think that's just about the best way to put it. It seems that the key assumption underlying most belief in religion is that fallible human(s) that wrote the book (or does the preaching) was kept from making any mistakes in their teachings (or from misinterpreting) by the influence of a kind and benevolent god, therefore you can believe all the promises and information in the book. Unfortunately the only reason we have to believe this assumption is by... reading the book (or listening to the preaching), the expected infallibility isn't actually in there anywhere.

The other reason to believe in religion seems to be "I've seen the good that it can do." I would say that that seems to still be an open question because several people have brought up the points that 1. religion doesn't always make people do good things and 2. people have found lots of other reasons besides religion to do good things. This is more of a personal judgment of how the benefits for the individual and society outweigh any potential negatives.

[LaserGuy]

Well, under Christian morality, the consequences of worshipping the devil, even ignorantly, is to be sent to hell.

...are you aware of who C.S. Lewis is?

In the Chronicles of Narnia, there's a character who worshiped "Taft" (basically a demonic idol) who is accepted by Aslan (basically Jesus/God) who said "you thought you were worshiping Taft but you were really worshiping me".

So, you might have to be a bit more specific about "Christian morality". The Catholic church is an easier target because they all have to agree with whatever the pope says, so they have a more formalized central doctrine.

You're right, let me rephrase. Using the moral precepts set out in the Bible, worshiping the devil, even ignorantly, is sufficient to get you sent to hell. If you are in a Christianity that bases their moral precepts on something else (Unitarians, maybe), then obviously you will arrive at different conclusions.

[guenther]

You're right, let me rephrase. Using the moral precepts set out in the Bible, worshiping the devil, even ignorantly, is sufficient to get you sent to hell. If you are in a Christianity that bases their moral precepts on something else (Unitarians, maybe), then obviously you will arrive at different conclusions.

My point was that if God is a liar, then we can't trust what the Bible says about the consequences.

For what it's worth, I would say the best option would be not to rely on any holy book, because there is no guarantee that any of them are correct, and trying to figure out the best course of action through observations of the physical world.

There's no guarantee on that method either. In fact if you only want to tread where guarantees exist, you'll have few options.

[LaserGuy]

You're right, let me rephrase. Using the moral precepts set out in the Bible, worshiping the devil, even ignorantly, is sufficient to get you sent to hell. If you are in a Christianity that bases their moral precepts on something else (Unitarians, maybe), then obviously you will arrive at different conclusions.

My point was that if God is a liar, then we can't trust what the Bible says about the consequences.

I agree. This is an excellent reason not to trust any religion at all. We have no way to determine if any conception of God, if He exists, is trustworthy, and therefore have no way to evaluate the trustworthiness of any holy book. That said, I was operating under the assumption that Satan operated under essentially the same moral system that the Christian God is supposed to, and we just incorrectly attributed the good stuff to God instead of to Satan.

[guenther]

I agree. This is an excellent reason not to trust any religion at all. We have no way to determine if any conception of God, if He exists, is trustworthy, and therefore have no way to evaluate the trustworthiness of any holy book.

That's where faith comes in. I can understand trepidation with religion for those who find faith to be displeasing.

[ShootTheChicken]

Or rational people who demand some sort of evidence before believing in something.