A Brief Argument: Religion Has Been a Waste of Time

[joe1776]

In his 1946 book Will to Meaning, psychiatrist Viktor Frankl wrote of his opinion that striving to find meaning in life is the primary, most powerful motivating force in human nature. His theory credibly explains the human interest in philosophy, psychology and religion.

I think all three of these massive efforts -- philosophy, psychology and religion -- have been mostly a waste of time because none have effectively led the majority of its followers to finding meaning in life.

In my opinion, the meaning in life has been determined by an unconscious brain function as simple as a light switch: pain and pleasure. We avoid pain and seek pleasure.

This pain and pleasure function might be nature's method for advancing the survival of all animal species. In our species, it rewards us with pleasure when we treat others with kindness. We feel good about it. And it punishes us with guilt when we intentionally cause harm to an innocent victim. Our brains are training us to make moral progress; to become better human beings and this process is essential for the ultimate survival of our species.

Making moral progress is the purpose of our lives and contentment is the reward for achievement.

Atheists and theists might debate endlessly whether the purpose of life was willed by a higher power or simply the moral direction provided by the process of evolution. Either way, if both groups see moral progress as the purpose of our lives, we all end up pulling together in the same direction.

In 2017, a survey taken in the USA showed that 78% thought human morality was declining. If they're right, then I'm wrong. My argument is only supported if humanity has been making moral progress. Here's my argument that the 78% are wrong:

Global Harmony is Inevitable

Your comments pro or con are welcomed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In his 1946 book Will to Meaning, psychiatrist Viktor Frankl wrote of his opinion that striving to find meaning in life is the primary, most powerful motivating force in human nature. His theory credibly explains the human interest in philosophy, psychology and religion.

I think all three of these massive efforts -- philosophy, psychology and religion -- have been mostly a waste of time because none have effectively led the majority of its followers to finding meaning in life.

I strongly disagree with the idea that religion is an effort to find meaning in life.

Some people may try to do this in a religious context, but the same could be said of sport, for instance. Neither one intrinsically has anything to do with "striving to find meaning in life."

In fact, more often than not, religion is about sating the desire for meaning without actually finding any; it's more of an obstacle to the search for meaning than anything else.

 

[Quintessence]

It's important to recognize that what works for you don't necessarily work for someone else. The notion of "moral progress" is bankrupt from the gate to some, so it is not going to work as a life's purpose for everyone.

 

[joe1776]

In fact, more often than not, religion is about sating the desire for meaning without actually finding any; it's more of an obstacle to the search for meaning than anything else.

Aren't you agreeing with me here? The desire for meaning is what people want. The fact that the majority don't get it agrees with my OP.

 

[joe1776]

It's important to recognize that what works for you don't necessarily work for someone else. The notion of "moral progress" is bankrupt from the gate to some, so it is not going to work as a life's purpose for everyone.

When you are kind to others, do you not feel good about It? When you intentionally cause innocent others harm do you not feel guilt? Don't most brains, with the exception of sociopaths, work that way?

 

[Windwalker]

I think all three of these massive efforts -- philosophy, psychology and religion -- have been mostly a waste of time because none have effectively led the majority of its followers to finding meaning in life.

Two points. Firstly, do you have any quantifiable proof to support that religion has been infective in this way? Or is this just your opinion based on your own experience with it? Secondly, what follows in your post is itself a philosophical position, which you claim is a waste of time. Furthermore, you think psychology is a waste of time? You think we don't have a mind and need to try to understand how it operates and influences how we think and perceive reality? It's clear you ascribe to a reductionist philosophy, which ironically utilizes all three of the above in its declarations of the "real" truth and meanings of life.

 

[Augustus]

Making moral progress is the purpose of our lives and contentment is the reward for achievement.

The Idea of Progress only developed out of Christian teleology and its eschatologically derived linear view of time. It is also very much a secularised salvation narrative.

What you see as being objective/neutral is really the result of a cultural history in which certain aspects of Christian thoughts have become so completely normalised and deeply entrenched in modern thought that many people don't even realise how it has influenced them.

As such, you are presenting a view that says religion is a waste of time, that is in itself reliant on the historical existence and influence of religion.

 

[Nakosis]

In his 1946 book Will to Meaning, psychiatrist Viktor Frankl wrote of his opinion that striving to find meaning in life is the primary, most powerful motivating force in human nature. His theory credibly explains the human interest in philosophy, psychology and religion.

I think all three of these massive efforts -- philosophy, psychology and religion -- have been mostly a waste of time because none have effectively led the majority of its followers to finding meaning in life.

In my opinion, the meaning in life has been determined by an unconscious brain function as simple as a light switch: pain and pleasure. We avoid pain and seek pleasure.

This pain and pleasure function might be nature's method for advancing the survival of all animal species. In our species, it rewards us with pleasure when we treat others with kindness. We feel good about it. And it punishes us with guilt when we intentionally cause harm to an innocent victim. Our brains are training us to make moral progress; to become better human beings and this process is essential for the ultimate survival of our species.

Making moral progress is the purpose of our lives and contentment is the reward for achievement.

Atheists and theists might debate endlessly whether the purpose of life was willed by a higher power or simply the moral direction provided by the process of evolution. Either way, if both groups see moral progress as the purpose of our lives, we all end up pulling together in the same direction.

In 2017, a survey taken in the USA showed that 78% thought human morality was declining. If they're right, then I'm wrong. My argument is only supported if humanity has been making moral progress. Here's my argument that the 78% are wrong:

Global Harmony is Inevitable

Your comments pro or con are welcomed.

I see our highest being that of survival. Pleasure and pain maybe indicators of the wellbeing of our survival on an instinctual level. We add feelings to instinct and we start to take into consideration our emotional wellbeing. Guilt being a detriment to that. So we have morals being driven by instinct and motions.

Then there is also conscious self awareness which can develop the ability to dominate the other two. I believe consciously we can start to construct our morals. We can rationally decide what our morality should be. I suppose this is progress in that we no longer need to rely entirely on instinct or emotion to drive our morals.

Maybe some folks remain driven by their emotions and even instincts so see morality driven by these two influences on the decline.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aren't you agreeing with me here? The desire for meaning is what people want. The fact that the majority don't get it agrees with my OP.

My point is that religion generally doesn't lead to meaning because it wasn't meant to.

Reaching Heaven and avoiding Hell, for instance, are about simple self-interest, not a search for meaning. I can't count how many times a religious person who argued some version of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Idea of Progress only developed out of Christian teleology and its eschatologically derived linear view of time.

Christianity invented "progress" now? Give me a break.

 

[joe1776]

Two points. Firstly, do you have any quantifiable proof to support that religion has been infective in this way? Or is this just your opinion based on your own experience with it?

Quantifiable proof of this? In an argument placed in an Internet forum? No.

Secondly, what follows in your post is itself a philosophical position, which you claim is a waste of time.

Your definition of philosphy is much broader than I intended in my usage. I'm talking about the activity done by Philosophers.

Furthermore, you think psychology is a waste of time? You think we don't have a mind and need to try to understand how it operates and influences how we think and perceive reality?

No, I think it far more useful to learn to reason.

 

[joe1776]

My point is that religion generally doesn't lead to meaning because it wasn't meant to.

Reaching Heaven and avoiding Hell, for instance, are about simple self-interest, not a search for meaning. I can't count how many times a religious person who argued some version of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

Your giving me evidence that religion doesn't help its followers find meaning. That doesn't disagree with my OP.

What need do people hope religion will satisfy? If not to find meaning in their lives, then what?

 

[Augustus]

Christianity invented "progress" now? Give me a break.

The Idea of Progress, not progress. This is the concept of progress found in modern Western Humanistic ideology though. It didn't always exist and didn't appear out of a vacuum funnily enough.

History dear chap, try it some time

"Before leaving Turgot, it is important to stress once again the historical importance of Christianity in the formation of the secular modern conception of progress in Western Europe. In the first place, Turgot began his career as a reasonably devout student of theology at the Sorbonne, his aspiration then linked to a future in the Church. Second, just six months before the discourse on "The Successive Advances of the Human Mind" was given in 1750, he had presented another public discourse, this one on the crucial importance of Christianity to the progress of mankind. And third, it was Bossuet's Universal History, which I have already referred to, that Turgot acknowledged to be his inspiration for the writing, or the preparation of a plan of his own "Universal History." Bossuet, proud and convinced Christian that he was, constructed his history in terms of a succession of epochs, all designed and given effect by God. Turgot allowed God to disappear (he had lost his faith by 1751 when he wrote his "Universal History") and replaced Bossuet's "epochs" by "stages": stages of social and cultural progress, each emerging from its predecessor through human rather than divine causes. But Turgot's alterations notwithstanding, it is unlikely that his own secular work on progress would have been written apart from the inspiration derived from Bishop Bossuet and other Christian philosophers of history. He is an epitome, in this respect, of the whole history of the modern idea of progress."

Idea of Progress: A Bibliographical Essay by Robert Nisbet - Online Library of Liberty

 

[BSM1]

I strongly disagree with the idea that religion is an effort to find meaning in life.

Some people may try to do this in a religious context, but the same could be said of sport, for instance. Neither one intrinsically has anything to do with "striving to find meaning in life."

In fact, more often than not, religion is about sating the desire for meaning without actually finding any; it's more of an obstacle to the search for meaning than anything else.

Shut the front door! You and I are in total agreement on something. I would even go so far to say that "...finding relgion.." is the antithesis to finding true meaning in life.

 

[joe1776]

The Idea of Progress only developed out of Christian teleology and its eschatologically derived linear view of time. It is also very much a secularised salvation narrative.

You are confusing cause with effect. Christianity was created by the reasoning minds of men. The reasoning minds of men didn't create time or progress.

What you see as being objective/neutral is really the result of a cultural history in which certain aspects of Christian thoughts have become so completely normalised and deeply entrenched in modern thought that many people don't even realise how it has influenced them.

Christianity is nothing more that the product of the reasoning minds of SOME men. It didn't influence the minds of non-Christians.

As such, you are presenting a view that says religion is a waste of time, that is in itself reliant on the historical existence and influence of religion.

My OP is primarily about morality. Despite the Bible's positions on them, Christianity did not stop the abolition of legal slavery and it's not stopping the advances of women or homosexuals. It has been morally impotent.

 

[joe1776]

The Idea of Progress, not progress. This is the concept of progress found in modern Western Humanistic ideology though. It didn't always exist and didn't appear out of a vacuum funnily enough.

No, it didn't appear out of a vaccum and it wasn't Christian beliefs either. Moral progress is driven by the human conscience (those pain and pleasure feelings I spoke of in the OP). Since Christians are human, they have consciences.

Why are the older versions of the Torah and the Bible filled with some really bad moral guidance? Moral progress caused by conscience allowed us to see the errors..

 

[Augustus]

You are confusing cause with effect. Christianity was created by the reasoning minds of men. The reasoning minds of men didn't create time or progress.

Christianity had a particular view of time that was not very common across the vast majority of historical societies. This is the particular view of time that you are now presenting: a teleological one.

This view of time is essential for the Idea of Progress to make any sense.

Christianity is nothing more that the product of the reasoning minds of SOME men. It didn't influence the minds of non-Christians.

Influence doesn't require Divine origin, who created it is of no real importance to it's impact.

The idea that 2000 years of Christianity left no lasting legacy in the minds of the non-Christian modern West is rather far fetched though, don't you think?

Especially when you consider that the modern West just so happens to share many of the very same uncommon features that were present in Christianity.

The conceit of many modern rationalists is to think their thoughts are purely self-made, rather than the being the product of an environment as all other minds have been. They also often tend to mistake their personal ideology for a universal truth that arrises when all superstition is left behind.

My OP is primarily about morality.

Your OP is entirely about the Idea of Progress, and the biggest single influence on the IoP is Christianity (although there are other influences).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your giving me evidence that religion doesn't help its followers find meaning. That doesn't disagree with my OP.

You said that religion was an attempt find meaning that failed. I'm saying it was never an attempt to find meaning at all.

What need do people hope religion will satisfy? If not to find meaning in their lives, then what?

Avoiding Hell, dealing with karma, figuring out how to avoid attachment... depends on the religion. Assuaging fear of death works itself into most of them.

As the old line goes, "religion breaks your leg and then sells you a crutch." The specifics of the problem a religion tries to sell people varies from religion to religion.

 

[Augustus]

No, it didn't appear out of a vaccum and it wasn't Christian beliefs either. Moral progress is driven by the human conscience. Since Christians are human, they have consciences.

We seem to be discussing 2 different things.

1. (Assuming progress exists) What is the cause of this progress?
2. What philosophical axioms are required in order to make a concept of progress conceptually meaningful, and how did they come to exist in your society?

I'm discussing the latter.

Progress is only conceptually meaningful in a society with a progressive view of time. Pre-monotheism, progressive views of time were very rare, and the fact that one exists in the modern West is a product of its Christian heritage.

For example, contrast modern 'optimistic' Humanist ideology you are presenting with the Classical Greek tragic view of history whereby humans are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over due to hubris.

How did the West move from the Greek tragic view, to the modern optimistic one?

 

[Regiomontanus]

In fact, more often than not, religion is about sating the desire for meaning without actually finding any; it's more of an obstacle to the search for meaning than anything else.

Nonsense.