A Brief Argument: Religion Has Been a Waste of Time

[Milton Platt]

My claim is that moral progress is the purpose that satisfies the human striving to find meaning in life is the primary, most powerful motivating force in human nature (Viktor Frankl)

That is more clear, thanks. Still not on board with that, though. Meaning is assigned to an individual's life by the individual and to a lesser degree perhaps by his community. Not all individuals find the same things meaningful or motivational, or powerful. I have never heard anyone say that moral progress is what gives meaning to their life.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

[joe1776]

Usually, people don't end up in a religion because they were drawn to it; they're in it because their parents raised them in it.

This isn't always the case, of course, but it's true most of the time. And even if there isn't overt indoctrination, being raised in a theistic environment can set up a social expectation in the child that they should be theist.


If you realize that the problem the religion is trying to solve is made up, the solution it offers stops being attractive: if you stop believing in Hell, the promise of being saved from Hell isn't exactly compelling.

I don't think the reasons for leaving necessarily relate to the reasons they joined (if joining wasn't just a matter of being raised in the religion). For instance, one theme I hear over and over again fron believers is that they couldn't reconcile meeting nice, good gay people with their religion that told them that gay people were evil sinners, and this dissonance ended up unravelling their faith to the point that they felt they couldn't stay in the religion.

All that you say is true but...

If the religious had found in their religion their meaning in life that Viktor Frankl called the primary, most powerful motivating force in human nature, can you see them leaving it?

 

[joe1776]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

You wrote:
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.

My point is that if all brains (except for sociopaths) provide conscience as an unconscious faculty, moral progress is the only option for a meaningful life.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

Mostly a waste of time but feeling persecuted makes up for it.

 

[Augustus]

You're making a claim for Christianity that goes back centuries, one that I've never heard in my 83 years of living among Christian relatives in a Christian country.

That's because most Christians, like most other people, have very little interest in the evolution of European thought in the pre-modern era.

It is a widely accepted view in academic study of such a field though.

I doubt your claim is true but when I have some time, I'll follow the Nesbet link you provided out of curiosity.

Where do you think it came from? Do you think such a view is common throughout history?

Also, if you'd prefer a lecture this covers the topic from the perspective of the history of science.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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'm paraphrasing you, but this appears an argument based on reductionist principles conflating 'meaning' with 'objective meaning'.

I don't view the world in that way at all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They also often tend to mistake their personal ideology for a universal truth that arrises when all superstition is left behind.

I like this, @Augustus . It holds some truth, and is neatly put.

 

[atanu]

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......

We, the majority, imo, are looking for meaning in ego-self . What meaning can be found in ego self, which is goaded into action solely through so-called survival of the fittest?

.
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.

What rewards or punishes us? To reward for goodness or to punish for bad acts, there needs to be an agent that can discriminate and then mete out appropriate fruits.

 

[Quintessence]

You wrote:
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.

My point is that if all brains (except for sociopaths) provide conscience as an unconscious faculty, moral progress is the only option for a meaningful life.

The only option for a meaningful life? That's... you actually believe that? That there is only one way for someone to have a meaningful life, and it has to be your particular way?

Wow.

Even if I believed in the myth of progress - which I don't - I find this difficult to process.

 

[joe1776]

The only option for a meaningful life? That's... you actually believe that? That there is only one way for someone to have a meaningful life, and it has to be your particular way?

I made an argument in the OP that, using the method of reward and punishment, our brains are training us to become better human beings. Do you have a counter argument or not?

You might, for example, offer another pursuit, that would make more sense than moral progress as a meaningful life for most humans.

 

[joe1776]

I'm paraphrasing you, but this appears an argument based on reductionist principles conflating 'meaning' with 'objective meaning'.

I don't view the world in that way at all.

I'm using meaning in the same sense that Viktor Frankl used it in Will to Meaning-- as I noted in the opening paragraph of the OP.

 

[Quintessence]

I made an argument in the OP that, using the method of reward and punishment, our brains are training us to become better human beings. Do you have a counter argument or not?

@Augustus already has that covered. I don't feel much need to repeat what they've talked about already with respect to the myth of progress. That is, the notion of "better human beings" is a sacred story... one that not everyone shares. I certainly don't share it.

You might, for example, offer another pursuit, that would make more sense than moral progress as a meaningful life for most humans.

I don't believe it's about making "more sense" or "less sense." I simply recognize that... well... not all human persons are the same. Many reject the myth of progress entirely, which means they're not going to follow this idea of "moral progress" at all. Others reject moralizing things in general, or are moral nihilists. What about the tradesperson who aspires to excellence in their profession? What about the artist who loves creating works for their own sake? What about having a simple sense of duty or obligation? Not everything is about moralizing, and there's plenty of value to be had in life without moralizing everything.

 

[Muffled]

I believe a servant never asks his master why he has to do the things he does. He just does them.

 

[joe1776]

We, the majority, imo, are looking for meaning in ego-self . What meaning can be found in ego self, which is goaded into action solely through so-called survival of the fittest?

"Goaded into action?" Frankly, that sounds like the ego-self is a tad arrogant. I can only say that the idea of being moved by natural forces and not being in total control doesn't bother me.

What rewards or punishes us? To reward for goodness or to punish for bad acts, there needs to be an agent that can discriminate and then mete out appropriate fruits.

I don't know anything about an agent. Conscience is an unconscious function. The source of its wisdom is a mystery. The unconscious holds lots of mysteries because scientists need to consciously observe effects in order to study them.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe when you come down to it, everything I do I do because I mean to do it. The only different thing would be things that happen accidentally.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe I wanted things to be good. Religion has been the only provider of goodness.

 

[joe1776]

@Augustus already has that covered. I don't feel much need to repeat what they've talked about already with respect to the myth of progress. That is, the notion of "better human beings" is a sacred story... one that not everyone shares. I certainly don't share it.

I don't believe it's about making "more sense" or "less sense." I simply recognize that... well... not all human persons are the same. Many reject the myth of progress entirely, which means they're not going to follow this idea of "moral progress" at all. Others reject moralizing things in general, or are moral nihilists. What about the tradesperson who aspires to excellence in their profession? What about the artist who loves creating works for their own sake? What about having a simple sense of duty or obligation? Not everything is about moralizing, and there's plenty of value to be had in life without moralizing everything.

Alright, I have you on record as disagreeing with the argument in the OP. And I have a vague idea of your reasons. However, you haven't given specific counter-arguments, so I see nothing to debate.

 

[joe1776]

I believe when you come down to it, everything I do I do because I mean to do it. The only different thing would be things that happen accidentally.

Of course. Our acts are either intentional or unintentional.

Conscience informs us that intentional acts that harm innocent others are wrong but unintentional acts which cause harm are not. Our laws reflect the judgments of conscience. If we harm others in a traffic accident, it is not an immoral-criminal act. If we harm others in an intentional act of road rage, it is immoral and considered a criminal act.

 

[joe1776]

I believe I wanted things to be good. Religion has been the only provider of goodness.

I disagree that religion is the only provider of goodness but that would be a lengthy, off-topic debate.