A Brief Argument: Religion Has Been a Waste of Time

[joe1776]

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

How does this comment pertain to our discussion?

 

[atanu]

"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.

I do not understand your point.

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.

I cannot speak of western religions. Eastern religions, however, have an understanding of the unconscious and the conscience -- and from that POV I disagreed with the view of OP that religion was waste of time.

 

[joe1776]

I do not understand your point.

You wrote: 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?
I read that as the ego bothered by the idea that it was not in complete control. Is that not what you meant to imply?

I cannot speak of western religions. Eastern religions, however, have an understanding of the unconscious and the conscience -- and from that POV I disagreed with the view of OP that religion was waste of time.

I know little about Eastern religions, so I don't have an opinion on them. I probably should have made clear that my argument was limited to traditional Western religion.

 

[atanu]

I know little about Eastern religions, so I don't have an opinion on them. I probably should have made clear that my argument was limited to traditional Western religion.

Okay. No further comments then.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Uhm... I just did, but that's okay. Not really interested in arguing or debating. It's pretty self-evident that not everybody agrees with your perspective. The artist whose meaningfulness derives primarily from exercising their creativity and not "moral progress" doesn't exist in your reality. It's cool, I guess.

 

[sealchan]

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.

How do you get from the basic mechanics of pleasure and pain to moral progress is the meaning of our lives? That seems like a bit of a leap.

 

[sealchan]

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.

For some it is a vehicle for finding meaning...for others, most even, it is a protection against the effort of doing the same.

 

[joe1776]

How do you get from the basic mechanics of pleasure and pain to moral progress is the meaning of our lives? That seems like a bit of a leap.

The simplicity of pleasure and pain might be causing you to underestimate the power. Even when we know the truth it's hard to imagine the computer, at its root, being a simple binary code.

And, the seemingly complex Machiavellian strategies that every other television political and crime drama portray are reward and punishment schemes at their root.

Do you recognize the it's a simple reward and punishment offer that drives Christianity? Heaven (reward) or Hell (punishment)? Take your pick.

Do you have an alternative meaning for life that you'd like to argue for? I throw arguments up to open threads because they make sense to me, but I'm open to sound arguments that would trash mine.

 

[joe1776]

For some it is a vehicle for finding meaning...for others, most even, it is a protection against the effort of doing the same.

What do you mean by..."it is a protection against the effort of doing the same?"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Are you suggesting he/you aren't talking about objective meaning?

 

[sealchan]

The simplicity of pleasure and pain might be causing you to underestimate the power. Even when we know the truth it's hard to imagine the computer, at its root, being a simple binary code.

And, the seemingly complex Machiavellian strategies that every other television political and crime drama portray are reward and punishment schemes at their root.

Do you recognize the it's a simple reward and punishment offer that drives Christianity? Heaven (reward) or Hell (punishment)? Take your pick.

Do you have an alternative meaning for life that you'd like to argue for? I throw arguments up to open threads because they make sense to me, but I'm open to sound arguments that would trash mine.

I've been studying Matthew's Gospel and in it the Beatitudes (Matthew 5) foster an attitude that one should be...

• poor in spirit - which I take to mean non-materialistic
• mourners - be open to one's life losses
• meek - do not push for your own needs and perspectives too strongly
• experience a hunger or thirst for righteousness - rather than be up in arms about injustice, recognize that injustice has occurred and desire it to be fulfilled in a more passive way
• be merciful - forgive the pains caused to you by others
• pure in heart - be sincere, honest, open
• peacemakers - resolve disputes peacefully
• suffer persecution for righteousness - accept some measure of suffering when doing what is right comes without worldly reward or even with suffering

This plus in Matthew 6 where Jesus teaches us to "not worry". All of this seems to point to the pleasure and pain cycle as a common denominator that must be stepped away from. Similarly the Bhagavad Gita teaches about the evils of attachment...

When the mind is constantly engaged in worldly things, it grows fond of them and develops attachments. From attachment arises desire, and from desire, anger (2.62).

So it would seem to me that pleasure and pain are as much an obstacle to moral improvement, as taught by religion, as they are an inducement. We should recognize, so religion teaches, that pleasure and pain are a system in which we get caught and that we should seek to recognize and distance ourselves from this system. In that lies moral improvement of ourselves and our society.

 

[sealchan]

What do you mean by..."it is a protection against the effort of doing the same?"

Finding personal meaning can be a lot of work and it can require a person to think and re-think about many things that people take for granted. Religions can induce people to take this extra-ordinary journey. But they also provide all the "pat" answers anyone could want and rather than find the truths of their religion out in their own lives, they merely accept the answers on authority and try not to concern themselves about it any further. As such they fail to grow in self-knowledge and they run into troubles which if their religion's teacher can't help them solve, they may find other discrete solutions.

 

[joe1776]

Are you suggesting he/you aren't talking about objective meaning?

I have given your question more thought and realized that the word "meaning" can be used two different ways by the same person on this topic.

Frankl's book was influential in psychology. Today, his idea that striving to find meaning in life is the primary, most powerful motivating force in human nature is the core principle in a school of therapy. I believe that. However, if I remember it correctly, his theory didn't isolate a specific meaning as I have.

I propose that moral progress has been determined to be our purpose in life by our evolved brain and that other purposes, the common pursuits of wealth, fame, prestige or political power, for example, are false paths.

 

[joe1776]

I've been studying Matthew's Gospel and in it the Beatitudes (Matthew 5) foster an attitude that one should be...

• poor in spirit - which I take to mean non-materialistic
• mourners - be open to one's life losses
• meek - do not push for your own needs and perspectives too strongly
• experience a hunger or thirst for righteousness - rather than be up in arms about injustice, recognize that injustice has occurred and desire it to be fulfilled in a more passive way
• be merciful - forgive the pains caused to you by others
• pure in heart - be sincere, honest, open
• peacemakers - resolve disputes peacefully
• suffer persecution for righteousness - accept some measure of suffering when doing what is right comes without worldly reward or even with suffering

This plus in Matthew 6 where Jesus teaches us to "not worry". All of this seems to point to the pleasure and pain cycle as a common denominator that must be stepped away from. Similarly the Bhagavad Gita teaches about the evils of attachment...

Aside from serious students of life like you, Christians have never heard of Matthew's Beatitudes. Isn't that evidence on it's face that his list, no matter how well conceived, hasn't been useful?

In addition to training us to become better human beings, the pain and pleasure centers of our brain give us immediate, case-by-case, moral guidance. Imagine a soldier fighting in a good cause. He sees the killing of enemy soldiers as a necessary duty. Then, he is ordered to kill a group of civilians. His conscience immediately protests (the brain's pain function signals 'wrong"). If he follows the order, he will feel guilt (more pain) the rest of his life when remembering the incident.

Both the immediate protest and the subsequent guilt are product of the brain's pain function. Even if he had committed it to memory, why would the soldier need Matthew's Beatitudes for moral guidance?

So it would seem to me that pleasure and pain are as much an obstacle to moral improvement, as taught by religion, as they are an inducement. We should recognize, so religion teaches, that pleasure and pain are a system in which we get caught and that we should seek to recognize and distance ourselves from this system. In that lies moral improvement of ourselves and our society.

My OP didn't cover everything one needs to know on the topic. Imagine the warm, satisfying pleasure you might get after going out of your way to do something kind for someone. Now, imagine the gloating kind of pleasure you feel when you have won a competition over an opponent. The gloating kind happens when we satisfy our arrogant need to feel superior to others -- which is the source of most bad behavior.

So, one kind of pleasure (gloating) is to be avoided, the other welcomed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have given your question more thought and realized that the word "meaning" can be used two different ways by the same person on this topic.

Frankl's book was influential in psychology. Today, his idea that striving to find meaning in life is the primary, most powerful motivating force in human nature is the core principle in a school of therapy. I believe that. However, if I remember it correctly, his theory didn't isolate a specific meaning as I have.

I propose that moral progress has been determined to be our purpose in life by our evolved brain and that other purposes, the common pursuits of wealth, fame, prestige or political power, for example, are false paths.

I'm a psych major, but it's been a while for me...
Is this somewhat akin to theories around self-actualization (more Goldstein than Maslow).

 

[joe1776]

Finding personal meaning can be a lot of work and it can require a person to think and re-think about many things that people take for granted. Religions can induce people to take this extra-ordinary journey. But they also provide all the "pat" answers anyone could want and rather than find the truths of their religion out in their own lives, they merely accept the answers on authority and try not to concern themselves about it any further. As such they fail to grow in self-knowledge and they run into troubles which if their religion's teacher can't help them solve, they may find other discrete solutions.

You see human nature as being more complex than I do. I think nature tends to begin with simple concepts-patterns and then creates what looks like dazzling-baffling complexity from them.

 

[joe1776]

I'm a psych major, but it's been a while for me...
Is this somewhat akin to theories around self-actualization (more Goldstein than Maslow).

If I were to expand on the OP, you would probably recognize more Maslow in a hierarchy with basic survival at its base. Then, above that, less crucial needs. But I identify different needs than Maslow does. For example, I think we humans have an arrogant need to feel superior to others that motivates a ton of human behavior, most of it bad. Thus, moral progress would require recognizing the behavior that satisfies that need and refusing to engage in it.

 

[Augustus]

Aside from serious students of life like you, Christians have never heard of Matthew's Beatitudes. Isn't that evidence on it's face that his list, no matter how well conceived, hasn't been useful?

If nobody for the rest of history ever read the Bible, that wouldn't remove its enormous impact on Western civilisation that is deeply culturally embedded.

If you compare that list with Roman cultural norms, you will see its impact. Which, to you, seems most reflective of your personal values?

What you are saying is akin to the argument that just because few people today read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, it can't have had much effect on contemporary economic thought.

In addition to training us to become better human beings, the pain and pleasure centers of our brain give us immediate, case-by-case, moral guidance. Imagine a soldier fighting in a good cause. He sees the killing of enemy soldiers as a necessary duty. Then, he is ordered to kill a group of civilians. His conscience immediately protests (the brain's pain function signals 'wrong"). If he follows the order, he will feel guilt the rest of his life when remembering the incident.

Going back to Roman cultural norms, Julius Caesar boasted of killing 1 million Gauls, a figure which he likely vastly inflated. Far from being ashamed, he saw it as a sign of virtue which, if publicised, would boost his personal ambitions and help win the hearts and minds of the citizenry. "I killed a million, enslaved another million, you know that's the kind of dude you want running the show."

You mistake Western cultural norms for being impartial, universal products of biology. If killing 'barbarians' was widely viewed as a good thing, you don't get 'punished' by guilt as you don't think it is wrong. And that's even before considering the diversity between individuals within the same society.

 

[joe1776]

If nobody for the rest of history ever read the Bible, that wouldn't remove its enormous impact on Western civilisation that is deeply culturally embedded.

If I ask you to support your claim, you won't be able to do it without making more unsupported claims.

If you compare that list with Roman cultural norms, you will see its impact. Which, to you, seems most reflective of your personal values?

I'm not an expert on Roman cultural norms. I do know that it was a morally immature culture, however.

What you are saying is akin to the argument that just because few people today read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, it can't have had much effect on contemporary economic thought.

False analogy. Adam Smith's book was the product of a clever, reasoning mind, written with clarity, which influenced other bright minds who, in turn, influenced others. The Christian Bible, depending on the edition, is comprised of 600,000 to 800,000 words which are interpreted differently even by those who consider the book sacred.

Going back to Roman cultural norms, Julius Caesar boasted of killing 1 million Gauls, a figure which he likely vastly inflated. Far from being ashamed, he saw it as a sign of virtue which, if publicised, would boost his personal ambitions and help win the hearts and minds of the citizenry. "I killed a million, enslaved another million, you know that's the kind of dude you want running the show."

It's the nagging of conscience that changes cultural biases over time. It was the nagging of conscience that changed the cultural bias that condoned legal slavery. It's the nagging of conscience that is currently changing the cultural biases against women and homosexuals. These examples of moral progress happen despite the old cultural biases opposed to them reflected in the scripture of the Christian Bible written by men who were citizens of morally immature cultures.

You mistake Western cultural norms for being impartial, universal products of biology. If killing 'barbarians' was widely viewed as a good thing, you don't get 'punished' by guilt as you don't think it is wrong. And that's even before considering the diversity between individuals within the same society.

You finally wrote something that I can agree with. Conscience informs us that, for the act to be immoral, the harm caused must be intentional and there must be an innocent victim. So, if a soldier is misinformed and led into an unjust war, it isn't immoral for him to kill the enemy because he didn't see the enemy as an innocent victim. The men who led him into the unjust war, however, were guilty.

 

[sealchan]

Aside from serious students of life like you, Christians have never heard of Matthew's Beatitudes. Isn't that evidence on it's face that his list, no matter how well conceived, hasn't been useful?

In addition to training us to become better human beings, the pain and pleasure centers of our brain give us immediate, case-by-case, moral guidance. Imagine a soldier fighting in a good cause. He sees the killing of enemy soldiers as a necessary duty. Then, he is ordered to kill a group of civilians. His conscience immediately protests (the brain's pain function signals 'wrong"). If he follows the order, he will feel guilt (more pain) the rest of his life when remembering the incident.

Both the immediate protest and the subsequent guilt are product of the brain's pain function. Even if he had committed it to memory, why would the soldier need Matthew's Beatitudes for moral guidance?

My OP didn't cover everything one needs to know on the topic. Imagine the warm, satisfying pleasure you might get after going out of your way to do something kind for someone. Now, imagine the gloating kind of pleasure you feel when you have won a competition over an opponent. The gloating kind happens when we satisfy our arrogant need to feel superior to others -- which is the source of most bad behavior.

So, one kind of pleasure (gloating) is to be avoided, the other welcomed.

In a way, then, you might say that when religion teaches us to distance ourselves from our cultivation of pleasure and our acceptance of pain it is doing so due to a lack of discrimination about how our emotions could already guide us toward obtaining pleasure as either good or bad?

So the emotional system is a second principle it seems to add alongside of the pleasure and pain system's contribution to our mental feeling and calculation for what is and what is not moral, would you say?

Then reconciling these two systems results in moral progress?