A Brief Argument: Religion Has Been a Waste of Time

[joe1776]

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?

OK, let's see if I understand.

The USA abolished legal slavery in 1865. I regard that event as moral progress. And your claim is that my view requires a progressive view of time which I would not have were it not for Christianity.

Frankly, that's hard to believe because I can't imagine that classical Greek tragic view you wrote about making any sense to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense.

Ah - a convincing argument. I stand corrected.

 

[Windwalker]

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

How can one hope to ever learn to actually reason, when you ignore the workings of the mind itself? Blind faith you are seeing past the blinders of the mind itself in your reasoning? Far too much faith for my tastes.

 

[joe1776]

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


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.

The reason that people are leaving religion must be related to the reason they were drawn to it in the first place. In other words, the reason they are leaving has to be an unfulfilled expectation.

Since religion delivered on those factors you list, why would they be leaving?

 

[joe1776]

How can one hope to ever learn to actually reason, when you ignore the workings of the mind itself? Blind faith you are seeing past the blinders of the mind itself in your reasoning? Far too much faith for my tastes.

I don't want to take my thread off-topic here. But I'll try giving you one example of the problem I see.

When searching for the cause for an effect we observe, we are almost always looking for a way to change something. We want to repeat positive effects and prevent negative effects. So, we only need to follow the cause-and-effect chain back to the nearest changeable cause.

Social scientists don't do that. For example, they spend a great deal of time on nature v. nurture when neither of those causes are changeable. This would be like Henry rear-ending another car while driving in heavy traffic and going back to his genetic heritage or early conditioning to find the cause of the accident.

 

[Woberts]

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.

What!? I agree on that too!
Aright, someone here has to be imposter.
And it certainly ain't me.

 

[joe1776]

What!? I agree on that too!
Aright, someone here has to be imposter.
And it certainly ain't me.

Huh, that opinion agree with my OP also. Now, I'm going to have to go back and see where I went wrong.

 

[Sanzbir]

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.

For the sake of argument, I'll except your premise...

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.

The survey data that supports this assertion is where?? I don't see it in in any of the the data you link. If there's no data, then the assertion you make is anecdotal and thus can be dismissed.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't want to take my thread off-topic here. But I'll try giving you one example of the problem I see.

When searching for the cause for an effect we observe, we are almost always looking for a way to change something. We want to repeat positive effects and prevent negative effects.

So, we only need to follow the cause-and-effect chain back to the nearest changeable cause.

Why? You seem to rule of systemic causation, without just cause, pun intended. What is happening here is a matter of perception which cannot see or acknowledge the interconnectedness of causations. That issue is in fact a matter for psychology to investigate, understanding why some humans are able, and other unable to see beyond overly-simplistic causation ideas.

Much of this I believe has to do with upbringings, the "strict father" vs. "nurturant parent" roles explored in the cognitive behavioral sciences, which affect how we perceive, conceive of, and interact with the world. Entire sciences, not just "social sciences" look at these under the complexity sciences. Emergentism, for one challenges simple reductionist thinking. Any sort of systems theory such as self-amplifying loops for instance, are hardly explainable in terms of reductionism.

Social scientists don't do that. For example, they spend a great deal of time on nature v. nurture when neither of those causes are changeable.

So the only criteria that should guide our research is whether or not we can manipulate outcomes? That's not the pursuit of knowledge at all. The fact that these are complex systems, does not mean understanding them is "worthless". That's not doing science. That sounds more like the wet dream of an exploitative capitalism, not science.

This would be like Henry rear-ending another car while driving in heavy traffic and going back to his genetic heritage or early conditioning to find the cause of the accident.

No, it would be more like understanding traffic control problems, road conditions, adequate flow controls, etc. In other words, the complexity sciences. And, maybe his genetic heritage has to do with his inability to not text while he thinks traffic isn't moving? Direct causation reduces his mind to math. That's ridiculous of course.

 

[joe1776]

The survey data that supports this assertion is where?? I don't see it in in any of the the data you link. If there's no data, then the assertion you make is anecdotal and thus can be dismissed.

If you raise the standard for proof high enough, you can dismiss any argument that challenges your cherished beliefs. It's an example of the confirmation bias.

However, in this case, If my premise was false, we would be witnessing atheists and agnostics flocking to religion to get in on a good thing. Instead, we have been seeing a long-term trend of less interest in religion. But, you can deny the obvious if you want to.

 

[Sanzbir]

If you raise the standard for proof high enough, you can dismiss any argument that challenges your cherished beliefs. It's an example of the confirmation bias.

Hold on right there.

My standard of proof is FAIRLY LOW.

It's currently "ANY AT ALL".

Don't pretend like that incredibly lax and generous standard is some impossible feat or some unreasonable request to support your own theory. I'm even willing to completely accept without evidence one of your assertions for the sake of argument. Do you really thing asking for one piece of evidence is unreasonable??

My theory: Your theory is wrong. It has the same level of proof that yours does (that is, none) and when you dismiss it I'll just state that it's your own confirmation bias. See how that works?? (Or, rather, doesn't??)

 

[Sanzbir]

However, in this case, If my premise was false, we would be witnessing atheists and agnostics flocking to religion to get in on a good thing. Instead, we have been seeing a long-term trend of less interest in religion. But, you can deny the obvious if you want to.

You mean we'd be seeing something like this??

Survey finds 2 per cent of Anglican priests are not believers (2% of all Anglican clergy are atheist, another 16% agnostic)

OH LOOK AT THAT, basic survey data to support an assertion!!

 

[joe1776]

Why? You seem to rule of systemic causation, without just cause, pun intended. What is happening here is a matter of perception which cannot see or acknowledge the interconnectedness of causations. That issue is in fact a matter for psychology to investigate, understanding why some humans are able, and other unable to see beyond overly-simplistic causation ideas.

Much of this I believe has to do with upbringings, the "strict father" vs. "nurturant parent" roles explored in the cognitive behavioral sciences, which affect how we perceive, conceive of, and interact with the world. Entire sciences, not just "social sciences" look at these under the complexity sciences. Emergentism, for one challenges simple reductionist thinking. Any sort of systems theory challenges simple diuretic-causation views. Self-amplifying loops for instance, are hardly addressed by reductionism.


So the only criteria that should guide our research is whether or not we can manipulate outcomes? That's not the pursuit of knowledge at all. The fact that these are complex systems, does not mean understanding them is "worthless". That's not doing science. That sounds more like the wet dream of an exploitative capitalism, not science.


No, it would be more like understanding traffic control problems, road conditions, adequate flow controls, etc. In other words, the complexity sciences. And, maybe his genetic heritage has to do with his inability to not text while he thinks traffic isn't moving? Direct causation reduced his mind to math. That's ridiculous of course.

There are useful facts and useless facts (trivia). Unless one goes on a game show, trivia is worthless but it clutters up both education and the soft sciences like the science dealing with psychology.

So, to answer your question: So the only criteria that should guide our research is whether or not we can manipulate outcomes?

That's exactly right. We need knowledge that will allow us to repeat positive effects and prevent negative effects. Anything else is a waste of time.

 

[Augustus]

OK, let's see if I understand.

The USA abolished legal slavery in 1865. I regard that event as moral progress. And your claim is that my view requires a progressive view of time which I would not have were it not for Christianity.

No. It is not about expressing a singular preference such as you describe.

It is your overall ideology whereby the purpose of humanity is to undergo a unidirectional process of gradual, but continual moral advancement towards a future harmonious state. It is this progressive teleology to your worldview which is part of the cultural legacy of Christianity.

Have a read of this if you are interested.

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

Frankly, that's hard to believe because I can't imagine that classical Greek tragic view you wrote about making any sense to me.

Which is exactly my point. You can't imagine it because you have so thoroughly internalised the progressive notion of history that you think it is 'natural'.

In 99% of human societies throughout history it is your universalist, teleological view of history that would make little sense to people as these are the offshoots of a particular kind of monotheism.

 

[joe1776]

Hold on right there.

My standard of proof is FAIRLY LOW.

It's currently "ANY AT ALL".

Don't pretend like that incredibly lax and generous standard is some impossible feat or some unreasonable request to support your own theory. I'm even willing to completely accept without evidence one of your assertions for the sake of argument. Do you really thing asking for one piece of evidence is unreasonable??

My theory: Your theory is wrong. It has the same level of proof that yours does (that is, none) and when you dismiss it I'll just state that it's your own confirmation bias. See how that works?? (Or, rather, doesn't??)

I gave you this:

However, in this case, If my premise was false, we would be witnessing atheists and agnostics flocking to religion to get in on a good thing. Instead, we have been seeing a long-term trend of less interest in religion. But, you can deny the obvious if you want to.

I don't feel the need to provide the Pew surveys and other data to support my comments because most readers would grant the truth of those claims. If you're not willing, that's OK.

 

[Windwalker]

There are useful facts and useless facts (trivia). Unless one goes on a game show, trivia is worthless but it clutters up both education and the soft sciences like the science dealing with psychology.

So, to answer your question: So the only criteria that should guide our research is whether or not we can manipulate outcomes?

That's exactly right. We need knowledge that will allow us to repeat positive effects and prevent negative effects. Anything else is a waste of time.

Well, at least this is an honest response. Can't possibly agree with it, however.

 

[Milton Platt]

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 will ponder this some more and may have additional comments, but just off the top of my head, I don't think moral progress is the purpose of any species, including Homo sapiens. It may be a purpose, among many others, with regard to purposes some assign to their own lives.

 

[joe1776]

No. It is not about expressing a singular preference such as you describe.

It is your overall ideology whereby the purpose of humanity is to undergo a unidirectional process of gradual, but continual moral advancement towards a future harmonious state. It is this progressive teleology to your worldview which is part of the cultural legacy of Christianity.

Have a read of this if you are interested.

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



Which is exactly my point. You can't imagine it because you have so thoroughly internalised the progressive notion of history that you think it is 'natural'.

In 99% of human societies throughout history it is your universalist, teleological view of history that would make little sense to people as these are the offshoots of a particular kind of monotheism.

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

 

[joe1776]

I will ponder this some more and may have additional comments, but just off the top of my head, I don't think moral progress is the purpose of any species, including Homo sapiens. It may be a purpose, among many others, with regard to purposes some assign to their own lives.

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)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reason that people are leaving religion must be related to the reason they were drawn to it in the first place. In other words, the reason they are leaving has to be an unfulfilled expectation.

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.

Since religion delivered on those factors you list, why would they be leaving?

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.