Children and Religion

[Truly Enlightened]

Just to check we are on the same page, what do you believe my conclusions are?

I agree that a lot of our cognitive processing happens at a subconscious level, yet we see ourselves as rational actors making conscious decisions. Often we are being driven by instincts we don't understand and are constructing narrative explanations after the fact. These instincts are to some degree impacted by culture also.



Our subjective narratives are based on our perception of physical reality, but they add layers of meaning that are not objectively real. To make the world palatable we need to create meaning where none exists. A sense of purpose, a sense of belonging and sense of right and wrong. We justify these to ourselves and other people via worldviews/ideologies/mythos/comforting fictions or whatever your preferred terminology is.

These can be so different form person to person that they are incomprehensible to each other.

Is there any of this you disagree with?



As I've acknowledged, it is sometimes important to be objectively correct, but that at other times it doesn't matter.

If you believe faith in Jesus will ensure you eternal life and this makes you happy, why does it matter if this is not objectively true? If you believe in karma, why does it matter if you are not objectively correct? If you believe human reason and compassion can bring an end to suffering and injustice and find this comforting, why does it matter if this is not objectively correct?

Also, we may experience the same fact, but interpret it in completely the opposite manner based on our ideological biases. Look at anything Trump does for example. There is an 'objective' reality of what happened, but how people interpret and respond to this is often a result of a complex and interconnecting series of narratives that are hugely subjective.

I'm still not quite sure I get your position or where we are disagreeing. (I think) you are saying our 'conceptual reality' doesn't exist outside the mind, and this is entails a high degree of subjectivity (in which case I agree with you). I agree that there is a reality that exists independently of our perception, and our 'conceptual reality' evolves from this.

We disagreed that it is a conceit to believe you see the world as it really is, by which I meant we add layers of meaning to the physical reality we perceive which are the subjective narratives we use to create meaning and make the world more palatable.

The beliefs are less important than their consequences. If a 'false' belief encourages positive actions then I don't see the problem in it.



We often don't understand the reasons for our behaviours, the consequences of our actions, why things happen. The larger the scale. the less we understand and the less we can control



It might be a more robust definition of rationality to say it is that which increases our chance of survival.

Survival doesn't require a detached objectivity though, many of our evolved characteristics prevent us from being rational in this sense. Being biased towards ourselves (self-deception) and towards our in-group facilitates survival for example.

If you believe faith in Jesus will ensure you eternal life and this makes you happy, why does it matter if this is not objectively true? If you believe in karma, why does it matter if you are not objectively correct? If you believe human reason and compassion can bring an end to suffering and injustice and find this comforting, why does it matter if this is not objectively correct?

If grown adults want to believe that their objectively incorrect faith-based beliefs, will ensure them eternal life, or 72 Virgins in paradise, then their rights are protected. But, as the topic suggests, we are talking about passing on those objectively untrue beliefs to our children. They have no manufactured guilt to repent from. They are far too young to understand the true nature of death, let alone the concepts of good and evil, or Heaven and Hell. Children should be guided in the understanding of their reality, at a level of impartiality that they can understand. The goal is for THEM to find their own answers, through our guidance(setting limitations). The goal is to guide, not to indoctrinate. There is clearly an obvious flaw in your reasoning. If anyone finds comfort in the belief that human reason and compassion can bring an end to suffering and injustice, then why is there still suffering, injustice, starvation, hunger, war, slavery, and violence in the world today? Clearly this philosophical mind-set, in a world of over 6 Billion believers, is NOT WORKING. Maybe we should try something that is objectively correct, and does actually matter. It is simply self-deception to accept fiction as fact, without evidence.

Everything we perceive through our senses, is from our subjective perspective. This means that I can't perceive through my senses, what you are perceiving. My perspective will always be subjective. No one can escape this. Everything that exists outside of this perspective is objective. From the objective perspective, the moon will still exist whether I exist or not. This represents my objective reality. This is the part of my physical reality, that I can't perceive, but can easily demonstrate to exist. So, our objective reality doesn't need our presence to validate its existence. And, we can't affect our subjective reality by ideological biases, or creative narratives. However, I agree that the interpretive narrative(conceptual) of our physical reality, are influenced by our cultural norms, mores, and language. But, a rock is still a rock no matter how many ways you can describe it.

Our conceptions are not real, therefore they are not part of either physical reality. It is a part of our conceptual reality. Surely you'd agree that the apple and table, do not physically exist in the brain. It is only a conceptual representation of the apple and table that exist in the brain. All conceptions are dimensionless. This means there is no physical space or time to limit whatever you can conceive of.

If a 'false' belief encourages positive actions then I don't see the problem in it.

Are you really saying that the means justify the ends? I certainly disagree. History is littered with the cruel and violent ends being justified by religious means. It may bring comfort to some, but certainly not to all. Why do you think that our "conceptual reality" has evolve from our objective reality? How is this even possible? It would be like speaking a foreign language without ever hearing it spoken. Everyone sees the world from their own perspective. And, from this perspective, they will always be correct. It is impossible for anyone to see the world from outside of this perspective(unless they are a God). To gain an objective understanding from a subjective perspective requires objective evidence. If all cars stop at a red light, then our subjective reality is validated by the objective red light, and all cars stopping. Is this train of logic "conceit"? My definition is not the same as yours.


I think that you believe that anyone with a "fact-based" worldview, will consider themselves as virtuous and morally superior, to anyone who needs the comfort of fiction and make-believe. I think that you believe that it is conceit to believe that you can really know the world as it truly is.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You've basically said the exact opposite of me and claimed it was a fallacy. As I said before, people claiming 'strawman' are often the ones creating a strawman.

I was not comparing them, I was very specifically differentiating them (as I've noted multiple times). Calling an atheistic ideology an atheistic ideology is hardly 'equivocating'. An atheistic ideology is not 'atheism'.

In reply to your guess that I was an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist, I said I am an atheist, and (as a minor aside) I even used to be a New Atheist. That's no different from saying I am an atheist and I even used to be a Marxist/Fascist/Secular Humanist/etc.

New Atheism isn't simply 'out of the closet' atheism. It's pretty much a staunchly anti-theistic and rationalistic form of Secular Humanism.

As a name it doesn't really matter what it's called. It could have been called Funglism or Moodoo instead of New Atheism and it wouldn't make any difference. The referent for atheism is disbelief in gods, the referent for New Atheism is a particular ideological stance. Augustus means 'Divinely favoured', but to use that as my screen name doesn't require me to be Divinely favoured or explain what Divine means. The name Augustus just points to me.

The meaning of a proper noun is purely a symbolic convention for whatever it refers to, so the definition of atheism is actually irrelevant to the term New Atheism. If it had been called Funglism or Moodoo then this would go without saying.

Of course New Atheists are also atheists in the basic sense of the term though.



Am not sure what you mean by 'non-physical based', all ideologies result from human experience.

All ideologies are better understood in terms of their utility though: do they produce desirable behaviour or not?



They were helping people who were art of their small group. To grow that small group and keep it cohesive required some artificial bonds of fictive kinship.

Religions are man-made so there is nothing magical about them, they are just distillations of human experience packaged for transmission and reinforced with rituals that also facilitate social cohesion. It just so happens that these were the main vehicles we used to spread values in basically every pre-modern society in the world. Different religions focused on different values, hence the differing cultures around the world.

If you went back in time and tried to explain Secular Humanism to an ancient Greek or Amazonian tribesman it wouldn't make any sense to them. Greeks believed humans were fundamentally unequal so it was fine to enslave and exploit the weak, also the idea of secularism would be nonsensical. Explaining to an Amazonian tribesman that we need to work for the good of Humanity as we are all one and the same would again make no sense, and neither would the Idea of Progress where humanity gets gradually more moral and civilised as time goes by. A concept of the primacy of the individual would also likely make no sense in a highly collectivist culture. There is no such thing as Humanity, just different people/groups with differing and conflicting aims and needs, and progress relies on a linear, teleological view of time whereas most cultures have had a cyclical view.

In the Western tradition, the concept of Humanity, equality, linear time, individualism and natural rights evolved in a specifically Christian context based on creation and eschatology. Had Europe remained Pagan, or become Confucian it's highly unlikely these things would have emerged in the way they did.

Of course it is possible that, in an alternative history, such things could have emerged in a completely different manner, but there is no reason to assume that they must necessarily develop.

"Rational" assumptions of Humanism are only rational given certain axiomatic beliefs, many of which are concept that grew out of 'irrational' religions. You no longer need religions to justify these axioms as they have become so thoroughly internalised in the culture, that doesn't make them any less artificial though.

It's very difficult for us to think outside our cultural mindset though. Could you imagine wanting to kill your daughter for bringing shame on the family? I can understand from an academic perspective the reasoning behind it, but I can't actually empathise with the position as it's so inimical with my values.

Most values are not independent of culture, they emerge out of it.

I appreciate your words and opinions. But I think we are both straying a bit off topic. I was hoping for a dialogue discussing the merits of sending kids off to religious camps, catechisms, mosques, temples, cult farms, Sunday schools, Bible schools, or fundamentalist sect groups. Or, maybe the role the Constitution plays in the protection of children's rights, and their freedom "from" religions. Maybe a discussions on child atrocities, being committed in the name of religion. Maybe hearing the justification for creating fear, and a sense of guilt in children regarding sin and hell.

So, was there a comment regarding the relationship between children and religions? Do you think a spiritual upbringing is crucial in the development of children? Do you think that the morality in children comes from nature or nurture? Should children be punished for any religious indiscretion?

If not, it has been my pleasure.

 

[Augustus]

Are you really saying that the means justify the ends? I certainly disagree. History is littered with the cruel and violent ends being justified by religious means.

And it's littered with vastly more examples of cruel and violent ends being justified by other means. Violence is part of our nature and thus we will find justifications for it if we want to. Only a small minority of historical violence has been religious.

Obviously though, religious violence is a negative outcome so would be an example of harmful behaviour.

I'd prefer someone doing good for religious reasons rather than doing bad for non-religious reasons. The behaviour it creates is more important than the belief.

It may bring comfort to some, but certainly not to all.

And that's fine, it doesn't have to. We make our own meaning in this world, what brings comfort to you won't work for others either.

It is impossible for anyone to see the world from outside of this perspective(unless they are a God). To gain an objective understanding from a subjective perspective requires objective evidence. If all cars stop at a red light, then our subjective reality is validated by the objective red light, and all cars stopping. Is this train of logic "conceit"? My definition is not the same as yours.

We seem to be focusing on different things. I agree there are parts of reality we can perceive relatively accurately, but there are other parts which are largely narrative constructs.

I'm focusing on the area of our reality where we construct meaning, sources of value, normative models of good/bad conduct, etc. These are the analogues of religious beliefs. If Bob stops being a Christian, he replaces this with an alternative worldview

I can believe I should do good because God will reward me or I can believe I should do good because I have a responsibility to Humanity or I can believe I should do whatever I feel I can get away with because the only good is personal pleasure.

Whatever I think is right, I will justify it to myself with a narrative: a comforting fiction.

Do you think a spiritual upbringing is crucial in the development of children?

No, but I don't think it is intrinsically harmful either.

Someone raised as a liberal Anglican would not be much different from the average Secular Humanist on most issues. Someone raised in a very strict fundamentalist environment may well face more problems though.

It's not really about religious/not religious it's about how the child is treated. There are plenty of people exposed to negative, irreligious ideologies too.

I went to a Christian primary school for a few years, not for religious reasons but because it was a much better school than the other option. The religious content was minimal and I don't remember ever being taught anything a reasonable person could find even remotely objectionable. Be kind and respectful to all people, be thankful for what you have, love your parents, help the needy. We had a friendship visit with a Muslim school and they visited us. No hell, fire and brimstone, no you must do this to be saved.

Do you think that the morality in children comes from nature or nurture?

Both. Humans aren't a blank slate, but there is objective morality either. We can probably say a small number of things are pretty much universally wrong, but overall we are value pluralistic: there are a wide range of conflicting values for which there is no objective reason to prefer one over the other.

Should children be punished for any religious indiscretion?

That's a bit too vague to answer. To what extent can children legitimately be punished for doing things that conflict with their parents' values?

I don't think a child should be punished if they chose to follow a different religious path to their parents though.

 

[Jos]

The Biblical Fall explains that humans are fundamentally flawed animals that cannot be perfected. This is true, despite the story being untrue. Millions of people have died because of the belief that humans could be perfected, that's enough of a physical truth for me.

Will humans ever become perfect? Does perfection even exist?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

And it's littered with vastly more examples of cruel and violent ends being justified by other means. Violence is part of our nature and thus we will find justifications for it if we want to. Only a small minority of historical violence has been religious.

Obviously though, religious violence is a negative outcome so would be an example of harmful behaviour.

I'd prefer someone doing good for religious reasons rather than doing bad for non-religious reasons. The behaviour it creates is more important than the belief.



And that's fine, it doesn't have to. We make our own meaning in this world, what brings comfort to you won't work for others either.



We seem to be focusing on different things. I agree there are parts of reality we can perceive relatively accurately, but there are other parts which are largely narrative constructs.

I'm focusing on the area of our reality where we construct meaning, sources of value, normative models of good/bad conduct, etc. These are the analogues of religious beliefs. If Bob stops being a Christian, he replaces this with an alternative worldview

I can believe I should do good because God will reward me or I can believe I should do good because I have a responsibility to Humanity or I can believe I should do whatever I feel I can get away with because the only good is personal pleasure.

Whatever I think is right, I will justify it to myself with a narrative: a comforting fiction.



No, but I don't think it is intrinsically harmful either.

Someone raised as a liberal Anglican would not be much different from the average Secular Humanist on most issues. Someone raised in a very strict fundamentalist environment may well face more problems though.

It's not really about religious/not religious it's about how the child is treated. There are plenty of people exposed to negative, irreligious ideologies too.

I went to a Christian primary school for a few years, not for religious reasons but because it was a much better school than the other option. The religious content was minimal and I don't remember ever being taught anything a reasonable person could find even remotely objectionable. Be kind and respectful to all people, be thankful for what you have, love your parents, help the needy. We had a friendship visit with a Muslim school and they visited us. No hell, fire and brimstone, no you must do this to be saved.



Both. Humans aren't a blank slate, but there is objective morality either. We can probably say a small number of things are pretty much universally wrong, but overall we are value pluralistic: there are a wide range of conflicting values for which there is no objective reason to prefer one over the other.



That's a bit too vague to answer. To what extent can children legitimately be punished for doing things that conflict with their parents' values?

I don't think a child should be punished if they chose to follow a different religious path to their parents though.

The justification of violence committed in the name of an imaginary entity, is far worse than any violence committed in the name of secular, political, or social ideologies. It is NOT the nature of the violence itself, or who has committed more than the other. It is the rationale behind them. How does any religious dogma, preaching peace, morality, love, empathy, and non-violence, justify using violence to achieve religious ends? This is simply hypocritical and self-serving for its leaders. What is particularly egregious about how violence is justified in religion, is threefold. One, the violence is justified because the orders comes from a culturally-specific, culturally-created imaginary entity, with culturally-endowed powers greater than the entire Universe itself. Two, there is no avenue to protest, to disagree, to repeal, or to revise any interpretive orders given by this imaginary entity. And three, why should anyone need to convince themselves, that they need to repent from an imaginary sin, committed by imaginary characters, in an imaginary story? Who do you think will benefit the most, by creating Billions of pious servants believing that obedience will lead to a life after death? Even the "Ponzi scheme" makes more sense. In one, you waste your money. In the other you can waste your entire life. If you are going to preach that religious tenets are based on non-violence, altruism, love, tolerance, and humanitarianism, then history does not support your claims. Even today, millions are still suffering because of religious intolerance and fundamentalism. Also, my comment about the comforts by some and not by others, was in reference to the religious violence throughout history. What do you think I meant by "it" in continuing my thought? Please don't take my words out of context. That is a fallacy, and an obvious misrepresentation.

I'd prefer someone doing good for religious reasons rather than doing bad for non-religious reasons. The behaviour it creates is more important than the belief.

As Steven Weinberg(Nobel Laureate in Physics) stated, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion". I prefer that true secular altruism come from the true nature(genetic makeup) of a person's worldview. Not as a self-serving excuse to proselytize and spread their religious narratives. Like America toppling governments for humanitarian reasons. Can you tell me just one thing(outside of religiosity), that only a religious person could do, that a non-religious person can't do? I can certainly think of many things that a religious person would do, that a non-religious person would never do.

My statement was, "Do you think a spiritual upbringing is crucial in the development of children?". This does not imply that it is harmful. Usefulness, does not mean harmfulness. In spite of this blatant straw man to force-fit your own narrative, I'm sure you would agree that some religious beliefs and practices ARE intrinsically harmful to children. I'm sure you would not agree to teaching children about cultists, paganism, and all other religious beliefs as well? Why not? I have no problem with teaching the more spiritual make-believe story-telling aspects of religion to children. But only as analogies, idioms, hyperboles, or as story-telling to excite their imagination. But never to induce guilt, self-doubt, fear, intolerance, or blind obedience. I do not want my kid to become servants to anyone, let alone servants to a belief.

Again, there is no such thing as objective morality. Morality, like truth, is only relative to the culture you belong to. Genocide, infanticide, torture and genital mutilation, are all moral in some cultures. Even Homicide is moral on the battlefield.

That's a bit too vague to answer. To what extent can children legitimately be punished for doing things that conflict with their parents' values?
I don't think a child should be punished if they chose to follow a different religious path to their parents though.

I stated "Should children be punished for any religious indiscretion?". I was speaking about children being punished for violating any religious laws, tenets, rules, commandments, or teachings. For example, any of the punishments handed out in Sharia Law? They also believe in the same God. Thank God our Federal and State laws are not based on religious laws and commandments. Right? I think that "conflicting with their parents values", could mean anything you want it to mean. I was speaking specifically about RELIGIOUS beliefs and tenets. Especially, by those that believe that the Bible is literally the Word of God. That is the belief of over 30% of the population. I'm also sure that you are not suggesting that your subjective experience in a modern private school, in a first-world country, is representative of all religious schools throughout the world. Are you?

If you wish to focus your attention outside of our perceptual reality, then be my guest. What do your creative narratives give you comfort from? Ignorance? My comfort is based on objective evidence, and not on any subjective narratives. But to each their own, just leave the children out of it. Why not give them their own choice?

 

[Augustus]

The justification of violence committed in the name of an imaginary entity, is far worse than any violence committed in the name of secular, political, or social ideologies. It is NOT the nature of the violence itself, or who has committed more than the other. It is the rationale behind them.

That seems like a highly irrational opinion to hold.

Are you really saying it would be preferable to commit more violence of a more reprehensible nature in the name of an irreligious political ideology (Stalinism, White Supremacy, etc.) than it would be to commit a smaller amount of less extreme violence in the name of a religious ideology?

Religious violence is just a form of ideological violence, intrinsically no better no worse. They are both about conflicts over values or wants and should be judged on their effects.

Would you say the Spanish Inquisition (dozens of deaths per year) was worse that Mao's China (millions of death per year)? Or is there a limit at which the death toll and overall brutality trumps the fact that it's religious as opposed to irreligious?

What is particularly egregious about how violence is justified in religion, is threefold. One, the violence is justified because the orders comes from a culturally-specific, culturally-created imaginary entity, with culturally-endowed powers greater than the entire Universe itself. Two, there is no avenue to protest, to disagree, to repeal, or to revise any interpretive orders given by this imaginary entity. And three, why should anyone need to convince themselves, that they need to repent from an imaginary sin, committed by imaginary characters, in an imaginary story?

I see no substantial difference from certain irreligious ideologies.

1. Many ideologies appeal to something greater than the self, that this is a 'god' or 'The Party', or 'The People' or 'The White Race' makes little practical difference if that's an all knowing god or something else.
2. Seeing as religions are consistently reinterpreted and debated, that's obviously false. I agree inflexible interpretation of ideology is a problem, but it's not limited to religion.
3. Many ideologies advocate punishing transgressions of normative values, and people can feel guilty for failure to adhere to group values. Also thought crimes are not limited to religions, as the origin of the word in 1984 would suggest and Communist attempts at enforcing ideological conformity were as bad, if not worse, than anything implemented by a religious state.

If you are going to preach that religious tenets are based on non-violence, altruism, love, tolerance, and humanitarianism, then history does not support your claims. Even today, millions are still suffering because of religious intolerance and fundamentalism.

Not sure how you've managed to misunderstand my point to that extent as that's not even in the vicinity of what I said.

I said religious values differ so much it's pointless to treat them as one and the same. Both secular and religious values can be good or bad, so whether values are "religious" or "secular" is not important. What matters are the values themselves.

Given the choice, would you prefer living under a nominally religious government whose values, other than belief in god, more closely aligned with yours, or a secular government with values you despised, say China during the Cultural Revolution?

I prefer that true secular altruism come from the true nature(genetic makeup) of a person's worldview. Not as a self-serving excuse to proselytize and spread their religious narratives. Like America toppling governments for humanitarian reasons.

What's the 'genetic make-up' of a worldview?

Not sure if you are saying America's war is an example of former or the latter. If you are saying the former then it's wrong (the ideological originators of neo-con ideology were mostly secular Jews, quite a few of whom were ex-Trotskists, and it wasn't about spreading religious values), if you are saying the latter then it's probably worse.

It was simply an ignorant and hubristic attempt at forcing a 'culturally-specific, culturally created' ideology on a group of people who have no choice in the matter and in the process destroying their country. No different from the communist revolutionaries who thought they were creating a better world, which is no different from those who commit religious violence to create a "better world".

As Steven Weinberg(Nobel Laureate in Physics) stated, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion".

This is what I meant by sceptics not being consistently sceptical. When it comes to anything negative about religion such people are often highly credulous. This quote is uncritically parroted endlessly but it's so obviously false. Good people do evil things for countless reasons, only one of which is religion. Many if not most people doing 'evil' don't believe they are actually being evil, but for the greater good out of ideological commitment, nationalism, democracy, freedom, 'protecting' loved ones, desperation, expediency, detachment from effects of actions, etc.

Communism, the deliberate targeting of civilians in WW2, Iraq War, nationalist terrorism, responses to terrorism, Ford Pinto, 'just following orders', etc. etc. have all involved people who believed they were good doing evil things.

It's a human need to feel that our actions are justified, and we are very good at creation rationales for our actions.

 

[Augustus]

My statement was, "Do you think a spiritual upbringing is crucial in the development of children?". This does not imply that it is harmful. Usefulness, does not mean harmfulness. In spite of this blatant straw man to force-fit your own narrative, I'm sure you would agree that some religious beliefs and practices ARE intrinsically harmful to children. I'm sure you would not agree to teaching children about cultists, paganism, and all other religious beliefs as well? Why not? I have no problem with teaching the more spiritual make-believe story-telling aspects of religion to children. But only as analogies, idioms, hyperboles, or as story-telling to excite their imagination. But never to induce guilt, self-doubt, fear, intolerance, or blind obedience. I do not want my kid to become servants to anyone, let alone servants to a belief.

Not sure how you can commit a "strawman" in response to a simple question that purely elicits your own opinion. Might be getting close to double figures in the incorrectly claimed fallacies in this thread

I clearly answered your question and added something closely related to the topic even though it was not directly requested. I'm sure you do this too on occasions, most people do.

Also I've said many times it's about the values taught or the behaviours encouraged. Harmful things are harmful whether they are "religious" or otherwise and good things are good if they are "religious" or otherwise.

I think it is better to judge the upbringing of children according to the values taught and the effects on the child, not the purported reason why they should adhere to these values. Ultimately, "God" is an axiom on which a worldview is built, and the worldview itself is far more important than the fact it's premised on "God's will".

I stated "Should children be punished for any religious indiscretion?". I was speaking about children being punished for violating any religious laws, tenets, rules, commandments, or teachings. For example, any of the punishments handed out in Sharia Law? They also believe in the same God. Thank God our Federal and State laws are not based on religious laws and commandments. Right? I think that "conflicting with their parents values", could mean anything you want it to mean. I was speaking specifically about RELIGIOUS beliefs and tenets. Especially, by those that believe that the Bible is literally the Word of God. That is the belief of over 30% of the population.

As I said, it's a bit too vague to give a specific answer. Is "thou shalt not steal" not a religious commandment? "Love thy neighbour"?

As regards "conflicting with their parents' values", do you think it is any more acceptable for a child to refuse to go to the church/mosque/temple with their parents than it is for them to refuse to go on a walk up a hill with their parents? Is the former a "religious" transgression? Should both be punished?

Children, to some extent, are expected to do as their parents say and act in accordance with their values, religious or otherwise.

In general, I don't believe children should be punished excessively, or for trivialities. Some religious parents certainly do this and I disapprove.

Also, religion in America is not representative of religion in many other countries. I'm no fan of US fundies.

I'm also sure that you are not suggesting that your subjective experience in a modern private school, in a first-world country, is representative of all religious schools throughout the world. Are you?

Given I was arguing pretty much the exact opposite, no

Also it was a government school.

What do your creative narratives give you comfort from? Ignorance? My comfort is based on objective evidence, and not on any subjective narratives.

The fact that we are accidents of nature that live in a world without meaning or purpose. As a result we need to create our own sources of meaning and value as none (or at least very few) objectively exist.

My comfort is based on objective evidence, and not on any subjective narratives.

IMO, you can only believe this due to a lack of scepticism and critical thinking; your perception of many things is based on numerous subjective values and assumptions you have internalised. Much of the stuff you've discussed in this thread is based on subjective narratives, however we've already established this a point we disagree on.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That seems like a highly irrational opinion to hold.

Are you really saying it would be preferable to commit more violence of a more reprehensible nature in the name of an irreligious political ideology (Stalinism, White Supremacy, etc.) than it would be to commit a smaller amount of less extreme violence in the name of a religious ideology?

Religious violence is just a form of ideological violence, intrinsically no better no worse. They are both about conflicts over values or wants and should be judged on their effects.

Would you say the Spanish Inquisition (dozens of deaths per year) was worse that Mao's China (millions of death per year)? Or is there a limit at which the death toll and overall brutality trumps the fact that it's religious as opposed to irreligious?



I see no substantial difference from certain irreligious ideologies.

1. Many ideologies appeal to something greater than the self, that this is a 'god' or 'The Party', or 'The People' or 'The White Race' makes little practical difference if that's an all knowing god or something else.
2. Seeing as religions are consistently reinterpreted and debated, that's obviously false. I agree inflexible interpretation of ideology is a problem, but it's not limited to religion.
3. Many ideologies advocate punishing transgressions of normative values, and people can feel guilty for failure to adhere to group values. Also thought crimes are not limited to religions, as the origin of the word in 1984 would suggest and Communist attempts at enforcing ideological conformity were as bad, if not worse, than anything implemented by a religious state.




Not sure how you've managed to misunderstand my point to that extent as that's not even in the vicinity of what I said.

I said religious values differ so much it's pointless to treat them as one and the same. Both secular and religious values can be good or bad, so whether values are "religious" or "secular" is not important. What matters are the values themselves.

Given the choice, would you prefer living under a nominally religious government whose values, other than belief in god, more closely aligned with yours, or a secular government with values you despised, say China during the Cultural Revolution?



What's the 'genetic make-up' of a worldview?

Not sure if you are saying America's war is an example of former or the latter. If you are saying the former then it's wrong (the ideological originators of neo-con ideology were mostly secular Jews, quite a few of whom were ex-Trotskists, and it wasn't about spreading religious values), if you are saying the latter then it's probably worse.

It was simply an ignorant and hubristic attempt at forcing a 'culturally-specific, culturally created' ideology on a group of people who have no choice in the matter and in the process destroying their country. No different from the communist revolutionaries who thought they were creating a better world, which is no different from those who commit religious violence to create a "better world".



This is what I meant by sceptics not being consistently sceptical. When it comes to anything negative about religion such people are often highly credulous. This quote is uncritically parroted endlessly but it's so obviously false. Good people do evil things for countless reasons, only one of which is religion. Many if not most people doing 'evil' don't believe they are actually being evil, but for the greater good out of ideological commitment, nationalism, democracy, freedom, 'protecting' loved ones, desperation, expediency, detachment from effects of actions, etc.

Communism, the deliberate targeting of civilians in WW2, Iraq War, nationalist terrorism, responses to terrorism, Ford Pinto, 'just following orders', etc. etc. have all involved people who believed they were good doing evil things.

It's a human need to feel that our actions are justified, and we are very good at creation rationales for our actions.

The justification of violence committed in the name of an imaginary entity, is far worse than any violence committed in the name of secular, political, or social ideologies. It is NOT the nature of the violence itself, or who has committed more than the other. It is the rationale behind them.

How does any religious dogma, preaching peace, morality, love, empathy, and non-violence, justify using violence to achieve religious ends?

Please re-read exactly what I have written. I purposely highlighted certain words so you wouldn't misrepresent them and create your straw man argument. The point of the above comments should, for most people, mean that it is hypocritical to promote a "religious dogma preaching peace, morality, love, empathy, and non-violence", and also justify violence to meet that end. Or do you think that violence is not in conflict with the teachings of an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, and the one that created us? What other non-religious ideology uses a text on myths, magic, and superstitions, to actually justify using violence to impose their will? Are your really saying that killing because an imaginary make-believe God says so, is no better or worse than the killing for oligarchs, despots, tyrants, dictators, or monarchs? This would truly be an irrational opinion. Claiming that religious violence, and political and social violence, are just "ideological violence", that only represent conflicts over "values or wants", is truly insensitive, naïve, and ignorant. But using the death toll from each ideology, to decides which one trumps the other, is just insane. Is this the rationale you want to teach your children? Did you even understand my comments above? My point was THERE SHOULD BE NO VIOLENCE AT ALL IN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND TEACHINGS. Isn't that the point in being a religious person? Why is history, and today, littered with its violence? Also, between 30,000 - 300,000 people were killed during the Spanish Inquisition, Not a dozen or so. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/16/artsandhumanities.internationaleducationnews http://thecripplegate.com/how-many-people-died-in-the-inquisition/ . It was during the Salem Witch Trials that 20 - 24 people were killed. https://www.biography.com/news/salem-witch-trials-facts None of this matters to a belief system that preaches non-violence. Maybe you should read the history of the Knights Templar, and the true story of the Crusades?

Once again, this is about children and religion. People make appeals to something greater than themselves, but this doesn't mean that it is an appeal to a God(non sequitur, false equivocation). What is an example of a non- religious ideology, making an appeal to a God? How does being punished for committing crimes against a real flesh-and-blood society, equate to a crime against the Will of God(false equivocation). I can't even comprehend the second example you listed. Sounds like double-talk to me. Other than religious ideologies that include an imaginary world, with an imaginary ruler, what specifically are these non-religious ideologies, that have no substantial differences from religious ideologies?

Given the choice, would you prefer living under a nominally religious government whose values, other than belief in god, more closely aligned with yours, or a secular government with values you despised, say China during the Cultural Revolution?

Gee wiz, given only those choices, which one would I choose? Oh right, those idealistic paradigms don't exist. If you are talking about a secular government that is absolutely immoral, and a religious government the practices Biblical morality, then I'm moving to Australia to live. I'm sure that even the most closed-minded zealot, will accept that no government is perfect. There will always be some values that many members of society will not accept(abortion, euthanasia, creationism in science classes, mix marriages, genital mutilation, equal rights, regime change wars, etc., etc.) So you need to be a little more specific.

My point regarding secular altruism was, that I prefer someone who is genetically predisposed to being of service to society, than someone, who is only following the tenets of a belief system. Would you want your daughter to marry someone that she loves, or someone that God has picked out for her? Our behavioral traits are over 60% determined by our nature, not nurture. Most religion-based humanitarian help organizations, come with proselytizing, sermonizing, or the reading of religious materials. Secular humanist organizations do not, period. Therefore, their motives and agenda, is not problematic.

I have no idea why you keep trying to dilute two wrongs, to make one appear right. They are both wrong. The statement about good and bad people, couldn't be any simpler or clearer. Nowhere in the statements does it state that good people CAN'T do evil things, or that evil people CAN'T do good things. Its conclusion is that if a good person does an evil thing, then that takes religion. He is saying that the good person, is doing evil, because he believes that he is doing good. Like the mother drowning her children, so they can go to heaven sooner. It has nothing to do with the evil person doing good or evil. Maybe you can share examples of non-religious reasons why good people do evil things? Oh, sorry, that would mean that they were not good by definition, right? Since you are now trying to equate a justifiable perception of self-defence and "manufactured consent", to their conceptual understanding of good and evil, is just silly. What physical role did 100's of millions of people play in the things you mentioned? But you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, and your own conclusions.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Not sure how you can commit a "strawman" in response to a simple question that purely elicits your own opinion. Might be getting close to double figures in the incorrectly claimed fallacies in this thread

I clearly answered your question and added something closely related to the topic even though it was not directly requested. I'm sure you do this too on occasions, most people do.

Also I've said many times it's about the values taught or the behaviours encouraged. Harmful things are harmful whether they are "religious" or otherwise and good things are good if they are "religious" or otherwise.

I think it is better to judge the upbringing of children according to the values taught and the effects on the child, not the purported reason why they should adhere to these values. Ultimately, "God" is an axiom on which a worldview is built, and the worldview itself is far more important than the fact it's premised on "God's will".




As I said, it's a bit too vague to give a specific answer. Is "thou shalt not steal" not a religious commandment? "Love thy neighbour"?

As regards "conflicting with their parents' values", do you think it is any more acceptable for a child to refuse to go to the church/mosque/temple with their parents than it is for them to refuse to go on a walk up a hill with their parents? Is the former a "religious" transgression? Should both be punished?

Children, to some extent, are expected to do as their parents say and act in accordance with their values, religious or otherwise.

In general, I don't believe children should be punished excessively, or for trivialities. Some religious parents certainly do this and I disapprove.

Also, religion in America is not representative of religion in many other countries. I'm no fan of US fundies.



Given I was arguing pretty much the exact opposite, no

Also it was a government school.



The fact that we are accidents of nature that live in a world without meaning or purpose. As a result we need to create our own sources of meaning and value as none (or at least very few) objectively exist.



IMO, you can only believe this due to a lack of scepticism and critical thinking; your perception of many things is based on numerous subjective values and assumptions you have internalised. Much of the stuff you've discussed in this thread is based on subjective narratives, however we've already established this a point we disagree on.

Not sure how you can commit a "strawman" in response to a simple question that purely elicits your own opinion. Might be getting close to double figures in the incorrectly claimed fallacies in this thread I clearly answered your question and added something closely related to the topic even though it was not directly requested. I'm sure you do this too on occasions, most people do.

Quite easily. You create your own premises, to give the impression that you are refuting my argument, but you are actually refuting an argument that I never presented. I asked you if a spiritual upbringing is crucial in the development of children? The answer is obvious, of course not. It is not only not crucial, but totally unnecessary as well. Instead, you added "BUT" to something that I never said or inferred, "No, BUT I don't think it is intrinsically harmful either.". As though I implied, or said that it was. Then you went on talking to your strawman about how harmless a spiritual upbringing is. This is clearly a straw man, since I can't comment or defend something that I didn't say or imply. Since you commit so many fallacies in your arguments, out of respect and futility, I won't mention them again. I will only respond to the relevant and the logically consistent points that you do make.

What are these unique social and moral values, that seems to be spiritually-specific? What are these values that are privy only to those parents with spiritual beliefs. This would be delusional. All moral, social, or individual values, are not written in stone. Thou shall not is not absolute. Stealing to avoid starvation, or to feed your family, would not be considered an immoral act. Killing on the battlefield, or in self-defense would not be considered an immoral act. Although the action itself would be immoral, the rationale would be justified. What if the neighbour is a pedophile or a cultist? Would you be justified in giving love thy neighbour a pass?

There is only one value a child should learn. "To do the least amount of harm to him/herself, or to someone else.". This includes causing the least amount of suffering, pain, and unhappiness onto self, and another human being. Especially, if by creating this suffering, pain, and unhappiness, will cause less suffering, pain, and unhappiness to yourself. These are the instinctive evolutionary instilled values that parents only need to reinforce whenever it is necessary. I would never try to instil guilt for an imaginary sin, fear from an imaginary eternal damnation, or blind obedience and servitude to an imaginary entity. These sorts of teachings are the breeding grounds for religious intolerance, elitism, ignorance, violence, hive mentality, fundamentalism, and the erosion of basic critical thinking.

Ultimately, "God" is an axiom on which a worldview is built, and the worldview itself is far more important than the fact it's premised on "God's will".

Unfortunately, I don't see a difference in "God's will" and God. In fact, they seem redundant to me. Since no facts support their existence, I don't consider either as a rational premise, and certainly not as an axiom. Unless you can establish this with any degree of certainty, which you can't. You also stated that you went to a Christian primary school, and then gave your fluffy care-bear subjective narrative of your positive experiences. I merely pointed out that your experiences, may not typify the socio-economic, and religious imperatives, of other religious schools in other parts of the world. Are you now saying that your argument is the opposite? Are you claiming that your subjective experience does typify religious schools throughout the world? I seriously doubt it.

What exactly do you mean by "subjective narrative"? It sounds to me a lot like a gap-filling argument from ignorance. It is a fact that our reality is limited by our subjective perspective. But our narratives have no limitations at all. We can create any narratives to justify anything we can conceive of. I simply choose to base my subjective narratives on objective evidence. Period. Otherwise, we are creating an unnecessary "slippery slope" in how we define our reality.

I do not share your views on meaning and purpose in the formation of an earth-size rock, or the billions of years needed for the first life to evolve. The creation of the Universe and all life, is the product of cause and effect. Not because of an accident. I don't believe we are purpose-driven, since evolution is NOT subjectively driven. But, from an objective perspective, it seems that our purpose is to survive long enough to pass on our genetic information onto our next generation. That's it.

 

[Augustus]

This is clearly a straw man, since I can't comment or defend something that I didn't say or imply. Since you commit so many fallacies in your arguments, out of respect and futility, I won't mention them again.

It would indeed be welcome if you didn't create imaginary fallacies to rail against, straw-strawmen if you like

People on RF who are obsessed with claiming fallacies always seem to be the ones who can't actually use them correctly, and they also almost always commit the fallacies they are most happy to accuse others of committing.

Quite easily. You create your own premises, to give the impression that you are refuting my argument, but you are actually refuting an argument that I never presented. I asked you if a spiritual upbringing is crucial in the development of children? The answer is obvious, of course not. It is not only not crucial, but totally unnecessary as well. Instead, you added "BUT" to something that I never said or inferred, "No, BUT I don't think it is intrinsically harmful either.". As though I implied, or said that it was. Then you went on talking to your strawman about how harmless a spiritual upbringing is. This is clearly a straw man, since I can't comment or defend something that I didn't say or imply.

Here you create a phantom strawman by mind-reading and assuming that which there is no evidence for even after you had been corrected on this.

It really was just a reply to a question where I offered my own opinion on something you asked.

That's why the only thing in the quote I replied to was the question, and I later confirmed it was just a reply to a question.

Then you went on talking to your strawman about how harmless a spiritual upbringing is.

Nice and concise, in addition to highlighting your phantom strawman, you say practically the opposite of what I've been arguing the whole thread. I've said countless times that a religious upbringing may be harmful.

What should we call this?

Also, between 30,000 - 300,000 people were killed during the Spanish Inquisition, Not a dozen or so.

Records show it's much closer to the lower end, now the maths...

I actually said dozens per year. 30-50k/400 years = 75-125 per year = dozens per year.

So again arguing against a point I didn't make.

I could easily list many more from the last 2 posts alone let alone the whole thread, but that seems sufficient to make the point. Can we both move beyond this 'no YOU'RE misrepresenting me' game please?

Just issue a clarification if you think the other person hasn't got your point

 

[Augustus]

he point of the above comments should, for most people, mean that it is hypocritical to promote a "religious dogma preaching peace, morality, love, empathy, and non-violence", and also justify violence to meet that end. Or do you think that violence is not in conflict with the teachings of an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, and the one that created us? What other non-religious ideology uses a text on myths, magic, and superstitions, to actually justify using violence to impose their will? Are your really saying that killing because an imaginary make-believe God says so, is no better or worse than the killing for oligarchs, despots, tyrants, dictators, or monarchs? This would truly be an irrational opinion. Claiming that religious violence, and political and social violence, are just "ideological violence", that only represent conflicts over "values or wants", is truly insensitive, naïve, and ignorant. But using the death toll from each ideology, to decides which one trumps the other, is just insane. Is this the rationale you want to teach your children? Did you even understand my comments above? My point was THERE SHOULD BE NO VIOLENCE AT ALL IN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND TEACHINGS. Isn't that the point in being a religious person? Why is history, and today, littered with its violence?

* advisory: I'm just going to share some of my own opinions now and ask some questions to clarify your position, I'm not trying to 'refute' anything, so new need to look for strawmen

What religions are supposed to be about non-violence? Certainly not many of them. Also most don't even have an all powerful god.

History is littered with religious violence because humans are violent. Religions don't corrupt our nature, they reflect it as they are products of human cognition. I see no reason to assume humans would be less violent without religions, the evidence certainly doesn't show that.

Human society will always be ideologically diverse, so for me, the only way to judge an ideology, religious or otherwise, is by the behaviours it encourages. Ones that create more good are better, ones that create more harms are worse. So if a secular ideology produced a lot of harms, and a religious ideology produced more good, then I would view the religious ideology as being better than the secular ideology.

Do you agree with this? If not, why?

Claiming that religious violence, and political and social violence, are just "ideological violence", that only represent conflicts over "values or wants", is truly insensitive, naïve, and ignorant.

An ideology can be thought of as a system-constituting narrative (Lejano and Park 2015). To quote Sargent (2009): “An ideology is a system of values and beliefs regarding the various institutions and processes of society that is accepted as fact or truth by a group of people. An ideology provides the believer with a picture of the world both as it is and as it should be, and, in doing so, organizes the tremendous complexity of the world into something fairly simple and understandable” (p. 2). Mannheim refers to the general form of ideology as tending toward a comprehensive Weltanschauung or worldview (Mannheim 1936, p. 106).

In contrasting ideological from pragmatic belief systems, Sartori characterizes ideology as fixed, strongly affective, and cognitively closed. The term 'cognitively closed' pertains to the believer’s opposition to expanding or revising the belief system (Sartori 1969). Pragmatic systems exhibit the opposite properties, characterized by openness (to other narratives).

The narrative properties of ideology - R Lejano & J Dodge, Policy Sciences

As regards its ideological component, many/most religions are the same as the above, just with a god/s on top of the tree. Neither religions or ideologies are fixed in stone, they are just more or less 'cognitively closed'.

Humans are pattern seeking animals, we don't like randomness and things without explanation so we construct narratives to explain our experiences and create order and meaning. Many of these narratives are influenced by the ideologies we hold, as once we form emotional commitments to beliefs, we find it very difficult to be objective. We will happily deny facts that contradict our worldview and our perception of reality is warped by ideological commitment.

In addition, many of these narratives are constructed after the fact to justify things chosen instinctively, as such they have no connection to objective reality they are simply made up stories to make ourselves feel better about what we did or to put it into context.

These points have been well documented in scientific literature.

People who commit violence usually need to feel ideologically justified in doing so, an obvious example would be Communism where 'good' people who sacrificed their own lives to 'build a better world' ended up committing or being complicit in many 'evil' atrocities.

Without getting into technicalities, Marxists believed in the forces of History, which was pretty much identical to Divine Providence: History must unfold a certain way.

So historically we have had violence to impose a communist belief system over a population based on a force greater than ourselves, and we have also had violence to impose certain religious belief over populations. Both believe the world would be better if more people lived under their rule and according to their values.

The US led War in Iraq was also an attempt to install a political ideology by force, where people were blinded to reality by seeing the world through an ideological lens.

So in what ways do you consider religious violence to be different from ideological violence?


People also don't usually kill 'because an imaginary god says so', they generally relate to real-world 'flesh and blood' issues.

The Mongol conquests were not religious conquests, just about power, land and money. After conquering Muslim territories, some Mongols converted to Islam. After this they continued doing as the Mongols had done previously: gaining power, land and money although they now claimed religious legitimacy for what they did.

In the 6th/7thC certain parts of the Middle East were conquered by the Persians, retaken by the Romans then conquered by the Arabs/proto-Muslims.

The level of violence was similar in each of these. Each of them wanted to conquer new territory. The forms of government were pretty much the same after the conquests (the Arabs basically copied Roman/Persian law and administration).

The Romans and Persians had been attacked many times by various 'frontier' people in this time, the proto-Muslims just happened to be the ones who were successful.

All of them basically wanted the same thing: power, money, territory. The proto-Muslims also had a purported religious justification to conquer (although many of them weren't even proto-Muslims).

Do you think they were conquering 'because an imaginary god said so', or claiming legitimacy for actions they would have done anyway and simply reflected the norms for that period in history?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It would indeed be welcome if you didn't create imaginary fallacies to rail against, straw-strawmen if you like

People on RF who are obsessed with claiming fallacies always seem to be the ones who can't actually use them correctly, and they also almost always commit the fallacies they are most happy to accuse others of committing.



Here you create a phantom strawman by mind-reading and assuming that which there is no evidence for even after you had been corrected on this.

It really was just a reply to a question where I offered my own opinion on something you asked.

That's why the only thing in the quote I replied to was the question, and I later confirmed it was just a reply to a question.



Nice and concise, in addition to highlighting your phantom strawman, you say practically the opposite of what I've been arguing the whole thread. I've said countless times that a religious upbringing may be harmful.

What should we call this?



Records show it's much closer to the lower end, now the maths...

I actually said dozens per year. 30-50k/400 years = 75-125 per year = dozens per year.

So again arguing against a point I didn't make.

I could easily list many more from the last 2 posts alone let alone the whole thread, but that seems sufficient to make the point. Can we both move beyond this 'no YOU'RE misrepresenting me' game please?

Just issue a clarification if you think the other person hasn't got your point

As I have stated before, I won't point out all the fallacies you make in your arguments again. This is because you apparently don't care. Unlike your claim that anyone calling out the fallacies you commit, are just creating a distraction for the fallacies they themselves commit(of course not demonstrated, or examples provided), I actually explain/describe the fallacies you commit, by referencing your own words. Why don't you care if you're not being logically consistent and intellectually honest in your discourse? If I ask, "what is the nutritional value of vitamin C in oranges", should you respond with, "but the cost of grapes in Italy is more important"? Clearly you were refuting my argument that a spiritual upbringing is not crucial to a child's development. Clearly, my question did not ask about the harmfulness of spiritual upbringing. Therefore, attacking an argument that was never presented, is just attacking the straw man that you created. This gives a person an unfair advantage in any argument, by always having to defend/explain a position that he never presented. This fallacy is usually committed by people who need to force-fit parroted preset narratives into their arguments. Or, people that are bound by their own confirmation biases. Or, people who need to create their own reality, to make sense of the reality that does exists. In your case, lets just go with, "it really was just a reply to a question where I offered my own opinion on something you asked". So please, next time don't use the conjunction "but", since it is used to connect two clauses together. Clearly, both clauses refer to different ideas. Also don't use the correlative conjunction, "either", which connects your answer to a question not asked. As stated before, I will only address questions that are intellectually relevant and logically consistent. If you want to just editorialize your view, I won't be your platform. I listed some of the issues, that actually pertain to my post. If you have your own opinions, that's fine. But, just don't misrepresent mine.

What was your point comparing the number of deaths committed during the Spanish Inquisition, and the deaths committed under Chairman Mao? Comparing a political and military ideology, with a religious ideology is just apples to cars. My point(as stated ad nauseum) was that in any religiosity that preaches peace, love, altruism, brotherhood, intolerance, turn the other cheek, servitude, and a sense of community, there should be no deaths committed at all. Perhaps you could address this simple point, without comparing their body-counts to defend another point that I've never presented? Are you admitting that since we are all human, that violence, cruelties, atrocities, and immoralities will always be committed by us, regardless of what religious, cultist, fundamentalist, paganist dogma we adhere to? Why then should we indoctrinate our children with any religious belief at all? Especially, if its doctrine will also produce the same form of intolerance, hive mentality, and social elitism. All of which will only lead to violence. But don't worry just keep ignoring my points, to editorialize your own. I just won't mention again what that's called.

For me to point out that the 45 Million peopled killed during Mao's reign, equates to less than half a million per year(not millions per year) would be petty and silly. Especially, since both are irrelevant to my point. I do admit that I didn't read the "per year". I only saw how you were comparing the number of deaths, to imply that one was the better of the two evils.

 

[Augustus]

For me to point out that the 45 Million peopled killed during Mao's reign, equates to less than half a million per year(not millions per year)

For you to point out that this equates to less than half a million per year would require some spectacularly bad mathematics

This is because you apparently don't care. Unlike your claim that anyone calling out the fallacies you commit, are just creating a distraction for the fallacies they themselves commit(of course not demonstrated, or examples provided), I actually explain/describe the fallacies you commit, by referencing your own words. Why don't you care if you're not being logically consistent and intellectually honest in your discourse? If I ask, "what is the nutritional value of vitamin C in oranges", should you respond with, "but the cost of grapes in Italy is more important"? Clearly you were refuting my argument that a spiritual upbringing is not crucial to a child's development. Clearly, my question did not ask about the harmfulness of spiritual upbringing. Therefore, attacking an argument that was never presented, is just attacking the straw man that you created. This gives a person an unfair advantage in any argument, by always having to defend/explain a position that he never presented. This fallacy is usually committed by people who need to force-fit parroted preset narratives into their arguments. Or, people that are bound by their own confirmation biases. Or, people who need to create their own reality, to make sense of the reality that does exists.

This is a nice example of how people create fictitious narratives to explain experiences and demonstrates our inability to see the world as it is.

By mind-reading you have created a little story about my motivations, intentions and thoughts. The problem is it is totally imaginary. You start by making an incorrect assumption "Clearly you were refuting my argument that a spiritual upbringing is not crucial to a child's development" which, as I've told you is completely wrong as I was simply answering a question. Even if you want to adopt the bad faith approach of assuming I am lying, to interpret a sentence that starts 'No [a spiritual upbringing is not crucial]', made by an atheist who has already said he wasn't raised in a religious household, as being a refutation of the idea that a spiritual upbringing is not important obviously requires some seriously flawed reasoning.

Of course, ideology, presumption and emotional investment activate several cognitive biases that severely impair people's ability to see things objectively and instead they selectively filter and twist reality to fit with their preconceptions.

You also say "I actually explain/describe the fallacies you commit, by referencing your own words" while ignoring the fact I keep having to point out that you are misrepresenting my words terribly. Again, the corrections are ignored to protect the existing belief (although you did at least acknowledge one of the 3 in my last post which is a first).

In addition, you claim I don't give examples of you misrepresenting my words in a post that has several quoted examples of you misrepresenting my words.

If you'd like another one, this shows a clear reluctance to move away from your initial error, and conveniently relates to us not seeing the world as it is:

plenty of irreligeous folk operate under the conceit that they are somehow startlingly independent thinkers who have transcended the need for comforting fictions and bravely see the world as it truly is.

Nor, do we consider "irreligious folk" to be conceited, because they require facts instead of faith.

The conceit is not rejecting religion, but that in doing so you face 'reality'...
When the Greeks talk about hubris as an incurable aspect of human nature, or the Biblical Fall notes that human nature is irredeemably flawed they convey the truth via myth.

I'm afraid that I feel the same hubris in not accepting God, or any supernatural aspects of religion, as I do in not accepting Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. The only thing that underpins my worldview are facts. Should I abandon facts, to be comforted by fiction, just to avoid being labelled as "conceited"?

Once again, I didn't say it was hubris to be irreligious; I am irreligious.

The conceit is the belief that your worldview is based purely on 'facts'.

You first claim, "Simply not being religious doesn't mean much in my experience though, albeit plenty of irreligious folk operate under the conceit that they are somehow startlingly independent thinkers who have transcended the need for comforting fictions and bravely see the world as it truly is". You go on to state that, "The conceit is not rejecting religion, but that in doing so(rejecting religion) you face 'reality'. 'Sceptics' are rarely sceptical about the fictions that underpin their worldview (which are often actually religious in origin anyway)". Finally, you use the term "hubris"(conceit), as an "incurable aspect of human nature". You then cite a mythical biblical story(The Fall) to claim that humans are "irredeemably flawed". Whatever that means. So, regarding implying that being irreligious is also being hubris(conceited), then yeah, you kinda did.

I did not imply that being irreligious was conceited, I stated that it is a conceit to believe you see the world as it is. And said hubris is a is an incurable aspect of human nature which covers both religious and irreligious people alike.

Regarding your implication about irreligious people and conceit, I'll let others be the judge of your comments. Clearly, we have a difference in comprehension, even when I playback your own words.

Or you could accept the fact that I've said about 4 times that is not what I am saying...

Simply denying the meaning or implications of your own quoted words, is not evidence for your denial. Your repost included, "I did not imply that being irreligious was conceited, I stated that it is a conceit to believe you see the world as it is.". Since most folk who see the wold as it is, without any of the make-believe elements, are irreligious, therefore they must be conceited.

In your mind your narrative about our discussion probably makes perfect sense and you believe it represents 'objective' reality, but it's just a comforting fiction.

While this is a small and very inconsequential example as forums are just entertainment, all humans do this on a much greater scale where cultures, ideologies, emotions, self-interest, etc. cause us to make all kinds of fictitious narratives to explain our experiences and create sources of meaning and comfort in the world, especially when the stakes are far higher than they are on here.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out now as collectively we aren't really getting anywhere. Thanks for the discussion though, it's been entertaining which is the main thing

 

[Truly Enlightened]

* advisory: I'm just going to share some of my own opinions now and ask some questions to clarify your position, I'm not trying to 'refute' anything, so new need to look for strawmen

What religions are supposed to be about non-violence? Certainly not many of them. Also most don't even have an all powerful god.

History is littered with religious violence because humans are violent. Religions don't corrupt our nature, they reflect it as they are products of human cognition. I see no reason to assume humans would be less violent without religions, the evidence certainly doesn't show that.

Human society will always be ideologically diverse, so for me, the only way to judge an ideology, religious or otherwise, is by the behaviours it encourages. Ones that create more good are better, ones that create more harms are worse. So if a secular ideology produced a lot of harms, and a religious ideology produced more good, then I would view the religious ideology as being better than the secular ideology.

Do you agree with this? If not, why?



An ideology can be thought of as a system-constituting narrative (Lejano and Park 2015). To quote Sargent (2009): “An ideology is a system of values and beliefs regarding the various institutions and processes of society that is accepted as fact or truth by a group of people. An ideology provides the believer with a picture of the world both as it is and as it should be, and, in doing so, organizes the tremendous complexity of the world into something fairly simple and understandable” (p. 2). Mannheim refers to the general form of ideology as tending toward a comprehensive Weltanschauung or worldview (Mannheim 1936, p. 106).

In contrasting ideological from pragmatic belief systems, Sartori characterizes ideology as fixed, strongly affective, and cognitively closed. The term 'cognitively closed' pertains to the believer’s opposition to expanding or revising the belief system (Sartori 1969). Pragmatic systems exhibit the opposite properties, characterized by openness (to other narratives).

The narrative properties of ideology - R Lejano & J Dodge, Policy Sciences

As regards its ideological component, many/most religions are the same as the above, just with a god/s on top of the tree. Neither religions or ideologies are fixed in stone, they are just more or less 'cognitively closed'.

Humans are pattern seeking animals, we don't like randomness and things without explanation so we construct narratives to explain our experiences and create order and meaning. Many of these narratives are influenced by the ideologies we hold, as once we form emotional commitments to beliefs, we find it very difficult to be objective. We will happily deny facts that contradict our worldview and our perception of reality is warped by ideological commitment.

In addition, many of these narratives are constructed after the fact to justify things chosen instinctively, as such they have no connection to objective reality they are simply made up stories to make ourselves feel better about what we did or to put it into context.

These points have been well documented in scientific literature.

People who commit violence usually need to feel ideologically justified in doing so, an obvious example would be Communism where 'good' people who sacrificed their own lives to 'build a better world' ended up committing or being complicit in many 'evil' atrocities.

Without getting into technicalities, Marxists believed in the forces of History, which was pretty much identical to Divine Providence: History must unfold a certain way.

So historically we have had violence to impose a communist belief system over a population based on a force greater than ourselves, and we have also had violence to impose certain religious belief over populations. Both believe the world would be better if more people lived under their rule and according to their values.

The US led War in Iraq was also an attempt to install a political ideology by force, where people were blinded to reality by seeing the world through an ideological lens.

So in what ways do you consider religious violence to be different from ideological violence?


People also don't usually kill 'because an imaginary god says so', they generally relate to real-world 'flesh and blood' issues.

The Mongol conquests were not religious conquests, just about power, land and money. After conquering Muslim territories, some Mongols converted to Islam. After this they continued doing as the Mongols had done previously: gaining power, land and money although they now claimed religious legitimacy for what they did.

In the 6th/7thC certain parts of the Middle East were conquered by the Persians, retaken by the Romans then conquered by the Arabs/proto-Muslims.

The level of violence was similar in each of these. Each of them wanted to conquer new territory. The forms of government were pretty much the same after the conquests (the Arabs basically copied Roman/Persian law and administration).

The Romans and Persians had been attacked many times by various 'frontier' people in this time, the proto-Muslims just happened to be the ones who were successful.

All of them basically wanted the same thing: power, money, territory. The proto-Muslims also had a purported religious justification to conquer (although many of them weren't even proto-Muslims).

Do you think they were conquering 'because an imaginary god said so', or claiming legitimacy for actions they would have done anyway and simply reflected the norms for that period in history?

I seriously think you should give more thought to the arguments you present. Please take a few moments to reflect on your comments. If humans are naturally violent(I'm assuming you mean intrinsically violent), Then how have we managed to survive for 100's of thousands of years? At least our population rates would be declining, not increasing. Less than half a million people are killed per year, from violent crimes in the entire world. That's 0.00006% of our world's population. This means that 99.99994% of people in the world are not killed by violent crimes. This hardly indicates that humans are intrinsically violent. Also, it is humans who create religions. Religion does not create itself, and cause humans to follow it. These are the inconvenient truths that can't be ignored.

Human society will always be ideologically diverse, so for me, the only way to judge an ideology, religious or otherwise, is by the behaviours it encourages. Ones that create more good are better, ones that create more harms are worse. So if a secular ideology produced a lot of harms, and a religious ideology produced more good, then I would view the religious ideology as being better than the secular ideology.
Do you agree with this? If not, why?

Even though you framed the question that religious ideology produces more good, I would agree with you if it were true. It isn't. When religious beliefs intrudes into our personal freedoms, then it does not promote good. It promotes obedience, intolerance, elitism, and its own special morality. For example, what is the secular rationale behind the Alabama abortion law? It violates two of our Constitutional rights. Especially the rights of women to choose. These religious-minded legislators believe that God is on their side. They don't care how their decision impacts on the real world. Because of their blind allegiance to a man-created myth, women in Alabama no longer have the right to an abortion. No matter what the circumstances are, all pregnancies must go to term. Health of the mother, rape or incest, condition of the child, are all irrelevant. Maybe you can name me a Theocratic government you would like to be a citizen of? I didn't think so. If you think being religious will make society less violent, then think again. Evidence? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/peace-on-earth-atheism https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html

For you to point out that this equates to less than half a million per year would require some spectacularly bad mathematics

Chairman Mao reign, Dec. 26, 1893-Sept. 9, 1976. Subtracting the two years equals 83 years. Now divide 83 years into 45 Million dead, will equal less than a Million people dead per year(542,168.67). But it is always easy to make assertions, when you don't have to back them up.

The US led War in Iraq was also an attempt to install a political ideology by force, where people were blinded to reality by seeing the world through an ideological lens.

You really need to step outside of your preconceive biases. We went into war with Iraq, because of an idiot president, lies about WMD's from a college thesis, a country choosing to nationalize their oil, and a country choosing not to trade oil in American dollars. Nothing to do with the red-white-and blue ideology of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is not the ideology of Wall Street, Corporate America, the Fossil Fuel Industry, and the Military Industrial Complex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtba_KqCmUQ

So in what ways do you consider religious violence to be different from ideological violence?

Again you are comparing apples to cars. One ideology is based in the real world, and the other is based in make-believe. A better example would be to compare violence due to religious beliefs, to the violence due to pagan beliefs. Both claim an imaginary deity as the basis for their beliefs.

The rest of your post is just more editorializing unsupported assumptions, sprinkled with unconnected, and irrelevant lessons in history. But, nothing to do with the topic.

Finally, I will let others judge my comments, or if I in any way misrepresented your words. Or was wrong in my assessments of your fallacies. Clearly, you are unwilling to accept your own responsibility. If there is one advise I can offer you, it would be to provide evidence(objective) to support all the unsupported claims you make. Also, give clear examples that can also be verified, and not just sound good. Other than parroting platitudes and idioms, all narratives are fictitious. That is, they all exist in the mind, and not in reality. Narratives, at best only represent degrees of our certainty about our reality. The higher the degree of certainty, the more comfortable our reality becomes. There is a zero degree of certainty in any religious narrative, therefore our comfort would be based on uncertainty. Like the uncertainty of a rabbit's foot. Oh, and people do kill under the belief that God told them to. Do you really want examples of this lunacy?

But to each their own narratives. It has been my pleasure.

 

[Augustus]

Chairman Mao reign, Dec. 26, 1893-Sept. 9, 1976. Subtracting the two years equals 83 years. Now divide 83 years into 45 Million dead, will equal less than a Million people dead per year(542,168.67). But it is always easy to make assertions, when you don't have to back them up.

Not even the most hagiographic commie propaganda claimed Mao was so preternaturally gifted that he ascended to power on the day that he was born

See how easy it is to make negative assumptions about people based on your own errors?

(The People's Republic of China was founded in 1949 after the commies won the civil war, and Mao ruled until 1976. Peacetime death toll has been estimated between from 40-70+ million. For the higher figure see Mao: The unknown story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. Really interesting book actually. Jung Chang's Wild Swans, part of which documents her family's persecution during the cultural revolution, is even better, genuinely one of the best books I've ever read.)

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Not even the most hagiographic commie propaganda claimed Mao was so preternaturally gifted that he ascended to power on the day that he was born

See how easy it is to make negative assumptions about people based on your own errors?

(The People's Republic of China was founded in 1949 after the commies won the civil war, and Mao ruled until 1976. Peacetime death toll has been estimated between from 40-70+ million. For the higher figure see Mao: The unknown story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. Really interesting book actually. Jung Chang's Wild Swans, part of which documents her family's persecution during the cultural revolution, is even better, genuinely one of the best books I've ever read.)

I stand corrected. Thank you again.

 

[Jos]

The Biblical Fall explains that humans are fundamentally flawed animals that cannot be perfected. This is true, despite the story being untrue. Millions of people have died because of the belief that humans could be perfected, that's enough of a physical truth for me.

Will humans ever become perfect? Does perfection even exist?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Will humans ever become perfect? Does perfection even exist?

Sorry Jos, only a God(s) is considered perfect, and He only exist in our mind. Besides we just don't have any other human lifeforms to compare ours to in the real world. Is there anything in the Universe that you would consider as being perfect?

 

[Jos]

Besides we just don't have any other human lifeforms to compare ours to in the real world. Is there anything in the Universe that you would consider as being perfect?

You're right I don't know of anything that can be considered to be perfect so I guess I wouldn't consider anything in the universe to be perfect.

 

[Augustus]

Will humans ever become perfect? Does perfection even exist?

Humans will certainly never become perfect, that's for sure.

I didn't really mean literally perfectible though, more the idea that humans can transcend their collective failings. The flaws in human nature are inescapable though: violence, greed, irrationality, hubris, etc.

Many people view these as 'errors' which can be fixed, rather than them being as much a part of our character as the 'good' stuff.