Is religion inferior to logic ?

[Aupmanyav]

I will be shining a light in someone's eyes, opening their view to all the possibilities.

Well, I am not a 'SammaSambodhi Buddha' to show 'dhamma' to others. I am a 'Shiki Butsu'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More confusing language. Your forte.

You don't see juries screened for who are the most religious.

Yeah, that is as far as I can tell still subjective.

For the standard version of evidence, I have so far seen no external sensory evidence or no reference to any science. So far it seems that it is a case of that you think/feel religion is inferior to logic.
I mean just give evidence. External sensory evidence or reference to some science.

 

[PureX]

All right my friend. I think I’ve made valid points, you disagree. We started with you stating that the placebo myth of religion had value because it met a need. I have countered that the placebo myth is filling a need of its own creation. Your argument seems really to be a fear that without the religion myth we lose our ethical system. I do not see that as being the case simply on the grounds that there are a lot of ethical people who do not share in the myths and there are lots that do believe in the myths that are plenty unethical and lack consistent moral behavior.

First of all, you still don't know that faith in God is a "placebo". That's a bias that you just won't let go of. Secondly, I am not saying that there can be no other means of ethical inquisition, I am simply saying that there currently is none. And we are in dire need of it as science keeps increasing our ability to manipulate the world and each other, while our consciences remain mostly inert. That is not going to end well for us. And lastly, mythology is just a kind of language, like mathematics is. It's a way of describing the world around us. Stop trying to dismiss it as nonsense. It's one of our most powerful and effective ways of learning and communicating with each other about those aspects of life that science and mathematics cannot grasp.

Can we skip the myth and still have our ethics? I say yes.

Obviously, so far, we cannot. As I am not seeing any evidence in our society of anyone trying to make that happen. All I see are people whining about the only institutions that are even trying to contemplate and discuss ethics failing when they should either be supporting them, or creating better alternatives.

Due to the nature of socialization, I fully admit there is no way to make any type of wholesale change. Myth will be with us a while longer. I am confident that its role in society will continue to diminish as it continually has, and future generations will be happily ethical despite being free from myth. Ethical systems that are acknowledged as derived from us and to which we must hold ourselves accountable, no longer bound to the irrationality born from our ancient ignorance.

Where is the evidence of any of this that is not simply your own bias? Is creative fiction (myth) any less prevalent? Are there any institutions springing up to investigate and discuss comparative ethics among the masses? Or are we still sliding into the abyss of amoral technology and capitalism?

As to the reality of religion, I think I recognize the good and the bad. The point is, can we think critically about our belief myths and evolve into something better. I think we can.

Sadly, it appears that few of us want to. And few even know how. The solution is not to decry and eliminate religion. The solution is to teach young adults about religion, about ethics, and how to evaluate them so they can make better and more informed choices. Religion is not the enemy, here. Willful ignorance of it, is.

 

[MikeF]

First of all, you still don't know that faith in God is a "placebo".

Do you really want me to address this, or would you prefer to hang on to your Faith a while longer.

I am not saying that there can be no other means of ethical inquisition,

Excellent. A point of consensus.

I am simply saying that there currently is none.

Really? Is that statement to be taken literally? If so, I think you are being quite disingenuous.

And we are in dire need of it as science keeps increasing our ability to manipulate the world and each other, while our consciences remain mostly inert. That is not going to end well for us.

I appreciate that this is an overarching fear for you.

And lastly, mythology is just a kind of language, like mathematics is.

Excellent! Another point of consensus.

It's a way of describing the world around us.

Precisely. Which is the case for all literary fiction, myth simply being one genre. Folks can get into trouble though if they fail to recognize literary fiction as literary fiction.

Stop trying to dismiss it as nonsense. It's one of our most powerful and effective ways of learning and communicating with each other about those aspects of life that science and mathematics cannot grasp.

Who’s dismissing literary fiction? I agree with you whole-heartedly as to its power and effectiveness. See? More consensus!

As to math and science grasping anything, they are simply tools. Their worth is in how they are used. It is only people who can grasp ideas.

[In regards to skipping myth and maintaining ethics] Obviously, so far, we cannot. As I am not seeing any evidence in our society of anyone trying to make that happen. All I see are people whining about the only institutions that are even trying to contemplate and discuss ethics failing when they should either be supporting them, or creating better alternatives.

As the many myth-based ethical systems conflict I think our best option is in creating better alternatives as you suggest above. You do not seem to think that is happening, which I find surprising. Would you consider the Secular Humanist movement as such an effort to find alternative to myth?

Where is the evidence of any of this that is not simply your own bias? Is creative fiction (myth) any less prevalent? Are there any institutions springing up to investigate and discuss comparative ethics among the masses? Or are we still sliding into the abyss of amoral technology and capitalism?

You do not see Secular Humanism or environmental movements as examples of myth-free ethical systems? Aren’t many environmental movements explicitly antagonistic towards the humans-first models of many of the prevalent myth systems?

Sadly, it appears that few of us want to. And few even know how.

Perhaps we should start with the ubiquitous prevailing myth systems that teach and encourage magical thinking. Myth systems that preserve and protect myths born out of an ignorant past.

The solution is not to decry and eliminate religion. The solution is to teach young adults about religion, about ethics, and how to evaluate them so they can make better and more informed choices. Religion is not the enemy, here. Willful ignorance of it, is.

And I say it is willful ignorance in general. You can’t carve out an exception for religion. If we are to tackle ignorance, it must be tackled on all fronts. To say otherwise would be to exercise bias, which your comments seem to indicate you think is a bad thing.

 

[PureX]

Do you really want me to address this, or would you prefer to hang on to your Faith a while longer.

There is nothing for you to address. Lacking omniscience, we have no way of ascertaining the existence or nature of God, including the means and degree to which God effects our experience of existence.

Excellent. A point of consensus.

Really? Is that statement to be taken literally? If so, I think you are being quite disingenuous.

Where are you seeing the average adult citizen being challenged or inspired to investgate, contemplate, and compare various common ethical imperatives besides an occasional church sermon? The internet? That's mostly an echo-chamber for the vast majority of users. It stifles more than it encourages ethical investigation.

I appreciate that this is an overarching fear for you.

It should be an overarching fear for everyone. We keep getting more and more clever and effective as a species, but we are not getting any wiser. And that scenario only ends one way. Give a cage full of monkeys a box full of loaded pistols and sooner or later the monkeys will end up dead unless they can learn to leave the damn pistols be. So far we humans have not learned to leave ANYTHING be. We haven't achieved even that most basic level of wisdom: "don't touch that".

Excellent! Another point of consensus.

Precisely. Which is the case for all literary fiction, myth simply being one genre. Folks can get into trouble though if they fail to recognize literary fiction as literary fiction.

Folks can and do also get into trouble when they fail to recognize science as being just science, too. They also get into trouble when they fail to recognize that 'belief' is an unnecessary overreach of the ego.

Who’s dismissing literary fiction? I agree with you whole-heartedly as to its power and effectiveness. See? More consensus!

Very, very few people actually confuse the truth being conveyed by mythical fiction with the truth being conveyed by historical or current fact. And that includes the vast majority of religious theists. There are a few that do, and a lot more that pretend to just to go along to get along. But even combined they represent only a tiny fraction of actual religious theists in the world.

As to math and science grasping anything, they are simply tools. Their worth is in how they are used. It is only people who can grasp ideas.

What matters is that we understand that these languages are also methods of conceptualization. And we use them to formulate whole conceptual paradigms that can very easily then become a kind of conceptual prison, barring us from seeing and understanding the world via the language of other available conceptual paradigms.

When you talk to devoutly religious people and they speak in terms of mythological truth, this is what you are witnessing: a myth-based conceptual paradigm that has become a kind of reality prison. Their religious mythology is the only means they have of grasping and speaking of truth, or wisdom. You have other options for grasping and explaining your experience and understanding of truth in life. But not everyone else does. So they use the means they have. That doesn't necessarily mean that they don't understand the limits of knowledge, or necessity of skepticism. But they live by faith, so the speak of their myths as if they are the truth because that's how their faith and myth based conceptual paradigm works. They aren't idiots that don't know any better. They are people that have chosen a very symbolic faith-based way of moving through the world.

As the many myth-based ethical systems conflict I think our best option is in creating better alternatives as you suggest above. You do not seem to think that is happening, which I find surprising.

Certainly they conflict. The "marketplace of ideas" is very often a battlefield of ideas. There are many ways of moving through the world, ideologically speaking: conquest, domination, parasitism, deception, camouflage, and on and on. And each of these survival paradigms compete with the others to some degree. And the same goes for those that choose them.

Would you consider the Secular Humanist movement as such an effort to find alternative to myth?

What secular humanist movement? A few secular humanists here and there do not a movement make. Especially when all they seem to do is sit on their hands as they proclaim their secular humanism.

You do not see Secular Humanism or environmental movements as examples of myth-free ethical systems?

I don't see them as significant forces within our collective society for driving ethical awareness and evaluation.

Aren’t many environmental movements explicitly antagonistic towards the humans-first models of many of the prevalent myth systems?

I don't know. They don't seem tp present any cohesive ethical imperatives besides self-presrvation.

Perhaps we should start with the ubiquitous prevailing myth systems that teach and encourage magical thinking. Myth systems that preserve and protect myths born out of an ignorant past.

I think it would far more effective to simply provide better alternatives. That way we don't have to defeat the past to elicit change. We can simply invite the change, instead. People will do what's best for them when they can see the option and see what's best for them. Provide people with better alternatives and they will choose them.

 

[MikeF]

There is nothing for you to address. Lacking omniscience, we have no way of ascertaining the existence or nature of God, including the means and degree to which God effects our experience of existence.

Omniscience isn’t required. Again, if you really want to discuss the supposed existence of your entity, we could certainly do that in another thread.

Where are you seeing the average adult citizen being challenged or inspired to investgate, contemplate, and compare various common ethical imperatives besides an occasional church sermon?

This is an interesting point and worth consideration. Does an ethical system for a given society require periodic reminders of the ethical principles for it to remain effective in society? I wonder if anyone has studied that. I will say that outside of periodic reminders, which, given all the reminding that is currently going on, you still seem dissatisfied with society's overall ethical behavior, the legal and judicial systems have always been in place to ensure compliance with societal norms that become codified in law, statute, and regulation.

I will say there is no little amount of naivete on your part to think that church sermons challenge, inspire to investigate, and compare various common ethical imperatives. It would be my contention that for many church services, it is more about reviewing and reinforcing the minister’s/denominations dogmatic ethical imperatives. I think you might be shocked by some of the things that are preached from pulpits.

It should be an overarching fear for everyone. We keep getting more and more clever and effective as a species, but we are not getting any wiser. And that scenario only ends one way. Give a cage full of monkeys a box full of loaded pistols and sooner or later the monkeys will end up dead unless they can learn to leave the damn pistols be. So far we humans have not learned to leave ANYTHING be. We haven't achieved even that most basic level of wisdom.

And yet, as of 2020, 70% of Americans identify as Christians. LINK You have lots of religion going on and you are still not happy. Your wishing to preserve the status quo does not seem to be meeting your desired goals. If the religious are in charge and we are still going to hell in a handbasket, it only makes my position all the stronger.

Very, very few people actually confuse the truth being conveyed by mythical fiction with the truth being conveyed by historical or current fact. And that includes the vast majority of religious theists. There are a few that do, and a lot more that pretend to just to go along to get along. But even together they represent only a tiny fraction of actual religious theists in the world.

Are you essentially saying the Emperor has no clothes?

What matters is that we understand that these languages are also methods of conceptualization. And we use them to formulate whole conceptual paradigms that can very easily then become a kind of conceptual prison, barring us from seeing and understanding the world via the language of other conceptual paradigms.

When you talk to devoutly religious people and they speak in terms of mythological truth, this is what you are witnessing: a myth-based conceptual paradigm that has become a kind of reality prison. Their religious mythology is the only means they now have of grasping and speaking of truth, or wisdom. You have other options for grasping and explaining your experience and understanding of truth in life. But not everyone else does. So they use the means they have.

Would the devoutly religious have those mythological truths for any other reason than that is how they were indoctrinated? What if they were raised differently? Why do I have access to other options that are somehow unavailable to everyone?

Certainly they conflict. The "marketplace of ideas" is very often a battlefield of ideas. There are many ways of moving through the world, ideologically speaking: conquest, domination, parasitism, deception, camouflage, and on and on. And each of these survival paradigms compete with the others to some degree. And the same goes for those that choose them.

And the evolution of belief shall continue, as it has always done.

What secular humanist movement? A few secular humanists here and there do not a movement make. Especially when all they seem to do is sit on their hands as they proclaim their secular humanism.

I don't see them as significant forces within our collective society for driving ethical awareness and evaluation.

I don't know. They don't seem tp present any cohesive ethical imperatives besides self-presrvation.

Such movements must struggle against the institutional protectionism incorporated in religious belief. You do not recognize the power of indoctrination, but it does not mean that it doesn’t exist or isn’t a powerful force in society.

I think it would far more effective to simply provide better alternatives. That way we don't have to defeat the past to elicit change. We can simply invite the change, instead. People will do what's best for them when they can see the option and see what's best for them. Provide people with better alternatives and they will choose them.

Indeed. A work in progress.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Would the devoutly religious have those mythological truths for any other reason than that is how they were indoctrinated?

Are you suggesting that people should not receive religious education?
The "devoutly religious" have their reasons for belief.

Why is it that Christianity and Islam have spread all over the world?
..just a coincidence? No particular reason?

 

[MikeF]

Are you suggesting that people should not receive religious education?

I am suggesting that children should not be indoctrinated to believe myth as anything other than literary fiction. I am all for a liberal arts ecuation that explores all religious myth systems, including the evolution of religious thought through the course of history.

The "devoutly religious" have their reasons for belief.

Have you been following my conversation with @PureX ?

Why is it that Christianity and Islam have spread all over the world?
..just a coincidence? No particular reason?

There are quite a number of sociological and historical reason as to why. Is your expectation a graduate level course as to the reasons?

The short answer is embedded in this thread. Religious myth was born and institutionalized in our ancient and ignorant past, and incorporated into that institutionalization are institutional mechanisms to both protect and preserve those beliefs and ensure their propagation in perpetuity. The myths changed and evolved in response to population growth along with the required changes in social organization. But throuigh that evolution they remained myth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The short answer is embedded in this thread. Religious myth was born and institutionalized in our ancient and ignorant past, and incorporated into that institutionalization are institutional mechanisms to both protect and preserve those beliefs and ensure their propagation in perpetuity.

Err. I don't think so .. why THESE religions .. why not others?
Why is it that people find Abrahamic religion so convincing, to the extent that it spreads like it has?

 

[MikeF]

Err. I don't think so .. why THESE religions .. why not others?
Why is it that people find Abrahamic religion so convincing, to the extent that it spreads like it has?

Are you surprised how convinced folks can become at the point of a sword?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you surprised how convinced folks can become at the point of a sword?

What???
..so other religions encourage people not to defend themselves .. is that it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What???
..so other religions encourage people not to defend themselves .. is that it?

No, that these religions happen to have better armies and/or more powerful economies.
Look at the spread of Islam and how it matches military conquest. Or trading in some cases. Now look as Christianity and you will notice the same.

 

[MikeF]

What???
..so other religions encourage people not to defend themselves .. is that it?

If my comments and their implication are foreign to you, all I can suggest would be to engage in some non-apologetic historical study.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, that these religions happen to have better armies and/or more powerful economies..

What nonsense.
It couldn't possibly be because it is monotheist,
and that Jesus and Muhammad were teaching practically the same thing..
No .. "we" don't want to believe that .. "we" want to believe that people are all brainwashed.

 

[MikeF]

What nonsense.
It couldn't possibly be because it is monotheist,
and that Jesus and Muhammad were teaching practically the same thing..
No .. "we" don't want to believe that .. "we" want to believe that people are all brainwashed.

Would you assign the same value to commumism as you do to monotheism based on expansion rate and number of followers obtained at it's peak?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Would you assign the same value to commumism..

Personally, no. The same goes for capitalism.

 

[MikeF]

Personally, no. The same goes for capitalism.

So can we conclude that the rise of Christianity and Islam, as with Communism and Capitalism, are the result of complex geopolitical events that came together to produce the observed result, or do you imagine there was something more at play in the case of Communism and Capitalism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So can we conclude that the rise of Christianity and Islam, as with Communism and Capitalism, are the result of complex geopolitical events that came together to produce the observed result, or do you imagine there was something more at play in the case of Communism and Capitalism.

No "we" can't.
Capitalism and Communism are not claimed to be Divine ideologies.
They spread for different reasons.

 

[MikeF]

No "we" can't.
Capitalism and Communism are not claimed to be Divine ideologies.
They spread for different reasons.

Divine ideologies = Religious myth born and institutionalized in our ancient and ignorant past, and incorporated into that institutionalization are institutional mechanisms to both protect and preserve those beliefs and ensure their propagation in perpetuity. The myths changed and evolved in response to population growth along with the required changes in social organization. But throuigh that evolution they remained myth.

By my calculation, political and religious belief are simply products of the human mind influenced by human experience. I see both as equivalent, IMO.

 

[Bird123]

You make claims that you can't back up with any evidence and a cohrent explanation. So you either don't understand how to debate, or are arrogant, or delusional, or just so highly absorbed in your dogma that you aren't able to understand reality, or any mix of these options. As it is you hold beliefs that are religious and by definition are not factual. You seem totally obilvious that your hold beliefs that are not based in fact, and you are insulting to me and others for "not getting" what you think you know.


Here is an example. You are pointing to nothing as a direction except your beliefs, and these are beliefs that are not factual. Yet you phrase these statements as if you are enlightened and I am stupid. In debate if someone else's position is wrong you offer them factual evidence and a coherent explanation. You don't do this.

You speak of wisdom and then refer to a God, which isn't known to exist. Irony.

Da Vinci had some ideas well before the natural ability of flight was known by science. If a God exists and didn't want man to fly, well man gave God the middle finger when the Wright Brothers flew. And what did this God do? Nothing. Almost as if it doesn't exist.

Except itself, apparently.

Once again you fail to list all this evidence that ios all around us. If it is all around us how does it slip your mind to list any of them?

I am an atheist because I have discovered what is true about nature myself. No evidence of any of the many gods, so no reason to decide one does.

You assume so you do not have to leave your box of beliefs? Why? Because you do not want what I have said to be true. I can not change the facts to fit what you want them to be. I can point to where you can Discover these things for yourself.

You are in the desert and ran out of water when you bump into me. I point. I say there is an oasis east 2 miles away with water. I have given you a fact yet this fact is only a belief to you until you Discover the water for yourself. You can discount what I say as a false belief however that does not change that it is true.

You might want me to convince you to believe like so many religions do, however I do not want you to merely believe. I want you to Discover for yourself, but you do not seek to know.

OK, you say you have Discovered what is true about nature. Great, you are already studying God. What is it that you have Discovered?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!