Is Religion Just Making Stuff Up?

[sayak83]

You are talking about extrapolating beyond the scope of the statistical studies. Feel free to make any case you want in doing so, but that is not much different than the current standards of this debate. However, if you just give me a website of information and say it is in there somewhere I will just simply ignore that.

I find it odd; however, that you seem to agree that there a process of "making stuff up" on these forums but yet you don't recognize the activities on these forums as a part of religion.

You have completely lost me. You asked the question whether religion constitutes of just made up beliefs by people. For this to happen we have to establish
a) A representative sample of religious beliefs held by people. Pew surveys etc. will help there and this forum will not.
b) Research regarding source of these beliefs both from religious people, skeptics and psychologists, anthropologists and neuroscience. Whether one can legitimately consider the representative sample of beliefs to just made up fantasies or not.

That seems the logical way to proceed. You disagree?

 

[Augustus]

I would say that your definition is true about to about 400(?) years ago. Since then, it's becoming less and less true. So the study of religion is important, but IMO religion is something that we retire gracefully and compassionately.

Why would it have ended 400 years ago? Humans are still humans. In general, the modern West, where it is not overtly Christian, is at least post-Christian in its identity.

Religions reflect the distillation and evolution of diverse human knowledge, cultural practice and experiences and how these relate to the way we do/should perceive the world. This is also true of any guiding ideology or worldview. 'Post religion' still draws heavily from this wellspring.

‘The interiority of Christian belief – its insistence that the quality of personal intentions is more important than any fixed social rules – was a reflection of this. Rule following – the Hebraic “law” – was downgraded in favour of action governed by conscience. In that way, the Christian conception of God provided the foundation for what became an unprecedented form of human society.’ Christian moral beliefs emerge as the ultimate source of the social revolution that has made the West what it is.
Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism - Larry Siedentop

'Retiring' religions will just lead to non-religious replacements of various ilks, not all of which will be positive. 'Universal' Western liberalism is the product of a particular cultural environment rather than being something innate to human society after all.

 

[icehorse]

Why would it have ended 400 years ago?

Roughly 400 years ago is roughly when the scientific method started gaining momentum - agreed? (The actual dates aren't important to this discussion.)

Augustus, I will once again acknowledge that religion played an important role in our intellectual evolution. Now I think religion is largely a vestige. It's hard for me to see - in 2017 - how we don't now have far better tools to do the jobs that the religious claim religion does. Morality? We have far better moral teachings. Spirituality, the same. Community building, ditto...

 

[Augustus]

Roughly 400 years ago is roughly when the scientific method started gaining momentum - agreed? (The actual dates aren't important to this discussion.)

Religions reflect the distillation and evolution of diverse human knowledge, cultural practice and experiences and how these relate to the way we do/should perceive the world.

Why would the development of modern science make this any less true though? Even if it led to fewer people being religious it wouldn't change what religions are.

Augustus, I will once again acknowledge that religion played an important role in our intellectual evolution. Now I think religion is largely a vestige. It's hard for me to see - in 2017 - how we don't now have far better tools to do the jobs that the religious claim religion does. Morality? We have far better moral teachings. Spirituality, the same. Community building, ditto...

For humanists, denying that humanity can live without myths can only be a type of pessimism. They take for granted that if human beings came to be more like the rational figments they have in mind, the result would be an improvement... If there is a choice it is between myths. In comparison with the Genesis myth, the modern myth in which humanity is marching to a better future is mere superstition. As the Genesis story teaches, knowledge cannot save us from ourselves. If we know more than before, it means only that we have greater scope to enact our fantasies. But – as the Genesis myth also teaches – there is no way we can rid ourselves of what we know. If we try to regain a state of innocence, the result can only be a worse madness. The message of Genesis is that in the most vital areas of human life there can be no progress, only an unending struggle with our own nature.

John Gray - The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths

 

[icehorse]

If there is a choice it is between myths.

If we take that as a premise, my orientation would be that the old myths must be replaced with the humanist myth. Anything smacking of tribalistic thinking must be evolved out of, or we won't survive.

 

[Augustus]

If we take that as a premise, my orientation would be that the old myths must be replaced with the humanist myth. Anything smacking of tribalistic thinking must be evolved out of, or we won't survive.

Just like the old myths of the 2nd coming though, they never seem to come true.

The creation of in/out groups is an inescapable part of human society though (see for example)

We can't 'evolve' out of it 'in the most vital areas of human life there can be no progress, only an unending struggle with our own nature.'

 

[Nous]

I am not sure why you think I would have any desire to talk to you.

I don't think that. I only happy to point out your errors.

 

[icehorse]

Just like the old myths of the 2nd coming though, they never seem to come true.

The creation of in/out groups is an inescapable part of human society though (see for example)

We can't 'evolve' out of it 'in the most vital areas of human life there can be no progress, only an unending struggle with our own nature.'

You will never convince me that such a defeatist attitude is our only choice. That, and by many metrics there is ample evidence that we DO evolve. Not perfectly or uniformly, but progress is made.

 

[Augustus]

You will never convince me that such a defeatist attitude is our only choice. That, and by many metrics there is ample evidence that we DO evolve. Not perfectly or uniformly, but progress is made.

Tell that to the 20th C. Higher on all of the metrics that are supposed to bring out our 'better angels', yet one of the worst on record.

Why would it be 'defeatist' to reject the patently false doctrine of universalism though? It's a very rare belief in human history outside of the monotheisms and their offshoots.

Creating the best possible society is much better in my book that chasing hubristic but comforting utopian pipe dreams that only make things worse. I'd be happy with a global society where people were different, don't necessarily like each other but didn't feel the need to use violence against each other.

What would a society without in/out groups look like anyway? A non-democratic one world government with everyone following the same ideology in perpetuity? Intellectually, technologically, culturally and morally stagnant?

Anything else will create differences, and differences create in/out groups.

I guess you want nothing of the sort, how do you see your non in/out group society?

 

[Tumah]

Feel free to make arguments for subjective centered knowledge, but know that I reject all claims of "spiritual enlightenment" or the like. I find people who assume they have some type special transcend insight egotistical and smug.

Please solve for X using anything except math. I don't like math and I think people who use math are usually full of themselves

 

[icehorse]

I'd be happy with a global society where people were different, don't necessarily like each other but didn't feel the need to use violence against each other.

Bingo! And dogma is one of the biggest blocks to the vision you just offered.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Please solve for X using anything except math. I don't like math and I think people who use math are usually full of themselves

Expect for math is not making a claim of transcend insight.

 

[Augustus]

Bingo! And dogma is one of the biggest blocks to the vision you just offered.

It is one of countless blocks.

The % of the world's in/out groups that are dependent on dogma is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Even if dogma disappeared completely, it would still be replaced by many diverse ideologies that would create in/out groups. You frequently post about your out groups here (as do most people at some point because it's pretty much unavoidable).

Can you explain what an 'out group free' society would look like? What would the one ideology, moral, political and economic system that everyone believed in be? How would you make nationalism and localism disappear? How would you make youth sub-culture disappear? How would you create consensus on every major issue facing society? How would you erase ethnic and cultural identities?

What makes you think this is even remotely possible to achieve? I'd place money on Jesus coming back before this happening as at least that only requires one miracle that contradicts all available evidence.

Or are you not actually arguing for an out group free society after all?

 

[icehorse]

Or are you not actually arguing for an out group free society after all?

When people disagree, the most common solutions are either talking or fighting. The strongly religious - because of dogma - tend to have a lot of conversational "no go" zones. So I see dogma as being in opposition to truly open conversation. We will always have opposing groups, the question is can we address disputes with logic or will we revert to dogma?

 

[Augustus]

When people disagree, the most common solutions are either talking or fighting. The strongly religious - because of dogma - tend to have a lot of conversational "no go" zones. So I see dogma as being in opposition to truly open conversation. We will always have opposing groups, the question is can we address disputes with logic or will we revert to dogma?

So you agree a world without in/out groups is clearly impossible?

The idea that religions create a 'special type' of in/out group is simply false though. Even most religious divides are also ethnic/linguistic divides and would not disappear even if religion vanished overnight.

All groups have their 'sacred values' that are not really up for discussion (for example your secularism is a red line). In such disputes 'logic' tends not to be the solution, it tends to be the acknowledgement of each other's sacred values and a political structure that leaves both sides feeling secure and represented. See for example Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

These in/out group differences can't be wished away, and if they are not religion then they will be something else. This is what the science tells us. It is not rational or logical to believe we can escape our nature.

'My' solution is to create a (very decentralised) political system in which different groups can exist according to their own preferences. If we can't make everyone into one big happy family then we need to make them into neighbours who may not like each other but stay out of each other's affairs because you stay out of theirs.

When we follow your approach of trying to turn everyone else into Secular Humanists like you, then you just make things worse. Even though Humanists like to think their views are based on an impartial use of Reason, they are ideological and cultural products that don't readily translate to most other peoples.

 

[Tumah]

Expect for math is not making a claim of transcend insight.

And religion is not making the claim that the square root of 25 is 5.

 

[icehorse]

When we follow your approach of trying to turn everyone else into Secular Humanists like you, then you just make things worse. Even though Humanists like to think their views are based on an impartial use of Reason, they are ideological and cultural products that don't readily translate to most other peoples.

I'm not trying to turn everyone into secular humanists. But I do think we need to promote critical thinking. We won't survive by trying to shoehorn 2000 year old ideas of morality and science into modern problems.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

And religion is not making the claim that the square root of 25 is 5.

You just repeated what I said, and in that part of the OP you quoted I was talking about "spiritual enlightenment" not religion.

 

[Tumah]

You just repeated what I said, and in that part you quoted I as talking about "spiritual enlightenment" not religion.

What I'm saying is that you are asking to measure religion by a standard that is outside the sphere of religious influence. This seems to be the same as asking someone to solve math equations using information outside the sphere of mathematics.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not trying to turn everyone into secular humanists. But I do think we need to promote critical thinking. We won't survive by trying to shoehorn 2000 year old ideas of morality and science into modern problems.

Are you sure about that? Are you really sure that 2000+ year old ideas like animism - which tend to instill a far greater respectfulness for the non-human world than is typical in Western society - have nothing to add to the current ecological genocide humans are wreaking on this planet?