Is Religion Just Making Stuff Up?

[Jeremiahcp]

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.

"What I'm saying is that you are asking to measure religion by a standard that is outside the sphere of religious influence"

No, I am not. Wake up and pay attention: I just clarified I was talking about "spiritual enlightenment" and not religion. I am not sure what exactly you think is "outside the sphere of religious influences" but I don't think, for a second, you are at all listening to me.

"This seems to be the same as asking someone to solve math equations using information outside the sphere of mathematics."

No, I am talking about a privy of insight, which I also already clarified in this thread. Maybe you should read the thread.

There is nothing inside mathematics that I claim to have knowledge of that others can't know because of my other dimensional connections or because God choose to talk to me. It is an appeal for authority when the authority can not be validate.

A mathematician can earn a degree or take a test to prove they are the authority they say they are. That is the difference here. You act like they are the same but it all comes back to those claiming to have that special "spiritual insight" (and I am not talking about religion---try to absorb that) but can't prove they have it.

Now a person can study religion and gain insight that way, and that door is open to anyone that wants to walk though it. We can validate that, we can test that, we can prove that and we even slap a degree on it.

But the brainless wit who suggest to me, that they know something that I can't know because out of the 7 billion people on this planet God decided to talk to them personally, I am going to tell them they are full of it. Or if they suggest they are other worldly connected or have reached a higher plane of enlightenment, and so I should just take them at their word, I am going to tell them they are full of it. Now if you want to be taken in by such foolishness that is your choice.

 

[Tumah]

"What I'm saying is that you are asking to measure religion by a standard that is outside the sphere of religious influence"

No, I am not. Wake up and pay attention: I just clarified I was talking about "spiritual enlightenment" and not religion. I am not sure what exactly you think is "outside the sphere of religious influences" but I don't think, for a second, you are at all listening to me.

I won't deny the possibility that I'm not.

"This seems to be the same as asking someone to solve math equations using information outside the sphere of mathematics."

No, I am talking about a privy of insight, which I also already clarified in this thread. Maybe you should read the thread.

There's a fairly low chance of me going through 8 pages to find your clarification. You may want to consider adding it to your OP.

There is nothing inside mathematics that I claim to have knowledge of that others can't know because of my other dimensional connections or because God choose to talk to me. It is an appeal for authority when the authority can not be validate.

A mathematician can earn a degree or take a test to prove they are the authority they say they are. That is the difference here. You act like they are the same but it all comes back to those claiming to have that special "spiritual insight" (and I am not talking about religion---try to absorb that) but can't prove they have it.

Now a person can study religion and gain insight that way, and that door is open to anyone that wants to walk though it. We can validate that, we can test that, we can prove that and we even slap a degree on it.

But the brainless wit who suggest to me, that they know something that I can't know because out of the 7 billion people on this planet God decided to talk to them personally, I am going to tell them they are full of it. Or if they suggest they are other worldly connected or have reached a higher plane of enlightenment, and so I should just take them at their word, I am going to tell them they are full of it. Now if you want to be taken in by such foolishness that is your choice.

No, I'd agree with you in such a case provided they can't provide objective proof. I think anyone would, so long as they aren't suffering from a psychological problem.

 

[Augustus]

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.

We know that modern morality can be as bad as anything from the past though.

But why would it be a problem for you if people in a society other than yours chose to live according to different values? As long as you can live according to yours, what is the problem?

 

[icehorse]

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?

This seems like a fair point. That said, it seems to me that we're typically debating the predominant cases and not so much the edge cases.

To take a specific example, the ideas of Kosher and Halal were probably the best thinking of the time in terms of how to safely slaughter and eat animals. But today, they are unnecessarily cruel and not the healthiest approach. But millions of people stick to kosher and halal dogmatically. On the other hand, what I know of native american hunting practices leads me to believe that we COULD learn something from their approaches to the well being of their fellow creatures.

 

[icehorse]

We know that modern morality can be as bad as anything from the past though.

But why would it be a problem for you if people in a society other than yours chose to live according to different values? As long as you can live according to yours, what is the problem?

As long as something like the UDHR is enforced universally, and the commons are maintained, I wouldn't care. But in non-UDHR societies, the incidence of coercion can be really high.

So an interesting moral question would be this: If you know your neighbor's wife is being abused, should you look the other way?

 

[jonathan180iq]

One of my most central criticisms of Religion is that people simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it claims. In other-words it seems like a bunch of people just making stuff up. So is religion just making stuff up?

*** 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.

The experiential aspect of one's feelings towards religious "moments" are quite real - but the conclusions about why and how they happened are 100% fabricated.

It is, exactly, just a bunch of made-up mumbo jumbo.

I know a lot of people find that insulting due to the sincerity of their feelings towards their particular faith of choice - but that doesn't make it any less true. It's mostly all just a bunch of imaginary nonsense.

 

[Augustus]

So an interesting moral question would be this: If you know your neighbor's wife is being abused, should you look the other way?

This would depend on whether or not you believed it was possible to improve her situation as a result of your intervention. If it was more likely you would make it worse then it is not morally justifiable.

Societies are complex and not easily 'fixed' by outsiders. Humans have an inbuilt bias towards action, if we see something that is broken/wrong/harmful etc. we prefer to act than do nothing. This is often hubristic though and we only end up making things worse.

While it goes against our egotistical beliefs, usually the best thing you can do is do nothing and let other societies solve their own problems their own way.

 

[Augustus]

I know a lot of people find that insulting due to the sincerity of their feelings towards their particular faith of choice - but that doesn't make it any less true. It's mostly all just a bunch of imaginary nonsense.

Do you believe the same is true about your own worldview?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Do you believe the same is true about your own worldview?

Yes, I do.

It's important for everyone to recognize the ridiculousness of most of our conversations, arguments, and points of view. I do not exclude myself from being part of "everyone".

To this day, people still kill each other over make believe differences in fairy tale ideologies. We are amazingly absurd - every single one of us.

 

[icehorse]

This would depend on whether or not you believed it was possible to improve her situation as a result of your intervention. If it was more likely you would make it worse then it is not morally justifiable.

That seems like an evasive false choice.

While it goes against our egotistical beliefs, usually the best thing you can do is do nothing and let other societies solve their own problems their own way.

And this assumes that those within the society are all happy campers. One of the egregious "fixes" I've advocated many times is a shift from indoctrination to education. There are millions of girls in the world hoping for a decent education, and being denied that basic right. Call me egotistical if you will, but if your answer is "let them sort it out for themselves", I'd say that that's a cold and heartless attitude.

 

[Muffled]

I believe some religions are made up and some are not.

I believe I have Jesus (God) in me and that is not egotistical but simply reality although I might be smug since I have everything I need in Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

The experiential aspect of one's feelings towards religious "moments" are quite real - but the conclusions about why and how they happened are 100% fabricated.

It is, exactly, just a bunch of made-up mumbo jumbo.

I know a lot of people find that insulting due to the sincerity of their feelings towards their particular faith of choice - but that doesn't make it any less true. It's mostly all just a bunch of imaginary nonsense.

I believe that means you are clairvoyant or imagine you are since you think you can look inside a person's mind and tell if imagination is at work or not. Or maybe you are just using your imagination to come up with your assessment.

Why do you think feelings are real and yet do not speak of logical assessment? Are you assuming that religious people have real feelings but their thoughts are bogus?

 

[Quintessence]

This seems like a fair point. That said, it seems to me that we're typically debating the predominant cases and not so much the edge cases.

I don't know what I would classify as "predominant" or "edge" and am not sure that really matters. When I look at a set of ideas to evaluate, I really do not care how old or new it is or whose mouth it came out of. I look at the merits on their own basis and whether or not they look to be useful for some function in my life right now. Or in someone else's life. I don't have a monopoly on ways of life after all... different cultures are allowed to have their own way of doing things, yeah? I'm leery of assessing someone else's ways as "backwards" because they are different from mine. There has been far too much of that ethnocentrism in Western history. Both conflicts and cooperations will come out of such diversity.

EDIT to fix formatting... sorry about that. XD

 

[icehorse]

quint:

I don't have a monopoly on ways of life after all... different cultures are allowed to have their own way of doing things, yeah? I'm leery of assessing someone else's ways as "backwards" because they are different from mine

Up to a point. If you were to add " as long as their cultural practices didn't conflict with the UDHR" I'd agree.

I don't think you're advocating for pure moral relativism are you?

 

[syo]

One of my most central criticisms of Religion is that people simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it claims. In other-words it seems like a bunch of people just making stuff up. So is religion just making stuff up?

I think religion is based on observation and understanding.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think you're advocating for pure moral relativism are you?

Hmm. How to frame this...

As someone who doesn't view reality in moral terms (I suppose you could say I'm a moral nihilist/skeptic/amoral?), it would be inaccurate to say I would advocate for moral anything. But, from the perspective of people who do think morals are a thing, I suppose where I fall on things would probably be perceived by them as pure relativism. Apparently impartiality and objectivity - pure observation without passing judgement on things - reads that way to some?

I dunno. I never really explain this right.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I believe that means you are clairvoyant or imagine you are since you think you can look inside a person's mind and tell if imagination is at work or not. Or maybe you are just using your imagination to come up with your assessment.

Why do you think feelings are real and yet do not speak of logical assessment? Are you assuming that religious people have real feelings but their thoughts are bogus?

An impressive moment, filtered through an accepted worldview, alters the way in which that moment is experienced and expressed in retelling. You don't have to be clairvoyant to understand how a mind works, especially when you have one yourself...

Do you not find it odd that Christians attribute their moving experiences to the handiwork of God (with a Jesus facet), while Muslims explain the same experiences to the handiwork of Allah, who is essentially the same god, but while purposefully excluding or rejecting the Jesus facet? Hindus attribute their experiences to their gods, just as the Romans and Greeks did to theirs, and so on. All religious people attribute their human experience to something other than themselves - generally something that they've accepted mentally - something completely imaginary and without substantiation.

The experience, then, can be said to be a shared and common (and therefore real) experience - a normal emotional response of human physiology and psychology to any given variable. The spiritual and mythological explanations, however, are limited to the presuppositions of the faithful, who explain the experience through a set framework (dogma). This variable nature of explanation is what should logically lead us to conclude that the latter part of our subject is wholly subjective - wishful thinking - made up - delusional - nonsense... however you wish to describe it.

When you break down any given experiential moment, the explanation could range from the more familiar, like the movement of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ through a crowd of people hopeful for his mercy, to something less common like invisible gremlins who like to pull on people's arm pores when they hear a certain type of music, causing goosebumps. Those two explanations for the phenomena of "hair raising emotions" are equally as substantiated and equally as ridiculous. The only difference is that one gets met with defensive sentimentality and the other is agreed to be absurd.

 

[Augustus]

That seems like an evasive false choice.

Forget that analogy, as fixing a problem between 2 people is completely different from fixing social issues due to the potential for unintended consequences in complex systems.

Would you agree that it is immoral to interfere in other people's affairs if the probability is that you will simply make them worse than before?

There is a medical term iatrogenesis which is harm caused by the treatment of an illness. We overmedicate and overtreat ourselves because of our bias towards 'doing something' even when doing nothing is the least bad option.

This also applies to social affairs.

And this assumes that those within the society are all happy campers. One of the egregious "fixes" I've advocated many times is a shift from indoctrination to education. There are millions of girls in the world hoping for a decent education, and being denied that basic right. Call me egotistical if you will, but if your answer is "let them sort it out for themselves", I'd say that that's a cold and heartless attitude.

No. It assumes that you can't fix everything you want to be able to fix. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, etc. It is very difficult to impose solutions from outside against the will of large sections of society, and seeing as you are not the ones who bear the cost of your bungling attempts to do good it is immoral.

The problem with intervention in complex social issues is that we cannot predict the consequences of our interventions, no matter how noble our aims. Western interventionism has done more than just about anything else to turn people away from 'Western values'.

Unless social change is organic, it is unlikely to stick.

 

[icehorse]

Hmm. How to frame this...

As someone who doesn't view reality in moral terms (I suppose you could say I'm a moral nihilist/skeptic/amoral?), it would be inaccurate to say I would advocate for moral anything. But, from the perspective of people who do think morals are a thing, I suppose where I fall on things would probably be perceived by them as pure relativism. Apparently impartiality and objectivity - pure observation without passing judgement on things - reads that way to some?

I dunno. I never really explain this right.

In your post #153 you mentioned that things can be "useful". I agree that usefulness is "good". It strikes me that you would agree that some things can be labeled "good" and others "bad"? From my perspective that requires some sort of philosophical set of axioms, or at least one axiom. For me: "promoting well being is 'good' " is my axiom. I acknowledge that I can't prove that my axiom is true. My intuition is that it is, but that's all.

Do you have any such axiom?

 

[icehorse]

The problem with intervention in complex social issues is that we cannot predict the consequences of our interventions, no matter how noble our aims. Western interventionism has done more than just about anything else to turn people away from 'Western values'.

Unless social change is organic, it is unlikely to stick.

Much of "western intervention" has been negative, no disagreement there. But I would suggest that we broaden our definition of "intervention". If we include things like vaccinations, and medical advancements, electricity, clean water, better agricultural practices and so on into the definition of "interventions", then I think that changes the equation. Again, slowly reducing the amount of indoctrination and increases the amount of education, seems moral, humane, and compassionate.