Lying Culture and the Role of Traditional Religions

[icehorse]

Who claimed religion sanctifies lying more than any other system?

I wasn't quite THAT black and white, but guilty (more or less), as charged.

 

[McBell]

I wasn't quite THAT black and white, but guilty (more or less), as charged.

thank you

 

[Augustus]

Well they both accumulated great financial wealth while being stingy with the poor. And being stingy with the poor goes directly against the ideology they preach(ed).

People are hypocritical, it's part of our nature. It needs no religious support.

For the moment I'll accept your idea that we're discussing religion vs. rationalism.

I'm not.

I was giving an example of how it can be produce greater well being to believe in some ridiculous falsehood than something closer to the truth.

irst off, I would disagree that rationalists are "cold". To be truly kind is a complex undertaking. Second, speaking as a rationalist, I would say that there is a LOT of data to support the idea that an honest understanding of our nature frequently leads to civilized solutions. Yes we have our flaws, but there is much in our nature that is quite kind, compassionate, altruistic, community minded, and so on.

I wasn't referring to Rationalism here.

'Rationalists' do not have a cold or even remotely rational view of humanity, it is as based on emotionally comforting myths as any other.

The cold view of humanity I was referring to is one free of myths. We are just animals after all, and pretty violent ones at that.

To whatever extent we can become civilised depends on the kind of myths we subscribe to, not some arbitrary truth value.

 

[icehorse]

People are hypocritical, it's part of our nature. It needs no religious support.

Zooming out for a minute. As we wander around from debate to debate, it seems to me that one of your common arguments is that when anything bad is potentially attributed to religion, you will point out that "this bad thing happens outside of religion as well". And it's true as far as it goes. but if you consistently take this stance, are you also tacitly agreeing that religion has no good points?

The cold view of humanity I was referring to is one free of myths. We are just animals after all, and pretty violent ones at that.

To whatever extent we can become civilised depends on the kind of myths we subscribe to, not some arbitrary truth value.

In a recent post I pointed out all the ways in which we are innately "good", care to comment on those?

As for the myths vs. truth values... I have never heard such a claim before, and I'm struggling to see how you came to it - can you elaborate?

 

[columbus]

People are hypocritical, it's part of our nature. It needs no religious support.

This is exactly why I think your opinions here are false equivalencies of the Revoltingest sort.

Humans have plenty of poor mental processes. We don't need to make that worse by teaching people to accept lies. Not all religious teachings do that to the same extent by any means. But, as an example, teaching people that gays shouldn't have the same civil rights as straights because an ethically primitive guy centuries ago claimed that God Hates F@gs is based on the false premise that God delivered all the necessary information to some prophet/ warlord in the bronze age.
So, yeah, I do think that adding a layer of religious lies to the human capacity for error multiplies the errors more than the comfort factors.
Tom

 

[VioletVortex]

In Western society, "traditional" religion generally refers to Christianity. How traditional can it be, really? It has been around for 2000 years. There are religions that date back to the Neolithic times and possibly before.

 

[Augustus]

Zooming out for a minute. As we wander around from debate to debate, it seems to me that one of your common arguments is that when anything bad is potentially attributed to religion, you will point out that "this bad thing happens outside of religion as well". And it's true as far as it goes. but if you consistently take this stance, are you also tacitly agreeing that religion has no good points?

Religion is good when it contributes to people doing good things. It is bad when the opposite happens.

It can also be good when it stops people from believing in worse ideologies. Post-religious ideologies have, pound for pound, a worse track record, it's not all Secular Humanism.

I don't put religion on this pedestal that others do. It's just another form of ideology, and while there are many notable negatives, its longevity has generally made it relatively stable. Post-religious 20th C ideologies, when freed from this conservatism, were exceptional in terms of their brutality.

In a recent post I pointed out all the ways in which we are innately "good", care to comment on those?

We can be good, kind, altruistic. We can be violent, selfish and cruel.

They are equally part of our nature and significantly dependent on environmental conditions.

The mitigation of this lies not in 'correcting' other people's ways of thinking, but putting in place a structure that reduce the potential for conflict that results from our different, and irredeemably flawed, ways of thinking.

As for the myths vs. truth values... I have never heard such a claim before, and I'm struggling to see how you came to it - can you elaborate?

The OP equated 'truth' with goodness. I equate goodness with goodness.

When all ideologies are based on subjective narratives it's pretty pointless to focus on 'truth' of any when determining value.

 

[icehorse]

When all ideologies are based on subjective narratives it's pretty pointless to focus on 'truth' of any when determining value.

Zooming out, I'd say that apart from pure relativism, ALL ideologies and philosophies rely on some axiomatic values. If we can peel off the outer layers we can hope to expose those values.

For example, I value well being and "scientific values" which I've listed many times. From the relativistic perspective, I cannot defend those values. But I can operate from them, and I think it's fairly easy for me to show how my actions are in keeping with these values.

My sense is that:

1 - the core values of a religion are not so easy to enumerate or are self-inconsistent
2 - many actions taken in the name of religion run counter to the religion's stated values

 

[Augustus]

Zooming out, I'd say that apart from pure relativism, ALL ideologies and philosophies rely on some axiomatic values. If we can peel off the outer layers we can hope to expose those values.

For example, I value well being and "scientific values" which I've listed many times. From the relativistic perspective, I cannot defend those values. But I can operate from them, and I think it's fairly easy for me to show how my actions are in keeping with these values.

My sense is that:

1 - the core values of a religion are not so easy to enumerate or are self-inconsistent
2 - many actions taken in the name of religion run counter to the religion's stated values

Many individuals can enumerate the core values of their religion too. They just start from different axioms to you and their thoughts are often consistent within these.

As for the double standards. Our thoughts are inconsistent and frequently hypocritical due to the nature of our cognition. Our mind operates on a 'modular' basis rather than a holistic one which makes such double standards innate to our ways of thinking and means we often fail to notice them.

Even if they are brought to our attention, we have to still overcome numerous biases that work against us acknowledging our hypocrisy.

While ideologies make people biased, they don't necessarily make them liars.

Those who promote 'scientific values' rarely apply these when analysing the role of religion throughout history, much preferring polemic and anecdote to any actual academic research. Rationalists are still just as irrational as the rest of us (or perhaps sometimes more so).

Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals. Paradoxically, a political party united by supernatural beliefs can revise its beliefs about economics or climate without revisers being bad coalition members. But people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision. To question or disagree with coalitional precepts, even for rational reasons, makes one a bad and immoral coalition member—at risk of losing job offers, one's friends, and one's cherished group identity. This freezes belief revision.

Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human appetite to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally.

 

[Augustus]

This is exactly why I think your opinions here are false equivalencies of the Revoltingest sort.

What makes you believe that people would be less hypocritical without religion? Why is religion distinct from other ideologies/worldviews? Why does religion make people more hypocritical than, say, politics?

So, yeah, I do think that adding a layer of religious lies to the human capacity for error multiplies the errors more than the comfort factors.

What makes them lies rather than simply ignorant beliefs?

 

[osgart]

religion is ignorant belief with a strong desire for a higher truth rationalized and deluded.

it is also politically driven.

there is a truth though contrary to human nature . It's far above us and quite simple and it is of the heart . fix your hearts toward selfless motives and maintain your self survival,take only what you need and you'll find truth but not a lot of people is living it.

truth is the balance of self and selfless motives. it is many simple things. it is giving deserve where you are regarded for your virtue.

 

[LukeS]

If there we no lies, then the liar paradox would vanish.

 

[metis]

Honesty and truth are great attributes for a society. However, we live in a society where lying is accepted.

And I fully agree with you on both counts as the level of "acceptable" lying is far worse than when I grew up in the 50's. And the thought that we now have a president that even some Republican leaders have labeled as a "pathological liar" is evident as to how far we've sunk on the "honesty scale". [sorry to get political, but it's a good example-- unfortunately]