Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

[syo]

I blame disgusting democracy.

 

[icehorse]

It makes little difference.

An “outsider” lecturing you about how you need to buck up your ideas is divisive, especially when these ideas form a core part of your identity and are not directly relevant to the important issues you are seeking to build consensus over.

So whatever phrase you prefer, it’s divisive and for no real benefit to your stated goals and helps contribute to an "us v them" mentality.

This is why it is incongruous.

Every individual is self aware to a degree and their self awareness changes over time. Few people take the time to inventory their beliefs and assess them. Many beliefs go unstated (are implicit).

So let's drop strawmen like "an outsider lecturing" shall we?

A religious person who's gaining self awareness might hear "you know, religion X has very divisive teachings", and they might think about that explicitly in a way they never have before.

If no one ever exposes the idea that most religions are divisive, they are apt to remain so.

You still seem to be missing my point completely.

Chipping away at religion doesn’t reduce division. This is the thing I’ve been saying since the start.

You can’t remove religion you can only replace it with something else. The something else you replace it with (ideology/worldview) will be divisive.

Given our past discussions I'm surprised to hear you say that. So I'm guessing I'm not understanding you?

We know that - for example - Christianity has evolved a lot over the centuries, hence the idea of "the god of the gaps". The world has been, sometimes successfully, chipping away at religion for centuries. And AGAIN, I'm suggesting helping religions evolve to be less divisive. Some religions (Jainism perhaps), are not divisive.

1 - When you say religion is fundamentally divisive, then this seems to give them special qualities not present in other worldviews. There is no meaningful difference between religious ideologies and irreligious ones in general though imo.

2 - You think dogmatic religion causes division, I think dogmatic religion is simply one manifestation of human cognition and people prone to such views are prone to such views and will find an ideology that fulfils their needs.

3 - The diversity of human belief systems and cultural traditions is divisive, so either we aim to reduce cultural diversity, or start to find solutions that accept we will have to try to work with those whose ideologies we do not particularly like.

1 - No on several points, that I'll reiterate:
- popular religions, as they've evolved, tend to be divisive. This isn't baked into religion.
- I've already agreed that religion is not the only divisive force we grapple with.

2 - Probably true for some people but not most. for many, they were indoctrinated into religion at an early age, and a different indoctrination could lead to healthy results.

3 - Diversity is not the same thing as divisiveness And for sure, diversity can flourish and not be divisive.

Or we have to accept that our world, as long as the nation state exists, will contain nationalism. We then have to find a way to make it less fragile while accepting divisive ideologies will always exist.

Mostly agreed!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Where'd you get that?

We're naturally tribal. Tribal cohesion got us through the ice age.
We crave tribes. We'll always find something to unite us, but usually in sub-Dunbar numbers. World unity and long-term planning are beyond our natural inclinations, and possibly our abilities.

Sorry I am just now catching up on this response. I agree with you here. Ever since the telegraph people have been hoping for world unity, but it has eluded all attempts.

That’s not how human group psychology seems to work. Environmental protection is just one part of a political ideology and political ideologies are divisive.

So to say religion is divisive, doesn’t make much sense unless there are alternatives than are less divisive.

Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be many.

(Religion is probably the most unifying force in human history, other than perhaps national identity)

What about money?

Religion has been trying to unify people but has not been very successful as far as I can see, unless we count indirect effects (which are debatable). Its easy to get religious people divided. All you have to do is get a few people concerned about some issue which previously gathered little or no attention, then get them panicking; and suddenly one religion is two. It works in politics, too; and we see it all the time used in politics and pulpits.

I am surprised that you find ecumenical efforts to be encouraging. Do you believe they are working? There is the challenge laid down by Christ to unify, but even he did not command it. He only prayed for it to happen.

I agree with a lot of what you have said to Icehorse, though, with the exception that religious people often focus way too much upon the afterlife and upon miracles. I agree he's got this backwards, thinking that religion divides people. Even my least favorite religion (Islam) is not responsible for that but rather is weak against it. Weakness is not cause just as catching a cold makes one contagious but does not make you the inventor of cold viruses.

There is a lot of evidence to support you claim that we're divisive by nature. But it seems to me that if we cannot change our naturre in this regard, we're doomed. And my argument is that - hard as it might be - we must find ways to work together. Religion - among other things - is a force that encourages divisiveness. It's not the only such force, but it is an important one.

For the length of this post I explain by saying I have been busy. I partly agree with you. I know it looks like I completely disagree; but I only disagree with saying religion is the primary cause of division.

Within religion in my opinion the primary cause of division is the afterlife. Some people cannot handle facts about death very well. They lean heavily towards magical thinking. It has to do with children and suffering and the madness and unfairness of death. Almost any thought is an acceptable alternative to death, and this creates and is the source of almost all religious division. Almost any argument must uphold belief in an afterlife, an end to suffering, justice and ultimately some happy or satisfactory ending. If you want to 'Fix' division in religion, you are in for an endless fight. You will never expunge the hope in immortality and an end to all suffering.

 

[icehorse]

I agree with a lot of what you have said to Icehorse, though, with the exception that religious people often focus way too much upon the afterlife and upon miracles. I agree he's got this backwards, thinking that religion divides people. Even my least favorite religion (Islam) is not responsible for that but rather is weak against it.

Hmmm. To be clear that we're talking about the same context, I would agree that religion tends to bind people within a given religion to each other. But the context I'm thinking about is between different religions. It seems clear to me that if you're a Muslim, non-Muslims are to be shunned. If you're a Christian, non-Christians are to be converted, and so on. No?

Within religion in my opinion the primary cause of division is the afterlife. Some people cannot handle facts about death very well. They lean heavily towards magical thinking. It has to do with children and suffering and the madness and unfairness of death. Almost any thought is an acceptable alternative to death, and this creates and is the source of almost all religious division. Almost any argument must uphold belief in an afterlife, an end to suffering, justice and ultimately some happy or satisfactory ending. If you want to 'Fix' division in religion, you are in for an endless fight. You will never expunge the hope in immortality and an end to all suffering.

I agree that religion makes the afterlife a big deal. I understand it's magical thinking, but why must this be a divisive topic?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hmmm. To be clear that we're talking about the same context, I would agree that religion tends to bind people within a given religion to each other. But the context I'm thinking about is between different religions. It seems clear to me that if you're a Muslim, non-Muslims are to be shunned. If you're a Christian, non-Christians are to be converted, and so on. No?

It is true if and only if you are very concerned with the afterlife. I don't remember whether you have lived in religious circles, but this is the overriding issue that in my opinion is the root of all that divides people. Any sort of fractious and angry disagreement uses the afterlife as an excuse. It comes down to afterlife things.

I agree that religion makes the afterlife a big deal. I understand it's magical thinking, but why must this be a divisive topic?

The fact is: humanity is not rational, and we don't like dying. Those two things together mean the topic is guaranteed to be precious. Children are shocked at the concept of death, but adults especially parents are the ones who have difficulty accepting it. Ever had a child die? Ever thought about your own child dying? Ever seen a mother worry about sending her child off to camp? The idea of children going to heaven is more powerful than ten Einsteins and six Wright Brothers and twelve Shakespeares and ninety trips to Disney World. You aren't even allowed to suggest that a child's death might be permanent. It is rude. It is unthinkable not merely unspeakable, yet you ask me to explain why it might be a divisive topic. I respect you Ice Horse, but welcome to planet Earth.

 

[icehorse]

It is true if and only if you are very concerned with the afterlife. I don't remember whether you have lived in religious circles, but this is the overriding issue that in my opinion is the root of all that divides people. Any sort of fractious and angry disagreement uses the afterlife as an excuse. It comes down to afterlife things.

The fact is: humanity is not rational, and we don't like dying. Those two things together mean the topic is guaranteed to be precious. Children are shocked at the concept of death, but adults especially parents are the ones who have difficulty accepting it. Ever had a child die? Ever thought about your own child dying? Ever seen a mother worry about sending her child off to camp? The idea of children going to heaven is more powerful than ten Einsteins and six Wright Brothers and twelve Shakespeares and ninety trips to Disney World. You aren't even allowed to suggest that a child's death might be permanent. It is rude. It is unthinkable not merely unspeakable, yet you ask me to explain why it might be a divisive topic. I respect you Ice Horse, but welcome to planet Earth.

Again, I think we're talking past each other a bit. I agree with most of what you just said. And even though I do not believe in an afterlife, I'm not suggesting that the religious need to give up that bit of thinking.

So let me rephrase this: Assuming most people need to believe in an afterlife - a belief that's shared across most religions - why must that belief cause divisiveness across religions?

For example, as I understand it, Jainism believes in an afterlife AND manages to be non-divisive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, I think we're talking past each other a bit. I agree with most of what you just said. And even though I do not believe in an afterlife, I'm not suggesting that the religious need to give up that bit of thinking.

So let me rephrase this: Assuming most people need to believe in an afterlife - a belief that's shared across most religions - why must that belief cause divisiveness across religions?

Because of in part the idea of the truth. I mean as a skeptic I don't have that problem because I don't need the idea of the truth to have a life.
Now ever noticed that it is not as much the idea of an afterlife that we fight over. But what is the truth as how to get there? And even that is not the only case of the truth. Ever done a political debate about the truth of a good, health and productive secular life. That is in effect no different that God and the afterlife.

In Western term it is the ideas of the Imperium, rationality and God that all share the idea of how to get to the truth.
Well, news flash, it ain't there. We have been trying for over 2000 years and it is the most noble and dangerous idea ever conceived.
So as a skeptic I trust false more and the rest is what ever that is, but it is not the truth.
Now limited different practical versions of what works, okay. But the truth of it all, please. That is easy to falsify. I just act differently and out the door goes the truth.

 

[Brickjectivity]

For example, as I understand it, Jainism believes in an afterlife AND manages to be non-divisive.

I'm unfamiliar with Jainism, however going by the wikipedia the Jain conception of Samsara is that of not having an afterlife. Instead you start over here on Earth, completely memory wiped. That is not an afterlife belief, Icehorse. That is an acceptance of death.

So let me rephrase this: Assuming most people need to believe in an afterlife - a belief that's shared across most religions - why must that belief cause divisiveness across religions?

No, it isn't a belief that is shared. They are a tender, no-touch variety of beliefs that are not shared across religions. They are the 'Why'. There is no further why behind them.

Again, I think we're talking past each other a bit. I agree with most of what you just said. And even though I do not believe in an afterlife, I'm not suggesting that the religious need to give up that bit of thinking.

I'm attempting to convince you that this is exactly what you are requesting when you say that religion needs to stop being divisive; because it is only this topic that truly divides religious people. All are willing to let almost anything else change or be negotiated, except that everything connects to this topic. If the color of the drapes relates to the afterlife then the color of the drapes becomes something to die over. The trinity is contentious, only because it relates to this topic. Muhammad's words are only contentious, because it relates to this topic. Denominations are only contentious because of this topic. Fundamentalism is only held to be important because of this topic. It is only this topic which you are asking to be changed, because it is only this which would accomplish what you are asking.

 

[icehorse]

No, it isn't a belief that is shared. They are a tender, no-touch variety of beliefs that are not shared across religions. They are the 'Why'. There is no further why behind them.

Muslims believe they'll go to paradise. Christians believe they'll go to heaven. I'm not understanding why those two beliefs have to be divisive? You go to paradise, I'll go to heaven, everyone wins, right?

Zooming back out again, my sense is that religious divisiveness is mostly about inertia. Tribes were important 2000 years ago, and that tribal orientation has persisted.

 

[Augustus]

Every individual is self aware to a degree and their self awareness changes over time. Few people take the time to inventory their beliefs and assess them. Many beliefs go unstated (are implicit).

So let's drop strawmen like "an outsider lecturing" shall we?

A religious person who's gaining self awareness might hear "you know, religion X has very divisive teachings", and they might think about that explicitly in a way they never have before.

If no one ever exposes the idea that most religions are divisive, they are apt to remain so.

Why do you think it is a strawman?

It's an elementary fact of human psychology that an outsider criticising the in-group generally provokes a negative reaction, and often causes a defensive response that reduces the chance of attitude change.

Given our past discussions I'm surprised to hear you say that. So I'm guessing I'm not understanding you?

We know that - for example - Christianity has evolved a lot over the centuries, hence the idea of "the god of the gaps". The world has been, sometimes successfully, chipping away at religion for centuries. And AGAIN, I'm suggesting helping religions evolve to be less divisive. Some religions (Jainism perhaps), are not divisive.

All belief systems are divisive because they hold different values and thus create differing preferences, see for example left v right wing politics in any Western country

Some belief systems are more divisive than others, but they all have their own 'sacred values' and when these clash we get problems (as one you are interested in, free speech v 'verbal violence' for example).

Some people like to think they don't really have an ideology and their beliefs are "neutral" or "natural", but this is a conceit.

1 - No on several points, that I'll reiterate:
- popular religions, as they've evolved, tend to be divisive. This isn't baked into religion.
- I've already agreed that religion is not the only divisive force we grapple with.

What evidence is there that the average religious ideology is more divisive then the average ideology in general?

2 - Probably true for some people but not most. for many, they were indoctrinated into religion at an early age, and a different indoctrination could lead to healthy results.

Then you would need to identify what they should be indoctrinated into, and why this would lead to better results.

3 - Diversity is not the same thing as divisiveness And for sure, diversity can flourish and not be divisive.

You are not quite taking the correct meaning here.

Divisiveness is caused by the conflict between different cultures.

A secular humanist and a conservative protestant disagree because their ideologies are incompatible, not because one ideology is divisive and the other isn't.

Conservative Protestants and Muslims might have more in common than either do with a SH.

Jainism believes in an afterlife AND manages to be non-divisive.

Jainism can certainly be divisive, as any puritanical believer can look down on those who don't have the "superior" morals of the Jain ascetic.

What do you see as a non-divisive secular ideology?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Muslims believe they'll go to paradise. Christians believe they'll go to heaven. I'm not understanding why those two beliefs have to be divisive? You go to paradise, I'll go to heaven, everyone wins, right?

I feel you are asking me to repeat. I don't understand what you are getting at. Belief in the afterlife is divisive. Its not divisive because of a rule that it must be. It is divisive on its own without anyone making it so; and then people attach other riders to that importance and to that division. No, everybody does not win, nor is it debatable whether one goes to paradise or heaven. And. Whenever you have an issue that divisive, there will almost always be someone who is psychologically attracted to worsening the situation to personally benefit. Division is power, and it is a source of power. Ever see a power struggle between little brothers? One is always the smartest and has been fighting the longest and will use small arguments to get an advantage over the younger less experienced. It is no different that when there is some crucial fear built into a social group that someone will use it as a lever. It is part of the fabric of our lives, built in not baked in.

How did Narmer conquer Egypt and unite its southern and northern parts? He probably used disagreement over the afterlife to get his army fired up, so he could conquer the south. Its how he kept his armies flogging the nations around them; and then he passed this on to his progeny who used the same trick for a thousand years. The gods of the afterlife must be kept in plunder. Plunder is what they desire. Always.

But what if there were no kings and no Narmer? What if there were no religions, or what if everyone was a Jain? Then someone would disagree and would start talking about the afterlife, and then someone would disagree. And then someone would take advantage of that. And then people would really get upset. Because it is part of the material humanity is composed of. We just hate to accept death, and we are not nice people and also we'd rather fight than let it go. We'd rather die than accept death, ironically. This is my opinion, but I'm pretty convinced.

The fact is: humanity is not rational, and we don't like dying. Those two things together mean the topic is guaranteed to be precious. Children are shocked at the concept of death, but adults especially parents are the ones who have difficulty accepting it. Ever had a child die? Ever thought about your own child dying? Ever seen a mother worry about sending her child off to camp? The idea of children going to heaven is more powerful than ten Einsteins and six Wright Brothers and twelve Shakespeares and ninety trips to Disney World. You aren't even allowed to suggest that a child's death might be permanent. It is rude. It is unthinkable not merely unspeakable, yet you ask me to explain why it might be a divisive topic. I respect you Ice Horse, but welcome to planet Earth.

 

[Augustus]

Religion has been trying to unify people but has not been very successful as far as I can see,

It has been phenomenally successful if you take the right frame of reference. Humanity's default state is small groups held together by personal relationships.

The fact we live in mass, impersonal societies, and have common transnational identities too is significantly a consequence, or perhaps historical legacy, of religion.

Of course the world is still very divided, but nothing is going to cure that problem, except perhaps an alien invasion

 

[icehorse]

It's an elementary fact of human psychology that an outsider criticising the in-group generally provokes a negative reaction, and often causes a defensive response that reduces the chance of attitude change.

that can happen, and it's probably predominant, but it's not inevitable. For example, the open-minded, fence-sitting, insider could bring such an idea to the in-group.

We DO see religions evolve over time! (Admittedly, some more than others, sigh.)

All belief systems are divisive because they hold different values and thus create differing preferences, see for example left v right wing politics in any Western country

Some belief systems are more divisive than others, but they all have their own 'sacred values' and when these clash we get problems (as one you are interested in, free speech v 'verbal violence' for example).

Some people like to think they don't really have an ideology and their beliefs are "neutral" or "natural", but this is a conceit.

I'm not so sure that values are all that different. I suspect that power-seekers (religious and otherwise), foment unrest by drumming up faux value differences. But I think for "the person on the street" core values are far more aligned than not.

What evidence is there that the average religious ideology is more divisive then the average ideology in general?

Not a claim I made.

Then you would need to identify what they should be indoctrinated into, and why this would lead to better results.

Agreed. I've heard several interesting ideas (by no means exhaustive), such as: teach comparative religion, teach critical thinking,
teach comparative philosophy..

Earlier you said:

3 - The diversity of human belief systems and cultural traditions is divisive, so either we aim to reduce cultural diversity, or start to find solutions that accept we will have to try to work with those whose ideologies we do not particularly like.

then you said:

Divisiveness is caused by the conflict between different cultures.

A secular humanist and a conservative protestant disagree because their ideologies are incompatible, not because one ideology is divisive and the other isn't.

Conservative Protestants and Muslims might have more in common than either do with a SH.

To both I would say that you're often correct but that your claims aren't necessarily always true.

I don't think any of what I'm suggesting is easy. But I don't think we ought to rule out options that are possible just because they're not predominant, correct?

What do you see as a non-divisive secular ideology?

the golden rule would be an example.

 

[icehorse]

I feel you are asking me to repeat. I don't understand what you are getting at. Belief in the afterlife is divisive. Its not divisive because of a rule that it must be. It is divisive on its own without anyone making it so;

Sincerely, I'm trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that HISTORICALLY is usually divisive?


If not, can you explain how it's divisive on it's own? I mean you could point to how a Muslim's details concerning entry to paradise differ from a Christian's details concerning entry to Heaven. And yes, those conflicting sets of details have tended to be divisive. But isn't that just how these two religions have CHOSEN to declare their details? Could they not instead have chosen a set of details that could have differed from other religions but not be divisive? E.g., why couldn't religion X's doctrine say: "Anyone who follows the golden rule will live again after death in a wonderful place".

But what if there were no kings and no Narmer? What if there were no religions, or what if everyone was a Jain? Then someone would disagree and would start talking about the afterlife, and then someone would disagree. And then someone would take advantage of that. And then people would really get upset. Because it is part of the material humanity is composed of. We just hate to accept death, and we are not nice people and also we'd rather fight than let it go. We'd rather die than accept death, ironically. This is my opinion, but I'm pretty convinced.

No doubt you have overwhelming historical evidence on your side.

But it strikes me that if we don't evolve past that, society will soon collapse.

So I'm convinced we're in a "Change or Die" moment, and it's not in my makeup to throw in the towel, regardless of the odds.

 

[icehorse]

I blame disgusting democracy.

I think unregulated, un-monitored, oligarchy-driven economies are a HUGE problem.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sincerely, I'm trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that HISTORICALLY is usually divisive?


If not, can you explain how it's divisive on it's own? I mean you could point to how a Muslim's details concerning entry to paradise differ from a Christian's details concerning entry to Heaven. And yes, those conflicting sets of details have tended to be divisive. But isn't that just how these two religions have CHOSEN to declare their details? Could they not instead have chosen a set of details that could have differed from other religions but not be divisive? E.g., why couldn't religion X's doctrine say: "Anyone who follows the golden rule will live again after death in a wonderful place".

It is not the details of religions. It is that some people are not happy, because death is terrible. Any doubt or any flaw they detect in their religion brings around the specter of being wrong about the afterlife. Often there is an internal struggle between accepting the religion and the teacher or facing death. Its a false dichotomy but an easy dichotomy, and people tend towards easy dichotomies. We prefer not to think about hard things, and we prefer to farm out our thinking to an authority. Therefore trauma accompanies disagreement with our religions that have positions on the afterlife. If I as a Christian have a doubt about Jesus it also brings up the specter of death. I suddenly have a lot to think about, and I don't like that. Its like learning to play chess without a teacher and losing every time.

It is not human to tell the truth. Truth is a compromise with society and a learned behavior, but it is more natural to have a set of beliefs which we prefer to have: such as whatever our elders or leaders tell us to think and which makes everyone maximally happy. It is natural for most of us to obtain our beliefs from leaders and even our moral decisions. Those of us who believe in truth and in everyone being honest, we are a kind of homunculus. We are in a way deceived in what we perceive humanity to be. It is not a truth machine. Many of us who have grown up with free will probably also feel confused about moral issues and are uncomfortable thinking them through. It is stressful and takes mental effort to think through morality. I believe this is down to the human brain and its constant attempts to conserve energy. Its that simple.

We are being harmed by our brains. Brains want to save calories. They are evolved things, and they still are rigged to survive on scarce food supplies.

You will find many people on RF that know more History, so I am not trying to say that there can be no exceptions historically. I have provided one historical situation. There are many more modern situations, ironically, in this time of knowledge of afterlife being used to create a division and empower a leader. Cults are examples such as Jim Jones. Death is hard to think about, so its one of the things we like to farm out. In the absence of a cult we tend to grab whatever feels right.

Death is a terrible thing. Philosophers say nice things like "Death gives meaning to life," but this does not help everyone. Death is imminent, oncoming, dark and scary and probably painful; and then all of our plans are destroyed. We face not merely the annihilation of our bodies but even of our memory, and we see ourselves becoming just a little more dirt for the plants. Its hard to accept if you don't know how.

No doubt you have overwhelming historical evidence on your side.

But it strikes me that if we don't evolve past that, society will soon collapse.

So I'm convinced we're in a "Change or Die" moment, and it's not in my makeup to throw in the towel, regardless of the odds.

If change is what you want then you must force the next generation to exercise their brains so hard that it becomes easy to think through moral situations. You must lower the energy barrier to thought. It will be very hard, like studying Talmud. Its got to be very difficult and stressful such that it lowers the energy required to think.

Another strange and probably far fetched idea is to give people special brain energy pills or to fit us with brain stimulation units. I wish I was joking.

 

[icehorse]

If change is what you want then you must force the next generation to exercise their brains so hard that it becomes easy to think through moral situations. You must lower the energy barrier to thought. It will be very hard, like studying Talmud. Its got to be very difficult and stressful such that it lowers the energy required to think.

Another strange and probably far fetched idea is to give people special brain energy pills or to fit us with brain stimulation units. I wish I was joking.

I agree that brains hoard their glucose.

The other approach to this problem is to radically improve how teaching is done. Think of Vulcan mind melds or Neo being strapped into the teaching chair and learning kung fu in 10 minutes.

There actually are some amazing approaches being developed.

 

[Riders]

Humanity is facing enormous problems these days. Climate change will likely displace a BILLION people from their homes in the next few decades. We're running out of fresh water and topsoil. We're likely to face huge crop failures and food shortages.

We need to work together, if we're to survive.

Religion is fundamentally divisive, not inclusive. Sure, there are exceptions. But mostly religion is divisive. Either you're a Muslim, or you're not. Either you're a Christian or you're not. This "us vs. them" worldview is exactly what we DO NOT NEED at this critical juncture.

We need inclusive, critical thinking. We do not need divisive, magical thinking.

And while I'm at it, most identity politics these days shares a lot in common with religion. The most important / destructive way in which this is true is in the establishment and defense of DOGMA. We need new dogma like we need a hole in the head.

Back in the 60s and 70s we used to say "question authority". It's still good advice, but I'd amend it a bit and say:

"Question authority and question dogma".

Oh, I agree there will be a time in the next 20 to 30 to 40 years that the environment will be killing us off. If we have any chance whatsoever to save our world we will have to come together in race and religion in peace.

 

[Riders]

It is not the details of religions. It is that some people are not happy, because death is terrible. Any doubt or any flaw they detect in their religion brings around the specter of being wrong about the afterlife. Often there is an internal struggle between accepting the religion and the teacher or facing death. Its a false dichotomy but an easy dichotomy, and people tend towards easy dichotomies. We prefer not to think about hard things, and we prefer to farm out our thinking to an authority. Therefore trauma accompanies disagreement with our religions that have positions on the afterlife. If I as a Christian have a doubt about Jesus it also brings up the specter of death. I suddenly have a lot to think about, and I don't like that. Its like learning to play chess without a teacher and losing every time.

It is not human to tell the truth. Truth is a compromise with society and a learned behavior, but it is more natural to have a set of beliefs which we prefer to have: such as whatever our elders or leaders tell us to think and which makes everyone maximally happy. It is natural for most of us to obtain our beliefs from leaders and even our moral decisions. Those of us who believe in truth and in everyone being honest, we are a kind of homunculus. We are in a way deceived in what we perceive humanity to be. It is not a truth machine. Many of us who have grown up with free will probably also feel confused about moral issues and are uncomfortable thinking them through. It is stressful and takes mental effort to think through morality. I believe this is down to the human brain and its constant attempts to conserve energy. Its that simple.

We are being harmed by our brains. Brains want to save calories. They are evolved things, and they still are rigged to survive on scarce food supplies.

You will find many people on RF that know more History, so I am not trying to say that there can be no exceptions historically. I have provided one historical situation. There are many more modern situations, ironically, in this time of knowledge of afterlife being used to create a division and empower a leader. Cults are examples such as Jim Jones. Death is hard to think about, so its one of the things we like to farm out. In the absence of a cult we tend to grab whatever feels right.

Death is a terrible thing. Philosophers say nice things like "Death gives meaning to life," but this does not help everyone. Death is imminent, oncoming, dark and scary and probably painful; and then all of our plans are destroyed. We face not merely the annihilation of our bodies but even of our memory, and we see ourselves becoming just a little more dirt for the plants. Its hard to accept if you don't know how.




If change is what you want then you must force the next generation to exercise their brains so hard that it becomes easy to think through moral situations. You must lower the energy barrier to thought. It will be very hard, like studying Talmud. Its got to be very difficult and stressful such that it lowers the energy required to think.

Another strange and probably far fetched idea is to give people special brain energy pills or to fit us with brain stimulation units. I wish I was joking.

I weigh 300 pounds and am 56 years old. I think about death a lot.

 

[Augustus]

the golden rule would be an example.

This isn't an ideology, and it's perfectly compatible with religion

An ideology is a broad worldview that explains the way things are and how they should be and comprises a system of values that inform thoughts and behaviours.

Christianity, Secular Humanism, Feminism, etc. are ideologies (as are nameless personal value systems), but the golden rule is simply a single ethical principle, not an ideology. It may form part of an ideology, but it is not one in itself.

The GR is to some extent modified by the ideology you do hold. The GR might tell you to fight the oppression of others. It might tell you to shut up and mind your own business.

My guess is you think people should be more like secular humanists

Not a claim I made.

I don't really get the point of the OP then

Religion is fundamentally divisive, not inclusive. Sure, there are exceptions. But mostly religion is divisive.

Religion is divisive, but not more divisive than the average replacement for religion/secular ideology, but still religion is preventing us from solving problems like climate change because it prevents us from working together. Even though we only need to form 'big enough' groups, religions, despite being 'big enough' groups already are an impediment as they are so divisive we need to reform them instead of taking them as they are and focusing directly on the biggest threats to humanity?

that can happen, and it's probably predominant, but it's not inevitable. For example, the open-minded, fence-sitting, insider could bring such an idea to the in-group.

We DO see religions evolve over time! (Admittedly, some more than others, sigh.)

Saying things like "your beliefs are fundamentally divisive" is about the least effective method of persuasion one could use, and even if you get the odd 'fence sitter' you've probably made dozens hostile to your viewpoint.

Division is not caused by one side, but the incompatibility between both sides

Agreed. I've heard several interesting ideas (by no means exhaustive), such as: teach comparative religion, teach critical thinking,
teach comparative philosophy..

A lot of the problems are caused by the social and economic environment and the intellectual environment adapts to these.

Religious divisions often map onto ethnic/cultural/class differences and become markers of difference, not causes of difference. It then becomes a kind of dynamic loop.

Look at US Dem v Pub for a real time example of how people adopt completely arbitrary oppositional positions that then become hills they are willing to die on.

This is significantly driven by the US zero sum, winner takes all system between 2 evenly balanced sides. Your side win or it loses, no in between, and when you lose you see it as a threat to your way of life.

Democratisation often leads to communal violence in a way that authoritarian rule didn't (India/Pakistan, Maluku, Balkans, etc.) as you fear your side will lose out so your neighbour becomes your enemy.

For me solutions need to focus more on preventing the idea that your group will lose out, and especially that we do not threaten your way of life.

So using the US as an example, you wouldn't try to get the evangelicals to be more like secular humanists, you would decentralise power and create a more federal US. Blue states can have liberal policies and red states conservative ones without California liberals being ruled by Alabama republicans and vice versa.

It's far from a silver bullet, but is better than the alternative.

To both I would say that you're often correct but that your claims aren't necessarily always true.

I don't think any of what I'm suggesting is easy. But I don't think we ought to rule out options that are possible just because they're not predominant, correct?

If you are going to wait until we've taught everyone to follow tolerant, humanistic ideologies and reformed religions, we will be dead and buried.