Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

[YoursTrue]

Well, yes. But the problem is this. You can't isolate with critical thinking religion as a special negative. Religion is a natural as atheism.

I'd have to think about that. Ok I thought about it. Conflicting religious ideologies have not necessarily enhanced living. Also, atheists don't generally get messages they claim are from unseen spirits, do they? (Gnite, maybe we can analyze things later again... getting late. Gotta get up tomorrow although I'd love to stay up all night...take care.. )

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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".

Either you are rational or you are not. That is your trick. That one is to simple.

The problem is deeper that religion. The problem is in effect cognition and non-cognition for rational and morality.
What you want is that most of us get to level 5 of Kohlberg and even there, there is more than just that.

The problem is that even for a secular society like the Nordic ones, we are still diverse in effect, but we are not religious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd have to think about that. Ok I thought about it. Conflicting religious ideologies have not necessarily enhanced living. Also, atheists don't generally get messages they claim are from unseen spirits, do they? (Gnite, maybe we can analyze things later again... getting late. Gotta get up tomorrow although I'd love to stay up all night...take care.. )

No, they do this:
"
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
Our Vision"

 

[Quagmire]

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".

Religion serves a function in society. For a lot of people the function it serves is to allow them to have strong convictions that they don't have to put any thought into.

And you're right; for a vast number of people identity politics serves the very same purpose.

In order for mankind to start working together I think we'd have to come up with some sort of universal primary conviction about something.

Unfortunately, I think the way that's most likely to manifest itself would be in the day all of mankind suddenly wakes up, looks around , and screams, "Oh ****!! We're screwed!!".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would agree that we cannot place all the blame at the feet of religion. It's one of many sources of our problems. And - borrowing from Hitchens - if people want to do religion at home, that's fine. But when religion is brought into policy making, problems ensue.

I TOTALLY AGREE that probably the source of MOST of the world's problems stem from greed and corruption! But the greedy and corrupt have a far easier task when the people they're ripping off are magical thinkers, not critical thinkers. They're also easier to rip off when they're involved in in-fighting. So, while religion is not the source of all infighting, it's certainly a major contributor.

One example not related to religion is the idea that someone can prove in effect that someone else is wrong. You can also find that outside religion:
"

Definitions​

Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
Our Vision"

 

[Augustus]

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.

People who want to find ways to work together generally just want others to become more like them. "Everything would be fine, if only more folk adopted my values."

Religion wouldn't be divisive if everyone chose to be a Muslim though, yet you would find such a proposition ludicrous.

Oligarchs and politicians have made the environment political, but I do not believe it's political on it's own. And again, some of your arguments appear to boil down to "it's hard". Well I agree it's hard, but I do not believe we have a choice.

If you can think how you can make the economy, access to resources, quality of life, laws and regulations, culture and personal freedoms, etc. non-political, I'm all ears.

Until then, I'll consider it completely impossible.

A livable climate ought to completely level the "different interests" playing field, no?

No, because not all people are impacted equally by any given climate issue, it relies on long-term future projections and responses actively create differing interests.

Some people will have to make large sacrifices to help people they don't really care about in other countries or those living in future centuries. People will argue about who pays the most and who is responsible for past harms. People will argue about what the best response is.

Even if there was an extreme and imminent climate emergency that threatened human extinction, you are more likely to provoke desperate competition for survival than self-sacrifice for the common good.

You asked me for an example of another unifying topic. I would say that in general unifying topics have mostly been reduced to platitudes. That does not make them unimportant or invalid does it?

It makes them impractical as unifying ideas as the devil is in the detail.

We can all agree on the platitude unless we actually want to do something to achieve it.

This is one potential advantage of religion, the unifying factor is some fiction that people can share a nominal commitment too without it impacting the real world all that much. They are the free to disagree on real world issues whilst still playing for the same team.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People who want to find ways to work together generally just want others to become more like them. "Everything would be fine, if only more folk adopted my values."

Religion wouldn't be divisive if everyone chose to be a Muslim though, yet you would find such a proposition ludicrous.



If you can think how you can make the economy, access to resources, quality of life, laws and regulations, culture and personal freedoms, etc. non-political, I'm all ears.

Until then, I'll consider it completely impossible.



No, because not all people are impacted equally by any given climate issue, it relies on long-term future projections and responses actively create differing interests.

Some people will have to make large sacrifices to help people they don't really care about in other countries or those living in future centuries. People will argue about who pays the most and who is responsible for past harms. People will argue about what the best response is.

Even if there was an extreme and imminent climate emergency that threatened human extinction, you are more likely to provoke desperate competition for survival than self-sacrifice for the common good.



It makes them impractical as unifying ideas as the devil is in the detail.

We can all agree on the platitude unless we actually want to do something to achieve it.

This is one potential advantage of religion, the unifying factor is some fiction that people can share a nominal commitment too without it impacting the real world all that much. They are the free to disagree on real world issues whilst still playing for the same team.

Yeah, if we just could agree on what harm is, then we can leave it to science.
That one is the joke about some people because they think it is as easy as with the correct definition, then is over.

 

[icehorse]

That is not a feature of religion. That is human psychology. You can also find divisive ideologies, so it can't be religion.

I'm not talking about some theoretical definition of "religion". I'm talking about how the world's most popular religions are implemented in practice.

In practice, the world's most popular religions are divisive. For example, if you're a Christian or a Muslim then everyone else is going to hell. That's pretty divisive.

 

[icehorse]

It still wouldn't preserve the earth from being destroyed by humans. There is so much corruption, small and great. The only hope I have is God's kingdom rule.

While I disagree with your strategy, I understand it.

 

[icehorse]

Either you are rational or you are not. That is your trick. That one is to simple.

The problem is deeper that religion. The problem is in effect cognition and non-cognition for rational and morality.
What you want is that most of us get to level 5 of Kohlberg and even there, there is more than just that.

The problem is that even for a secular society like the Nordic ones, we are still diverse in effect, but we are not religious.

I'd say that there are important differences between diversity and divisiveness, correct? I think diversity is a positive force and divisiveness is a negative force.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not talking about some theoretical definition of "religion". I'm talking about how the world's most popular religions are implemented in practice.

In practice, the world's most popular religions are divisive. For example, if you're a Christian or a Muslim then everyone else is going to hell. That's pretty divisive.

And you are not rational and not normal, you are not relevant. That one is common, if you know how Kohlberg stage 3 works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd say that there are important differences between diversity and divisiveness, correct? I think diversity is a positive force and divisiveness is a negative force.

Yeah, but that is not really unique to religion.
A standard one in Denmark is that poor people are lazy in the end and need to pull themselves together.
It is easy to divide people into good and bad people.

 

[icehorse]

One example not related to religion is the idea that someone can prove in effect that someone else is wrong. You can also find that outside religion:
"

Definitions​

Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
Our Vision"

I have a few quibbles with these definitions, but largely I'd agree:

- paragraph 2 seems more true for secular humanists and materialists - but often true for atheists
- paragraph 3 - i call myself a secular humanist, and this paragraph on materialism seems closely aligned.

 

[icehorse]

And you are not rational and not normal, you are not relevant. That one is common, if you know how Kohlberg stage 3 works.

Say more? Are you talking about me specifically or me as a typical, non-rational human being? I agree that ALL humans are 95% driven by their subconscious and that in general no one is as rational as they think they are. With that said, if you think I'm less rational than the average rational person, I'd like to know why you say that

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, but that is not really unique to religion.
A standard one in Denmark is that poor people are lazy in the end and need to pull themselves together.
It is easy to divide people into good and bad people.

The OP did NOT claim that religion is the ONLY divisive force we're contending with. Only that is an important one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have a few quibbles with these definitions, but largely I'd agree:

- paragraph 2 seems more true for secular humanists and materialists - but often true for atheists
- paragraph 3 - i call myself a secular humanist, and this paragraph on materialism seems closely aligned.

"... a social system based on reason and justice ..." Never been done and we have tried for over 2000 years now in philosophy.
" Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited." That one is the promised land without God, but being Gods. And it is without evidence. In fact, it borders dogma.

There is at least one more that is problematic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Say more? Are you talking about me specifically or me as a typical, non-rational human being? I agree that ALL humans are 95% driven by their subconscious and that in general no one is as rational as they think they are. With that said, if you think I'm less rational than the average rationial person, I'd like to know why you say that

No, you are rational all right. The problem is that when you turn rational into something universal that can solve anything and degrades everybody else as being irrational. And then if you combine with the idea of being normal, you are in effect down the rabbit hole.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The OP did NOT claim that religion is the ONLY divisive force we're contending with. Only that is an important one.

Yes and no. Because the core problem is not religion. It is human psychology.

 

[icehorse]

People who want to find ways to work together generally just want others to become more like them. "Everything would be fine, if only more folk adopted my values."

I think that most people share an important subset of core values. E.g., the golden rule and it's related values like honesty.

Religion wouldn't be divisive if everyone chose to be a Muslim though, yet you would find such a proposition ludicrous.

Bingo! Hence the OP.

f you can think how you can make the economy, access to resources, quality of life, laws and regulations, culture and personal freedoms, etc. non-political, I'm all ears.

Until then, I'll consider it completely impossible.

I think this sort of pessimism makes things worse. It's not a neutral position.

(most of the rest of your post I think falls into the same pessimism category.)

 

[icehorse]

No, you are rational all right. The problem is that when you turn rational into something universal that can solve anything and degrades everybody else as being irrational. And then if you combine with the idea of being normal, you are in effect down the rabbit hole.

You've put words in my mouth here. Let me clarify:

Religion does not HAVE to be divisive. I believe there are some that are not. But Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism are the most popular religions (over FIVE BILLION followers combined), and they are all guilty of propagating divisive messages.

The people who follow those religions could CHOSE to amend those religions and excise the divisiveness. Back 2000 years ago tribalism was probably necessary for survival. But now tribalism could well be humanity's undoing.

One common (not universal, but common), characteristic of religion is that it uses the psychological tools of indoctrination and propaganda to capture and maintain its adherents. So I'm NOT degrading the religious or saying that they're irrational - in general. But I will claim that they've been victimized by their cultures into propagating these - as of 2023 - bad ideas.