Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

[icehorse]

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

Maybe??? I'm not so sure. I would say that tribalism was an important survival strategy back in the day, but that it's now an outdated and dangerous strategy. I think it's more of a cultural artifact than a psychological one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Okay, I can work with that. I agree sort of.
But here is the problem. The other common solution is being rational and it won't work alone. You still have to believe in something, because rationality alone can't do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe??? I'm not so sure. I would say that tribalism was an important survival strategy back in the day, but that it's now an outdated and dangerous strategy. I think it's more of a cultural artifact than a psychological one.

Well, the last number I hear that an average person can hold close inter-personal connections to on a non-family level is around 250. Over that you need a believed social construct for it to work.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, I can work with that. I agree sort of.
But here is the problem. The other common solution is being rational and it won't work alone. You still have to believe in something, because rationality alone can't do.

Agreed. For example, I'm a secular humanist. I BELIEVE humans can solve their own problems without the intervention of the supernatural. (And, BTW, I openly admit that my belief is on shaky ground these days )

 

[icehorse]

Well, the last number I hear that an average person can hold close inter-personal connections to on a non-family level is around 250. Over that you need a believed social construct for it to work.

I have no expertise on this point, but it sounds plausible.

But for example, I could hold the idea that: "The community 500 miles from mine is using wind power more than solar power, so we're diverse, but not divisive."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agreed. For example, I'm a secular humanist. I BELIEVE humans can solve their own problems without the intervention of the supernatural. (And, BTW, I openly admit that my belief is on shaky ground these days )

Well, the dark joke is that there is no purpose in evolution and it is not a given that we make it. In fact our big brains made be what gets us in the end.
So here is my advice. Don't worry about something you can't control, but still try to do your best. That is all there as an individual.
Han Solo: Never tell me the odds.

Peace and take care.

 

[icehorse]

Well, the dark joke is that there is no purpose in evolution and it is not a given that we make it. In fact our big brains made be what gets us in the end.
So here is my advice. Don't worry about something you can't control, but still try to do your best. That is all there as an individual.
Han Solo: Never tell me the odds.

Peace and take care.

Thanks for some good discussion!

As for not being able to control things, a couple of thoughts:
- strive for good outcomes, but do not be attached
- it's all about the grass roots movements baby

 

[Augustus]

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

These a general ethical principles, they are not methods of organising society.

The problem is that the handful of hardwired moral principles we share can manifest themselves in completely incompatible ways based on culture and environment.

The idea we can unite behind something as vague as the golden rule and honesty is not a meaningful proposal.

It’s like saying “won’t somebody think of the children!”

Bingo! Hence the OP.

“If people became more like me then we could solve all our problems”

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.)

Solutions must start with realistic assumptions or they are likely to do nothing or even be harmful.

I’d say “in line with all available scientific, historical and anecdotal evidence” rather than pessimistic. It’s a bit like expecting Jesus to come back and save us all, I consider that highly implausible too, others may consider it something worth waiting for.


Bertie [Bertrand Russell] sustained simultaneously a pair of opinions ludicrously incompatible. He held that human affairs are carried on in a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since all we had to do was carry them on rationally."

John Maynard Keynes

 

[YoursTrue]

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"

I don't know, maybe I missed where you said that atheists may receive messages from unseen spirits, ghosts, or gods. Did you? I mentioned something like that in the post you seem to have responded to, but I don't think you said that atheists do not claim to receive messages from God, ghosts, spirits or angels. Because they don't believe in these things, right? If we could just stick to the point that would be helpful I suppose in a conversation. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

There is generally considered freedom off religion in the US. When I'm driving I can go past a synagogue (of various sectors of Judaism), churches (also of various viewpoints and sectors) and sometimes Islam. I don't see too many Hindu houses of worship where we live but I have seen them. Point being is that churches and synagogues and Islam, etc., all disagree with one another. Now to live at peace is another topic, but really the various houses of worship show that one view is Jesus is the Messiah, another is that he is not the Messiah. I guess it's like political viewpoints as long as the various factors do not work out their differences by being violent with one another, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

While I disagree with your strategy, I understand it.

One reason I propose to understand my premise is that greed and selfishness will not be done away with by humans figuring it out together by themselves as if they have the power to change basic human nature. (Selfishness and greed.) Nope, never be done.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Bingo! Hence the OP.

Except that Muslilms themselves have problems amongst themselves and their various divisions, right?

 

[icehorse]

@Augustus - let's fix a little "conversational drift" here:

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.

These a general ethical principles, they are not methods of organising society.

The problem is that the handful of hardwired moral principles we share can manifest themselves in completely incompatible ways based on culture and environment.

The idea we can unite behind something as vague as the golden rule and honesty is not a meaningful proposal.

It’s like saying “won’t somebody think of the children!”

My response (above) was in the context of your "adopt my values" comment. My point was ONLY that it's quite possible to want to work together without trying to change people. That's ALL I meant.

The comment you besmirched (with your "think of the children" snipe), you took MASSIVELY out of context. By no means was I claiming that we could use the golden rule as a uniting idea.

===

Solutions must start with realistic assumptions or they are likely to do nothing or even be harmful.

I’d say “in line with all available scientific, historical and anecdotal evidence” rather than pessimistic. It’s a bit like expecting Jesus to come back and save us all, I consider that highly implausible too, others may consider it something worth waiting for.

To reiterate, I said (more or less), we could assume that most healthy people share the golden rule as a good value. I think that's a realistic assumption. I never claimed it was a complete solution (doh!), but I gave it as an example of a shared value, one that counters your repeated claim that people just want others to be like them.

I'm also NOT claiming that using the golden rule is the ONLY way to start creating a unifying theme. But it could be one way to go about it.

 

[icehorse]

One reason I propose to understand my premise is that greed and selfishness will not be done away with by humans figuring it out together by themselves as if they have the power to change basic human nature. (Selfishness and greed.) Nope, never be done.

I would contend that MOST people, once they have the basics described by Maslov's hierarchy, are not greedy. A few people are greedy by nature, but I think people who have secure lives - a la Maslov - are not greedy. Greed is a side effect of fear.

 

[icehorse]

There is generally considered freedom off religion in the US. When I'm driving I can go past a synagogue (of various sectors of Judaism), churches (also of various viewpoints and sectors) and sometimes Islam. I don't see too many Hindu houses of worship where we live but I have seen them. Point being is that churches and synagogues and Islam, etc., all disagree with one another. Now to live at peace is another topic, but really the various houses of worship show that one view is Jesus is the Messiah, another is that he is not the Messiah. I guess it's like political viewpoints as long as the various factors do not work out their differences by being violent with one another, right?

I think you're proving the point of the OP here? It seems like you're agreeing that the main religions ARE basically in disagreement with each other?

 

[YoursTrue]

I would contend that MOST people, once they have the basics described by Maslov's hierarchy, are not greedy. A few people are greedy by nature, but I think people who have secure lives - a la Maslov - are not greedy. Greed is a side effect of fear.

I would say few are greedy by nature, but then I'm not sure what you mean by that. From these discussions I have learned that some will stick to their position no matter how ill conceived it may be. People overtaken by greed have to be (1) tempted, (2) vulnerable, and (3) not adhering to ethics of honesty. But now let's say they are honest and the government allows provisions where rich people can inflate the books. So what would cause a government to run out of money? Can't be proper spending, can it? (I don't think so. But it doesn't matter, because -- it -- exists.) Also, from these discussions I can see that few, if any, are going to change their attitude towards the various supposed fixations of human nature. Have a good one, as some people say. Not that I like that expression, but I wish you well anyway. Regardless of our differences.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think you're proving the point of the OP here? It seems like you're agreeing that the main religions ARE basically in disagreement with each other?

Of course. They surely aren't in agreement. If they were, there wouldn't be a church next to a synagogue or a mosque. They all signify different mindsets, and very imporant ones at that. Either the Messiah came or he did not. Either he was resurrected, or he was not. Etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know, maybe I missed where you said that atheists may receive messages from unseen spirits, ghosts, or gods. Did you? I mentioned something like that in the post you seem to have responded to, but I don't think you said that atheists do not claim to receive messages from God, ghosts, spirits or angels. Because they don't believe in these things, right? If we could just stick to the point that would be helpful I suppose in a conversation. Thanks.

What ever.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Here's the issue with that; what today is calles "identity politics" has always been around. Women's suffrage. Civil equality and rights for black people. It's why for decades now discriminate has been illegal based on things like military status, national origin, and religious creed.
Seems it's more a problem for those who want to pretend it's new and not share society.

 

[Augustus]

My response (above) was in the context of your "adopt my values" comment. My point was ONLY that it's quite possible to want to work together without trying to change people. That's ALL I meant.

The comment you besmirched (with your "think of the children" snipe), you took MASSIVELY out of context. By no means was I claiming that we could use the golden rule as a uniting idea.

Then we seem to be discussing 2 different things. My point was that you need to replace religion with "something else" and I was asking what this new less divisive ideology is and you responded with environment and golden rule.

If you weren’t offering these as a replacement, what would you say is the replacement for the divisiveness of religion?

Also, as you said religion is divisive and we should aim to replace it with something else, how would you explain this in the context of it not being a desire to change people towards your way of thinking?

I agree, we can work together with people with whom we share a common identity or common interests.

For complex, long term cooperation with those who you don't share an "irrational" bond of identity (or culturally defined obligation), you must share some "rational" common interests and also share the idea that any given cooperation is "fair and equitable" which is where the practice becomes much harder than the theory.

The problem is we rarely have such well aligned common interests, and without common identity we don’t want to continually and repeatedly sacrifice our own good for the benefit of others.

To reiterate, I said (more or less), we could assume that most healthy people share the golden rule as a good value. I think that's a realistic assumption. I never claimed it was a complete solution (doh!), but I gave it as an example of a shared value, one that counters your repeated claim that people just want others to be like them.

I'm also NOT claiming that using the golden rule is the ONLY way to start creating a unifying theme. But it could be one way to go about it.

If we can cooperate with those who don’t share our values, why the need to highlight religion as a specific problem blocking this?