6 ms·

Whether it has some basis in reality is besides the point. The defining characteristic of a religious institution is that it promotes faith as an epistemology,

Whether it has some basis in reality is besides the point. The defining characteristic of a religious institution is that it promotes faith as an epistemology, thus explicitly encouraging people to engage in more irrationality.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma is a fiction without any basis in reality". You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution?
- hectorlorenzo 9y ago
  Have you read this? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fai...
  - steanne 9y ago
    i have to go with siderea's response https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html
    - vacri 9y ago
      What's always missing from these discussions is that that patronising mockery and outright dismissal is how atheists and agnostics have always been treated by the religious - it wasn't until atheists started really kicking and screaming about the injustice that people started to take note. One the one hand you have folks like this complaining of atheists merely being (gasp) rude!, and on the other hand you have things like some states in the US still not allowing atheists to hold office, by articles in their consitutions[1]. It's exactly the same with women's rights and minority civil rights: "Really, people would listen to them more if they just toned down and spoke politely". We already know that that doesn't work and just gets you ignored. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/?utm_term=.5b10c6e2d2f9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/t...
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      Both those articles, and the comments seem focused on liberal's tolerance of religion as a problem, to a degree that astonishes me as an outsider looking into their communities. The crushing weight of cognitive dissonance seems so vast that it lends an almost religious aura to their discussions as they carefully avoid the rather glaring truth that religion permeates US politics at all levels but that it's clearly more ingrained on the Republican side.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma is a fiction without any basis in reality". Lack of nuance? Maybe. Lack of reality? Not really. I don't think nuance is helpful here. The fundamental defining characteristic of the institution is faith as an epistemology. The details of how exactly this irresponsible epistemology is constructed don't really contribute anything to the understanding of why that makes it a bad institution. > You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution? No, it's simple, but not simplistic. And whether it's a way to jumpstart a useful dialog? That's generally difficult to judge before you see the result, really.
- vacri 9y ago
  Given that Catholicism (like other religions) has wholly retreated to and now lives only in the area of "questions that have no answer", yes, it has no basis in reality. Nothing in Catholic dogma is independently verifiable. For example, the justifications around the eucharist literally being the blood and body of christ require some truly incredible mental gymnastics, and this transubstantiation is a core element of the faith. Yet strangely, the bread and doesn't literally change into the flesh and blood for the Protestants... So where does the 'useful dialogue' start? I think it starts well before we just give moral authority to a bunch of very old men arguing about rules that only they made up. They should give us a better chain of authority than "since time immemorial".
  - Gupie 9y ago
    No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. I also would not quite agree that religion has retreated to "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps", i.e. the creation, consciousness etc. These are very large gaps in scientific understanding, but of course this does not mean we need supernatural explanations for them, and it would be reasonable to expect science to fill these gaps eventually. But then again there might be limits to what can explain.
    - vacri 9y ago
      > No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation Plenty of people have believed it historically. Scroll down to the Catholic section and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics I talked about to claim it in modern times. Protestants don't believe in literal transubstantiation; I'd say they probably trust their taste-buds more, but then again, compare Protestant/Anglo-German food against Catholic/Franco-Italo-Spanish food :) > "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps" I don't personally see a difference between these terms - they both mean claiming to have an answer for something that is unanswerable. If you have an answer for which the only proof is basically "just trust me", then it's not much of an answer. Russell's Teapot is a pretty clear example of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- thriftwy 9y ago
  Isn't all the christianity based on what is unsatisfactory chain of evidence? There's this thing that Jesus rose from the dead, and also this thing that he delegated his authority to his apostles (including people who never actually saw him in person). Both are very weak arguments.
  - foldr 9y ago
    The phrase the parent used was "basis in reality". There is good evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified.
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      Sure, but is there overwhelming evidence that he did the impossible and rose from the dead? Last time I researched the issue, I was incredibly underwhelmed by the reasons that were used to defend a belief in an actual resurrection.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Religious institution != religion. Especially in case or large, mainstream religions, where the institution itself has little direct influence on how people live their lives. Religions are all about community, and for communities, traditions and beliefs are usually social objects, i.e. arbitrary things around which a community forms. The question of whether it's really true or false is - to most Catholics - just about as relevant as the question whether Star Trek is true or false is relevant to Trekkies. The issues those communities are debating are not about how their beliefs match reality, but how their beliefs match the canon around which the community is built.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Religions are all about community No, communities are all about community. There are religious communities. But there is also religion and even religious institutions that are not about community. And there are communities that are not religious. The thing that distinguishes religion, be it a community or otherwise, from non-religion is the promotion of faith as an epistemology. > The question of whether it's really true or false is - to most Catholics - just about as relevant as the question whether Star Trek is true or false is relevant to Trekkies. How relevant it is to them is not the question. The question is how epistemologyically sound their position is. The average Trekkie will, if asked, correctly accept the proposition that the universe they are a fan of is fictional. The average Catholic on the other hand will, if asked, incorrectly accept the proposition that the universe they are a fan of is real. Also, the latter is consistently a part of the indoctrination, so it's kindof dishonest to claim that they don't consider it relevant.
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  very true. but communities built on lies, wishful thinking and self-projections end up eventually in troubles (and usually eventually end). major religions did get most of things right, otherwise they wouldn't remain around for millennia, but eventually fail some simple logic tests. for me, abstract concept of faith is great. I have absolutely 0 need for it and can lead happy moral fulfilled life without it, but if it helps billions to be better humans inward and outward, great for them and all of us. the problem starts when corrupted, greedy, f*ed up people with tons of issues take this faith, bend it to their current desires and push millions into wars, despair and overall dark ages. few hundred/thousands of years from now on, if humans still live, they will look back and wonder how otherwise smart mankind could base so much of their existence around such weird illogical things. at least I hope so...
foldr 9y ago
>it promotes faith as an epistemology, thus explicitly encouraging people to engage in more irrationality. Catholicism probably puts less emphasis on faith than pretty much any other theistic religion. Its main doctrines are supported by volumes of dense (and rather tedious) rational argumentation.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  So, catholicism doesn't hold that a god exists, then?
  - foldr 9y ago
    It holds that God's existence can be established by rational argument.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Which itself is an irrational position to hold, so if that is indeed a position they hold, they hold it by faith.
      - foldr 9y ago
        No, they hold it on the basis of certain arguments for God's existence.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        How do irrational arguments for the existence of a god support the position that that god's existence can be established by rational argument?
        foldr 9y ago
        I am not taking a position on whether the arguments are good or bad. But supposing the arguments are bad, sincerely believing something on the basis of a bad argument is not the same as believing it by faith.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma is a fiction without any basis in reality". You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution?

hectorlorenzo 9y ago
Have you read this? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fai...
- steanne 9y ago
  i have to go with siderea's response https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html
  - vacri 9y ago
    What's always missing from these discussions is that that patronising mockery and outright dismissal is how atheists and agnostics have always been treated by the religious - it wasn't until atheists started really kicking and screaming about the injustice that people started to take note. One the one hand you have folks like this complaining of atheists merely being (gasp) rude!, and on the other hand you have things like some states in the US still not allowing atheists to hold office, by articles in their consitutions[1]. It's exactly the same with women's rights and minority civil rights: "Really, people would listen to them more if they just toned down and spoke politely". We already know that that doesn't work and just gets you ignored. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/?utm_term=.5b10c6e2d2f9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/t...
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Both those articles, and the comments seem focused on liberal's tolerance of religion as a problem, to a degree that astonishes me as an outsider looking into their communities. The crushing weight of cognitive dissonance seems so vast that it lends an almost religious aura to their discussions as they carefully avoid the rather glaring truth that religion permeates US politics at all levels but that it's clearly more ingrained on the Republican side.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma is a fiction without any basis in reality". Lack of nuance? Maybe. Lack of reality? Not really. I don't think nuance is helpful here. The fundamental defining characteristic of the institution is faith as an epistemology. The details of how exactly this irresponsible epistemology is constructed don't really contribute anything to the understanding of why that makes it a bad institution. > You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution? No, it's simple, but not simplistic. And whether it's a way to jumpstart a useful dialog? That's generally difficult to judge before you see the result, really.
vacri 9y ago
Given that Catholicism (like other religions) has wholly retreated to and now lives only in the area of "questions that have no answer", yes, it has no basis in reality. Nothing in Catholic dogma is independently verifiable. For example, the justifications around the eucharist literally being the blood and body of christ require some truly incredible mental gymnastics, and this transubstantiation is a core element of the faith. Yet strangely, the bread and doesn't literally change into the flesh and blood for the Protestants... So where does the 'useful dialogue' start? I think it starts well before we just give moral authority to a bunch of very old men arguing about rules that only they made up. They should give us a better chain of authority than "since time immemorial".
- Gupie 9y ago
  No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. I also would not quite agree that religion has retreated to "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps", i.e. the creation, consciousness etc. These are very large gaps in scientific understanding, but of course this does not mean we need supernatural explanations for them, and it would be reasonable to expect science to fill these gaps eventually. But then again there might be limits to what can explain.
  - vacri 9y ago
    > No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation Plenty of people have believed it historically. Scroll down to the Catholic section and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics I talked about to claim it in modern times. Protestants don't believe in literal transubstantiation; I'd say they probably trust their taste-buds more, but then again, compare Protestant/Anglo-German food against Catholic/Franco-Italo-Spanish food :) > "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps" I don't personally see a difference between these terms - they both mean claiming to have an answer for something that is unanswerable. If you have an answer for which the only proof is basically "just trust me", then it's not much of an answer. Russell's Teapot is a pretty clear example of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
thriftwy 9y ago
Isn't all the christianity based on what is unsatisfactory chain of evidence? There's this thing that Jesus rose from the dead, and also this thing that he delegated his authority to his apostles (including people who never actually saw him in person). Both are very weak arguments.
- foldr 9y ago
  The phrase the parent used was "basis in reality". There is good evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    Sure, but is there overwhelming evidence that he did the impossible and rose from the dead? Last time I researched the issue, I was incredibly underwhelmed by the reasons that were used to defend a belief in an actual resurrection.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Religious institution != religion. Especially in case or large, mainstream religions, where the institution itself has little direct influence on how people live their lives. Religions are all about community, and for communities, traditions and beliefs are usually social objects, i.e. arbitrary things around which a community forms. The question of whether it's really true or false is - to most Catholics - just about as relevant as the question whether Star Trek is true or false is relevant to Trekkies. The issues those communities are debating are not about how their beliefs match reality, but how their beliefs match the canon around which the community is built.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Religions are all about community No, communities are all about community. There are religious communities. But there is also religion and even religious institutions that are not about community. And there are communities that are not religious. The thing that distinguishes religion, be it a community or otherwise, from non-religion is the promotion of faith as an epistemology. > The question of whether it's really true or false is - to most Catholics - just about as relevant as the question whether Star Trek is true or false is relevant to Trekkies. How relevant it is to them is not the question. The question is how epistemologyically sound their position is. The average Trekkie will, if asked, correctly accept the proposition that the universe they are a fan of is fictional. The average Catholic on the other hand will, if asked, incorrectly accept the proposition that the universe they are a fan of is real. Also, the latter is consistently a part of the indoctrination, so it's kindof dishonest to claim that they don't consider it relevant.
saiya-jin 9y ago
very true. but communities built on lies, wishful thinking and self-projections end up eventually in troubles (and usually eventually end). major religions did get most of things right, otherwise they wouldn't remain around for millennia, but eventually fail some simple logic tests. for me, abstract concept of faith is great. I have absolutely 0 need for it and can lead happy moral fulfilled life without it, but if it helps billions to be better humans inward and outward, great for them and all of us. the problem starts when corrupted, greedy, f*ed up people with tons of issues take this faith, bend it to their current desires and push millions into wars, despair and overall dark ages. few hundred/thousands of years from now on, if humans still live, they will look back and wonder how otherwise smart mankind could base so much of their existence around such weird illogical things. at least I hope so...

foldr 9y ago

>it promotes faith as an epistemology, thus explicitly encouraging people to engage in more irrationality. Catholicism probably puts less emphasis on faith than pretty much any other theistic religion. Its main doctrines are supported by volumes of dense (and rather tedious) rational argumentation.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
So, catholicism doesn't hold that a god exists, then?
- foldr 9y ago
  It holds that God's existence can be established by rational argument.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    Which itself is an irrational position to hold, so if that is indeed a position they hold, they hold it by faith.
    - foldr 9y ago
      No, they hold it on the basis of certain arguments for God's existence.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        How do irrational arguments for the existence of a god support the position that that god's existence can be established by rational argument?
        foldr 9y ago
        I am not taking a position on whether the arguments are good or bad. But supposing the arguments are bad, sincerely believing something on the basis of a bad argument is not the same as believing it by faith.