5 ms·

There is one defining characteristic of religion: The acceptance of unsubstantiated claims as actual fact, i.e., faith. Please explain how that is something tha

There is one defining characteristic of religion: The acceptance of unsubstantiated claims as actual fact, i.e., faith. Please explain how that is something that society needs. Redefining religion to encompass any kind of shared values is a cheap trick to legitimize the destructive nature of dogma and of teaching people that accepting nonsense as fact is a virtue by pretending that a secular state is a religion--which is just absurd.

lolc 8y ago
Every society needs common beliefs to function. These beliefs are arbitrary in the sense that there are other beliefs that would work just as well. All secular states have a flag used for ceremonial purposes for example. It's supposed to create a feeling of unity. Just like religious symbols do. Sure we can talk about matters of degree. Not all societies have an all-seeing god, for example.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Every society needs common beliefs to function. These beliefs are arbitrary in the sense that there are other beliefs that would work just as well. First of all, you are confusing two very distinct concepts here under the label "belief", just as religions usually do. One is "stuff you think you know about how the world works", the other is "how you think certain things should be done". Your "beliefs" as to how certain things should be done are arbitrary to a degree. If your "beliefs" about how the world works are arbitrary, then your epistemology is heavily broken, in particular it is probably lacking falsifiability. Things you let go close to the surface of the earth either fall down or they don't. If you believe the latter, you are just wrong. This is the concept of "belief" that I was talking about above: Religions make unsubstantiated claims about how the world works and indoctrinate people into accepting that nonsense as factual knowledge about the world, claiming that doing so (what they then call "faith", another such misleading equivocation) is a virtue. Now, you need common beliefs about how the world works for the simple reason that if two people have contradicting beliefs about how the world works, at least one of them is wrong, and being wrong about how the world works is not conducive to controlling your environment. In that sense, it is much less confusing to simply say that a society needs accurate beliefs about how the world works--which necessarily will be common. As for common beliefs about how certain things should be done: Well, yes, you need that, too, and while those can be arbitrary to a degree, it isn't all that much of a degree, because most of how things should be done is a consequence of how the world works, and if it isn't, you are, again, wrong. > All secular states have a flag used for ceremonial purposes for example. It's supposed to create a feeling of unity. Just like religious symbols do. So? Are there any unsubstantiated claims in the existence of a national flag? Why do you mention this?! Religions do lots of stuff that non-religions do, which is exactly why those things are not defining characteristics of religions. > Not all societies have an all-seeing god, for example. Which is indeed an example of an unsubstantiated claim that religions sell as factual. And a claim that secular states do very well without. Which is precisely why it is absurd to pretend that secular states are religions.
  - lolc 8y ago
    While I can agree that my definition of religion is very broad, I have trouble to see where to draw the line. I'd say this is an unsubstantiated claim: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Does that sentence define how the world works? Or does it define how we want to live? Or does it kinda both? The point I'm trying to make here is that religion should be understood as a system of government. And that we would do well to understand even secular governments under the same terms. Not as a guide, but for clarity. I don't pretend secular governments to be religions. I simply define them as such and then see what fits and what doesn't. It's very illuminating to me. The superstitions are not very interesting in that regard. I think they get too much credit. Insisting that religions are defined by their superstitions misses a large part of what they are and why they exist.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." > Does that sentence define how the world works? Or does it define how we want to live? Or does it kinda both? Well, the part about being created by a creator is an unsubstantiated claim about how the world works--and also completely unnecessary. That is, unless you want to appeal to people who have already been indoctrinated into thinking bad of you if you don't accept such unsubstantiated claims. The function of that sentence otherwise is simply to declare how the signatories think their state(s) should be governed. > The point I'm trying to make here is that religion should be understood as a system of government. Well, but if you understand religion as a system of government, that doesn't make all systems of government religions, does it? Otherwise, you are just using "religion" as a synonym for "system of government", which is at best pointless (because we already have the term "system of government") and at worst extremely confusing (because most people will understand "religion" to mean something very different than "system of government"). > And that we would do well to understand even secular governments under the same terms. Not as a guide, but for clarity. Aren't you just saying that it is insightful to compare religions to other systems of government? Well, yeah, sure. But in order to make an insightful comparison between trains and planes you don't have to define trains to be a "kind of plane, just without flight". > I don't pretend secular governments to be religions. I simply define them as such and then see what fits and what doesn't. But that is how you do pretend they are religions. While you are free to define terms however you want, if you just implicitly use definitions that deviate from common understanding, you are misleading your audience. > The superstitions are not very interesting in that regard. I think they get too much credit. Are you saying that superstitions (and the epistemology that supports them) have no significant influence on how religious people behave as compared to non-religous people? > Insisting that religions are defined by their superstitions misses a large part of what they are and why they exist. So, what would be an example of what religions are and why they exist that is not superstition and also doesn't apply to non-religions (because, if it applies to non-religions, it's not a defining characteristic specific to religions)?

lolc 8y ago

Every society needs common beliefs to function. These beliefs are arbitrary in the sense that there are other beliefs that would work just as well. All secular states have a flag used for ceremonial purposes for example. It's supposed to create a feeling of unity. Just like religious symbols do. Sure we can talk about matters of degree. Not all societies have an all-seeing god, for example.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Every society needs common beliefs to function. These beliefs are arbitrary in the sense that there are other beliefs that would work just as well. First of all, you are confusing two very distinct concepts here under the label "belief", just as religions usually do. One is "stuff you think you know about how the world works", the other is "how you think certain things should be done". Your "beliefs" as to how certain things should be done are arbitrary to a degree. If your "beliefs" about how the world works are arbitrary, then your epistemology is heavily broken, in particular it is probably lacking falsifiability. Things you let go close to the surface of the earth either fall down or they don't. If you believe the latter, you are just wrong. This is the concept of "belief" that I was talking about above: Religions make unsubstantiated claims about how the world works and indoctrinate people into accepting that nonsense as factual knowledge about the world, claiming that doing so (what they then call "faith", another such misleading equivocation) is a virtue. Now, you need common beliefs about how the world works for the simple reason that if two people have contradicting beliefs about how the world works, at least one of them is wrong, and being wrong about how the world works is not conducive to controlling your environment. In that sense, it is much less confusing to simply say that a society needs accurate beliefs about how the world works--which necessarily will be common. As for common beliefs about how certain things should be done: Well, yes, you need that, too, and while those can be arbitrary to a degree, it isn't all that much of a degree, because most of how things should be done is a consequence of how the world works, and if it isn't, you are, again, wrong. > All secular states have a flag used for ceremonial purposes for example. It's supposed to create a feeling of unity. Just like religious symbols do. So? Are there any unsubstantiated claims in the existence of a national flag? Why do you mention this?! Religions do lots of stuff that non-religions do, which is exactly why those things are not defining characteristics of religions. > Not all societies have an all-seeing god, for example. Which is indeed an example of an unsubstantiated claim that religions sell as factual. And a claim that secular states do very well without. Which is precisely why it is absurd to pretend that secular states are religions.
- lolc 8y ago
  While I can agree that my definition of religion is very broad, I have trouble to see where to draw the line. I'd say this is an unsubstantiated claim: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Does that sentence define how the world works? Or does it define how we want to live? Or does it kinda both? The point I'm trying to make here is that religion should be understood as a system of government. And that we would do well to understand even secular governments under the same terms. Not as a guide, but for clarity. I don't pretend secular governments to be religions. I simply define them as such and then see what fits and what doesn't. It's very illuminating to me. The superstitions are not very interesting in that regard. I think they get too much credit. Insisting that religions are defined by their superstitions misses a large part of what they are and why they exist.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." > Does that sentence define how the world works? Or does it define how we want to live? Or does it kinda both? Well, the part about being created by a creator is an unsubstantiated claim about how the world works--and also completely unnecessary. That is, unless you want to appeal to people who have already been indoctrinated into thinking bad of you if you don't accept such unsubstantiated claims. The function of that sentence otherwise is simply to declare how the signatories think their state(s) should be governed. > The point I'm trying to make here is that religion should be understood as a system of government. Well, but if you understand religion as a system of government, that doesn't make all systems of government religions, does it? Otherwise, you are just using "religion" as a synonym for "system of government", which is at best pointless (because we already have the term "system of government") and at worst extremely confusing (because most people will understand "religion" to mean something very different than "system of government"). > And that we would do well to understand even secular governments under the same terms. Not as a guide, but for clarity. Aren't you just saying that it is insightful to compare religions to other systems of government? Well, yeah, sure. But in order to make an insightful comparison between trains and planes you don't have to define trains to be a "kind of plane, just without flight". > I don't pretend secular governments to be religions. I simply define them as such and then see what fits and what doesn't. But that is how you do pretend they are religions. While you are free to define terms however you want, if you just implicitly use definitions that deviate from common understanding, you are misleading your audience. > The superstitions are not very interesting in that regard. I think they get too much credit. Are you saying that superstitions (and the epistemology that supports them) have no significant influence on how religious people behave as compared to non-religous people? > Insisting that religions are defined by their superstitions misses a large part of what they are and why they exist. So, what would be an example of what religions are and why they exist that is not superstition and also doesn't apply to non-religions (because, if it applies to non-religions, it's not a defining characteristic specific to religions)?