7 ms·

> However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem. That I would disagree with. The defining characteristic of religion is faith, or the acceptance of u

> However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem. That I would disagree with. The defining characteristic of religion is faith, or the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims as factual truth. Faith is the most dishonest and irresponsible epistemology there is and has an obvious potential to be used for justifying unlimited badness, as has been demonstrated over and over. Ideas that have such massive risks I would say are pretty obviously a problem. > Like I said, people need to believe something and religions offer that service. That sounds very much like an unsubstantiated claim. The mere fact that it is common does not imply an innate need, but would be explained just as well by indoctrination--and the fact that lots of people who once felt just that need do overcome it using rational thought also suggests that it's at least not as inherent to humans as you make it out to be. > Even when countries have made religion illegal, they simply insert the state as the object of belief. I don't think that's a contradiction. Countries that aren't autoritarian just don't care about (lack of) religiosity of their citizens, but authoritarian states always demand submission to their doctrine and thus ban all other belief systems--in the case of theocratic states, they ban all other religions and sects, in the case of non-theocratic states, they ban all "traditional religions". None of that is about religion vs. lack of religion, it is only about banning competition. > This is because (IMHO) belief is necessary to the normal operation of human communities (and sometimes also because they want to abuse their populations ;-) ). I don't see why that should be.

mikekchar 8y ago
I have a potentially interesting task for you to perform. If I am wrong and belief is not required for human communities, then it is sufficient to build a general community that does not require belief. To show that this is generally applicable, and not just applicable if you cherry pick the individuals, the members of the community should be as picked as randomly as you can manage. Convince such a population and you will convince me as well!
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  Arguably, humanity is in the process of doing just that? Mind you, I didn't claim that you can de-indoctrinate all humans on the planet today. Chances are that some people are beyond that. But that's not even all that special for faith or indoctrination, some people just have extreme problems with rationally controlling their behaviour in some regards, and be it that they have OCD or some eating disorder. But just because some people have eating disorders that they have trouble overcoming, we don't say that "eating disorders are required for human communities". So, let's ignore that some minority might always exhibit some sort of religious behaviour. Then you will notice that religiosity is shrinking massively, despite being almost universal not so long ago, both due to people overcoming their religion and due to children not being indoctrinated and thus never getting the idea in the first place. That suggests that it's not all that hard-wired, doesn't it? Now, will there be a barrier where religion will stop shrinking? Who knows, but I don't see any reason why it unavoidably should.
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    Possibly it is. I'll be honest, if so then I'll be the first one celebrating. I'm not religious, but my wife is very religious. I suppose it is not surprising, both her father and younger brother were priests. It's taken me quite a long time to learn to appreciate what she gets from religion. I'll tell you, without pretense, that it has been challenging for me. However, at least for me (and you may very well find it different) I came to a realisation that I was being unreasonably biased against my wife's religion. In fact I had my own religion: science -- which I believed in quite strongly. I'm not talking about accepting models because they are useful. I generally believed these models to be true. Eventually I started to question why I believed the models to be true. Consistent things are often not as they appear. Why do I believe this consistent thing to be true. At least for me, I decided it's just another religion. And strangely, that allowed me to abandon it. I now believe in a very strange religion in which the universe appears to me to probably be very different, although consistent with our scientific models. Possibly I'm the only one in that religion and I have no problem with that. I think the point I'm trying to make is that, especially those of us who have a hard time with religion fall just as easily into our own religions. That's an embarrassing and difficult thing to look at. I literally moved from my native Canada to Japan, partly because I was frustrated with the implied Christianity of Canadian society -- almost as if it's a matter of common sense that you will be Christian if you aren't already spoken for by a different religion. I really enjoyed the fact that Christmas in Japan meant going out with your girlfriend to Kentucky Fried Chicken (seriously, you have to book 3 months in advance!) This is a pretty personal thing to post on a public forum, but I think it should be fine to say these kinds of things (or at least I wish to live in a world where it is), so hopefully nobody will take offense. But, (again my personal opinion, which I hope you will take as just an old guy being friendly) my wife really enjoys her religion. It brings many good things for her and, to be completely honest, while her religion has doctrine (which, incidentally, not all religions have) I haven't actually met anybody in her church that demands that doctrine. I was going to say that I have not met a single person who really had any interest in exploring the world beyond their doctrine in a church, but this is actually not true. One of my wife's friends is a priest who got a double major in astronomy and computer science (and had a pile of scholarships and studied in a whole bunch of famous universities). Then he became a priest. I asked him why, with the education he had that he decided to become a priest. He just said that he enjoyed being a priest. He believes in his religion and has no way to reconcile his education and his beliefs, but he is completely OK with that. I really miss him to be honest. He got posted to Malaysia (being a priest is a super hard job). He's one of the few people I've met in a church who ever accepted me for who I am and what I believe. He frequently stood up for me and explained to other people that not everybody believes what they believe. I was very grateful for that. These days, even though I don't believe what other people believe, I feel it is important to respect that belief. In human life there are a lot of contradictions. There are many things that don't match up (like my wife's friend, the priest). However, we all have biases and we all have points beyond which we regretfully don't look. We look past our own bigotry and somehow think that only our view must be right. Ironically, we tend to all be united in our discrimination. It's just my idea and it may be horribly flawed, but I think we need to first accept other people as they are before we invite them into our own field of vision. Sometimes that's hard to do. Anyway, again, I apologise if this meets you at a time when you aren't really in the mood to read it. I hope you take it in the spirit in which it is offered -- just an old guy rambling on about stuff that probably doesn't matter ;-) Even if I don't agree with you, I've really enjoyed thinking about what you have had to say. Thank you!
solidsnack9000 8y ago
> The defining characteristic of religion is faith... That's actually not true. One clue here is that many religions do not ask for faith, which is to say one does not actually observe a demand of faith universally in religions. Faith per se is not observable, so it would not do as a defining characteristic of religion. Frequently, religions only ask for ritual observance. This is the defining characteristic of religion -- ritual observance that affirms a person's commitment to a community and its values. Whether people "really believe" or not has no simple effect on whether the ritual serves to reinforce shared values or not. Many people feel bonded to a community and its values even when engaging with a mythology that is obviously fictitious, as for example when people go to the desert to burn the man every year; or dress up like aliens and head to Star Trek Vegas.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Many people feel bonded to a community and its values even when engaging with a mythology that is obviously fictitious, as for example when people go to the desert to burn the man every year; or dress up like aliens and head to Star Trek Vegas. Seriously? You are including hobby clubs of sorts into the definition of religions in order to support your claim that many religions do not ask for faith? So, atheist associations with regular meetings are religions, too, then, I suppose?
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    It is probably better to think of most religions as very dramatic hobby clubs. Just having regular meetings is not enough to be "performative" or "ritualistic". What if the atheist association always began every meeting with a hymn to Richard Dawkins, and then a ceremonial swim of a little model HMS Beagle around a miniature island, always widdershins (opposite to the sun)? This would be the beginnings of religion.

mikekchar 8y ago

I have a potentially interesting task for you to perform. If I am wrong and belief is not required for human communities, then it is sufficient to build a general community that does not require belief. To show that this is generally applicable, and not just applicable if you cherry pick the individuals, the members of the community should be as picked as randomly as you can manage. Convince such a population and you will convince me as well!

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Arguably, humanity is in the process of doing just that? Mind you, I didn't claim that you can de-indoctrinate all humans on the planet today. Chances are that some people are beyond that. But that's not even all that special for faith or indoctrination, some people just have extreme problems with rationally controlling their behaviour in some regards, and be it that they have OCD or some eating disorder. But just because some people have eating disorders that they have trouble overcoming, we don't say that "eating disorders are required for human communities". So, let's ignore that some minority might always exhibit some sort of religious behaviour. Then you will notice that religiosity is shrinking massively, despite being almost universal not so long ago, both due to people overcoming their religion and due to children not being indoctrinated and thus never getting the idea in the first place. That suggests that it's not all that hard-wired, doesn't it? Now, will there be a barrier where religion will stop shrinking? Who knows, but I don't see any reason why it unavoidably should.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Possibly it is. I'll be honest, if so then I'll be the first one celebrating. I'm not religious, but my wife is very religious. I suppose it is not surprising, both her father and younger brother were priests. It's taken me quite a long time to learn to appreciate what she gets from religion. I'll tell you, without pretense, that it has been challenging for me. However, at least for me (and you may very well find it different) I came to a realisation that I was being unreasonably biased against my wife's religion. In fact I had my own religion: science -- which I believed in quite strongly. I'm not talking about accepting models because they are useful. I generally believed these models to be true. Eventually I started to question why I believed the models to be true. Consistent things are often not as they appear. Why do I believe this consistent thing to be true. At least for me, I decided it's just another religion. And strangely, that allowed me to abandon it. I now believe in a very strange religion in which the universe appears to me to probably be very different, although consistent with our scientific models. Possibly I'm the only one in that religion and I have no problem with that. I think the point I'm trying to make is that, especially those of us who have a hard time with religion fall just as easily into our own religions. That's an embarrassing and difficult thing to look at. I literally moved from my native Canada to Japan, partly because I was frustrated with the implied Christianity of Canadian society -- almost as if it's a matter of common sense that you will be Christian if you aren't already spoken for by a different religion. I really enjoyed the fact that Christmas in Japan meant going out with your girlfriend to Kentucky Fried Chicken (seriously, you have to book 3 months in advance!) This is a pretty personal thing to post on a public forum, but I think it should be fine to say these kinds of things (or at least I wish to live in a world where it is), so hopefully nobody will take offense. But, (again my personal opinion, which I hope you will take as just an old guy being friendly) my wife really enjoys her religion. It brings many good things for her and, to be completely honest, while her religion has doctrine (which, incidentally, not all religions have) I haven't actually met anybody in her church that demands that doctrine. I was going to say that I have not met a single person who really had any interest in exploring the world beyond their doctrine in a church, but this is actually not true. One of my wife's friends is a priest who got a double major in astronomy and computer science (and had a pile of scholarships and studied in a whole bunch of famous universities). Then he became a priest. I asked him why, with the education he had that he decided to become a priest. He just said that he enjoyed being a priest. He believes in his religion and has no way to reconcile his education and his beliefs, but he is completely OK with that. I really miss him to be honest. He got posted to Malaysia (being a priest is a super hard job). He's one of the few people I've met in a church who ever accepted me for who I am and what I believe. He frequently stood up for me and explained to other people that not everybody believes what they believe. I was very grateful for that. These days, even though I don't believe what other people believe, I feel it is important to respect that belief. In human life there are a lot of contradictions. There are many things that don't match up (like my wife's friend, the priest). However, we all have biases and we all have points beyond which we regretfully don't look. We look past our own bigotry and somehow think that only our view must be right. Ironically, we tend to all be united in our discrimination. It's just my idea and it may be horribly flawed, but I think we need to first accept other people as they are before we invite them into our own field of vision. Sometimes that's hard to do. Anyway, again, I apologise if this meets you at a time when you aren't really in the mood to read it. I hope you take it in the spirit in which it is offered -- just an old guy rambling on about stuff that probably doesn't matter ;-) Even if I don't agree with you, I've really enjoyed thinking about what you have had to say. Thank you!

solidsnack9000 8y ago

> The defining characteristic of religion is faith... That's actually not true. One clue here is that many religions do not ask for faith, which is to say one does not actually observe a demand of faith universally in religions. Faith per se is not observable, so it would not do as a defining characteristic of religion. Frequently, religions only ask for ritual observance. This is the defining characteristic of religion -- ritual observance that affirms a person's commitment to a community and its values. Whether people "really believe" or not has no simple effect on whether the ritual serves to reinforce shared values or not. Many people feel bonded to a community and its values even when engaging with a mythology that is obviously fictitious, as for example when people go to the desert to burn the man every year; or dress up like aliens and head to Star Trek Vegas.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Many people feel bonded to a community and its values even when engaging with a mythology that is obviously fictitious, as for example when people go to the desert to burn the man every year; or dress up like aliens and head to Star Trek Vegas. Seriously? You are including hobby clubs of sorts into the definition of religions in order to support your claim that many religions do not ask for faith? So, atheist associations with regular meetings are religions, too, then, I suppose?
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  It is probably better to think of most religions as very dramatic hobby clubs. Just having regular meetings is not enough to be "performative" or "ritualistic". What if the atheist association always began every meeting with a hymn to Richard Dawkins, and then a ceremonial swim of a little model HMS Beagle around a miniature island, always widdershins (opposite to the sun)? This would be the beginnings of religion.