4 ms·

The problem is that religions have a reputation of tricking people into believing in stories, with a motive that might or might not be a good one. Meditation,

by devxpy 8y ago

The problem is that religions have a reputation of tricking people into believing in stories, with a motive that might or might not be a good one. Meditation, yoga are examples of the good one's. Sacrificing babies, worshipping cows are the bad one's. Religions don't provide us with the tools to actually determine whether something is real or just a story. The scientific method is to my knowledge the only feasible way to figure out the ground truth. Religions do promote exploration of ideas, but they are mostly a waste of time and energy that might be better spent elsewhere.

learc83 8y ago
>The scientific method is to my knowledge the only feasible way to figure out the ground truth. The scientific method can't be used to figure out truth. It can't be used to prove anything. It is an extremely useful method for describing how the world likely works, and for building tools. It tells us nothing about what the goals of society should be even though it can help us learn how to accomplish those goals. Should we try to build a society that optimizes for per capita happiness today, or should our goal be to maximize total happiness by ensuring as many people can exist as is physically possible in the future. This is the realm of philosophy and religion. >Religions do promote exploration of ideas, but they are mostly a waste of time and energy that might be better spent elsewhere Our modern concept of egalitarianism is mostly a product of religious thinking. I'd say that idea wasn't a waste of time.
- kruczek 8y ago
  > The scientific method can't be used to figure out truth. It can't be used to prove anything. It is an extremely useful method for describing how the world likely works, and for building tools. How the world works is the truth which science seeks to figure out. And scientific method is the best tool we have for that task. Certainly much better than religion, which starts with "the truth" and then walks backward to prove it. However I get a feeling you use different meaning of the truth, than I do. If by it you mean some profound reason for our lives, then I agree that is not the truth that science seeks.
  - learc83 8y ago
    When i say prove, I don't mean colloquial definition of very likely true. I mean in the mathematical/logical sense.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      In which case it's a pointless diversion, as you are just saying "there is no absolute certainty on anything". Well, yeah, true, but also irrelevant, as science still is by far the most reliable method for obtaining a working model of the world, while religion is completely worthless for the purpose.
      - learc83 8y ago
        >as science still is by far the most reliable method for obtaining a working model of the world Where did I say otherwise? Science doesn't allow us to make value judgements. The closest ethical framework we have to allowing us to use science to make value judgements is utilitarianism. But it still relies on axiomatic assumptions about what is intrinsically good. The decision as to what axioms to choose is philosophy, not science.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > Where did I say otherwise? You didn't explicitly say otherwise, but the way you put your objection doesn't make too much sense if you were just nit-picking the fact that proof and evidence are distinct concepts and that what was called "truth" would more precisely be called "rationally justified belief" or something. > Science doesn't allow us to make value judgements. Yeah, actually, it does, for all intents and purposes. > The closest ethical framework we have to allowing us to use science to make value judgements is utilitarianism. Well, somewhat depending on details, but sure, overall I think that's a defensible statement. > But it still relies on axiomatic assumptions about what is intrinsically good. No, it doesn't. All it requires is consensus about what people consider good. Luckily so, as "intrinsic good" is obviously an instance of "intrinsic value" and thus nonsense for the same reason. > The decision as to what axioms to choose is philosophy, not science. No, it's primarily science, because (a) those axioms are decided by consensus (just as in mathematics), and consensus is oviously a thing you can only study empirically, and (b) if the choice of axioms is supposed to make any sense, it is based on observations of consequences, which are also a matter of empiricism. Of course, philosophy also deals with the question, but philosophy without the empirical observations won't get anywhere on that question.
- devxpy 8y ago
  > Should we try to build a society that optimizes for per capita happiness Are you aware of the hedonic treadmill? > Our modern concept of egalitarianism is mostly a product of religious thinking You must be kidding. Religions promote the most brutal form of inequality ever. Study up on "dalits" in India.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    And other religions promote the idea that all people are equal before god or the universe or whatever greater power they believe in. Whilst some deeply anti-religious ideological systems promote highly anti-equality ideas like eugenics, racial supremacy, "social Darwinism". For that reason, it's best you keep sneers like "you must be kidding" out of comments on this topic; it's a profoundly complex issue that requires nuance and care, not ridicule.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      1) Not true, especially not in Hinduism or Shintoism. 2) Religious too, see above. What's karma? Who will be condemned to hell in Abrahamic religions? 3) Please educate yourself before trying to correct others and being plain wrong.
      - learc83 8y ago
        What claim of the OP's are you disagreeing with exactly? That there exists some religions that promote the idea of equality?
      - tomhoward 8y ago
        > Please educate yourself Sure. Over about 6 years I read multiple books and watched countless videos by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, and was fully bought into their “all-religion-is-evil” worldview. Then I kept educating myself further. Is there something I’m missing that you can suggest? As another commenter pointed out, you didn’t say anything to refute my argument. But you’ve implied that nuanced arguments are less preferable than dogmatic ones, which is surprising for someone critiquing religion.

by devxpy 8y ago

learc83 8y ago

>The scientific method is to my knowledge the only feasible way to figure out the ground truth. The scientific method can't be used to figure out truth. It can't be used to prove anything. It is an extremely useful method for describing how the world likely works, and for building tools. It tells us nothing about what the goals of society should be even though it can help us learn how to accomplish those goals. Should we try to build a society that optimizes for per capita happiness today, or should our goal be to maximize total happiness by ensuring as many people can exist as is physically possible in the future. This is the realm of philosophy and religion. >Religions do promote exploration of ideas, but they are mostly a waste of time and energy that might be better spent elsewhere Our modern concept of egalitarianism is mostly a product of religious thinking. I'd say that idea wasn't a waste of time.

kruczek 8y ago
> The scientific method can't be used to figure out truth. It can't be used to prove anything. It is an extremely useful method for describing how the world likely works, and for building tools. How the world works is the truth which science seeks to figure out. And scientific method is the best tool we have for that task. Certainly much better than religion, which starts with "the truth" and then walks backward to prove it. However I get a feeling you use different meaning of the truth, than I do. If by it you mean some profound reason for our lives, then I agree that is not the truth that science seeks.
- learc83 8y ago
  When i say prove, I don't mean colloquial definition of very likely true. I mean in the mathematical/logical sense.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    In which case it's a pointless diversion, as you are just saying "there is no absolute certainty on anything". Well, yeah, true, but also irrelevant, as science still is by far the most reliable method for obtaining a working model of the world, while religion is completely worthless for the purpose.
    - learc83 8y ago
      >as science still is by far the most reliable method for obtaining a working model of the world Where did I say otherwise? Science doesn't allow us to make value judgements. The closest ethical framework we have to allowing us to use science to make value judgements is utilitarianism. But it still relies on axiomatic assumptions about what is intrinsically good. The decision as to what axioms to choose is philosophy, not science.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > Where did I say otherwise? You didn't explicitly say otherwise, but the way you put your objection doesn't make too much sense if you were just nit-picking the fact that proof and evidence are distinct concepts and that what was called "truth" would more precisely be called "rationally justified belief" or something. > Science doesn't allow us to make value judgements. Yeah, actually, it does, for all intents and purposes. > The closest ethical framework we have to allowing us to use science to make value judgements is utilitarianism. Well, somewhat depending on details, but sure, overall I think that's a defensible statement. > But it still relies on axiomatic assumptions about what is intrinsically good. No, it doesn't. All it requires is consensus about what people consider good. Luckily so, as "intrinsic good" is obviously an instance of "intrinsic value" and thus nonsense for the same reason. > The decision as to what axioms to choose is philosophy, not science. No, it's primarily science, because (a) those axioms are decided by consensus (just as in mathematics), and consensus is oviously a thing you can only study empirically, and (b) if the choice of axioms is supposed to make any sense, it is based on observations of consequences, which are also a matter of empiricism. Of course, philosophy also deals with the question, but philosophy without the empirical observations won't get anywhere on that question.
devxpy 8y ago
> Should we try to build a society that optimizes for per capita happiness Are you aware of the hedonic treadmill? > Our modern concept of egalitarianism is mostly a product of religious thinking You must be kidding. Religions promote the most brutal form of inequality ever. Study up on "dalits" in India.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  And other religions promote the idea that all people are equal before god or the universe or whatever greater power they believe in. Whilst some deeply anti-religious ideological systems promote highly anti-equality ideas like eugenics, racial supremacy, "social Darwinism". For that reason, it's best you keep sneers like "you must be kidding" out of comments on this topic; it's a profoundly complex issue that requires nuance and care, not ridicule.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    1) Not true, especially not in Hinduism or Shintoism. 2) Religious too, see above. What's karma? Who will be condemned to hell in Abrahamic religions? 3) Please educate yourself before trying to correct others and being plain wrong.
    - learc83 8y ago
      What claim of the OP's are you disagreeing with exactly? That there exists some religions that promote the idea of equality?
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      > Please educate yourself Sure. Over about 6 years I read multiple books and watched countless videos by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, and was fully bought into their “all-religion-is-evil” worldview. Then I kept educating myself further. Is there something I’m missing that you can suggest? As another commenter pointed out, you didn’t say anything to refute my argument. But you’ve implied that nuanced arguments are less preferable than dogmatic ones, which is surprising for someone critiquing religion.