7 ms·

I got downvoted into sweet oblivion for making this exact point in another post. This whole thing is religious. In fact, it’s so religious that it’s caused me t

I got downvoted into sweet oblivion for making this exact point in another post. This whole thing is religious. In fact, it’s so religious that it’s caused me to question my own religious beliefs now that I’ve seen an actual religion assembled in front of my eyes. It’s so much like what I see in my own religion that all religion is starting to frighten me.

alessivs 5y ago
George Steiner discussed this in «The Secular Messiahs» (part of «Nostalgia for the Absolute»): > [They]...are not only attempts to fill the emptiness left by the decay of Christian theology and Christian dogma. They are themselves a kind of substitute theology. They are systems of belief and argument which may be savagely antireligious (...) but whose structure, whose aspirations, whose claims on the believer, are profoundly religious in strategy and in effect. > (...) Those great gestures of imagination, which have tried to replace religion in the West, and Christianity in particular, are very much like the churches, like the theology, they want to replace. > The convinced Marxist, the practising psychoanalyst, the structural anthropologist, will be outraged at the thought that his beliefs, that his analyses of the human situation, are mythologies and allegoric constructs directly derivative from the religious world-image which he has sought to replace. He will be furious at that idea. And his rage has its justification.
tachyonbeam 5y ago
I think most people just have a tendency to to repeat dogma they are exposed to, based on the groups they belong in. If you join any group anywhere, be it people who practice yoga, the burning man crowd, or an online forum about programming, you'll find that there's a hierarchy, with some individuals who are highly regarded by the group, you might call them thought leaders. The individuals at the top have certain beliefs, and most people in the group will echo those beliefs as dogma everyone should believe in, and try to suppress dissenting views.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  More than that, the thought leaders set the emotional tone of interaction with outsiders. The problem is that the US is an aggressively authoritarian country, and the default tone is violent narcissistic bullying. Unlike other authoritarian countries this isn't explicitly state sanctioned. It's more of a continually dramatised and modelled mode of relationship which is so ingrained in so many public interactions - from school to work to "self help" to corporate culture to mainstream media to social media to large parts of elected government - that it sinks into the background as a kind of unavoidable noise. It would be deafening if you'd never experienced it before. Because it's so common it's tuned out consciously, but still dominant unconsciously. The "woke" part isn't the problem. It's the copying of the dominant emotional ideology that leads to both left and right extremism, and also justifies excess corporate power and other horrors. It's all part of the same issue, but both left and right are only looking at small parts of it - and getting angry about those while missing the underlying issue.
- Izkata 5y ago
  > I think most people just have a tendency to to repeat dogma they are exposed to, based on the groups they belong in. This realization is basically how the "NPC" meme was born. It predated the "no inner voice" study, that's just how most people seem to have come across the idea because the study half-jokingly caused a "wait a minute, we were right?" moment.
koonsolo 5y ago
The thing with belief is that you are 100% sure about something you cannot be sure about. If you ask a religious person "what do you think is the chance that god exists?". A rational person will never say 100%, because objectively you cannot be 100% sure. But a religious person is wired in a way were they are unable to admit this fact. It is a lie people tell themselves because somehow they think it benefits them. Now whether it really benefits them or not, I'm not sure. But I would think nothing can beat the objective truth, and that truth might include probabilities.
- ojbyrne 5y ago
  So if I say 0%, is that irrational? I mean I’m not 0% sure, but I am to many many decimal places. So what if somebody is religious in the same way? They’re not 100% sure, but they understand significant digits, and just round up.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    With all the religions in the world, who each contradict each other, there is only a small chance that you were raised in the correct one.
- BrandonM 5y ago
  Not all religions are centered around a 100% belief in God. That assumption seems to be a very common mistake among atheists and agnostics who are most familiar with Christianity.
  - rriepe 5y ago
    I like the phrase "life stance" for this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_stance
- vlunkr 5y ago
  This is an egregious over simplification of religious belief. I think most religious people are absolutely not 100% sure. That's why faith is such a big topic, and why philosophers and theologians have written about faith, the existence of god, whether it can be proven, etc. for centuries. Besides, aren't all your actions based on beliefs that are are less than 100% certain? I don't know that the line of code I'm writing is going to compile, or that the company I'm working for isn't going to go under tomorrow, or that the relationships I'm investing time into are going to last forever, but I'm certain enough that I proceed with them. Believing in God isn't so different.
lelanthran 5y ago
> In fact, it’s so religious that it’s caused me to question my own religious beliefs now that I’ve seen an actual religion assembled in front of my eyes. It’s so much like what I see in my own religion that all religion is starting to frighten me. Don't worry about it if some members of a group you self-identify with are assholes. It's a problem when most of them do, and then you have to disassociate yourself with a different label. Hell, I'm atheist, and I still call out other "atheists" who tell others "your god doesn't exist", or who refuse to wish others "Merry Christmas", etc. If too many atheists are militant about others' belief system, I'm going to stop calling myself atheist and identify as something else ("Member of the religion of 'We don't care who is up there or if they exist'", although that's quite a mouthful).
- rendall 5y ago
  I have an interesting interaction with atheists, and it happens every time I discuss this online Me: I'm an agnostic. Atheist: So you believe there might be a god? Me: Not at all! Atheist: So you're an atheist! Just embrace it! Me: You're right! The Abrahamic God almost surely [1] does not exist. I am an atheist! Atheist: What do you mean almost surely?! What's with the equivocation? Me: It's a mathematical term. Probability converges toward 1. Atheist: You think there is a remote possibility Santa Claus exists, too? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely
  - wernercd 5y ago
    You should place an "Only a Sith deal in absolutes" in there... I'm a Christian and have no problem with Atheist's or what have you. There's a strong chance that there isn't a heaven/hell/72 virgins/what have you waiting "on the other side". I can still be confident in the tactile important parts (IE: Do unto others, love they neighbor, etc) without having my worldview destroyed by a "might" or a "maybe". It amazes me when someone can say with 100% confidence that it does or doesn't exist.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I would primarily contend that you don't need religion for those parts you find redeeming All societies function on the 10 commandments without them being explicitly written. Convergent evolution of the concept of society leans towards that. Lying, coveting, and laying all result in the same outcomes.

alessivs 5y ago

George Steiner discussed this in «The Secular Messiahs» (part of «Nostalgia for the Absolute»): > [They]...are not only attempts to fill the emptiness left by the decay of Christian theology and Christian dogma. They are themselves a kind of substitute theology. They are systems of belief and argument which may be savagely antireligious (...) but whose structure, whose aspirations, whose claims on the believer, are profoundly religious in strategy and in effect. > (...) Those great gestures of imagination, which have tried to replace religion in the West, and Christianity in particular, are very much like the churches, like the theology, they want to replace. > The convinced Marxist, the practising psychoanalyst, the structural anthropologist, will be outraged at the thought that his beliefs, that his analyses of the human situation, are mythologies and allegoric constructs directly derivative from the religious world-image which he has sought to replace. He will be furious at that idea. And his rage has its justification.

tachyonbeam 5y ago

I think most people just have a tendency to to repeat dogma they are exposed to, based on the groups they belong in. If you join any group anywhere, be it people who practice yoga, the burning man crowd, or an online forum about programming, you'll find that there's a hierarchy, with some individuals who are highly regarded by the group, you might call them thought leaders. The individuals at the top have certain beliefs, and most people in the group will echo those beliefs as dogma everyone should believe in, and try to suppress dissenting views.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
More than that, the thought leaders set the emotional tone of interaction with outsiders. The problem is that the US is an aggressively authoritarian country, and the default tone is violent narcissistic bullying. Unlike other authoritarian countries this isn't explicitly state sanctioned. It's more of a continually dramatised and modelled mode of relationship which is so ingrained in so many public interactions - from school to work to "self help" to corporate culture to mainstream media to social media to large parts of elected government - that it sinks into the background as a kind of unavoidable noise. It would be deafening if you'd never experienced it before. Because it's so common it's tuned out consciously, but still dominant unconsciously. The "woke" part isn't the problem. It's the copying of the dominant emotional ideology that leads to both left and right extremism, and also justifies excess corporate power and other horrors. It's all part of the same issue, but both left and right are only looking at small parts of it - and getting angry about those while missing the underlying issue.
Izkata 5y ago
> I think most people just have a tendency to to repeat dogma they are exposed to, based on the groups they belong in. This realization is basically how the "NPC" meme was born. It predated the "no inner voice" study, that's just how most people seem to have come across the idea because the study half-jokingly caused a "wait a minute, we were right?" moment.

koonsolo 5y ago

The thing with belief is that you are 100% sure about something you cannot be sure about. If you ask a religious person "what do you think is the chance that god exists?". A rational person will never say 100%, because objectively you cannot be 100% sure. But a religious person is wired in a way were they are unable to admit this fact. It is a lie people tell themselves because somehow they think it benefits them. Now whether it really benefits them or not, I'm not sure. But I would think nothing can beat the objective truth, and that truth might include probabilities.

ojbyrne 5y ago
So if I say 0%, is that irrational? I mean I’m not 0% sure, but I am to many many decimal places. So what if somebody is religious in the same way? They’re not 100% sure, but they understand significant digits, and just round up.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  With all the religions in the world, who each contradict each other, there is only a small chance that you were raised in the correct one.
BrandonM 5y ago
Not all religions are centered around a 100% belief in God. That assumption seems to be a very common mistake among atheists and agnostics who are most familiar with Christianity.
- rriepe 5y ago
  I like the phrase "life stance" for this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_stance
vlunkr 5y ago
This is an egregious over simplification of religious belief. I think most religious people are absolutely not 100% sure. That's why faith is such a big topic, and why philosophers and theologians have written about faith, the existence of god, whether it can be proven, etc. for centuries. Besides, aren't all your actions based on beliefs that are are less than 100% certain? I don't know that the line of code I'm writing is going to compile, or that the company I'm working for isn't going to go under tomorrow, or that the relationships I'm investing time into are going to last forever, but I'm certain enough that I proceed with them. Believing in God isn't so different.

lelanthran 5y ago

> In fact, it’s so religious that it’s caused me to question my own religious beliefs now that I’ve seen an actual religion assembled in front of my eyes. It’s so much like what I see in my own religion that all religion is starting to frighten me. Don't worry about it if some members of a group you self-identify with are assholes. It's a problem when most of them do, and then you have to disassociate yourself with a different label. Hell, I'm atheist, and I still call out other "atheists" who tell others "your god doesn't exist", or who refuse to wish others "Merry Christmas", etc. If too many atheists are militant about others' belief system, I'm going to stop calling myself atheist and identify as something else ("Member of the religion of 'We don't care who is up there or if they exist'", although that's quite a mouthful).

rendall 5y ago
I have an interesting interaction with atheists, and it happens every time I discuss this online Me: I'm an agnostic. Atheist: So you believe there might be a god? Me: Not at all! Atheist: So you're an atheist! Just embrace it! Me: You're right! The Abrahamic God almost surely [1] does not exist. I am an atheist! Atheist: What do you mean almost surely?! What's with the equivocation? Me: It's a mathematical term. Probability converges toward 1. Atheist: You think there is a remote possibility Santa Claus exists, too? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely
- wernercd 5y ago
  You should place an "Only a Sith deal in absolutes" in there... I'm a Christian and have no problem with Atheist's or what have you. There's a strong chance that there isn't a heaven/hell/72 virgins/what have you waiting "on the other side". I can still be confident in the tactile important parts (IE: Do unto others, love they neighbor, etc) without having my worldview destroyed by a "might" or a "maybe". It amazes me when someone can say with 100% confidence that it does or doesn't exist.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I would primarily contend that you don't need religion for those parts you find redeeming All societies function on the 10 commandments without them being explicitly written. Convergent evolution of the concept of society leans towards that. Lying, coveting, and laying all result in the same outcomes.