3 ms·

> “Roman society was full of superstition,” writes the Norton Disney group. “A potential link with local religious practice is our current working theory. More

> “Roman society was full of superstition,” writes the Norton Disney group. “A potential link with local religious practice is our current working theory. More investigation is required, though.” That's funny. I think I stopped believing in God as a kid because in all the historical articles I read, it was clear that the people of the past just believed in superstition. It obviously follows that our current religions are also superstitions.

dylan604 3y ago
Mine came from realizing all of the religions have the same basic stories all credited to their deity as the cause, yet all saying the other deities didn't exist or were false gods.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Ah yes, that's the other good point. Really they are parts of the more general incoherency: "My religion is correct, while all the other religions, current or from the past, are mere superstition."
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Then there's my favorite, Pascal's Wager: "Why not accept my particular God? What do you have to lose?" Advocates of the Wager never seem to consider what Zeus's opinion might be.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Your assumption is that the advocates of the Wager give a damn about Zeus to be begin with which seems flawed to me.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        No that's not his assumption. Pascal's wager is supposed to be an argument to believe in "God", but it is too general. It doesn't determine in which god. So the argument doesn't work.
    - s_m_t 3y ago
      Why would Zeus care? The greek afterlife is a sort of pointless outcome to Pascal's wager so it isn't even worth factoring in.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Why would Zeus care? Well, once you start asking questions like that, the whole thing starts to unravel. Just play along, don't rock the boat.
me_me_me 3y ago
in this case, anything that archeologists cant explain is either religious or a cultural artifact. Meaning: 'We don't really know what that is.'
ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
I'm not religious either, but I don't think the logic holds up. Philosophers and scientists of the past came to all kinds of ridiculous conclusions, but it doesn't follow that utilitarianism or atomic theory are ridiculous.
- cubefox 3y ago
  I think these theories were always more sophisticated than religions. And the work of ancient philosophers is still not completely outdated, e.g. Aristotle's logic holds up, albeit in a limited domain. Moreover, the former theories have since further increased in sophistication, while religion didn't get significantly more sophisticated. Though I admit your point is a good one and not so easily refuted. In general it is known as the "pessimistic meta-induction": Theories from the past were wrong, so we should think our current theories are wrong as well. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-theory-change/#DisaMetaIndu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-theory-change/#Di... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PessIndu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PessI...

dylan604 3y ago

Mine came from realizing all of the religions have the same basic stories all credited to their deity as the cause, yet all saying the other deities didn't exist or were false gods.

cubefox 3y ago
Ah yes, that's the other good point. Really they are parts of the more general incoherency: "My religion is correct, while all the other religions, current or from the past, are mere superstition."
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Then there's my favorite, Pascal's Wager: "Why not accept my particular God? What do you have to lose?" Advocates of the Wager never seem to consider what Zeus's opinion might be.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Your assumption is that the advocates of the Wager give a damn about Zeus to be begin with which seems flawed to me.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      No that's not his assumption. Pascal's wager is supposed to be an argument to believe in "God", but it is too general. It doesn't determine in which god. So the argument doesn't work.
  - s_m_t 3y ago
    Why would Zeus care? The greek afterlife is a sort of pointless outcome to Pascal's wager so it isn't even worth factoring in.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Why would Zeus care? Well, once you start asking questions like that, the whole thing starts to unravel. Just play along, don't rock the boat.

me_me_me 3y ago

in this case, anything that archeologists cant explain is either religious or a cultural artifact. Meaning: 'We don't really know what that is.'

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago

I'm not religious either, but I don't think the logic holds up. Philosophers and scientists of the past came to all kinds of ridiculous conclusions, but it doesn't follow that utilitarianism or atomic theory are ridiculous.

cubefox 3y ago
I think these theories were always more sophisticated than religions. And the work of ancient philosophers is still not completely outdated, e.g. Aristotle's logic holds up, albeit in a limited domain. Moreover, the former theories have since further increased in sophistication, while religion didn't get significantly more sophisticated. Though I admit your point is a good one and not so easily refuted. In general it is known as the "pessimistic meta-induction": Theories from the past were wrong, so we should think our current theories are wrong as well. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-theory-change/#DisaMetaIndu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-theory-change/#Di... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PessIndu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PessI...