4 ms·

> you can work backwards from the assumption that every one of those practices initially solved some problem. This isn't quite right. The true version of what

> you can work backwards from the assumption that every one of those practices initially solved some problem. This isn't quite right. The true version of what you're getting at is, "at some point every practice was useful to someone", but just because someone or someones found it useful doesn't necessarily mean it solved a real problem for society overall. E.g. men have dominated over women in almost all pre-modern societies (and even in modern ones there's often a good ways to go), because that was useful and advantageous to men, who also had the physical strength to enforce such a social division. It was never truly about "solving a problem". Sure, in some cases religious practices may have helped with a problem, but in other cases (e.g. indulgences) they were just about gathering or retaining power for the religion, which was certainly useful for the leaders within said religion.

Unbefleckt 2y ago
Surely if male dominance was about physical prowess, there wouldn't be any emperors or kings older than 35 before being punched to death by rivals?
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  Male dominance as a gender is about physical prowess. That's not the same thing as an individual male person being dominant based on physical prowess. European powers were dominant over other countries and colonized them due to superior weaponry and organized armies that used said weaponry, but that doesn't mean every European leader was a soldier toting around a gun themselves.
djtango 2y ago
I'm not here to deny those things - I'm not really qualified to argue in either direction. I wanted to focus on some of the good religion brings, even if you're not religious. In any case power capture is just another one of those axiomatic things of the human condition for me. After all, democracy and capitalism is being contorted into neo-feudalism in our own lifetimes. My point was that even though they seem silly to nonbelievers, I suspect a lot of people would probably be happier spending an hour a day singing hymns and reciting prayers. It turns out singing can be a pretty good mind-body hack for making you feel happier. And prayers are a pretty good presence of mind hack for regaining focus
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  It's true that some of those things are probably useful in some way, sure. But you can't just axiomatically assume that all religious practices were useful in general to people, rather than being useful in specific ways to specific people.
  - djtango 2y ago
    The practices propagated or persisted for some reason. For sure organisations find themselves in ruts or local maxima. And things like virtue signalling exist but when practices like prayer, meditation, chanting and singing exist across religions maybe it is worth trying to understand what ordinary people derive from the practices. Whether that be a sense of belonging, presence of mind or the ability to make peace with the cruelty and randomness of life. It rubs you up the wrong way that I axiomatically assume that all religious practices were useful in general but my point is just like being healthily skeptical about things and challenging the status quo is good. So too, is looking at things you don't understand and starting from the supposition that it is beneficial UNTIL you can prove in your own mind with all certainty that it isn't and then feel free for you to do your own thing. Are those two approaches in contradiction? Yes that's a good thing, it's healthy to hold opposing views in tension. If we continually ignore the lessons of the past we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes and relearn the same lessons. Religion ultimately propagated because people preferred it to what they had before. Sure bad people have manipulated and exploited those tendencies in people but that still happens even without "religion" - see crypto. At least most faiths ostensibly revolve around a set of morals and virtue. The establishment has also been tempered by their own success and and are being forcefully dragged into the 21st century by their need to stay relevant. When I attend my usual annual Midnight Mass CoE service in the UK, the biblical elements are so watered down it's mostly just about being a good person. Tldr people who are skeptical might benefit from being more charitable just like people who are gullible could benefit from being more skeptical.

Unbefleckt 2y ago

Surely if male dominance was about physical prowess, there wouldn't be any emperors or kings older than 35 before being punched to death by rivals?

TulliusCicero 2y ago
Male dominance as a gender is about physical prowess. That's not the same thing as an individual male person being dominant based on physical prowess. European powers were dominant over other countries and colonized them due to superior weaponry and organized armies that used said weaponry, but that doesn't mean every European leader was a soldier toting around a gun themselves.

djtango 2y ago

I'm not here to deny those things - I'm not really qualified to argue in either direction. I wanted to focus on some of the good religion brings, even if you're not religious. In any case power capture is just another one of those axiomatic things of the human condition for me. After all, democracy and capitalism is being contorted into neo-feudalism in our own lifetimes. My point was that even though they seem silly to nonbelievers, I suspect a lot of people would probably be happier spending an hour a day singing hymns and reciting prayers. It turns out singing can be a pretty good mind-body hack for making you feel happier. And prayers are a pretty good presence of mind hack for regaining focus

TulliusCicero 2y ago
It's true that some of those things are probably useful in some way, sure. But you can't just axiomatically assume that all religious practices were useful in general to people, rather than being useful in specific ways to specific people.
- djtango 2y ago
  The practices propagated or persisted for some reason. For sure organisations find themselves in ruts or local maxima. And things like virtue signalling exist but when practices like prayer, meditation, chanting and singing exist across religions maybe it is worth trying to understand what ordinary people derive from the practices. Whether that be a sense of belonging, presence of mind or the ability to make peace with the cruelty and randomness of life. It rubs you up the wrong way that I axiomatically assume that all religious practices were useful in general but my point is just like being healthily skeptical about things and challenging the status quo is good. So too, is looking at things you don't understand and starting from the supposition that it is beneficial UNTIL you can prove in your own mind with all certainty that it isn't and then feel free for you to do your own thing. Are those two approaches in contradiction? Yes that's a good thing, it's healthy to hold opposing views in tension. If we continually ignore the lessons of the past we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes and relearn the same lessons. Religion ultimately propagated because people preferred it to what they had before. Sure bad people have manipulated and exploited those tendencies in people but that still happens even without "religion" - see crypto. At least most faiths ostensibly revolve around a set of morals and virtue. The establishment has also been tempered by their own success and and are being forcefully dragged into the 21st century by their need to stay relevant. When I attend my usual annual Midnight Mass CoE service in the UK, the biblical elements are so watered down it's mostly just about being a good person. Tldr people who are skeptical might benefit from being more charitable just like people who are gullible could benefit from being more skeptical.