Religion-Bashing

[Daidalos]

This is a good overview of the social dynamics of religions, which are typically more important than the metaphysical views espoused:


COSTLY SIGNALING THEORY AND RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOR
http://www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/sosis/publications/SosisHutteriteHumanNature.pdf

Fascinating article, bwv 1080, thanks for the link.

[MishaK]

Another thing you don't know is what motivates me in seeing more rationality believing in a purposeful universe than an accidental one.  I can assure you it is not arrogance that brought me to this understanding.

Yes, but it is not relevant to the discussion due to the highlighted word. You don't actually know either that the universe is indeed purposeful, nor can you prove it. And why does it matter? Who are you to demand a purpose?

[Franco]

Yes, but it is not relevant to the discussion due to the highlighted word. You don't actually know either that the universe is indeed purposeful, nor can you prove it. And why does it matter? Who are you to demand a purpose?

You seem unable to have this discussion without exaggerating my own ideas about this issue.  

I am not demanding anything.  

I am observing, and deducing what makes most sense to me about what I have observed.  

It makes less sense to me that the sophistication of our world has no purpose and was the product of accidents rather than our world does have a purpose and was designed by a Creator.  This is not a casual idea for me - it is the determining factor to how I live and every decision I make and everything I think, say and do.

This may not be your understanding and your observations may have brought you to an entirely different conclusions, but there you have it - we are distinct individuals and see things differently.  

I am not saying you are wrong, it is simply a fact that what you believe I have already considered and rejected.  What you believe does not make sense to me, just as what I believe you have rejected.  I am not interested in proving you wrong, and I wish you would stop trying to prove me, and others like me, wrong.

But, you seem to be under the illusion that one can remain on the fence with this idea.  But, even if a person says that they "don't know" and "you can never know", our actions belie a decision we have implicitly made. 

[karlhenning]

I am not saying you are wrong, it is simply a fact that what you believe I have already considered and rejected.  What you believe does not make sense to me, just as what I believe you have rejected.  I am not interested in proving you wrong, and I wish you would stop trying to prove me, and others like me, wrong.

Eminently sensible remarks;  and a clue to how these threads keep chasing their own tails.

Let the other guy think as his conscience dictates.  And this goes both ways (to state the obvious, yet again).

[MishaK]

You seem unable to have this discussion without exaggerating my own ideas about this issue.  

I am not demanding anything.  

I am observing, and deducing what makes most sense to me about what I have observed.  

It makes less sense to me that the sophistication of our world has no purpose and was the product of accidents rather than our world does have a purpose and was designed by a Creator.  This is not a casual idea for me - it is the determining factor to how I live and every decision I make and everything I think, say and do.

This may not be your understanding and your observations may have brought you to an entirely different conclusions, but there you have it - we are distinct individuals and see things differently.  

I am not saying you are wrong, it is simply a fact that what you believe I have already considered and rejected.  What you believe does not make sense to me, just as what I believe you have rejected.  I am not interested in proving you wrong, and I wish you would stop trying to prove me, and others like me, wrong.

AND THAT IS FINE! I never criticized that. I am simply distinguishing this kind of belief from hard knowledge. You simply have to be conscious of the fact that you lack hard evidence to corroborate that belief. So there always remains an element of uncertainty, whether you like it or not. If had actual knowledge of the master plan for the universe, you wouldn't need faith in a creator and we wouldn't be having this discussion because you could just present the evidence for all doubters to see.

But, you seem to be under the illusion that one can remain on the fence with this idea.  But, even if a person says that they "don't know" and "you can never know", our actions belie a decision we have implicitly made. 

No, not on the fence. You posit a false dilemma: either you believe in a Creator or in chaos. That is not necessarily the choice at all. Positing a creator is but *one* way of dealing with the level of uncertainty we have about our universe. But it is not necessary at all to have either a creator or to even find anything at all to overcome that level of uncertainty. One can also quite openly embrace that uncertainty. And uncertainty does not necessarily mean chaos. Nor does the absence of faith in a creator and a master plan necessarily lead to amoral behavior; or conversely: moral behavior does not betray an implicit belief in a master plan or creator. What I am saying is that one can say "I don't know" and live with the uncertainty without subscribing to any faith. I know this is hard for someone of faith to understand. To a person of faith, that faith is so central to one's existence that it is almost impossible to imagine how other people can live without it. They seem truly bereft and incomplete. But really, this is all a question of how comfortable you can be with your own ignorance. The more comfortable you can be with that state, the less you need faith.

That is why I asked hyperbolically "who are you to demand a purpose?" I don't consider myself that important in the big picture of things that I of all people must know what the master plan is or that there even is one at all. My view simply derives from the observation that a) all human societies share the most basic moral rules of coexistence regardless of religion, b) these rules are geared towards long term survival of the species, c) the fact that point b) and some elements of social behavior are common to other species as well. It is therefore possible to have successful social entities with any of a variety of faiths or with no faith at all (unless you want to claim that ants, cranes, elephants and other social animals have faith). It is thus possible to devise a moral codex on the basis of rational principles that ensures the survival of the human race without reference to any religious elements. What all that is good for if the planet will eventually be scorched anyway when our sun starts to exponentially expand in size, I don't know and I won't probably ever know. But that doesn't make my life any less meaningful to me or to the many people I touch in my life.

[Franco]

AND THAT IS FINE! I never criticized that. I am simply distinguishing this kind of belief from hard knowledge. You simply have to be conscious of the fact that you lack hard evidence to corroborate that belief.

I consider what I observe hard evidence.  My conclusions, as well as your conclusions, are not evidence; however, I have concluded that it is more irrational to deny evidence of a Creator, or to assume it is more probable that this level of sophistication is the product of randomness.  We don't do this in any other area of our lives, but you seem to think it is more apt to do this concerning the most basic questions.

No, not on the fence. You posit a false dilemma: either you believe in a Creator or in chaos.

I have never posited this choice.  You would probably do better to limit yourself to describing your own beliefs instead of mine, since you reliably get mine wrong.  I already know what I believe, and have expressed it fairly plainly.  You, OTOH, keep rephrasing my posts in distorted fashion.  Just say what YOU think, stop mangling my beliefs.

Nor does the absence of faith in a creator and a master plan necessarily lead to amoral behavior; or conversely: moral behavior does not betray an implicit belief in a master plan or creator.

It doesn't have to, no, I never said so, but what it actually leads to is someone electing themselves as god and making up their own moral standards.  This is a choice of convenience for people who do not wish to change how they live, if an objective set of moral standards tells them to act in ways they find difficult.  Aldous Huxley said as much, as to why he and his friends needed to become atheists.

What I am saying is that one can say "I don't know" and live with the uncertainty without subscribing to any faith. I know this is hard for someone of faith to understand.

No, it's not hard to understand.   Why do you think people of faith are not as smart as you are?  But while you are living with uncertainty you have to make moral choices everyday - these you do, and you can't make a choice and retain your uncertainty.  Your choice is made. you acted because it made sense to you, not because you believe you have to answer for your actions to the Creator of youself and your world.  There, you see, no uncertainty.

To a person of faith, that faith is so central to one's existence that it is almost impossible to imagine how other people can live without it. They seem truly bereft and incomplete. But really, this is all a question of how comfortable you can be with your own ignorance. The more comfortable you can be with that state, the less you need faith.

I'd say, that you know nothing about what people of faith think, feel, or how comfortable they are.  But being comfortable does appear to be important to you, which is probably why you prefer making up your own rules.

That is why I asked hyperbolically "who are you to demand a purpose?" I don't consider myself that important in the big picture of things that I of all people must know what the master plan is or that there even is one at all. My view simply derives from the observation that a) all human societies share the most basic moral rules of coexistence regardless of religion, b) these rules are geared towards long term survival of the species, c) the fact that point b) and some elements of social behavior are common to other species as well. It is therefore possible to have successful social entities with any of a variety of faiths or with no faith at all (unless you want to claim that ants, cranes, elephants and other social animals have faith). It is thus possible to devise a moral codex on the basis of rational principles that ensures the survival of the human race without reference to any religious elements. What all that is good for if the planet will eventually be scorched anyway when our sun starts to exponentially expand in size, I don't know and I won't probably ever know. But that doesn't make my life any less meaningful to me or to the many people I touch in my life.

Our morality is also not an accident, monotheism has affected our lives so much that you are able to take this morality for granted, and dismiss it as just another accident of creation.  There's no "natural morality" we a re born with - we must be taught what is right and wrong.  Cultures all over the world have different ideas of morality, in some parts cannibalism is okay, or women are treated as chattel, we in the West think that is wrong.  What is best for preserving society might be cruel, killing old people, limited couples to one child, etc. - that idea has no temper with me. 

The USA was founded on the idea that a Creator imbued us with rights and no government can take away these rights.  What totalitarian governments seek in outlawing religion is to get rid of this idea so the government can tell the population what their rights are.  It is only when man accepts an objective standard of behavior outside and above his will that there is any real check on his behavior.  All the other systems you describe fail as soon as someone simply decides he wants to do what he wants.

[DavidW]

But while you are living with uncertainty you have to make moral choices everyday - these you do, and you can't make a choice and retain your uncertainty.  Your choice is made. you acted because it made sense to you, not because you believe you have to answer for your actions to the Creator of youself and your world.  There, you see, no uncertainty.

That really doesn't make any sense to me.  You're saying that the act of making a choice makes you certain about it?  Huh?   Just because you choose to do something, does not mean that you are certain you did the right thing.   I must be misreading you, please re-explain your point in a different way.  Perhaps with a concrete example?

[Franco]

That really doesn't make any sense to me.  You're saying that the act of making a choice makes you certain about it?  Huh?  Just because you choose to do something, does not mean that you are certain you did the right thing.  I must be misreading you, please re-explain your point in a different way.  Perhaps with a concrete example?

I'm saying that it makes you certain about whether you believe there is a God.  There is no uncertainty concerning the motivation of your choices.  

Example: someone NEVER steals office supplies because he is taught it is wrong according to God's laws, and he wants to stay on the right side of God.  Someone else may not steal office supplies (very often) since if they got caught they could lose their job, this acts as a deterrent.  One is certain God exists and acts accordingly, the other doesn't care if God exists, he is acting out of self interest.

[DavidW]

It doesn't have to, no, I never said so, but what it actually leads to is someone electing themselves as god and making up their own moral standards.  This is a choice of convenience for people who do not wish to change how they live, if an objective set of moral standards tells them to act in ways they find difficult.  Aldous Huxley said as much, as to why he and his friends needed to become atheists.

That is very insulting and shows a complete lack of understanding.  The very concept of needing a god to impose morality is simple minded and not appropriate for modern times.  You are capable of better.  Shame on you.

[DavidW]

I'm saying that it makes you certain about whether you believe there is a God.  There is no uncertainty concerning the motivation of your choices.   

But you were addressing O Mensch.  What exactly are you saying should make him certain that there is/is not a God?  You were claiming that he must be certain.  Why?

[bwv 1080]

I'm saying that it makes you certain about whether you believe there is a God.  There is no uncertainty concerning the motivation of your choices.  

Example: someone NEVER steals office supplies because he is taught it is wrong according to God's laws, and he wants to stay on the right side of God.  Someone else may not steal office supplies (very often) since if they got caught they could lose their job, this acts as a deterrent.  One is certain God exists and acts accordingly, the other doesn't care if God exists, he is acting out of self interest.

so if the person does not steal because he is afraid of divine punishment, how is that any different from not stealing from fear of human punishment?  Based on your attribution, a selfless atheist would be a higher moral being than any believer who could always be accused of acting out of self interest.

[ChamberNut]

Example: someone NEVER steals office supplies because he is taught it is wrong according to God's laws, and he wants to stay on the right side of God.  Someone else may not steal office supplies (very often) since if they got caught they could lose their job, this acts as a deterrent.  One is certain God exists and acts accordingly, the other doesn't care if God exists, he is acting out of self interest.

So, someone who doesn't steal office supplies (even though they may not believe in God), is acting selfishly?  That is some weird reverse logic.

[Bulldog]

I'm saying that it makes you certain about whether you believe there is a God.  There is no uncertainty concerning the motivation of your choices.  

Example: someone NEVER steals office supplies because he is taught it is wrong according to God's laws, and he wants to stay on the right side of God.  Someone else may not steal office supplies (very often) since if they got caught they could lose their job, this acts as a deterrent.  One is certain God exists and acts accordingly, the other doesn't care if God exists, he is acting out of self interest.

Is "fear" the only reason you can come up with to explain office workers not stealing office supplies?  I think most people do not steal because it would violate the premise that stealing is wrong.

[Franco]

so if the person does not steal because he is afraid of divine punishment, how is that any different from not stealing from fear of human punishment?  Based on your attribution, a selfless atheist would be a higher moral being than any believer who could always be accused of acting out of self interest.

I am not concerned with who is "better", I am not a judge.   I am also not saying that only religious people are good, or that religious laws are the only rationale that causes people to be good, or that all religious people are good.  I am only talking about motivation and how that indicates what you believe about our universe. 

If you mostly don't steal because you might lose your job if you got caught and the probability of getting caught goes up the more you  steal, but occasionally you do steal when you are sure you won't get caught, this indicates that you do not believe that there is a Creator of the universe who mandates laws against theft, and your violation matters on level divorced from the practical repercussions of your job status. 

[karlhenning]

So, someone who doesn't steal office supplies (even though they may not believe in God), is acting selfishly?  That is some weird reverse logic.

That's the New Harvard Morality!  Everything we choose to do, we do in self-interest!

[Franco]

Is "fear" the only reason you can come up with to explain office workers not stealing office supplies?  I think most people do not steal because it would violate the premise that stealing is wrong.

Yes, but why is it wrong? 

[Franco]

So, someone who doesn't steal office supplies (even though they may not believe in God), is acting selfishly?  That is some weird reverse logic.

If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this).  

In this case to preserve your good standing with your employer, or to not violate your own sense of self-esteem that you are not so petty as to steal office supplies.  But, what you are NOT doing is serving God with your choice.  And by that non-acknowledgement you cannot turn around and claim you just don't know if God exists or not - because you have decided He doesn't - otherwise, your primary reason to not steal office supplies returns to not wanting to violate a command from God.

ALERT: This is my last comment here.  This conversation is reaching the point of diminishing returns, if it has not past it already.

[karlhenning]

If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this).

Well, that's interesting.  Christians take a different view:  that in serving others, you are serving God (Jesus spoke about this).

Jesus trumps Dylan, even in a religion-bashing thread 

[bwv 1080]

If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this). 

In this case to preserve your good standing with your employer, or to not violate your own sense of self-esteem that you are not so petty as to steal office supplies.  But, what you are NOT doing is serving God with your choice.  And by that non-acknowledgement you cannot turn around and claim you just don't know if God exists or not - because you have decided He doesn't - otherwise, your primary reason to not steal office supplies returns to not wanting to violate a command from God.

you still have not addressed the issue that fear of divine punishment, maintaining one's self perception as a "good Christian/Jew/Muslim (or whatever)" or desire for afterlife rewards do not constitute self-interest

[ChamberNut]

If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this).  

Giving away to charity?  Or volunteering in a soup kitchen?  An individual can do good without self-serving interests.  People who do good things for humanity sometimes are just doing so for the sake of helping others less fortunate.

It doesn't matter whether you have a belief in God or not.