Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is religion good for us?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 46 of 181 (576702)
08-25-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dogmafood
08-24-2010 5:43 PM


It's about having something that people can believe in that is absolutley certain. People like certainty, when we are not certain we can become anxious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 5:43 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 47 of 181 (576704)
08-25-2010 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by archaeologist
08-25-2010 5:38 AM


one-sided arguments likwe this one are very dishonest...
This is not a one sided argument. This is one side of the argument. Your job is to present the other side. Show me the good that organized religion is responsible for in the world today.
And again with calling people dishonest. I am tempted to launch into a scathing rebuke but I think it would be lost on you. If you can put forward some coherent evidence my mind may be changed. Your mind, on the other hand, is like a bank vault stuffed to the brim with old currency. If your vessel is full then you have no place at the well. I really do not care who is right I want to know what is right. Can you see the importance of that distinction?
less worried about religious people and more worried about your own kind.
Religious people are my kind in a general sense. It gives me no pleasure to watch you stumbling around in the dark. We need to lift each other out of the quagmire of ignorance and fear. I dont mean to attack your faith but if it wont stand the light of reason what kind of a refuge is it?
I want to say that religion is like a cul de sac. Good for development bad for progress. But I am talking about religion not faith and it seems that the two are inseparable.
Ah what the hell. Jesus loves you Archie but everyone else thinks you're an asshole. Its a joke, its a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by archaeologist, posted 08-25-2010 5:38 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 48 of 181 (576705)
08-25-2010 8:25 AM


symptom not cause
So religion is a result of our nature. As reason replaces superstition can we not leave it behind?

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 08-25-2010 8:40 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 08-25-2010 11:27 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 08-25-2010 1:34 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 49 of 181 (576706)
08-25-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dogmafood
08-25-2010 8:25 AM


Re: symptom not cause
Dogmafood writes:
So religion is a result of our nature.
Yes, it is an explanation for the unexplained. People don't like having no explanation, so they invent shit to be able to explain and "control" what they don't understand. Don't understand the rain? Invent a rain deity and make sacrifice to him to make it rain. If it doesn't rain, well, that's because the deity is pissed off at you and you need to sacrfice more. And so on and so forth for everything else you don't understand. Growing ever more elaborate and intricate, until nobody knows what's what anymore and you get different sects of the same "religion" to interpret all the different things said about a particular deity.
As reason replaces superstition can we not leave it behind?
Let's hope so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 8:25 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 8:55 AM Huntard has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 50 of 181 (576708)
08-25-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Huntard
08-25-2010 8:40 AM


Re: symptom not cause
Let's hope so.
Cheers to that but I think we need to do more than hope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 08-25-2010 8:40 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Huntard, posted 08-25-2010 10:41 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 51 of 181 (576710)
08-25-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dogmafood
08-25-2010 8:55 AM


Re: symptom not cause
Dogmafood writes:
Cheers to that but I think we need to do more than hope.
Well, other than educate people, there is preciouss little we can do. Ultimately, it is a decission someone has to make for themselves: do they care if their beliefs are true or not, and can be demonstrated as such, that's what it all comes down to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 8:55 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 52 of 181 (576723)
08-25-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dogmafood
08-25-2010 8:25 AM


Re: symptom not cause
So religion is a result of our nature. As reason replaces superstition can we not leave it behind?
Reason's replacing superstition? When did that happen? Last time I looked, the MD down the road from me is a practicing homeopath; my coworker, who, laughs at the religious for being ignorant and credulous, thinks I'm a cultural imperialist for valuing 'western science' over 'eastern wisdom'; and my medically-trained mother is a reflexologist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 8:25 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 9:43 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-25-2010 11:44 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 53 of 181 (576750)
08-25-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dogmafood
08-24-2010 9:49 PM


I wouldn't trust a toddler's instinctual sense of right and wrong to make my real-life moral decisions.
But you do. They are the same ones you had as a child, refined of course. We know what is right. We know that it is ok to eat pork if you cook it properly. We know that you change your books as you learn.
My instincts remain similar, but I most certainly do not listen to them - especially as they pertain to morality. I try to analyze moral problems in terms of net harm or benefit, while my instinctual reaction is based on emotional impact rather than more rational things like numbers.
For instance, rationally I can say that Iraq and Afghanistan are ethically worse than 9/11 simply because of the number of civilians killed and the total harm done to secondary victims, while my emotional reaction still tells me that 9/11 was horrible because it affected me more personally and was scarier.
It goes beyond ethics as well. I don't trust my instinctual, emotional reactions to anything. To continue with 9/11 as an example, international terrorism is extremely scary and emotionally carries a huge impact...but I consider it one of the least important problems facing the world today, considering that things like smoking, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, cancer, or even driving cause orders of magnitude more death and harm every year than acts of terrorism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 9:49 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 9:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 54 of 181 (576752)
08-25-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dogmafood
08-25-2010 8:25 AM


Re: symptom not cause
So religion is a result of our nature. As reason replaces superstition can we not leave it behind?
Not without leaving our humanity behind, IMHO.
I have a phobia of snakes. I consider myself a person of reason, but yet I am unreasonably afraid of snakes. Little garden snakes give the the heebeejeebies even though I know that they will not and can not hurt me. It is just part of my psyche, and I have accepted it. I think unreasonable and illogical emotions like my phobia of snakes is just a part of the human condition. It is as much a part of us as is our ability to reason and be logical. I happen to believe that our foibles are what make us human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 8:25 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 9:47 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 55 of 181 (576834)
08-25-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by caffeine
08-25-2010 11:27 AM


Re: symptom not cause
Reason's replacing superstition? When did that happen? Last time I looked, the MD down the road from me is a practicing homeopath; my coworker, who, laughs at the religious for being ignorant and credulous, thinks I'm a cultural imperialist for valuing 'western science' over 'eastern wisdom'; and my medically-trained mother is a reflexologist.
Hey my wife does that toe fiddling thing. Feels reasonably good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 08-25-2010 11:27 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 56 of 181 (576835)
08-25-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Rahvin
08-25-2010 12:58 PM


It goes beyond ethics as well. I don't trust my instinctual, emotional reactions to anything.
We got apart here. Thats not what I meant. I meant that the seeds of moral knowledge are instinctive. From there they grow into reasoned moral and ethical behaviour.
That is sort of my point. Reducing that irrational emotional response that is so endemic to religion. And that response stems from the individual.
I see that all of our societal ills can ultimately be reduced to the sum of the consequences of the acts of the individuals. It boils down to you and me and what we decide to do, think and believe. Add it all up and you have the present state of things.
I guess a broad based liberal education really is the answer as Huntard said.
What is the name of the guy who conducted a study at a county fair about 150yrs ago. He recorded all of the guesses regarding a cows weight and found that the mean of the guesses was exactly correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 08-25-2010 12:58 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-25-2010 11:11 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 57 of 181 (576836)
08-25-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Taq
08-25-2010 1:34 PM


Re: symptom not cause
I think unreasonable and illogical emotions like my phobia of snakes is just a part of the human condition. It is as much a part of us as is our ability to reason and be logical. I happen to believe that our foibles are what make us human.
A universe of opposing forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 08-25-2010 1:34 PM Taq has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 58 of 181 (576841)
08-25-2010 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dogmafood
08-23-2010 10:23 PM


Dogmafood writes:
Is organized religion in the world today a greater force for good or evil?
As others have suggested, it's mixed. There are some good things done by religion, and there are some evil things. It's hard to come to an overall assessment.
My inclination is to think that if religions disappeared, other social organizations would step in to do the good part. So perhaps we would be better off.
Note that this all references the situation today.
Historically, I think the situation is different. Religions, with their cultural myths, served as a kind of memory for the culture. It's not a memory of facts, but a memory of actions, a memory of ways to behave that helps unite the group and helps them survive adversity. So made up stories can actually be fine for this, if they convey the behaviors that are to be remembers.
It isn't that we have now reached the age of reason, and can do without religion. I think it is that we have reached the age of Gutenberg, and now have better forms of cultural memory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dogmafood, posted 08-23-2010 10:23 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 181 (576846)
08-25-2010 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dogmafood
08-25-2010 9:43 PM


What is the name of the guy who conducted a study at a county fair about 150yrs ago. He recorded all of the guesses regarding a cows weight and found that the mean of the guesses was exactly correct.
Francis Galton.
---
If we apply the same method to deciding how many gods there are, then apparently the polytheists are right. There's about a billion Hindus out there, and their pantheon is large.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dogmafood, posted 08-25-2010 9:43 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 181 (576847)
08-25-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by caffeine
08-25-2010 11:27 AM


Re: symptom not cause
... my coworker, who, laughs at the religious for being ignorant and credulous, thinks I'm a cultural imperialist for valuing 'western science' over 'eastern wisdom' ...
Whereas curiously enough claiming all the science being done by the Indians and the Chinese and the Japanese and so on for the West is not cultural imperialism. If some guy called வெங்கட்ராமன் ராமகிருஷ்ணன் describes the molecular structure of the ribosome, that's not "eastern wisdom", that's another triumph for us white folks, hurrah! Anyone who disagrees is probably some kind of racist.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 08-25-2010 11:27 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024