You sorted this out then? You meant religion is a sort of mind virus and its popularity is evidence that it is addictive like tobacco right? There is not really any evidence for that hypothesis.
So you would purport that human minds innately know there is a god, and that faith is not transmitted to children when their minds are malleable?
I suppose you think inclement weather causes colds too? Viruses come from nowhere?
Probably. The average lifespan was 35 or so until suprisingly recently.
And you conclude what? That if religion was based on a desire for immortality that religion should be on the decline? Well guess what? Religion is on the decline and that decline can be correlated with longevity. Or were you going to say that increase in lifespan should mean the complete disappearance of religion?
I mean really this line of exploration isn't helping you
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about death. It isn't a major motive in my life.
Why should you? Haven't you been promised immortality?
All you have to do is internalize doctrine as reality to get it.
I doubt it is in most 21st century types, until they pass middle age. In any event, religion can actually increase fear of death. Why don't you provide
some evidence, so I can see what you think you mean. I suspect you won't be satisfied with any interpretation I put on your claim.
So it surprises you that people who are only slightly religious fear death more than people who are more religious? Or that nonreligious people have already given the idea some thought and better accept it?
It surprises you that strongly religious fear death the least?
And this supports your position..
how?
It's certainly a hypothesis. I think religion is more like being handed an english teacher. I think it can impede morality, precisely because it is so effective at shaping some of the foundational assumptions we use to make moral decisions. You will get no argument from me that religious persons have to justify their actions by the same objective standards as anyone else.
Not the least quibble with this.
We may yet work up to Fox news/NPR violence. In my view it doesn't take much more than a tool for convincing people that they have a group identity and that it is threatened by another group. Religion certainly can do this. It can also provide a method for connecting with the alien and the outsider.
You mean converting an alien into a believer. Religious 'outreach' has a goal, it's is not to embrace otherness, it's to eliminate otherness. Religion propagates conformity.
Right. I don't fully understand the function of religion, and yet I claim some of the things it does are beneficial.
Agreed. But those things can be done without religion. And religion does bad things that cannot be done without religion.
I am sorry for your friend. I don't think I'll share the incident it brings to mind. In any event, I acknowledge that religion can be a tool to incite violence. Are you under the impression that bully boys need a religious reason to be violent homophobes?
Are you under the impression that homosexuals are not regularly executed in the name of god?
It may help you to note I'm not making absolute claims, so your counters come off as specious. I never said all bad things happen because of religion. And I welcome a debate about how much. But it really doesn't make you look credible when you keep trying to put words in my mouth of the form 'there would never be a gay executed without religion'. There would be, but not nearly as many. And as the cultural stigma and intolerance that is abetted by religion fell out of acceptance I suggest it would diminish.
..What is really impressive about it, though is its ability to teach its practioners certain social attitudes that I find deeply humbling, when I really stop to think about it. Those attitudes translate pretty well into action. I can take another, explicit stab at this, in another post, if you like.
Sure. You may be able to come up with some good, which can be shown to be impossible without religion which might change my mind from thinking in the ideal circumstance no religion would be desirable to thinking, assuming the power (unlikely) and moral authority (more unlikely) to get rid of religion we would see that it would be impossible to do completely and doing so would cause more harm than good. In which case we'd have to devise some method to somehow constrain it so that we could curb the evils while maintaining the necessary goods.
Why don't you explain why it is a strawman? Then I can address whatever you're actually thinking without deploying my psychic powers.
You mischaracterized what I said then attacked the mischaracterization. It's right there. Stop it
It doesn't fly well here, and you'll get called on it abut every time you try.
Inner experience can be manipulated. It's prone too error. That's why I think deference to better proven methods is the touchstone for reasonableness. I don't see any reason to buy your slippery slope argument, though.
Well you wouldn't would you?
Questioning faith is after all, defined as a bad thing in religions
I think faith can be a cause of error. I haven't mentioned it because I thought the central thrust of SkG's challenge was showing it was possible to discriminate between god beliefs on some other basis. In all honesty I took your focus on it to be some sort of trap, so you could then shout about how I don't understand the difference between faith and reason.
Not at all. And I'm gratified that you do see the difference. You can see that some people don't see the difference tho.
That sincerely drew a snort. Cheers for style.
Thank you for acknowledging the first point. I agree that god beliefs are not required to do good. I think that the ability to do good depends on more than reasoning, however. I have some evidence for this, posted above. I think we have to be trained and to practice particular emotional postures, to get good at them. A sort of psychic training, if you will. Religion may not have a monopoly on this, but its certainly the most common provider.
Then perhaps we should focus on the question of what religion provides that could not otherwise be provided, or would even be too impractical to provide. We will presume I said jihad, inquisitions, intolerance, etc, already and try to focus on the good things
The Presbyterian church is governed by a bicameral house of representatives elected by the laity, and has more committees than a fortune 500 company with a new corporate vision. In the midwest it is also blessed with a culture of mild discomfort for extreme positions, and a voracious appetite for "polite" disagreement which advanced practioners can extend for years. There are checks and balances designed by people with your concerns in mind.
Wisely so. And I do accept that 'societally polite' religions do exist. It's almost as if these realize faith is an addictive and dangerous drug but either can't live without it or convince themselves there is some other benefit that it provides that makes it worth the risk. In that recognition they take systemic measures to keep it in check.
I think there's some interesting stuff in here, possibly distorted by typing fatigue. Would you explain how existential responsibility is different from the more mundane kind I'm familiar with? And are you sneering at emotion here, or claiming you're beyond it or what? I not embarrassed by the assertion that religion involves my emotions.
Not sneering at emotion at all. Existential responsibility I mean is taking responsibility for one's own existence. By adopting a religion you are given ready answers for unpleasant questions. Why am I here? What is my purpose? What should I be doing?
It's a common complaint of new atheists. Reason led them down a road but didn't prepare them for what was at the end. "Ok, I never really bought the heaven stuff, and I couldn't avoid getting where I am, but.. now what?" Lots of theists similarly don't even believe in an afterlife, but facing that responsibility is too just much.
I think we agree on almost everything but language, meaning, context and history here. Is it fair to say you think your moral positions are entirely self-derived? Are you the master of your fate/captain of your soul? Greek logic through and through? That sort of thing?
Yes and no. Believe it or not I'm a romantic.
Of course, my moral decisions are not entirely self derived, but they are not
based on an external doctrine nor are they immutable. I'm a moral anti-realist, as such I have to take responsibility for my own morality. That responsibility may oblige me to steal some morality from others
But I won't take dish that comes with a blue pill. Faith is the blue pill.
It is the same criticism that I apply to the concepts of 'justice' and 'mercy', and that is why they are not valid analogies for god.