[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[AkuManiMani]

And, once again, what "fairytale" are you referring to? I get the impression that you may be barking up the wrong tree.

And I get the impression a tree seems to be barking for no reason.

Oohhh...I get it.

*plays along*

So you're referring to a fairytale about barking trees...?

 

[DanishDynamite]

If you're not happy with Anglicanism, start with something you are happy with.

Can't answer the question, can you? How sad.

My point was about why people believe the things they do. Would you say that for all the things you believe, you have checked on the evidence, the arguments and reasoning, the editors of whatever journal, the reviewers, to the point of leaving no doubt of the truth of each piece of information, or does trust come in at some point with some of it?

Trust comes into the chain at the first link. The difference between believing in woo-woo and being rational, for the lay man, is the knowledge that a system of determining woo-woo (or crap) from the real thing exists in the scientific world. It doesn't exist in the alternative woo universe.

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Well, they certainly don't in this day and age. Do you have an argument aside from such an obvious straw-man as to why somebody cannot trust the scientific method and still be religious?

Idiocy?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I do not see the connection between what you see as spiritualism and belief in god. Einstein's quotes are evidence perhaps of some idealism, rather than spiritualism, let alone god, personal or otherwise.
I find quoted soundbites to be of little interest, and wonder why so many do. What was important about Einstein's legacy are the mathematical descriptions he left behind, and not his musings upon Viennese Sachertorte.

I'm curious as to what your definition of "spiritual" is so we can atleast be on the same page.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Oohhh...I get it.

*plays along*

So you're referring to a fairytale about barking trees...?

I'm refering to your attempt at defending the religious as not quite insane. Presumably, if you are not religious yourself, you have some reason you find rational. Let's hear it.

 

[humber]

My point was about why people believe the things they do. Would you say that for all the things you believe, you have checked on the evidence, the arguments and reasoning, the editors of whatever journal, the reviewers, to the point of leaving no doubt of the truth of each piece of information, or does trust come in at some point with some of it?


No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Well, they certainly don't in this day and age. Do you have an argument aside from such an obvious straw-man as to why somebody cannot trust the scientific method and still be religious?

To ask for absolute proof is fundamentalism. Apart from the epistemological problems, life is finite, so not everything can be personally verified.

I think that it is obvious that a believer can trust the scientific method, but must also accept that the method restricts, and probably entirely excludes, belief's inclusion in the results.

 

[humber]

Akumanimani
The existence of any sort of non-corporeal identity that influences our existence, or provides meaning or purpose. The latter are human constructs only.

 

[neltana]

As I've said previously, if the believer had access to education, and yet still decides to believe in whather, that is even more damning.

If you recall, that wasn't the original question. Allow me to somewhat restate it:

Do you feel that the "idiots" (those who have had access to sufficient information to know better in your view) can be cured through education? Or, since religious belief is likely a mental defect, in your opinion, is education unlikely to change a person's beliefs?

No, I don't recall saying I was against mandatory treatment and no I don't understand your concern.

Well, remember when I said:

Would you propose mandatory treatment for those who don't believe as you think they should? Or would you just impose social sanctions on them?

and you said:

I wouldn't propose either. I would make it a free possibility for those who would like the treatment.

This led me to believe you were against mandatory treatment, opting instead to merely make the treatment available (a passive versus an active approach).

But I wanted to be sure I understood, So, I asked for clarification of how you felt about mandatory treatment and you responded:

If a treatment could be found I would be for letting any inflicted receive such treatment for free. Hope that is clear enough.

I am clear that you would make the "cure" freely available. But not whether you would support mandatory (involuntary) treatment of religious believers, especially since you follow it up with:

Would you also be against teating shizophrenics against their will?

That certainly makes it sound like you advocate mandatory treatment. Please state clearly whether you would be for or against mandatory treatment to cure people of religious beliefs.

As far as why I should worry about such mandatory treatment, I would refer you to the story of Elizabeth Packard. In 1860, her husband had her committed to a mental asylum because of her irrational beliefs--chief among them were that humans had free will and were accountable to god for their actions. Her husband called her beliefs "the vagaries of a crazed brain."

She was hardly the only person to have this experience, but her case did because notorious.

It wasn't until three years later that she finally got an Illinois court to release her and her 6 children got their mother back. Luckily, she was an energetic woman. She wrote a book telling of her experience and was instrumental in getting the law changed in three states to prevent commitment due to religious beliefs.

The question of how humans should best live among each other, is neither a question for science nor a question for religion...

How you answer this question is important. It matters and has consequences beyond yourself. How you answer it dictates how you will interact with others and the type of impact you will have on others.

No, it is of no relevance at all to the question at hand. If you feel otherwise, kindly explain why.

I'd prefer to phrase the question as "how should people treat each other?" I think it is the same question, but something about the original phrasing bothers me.

Civilization is the process of us, collectively, trying to answer that question. It is important, because consideration of it forces us to consider not only our common interests, but our competing ones.

And you know what, it is a pretty thorny question. In 8000 years of recorded history, we haven't exactly nailed utopia.

Religious and philosophical beliefs, along with disciplines such as sociology, psychology and economics help inform the question. Hence the relevance.

I have yet to so you put forth any evidence or argument that religious convictions are, in and of themselves, bad or harmful. And yet, that seems to be an undercurrent to your arguments. Do you care to address that point?

See history of the world since yesterday, for Ed's sake!

Okay, in the last 24 hours I see that Fidel Castro has affirmed that his brother Raul is now in charge of Cuba. I see that a brutal sell off hammered Wall Street. Hezbollah condemns the precense of a US warship off the coast of Lebanon. Deadly violence rages in Cameroon. Robert Mugabe denounces his opposition as "witches and charlatans."

Explain to me how these stories show how religious convictions are harmful. I tried to chose a cross section of stories, but feel free to add in any other stories since yesterday that you want.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'm refering to your attempt at defending the religious as not quite insane. Presumably, if you are not religious yourself, you have some reason you find rational. Let's hear it.

Okay, now we're talking.

[FYI, insanity and stupidity are not the same thing]

My take on it is that religions are expressions of a mental phenomenon that is fundamental to human psychology and aren't necessarily reflections of intelligence. Some religions manifest as virulent fundamentalist cults [such as certain strains of Islam or Christianity] and others are more benign [e.g. most strains of Buddhism]. In my view it is a biological phenomenon that warrants further study and not simpleminded dismissal. I've mentioned in another thread that those who wish to eliminate religion are akin to those in the early days of germ theory who thought the eradication of microbes would be beneficial.

 

[neltana]

If you're not happy with Anglicanism, start with something you are happy with.

Can't answer the question, can you? How sad.

Dude! He has been answering you. Anglicanism is actually a religion, you know. Remember, you asked him to name one...and then he named one...and then you ignored him and told him to name one.

 

[humber]

I'd prefer to phrase the question as "how should people treat each other?" I think it is the same question, but something about the original phrasing bothers me.

Civilization is the process of us, collectively, trying to answer that question. It is important, because consideration of it forces us to consider not only our common interests, but our competing ones.

I think that you have found some ambivalences from DD, but I don't see the point of the rest of your post.
Persecution is persecution, and common to many societies and ideologies.

Is civilization about treating each other? I would argue that it is about making life more comfortable. Philosophy is a hobby that is indulged by the free time that science and technology has made available.

Earlier you argued that words such as rational have precise definitions.
Words are metaphors, and so are thoughts. They change according to context, for example. Try having a thought without words.

DD says that religion is idiotic, and followers are idiots. Perhaps religion is not 'just' a meme, but a neurosis.
SOED:
neurosis / a mild mental illness, not attributable to organic disease, characterized by symptoms of stress such as anxiety, depression, obsessive behaviour, hypochondria, etc., without loss of contact with reality. Cf. PSYCHONEUROSIS, PSYCHOSIS. M18.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Akumanimani
The existence of any sort of non-corporeal identity that influences our existence, or provides meaning or purpose. The latter are human constructs only.

My view is that there is no real distinction "spiritual" and "corporeal" save for reasons of categorization.

I kinda beat this topic to death in another thread but I'll try to sum it up in as short a span as I can. The core definition of spiritual is "of or pertaining to the mind or intellect". The mind is an emergent pattern that arises from the activity of cellular processes. Cells are themselves composed of atoms which are also oscillating patterns. The mind is not material in the sense of it being an object composed of atoms but it is quite real in the sense that its workings influence the behavior of atomic [i.e. corporeal] matter.

Fundamentally, all entities are informational in nature. There is no real ontological difference between "spirit" and "matter".

 

[humber]

Akumanimani,
I agree. It could be that religion has evolved as something to better our survival, but it could also be an idea that parasites the way we think, praying on our simple ideas of about cause and effect, for example.
Religious belief and intelligence are not reliably related or mutually exclusive as DD asserts.

As for Buddhism, perhaps benign is a polite euphemism for inert.

Elimination of microbes would be a good idea, if only the harmful were to be removed.
It would be as difficult to argue for the return of smallpox as it would be to retain religious fundamentalism.

 

[Egg]

Can't answer the question, can you? How sad.

I don't need to answer (even though I have 3 times). This is your claim. Why aren't you adhering to the same standards you are demanding of me, when it isn't even my claim?

You've said that all religions are idiocy, based on them having beliefs which are contrary to the evidence. You now need to show that they all have such beliefs. We've agreed that this applies to Young Earth Creationists and now Anglicanism has been suggested, but this is your claim, so feel free to pick something else and we'll come back to Anglicanism later.

Trust comes into the chain at the first link. The difference between believing in woo-woo and being rational, for the lay man, is the knowledge that a system of determining woo-woo (or crap) from the real thing exists in the scientific world. It doesn't exist in the alternative woo universe.

Fair enough. So you have reasons to believe your trust ultimately has some basis. My point was that they believe theirs has too. It's not like scientists have never been wrong and besides they have scientists telling them that other conclusions can be reached from the scientific method. I was just trying to shed some light as to why they might believe as they do. It can actually take some intelligence to perform the mental gymnastics some of them do to try to fit the evidence into their belief system.

Idiocy?

So, now who can't answer the question?

 

[humber]

Akumanimani,
Agree with everything that you wrote save that the mind influences corporeal matter. The mind, as in conscious events, is a direct product of the biochemical processes that are orchestrated by the structure of the corporeal brain. That there are cells involved is the way nature constructed the brain, but consciousness does not rely upon the nature of the hardware. A conscious computer is a real possibility.

 

[humber]

Trust and faith are the same?
Trust requires some faith, in that you act even if all cannot be proven, but it is still based upon probability. Inherent trust may apply to your family because you have good reason or evidence to take it at face value. However, trust it is testable, and you may lose it.
Religious faith cannot be tested in this way.

 

[neltana]

Hopefully less pointless...

I think that you have found some ambivalences from DD, but I don't see the point of the rest of your post.

Well, I think the exchange I've been having with DD does lack coherence. But I'm not sure it's all my fault. But I guess I'm not in a position to judge.

What I'm trying to get at, in my own messy way, is that it is legitimate and typical for human beings to have questions beyond what science can answer. Does the consciousness persist after death. Science can't answer this. We still don't really have a good understanding of exactly what consciousness is. We certainly have no way to determine what happens to it after we die.

We can make statements of faith such as "it ceases to exist," "it merges with the universe" or "it goes to heaven." However, none of these propositions can be tested. We may choose one option over another based on various axioms, but that is it.

Similarly, people choose to work together or enter into conflict based upon their expectations and beliefs. It is not a wholly rational process and things like religious beliefs play a major role here...as do cultural biases, rational market choices and historical experience. To look at this process and conclude the religious beliefs are primarily harmful is a bold statement that should be backed up by analysis. Certainly folks like Weber have shown that it has a powerful norming effect which, like nationalism, can get large groups of people to work together towards shared goals.

Hope this seemed somewhat less pointless...but like I said, I am in no position to judge.

 

[DanishDynamite]

If you recall, that wasn't the original question. Allow me to somewhat restate it:

Do you feel that the "idiots" (those who have had access to sufficient information to know better in your view) can be cured through education? Or, since religious belief is likely a mental defect, in your opinion, is education unlikely to change a person's beliefs?

"Sigh". People who are religious are idiots for so being. If the sickness of being religious can be cured, I'm very much for it.

Hope that is clear enough.

Well, remember when I said:

and you said:

This led me to believe you were against mandatory treatment, opting instead to merely make the treatment available (a passive versus an active approach).

But I wanted to be sure I understood, So, I asked for clarification of how you felt about mandatory treatment and you responded:

I am clear that you would make the "cure" freely available. But not whether you would support mandatory (involuntary) treatment of religious believers, especially since you follow it up with:

That certainly makes it sound like you advocate mandatory treatment. Please state clearly whether you would be for or against mandatory treatment to cure people of religious beliefs.

Assuming a cure for religiousness could be found, I would be in favor of offering free treatments for anyone wishing such treatment.

Was that clear enough?

As far as why I should worry about such mandatory treatment, I would refer you to the story of Elizabeth Packard. In 1860, her husband had her committed to a mental asylum because of her irrational beliefs--chief among them were that humans had free will and were accountable to god for their actions. Her husband called her beliefs "the vagaries of a crazed brain."

She was hardly the only person to have this experience, but her case did because notorious.

I'm extatic at how relevant it is to this OP.

It wasn't until three years later that she finally got an Illinois court to release her and her 6 children got their mother back. Luckily, she was an energetic woman. She wrote a book telling of her experience and was instrumental in getting the law changed in three states to prevent commitment due to religious beliefs.

How irrelevant.

I'd prefer to phrase the question as "how should people treat each other?" I think it is the same question, but something about the original phrasing bothers me.

Civilization is the process of us, collectively, trying to answer that question. It is important, because consideration of it forces us to consider not only our common interests, but our competing ones.

And you know what, it is a pretty thorny question. In 8000 years of recorded history, we haven't exactly nailed utopia.

Religious and philosophical beliefs, along with disciplines such as sociology, psychology and economics help inform the question. Hence the relevance.

The question of how humans should live among each other is still unanswered. But whether there is a God was answered long ago. And the answer was; No.

Okay, in the last 24 hours I see that Fidel Castro has affirmed that his brother Raul is now in charge of Cuba. I see that a brutal sell off hammered Wall Street. Hezbollah condemns the precense of a US warship off the coast of Lebanon. Deadly violence rages in Cameroon. Robert Mugabe denounces his opposition as "witches and charlatans."

Explain to me how these stories show how religious convictions are harmful. I tried to chose a cross section of stories, but feel free to add in any other stories since yesterday that you want.

Sigh.

The Inquisition?
The Crusades?
The Middle-Ages in general?

 

[neltana]

"Sigh". People who are religious are idiots for so being. If the sickness of being religious can be cured, I'm very much for it.

Dude! The question was can it be cured through education. Yes or no.

Assuming a cure for religiousness could be found, I would be in favor of offering free treatments for anyone wishing such treatment.

Dude! The question was do you support mandatory (involuntary) treatment. Yes or no?

The question of how humans should live among each other is still unanswered. But whether there is a God was answered long ago. And the answer was; No.

Please cite where this study appeared or admit that no such study exists.

Sigh.

The Inquisition?
The Crusades?
The Middle-Ages in general?

You specifically asked me to cite things that happened since yesterday. None of these things did. Are you only able to cite examples that happened hundreds of years ago?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Akumanimani,
Agree with everything that you wrote save that the mind influences corporeal matter. The mind, as in conscious events, is a direct product of the biochemical processes that are orchestrated by the structure of the corporeal brain. That there are cells involved is the way nature constructed the brain, but consciousness does not rely upon the nature of the hardware. A conscious computer is a real possibility.

What I meant by the mind influencing matter is that choices and perceptions physically change the configuration of matter [whether or not those perceptions are based on objective sensory data]. For instance if a person thinks of something distressing is causes physical changes in the body; when a person chooses to move, speak, or commit to any other physical activity they initiate changes in the material world around them.

Meaning and purpose have no objective reality outside of the subjective experience -- they're examples of non-corporeal "things" -- they're the currency of the mind. I think a lot of human suffering comes from people thinking that they must look for some outside source to give them meaning and purpose when it is something that they must define and decide for themselves. Its not something to have dictated or handed to you by some authority.

I think a lot of the aversion to the term "spirit" in modern science is because it brings up connotations of the dualist arguments put forward over the centuries -- that mind/spirit/anima (or what ever term you like) is fundamentally different and separate from the body/matter. As I already mentioned, that age old debate is flawed because there is no duality. The whole spirit-vs-matter issue is just the silly nature-vs-nurture debate in another guise.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Has religion provided ANY reliable answers about the universe or life or ANYTHING?

I have yet to see an example of this.