The "What should replace religion?" question

[dann]

Well I will try to spell it out....using your approach of considering the consequences of what you propose.

1. People believe witchcraft works.
2. Whether or not people have access to a GP does not change the above belief
3. You are opposed to teaching people that 1 is not true.

Again you simply repeat your accusation, i.e. your strawman!

The consequence of this is that people will continue to believe witchcraft works.

The whole argument we've been having is predicated on your opposition to teaching people that witchcraft isn't useful. It was a stupid thing to do in your words.

It simply becomes bizarre when you dismiss everyone who does have access to medical care and still choose quackery.

Again: Where do I say that I am opposed "to teaching people that witchcraft isn't useful"? Would you please quote what you consider to be "my words" since "the whole argument we've been having" appears to be based on your misunderstandings.

Could you also tell me where I "dismiss everyone who does have access access to medical care", which is all the more absurd since my argument the whole time has been that health care is a prerequisite for for abolishing the belief in witchdoctors.

When I point to a case like Steve Jobs, it's because I'm not really concerned about people who could know better, who should know better, who have access to the best kind of health care and choose woo instead. They have an actual choice. I never claimed that the prerequisite for the education about the difference between proper and woo health care (= acces to proper health care) would force people to become 'enlightened'! (I've dealt with these people before when I've had a personal interest in one or two of them, and my conclusion is that you should leave them alone. Their need to believe is of a different kind.

My concern is the people who don't have this choice, whose only choice is between faith and the lack of it, which is what makes your endeavour to teach them about the blessings of modern health care pointless.

In this respect it's similar to the case of the children in Beslan who were held hostage at a school by Chechen rebels:
Carat, 11: "I was hoping that Harry Potter would come. I remembered that he had a cloak that made him invisible and he would come and wrap me in it, and we'd be invisible and we'd escape."
Nine-year-old Laima draws pictures of what she saw when she was held hostage:
"I found a little cross on the gym's floor. I kept it on me for all of the three days. It helped me to survive."

What these children needed was to get the hell out of there! Once they were in safety, you could start telling them about the superstitions that people invent in uncomfortable situations that are out of their control.
What sick Africans need is health care, first and foremost. Once they have that, it makes sense to start telling them about the difference between medical doctors and witchdoctors. Only then will they actually benefit from knowing about the difference.

But I already know how you guys respond to an argument like this: I 'compare Africans with children', right? Unlike many others, however, I wouldn't tell them to 'grow up'. That's what I tell skeptics who do so, and that's what I might have told Jobs ...

 

[dann]

Need is a funny word. Humans need oxygen. A heroin addict needs a fix. Your teenager needs the latest smartphone. I need my morning coffee. Same word, but a wide spectrum of different meanings.

"People need their beliefs!" is one of the oldest clichés out there -- and I simply don't buy it. I think there are plenty of people who have convinced themselves that they need particular beliefs, but I don't think that's the same thing as actually needing them. In fact, I'd say it's the very definition of an addiction. So while I'm perfectly willing to concede that there are large numbers of people who are addicted to magical thinking, I don't believe that addiction should be any more coddled than any other addiction, be it nicotine, sex or soap operas.

Carat needed his belief in Harry Potter and Laina her belief in the cross. But it was probably just an addiction, right?

Notice that I never claimed that in general "People need their beliefs!" What I've been saying the whole time is that the need to believe depends on the living conditions. It's very, very easy for me to live without religion and superstition. They would actually be a burden to me. But unlike an awful lot you guys I don't have the need to convince myself that this only goes to show that I'm so amazing and superior in every way to the pathetic believers.

You can tell this difference between the two of us in this respect from reading our respective sig lines!!!

When Marx calls religion "opium of the people" you can immediately see the parallel between drug addiction and religion. But you need to ask: What gives people the need to distort their perception of reality in both cases - religion and drugs? Hardly anybody becomes addicted to opium because they make the discovery that it enriches their lives immensely, and suddenly they discover that they've been hooked and can no longer live without it. I've had opium injections twice, both times to remove pain caused by kidney stones. It was w-o-n-d-e-r-f-u-l to escape from the pain, which disappeared immediately. And when I woke up, the pain was actually gone, so I never felt the need for more. That is the difference between me and the addicts, which is also the reason why I don't take pride in being such a sturdy individual with the willpower and self-discipline to abstain from drugs and religion. I just don't need it, which is why I recommend that we do away with "the vale of tears" that makes so many people turn to both opium and the 'opium of the people':

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

 

[dann]

I do. In the nanny state of the UK I argue against health and safety personnel who make uneducated decisions about precisely this. Just one of many examples is creosote, an effective wood preservative which is now unobtainable because it was inappropriately used on sports fields. Precisely because I know how toxic it is I only used it where it wasn't going to cause harm.

Good for you. Do you also argue against keeping such substances in locked cupboards that only certain members of staff have access to?

So, as I said, no-one benefits at all.
That is knowledge of actions of particular criminals, it is not education. It shows that providing healthcare without education fails.

No, it shows that Africans, like everybody else, are able to learn from experience, in this case the experience of bad healthcare providers, which, of course, will make them skeptical of future encounters with doctors and nurses.

Also, without a generally educated population, just who is going to administer any health care?

Please, don't resort to the strawman that I argue against "a generally educated population", and don't pretend that you don't know that health care can be administered to a generally uneducated population, e.g. that properly trained doctors can administer e.g. vaccinations to illiterate, medically uneducated tribes in any corner of the world.
And please don't claim that an experience like this is lost upon these people because they're too unintelligent to notice the connection between vaccinations and the consequent absence of (certain kinds of) disease.
Telling them that they would benefit from vaccines that they can't have because they're too expensive or out of reach wouldn't help them - and it would do nothing to fight superstition!

 

[dann]

Are you simply going to ignore this, Gawdzilla?
That would be a pity since you seem to think of religion as a clever ruse invented by somebody to control somebody else. It wouldn't be very difficult to eradicate if that were the case ...

 

[Virus]

You can't replace it. It's a part of our brains. It makes us human. Get rid of it and stuff that's just as irrational takes its place.

Everybody got their bunk.

 

[dann]

You can't replace it. It's a part of our brains. It makes us human. Get rid of it and stuff that's just as irrational takes its place.
Everybody got their bunk.

1) Yes, you can replace it - but you shouldn't.
2) No, it's not "a part of our brains - brainsurgery is not an option if you want to get rid of it.
3) No, it doesn't. I guess you're one of the guys who don't consider atheists to be human ...
4) No, "stuff that's just as irrational" doesn't take its place. Why should it?
5) That's possbible, but so what?

 

[dann]

On a similar note as my posts above.
Jamy Ian Swiss about victims of fortunetellers:

The victims, all women, include a 27-year-old woman of Indian descent who grew up in England; a 42-year-old Indian woman with a husband and two children; a divorcee in her early 60s; and a young 19-year old woman. All were experiencing struggles in their lives and were emotionally vulnerable when they exposed themselves to heartless predators ready to take advantage of such wounded prey. This is one of the most important lessons for skeptics: rather than offer a haughty sneer at the poor decisions these victims made, rather try to find both empathy and insight as to who and why and how otherwise rational people become entrapped by professional con artists who possess an arsenal of finely honed skills of psychological manipulation, with which to ruthlessly take down anyone who, at a weak moment in their lives, makes the mistake of opening the door to a dangerous wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

[Acleron]

Good for you. Do you also argue against keeping such substances in locked cupboards that only certain members of staff have access to?

It is only necessary when there is a group who either are not or cannot be educated. I wouldn't allow free access to drugs for dementia sufferers.

No, it shows that Africans, like everybody else, are able to learn from experience, in this case the experience of bad healthcare providers, which, of course, will make them skeptical of future encounters with doctors and nurses.

This was a small number of rogue medics. Hardly skeptical or even learning from experience to base decisions on that. However, in the non-educated, witch doctor enabled society you propose it is quite easy to see how such beliefs take hold.

Please, don't resort to the strawman that I argue against "a generally educated population", and don't pretend that you don't know that health care can be administered to a generally uneducated population, e.g. that properly trained doctors can administer e.g. vaccinations to illiterate, medically uneducated tribes in any corner of the world.
And please don't claim that an experience like this is lost upon these people because they're too unintelligent to notice the connection between vaccinations and the consequent absence of (certain kinds of) disease.
Telling them that they would benefit from vaccines that they can't have because they're too expensive or out of reach wouldn't help them - and it would do nothing to fight superstition!

It was a direct consequence of you wanting to restrict education until after healthcare was provided. And don't tell me what I consider the intelligence of others to be. You are yourself uneducated in what I know or my thoughts.

We know full well that people often fail to connect vaccination with health. Treating people without educating them is unethical and counter-productive. Allowing witch doctors to flourish is a nonsense.

 

[dann]

... in the non-educated, witch doctor enabled society you propose ...

that I propose???? Where do I propose that???

... you wanting to restrict education until after healthcare was provided.

I want to restrict education??! Where do I do so??? Like the others you appear to be unable to see that pointing out that healthcare is a precondition for the success of such education is not an argument for restricting education. Your convulated way of seeing things is like claiming that somebody who points out that people need to eat in order to learn is primarily concerned with the restriction of learning. On the contrary!

Treating people without educating them is unethical and counter-productive.

No, it isn't. In general, patients should be informed as much as possble - about their disease and the treatments they receive, but also about health (care), but there's nothing wrong or unethical with curing a disease without educating the patient.

Allowing witch doctors to flourish is a nonsense.

Yes! And a beneficial sideeffect of providing people with proper medical care is that it diminishes their inclination to visit witch doctors, who, thus, don't flourish! Add some education about the difference between medical doctors and witch doctors and you have the formula for success!

 

[dann]

Science fiction.

You're right. At its worst science fiction may be a replacement for religion. And more so than fantasy.

 

[Paulhoff]

Understanding

Paul

 

[kirstenholme]

I feel I am disturbing a heated discussion but going back to the OP, that question seems to make the god-shaped-hole in all of us a preclusion for an answer. After all, if there is no void, what need is there for a replacement for religion?

I recently read a metaphor that said that calling atheism a belief system was like calling 'off' a television channel. In keeping with this image set, replacing theism with something else is akin to finding a replacement for the off switch on a television set. It's unnecessary and is more likely to degrade rather than improve anything.

 

[Acleron]

I feel I am disturbing a heated discussion but going back to the OP, that question seems to make the god-shaped-hole in all of us a preclusion for an answer. After all, if there is no void, what need is there for a replacement for religion?

I recently read a metaphor that said that calling atheism a belief system was like calling 'off' a television channel. In keeping with this image set, replacing theism with something else is akin to finding a replacement for the off switch on a television set. It's unnecessary and is more likely to degrade rather than improve anything.

An interesting extension to the analogy. But I fear that switching off the TV makes people find other entertainments and the question is should atheists supply the new entertainment?

 

[kirstenholme]

But I fear that switching off the TV makes people find other entertainments and the question is should atheists supply the new entertainment?

Who are atheists supplying these replacements to? Theists seeking a way out? other atheists? Atheists in foxholes?

What I'm trying to put across is that theism, like the Easter bunny, doesn't offer anything of value that requires replacing. If you don't see the need to give adults something to fill in the gaps left behind after they lose their faith in Santa Clause, why feel the need to do so here? What you're trying to do is fill up a nonexistent hole that was not left behind by something that does not exist. The point?

 

[dann]

Who are atheists supplying these replacements to? Theists seeking a way out? other atheists? Atheists in foxholes?

What I'm trying to put across is that theism, like the Easter bunny, doesn't offer anything of value that requires replacing. If you don't see the need to give adults something to fill in the gaps left behind after they lose their faith in Santa Clause, why feel the need to do so here? What you're trying to do is fill up a nonexistent hole that was not left behind by something that does not exist. The point?

Do you seriously claim that the Easter Bunny doesn't offer anything of value that requires replacing??!!!
Please, don't lose yourselves in the metaphors of "holes" or "voids" left behind by things existing or non-existstant. The most stupid metaphor for religion so far is entertainment. Even devout Christians are sometimes bored out of their skulls in church! And when religion occasionally does provide its worshippers with entertainment, it doesn't usually depend on their faith, which is why gospel as a sideeffect of religion can be enjoyed in totally secularized versions. (I myself enjoy the dances of the orishas, e.g. Elegguá or Oggún. I don't have to believe in Santeria to do so.)

So instead let's take a look at one of the many situations where people resort to religion:
When you lose somebody dear to you, you miss that person. And if the person has died, there is no way that your longing for your loved one can be fulfilled in this world. You can either live with the pain and go through a phase of mourning (not pleasant, but highly recommended!), or you can seek wishfulfillment beyond the world of reality, i.e. in religion/superstition.

This is what Randi says about the compulsion or the need to believe:

People are often compelled to believe in the supernatural, a category that includes God and religion for Randi, he told LiveScience in a separate interview. "In many cases, they absolutely need to believe it," he said. "Because they believe it gives them some kind of way of controlling the way the world works."

And in another version:

"People not only want it to be true, they need it to be true. It's the feel-good syndrome," says longtime skeptic and magician James Randi, 72, whose standing offer of $1 million to psychics who can independently verify their "magic" has gone unclaimed for four years.

(My italics in both quotations. dann)

And who doesn't want to feel good?! I definitely do!
However, like in the case of drugs, you have to pay dearly for achieving peace of mind in this manner and the withdrawal symptoms when you are addicted only to the 'opium of the people' also aren't pleasant, albeit psychological only and not physiological.

And it's worth stressing that unlike the demise of people dear to you, almost all other problems that drive people into the arms of psychics or preachers have solutions in this world, in reality (healthcare, for instance!) = no 'hole' or 'void' to fill!

PS People usually don't lose their faith in Santa, they outgrow it = no hole or void to fill no need to cling to the belief.

 

[Acleron]

Do you seriously claim that the Easter Bunny doesn't offer anything of value that requires replacing??!!!
Please, don't lose yourselves in the metaphors of "holes" or "voids" left behind by things existing or non-existstant. The most stupid metaphor for religion so far is entertainment. Even devout Christians are sometimes bored out of their skulls in church! And when religion occasionally does provide its worshippers with entertainment, it doesn't usually depend on their faith, which is why gospel as a sideeffect of religion can be enjoyed in totally secularized versions. (I myself enjoy the dances of the orishas, e.g. Elegguá or Oggún. I don't have to believe in Santeria to do so.)

So instead let's take a look at one of the many situations where people resort to religion:
When you lose somebody dear to you, you miss that person. And if the person has died, there is no way that your longing for your loved one can be fulfilled in this world. You can either live with the pain and go through a phase of mourning (not pleasant, but highly recommended!), or you can seek wishfulfillment beyond the world of reality, i.e. in religion/superstition.

This is what Randi says about the compulsion or the need to believe:
And in another version: (My italics in both quotations. dann)

And who doesn't want to feel good?! I definitely do!
However, like in the case of drugs, you have to pay dearly for achieving peace of mind in this manner and the withdrawal symptoms when you are addicted only to the 'opium of the people' also aren't pleasant, albeit psychological only and not physiological.

And it's worth stressing that unlike the demise of people dear to you, almost all other problems that drive people into the arms of psychics or preachers have solutions in this world, in reality (healthcare, for instance!) = no 'hole' or 'void' to fill!

PS People usually don't lose their faith in Santa, they outgrow it = no hole or void to fill no need to cling to the belief.

As it happens the discussion about entertainment was adjunct to a different metaphor.

Also, as it happens, a lot of religion is exactly entertainment. The ritual acting, the odd dress, the music, singing and the chanting of prayers are all entertainment. People are attracted to it but also indoctrinated to believe they must like it. It is a technique well worked out over many years, it works and it brings in the money which is the prime aim.

The discussion could be, should atheists supply similar amusements? My own feeling is that as atheism is a rational conclusion derived from the lack of evidence of any god, we should not indulge in flim-flam to persuade people.

Some argue that religions also supply a social function so again the question is should atheists set up the same or similar. Again, my own argument is that alternatives are already available and communication is so good that local organisations are not required.

But then, I'm not a social animal and in fact quite detest any attempts to include me into gatherings for their own sake. Therefore I'm quite willing to accept arguments for supplying those functions but I haven't seen any yet.

 

[Acleron]

Who are atheists supplying these replacements to? Theists seeking a way out? other atheists? Atheists in foxholes?

What I'm trying to put across is that theism, like the Easter bunny, doesn't offer anything of value that requires replacing. If you don't see the need to give adults something to fill in the gaps left behind after they lose their faith in Santa Clause, why feel the need to do so here? What you're trying to do is fill up a nonexistent hole that was not left behind by something that does not exist. The point?

I've read more than a few descriptions of people who have left religion. Often they leave a network of friends and even family. The hole exists. Still, I agree with you, atheists need not fill that hole, it's just I think there are better arguments than denying such holes exist.

 

[kirstenholme]

I understand that those who leave religion are left feeling lost without it for a time but that does not equate to any loss for those who never found it in the first place. Nor does it prove that atheism lacks something that only religion can provide. If this discussion is to be about those recovering from a cult, the conversation would need to go in a different direction.

Those who lose loved ones grieve regardless of their belief systems. Go to any Christian funeral and you're sure to see quite a few people crying, often uncontrollably. It may be comforting to believe that they have continued into another existence but that false belief does not, in the long run, pay off in that it does not help us come to terms with the real world. Grief is not something to avoid--it is a part of an authentic life. Personally, living without the belief that my dead family members and friends have gone on to another kind of world gives me far more closure than holding a belief that they are still out there somewhere. It also adds to my own quality of life knowing that I only have this one chance. I also prefer to come to terms with the way things are rather than the way I want them to be.

As for the Easter bunny, if I'm looking at my childhood with Easter bunnies, fairies and father Christmases, I still remember getting far more joy out of the gifts that did not come from a magical wonderland but rather from family members who cared about me. As for the enchantment attached, books did better for me on that score--and held my attention for far longer.

 

[dann]

Also, as it happens, a lot of religion is exactly entertainment. The ritual acting, the odd dress, the music, singing and the chanting of prayers are all entertainment. People are attracted to it but also indoctrinated to believe they must like it. It is a technique well worked out over many years, it works and it brings in the money which is the prime aim.

You have delivered a perfect example of the conspiracy theory of religion. According to this theory people don't believe because they ineed to and therefore want to. Instead they are lured into the churches because they can't resist the temptation of, e.g. tantalizing Christian rock 'n' roll! (Some preachers subscribe to the same ideology, which is why you can actually find that kind of music in sermons for young people.)
The ritual acting and the odd dress, by the way, aren't there for entertainment as you seem to believe but for convincing the congregation that the priest represent powers beyond ordinary, everyday life. (Which is why the acting is usually pretty boring and not entertaining at all. It's also no coincidence that judges in many countries are dressed like priests ...)
People like you tend to deny that people themselves invent gods and paradises if they feel the need. Unless, of course, somebody already offers a product that lives up to their particular wishes in this respect. See the Beslan example in this post.

 

[Acleron]

You have delivered a perfect example of the conspiracy theory of religion. According to this theory people don't believe because they ineed to and therefore want to. Instead they are lured into the churches because they can't resist the temptation of, e.g. tantalizing Christian rock 'n' roll! (Some preachers subscribe to the same ideology, which is why you can actually find that kind of music in sermons for young people.)

I put two indicators into my post that show I was not assuming this applied to everyone. The expression 'conspiracy theory of religion' is a new one to me, and appears silly in this context.
Most people in a religion are indoctrinated from an early age. Those lured into a religion do it for many reasons, they may rationalise their decision in many ways.

The ritual acting and the odd dress, by the way, aren't there for entertainment as you seem to believe but for convincing the congregation that the priest represent powers beyond ordinary, everyday life. (Which is why the acting is usually pretty boring and not entertaining at all. It's also no coincidence that judges in many countries are dressed like priests ...)

I'm sure that part of the play acting and clothing is exactly designed to impress, entertainers try to impress as well.

People like you tend to deny that people themselves invent gods and paradises if they feel the need. Unless, of course, somebody already offers a product that lives up to their particular wishes in this respect. See the Beslan example in this post.

As I don't deny any such thing, either people like me don't think that and/or your mind reading skills are deficient.

Yes, we know you believe that people need to believe. Don't you find it strange that plenty of people don't need to believe?