• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is religion inevitable for any conscious evolving species?

Because it's like in my example with deciding to call every mammal a cat, just because a lot of stuff is after all the same. You then lose all the information associated with how a subset differs from the parent set.
 
Because it's like in my example with deciding to call every mammal a cat, just because a lot of stuff is after all the same. You then lose all the information associated with how a subset differs from the parent set.

Except the ifs involved matter a hell of a lot, and actually disqualify most things.
 
How many honest to pete monotheists are there? Christianists and Muslimoids all believe in Satan, and in angels and jdinns and demons. Jews mostly credit Satan too, and those who don't still set a place for Gabriel -- or whoever, I don't have my notes here -- at Passover. All those b'lievers may class their Yehooavow as the one true only deity, but, standing off at this distance, I merely note their folklore, and I certainly don't accept it.

Other cults teem with gods n demons n sperrits n whatall. Just favoring one over the others and praying to him on a brick is hardly exclusive monotheism.

Over the millenia, gods rise and fall, often turning into, yessir, demons, angels, spirits, and the habit of nailing a horseshoe over the door.

For decades now, we've seen fools trying to revive (or reinvent?) defunct gods, with some success. I'm inclined to think that pure-quill monotheism can never satisfy anybody's religious cravings, because it's so goddamn boring. It explains everything with the ringing of one dull bell: GODDIDIT. Even so-called simple folk can't stay satisfied with that. Our minds swarm with questions, fantasies, and conjectures. We want the supernatural to be at least as varied -- and as strangely beautiful -- as the world we inhabit.

But, and this is what may eventually save us from religion, as we learn more about the world and the universe, the more satisfying they become because we know so little but now we can find out. After all, those innumerable supernatural explanations were never really adequate, hence their continual proliferation.
Well said! :thumbsup:
 
Congratsm, you just discovered my whole bloody point about religion vs the parent set of beliefs which aren't logical. Including such stuff like the big "if" that actual religions include some kind of cosmic Santa that dispenses rewards and punishments for being good.

You're doing the exact same that you correctly notice is wrong with my example: you're ignoring all those extra "ifs" that go into what is actually a religion, just like I'm ignoring the extra "ifs" between just a mammal and specifically a cat.


Plus, just going by whatever isn't logical and is believed enough to influence what a society does, IS getting the absurd result of making hundreds of such behaviours somehow be overlapping religions.

E.g., probably the most widespread illogical belief at least in the West, but really it's present worldwide, is basically "we have to do SOMETHING." As in, we can't do nothing about X, ergo any random idiocy we can come up with is better than doing nothing. And it's influencing society to the point where even wars have been started because you can't just do NOTHING. But there's no logic supporting that, and plenty of counter-examples, including from game theory and actual history. E.g., not being ok to just do nothing lead to the crushing defeat at Cannae.

Does that make it a religion? How? What other "ifs" does it check, other than just not being based in sound logic?

E.g., a LOT of people believe the gambler's fallacy. (Basically that I'm due a big win soon at the slot machines because I lost 200$ in a row so far.) It's not logical, but it's not a religion. No matter how much of the society actually believes it and acts upon it. Which in fact is a lot, or casinos (or for that matter EA's lootboxes) wouldn't be making nearly as much money. But it isn't a religion because it lacks the element that I'm somehow owed that win because of being otherwise good or devout, or any other crucial attributes of actual religions.

E.g., a LOT of people believe in the sunken cost fallacy. And it affects their behaviour. But that doesn't make it a religion.

Etc.

The moment you erase all those ifs and just being not logical and having enough adherents is the only criterion, you've just made ALL those religions. Which doesn't serve any purpose, other than muddying the terms.
 
My point is that there's no need to start calling every ideology, superstition, delusion, wishful thinking, or whatever a religion.

Is this your first religious discussion on this board?

The religious apologist side will make 100% sure nothing being discussed actually resembles real world religion in any manner.

If they call everything a religion, you will never be able to form a reasonable criticism of anything. That's the point.
 
Is this your first religious discussion on this board?

The religious apologist side will make 100% sure nothing being discussed actually resembles real world religion in any manner.

If they call everything a religion, you will never be able to form a reasonable criticism of anything. That's the point.

Well, that IS actually my problem, when I see even non-religious and otherwise rational people like Ziggurat arguing the same 'every wide-spread belief is a religion' canard.

It's annoying enough to see the religious apologists working hard to blur the lines and make it all a big equivocation pot, but at least I can see why they're doing that. In this case I can't even see what purpose it serves. The same "when we meet aliens they'll probably have their own beliefs that aren't logical" information is conveyed even without calling it a religion.
 
Well, that IS actually my problem, when I see even non-religious and otherwise rational people like Ziggurat arguing the same 'every wide-spread belief is a religion' canard.

It's annoying enough to see the religious apologists working hard to blur the lines and make it all a big equivocation pot, but at least I can see why they're doing that. In this case I can't even see what purpose it serves. The same "when we meet aliens they'll probably have their own beliefs that aren't logical" information is conveyed even without calling it a religion.

Well I don't know how much more "there's no way to stop them and nothing can be done about it" can be established as a fact.
 
Well, that IS actually my problem, when I see even non-religious and otherwise rational people like Ziggurat arguing the same 'every wide-spread belief is a religion' canard.

That's not at all what I'm arguing. That's your straw man representation of what I'm arguing.
 
Ok, so what have I missed there? Because to me it looks like you're genuinely arguing that if an alogical belief is affecting enough of a society, then it's a (kind of) religion. What fine point did I miss?
 
Too little data. But it is certainly plausible that science and rationality won't develope first, that there will be an empty space for explanations of the physical world that superstition and religion will fill in lieau of anything better.
 
NANI?! You've never seen students go to pray or light a candle or something before an exam? And I'm getting the impression that in Japan (though it's not really equivalent, as it's literally the farthest possible from monotheism and it's one of the least religious countries) that's pretty much half the business that shrines make. People who haven't bothered to go to a shrine since the last festival or new year, whichever was last, suddenly decide it can't hurt to chuck a coin and ask the spirits for help before an exam. Not that it's the only one, though. In a study in India, at least one of them even referred to going to the temple before an exam as "bribing" a god.

And even without religion, a lot come up with other superstitions, a lot of them about exams. Stuff ranging always using their lucky pencil (or an exact same model from the same brand) for an exam, to outright wearing magic talismans or fortune telling or little rituals to 'ward off evil' (questions on the exam.)

So, yeah, sad to say, students too come up with some kind of magical force that compensates in some way or another for their not studying enough :p


No, I've never seen a student light candles for anything other than hygge, but in spite of being baptized as a Catholic, I live in a country where candles aren't associated with religion.
Superstitions, however, yes, and I would never claim that students never resort to superstition.

On the contrary, in fact: It is one of my favourite examples of how people are prone to turn to magical thinking when they find themselves in a situation where they are (more or less) impotent, a situation they don't control. Exams are supposed to be a test of your skills in a certain field, but we all know that much depends on luck. Exams don't test all your knowledge, and there are usually some subjects that you have studied more and understand better than others. This makes people want to control the situation beyond what preparing for the exams can give them, thus the 'lucky' teddybear or sweater (whatever). There is no 'studying enough'!
It is no wonder that nightmares about exams may haunt people for the rest of their lives:
If you've had "the dream" related to school, you know exactly what it is.

This is the dream where it is the day of a final exam, and you realize that you forgot you were taking the course and therefore had not attended any of the classes, did not do the reading, and you certainly are not prepared for today's test. Other variations include your having attended some of the classes, perhaps at the beginning of the semester, and then you just forgot about the class until the day of the final. It was not intentional, but somehow, it just happened.
Recurring Final Exam Dream? - Of course, you forgot you were taking this course. (Psychology Today, Sep. 7, 2009)


The same thing goes for sports: You may have spent years preparing for an event, but you have no control of the competition.
Unless you solve the problem the Tonya Harding way ...
 
I think religion is inevitable as soon as a species has members intelligent enough to scam their fellows.


You are scamming yourself if you reduce believing to being something that a preacher simply invents in order to control others. If those others did not want (or even need) to believe, they couldn't be duped by the priests, gurus, psychics or other scammers.
Don't let James Randi have lived in vain!

The ability to think includes the ability to come up with weird ideas, and you don't need another person to supply you with those.
 
Too little data. But it is certainly plausible that science and rationality won't develope first, that there will be an empty space for explanations of the physical world that superstition and religion will fill in lieau of anything better.


Your idea rests on the implicit premise that people are on the search for the truth and only happen to believe in gods because nobody has come up with a better explanation yet, but better explanations do exist, and it obviously hasn't stopped people from believing in weird things instead.
 
As long as a species can stumble upon hallucinogenics or any other mechanism for experiencing unbounded joy, or a strong sense of flouriishing - then Yes that species has an opportunity to develop religion(s). Otherwise - No.
 
Ok, so what have I missed there? Because to me it looks like you're genuinely arguing that if an alogical belief is affecting enough of a society, then it's a (kind of) religion. What fine point did I miss?

That when it comes to interacting with an alien species, the important aspect of religion is that it's an alogical system of beliefs that will affect their values, and thus our ability to predict their actions. And further that this will be true whether or not that alogical belief system conforms to other aspects of religion.

That's basically all he's saying, yet you've managed to interact with him while also completely ignoring his only point, and somehow assuming he's trying to argue something unrelated to that point.
 
That when it comes to interacting with an alien species, the important aspect of religion is that it's an alogical system of beliefs that will affect their values, and thus our ability to predict their actions. And further that this will be true whether or not that alogical belief system conforms to other aspects of religion.

That's basically all he's saying, yet you've managed to interact with him while also completely ignoring his only point, and somehow assuming he's trying to argue something unrelated to that point.

None of that needs or justifies calling it a religion if it's not one. If "this will be true whether or not that alogical belief system conforms to other aspects of religion" then you don't need to redefine religion for it. It's that simple.

And I still don't see how that means I got anything wrong there. You're essentially only telling me, "Oh, but that canard wasn't the point per se, but about a different point", not that said canard wasn't there. But... so what?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom