The "What should replace religion?" question

[Humes fork]

Humes fork, you couldn't be more wrong, and even though you seem to imagine that you have the 'point of view' of a scientist, there's actually nothing scientific about it.

When I insist on treating religion as what it is, you (and Dawkins) insist on treating it as what it isn't, i.e. as science gone wrong. Thus your opening question was, at best, disingenuous: You knew from the outset that the 'correct' answer to your question was SCIENCE, of course. Since religion to you is nothing but wrong claims about how the world works, it should be replaced by the right claims about how the world works, i.e. your (and Dawkins's) naïve notion of what constitutes science.

Part of what religion does is trying to explain how the universe works. It's not the only thing it does, but it's one thing. And a religious understanding of how the universe works should be replaced by a scientific understanding of how the universe works, absolutely.

Well, congrations! Isn't that wonderful? Like in my case, I suppose, "economic ruin" probably wouldn't entail the dire consequences that it does in other parts of the world, so maybe you are right, maybe you wouldn't feel the need to comfort youself with superstitious interpretations of your fate. Neither would I, I think and hope, but it is much too easy to make that claim, and it's nothing but anecdotal evidence anyway.

Well, you can throw me out in the Somalian wilderness with no property other than the clothes on my body. I wouldn't believe in gods or anything other supernatural, because I still have my knowledge of how the universe works.

My brain isn't wired by what it "needs to believe" (what a ridiculous phrase). I believe things for which there is evidence. Isn't that what being a skeptic is all about?

 

[Humes fork]

PS


Congratulations again! How wonderful for you, too, C.H.
I just love it when a guy born with a silverspoon in his mouth praises his own courageous risk-taking. He was more on the money when he described himself as a bourgeois romantic.

By your hypothesis, he should have had a deathbed conversion.

I simply think it is a good quote. But I can understand why someone who endorses magical and wishful thinking disagrees.

 

[dann]

Part of what religion does is trying to explain how the universe works. It's not the only thing it does, but it's one thing. And a religious understanding of how the universe works should be replaced by a scientific understanding of how the universe works, absolutely.

It's been a while, but here goes:
As if the people in the congregation meet every Sunday morning in order "to explain how the universe works." But, of course, your bizarre idea of what consitutes religion (or "part of what a religion does") needs this fiction to come up with the 'replacement' you pretended to be asking about in the opening post: If (!) religion were a failed attempt at explaining how the universe works, science would be solution to, and thus the replacement of, religion.
Now the only problem is that it never really was ....

Well, you can throw me out in the Somalian wilderness with no property other than the clothes on my body. I wouldn't believe in gods or anything other supernatural, because I still have my knowledge of how the universe works.

My brain isn't wired by what it "needs to believe" (what a ridiculous phrase). I believe things for which there is evidence. Isn't that what being a skeptic is all about?

As much as I would enjoy throwing you out in the Somalian wilderness with no property other than the clothes on your body, it is beyond my means, so let's all celebrate the mighty Humes fork and his superior hard wired brain rendered impervious to any belief for which there is no evidence. (That there is absolutely no evidence of his belief in the way that his brain would work in the Somalian wildernes is a minor detail that doesn't seem to bother him.)

By your hypothesis, he should have had a deathbed conversion.

And which "hypothesis" would that be??!

I simply think it is a good quote. But I can understand why someone who endorses magical and wishful thinking disagrees.

Now you just need to find someone who does and ask him, but that also should not bother you. You already seem to be quite content with you strawman definition of religion ....

 

[Quinn]

Dann, since you seem concerned with dealing with how people actually behave rather than how we may wish they would behave, you might consider this: I believe that, the validity of your arguments notwithstanding, a lot fewer people will dismiss them out of hand and skip over your posts if you cease the overuse of bold type and italics ("in order "to explain how the universe works." [...] (or "part of what a religion does") needs this fiction"); scale back the redundant, incredulous punctuation ("If (!) religion [...] which "hypothesis" would that be??!"); lay off the histrionics ("As much as I would enjoy throwing you out in the Somalian wilderness [...] let's all celebrate the mighty Humes fork and his superior hard wired brain"); and generally try to make your posts convey less of a sense of unending breathless exasperation. Just one guy's opinion.

 

[deaman]

Dann, since you seem concerned with dealing with how people actually behave rather than how we may wish they would behave, you might consider this: I believe that, the validity of your arguments notwithstanding, a lot fewer people will dismiss them out of hand and skip over your posts if you cease the overuse of bold type and italics ("in order "to explain how the universe works." [...] (or "part of what a religion does") needs this fiction"); scale back the redundant, incredulous punctuation ("If (!) religion [...] which "hypothesis" would that be??!"); lay off the histrionics ("As much as I would enjoy throwing you out in the Somalian wilderness [...] let's all celebrate the mighty Humes fork and his superior hard wired brain"); and generally try to make your posts convey less of a sense of unending breathless exasperation. Just one guy's opinion.

It's funny.

Even though I agree with what your are pointing out, what you're asking Dann, is to be someone other than who he is, and that is just not possible.

I've tried to be other than myself, but always fail utterly.

 

[dann]

I believe that, the validity of your arguments notwithstanding, a lot fewer people will dismiss them out of hand and skip over your posts if you cease the (...) Just one guy's opinion.

Your opinion might be interesting if you actually knew how many "people will dismiss (my arguments) out of hand and skip over (my) posts" etc.

 

[Mark6]

Your opinion might be interesting if you actually knew how many "people will dismiss (my arguments) out of hand and skip over (my) posts" etc.

Shouldn't that be a poll?

Yes, I've been dismissing dann's arguments out of hand and skipping over his posts for a long time -- in part because of his posting style.

 

[Quinn]

Your opinion might be interesting if you actually knew how many "people will dismiss (my arguments) out of hand and skip over (my) posts" etc.

It is a fairly well-established point of internet etiquette that the specific practices I mentioned will cause a significant percentage of readers to tune out and ignore people. If you choose to deny the validity of that conventional wisdom, or believe you're the exception, or conclude that I'm simply full of it, then by all means carry on. I mention it as a courtesy from someone who strongly disagrees with you, but would nonetheless be at least potentially interested in your points if they were expressed in a less aggressively irritating fashion.

 

[dann]

Shouldn't that be a poll?

Yes, I've been dismissing dann's arguments out of hand and skipping over his posts for a long time -- in part because of his posting style.

Contradiction in terms!

 

[dann]

It is a fairly well-established point of internet etiquette that the specific practices I mentioned will cause a significant percentage of readers to tune out and ignore people. If you choose to deny the validity of that conventional wisdom, or believe you're the exception, or conclude that I'm simply full of it, then by all means carry on. I mention it as a courtesy from someone who strongly disagrees with you, but would nonetheless be at least potentially interested in your points if they were expressed in a less aggressively irritating fashion.

As a courtesy to you, I can inform you that I tend to ignore annoying posters who talk about internet etiquette instead of the arguments they object to. So won't you please ignore me instead from now on?

 

[deaman]

Let's replace religion with care of, understanding for, and consideration for others, for no other reason than they are alive on the same planet with us.

No questions, no requirements.

Clothing, food, shelter, medical attention for all. Education and work if you wish.

No money, just care.

 

[dann]

There are a lot of people on this planet that I don't really care for and consequently would not show understanding or consideration for. On the contrary, actually.
Your suggestion is very similar to the Christian 'love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek' etc.

 

[wrs]

Proper understanding of the reason and meaning of life and a purpose for being. This isn't going to be something science can do because it can't get to why life exists. It might attempt to determine an origin but can't explain why even if it claims to know the process. There is always a reason for a process and accident isn't a reason. If there is no reason for life other than to sustain itself, life doesn't have much value. Religion attempts to provide people with a reason for being and living other than just subsistence. Religion is the claim that life has value and gives the reason behind the claim. Science cannot prove life has any value other than as food for something else and no one wants to be food.

 

[deaman]

There are a lot of people on this planet that I don't really care for and consequently would not show understanding or consideration for. On the contrary, actually.
Your suggestion is very similar to the Christian 'love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek' etc.

Sorry, don't believe in god(s), or christ. Just as unreal as all the other pantheon of gods men have made up.

I have observed stupidity and stubbornness in human beings though.

But, if you don't care for people, why live with, or near them?

Just go away.

You're free.

No question asked. No requirements. No explanation needed.

 

[deaman]

Proper understanding of the reason and meaning of life and a purpose for being. This isn't going to be something science can do because it can't get to why life exists. It might attempt to determine an origin but can't explain why even if it claims to know the process. There is always a reason for a process and accident isn't a reason. If there is no reason for life other than to sustain itself, life doesn't have much value. Religion attempts to provide people with a reason for being and living other than just subsistence. Religion is the claim that life has value and gives the reason behind the claim. Science cannot prove life has any value other than as food for something else and no one wants to be food.

I don't believe in god and I say my life, your life, our childrens lives, our planet, has value to, and for, us.

No god needed. Only common sense.

 

[wrs]

I don't believe in god and I say my life, your life, our childrens lives, our planet, has value to, and for, us.

No god needed. Only common sense.

No god needed, I agree. However, I disagree about the common sense aspect of it because meaning and purpose for life are what drive people to get up in the morning and go to work beyond a subsistence level. I think it takes more than common sense to cause someone to get up and go do a job they hate every day.

 

[deaman]

No god needed, I agree. However, I disagree about the common sense aspect of it because meaning and purpose for life are what drive people to get up in the morning and go to work beyond a subsistence level. I think it takes more than common sense to cause someone to get up and go do a job they hate every day.

Why do you go to a job you hate? Can you not take action to find work you like, or can you not change you attitude about what you have in your life?

Why do you need someone to be beaten and punished for you? You need a blood sacrifice? Sounds almost ancient Mayan, or Aztec. Pagan really.

I mean, can you not imagine a better brand of "God of Love" than one that would punish its creations for being created.

You are a human being. Wake up.

Surely you have meaning, and value yourself and others, don't you?

 

[dann]

Sorry, don't believe in god(s), or christ. Just as unreal as all the other pantheon of gods men have made up.

I have observed stupidity and stubbornness in human beings though.

But, if you don't care for people, why live with, or near them?

Just go away.

You're free.

No question asked. No requirements. No explanation needed.

Why should I care for the abstraction people?
You make the same mistake Asydhouse makes all the time.
If you are interested in a society where people don't need God, you very soon run into to people who are very much opposed to the practical steps that it requires to bring about a societey since it would take away the priviliges that they enjoy in this one, and I don't care very much for people like that. They are my enemies, and I don't live with them.
But don't worry. They have nothing against your preaching of Christianity without God.

 

[dann]

No god needed, I agree. However, I disagree about the common sense aspect of it because meaning and purpose for life are what drive people to get up in the morning and go to work beyond a subsistence level. I think it takes more than common sense to cause someone to get up and go do a job they hate every day.

Yes, of course. But all it requires is a purpose beyond mere subsistence. It doesn't requre a purpose, a meaning, beyond reality. Common sense definitely isn't what drives people to go to jobs they hate. The lack of alternatives in a market economy is motivation enough.
It is no big surprise that Deaman comes up with idealistic solutions to your objections: find a better job (in a situation where many people can't find any job) and learn to appreciate yourself as a human being!
That'll teach 'em!

 

[dann]

I don't believe in god and I say my life, your life, our childrens lives, our planet, has value to, and for, us.

No god needed. Only common sense.

Well, if you can come up with idealistic phrases like these all on your own, you definitely don't need a god. However, a god makes it so much easier to believe in them:
We all have value. And if it's hard for us to find this value in the real world, we know that it is true anyway because the value is to be found in the eyes of the Lord ...
The alternative to religion that Deaman offers us is a kind of secularised religion, Christianity without God.