The "What should replace religion?" question

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Found it! Now I know why I couldn't find it before. I have to be making a post. Thank you again. Mine isn't yellow but that's all right. Still works.

Individual monitors have settings that may or may not be showing everything as the programmers intended. You might want to look at your monitor settings to see if they've been changed at some point.

 

[dann]

No, it is not "impossble to advocate for educating Africans while also advocating improvements to their healthcare". On the contrary: The usefulness of that education actually depends on those improvements!
And, yes, apparently you"'d rather people died without resorting to witchcraft than died after wasting their last days perpetuating a belief system based on errant nonsense", or, as you put it in a post above that one (#94), "Well that word prerequisite (dann: "access to proper health care is a prerequisite for abolishing the belief in witchcraft") is where you've gone wrong. It's entirely possible for people with no access to healthcare to not resort to witchcraft. I'm sure there are plenty examples in the US."
So please make up your mind: Do you want to insist on the combination of health care and education (about the difference between proper and woo medicine), or would you prefer to disagree with me when I point out the prerequisite for the relevance of that education?

I think I've been quite clear. There is no need to link the two things. Education on reality is a useful thing in and of itself.

Yes, you simply maintain this piece of fundamentalism in spite of any example of education being: irrelevant, depending on context, boring etc.

Its usefulness is not predicated on the availability of anything other than an ability to understand reality.

Yes, so you claim, but you're unable to argue your point.

The alternative is to promote stupidity and ignorance.

No, it isn't. There are several alternatives to education, and they are sometimes very useful. In the case of children, for instance, a simple fence is sometimes better than education if the purpose is to keep them away from danger. And in the case of health care, as I've shown you a number of times by now, the alternative to believing in witch doctors isn't education but a proper alternative to witch doctors, i.e. real health care, not a lecture.
I'm actually beginning to lose my patience with you, which only goes to show how impotent education sometimes is ...

Good healthcare is also (!) useful in and of itself.

No, it isn't! Sometimes it's actually better to prevent people from being exposed to things that ruin ruin their health, e.g. proper working conditions, helmets, good housing etc.

The alternative is that people die. Trying to suggest that witchcraft is some kind of useful stopgap as you seem to be doing is simply insulting.

You just can't let go of your strawman argumentation, can you? Could you at least point out the place where you seem to assume that I say or imply "that witchcraft is some kind of useful stopgap", or is that too much to ask?

When these things are prevalent in cultures they also retard the development of things like good healthcare.

Yes, that is what you claim, but so far you haven't given me a single example of this. I've given you examples of how the unaffordability of proper health care promotes the belief in witch doctors. Please give me some examples of health care becoming unavailable because of superstition. (I've already mentioned the case of Steve Jobs, so I'm not asking you to give me an example of some woo guy, who seriously impaired his own health, and I'm also not asking you for a case like the prevalence of paranormal remedies like homeopathy, which seems to have found a niche of its own and doesn't in a significant way impact "the development of things like good healthcare.")

You are advocating for ignorance, and accuse me of wanting Africans to die and accuse me of this crap?

Again: Please show me an example of my advocacy for ignorance!!! And please show me an example of my accusation that you want Africans to die!!
Apparently you are unable to see that health care, i.e. an affordable, available realistic alternative to witchdoctors, is a prerequisite for the success of education of impoverished Africans about the inferiority of witchcraft to modern medicine, which is the reason why education alone (in spite of your fundamentalism in this question) does not really help an African dying from e.g. Hodgkin's Lymphoma, much the same way that even the best nutritional education does not help people whose main problem with nutrition is that they haven't got any!

 

[Cainkane1]

A common critique levelled against the "new atheists" is that they don't put forth a replacement for religion. For some reason this critique appears to be more common among atheist critics than religious critics.

Dawkins briefly deals with it in The God Delusion. How would you answer that question? If it is a bad question, then how would you explain it?

Sex, craft beer and science based philosophy.

 

[dann]

The cleverest thing religion has done is to make people believe there is an actual void that it fills. Job security for the parasitic priesthood.

No, this is getting to be too conspiratorial, Gawdzilla. Don't forget that religion and superstition is invented all the time, usually by ordinary people in a crisis. (A religion of only one person is usually considered a mental disease.)
A priesthood (parasitic or not) may try to monopolize a religion, but it's still up to the individual believer to believe whatever he likes - sometimes: as long as he doesn't say it out loud.
'To me, God is ....!'
My favourite example of religion emerging spontaneously is the Beslan god Harry Potter!

Celan, 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.

In this case religion, be it HP or a crucifix, does fill "an actual void", and before you all jump on me: This is a bloody fact that you should recognize. But at the same time it is a critique of religion. (Remember the Marx quotation? "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.") People shouldn't have to experience circumstance like these where they come to need mental crutches like this. (And not only atheists should stay out of foxholes.)

 

[Hazel]

Individual monitors have settings that may or may not be showing everything as the programmers intended. You might want to look at your monitor settings to see if they've been changed at some point.

I don't mind as long as it works.

 

[Acleron]

...

No, it isn't. There are several alternatives to education, and they are sometimes very useful. In the case of children, for instance, a simple fence is sometimes better than education if the purpose is to keep them away from danger. And in the case of health care, as I've shown you a number of times by now, the alternative to believing in witch doctors isn't education but a proper alternative to witch doctors, i.e. real health care, not a lecture.
I'm actually beginning to lose my patience with you, which only goes to show how impotent education sometimes is ...

No, it isn't! Sometimes it's actually better to prevent people from being exposed to things that ruin ruin their health, e.g. proper working conditions, helmets, good housing etc.

...

A fence to a child either offers a challenge in getting over/under it or indicates something of interest. Far better to educate about the dangers and how to avoid them. Such lessons can be applied to other situations.

And again, better to educate about the effects of exposure because such toxic materials are not a danger in some circumstances and can be useful.

In Africa there are Western teams of witch doctors that call themselves homeopaths. They advocate against anti-retrovirals which are available. Yes, not to all but allowing ignorance to fester means no-one gets a benefit. I've not any proof that this particular group advocate against vaccination but generally they flog their water and sugar pills as replacements for vaccines.

Introducing modern drugs and treatments to a population indoctrinated against them doesn't work. Education gives such people the knowledge to demand correct treatment and reject superstitious beliefs.

 

[deaman]

The world is not so black and white.

There are many, many shades of gray areas.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't mind as long as it works.

Just suggesting that some program or other might have changed your settings at some point. There is usually a "Restore defaults" button if you want to K.I.S.S.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, you simply maintain this piece of fundamentalism in spite of any example of education being: irrelevant, depending on context, boring etc.

This is nonsense. The value of education is not dictated by whether people find it enjoyable. You are either being deliberately obtuse in these arguments or you are beyond redemption. Either way, your preference for ignorance is noted.

No, it isn't. There are several alternatives to education, and they are sometimes very useful. In the case of children, for instance, a simple fence is sometimes better than education if the purpose is to keep them away from danger. And in the case of health care, as I've shown you a number of times by now, the alternative to believing in witch doctors isn't education but a proper alternative to witch doctors, i.e. real health care, not a lecture.

False dichotomy world is open for business again. Education and other measures are not mutually exclusive. There are many complementary things that can supplement education. The alternative to educating is 'not educating'.

The reason we don't always educate children about things is that they are not always capable of understanding. This was covered. Your comparison of poor Africans to children incapable of understanding is probably going somewhere I assume you don't want to go.

I'm actually beginning to lose my patience with you, which only goes to show how impotent education sometimes is ...

You're right. Your teachers must be rethinking their life choices, I guess

No, it isn't! Sometimes it's actually better to prevent people from being exposed to things that ruin ruin their health, e.g. proper working conditions, helmets, good housing etc.

Did you include witchcraft on your list? People should be prevented from being exposed to that for sure. Maybe we should legislate against witchcraft and quackery? I'm sure people who think it works will be all for that. We'd better not explain to them why though, that might be boring education.

You just can't let go of your strawman argumentation, can you? Could you at least point out the place where you seem to assume that I say or imply "that witchcraft is some kind of useful stopgap", or is that too much to ask?

You're the one arguing for maintaining the belief in witchcraft until such times as we can put in place a thoroughly effective healthcare system. presumably you think there is some benefit of that, rather than just being argumentative and difficult for the sake of it?

Yes, that is what you claim, but so far you haven't given me a single example of this. I've given you examples of how the unaffordability of proper health care promotes the belief in witch doctors. Please give me some examples of health care becoming unavailable because of superstition. (I've already mentioned the case of Steve Jobs, so I'm not asking you to give me an example of some woo guy, who seriously impaired his own health, and I'm also not asking you for a case like the prevalence of paranormal remedies like homeopathy, which seems to have found a niche of its own and doesn't in a significant way impact "the development of things like good healthcare.")

Ah yes, if we exclude the people who choose woo over real medicine then nobody chooses woo. Great argument. Real examples? Hmm....how about the whole AIDS/condoms debacle, how about the South African president (who presumably can afford real healthcare) advocating ******** instead of medicine?

How about the actual harm done by witchdoctors and the like? Do we just ignore that too?

What about the whole anti-vax thing if you want an example closer to home? The same ******** happens in Africa too incidentally, with religious/woo nutbags refusing access to polio vaccinations and the like for their kids.

Are you seriously arguing that a cultural prevalence of alternative ******** doesn't hinder the provision of proper medical care and that magically all people need is a local GP and they'll turn their back on this crap?

 

[dann]

Education and other measures are not mutually exclusive.

Nobody claimed that they were, but you appear to be happy in your own little World of Strawman ...

The reason we don't always educate children about things is that they are not always capable of understanding.

Yes, exactly! So sometimes education is the solution to nothing - for this or other reasons.

Your comparison of poor Africans to children incapable of understanding is probably going somewhere I assume you don't want to go.

MY COMPARISON??! Will you please refer me, and everybody else, to the place where I compare "poor Africans to children incapable understanding"?!!! This is an outright lie!

Did you include witchcraft on your list? People should be prevented from being exposed to that for sure. Maybe we should legislate against witchcraft and quackery? I'm sure people who think it works will be all for that. We'd better not explain to them why though, that might be boring education.

I am not a legislator, but most countries have laws against "witchcraft and quackery", which is a very good idea, actually, since not everybody has a degree in medicine. Your strawman about not explaining laws against quackery doesn't get any better only because you keep repeating it.
When I ask you: "You just can't let go of your strawman argumentation, can you? Could you at least point out the place where you seem to assume that I say or imply "that witchcraft is some kind of useful stopgap", or is that too much to ask?", you simply repeat the allegations:

You're the one arguing for maintaining the belief in witchcraft until such times as we can put in place a thoroughly effective healthcare system. presumably you think there is some benefit of that, rather than just being argumentative and difficult for the sake of it?

Are you out of your .... mind???! How do you get from my argument that proper health care is a prerequisite for eliminating witchcraft to your strawman that I argue for maintaining the belief in witchcraft???
Ah, well! The same tactics as always: You repeat the lie instead of providing the evidence you were asked for and can't deliver!

how about the South African president (who presumably can afford real healthcare) advocating ******** instead of medicine?

You are right. I wouldn't really worry about his behaviour on his own behalf since, like Steve Jobs, he can obviously afford proper medical care - unlike the millions of poor Africans he is talking to who don't have access to proper health care.

How about the actual harm done by witchdoctors and the like? Do we just ignore that too?

Well, as I've been saying the whole time, the "actual harm done by witchdoctors" is very interesting to people who have an alternative to witchdoctors. To those who haven't ... not so much.

What about the whole anti-vax thing if you want an example closer to home?

It's not that I want an example closer to home, but what about it? Do the anti-vaxers have a proper medical alternative to woo in this case? YES, THEY DO!!! So what is your point?

The same ******** happens in Africa too incidentally, with religious/woo nutbags refusing access to polio vaccinations and the like for their kids.

It's actually much, much worse than a few religious "religuous/woo nutbags" in this case - another impact, not of witchcraft, but of improper healthcare - where the problem of poverty and health care resurfaces!

Are you seriously arguing that a cultural prevalence of alternative ******** doesn't hinder the provision of proper medical care and that magically all (!!!) people need is a local GP and they'll turn their back on this crap?

No, I'm seriously arguing that a local GP is a prerequisite for persuading them to "turn their back on this crap", but you seem to be unwilling and unable to grasp it.
But why bother having a discussion with somebody who simply keeps repeating the same absurd allegations and doesn't deliver a single piece of evidence when asked to do so .....

 

[dann]

And just to make it painfully obvious what your tactics are, I'll ask you again:

"You just can't let go of your strawman argumentation, can you? Could you at least point out the place where you seem to assume that I say or imply "that witchcraft is some kind of useful stopgap", or is that too much to ask?"
and:
"How do you get from my argument that proper health care is a prerequisite for eliminating witchcraft to your strawman that I argue for maintaining the belief in witchcraft???"

 

[dann]

A fence to a child either offers a challenge in getting over/under it or indicates something of interest. Far better to educate about the dangers and how to avoid them. Such lessons can be applied to other situations.

Yes, when a child reaches a certain age other things than fences become an option, which of course is why we tend to use pedestrian crossings rather than fences in traffic.

And again, better to educate about the effects of exposure because such toxic materials are not a danger in some circumstances and can be useful.

Better??? Always? Are you really sure? You should tell the people who spend money on locks and bolts and barbed wire to keep (not only very young) people away from "toxic materials" instead of relying on the superior solution: education!

In Africa there are Western teams of witch doctors that call themselves homeopaths. They advocate against anti-retrovirals which are available. Yes, not to all but allowing ignorance to fester means no-one gets a benefit. I've not any proof that this particular group advocate against vaccination but generally they flog their water and sugar pills as replacements for vaccines.

And since they are affordable many Africans don't have a real choice ...

Introducing modern drugs and treatments to a population indoctrinated against them doesn't work. Education gives such people the knowledge to demand correct treatment and reject superstitious beliefs.

Well, modern drugs and treatments usually do work when people are given the option and can see the difference when they watch cured patients return from the doctor/hospital. However, more than ignorance and poverty is at stake here. Sometimes actual knowledge makes Africans shun from proper medical attention ...

 

[Acleron]

Yes, when a child reaches a certain age other things than fences become an option, which of course is why we tend to use pedestrian crossings rather than fences in traffic.



Better??? Always? Are you really sure? You should tell the people who spend money on locks and bolts and barbed wire to keep (not only very young) people away from "toxic materials" instead of relying on the superior solution: education!

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.

And since they are affordable many Africans don't have a real choice ...

So, as I said, no-one benefits at all.

Well, modern drugs and treatments usually do work when people are given the option and can see the difference when they watch cured patients return from the doctor/hospital. However, more than ignorance and poverty is at stake here. Sometimes actual knowledge makes Africans shun from proper medical attention ...

That is knowledge of actions of particular criminals, it is not education. It shows that providing healthcare without education fails.

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

 

[truethat]

Ethics.

I think this is where it needs to head. That and looking more into the universe and the mysteries in the world. However even in simple conversations and debates on this site, I find that most people really struggle without having a "side" to which to cleave themselves. It's almost like they rely on the ideology to take on the thinking for them and to simply repeat or parrot what others on the same "side" say without any real critical thinking.

Challenging this way of thinking creates a huge backlash of hostility and confusion. People will not be able to understand simple concepts because they have been forced to think without their "lucky blanket."

Example, some Atheists I know, cannot have a conversation without rudely putting down believers. When it doubt they defer to mockery or insult or appeal to emotion. Or lowest common denominator "group think." I see it building into "sides" or "groups" ready for the pile on.

It's actually pretty scary. Mob mentality? I don't know.


But how do we juxtapose a void that requires a sense of individualism and unique thinking with a group that refuses to separate from the "clan." It makes it so much of a violent convoluted mess, that the intelligence and ethics get drowned out in the process.

So sometimes I really do think we're better off just letting them have their religion.

 

[JaysonR]

Truethat;

Considering your pondering, you may find the thread that I opened on that very topic of interest: Angry Atheism - Fuel for Social Movement in a Time of Change

To summarize, in brief for those that don't want to go over there, and to relate why it belongs cited here (as I don't want to come off as advertising my own threads for advertising's sake), it discusses the social juxtaposition of fringe edges of the movement of atheism (by movement, I'm referring to social evolution and trends) and the larger middle ground area that is widely grey areas of (as deaman was pointing out) many views of non-religious and religious, and non-spiritual and spiritual alike.

Specifically, it illustrates how such form of atheism as you are referring to is gainful to the aggregate social progress, even if it is morally offensive to other atheists or not.

 

[truethat]

I'll definitely check it out. You are a breath of fresh air. The site's been lacking in good writing and thinking lately. I'll take my time and post.

 

[JaysonR]

Thanks for the compliment.
I have a few topics that I'll be covering; I was pretty pleased to happen upon this community as it is quite the demographic that I had been looking to write to in general (short of writing actual books; which I'm not really ready for at this stage in my life).

 

[SlackerBabbath]

I did not know that about the Book of the Dead. Thank you.

So we go further and further back only to find that man had a tendency to make laws to control his fellow man. And, since someone might question his right to be king of the hill, he put forth his god - everyone has a god, whether we know it or not - as the highest authority and the one who gave him this right. Since no one could prove him wrong and he had might - might is the final dictator - to back up right, his laws became mandatory.

How far astray have I gone there?

Not far.

Civilisation seems to be the key. Nomadic hunter/gatherers have little use for laws, disputes are often settled by one party beating or killing the other, but once man became civilised and started living together in larger and larger groups in villages, towns and then cities, more laws were required in order to make everyone work and live together in relative harmony. A good way to ensure that people follow these laws is to convince them that the gods made the laws, were watching the people at all times and would punish anyone who broke their laws.

 

[Quinn]

This point is "SOOO two days ago," but I'll dredge it up since I haven't seen it addressed in the interim:

Do you recognize that this hope is exactly the need that James Randi often refers to when he says that woos not only want to but actually need to believe?

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.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

And just to make it painfully obvious what your tactics are, I'll ask you again:

"You just can't let go of your strawman argumentation, can you? Could you at least point out the place where you seem to assume that I say or imply "that witchcraft is some kind of useful stopgap", or is that too much to ask?"
and:
"How do you get from my argument that proper health care is a prerequisite for eliminating witchcraft to your strawman that I argue for maintaining the belief in witchcraft???"

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.

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.