|
Re: QQ
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'd say religion passes along more ignorance from one generation to another than it does knowledge. Consider the continued existence of creationism - in that case, it isn't knowledge which is being passed down, it's incorrect facts. While myths and fables may have one day been useful in society, I think that time has passed. |
Myths and fables are necessary to any culture, and ours are no exception. That's how children learn about the world they live in. The advantage of contemporary society is that we can correct any flaws or just up-date the stories to the context we live in, but these ways of transmitting culture cannot be discarded.
As for the ignorance and the way religion deals with the world, the religion is not to blame, but the church. Christian religion, for example, was inspired by Christ's teachings, whereas the church was founded by Paul, and contains scripts from many other people.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Although this might appear to be a benefit, I don't agree. From a theological standpoint - everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, and people who behave differently should be punished into conformity. Contrastingly, from a secular point of view, while you may disagree with someone's beliefs or actions, you ought to tolerate them unless they bring harm to others. |
Isn't "not harming others" a common place in most religions? Essentially, those who harm others are punished.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
In other words, instead of trying to batter society's deviants into submission with threats and punishments in an ultimately futile attempt to make everyone the same, we could put forth only loose guidelines of conduct - increasing the chance that someone who is different can find a harmless or even useful niche in society instead of wasting our efforts trying to change them. |
It really depends on what the "difference" is and, once again, if there were a moral code with loose guidelines of conduct, this could be labelled as a religion. Not all religions need a "God" or the concept of "heaven" and "hell". In fact, I consider these concepts to be merely illustrative.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
There's nothing wrong with honoring your parents, but there are plenty of sound, logical reasons to do it as opposed to basing your decision on contrived rules handed out without justification or evidence of their supposed divine origins.
Again, equivalent or greater order can be created simply by following a few utilitarian principles. Religion is a superfluous institution in this endeavor. |
If you add these utilitarian principles to a moral guideline, it'll be the basic part of any religion, because of a simple thought: those who follow these guidelines believe it is the best way to live (so they put faith in it), and will expect followers to obey those guidelines, no matter how loose they are.
Think of "karma": if you do bad things to other, chances are you'll have bad things done to you. On the other hand, if you do good things to other people, people will probably want to pay your kindness back (Nietzsche said something about bitterness being a sign of weakness, didn't he?).
Think of the Christian "heaven" and "hell": if you kill people, you'll have people who want vengeance, people who will try make you pay for the life you've taken... as the "will to live" is a basic characteristic of life itself, being threatened can be seen as "hell".
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
While there is no doubt about the prevalence of monogomy, I'm not sure it is either important to our society or our survival. In fact, from an evolutionist's standpoint, it certainly doesn't help our survival. If one is to believe evolution, then the best way to ensure the continuation of the species is to maximize the genetic diversity of your species. As a result, it's usually better to have children with different parents instead of several children with the same parent - as more combinations of genetic characteristics are created. |
But it seems to be a fallacy, as you're considering the world to be a safe place in which the only threat would be diseases. Let's take an ancient example and a contemporary example:
Ancient: Let's consider a couple "a", which is monogamous, a MMF trio ("b") and a MFF trio ("c"). Both individuals of couple "a" would look after the child, as the basic instinct of spreading their genes. If an attack occurred, both the male and the female would defend their offspring, more than they would ever defend themselves - not to mention that since they're raising the child as a couple, both can do different things for the child's well-being. In the MMF trio, there would be doubts whether who the father is. In an attack, this doubt could lead to a weaker intent to defend the child (as it may not be his), and, since the chances of giving birth to male or females are 50/50, probability says that, if a female has two spouses, another female maybe alone. Even if natural selection took part in it, this discarded female could have genetic advantages that would be useful for the next generations. In the FFM scenario, the situation would be even worse - there would be just one male to protect the off-spring of two females. Using a bit of logic, there would be no need for me to explain what may come out of it.
Modern example: It's purely economic, and follows a very similar pattern compared to the ancient example.
| quote: |
While I've said before I don't believe that evolution any longer applies to humanity, it did until fairly recently, and still may in parts of the world. In any case, I fail to see any objective benefits from polygamy or monogamy, so I don't see that as an important societal goal. It should be the concern of the individuals involved, and no one else. |
Once again, this could lead to major misunderstandings/problems, the same way it does today.
| quote: | | I don't necessarily disagree that people will find new ways to be stupid, but I think they could be less harmful than religion. Given that the origin of religion was to ensure the authority and power of a few, and to maintain order in society so as to preserve that authority, it is not only likely, but certain that religion always will be distorted by its leaders to manipulate the followers into doing what the leaders want. That's just the nature of the beast: if you don't like that, then you don't like religion. |
Think of anything - from politics to football. Greed (and other selfish behaviours) may lead to distortion, as any other human institution. In fact, even a "secular view" could be distorted, if it brings someone benefits.
| quote: | | I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there's no such thing as an instict of self-defense which tells you to blow yourself up. Blowing yourself is the ultimate failure of self-defense because you die. |
I can't remember what sociologist said that (you might remind me), but there are 3 kinds of death: spontaneous death (you've got to die someday), pathological death (when due to mental disturbs, the individual kills himself which brings benefits to no one), and social death. When a soldier throws himself on a grenade in order to save a general, that's because he believes his action will benefit the community he lives in, as he identifies himself as being part of it.
| quote: | | The reason that people choose to blow themselves up is because they've learned from their religion that trivial matters like logic and reason shouldn't interfere with blind belief in silly ideas like martyrdom. |
Although the existence of dogmas make individuals accept illogic ideas, that same decision might be taken in a logic approach, depending in the environment the person is living in.
| quote: | | Herd instinct is a prime example of intellectual incompetence. If you aren't capable of deciding for yourself, then why not just follow what a bunch of other people think? |
Because there can be benefits, such as unity. If two people think alike about a certain issue, they'll both act the same way. If a whole community agrees on something, they'll be stronger than just a part of it.
| quote: | | I suppose there are a few other explanations. It's possible that he's insane, or that he doesn't realize that his basis for belief is irrational. I'm interested in what you think distinguishes superstitions from religion, however. To me, religion is just a complicated set of superstitions. |
Now that you mention it, there are indeed many things in common between religions and superstitions:
- Both might exist for a good goal, i.e. when you're told that breaking a mirror will bring you bad luck, that's because you might get hurt by the small bits (I don't know the exact word in English for this). The same goes for waking under stairs - not only something may fall down on your head, but you might also knock the stairs over, and whatever is on the stair (like a person) will fall down. Definitely not good. However, beliefs like covering mirrors when there's a thunderstorm.... well, if there's a logical reason behind it, that's something I can't find.
However, religion deals with a wider range of problems (spirituality, ethics, origins,...), and superstition just deals with what's immediate.
| quote: | | I don't agree because I think you give emotions credit for being more than they really are. Emotions are a tool for measuring whether or not some thing threatens, is neutral to, or reinforces our already existing prejudices. If something threatens our prejudices, we feel "bad" emotions in response to it, whereas if something reinforces our prejudices we feel "good" emotions in response to it. The intellect can examine emotions and decide whether or not they are worthy of consideration - but emotions cannot examine intellectual information, other than to tell you whether or not it is in tune with what you already believe. |
A strictly rational view would be extremely cold and ignore some threats, that may be ignored somehow by the rational thought. I agree with what you said but, since we're bound to commit mistakes, emotions would be necessary so we would act instinctively according to what we also feel better. The same way feelings can be wrong, thoughts may lead to wrong conclusions as well.
| quote: | | These beliefs, however, weren't established by emotion to begin with, but rather were the products of intellectual development (either rational or irrational). So whether we like it or not, we are always strictly intellectual - that is the only place beliefs can come from. |
Wouldn't irrational intellect be a rough way of describing emotions?
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) 
But that's just it - I get to choose. Not some God, not some media-driven device that is supposed to control my thoughts - just me. Everyone seems so paranoid of people who want to 'instill beliefs within them' or just the opposite: 'taking their beliefs away - dissolving faith'. I just don't understand where the fear comes from - it's always going to be uncertain... so why are people so intent on holding onto some ideal? Whether it be belief or anti-belief: many people still grasp onto ideas which speak to the their personal experiences and assumptions/prejudices about this world and the next. so if you're not sure of something, why be so afraid that somebody is going to take it away from you? Especially when it's YOU who is truly doing the decision-making. 
