What if you're wrong?

Shrap

rozeboosje wrote: »

Oh alright then. But filostofy is very serious business indeed.

(Singing) who is making those new brown clouds....


Voodn Voodn

I'd love to understand even half the things you say. You seem to be channelling The Goon Show here, but I have no idea what you mean. Funny though

Edit: Zappa! Of course. Still don't get it though.

rozeboosje

Frank Zappa, to be precise. From "Studio Tan", the adventures of Greggery Peccary :-)

Galway K9

" What if you're wrong".

Bertrand Russell the famous philosopher and agnostic replied to this...."god, you gave me insufficient evidence"

Sums it up for me , really.

rozeboosje

Galway K9 wrote: »

Sums it up for me , really.

Yes, if that were actually the topic of this thread. But it isn't.

K4t

rozeboosje wrote: »

Now there's a question for Atheists and Agnostics to ponder!

Ha! No, I'm not leading into the usual Pascal's wager, nor am I interested in talking about how "rational" a belief in some "god" thing or other is.

What I am talking about is that you may be barking up the wrong tree by focusing on this rationality. That believers don't care one bit about how rational their beliefs are or not.

You focus on how reasonable it is to believe in a "god" or not, while the purpose of such a belief has nothing whatsoever to do with actual "truth".

What if I told you that the purpose of faith is social cohesion? That belief in something as absurd as a "god" or anything other that is supernatural is a measure of your investment in the group that you belong to. That, in fact, the more absurd the actual belief is, the more valuable it is. Ostentatious belief, in this sense, is like a peacock's tail, a completely useless appendix that serves no practical use and that to somebody observing it rationally might even appear to be deleterious to its possessor's mental health, but that is in fact a visible marker of a fitness to being a constructive member of the group.

If we as a society are going to move beyond religious belief it won't suffice to simply replace religious belief with "rationality" or "science". We need to create new "secular" fictions that can serve the purposes of social cohesion in a way that makes religion superfluous. If we don't do this, we leave a gap that cults, fringe ideologies and charlatans will be only too happy to fill with their mumbo jumbo.

Firstly, the world can never be rid of religion because it can never be rid of the human impulses behind it; Fear, Hatred, Anti-Intellectualism, Sadism, Masochism, Sexism. All the same really.


Religion is a part of all humans; the worst part. It is a fight against our own nature. Religion is bad. The Nazis built motorways, but their defining characteristics, the things which they were really about, were evil. What religion does well most social organisations do well; Tennis clubs, charities, rotary clubs etc.


But what really makes a religion? What is the necessary condition? An exclusive faith that trumps other sources of truth. You might say what is wrong with that when we have so many educated religious people, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers etc.? It's because it is an intellectual contradiction. To think scientifically about the rest of your life, but to leave your enquiring, rationalist self at the door of the church is so common because it is socially conditioned and culturally pervasive. The scientists, the mathematicians, the philosophers who all hold religious beliefs are engaged in compartmentalized thinking. (google it) Their religious belief perpetuates faith. It gives the "real believers" intellectual cover, many of whom involve extremists and Jihadists. There is nothing wrong with having faith, but it does involve a scary amount of doublethink and it can be dangerous.


It is dangerous because the "real believers" who are given intellectual cover by the intelligent, rational, more enlightened people of faith, are the ones who lobby our governments in the name of religion and attempt to force their beliefs on others. And governments are delighted to give in. Really, it's the moderates who are the greatest threat, the liberal apologists. It's why say Cameron and Blair support faith schools in Britain and a string of same such measures in Ireland.

It will never change and any hope there is of it changing relies ultimately on freedom of speech and expression and no limits or restrictions on it, at least not concerning religion.

smiley_face400

Alba Frere wrote: »

And why can't the 'gap' remain unfilled?

There's only a so called 'gap' because organised religions tell us there's one and have led society that this needs to be filled with some sort of spiritualism or belief in a deity

rozeboosje

smiley_face400 wrote: »

There's only a so called 'gap' because organised religions tell us there's one and have led society that this needs to be filled with some sort of spiritualism or belief in a deity

No, it is more than that, because I've seen in places like Holland where organised religion has been relegated to an irrelevant side show that people en masse ended up embracing all sorts of other "woo".

So here are your options: You can continue stroking yourself and congratulating yourself with how much smarter you are, while charlatans, con artists, self aggrandizers and social parasites continue to cash in on people's need for something more than just stark realism, OR you can start thinking about how this need can be addressed with something other than the bull**** that has been serving the purpose so far. What's it going to be?

rozeboosje

K4t wrote: »

Religion is bad.

Good on ya. So what can we replace it with, then?

Saying that religion is bad is like the Opposition politician bitchin' about how badly the government is doing. They may be spot on in their criticism, but unless they can present a better alternative, all their commentary is pointless.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

If we as a society are going to move beyond religious belief it won't suffice to simply replace religious belief with "rationality" or "science". We need to create new "secular" fictions that can serve the purposes of social cohesion in a way that makes religion superfluous.

If think you've rather missed the boat on this one. While people in this country still nominally self label as Catholic, the vast majority have stopped attending mass regularly, and only give a nod to Rome out of a sense of tradition. Where fifty years ago, everyone would have attended mass at least a once week, they've long since stopped. Where there would have been a priest, nun or brother in almost every family, there have been only a handful of vocations across the entire country in recent years.

And guess what? The country is doing just fine as a result; no massive unrest, no social collapse. Why? The social cohesion you ascribe to the church is actually a function of community, tradition, well being, and human nature. Suggesting science and rationality are a substitute for organised religion is presenting a false dichotomy.

If we don't do this, we leave a gap that cults, fringe ideologies and charlatans will be only too happy to fill with their mumbo jumbo.

Perhaps the reason that Catholicism is a faint shadow of its former self in this country is that the vast majority of Irish Catholics have realised that their hierarchy fall into this category.

What does become important in an ever more multicultural society is secularism, as it gives people the right to practice whatever religion or traditions they wish, as long as those practises don't infringe on the rights of others. After all, you are what you is

rozeboosje

smacl wrote: »

If think you've rather missed the boat on this one.

So I'm merely imagining the anti-vaxxer movement? New Age boloney? Homeopathy?

Good to know. I can relax now.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

So I'm merely imagining the anti-vaxxer movement? New Age boloney? Homeopathy?

Good to know. I can relax now.

There's always those who depend on easily influenced suckers in order to exist, whether it be the Church or the local homoeopath. IMHO, religious people are much easier targets for the type of things that you list, as they have been raised to take things on faith rather than question them. For example, I would suspect many anti-vaxxers are also religious, so it is not one faith replacing another, it is a susceptible group being duped by more than one charlatan.

Once people start favouring a critical evidence based approach, over accepting articles of faith that lack such support, they reject all sorts of mumbo jumbo, whether it be mythology, the supernatural, or faux science.

rozeboosje

smacl wrote: »

Once people start favouring a critical evidence based approach, over accepting articles of faith that lack such support, they reject all sorts of mumbo jumbo, whether it be mythology, the supernatural, or faux science.

I wish I could have your faith in people. Remember, about half of them are below average intelligence. And average intelligence is nothing to be proud of either.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

I wish I could have your faith in people. Remember, about half of them are below average intelligence. And average intelligence is nothing to be proud of either.

Having faith in people seems reasonable, as we have a largely civilized society created by people. Your point in relation to average intelligence is clearly both valueless and elitist. We don't have a generally accepted definition of intelligence or how to measure it, nor have we used any single method to measure this nebulous value for the entire population, nor even have we discussed which population we're talking about. Even if this information existed and was readily available, what people achieve and may be proud of might have nothing whatsoever to do with mental capacity. People talk about the achievements of sports people, the invaluable work done by emergency services, and adore their celebrities, many of whom might be as thick as two short planks. What we achieve is based as much on effort and application as anything else, and while to reach a pinnacle may require exceptional ability, most of us can be proud in achieving any goal that demanded substantial effort.

blatantrereg

smacl wrote: »

Having faith in people seems reasonable, as we have a largely civilized society created by people. Your point in relation to average intelligence is clearly both valueless and elitist. We don't have a generally accepted definition of intelligence or how to measure it, nor have we used any single method to measure this nebulous value for the entire population, nor even have we discussed which population we're talking about. Even if this information existed and was readily available, what people achieve and may be proud of might have nothing whatsoever to do with mental capacity. People talk about the achievements of sports people, the invaluable work done by emergency services, and adore their celebrities, many of whom might be as thick as two short planks. What we achieve is based as much on effort and application as anything else, and while to reach a pinnacle may require exceptional ability, most of us can be proud in achieving any goal that demanded substantial effort.

My dog has convinced me that intelligence is typically overvalued in assessing worth. She has all sorts of admirable traits that are not diminished by her lack of intelligence. But I still need to supervise her to make sure she doesn't run in front of cars or kill the letters coming through the postbox.

rozeboosje

I don't mean to be condescending but it's quite a view from these elevated heights.

rozeboosje

It's always funny when hoi polloi get ideas above their station.

nozzferrahhtoo

rozeboosje wrote: »

What if you're wrong

I do not care about the implications of whether I am right or wrong. I just care WHETHER I am right or wrong. If I am wrong on something, then I appreciate when people highlight this to me. However when there is no reason on offer whatsoever to make me feel I might be wrong on some subject, I invest ZERO effort or energy into worrying about the implications of what if I am wrong.

The best I can do at any given moment is to ensure my world view and beliefs map as accurately onto reality as possible. That takes all my energy, so I have none remaining for obsessing over the implications of failures in this.

Alas few of the people who have proffered the "What if you are wrong" challenge at me appear to have invested much time in considering "What if I am right". And I reserve little respect for one way challenges alas.

rozeboosje wrote: »

What I am talking about is that you may be barking up the wrong tree by focusing on this rationality.

Then by all means construct an argument that shows this may be the case. Simply throwing it out as a big "maybe" and leaving it hanging there with no substance however is as useful as it is compelling. Which is to say: Not at all.

rozeboosje wrote: »

That believers don't care one bit about how rational their beliefs are or not.

Many clearly do not. Many clearly however do, and spend inordinate amount of times cherry picking or even warping facts to conform to what they desperately want the truth to be.

rozeboosje wrote: »

What if I told you that the purpose of faith is social cohesion?

Same as above. Merely asserting or telling me that interests me not a jot. If you want to actually construct a case for the claim, substantiate it, and present it.... I can certainly invest time and interest in evaluating it and assimilating the new world view into my life.

However it would need to be a strong case you make, and it would need to address, at minimum, two very gaping issues:

1) It might have been true historically that for small groups religion offered a focal point for social cohesion. It would be a hard case to make however that this is its purpose...... let alone that it is actually achieving it......... in a much larger global society today. Rather, I expect you will find it is doing the _exact_ opposite and in many ways causes social friction, not cohesion.

2) Even if it were causing social cohesion, the question would have to be asked "At what cost?" and then alternatives explored that do not have those costs at that level. If you have an infection in your knee that is speading one can amputate the leg and say "Look I cured the spreading infection". But at what cost? Merely saying "Look at what good I did!!!" without evaluating the cost of that good is useless in the extreme. One could have attained the same thing with an injection of antibiotics and without the cost of losing the leg. So.... your case for religion as a social cohesive would have to evaluate, with intellectual honesty and rigor, the cost of attaining your perceived good from this particular source.

rozeboosje wrote: »

is in fact a visible marker of a fitness to being a constructive member of the group.

Bad analogy actually because the enormous tail is not really all that good a marker of the fitness. Because as soon as reality comes a'callin', such as in the form of an actual predator, the ACTUAL fitness of the individual is heavily tested. Your analogy to religion, just like the peacocks tail, is a measure not of fitness but perceived or faked fitness. And it only stands to the individual so long as the illusion is maintained.

If people, or the peacock, wants to posture around displays of fitness that they are not actually in possession of, then so be it, but I reserve the right of mirth when reality takes such individual down several, or even all, pegs.

rozeboosje wrote: »

The problem with many religions is that they end up dividing humanity into an in-group and an out-group.

You do notice however that this is a direct contradiction to the claim that they are a social cohesive however, right?

At best therefore religion simply shifts up and down some of the dials on the equilizer. It might strengthen in the debit column some social cohesion between some individuals, but it pays for this in the credit column be exacerbating the lack of cohesion in between those groups. And which world is worse? A uniform cohesion or lack of it across all society..... or mobs or groups of cohesive people with higher levels of exacerbated friction between them?

I think I would go with the former myself. If you are looking for something to draw on for social cohesion, look no further than the thing we all share. The Human Condition. It is from there that we are likely to find any replacements for anything we find to ACTUALLY be worth replacing, and not just presumed to be worth replacing.

However I note your OP and subsequent posts declare by decree that rationality and science and facts are not to be the replacement. Alas you have not qualified or added substance to this declaration. You have merely asserted it and left it hanging. Which helps not very much.

You also assume a replacement is required. One wonders if it actually is given it is the core premise of the thread. When children find out there is no Santa, do they suddenly go looking for a concept to replace it with, or do they divest themselves of it and move on? Maybe we do not need a replacement, but just need to grow up metaphorically as a species.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Brian wrote: »

But in balance I feel it provides more positive influence than negative effects.

Might be useful if you therefore show your workings. If you have come up with a "balance" then you must have some kind of "Balance Sheet" you can offer us to show how you have evaluated the result which you here declare.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do notice however that this is a direct contradiction to the claim that they are a social cohesive however, right?

Do I really need to address this point? Do I really need to point out that up until fairly recently, humans would live in small-ish groups in which, in order to survive, the group's cohesion trumped any individual's worldview and anybody outside that group was strange and dangerous? Do I really need to point out that a few hundred years of civilisation is not nearly enough to evolve this instinct to reject the unknown out of us as a species?

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

Do I really need to address this point? Do I really need to point out that up until fairly recently, humans would live in small-ish groups in which, in order to survive, the group's cohesion trumped any individual's worldview and anybody outside that group was strange and dangerous? Do I really need to point out that a few hundred years of civilisation is not nearly enough to evolve this instinct to reject the unknown out of us as a species?

Many animals such, as dogs and baboons, are social and depend on the group to survive. They will also have a dominant individual lead the group, where other members to to follow and kowtow. They don't seem to need a religion to maintain this social cohesion. I think you need to clearly illustrate how religion is in fact a force for social cohesion rather than something that merely feeds off it by first inserting itself into the pre-existing hierarchy and then subsuming it.

rozeboosje

smacl wrote: »

Many animals such, as dogs and baboons, are social and depend on the group to survive. They will also have a dominant individual lead the group, where other members to to follow and kowtow. They don't seem to need a religion to maintain this social cohesion. I think you need to clearly illustrate how religion is in fact a force for social cohesion rather than something that merely feeds off it by first inserting itself into the pre-existing hierarchy and then subsuming it.

Baboons haven't infested the entire world. I rest my case. Religion, and other human fictions, are what keep us singing off the same hymn sheet. No other animal has achieved this, and that's why we ended up on the top of the pile. That doesn't make religion a good thing, and if we can improve the use of fictions by at least adopting some fictions that are not as clearly ridiculous as that of some supernatural (whatever that is) "god" thing lording it over reality, then all the better. But if we forget that it's our ability to use fiction to our advantage that got us here, we're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

Baboons haven't infested the entire world. I rest my case. Religion, and other human fictions, are what keep us singing off the same hymn sheet. No other animal has achieved this, and that's why we ended up on the top of the pile. That doesn't make religion a good thing, and if we can improve the use of fictions by at least adopting some fictions that are not as clearly ridiculous as that of some supernatural (whatever that is) "god" thing lording it over reality, then all the better. But if we forget that it's our ability to use fiction to our advantage that got us here, we're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

While religion has grown alongside human civilisation, that simply illustrates correlation. What indicates to you that there is any causative link, and that this link was and remains of primary importance?

rozeboosje

If you actually want to be educated, go read:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-A-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/0062316095

Maybe the actual author manages to present the argument at a level that is accessible to you.

robindch

Mod:

rozeboosje wrote: »

If you actually want to be educated [...]

No need for that kind of comment, plz.

rozeboosje

Oh but there is. My esteemed conversation partner obviously thinks I'm here to spoonfeed every single detail to him or her. Which isn't going to happen.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

If you actually want to be educated, go read:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-A-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/0062316095

Maybe the actual author manages to present the argument at a level that is accessible to you.

So your answer is I read it in a best selling book once, so it must be right. Sounds rather like an appeal to authority fallacy from where I'm sitting. Perhaps you could synopsise how reading this book led you to the above conclusions, for us less educated members of the great unwashed.

rozeboosje

See?

I have read plenty of best selling books that utterly failed to convince me. This one did convince me. The argument was clear and compelling. Read it for yourself.

robindch

Mod:

rozeboosje wrote: »

Oh but there is.

Oh, but there isn't and moderators have things in our pocketses that can help deal with people who believe otherwise

smacl wrote: »

[...] us less educated members of the great unwashed.

No need for that kind of comment either.

Thanking youze both.

rozeboosje

Ah, I see. The great Ban Hammer. How nice.

robindch

Mod:

rozeboosje wrote: »

Ah, I see. The great Ban Hammer. How nice.

If you can't post in A+A within the charter, then the moderators will take action. That's the way it is here. You might want to read the charter before posting a reply:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

See?

I have read plenty of best selling books that utterly failed to convince me. This one did convince me. The argument was clear and compelling. Read it for yourself.

Not that I wouldn't take your word on it, but I decided to read the Guardian review of the book to get some idea of what it actually contained. The following section taken from the conclusion doesn't exactly compel me to make a purchase.

Guardian wrote:

Much of Sapiens is extremely interesting, and it is often well expressed. As one reads on, however, the attractive features of the book are overwhelmed by carelessness, exaggeration and sensationalism. Never mind his standard and repeated misuse of the saying "the exception proves the rule" (it means that exceptional or rare cases test and confirm the rule, because the rule turns out to apply even in those cases). There's a kind of vandalism in Harari's sweeping judgments, his recklessness about causal connections, his hyper-Procrustean stretchings and loppings of the data. Take his account of the battle of Navarino. Starting from the fact that British investors stood to lose money if the Greeks lost their war of independence, Harari moves fast: "the bond holders' interest was the national interest, so the British organised an international fleet that, in 1827, sank the main Ottoman flotilla in the battle of Navarino. After centuries of subjugation, Greece was finally free." This is wildly distorted – and Greece was not then free. To see how bad it is, it's enough to look at the wikipedia entry on Navarino.

Harari hates "modern liberal culture", but his attack is a caricature and it boomerangs back at him. Liberal humanism, he says, "is a religion". It "does not deny the existence of God"; "all humanists worship humanity"; "a huge gulf is opening between the tenets of liberal humanism and the latest findings of the life sciences". This is silly. It's also sad to see the great Adam Smith drafted in once again as the apostle of greed.

You pointed me towards this book when I asked you for an illustration of a causal link that you implied, yet the book's author has been noted here for causal recklessness. I'm not seeing any answer here.

rozeboosje

I pointed you toward a book that you can read and make up your own mind. In response, you are allowing a newspaper editor to make it up for you. Ok.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

I pointed you toward a book that you can read and make up your own mind. In response, you are allowing a newspaper editor to make it up for you. Ok.

Nope. You pointed me to a book when I asked you for to establish a causal link between religion and social cohesion. I've no reason to suspect the book contains such a link, and even if it did, on a forum such as this I'd expect you to be able to paraphrase it.

Edit: Shilling a book doesn't make for convincing argument.

rozeboosje

Paraphrasing an entire book?

:-)

nozzferrahhtoo

rozeboosje wrote: »

Do I really need to address this point?

Nice of you to distill my entire post into one sentence and then not actually reply to it really. But yes, if someone has a thesis that X does Y, I think it incumbent upon the thesis writer to address clear facts that are in direct contradiction to the thesis.

rozeboosje wrote: »

Do I really need to point out that up until fairly recently, humans would live in small-ish groups in which, in order to survive, the group's cohesion trumped any individual's worldview and anybody outside that group was strange and dangerous?

That is merely repeating what I already said to you in point 1 of the 2 point guide I gave you on how you would need to begin approaching supporting the proposed thesis. If yours claim were to be "Religion WAS a social cohesive" then that is one thing, but anyone with a theory that it IS a social cohesive in the modern world has to address the modern world. Not the "up until fairly recently world".

Even if you could argue that religion had such utility in the past, and you have not so much argued this as merely declared it so far, then that bears no relevance to a thesis reflective of religions utilities in the present.

rozeboosje wrote: »

Do I really need to point out that a few hundred years of civilisation is not nearly enough to evolve this instinct to reject the unknown out of us as a species?

Irrelevant. If the thesis is that religion is a social cohesive in the modern world, then modes of it's removal from our society is at best a tangential side point. I do not know of anyone on this forum who is under the illusion that the death of religion in our world will be a fast process. I certainly am not under any such illusion and although I welcome the trends I observe, I do not see a religion and superstition free society evolving in my life time or that of several iterations of my progeny.

We are alas a superstitious species, who does not like admitting ignorance or living with it, and we are evolved with The Intentional Stance and Hyperactive Agency Detection and so forth. None of this bodes well for a quick removal of religion from society, but none of it is relevant to a thesis about the actual utility of religion in the modern world which is what I was addressing in your post.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If yours claim were to be "Religion WAS a social cohesive" then that is one thing, but anyone with a theory that it IS a social cohesive in the modern world has to address the modern world. Not the "up until fairly recently world".

Ok, that's a fair point. I should have clarified that. Though if a small group finds itself isolated and under threat I would imagine that some sort of "religion" could still help in that regard. At least it would be better than nothing.

nozzferrahhtoo

rozeboosje wrote: »

Ok, that's a fair point. I should have clarified that. Though if a small group finds itself isolated and under threat I would imagine that some sort of "religion" could still help in that regard. At least it would be better than nothing.

Small groups isolated and under threat tend to be brought together by their shared predicament. Religion would likely be superfluous to requirements there by far. I am aware of few things in our world that brings people together more powerfully, and more meaningfully, than a commonly shared adversity. Religion would simply not be required, and in fact when we observe disasters like hurricanes in the US, and we observe people offering mutual assistance and aid and support, and digging in the rubble looking for survivors along side each other....... you tend to find the people come from a cross section of faiths and religion is the LAST thing that was offering cohesion between them. The shared human condition and courage in the face of adversity was the bonding gel there.

I think I could steal and slightly modify a point from Sam Harris while talking about morality. Sam suggests that even if you take and cherry pick ONLY the good deeds people were motivated to do by their religion... ignoring for convenience everything else.... then _even then_ the best you can say about religion is that religion gives people bad reasons to do good things, where in fact good reasons were already available.

Similarly if you were going to release religion into the hypothetical scenario you describe above, of a group of people in a shared predicament of some sort where social cohesion would benefit them in some meaningful way, then at best religion would give bad reasons for cohesion, where good ones exist already.

But to hammer on the main point, to offer the thesis of cohesion a foundation it appears we have to invent fantastical hypothetical to carry it, rather than base the thesis in the reality of the actual modern world around us. Which, I am compelled to point out, does not bode well for the merits or success of offering a basis for the thesis.

rozeboosje

You appear to be under the impression that I'm defending religion. I'm not. Just because one of its side effects is an increased social cohesion doesn't mean that religion is therefore "a Good Thing". I'd rather see it replaced with much more useful fictions.

Yes, you're right, a "shared adversary" can help engender some cohesion, but without an ideology for the group under threat to share, any member is free to decide for him- or herself whether it may not be cleverer to join them rather than try to beat them. That may be a smart thing to do for individuals within the group, but it's death to the group itself.

nozzferrahhtoo

rozeboosje wrote: »

You appear to be under the impression that I'm defending religion. I'm not.

Not sure how you reached that conclusion about my impressions. The only impression I am operating under is that I am responding to the thesis suggested in the OP of "What if I told you that the purpose of faith is social cohesion?"

It might be better to re-read my posts under the information that it is under that light _alone_ I have presented my responses. Perhaps you will reach more accurate conclusions about my impressions having done so.

I am just not yet buying the thesis in a modern world. One could at least make historic arguments to this effect, and there are some I know already that I expect I would wholly agree with. Many which I do not. But the thesis used in the present tense, as I said, I am not buying currently. Presented, as it is, devoid of substance thus far in the thread.

Religion appears to be entirely superfluous to any requirements I can think of, comes with a cost not worth payment if it is indeed superfluous, and as I pointed out it tends to give people bad reasons to do good things, where good reasons are already available to them. And that is literally the best thing I can say about Religion at this time. That is me being kind.

rozeboosje wrote: »

any member is free to decide for him- or herself whether it may not be cleverer to join them rather than try to beat them. That may be a smart thing to do for individuals within the group, but it's death to the group itself.

Actually I am aware of literally no way in which religion alters this dynamic at all. This freedom of which you speak exists with or without religion in the hypothetical scenario. The existence of a cohesive, real or imagined, in no way guarantees it's use and someone in such a scenario of adversity who is not prone to join the group, despite their shared condition, for selfish agenda reasons or otherwise.... I would doubt would be compelled to do so through religion.

And in fact it even compounds the issue of such an individual as religion just offers one more avenue for such a person to exploit the group dynamic that would not otherwise exist.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I am aware of literally no way in which religion alters this dynamic at all. This freedom of which you speak exists with or without religion in the hypothetical scenario. The existence of a cohesive, real or imagined, in no way guarantees it's use and someone in such a scenario of adversity who is not prone to join the group, despite their shared condition, for selfish agenda reasons or otherwise.... I would doubt would be compelled to do so through religion.

And in fact it even compounds the issue of such an individual as religion just offers one more avenue for such a person to exploit the group dynamic that would not otherwise exist.

Try a medieval siege. The Siege of Malta is a good example.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

Paraphrasing an entire book?

:-)

Tom Payne seems to be able manage this in a paragraph;

if we stand back from our whole “history”, over those past 70 millennia, what patterns emerge? What rules have underpinned our progress? There are a few. One is our ability to form cohesive groups, even empires. Another, following from that, is our willingness to define these groups by the people who are outside them – the so-called “other”, or “them and us” as Harari less modishly puts it. And to make both of these rules work, we need the capacity to believe in certain myths that account for us, but which aren’t part of us. Gods are one example; big companies are another (he offers Peugeot, which can be considered a person under French law); and at the moment the most compelling entity in whose existence we all believe is money. It makes the word “credit”, and its etymology, all the more important.

It seems very much as if your opening question was paraphrasing part of this book, so it may have made a some sense to make reference to it as part of you opening post, rather than giving the impression that it was something that you came up with yourself. Particularly so, that when queried, your sole answer was 'read the book'.

rozeboosje

More regurgitation of other people's opinion? If you're not convinced by me pointing you toward an author, why should I be convinced by you pointing me toward a critic? And he has, at best, summarised a small part of the book. Awfully kind of him to do so, but it doesn't oblige me to do anything like it myself. I won't chew your food for you.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

More regurgitation of other people's opinion?

Your entire thread here seems to be the regurgitation of someone else's opinion. At least I make the effort to credit those I refer to and quote them verbatim.

rozeboosje

And I present what I've learned in my own words. If those aren't understood, I refer to the original source in the hope that it may be clearer to you. But I sense that you're not interested. Which is fine.

nozzferrahhtoo

rozeboosje wrote: »

Try a medieval siege. The Siege of Malta is a good example.

You do seem to enjoy distilling entire posts down to one small part of them and then giving a response that has nothing to do with it.

My point was that the dynamic is not necessarily altered by religion. Just because you can cherry pick one example where you might think it did.... even if it did or not..... that does not really negate or support anything I just said.

rozeboosje

I enjoy picking holes in stupid arguments, yes. And all that is needed to prove a general statement wrong is a single exception. Do I really need to explain how basic logic works?

K4t

rozeboosje wrote: »

Good on ya. So what can we replace it with, then?

Saying that religion is bad is like the Opposition politician bitchin' about how badly the government is doing. They may be spot on in their criticism, but unless they can present a better alternative, all their commentary is pointless.

You quoted three words from my post. I mentioned alternatives to religion in my post. It's nothing like that. You don't want to engage in discussion or listen to reason, you only want to win.

LeinsterDub

Simple if I'm wrong God made me this way if I'm not I'm right

rozeboosje

K4t wrote: »

You quoted three words from my post. I mentioned alternatives to religion in my post. It's nothing like that. You don't want to engage in discussion or listen to reason, you only want to win.

I am under no obligation to address nonsense. Life's too short. Besides, I have already won. I'm invincibibble.

magicbastarder

logic fail; you've admitted your life is 'too short' and then claim invincibility.