When I was a teen, I was aggressively anti-theist, imagining myself quite clever for demonstrating how silly religious beliefs are.
But life is fucking hard and I learned not to begrudge anyone any solution they’ve come up with to make life a little more comprehensible to them.
I don’t share anyone’s religious beliefs, but it’s not as if I’ve figured out how to run my own life successfully. I shouldn’t be in the business of telling other people how or how not to handle the world.
Religion doesn't deserve the get of jail free card from ethics that it is so often awarded.
Any other source of ideology is rightfully criticized for teaching bad things. Religions that teach queerphobia, misogyny, and racism argue that it's essential to their religious freedom. And too often folks let them off the hook with "well ok just don't say slurs while I'm watching or i'll wag my finger. totally fine to believe gay people are sinning, just uh don't be rude about it in front of me."
I am most annoyed by people who profess belief but clearly don’t actually believe it. I once met someone who would not open an umbrella on the sabbath to stay dry during a rainstorm because of the biblical injunction against erecting structures on the sabbath. I was very impressed by this—someone willing to live by their beliefs even when they inconvenienced them.
That is not most ostensibly religious people I’ve encountered. They will profess to believe that an infinite and infinitely powerful creator god incarnated itself on the earth and informed them that they must give up all their wealth or else go to hell, and they’ll shrug and say “actually no just gays are bad.”
@HeavenlyPossum@chairgirlhands So I'm not Jewish, which means I'm certainly not a rabbi, but I just checked around a little, and I think this is an orthodox Jewish rule. Considering that Reform Jews can eat pork in a Saturday, I'd imagine they can pop an umbrella (although you never know, kosher rules are COMPLICATED).
@HeavenlyPossum@chairgirlhands Anyway, point is, we should always take a second to consider why people follow a rule, whether the rule is universal for that religion, and thus, whether everyone of that religion actually follows it. I mean, the Pope is real clear both premarital sex, but I know exactly one Catholic who actually follows that rule.
Following a rule is not, by itself, cause for praise or admiration.
@HeavenlyPossum
Just because life is difficult doesn't justify embracing beliefs that are unfounded or harmful, which many religious beliefs are. Promoting skepticism, critical thinking, rationality, and evidence-based thinking is essential for individual and societal progress. While I respect people's autonomy, I still feel it's necessary to challenge beliefs that are irrational or harmful, especially if those beliefs influence public policy or infringe upon others' rights.
The problem is that we all hold beliefs that are unfounded or harmful, because no matter how hard we try, we’re fragile little animals trying to make sense of an incomprehensibly vast and complex universe and we can’t help but do that. The very structure and function of our cognition is designed to give us our brain’s best, most efficient guess of what’s going on at any given moment, not accurately model the universe.
If someone is doing harm, you can defend yourself against that harm, but I don’t see much use or good in trying to talk people out of whatever thoughts make it possible for them to get up each morning.
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom I think your analysis of religion is wrong. I think it's like heroin. It makes people dependent on it. It's because people are so invested in it being true that it becomes a panacea often from suffering that it itself causes.
The atheist, secular worldview is absolutely compatible with happiness just like not doing heroin is. It is just very hard to see for a junkie.
Furthermore, the secular world.view is more compatible with solving the world's problems.
Seems to me, dismissing and condemning spirituality entirely and believing yourself somehow immune to magical delusions can be its own dogma just as arrogant and dangerous as any other.
@violetmadder@sashin@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom Unless one has dismissed spirituality & magical delusions entirely and living a realistic and fact based life. Then life can be pretty normal and full of cool experiences.
If you honestly think humans, with our puny sensory organs and tiny lifespans, can discern or understand the truths of the universe beyond only a very limited superficial level, that in of itself is a magical delusion. But people high on the idea that they know for certain what the facts are have a hard time seeing that.
@violetmadder@TheNovemberMan@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom I don't know what you mean about "the truths of the universe" but we can definitely know things, we can definitely understand things to a better degree than we have in the past.
For example, once upon a time, we believed the planets revolved around the Earth; later, we found that they (including Earth) revolved around the sun.
I call your view (or at least what I think your view is) epistemological nihilism.
In a Cartesian sense, we can only truly know our own personal existence and guess about everything else. Absolutely everything we know is built on a foundation of epistemological faith.
I suppose we have to make those leaps of faith or else go completely insane—it’s impossible for me to imagine genuinely living with that kind of epistemological humility. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that we’re making them constantly about everything—if we want to be honestly and rigorously rational.
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom@violetmadder@TheNovemberMan What leap are we making? That this experience isn't a dream? That the universe wasn't born five minutes ago and will vanish in another five? That our perceptions are not actively trying to mislead us? That our memories are not false?
If I've been hallucinating, the hallucinations have been consistent with there being a real physical world underneath that behaves in knowable ways.
In a Cartesian sense, we can know our own existence—because we subjective experience our own thoughts, and that’s sufficient to know with certainty that those thoughts exist.
Beyond that, everything is a guess, in an absolutely empirical sense. Everything you “know” is the product of sensory data, not the thing-itself, and you cannot verify the operation and validity of those sensory data without yet more sensory data.
It does indeed seem unlikely that everything you’ve ever experienced is unreal, but you cannot know it.
I think we should earnestly try to make the best guesses we can and remain open to evidence that they are wrong.
I don't think this cartesian thinking opens the door to no longer caring about what is true, or consistent with everything we experience and know and brazenly choosing to believe things based on how they make us feel, or anything else unrelated to genuinely trying to understand our state of affairs.
If the world is an illusion we can know more about how the illusion works. It won't make flat earth theory make sense. Planes fly a certain way.
What I am calling epistemological nihilism is not that we can't have certainty but that we can't know anything and therefore it's not worth trying to know things or criticising ideas.
I guess I should read up on nihilism, people keep talking like they're worried I might be tossing weasels in bathtubs which is really not my intent but frankly I haven't looked into it in much detail.
I just call it being (an admittedly somewhat militant) agnostic. I'm comfortable with a significant background level of uncertainty in life, and people who talk in fundamentalist absolutes make me nervous, whether they're theists or not.
I mean, in another hundred years scientists or historians looking back at the things any one of us believes today would be unlikely to say, "Wow, this person definitely knew the facts, and unlike all the other thousands of human belief systems before, theirs got everything right and their education and knowledge was in no way ever compromised by mistakes, delusions, or lies."
There are many, many delusions running rampant in the world that are not thought to be "religious" in origin but in the end can be just as dangerous and destructive as any cult. I see unexamined assumptions all around that are getting a lot of us killed.
@violetmadder@TheNovemberMan@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom I might be misusing the term nihilism, but what I mean is "we can't know anything so there is no point trying, we can't distinguish better from worse views so there is no point trying".
In my head agnosticism is about certainty, atheism is about whether you believe there is a god.
In practice all atheists are agnostic atheists because they don't claim certainty in the belief that there is no god or anything really.
Hell, the idea that we'll NEVER run out of new things to learn makes me sublimely happy. Striving to understand more is so much fun I'd be terribly sad if it ever ended. We can't ever be perfect, but we can always be better!
Unfortunately I've spoken with quite a few atheists who claim to be quite certain there is no god/magic/etc. I do hope they're outnumbered by the ones who can acknowledge we have no way of truly knowing.
I’m happy you find your life normal and full of cool experiences! I don’t begrudge someone seeking a normal and cool life like yours a set of religious beliefs that would make that possible.
I don't condemn it, just like I don't condemn folks with addictions.
I do condemn pushers of addictive substances, though.
The flock are, as you say, scared little animals in a big terrifying universe; their cowardice in the face of rational fact is understandable, though not admirable, no matter how the pious have historically glorified mindless conformity, and still do.
The heirophants, though, them I'd like a word with.
We've all had to deal with condescension, I'd say; myself from religious people who enjoyed the hegemony of the satanic panic 80s while I just wanted to enjoy the sound of electric guitars.
12 steppers who require a higher power are fine, and I actually enjoy meetings, when I go to them, though I don't much. But these are broken people trying to be a bit less broken, like me.
It's the ones who think they're "washed in the blood" and such.
The best way to get back at condescending religious people is to be condescending at other religious people. Be just like the people who made you mad. That’s winning.
"This person holds a strong opinion" isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, we all hold the strong opinions that climate change is real, that trans rights are human rights, and that ethnostates are bad. I hope that we would all react dismissively to anyone who felt they wanted to dispute those points, rather than feeling that we needed to give them equal time and hear them out.
What matters about a strongly held opinion is what sort of actions it pushes a person to take. If someone says "there is a God who says we must feed the hungry, and therefore I shall," then that's good, and we should encourage that. If someone says "there is no God, which makes it imperative that we help one another, therefore I shall feed the hungry," then that's also good, and we should encourage that.
The test of an idea, IMHO, is the good (or the harm) that its adherents do in the world.
This gets complicated because ideas don't just motivate people to action, people also choose their ideas to justify the actions they want to take. An example of this might be the movement within the past few years for fascist young men to adopt Catholicism. Catholicism isn't making them be awful people: their awfulness is leading them to Catholicism.
Considering that any set of religious beliefs can produce just about any social consequence—ie, Muslims reading the Quran include both the Taliban and Sufi mystics writing ecstatic poetry about the transcendental experience of getting really drunk—the causal factor doesn’t seem to be any set of religious beliefs.
@violetmadder@sashin@HeavenlyPossum
Dismissing spirituality entirely could indeed be dogmatic if done without considering different perspectives or acknowledging the potential benefits some people derive from spiritual practices. However, my rejection of spirituality is not based on arrogance, but rather on a critical examination of evidence and rationality.
"However, my rejection of spirituality is not based on arrogance, but rather on a critical examination of evidence and rationality."
That is not what is coming across in this thread. It is definitely coming across as arrogance and a total rejection of other people's experiences.
You say it is possible for rejection of all religions and spirituality to become dogmatic "if done without considering different perspectives or acknowledging the potential benefits". Yet, that is exactly what you are doing here. Heavenly Possum is literally considering different perspectives and is acknowledging the potential benefits to others despite not feeling those things themselves.
Your whole argument is that it can be toxic, and therefore should never be used. This is the same pattern of thinking that Christian fundamentalists use to keep people in their communities. Temptation is the same as giving in to temptation.
People lie to themselves all the time. Hell, our brains do it for us with built-in drugs. As a person with chronic major depression, I lack the rose-colored endorphins that cushion the average person's encounters with harsh realities-- a cushion most have NO IDEA is there, invisible as water to a fish. Without that distortion I can judge some things more clearly as a result-- but it also makes it MUCH harder for me to function in life. I have to actively cultivate comforting ideas that the more rational-sounding part of my mind wants to insist are total bullshit. If I listened only to that rational voice, I would die.
In dialectical behavioral therapy we are encouraged to "check the facts"-- but that is NOT as easy as it sounds. My experience of reality is subjective. Not everything can be measured with math or physics. I am not a computer and I'd be a fool to pretend I am. My best efforts at rationality will never be perfect. Analyzing "reality" in a cold scientific fashion is not where people get their meaning or passion in life.
My favorite color is purple. There is no rational reason for this. I just like it. The things that make me, ME, and give me reason to get up in the morning and not walk out into traffic, are not calculated or testable. That stuffed animal on the shelf is obviously not alive, but if giving it a name and hugging it helps calm an anxiety attack is that bad or wrong? Not everything can be boiled down to "the best explanation of reality".
Coping tools are tools. They have advantages and risks like anything else. Everyone has distortions in their perceptions, thoughts, and experiences. Being human is a mix of the rational and irrational, and aiming for careful balance is the best we can do.
@violetmadder@sashin@CorvidCrone@HeavenlyPossum
It's more important to embrace reality as it is, without relying on comforting illusions or coping mechanisms that aren't grounded in evidence or reason. Facing harsh realities without the comforting cushion of endorphins is difficult, but relying on irrational beliefs or coping tools ultimately hinders genuine understanding and growth. It's possible to find meaning and passion in life through rational exploration and understanding of the world
Oh wow. You need to stop. Violet just said these coping mechanisms are what are keeping her alive. How dare you tell her to face harsh realities for her own supposed growth and assume you understand her mind better than she does. How dare you belittle her experiences for your own agenda.
Your self centered need to be right is now endangering others. Whatever you are hoping to accomplish is not working here.
@CorvidCrone@violetmadder@sashin@HeavenlyPossum
Stop it with these baseless accusations. I'm not assuming I understand anyone's mind or belittling anyone's experiences. I proposed an alternative solution to her difficulties in a way that takes rationality and facts into consideration. I'm not endangering anybody by proposing an alternative solution to ones difficulties.
There are reasons people respond to you the way they do.
It may not be your INTENT to belittle people, and you may not want to sound condescending or dogmatic, but you often get feedback from multiple people indicating that's how your posts come across to them. You can dismiss them as simply wrong and be annoyed that they're saying it for NO REASON, but um... That's definitely not going to improve their impression of your tone.
Let's take what you just said, right here. Do you actually believe my choices of coping methods were made WITHOUT taking rationality or facts into consideration? Really? I sure hope not, I'm going to assume you didn't really mean it that way. But that's how it can come across when you word it like that.
I'm talking about very sensitive personal topics, and somebody just warned you that your response was offensively judgmental and insensitive, but instead of listening you're just doubling down on this I'm-so-rational-and-correct attitude with no apparent understanding or even concern for how you might be rubbing people the wrong way.
Organizing works much better if you can figure out how to not irritate people along the way.
Even after Possum made it clear he's annoyed with you and doesn't want to engage with you anymore, you just kept right on him like a dog with a bone and now he's blocked you. What were you trying to accomplish there?
As for why to wake up in the morning, I think we can do good in the world. We can live lives in such a way that it benefits others and leaves the world a better place than we found it. We can influence affairs to make things better for everyone, or at least the people around us.
To act effectively in the world, I think we should strive to see it as it is (no matter how fallibly so).
The reason why we shouldn't run around killing each other, lying to one another, and so on is that we'd all be having a worse time.
Why only benefit oneself? If everyone acted in that way, it would be worse for everyone. If everyone cared about one another's well-being, everyone would be better off.
@HeavenlyPossum@violetmadder@sashin@CorvidCrone
These are very disingenuous questions. Are you seriously trying to bring in the old "if there's no God, them why do anything" argument, as if a sense of morality or purpose can only come from a supernatural master?
No, that’s not what I’m doing at all, but I see you’ve reached the phase of this conversation in which you interpret everything I say in the least generous light
@HeavenlyPossum@CorvidCrone@violetmadder@sashin If I'm wrong then explain yourself. That's how a conversation works. The reason why I think you're being disingenuous is because literally everything single time anyone's brought up those questions you brought up was on the presumption that atheist can't have morality or purpose without God.
@HeavenlyPossum@violetmadder@sashin@CorvidCrone
I know, and I never said you weren't; I was merely talking and inquiring about the questions you proposed and the intention behind them. Also, there's no reason for you to be uncivil and curse at me.
@CorvidCrone@violetmadder@sashin@HeavenlyPossum
I have been acknowledging and considering different perspectives, and through that have arrived at the position of anti-theism. What you perceive as arrogance or rejection of others' experiences is simply a rejection of supernatural beliefs based on rationality and evidence. My stance against dogmatism is rooted in critical thinking and skepticism, not a desire to impose my beliefs onto others, as is often the case with religious fundamentalism
@HeavenlyPossum@CorvidCrone@sashin@violetmadder
Engaging in fervent debate with people over religion isn't dogmatic proselytizing. I'm not promoting a belief system based on faith or divine authority, I'm advocating for critical thinking, skepticism, and the examination of evidence. My goal is not to convert others to my worldview, but to encourage open dialogue, challenge unfounded beliefs, and promote rationality and secularism.
What I'm hearing is "my research and listening to others is done. I have no further need to question the conclusions I've come to"
That is dogma. That is arrogance.
You have consistently shown that you have no interest in other people's beliefs on the matter. You have shown that you only want to make others think as you do.
@CorvidCrone@violetmadder@sashin@HeavenlyPossum
My rejection of religious beliefs isn't based on dogma, it's based on critical examination of evidence and rational thought. While I've reached my own conclusions based on my research and understanding, I remain open to new evidence and perspectives that might challenge my beliefs. My aim isn't to impose my views on others, but to engage in meaningful dialogue and encourage people to think critically about their beliefs.
You keep saying that. Saying you are open to dialogue doesn't mean you are. You don't have open ears. Dialogue goes both ways, otherwise it's preaching
If I understand Corvid correctly, they were not saying you were preventing anyone from engaging in dialogue. They were saying that you are badgering and not engaging in dialogue at all.
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom Acting according to our finite conceptions, religious OR otherwise, in an infinite reality, will tend toward absurd results. That absurdity becomes harmful when resources are applied to the futile effort to force reality to conform to the belief.
Resources on the scales deployed around the eastern Mediterranean...
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom If I am wrong about anything I want people to point out what about and why. It's possible to live in the world without the shiny coping mechanisms like religion and other kinds of delusion.
Beliefs are not like clothing, we shouldn't pick and choose them to our liking or comfort but earnestly try to see the world as it is, and then try to improve it.
Making a home in a fantasy world created by our own thoughts is a terrible idea! It divorces us from seeing reality as it is and therefore from working to improve it.
> “Making a home in a fantasy world created by our own thoughts is a terrible idea!”
Except this is fundamentally how our cognition works. We don’t perceive the world qua the world; we perceive our brain’s best Bayesian guess of what it should be seeing.
We are all of us divorced from being able to perceive reality “as it is” and are all of us just doing our best to make sense of it.
"I don't see much use or good in trying to talk people out of whatever thoughts make it possible for them to get up morning" is the part I am responding to.
Some people's reason for getting up each morning are also the reason they do incalculable damage to society. "This thought keeps me alive" is not an infallible universal defense of ideology.
It's a general statement so I'm taking it in its general form. If there are supposed to be specific qualifiers, I'm all ears.
Failure to address the distinction, for instance, between letting someone believe (a) a guy with a beard will give them nice things at death versus believing (b) gay people are morally wrong for being gay because beard guy said so, is a classic example of how religious bigots use the concept of "religious freedom" or "acts versus beliefs" rhetoric to keep their hatred blossoming. Some beliefs do deserve to be mocked, ridiculed, and browbeaten out of people.
@HeavenlyPossum
Even though humans are indeed fallible and prone to cognitive biases, promoting critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning can help mitigate harmful beliefs, particularly those that perpetuate discrimination, inequality, or violence in the name of religion. Challenging and engaging with differing beliefs can lead to intellectual growth and a more accurate understanding of the universe, rather than resigning to the limitations of human cognition.
You might have noticed that I spend quite a bit of my time trying to challenge peoples’ beliefs! I just don’t feel any particular need to engage about religion or religiosity.
@HeavenlyPossum
Challenging religious beliefs is essential because religion is detrimental to society. Religion perpetuates harmful dogmas and inhibits critical thinking. That's why I feel a strong need to engage in discussions about religion to promote rationality and skepticism.
> “Challenging religious beliefs is essential because religion is detrimental to society.”
I’m not sure this is true; it certainly seems to fulfill some sort of need in people. I doubt it would be as pervasive and persistent as it is if it didn’t play some useful role. As a nonbeliever, I certainly believe I miss out on religion’s prosocial aspects.
> “Religion perpetuates harmful dogmas and inhibits critical thinking.”
This is hardly unique to religion. The Rationalists have reasoned their way into some of the most monstrously awful beliefs I’ve ever encountered.
> “That's why I feel a strong need to engage in discussions about religion to promote rationality and skepticism.”
@HeavenlyPossum
Religion does fulfill certain psychological and social needs for individuals and societies, but its overall impact on society is still detrimental. Despite religions prosocial aspects, its benefits can often be achieved through secular means as well.
While harmful dogmas and inhibitions of critical thinking aren't unique to religion, religion's institutionalized nature and historical influence have perpetuated such issues on a larger scale compared to other belief systems.
How do you know the overall impact of religion on society is detrimental?
I’ve yet to see any secular alternative to the prosocial aspects of religion. Have you seen those rationalist nerds doing their little solstice parties?
The harm done by institutionalized religion seems like yet another good argument against institutionalized power, not necessarily religion.
@HeavenlyPossum
Religions positives, like community-building and moral guidance, are outweighed by its negatives, like dogma, intolerance, and suppression of dissent.
Secular alternatives, such as humanism or community organizations, provide similar benefits without the harmful baggage of religious doctrine.
The harm caused by institutionalized religion isn't simply a result of institutional power dynamics, but also stems from specific beliefs and practices of religion.
> “Religions positives, like community-building and moral guidance, are outweighed by its negatives, like dogma, intolerance, and suppression of dissent. “
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom All these benefits can be found elsewhere from sources which do not carry the harms of religion, and are demonstrably more efficient and more accountable.
That makes any harms from religion outweigh their utterly replaceable and exaggerated benefits.
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom We treated fevers with blood-letting and shoving herbs up our butts for a long time too. Longer than any religious cult has persisted so far.
When you learn better, you're supposed to modify your behaviour. That's called growing up.
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom And what is the history of religion, except constant replacement with one after another. All claiming to be the 'truth'.
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom I don't find "whataboutism" arguments particularly compelling but sure, and if you speak out against a secular ideology and are punished for it, we have no problem recognising that as wrong. We're all human, that's why accountability is important.
Religion, however?...
Actively, and violently suppressing dissent against something "sacred" and unquestionable is religion's brand, and the principal source of harm.
Religion comes in many more flavors than the couple of Abrahamic ones most of us think of in these discussions.
For example, it could actually be pretty awesome if more people adopted the belief that "water is life", and held it sacred. Hard to go wrong with that one.
And then there's the religion of capitalism, which sacrifices everything we need for survival on the sacred altar of profit. That's supposedly secular, but functions as the most destructive cult the world has ever seen.
@violetmadder@TeeCeeGee@HeavenlyPossum
Although I obviously agree that water is life, I don't think adopting "water is life" as a sacred religious belief is beneficial because, in my opinion, promoting any form of religious belief system, even if seemingly benign, can still contribute to perpetuating irrationality and superstition.
I'd rather embrace a somewhat irrational superstition because I find it a personally compelling and useful tool, consciously exploiting my caveman brain's weird tendencies and focusing it in what I hope is a constructive direction, than devote myself to a seemingly benign ideology based on the belief I can and must fully banish irrationality and superstition in uncompromising total repression of my caveman brain's weird instincts.
Usually it's when people are the MOST certain they're being totally and irrefutably rational, that they can do the most damage, because they don't realize superstitions snuck up on them.
@violetmadder@TeeCeeGee@HeavenlyPossum
Embracing superstition, even in a consciously exploited manner, perpetuates irrational thinking and undermines efforts to promote critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning. Relying on superstition as a tool, even for seemingly constructive purposes, can lead to harmful consequences by reinforcing unfounded beliefs and hindering progress in understanding the natural world.
@violetmadder@TeeCeeGee@HeavenlyPossum
Striving for rationality doesn't require the total repression of instincts, but rather a balanced approach that acknowledges human cognitive biases while actively working to overcome them through education and skepticism.
Playing with smells and bells may not be wholly rational, but it makes me happy. I'm an artist, I'm not supposed to be fully rational every minute of the day anyway even if I could pull it off-- which I can't.
@HeavenlyPossum@TeeCeeGee What does the longevity of a belief have to do with whether it should be abandoned or not? Even if religion was the best option for most of human history, clearly it isn't anymore. Every positive thing religion provides for society can be replaced by a secular alternative that doesn't perpetuate false and dangerous archaic beliefs.
@HeavenlyPossum@TeeCeeGee
Community organizations, charitable groups, environmental groups, social clubs, volunteer work, meditation and mindfulness practices, philosophical ethics like humanism etc, support groups for addiction recovery and mutual aid, education and critical thinking, civic engagement and community organizing. There. I listed about ten alternatives for every major positive thing religion provides for society, and I could probably look up more if I tried.
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom That casual dismissal of multiple examples, followed by shifting the goalposts, is probably why you've 'never seen' an alternative?
@HeavenlyPossum@TeeCeeGee Literally everything I listed can be done, and is currently being done, without any religious input just fine, and in some cases even better, all without telling people to believe in magical nonsense and eternal damnation.
> “Literally everything I listed can be done, and is currently being done, without any religious input”
I never said otherwise.
> “just fine, and in some cases even better, all without telling people to believe in magical nonsense and eternal damnation.”
I asked for evidence that these secular phenomena were meeting the same needs that their religious counterparts meet, or improving on their religious counterparts, which I have yet to see. Sorry for not being clear!
You have faith that a secular alternative to religion would be better, and one cannot argue with faith.
They have faith that a religious system is inherently a positive force, and one cannot argue with faith.
The problem with the former is that it's been tried, and humanity so far has 100% track record for making things horrible.
The problem with the latter is that it's been tried, and humanity so far has 100% track record for making things horrible.
@deirdrebeth@HeavenlyPossum@TeeCeeGee
I don't have faith in anything, and I don't appreciate you making false claims about me. Everything I believe in is based on evidence.
I’m sure many people who have religious faith would also argue that everything they believe is based on evidence too.
In reality, every believe that everyone holds is premised on at least a little bit of faith. Our brains constantly make assumptions about the world around us that those brains then unquestioningly accept as true.
@deirdrebeth@Radical_EgoCom@HeavenlyPossum It doesn't require faith. It's self evident.
A statement like that would require having not seriously read anything posted here.
Saying something is self-evident is another way of saying there is no evidence for it—that you consider it so obvious that there is no need to look for or present evidence.
@HeavenlyPossum
I arrived at this conclusion through various means, such as critical analysis (evaluating religious beliefs/practices and highlighting the instances of violence, discrimination, etc), empirical evidence (historical and contemporary examples of religious institutions involvement in atrocities and human rights violations), and philosophical arguments (such as the logical coherence of religious doctrines, the problem of evil, and the clash between religious dogma and science).
@HeavenlyPossum
I gather evidence through various means, such as historical analysis, sociological studies, psychological research, and philosophical arguments. I typically examine instances where religion has been associated with violence, discrimination, or oppression and contrast these with purported positive effects, such as community-building or personal solace, and have concluded that the negative impacts outweigh the positive ones.
@HeavenlyPossum
I used various methodologies and arguments to support this belief, such as examining historical events and conflicts attributed to religious beliefs, such as wars, persecution, and discrimination, to demonstrate the harmful impact of religion on society. I also examine religion from a moral standpoint, critiquing religious doctrines and practices that clearly promote harmful behaviors, such as sexism, homophobia, etc. I engage in...
@HeavenlyPossum
philosophical research and discussions about the logical coherence and ethical implications of religious beliefs, questioning the existence of a benevolent deity in the face of suffering and injustice in the world, and how such a worldview negatively impacts people's decision making and perspective on life. I also...
@HeavenlyPossum
use scientific rationalism, in which it becomes abundantly clear that religious beliefs are incompatible with scientific evidence and rational thinking, and therefore potentially harmful if they lead to the rejection of scientific truths or hinder progress.
You’re not really performing science here, though. I hope you realize that! You’re certainly learning about the world and kind of vibing your way to conclusions.
Which is fine! “Good enough” is a perfectly reasonable way for our brains to try to make sense of an enormous amount of data about an enormously complex world.
Trying to figure out whether religious belief does more harm than good is probably unanswerable in a rigorously empirical sense. How would you even normalize “harm” and “good,” especially for such intangibles as “spiritual satisfaction” or whatever?
What I mean is: we’re all just trying our best, and even those of us who imagine ourselves to be quite rational and rigorously empirical are quite often just vibing.
@HeavenlyPossum
I just gave a three comment thread explaining my methodologies I use to come to my conclusions on religion and its harmfulness/usefulness ratio and you accuse me of "vibing" and "not doing science"?? I've done plenty of scientific research. I didn't just "vibe" my way to my conclusion. I actually put in work to examine the historical and contemporary effects of religion and you basically call me unscientific? I can't help but feel offended.
I’m sorry you feel offended. This is an honest report: what you’re describing isn’t science. Reading a lot, learning many facts, and then thinking about them a bunch is very good (I do it a lot) but you are not using the scientific method, you’re not normalizing your data, you’re just using subjective judgment to evaluate what you’ve learned.
And, like I said, that’s fine! That’s good enough! Not everything has to be rigorously scientific to be usefully plausible to us!
@HeavenlyPossum I don't like the condescending nature of your comment. Of course me reading a book isn't engaging in the scientific method, but the facts within those book were discovered using the scientific method, and literally anyone can replicate the same test that those scientists did to come to the same conclusions. That's the difference between someone reading something out of a science book and someone reading something out of a religious text.
I haven’t been a big fan of the condescending way you’ve claimed to live completely without faith while also engaging in a completely subjective evaluation of an entire social phenomenon.
You made an empirical claim (the costs of religiosity outweigh the benefits) and have defended that claim without an empirical argument.
And I don’t even know if that’s right or wrong! I don’t know if that’s an evaluation we’re even in a position to rigorously perform! All id like for you to recognize is the inconsistency between these two positions.
@HeavenlyPossum
I'm making empirical observations and evaluations based on available evidence and critical thinking. My assessment of religiosity's costs and benefits is not based on faith, but rather on empirical evidence, psychological research, and sociological studies. Questioning the overall impact of religiosity on society is a legitimate inquiry, mine of which has been grounded in empirical analysis and critical evaluation.
@HeavenlyPossum
I normalize the data by employing rigorous research methodologies, such as statistical analysis, peer review, and empirical evidence. I conduct studies to examine various aspects of religion and its impacts on society, compare the positive and negative outcomes associated with religious beliefs and practices, and then normalizing the data to account for potential biases or confounding variables.
@HeavenlyPossum
There is no single universally agreed upon scoring system for this kind of research. If you want me to give you an exact number or answer definitely proving that all religion is mostly harmful them you're not going to get that here or anywhere because the answer to this paradigm is too complex. I usually hate telling people to do this, but given that I've provided the methods that I've used to come to my conclusion, I suggest that you do your own research.
@HeavenlyPossum I don’t have an issue with other people being religious on a personal level. If believing there is a god/gods provides comfort, then fair enough.
The issue is when it goes beyond personal choice. It’s one thing to say “I’m not allowed to do that because my religion tells me so.” and entirely different to say “YOU’RE not allowed to do that, because MY religion tells me so”
@HeavenlyPossum I read this and your longer toot about the person you made cry.
You're right. Religion is utterly absurd. It would be harmless though if it was "just faith". But it isn't.
Best current example of how dangerous religion can be is women's loss of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights in Texas, the Taliban etc.
I know you know this.
People are welcome to their beliefs and superstitions until they start encroaching on my life.
I never suggested otherwise. I’d note, though, that the excuse that people give for a certain behavior—like interfering with someone’s reproductive and bodily autonomy—is rarely the cause of that behavior.
i am not personally religious, but i have chosen to pursue religious belief at some points in my life when the idea of it made more sense to me. the conclusion i have come away with is that whether a person is or is not religious has a lot to do with their history, their place in space and time, and what influences surround them.
in spite of not agreeing with peoples religious beliefs, i now understand that it would be as hard for them to drop their belief on my recommendation, as it would be for me to adopt their belief on their recommendation. our conditions simply differ like that.
my serious criticism of religion has nothing to do with the beliefs of individuals. i see religion in our society as being a set of institutions, with vested interests of their own which are linked to property. it is those institutions that have to be attacked, and their property that has to be expropriated. peoples beliefs cannot be expropriated—they can only change when exposed to changing conditions.
@HeavenlyPossum I agree, up to a point. If a theist follows their religion in terms of their life, in their home, in their places of worship then I have no real issue with that at all.
But the moment they start to evanglise their opinions, and those opinions become part of the educational, legal, medical and welfare structure of how a society operates then we all have a right - an obligation even - to push back against that.
@HeavenlyPossum I think this is pretty common for people who convert to atheism (and I used "convert" very consciously here). I was raised without a belief in God and I find there's a real difference between people who rejected religion and those of us who just never had one. As someone raised without religion and with a mother who is a doctor, it's much easier for me to see how religious ideas shape our cultural beliefs (about women, queer people, etc), even in science. It also makes it very obvious to me when someone is being a fundamentalist about any type of belief system, including atheism and anti-theism. Also, life is hard and I see religion like drug addiction, whatever gets you through the night as long as it's not (directly) hurting other people is fine. It, of course, made me very curious about all kinds of religious beliefs and why they're so prevalent.
"Also, life is hard and I see religion like drug addiction, whatever gets you through the night as long as it's not (directly) hurting other people is fine."
I don't actively "go after" believers, I never did. But I don't see belief in the ridiculous as benign. Whether the believer pushes their belief or not, it influences everything they do, up to and including voting, which can lead to devastating results even if they aren't on a corner screaming John 3:16
@fedwards9965 All people believe something ridiculous. Converts to atheism often overestimate their own rationality (and rationality in general). Part of this, I suspect, is due to historical sexism in a lot of antitheist circles. This is why there's so much crossover between male dominated atheist groups, pseudoscientific "evolutionary psychology" incels and menz rights activists. Personally my issue is with fundamentalists and rigid ideologues of all kinds. And it can sometimes be a force for good as well as bad because it's just people organizing within a structure and cherry picking the parts of religion they prefer, such as the role the Black church played in liberation struggles or the role liberation theology played in South America.
(Also, science shouldn't be treated as an infallible religion either, which many people who convert to atheism from a religion tend to do. Science is a methodology and body of knowledge that's highly influenced by cultural factors, which is why scientific racism exists and is supported by academic institutions.)
I'm sure you believe some quite ridiculous things you aren't aware are ridiculous, we all do really, such is the nature of being human and belief systems (particularly when they're embedded within power structures). @HeavenlyPossum
That we all can believe in something ridiculous is very true. AND such beliefs can influence decisions (and voting) as much as any religion
However, we don't go out of our way to placate or condone such beliefs
eg. to me, belief in "alien visitation" is ridiculous, but like religion I don't go out of my way to "attack" or berate them, but I also still consider it to be "bad thinking" and would like to see the end of BS TV programs and literature promoting it
@HeavenlyPossum I have my own beliefs and they don't really involve going to church. But all the same it feels pretty dang audacious to claim that I understand the core nature of reality better than the 80%+ of everyone on earth who is religious.
@HeavenlyPossum Yeah I was reading through the comments in this thread. Looks like some people haven't yet internalized that religion is a good thing when it makes its adherents fighters for justice.
Religion isn't always a good thing, but also most of the stuff these folks are criticizing is like three specific kinds of Christianity. The different faiths of the world are fundamentally more interesting than these folks realize. Too bad for them.
@sidereal@HeavenlyPossum
Attributing positive outcomes solely to religion overlooks the potential harm caused by dogma, intolerance, and the suppression of critical thinking that can accompany religious belief. The pursuit of justice can exist independently of religious beliefs, and secular ethical frameworks can provide a more inclusive and rational basis for promoting social justice. The diversity of religious faiths doesn't negate the negative impact organized religion can have on society.
If “dogma, intolerance, and the suppression of critical thinking that can accompany religious belief,” then it sounds like the problem is dogma, intolerance, and the suppression of critical thinking.
@HeavenlyPossum@sidereal
Dogma, intolerance, and the suppression of critical thinking are inherent aspects of religion due to the nature of religious doctrine and authority structures. Religious teachings are presented as absolute truths, leading to the imposition of dogmatic beliefs and discouraging questioning or dissent. Religious institutions often reinforce a sense of tribalism and exclusivity, generating intolerance towards those who hold different beliefs or lifestyles.
> “Dogma, intolerance, and the suppression of critical thinking are inherent aspects of religion due to the nature of religious doctrine and authority structures.”
Not all religions possess doctrine or rely on authority.
> “Religious teachings are presented as absolute truths, leading to the imposition of dogmatic beliefs and discouraging questioning or dissent.”
@HeavenlyPossum@sidereal
I know that all religions don't share all of these qualities, but all religions share at least one or a few of these qualities, and the fact that these qualities are found in all religions to varying degrees makes my claim that these qualities are inherent to religion valid.
@HeavenlyPossum@sidereal
You shared about your life on a platform where people regularly debate over things, and the thing you shared was about religion, a topic that is famous for being divisive and generating debates over. I don't exactly know what outcome you expect, but dozens of threads filled with arguments about religion in the comments section is usually what happens.
Just reading through all of this, there seems to be allot of conflation between spirituality, religion, and theism, or at least inconsistency with terms.
@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom@sidereal it’s interesting that religious people can speak about their religion and they don’t see that as badgering people to become religious, but the moment atheists speak up to say “hey not really” to whatever religious people state as a fact it’s suddenly “badgering”.
Interestingly it’s a heck of a lot like the people who claim that LGBTQ folks simply existing in public is “shoving it in everyone’s faces”.
Or were you intending to badger the atheists with your post? If not I don’t understand why people replying who feel differently than you are considered badgering to you.
@maggiejk@HeavenlyPossum@Radical_EgoCom I'm an atheist and I didn't feel badgered by the OP. This comment chain started because I mentioned how I'm also an atheist but I feel the same way...
If someone has not been on the inside of a religious community they may have a limited perspective on how much questioning of dogma there actually is in such environments.
The power structure and official dogma are one thing, but the people within it tend to have their own unique perspectives and ways of understanding.
It's true that some sects are more rigorous than others, but
I have still seen very free-wheeling thought even within a very fundamentalist context.
@HeavenlyPossum@sidereal
Furthermore, the reliance on faith as a virtue can discourage critical inquiry and skepticism, promoting adherence to doctrine over rational inquiry. Overall, these tendencies are not universal to all religions, but are common enough to be considered inherent aspects of religious belief systems.
@Radical_EgoCom@HeavenlyPossum@sidereal faith isn’t a virtue. It is a hindrance more than anything else. A hindrance to learning. a hindrance to communication. A hindrance to understanding and empathy.
@HeavenlyPossum@DanadasGrau@sidereal
I'm having the hardest time taking you seriously if you're going to propose such an idiotic thing as all beliefs having a foundation of faith. There are such things as evidence-based beliefs you know, and in science those are based on hypothesis', which are presumptions or speculations of an idea or desired outcome, not positions of faith.
@Radical_EgoCom IDK what to say, this mindset is exactly what I'm talking about in the comment you're responding to.
You have valid problems with specific forms of Christianity which I don't think are shared by all or even most religions.
I'm not religious. You don't need to tell me that people can pursue justice while not being religious. I also see a lot more religious people who are doing the work than atheists for the simple fact that most people everywhere are religious.
There are prosocial benefits of religion, but there's another aspect that can be very useful, too: ritual.
Habitually repeating an activity with focused intent builds pathways and associations in the brain. Even people who don't think of themselves as religious at all, still tend to build personal rituals-- it's arguably instinctive. The added details of music, incense, clothing, tools, seasonal timing, and so on ("smells and bells", a sex magick practitioner I know likes to say) can add layers of meaning that build up over time, making it easier to access a particular meditative state.
Consciously choosing a practice to cultivate can be treated as a scientific psychological exercise, but it uses the same circuits as any dance our ancestors ever did around a fire.
Anyway, we are electric ghosts inexplicably riding around in meat robots, somehow experiencing consciousness. Trying to draw any hard line between spiritual and secular seems like a goofy and futile idea to me.
@HeavenlyPossum OP I feel sorry for your mentions. I also learned through working and communicating with people that I used to misattribute the manipulation of people to do terrible things to Religion, when the reality always tied back to the powers that be.
Why be angry at a belief when I can be angry at people in power right now who are causing harm?
My father likes to say, "Who am I to deny anyone their highest concept of good?"
He's so sweet and friendly and respectful when the proselytizers come knock on the door. He gets into rich philosophical discussions with them-- he'll keep it up for hours. Usually until the younger member of the pair looks thoughtful and starts saying things like," I never thought of it that way before," and the older one starts looking nervous and says it's time to go...
I'm areligious, but I really value the concept of foma, or harmless untruths, put forth in Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."
This is the context/metric for me to be unbothered and even protective of people's religious practices/beliefs.
@HeavenlyPossum But whats also fair is to hold a set of positions & correct them as and when we see evidence that puts a hole in our beliefs i.e continuous learning.
One can chose to withhold ones judgement, which is also fine. We are going to act on our beliefs whether we say them publicly or not. If you say them, others will correct it if you are wrong.
Add comment