Why do people believe in religion?

[guevaramartyr]

logical answer? sound like occam's razor anyone?

 

[DaveC426913]

>10 base 2 = 2 base 10. There is no difference.

Sure, now that we've aligned our assumptions, it makes sense.
How about 1+1=3? Don't bother answering, just recognize that, without talking with me, you'll think I'm crazy until you know what has led me to that conclusion - while you, with different assumptions, see it as nonsense.


>Logic won't always provide the true answer, but it will always provide the most logical answer.

This is a circular argument, and thus meaningless. Come on, you guys are barely making this a challenge.

>When in doubt, choosing the most logical answer is always the most intelligent thing to do.

Ah, intelligence, now that's different. A slippery quantity that one. Can you define it? Don't omit the units of measurement.

>and faith is always the least.

Would you suggest that a young man following the advice of his parents despite his own fears and ignorance is the least intelligent thing to do?



>No, my error is purely semantics and the incorrect choice of words. Organized religion, as a conceptual system, is a form of fanatism.

This strikes at the heart of my only real complaint.

Philosophies, principles and systems are not the problem. *People* are the problem. You cannot categorically attack a group without egregious generalization.

By attacking a label, you commit the very crime you condemn. You take it on faith what any given individual feels about a subject, that everyone who is a believer does so for the same reasons, and because of the same experiences in life. You don't stop to examine the actual evidence - the individual who stands before you. you dismiss him based upon his label.


I hate to use this cliche, but this discussion is really bringing it home in spades: for many people, science is a religion, and its believers are just as fanatical, faith-driven, intolerant and self-righteous as any other religion.

As scientists we have to rise above this, and be tolerant of other viewpoints despite our subjective beliefs. We have to recognize, more than anyone, that we don't know what we don't know.

 

[BicycleTree]

Information is meaningless without a system to interpret it by. If your interpreter is different from mine for 1 + 1 = 3, then we are talking about different information. The barrier is communication, not belief.

 

[loseyourname]

The argument stands as is. Flexor claimed that 1 + 1 = 2 and that there was no argument with that. Yet, it was trival to point out an alternative answer that was perfectly logical, yet had a completely different outcome. The answer I've presented is 10 - not 2. Your understanding of my answer is a matter of how well you understand where I'm coming from.

You didn't give a different answer. You gave the same answer in another language.

I now claim that 1 + 1 = 3. Am I bonkers? Your conclusion would be drawn from your own myopic (no insult intended) view of the world, not mine. Or are you open enough to accept that I may know some things you don't?

Define what 3 means in the language you are speaking now. If it translates to 2 in the language that Flexor was speaking, then you're fine.

Now reapply this to the religion argument.

Sure. If, in religious language, "love" translates into English as "vengeful, jealous, enjoys smiting, and has a strange predilection for stoning to death as a punishment for everything," then when religious people say "God is love," I suppose it makes more sense. Something tells me they aren't speaking another language, though.

 

[loseyourname]

Note also that you are not your label. Principles, belief systems and philosophies are not intolerant, it is individuals that are intolerant.

That isn't always true. There are worldviews that actively encourage dogmatism and close-mindedness toward opposing views. Radical nationalism and Mormonism are good examples.

 

[Flexor]

>When in doubt, choosing the most logical answer is always the most intelligent thing to do.

Ah, intelligence, now that's different. A slippery quantity that one. Can you define it?

I thought I just did.

>and faith is always the least.

Would you suggest that a young man following the advice of his parents despite his own fears and ignorance is the least intelligent thing to do?

Firstly, is that really faith? Following the advice of someone supposedly more experienced as opposed to taking a chance on your own? On the contrary, following his parent's advice is the logical answer here, while relying on his own knowledge would be a greater leap of faith... Unless there is a more logical alternative. In any case, what little information you gave isn't enough to determine what the best course of action would be. Maybe he knows his parents are psychopaths and realizes that not following their advice is the most logical thing to do.

I hate to use this cliche, but this discussion is really bringing it home in spades: for many people, science is a religion, and its believers are just as fanatical, faith-driven, intolerant and self-righteous as any other religion.

As scientists we have to rise above this, and be tolerant of other viewpoints despite our subjective beliefs. We have to recognize, more than anyone, that we don't know what we don't know.[/B]

Science shouldn't be a religion, but some people make one out of it, I agree with you on that. Tolerating beliefs and respecting them are two very different things. What if I told you I believed the universe was created by a magical clown orbiting saturn? I can believe what I want - but that doesn't mean you should respect an opinion so ridiculous and unfounded.

 

[DaveC426913]

>Information is meaningless without a system to interpret it by. If your interpreter is different from mine for 1 + 1 = 3, then we are talking about different information. The barrier is communication, not belief.

>You didn't give a different answer. You gave the same answer in another language.

I have to say, I am glad you are giving me more time than you give other people. You stopped to examine the ways I might be right. You didn't just tell me I'm wrong and dismiss me.



>Define what 3 means in the language you are speaking now. If it translates to 2 in the language that Flexor was speaking, then you're fine.

Sure, I'll educate you. Just like you're going to go off and get educated on the principles of the religions you purport to understand, right? Your willingness to listen to me about the number 3 indicates a belief that I have something to add that will clear things up. But if you prejudge the value of my message (1 and 1 = 3? What an idiot), you don't bother sticking around to understand.



>Sure. If, in religious language, "love" translates into English as "vengeful, jealous, enjoys smiting, and has a strange predilection for stoning to death as a punishment for everything," then when religious people say "God is love," I suppose it makes more sense. Something tells me they aren't speaking another language, though.

How scientific. Your data is out-of-date by centuries, as are your resulting conclusions. Get new data. How many people have you talked to that follow someone who is vengeful, jealous, enjoys smiting, and has a strange predilection for stoning to death as a punishment?

Scientists have gotten things awfully wrong in the past too. We recognize change, we demand to be judged on who we are today, not centuries or millenia ago.



>There are worldviews that actively encourage dogmatism and close-mindedness toward opposing views. Radical nationalism and Mormonism are good examples.

(Well, radical nationalism isn't a religion in the terms we are discussing. We are specifically discussing religions that involve a belief in a supernatural creator.) That lewaves one example - Mormons. And yes, it is good get get specificrather than going with generalizations such as "all religions".



>>>and faith is always the least [intelligent thing to do].
>>Would you suggest that a young man following the advice of his parents despite his own fears and ignorance is the least intelligent thing to do?
>Firstly, is that really faith?

Yes.



> following his parent's advice is the logical answer here,

Agreed. Having faith in one's parents is the most logical course of action.


>What if I told you I believed the universe was created by a magical clown orbiting saturn? I can believe what I want - but that doesn't mean you should respect an opinion so ridiculous and unfounded.

One doesn't respect opinions, one respects people. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. There is nothing wrong with (presumably, civilly) attacking their arguments. But dismissing them outright because of a prejudgment of who they are, based on one's own flawed, incomplete and likely ignorant understanding of them is disrespectful and beneath any enlightened person.

 

[Flexor]

>>>and faith is always the least [intelligent thing to do].
>>Would you suggest that a young man following the advice of his parents despite his own fears and ignorance is the least intelligent thing to do?
>Firstly, is that really faith?

Yes.



> following his parent's advice is the logical answer here,

Agreed. Having faith in one's parents is the most logical course of action.


[/b]

Faith in the sense of trust, and faith in the sense of religion are two different things. In this case, having faith in his parents is a decision not based on faith - And for this poorly worded sentence, I blame the english language.

So, to answer my own question;

>Firstly, is that really faith?

No it isn't, because the decision to trust his parents would based on the logical assumption that they have more experience than he does, rather than to simply trust them out of blind faith. In a case where the decision is based on blind faith, then it would still be the most intelligent choice, as long as there is no more logical alternative.

 

[loseyourname]

I have to say, I am glad you are giving me more time than you give other people. You stopped to examine the ways I might be right. You didn't just tell me I'm wrong and dismiss me.

Are you thinking of someone else, Dave? When have I ever just flat out told somebody they were wrong without explaining why I thought that? I don't think I'm generally very dismissive on these forums.

Sure, I'll educate you.

Are you waiting for a special invitation or are you going to tell me what '3' means in your language sometime this month?

Just like you're going to go off and get educated on the principles of the religions you purport to understand, right? Your willingness to listen to me about the number 3 indicates a belief that I have something to add that will clear things up. But if you prejudge the value of my message (1 and 1 = 3? What an idiot), you don't bother sticking around to understand.

What if?

How scientific.

I'm not a scientist.

Your data is out-of-date by centuries, as are your resulting conclusions. Get new data. How many people have you talked to that follow someone who is vengeful, jealous, enjoys smiting, and has a strange predilection for stoning to death as a punishment?

Has Christianity begun to use a different bible? The one I read described God as vengeful and jealous. He often threatened to smite those who were not his chosen people (in fact, he encouraged the Israelites to perpetrate a genocide upon the natives of Canaan) and he told them to stone offenders to death for just about every possible offense in Leviticus.

Scientists have gotten things awfully wrong in the past too.

The mistakes of academia don't result in inquisitions and crusades. Science doesn't generally dehumanize those who are not scientists. Not to say that all religions do, but many certainly foster an us v. them attitude.

We recognize change, we demand to be judged on who we are today, not centuries or millenia ago.

Perhaps you're different, but I wasn't alive centuries or millenia ago. I have never meant to evaluate any person in this thread. I've only evaluated doctrines and systems of belief. Doctrines that in one breath refer to God as jealous and venegeful and in the next breath refer to him as pure love just don't make sense to me, but I suppose your idea that they may not be speaking the same language might be a possibility (I think Plantiga might say something similar). Systems of belief that are naturally dogmatic and resistive to change are anti-intellectual and a negative thing.

(Well, radical nationalism isn't a religion in the terms we are discussing.

You had said that you wished to expand the discussion so as not to single out religion. Not all negative systems of belief are religious in nature.

We are specifically discussing religions that involve a belief in a supernatural creator.) That lewaves one example - Mormons. And yes, it is good get get specificrather than going with generalizations such as "all religions".

'All religions' really share only one aspect that I am opposed to, and that is the basis of belief on dogma.

 

[Dayle Record]

"Science" did Nagasaki, "Science" did Hiroshima.

 

[Flexor]

"Science" did Nagasaki, "Science" did Hiroshima.

Science created the bomb. The american army dropped it. If I pick up a gun and shoot someone, is it the gun's fault, or mine?

People have always killed each other. First with their hands, then with rocks and axes, then with swords and bows, then with guns, and now with explosives.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science created the bomb. The american army dropped it. If I pick up a gun and shoot someone, is it the gun's fault, or mine?

Incredible. I could not have made my case better than you just did.

When an atrocity happens as a result of science, it's the fault of the people, never the fault of science.

When an atrocity happens as a result of religion, it must be the whole
structure that's corrupt, never the fault of the individuals.

A stupendous example of hypocrisy.

 

[Flexor]

Incredible. I could not have made my case better than you just did.

When an atrocity happens as a result of science, it's the fault of the people, never the fault of science.

When an atrocity happens as a result of religion, it must be the whole
structure that's corrupt, never the fault of the individuals.

A stupendous example of hypocrisy.

Again, I ask you; If I pick up a gun and shoot someone, is the gun responsible, or am I?

Wars are fought over religion, not over science. Religion is a motive, not a weapon. Science didn't destroy nagasaki and yieroshima, the americans did. And no, religion itself didn't fight the wars and kill hundreds or millions. People did - but they did so because of religion. Can you name a single war that was caused by science?

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, I ask you; If I pick up a gun and shoot someone, is the gun responsible, or am I?

Oh, definitely you.

And if I pick up a gun and shoot someone in the name of my God, is it religion that's responsible, or am I?

Wars are fought over religion, not over science.

No, wars are fought over wealth and power. Religion and science are merely pawns. The Inquisition wasn't about whose God was right, it was about economics.

Religion is a motive, not a weapon. Science didn't destroy nagasaki and yieroshima, the americans did. And no, religion itself didn't fight the wars and kill hundreds or millions. People did - but they did so because of religion. Can you name a single war that was caused by science?

And again, I put to you: If it's the people committing crimes, whatever their rationale, do you fault the system, or the people who bend it to their own purpose? Pick one and stick with it.

 

[DaveC426913]

>Are you thinking of someone else, Dave? When have I ever just flat out told somebody they were wrong without explaining why I thought that? I don't think I'm generally very dismissive on these forums.

1] When I said 'you', it was of the 'you all' form, not you specifically.
2] And I wasn't suggesting anybody was guilty of not explaining their own point of view (no dearth of that :) ), I was suggesting that too many are dismissing others without listening to theirs.


>Are you waiting for a special invitation or are you going to tell me what '3' means in your language sometime this month?

No, I'm waiting for people to realize that, just because the answer doesn't make sense in your framework doesn't mean it's wrong. How can y'all be so sure you're right about the subject?


>Has Christianity begun to use a different bible?YYYYES!
>The one I read described God as vengeful and jealous. He often threatened to smite those who were not his chosen people (in fact, he encouraged the Israelites to perpetrate a genocide upon the natives of Canaan) and he told them to stone offenders to death for just about every possible offense in Leviticus.

The New Testament. God's gotten a makeover, he's hip and cool and down wit da new generation. Not so much on the pillars of salt, big on the love and forgiveness.


>The mistakes of academia don't result in inquisitions and crusades. Science doesn't generally dehumanize those who are not scientists.

As pointed out before and since, it does result in the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians. I know, it wasn't the fault of science, it was people. That's my point. You don't blame a system, you blame the people who abuse it.


>Not to say that all religions do, but many certainly foster an us v. them attitude.

The field of science doesn't?


>Doctrines that in one breath refer to God as jealous and venegeful and in the next breath refer to him as pure love just don't make sense to me

So, a system that puts forth apparent paradox's must be fundamentally flawed? Like, say Quantum Mechanics and Relativity?


>Systems of belief that are naturally dogmatic and resistive to change are anti-intellectual and a negative thing.

Systems that don't have ethical checks and balances are in (principle) anti-human and a negative thing. Science does not provide a human-centred self-check. That is the field of other disciplines to decide.

Now, before you blow a gasket, I'm not suggesting scientists are unethical, or that they do not do self-checks, I'm saying that when they do that, they put on a different hat. It must be that way. Science as a discipline does not concern itself with human factors.

>'All religions' really share only one aspect that I am opposed to, and that is the basis of belief on dogma.

Science champions progress. Religion champions caution. Change - in and of itself - is not a good thing. Change requires reflection and consideration of the consequences. Traditions ensure that things don't change so fast that they get away from us.

Science says 'Hey, look! I've figured out how to get the cork out of this genie's bottle!' I'm going to pull it out and examine the contents.' Religion says 'Whoa there, that's not so good an idea.'

Don't think of religion as the enemy of science, think of it as its complement.

 

[Icebreaker]

Saying that "religion is a complement of science" is only the politically correct thing to do. Science is only trying to be nice. Science doesn't need religion.

 

[arildno]

Systems that don't have ethical checks and balances are in (principle) anti-human and a negative thing. Science does not provide a human-centred self-check. That is the field of other disciplines to decide.

Now, before you blow a gasket, I'm not suggesting scientists are unethical, or that they do not do self-checks, I'm saying that when they do that, they put on a different hat. It must be that way. Science as a discipline does not concern itself with human factors.

And wherever have you gotten the idea that religion is ethical?

 

[guevaramartyr]

>Science champions progress. Religion champions caution. Change - in and of itself - is not a good thing. Change requires reflection and consideration of the consequences. Traditions ensure that things don't change so fast that they get away from us.

Science says 'Hey, look! I've figured out how to get the cork out of this genie's bottle!' I'm going to pull it out and examine the contents.' Religion says 'Whoa there, that's not so good an idea.'

quite to the contrary, change is always good, even if it comes in the form of war. war may kill thousands, millions of people even. each time, this is a tragedy. i am not trying to make war sound like the greatest thing since bread, but it does have results that are often quite helpful. world war II, for all the death it caused, catapulted the U.S. into first place as a world power and the pressure placed by the need to defeat the axis lead to some of the most influential inventions the world has ever known (many of which went on to become helpful to the population i.e. new surgeries from lasers, nuclear power). what have the major technological innovations of the swiss been over the past couple hundred years? almost none. all the new developments have come from countries and regions where the world view is rapidly changing. tradition is only helpful up to a certain point. after that, tradition leads to stagnation, stagnation leads to entropy, entropy leads to societal downfall

 

[DaveC426913]

Saying that "religion is a complement of science" is only the politically correct thing to do. Science is only trying to be nice. Science doesn't need religion.

No, science isn't the thing doing the 'needing'. Science is merely a tool. The Human Race is doing the needing.

We need a pro-change force and a pro-'it-ain't-broke' force acting as complements of each other. Religion acts to hold back consequences of unfettered science, while science eggs on the stodgy dogmatism of the religion.

Pretend Einstein (or Netwon) and the Pope (or Buddha) are the Human Race's "shoulder angels".

 

[DaveC426913]

And wherever have you gotten the idea that religion is ethical?

Systems of belief do not have behaviors. It is people that are ethical/unethical.

 

[DaveC426913]

quite to the contrary, change is always good, even if it comes in the form of war...

As you then go on to demonstrate better than I could, change that has benefits is not automatically bad.

But if you read what I wrote, you'll see my claim is that change in and of itself is not good unless it provides some benefit (perhaps merely as a side effect, but still...).

And certainly not deliberate changes. When we choose to make radical changes, we don't make them just because we can. We assess the risks and benefits. Realize we are not talking about a new skin for your cellphone or a new coat, we are talking about developing nuclear technology or harvesting stem cells. These things must happen in the context of the risks/benefits to humanity.

 

[loseyourname]

1] When I said 'you', it was of the 'you all' form, not you specifically.

Would that be the judging of an entire group of people based on the aberrant behavior of a few individuals? Isn't that what you are warning against?

The New Testament. God's gotten a makeover, he's hip and cool and down wit da new generation. Not so much on the pillars of salt, big on the love and forgiveness.

I suppose this is one of the parts I have some difficulty understanding. Christians say that God is eternal and unchanging, that he exists outside of time, is perfect, and has always been perfect. How do they reconcile that with this idea that what he did in the Old Testament was wrong and he changed his mind to suddenly become loving and merciful in the New Testament?

As pointed out before and since, it does result in the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians. I know, it wasn't the fault of science, it was people. That's my point. You don't blame a system, you blame the people who abuse it.

But the system is at fault when it is the system that tells you to do bad things. Whether that system be Randian ethics or Islamic fundamentalism, if it is the system telling you to do bad things, then the system is at fault. This idea of separating the system from the people that constitute and create it just doesn't fly over so well with me. I've never tried to say that religions go out and fight wars and dehumanize people that don't subscribe to them. That, of course, is absurd. The qualm is always with people, but when the belief systems of these people cause them to do immoral things, then I want to say that the belief system itself is a bad thing. In fact, even if it doesn't result in immoral actions on the parts of its subscribers, many religions are still bad systems from an epistemological perspective. They aren't the only bad epistemologies, and I don't want to single them out completely, but this thread was asking about religion specifically.

The field of science doesn't?

Name a scientific doctrine that labels those who don't believe it as 'evil' or 'infidels' or 'sinners' and name me a scientific doctrine that tells us to kill non-believers.

So, a system that puts forth apparent paradox's must be fundamentally flawed? Like, say Quantum Mechanics and Relativity?

Perhaps. I suppose that isn't necessarily so, but most physicists, so far as I know, do consider this to be a flaw, and do assume that a more fundamental theory exists that can reconcile the two and remove the contradictions.

Systems that don't have ethical checks and balances are in (principle) anti-human and a negative thing. Science does not provide a human-centred self-check. That is the field of other disciplines to decide.

Science doesn't need ethical checks and balances because it isn't an ethical system. Science doesn't tell the scientist how to behave. I was thinking more along the lines of epistemological checks, though, not ethical checks, with my reference to dogmatism. Dogma states revealed truths that cannot be challenged and have no rational basis. As such, it is a difficult epistemology to reconcile with our empirical observations of the world, which often conflict with what dogma teaches, and, in fact, it is even difficult to reconcile at times with basic intuition and reasoning. This is why I prefer systems of epistemology that simply make an attempt at finding a way to the truth, perhaps even realizing that their statements will inevitably be only approximations, rather than systems that proclaim they have the truth, for no reason other than that they believe they do. Too much question-begging.

Science champions progress. Religion champions caution. Change - in and of itself - is not a good thing. Change requires reflection and consideration of the consequences. Traditions ensure that things don't change so fast that they get away from us.

Why don't we get away from science for a moment and focus on what I'm trying to bring up here. There is a natural dichotomy between dogmatic epistemologies and epistemologies that are open to being changed. Most religions fall into the former category and science happens to fall into the latter category. It isn't by virtue of being science or being religion that I prefer one over the other, however. It is simply an epistemological choice between one category that is question-begging and one that is seemingly still question-begging foundationally, but not question-begging in any everyday manner.

Don't think of religion as the enemy of science, think of it as its complement.

I don't think of science and religion as enemies. In fact, I never even brought up anything about science (I've only responded to what you've brought up). I won't see them as complementary either, however. I see ethics as complementary to epistemology. Science has no ethics, only an epistemology, and so it needs some outside system of ethics to complement it. There is no reason why it needs religious ethics, however, which I do not feel have a very good history. The other problem is that religions brings with it both an ethics and an epistemology, and the epistemology of religion is naturally opposed to the epistemology of science. I think that the latter is very clearly a better epistemology than the former. For these two reasons, I would greatly prefer to complement science with a secular ethics that is unemcumbered by dogmatism and has no accompanying epistemology of its own.

 

[Icebreaker]

No, science isn't the thing doing the 'needing'. Science is merely a tool. The Human Race is doing the needing.

We need a pro-change force and a pro-'it-ain't-broke' force acting as complements of each other. Religion acts to hold back consequences of unfettered science, while science eggs on the stodgy dogmatism of the religion.

Pretend Einstein (or Netwon) and the Pope (or Buddha) are the Human Race's "shoulder angels".

No, what you are saying is not "religion", it's ethics. We may need ethicists; religion does not come into the picture.

 

[lordinfamous]

No, it's called supression and choice. Just like the fact that your genes compels you to have sex, whether you choose to, capable of, or not to.

genes don't compel you to have sex, your brain releases a chemical into the bloodstream every time you have a thought about sex or see something that triggers your thought about sex.

 

[Icebreaker]

And your DNA is the blueprint for your brain.

 

[lordinfamous]

And your DNA is the blueprint for your brain.

What I was attempting to say is that conscious,subconscious thought and your bodies addiction to the protien that is released when you have those thoughts that compel you to have sex.

 

[guevaramartyr]

But if you read what I wrote, you'll see my claim is that change in and of itself is not good unless it provides some benefit (perhaps merely as a side effect, but still...).

what i was trying to say in my earlier post is that change is good in and of itself. without change, stagnation of a society is inevitable. this is one of the fundamental problems with the image that American culture says is normal. suburbanite, mildly pudgy dad, trophy wife and two adorable children, all of whom buy products made by such and such companies, take the occasional vacation, and from time to time buy the shiny new car. by presenting this as the norm, more and more people try to obtain it (i'm not saying this is everyone's dream life). the problem is that as this becomes more generalized, the other elements of society that cause division are eroding away. I'm not saying racism is good or that we are a big happy family here, but some kind of upheaval is essential to the long term survival of any people or species. lack of stress on the individual halts evolution and causes regression in physical traits, if not societal and mental as well.

also i realize that you were not talking about minor changes for an individual, although those can be beneficial as well. but as i said before, a war is an excellent example of how negative influences cause positive change. with massive numbers of people dying or wounded, medicine is often improved, as happened during world war I and II. if you want examples of societies brought down by stagnation, look at the kingdoms of egypt, or the fall of rome. any halfway decent historian could make an excellent case for the cause of these downfalls being stagnation. with a lack of new input or influences into these states, the societal collapse was near complete. it is because of this that the resistance to change that religion inevitably advocates should be feared. no religion can embrace change completely, because that would mean itself shifting out of existence. what self-respecting institution would allow this to happen?

sorry if this is kind of disjointed, I am pretty tired

 

[DaveC426913]

It's been fun and very intriguing, but I guess we have to adjourn at some point.

 

[Icebreaker]

I'll close with this:

"Yes, reason has been a part of organized religion, ever since two nudists took dietary advice from a talking snake."

 

[1123581321]

There is religion simply for the reason that humans can't grasp the 'afterlife'. If we understood everything, science would be the religion. The only hitch is, we will never understand everyting, so we have gods and religion. Personally, I believe there is a God, and that there is an afterlife. Space and time has to start somewhere from somthing, why not a God? until science explains the origins and the ends of the universe, there will be religion.