Neutral, you should try make an effort to enjoy the presence of your faith rather than to hate the absence of it.
Maybe you should stop coming into the religious section to slam other people's faith and then get pissy when someone calls you out on it. Generally speaking, its called trolling. Not "Help, help I am a victim of someone else's faith!" You expect one liner insults to be afforded great respect? You think that demonstrates great rationality? But when someone accuratey calls it trite, well, that is a problem with their faith? Why is it that atheists think that the relative anonymity of the internet means they can continuously behave badly and not be held accountable? Rational? WTF do you expect when you run around insulting people's faith and pretending that its your intellectual ability rather than poor manners that are on display? You seriously expect to come into a religion section and have nobody disagree with acerbic comments like that one .... offered as fully supported bits of logic?
My comment was not a "juvenile put down': It was and is a FACT. You promote the idea of 'not reading the Bible' which is a religious instrument, then you attempt to devise some new theory regarding the 'religious rationality'. Obviously, you are proceeding in your attempt through a state of mind which demonstrates superficiality with regard to your knowledge of the matters contained in the Bible.
Deliberate misrepresentation now? No need to be dishonest dear chap. I referred to how, unless it was consistent with their preferences, there's no need for an atheist to read the bible. Bit obvious, but you do seem to need some coaxing towards basic understanding. I haven't devised anything. The analysis goes back to the likes of Adam Smith, although to get a solid understand of religious demand we have to refer to the likes of Becker via analysis by theorists such as Iannaccone. You may want to assume religious people are irrational. Fair enough, go knock yourself out! However, I won't be accepting basic tedious error (such as your mix-up of rational and rationalising behaviour, reflecting nothing more than a wonky interest in the dictionary)
I love it when people allow their fingers to talk for them. Quoting two separate words from your comment above: "common" and "sense" joined together in a sentence without the benefit of making the two of them a 'compound word', ie "commonsense". The word "common" when used as an adjective, infers something that is "not refined; vulgar; low; coarse". Because you have used the word "common" as an adjective preceding the word "sense" (which implies intelligence), then you end up with a condition of 'vulgar, low, coarse, and un-refined" intelligence. Those facts coupled with your further use of the word "skepticism" could infer that the current condition of mind (skeptical) is based upon the descriptive term 'common'.
Generally speaking, accurate criticism of something implies familiarity with the subject you are criticizing. Rationally speaking, ala Sun Tzu, to not know your enemy is profoundly stupid - as we see from the often horrifically inaccurate criticism of religion that grace this forum from atheists. So, how is it rational to not be familiar with the subject you are debating? Isn't that instead deliberate stupidity?? Why should we refer to these sources rather than the actual doctrinal positions, published BTW, that actually state what the rationality is? What you advocate above is the equivalent of attempting to study the Oceans and all their complexity by focusing on a single school of fish. Me thinks you just might wind up missing a thing or two by following such a process. It's not like religions keep their tenets locked up away from prying eyes now is it?
The thread is about understanding how religion can be embedded within a rationality framework. I've referred to the source that achieves that, describing in particular the repercussions of religion for the utility maximisation framework. Now folk might want to ramble on about how important, for example, the bible is for them. Whilst that helps us understand the nature of their utility function (and potentially how they've invested in a particular form of social capital), its not particularly interesting
And can't the charge of rationalizing be turned about? I said that the central argument against god is a moral one - because in our democratic age, we do not believe in kings, anymore. A personality is not entitled to authority, just because it has power. Do you pine for the pre-democratic order? Do you believe in vested authority? Do you believe that might makes right? If so, why not come out and say so, while you're accusing us of not wanting to be slaves...
Reiver, it's great that you presume knowledge, but I think it's fair to say that you are violating Grice's pragmatic maxims for effective communication. Clearly in this conversation you are assuming too much of your audience. Myself I only have a vague idea of what you're talking about. Sometimes more is more, so please unpack your reasoning for us.
Sorry, I haven't the inclination to write long posts today. A little too busy trying to get things done before the Darts starts. I've given numerous details in multiple threads, summing it up with a published paper that goes through the literature in order to justify the economic model used. If I had to sum it up I'd go with a simplified version of an objective function subject to two constraints on behaviour: an income limit and a time availability limit. Within that objective function is after-life utility, providing the means to understand how a rational agent shares their time between work, home, leisure and church (apologies for coming across as Xian-centric there)
You do realize that no one is forcing you to believe in God? Including God? Your arguement is thus irrelevant. People choose to follow leaders because they are good, wise, astute, objective, and balance long and short term needs with great care and concern. Argue that.
So, in other words that rationality of religion is irrelevant to the rational framework it exists within? I am going to go out on a limb and state that this is clearly not the case .... but rather a case of putting the cart BEFORE the horse.
As usual, you're incorrect. The god of your myth will eternally torture anyone who doesn't believe in him. That's forcing.
If you don;t believe in God or Hell, how are you being forced? Your own fear of being wrong is torture? Whiney ass victims are not being forced.
Well of course that 'charge of rationalizing' can be turned about, but that does not necessarily make it a fact. You point to the 'central argument against god' being a moral one because "we do not believe in kings, anymore.", and you specify within this democratic age. Well, even within this democratic age, certain legal precedents have been established and remain in force and effect. One such precedent was derived from the case of Chisolm vs Georgia (see quote after this paragraph), wherein it is stipulated that 'we are all kings' and goes on to say "kings without subjects" meaning that on our private domains, we are the 'kings of the castle'. Your claim regarding the belief in 'kings' is in error, and thus not factual. As for the argument against God: perhaps to the person who does not believe that there is a God, there certainly would not exist in the mind of that person any 'kingly' authority. However, in the minds of those that do believe in God, there is also the belief that God is the ULTIMATE SOVEREIGN; The King of Kings, the ONLY POTENTATE. "n Chisholm v. Georgia The Supreme Court ruled, “[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects. with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. (US) @ Dall 419, 4541 L Ed 440, 455 @ Dall 1793 pp.471-472." No I do not "pine for the pre-democratic order"... I pine for the enforcement of the laws as they are written. The Supreme Court recognizes the sovereignty of the people (as individuals and as an aggregate group). What do you mean by 'vested authority'? Might as in the 'Power of God' does absolutely make 'right'. I also am not the only one on this planet that believes in that last mentioned concept. Every nation in the world and the government of those nations, all believe in that concept... thus the race to more advanced armament for the armed forces... the knowing that they have greater power than the other country. A nation can in fact be the mightiest nation in the world, but that might does not give that nation the right to use that power to alter the customs of another country. There are limitations to everything,,,,, EXCEPT God. God is limitless and God can sure enough do whatever He feels like doing. This reminds me of the old schoolyard question.... what does a 5000 lb canary do? Answer: Anything it wants to do.
Look where the growth is occurring. It's in the more benighted parts of the globe. Likewise, unbelief is on the march - in your own lifetime it should be clear the change that has occurred - and in places that matter because they are rich and culturally influential. It's the memes, not the genes. Religious worldviews - with only one exception that I can think of, Buddhism - are invariably bound up with cosmological views. Its how the prophet Jesus, within a hundred years of his death, gets turned into the Logos of classical Greek thought. Religious beliefs are steeped in cosmology, just because in order to understand how we ought to act, we have to understand where we came from, which gets us into questions of our ultimate origins. Indeed, scientists and secularists, to at least some extent, are also drawn into these kinds of origin narratives. It's a key human characteristic, to mix up human nature with "the way the world is." On the contrary: you undermine the metaphysical backing-story of Christianity, and many peole feel you are attacking the moral insights themselves. Exhibit A are the anti-evolution obfuscators. I might be able to do this if I took a careful look, but that is not the real point. The real point is that once people start saying, "Jesus was a great moral teacher, but I don't go for this 2nd Person of the Trinity bunk," Christianity is in permanent decline. The Christ-was-a-great-teacher meme is not going to go away. We could all choose to go to hell, and then God would be left with no one to rule over. Well, for example, I find the doctrine of grace to be repulsive. The idea that, on our own resources, we are incapable of doing right; that we must thence be given the "gift" of grace, a gift which is given only at God's whim, in order to have a chance to avoid what we are assured is a terrible, permanent fate (also at God's hands) - that idea is morally heinous, in fact nihilistic. And that's before you add in the incoherent doctrine of vicarious atonement. I really can't find the words to dispatch with such an evil anthropology. You're operating with a classic Western Platonic paradigm of a body-mind and reason-emotion divide. Attention to experience shows that all truths are theory-laden, that the pursuit of truth is never totally disinterested - nor should it be. If science didn't care what the data said, then there would be no science. Science has a method that needs to be employed, in order to reach the fruits of science. That method is effective, and that method is value-laden, as I sketched in my last post. It's true that we can make an idol out of reason, just as we could anything else; but unlike most any other object we might make an idol out of, science has inbuilt circuit-dampeners to make that less likely. Well, that's true. Secularism has complex roots. But the positive contributions that religion has made to secularism, have been more or less accidental contributions. Uh, no. Religion did not "create" secularism, except in the most incidental way, by having the unique status of being an automonous institution, a material force independent of the power of local potentates. That incipient, de facto separation of church and state, laid the basis for the far-future de jure separation; but this fact is essentially an accident of history. The Wars of Religion make this especially plain. Science and nationalism have developed more or less on independent tracks. Even in the case of Britain's Royal Society, you did not see the national self-identity bound up with the pursuit of science. Religions, like myths before them, are attempts to come to grips with a life teeming with uncertainties and anxieties. Even on the individual level, people are inclined to overgeneralize their cause-effect pattern-recognition faculty, tending to believe that some object or actions - a lucky shirt, a certain routine before a challenging task - can help improve the chances of a good outcome (or at least diminish the chances of poor outcomes). What's true for individuals, is a fortiori true of whole communities, where the stakes for failure are higher (especially in societies with low levels of technology). All communities need standards for behavior, that constrain the desires of individuals, for the sake of the whole community. These standards can coerce behavior as well as prohibit it. If a community feels that some rite or ritual is essential for its well-being, peer pressure will be overwhelming to get people to participate in the ritual. Here then, we see how the ordinary desire for setting norms for the control of everyone's behavior (as with the moral teachings found in the texts of the Semitic faiths), can readily translate into demands for religious orthodoxy, for conformism to religious ritual. Yeah, you're protesting. Too much. I think that philosophy, however, already has. Do you think that is something mysterious? It's not mysterious to the people who study this stuff. Religion will not be "eliminated" - it will simply fade, like the Chesire Cat.
As usual, you're incorrect. The god of your myth will eternally torture anyone who doesn't believe in him. That's forcing.
Well, I admire your candor. It does clarify the situation. Personally, I find your beliefs to be nihilistic. You are a carrier of a meme that is pernicious and that must be unequivocally resisted. Dei Delenda Est!
It's not a matter of being "forced to believe." A prevailing power that cannot be held to account, is a standing threat to all human values. Doesn't matter if the dictator is "benign" or not. It's not enough to be able to choose to follow the leader. The people must have the collective prerogative of choosing the leader. Otherwise, you are somewhere along the road to tyranny. Apparently, you're cool with that. Others in this forum in fact embrace tyranny. It's sad.
You call it 'pernicious'. From that same religious point of view, I can see why you would call it pernicious and suggest that it is the result of my carrying a 'meme' that creates such a pernicious condition. I do not deny that I carry what you call a meme, but I will differ with you on the resulting action of such a meme when that action is conducted in a manner that will not be 'pernicious'. What you call evil, may not necessarily be what I construe as evil. In fact, I could counter your suggestion, and stipulate that you are also a carrier of a meme that is pernicious and that must be unequivocally resisted. My rationale on making such a suggestion is that the 'meme' we speak about can also be analogized as a 'seed'; that seed being dropped into fertile ground (the mind); and when that meme is fertilized and tended to, it will sprout and grow into a plant form which produces fruit and more seed to be dropped into other fertile soils. Of course, we both seem to recognize that these memes (seeds) can produce all variety of growth (plants/thought patterns) and subsequently it is up to us to tend to our private gardens (the mind) and ensure that such memes are not allowed to grow into adult plants. Subsequently, when I encounter such memes being thrown over the fence (the conscious mind) into my private garden, I, as quickly as possible remove the meme else (if I have missed one) wait until it sprouts and then uproot it and cast it into the fire. In short, yes! The memes I carry can be nihilistic .... to those that perceive the meme to be one that will not work out right for the crop you are wanting to grow.
In order for your suggestion to be accurate, there must first be a belief that such an entity (God) and such places (Heaven and Hell) actually exist and that in the future you are subject to located in one of those places or the other. Without the belief in the existence of such places and entities, then you are fantasizing about something that (in your mind) should not be a concern, because you have rejected them (in their entirety) and leave no place for their existence. If there is a 'torture' (futuristic), then that also is a product of your mind because again, you have rejected (verbally) the existence of such places or entities. The choice is always yours. Reject or Accept.
Is THAT what Christian doctrine says? 1. Lets begin with the totally unrealistic stance that this comes from atheism. You do not believe in heaven or hell, and you believe in neither God nor the Devil - in fact, you have no defined codes of conduct or morality whatsoever. Nevertheless, for none adherence to a nonstated position, you have a dire fear (to the point of forced compunction) of what you believe to be an imaginary place that is FORCING you to .... not believe in God despite this overwhelming use of force to compel you to believe? Clearly this tactic is routinely used by the most sadistic of torturers. Really? 2. What earns you a trip to Hell, regardless of whether you believe in God? Sin. You do realize that Hell, in the Bible, is considered the consequence of a lifetime of unrepentant sin, and that the gift of Grace is to offer us an opportunity to ESCAPE THE SIN WE ALL HAVE. You do realize that Christians can just as easily wind up in Hell as atheists? By all means, feel free to share with us the atheist concept about dealing with human frailty and fallability? Oh wait, you have no doctrine - and concepts that you believe to be imaginary are overwhemlingly compulsuive? Really? You do realize that the Message of most religions is not about Hell at all, correct? So why is it that atheists spend more time worrying about a Hell they don't even believe in than do Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.? Odd.
