God is not great: How religion poisons everthing

[kensuguro]

I think the chain of discussion's been broken.

[garyb]

maybe, maybe not.
maybe crazy religion is poisoning science.
maybe craziness is poisoning religion.....

[kensuguro]

I think it's been a while, but heck, I think this was a good discussion!

[garyb]

[braincell]

Science isn't perfect. It has a long way to go but science corrects mistakes eventually. Religion is not allowed to fix mistakes because of the very nature of their tradition and sacred scriptures. It's a kind of knowledge but a very fake and incorrect kind of knowledge. In society, tradition is important so that people feel rooted. It seems to make no difference how ridiculous these rituals are, as long as they stay the same. Future shock is a problem for people. That is why religious leaders and some followers reject the modern world. I guess it would be better to have sane sheep than insane sheep but I would prefer to abolish religion in favor of a more rational way of perceiving this world and our universe.

[wayne]

Oh Lord, Things Are Gettin' Crazy Up In Here - Taj Mahal

[kensuguro]

Science isn't perfect. It has a long way to go but science corrects mistakes eventually. Religion is not allowed to fix mistakes because of the very nature of their tradition and sacred scriptures. It's a kind of knowledge but a very fake and incorrect kind of knowledge. In society, tradition is important so that people feel rooted. It seems to make no difference how ridiculous these rituals are, as long as they stay the same. Future shock is a problem for people. That is why religious leaders and some followers reject the modern world. I guess it would be better to have sane sheep than insane sheep but I would prefer to abolish religion in favor of a more rational way of perceiving this world and our universe.

Makes sense to me. Don't think I'd go as far as abolish religion, but I agree that it does have some negative impacts. Problem is, everyone has a different level of resistance to chaos, or stress, and depending on that, a person may only be able to live a balanced life within the context of a "fixed" world, like a world of repetition, where things stay the same, like religion. So, religion may not be for everyone, but it definitely works for some.

[astroman]

I for sure enjoyed the more metaphysical parts of the discussion
some serious real-world problems prohibited to participate, though - I currently need the full mental capability on more profane items...

cheers, Tom

[BingoTheClowno]

Problem is, everyone has a different level of resistance to chaos, or stress, and depending on that, a person may only be able to live a balanced life within the context of a "fixed" world, like a world of repetition, where things stay the same, like religion.

The purpose of rituals is to reinforce the religious doctrine. Just like you practice piano every day to improve your speed and technique, so do rituals aid in the assimilation of key religious dogmatic thoughts. By repetition the believers train their minds to accept irrational thoughts without any resistance or consideration. Rituals also aid in actualization of their beliefs.

To learn more on how people are influenced by other see The Lucifer Effect by Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Stanford University Dr. Philip Zimbardo

[garyb]

a luciferian....

[kensuguro]

Well, there's a two sided reality to that. One is the use of repetition to "brainwash", or "teach" things. Things can refer to good living practices, practical knowledge, irrational truth, or even destructive thoughts. Like you say, rituals are repetitive and so like with any pattern, people quickly learn it. You make it sound like the ONLY way that this is used, is to brainwash people with rubbish. Which I doubt is so.. in most mainstream religions anyway. Parts of it may be bogus, but as a whole, religions CAN function in a good way.

You have to think in terms of goals. Is Christianity about forcing you to believe that Jesus can rise from the grave? Well, that's part of the big picture that portrays concepts like sacrifice, love, forgiving, repenting. (and some other ones) Those are the core issues. While the factual backing of dead people resurrecting may be questionable, the concepts are very, very real. You'd have to admit, the issues covered in many of the mainstream religions are positive.

Put those positive concepts into a brainwashing machine, and throw in a troubled mind. If that troubled mind can be fixed, even if it were on top of some questionable statements, using pretty powerful brainwashing (teaching) tactics, you weigh the pros and cons.. and the end result, to me, would tip towards "good". It can be used the other way around though, and I am completely disgusted a those who do use it in a negative way. I've had a friend's business (and friendship) get completely messed up because of some crazy religion.

The other side of it is the positive effects of repetitie tasks. Repetition or cyclical activities create pace, that regulate people's lives. It creates a pattern within a chaotic world that people can refer to, even when everything else changes. This functionality is less about the content of the repetitive task, as much as the repetition itself. Like braincell said, it's tradition, and the goodness lies in the fact that it doesn't change. There is a sense of safety and comfort in that.

Here's a new light on this subject. So the two concepts, repetition and change create a very dynamic world. Things change, things deteriorate. People die, and times change. I look at my grandma, as she gets older... she's a young grandma (her age), so she's still pretty "up to date" on things.. but it's also obvious that she's not on the cutting edge. It's during times like this, that I think people turn to "old" things. Traditions, unchanging values, religion, old places.. familiar things. Familiar things go away whether we like it or not. Things that you related to will fade away, and at some point, your brain will loose its ability to relate to new things. Tradition isn't bad. The world isn't just about the future. For old people, the world is a foreign thing. I wouldn't blame them for not being future minded. The future, for them, means the demise of their world. And some day, that will be us.

edit: Great read Bingo, am still going through the article, I really want the book now. Good to see Lakoff mensioned. We closely studied one of his papers in my cog-sci based study of intelligence.

[BingoTheClowno]

Parts of it may be bogus, but as a whole, religions CAN function in a good way.

Well, even the current world affairs prove they don't. And you already know how religion was imposed on people.

You'd have to admit, the issues covered in many of the mainstream religions are positive.

You have both, positive and negative. The negative ones prevail in my oppinion and the positives are often not followed. But even if they are, that doesn't justify any religion to brainwash an individual. That action by itself is immoral. Are there any religions that teach positive things (and this is a very broad term that includes moral behaviour that is made up by religions) without some kind of sacrifice or adherence to a group or accepting certain irrational thoughts? I think all moral values should be taught by parents and teachers.

The argument that only religion can provide moral values I find very detestable.

[Liquid Len]

The argument that only religion can provide moral values I find very detestable.

What exactly DOES provide moral values? Tell us a single 'value' that science (or logic) provides. Remember, only scientific reasoning, no begging the question (which I'm sure you know does not mean 'beg for a question').

[kensuguro]

hrm.. I think the proper view of morals is that no body but ourselves, the individuals, can form morals. (I'm defining morals as same with a system of beliefs, which are sets of values) The rest are just blue prints.

So the justification of imprinting versus the good things that religions teach.. I still think religion is just a tool to teach moral values, that can be used by parents or by anyone. Even by the person himself. For me, the ethics of imposing (brainwashing) really depends on the individual. Just like any opinion, if the person's has a deep rooted belief of aggression and naughtiness, then it requires that much brainwashing to imprint something good. It makes less sense to use strong imprinting tactics on plain, good people, just to make the conform to all the detailed requirements of a religion. A lot of religions do that, and I personally hate it. It's overkill.

Actually, that brings up a good point. It seems like a lot of the religious professionals (pastors, gurus, what not) themselves aren't aware of the tactics and psychological methods that are used to "teach" people. It seems like alot of them are completely brainwashed themselves... which makes them potentially dangerous operators of the machine. That's what bugs me alot about many religions. I think religious figures need a deep understanding of the science that happens behind religion, so that they know when something goes wrong, or precisely how something can be improved.

[BingoTheClowno]

The argument that only religion can provide moral values I find very detestable.

Tell us a single 'value' that science (or logic) provides.

Pursuit of knowledge.

[braincell]

My user agreement with Spectronics Heart of Africa samples stipulates that I am not allowed to use these samples "for anything immoral". When I called them to ask what that means, an example was given of porn. I didn't know porn was immoral.

I would like to point out that I can't buy hard alcohol on Sundays or after a certain time. This is referred to as a "blue law" and it's born out of church related influence on the government. It is technically forbidden in the constitution but that part is often ignored. You only have to read the inscription on our currency "in god we trust" to know how much influence the church has. The constitution makes it clear that there should be a separation between church and state, however people tend to ignore that. It's a conspiracy.

[braincell]

They are one and the same. It is so pervasive!

[Liquid Len]

The argument that only religion can provide moral values I find very detestable.

Tell us a single 'value' that science (or logic) provides.

Pursuit of knowledge.

OK, this is where things get technical and boring. Science is all about using exact definitions, right? (Which is what makes the 'evolution is just a theory' argument so meaningless). Value has several meanings, for instance the monetary value of a plugin.

When you use the word 'value' you can use it to refer to 'moral value' (something is good for its own sake, for instance, the near universal moral value that human society OUGHT TO be preserved). This is the sense of the word 'value' I thought we were using. A moral value related to the 'value' you just proposed would be more accurately stated "Knowledge is a good thing".

Put another way, science can prove "this will preserve society". How can science lead to "do this"? You need something in between, namely "society OUGHT to be preserved" which is difficult to prove with science and logic, (however obvious it may be in real life which includes so much more than just science and logic.)

[braincell]

You assume that the church is good at dictating morals. Some of the morals I agree with and some I do not. The stand they take on abortion and birth control I detest. We don't need religion for morals. We need good parenting and better education. An education with a focus on reality not fictional bible stories. I would hope there is not a single person in this forum who thinks the earth was created in 6 days. That is just one example. They are scores and scores of crazy stories in the bible. It's not right to teach people these things. It's like reverse education. It's like teaching a child that 1+1=6. It's cruel and has to be stopped. There is no place for this in a modern society. The only result will be confused insane people like the Unibomber.

[kensuguro]

the fact is, the church is good at dictating things in general because of their framework. It's a powerful way of spreading beliefs, that's what relgions do. Using "parts" to teach people concepts isn't a bad thing. Like I've been saying, I think it's the concept that counts.

You can teach 1+1=2, but then you wouldn't question whether 1 is truly a 1. I don't see why you are so caught up with getting the facts straight, and do not understand the concept of using abstract parts to portray abstract concepts. It's a form of communication, and it is known to be very effective. You can either say "don't kill", or use a parable, or even the story of Jesus to portray that concept. Whichever works. It's a fundamental learning mechanism that's used in all forms of education. It's hypothetical examples, "what if" situtaions, and situations that you can relate your past experiences to.

You need to be goal orientated. It's like the guy who cannot experience the movies because you're so caught up with the how the visual effects look way too digital and how the story cannot be true. That is not the point. You need to understand the story, and the concept that is being portrayed.

On top of that though, I do agree that the parent's responsibility and the school's responsibility is overlooked in modern society. My view is that although morals can be taught through religion, it's sad to see that it's becoming the primary source of moral teaching, as good morals are deteriorating else where. It's sad that since morals are such a controversial matter, "teaching", or having anything to do with morals has become a liability. Responsibility is a liability, and parents, and especially schools want to have nothing to do with it. If someone objects, then they're screwed. Who can defent "morals" anyway? Truth is, the public brought the education system down, and the education system succumbed to the public.

Whatever did happen to morals? Or should I say, beliefs? Is it too dangerous to have character defining beliefs any more? Is it a crime to share beliefs, and challenge beliefs? I think as we get better means of communications, being connected everybody all the time, somehow, I get the feeling that the people's ability to communicate, is diminishing. Beliefs and values need to be faught over, modified, combined, shared, etc.. People are so caught up being solitary "complete" systems, being independent individuals.