This is why we don't need religion

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
21

The difference, however, between politics, say, and religion is that many a religion seeks actively and deliberately to encourage the abandonment of secular reason, and substitute for it unpardonable nonsense, which in its turn can spill over into harmful tensions and destructive violence simply because the religious ideas are indefensible by any other means. This is what emerges clearly from the linked-to article. Showing the bankruptcy of a religious mode of thought will go a long way towards defusing this kind of unnecessary and wasteful confrontation.

It is also curious that, of the whole spectrum of human superstitions, religion is always singled out as deserving special considerations without ever giving a reason why that should be so other than possibly a vague hand-wave in the direction of “cultural respect.” Ironically, while demanding the tolerance of outsiders, religions are rarely themselves tolerant of others, creating an “us-and-them” schism. And it’s quite odd that we reject female (or male, for that matter) circumcision as acceptable on this “respect” basis.

And, yes, it most certainly is a human problem. Just like drug addiction is a human problem. As long as there are addictive recreational drugs, there will be druggies, even if you go to enormous lengths warning of the hazards of drug abuse.

'Luthon64

22

Gets out answers.com and wikipedia.org Sheesh! You with all these big English words… :o

If one has a quick look at the Wikipedia article on politics one will quickly see religion consist of politics, I quote “Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. It is the authoritative allocation of values.” But one must remember religion only consist of politics because it is human nature.

The article also doesn’t point out the “bankruptcy of a religious mode” but it points out the ugliness of politics and how one’s opinion (In this case a leader of a religious group) can offend a group of people and that people can feels the urge to reply with violence, which leads to “unnecessary and wasteful confrontation” and this type of behavior is not religions fault but a human error (bankruptcy of morals).

I also feel the urge to point out that secular reasoning is not always good in nature, because it comes and goes with time where religion or the value system held up by a religion should not change with time. A quote I found and liked on this subject goes as follow “Secular education can make men clever, but it cannot make them good.” – Anonymous

First of all you must prove to me religion is a superstition :wink: otherwise it’s only an opinion. I will agree with you that most humans don’t want their cages to be rattled and by bringing new/strange/other ways of thought in their mist they will point to “cultural respect.” But yet again that is human error and not a religious error.

Regards,

23

http://forum.skeptic.za.org/science-and-technology/inline-google-definitions-firefox-extension/0/ :wink:

24

These “big English words” you bemoan exist for a reason, namely to improve clarity and precision.

There would be little point in me repeating all of the arguments given earlier in this and other threads, particularly in this “Religion and Philosophy” sub-forum. Instead, I strongly urge you to read these posts carefully, and follow any links where such are provided. You may, however, wish to begin, by way of introduction, with this if Afrikaans is your home language.

In answer to your protestation that “religion consist of politics,” even if we accept that religions borrow from politics the use of certain methods (and vice-versa), it does not follow from this observation that they are the same thing, or have the same (or even comparable) objectives, or uniformly follow the same patterns in practice. See the definitions below, which clearly delineate two very different spheres of operation.

In answer to your anonymous quote about secular education, I give you Steven Weinberg, 1979 co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, who said: “Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion.”

To say that “this type of behavior [unnecessary and wasteful confrontation] is not religions fault but a human error (bankruptcy of morals)” is symptomatic of the way religious thinking corrupts people’s critical faculties by claiming to deal in “absolute truths” that are beyond question, but in reality are unfounded delusions. The muslim has no doubts that his worldview and morality, as reflected in allah’s words in the qur’an via muhammad, are beyond question; the christian, jew, hindu, etc., believes the same about his or her own morality and worldview based on different gods, prophets and holy books. Even within the major denominations there are sects that disagree with one another on foundational questions. And when they run afoul of one another, as they regularly do, which of these canons is the “true” one? How do you know it is the “true” one? Because, whichever answer you give, you’ll incur the blind disapproval, and perhaps the wrath, of a majority. Furthermore, each one has its own idea of what “tolerance” means (“I’m right and you’re wrong, but we’ll get along fine just as long as you don’t dare contradict me.”). That is why the religious mode is bankrupt. It is also why religious thinking is the very selfsame “human error” by which you wish to exonerate religion.

[b]religion[/b] [i]n.[/i] [b]1.[/b] Particular system of faith and worship (…) [b]2.[/b] Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and esp. of a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship; effect of such recognition on conduct and mental attitude; …

politics n. pl. (also treated as sing.). Science and art of government; political affairs or life (…); political principles (…); …

political a. 1. Of or affecting the State or its government; of public affairs; of politics. …

superstition n. Credulity regarding the supernatural, irrational fear of the unknown or mysterious; misdirected reverence; religion or practice or particular opinion based on such tendencies; widely held but unjustified idea of the effects or nature of a thing; …

A suitable antidote is:

[b]evidence[/b] [i]n., & v.t.[/i] [b]1.[/b] [i]n.[/i] Clearness, obviousness; [b]in ~[/b], conspicuousness. [b]2.[/b] Indication, sign, ([i]of[/i] quality, treatment, etc.); testimony, facts, in support [i]of[/i] (or [i]for[/i]) a conclusion; [size=8pt]INTERNAL, EXTERNAL [i]evidence[/i]. [b]3.[/b] (Law). Information (…) tending to establish fact; statements or proofs admissible as testimony in court; …[/size]

[All definitions drawn from The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1976.]

'Luthon64

25
These "big English words" you bemoan exist for a reason, namely to improve clarity and precision.

I do understand, I just wanted to point out something that may seem clear to you may be a maze of words to me and thus confusion or misinterpretation can arise on my side. But thanks to bluegray the Google definition plug in will make my life a bit easer.

There would be little point in me repeating all of the arguments given earlier in this and other threads, particularly in this "Religion and Philosophy" sub-forum. Instead, I strongly urge you to read these posts carefully, and follow any links where such are provided. You may, however, wish to begin, by way of introduction, with this if Afrikaans is your home language.

I do wish I had enough time to read through all the forums, links and books, but one doesn’t always have time. I also understand it would be meaningless to repeat earlier arguments.

Thanks for the trouble of finding the Afrikaans link it was a interesting read and opinion. It’s a bit flawed in some areas, but I do not feel the need to start a discussion here because you can read about it on the blog post itself under the comment section.

In answer to your protestation that "religion consist of politics," even if we accept that religions borrow from politics the use of certain methods (and vice-versa), it does not follow from this observation that they are the same thing, or have the same (or even comparable) objectives, or uniformly follow the same patterns in practice. See the definitions below, which clearly delineate two very different spheres of operation.

I did not try to create the illusion that religion and politics is the same thing, and if I did I’m sorry for that.

I just wanted to point out the situation in question was created by a group of people that call them self religious, but didn’t act in line to their believe system. I will aslo agree such religious behavior is dangerous!

..."Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion."...

Interesting quote but you can easily find a list of great scientist and people that used religion as their source of inspiration. I would also not be to surprise if some these people will have a Nobel prize behind their name.

And finally I only have the “The Oxford Universal Dictionary Illustrated Edition, First published 1933” available and I looked up the definition of “superstition” and it was interesting to note the difference between the two dictionaries. But by your definition I would agree some religions may be superstition but not all. The only way to find out wish are is to look at each religoin on its own.

Regards,

26

The only counterargument offered to the original blog entry is that of god’s ostensibly necessary existence as originator of our moral sensibilities. But other commenters ably show the profound difficulties – logical, philosophical and factual – of this counterargument. So whatever flaws remain are, I think, more perceived than real.

If by “a group of people that … didn’t act in line to their believe system” you mean catholics, as represented by the pope, then consider that they have no doubt that god’s on their side. If you mean the muslims, the same applies to them too. Take that ill-founded conviction away from both groups, and the whole sorry mess ceases to exist. Period. That’s the point. That’s why we don’t need religion: it fosters ignorance (of which intolerance is an unavoidable outgrowth) where such need not exist.

I gave it merely in response to your anonymous quote about secular education. Religiosity and its type probably aren’t very good correlates for “goodness” anyway, chiefly because it is practically almost impossible to control adequately for these measures. It does, however, seem that Nobel laureates in science count a significantly higher proportion of agnostics and atheists in their numbers than does the population-at-large.

Once again, it’s not my definition — I gave its source. But I would be interested to know which religion(s) you consider to be not superstition, and why. This assumes that we can find a mutually agreeable definition of the term superstition; perhaps you would like to propose one from a credible source?

'Luthon64

27

:slight_smile: At best, religion is a placebo with which we can replace with others. We don 't need it to have purpose as we can make our own.We don’t need it for socialability. We don’t need it to explain matters as it really only has guesses and mysteries. Anacoluthon,so right! :-*

28
Once again, it's not my definition - I gave its source. But I would be interested to know which religion(s) you consider to be not superstition, and why. This assumes that we can find a mutually agreeable definition of the term superstition; perhaps you would like to propose one from a credible source?
Sorry for calling it your definition, what I meant to say is I agree on the definition you gave or quoted. I also can't tell you what religions are superstitious or not.

I personally have my own belief system and I do believe someone already confronted you with it, so I won’t waste your time again.

But by your definition I would agree some religions may be superstition but not all. The only way to find out wish are is to look at each religion on its own.
What I tried to say is if you want to say all religions or some religions are superstitious you must provide the proof, or otherwise it is just an opinion and I will leave it at that.

For interest sake a quick look at the Wikipedia section (I would not regard it as a credible source) Superstition -Religious competition one would see:

…Likewise, atheists, agnostics, deists, and skeptics regard religious belief as superstition…
Once again you can regard a religion or all religions as superstitious but you can't proof it is a superstition.
At best, religion is a placebo with which we can replace with others. We don 't need it to have purpose as we can make our own.We don't need it for socialability. We don't need it to explain matters as it really only has guesses and mysteries. Anacoluthon,so right!
Skeptic griggsy thank for sharing your opinion with us :) According to 2005 statistics on religion[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Major_religions_2005_pie_small.png] 84% of the world population[/url] would disagree with you ;) (Off Topic: Ever heard the saying "70% of all statistics is made up on the spot")

Regards,

29

:wink: d-b, but the other % is growing.Most of the many have not come across atheism,just parodies of it.Now many are reading our new atheist books. The problem is that so many just have to see a force or power behind the cosmos rather than see it as just is as Hawkings puts it.That is the argument from incredulity the many make.Thanks.

30

Giving clarification and substantiation in an effort to provide greater clarity is hardly a waste of time: doing so can possibly bring to my attention something that had previously escaped me. But never mind – we’ll deal with this more fully in another thread.

Nonsense. Since you are unwilling or unable to provide a definition of the term superstition, we’ll use the one I gave earlier from the O.E.D., okay? It says, inter alia, that superstition is “[c]redulity regarding the supernatural.” Every religion without exception that has come to my attention gives an account of the human condition in terms of some (usually) ill-defined universal absolutes such as gods or transcendence or higher purpose. These agents, states and/or entities stand above nature as we experience it (usually as nature’s originator), and are not beholden to it. They are therefore clearly supernatural. If you know of a religion that does not have this characteristic, please point it out. (Also, the O.E.D. definition of religion given earlier bears out this contention.)

In addition, all religions have two further defining traits, namely belief and ritual. The associative purpose of ritual (e.g. communion, worship, baptism, prayer, etc.) is twofold. Firstly, it frames the belief in more concrete terms by vesting it with outward modes of expression as well as formalisms. Secondly, it periodically reinforces the belief’s salient aspects by recurrent practice of the rituals. But why should the belief need such periodic expression and reinforcement? Because it is just that: a belief without evidence; in other words, a faith. If it had evidence to back up its central theses, these rituals would be entirely superfluous. But belief with scant or no evidence is generally called “credulity.”

Therefore, we have “credulity about the supernatural” as a common feature of all religions, and so all religions can legitimately be labelled “superstition,” albeit of a particular type.

Q.E.D.

'Luthon64

31

I actually agreed on the definition you proved in my last post, as seen below:

I would agree with you that most religions see their God as supernatural.

This bothers me a bit, because if one look up the definition of credulity:

credulity - A disposition to believe too readily.

disposition - One’s usual mood; temperament.

readily - without much difficulty.

For me it looks like credulity means to believe in something easily without much questioning, I’m I correct?

And a lot of universities have departments to study religion, even this forum has a section to question religion. So religion in general is under a lot of questioning. So it can’t be a credulity but this is only my opinion.

“credulity about the supernatural” I do not understand, would you be so kind to explain what you mean with the quote?

Regards,

32

Well, okay, but it was hardly clear which definition you meant, since I gave, among a few others, both that of religion and of superstition.

But do you know of any religion, no matter how obscure, that does not do so? Even scientology embraces supernatural elements such as reincarnation and souls. If you don’t know of any, can we then agree, at least provisionally and subject to possible revision later on, to say that “all religions address at least something that is supernatural?” If you disagree, please give a reason why.

How, please, is this different from saying that ‘belief with scant or no evidence is generally called “credulity”?’ After all, evidence usually emerges as a result of questioning.

I’m really struggling to make any sense of this. Are you saying that because religion is widely studied by institutes of higher learning it doesn’t qualify for the “credulity” label? If that is what you mean then you need to understand the following: religion is indeed widely studied by anthropologists, psychologists and other social scientists as a social phenomenon, i.e. how it is commonly practised and what role it plays in the society under study. But this is a totally different thing from investigating the validity of the claims on which the religion itself is based or that form part of its doctrine. Investigating the differences in behaviour between buddhists and wiccans is obviously a completely different type of study from an investigation into, say, the possibility of human virgin birth. It is the latter kind of study, i.e. into the factual content of religions, that is very scarce but crucially important. Moreover, theological schools and seminaries cannot be considered unbiased investigators in this context because such students enter their studies already believing, which is often, in fact, a prerequisite. So it is misleading to deny that religious belief is credulity since there is hardly any evidence in support of the truth of religious beliefs’ contents, and much evidence that suggests their falsity.

The phrase in quotation marks is the conclusion that was drawn from the arguments in the preceding two paragraphs of the post in which it was first mentioned. Briefly, the argument is this:

[ol]- All religions contain a supernatural element

  • All religions require credulity (= faith = unquestioning belief) to preserve their version of “truth”
  • Therefore, all religions require “credulity about the supernatural” to succeed in the face of scarce or contrary evidence[/ol]

But “credulity about the supernatural” is just the definition of superstition.

I hope that it is now clear.

'Luthon64

33

:slight_smile: And the same applies to the supernatural as Paul Kurtz in “The Transcendent Temptation” shows.People use pareidolia for both- seeing what is not there-meaning.

34

d-_-b, I’m not sure what to make of your silence. At least give an indication whether you intend replying at all or not.

I’m still very confused by this. Apart from the possible interpretation I gave in an earlier post (i.e. that religions’ effects are studied much more than their precepts), it occurs to me that another possible interpretation is that you mean to say that religions examine metaphysical and existential questions, and that much of this is done at institutes of higher learning. The problem with this take is that philosophy, informed by science and logic, is a considerably longer and pointier tool with which to probe these questions. Also, Simon Blackburn, a Cambridge University philosophy professor, reports in his delightful and valuable little book Think that most modern philosophers are atheistic. Many of them do study religion quite deeply because there is much overlap in the kinds of questions that they investigate (though not in the way they set about answering them).

In any case, here’s another very particular instance of the distress religion routinely gives rise to, this time on a personal level. I can’t help but wonder just who is guilty of “human error” – and of what kind, exactly – on this occasion.

'Luthon64

35

Sorry, for the delayed reply I’m more of a lurker on forums then a poster, one don’t always have the time… “All work and no play made jack a dull boy.”

I agree with all your statements, except one but before I get to that I want to thank you for having the patients to walk me through your line of thought step by step.

What I do not agree on is where you still want to say all religion as a whole is a superstition:

I agree on point one you made “All religions contain a supernatural element”. Point two is a bit blurry for me, because we both agreed that credulity is to believe in something without much questioning, correct? But I don’t see when it has become credulity to have faith in something or someone but still question them/it?

One must also remember most religions question a source for example the Muslims believe in the Koran and most Christians believe in the Bible. So to say Christianity is a superstition you will need to proof that the Bible is a fake the same goes for the Koran and all the other objects of other religions that they are based upon.

So I would agree all religions require a element of “credulity about the supernatural” but that is only a part of a religion to proof a religion as a whole is superstitious you must proof the object they but their believes in is false.

But this is only my humble opinion, like I said I do agree with your line of thought to proof that religion is a superstition. But it does borderline to advance wordplay and I would say it proofs “Religion have elements of superstition” but it can’t proof as a whole that all religions is a superstition, once again my opinion.

I will comment on the article in question asap I also need to comment on the “Human error” subject but I will do that in the thread created for it, but all in good time… Thats if a bus don’t hit me :wink:

Regards,

36

But do you at least agree that such a conclusion would follow if one accepted the 3-point argument I gave earlier?

Okay, that’s a good start.

Yes, correct, provided that we have the right sense about what it means “to question something.”

Because you’re using the term “question” in a very limited way. Suppose you told me you had two tons of gold in your basement. It is, of course, entirely possible that you do, but I would initially doubt it and so I would question your claim. The only way for me to be certain that you really do have the gold is for me ask that you show it to me and for me to run some simple tests to verify that it is in fact gold and of the said mass. If, on the other hand, I limited my questions to the type “Is that really true?”, “Do you swear it?”, “Do you have any witnesses? If so, can I meet them?”, etc., that would then not substantially increase my confidence that what you say is true. In other words, the answers to those kinds of questions can be faked and manipulated. Now suppose further that you did not actually possess any such gold but that I’d asked you the weaker kind of questions and started believing you. Anyone else who knew the truth would no doubt think of me as a gullible fool because you had effectively exploited my credulity. And another word for “gullible” is “credulous.” In short, the “questioning” of a claim must bring to light convincing evidence that supports the claim before we can legitimately believe it, otherwise the “questioning” is merely a pretence.

Not at all. It is up to christians, muslims, etc., to prove that their “holy” texts are true. It’s never the sceptics task to prove them wrong, and even if it were, there are mountains of evidence to suggest strongly that these texts are mainly fairytales.

From which it follows that all religions at the very least contain some superstitions. I understand that this is different from saying that all religions are superstitions, but I’m not sure whether this establishes anything actually meaningful.

Again, no. It is very much the task of the believers to prove that their object(s) of faith exist or have benefits not found elsewhere. It’s not the sceptic’s task to prove them wrong, although there are many logical, philosophical, historical, scientific and empirical reasons that point at the falsity of these beliefs.

'Luthon64

37

Ok we are yet again sidetracking the thread. But I will reply and hopefully we can “Agree to disagree”.

Ok, So if you say “religions is a superstition” and I stand up and say to you “Can you proof to me that Christianity is a superstition because it is a religion” It’s up to you to bring the light convincing evidence that supports the statement, or otherwise the statement is merely a pretence?

Ok agreed if one makes a claim like that the person that makes the claim must provide the light convincing proof.

Agreed if I or anyone else wants to sell you my/their beliefs it’s up to me/them to bring you the proof if you have any questions and not just say I/we have logical, philosophical, historical, scientific and empirical reasons that point out the truth of my/your beliefs.

Regards,

38

The thread is about “why we don’t need religion.” It is, therefore, very hard to see how questioning religious beliefs can in any way constitute “sidetracking the thread.”

Exactly. Do you perhaps feel that I have somehow been remiss in this regard? Because you haven’t answered this:

Precisely.

Indubitably. So, what are these various reasons of each type that point to the truth of your religious beliefs?

'Luthon64

39

I hope that answers your question. Would you be so kind to answer my question now?

And finally,

I have not tried to sell you my beliefs I only questioned your statement “religion is a superstition”. So do you agree if you can’t bring forward light convincing evidence that supports the statement that “religion is a superstition” it’s merely a pretence?

40

No, I’m afraid it doesn’t answer my question at all. To say that “it proofs ‘Religion have elements of superstition’” is merely to repeat point 1. of the 3-point argument. Moreover, saying “it does borderline to advance wordplay” again raises questions, already dealt with, about what we suppose the various words and terms that appear in the 3-point argument to mean.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know which question of yours you feel I haven’t answered, because as far as I can tell I’ve answered them all.

Yes, I’m afraid that you have: it is clearly your belief that my statement is false that “all religions are superstitions,” but you avoid saying why and on what basis. Worse, it seems you misjudge the power of the 3-point argument I put forward earlier. The argument is a syllogism, a basic method of deductive logical reasoning – if its premisses (points 1. and 2.) are true, then its conclusion (point 3.) must be true. The premisses are inductively arrived at from empirical observation. You have already agreed that point 1. is true. Point 2. was also more closely explained to you earlier and you haven’t objected to my saying that from “questioning” we need to obtain “convincing evidence that supports [a] claim before we can legitimately believe it,” which implies that holding any belief without such convincing evidence is “credulity.” I thought the gold-in-the-basement example made that clear. In addition, you agreed that “all religions require a element of ‘credulity about the supernatural’.” Revising point 2. accordingly, I concluded as follows:

So please explain the difference in meaning between saying, “all religions contain superstitions” and saying “all religions are superstitions.”

… and I have repeatedly met your vague and unspecific objections.

Sigh Where to begin? Firstly, I said that questioning, and not a statement, is merely a pretence if it does not bring convincing evidence to light, so please stop distorting what I say. A statement can still be true even without there being any convincing evidence for it. Believing such a statement to be true and defending that belief by saying that you have “questioned” it but cannot show any convincing evidence – doing that will make your “questioning” a mere pretence. Secondly, it seems to me that you are challenging me to bring forth convincing evidence to support the statement that “all religions are superstitions.” I have done so repeatedly in the numerous ways the 3-point argument has been presented and explained to you.

Now where, please, does the connection fail for you between the 3-point argument and the statement that it is intended to validate about all religions being superstitions?

'Luthon64