Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?

[bamf]

I would still prefer to be judged on the evidence rather than the belief of the majority.

Evidence you believe in or evidence the majority believe in?

 

[Chopsifer]

I would still prefer to be judged on the evidence rather than the belief of the majority.

So what determines the validity of evidence? The majority might find their truth evident, however much your evidence proves otherwise.

 

[Satya]

So what determines the validity of evidence? The majority might find their truth evident, however much your evidence proves otherwise.

The upper limits of validity are set by reliability. In other words, consistency. If under the same circumstances you receive the same answer, then the evidence is said to be reliable. If the reliable evidence is found to be accurate then the evidence is valid.

 

[Quinlan]

So what determines the validity of evidence?

Whether it can be observed, shared and repeated with testing.

The majority might find their truth evident, however much your evidence proves otherwise.

I think it is fairer to be found guilty or innocent by belief based on evidence rather than belief based on non-evidence. If you were on trial wouldn't you want hard evidence in your favour for the decision to be based on? or would you prefer the whim of the majority?

 

[Chopsifer]

Whether it can be observed, shared and repeated with testing.

I'm not saying that I agree with them, but I do see a lot of people use those criterion concerning spaghetti monsters. How does it not fit into the model? What am I missing?

 

[Quinlan]

If there is solid evidence for spaghetti monsters then it is in the interest of society to pursue further investigation into them.

All I'm saying is, no one really minds what "personal truths" people may have in their own mind/home but these are very different from the kind of truths we have to operate with when it comes to society.

Perhaps I am dreaming of a secular society where beliefs without justification are a purely personal thing and aren't enforced on anyone else.

These kinds of conversations are well over my head I think.

 

[Chopsifer]

If there is solid evidence for spaghetti monsters then it is in the interest of society to pursue further investigation into them.

All I'm saying is, no one really minds what "personal truths" people may have in their own mind/home but these are very different from the kind of truths we have to operate with when it comes to society.

Perhaps I am dreaming of a secular society where beliefs without justification are a purely personal thing and aren't enforced on anyone else.

These kinds of conversations are well over my head I think.

Pish posh. No conversation is over anyone's head unless they allow it to be!

I guess where you and I differ concerns the relationship between justification and belief. I think that -most- people figure their beliefs completely justified (regardless of this being true or not). I do not think people would hold a belief if they thought it unjustifiable (e.g. cognitive dissonance theory). We justify what "beliefs" we have in such twisted ways sometimes, but we do make them appear justified to ourselves.

Mankind is master in the art of self-deception, methinks.

But as I understand your position, you think one can hold a belief without believing it is justifiable? I'm interested! Please go on!

 

[Ketsugi]

Minority Funk, your post was basically everything I wanted to say, but couldn't figure out how to say it.

I'm so bad at communication. Arg.

 

[just me]

Am I wrong to say some people need religion....not in the sense they do not have it and need it, but they need it to fulfill something missing in their life?
I have quoted and will quote another, " Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit the orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from this world."

 

[Quinlan]

Pish posh. No conversation is over anyone's head unless they allow it to be!

When things get down to "what is truth anyway" my S-brain usually explodes. It's draining.

But as I understand your position, you think one can hold a belief without believing it is justifiable? I'm interested! Please go on!

There are many people who believe things just because they believe them, it would be easier to stop breathing than to believe something else, no amount of reasoning will get through to them (whether or not the belief is considered justified is irrelevant to them). For a justification to be accepted in a court of law it must be supported by the evidence. If you think belief = truth do you disagree with the legal system? Perhaps the legal system should be an intangible one? Although things like witchhunts will become entirely justified.

 

[Quinlan]

Am I wrong to say some people need religion....not in the sense they do not have it and need it, but they need it to fulfill something missing in their life?
I have quoted and will quote another, " Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit the orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from this world."

I think religion fulfills a very real psychological need, how some people get by without it is interesting.

Is non-religion really so terrifying?

 

[just me]

If you think belief = truth do you disagree with the legal system? Perhaps the legal system should be an intangible one? Although things like witchhunts will become entirely justified.

The appointing of a new top judge in America has its appointee believing the second amendment rights do not give authority to citizens and states, believes in emminent domain, and many other beliefs I disagree with in law in the Constitution that has been alright for quite some time, but now wishes to disagree with the understanding of an old amendment. She and I do not believe the same way, obviously, so which is truth?

 

[just me]

I think religion fulfills a very real psychological need, how some people get by without it is interesting.

Is non-religion really so terrifying?

Is non-religion supposed to be terrifying? I'll repeat an old post a few pages back when the anti-religious try to change the religious, what is the difference? maybe not verbatim....

 

[Milon]

BenW, I'm going to apologize in advance for tearing into your posts but you're arguing in circles and I have to take a crack at this...

5. ... What if science can't prove the answers to everything? To believe in science you have to have faith that science is right.

I'm reminded of G

 

[Chopsifer]

When things get down to "what is truth anyway" my S-brain usually explodes. It's draining.



There are many people who believe things just because they believe them, it would be easier to stop breathing than to believe something else, no amount of reasoning will get through to them (whether or not the belief is considered justified is irrelevant to them). For a justification to be accepted in a court of law it must be supported by the evidence. If you think belief = truth do you disagree with the legal system? Perhaps the legal system should be an intangible one? Although things like witchhunts will become entirely justified.

Oh! Oh no, I really wasn't trying to be a drain at all! I'm sorry!

And well. In regards to your question about the legal system, I don't know if evidence is the end-all say-all. I think that the outside world around us, while it is absorbed through our senses, it also needs to be translated in a way that is very unique to each of us. I think we have a lot of different modes of thought and learning that we have accepted as mediums through which we can express or understand this external data our senses gather.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that while the evidence (which may even be a completely objective truth) does have an effect on decisions, the jury's collective cognitive processes ultimately decide the case.

EDIT: Also, Quin. I hope I'm understanding where you are coming from concerning this. Do you feel I might?

 

[Quinlan]

She and I do not believe the same way, obviously, so which is truth?

Whichever is back by evidence, if neither then they are equal.

Is non-religion supposed to be terrifying? I'll repeat an old post a few pages back when the anti-religious try to change the religious, what is the difference? maybe not verbatim....

I took your qoute to mean religion is a necessary source of comfort and was wondering just how uncomfortable the world is without it.

 

[arbygil]

Hmm...I can't help thinking about this in the middle of the conversation.

Is it wrong for a child to have a healthy imagination? Or is it better to tell him at a very young age that an imagination is illogical and not worth his/her time? How about books and book characters? Cartoons? Movies and TV shows?

Is the imagination a ridiculous and unnecessary concept/belief system that needs reality to set it straight?

In my mind, I'd say no. I think having a healthy imagination is the only way we can conceive of the concept of a God of the Universe. But there might be some who feel reality is the only way, and we need proof for all things or those things are not conducive to a mentally healthy lifestyle.

But do you think that by denying the possibility of God because there is no proof is the same as refusing to imagine the possibility of God's existence? That it's simply a waste of time to even consider the possibility and to only seek tangible proof without looking outside of oneself?

Ointment, meet fly.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I completly agree Arbygil.

 

[Satya]

Am I wrong to say some people need religion....not in the sense they do not have it and need it, but they need it to fulfill something missing in their life?

Faith is a powerful thing, particularly for those who have suffered true despair or who have found their lives lacking direction. Believing in something greater than yourself can provide relief. One thing every human being in this world has in common is that we are born into this world to at least one caregiver and we rely on that person to nurture us and discipline us until we can care for ourselves. As we become adults, we realize our caregiver is flawed and imperfect and can't provide us with all the answers. The natural step is to create a perfect caregiver who can. That I think is what most people call God.

From observing this world I can believe something rather beautiful exists. I remember when the grandmother who raised me was dying that I was lost in a horrible despair. I sat by the pond in her backyard and felt like the world was coming to an end. Then a robin flew down by the pond and I suddenly just a felt a presence that made me want to fall down to my knees. Others may have experienced such a presence as a supernatural deity but to me it was a feeling of connectedness to the world. I just realized how fortunate I was to be alive and to be experiencing even that pain and to have known someone as wonderful as my grandmother. That presence just lifted the burden off my shoulders and allowed me to be at peace so that I could let my grandmother go when she died. After that experience I don't consider God to be something separate or something that judges, but rather a state of being in which we can be accepting of ourselves, others, and the world. Some people may call that self actualization or enlightenment or even kung fu, but I can perceive that presence of love and connectedness as God. When you attain it, there is no need to fear death or loss, no need for an afterlife, no need for any ego whatsoever. You are just a part of something unique and beautiful and you feel fortunate for the chance to exist and experience it.

 

[Chopsifer]

Hmm...I can't help thinking about this in the middle of the conversation.

Is it wrong for a child to have a healthy imagination? Or is it better to tell him at a very young age that an imagination is illogical and not worth his/her time? How about books and book characters? Cartoons? Movies and TV shows?

Is the imagination a ridiculous and unnecessary concept/belief system that needs reality to set it straight?

In my mind, I'd say no. I think having a healthy imagination is the only way we can conceive of the concept of a God of the Universe. But there might be some who feel reality is the only way, and we need proof for all things or those things are not conducive to a mentally healthy lifestyle.

But do you think that by denying the possibility of God because there is no proof is the same as refusing to imagine the possibility of God's existence? That it's simply a waste of time to even consider the possibility and to only seek tangible proof without looking outside of oneself?

Ointment, meet fly.

I would take an imaginative flight of fancy over knowing absolute truth -any- day.

I might be going out on too much of a limb, here but I cannot help but feel like this might have a lot of tie-ins to existentialism through the lens of the Myth of Sisyphus.

"The struggle towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."