(October 16, 2018 at 6:13 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(October 16, 2018 at 6:02 am)Kit Wrote: A non-literal reading doesn't make it reliable, does it?  Makes it more credible to be fiction by usage of metaphorical convolution.

Do you think it needs to be "reliable" in a non-mythic, non-problematical way? Some stories are meant to be challenges, not science texts.

Belaqua, what exactly is your point? What are you trying to get at in this thread? I'm having a hard time understanding your point. What EXACTLY and PRECISELY do you feel like religion does for people?

The last time I asked this your basic sentiment was, "I don't know but it must be doing something" So I'm really hoping you can come up with something better this time.

---

(October 16, 2018 at 9:32 am)SteveII Wrote: I understand. You don't really want to have a discussion on the reasons or anything. You just want to prove your very weak point that there are atheists and there will be more atheists tomorrow because the world's population is larger--AND NOT because their position is more appealing in any way. Got it!  Why make an entire thread with such a lame observation?

There is no discussion to be had that atheism is growing. It IS. Period. The discussion to be had is why. I am arguing that it's because as more people are learning to think critically and have more access to information, they question things more and ultimately realize that things like religion are relics.... antiques at best... soon to be relegated to mythology and fairy tale stories used to comfort people who need a placebo pill.

No need to get upset.

(October 16, 2018 at 10:37 pm)PRJA93 Wrote: Belaqua, what exactly is your point? What are you trying to get at in this thread? I'm having a hard time understanding your point. What EXACTLY and PRECISELY do you feel like religion does for people?

The last time I asked this your basic sentiment was, "I don't know but it must be doing something" So I'm really hoping you can come up with something better this time.

Thank you for asking. I'll try to be more detailed this time.

First, I think that "I don't know but it must be doing something" is a very good place to begin. We could no doubt live long and happy lives without knowing what this "something" is, but if we're going to criticize other people we have a duty to know what they really think. Just asserting that their reasons are bad -- that they are brainwashed or can't think straight -- is not sufficient. 

I'm sure that a lot of people believe out of habit, or inertia, or because it's easy socially. Not being in their social position, I can't say that's bad of them.

Other people have more conscious, thoughtful reasons. I have spoken to some of them on line. Have you never interacted with a single religious person whom you respect? 

Personally, I have got enormous pleasure from religious sources -- books, paintings, etc. These are fictions which nonetheless improve our understanding of the real world. Off the top of my head, some examples: I had a sort of conceptual understanding of Kant's epistemology, but never felt it deep down, what it's like to be such an animal, until I read William Blake's strange Christian writings. He is not mainstream, but he is firmly rooted in Christian tradition, like that of Meister Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa. Spending years reading Dante has helped me to think more clearly about morality. Certain of his symbols also clarify important things in the Platonic tradition. 

So when Kit was claiming earlier that non-science-type writing has no value in helping us understand the world, this went against my own experience and the opinions of many wise people. Kukai, aka Kobo Daishi, the founder of Japanese Shingon Buddhism, wrote: "...the esoteric scriptures are so abstruse that their meaning cannot be conveyed except through art." And "...the secrets of the sutras and commentaries can be depicted in art and the essential truths of the esoteric teaching are all set forth therein. Neither teachers nor students can dispense with it. Art is what reveals to us the state of perfection." I believe this based on my own experience. And I think that "art," here, includes fiction.

In a less philosophical way, the more art and the more varied viewpoints we experience, the more rich the world becomes. We learn to value more things and enjoy more things. This comes to us through non-fiction as well, but since fiction tends to be more about value and enjoyment, I have found it most useful. 

While of course I have strong opinions about certain bad things, I do not feel satisfied enough with myself to rule out the wise thinkers from traditions other than my own.

Don't get me wrong. Experience is wonderful, for it leads to knowledge of many things instead of just being ignorantly stuck on one path.

However, religion has proven itself time and again to be the bane of humanity. It makes the bold claim of healing the world, yet it always creates more problems in its delusional wake.

Certainly, being knowledgeable of religion is good, but raising religion to a virtue is folly. Religion corrupts, plain and simple, through the finesse of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Quote:The discussion to be had is why.

The pompous attitude of religious shitwits has to be a major factor.

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: First, I think that "I don't know but it must be doing something" is a very good place to begin.

Why? Why must it be doing something? If so, why not look for a way to achieve this *something* without unwarranted beleif in inaginary things? But first: why *must*?

Oh, it’s doing something alright. It’s screwing up children's ability to think by injecting unfounded ideas into their malleable brains before they can properly analyse them. Clearly this often leads to adults who can never shed the ideas, and sometimes can’t even conceive of not having those ideas, because they’ve become so dependent on them.

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: Thank you for asking. I'll try to be more detailed this time.

First, I think that "I don't know but it must be doing something" is a very good place to begin.

Why? Why is it so self-evident that religion is serving some meaningful purpose? I wonder if you're going to demonstrate this later in your post.

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: We could no doubt live long and happy lives without knowing what this "something" is, but if we're going to criticize other people we have a duty to know what they really think. Just asserting that their reasons are bad -- that they are brainwashed or can't think straight -- is not sufficient.

I actually have good reason to assert that their reasons are bad, or at the very least in some cases, misguided.

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: I'm sure that a lot of people believe out of habit, or inertia, or because it's easy socially. Not being in their social position, I can't say that's bad of them.

I would say this covers MOST Christians in the US.

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: Other people have more conscious, thoughtful reasons. I have spoken to some of them on line. Have you never interacted with a single religious person whom you respect?

I do not doubt that people have conscious, thoughtful reasons. However I'm arguing that those reasons are often bad or misguided, as there are much more useful things than religion to serve whatever purposes they think religion serves in their lives. And I can't really name a very religious person in my life who I respect. Even if I did, respecting a person versus respecting their silly beliefs about bronze age fairy tales are two VERY different things. I DO NOT respect certain people's beliefs about bronze age fairy tales, even if I respect them as people.

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: Personally, I have got enormous pleasure from religious sources -- books, paintings, etc. These are fictions which nonetheless improve our understanding of the real world. Off the top of my head, some examples: I had a sort of conceptual understanding of Kant's epistemology, but never felt it deep down, what it's like to be such an animal, until I read William Blake's strange Christian writings. He is not mainstream, but he is firmly rooted in Christian tradition, like that of Meister Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa. Spending years reading Dante has helped me to think more clearly about morality. Certain of his symbols also clarify important things in the Platonic tradition.

So because a few religiously inspired writings or paintings (pieces of art) have evoked an emotional reaction in you, religion MUST be useful. It sounds more like a reaction to, well, art, than to god. 

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: So when Kit was claiming earlier that non-science-type writing has no value in helping us understand the world, this went against my own experience and the opinions of many wise people. Kukai, aka Kobo Daishi, the founder of Japanese Shingon Buddhism, wrote: "...the esoteric scriptures are so abstruse that their meaning cannot be conveyed except through art." And "...the secrets of the sutras and commentaries can be depicted in art and the essential truths of the esoteric teaching are all set forth therein. Neither teachers nor students can dispense with it. Art is what reveals to us the state of perfection." I believe this based on my own experience. And I think that "art," here, includes fiction.

I think the point here is that when it truly comes to understanding the world in a factual way, no, non-scientific writing is not going to help us. Just because YOU personally had something "click" in your brain doesn't make it a useful piece of writing to help us understand the world, because these things have as many potential meanings as there are people who read them. A scientific paper on photosynthesis is what will help us understand photosynthesis, not a painting of a daffodil, even if that daffodil painting makes you "feel connected to nature."

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: In a less philosophical way, the more art and the more varied viewpoints we experience, the more rich the world becomes. We learn to value more things and enjoy more things. This comes to us through non-fiction as well, but since fiction tends to be more about value and enjoyment, I have found it most useful. 

While of course I have strong opinions about certain bad things, I do not feel satisfied enough with myself to rule out the wise thinkers from traditions other than my own.

Sure, subjective experience is part of what makes life beautiful. But subjective experience can be a highly inaccurate picture of the world, and it's REALLY important to keep that in mind when talking about objective fact.

So, is the answer to my question that fictional writings can sometimes evoke emotional reactions in people?

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: We could no doubt live long and happy lives without knowing what this "something" is, but if we're going to criticize other people we have a duty to know what they really think. Just asserting that their reasons are bad -- that they are brainwashed or can't think straight -- is not sufficient.

(Shifting of) burden of proof: If people (including you) claim that religion provides *something*, then you need to demonstrate what this *something* is. We dont assert bad reasons, we reject claims without evidence and you may restate this as saying *their reasons are bad*. You may claim that you have evidence and we are unjustified to reject tham, but this would be poisoning the well.

(October 17, 2018 at 1:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: Other people have more conscious, thoughtful reasons. I have spoken to some of them on line. Have you never interacted with a single religious person whom you respect?

If these reasons are good reasons to believe in this *something*, then please present them.
I may respect religious persons, but that does not mean i am accepting their claims, that would be an argumentum ad verecundiam. their claims have to have their own merit.

Whatever: burden.of.proof
We dont have to accept that *something* of religion until proven otherwise. Thats not how logic and reason works.

I suppose that technically speaking, the thing it offers that makes it different from any normal social system is delusion.

People may argue that the delusion can bring hope, provides placebo effects, gives a sense of purpose and security, and removes uncertainty.

This is true, but the bigger question is what the cost of this is, and if it’s worth it. In my opinion, it is not worth it. Ironically I can’t benefit from it even if I wanted to, but I could achieve much the same effect by the use of various substances. I choose not to do that, because I want to live in reality so as to make the best decisions for those around me. I do understand that life can be shit, and we all need ways of coping.

(October 17, 2018 at 5:08 am)PRJA93 Wrote: So, is the answer to my question that fictional writings can sometimes evoke emotional reactions in people?

In my view, "emotional reactions" is too simple. It's not merely like feeling happy when you see a puppy. 

The human world, the lived world, the phenomenological world, the world of our experience rather than the dispassionate world of science, is real to us. It is where we live. It can never be separated from desire or interest. It is in part sensed and in part filled in by knowledge and theory-laden projections. 

Perhaps you are a divine spark of pure reason placed into a body-vehicle due to a fall from the divine world. Frankly, I doubt it. Everybody else I know is a human being, and human beings are made of meat. Our brains and bodies operate on several levels, some more conscious than others. There is no reason at all to think that what our minds and bodies do in conjunction make sense in any logical way, are consistent, are not self-contradictory. We want to live and we want to die, we want to stop wanting, we are capable of loving and hating the same thing at the same moment. It may be that some people dislike this fact and strive to eliminate those qualities. But I find them very interesting. 

To misquote Thomas Nagel: there is something it is like to be a human. Of course science informs us of the mechanisms through which we get there, but it doesn't tell us what it is like. 

There is something it is like to be me. And most likely, this is different from what it is like to be somebody else. Especially if we're talking about someone far removed in time and culture. And people have long wondered what it is like to be a superior person. This is one of the main themes of both Proust's novel and Murasaki Shikibu's, and we learn a lot from what they say about what superiority is to them, what it would be like to be that way, etc. Others have wondered what it would be like to have total perfection in a human being, and this is an important part of the Christian tradition. 

Since self-contradiction is a part of what it is to be human, along with many other non-logical functions, human stories do not strive for the same kind of qualities as a scientific paper. 

Have you read any Nietzsche? He says that lying underneath our mental phenomena is just chaos. For him, the order that we perceive in the world is a kind of overlay, projected onto the world of no-order. In physics of course he is not correct -- there is order in the world independent of our perception (probably). But in the lived world he is correct. Scientific investigation doesn't tell us about the meanings we overlay on the world that physics studies. But when you walk down the street, most of what goes into our consciousness is human-created. The purpose of the sidewalk, the beauty of this year's fashions, the value of the iPhone you just dropped -- these are not available to physics. But these are what we live with. And these are the things that both the arts and religion work on.