Are all forms of religious faith indicative of insanity? (My counter example.)

[Whateverist]

I agree that the exercise of skepticism requires judgement. I also agree that it isn't really that hard, or if it is you should find out how far out you are along the autistic continuum. Still, I don't identify as a skeptic nor cite it as a panacea for making the hard calls.

There are some calls to be made regarding when and where to apply skepticism that aren't as open and shut as solipsism. Religion really is one of them. It is a cultural artifact of long duration and widely dispersed. Just a misattribution of cause and effect? That seems a little glib to me. One should really try to find a positive use for it before taking such an easy out.

There is enough about and within us which is stranger than the conscious mind can adequately explain. I suspect projecting god out onto the world serves to allow the conscious mind to focus on that which is below consciousness. The thing is, it is only below in the sense of not being accessible to consciousness .. not in rank. Some pretty good insight can come from there, insight which you might never find by holding up one factoid at a time for conscious consideration. Diffusely focussed, the consciousness below can sometimes recognize opportunities and dangers we might otherwise miss. Someone with both the capacity to narrowly focus consciousness rationally AND the ability to access their animal nature might have an advantage which would be selected for by evolution.

That is more or less my theory. Do we still need religion for this purpose? Probably not. But could it still serve such an end. Maybe. The real point is that it might have served some positive end which it can still contribute to. Naturally institutional religion often replaces direct apprehension of 'god' with acceptance of doctrine. So that sort of religion is probably of little value. But listening to Bill Moyers, I definitely get the feeling he is getting something positivite from it.

[Angrboda]

There is enough about and within us which is stranger than the conscious mind can adequately explain.  I suspect projecting god out onto the world serves to allow the conscious mind to focus on that which is below consciousness.  The thing is, it is only below in the sense of not being accessible to consciousness .. not in rank.  Some pretty good insight can come from there, insight which you might never find by holding up one factoid at a time for conscious consideration.  Diffusely focussed, the consciousness below can sometimes recognize opportunities and dangers we might otherwise miss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI

[Whateverist]

That is one of my favorite videos.

[The Grand Nudger]

Radical skeptics need to explain to me why they accept the existence of other minds and the existence of a 'real world' that is not a subjective construct.

The first bit is simple, the second bit is nuanced, as there's no reason that a radical skeptic could not accept that the world, as we experience it, is a subjective construct while still maintaining that there is a "real world" to which that construct is referent.  


I accept that there are other minds both because I experience my own, and other creatures who express the behaviors I associate with my own.  I also experience the structure of those creatures with minds and they seem to be capable of possessing that descriptor.  


Similarly, I understand that my construct is manufactured and subjective - and also that it could be nothing other than manufactured and subjective...by reference to the equipment I use to manufacture it..which is adequate, deeply flawed, and localized to my own body.   Nevetherless, that equipment does not, itself, manufacture the inputs.  It is sensory equipment, and there must be something for it to sense.....for the world to be sensible...


I could be wrong about any of that up there (after all, I;m a radical skeptic..lol)...but if I were...then it wouldn't matter (no questions or answers would.....), eh? If I;m a brain in a vat, and there are no others, then I am speaking to myself...and will only yield that which I already know as a result. If there is no "real world" then there is no me, by extension..as part of that "real world". If, on the other hand, there is a "real world" but I have no access to it, again..brain in a vat stuff (except no vat..because there is no real world)....then no comment I may have about the real world applies, I have no access. If both apply, that there are no other minds and no real world (or I have no access)...........then you and I have gone down a road neither of us actually subscribes to, and a road from which no known system of arranging thought can be expected to yield truth - or even a semi-accurate guess.........

(lack of hysteria and recognition of others -whatever- are not requirements for reason, so no...to your question...possessing those two traits would not make one an "essentially reasonable" person. Though I'd wager it's part of what makes someone a fairly run of the mill person..which is good enough for me.)

[Whateverist]

Fair enough. I'm going to go ahead and say they're reasonable enough for me, and in Bill Moyers' case, pretty interesting company too I imagine. They just don't apply skepticism in regard to the 'god' they're projecting onto the world. Would you say a person must apply reason at all times to earn the reasonable moniker? If they can apply it when they think its called for, that pretty much puts them in the same boat with me.

[The Grand Nudger]

100% on board with you there, I'm a rationalizer myself - not rational.   I don't know though, I'd be careful to extend reasonable as an attribute a person can simply -have-, rather than as a tool a person can competently -use-.  But..if we were going that route, I'd say more than "when they think it's called for" - how about we look for a majority of time..lol? After all.....axe murderers employ empathy and compassion when they think it's called for.....