The real religion?

[bennyboy]

How can you say that none are better off? By what standard? Isn't a changed life consisting of the fruits of the spirit, a relationship with God and eternal life 'better off'?

Being a delusional fuckwit makes you "better off?"

No thanks. You have swallowed way too much Kool-Aid.

I quote you, but a few more answered in kind. I may misunderstand the thread or your argument, since I'm coming into it so late, so apologies if I misread.

I think it's pretty clear that some people are better off with new religious beliefs than with their old beliefs.  One of the advantages of an implausible world view is that it demands a suspension of disbelief, a kind of "pouring out" of the old world view.  Religions are at least at good at achieving this as other world views.

One specific example I can think of is disenfranchised criminals who "find Jesus," start to adopt new attitudes and behaviors, and join a community of overall pretty decent human beings who can help support them in getting work, avoiding bad social influences, etc.

Could this be achieved by a secular world view, group?  Maybe.  But I think Christians are particularly well-suited to make this kind of change in people's lives.

[bennyboy]

Also, let me play devil's advocate here, and enter with a single word: qualia.


Literally EVERYTHING we know about the universe, absolutely 100%, is known through the mind. So to speculate that whatever is at the most elemental or primal point of the universe is at least partly concsious shouldn't really seem like a crazy or exceptional argument. Yeah, maybe that's a kind of implied god of the gaps argument-- but the existence of subjective experience is a pretty huge (all-encompassing, really) gap.

The current physicalist position is that there was stuff. Then stuff organized and interacted with itself, and then. . . I can see red light as the subjective experience of "redness." That's, logically speaking, a lot more magical to me than the idea that mind is intrinsic to the Universe, and maybe to whatever created it, if it even ever was created.

[robvalue]

So it seems to me that what you're saying Steve, is that Christians think they are better off, in some way. And I'm sure you'd have to concede that Muslims also think they are better off also. Same for every religion. What you suggest is not unique to Christianity. This is my point. Everyone thinks they are the winners, but from an unbiased perspective, there is nothing to show for it. I see God favouring no one. You'd think I'd be able to see that for myself, no?

They can't all actually be better off, unless all the religions are true. So how does this work? Isn't this just evidence of confirmation bias? If you can't show me how they are better off in ways that aren't just them interpreting events a certain way, then my point stands, I feel.

And also, it needs to explainable by something other than social/psychological benefits of being part of a religion, and believing it is true. For example, the placebo effect only works when someone believes what they are doing is real. And the "born again" stuff is similarly easily explained. If people find hope, or something to believe in, it can change their attitude. This applies to anything, true or not. It's not unique to Christianity. This is not evidence of God actually doing anything to reward its followers.

[SteveII]

So it seems to me that what you're saying Steve, is that Christians think they are better off, in some way. And I'm sure you'd have to concede that Muslims also think they are better off also. Same for every religion. What you suggest is not unique to Christianity. This is my point. Everyone thinks they are the winners, but from an unbiased perspective, there is nothing to show for it. I see God favouring no one. You'd think I'd be able to see that for myself, no?

Just think? Why not objectively better off? Psychologically and sociologically well-being is important--actually the most important measure of a person's "better off-ness". 

Islam is not comparable to Christianity in this way. Islam is significantly more about following rules and formulas and not about a "changed person" as a result of salvation and a relationship with God. The god of Islam is not about grace, love, forgiveness, compassion and relationships with people. 

They can't all actually be better off, unless all the religions are true. So how does this work? Isn't this just evidence of confirmation bias? If you can't show me how they are better off in ways that aren't just them interpreting events a certain way, then my point stands, I feel.

In addition to my points above, I think Christianity has superior life-changing attributes over other religions. But even if other religions had similar effects on its converts, that does not make them all right or all wrong. You would have to examine the truth claims of each. 

And also, it needs to explainable by something other than social/psychological benefits of being part of a religion, and believing it is true. For example, the placebo effect only works when someone believes what they are doing is real. And the "born again" stuff is similarly easily explained. If people find hope, or something to believe in, it can change their attitude. This applies to anything, true or not. It's not unique to Christianity. This is not evidence of God actually doing anything to reward its followers.

Why does an advantage have to be explained by 'something other than social/psychological benefits'? Why isn't a person's experience with and relationship with God real evidence of God's grace and compassion (something he is doing for his followers)--especially when the experiment has been done billions of times? Someone who has not experienced this can not judge it and especially cannot claim that it is not God's reward to his followers. 

For your point to be true, you would have to be able to develop the same effect in a person without religion. How does one get a person's nature to change from whatever state they were in before to one of "...love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" as well as hope? If you can't generate that change with regularity with something non-religious, then how can you really determine whether it is real or not? If you cannot determine whether it is real, you cannot make the claim that God is not working in the lives of his followers.

[robvalue]

I don't even know how to reply to any of that. But thanks for trying.

[SteveII]

I don't even know how to reply to any of that. But thanks for trying.

Wow. Really wish I had that time back. That will teach me...

[brewer]

A delusional belief that makes a person feel better about them selves. Any that don't believe the same are, some how, in some way, less.

[robvalue]

I don't even know how to reply to any of that. But thanks for trying.

Wow. Really wish I had that time back. That will teach me...

Huh, what? I owe you a detailed reply to every post do I?

I was trying to be polite.

[SteveII]

A delusional belief that makes a person feel better about them selves. Any that don't believe the same are, some how, in some way, less.

Three things. 1) it is only your opinion that it is delusional; 2) it is not about making themselves feel better, it is about actual change; and 3) because we can easily compare the effect different religion has on actually changing a person and their new outlook on life (manifested in how they live), we can assign 'more' and 'less' values to each one. Good point on that last one.

[SteveII]

Wow. Really wish I had that time back. That will teach me...

Huh, what? I owe you a detailed reply to every post do I?

I was trying to be polite.

Sometime I forget to discern the difference between wanting to discuss something and wanting to make a point so one feels good about one's belief.