In Defense of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I would certainly agree with you, that in many cases a person holds some irrational religious belief (believers also agree about a great many religious beliefs being irrational), or believes in some religious things for irrational reasons...but, ultimately, their beliefs can be grounded in faith, or upon a non-transferable or verifiable personal experience.  

There's nothing stopping a religious person from acknowledging that they do not derive their beliefs from reason, but by faith.

It's interesting, wondering about it's effectiveness, but I think that for some people their beliefs had the intended effect (this, ofc, could be another pillar of their justification). It would seem to be beyond the realm of plausibility that no religious belief ever had the intended effect just by accident. That it would be impossible.

[Astonished]

That's like saying playing the lottery is a fabulous idea because at least someone is guaranteed to win.

[The Grand Nudger]

As an example...while I don't think that this is representative of all believers...I think we all know that there's at least one crazy in the world, with his finger on the trigger...that doesn;t pull it for no reason other than a terrifying fear of divine retribution.  

If the point of a religion is to improve our character, or simply to keep us from savaging each other..in that persons case..it did so, but probably not for the reasons it would have liked.

I'm not telling you that it would be fabulous for everyone to believe, just because it worked for someone, or because it kept a jealous husband from killing his wife. I'm only suggesting that ruling out either as an impossibility seems to stretch credibility to it;s breaking point.

[Astonished]

If everyone on earth is healthy but one, shouldn't there be some kind of obligation to treat that person's illness? Especially if there's a risk of that person's condition worsening or that they might infect others and start an epidemic? This is the faith virus, it can't be trusted to just be left alone and hoped to be passive and dormant, it has to be vaccinated against 100%. It can't even be compared to sickle cell anemia which at least has the benefit of preventing malaria.

[The Grand Nudger]

If everyone on earth is healthy but one, shouldn't there be some kind of obligation to treat that person's illness?

IMO?  Yeah, lol.  If someone is sick we help them.

Especially if there's a risk of that person's condition worsening or that they might infect others and start an epidemic?

Sure.

This is the faith virus, it can't be trusted to just be left alone and hoped to be passive and dormant, it has to be vaccinated against 100%. It can't even be compared to sickle cell anemia which at least has the benefit of preventing malaria.

Well, I'll use the analogy.  It can certainly be argued that there are deadly strains of this virus.  OTOH, there also seem to be benign ones. It makes little sense to treat someone who has the theological equivalent of a sinus infection as though they had the theological equivalent of ebola.  Particularly if that person with the sinus infection wasn't trying to spread it. We might say, hey..man, you should go see someone about that. Here's some over the counter stuff that worked for me, or that works for others....but more than that?

More hypothetically, isn't it at least conceivable that there might be beneficial strains of a virus or a bacteria? What would be the impetus in treating those? Perhaps a little bit of a benign religion inoculates us against a big case of bad religion?

[Astonished]

If everyone on earth is healthy but one, shouldn't there be some kind of obligation to treat that person's illness?

IMO?  Yeah, lol.  If someone is sick we help them.

Especially if there's a risk of that person's condition worsening or that they might infect others and start an epidemic?

Sure.

This is the faith virus, it can't be trusted to just be left alone and hoped to be passive and dormant, it has to be vaccinated against 100%. It can't even be compared to sickle cell anemia which at least has the benefit of preventing malaria.

Well, I'll use the analogy.  It can certainly be argued that there are deadly strains of this virus.  OTOH, there also seem to be benign ones. It makes little sense to treat someone who has the theological equivalent of a sinus infection as though they had the theological equivalent of ebola.  Particularly if that person with the sinus infection wasn't trying to spread it.  We might say, hey..man, you should go see someone about that.  Here's some over the counter stuff that worked for me, or that works for others....but more than that?

More hypothetically, isn't it at least conceivable that there might be beneficial strains of a virus or a bacteria?  What would be the impetus in treating those?  Perhaps a little bit of a benign religion inoculates us against a big case of bad religion?

Maybe very early on (before it took the form of religion as we know it) in our evolution it was useful but it mutated into something not. And your trigger-happy guy being held back only by a fear of hell is irrelevant as an example. If religion hadn't had such a fucking stranglehold over the damn planet for so long we wouldn't have so much trouble with population, resource management, weapon control, relationship conflicts, mental and other health care, among other things, so what you're saying means nothing. Rather than saying 'the symptom being caused by x will one day lead to one person suffering from x to not behave badly, but the billions of others infected by x will go on to cause untold damage for centuries". I give no goddamn quarter, NONE, to any of this nonsense. Maybe the problem is not enough people feel that strongly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe very early on (before it took the form of religion as we know it) in our evolution it was useful but it mutated into something not. And your trigger-happy guy being held back only by a fear of hell is irrelevant as an example. If religion hadn't had such a fucking stranglehold over the damn planet for so long we wouldn't have so much trouble with population, resource management, weapon control, relationship conflicts, mental and other health care, among other things, so what you're saying means nothing. Rather than saying 'the symptom being caused by x will one day lead to one person suffering from x to not behave badly, but the billions of others infected by x will go on to cause untold damage for centuries". I give no goddamn quarter, NONE, to any of this nonsense. Maybe the problem is not enough people feel that strongly.

Here again, though, you're treating all religion as ebola when at least some religion is the common cold - and that's just taking the dim view.

Allow me to suggest that religious thinking is not a bug, of the human organism, but a feature.  The trick is to get better religions.  Sure, the whole world has come down with the ebola of virulent judeo-christendom...but that's a blip in religious history steadily on the decline.

[Astonished]

Maybe very early on (before it took the form of religion as we know it) in our evolution it was useful but it mutated into something not. And your trigger-happy guy being held back only by a fear of hell is irrelevant as an example. If religion hadn't had such a fucking stranglehold over the damn planet for so long we wouldn't have so much trouble with population, resource management, weapon control, relationship conflicts, mental and other health care, among other things, so what you're saying means nothing. Rather than saying 'the symptom being caused by x will one day lead to one person suffering from x to not behave badly, but the billions of others infected by x will go on to cause untold damage for centuries". I give no goddamn quarter, NONE, to any of this nonsense. Maybe the problem is not enough people feel that strongly.

Here again, though, you're treating all religion as ebola when at least some religion is the common cold - and that's just taking the dim view.

Allow me to suggest that religious thinking is not a bug, of the human organism, but a feature.  The trick is to get better religions.  Sure, the whole world has come down with the ebola of virulent judeo-christendom...but that's a blip in religious history steadily on the decline.

If all religion is rooted in irrationality (by nature, it's inescapable), I can't possibly see how you can defend that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would all religion have to be rooted in irrationality?  Just as an example-not an endorsement;

The beauty, sublimity, and wonder of nature have been justly celebrated in all of the religious traditions of the world, but usually these traditions have focused on beings or powers presumed to lie behind nature, providing nature’s ultimate explanation and meaning. In a radical departure, Donald A. Crosby makes an eloquent case for regarding nature itself as the focus of religion, conceived without God, gods, or animating spirits of any kind, and argues that nature is metaphysically ultimate.

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Nature-D...0791454541

[Astonished]

Why would all religion have to be rooted in irrationality?  Just as an example-not an endorsement;

The beauty, sublimity, and wonder of nature have been justly celebrated in all of the religious traditions of the world, but usually these traditions have focused on beings or powers presumed to lie behind nature, providing nature’s ultimate explanation and meaning. In a radical departure, Donald A. Crosby makes an eloquent case for regarding nature itself as the focus of religion, conceived without God, gods, or animating spirits of any kind, and argues that nature is metaphysically ultimate.

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Nature-D...0791454541

Then calling it a religion seems extraneous (I'm not reading the article, only the description). Doing anything other than moving completely away from that just isn't helping the damn problem, is my point.