Is Religion an Attempt to Understand the World?

[EgoDeath]

As the man said:

Religion is the general theory of this world

Religion is the general theory of this world. Interesting. Almost like he was saying that religion is a way to try and understand the world. Kudos to your post, sir.

Also, Bel, I look forward to the day when you have the gumption to argue an idea of your own, instead of just deferring to some other person, who wrote some words down a long time ago... that way, you're not arguing with Bel, you're arguing with Karl Marx! Or the GREAT Thomas Aquinas! Or Huckleberry Finn! Or Dr. Suess! But no, not Bel, you're not arguing with Bel, because he expresses no ideas of his own.

Bravo, Bel. Bravo. You really are one predictable fella'. You just couldn't help but take the bait.

[no one]

Wait, I was under the impression that religion was the smile on a dog.

[EgoDeath]

Wait, I was under the impression that religion was the smile on a dog.

If god was real, it would be a doggo. And a good boy, or girl, at that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Religion is just a form of political control.

[Fireball]

My take is that religion is a con. Maybe someone tried to explain something at some point by pointing at a deity, but seriously, the rate of prediction had to have been dismal. Al Posteriori reasoning is always 20/20. I'm reminded of a History Channel episode where ancient machines were discussed. In ancient Egypt, a person could drop a coin into a figurine while asking a question that required a "yes" or "no" answer. Unbeknownst to the poor questioner, a "holy" man was the one who actually caused the device to spin, one direction for "yes", the other for "no". It isn't any different today, just the spin is different.

My real objection to religion (besides there being no deity) is that it gives people a way to check their brains at the door. Willful ignorance then follows, and is supported by the church. That is a crime against humanity.

[Belacqua]

Al Posteriori reasoning is always 20/20.

I wish that this were true!

This is from Wikipedia:

The intuitive distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge (or justification) is best seen via examples, as below:

A priori

Consider the proposition: "If George V reigned at least four days, then he reigned more than three days". This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason alone.

A posteriori

Compare this with the proposition expressed by the sentence: "George V reigned from 1910 to 1936". This is something that (if true) one must come to know a posteriori, because it expresses an empirical fact unknowable by reason alone.

So I think it's clear that there are a huge number of a posteriori arguments which have been false. 

The fact that the sun seems to rise and set, for example, gave support to the a posteriori argument that the sun goes around the earth. 

Such arguments still require solid evidence or logical argument, and we constantly see cases where people draw wrong conclusions. Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, for example. 

Christianity became popular in the Roman Empire, and then the empire fell. Some have made an a posteriori case that the first of these facts caused the second, but it would take a serious look at history truly to come up with 20/20 vision on this.

[ignoramus]

Wait, I was under the impression that religion was the smile on a dog.

Close! But you got the wrong side of the dog!

[no one]

While I am far from an admirer or supporter of the garden variety overly enthusiastic religious chucklefuck, I do feel that religion gets a bit of a raw deal. Now sure, the institution of religion is a thought paralyzing venom ravaging the reason of otherwise knowledgeable persons. The concept of religion though, is veiled in foreboding darkness and suspicion when viewed through modern eyes. As I have previously stated that religion all by itself is neither an innocent or corrupt force. Religion is merely a tool. Those that wield it, can utilize it to exert dominance over the herds.

[Fireball]

Al Posteriori reasoning is always 20/20.

I wish that this were true!

This is from Wikipedia:

The intuitive distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge (or justification) is best seen via examples, as below:

A priori

Consider the proposition: "If George V reigned at least four days, then he reigned more than three days". This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason alone.

A posteriori

Compare this with the proposition expressed by the sentence: "George V reigned from 1910 to 1936". This is something that (if true) one must come to know a posteriori, because it expresses an empirical fact unknowable by reason alone.

So I think it's clear that there are a huge number of a posteriori arguments which have been false. 

The fact that the sun seems to rise and set, for example, gave support to the a posteriori argument that the sun goes around the earth. 

Such arguments still require solid evidence or logical argument, and we constantly see cases where people draw wrong conclusions. Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, for example. 

Christianity became popular in the Roman Empire, and then the empire fell. Some have made an a posteriori case that the first of these facts caused the second, but it would take a serious look at history truly to come up with 20/20 vision on this.

OK, 20/40, Mr Logician. 

[Sal]

Religion, as some have pointed out already, is a substitute for a genuine answer and its search.

The way I see it we simply put a religious answer instead of genuine research in. Maybe because of laziness, maybe because we have a tenacity to apply agenticity to inanimate objects, or just maybe because religion throughout the ages has been used for control and subjugation. I'm not sure what the exact reason is, but I do think that it is a substitution for genuine understanding of the world.