Why religion is the worst thing that ever happened to humanity

[Gary]

Carlos wrote: "Gary, I am not misunderstanding you. I am saying that tribalism is a very basic and immutable element of humanity and therefore a precondition of organised religion. And if one were able to magically remove religion, the tribal instinct would just find other avenues of self definition.
In other words, you are attempting to treat the disease by attacking one of the symptoms."

Which is the assumption I disagree with because of evidence and logic.

First I am saying that tribalism is not the disease, tribalism is just a label for the negative side of communities. If humanity did not have the urge to band together in common cause we would not form the strong communities that we do. The problem is that this advantage has its dark side which you refer to as tribalism.

The causes of unreasonable tribalism are many and manifest. People can and have done wonderful things thanks to pride in their nation and a commitment to their fellow countrymen, but they have also done horrific things.

Carlos wrote: "The story of the 20th century is of secularisation: most of the major wars did not use religion as a pretext but rather nationalism. Of course nationalism is sometimes given mystical dressing, like Nazi Germany or the US with its God-given Manifest Destiny, but that should not be considered religion. "

Again you are being absolutism, claiming that because Nationalism was a feature of the wars that made them entirely secular and free from religious pretext. That is of course absurd since much of the Twentieth centuries wars were fought by people with overwhelmingly a predilection for religious faith. Religious faith has a lot to say about war and killing, so to imagine that this had no influence on their mind view is essentially calling the majority of the worlds population liars for the better part of a hundred years.

The religious convictions for war were indeed used by leaders - whether they were motivated by the leaders individual piety, their cynical manipulation of their people or (as is more likely) a combination of the two, it was still there. From the call of nationalism that wedded it with manifest destiny (whether you are talking about for "God, King and Country" of some nations, "Got mit Uns", the cult of religious fanaticism around various leaders or the strange counter-religion of extreme communism).

In fact one of the base levers that was used by right wing fascists in the 20th century to come to power was the grasping of millennia old sectarian conflict against specific religious differences. You do not really think the Jews were first targeted for persecution out of the blue in 1930s Germany? Hatred and massacres of the Jewish population are a regular feature of medieval history. Made worse by the principle religious difference that for much of the previous millennia Christianity and Islam both taught charging interest on loans was the sin of usury and therefore forbidden. So Kings and despots requiring loans to invest in their country (or wars) often resorted to Jewish lenders who were quite willing to loan them money for interest. Which was also why many of those leaders later on turned a blind eye to the persecution of their lenders. The Holocaust was ultimately the horrific result of a thousand years of hatred and resentment built up principally because of moral differences brought about by differing religious convictions.

Just like the right wing of Europe and the US are currently happily tapping the deep seated hatreds and resentments that have built up on both sides since the crusades.

Carlos wrote: "n case you didn't understand: tribalism does not come from the communities humans form, it is the impetus for the forming of communities. "

In case you don't understand, that is exactly what I have been saying. However, I have also been saying that your concept of tribalism concentrates on the negative aspects and ignores the very things that form those communities - common purpose. One of the easiest ways to define common purpose is to have it contrasted to an alien purpose. The "unified by a common enemy" effect.

Carlos wrote: "And I think, if you went through the wars of the 20th century, you would find most wars of nationalism rather than religion.
Yes, you can consider nationalism a religion of sorts (which, actually, I do) but that, for the purposes of this debate, renders the definition meaningless and you may as well be arguing that, if tribalism were eliminated, war would vastly decrease."

No. You are arguing that point because you cannot seem to understand that religious, political, racial and economic differences feed into tribalism.

Let us take one of the other forms of division in tribalism and compare that. Racism. From what you are saying there is no point in combating racism because racism is just part of tribalism. If you manage to eliminate racism from a population, then the hatred of tribalism will just find a different root.

What about economics? You cited greed earlier as a motivation for war, but your defence of religion assumes that if you fight greed - perhaps by providing trade or wealth to a poorer population then hatred will just find a different way.

What about nationalism? What you are saying there is that if we somehow eliminated the idea of nations and different cultures then people would merely find something else to fight over.

It is a very nihilistic view of human nature you have, not only that but one that is not supported at all by evidence. There is a clear correlation between combating racism and encouraging a metropolitan attitude to community that has shown to reduce conflict and war. (Look at Baghdad when it was the centre of trade and learning of the world). Populations with racist apartheid either legislated or circumstantial show higher levels of violence. Populations with large disparity in wealth and high poverty all show more violence.

So all these causes that feed into violence and conflict can be addressed and attempts can be made to reduce and resolve them. Why then is it just religious differences that get the blank pass? Why do we look at the rest and try to stop people killing each other over poverty, racism and nationalism and then shrug our shoulders at religion and say "oh well if they wasn't killing each other over that, they'd find another excuse?"

[Akash]

Carlos wrote: "In case you didn't understand: tribalism does not come from the communities humans form, it is the impetus for the forming of communities.
And I think, if you went through the wars of the 20th cen..."

It sort of dawned upon me just now that what you are saying actually has a lot of evidence to support that. Biologists agree that people have evolved to accept religion. But what molds that feeling into something more definite is a bunch of "religious" leaders, who declare that this is only because of so and so god.

What actually it means is that everybody needs a father figure to turn to. As a community, it made sense earlier to gather people under the banner of a common, localized god.

But as we have moved into the era of globalization, it no longer seems viable to have multiple religions or beliefs. Someone is bound to take offense or just get pissed off due to serious philosophical conflict at her individual level.

I personally believe that preaching science, rather than outright tolerance, can be the only way out of this conundrum. Because then, people don't have the urge to ask silly questions or the confidence to cash in on the ignorance of the masses.

[Gary]

Akash wrote: "I personally believe that preaching science, rather than outright tolerance, can be the only way out of this conundrum. Because then, people don't have the urge to ask silly questions or the confidence to cash in on the ignorance of the masses. "

Actually Akash I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. Indeed religion has a lot to do with several evolved traits, that is the impetus to form a community which carries the advantages of common purpose and strength in numbers while also having the burden of tribalism; and the advantage of a theory of mind that allows us to not only understand each others motivations but keeps us alert to the motivations of things that may want to attack or eat us, however also carries the burden of anthropomorphism, the tendency to see a human like mind in every entity.

This is why I disagree that without religion violence wouldn't be effected because it is easily demonstrable that religion has evolved to parasitise on the functions of tribalism and anthropomorphism. Which is why when it's authority is opposed by a more rational authority, be it democracy or science, the intrinsic violence lessens as differences become subject to rational change and compromise.

I also agree in a way that science is an important way out of this, but I would say "teaching" rather than "preaching" for a very good point.

People often think of science as just the body of knowledge we think of as scientific, and then fall into the trap of "Non-overlapping magisteria" which is one of the most flawed concepts I have ever heard.

The thing is science is not lasers, equations, lab coats or test tubes. Science is the methodology, not the knowledge or the trappings. This methodology is ultimately quite simple. To accept things only after suitable critique and independent confirmation. This methodology is applicable in all walks of life and what it does is strive to remove human ego as an obstacle to real understanding.

Politics and economics should be treated like this too, but often are not. Simple convictions about the magical efficacy of one ideology over another is rarely subject to revision except by ideological enemies. However, it is not inconceivable that a more advanced culture than anything that currently resides on Earth could approach politics and economics rationally instead of ideologically.

In a similar manner religion claims to be as rational and logical as any science, as long as you accept without question certain assumptions and paradigms. You will find people all over this site passionately arguing for their religious point of view using both perception and logic. The general problem is rarely with their intelligence or perception, but with the unwillingness to question deeply held convictions that is the cornerstone of faith.

[Rich]

The ritual sacrifice of animals, while it may seem a ridiculous gesture, is probably no more cruel than killing them for food, maybe even less

It is more cruel in a philosophical sense. Consider H.G. Wells' Invaders from Mars coming here to harvest humans for food, being forced by famine on their own planet.

Isn't that less painful than their telling us, when asked why?, "because we could" or something ridiculous like, "We need to palliate our sun god."

[Gary]

Actually ritual sacrifice is a lot more cruel than killing animals for food because it is not considering the totality of the cruelty.

Killing animals for a ritual sacrifice (unless magic or gods become proven entities that require such cruelty for a greater good) then the sacrifice is merely killing for the false comfort of the person doing the sacrifice.

Killing for food needs to take into account the cruelty of what happens if the killing does not happen. It is a fact of animal biology that we need to kill to eat. As of the twenty-first century we still have no choice about that. So killing for food rather than ritual is not as cruel for the simple fact that failing to kill for food will ultimately mean the death of the animal. So one animal or the other must die.

Now some people draw the line that cruelty can only be considered in the treatment of animals because they have a recognisable system of nerves and brains that we can appreciate can experience suffering. Some think that fish or even birds are insufficiently developed to be able to experience suffering and only mammals can, while others believe that only plants do not suffer.

Of course all this is meaningless conjecture, what we are really saying is that those particular life forms are sufficiently close to ourselves to allow us to feel empathy for them. We have no idea of the experience of being a fish, or a prawn, or a mushroom or a carrot. Yet all of them will die to feed an animal. The line we draw between vegan/vegetarian/carnivore is mostly arbitrary.

[Rich]

It is a fact of animal biology that we need to kill to eat. As of the twenty-first century we still have no choice about that.

I don't agree with this. Saprophytes don't kill the source of their food. In fact, they help their prey species by decomposing the victim lessening the chance of disease.

We, humans, don't have to kill fellow mammals but could select species that nature evolved to be eaten, apples for instance. We're not eating the apple tree, just the endosperm which was meant to be consumed by the seeds.

Don't forget that our immediate primate ancestors were frugavores, fruit and berry eaters. They survived tens of millions of years without eating animal flesh. It's only when they were force by climate conditions out of the trees that the trouble started.

Let's get back to the case in point. Do you condone Michael Vick dog fighting for gambling purposes? I conjecture the Bible didn't define cruelty to animals as "abomination" as a remote cause.

[Gary]

Rich wrote: " I don't agree with this. Saprophytes don't kill the source of their...I don't agree with this. Saprophytes don't kill the source of their food. In fact, they help their prey species by decomposing the victim lessening the chance of disease."

Except that we - like most animals - are not Saprophytes. Most are actually fungi or plants. When it comes down to it plants have the cleanest slate on food as they can to a greater or lesser extent survive without the death of other life forms.

Rich wrote: "We, humans, don't have to kill fellow mammals but could select species that nature evolved to be eaten, apples for instance. We're not eating the apple tree, just the endosperm which was meant to be consumed by the seeds."

Which evolved because of the predation of animals, just like the evolutionary adaptation of a rabbits prolific gestations or a sheep's tendency to form large herds for defence. Nature evolved us to eat other lifeforms, be they plants or animals. Again any choice is arbitrary. Even an apple is made up of living plant cells which arguably could still strive to survive as much as any mammal if they were not being preyed on by animals.

Rich wrote: "Don't forget that our immediate primate ancestors were frugavores, fruit and berry eaters. They survived tens of millions of years without eating animal flesh. It's only when they were force by climate conditions out of the trees that the trouble started. "

What you define as "trouble" could also be defined as the turning point of human evolution, when the omnivorous hominid species flourished and the purely vegetarian species died out.

Again though this still doesn't answer the point raised about why it is unethical to eat animals that we have evolved to prey upon, but it is okay to prey on the plants apart from the rather self-centred idea that some animals are sufficiently like us to show empathy toward them.

Rich wrote: "Let's get back to the case in point. Do you condone Michael Vick dog fighting for gambling purposes? I conjecture the Bible didn't define cruelty to animals as "abomination" as a remote cause.

No I do not condone such cruelty for entertainment, I do not even condone unnecessary cruelty in farming or animal husbandry. I think though that the simplistic vegetarian argument is a poor substitute to a more nuanced form of respect for the food chain and our place in it.

The Bible's consideration for animals is certainly as callous as it's consideration for humans.

[Carlos]

It is true that pretty much all animals kill and eat other animals. When Einstein, a vegetarian, was confronted with this, his reply was that if an animal has the mental capability to eat without killing other animals, then he has the moral responsibility to do so.
This of course makes the distinction between animals and plants, and it is a valid one. Pain is a constant in all life; it can't really be used as the sole standard, as in the 'plants feel pain' argument. It is death we are talking about, and the death of a plant is far less consequential than the death of a thinking animal.
Vegans and fruitarians take it to the furthest level, not even killing a plant (I've always thought this about non-fertile eggs as well). But through it all the judgment is one of degree; it cannot be absolute.
For me, the greatest offense is dictated by our systems of living: factory farmed everything, animals kept lifelong in tiny cages, fed steroids and antibiotics, treated like plants - if a plant was "treated like a plant" there would be no problem, which illustrates the obvious difference.
If each of us were involved in the killing and slaughter I would have far less objection. But that's a fantasy, so it's more practical just to not eat meat and spare the torture and disassociation with life.

[Gary]

All animals kill and eat other life, not necessarily other animals. (Though it is a vanishingly small subset of animals that subsist only on plants or fungi thanks to the way that digestive systems work.)

Carlos wrote: "This of course makes the distinction between animals and plants, and it is a valid one. Pain is a constant in all life; it can't really be used as the sole standard, as in the 'plants feel pain' argument."

Exactly, so what distinction are you making? Plants have been demonstrated to show reactions to a variety of forms of duress, yet ultimately we cannot really say what it is to "be" a plant. We cannot say anything about the experience of being a plant, all we can say is that animals like us can demonstrate emotional reactions like us and pain like us. However, this still means that we are not making an absolute moral argument, but merely an arbitrary decision that because that lifeform is similar enough to us for us to feel like we do, we then accept its feeling as more 'valid'.


Carlos wrote: "It is death we are talking about, and the death of a plant is far less consequential than the death of a thinking animal. "

This is exactly what I am talking about. You have placed a value on the life of an animal and that of a plant and determined that one is much higher than the other. Based on what? Your ability to understand the experience of being an animal because you are one yourself? Your decision that pain experienced with an animal-like neural structure and a neurons are more valid than any sort of sensation that a being that lacks those specific systems feels?

Add into that a few more moral questions. If you could entirely eliminate suffering and pain from an animal, would their death then be reduced to the same as the death as a plant because suffering has become moot, or are plants simply inferior lifeforms and if they are what criteria, apart from similarity to yourself, do you apply to that judgement call.

Where do you apply this line anyway? The majority of all animals are actually microscopic, often covering our plant based foodstuffs, and even intimately involved in our gut biota to digest plants. Should all plants be carefully (and without killing) cleansed of animal based microorganisms? Or does our moral obligation only extend to animals over a specific size, or complexity? What about animals like an aquatic sponge that has no centralised nervous system. Is that morally worthy prey, or immoral? What about other more complex invertebrates that may lack our style of nervous system? What about fish?

Is this really a simple manifestation of the anthropomorphic tendency to project a human like community onto non-human lifeforms that becomes easier to justify the further that life diverts from a two-eyed, backboned mammal?

The thing is, I have no problem with a person who has this reaction. It is part of human nature to include non-human lifeforms into our sense of community. However, to then impose ones own prejudices on others based on some sort of moral judgement needs to have pretty clear definitions or otherwise all you are doing is failing to use moral judgement and are just using self-centred value judgements based on clear prejudice.

I would thus reply to Einstein that he has failed to present the ethical reasoning to make that moral distinction between the death of a plant (or its constituent cells) over that of an animal.

Also, one of the great ethical failures of the world in the past has been the condoning of violence. So let us assume that you can present the case that non-animal life (plants, fungi, Archaea etc.) are fundamentally less valuable than animal life (a conveniently self-serving argument but let us assume that there is undeniable evidence), then surely an animal that has the awareness to eat without killing other animals also has thus the moral imperative to protect prey animals from other animals not equipped with our ethical reasoning. After all, would you not consider a person who saw a defenceless human child about to be ravaged by wild dogs and failed to act morally repugnant? Therefore, if the argument for ethical vegetarianism holds then we are compelled to also defend all prey animals from predators that lack our gift of ethical intellect. Of course that is rather hard to do without either harming or starving said predators.

Carlos wrote: "For me, the greatest offense is dictated by our systems of living: factory farmed everything, animals kept lifelong in tiny cages, fed steroids and antibiotics, treated like plants - if a plant was "treated like a plant" there would be no problem, which illustrates the obvious difference. "

Again this "obvious" difference is only obvious if you make certain pre-assumptions. First that animals are fundamentally different from plants - from their own point of view.

I do agree to an extent about your condemnation of specific farm practices, but vegetarianism is an entirely illogical response to this dilemma. For a start, instead of focussing on the problems with the farming methodology, you merely apply that methodology to a different set of organisms. This all seems fine until you realise that quite often this form of farming is just as unnatural to the plants as it is the animals as those plants are placed into artificially homogeneous environments that lack the ecological diversity that the plants evolved to thrive in, and are subjected to similar indignities with chemicals and eventual slaughter. Not only that but the engineering of the environment for the benefit of farming and harvest often has wide ranging deleterious effects, not just on the environment, but of animals too!

The second illogical aspect of course is that by eschewing all meat based on certain practices applied to some, you are removing yourself as a moral force for change in those circumstances. A meat eating customer who specifically chooses to source their food from ethical farming has a positive effect on that farming. A customer that turns from both the ethical and the unethical farming technique has effectively removed themselves from the discussion entirely.



Carlos wrote: "If each of us were involved in the killing and slaughter I would have far less objection. But that's a fantasy, so it's more practical just to not eat meat and spare the torture and disassociation with life. "

Yet it does nothing of the kind except to give you personal peace of mind based on your conviction that certain types of life are intrinsically worth less than others and that this self-centred prejudice makes you morally superior to others.

Now I completely support your decision not to eat meat because of your own tastes, or even if you simply find the thought distasteful. (Indeed I find myself irritated by a few meat eaters who will happily eat meat unless it looks like the animal it came from). However, I have not yet heard a single consistent moral argument for vegetarianism specifically that justifies presenting vegetarianism as ethically superior. (And that is without also addressing the legacy of human agricultural engineering and the fundamental effects on animals and plants it has had.)

There are certainly ethical points to be made about food, human agriculture and the nature of and avoidance of undue suffering. However, vegetarianism is not the universal solution that some suggest unless your intention is to placate ones own displaced sense of anthropomorphic identity.

The other problem I have with many "ethical" vegetarians is that they often also apply their moralising to modern agricultural technologies that not only have the chance to significantly reduce human impact on the environment, but also to do so while providing for those humans who are not as privileged as they are to be able to be so finicky about their diet.

[Stephie]

Gary wrote: "Carlos wrote: "Do you really think that Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland were killing each other over religious differences?"

Absolutely.

There is a common defence deployed by the re..."

I would agree that there being other causes for wars or violence besides religion, does not absolve religion of its part. I think that humans are complex animals, and usualy do not act by just one motive. Teasing these apart can be as difficult as determing how much genetics or the environment act on human (or any living thing) traits.

[Stephie]

Rich wrote: "Good post. I certainly agree. There's a lot of work out there on DNA related religion. Meme driven genes where religious belief helped the individual survive. That's one reason religious people see..."

I am not convinced by any DNA or meme research on religion per se. Certainly genetics affects how the mind works, as well as the environment, but to claim that there are actually genes for religious belief is a stretch.

Our minds seem able to understand cause and effect and other mnd. Together these can partially account for why religious beliefs develops in the right environment. For more on this see Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief

As for there being religious memes, I have even less belief. The whole meme idea is muddled. As far as I know nobody has actually workout how memes are like genes other than in a metaphorical sense. As a methapor they can be informative. But, I maintain that memes are not an exact analog to genes. The best discussion on memes I have encountered is William Aungar's The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think But, he admits much more brain research needs to be done to actually prove the meme thesis.

For an example of a muddle claim of there being a religious virus based on meme theory see Craig A.James' The Religion Virus: Why We Believe in God: An Evolutionist Explains Religion's Incredible Hold on Humanity, and my review of it.

[Stephie]

Carlos wrote: "Gary:
“…concept of "spirituality" to actually be a hang over from 19th-20th century physics.“
That’s taking a very specific view of the term and certainly not what I meant. Spirituality is just a s..."

I don't care for the word spirituality. It smacks to much as a belief in god, so I gave up trying to make it mean something for me. To define it as a sense of connection does not seem to be very helpful, I do perfectly well talking about my connections with other people and the world without using the term spirituality.

At one time when I became an atheist once more (my original position in life), I tried to hang on to some form of spirituality. I used to define the spiritual as a search for order. This seems similar to what Einstein understood it as, although I was not aware of his statements at the time I made up this definition. Once I realized that I did not need even this, I gave it up. If others care to use spirituality in the sense of connection, that, I feel, is up to them.

As an aside, I think Sam Harris has gone somewhat woo woo with his scientific search for the spiritual. I admit I have not read his most recent book on this, and I probably won't. My understanding of his ideas on spirituality comes from the last chapter of his The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. While this was not the only issue I had with his book, I found it not very illuminating.

Study meditation all you want, but I do not think you would find or prove that it has anything to do with the spiritual. I would say the same thing about a scientific search for the soul. Maybe in the future when neuroscience will be able to say what is happening in the brain when we think about the soul, will not prove there is such a thing. I am perfectly happy to not to have one.

I have to admit to some embrassment to have fallen for belief in god, but at the time I was just entering into sobriety, so my emotions were ripe to take on such a belief.

[Gary]

Nicely written Steven. I for one cannot fault you on any point in #62. As for #61 I think that the term 'meme' is easily misinterpreted as is the concepts of genetic disposition to belief spirituality.

I am fairly convinced by the concept of the meme concept of religion, but it is not a 'thing' in itself, it is just a label attached to a certain kind of process. Arising from complexity theory and complicity it is effective to apply the principles of evolution and to see the way religion can act metaphorically as a virus, down to analogues with horizontal gene transfer as well as adaptation.

However, it is important to remember like many things this is a metaphor. Many things in science are understood by metaphors - like the 'solar system' model of the atom - it is just important to remember that a model is a representation not a truism.

The map is not the territory.

Another effective metaphor for religion arises from the fact that many components of religious faith arise from necessities or even advantages of people. 'A theory of Mind', community bonding, altruism and anthropomorphism all are adaptations that advantage humanity as a whole to have proliferated as they have. Just as advantages like the ability to repair DNA, to accelerate cell multiplication and growth to heal injuries, to switch metabolic functions etc. etc. are necessities or advantages in mammals, but when those same functions mutate and go far beyond the function they originally performed, it starts to rapidly spread in a manner far more destructive than any of its component entities. A process identified as cancer in biology.

So I see your reasoning in #61, but I feel that maybe you would agree with many of the principles of the original religion as a meme model, just not the subsequent popularisation and reification of the idea.

[Stephie]

Thanks Gary for your kind remarks. As I have not been feeling well as of late, it was nice to read. It gave me the energy necessary for this reply (barely).

I have no problem with using the virus complex of metaphors for the spread of religion. Metaphors can be very helpful in understanding things, especially when there may be no straight line from one thing to another.

Many aspects of religion can certainly be seen as a sickness, either the way it makes a society sick or an individual's mind. Religion certainly spreads from one person to another, so again a virus metaphor is functional.

As for memes, I would rather do withut them. I cannot seem to effectively think about cultural phenomena with them. To me it is a meddled theory. I don't believe Richard Dawkins meant it as anything more than a very crude metaphor for as far as I know he has never expanded it. It has done nowhere near the work that his selfish gene metaphor has done; It maybe one of the greatest of metahors used in science.

[Gary]

Thank you :)

One important thing that must be remembered in any metaphor, hypothesis or model is the simple concept;

"The Map is not the Territory"

Whatever metaphor we use, be it the meme comparison of religion, or the solar system model of the atom, or the collapse of the wave function; we always need to remember that the comparison is an aid to understanding and as much as the metaphor helps we also need to understand in what ways it is flawed.

In particular with the extreme complexities of the complicit arrangement of individual psychology, group behavioural science, cultural context and even base physiology any model we apply is a massive over-simplification. That does not mean it cannot illuminate us, but you do have to be careful about the conclusions we draw.

[Stephie]

A map is just a tool. It is use for a particular purpose, so it only includes or should just include the information necessary for that purpose. One can even make maps of imaginary places.

Another quote that goes with the map one is "The word is not the thing." So, to use any word, not just a metaphor, needs to be handled with care. Many misunderstandings comes down to people's different use of a word or whole concepts.

One area where conflicts arise is in discussing beliefs. I usually use belief in the epistemologcial sense, but this is not always appropriate. I was once in a dsicussion of belief, when one person used it in a psychological sense - somethings that is of core value. I found that this understanding profitable.

Another person in this discussion could not understand that this was a valid use, and insisted that to have a belief is to hold that it is true. He was offended when others had beliefs about him that were not true. I tried to point out that a belief does not have to be true, but he just continued in his own idea of belief, ultimately not being able to understand two other senses of belief, both of which could have been profitable for his understanding.

Another sense of belief that often brings difficulties to a discussion is the use of belief to mean faith, which does not need evidence, where as epistemologically that is found to be an essential ingredient. I think this is the more common understanding among phiilosphers, but not all, I think, would agree. And, when it comes to what counts as evidene the monkeys can really start coming out of the barrel.

[Gary]

Steven wrote: "A map is just a tool."

Indeed and understanding the limits of said map can be as important as understanding what it says. Otherwise you spend a lot of time looking for these strange coloured lines on white ground when you try to drive from place to place :)

Steven wrote: "Another quote that goes with the map one is "The word is not the thing." So, to use any word, not just a metaphor, needs to be handled with care. Many misunderstandings comes down to people's different use of a word or whole concepts. "

Absolutely. This is exactly why scientists use terminology, and often why science is misunderstood by laypersons. Like the use of the word "Theory" which has helped creationists delude the public immensely.

It is also words that carry general assumptions along with them based on our cultural bias. Cold is one, because we experience the "flow of cold" as a thing rather than heat flowing away from us. Misunderstanding that can lead to erroneous concepts. Just like the word "atheist" is used as meaning denying our cultures dominant concept of 'god' rather than indicating a lack of belief in any god or gods. There are even those that proudly reject atheists by claiming "it is impossible to even discuss the existence of god without defining him" and term themselves 'itheist' instead. This of course is based on the same mistaken concepts that there is only one type of god possible and atheists specifically reject that god.

Steven wrote: "One area where conflicts arise is in discussing beliefs. I usually use belief in the epistemologcial sense, but this is not always appropriate. I was once in a dsicussion of belief, when one person used it in a psychological sense - somethings that is of core value. I found that this understanding profitable."

I also try to avoid the word 'belief' as it is almost always misinterpreted.

Take for example the sentence;

"I believe Sally has gone to the shops"

Now in my use of the word belief, I am saying I know a person that I call 'Sally' and the best information I have is that they have gone to the shops. This does not mean I will deny evidence if someone shows me the shops are closed and empty. It does not mean that I will have a major crisis of faith if it turns out that 'Sally' is a pseudonym.

Unfortunately, when talking to religious people they will immediately equate any 'belief' to being as valid a statement about reality as their own faith. Hence the common attacks on rationality by claiming that the acceptance of science is "just another belief" and is therefore as valid as any religious dogma they place faith in.


Steven wrote: "Another person in this discussion could not understand that this was a valid use, and insisted that to have a belief is to hold that it is true."

Exactly. I think the problem here though is that many people - especially the religious - are by their nature absolutists. They ascribe absolute belief to everything, which is in keeping with the authoritarian nature of monotheistic religion. Doubt is seen as evil while faith is a virtue.

They are also the type of people who will judge others quickly and be slow to accept they might be wrong. Principally because they lack the self-awareness to separate suspicion from fact, because to be unsure is to doubt and having doubt is faithlessness.

This is why these people often jump gleefully upon any scientific revelation that shows that "science was wrong", forgetting that what has actually happened is not that science has got less correct, but scientific knowledge has actually got more correct. After all religious dogma is static and any time people accept that some of it is inaccurate that lessens the whole. So the religious who treat science as a rival religion see the progression of science ironically as its unravelling.

Worth noting as well that the point of view of science is humility because a scientist must accept that there are things that they do not yet know. Whereas religion always has an answer even if that answer is couched in occult terms which explains lack of knowledge. How many times have we seen web pages and blogs proclaiming "Things that Science cannot explain!" when really they should say "Things that science has not yet explained. Again the static nature of religious belief tends to assume that knowledge cannot grow.

Steven wrote: "Another sense of belief that often brings difficulties to a discussion is the use of belief to mean faith, which does not need evidence, where as epistemologically that is found to be an essential ingredient. "

Faith is a lie. Ultimately, faith is derived from evidence and reason just like science, the only difference is the rigour to which that evidence is subjected and often the shaky application of logic. After all religious evidence is derived through authority, and the logic is heavily based on our subjective 'common sense'. Once established though the dogma has been honed for millennia to be self-protecting, and is indeed as can be seen quite effective.

Ultimately though faith is abandoned as soon as confirmation bias can be employed. Belief in the story of the flood and Noah's ark are a matter of faith - until someone finds something old, wooden and ark-like on a mountain and then the faithful quickly abandon their faith to proclaim this as 'evidence'. People look out into the universe and see patterns and use the logic that since we build complex things in patterns then only something with a mind like us could create complex patterns.

Of course as soon as the "evidence" is challenged sufficiently strongly the faithful then scurry back to the very faith that they snuck out from under in the first place,

[Stephie]

Gary wrote: "Actually ritual sacrifice is a lot more cruel than killing animals for food because it is not considering the totality of the cruelty.

Killing animals for a ritual sacrifice (unless magic or gods ..."

There are animals sacrificed which are eaten, supplying needed protein some sacrificial religious communities. I read recently that in some of these communities it is the only source of animal protein. I do not know, however, if this is true. I would think that the milk of their animals would be consumed.

In the sacrificial system of the Jews, if accurately describe in the Bible, there were some sacrifices that were eaten by the priests. I do not remember if it applied to all sacrifices.

Anyway, it could be moot, that the eating sacrificial animals took place because to some people the killing of animals for whatever reason is wrong.

In the Spring I was attending a presentation on gardening for food, where the presenter made the comment that most vegans are not aware that organic farming often uses animal derived fertilizers. This would probably be verboten I suspect.

[Roman]

Hello Rich, et al. I suggest reading this research paper. It is about how no one but royalty was allowed to write in ancient times. That means that royals were writing all that was being written; including religious texts!

The True Context Of Ancient History & The Gordian Emperors
http://pisoproject.wordpress.com/the-...