Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Credit where credit is due...

  • 27-02-2009 9:31am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭


    Religion, it really is an amazing racket.

    You pray for something and you get it. God gave it to you, your prayer has been answered.

    You pray for something and you don’t get it. Well, your prayer has been answered, just not the way you want. God has a reason for this though. Be happy with that.

    You are having a crisis of faith? Pray harder, this is god testing you to make sure you are worthy.

    Something simply does not make sense? You aren’t supposed to understand, god works in mysterious ways / we are too puny to understand god / do not question your creator.

    You have doubts and you question god? STOP!!! That is a sin and offends him.

    There is no evidence for god? Well, there isn’t supposed to be. If there was then you would not need faith, and without faith life is meaningless. So it is for your own good there is no evidence.

    It goes on and on. It really is the most incredible self confirming, unquestionable, untestable, unfalsifiable, questioning intolerant racket I have ever come across. All credit to whoever thought it up. They really have thought of everything.

    MrP


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yea as I said in another post I am working on a blog entry for blog.atheist.ie on this very point. The parallels between religion and common 101 tactics in everything from advertising, to the practise of charlatans, to the common practises of mind control and brain washing.

    Advertising for example. I said in another thread you commonly see lines like “You would be mad to miss it”. It is common to suggest that if the consumer stops to think that they are in some way remiss or mentally deficient. The bible also says “The fool hate said in their heart there is no god”.

    Or with Charlatans they will commonly act hurt if you show doubt in their honesty. The play the hurt feelings card, or if that does not work they pretend to be offended. I wont even insult you by pointing out the parallels there.

    With mind control and subjugation it is common to make the target feel totally and utterly worth less, but then offer them a way to re-attain this self esteem somehow. Compare this to Christianity. You are a sign little worm dirty with sin. You were made from dirt (or a clot of blood in Islam) and you are a dirty fornicator. However worry not, the entire wealth of creation is there with you in mind and everything is here so you and I can be having this chat now. God and Jesus love you.

    I could go on at length but I am not finished the blog entry yet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Your post was actually one of the things that prompted me to open this thread, an excellent post it was. Additionally, wolfie’s answer to the “how often do you pray?” question gave me pause.

    It is just so finely constructed. Whatever the occasion there is an answer.

    MrP


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Oh wow.... I inspired someone...... Ive never done that before! Im so moved. :) I thought I was just ranting away to no one who cared!

    Thanks. I feel better now hehehehe.

    You realise Im going to be just insufferable now? Or at least more so than I am already :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Oh wow.... I inspired someone...... Ive never done that before! Im so moved.
    Show us another miracle!

    Does it make sense to suggest that the religions that survive will be the ones that best fit with the human mind. By that I mean the ones that best anticipate how to handle human doubt.

    Consider how, on the outside, you'd wonder how people could fall for an obvious ready-up like Scientology. Yet, if they've correctly worked out the right balance of carrot and sticks, presumably if you find those carrots and sticks arriving just at the point when that's what you need, then it brings you on in.

    Which then leads to another question. Is religion popular because, regardless of whether its true, its useful for people to believe?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yes yes and yes :)

    I can reply in no better way than to point you to Daniel Dennet's book "Breaking the spell" which essentially explores at length exactly what you just said here.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    If people can derive benefit and comfort from it that's good enough for me, the 'truth' or not of it is immaterial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    If people can derive benefit and comfort from it that's good enough for me, the 'truth' or not of it is immaterial until it starts interfering with the lives of those not sharing the same viewpoint.

    Added a slight caveat to your post (in bold).


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    If people can derive benefit and comfort from it that's good enough for me, the 'truth' or not of it is immaterial.
    Not a view that's likely to gain much sympathy here!

    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia?


  • Registered Users Posts: 148 ✭✭argolis


    This may be a redundant post for many, but I've never fully put my finger on the hilarious and ironic thought that religions have "evolved", as pointed out above by Schuhart, to adapt to reasoning. An evolutionary tree/chart connecting them all would be pretty funny, and probably simultaneously informative, like something you'd get in your junior cert science class. Why some became extinct (couldn't adapt to the discovery of some new knowledge) and others thrived (mutated their beliefs to further defy logic), etc.

    It'd also be perfect if there was an inexplicable mass extinction of religions sometime in the past (maybe just over 2000 years ago) that divided the "relig-ientist" community, but definitely allowed modern belief sets to arise. :pac: Cheers for the thread


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Schuhart wrote: »
    Does it make sense to suggest that the religions that survive will be the ones that best fit with the human mind. By that I mean the ones that best anticipate how to handle human doubt.
    Actually, the fact that religion has an answer for absolutely everything, for me, is one of the most suspicious things about it.
    Schuhart wrote: »
    Which then leads to another question. Is religion popular because, regardless of whether its true, its useful for people to believe?
    It seems to be. I was talking about this yesterday actually. I sometimes miss the “comfort” of when I believed it. Obviously I was not a proper believer or proper christian, but I still believed and I still took comfort from that. Knowing that when I dies I would see all my family and watch over those left behind. I actually miss that feeling. But I know it is rubbish. So yes, I can see why it is popular for that reason.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,838 ✭✭✭DapperGent


    It really is one of the finer examples of cultural evolution. Religion is and always was an incredibly competitive marketplace of human ideas therefore only the fittest religions will be able to survive. Any religion that forbids proselytising (or is forbidden) outside of a single ethinic group is going to be screwed over time (one example I saw recently was Zoroastrianism in India), a religion that makes unambiguous claims about the future is similarily in trouble (how Jehovah's Witnesses deal with the world's stubborn failure to in fact end on numerous occasions is always good for a laugh), anyone making genuine pacifism an article of faith at most stages in human history was always likely to experience a swift kicking while hearing the lamentation of their wimmins, make yourself as handy as possible to secular powers from parents (that teenager isn't just being cheeky he's sinning) to dictators, some absolutism and exclusivity help too - like "There are various different ways to the Father, I'd like to think I'm a pretty decent option." isn't going to provoke much zealotry to be honest, you're going to need a really good life after death story etc etc.

    I think it's important to recognise that this isn't the work really of some person sitting down and just making shít up no more than biological evolution is random chance. This is thousands of years of successful adaptation. It's quite depressing to consider that the various lunacies of Christianity or Islam or Scientology is quite clearly what people want. I like to think that we are simply exceedingly vulnerable to a combined offer of community and life after death and don't care how the blanks are filled in after that. The baser wants of moral superiority and spiritual primacy are prevalant enough to make me sick to my stomach on a frequent basis though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    robindch wrote: »
    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia?
    Nope, though I have been in the area. Certainly there's a difference between religion and state-enforced religion like in the region.

    I was under the assumption the discussion was on religion as a concept.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,838 ✭✭✭DapperGent


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Actually, the fact that religion has an answer for absolutely everything, for me, is one of the most suspicious things about it.
    That's because God did it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Mena wrote: »
    Added a slight caveat to your post (in bold).

    You can add that cavaet to almost anything, all laws for example start interfering with the lives of those with opposing viewpoints.

    Not that I'm implying that religiously influenced laws are good, but its not automatic that they're bad either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    I hate this argument of religon 'being useful' becasue it somehow puts a person in a position which becomes favourable in terms of evolution or just survival.
    I think it is a very pedantic way of twisting the idea of 'survival of the fittest'. The reasons for believing are multi faceted and are, more often than not, based on tenuous life experiences and fear. The initial disposition, therefore, of someone undertaking a solid religous belief is already one that is less favourable on the evolutionary scale i.e. decisions casued by fear and lack of understanding. To twist that idea into an explanation of that persons natural inclination to gravitate toward a safer position in life is wrong, it is simply a very clever criticism of a darwinian model - either that or someone doesn't understand the darwinian model very well to begin with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    The convenient answers of organised religion really don't bother me just as long as people use their faith as a resource of strength in their lives and keep it to themselves if people don't want to hear it. If you take Obama for example, he's a man who has spoken of a personal relationship between himself and his God. But it doesn't rule the way he lives his life and it certainly won't rule the way he runs his country.

    It's only when the nutters come out and begin to harass certain groups of society (with their doctrine as ammunition) that I become dismayed with religion and how some people interpret it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,151 ✭✭✭Thomas_S_Hunterson




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sean_K wrote: »

    O Yeah.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I hate this argument of religon 'being useful' becasue it somehow puts a person in a position which becomes favourable in terms of evolution or just survival.
    In fairness, we could tidy up our language. But I think the essential point would still come true.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    The initial disposition, therefore, of someone undertaking a solid religous belief is already one that is less favourable on the evolutionary scale i.e. decisions casued by fear and lack of understanding.
    But my understanding of evolution (such as it is) was that 'fittest' just means organism that has the best chance of reproducing in a particular environment. In other words, the organism that best 'fits' the context, not the organism that is cleverest/strongest or whatever (unless being cleverest/strongest is what the reproductive context favours).

    So, indeed, possibly the human features that best fit our reproductive context is to base decisions on fear of god. If a consequence of that fearful belief is a desire to go forth and procreate, then that's what will happen.

    At the same time, I accept your point that the basis for belief is complex. But surely the factors that influenced the development of the human hand (just to pick something at random) would be similarly complex. The point is more whether we can account for the success of religion on the grounds that it successfully anticipates and addresses human needs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    A pure relgion-bashing thread. Was wating for something like this to come along. :pac: *jumps in*


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Overblood wrote: »
    *jumps in*
    Don't forget your armbands.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 668 ✭✭✭karen3212


    You can add that cavaet to almost anything, all laws for example start interfering with the lives of those with opposing viewpoints.

    True, which is the reason so many people need a lot of reasoned convincing and pointing at evidence before they are changed, generally.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    karen3212 wrote: »
    True, which is the reason so many people need a lot of reasoned convincing and pointing at evidence before they are changed, generally.
    Totally agree, that's the nature of society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    karen3212 wrote: »
    True, which is the reason so many people need a lot of reasoned convincing and pointing at evidence before they are changed, generally.

    No matter how much "reasoned" convincing is put in front of some people, they'll never change. That's not exlusive to just religious folk. Take white supremacy movements or even more specifically the British Nationalist Party for example. There is plenty of solid evidence completely disproving their beliefs yet they ignore it. Some people just aren't open to reasoned debate and it's a fallacy of society to give everyone the right to say whatever they like because it is assumed that they can be debated in a public forum and that they'll just magically turn around say "you know what? You're right. We were wrong!"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    Some people just aren't open to reasoned debate and it's a fallacy of society to give everyone the right to say whatever they like because it is assumed that they can be debated in a public forum and that they'll just magically turn around say "you know what? You're right. We were wrong!"
    But just because you can't reason with someone doesn't extinguish their right to speech. I'm sure by their reasoning many here are equally intractable, perhaps we should remove theirs as well ?
    Rather you need to win over the hearts and minds of the majority to effect the changes you wish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    But just because you can't reason with someone doesn't extinguish their right to speech. I'm sure by their reasoning many here are equally intractable, perhaps we should remove theirs as well ?
    Rather you need to win over the hearts and minds of the majority to effect the changes you wish.

    It's a fine line, I agree with that. But I feel the line must be drawn. If we take racism for example, when one's freedom of speech is used to incite hatred towards another race and to preach a fallacy that a race is genetically inferior to another, I find that unacceptable. A liberalist approach would tell us that freedom of spreech to say anything we like is crucial, because it allows for public debating to show one the error of his ways. But it is a mistake to assume that all people are open to persuasion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    No matter how much "reasoned" convincing is put in front of some people, they'll never change. That's not exlusive to just religious folk. Take white supremacy movements or even more specifically the British Nationalist Party for example. There is plenty of solid evidence completely disproving their beliefs yet they ignore it.
    I think this is particularly true for the religious though. They have so much invested in it. It is eternal life for goodness sake! Many will have incredible tales of lives being turned round, which could not have happened without Jesus. Some will tell you of their fear that without god they would be raping and killing. For others it is that their lives are crap, and the hope that there is something better after death is all, ironically, that keeps them going.

    People have so much of what and who they are invested in it that they simply can't afford to give it up.

    I know this is veering towards "relgious people simply don't think" and though that is not specifically what I am trying to say, I can see that it is unavoidable.

    Over the past fews days in particular I find myself wanting to shake people and say "can you not see what is going on here?" As time passes bouncing between here and the christianity forum I find myself moving more towards a Pat Condell kind of view of things. Why should I respect this thing for which I can see no rational reason for believing? Why should I see someones ability to believe this rubbish as something they should be proud of or something I should respect them for?

    MrP


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Schuhart wrote: »
    In fairness, we could tidy up our language. But I think the essential point would still come true.But my understanding of evolution (such as it is) was that 'fittest' just means organism that has the best chance of reproducing in a particular environment. In other words, the organism that best 'fits' the context, not the organism that is cleverest/strongest or whatever (unless being cleverest/strongest is what the reproductive context favours).

    So, indeed, possibly the human features that best fit our reproductive context is to base decisions on fear of god. If a consequence of that fearful belief is a desire to go forth and procreate, then that's what will happen.

    At the same time, I accept your point that the basis for belief is complex. But surely the factors that influenced the development of the human hand (just to pick something at random) would be similarly complex. The point is more whether we can account for the success of religion on the grounds that it successfully anticipates and addresses human needs.

    Yes but what you're saying is that they accidently stumbled upon a more beneificial (in terms of survival) life choice. In evolution animals purposefully andeventually improve on their weaknesses, it is not accidental and it always changing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Yes but what you're saying is that they accidently stumbled upon a more beneificial (in terms of survival) life choice. In evolution animals purposefully andeventually improve on their weaknesses, it is not accidental and it always changing.
    Actually it is accidental since animals (other than man) don't engage in husbandry.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Don't some ants farm termites?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    5uspect wrote: »
    Don't some ants farm termites?
    They do, but they don't selectively breed characteristics into them. ie. they don't direct the evolutionary process.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Actually it is accidental since animals (other than man) don't engage in husbandry.

    ??

    we're at cross purposes perhaps? genes can program embryos intop adults who can succesfully reproduce and dominate the gene pool, this is not accidental. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    ??

    we're at cross purposes perhaps? genes can program embryos intop adults who can succesfully reproduce and dominate the gene pool, this is not accidental. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers.
    No it is accidental, random variances occur whose characteristics may become dominate though external factors.
    But the point I'm making is that it's not in any way directed, there's no plan.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    They do, but they don't selectively breed characteristics into them. ie. they don't direct the evolutionary process.

    Not consciously, no. But the genetic makeup of termites is no more immune to the actions of the ants than those of an antelope and a lion. An ant colony with a strong predisposition to farm termites will be more successful. A termite that is easily farmed in such a colony will further direct the evolutionary process.

    Now I agree humans have consciously modified many species to their own needs (in increasingly extraordinary ways) but this surely began along similar lines to every thing else we see in nature?

    It is not just chance but a complex trajectory from slightly different initial conditions. Our particular trajectory (via each generation) has led to us developing complex rituals perhaps no different to mating rituals in other animals. Has our self consciousness has led us to rationalise the emotions within us that normally serve biological purposes and has this caused its own internal arms race?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    No it is accidental, random variances occur whose characteristics may become dominate though external factors.
    But the point I'm making is that it's not in any way directed, there's no plan.

    Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators -

    so it's complicated, far more so than a religous person finding themselves in an advantageous evolutionary position wihtout any notion of such.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators -

    so it's complicated, far more so than a religous person finding themselves in an advantageous evolutionary position wihtout any notion of such.
    no ones saying its not complicated :) I think we're saying the same thing just putting a different emphasis on the entropy which typically initiates the process.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    no ones saying its not complicated :) I think we're saying the same thing just putting a different emphasis on the entropy which typically initiates the process.
    I think I agree, I'm just not clear on what the entropy which typically initiates the process means.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    MrPudding wrote: »
    It goes on and on. It really is the most incredible self confirming, unquestionable, untestable, unfalsifiable, questioning intolerant racket I have ever come across. All credit to whoever thought it up. They really have thought of everything.

    I was thinking along the same lines this weekend, I was reading "The Fall of the Roman Empire" and had gotten to the sack of Rome by Alaric and the Goths in 410 AD. Following the sacking the pagan Romans used the event as proof that the Christian God was a false one and the true pagan gods had abandoned the city to punish it for converting to this new faith. St Augustine countered this by writing "The City of God" in which he argued that Rome was just another earthly city and was not particularly special in the greater scheme of things.

    This is all well and good except when you compare it to the Christian reaction to the destruction of the Jewish city of Jerusalem by the Romans. Christians used this as proof that God was displeased with the Jews for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah and so had the city destroyed as punishment.

    I thought this really is just another case of a religion shifting the goal posts so they can't be argued against.

    -Jewish Jerusalem being attacked is proof of God abandoning and punishing the Jews

    -Christian Rome being attacked is NOT proof of the Roman gods abandoning and punishing the Romans.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Charco wrote: »
    I thought this really is just another case of a religion shifting the goal posts so they can't be argued against.
    Gibbon put it nicely in chapter 16:
    Gibbon wrote:
    if the Tiber had, or if the Nile had not, risen beyond its banks [...] the superstitious Pagans were convinced that [...] the Christians [...] had at length provoked the Divine justice.
    Shoes, other feet and all that.


Advertisement