"The End of Faith" (er, Agathon?)

[ajbera]

More than anything else, structure, inspiration, charity and hope.

Just because you and I are capable of living moral lives without fear of divine wrath doesn't mean everyone else can. This is definitely a case of the ends justifying the means, but if it provides social stability while satisfying the innate belief in the supernatural most humans seem to have, I'll have to consider it an overall boon to humanity.

Don't get me wrong, I consider Reason to be most important, and I would prefer that people use Reason as a guide for living rather than Faith. But I believe Faith is a core component of most humans, perhaps as a side effect of our brain's wiring, and to think it should (or can) just be ignored or stamped out is foolish. Human nature is damn near impossible to change, so it's better to try to mold the things we don't like about it rather than believe they can be readily overcome with the proper training. Humans are innately violent and sexual; the wisdom is to try to steer these drives in positive, constructive ways rather than think of them as primitive urges that can be suppressed or eliminated. The need to believe in the supernatural is one of these urges, and it should be constructively cultivated (especially since it can't be disproved).

It may be reasonable to us that you should treat your neighbor as you yourself would wish to be treated, but others would see it as entirely reasonable that it's every man for him/herself while pretending to be neighborly. If faith (or fear) prevents everyone from stabbing their neighbor in the back, then I have to consider it a good thing even if isn't truthful. At least it provides sufficient stability for logical people to have time to come up with a way to convince people they shouldn't stab others in the back based on Reason.

On a secondary level, art, music, architecture.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ajbera, what good has religion done for humanity?

preserved ancient knowledge, provided a rallying point to keeping people together through the worst of times,the crusades, which helped break the back of the feudal power structure in Europe,etc.

[Elok]

And, as a side bonus, it even lets people like Ajbera who don't believe in it act condescending and superior. So everyone wins!

[chequita guevara]

ajbera, I don't think people live moral because of religion. Moral people are moral with or without religion, and immoral people who are religious will either act immoral despite their religion, or justify their immorality by their religion.

Whoha, religion was one of the chief destroyers of knowledge, especially the Christian religion. It certainly didn't break the back of feudalism, and the Crusades are hardly something someone should point to as good.

However, upon reflection, I will admit that religion was a unifier for early humanity. By freeing themselves from drudgery they gave themselves time to study the universe, which led to many scientific discoveries, helped regularize agriculture, and even led to philosophy.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Elok
And, as a side bonus, it even lets people like Ajbera who don't believe in it act condescending and superior. So everyone wins!

Hey now! Let's be fair... I don't need religion as an excuse to act condescending and superior, I act like that normally.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
ajbera, I don't think people live moral because of religion. Moral people are moral with or without religion, and immoral people who are religious will either act immoral despite their religion, or justify their immorality by their religion.

Whoha, religion was one of the chief destroyers of knowledge, especially the Christian religion. It certainly didn't break the back of feudalism, and the Crusades are hardly something someone should point to as good.

However, upon reflection, I will admit that religion was a unifier for early humanity. By freeing themselves from drudgery they gave themselves time to study the universe, which led to many scientific discoveries, helped regularize agriculture, and even led to philosophy.

lol

JM

[Terra Nullius]

Re: "The End of Faith" (er, Agathon?)

Originally posted by Elok
I'm curious as to whether anybody here has encountered a strain of "modern philosophical realism" which does not hold physical experience up as the gold standard.

OK, I'll just asve Aggie the trouble here.

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.

[Whoha]

Whoha, religion was one of the chief destroyers of knowledge, especially the Christian religion. It certainly didn't break the back of feudalism, and the Crusades are hardly something someone should point to as good.

the crusades did help break the back of feudalism(it also took the black death and large numbers of people moving west), it also lead for demands for new routes to the east, and so on and so forth so that today we can all sit on our butts and post on the internet. all thanks to the crusades

[chequita guevara]

I would say that the gun broke the back of fuedalism, by making it possible for the monarch to raise armies that didn't require specialized training or expensive armor. This allowed them to free themselves from the nobility. In turn, it allowed the bourgeoisie to free themselves from absolute monarchs. Feudalism was still quite strong in Europe pretty much until the middle of the 17th Century.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ajbera, what good has religion done for humanity?

The very concept of society caring for the sick and needy outside of the family comes from religion. The Roman state had no means to care for either. If you were in need and your family couldn't care for you, you were screwed. If you were in decent physical shape you might give yourself into slavery, otherwise you might as well crawl of into the forest. Christianity changed that as groups of Christians founded hospitals and other charitable institutions. The tradition carried on through the middle ages and in the nineteenth century Christian groups took the forefront in advocating better treatment of the lower class totally aside from the influence of socialism. During the middle ages religion at least partly ameliorated the savagery of warfare in Europe.

Regarding knowledge let us not forget that atheists have on many occasions interfered with science. During the french revolution the government dictated acceptable science. Lamark's theories became official government policy. Stalin suppressed Darwin's theories, and we all know how Hitler meddled in academia.

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: "The End of Faith" (er, Agathon?)

Originally posted by Terra Nullius


OK, I'll just asve Aggie the trouble here.

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.

[loinburger]

I am big in the trousers

[Odin]

Re: Re: "The End of Faith" (er, Agathon?)

Originally posted by Terra Nullius

Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.

I smell postmodernist BS. This guy is one of those idiots who complain about the "dogma of scientism" or something similar IIRC.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Christianity changed that as groups of Christians founded hospitals and other charitable institutions. The tradition carried on through the middle ages and in the nineteenth century Christian groups took the forefront in advocating better treatment of the lower class totally aside from the influence of socialism.

IMO Socialism originated as a secularized form of Christian social teaching.

[snoopy369]

As in any given group of people, Christianity contains some good and some bad people. Heck, even the Nazis had plenty of good eggs.

Oh, and anyone who thinks Mother Theresa is a saint is a moron. It takes a long time to become a saint, she's only Beatified iirc.