My Final Word On Religion For A While

[chillrob]

This is not religious per se, but I am an athiest, and believe there should be no such thing as legal marriage for anyone. This is something I am very big on; If there is enough interest in the topic, maybe there should be a thread on it?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not religious per se, but I am an athiest, and believe there should be no such thing as legal marriage for anyone. This is something I am very big on; If there is enough interest in the topic, maybe there should be a thread on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

there was a poll a while back in the politics forum (If I remember correctly) that asked whether or not we thought gay marriage should be legal...

pretty much all of the votes for 'no' were because people didn't approve of all legal marriages...

that's a pretty popular position around here because many 2p2ers are libertarians or anarcho-capitalists and what not.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is that even moderately conservative religions help the world more than they hurt. In spite of the fact that they have some rules that we might not like and in spite of the fact that their members, with their lack of doubt, are not thinking straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post, Mr. Sklansky.

I agree with most of what you write, but take strong issue with the point quoted above. The fundamental reason that belief in religion induces negative social consequences is that belief requires at least some degree of irrationality. I would argue no good comes out of being irrational, or as you put it, "not thinking straight." A benevolent and robust code of ethics comes from reason, just like any other realm of knowledge. (Such as "following the Golden Rule" as you say.)

I suppose you could argue that "moderate" belief in a (mostly) benign religion is better than the alternative, in which irrational thinking may manifest itself in a more destructive way. However once reason is abandoned, it is only a matter of time until people do very bad things.

Ultimately, I don't blame religion per se for evil among men. Religion is merely the most common manifestation of irrationality. It would do absolutely no good if widespread belief in religion were abandoned if men didn't accept a philosophy of reason instead.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is that even moderately conservative religions help the world more than they hurt. In spite of the fact that they have some rules that we might not like and in spite of the fact that their members, with their lack of doubt, are not thinking straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post, Mr. Sklansky.

I agree with most of what you write, but take strong issue with the point quoted above. The fundamental reason that belief in religion induces negative social consequences is that belief requires at least some degree of irrationality. I would argue no good comes out of being irrational, or as you put it, "not thinking straight." A benevolent and robust code of ethics comes from reason, just like any other realm of knowledge. (Such as "following the Golden Rule" as you say.)

I suppose you could argue that "moderate" belief in a (mostly) benign religion is better than the alternative, in which irrational thinking may manifest itself in a more destructive way. However once reason is abandoned, it is only a matter of time until people do very bad things.

Ultimately, I don't blame religion per se for evil among men. Religion is merely the most common manifestation of irrationality. It would do absolutely no good if widespread belief in religion were abandoned if men didn't accept a philosophy of reason instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

good can certainly come out of being irrational.

if a false belief that there is a god who rewards charity in an afterlife is held by a group of people...they will be more charitable than they would otherwise...

that is good for the people on the recieving end..and perhaps society as a whole

for the person with the false belief, however, they have been duped into giving more than they would have if they knew the truth..the percieved positive consequence of their action is neve recieved.

then again, maybe the good feeling of believing you will get a reward in an afterlife is, in itself, a reward worthy of their action.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

good can certainly come out of being irrational.

if a false belief that there is a god who rewards charity in an afterlife is held by a group of people...they will be more charitable than they would otherwise...



[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming being charitable is a legitimate virtue, the group will be "most" charitable if they accept a rational code of ethics, or conversely, being irrational can only impede the "optimal" degree of virtuous behavior.

The dilemma here is that in so far as religious belief motivates virtuous behavior it is unnecessary; where it is necessary to justify behavior it is immoral. It poisons the ethical well, so to speak.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

good can certainly come out of being irrational.

if a false belief that there is a god who rewards charity in an afterlife is held by a group of people...they will be more charitable than they would otherwise...



[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming being charitable is a legitimate virtue, the group will be "most" charitable if they accept a rational code of ethics, or conversely, being irrational can only impede the "optimal" degree of virtuous behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

optimal from whose point of view?

as a reciever, my optimal degree (for the person giving to me) will be higher than that of the giver...

if the giver is behaving rationally...he will give his own optimum degree..that is, whatever is most beneficial to him (probably what makes him the most happy)...

the reciever would certainly gain less than his own optimum

if the giver is behaving irrationally (like in my example)...he will give more than his optimum...because he thinks there is a benefit that there really isn't..so he loses..

the reciever gains more in this case..probably closer to his optimum

..we can replace "the reciever" with "the rest of the community" if we like..

people other than the giver can gain from the giver's irrationality..(they could also lose..but we're talking about belief in god..and most beliefs of this sort offer rewards of some kind for being charitable)

[WiiiiiiMan]

If I feel in my heart that something is true, what does that say for me to go against that? I am talking if you really believe it, you either go with what you feel is true and right or you go against that.

You guys seem to think its impossible to feel this way. Just as sure as some of you know that answer to math problems, some people including myself are sure of things like our purpose for this time and place.

[David Sklansky]

The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good. (Of course the opposite is true for the other 30%. Yet in this country anyway, only about 5% get close to their potential.)

[David Sklansky]

"Perhaps, but your last sentence here should probably have been prefaced with the phrase "all things being equal", and all things are definitely not equal. There are major differences between religions that help us in determining their validity."

Fair enough. But if that is true it would be reasonable for a person who doesn't have the inclination or ability to study and determine validity himself, to note those who have, and see which group as a whole has shown the most ability at determining the validity of stuff that there is no debate about. And anyone using that criteria would not choose your particular religion as the one most likely to be valid.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good. (Of course the opposite is true for the other 30%. Yet in this country anyway, only about 5% get close to their potential.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing this, but I would appreciate a source of some sort. Anyone? I am VERY interested in this.