The "rational" foundations of religion?

[deepend]

  I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that this religion section was for discussing the rational foundations of religion.  There is nothing rational about any aspect of religion.  All religions are cults.  They have no basis in reality.  Except for maybe the reality in which deception is sometimes used in the animal kingdom.  In the case of religion, the deception is mostly self deception.  Religions are based on faith.  Not reality.  Their purpose is to give answers that are often incorrect.  As for the christian religion, (which I am most familiar with) it is a tool used to alleviate followers from responsibility.  One way in which is to call something god's doing.  Worse yet, it is sometimes used to actually justify evil deeds.

[Genady]

You have just mentioned a possible rational foundation of religion, i.e.

18 minutes ago, deepend said:

  a tool used to alleviate followers from responsibility.  ...  sometimes used to actually justify evil deeds.

 

[Peterkin]

56 minutes ago, deepend said:

it is a tool

That's rational.

 

56 minutes ago, deepend said:

All religions are cults.

But not all cults are religious. It's possible to discuss rationally the nature of cults and their functions in a period of history in a particular society. 

56 minutes ago, deepend said:

They have no basis in reality. 

Everything of which humans are aware and capable has some basis in reality as perceived by humans. An idea in which many humans invest their time and effort - and for which they are willing to risk their life - must be rooted in some aspect of some version of a reality they share. That's worth investigating. 

56 minutes ago, deepend said:

In the case of religion, the deception is mostly self deception. 

That's another assertion worth investigating.

56 minutes ago, deepend said:

Their purpose is to give answers that are often incorrect.

No, it isn't.

However, if you have no interest in anthropology, sociology or psychology, there is no need for you to participate in those discussions. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, deepend said:

I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that this religion section was for discussing the rational foundations of religion.  There is nothing rational about any aspect of religion.

Some religions began as a way to ensure the surplus of a society was properly managed to avoid famine in a bad year. That sounds pretty rational.

[deepend]

On 3/2/2022 at 6:14 PM, Genady said:

You have just mentioned a possible rational foundation of religion, i.e.

 

 

  What would that "rational" foundation be.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, deepend said:

 

  What would that "rational" foundation be.

as you said, "a tool used to alleviate followers from responsibility.  ..."

[deepend]

On 3/2/2022 at 6:49 PM, Peterkin said:

That's rational.

 

But not all cults are religious. It's possible to discuss rationally the nature of cults and their functions in a period of history in a particular society. 

Everything of which humans are aware and capable has some basis in reality as perceived by humans. An idea in which many humans invest their time and effort - and for which they are willing to risk their life - must be rooted in some aspect of some version of a reality they share. That's worth investigating. 

That's another assertion worth investigating.

No, it isn't.

However, if you have no interest in anthropology, sociology or psychology, there is no need for you to participate in those discussions. 

 

  You are wrong in thinking that religion has some basis in reality.  It doesn't.  At least not to any degree that matters.  For example, I believe in ghosts and the paranormal.  So to me, such things are a reality.  Does that mean some god created you and controls your life?  Not in the slightest.  Also, I saw some female black doctor on the news once who was a Trump supporter.  She must have come from Africa.  Because on the news they said that she had said that she believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits.  That isn't a "reality" worth mentioning.

  Next, in regards to the christian religion, you can't BS me.  I read the bible.  If they were mentioned at all, the bible had nothing correct to say about astronomy, genetics, geology, paleontology, geography, zoology, electricity, chemistry, microbiology, mathematics, etc.etc. etc.  As far as evolution goes, Pope John Paul II is reported as saying that evolution was more than just a theory.  Pope Francis believes that both evolution and the big bang theory are a reality.  How these leaders of christianity can support something that isn't supported by the bible is beyond me.  As I said, religion has nothing to do with reality.  It is faith that matters.  Faith in what is a different matter.

On 3/2/2022 at 7:19 PM, zapatos said:

Some religions began as a way to ensure the surplus of a society was properly managed to avoid famine in a bad year. That sounds pretty rational.

  Are you kidding?  Most religions began before there was even a written language.  So how can you say why they were formed.  That isn't rational.  I guess you are a true believer.  Also, for believers there is no difference between believing and knowing.  Samuel Clemens once said, "It isn't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.  It's what you're sure of that just isn't so."

24 minutes ago, Genady said:

as you said, "a tool used to alleviate followers from responsibility.  ..."

 

  Being beyond responsibility isn't rational.  Maybe it is to a member of the Mafia.  But to normal people it isn't.

[zapatos]

52 minutes ago, deepend said:

Are you kidding?  Most religions began before there was even a written language.  So how can you say why they were formed. 

By reading the works of historians and anthropologists. You know, sciencey type stuff. We happen to know lots of things about people and what they did prior to them having a written language.

Other than your rather rude dismissal of what I had to contribute do you plan on adding anything here? Or is you plan just to piss people off?

Edited March 4, 2022 by zapatos

[Arete]

22 minutes ago, deepend said:

Most religions began before there was even a written language.  So how can you say why they were formed. 

I guess we will never know what dinosaurs ate since they didn't write it down either. 

[Genady]

26 minutes ago, deepend said:

  Being beyond responsibility isn't rational.  Maybe it is to a member of the Mafia.  But to normal people it isn't.

Religion is a phenomenon and it can be rationally studied as such.

Quote

Definition of science of religion

: the descriptive study of religion that examines all religions phenomenologically, historically, psychologically, and sociologically

Science of religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, deepend said:

You are wrong in thinking that religion has some basis in reality.  It doesn't. 

You are wrong in thinking that I am wrong. It has nothing to do with ghosts or woo or any of that nonsense. It's far deeper in human social development,  farther back in time, far more basic.

 

1 hour ago, deepend said:

Next, in regards to the christian religion, you can't BS me. 

Why should i even try? Christianity is such a late-comer to supernatural beliefs, so embedded in the civilized era of human history, was so quickly absorbed into imperil politics that it's almost entirely artificial.

 

1 hour ago, deepend said:

If they were mentioned at all, the bible had nothing correct to say about astronomy, genetics, geology, paleontology, geography, zoology, electricity, chemistry, microbiology, mathematics, etc.etc. etc.

How is that relevant to the origins ofr functions of religion?

1 hour ago, deepend said:

As I said, religion has nothing to do with reality. 

How many religions are you familiar with? And how familiar?

1 hour ago, deepend said:

How these leaders of christianity can support something that isn't supported by the bible is beyond me. 

Obviously.

I submit that you are wading in the baby pool of this subject. A little more reading would help.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

But to normal people it isn't.

Are you aware that the majority of 'normal' people subscribe to some religion?

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

  1 hour ago, Genady said:

    But to normal people it isn't.

 

Are you aware that the majority of 'normal' people subscribe to some religion?

I didn't say that. The OP did.

[Peterkin]

Huh??  No idea how that happened. I  was quoting from  deepend's post, not yours.

2 hours ago, deepend said:

Being beyond responsibility isn't rational.  Maybe it is to a member of the Mafia.  But to normal people it isn't.

That one.

[deepend]

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

By reading the works of historians and anthropologists. You know, sciencey type stuff. We happen to know lots of things about people and what they did prior to them having a written language.

Other than your rather rude dismissal of what I had to contribute do you plan on adding anything here? Or is you plan just to piss people off?

  Sorry if I piss you off.  But unless there is some written language to explain the creation of a religion, anything about it is just speculation.  Though with what religions do exist and there is a written language to explain them, you can extrapolate the reason behind earlier languages.  That aside, I already know the reasons.  One is stupidity.  Another is that if there is any way in which one human can exploit another, you can bet that it will be done.  It's all voodoo horseshit.  Sure, paranormal things may happen.  But it's basically meaningless as far as our physical world is concerned.

  For example, look at faith healing.  If there was anything to it, modern medicine wouldn't need to exist.  Also, in my lifetime I have seen thousands of houses and other buildings.  I have also driven down thousands of miles of roads.  I have also eaten many plants that were grown in plowed fields.  Not one house, not one inch of road, not one plowed furrow in a field has ever been miracled into existence.  They are all the work of humans.  That is the weight of the paranormal.  Now in the past religion may have caused some societies to create some pretty impressive engineering feats.  But it was people who accomplished it.  Not a religion.

21 hours ago, Genady said:

Religion is a phenomenon and it can be rationally studied as such.

Science of religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

  Mental illness is a phenomenon and it can be rationally studied as such.  But that doesn't make mental illness rational.  And for the vast majority of humans, they have a term for mental illness.  They call it "Normal."

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You are wrong in thinking that I am wrong. It has nothing to do with ghosts or woo or any of that nonsense. It's far deeper in human social development,  farther back in time, far more basic.

 

Why should i even try? Christianity is such a late-comer to supernatural beliefs, so embedded in the civilized era of human history, was so quickly absorbed into imperil politics that it's almost entirely artificial.

 

How is that relevant to the origins ofr functions of religion?

How many religions are you familiar with? And how familiar?

Obviously.

I submit that you are wading in the baby pool of this subject. A little more reading would help.

Are you aware that the majority of 'normal' people subscribe to some religion?

  You wrote quite a bit.  Which I don't have much interest in answering.  Getting into lengthy discussions is a good way to get away from the point.  It is like when a government doesn't want to change something that needs changing.  They will say that the issue needs more study.  If there is one thing above all others that you think I am wrong about, just start out with that.  Once that is ironed out, we can move on to the next.

  But I will answer where you said I was wrong in saying that you were wrong.  What I said that you think is wrong.  Which is that religion has no basis in reality.  Religion itself is real.  But what it is all about isn't real.  That makes it unreal.  Or to put it more simply, stupid.  Also, you are correct in saying that religion goes far back.  But I wonder if you know how far back.  It goes back before there were even humans.  I contend that for any creature where some level of higher thinking and emotions exist, a religion to some degree probably exists too.

  Also on that point, I remember something I saw on a nature show long ago.  They showed some creature up in a tree that looked to be something like a cross between a possum and a lemur.  I don't know what the creature was.  I tried to go to a zoological forum and described it and its behavior.  Nobody could tell me what it was.  But this creature held it's hands - front paws together and slowly circled them a few times in the direction of the cameraman.  Then it bowed.  It then sat up again and repeated the process.  To me it looked every bit as though it was showing the cameraman worship.  I tried to look such a creature with that behavior up.  But found nothing.  I think I saw it on an old Disney nature program decades ago.  I will probably never know what it was.  But if it treated humans like that, it is probably extinct by now.

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, deepend said:

Mental illness is a phenomenon and it can be rationally studied as such.  But that doesn't make mental illness rational.

Why can't religion be discussed and studied rationally as a phenomenon then? You've been posting like the others in this discussion are defending specific religious practices, when in fact most (if not all) are atheists of various flavors. 

Of course religions have a basis in reality. You need the natural phenomena people encounter regularly to fill the gaps in their knowledge with the supernatural. 

[deepend]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why can't religion be discussed and studied rationally as a phenomenon then? You've been posting like the others in this discussion are defending specific religious practices, when in fact most (if not all) are atheists of various flavors. 

Of course religions have a basis in reality. You need the natural phenomena people encounter regularly to fill the gaps in their knowledge with the supernatural. 

 

  No study of the irrational is necessary.  It is just irrational, the end.  Next, if the answer to any natural phenomena is wrong, then it isn't rational.  As an intellectual exercise, there may be some purpose to it.  Or rational if you wish.  But apart from that, there is no purpose to it.  And when the conclusions you gain from it are wrong, that makes it even worse.  Aristotle is famed for having been a great thinker.  But I don't think he was ever right about anything.

  As for most (if not all) the people around here being Atheists of various flavors, I have never encountered any atheist that wasn't a follower of some cult.  I have been to every Atheist forum out there.  And have been banned from them all for daring to speak the truth.  And worse yet, proving what I had to say.  In that, I would say that it's a safe bet that everybody here, to some degree, follows the cult of being a liar.  Willingly duped.  Brainwashed.  Victims of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.  And worse yet, will fight like hell to remain mentally enslaved.  

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, deepend said:

You wrote quite a bit.  Which I don't have much interest in answering.

Excellent. We are in total agreement on this one issue.

4 minutes ago, deepend said:

It is just irrational, the end. 

 

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, deepend said:

As for most (if not all) the people around here being Atheists of various flavors, I have never encountered any atheist that wasn't a follower of some cult.

This is your lucky day then. I personally have a lack of belief in deities. I don't claim they don't exist, I just don't see any evidence to support them. I might think differently if there was any evidence, but for now it's just a lack of belief. Not sure how you can call that a cult. Is there a cult of people who don't believe in dragons, or a religion of people who don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If atheism is a religious cult, doesn't that mean BALD is a hair color?

15 minutes ago, deepend said:

Aristotle is famed for having been a great thinker.  But I don't think he was ever right about anything.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."   – Aristotle –

 

One can study a thing without embracing it, and it's never a bad idea to understand why people think the things they do.

23 minutes ago, deepend said:

I have been to every Atheist forum out there.  And have been banned from them all for daring to speak the truth.

Objectively, you should be willing to ask yourself, "Is it me? Am I the drama?"

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Is there a cult of people who don't believe in dragons, or a religion of people who don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

We sacrifice a specially fattened meatball every Thursday at 11:29 pm. you're invited.

PS Don't tell deepend.

[deepend]

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is your lucky day then. I personally have a lack of belief in deities. I don't claim they don't exist, I just don't see any evidence to support them. I might think differently if there was any evidence, but for now it's just a lack of belief. Not sure how you can call that a cult. Is there a cult of people who don't believe in dragons, or a religion of people who don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If atheism is a religious cult, doesn't that mean BALD is a hair color?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."   – Aristotle –

 

One can study a thing without embracing it, and it's never a bad idea to understand why people think the things they do.

Objectively, you should be willing to ask yourself, "Is it me? Am I the drama?"

  Anything that isn't supported by evidence is a cult.  It doesn't have to do with the paranormal.  Next, Aristotle said that everything was made up of earth, water, air and fire.  Was he right?  I wonder what he thought about the orbit of planets too.  Whatever it was, he was probably wrong.  People can have various philosophies.  But when you speak of nature as it is, you are either right or wrong.

  Next, some things just don't need study.  You can go on and on about why religions exist.  But then the fact that they are nonsense gets buried in the mountains of pointless debate.  Next, the truth is the truth.  I don't give a flippin flying fuck what people think of it.  It is what it is.  Reality.  I am also reminded of something Samuel Clemens once said.  He said, "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled."

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, deepend said:

Anything that isn't supported by evidence is a cult.

Opinions aren’t necessarily supported by evidence. I think chocolate is better than vanilla. Am I a cult?

[Phi for All]

44 minutes ago, deepend said:

  Anything that isn't supported by evidence is a cult.  It doesn't have to do with the paranormal.  Next, Aristotle said that everything was made up of earth, water, air and fire.  Was he right?  I wonder what he thought about the orbit of planets too.  Whatever it was, he was probably wrong.  People can have various philosophies.  But when you speak of nature as it is, you are either right or wrong.

  Next, some things just don't need study.  You can go on and on about why religions exist.  But then the fact that they are nonsense gets buried in the mountains of pointless debate.  Next, the truth is the truth.  I don't give a flippin flying fuck what people think of it.  It is what it is.  Reality.  I am also reminded of something Samuel Clemens once said.  He said, "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled."

You know how I can tell you're preaching? Because you quoted my post but didn't address a single point I made in it. You didn't address the distinctions I made, you ignored my Aristotle quote (directly in response to your previous post), and then you hand-waived away the rest of what I said with a declaration about what's pointless and what's truth. If you want to learn, I'd say this is why folks don't like to discuss anything with you. You don't engage, you just spout the stuff you think you're sure of. It's not interesting, it's not educational, and it's certainly not discussion.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, deepend said:

Next, some things just don't need study. 

And most things just don't need knowing. Good philosophy!

1 hour ago, deepend said:

You can go on and on about why religions exist. 

Or, you could start a whole thread about why no such discussion should take place.

[Ken Fabian]

A community that shares language and beliefs and rules of behavior has advantages. I think the human imagination and propensity to dream and fear the unknown combine to make having shared beliefs, even wrong ones, better than having none. The need for sharing beliefs came long before it was clear what was rational and what was not.

The power to evoke strong emotions does make humans vulnerable to manipulation - but makes it possible for leaders to unite and inspire them to a great task or a Cause. The power of unified belief to aim people in the same direction have made societies strong. 

Having unified beliefs that are all evidence based and rational ought to make societies stronger but I don't think anyone's ever actually tried it. I'm not sure humans are even capable of agreeing on what is evidence based or what is rational. If you come to that question with beliefs already in place they probably seem evidence based and rational.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Ken Fabian

[Peterkin]

Even more basically, we are a pattern-seeking species. We need to make sense of everything around us; organize information into coherent narrative - even if we lack vital data, we fill in the blanks. We are also intensely self-reflective: we need to impose our sensibility, our mode of thought, our volition, onto the world around us. We need to establish purpose and causation on every event: the human imagination requires that, if we didn't make something happen, an entity like ourselves, only more powerful, must have. Plus, we are constantly aware of death and have a strong aversion to experiencing it, even as we inflict it on others.