What should religion be based on?

[Immanuel Can]

You are welcome to pull my definition apart.

Thank you, but I'm happy just to hear you say whatever you wish to say on the matter. You have the right to choose your beliefs, as we all do.

However, on grounds of reason, I would think Eliminativism has to be eliminated. For it is simply not true to say that all people believe in God without evidence. Many -- whether rightly or wrongly, we can leave that undecided for now -- clearly sincerely believe they are possessed of evidence indicating the existence of a Creator. So the Eliminativism would have to be asserting that they simply have no such evidence at all; and that seems too easy for them to falsify.

And as for the second point, I suppose it is dependent on whether a scientific theory is supposed to genuinely reflect reality or to render the natural world serviceable to humans. If the latter, then the God Hypothesis would only be as "scientific" as it was useful in subduing the world to human hands: and that seems narrow. If, on the other hand, the purpose of science is to reflect how things really are, and if science is unable to reflect God, then the fault might well be on the limitations inherent in human science.

Either way, I don't think your Atheists have achieved any certainty through either position. They can only "rule out" God by being arbitrary, in both the Eliminativist and the Scientific Realist cases.

[Ginkgo]

You are welcome to pull my definition apart.

Thank you, but I'm happy just to hear you say whatever you wish to say on the matter. You have the right to choose your beliefs, as we all do.

However, on grounds of reason, I would think Eliminativism has to be eliminated. For it is simply not true to say that all people believe in God without evidence. Many -- whether rightly or wrongly, we can leave that undecided for now -- clearly sincerely believe they are possessed of evidence indicating the existence of a Creator. So the Eliminativism would have to be asserting that they simply have no such evidence at all; and that seems too easy for them to falsify.

And as for the second point, I suppose it is dependent on whether a scientific theory is supposed to genuinely reflect reality or to render the natural world serviceable to humans. If the latter, then the God Hypothesis would only be as "scientific" as it was useful in subduing the world to human hands: and that seems narrow. If, on the other hand, the purpose of science is to reflect how things really are, and if science is unable to reflect God, then the fault might well be on the limitations inherent in human science.

I'm not disagreeing with the above, but you did ask for a distinction. As to whether the distinction has a solid foundation is always a matter for debate. It is a bit like the quantum gravity debate. Quantum loop gravity theorists would argue that string theorists might claim their theories have a solid foundation, but they are mistaken. In a similar fashion, string theorists argue that QLD theorists are mistaken.

Either way, I don't think your Atheists have achieved any certainty through either position. They can only "rule out" God by being arbitrary, in both the Eliminativist and the Scientific Realist cases.

They probably haven't. This particular quote is an argument for the strength of the distinction, as opposed to whether such a distinction exists.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why religion might be a better place to start.

The headline question is like asking what should genocide be based on, as if we need it.

[Immanuel Can]

I actually agree, but not perhaps as you were expecting.

I think "religion" is an imperialistic and uninformative term. It fails as an collective noun, because it attempts to unite conceptually matter that are too diverse to be united in any substantive way. And it can only be employed from an imperious and uninformed antagonistic position, since it whitewashes diverse beliefs as though they were some sort of unified human phenomenon. That begs the question.

So yeah, let's dump the term, I say.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I actually agree, but not perhaps as you were expecting.

I think "religion" is an imperialistic and uninformative term. It fails as an collective noun, because it attempts to unite conceptually matter that are too diverse to be united in any substantive way. And it can only be employed from an imperious and uninformed antagonistic position, since it whitewashes diverse beliefs as though they were some sort of unified human phenomenon. That begs the question.

So yeah, let's dump the term, I say.

It is perfectly appropriate for that which it properly describes. You might think you can dismiss the horrors of religion by ejecting the term but, you can cannot delete the indelible, the blood the sacrifice, the oppression the mind control, the affront to personal freedoms.

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions."

[Immanuel Can]

You might think you can dismiss the horrors of religion by ejecting the term

Oh, good Heavens, no. I'm not trying to dismiss the Islamic or Catholic Crusades, the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre...see? I'll list them for you. And I won't even compare them to the 148 million killed in the last century in entirely non-religious wars, the preponderance by passionately-avowed secularists.

I will freely admit that this conglomerate you call "religion" has its deeds to answer for. But which "religion" did you have in mind? The Mormons? The Zoroastrians? The Taoists? Are you planning on damning the Mennonites, Methodists and Baptists, who have not caused a single war or atrocity in history? Or do you want all the martyrs burned at the stake to apologize for what was done to them? Will you group together ISIL and the poor, religious persons whose throats they daily slit on the beach? I doubt anyone would be so silly, or so immoral as to try that. Not really.

As for Marx, whom you so lovingly quote, the majority of the 148 million people killed in the last century were killed in his name, by people who passionately believed exactly what he said, and thought about religion as he describes. In fact, you cannot even name a country where his ideas were ever taken seriously that did not also become a welter of greed, murder, misery, cruelty and poverty. So if you actually want to accord him the high ground, and make him the authority, then the hypocrisy there would be really nauseating.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I actually agree, but not perhaps as you were expecting.

I think "religion" is an imperialistic and uninformative term. It fails as an collective noun, because it attempts to unite conceptually matter that are too diverse to be united in any substantive way. And it can only be employed from an imperious and uninformed antagonistic position, since it whitewashes diverse beliefs as though they were some sort of unified human phenomenon. That begs the question.

So yeah, let's dump the term, I say.

Are you saying religion is a dirty word LOL?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You might think you can dismiss the horrors of religion by ejecting the term

Oh, good Heavens, no. I'm not trying to dismiss the Islamic or Catholic Crusades, the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre...see? I'll list them for you. And I won't even compare them to the 148 million killed in the last century in entirely non-religious wars, the preponderance by passionately-avowed secularists.

I will freely admit that this conglomerate you call "religion" has its deeds to answer for. But which "religion" did you have in mind? The Mormons? The Zoroastrians? The Taoists? Are you planning on damning the Mennonites, Methodists and Baptists, who have not caused a single war or atrocity in history? Or do you want all the martyrs burned at the stake to apologize for what was done to them? Will you group together ISIL and the poor, religious persons whose throats they daily slit on the beach? I doubt anyone would be so silly, or so immoral as to try that. Not really.

As for Marx, whom you so lovingly quote, the majority of the 148 million people killed in the last century were killed in his name, by people who passionately believed exactly what he said, and thought about religion as he describes. In fact, you cannot even name a country where his ideas were ever taken seriously that did not also become a welter of greed, murder, misery, cruelty and poverty. So if you actually want to accord him the high ground, and make him the authority, then the hypocrisy there would be really nauseating.

I'm pretty sure that Jesus, as depicted in the Bible might not have been too happy about how things turned out, same as Marx.
What's your point?
I doubted if you had any good reason to reject "religion" and my suspicions were confirmed.

[Immanuel Can]

same as Marx.

No. Marx would have been unhappy that the Revolution did not take place in England but in Russia...but he would have been pleased with the Revolution. His followers understood him well, and the bloody deeds of their hands are also on his.

Doubt it? Well then, tell me one place in the world where practicing Marxism has let people to be better than if they had not. And Marx, he wouldn't have cared. He was, by all biographical accounts, a rather nasty man at best.

I doubted if you had any good reason to reject "religion" and my suspicions were confirmed.

So now you're defending "religion"? Or just your own use of the word? Of course, you can use language any way you wish. Just not all of it will be informative. The word "religion" isn't helpful. It makes people think they understand things about which they actually have no clue...such as that Mormons, Pentecostals and ISIL are the same thing. No one with half a brain could believe that without a whole lot of "anti-religion" propaganda; and no one with half a brain would believe it with even a few basic facts in hand.

[ReliStuPhD]

"Religion" is just too broad a term for that purpose. To speak of the atrocities that have resulted from "religion" is means we have to speak of the atrocities that have resulted from "science" as well. Every sword, bullet, bomb, missile, etc is the result of "science," broadly conceived. Zyklon-B was certainly the result of science. Is science responsible for 12M deaths in gas chambers? If we're going to hold a conceptual category responsible for death and misery the world over, then "science" has far more to answer for than "religion." In fact, if we're going to brand "religion" as a detriment to society because of all the misery it leads to, then the cold reality is that "science" is far more detrimental to human flourishing than religion. After all, it's not religion that can destroy the world 7x over in 30 minutes.

But of course, this is silly. "Science" is no more responsible for the world's misery than is "religion." People? Well, that's something entirely different. And I.C.'s right that secularists are to blame for far more deaths in human history than are religionists (though the latter certainly have blood on their hands).

[Melchior]

Tuna.

[Melchior]

"Religion" is just too broad a term for that purpose. To speak of the atrocities that have resulted from "religion" is means we have to speak of the atrocities that have resulted from "science" as well. Every sword, bullet, bomb, missile, etc is the result of "science," broadly conceived. Zyklon-B was certainly the result of science. Is science responsible for 12M deaths in gas chambers? If we're going to hold a conceptual category responsible for death and misery the world over, then "science" has far more to answer for than "religion." In fact, if we're going to brand "religion" as a detriment to society because of all the misery it leads to, then the cold reality is that "science" is far more detrimental to human flourishing than religion. After all, it's not religion that can destroy the world 7x over in 30 minutes.

But of course, this is silly. "Science" is no more responsible for the world's misery than is "religion." People? Well, that's something entirely different. And I.C.'s right that secularists are to blame for far more deaths in human history than are religionists (though the latter certainly have blood on their hands).

This is so appallingly false it defies belief.

[Immanuel Can]

This is so appallingly false it defies belief.

Wow. In your world, this passes for some sort of reasonable refutation?

[ReliStuPhD]

"Religion" is just too broad a term for that purpose. To speak of the atrocities that have resulted from "religion" is means we have to speak of the atrocities that have resulted from "science" as well. Every sword, bullet, bomb, missile, etc is the result of "science," broadly conceived. Zyklon-B was certainly the result of science. Is science responsible for 12M deaths in gas chambers? If we're going to hold a conceptual category responsible for death and misery the world over, then "science" has far more to answer for than "religion." In fact, if we're going to brand "religion" as a detriment to society because of all the misery it leads to, then the cold reality is that "science" is far more detrimental to human flourishing than religion. After all, it's not religion that can destroy the world 7x over in 30 minutes.

But of course, this is silly. "Science" is no more responsible for the world's misery than is "religion." People? Well, that's something entirely different. And I.C.'s right that secularists are to blame for far more deaths in human history than are religionists (though the latter certainly have blood on their hands).

This is so appallingly false it defies belief.

Then show how. Let's see if you've understood what I wrote, especially the bolded part.

And on the off chance that you really just mean the "secularists" vs "religionists" point, I eagerly await your rebuttal. After all, this is where it gets fun. Just remember, secularists have to account for Stalin, Mao, et. al. (link to R.J. Rummel's book)