Philosophy Now Forum

So, I think the point has been made: People can suck and they usually do. Oh my, does this mean me too?!?!?!?! Am I the only exception to this human shortcoming? Afraid not...

So, face it, the problem is ALWAYS YOU, your cantankerous neighbor ( and me, of course ).

Agreed, QMan. I'm the problem too. We all are. Human nature.

IC Quote:
The idea that mankind can create the ideal society is by far the most dangerous force in history.

3 wrote:

... What?

It's a straightforward empirical claim. The greatest atrocities in history have been committed by people devoted to a single project of reforming humanity in keeping with some new ideology.

A few times, this has been a "religious" ideology, as in the Muslim Conquests (3.5% of all wars). A few times, it's been a matter of mixed economic, territorial and religious motives, as in the Catholic Crusades. But by far the most times, it's been a non-religious ideology that has been the driving force of war and mass murder. There's something very dangerous about allowing people to use force to advance their ideological reform projects. In the last century, between Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, more people were murdered than in all of human history combined. That too is empirical.

As QMan suggests, human beings -- whether religious or not -- simply cannot be trusted with political power. Checks and balances -- such as electoral systems, limited terms, divisions of power, and ethics commissions -- help a little, and make the current situation liveable; but ultimately, nothing stems the tide of ideological fervour when human beings begin to believe they can create the new society through ideology alone.

And if we think the modern West is immune, we ought to reflect that pre-war Germany was one of the most putatively "enlightened" societies on earth, a leader in scholarship, technology, science and culture: but look what it did. In fact, without its advanced knowledge base and technology, it could never have done what it did. Modernity and advanced learning are not the curative for the homicidal fervour of the ideologue.

We need to become different people.

Felasco wrote:

Religion is mankind's most dangerous institution

Sorry, no. Science is mankind's most dangerous institution.

Science is not the cause of the problem any more than religion is, but it is science that will give us the tools we'll use to exterminate ourselves.

It's a nice point, but we have pulled back from destroying ourselves in political circles, science had little to do with what human idiots will do with power they cannot comprehend. See I think planet of the apes had it some what right there are lots of kinds of apes, but gorillas, orangutans, Chimpanzees and "chimpanzees" sort of sums up the whole affair, the gorillas are the army, the orangutangs are the politicians, and the chimps are the thinkers and or scientists. Not that I see humanity as that simple, but none the less humanity is simple, I think you have to understand that people are idiots, and even chimps are idiots, at the end of the day we're all pretty much idiots, but we are learning and we haven't killed everyone yet, which means one day we might not be idiots. You can but hope reason will win out over stupidity, probably wont happen in my lifetime or the next 100 generations but you have to believe we are on the right track right?

metachuck wrote:Ginkgo,
I was referring specifically to his assertions about religion. What he claims are the products of religion, all the horrors it has produced, I say are not products of religion but of human nature.

Can you provide evidence that Dennett attributes political ideologies to religion?

I would have though he would argue the exact opposite, but that's just my assessment.

3Sum wrote:I wouldn't say religion is THE problem. Only one of the worst symptoms of the real problem.

QMan wrote:I agree that mankind is its own worst enemy because of the Fall of human nature. This spawns all the bad ideologies, actions, thoughts, inclinations, in short - Sin. Religion teaches us that this situation is only correctible (in essence, and sometimes through human agency) between two people, you and your creator. By turning away from that source of correcting (healing) you are mired in the mud.

Science gets unfairly blamed because it is only a non-sentient activity not something that acts independently on its own. Science is similar to what you do when you move into a new large home and new area. You explore, categorize, catalogue, put in boxes, decorate, build, etc..

So, face it, the problem is ALWAYS YOU, your cantankerous neighbor ( and me, of course ).

But of course, everything else is bullshit. Your religion is, obviously, the one which got it right (oddly, with no more evidence than all the other thousands of religions). And the only way to solve the problems between two humans is for a human to talk to his... creator? I got no problems with my dad if that's what you meant. And I just hope that you didn't say that we can solve the problems of humans by turning to a nonexistant being who doesn't care at all about humanity or earth. And I have this crazy idea that maybe we should solve problems by dialogue and rationally arguing. Stupid me, I'm such a goddamn sinner, that idea was probably put in me by Satan.

3Sum:
But of course, everything else is bullshit. Your religion is, obviously, the one which got it right (oddly, with no more evidence than all the other thousands of religions).

Qman:
Do you mean my religion (Catholic) got it right as a religion or my religion got the argument right that I am making? I'll assume you mean the latter.

3Sum:
And the only way to solve the problems between two humans is for a human to talk to his... creator? I got no problems with my dad if that's what you meant.

Qman:
Of course. You must have heard of the English word "Prayer"? That would be the most effective way to address problems and sinful behavior. Next, your confessor if Catholic, then your psychiatrist, counselor, dad, mom, good friend. Now, the best way all these could help you is of course to also pray for you. Note that even strangers like me pray for misguided souls. If God chooses so he can also indirectly help through the agency of all the latter.

3Sum:
And I just hope that you didn't say that we can solve the problems of humans by turning to a non-existent being who doesn't care at all about humanity or earth.

Qman:
Your hypothesis that the being is fictional is of course not provable and therefore you are only making a spurious argument with zero % probability of being correct. The theist side has of course much higher probabilities of being correct for historical and other reasons. I am surprised that as a rational person you don't place your bets with the higher probability. The being (God) actually does care, in this case through my agency, which reinforces the probability scale of the theist (of course, good actions and intentions alone will increase the theist's probability of correctness).

3Sum:
And I have this crazy idea that maybe we should solve problems by dialogue and rationally arguing. Stupid me, I'm such a goddamn sinner, that idea was probably put in me by Satan.

Qman:
Well, yes and no. Solving problems by dialog is of course the right way to go. But you know of course that it does not always work and that's where prayer comes in. You are correct that you are a sinner for three reasons a) show me a theist in this forum who uses foul language as often and as habitually as you do, b) all humans are sinners, c) you do not acknowledge the primacy of God. Except for b these are all correctible, of course, and all three are forgivable.


Finally, stupidity is not necessarily correlated to the influence of Satan but malicious stupidity probably is.

I think this is mostly correct. If you look at the material inside of the scriptures of major religions, the actual text is about forgiveness, overcoming your personal psychological battles, re-uniting with God, maintaining peace and harmony, and being loving and so on. (The notable exception being the Old Testament, where it is all about murder and tribal warfare.)

But in the hands of people, those religions were just used as an excuse to kill, dominate, imprison , oppress and manipulate each other.

Science has caused no wars; and while it is the *instrument* of environmental destruction, it does not determine it's own use -- humans with ideologies do that.

This will be a meaningless distinction once we've used the tools of science to exterminate ourselves.

Science doesn't determine it's own use because it's not intelligent enough to do so.

Science rushes forward based on an outdated and simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge, largely oblivious to the consequences of giving we insane creatures ever more power. It's like giving an eight year old the keys to the car, and then patting oneself on the back to applaud one's generosity.

I agree that science is not inherently evil etc, and it's not my intent to make scientists in to the bogey man, as it's my impression they generally have the best of intentions.

Science is dangerous not because it's evil, but because it's very powerful, and blind. As example, which discipline of science dedicates itself to asking how much knowledge is enough, how much is too much etc? There is no such discipline, as scientists assume more is always better, a very simplistic (ie. blind) formulation.

Of course. You must have heard of the English word "Prayer"? That would be the most effective way to address problems and sinful behavior. Next, your confessor if Catholic, then your psychiatrist, counselor, dad, mom, good friend. Now, the best way all these could help you is of course to also pray for you. Note that even strangers like me pray for misguided souls. If God chooses so he can also indirectly help through the agency of all the latter.

Was trying prayer a long time. About 10 years infact. Never got any response. Started feeling stupid thinking my wishes to myself and eventually stopped.

Your hypothesis that the being is fictional is of course not provable

Errm, yes, it actually is, depending on your definition of it. I already disproved the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god in my Problem of evil thread.

Besides, even if you defined the word god in the way that us humans can't prove he doesn't exist, that still doesn't justify requiring others to believe without any evidence.

Theist side has much higher probability of being correct? How so? Any arguments for that or are you just going to assert things and then run away? Be careful not to commit any logical fallacy though.

Well, yes and no. Solving problems by dialog is of course the right way to go. But you know of course that it does not always work and that's where prayer comes in. You are correct that you are a sinner for three reasons a) show me a theist in this forum who uses foul language as often and as habitually as you do, b) all humans are sinners, c) you do not acknowledge the primacy of God. Except for b these are all correctible, of course, and all three are forgivable.

a) I don't care about a few swear words here and there. You know what am I offended by though? Things like... I don't know... Christians telling me I deserve to be tortured for an eternity cause I don't believe without evidence, a god who is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creating diseases like smallpox and black plague etc. Yea. I kinda sorta find those things a little bit worse than a "fuck" or a "shit".

b) No, all humans are fast food eaters. We all know that we should eat Italian Pasta like His Noodliness commanded. But too many of us just eat this unhealthy new trendy food and ignore the nutritious Pasta. As a fellow Pastafarian noted in some other thread I read, Lasagne -> La Sagne -> La Sign -> Sign from the FSM. Praise his Noodliness.

c) Pascal's wager... it's amazing how many people in philosophy forums still use such a pathetic argument. Do you really need an explanation on why it's wrong?

Of course I don't acknowledge it. I couldn't believe even if I wanted to. I can't convince myself to believe something for which there is no evidence and all evidence that we do have suggests that no such being exists and some arguments even prove certain gods to be non-existing, a logical impossibility. Could you convince yourself to believe in Zeus? Or Thor? Or Flying Spaghetti Monster? So no, C is not correctable, at least not by me. I can't CHOOSE to believe in god or not. I can only be convinced by evidence.

It's a straightforward empirical claim......

You almost have a good point, the problem is that you only focus on the worst possible scenarios and ideologies. Some political ideologies are horrible, sure, I agree. But most developed Western countries are peaceful, prosperous nations. The world is finally having peace, more or less, and you try to destroy it all just because some political ideologies in the past were bad?

Politics is an organized control over humans. What are you proposing instead of politics? It's in "human nature" to organize ourselves into social communities. Sooner or later, some humans would again achieve control over others. Humans can't go without politics in its vague sense, there is literally no nation, tribe or group of people that didn't have some, even if most simplest forms of ruling and attempting to achieve certain ideas.

You seem to point out the flaws of some(very extreme and generally unsupported) ideologies and then make an argument that therefore all political ideologies are bad, you don't provide anything that you think should replace politics and you don't seem to consider the implications and consequences of removing politics from the world. What is it that you find so wrong with most modern Western countries? That they don't give your religion dominance, is that it?

I think that democracy is a fallible system which gives too much power to the ignorant mass. But it's still the best we humans were capable of coming up with, so until I think of something better or at least a way to improve democracy I keep my mouth shut, not try to bring down what already works without anything else to replace it.

What do you think would happen if all political ideologies suddenly disappeared? My guess is that religions would take over and theocracy would ensue. So, no thanks.

Ginkgo wrote: Can you provide evidence that Dennett attributes political ideologies to religion?
I would have though he would argue the exact opposite, but that's just my assessment.

I never stated he attributes political ideologies to religion. I stated that all the horrible things he blames on religion are not the results of religion but of human nature. Political ideologies are simply another thing that human nature uses to justify horrible atrocities at times. My point is that his vehement hatred of religion is no different than any other form of fanaticism, including religious extremism. He is as blind as the people he calls blind.

I think this is mostly correct. If you look at the material inside of the scriptures of major religions, the actual text is about forgiveness, overcoming your personal psychological battles, re-uniting with God, maintaining peace and harmony, and being loving and so on. (The notable exception being the Old Testament, where it is all about murder and tribal warfare.)

This is absurdly untrue. I realize it's reflective of the liberal cant and propaganda of our day, but does anyone actually check the facts? Does anyone actually read these books before they venture an opinion?

But in the hands of people, those religions were just used as an excuse to kill, dominate, imprison , oppress and manipulate each other.

Well, as we noted beforehand, "religion" has actually been an exceedingly minor force in the history of wars and even smaller in the history of prisons. As for manipulation, our mass media has taken this to heights of which no "religion" has ever been able to dream. So this is another example of straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. Non-religous causes have been far more destructive than any "religion," or indeed, all of them combined.

Facts, please.

Kuznetzova wrote:I think this is mostly correct. If you look at the material inside of the scriptures of major religions, the actual text is about forgiveness, overcoming your personal psychological battles, re-uniting with God, maintaining peace and harmony, and being loving and so on. (The notable exception being the Old Testament, where it is all about murder and tribal warfare.)

But in the hands of people, those religions were just used as an excuse to kill, dominate, imprison , oppress and manipulate each other.

Kuznetzova:
But in the hands of people, those religions were just used as an excuse to kill, dominate, imprison , oppress and manipulate each other.

Qman:
Generally agree with you except for the above statement.
I would love to once and for all dispense with this erroneous point because it keeps coming up. Please let's get this straight, but religion and God is not to be blamed for your and my or anyone's bad behavior but only people who obviously do not follow the precepts of their religion in their lives. Christ clearly explained that people are evil because they choose to be. He also explained that removing evil at this time would cause too much of an upheaval and that it's taken care of at death. And it's also clear that no strata of human society including religion itself is immune to the influence and incidence of evil. Now, you want to minimize evil in your life? Simple, just say the Lord's prayer . . . and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. . . . Want to place a bet that if everyone on this planet says the Lord's prayer once a day in all sincerity and lives by the precepts in that prayer then evil would practically disappear within a short time span in all strata of society. So, let me stress one more time it's ALWAYS YOU (you in the general sense) and ME and NEVER God or the contents of the bible that causes problems.

Well, as we noted beforehand, "religion" has actually been an exceedingly minor force in the history of wars and even smaller in the history of prisons. As for manipulation, our mass media has taken this to heights of which no "religion" has ever been able to dream. So this is another example of straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. Non-religous causes have been far more destructive than any "religion," or indeed, all of them combined.

Most non-extreme political ideologies do more good than harm by far.

Let's take a look at the 2 largest and most influential religions in which make half the world population - Christianity 30% and Islam 20%. The negative influence and contributions of these religions outweigh the very few (questionably) positive ones BY FAR.

Religions brainwash children from their childhood with outright lies, waste time and resources on unnecessary and useless rituals, promote hate, discrimination, violence, war etc. And are always the last ones to progress in the world morally and scientifically. Do I even need to mention terrorists, jihad, crusades, inquisition and all the crimes and horrible deeds committed in the name of religions and gods? They teach people that faith (belief without or even AGAINST evidence) is a good thing. Religious people then have to do a whole lot of ignoring the facts and reality, accepting contradictory statements, logical impossibilities and inferior morality in order to keep their religion. It's detrimental and dangerous to the mind.

Now what has religion accomplished? Offered false hopes of afterlife for the naive? I don't find that to be a good thing. If people were more aware of their mortality and the uniqueness of human life there would be more respect for it and less wars and intentions to hurt each other.

Offer answers to fundamental questions about human existence? Haha, yes. False answers. Lies, deceit and wishful thinking. Again, not a good thing.

Religion feeds off ignorance, cowardice and plain stupidity. In the modern world those traits are becoming less and less frequent, as is religion. It lost its strongest argument when it stopped torturing and killing people.

3:

What "religion" are you talking about? Don't you feel a little bit silly grouping jihadis with the Amish? Animists with Unitarians? The Bahai with Thugees? Christians with Aztecs? Maybe you should say which religion actually did what.

I will not make bold to speak for any other "religions"; their proponents can do that. But I will tell you just a few of the things achieved by Christianity, just to satisfy your challenge:

Most of the hospitals.
Most of the educational institutions.
Public education itself.
Exploration.
Works of art.
The scientific method.
Much of Philosophy.
Almost all relief work in the Developing World today.
Free clinics.
Literacy.
The superstructure of our legal system.
Human rights.
Music.
Much of the Western Tradition's poetry and literature.
Social cohesion.
The preponderance of the charitable dollars in the world.
Prison reform.
The end of slavery.
Street missions.
The preservation of many traditional cultures against colonialism.
Clothing and feeding the poor worldwide.
Alcoholics Anonymous and other anti-addiction organizations...

...need I go on?

few of the things achieved by Christianity

The scientific method.

I LITERALLY laughed to tears. Thank you

I explicitly said which 2 major religions I'll take a look at. And I said the benefits of religions. I don't see how scientific method has ANYTHING to do with any specific religion. I was talking about aspects of religion like faith, supernatural, miracles, god etc. which are characteristic to religions. None of those characteristics contributed to ANYTHING of what you've mentioned in any positive way except maybe art, it influenced everything else negatively.

The things you mentioned would have evolved sooner and better if not for religions slowing the humanity down and inhibiting progress, freedoms and rational and critical thought. We would be centuries ahead and with a much nicer history with less unnecessary bloodshed if we had something like Secular Humanism instead of religions.

Not to mention how much religion perverted many of those. Look at Christian Philosophy f.e. It's EXACTLY what makes philosophy seem like useless bullshit to many people. When people just write their wishful thinking and personal interpretations as if they had some truth value concerning the real world. That's what art is for. Philosophy should be unbiased truth and wisdom seeking through rational argumentation.

Human rights.

No... you did not... after Old Testament and middle ages... you did NOT... wow... nothing to say

metachuck wrote:Ginkgo,
I was referring specifically to his assertions about religion. What he claims are the products of religion, all the horrors it has produced, I say are not products of religion but of human nature.

Sorry, my mistake. Could you tell me some of the "products" of religion that Dennett identifies?