The function of religion ?

[scribe]

Most people who claim to be "atheist" are actually "antitheismist", basing their view not on any particular argument for or against anything "spiritual", but on the balances of power and social forces that act upon them (and vice versa) in their daily lives. Most "atheists" who prefer to raise "science" as their herald would actually make pretty lousy scientists. (Sidenote: This is also why Einstein is a paradox to most: the idea of a "religious scientist" doesn't fit into a truncated world view.)

If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?

In other words, does a religion come from a function, or does a function come from a religion? And is it better or worse to criticise the function, or the religion?

If you are claiming that Einstein was a "religious scientist," I believe you are mistaken.

Mistaken in what way?

Also, the word is "antitheist."

No, I chose my word very deliberately. There's a big difference between the two. I would probably class myself as antitheismist. But also antismist generally*. I would not class myself as antitheist or atheist. "Post-spiritual" perhaps. Do words even mean anything when it comes to this stuff?

* Intentional paradox.

[sippsnapp]

I think people like to feel like they belong to a social group that they can relate to.

This of course should be also a reason why religions are so appretiated worldwide.
"because everybody arround me does it it must be a good thing"

[yrtrnc]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

"Atheism, as you say you are, has an -ism on the end! Which also implies it is a religion"
implies
3rd person singular present of im·ply
Verb:   
Strongly suggest the truth or existence of.

Google.com

"If that were true, then we have to consider the following as religion as well:
Fascism, racism, consumerism, nationalism, colonialism, alcoholism, militarism, surrealism, cannibalism..."

You could do, if you wanted to!

" religion, meaning a belief in something g to be true based only on faith."

What else do we have, other than faith?

"we would hope that their beliefs are based on reality"

Who's we? Whom do you speak for? Who's reality? What reality?

"because if they are not, they are stupid and/or deluded beliefs."

I have noticed that when people tend to see a belief pattern that questions theirs they attack it by calling it stupid and deluded instead of different or possible. One of the most famous being Galileo, they called it a heresy when he announced his belief that the Earth rotated around the Sun.

I am no more right than you are wrong and vice versa. Thank you for your thoughts.

"IN MY OPINION"

Atheism, as you say you are, has an -ism on the end! Which also implies it is a religion. After all, religion is a collection of belief systems. And every single person has a right to believe in what they want.

If that were true, then we have to consider the following as religion as well:
Fascism, racism, consumerism, nationalism, colonialism, alcoholism, militarism, surrealism, cannibalism...

When you redefine a word "religion" to mean any "belief system," you make your arguments in regards to "belief systems," not in regards to the generally accepted definition of religion. And in this case, you are arguing for/against your own position and ideas, not for/against what this topic is actually about, which is religion, meaning a belief in something g to be true based only on faith.
So, sure everyone has a right to believe what they want,and we would hope that their beliefs are based on reality, because if they are not, they are stupid and/or deluded beliefs.

[Rassah]

If you are claiming that Einstein was a "religious scientist," I believe you are mistaken.

Mistaken in what way?

Also, the word is "antitheist."

No, I chose my word very deliberately. There's a big difference between the two. I would probably class myself as antitheismist. But also antismist generally*. I would not class myself as antitheist or atheist. "Post-spiritual" perhaps. Do words even mean anything when it comes to this stuff?

* Intentional paradox.

[/quote]

I'm not aware of any -ismist endings. Moreover, "antitheismist" isn't a defined word. Antitheist is someone who is against theism, or against religion, which I believe is what you are going for. Please explain what you mean by "antitheismist"

[Rassah]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

"Beliefs" does not mean "knowledge" or "understanding of facts." As for atheism, it is a LACK of belief and practices, so it goes directly opposite your definition. Regardless, I'm not going to argue religion based on specific dictionary definitions.

" religion, meaning a belief in something g to be true based only on faith."

What else do we have, other than faith?

Reality and facts, which are based on observable, reproducible tests. I can test for things and phenomenon in our world, and when I test them again, I, and everyone else, will get the same results. I can't test for angels, souls, deities, or life after death, thus those things are accepted on faith, not facts.

"we would hope that their beliefs are based on reality"

Who's we? Whom do you speak for? Who's reality? What reality?

Anyone who wishes to live in a rational world. Any human sentient being who wishes for his species to continue to survive and improve, basically.

"because if they are not, they are stupid and/or deluded beliefs."

I have noticed that when people tend to see a belief pattern that questions theirs they attack it by calling it stupid and deluded instead of different or possible. One of the most famous being Galileo, they called it a heresy when he announced his belief that the Earth rotated around the Sun.

Those were not Galileo's beliefs, they were his factual, provable, and reproducible observations. Galileo is an example of what happens when someone's observation of reality clashes with someone else's faith-based "beliefs" about their reality. When people see a belief pattern that is based on provable facts, they do often attack it by calling it stupid (e.g. look at SA and Slash-Dot's comments about Bitcoin), but that is often because of their own faith-based ignorant beliefs clashing with what is actually true, not the other way around. In the end, the beliefs that are based on facts win over those based on faith.

I am no more right than you are wrong and vice versa. Thank you for your thoughts.

You are less right than I am, because I can prove my being right by actual evidence, and all you have your beliefs.

[yrtrnc]

Reality and facts, which are based on observable, reproducible tests. I can test for things and phenomenon in our world, and when I test them again, I, and everyone else, will get the same results. I can't test for angels, souls, deities, or life after death, thus those things are accepted on faith, not facts.

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

 

[grondilu]

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.

You mean a conspiracy theory, right?  Like in Truman show?  Do you know that there is a psychiatric term for this?



Then I guess he'll have to talk to you about Occam's razor and how conspiracy theories can not reasonably explain anything since it is always possible to imagine one.

[JoelKatz]

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

There is no need to believe in them. In fact, I really can't even understand what it would mean to believe in one's senses.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.

Then my senses would be accurately reporting the true fact that this big game in fact existed.

And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

I kind of lost you here. But if in fact there was such a game, my senses would be giving me precisely the information I needed to figure that out. If the game caused me to sense X, then to figure this out, I need to sense X. If the game in fact exists, then X is what I will sense. So my senses accurately report on this game, which is exactly what I need them to do.

If there were some game that made my senses detect X when the truth was Y, then if I did sense Y regardless, I would be forever unable to detect the existence of this game. That I sense X when Y is the case when there is such a game is precisely what I need so that I am *not* fooled by this game.

[Liquid]

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.
The majority of people who have ever existed would have followed religious forms because they would not have had any alternative and simply conformed to the social norms of the time and place they happened to have been born in.
It's no different for people today - the norm says 'work 8 hours a day helping this company make money for shareholders' - and people go along with it; even though it's completely pointless and irrational.
Everything we do is irrational - if we were rational we would immediately see how insignificant and pointless our personal existence is (based on the facts that make it clear that we are trivial specs of dust in an infinite universe - our actions are hopeless and irrelevant and arbitrary) and kill ourselves.
People do not live their lives rationally - they are driven by the genetic imperative to survive. If religion means survival then religion is the way to go.

+1

watch and educate yourself  

http://www.youtube.com/user/twcjr44/videos?flow=grid&view=0

[grondilu]

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage...  for religion.   Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:



Parasitism does exist.  And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.


You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years.  Does that make it a good thing?

[yrtrnc]

I kind of lost you here. But if in fact there was such a game, my senses would be giving me precisely the information I needed to figure that out. If the game caused me to sense X, then to figure this out, I need to sense X. If the game in fact exists, then X is what I will sense. So my senses accurately report on this game, which is exactly what I need them to do.

If there were some game that made my senses detect X when the truth was Y, then if I did sense Y regardless, I would be forever unable to detect the existence of this game. That I sense X when Y is the case when there is such a game is precisely what I need so that I am *not* fooled by this game.

I think you've fooled yourself quite well there 

[yrtrnc]

Then my senses would be accurately reporting the true fact that this big game in fact existed.

How about if I told you your senses were in on it too 

[yrtrnc]

Heres something to cheer you buggers up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

This may shed a lil light on our dreadfully importantly serious topic..

[JoelKatz]

Then my senses would be accurately reporting the true fact that this big game in fact existed.

How about if I told you your senses were in on it too 

All that I require from my senses it that they report what the actual state of the universe causes them to report. This is precisely the input I need to try to figure out what that state of the universe is. It's inconceivable that they could somehow report something other than what the universe causes them to report. That the senses are reliable is axiomatic. There is no sense in which they can be unreliable.

If, for example, my eyes first reported one thing and then another, then it would be a fact of reality that my eyes reported things in this way. My eyes would accurately be reporting this fact. If, despite the fact that my eyes had this defect, they still reported the same thing, then I would be fooled by my senses and unable to  detect and understand this defect. The idea that senses could be unreliable or defective is self-contradictory.

If they really are unreliable, then by acting unreliably,  they accurately report their unreliability to me. If they really were unreliable, but nevertheless acted reliably, *that* would be a problem, since I'd be unable to sense the true fact that my senses were unreliable.

[yrtrnc]

Im telling you man, that the whole universe is playing a game on you and that your senses are in on it too..
I dont think you would believe me and thats why Im telling you, as I am also a part of the game 

Then my senses would be accurately reporting the true fact that this big game in fact existed.

How about if I told you your senses were in on it too 

All that I require from my senses it that they report what the actual state of the universe causes them to report. This is precisely the input I need to try to figure out what that state of the universe is. It's inconceivable that they could somehow report something other than what the universe causes them to report. That the senses are reliable is axiomatic. There is no sense in which they can be unreliable.

If, for example, my eyes first reported one thing and then another, then it would be a fact of reality that my eyes reported things in this way. My eyes would accurately be reporting this fact. If, despite the fact that my eyes had this defect, they still reported the same thing, then I would be fooled by my senses and unable to  detect and understand this defect. The idea that senses could be unreliable or defective is self-contradictory.

If they really are unreliable, then by acting unreliably,  they accurately report their unreliability to me. If they really were unreliable, but nevertheless acted reliably, *that* would be a problem, since I'd be unable to sense the true fact that my senses were unreliable.

[JoelKatz]

Im telling you man, that the whole universe is playing a game on you and that your senses are in on it too..
I dont think you would believe me and thats why Im telling you, as I am also a part of the game 

Thank you. I now have all the evidence I need.

[yrtrnc]

Thank you 

[Rassah]

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

My answer is:
Then this game's existence would be irrelevant. Reality would be whatever we sensed and detected in this game, and the game itself would be reality. If you claimed you know that this is all a game to trick us, and the reality was different, then we'll have two options.
One would be that you show proof that there is a game, in which case we would adjust our understanding of reality to include this game.
 The other would be that you have no proof and there is no way to test for your claim of there being a game, in which case your claim will be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense, just as claims by people who "know" that big foot, fairies, and unicorns exist, until such time that you provide proof, and we go to option one.
In short, your "knowledge" of a game, and it's basis in reality is totally irrelevant without proof.

[yrtrnc]

And thats my point, your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine because you cannot prove your point just as much as I cannot prove mine.

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

My answer is:
Then this game's existence would be irrelevant. Reality would be whatever we sensed and detected in this game, and the game itself would be reality. If you claimed you know that this is all a game to trick us, and the reality was different, then we'll have two options.
One would be that you show proof that there is a game, in which case we would adjust our understanding of reality to include this game.
 The other would be that you have no proof and there is no way to test for your claim of there being a game, in which case your claim will be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense, just as claims by people who "know" that big foot, fairies, and unicorns exist, until such time that you provide proof, and we go to option one.
In short, your "knowledge" of a game, and it's basis in reality is totally irrelevant without proof.

[Rassah]

If your point was that wild, unsubstantiated claims, such as those proposed by religion, should be irrelevant, i.e. should not be taken as truth, or given any value, and should be outright rejected when confronted with contradictory proof, then yes?
My point was that my opinion is relevant and yours is not because I have proof to substantiate my opinion, and you don't. I'm not even sure what exactly you are arguing.

And thats my point, your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine because you cannot prove your point just as much as I cannot prove mine.

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

My answer is:
Then this game's existence would be irrelevant. Reality would be whatever we sensed and detected in this game, and the game itself would be reality. If you claimed you know that this is all a game to trick us, and the reality was different, then we'll have two options.
One would be that you show proof that there is a game, in which case we would adjust our understanding of reality to include this game.
 The other would be that you have no proof and there is no way to test for your claim of there being a game, in which case your claim will be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense, just as claims by people who "know" that big foot, fairies, and unicorns exist, until such time that you provide proof, and we go to option one.
In short, your "knowledge" of a game, and it's basis in reality is totally irrelevant without proof.