-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could all religious followers be hoodwinked?
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
Silver
Just maybe
The daughter is providing evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy, who takes a child's tooth from under their pillow whilst they are asleep, often leaving a coin in the tooth's place, whereas in reality it's their parents who take the teeth.
Similarly the father, a priest/reverand, provides 'evidence' for the existence of God/jesus/whoever. Has be been hoodwinked by other people? Perhaps we will never know.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I wouldn't say that religious followers are hoodwinked, as their deception is often self-imposed and voluntary.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
The daughter is providing evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy, who takes a child's tooth from under their pillow whilst they are asleep, often leaving a coin in the tooth's place, whereas in reality it's their parents who take the teeth.
Similarly the father, a priest/reverand, provides 'evidence' for the existence of God/jesus/whoever. Has be been hoodwinked by other people? Perhaps we will never know.
Yeah, it was meant to be tongue in cheek. I assume there are a lot of posters who might have been confused, though since you'd have to know all of that in order to get what you were conveying with the comic. Luckily, we've got that cleared up, now!
Anyway, I agree with Kilgore Trout. In a completely unrelated thread a long while back I once said something to the effect of (paraphrased):
"Do you really think Catholics have no idea that the church spends their church donation money to make gigantic, opulent churches and live lavish lifestyles in the Vatican? Of course they know! That's what they WANT!"
Bout sums up my viewpoint too.
Okay?
Statistical probability would strongly suggest that it is extraordinarily unlikely that all "religious followers" are "hoodwinked." All does not allow for even one exception, which, when we're talking about an incredibly diverse and large sample frame, is so astronomically improbable as to be a laughable hypothesis. It might be somewhat less laughable if it was remedied to simply refer to all humans, period, because you might as well with how broad and diverse the sample frame already is. Then, you might as well also just point out that all human knowledge is limited as we are finite beings with finite senses, and, from that perspective, all humanity is "hoodwinked."
Statistical probability would strongly suggest that it is extraordinarily unlikely that all "religious followers" are "hoodwinked." All does not allow for even one exception, which, when we're talking about an incredibly diverse and large sample frame, is so astronomically improbable as to be a laughable hypothesis. It might be somewhat less laughable if it was remedied to simply refer to all humans, period, because you might as well with how broad and diverse the sample frame already is. Then, you might as well also just point out that all human knowledge is limited as we are finite beings with finite senses, and, from that perspective, all humanity is "hoodwinked."
What sort of statistics are you using to come to this conclusion?
I should probably say right out that I think the term "hoodwinked" implies an intentionality that I'm not sure is present, but if we look at things in terms of merely being wrong, then consider this:
- many religious beliefs are mutually exclusive: i.e. beliefs A, B, C, & D all contradict each other, so if any one is true, then the rest must be false.
- therefore, many (most?) religious beliefs must be false.
- therefore, there exists some mechanism or mechanisms that can get people to accept religious beliefs even if they're false.
I think this makes a difference in any assessment of probabilities.
Kinda sorta.
I do agree that human beliefs are subject to error in all sorts of ways, but I think that religion tends to be unique in an important respect: most other types of belief get error-correction in the form of evidence.
For instance, if I believe that I can live without food, reality will demonstrate to me pretty quickly that I'm incorrect. Or if I believe that homeopathy works, I can find plenty of scientific evidence to contradict this idea if I decide to go looking (though since we're not forced to go looking, many people won't bother). OTOH, if I believe that I'll be transported to some sort of afterlife when I die (in an invisible, undetectable realm, of course), I could live my whole life without ever being confronted with any evidence that contradicts this belief, and even if I go searching, I might not ever be able to find evidence that suggests I'm wrong... even if there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that I'm right.
Are some people being hoodwinked by materialist science to believe there is nothing beyond the material?
Last edited:
You know, let's just be blunt here and point out the obvious (or what should be obvious at any rate) with respect to the topic at hand.
Whenever people make statements like this, or like that of the OP, it's a thinly-veiled excuse for a condescending attitude towards worldviews and truths differ from their own. It isn't always, but more often than not, the manner in which the questions are presented is not oriented towards inquisitive discussion, but being self-righteous and judgmental. I don't mean to suggest that either George or Silver made their posts with this intent; I see these questions as a satirical jab to point out their inherently flawed and incredulous nature. Their evaluation rests entirely on subjective personal or cultural assumptions (philosophy) about the nature of truth/knowledge. This makes it is painfully easy to come up with examples contrary to these statements (hence the statistical probability of "all" being zero), especially when we're talking about esoteric topics that you can't put objective measurements and statistics to in the first place. Add to this the diversity of religion being overlooked: not all religions are creedal and dogmatic, nor do all religions have governing authority or organization where the situation shown in the comic would take place. Given there exist these types of religions, they instantly defy the extremist claim of the OP that ALL (as in without exception) religious followers are "hoodwinked" by some religious authority. :slap:
Then again, I'm not in the "One and Only Absolute Truth" crowd, so of course I'd say so, and I'm a member of one of those non-dogmatic, non-creedal, non-organized, self-revising or error-correcting religions. There's my bias. You completely lost me in the first line of your rebuttal, 9-10ths. I just don't have a one-dimensional view of truth. :sorry1: But hey, if you favor the "One Truth" thing, it follows, I s'pose.
You know, let's just be blunt here and point out the obvious (or what should be obvious at any rate) with respect to the topic at hand.
Whenever people make statements like this, or like that of the OP, it's a thinly-veiled excuse for a condescending attitude towards worldviews and truths differ from their own. It isn't always, but more often than not, the manner in which the questions are presented is not oriented towards inquisitive discussion, but being self-righteous and judgmental. I don't mean to suggest that either George or Silver made their posts with this intent; I see these questions as a satirical jab to point out their inherently flawed and incredulous nature. Their evaluation rests entirely on subjective personal or cultural assumptions (philosophy) about the nature of truth/knowledge. This makes it is painfully easy to come up with examples contrary to these statements (hence the statistical probability of "all" being zero), especially when we're talking about esoteric topics that you can't put objective measurements and statistics to in the first place. Add to this the diversity of religion being overlooked: not all religions are creedal and dogmatic, nor do all religions have governing authority or organization where the situation shown in the comic would take place. Given there exist these types of religions, they instantly defy the extremist claim of the OP that ALL (as in without exception) religious followers are "hoodwinked" by some religious authority. :slap:
Then again, I'm not in the "One and Only Absolute Truth" crowd, so of course I'd say so, and I'm a member of one of those non-dogmatic, non-creedal, non-organized, self-revising or error-correcting religions. There's my bias. You completely lost me in the first line of your rebuttal, 9-10ths. I just don't have a one-dimensional view of truth. :sorry1: But hey, if you favor the "One Truth" thing, it follows, I s'pose.
I like what you say. My point was the OP and cartoon was insulting and rather than dignify it with a long response I chose to show how you can ask the same 'hoodwinked' question about anything.
It was an insulting cartoon with no issue of substance to debate. A poor OP.
Last edited:
The probability of statistics.
Most likely, but that would be off topic.
How often could that possibly happen?
How serious a mistake could that even be, compared with the major damage of faith gone wrong?
And how accurate is it to even blame "materialistic science"?
I fear you have missed the point of the OP, which I read as a warning against the dangers of blind faith.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Could all religious followers be hoodwinked (Edit: fooled, misled)? Why/Why not?
My considered opinion is that that is quite possible and that religion is the most elaborate and longest-running scam of all time. I suppose that the first tribesman who found that he could evade the daily grind of survival by pretending to talk to gods quickly realized that he was onto a good (for him) thing.
The really ingenious thing about it it that most of the perpetrators are also victims.
Along those lines, allow me to sum up God's viewpoint in Revelations 3:
"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. But because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Sounds preferable to the alternative.