Children and Religion

[Truly Enlightened]

Firstly, the point I making, was that parents should not deceive children into believing that religious tenets are factual and real.

So children should only be hear what you believe

Should vulnerable impressionable developing minds, be subjected to this form of deception, without any rational justification?

Playing the religion is child abuse card to justify your totalitarian view,.

OK offer some hard evidence that your view is the truth

Firstly, religious or atheist's views are not totalitarian views. Being subservient to either view is by choice, and not imposed by the state. There is a clear separation between the state and religion(or non-religion). Also, it is not the "child abuse card", it is more the "ignorance card", I am speaking about. Or, is it the "forced conformity card"? Many children have lost their lives, because of what many parents do to them in the name of religion. They don't understand that children are NOT mini-adults, and all genetically different. Being a parent is an awesome responsibility. Unfortunately, parenthood is not something that can be taught.

All children are born with a natural curiosity, and the ability to learn. Their cognitive development is affected by what they learn from their first society about reality. In early development, agents are used to represent facts. This is because of the limited cognitive skills a child uses to assimilate conceptual concepts. But this still maintains the notion of cause and effect(Santa and presents, Tooth fairy and coins, stork and babies, etc.). Normally children will grow out of their transcendental and metaphysical beliefs, when their ignorance is replaced by verifiable knowledge. But many children are not genetically predisposed to this level of skepticism, and will maintain this level of cognitive dissonance throughout their lives. Of course, its effects vary.

OK offer some hard evidence that your view is the truth

What specific hard evidence do I need to produce, to justify preparing a child to navigate through the physical reality we both experience? What existential part of religious dogma/stories, are essential for a child's survival? What hard evidence can you provide that any religious teachings are true, or even necessary? Why is it that YOUR religious teachings are true, and the others are false? You know that all religions can't be true. But certainly, all religions can be false. Do you think the child's morality comes from religion, or from the general society?

"If you can't show it, then you don't know it".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Simply removing god/religion from a worldview doesn't make it factually true. The conceit is not rejecting religion, but that in doing so you face 'reality'. 'Sceptics' are rarely sceptical about the fictions that underpin their worldview (which are often actually religious in origin anyway).

We are predisposed to seeing the world via a collection of narratives that enable us to make sense of the disparate world we experience and to put things together in a comprehensible and communicable manner.

There are also plenty of comforts in things that don't exist, comfort is an emotional state, and emotions are not limited to objective factual events. There are also truths in things which aren't true. A work of fiction or mythology may be better able to describe an aspect of the human condition better than a scientific textbook can as it is not limited by the conventions of scientific literature.

When the Greeks talk about hubris as an incurable aspect of human nature, or the Biblical Fall notes that human nature is irredeemably flawed they convey the truth via myth. Many 'rational' people have believed and do believe that human nature can be perfected and/or that the bad parts are really some kind of 'inhuman' error, rather than things which are just as human as love and compassion.



Self-described 'sceptics' tend to be sceptical about a small range of things, and conformist in many others. That's a common feature of human nature.

As a teenager and young adult I used to consume lots of 'New Atheist' material, and most people say the same thing, using the same reasoning and making the same mistakes. It's the kind of conformity you expect to see in fundamentalist circles, try finding a 'New Atheist' who doesn't believe in the conflict thesis or that religion is the biggest (or close to the biggest) source of violence and division in history. Neither of these ideas has any significant degree of support among contemporary scholars, yet 'rationalists' accept them as fact (and usually dismiss any effort to point this out with some kind of ad hom about 'apologetics').

Humans, including 'sceptics', didn't evolve to be highly rational across the board ('rational' in an objective, neutral discovery of truth sense)



Human nature/human condition are pretty much synonymous the way I use them.



Part of social dynamics, primate groups can't have too many leaders, so people choose to back down or are forced to backdown.



With human primates in the modern world, the situation can be far more flexible, we can be leaders or followers in numerous different settings. Following is not necessarily a sign of weakness or failure either, it can be very rational.



The belief that anyone lives their life without relying on comforting fictions and that the deficiencies of human nature can be overcome by reason.

Have posted these a million times, but the express the ideas better than me, so I keep using them

Bertie [Bertrand Russell] held two ludicrously incompatible beliefs: on the one hand he believed that all the problems of the world stemmed from conducting human affairs in a most irrational way; on the other hand that the solution was simple, since all we had to do was to behave rationally. JM Keynes

When contemporary humanists invoke the idea of progress they are mixing together two different myths: a Socratic myth of reason and a Christian myth of salvation. If the resulting body of ideas is incoherent, that is the source of its appeal. Humanists believe that humanity improves along with the growth of knowledge, but the belief that the increase of knowledge goes with advances in civilization is an act of faith. They see the realization of human potential as the goal of history, when rational inquiry shows history to have no goal. They exalt nature, while insisting that humankind – an accident of nature – can overcome the natural limits that shape the lives of other animals. Plainly absurd, this nonsense gives meaning to the lives of people who believe they have left all myths behind.

To expect humanists to give up their myths would be unreasonable. Like cheap music, the myth of progress lifts the spirits as it numbs the brain. The fact that rational humanity shows no sign of ever arriving only makes humanists cling more fervently to the conviction that humankind will someday be redeemed from unreason. Like [the believers in a flying saucer cult whose beliefs only strengthened when the aliens didn't arrive], they interpret the non-event as confirming their faith. John Gray, The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths

I'm afraid that I feel the same hubris in not accepting God, or any supernatural aspects of religion, as I do in not accepting Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. The only thing that underpins my worldview are facts. Should I abandon facts, to be comforted by fiction, just to avoid being labelled as "conceited"? I am also not aware of any fiction that underpins my world view, that I am NOT skeptical of, or is no longer a part of my worldview. I am also aware that there are many people who find comfort in their superstitions and fictions. Or, that their myths, fairy tales, and superstitions, are better able to provide metaphysical answers to questions that are beyond the rational limits of science. "God did it all" may offer emotional comfort to many, but is cognitively and substantively barren. I also sometimes find comfort in my "lucky pieces" and "beliefs". The difference is, I don't try to defend or portray my fictitious beliefs as being factual or real. I don't take the moral high-ground because of my alignment with my fictitious beliefs. I do not impose my fictitious beliefs onto my children, or to others that do not share those beliefs. I do not justify my actions and behavior because of my fictitious beliefs. Finally, I don't judge, or ostracize others because on my fictitious beliefs(belief intolerance). And I do not avoid my burden of proof, by providing glib, arrogant, obfuscating, insulting, and nonsense answers, to support my fictitious narrative..

Maybe you can give me an example of what seems as a contradiction, "There are also truths in things which aren't true.". Other than being conceptually true, what are their physical truths? Example, is it physically true that a chair, table, or yourself physically exist? Also, a child's reality is confirmed by its senses, not by its narrative. In fact, many indoctrinated narratives may conflict with what the child's sense of reality is. It is our perception(stimulus response) of reality that shapes our conception(narrative) of reality, not the other way around.

The human condition is far too subjective and complicated to be perfected. What exactly are those human errors that need to be corrected? Gullibility, insecurity, dissonance, herding instincts, or ignorance? Unless you want to make clones of an entire species, I think we should let nature evolve our species naturally. These genes will eventually be deleted from the gene pool, once their importance is fully recognized.

A good amount of skepticism is a good thing. We should all be skeptical of any claims of the paranormal, the supernatural, myths and fairy tales, the suspension or violation of physical laws, or any claims of miracle. This also includes any counter-intuitive claims of certainty. What is your idea of a "small range" for skeptics? If you're saying that being a skeptical or critical thinker, is part of the human condition, then I agree. If you're saying that being gullible and irrational, is because of the brain's compartmentalization flaws, then I also agree. Also, if skepticism is a fundamentalism, then so is common sense and the rules of logic.

Part of social dynamics, primate groups can't have too many leaders, so people choose to back down or are forced to backdown.

Actually, the control dynamics in a social group is based on the number of members(not the leaders) within the group. With billions of members in the human group, it is necessary to create culturally-specific Gods to maintain control of the group. This is exactly what we see today, and is maintained through our children. I also agree that being a follower has some advantages, but is easily abused by manipulation(Sharia Law) by the leaders.

The belief that anyone lives their life without relying on comforting fictions and that the deficiencies of human nature can be overcome by reason.

No rational person would ever suggest that any weakness in the human condition can be overcome by reason alone. Only natural evolution can do this. I personally would prefer to be comforted by my family, friends, and the true nature of reality, than by my own fictitious narratives. There will always be people that can make s**t sound good enough to eat. Therefore, "Berties" opinions only have a value of "one". So in the end, some people will need fictions/myths to give meaning to their lives. Some people will find meaning to their lives, without the need for fiction, superstition, or myths. Thank God for our genetic differences.

 

[Augustus]

I'm afraid that I feel the same hubris in not accepting God, or any supernatural aspects of religion, as I do in not accepting Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. The only thing that underpins my worldview are facts. Should I abandon facts, to be comforted by fiction, just to avoid being labelled as "conceited"?

Once again, I didn't say it was hubris to be irreligious; I am irreligious.

The conceit is the belief that your worldview is based purely on 'facts'.

I am also not aware of any fiction that underpins my world view, that I am NOT skeptical of, or is no longer a part of my worldview. I am also aware that there are many people who find comfort in their superstitions and fictions. Or, that their myths, fairy tales, and superstitions, are better able to provide metaphysical answers to questions that are beyond the rational limits of science. "God did it all" may offer emotional comfort to many, but is cognitively and substantively barren. I also sometimes find comfort in my "lucky pieces" and "beliefs". The difference is, I don't try to defend or portray my fictitious beliefs as being factual or real. I don't take the moral high-ground because of my alignment with my fictitious beliefs. I do not impose my fictitious beliefs onto my children, or to others that do not share those beliefs. I do not justify my actions and behavior because of my fictitious beliefs. Finally, I don't judge, or ostracize others because on my fictitious beliefs(belief intolerance). And I do not avoid my burden of proof, by providing glib, arrogant, obfuscating, insulting, and nonsense answers, to support my fictitious narrative..

You are taking the moral high ground here because you see your 'fact based' worldview as being more virtuous than emotionally comforting fictions (although it is an emotionally comforting fiction in itself).

You also likely ostracise people who have values that can't be aligned with your own subjective preferences. We all do.

You certainly try to impose many of your beliefs onto your children, supported with stories (fictions) about why certain things are better than others.

Maybe you can give me an example of what seems as a contradiction, "There are also truths in things which aren't true.". Other than being conceptually true, what are their physical truths? Example, is it physically true that a chair, table, or yourself physically exist?

Myths are stories that describe an aspect of the human condition in a manner easy to transmit.

The Biblical Fall explains that humans are fundamentally flawed animals that cannot be perfected. This is true, despite the story being untrue. Millions of people have died because of the belief that humans could be perfected, that's enough of a physical truth for me.

Of course you can make a more scientific or historical case for human failings, but it would be more verbose and harder to communicate.

Much of myth is just distilled human experience packaged for communication. That the stories aren't true doesn't really matter.

The evolutionary biologist Brett Weinstein termed these metaphorical truths, things which aren't true yet offere some form of benefit to those who act as if they are true

Also, a child's reality is confirmed by its senses, not by its narrative. In fact, many indoctrinated narratives may conflict with what the child's sense of reality is. It is our perception(stimulus response) of reality that shapes our conception(narrative) of reality, not the other way around.

A child's reality is obviously shaped by the stories you tell them combined with their sensory experience, same as with an adult. Culture shapes your view of reality; had you been born in Pakistan, you'd probably be a Muslim.

The human condition is far too subjective and complicated to be perfected. What exactly are those human errors that need to be corrected? Gullibility, insecurity, dissonance, herding instincts, or ignorance? Unless you want to make clones of an entire species, I think we should let nature evolve our species naturally. These genes will eventually be deleted from the gene pool, once their importance is fully recognized.

These all seem to be fundamental aspects of human cognition. It's like believing in Divine Providence to assume they must disappear as natural selection eliminates things you see as failings based on your subjective preferences.

We evolved with these things because they are important (or side effects of functions that are important) and they are highly unlikely to be going anywhere as long as humans exist.

I personally would prefer to be comforted by my family, friends, and the true nature of reality, than by my own fictitious narratives... So in the end, some people will need fictions/myths to give meaning to their lives. Some people will find meaning to their lives, without the need for fiction, superstition, or myths.

What is the true nature of reality? How do you create meaning in your life without relying on narratives that are not objectively true? What makes your worldview/ideology better than other ideologies (for you)? What does it mean to live a 'good life'? Why would your answer to the last question be completely different had you happened to be born in a different time or place?

We are a collection of molecules that became sentient by chance and exist in a purposeless and uncaring world. We construct meaning where none exists via the use of narrative/myth/fiction and we cannot abstract ourselves from the stories and cultures we have been exposed to see all things 'as they are'.

 

[Rival]

You have some interesting perspectives on things. Much of it does not ring true in my experience. How much have you studied about cognitive development? I haven't much myself, but even knowing what little I do, your presuppositions seem pretty shaky to me. I don't know where you're from, but I definitely do not see children demonstrating blind obedience to adults.

Have worked at a school. Can confirm.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Once again, I didn't say it was hubris to be irreligious; I am irreligious.

The conceit is the belief that your worldview is based purely on 'facts'.




You are taking the moral high ground here because you see your 'fact based' worldview as being more virtuous than emotionally comforting fictions (although it is an emotionally comforting fiction in itself).

You also likely ostracise people who have values that can't be aligned with your own subjective preferences. We all do.

You certainly try to impose many of your beliefs onto your children, supported with stories (fictions) about why certain things are better than others.



Myths are stories that describe an aspect of the human condition in a manner easy to transmit.

The Biblical Fall explains that humans are fundamentally flawed animals that cannot be perfected. This is true, despite the story being untrue. Millions of people have died because of the belief that humans could be perfected, that's enough of a physical truth for me.

Of course you can make a more scientific or historical case for human failings, but it would be more verbose and harder to communicate.

Much of myth is just distilled human experience packaged for communication. That the stories aren't true doesn't really matter.

The evolutionary biologist Brett Weinstein termed these metaphorical truths, things which aren't true yet offere some form of benefit to those who act as if they are true

A child's reality is obviously shaped by the stories you tell them combined with their sensory experience, same as with an adult. Culture shapes your view of reality; had you been born in Pakistan, you'd probably be a Muslim.



These all seem to be fundamental aspects of human cognition. It's like believing in Divine Providence to assume they must disappear as natural selection eliminates things you see as failings based on your subjective preferences.

We evolved with these things because they are important (or side effects of functions that are important) and they are highly unlikely to be going anywhere as long as humans exist.



What is the true nature of reality? How do you create meaning in your life without relying on narratives that are not objectively true? What makes your worldview/ideology better than other ideologies (for you)? What does it mean to live a 'good life'? Why would your answer to the last question be completely different had you happened to be born in a different time or place?

We are a collection of molecules that became sentient by chance and exist in a purposeless and uncaring world. We construct meaning where none exists via the use of narrative/myth/fiction and we cannot abstract ourselves from the stories and cultures we have been exposed to see all things 'as they are'.

I thank you for your input. It is clear that you are passionate about your beliefs. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own logic. And, certainly not by misrepresenting or distorting my comments. Or by answering questions from the straw man that you create. Before I forget, humans are not the only life forms that can demonstrate love and compassion. My argument was not about using metaphors, fictional stories, fairy tales, or myths to stimulate a child's imagination, or to convey to them a complicated message or idea. My point was that parents should not try to convince children that these myths, metaphors, and fairy tales are actually true. Let's look at your other comments.

You first claim, "Simply not being religious doesn't mean much in my experience though, albeit plenty of irreligious folk operate under the conceit that they are somehow startlingly independent thinkers who have transcended the need for comforting fictions and bravely see the world as it truly is". You go on to state that, "The conceit is not rejecting religion, but that in doing so(rejecting religion) you face 'reality'. 'Sceptics' are rarely sceptical about the fictions that underpin their worldview (which are often actually religious in origin anyway)". Finally, you use the term "hubris"(conceit), as an "incurable aspect of human nature". You then cite a mythical biblical story(The Fall) to claim that humans are "irredeemably flawed". Whatever that means. So, regarding implying that being irreligious is also being hubris(conceited), then yeah, you kinda did. The conceit and arrogance is in making the assumption that people fit into only two mutually exclusive categories.

You also mischaracterize my position as being "more virtuous than emotionally comforting fictions". Having a worldview based on facts, has nothing to do with having a moral high ground. Facts only have to do with degrees of certainty, not morality. No human is perfect(or anything else). We are all made up of things we know, things we believe we know, and things we don't know. Some people will accept testable objective answers, that increase their certainty of things they don't know or understand. Others will only accept answers that will confirm their religious bias without any evidence at all.

Using "The Fall" to highlight the flaws in humans, was probably a poor idea. It also highlights the flaws in the nature of a God(s). I won't go into the obvious contradictions, questions, and intent, associated with an multi-omni entity. I also agree that a belief in fiction can have a positive placebo effect. The power of prayer is an example. Although it can have a negative placebo effect for some, especially having a group of people at their bedside praying for them.

A child's reality is obviously shaped by the stories you tell them combined with their sensory experience, same as with an adult. Culture shapes your view of reality; had you been born in Pakistan, you'd probably be a Muslim.

A child's view of his physical reality is shaped long before he develops the language to create his own narrative. Let alone to formulate his religious view. What do you think shapes the physical reality of a child born blind and deaf? It is our sensory organs that shape our physical reality. It is our cultural traditions, mores and norms, positive and negative feedbacks, and customs and social behavior, that shape our social reality. So yes, it is highly unlikely that a child will become a catholic in Pakistan. What do you think the odds of a child becoming a Baha'i in the US would be?

There are 180 vestigial organs in the human body. Clearly these organs did not loose their functions overnight. Why do you think this occurred? Unfortunately, genes do not simply disappear. They are just turned off. So we can tell what their functions were, by looking at those same genes in other species. There is no belief gene, but there may be a combination of genes, that provide the character traits to predispose a person towards belief. My preference is totally irrelevant. Evolution will determine which genes are useful, and which genes are not. Not me.

To answer your questions. The true nature of reality, is that it exists physically. You add meaning to your life, by utilizing resources that are objectively certain, and by having realistic expectation about your worth and importance. My worldview is subjective, and only applies to me. Whether it is better or worst than others, WOULD be a conceited view. Your last question about a "good life". I think "old blue eyes" said it best. When you can do it "your way", you have lived a good life. Your last paragraph only highlight a series of debunked creationist apologetic soundbites, that must commit many logical fallacies to give them a false perception of credibility.

​

 

[Augustus]

Your last paragraph only highlight a series of debunked creationist apologetic soundbites, that must commit many logical fallacies to give them a false perception of credibility.

It is a 'debunked creationist apologetic soundbite' to note that we are random accidents of nature existing in a purposeless universe where we create our own systems of meaning?

Can you explain that one please?

Before I forget, humans are not the only life forms that can demonstrate love and compassion.

I agree.

My argument was not about using metaphors, fictional stories, fairy tales, or myths to stimulate a child's imagination, or to convey to them a complicated message or idea. My point was that parents should not try to convince children that these myths, metaphors, and fairy tales are actually true.

Raising children requires you teach them many things that are not objectively true, regardless of what worldview you are trying to raise them with.

You first claim, "Simply not being religious doesn't mean much in my experience though, albeit plenty of irreligious folk operate under the conceit that they are somehow startlingly independent thinkers who have transcended the need for comforting fictions and bravely see the world as it truly is". You go on to state that, "The conceit is not rejecting religion, but that in doing so(rejecting religion) you face 'reality'. 'Sceptics' are rarely sceptical about the fictions that underpin their worldview (which are often actually religious in origin anyway)". Finally, you use the term "hubris"(conceit), as an "incurable aspect of human nature". You then cite a mythical biblical story(The Fall) to claim that humans are "irredeemably flawed". Whatever that means. So, regarding implying that being irreligious is also being hubris(conceited), then yeah, you kinda did. The conceit and arrogance is in making the assumption that people fit into only two mutually exclusive categories.

Actually, I don't think that distinguishing between religious and irreligious worldviews is particularly useful, so don't think there are 2 neat, mutually exclusive categories.

Hubris is an incurable aspect of human nature as countless human cultures have noted though, do you disagree with this?

The rest of your reasoning is not representative of my position at all.

I did not imply that being irreligious was conceited, I stated that it is a conceit to believe you see the world as it is. And said hubris is a is an incurable aspect of human nature which covers both religious and irreligious people alike.

Using "The Fall" to highlight the flaws in humans, was probably a poor idea. It also highlights the flaws in the nature of a God(s). I won't go into the obvious contradictions, questions, and intent, associated with an multi-omni entity. I also agree that a belief in fiction can have a positive placebo effect. The power of prayer is an example. Although it can have a negative placebo effect for some, especially having a group of people at their bedside praying for them.

You seem to keep making points that assume I'm religious otherwise why would it matter what it shows about a god?

It was an example of a fiction that conveys a truth about human nature. Religions are just distillations of human experience, many of which use gods to underpin them. Utility matters far more than 'truth'.

You also mischaracterize my position as being "more virtuous than emotionally comforting fictions". Having a worldview based on facts, has nothing to do with having a moral high ground. Facts only have to do with degrees of certainty, not morality. No human is perfect(or anything else). We are all made up of things we know, things we believe we know, and things we don't know. Some people will accept testable objective answers, that increase their certainty of things they don't know or understand. Others will only accept answers that will confirm their religious bias without any evidence at all.

Do you believe one of these is preferable to the other? If so, it is more virtuous.

I also doubt a 'worldview based on facts' would be very pretty given that it's really the myths that 'civilise' us: fictitious bonds of unity, fictitious systems of values, etc.

To answer your questions. The true nature of reality, is that it exists physically. You add meaning to your life, by utilizing resources that are objectively certain, and by having realistic expectation about your worth and importance. My worldview is subjective, and only applies to me. Whether it is better or worst than others, WOULD be a conceited view. Your last question about a "good life". I think "old blue eyes" said it best. When you can do it "your way", you have lived a good life.

I'd say meaning doesn't come from the 'objectively certain' but from creating subjective sources of meaning via narratives. Otherwise we are simply experiencing random series of 'factual' events.

Culture is simply a system of myths/narratives/stories (not necessarily untrue) that explain value for a group and that derive from certain subjective axioms. For example, someone might believe that the search for objective truth is important and noble, where another might thing that loyalty to tradition is noble.

Almost all cultures operate under an assumption of human exceptionalism, most accept some degree of human rights. These have no scientific foundations, they are just convenient cultural fictions we act like are true (not that there is anything wrong with this).

There are 180 vestigial organs in the human body. Clearly these organs did not loose their functions overnight. Why do you think this occurred? Unfortunately, genes do not simply disappear. They are just turned off. So we can tell what their functions were, by looking at those same genes in other species. There is no belief gene, but there may be a combination of genes, that provide the character traits to predispose a person towards belief. My preference is totally irrelevant. Evolution will determine which genes are useful, and which genes are not. Not me.

The things you noted as possibilities to evolve away have obvious positive functions in human cognition though. Heuristics and biases that can make us 'irrational' are generally evolutionarily rational.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It is a 'debunked creationist apologetic soundbite' to note that we are random accidents of nature existing in a purposeless universe where we create our own systems of meaning?

Can you explain that one please?



I agree.



Raising children requires you teach them many things that are not objectively true, regardless of what worldview you are trying to raise them with.



Actually, I don't think that distinguishing between religious and irreligious worldviews is particularly useful, so don't think there are 2 neat, mutually exclusive categories.

Hubris is an incurable aspect of human nature as countless human cultures have noted though, do you disagree with this?

The rest of your reasoning is not representative of my position at all.

I did not imply that being irreligious was conceited, I stated that it is a conceit to believe you see the world as it is. And said hubris is a is an incurable aspect of human nature which covers both religious and irreligious people alike.




You seem to keep making points that assume I'm religious otherwise why would it matter what it shows about a god?

It was an example of a fiction that conveys a truth about human nature. Religions are just distillations of human experience, many of which use gods to underpin them. Utility matters far more than 'truth'.



Do you believe one of these is preferable to the other? If so, it is more virtuous.

I also doubt a 'worldview based on facts' would be very pretty given that it's really the myths that 'civilise' us: fictitious bonds of unity, fictitious systems of values, etc.



I'd say meaning doesn't come from the 'objectively certain' but from creating subjective sources of meaning via narratives. Otherwise we are simply experiencing random series of 'factual' events.

Culture is simply a system of myths/narratives/stories (not necessarily untrue) that explain value for a group and that derive from certain subjective axioms. For example, someone might believe that the search for objective truth is important and noble, where another might thing that loyalty to tradition is noble.

Almost all cultures operate under an assumption of human exceptionalism, most accept some degree of human rights. These have no scientific foundations, they are just convenient cultural fictions we act like are true (not that there is anything wrong with this).




The things you noted as possibilities to evolve away have obvious positive functions in human cognition though. Heuristics and biases that can make us 'irrational' are generally evolutionarily rational.

The chances of having the right combination of numbers to win lotto is in the millions. Yet someone usually wins. Clearly chance, probability, and order from chaos, have very little meaning to you. You had absolutely no control over any of the infinite events which led to your existence, did you? The earth or the Universe also, had no control over the events that led to their existence either. There is no such thing as "random accidents" in nature. There is only "cause and effect". Multiple causes lead to multiple effects. These effects lead to pattern formation(pockets of order) within disorder. These pattern formations may lead to the formation of stars, galaxies and planets. Early chemical interactions lead to the formation of complex chemical pattern formations. These lead to more complex chemical formations, which may lead to the formation of simple life(viruses and bacteria). Considering the fact that less that 5% of the entire universe is compose of atoms(stars, galaxies, plants, life, etc.), the prospects of life forming from these "random accidents" would be well over 95% probable. Giving the Universe a "purpose" is subjective and irrelevant. Only a God could know the purpose of the Universe. Humans, at best, can only understand the reason for its existence. There is a difference.

Regarding your implication about irreligious people and conceit, I'll let others be the judge of your comments. Clearly, we have a difference in comprehension, even when I playback your own words. You are the one that created the two categories, and then tried to force-fit me into the "irreligious", or "transcended the need for comforting fictions" category. Even though I agreed that sometimes using metaphors, fictional stories, or hyperbole, may be healthy and positive for the child's mental and psychological development. My argument was in defending supernatural or fictitious claims without providing any evidence to support them. Why risk creating unnecessary dissonance between child and parent, or a disconnect between child and his peers? Why would you want children to be comforted by things that are objectively untrue? Why not want children to develop their own inner confidence and inner strength, based on things that are objectively certain? How does a child develop confidence from things that is objectively untrue?

I'm afraid that I disagree with your agenda. I don't see the utility in anyone creating their own fictitious narratives, to give their lives comfort, purpose, and meaning. Would you build your house on quicksand? If you choose to base your worldview on fiction, then that is your choice. But the child doesn't have that choice. It is objectively certain that an apple in a bowl, will always be an apple in a bowl, regardless of the subjective narrative you choose to create. The physical reality is not affected by our conceptual narratives. Why can't you let children make their own choices, and simply guide them from an objective perspective? Do you think that children will stop believing in superstitions and fairy tales naturally as they grow up?

What is virtuous about having a worldview based on facts and evidence? Is it virtuous to accept when we die, that we will stay dead. Is it virtuous to accept that we can't run faster than a bullet, or leap tall buildings in a single bound? Is it virtuous to accept that we can't fly like a bird, or breathe under water? Or, am I just being hubris in accepting this worldview? What is your worldview of our physical reality? The search for "objective truth" is an irrational exercise, but loyalty to one's cultural traditions is very noble. Finally, what is the positive function(or any function) of vestigial organs in human cognition?

Thank you for your input.

 

[Augustus]

Regarding your implication about irreligious people and conceit, I'll let others be the judge of your comments.

Or you could accept the fact that I've said about 4 times that is not what I am saying...

Clearly, we have a difference in comprehension, even when I playback your own words. You are the one that created the two categories, and then tried to force-fit me into the "irreligious", or "transcended the need for comforting fictions" category.

I do have the advantage of knowing what the intent behind my world is though...

I said 'plenty of irreligious folk', not specifically "you" or "all irreligious folk". You have assumed the rest and again didn't accept my clarification about how I view religious/irreligious distinction.

See the troubles of seeing the world 'objectively'? To some extent, we all get attached to our misunderstandings and faulty reasoning and don't change them in light of new evidence

I'm afraid that I disagree with your agenda. I don't see the utility in anyone creating their own fictitious narratives, to give their lives comfort, purpose, and meaning. Would you build your house on quicksand? If you choose to base your worldview on fiction, then that is your choice. But the child doesn't have that choice. It is objectively certain that an apple in a bowl, will always be an apple in a bowl, regardless of the subjective narrative you choose to create. The physical reality is not affected by our conceptual narratives. Why can't you let children make their own choices, and simply guide them from an objective perspective? Do you think that children will stop believing in superstitions and fairy tales naturally as they grow up?

Because raising children from an 'objective' perspective is not possible, and if it were would be an awful way to raise a kid. You use fictions to instil values and create group membership.

You distinguished between the physical and the social worlds before, it's the social world that relies on fictions, and these influence your perception to the extent that you can't see the world 'objectively'.

Our cognitive processes are warped by strong beliefs, and we can lose the ability to perform basic cognitive functions when doing so would show us we are wrong. Just look at political debates, where people look at the same facts and draw opposite conclusions while believing they are being perfectly fair minded and the opposition hideously biased.

So a child can naturally work out there is an apple in a bowl, but modern systems of values, rights, etc. evolved from the collective human experience over millennia and are conditioned into people rather than being the result of their 'objective' experience. The apple is 'objective' reality, the cultural systems are based on fictions.

Functionally, the gods are really part of the social reality rather than the physical reality.

Even though I agreed that sometimes using metaphors, fictional stories, or hyperbole, may be healthy and positive for the child's mental and psychological development. My argument was in defending supernatural or fictitious claims without providing any evidence to support them. Why risk creating unnecessary dissonance between child and parent, or a disconnect between child and his peers? Why would you want children to be comforted by things that are objectively untrue? Why not want children to develop their own inner confidence and inner strength, based on things that are objectively certain? How does a child develop confidence from things that is objectively untrue?

The main difference is that I see cultures as being based on stories that are not objectively true (All human life is intrinsically valuable; a human life means more than a pigs life; we have a responsibility to all of Humanity and to the planet; Humanity will gradually progress into a kinder and more gentle species; we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). I see gods as part of this area of 'reality'.

You seem to be focused on the physical existence of gods, which I think is to misunderstand the role of gods in human thought.

What is virtuous about having a worldview based on facts and evidence? Is it virtuous to accept when we die, that we will stay dead. Is it virtuous to accept that we can't run faster than a bullet, or leap tall buildings in a single bound? Is it virtuous to accept that we can't fly like a bird, or breathe under water? Or, am I just being hubris in accepting this worldview?

Sometimes it's important to be 'objectively' correct, other times it doesn't matter.

Utility sometimes aligns with being objectively correct and at other times it doesn't or may even go against it.

It's important to be objectively correct when building a plane (objectivity aligns with utility)
If a child gets happiness from believing in Santa, it doesn't matter if they are objectively wrong (doesn't align)
When devising a moral code, I'd prefer something that takes the edge off our animalistic tendencies (objectivity reduces utility)

What is your worldview of our physical reality? The search for "objective truth" is an irrational exercise, but loyalty to one's cultural traditions is very noble.

My view is that humans are only intermittently rational and expecting a world based on reason is thus highly irrational. Traditions are distilled human experience, and usually have a higher 'rationality' even if they appear irrational on the surface.

Which links to the idea of Chesterton's Fence which relates to reform/removal of that which already exists:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’

As such we should have some degree of bias towards tradition, although this doesn't mean blind adherence or the rejection of change. Just a healthy scepticism.

Alternatively Michael Oakeshott on Rationalism:

There are some minds which give us the sense that they have passed through an elaborate education which was designed to initiate them into the traditions and achievements of their civilization; the immediate impression we have of them is an impression of cultivation, of the enjoyment of an inheritance.

But this is not so with the mind of the Rationalist, which impresses us as, at best, a finely-tempered, neutral instrument, as a well-trained rather than as an educated mind. Intellectually, his ambition is not so much to share the experience of the race as to be demonstrably a self-made man. And this gives to his intellectual and practical activities an almost preternatural deliberateness and self consciousness, depriving them of any element of passivity, removing from them all sense of rhythm and continuity and dissolving them into a succession of climacterics, each to be surmounted by a tour de raison...

With an almost poetic fancy, he strives to live each day as if it were his first... His mind has no atmosphere, no changes of season and temperature; his intellectual processes, so far as possible, are insulated from all external influence and go on in the void. And having cut himself off from the traditional knowledge of his society, and denied the value of any education more extensive than a training in a technique of analysis, he is apt to attribute to mankind a necessary inexperience in all the critical moments of life, and if he were more self-critical he might begin to wonder how the race had ever succeeded in surviving.

Thank you for your input.

Thank you for the conversation

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Or you could accept the fact that I've said about 4 times that is not what I am saying...



I do have the advantage of knowing what the intent behind my world is though...

I said 'plenty of irreligious folk', not specifically "you" or "all irreligious folk". You have assumed the rest and again didn't accept my clarification about how I view religious/irreligious distinction.

See the troubles of seeing the world 'objectively'? To some extent, we all get attached to our misunderstandings and faulty reasoning and don't change them in light of new evidence



Because raising children from an 'objective' perspective is not possible, and if it were would be an awful way to raise a kid. You use fictions to instil values and create group membership.

You distinguished between the physical and the social worlds before, it's the social world that relies on fictions, and these influence your perception to the extent that you can't see the world 'objectively'.

Our cognitive processes are warped by strong beliefs, and we can lose the ability to perform basic cognitive functions when doing so would show us we are wrong. Just look at political debates, where people look at the same facts and draw opposite conclusions while believing they are being perfectly fair minded and the opposition hideously biased.

So a child can naturally work out there is an apple in a bowl, but modern systems of values, rights, etc. evolved from the collective human experience over millennia and are conditioned into people rather than being the result of their 'objective' experience. The apple is 'objective' reality, the cultural systems are based on fictions.

Functionally, the gods are really part of the social reality rather than the physical reality.




The main difference is that I see cultures as being based on stories that are not objectively true (All human life is intrinsically valuable; a human life means more than a pigs life; we have a responsibility to all of Humanity and to the planet; Humanity will gradually progress into a kinder and more gentle species; we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). I see gods as part of this area of 'reality'.

You seem to be focused on the physical existence of gods, which I think is to misunderstand the role of gods in human thought.




Sometimes it's important to be 'objectively' correct, other times it doesn't matter.

Utility sometimes aligns with being objectively correct and at other times it doesn't or may even go against it.

It's important to be objectively correct when building a plane (objectivity aligns with utility)
If a child gets happiness from believing in Santa, it doesn't matter if they are objectively wrong (doesn't align)
When devising a moral code, I'd prefer something that takes the edge off our animalistic tendencies (objectivity reduces utility)



My view is that humans are only intermittently rational and expecting a world based on reason is thus highly irrational. Traditions are distilled human experience, and usually have a higher 'rationality' even if they appear irrational on the surface.

Which links to the idea of Chesterton's Fence which relates to reform/removal of that which already exists:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’

As such we should have some degree of bias towards tradition, although this doesn't mean blind adherence or the rejection of change. Just a healthy scepticism.

Alternatively Michael Oakeshott on Rationalism:

There are some minds which give us the sense that they have passed through an elaborate education which was designed to initiate them into the traditions and achievements of their civilization; the immediate impression we have of them is an impression of cultivation, of the enjoyment of an inheritance.

But this is not so with the mind of the Rationalist, which impresses us as, at best, a finely-tempered, neutral instrument, as a well-trained rather than as an educated mind. Intellectually, his ambition is not so much to share the experience of the race as to be demonstrably a self-made man. And this gives to his intellectual and practical activities an almost preternatural deliberateness and self consciousness, depriving them of any element of passivity, removing from them all sense of rhythm and continuity and dissolving them into a succession of climacterics, each to be surmounted by a tour de raison...

With an almost poetic fancy, he strives to live each day as if it were his first... His mind has no atmosphere, no changes of season and temperature; his intellectual processes, so far as possible, are insulated from all external influence and go on in the void. And having cut himself off from the traditional knowledge of his society, and denied the value of any education more extensive than a training in a technique of analysis, he is apt to attribute to mankind a necessary inexperience in all the critical moments of life, and if he were more self-critical he might begin to wonder how the race had ever succeeded in surviving.



Thank you for the conversation

Simply denying the meaning or implications of your own quoted words, is not evidence for your denial. Your repost included, "I did not imply that being irreligious was conceited, I stated that it is a conceit to believe you see the world as it is.". Since most folk who see the wold as it is, without any of the make-believe elements, are irreligious, therefore they must be conceited. Also, you don't explain why anyone would be incorrect in believing in the world that they see, is the world that exists? What would be the rational, or utilitarian purpose of any alternative belief? Whether you think hubris is an incurable aspect of human nature, or that distinguishing between irreligious/religious worldviews is not useful, are both absolutely useless and irrelevant. Even though, they are both fallacious strawman.

So let me repeat this again for you to misrepresent. I do not have any problems with parents using metaphors, fairy tales, make-believe, superstitions, God(s), or any fictitious nonsense, to foster a clear understanding of complex scientific and social issues to their children. This will stimulate the child's natural curiosity, and encourage his eagerness to learn new ideas. As children learn more about the relationship between cause and effect within our physical world, conflicts and dissidence may occur between what is factual and what is fantasy. Parents must remain honest and impartial in their explanations to young and inquisitive minds.

When older children ask if there is a God(s), or a Jesus, how do you respond? Do you say, "Most people believe that there is, and I also believe that there is". Do parents tell older children that, "There is no evidence for God(s) or Jesus, but that belief is based only on faith, not evidence.". What if children ask, "What happens when you die, will you go to Heaven or Hell?". Or, do you say, "I don't know, but many people believe....". Do you think most religious folk will impart these impartial truisms to their children? Or, will they just package their indoctrinated faith-claims as truth-claims, because cognitive dissonance seems subjectively far more rational than the truth.

Sometimes it's important to be 'objectively' correct, other times it doesn't matter.
Utility sometimes aligns with being objectively correct and at other times it doesn't or may even go against it.

So a child can naturally work out there is an apple in a bowl, but modern systems of values, rights, etc. evolved from the collective human experience over millennia and are conditioned into people rather than being the result of their 'objective' experience. The apple is 'objective' reality, the cultural systems are based on fictions.
Functionally, the gods are really part of the social reality rather than the physical reality.

Firstly, I would strongly suggest that it matters that you ARE "objectively correct", before you step out in front of a bus. Or, in many other events that require an objective understanding(NOT PERSPECTIVE, or INTERPRETATION) of our physical reality. This means{before you again misrepresent my words), an understanding of the physical reality that is the same as everyone else's(objective). Secondly, there is only one physical reality. Anything that we can perceive(NOT CONCEIVE) through our senses is included in our physical reality. This also includes our social reality. Ghosts and spirits are NOT included in our social reality. Other than our physical reality, what other non-conceptualized(non-physical) reality can you demonstrate? Also, trying to falsely equate the physical existence of an apple in a bowl, to the collection of cultural conditioning, and evolved social conditioning, is just intellectually dishonest. Do you think that the apple's existence in anyway depends on our social values, experiences, or rights? Another straw man to distort and misrepresent my point about objectivity, as it relates to our physical reality. This is not that eclectic, it is just common sense.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Or you could accept the fact that I've said about 4 times that is not what I am saying...



I do have the advantage of knowing what the intent behind my world is though...

I said 'plenty of irreligious folk', not specifically "you" or "all irreligious folk". You have assumed the rest and again didn't accept my clarification about how I view religious/irreligious distinction.

See the troubles of seeing the world 'objectively'? To some extent, we all get attached to our misunderstandings and faulty reasoning and don't change them in light of new evidence



Because raising children from an 'objective' perspective is not possible, and if it were would be an awful way to raise a kid. You use fictions to instil values and create group membership.

You distinguished between the physical and the social worlds before, it's the social world that relies on fictions, and these influence your perception to the extent that you can't see the world 'objectively'.

Our cognitive processes are warped by strong beliefs, and we can lose the ability to perform basic cognitive functions when doing so would show us we are wrong. Just look at political debates, where people look at the same facts and draw opposite conclusions while believing they are being perfectly fair minded and the opposition hideously biased.

So a child can naturally work out there is an apple in a bowl, but modern systems of values, rights, etc. evolved from the collective human experience over millennia and are conditioned into people rather than being the result of their 'objective' experience. The apple is 'objective' reality, the cultural systems are based on fictions.

Functionally, the gods are really part of the social reality rather than the physical reality.




The main difference is that I see cultures as being based on stories that are not objectively true (All human life is intrinsically valuable; a human life means more than a pigs life; we have a responsibility to all of Humanity and to the planet; Humanity will gradually progress into a kinder and more gentle species; we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). I see gods as part of this area of 'reality'.

You seem to be focused on the physical existence of gods, which I think is to misunderstand the role of gods in human thought.




Sometimes it's important to be 'objectively' correct, other times it doesn't matter.

Utility sometimes aligns with being objectively correct and at other times it doesn't or may even go against it.

It's important to be objectively correct when building a plane (objectivity aligns with utility)
If a child gets happiness from believing in Santa, it doesn't matter if they are objectively wrong (doesn't align)
When devising a moral code, I'd prefer something that takes the edge off our animalistic tendencies (objectivity reduces utility)



My view is that humans are only intermittently rational and expecting a world based on reason is thus highly irrational. Traditions are distilled human experience, and usually have a higher 'rationality' even if they appear irrational on the surface.

Which links to the idea of Chesterton's Fence which relates to reform/removal of that which already exists:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’

As such we should have some degree of bias towards tradition, although this doesn't mean blind adherence or the rejection of change. Just a healthy scepticism.

Alternatively Michael Oakeshott on Rationalism:

There are some minds which give us the sense that they have passed through an elaborate education which was designed to initiate them into the traditions and achievements of their civilization; the immediate impression we have of them is an impression of cultivation, of the enjoyment of an inheritance.

But this is not so with the mind of the Rationalist, which impresses us as, at best, a finely-tempered, neutral instrument, as a well-trained rather than as an educated mind. Intellectually, his ambition is not so much to share the experience of the race as to be demonstrably a self-made man. And this gives to his intellectual and practical activities an almost preternatural deliberateness and self consciousness, depriving them of any element of passivity, removing from them all sense of rhythm and continuity and dissolving them into a succession of climacterics, each to be surmounted by a tour de raison...

With an almost poetic fancy, he strives to live each day as if it were his first... His mind has no atmosphere, no changes of season and temperature; his intellectual processes, so far as possible, are insulated from all external influence and go on in the void. And having cut himself off from the traditional knowledge of his society, and denied the value of any education more extensive than a training in a technique of analysis, he is apt to attribute to mankind a necessary inexperience in all the critical moments of life, and if he were more self-critical he might begin to wonder how the race had ever succeeded in surviving.



Thank you for the conversation

We are not purely rational creatures, only because of how the brain compartmentalize sensory information, PERIOD. Consider the fact that we are in conscious control of only 5% of the bodies functions. Clearly you make no distinction between the intrinsic and stimulus-induced activities of the brain. We were never meant to be completely rational creatures. Nature is neither rational nor perfect. 99.999% of all creature to have existed on this planet, are now extinct. We represent only the tiniest of natures successes. We are the survivors of evolution's trials and errors. What role did God(s) play in the extinction of species, famine and diseases, hunger and starvation, natural disasters, or the global inequality of wealth and assets?

Regarding political candidates, there are three qualities you just can't fake. Gravitas, authenticity, and natural talent. If you have to work at them, then you don't have them. These qualities are the culmination of a person's social/personal experiences and the decisions they make. They represent the sum total of a person's overt persona. Only one candidate clearly has these qualities. And, only one issue is deserved of these qualities. If you don't care about the 20 million people killed by the US in over 37 "victim nations", since WWII(https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051, or the 500K+ Americans killed since 9/11(https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Human%20Costs%2C%20Nov%208%202018%20CoW.pdf , or wasting the trillions of dollars(to keep the rich richer), then the choice of candidates is completely wide open to you. Since, they don't care either. Only the mothers and loved ones are not numb to the human cost of war. Even when this truth is so plainly visible, we still are socially conditioned to ignore it. The best way to get a person's attention, is to tell them what they want to hear. But, if you want to control how they think, just make them believe that it was their idea in the first place. Another flaw in the human condition(herding instinct).

In conclusion, we are not robots, so we can't be completely impartial or objective. But we can still thrive to be so. I do not accept your conclusions, especially when you start speaking in the narrative. You state to have a "healthy skepticism" to confront bias, but your words imply the opposite. If I were to guess, I'd say you are an Agnostic, that only straddle the fence to avoid being labelled as an Atheists.

I appreciate your time.

 

[Catholicus]

I agree I did ask. Is this the evidence for a child's predisposition to believe in God(s), or an afterlife?

"Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing. However, children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods.".

Or, that the Chinese studies on adults,

"believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.".

Even if there were some religious predisposition to believe in God, or an afterlife, it doesn't mean that both actually exist. This seems to be just another statistical exercise in search of a consistent opinion. Not any verifiable evidence to justify an extraordinary claim.

It is obvious that God exists.

As we are partly spiritual beings, it is very likely that the supernatural and an afterlife exist

 

[Catholicus]

Firstly, the point I making, was that parents should not deceive children into believing that religious tenets are factual and real. They are only personal beliefs, until they can be justified or falsified. Does a God(s) exist? Have we all sinned, and need salvation? Does God or Jesus really love us? When we die, will we really go to heaven if we are obedient and good? Or, will we burn in Hell if we are disobedient? Should vulnerable impressionable developing minds, be subjected to this form of deception, without any rational justification? Other than that is what everybody else believes, so it must be so.

Whether a child has an innate need to believe in God(s), the tooth fairy, or any other fantasy agent, it is totally irrelevant to whether the entities actually exist. I don't see any verifiable link between an innate desire to believe, and the agent of that belief. Finally, I think the amount of money says more about the studies incredulity than its merits. IMHO.

We have a choice between good and evil. As a matter of cause & effect, those who choose to be eternally good, are engulfed by good things; those who choose to be eternally evil are engulfed by evil things.

Your existence from second-to-second is entirely dependent on God - and as you do exist, God is clearly reality, not a fantasy-agent.

In fact, we (and the entire universe) are the fantasy-agents, held in being solely by God's will.

Why should children be subjected to the monstrous folly and deception of atheism ?

 

[Catholicus]

I thank you for your input. It is clear that you are passionate about your beliefs. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own logic. And, certainly not by misrepresenting or distorting my comments. Or by answering questions from the straw man that you create. Before I forget, humans are not the only life forms that can demonstrate love and compassion. My argument was not about using metaphors, fictional stories, fairy tales, or myths to stimulate a child's imagination, or to convey to them a complicated message or idea. My point was that parents should not try to convince children that these myths, metaphors, and fairy tales are actually true. Let's look at your other comments.

You first claim, "Simply not being religious doesn't mean much in my experience though, albeit plenty of irreligious folk operate under the conceit that they are somehow startlingly independent thinkers who have transcended the need for comforting fictions and bravely see the world as it truly is". You go on to state that, "The conceit is not rejecting religion, but that in doing so(rejecting religion) you face 'reality'. 'Sceptics' are rarely sceptical about the fictions that underpin their worldview (which are often actually religious in origin anyway)". Finally, you use the term "hubris"(conceit), as an "incurable aspect of human nature". You then cite a mythical biblical story(The Fall) to claim that humans are "irredeemably flawed". Whatever that means. So, regarding implying that being irreligious is also being hubris(conceited), then yeah, you kinda did. The conceit and arrogance is in making the assumption that people fit into only two mutually exclusive categories.

You also mischaracterize my position as being "more virtuous than emotionally comforting fictions". Having a worldview based on facts, has nothing to do with having a moral high ground. Facts only have to do with degrees of certainty, not morality. No human is perfect(or anything else). We are all made up of things we know, things we believe we know, and things we don't know. Some people will accept testable objective answers, that increase their certainty of things they don't know or understand. Others will only accept answers that will confirm their religious bias without any evidence at all.

Using "The Fall" to highlight the flaws in humans, was probably a poor idea. It also highlights the flaws in the nature of a God(s). I won't go into the obvious contradictions, questions, and intent, associated with an multi-omni entity. I also agree that a belief in fiction can have a positive placebo effect. The power of prayer is an example. Although it can have a negative placebo effect for some, especially having a group of people at their bedside praying for them.



A child's view of his physical reality is shaped long before he develops the language to create his own narrative. Let alone to formulate his religious view. What do you think shapes the physical reality of a child born blind and deaf? It is our sensory organs that shape our physical reality. It is our cultural traditions, mores and norms, positive and negative feedbacks, and customs and social behavior, that shape our social reality. So yes, it is highly unlikely that a child will become a catholic in Pakistan. What do you think the odds of a child becoming a Baha'i in the US would be?

There are 180 vestigial organs in the human body. Clearly these organs did not loose their functions overnight. Why do you think this occurred? Unfortunately, genes do not simply disappear. They are just turned off. So we can tell what their functions were, by looking at those same genes in other species. There is no belief gene, but there may be a combination of genes, that provide the character traits to predispose a person towards belief. My preference is totally irrelevant. Evolution will determine which genes are useful, and which genes are not. Not me.

To answer your questions. The true nature of reality, is that it exists physically. You add meaning to your life, by utilizing resources that are objectively certain, and by having realistic expectation about your worth and importance. My worldview is subjective, and only applies to me. Whether it is better or worst than others, WOULD be a conceited view. Your last question about a "good life". I think "old blue eyes" said it best. When you can do it "your way", you have lived a good life. Your last paragraph only highlight a series of debunked creationist apologetic soundbites, that must commit many logical fallacies to give them a false perception of credibility.

​

Stalin did things HIS WAY. Did he live a good life then ?

He said; "Death always has the last word."

Atheists are happy to agree with him - religious people are certain he was wrong.

Mind you, Stalin may feel the same way himself, now.

 

[Catholicus]

We are not purely rational creatures, only because of how the brain compartmentalize sensory information, PERIOD. Consider the fact that we are in conscious control of only 5% of the bodies functions. Clearly you make no distinction between the intrinsic and stimulus-induced activities of the brain. We were never meant to be completely rational creatures. Nature is neither rational nor perfect. 99.999% of all creature to have existed on this planet, are now extinct. We represent only the tiniest of natures successes. We are the survivors of evolution's trials and errors. What role did God(s) play in the extinction of species, famine and diseases, hunger and starvation, natural disasters, or the global inequality of wealth and assets?

Regarding political candidates, there are three qualities you just can't fake. Gravitas, authenticity, and natural talent. If you have to work at them, then you don't have them. These qualities are the culmination of a person's social/personal experiences and the decisions they make. They represent the sum total of a person's overt persona. Only one candidate clearly has these qualities. And, only one issue is deserved of these qualities. If you don't care about the 20 million people killed by the US in over 37 "victim nations", since WWII(https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051, or the 500K+ Americans killed since 9/11(https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Human%20Costs%2C%20Nov%208%202018%20CoW.pdf , or wasting the trillions of dollars(to keep the rich richer), then the choice of candidates is completely wide open to you. Since, they don't care either. Only the mothers and loved ones are not numb to the human cost of war. Even when this truth is so plainly visible, we still are socially conditioned to ignore it. The best way to get a person's attention, is to tell them what they want to hear. But, if you want to control how they think, just make them believe that it was their idea in the first place. Another flaw in the human condition(herding instinct).

In conclusion, we are not robots, so we can't be completely impartial or objective. But we can still thrive to be so. I do not accept your conclusions, especially when you start speaking in the narrative. You state to have a "healthy skepticism" to confront bias, but your words imply the opposite. If I were to guess, I'd say you are an Agnostic, that only straddle the fence to avoid being labelled as an Atheists.

I appreciate your time.

Human herding instinct - most noticeable among the many atheists in the rich parts of the world.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It is obvious that God exists.

As we are partly spiritual beings, it is very likely that the supernatural and an afterlife exist

What makes it obvious to you that a God(s) exist? Are you claiming that you KNOW(truth claim) that a God(s) exists, or are you just claiming that you only BELIEVE(belief/faith claim) that a God(s) exist? Exactly what part(s) of the human condition would you label as being spiritual, to justify your conclusion that the supernatural and an afterlife must exist? What evidence would you use to convince your children that your truth claims are correct? Or would you pervert the natural development of the child's critical thinking, by using punishment, guilt, fear, or by using a form of positive manipulation? Most children do not stand a chance against the faulty rationale of adult hardcore believers

Children are NOT born believers in the supernatural. The real world is supernatural enough for them. You have made two assumptions here. What evidence do you have to support them? One important role of parents, is to assist their child to be able to distinguish the difference between what is real, and what is imaginary.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

We have a choice between good and evil. As a matter of cause & effect, those who choose to be eternally good, are engulfed by good things; those who choose to be eternally evil are engulfed by evil things.

Your existence from second-to-second is entirely dependent on God - and as you do exist, God is clearly reality, not a fantasy-agent.

In fact, we (and the entire universe) are the fantasy-agents, held in being solely by God's will.

Why should children be subjected to the monstrous folly and deception of atheism ?

How is it folly or deception to tell children to take responsibility for their own actions? Not to blame their actions and decisions on their beliefs and superstitions. How is it folly or deception to base your worldview on facts and evidence, that can be falsified, tested, and observed? Is it folly and deception to tell children that your belief is correct, and the thousands of other beliefs are false? Why not substitute the "flying spaghetti monster" or Zeus, or any other figment of our imagination, instead of God. Atheists simply don't believe there is any evidence that ANY god(s) exist, period. Other than this view, there are just like anyone else in raising their children. Most atheists don't force this belief onto their children because, unlike believers, atheists know the difference between a belief claim and a truth claim. Name just ONE "monstrous folly" or deception that Atheists subject their kids to? Just one, to back up your insensitive inference.

No one consciously chooses to be "good" or "evil". Those that are evil are either genetically preconditioned to lack empathy(psychopaths), or they are socially created(sociopaths). Also, what is your argument that free will even exist? My existence does NOT depend on the whim of a God(s). Like all life on this planet, my existence only depends on my ability to provide enough energy to maintain my metabolism, period. If you don't drink, breathe, eat, or sleep, even a God can't maintain your existence. No matter how much you want to believe He can.

God is certainly a figment of your imagination. A fantasy agent to give your life meaning and purpose. An imaginary father-figure to give you imaginary advise, protection, and direction. Other than making only faith-based assertions, can you demonstrate how you KNOW that God is real?

I think most rational people would agree that death is the last word. Can you present evidence that it isn't? Of course not, no matter how much you want to believe that it isn't. Also Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ghaddafi, Hussein, Pinochet, Castro, are all men with a mustache. Will all men with mustaches become brutal dictators like them? Just more silliness to support a confirmation bias. As to their afterlife, how do you know their not having a great time? Is it because the Bible tells you so?

 

[Augustus]

If I were to guess, I'd say you are an Agnostic, that only straddle the fence to avoid being labelled as an Atheists.

I've been an atheist since I was a small child, no problem stating that.

(I'll even admit I used to be a 'New Atheist' which I now find a bit embarrassing )

You state to have a "healthy skepticism" to confront bias, but your words imply the opposite.

I didn't say that at all, read it again in context, it was about a normative approach to tradition, not about me or confronting bias.

The context:

My view is that humans are only intermittently rational and expecting a world based on reason is thus highly irrational. Traditions are distilled human experience, and usually have a higher 'rationality' even if they appear irrational on the surface.

Which links to the idea of Chesterton's Fence which relates to reform/removal of that which already exists:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’

As such we should have some degree of bias towards tradition, although this doesn't mean blind adherence or the rejection of change. Just a healthy scepticism.

Alternatively Michael Oakeshott on Rationalism:

There are some minds which give us the sense that they have passed through an elaborate education which was designed to initiate them into the traditions and achievements of their civilization; the immediate impression we have of them is an impression of cultivation, of the enjoyment of an inheritance.

But this is not so with the mind of the Rationalist, which impresses us as, at best, a finely-tempered, neutral instrument, as a well-trained rather than as an educated mind. Intellectually, his ambition is not so much to share the experience of the race as to be demonstrably a self-made man. And this gives to his intellectual and practical activities an almost preternatural deliberateness and self consciousness, depriving them of any element of passivity, removing from them all sense of rhythm and continuity and dissolving them into a succession of climacterics, each to be surmounted by a tour de raison...

With an almost poetic fancy, he strives to live each day as if it were his first... His mind has no atmosphere, no changes of season and temperature; his intellectual processes, so far as possible, are insulated from all external influence and go on in the void. And having cut himself off from the traditional knowledge of his society, and denied the value of any education more extensive than a training in a technique of analysis, he is apt to attribute to mankind a necessary inexperience in all the critical moments of life, and if he were more self-critical he might begin to wonder how the race had ever succeeded in surviving.

I appreciate your time.

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow as I've spent the last 24 hours travelling halfway around the world and my brain is currently on strike

 

[usfan]

It is a false dichotomy, anyway. Everyone instills their religio/philosophical beliefs in their children, by modeling, example, speech, and displayed values. Pretending that 'Atheists!' don't instill a worldview, or philosophical opinions, but 'Christians!' .... do, is absurd. You're just demeaning the competition, in hopes of total, exclusive domination of indoctrination.

Progressive ideology is the official State religion, and is indoctrinated exclusively by all modern institutions. The suggestions of the OP, reflect that bias, it seems to me.

And, as should be evident, children do not always embrace their parents values, but choose their own way.. sometimes in spite of Indoctrination.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I've been an atheist since I was a small child, no problem stating that.

(I'll even admit I used to be a 'New Atheist' which I now find a bit embarrassing )



I didn't say that at all, read it again in context, it was about a normative approach to tradition, not about me or confronting bias.

The context:





I'll reply to the rest tomorrow as I've spent the last 24 hours travelling halfway around the world and my brain is currently on strike

Everyone has the advantage of simply denying the meaning of their words. I can't comment on the intent of your words, only on my interpretation of their meaning. If you wish to adjust your meanings("normative approach to tradition") to suit a new narrative, then you are just simply changing the goal posts. Therefore, I not sure what your position is anymore. Either you believe that "healthy skepticism" is necessary to confront bias, or you don't. Either you believe that children should be taught to accept that make-believe entities are also a real part of their physical reality, or you don't. Either you believe that myths, superstitions, stories and paranormal activities are a real part of our world, or you don't. Either you believe that children should base objective certainties on only facts and evidence, or you don't. Either you believe that a child's first society has very little influence over the his cognitive development, or you don't. Either you believe that teaching children that your religious dogma is correct, and all others are false, or you don't. Either you believe that other realities exists, or you don't. Either you believe that Atheist are wrong in their worldview, or you don't. Finally, either you have evidence(physical, statistical, or rational) to support your views, or you don't.

All children begin life as Atheists. Being a "New Atheists" only means that you are just "out of the closet", and are willing to defend your position. History is littered with worldwide beliefs that have later been proven false. Atheist don't believe in God, ONLY, because there is no evidence to support that belief. It is ONLY this single tenet of religion that atheist don't believe in. Not religion as a whole. This position is still the same, whether you are an old or new atheist.

I agree that all belief is traditional and culture-specific. But it is still, nonetheless, not based on any facts, evidence, or observations.

 

[Augustus]

Everyone has the advantage of simply denying the meaning of their words. I can't comment on the intent of your words, only on my interpretation of their meaning. If you wish to adjust your meanings("normative approach to tradition") to suit a new narrative, then you are just simply changing the goal posts.

The advantage would be in you replying to what I actually said, rather than something with no connection to it

Discussions are much better when carried out in good faith, don't you think? If unsure take someone at their word rather than assuming hidden motives and mendacity.

Instead of accepting a simple (and pretty obvious) correction in good faith you accuse me of committing another fallacy so you can maintain you were right all along. On RF, the person who most ardently shouts 'fallacy' is usually the one committing them though.

You: "You state to have a "healthy skepticism" to confront bias, but your words imply the opposite."

What I actually said: "we should have some degree of bias towards tradition, although this doesn't mean blind adherence or the rejection of change. Just a healthy scepticism."

There was also a much broader context about tradition, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that as it relates to the topic under discussion.

Being a "New Atheists" only means that you are just "out of the closet", and are willing to defend your position. History is littered with worldwide beliefs that have later been proven false. Atheist don't believe in God, ONLY, because there is no evidence to support that belief. It is ONLY this single tenet of religion that atheist don't believe in. Not religion as a whole. This position is still the same, whether you are an old or new atheist.

New Atheism is a proper noun that describes an ideological position, hence its capitalisation and distinction from atheism. It is not simply the adjective new applied to the noun atheism in the standard fashion. 99% of people here know exactly what it means, even though people like quibbling the term despite the fact it does exactly what they want: differentiate atheism from an atheistic ideological position.

Also, ideological positions are rarely proved 'false' just more or less effective from the perspective of the individual.