Children and Religion

[Augustus]

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?

As noted above, it doesn't help discussions to consistently claim logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty. A common cause for such assertions is that the person claiming them has misunderstood the point being raised, rather than bad faith on behalf of the person making the point. Good faith discussion can help clear up misunderstandings, while bad faith discussion is about protecting one's initial presumptions regardless of their accuracy.

I specifically differentiated between basic facts about the basic physical world, which children can learn themselves, and the far more complex and subjective socio-cultural aspects, which are mostly a product of conditioning and environment. With minimal instruction, 1 million children would identify the apple and table and their utility, there would be little variation. With minimal instruction 1 million children would create very different value systems and worldviews, there would be a high degree of variation.

Clearly there are different degrees of objectivity between them

In my opinion, gods and religious beliefs are better treated as socio-cultural phenomena rather than part of the physical world. They are not scientific theories to be deemed true or false, but axioms that underpin particular cultural worldviews. All of us rely on certain, subjective axioms to underpin our worldviews as it is not possible to do otherwise.

The majority of the human meaning derives from the socio-cultural rather than the 'apples on tables' area of reality, and in the socio-cultural we do not see the world as it is. Instead we experience diverse phenomena which we experience via many perceptual filters. The ability to consistently 'see the world as it is' is really beyond our mediocre intellects.

You say that the socio-cultural is part of the physical, but imo we don't experience the socio-cultural objectively in the same way we experience apples on tables. People are physical, their behaviours are physical, the human world is physical, but we don't experience these objectively as we lack the information to do so. We are constantly filling in gaps, assigning motivations, judging behaviours and constructing that turn a purposeless world, into something that is understandable and explainable to ourselves.

Even things we can see are not 'objectively' visualised in our mind. A and B are the same colour, yet we can only see A as much darker. Even our eyes don't see the world as it really is, they fill in gaps, use heuristics, experience biases too.

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.

See, here you are filling in gaps, and operating under biased assumptions (as we all do at times).

You are assigning motives to my words, that I am deliberately misrepresenting you and committing fallacies all because you have made an error in reasoning as to what I actually meant. You no doubt believe you are in the right while you are doing so, even though you are clearly misrepresenting my idea as has been explained.

I believe it is impossible to see the world as it is because the world is too complex, we have insufficient information and cognitive ability yet have a psychological need to make sense of what we experience. The world is cold, uncaring, ultimately purposeless, but we want to live in a fulfilling reality, so we invent one.

Nobody can see the world as it really is (religious and irreligious alike). It is a false belief caused by excessive confidence in one's cognitive abilities: a conceit.

The utility of false beliefs is any benefit you get from holding them. Religions, for example, enabled the formation of larger groups of unrelated people to form common bonds and encouraged some degree of altruistic behaviour within these groups. Alternatively, the belief that all humans have inalienable rights is obviously a fiction, but I certainly believe we should operate under the assumption that it is true.

We are not purely rational creatures, only because of how the brain compartmentalize sensory information, PERIOD.

We are not purely rational creatures as we are animals that evolved for survival and being perfectly rational and objective would be a massive disadvantage. Compartmentalisation is merely one evolutionary adaptation that makes us irrational, there are many others. Being biased towards an in-group helps us form coalitions to protect ourselves, self-deception makes us better at manipulating others, mental heuristics save us time and energy etc. etc.

See for example: Coalitional Instincts | Edge.org

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.

Again, this wasn't what I was really getting at.

My point was that people interpret facts differently based on their ideological and emotional bias while believing they are being genuinely fair minded and the 'other' is hideously biased and partisan. Emotions are generally more powerful than facts in our judgements about the world.

Actually some studies have shown that people may actually lose the ability to process information properly in such situations, other studies have shown that people with better reasoning abilities are less likely to change their minds when presented with evidence that contradicts their opinions than 'less intelligent' people.

"I try to be as unbiased and objective as humanly possible" does not mean "I see the world as it really is". The former is a perfectly reasonable goal to work towards, the latter is hubristic conceit.

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

In your opinion, to what degree can a person see the world as it really is? Not simply the basic, apples on tables physical world, but the totality of the human experience. How much can a worldview be based purely on objective reality, rather than subjective, culturally defined preferences and narrative constructs that give meaning where none ultimately exists?

Thanks for the discussion

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.

What exactly do you mean is a "false dichotomy"? What are some examples of these displayed values that you seem to find offensive? Should we NOT ground the child's beliefs in facts and evidence, or should we choose half-truths, propaganda, make-believe, or appeals to ego? Do you think it is wrong to instil confidence in children based on real experiences, rather than based on any faith-based belief system? Children DO choose there own way despite religious indoctrination. But most don't, and those that do, still carry the scars of religious dissidence.

It is only progressive ideas that that have exposed the true nature of corporate greed, and how its shapes public opinions and government policies. It is tragic that many deluded members of society, are unaware just how rigged the system is, to allow them membership to the Oligarchy they serve. At best, they can only spew the Oligarch's soundbites, to give them the false perception of being a member. If corporate clones are told that all lives are expendable except theirs, then they will be parroting a new talking point to demonstrate their allegiance to their masters. Truly sad. Are these the people our young soldiers are risking their lives to protect?

Clearly, you don't have a clue, or care about America's role in interventionist wars. Or, care how we are seen by the rest of the world. We are the terrorist in the eyes of most countries in the world. We are the ones that "manufacture excuses" to justify intervention. The Bay of Tonkin Incident, "weapons of mass destruction", Assad gassing his own people, attacking the Taliban for 9/11, etc. were all lies to keep the corporate clones happy. Do your homework, and think independently for yourself. Why is it that whenever countries(Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc) decide to nationalize their oil, or NOT trade in American dollars, we plan(CIA) to change their Government? You might want to start with Africa, and the Latin American countries since the 60's. Then learn about our debt to Saudi Arabia to keep the US Dollar afloat. As one, and only one of the candidates stated, "we have become Saudi Arabia's B***h", and we can't get out of this agreement. If SA would refuse to trade oil in US dollars, our economy is doomed. Both Russia and China do not want to trade in US dollars, because America uses access to their dollars, as leverage to sanction countries, until they allow corporate America to steal their resources. But corporate talking-heads don't care, since it is not their lives that protects their greed and ego. They are not interested in the objective truth, only in the truth their masters feed them.

But for the rest of us, using our military to take down governments, and replace them with the government we want, is morally and legally wrong. We wouldn't want other governments to do the same to us, would we? Or, the spending of TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to fund these wars, and not on Healthcare, education, infrastructure, our homeless, the environment, etc. This is not a Government for, by, and of the people. It is an Government controlled by the Oligarchy. Using the lives of soldiers as pawns in a game to keep corporate America afloat, is not the America I know, or the America I want. Only one candidate is NOT just another corporate talking head, with excuses once they get in. Without progressive change, this country and the world is doomed. Or, are you just stupid enough to think that Russia, China, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, and Syria would not offer some assistance to protect their own assets in Iran, if the US attacks Iran? Or maybe you are so dumbed-down, that you believe the war would end quickly, with a minimal cost of lives(civilian and military), like the 20 year old war in Afghanistan? Or, maybe you don't care at all. Still waiting for that one example of any country that has benefitted from American intervention. Just one will do, to justify all the lost lives and misery we've caused. You have 24 countries to choose from since WWII.

 

[usfan]

Clearly, you don't have a clue, or care

.. clearly.

ROFL!!

Wow, that was some hot button trigger that hit you.. quite a rant, and a good scapegoat for you to vent on!!

I'm happy to be an outlet for your venting, but the hostility.. the IRRATIONAL, propaganda driven hostility.. that you express toward your hated enemies cannot be healthy. You are being manipulated by lies and false caricatures towards all the evil 'Christians!' .... ..out there who Must Be Stopped.
It is irrational hatred, from a progressive agenda.. to rid the world of Christianity and its stabilizing influence.

The fact is, you can indoctrinate any ideology. And a distortion of Christianity has been indoctrinated, in times past. But the reformation and Enlightenment delivered western civilization from that forced compliance of mandated belief. Unfortunately, we are just repeating history, and indoctrinating another ideology, and are being driven back to the dark ages.

How do you know, if your hatred for all things, 'Christian!' ...., are not just the result of progressive Indoctrination? Perhaps Christianity is not the boogie man you believe it to be?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.



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.

I certainly agree that all discussions should be carried out in good faith, respect, and honest sincerity. I am truly doing my best to focus on the context of your meanings. I commented on the fallacies you've committed, when you use them to support your truth claims. Not in the context of an opinion(belief claim). I also point out the fallacies you've committed, in case you are unaware that you are committing them. If I seem to be assuming mendacity, then I apologize. We all have a right to our beliefs, traditions, and biases. But we don't have a right to our own logic.

Our conversations seems to be in one direction. You have not addressed any of the points I raised, to help me gain a better understanding of your position. If I have taken your words out of context, maybe you can compare and contrast the relationship between "healthy skepticism", and "bias towards tradition"? I thought you meant that we should question all merits to obtain some level of certainty? Was I incorrect?

Regarding my syntax and grammar, really? Since this is not an English Comp forum, lets just chalk it up as "creative licensing". What is the definition of "atheism" and "Atheism". Are they different, or the same? How does "atheistic(adjective) ideology" differ from Atheism(proper noun), in their position? Anyway, being drawn into an ideological argument over the scientific standing of ideology, its epistemological status, and its totalitarian and liberal manifestations, is an exercise in futility, and a lot of unnecessary "word salad".. I will leave it for those with an inordinate amount of time on their hands.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

.. clearly.

ROFL!!

Wow, that was some hot button trigger that hit you.. quite a rant, and a good scapegoat for you to vent on!!

I'm happy to be an outlet for your venting, but the hostility.. the IRRATIONAL, propaganda driven hostility.. that you express toward your hated enemies cannot be healthy. You are being manipulated by lies and false caricatures towards all the evil 'Christians!' .... ..out there who Must Be Stopped.
It is irrational hatred, from a progressive agenda.. to rid the world of Christianity and its stabilizing influence.

The fact is, you can indoctrinate any ideology. And a distortion of Christianity has been indoctrinated, in times past. But the reformation and Enlightenment delivered western civilization from that forced compliance of mandated belief. Unfortunately, we are just repeating history, and indoctrinating another ideology, and are being driven back to the dark ages.

How do you know, if your hatred for all things, 'Christian!' ...., are not just the result of progressive Indoctrination? Perhaps Christianity is not the boogie man you believe it to be?

At what specific point in my progressive rant, did I infer, insinuate, or state that I hate "all things Christian? Where do I equate Progressivism to any religious belief? Please do not mischaracterize me personally, or take my words out of context. Clearly we have a different meaning of the word "Progressivism". My progressive rant is confined to the changing of the political(not religious) status quo. Whether you want to be "my huckleberry" or not, is totally irrelevant. Are you suggesting that the regime-change-wars, that America have been responsible for, is somehow because of religion? Or, that their hidden agenda is to rid the world of Christianity? Wow. I certainly didn't see that coming. I thought you were using the word "religion" in your statement "Progressive ideology is the official State religion, and is indoctrinated exclusively by all modern institutions.", as a metaphor for a, "pursuit of interest followed with great devotion". I had no idea that you meant "religion" literally. This makes no sense since Progressivism is not a religion, and has nothing to do with the tenets of religions. At least in my world.

My, albeit passionate, concerns are driven by the mistakes that corporate cronies still refuse to acknowledge. Despite the fact that history is littered with examples of them. I don't think my progressive ideology is being manipulated, especially when I clearly see the thousands of body-bags of my fellow veterans. Or the 22 veterans dying by suicide each day. Or, the homeless rate and opiate addiction of our veterans. Are these the things you hear mentioned on mainstream media? What is the relationship in the news we hear, and the news wall street(corporations), the military industrial complex, and the fossil fuel industries, pay for us to hear? Convincing people to believe in anything is easy. If it were hard, Millions of lives since WWII would have been saved. Just like children, if you keep them distracted, full, and busy, they will believe anything you tell them.

Do you really think that progressive ideologies existed in the Dark Ages? Do you think we have NOT spent trillions of dollars on our war efforts since WWII? The topic of wasting any human life to increase corporates bottom line, should offend anyone with a heartbeat. Fortunately, the talent, authenticity, gravitas, and integrity, will always rise to the surface. It doesn't matter how many wannabe corporate stooges try to attack her, or hold her down with lies and half-truths. Business as usual would end for them. And they all know it.

What about the questions that I asked. Any answers or ideas?

 

[Catholicus]

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.

Some of the ancient Greek philosophers arrived at a belief in God not by faith but simply by using reason - since the chance of the universe's existing (and remaining in existence) by mere Chance is vanishingly small.

Therefore I am as sure - KNOW - of God's existence as surely as I know the truths revealed by science (gravity, relativity etc).

I BELIEVE by faith that God is as delineated by the Christian faith.

There are good people and bad people; and this not by mechanism, but by their own choice.

If we don't have a choice between good and evil, all human discussion (political, ethical, philosophical, religious) becomes altogether futile.

This choice between good and evil is a spiritual, not a practical, one - the Early Christians butchered by the Romans lost out in an evolutionary sense, while those cheering on the butchery went home to nice meals and many years of prosperity and fecundity. Similarly, the Allied servicemen and women who foiled Hitler died appalling and premature deaths, in many cases as volunteers and without having perpetuated their genes.

Martyrdom (for any cause) is non-natural and counter-evolutionary; witness the fact that most human beings are anything but martyrs !

Therefore martyrdom - and choosing between good and evil - are supernatural. Therefore it is very likely that human beings have an innermost self - a soul - that is immortal. And children who have reached the age of, say, six, should be taught the reasonability - as well as the goodness - of religious faith.

This isn't manipulation - unless a parent teaching a child "you shouldn't smoke" is manipulation; as opposed to the guidance that all parents have a both a right and a duty to give their children. Using punishment, guilt or fear in an attempt to make children grow up good and religious is likely to prove counter-productive; what better way to create atheists ?

Of course children must be taught grim truths - that if you smoke you will almost certainly die a premature and terrible death, that if you become an evil person (and refuse to repent of being so) you will die the Eternal Death called Hell.

Most Christian parents are not harsh or bigoted nowadays. For those qualities, you must look to a hard core of atheist (and other anti-religious) adult believers - for such they are - with their faith in an imaginary universe without God; a universe that operates by unguided (thus magical) mechanism.

 

[Augustus]

I certainly agree that all discussions should be carried out in good faith, respect, and honest sincerity. I am truly doing my best to focus on the context of your meanings. I commented on the fallacies you've committed, when you use them to support your truth claims. Not in the context of an opinion(belief claim). I also point out the fallacies you've committed, in case you are unaware that you are committing them. If I seem to be assuming mendacity, then I apologize. We all have a right to our beliefs, traditions, and biases. But we don't have a right to our own logic.

Due to their nature, it is easy to misunderstand someone's point on a forum, a good faith discussion should entail accepting the other person's clarification though, rather than rejecting it and sticking with your original assumption. I'm sure you would prefer that other people accepted your clarifications on your intent.

Claiming strawmen based on a misunderstanding of someone's argument, and then claiming moving the goalposts when they point this out makes it hard to reach understanding.

But best move on...

Our conversations seems to be in one direction. You have not addressed any of the points I raised, to help me gain a better understanding of your position. If I have taken your words out of context, maybe you can compare and contrast the relationship between "healthy skepticism", and "bias towards tradition"? I thought you meant that we should question all merits to obtain some level of certainty? Was I incorrect?

Rather than obtaining certainty, it's more about how we deal with the uncertainty present in a world which we can't really understand. You seem to have a lot more faith in human rationality than I do.

The following is a post from a different thread, but covers the main ideas. Does it answer your questions?

Some musings on how a focus on being rational can sometimes lead to irrational outcomes, and how being irrational can sometimes lead to rational outcomes.

On the progressive reformation of tradition:

Each generation... should see unrolled before it the blank sheet of infinite possibility. And if by chance this tabula rasa has been defaced by the irrational scribblings of tradition-ridden ancestors, then the first task of the Rationalist must be to scrub it clean; as Voltaire remarked, the only way to have good laws is to burn all existing laws and to start afresh. Michael Oakeshott - Rationalism and politics

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.’

Things that exist usually serve a purpose, especially if they have been around a long time (see Lindy Effect). However, understanding the use of something may not be as easy at it seems.

What we often find are the 1st order effects, 2nd/3rd+ order effects are much harder to identify, may only develop over time, may be unknowable at the time of action and may be far more significant than the 1st order.'

A simple example using the fence:

1st order: We discovered that the fence keeps out the cats (but I like cats, let's get rid of the fence - fence comes down).

2nd order: The cats kill the birds, so the fence keeps the birds alive.

3rd order: The birds eat the insects, so the fence keeps the insect population in check.

4th order: The insects destroy all our crops, so the fence stops us from starving to death.


In our complex world, people may be incapable of identifying the full chain of causes/effects. So when people start to die, all people might notice is that things were better when we had a fence.

So people put it back up, things get better. Maybe these people don't understand the link between the fence and death, but they know there is one. As they can't explain it, the fence gains its own superstition/mythology which can be passed on from generation to generation to prevent them from making the same mistake. 'God put the fence there as a sign of his protection, and not keeping it in good order will make him angry'.

- Why do we have a fence?
- 'It stops god from killing us'
- You silly, irrational, superstitious man! What a fool you are!

So explanations for why we have such a fence might be highly irrational, but this surface irrationality preserves important knowledge. The rationalist just gets appalled at the superstitious nonsense, argues god doesn't exist, uses scientific evidence that there aren't any dangerous local wildlife which 'proves' there is no danger from removing the fence.

'Irrational' religion, folk knowledge, mythology therefore may function as a heuristic which can sometimes be more rational than the naive rationalism that is often used to justify reforms. We all identify heuristics from experience to use in our work and daily lives, stuff we know 'just works'.

In complex systems, naive rationalism can be particularly problematic because the evidence can often only be shown for the 1st order. So something is 'proved' safe/beneficial, and the rationalist is confident in the power of their reason. Those using a more heuristic based thinking might be mocked as 'anti-science' or some other polemic, despite the fact that their knowledge is far more rational when we look at the big picture (or when it reveals itself over time).

Regarding my syntax and grammar, really? Since this is not an English Comp forum, lets just chalk it up as "creative licensing". What is the definition of "atheism" and "Atheism". Are they different, or the same? How does "atheistic(adjective) ideology" differ from Atheism(proper noun), in their position?

It wasn't a point about grammar, but that New Atheism is an ideological stance not simply disbelief in gods (atheism). New Atheism is the proper noun, not Atheism.

New Atheism - Wikipedia

Atheism on its own is a singular belief/position (depending on your preferred definition), whereas an atheistic ideology is more than this and denotes a wider range of beliefs/values. It doesn't get its meaning from contrasting with old atheism any more the New Zealand does by contrasting with Zeeland.

An atheistic ideology is an ideology that assumes no god: New Atheism, Marxism, Secular Humanism, etc. Just as a theistic ideology/religion is one that assumes the existence of God(s).

Anyway, being drawn into an ideological argument over the scientific standing of ideology, its epistemological status, and its totalitarian and liberal manifestations, is an exercise in futility, and a lot of unnecessary "word salad".. I will leave it for those with an inordinate amount of time on their hands.

I'd say it is quite simple, and the key idea of what I've been saying: much of our worldview can not be said to be true/false in the sense of "is there an apple on the table?" As such, ideology is better understood in terms of utility than objective truth.

The core narratives of Christianity are not true in a factual sense, yet the influence of Christianity on 'rational' ideologies like Secular Humanism is quite clear. Most irreligious people have internalised so many basic assumptions of 'irrational' religions that they are unaware they are even doing so. Another example of why we can't see the world as it is.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Some of the ancient Greek philosophers arrived at a belief in God not by faith but simply by using reason - since the chance of the universe's existing (and remaining in existence) by mere Chance is vanishingly small.

Therefore I am as sure - KNOW - of God's existence as surely as I know the truths revealed by science (gravity, relativity etc).

I BELIEVE by faith that God is as delineated by the Christian faith.

There are good people and bad people; and this not by mechanism, but by their own choice.

If we don't have a choice between good and evil, all human discussion (political, ethical, philosophical, religious) becomes altogether futile.

This choice between good and evil is a spiritual, not a practical, one - the Early Christians butchered by the Romans lost out in an evolutionary sense, while those cheering on the butchery went home to nice meals and many years of prosperity and fecundity. Similarly, the Allied servicemen and women who foiled Hitler died appalling and premature deaths, in many cases as volunteers and without having perpetuated their genes.

Martyrdom (for any cause) is non-natural and counter-evolutionary; witness the fact that most human beings are anything but martyrs !

Therefore martyrdom - and choosing between good and evil - are supernatural. Therefore it is very likely that human beings have an innermost self - a soul - that is immortal. And children who have reached the age of, say, six, should be taught the reasonability - as well as the goodness - of religious faith.

This isn't manipulation - unless a parent teaching a child "you shouldn't smoke" is manipulation; as opposed to the guidance that all parents have a both a right and a duty to give their children. Using punishment, guilt or fear in an attempt to make children grow up good and religious is likely to prove counter-productive; what better way to create atheists ?

Of course children must be taught grim truths - that if you smoke you will almost certainly die a premature and terrible death, that if you become an evil person (and refuse to repent of being so) you will die the Eternal Death called Hell.

Most Christian parents are not harsh or bigoted nowadays. For those qualities, you must look to a hard core of atheist (and other anti-religious) adult believers - for such they are - with their faith in an imaginary universe without God; a universe that operates by unguided (thus magical) mechanism.

The Greek philosophers believed in God(s) because of their ignorance and flawed reasoning. But they did not have the knowledge that we have today. So at least, they had a legitimate excuse for believing in God(s). We have no legitimate excuse today, to justify a belief in God(s). Speaking about the chances of the Universe existing, is the same as talking about the chance of winning lotto, to some who's already won it. Totally irrelevant. In fact the odds would be infinitely greater for our physical universe not to exist. What supports your surety that your God exists? Faith alone?

How does the Christian God delineate itself from all other Gods? How do you delineate between good from evil? Is there an objective good, and an objective evil?. Or, are they simply defined by the society you just happened to be born into? Is teaching "goodness" only limited to religious faiths?

Of course children must be taught grim truths - that if you smoke you will almost certainly die a premature and terrible death, that if you become an evil person (and refuse to repent of being so) you will die the Eternal Death called Hell.

Teaching children the dangers of smoking is justified by the facts and evidence, not by personal belief. But telling children that they have sinned, and if they do evil they will die an eternal death in hell, is just fear-mongering for control, without any facts or evidence. I prefer to tell my children things that I can justify as being real, and based on facts. I do not to use imaginary things to create guilt, control, and fear in children. Children can't question fiction, but they can question facts. What do you think happens when you tell children not to do something? Children don't respond well to imaginary consequences for their actions.

People are not born good or bad. They are simply genetically predisposed towards committing good or bad actions. The rest depends on nurture. Do you seriously believe that people just choose to become good or evil? What is the evidence to support that claim? Wow. I had a very strong religious upbringing. I was even a Sunday school teacher and a singer in the choir. Once I was embarrassed in Jr. High School, because of my belief in the stork, I soon developed my new-found critical thinking and logical abilities. I realized that the more I knew about something, the less I needed to believe about something. This was the beginning of my career science discipline.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

As noted above, it doesn't help discussions to consistently claim logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty. A common cause for such assertions is that the person claiming them has misunderstood the point being raised, rather than bad faith on behalf of the person making the point. Good faith discussion can help clear up misunderstandings, while bad faith discussion is about protecting one's initial presumptions regardless of their accuracy.

I specifically differentiated between basic facts about the basic physical world, which children can learn themselves, and the far more complex and subjective socio-cultural aspects, which are mostly a product of conditioning and environment. With minimal instruction, 1 million children would identify the apple and table and their utility, there would be little variation. With minimal instruction 1 million children would create very different value systems and worldviews, there would be a high degree of variation.

Clearly there are different degrees of objectivity between them

In my opinion, gods and religious beliefs are better treated as socio-cultural phenomena rather than part of the physical world. They are not scientific theories to be deemed true or false, but axioms that underpin particular cultural worldviews. All of us rely on certain, subjective axioms to underpin our worldviews as it is not possible to do otherwise.

The majority of the human meaning derives from the socio-cultural rather than the 'apples on tables' area of reality, and in the socio-cultural we do not see the world as it is. Instead we experience diverse phenomena which we experience via many perceptual filters. The ability to consistently 'see the world as it is' is really beyond our mediocre intellects.

You say that the socio-cultural is part of the physical, but imo we don't experience the socio-cultural objectively in the same way we experience apples on tables. People are physical, their behaviours are physical, the human world is physical, but we don't experience these objectively as we lack the information to do so. We are constantly filling in gaps, assigning motivations, judging behaviours and constructing that turn a purposeless world, into something that is understandable and explainable to ourselves.

Even things we can see are not 'objectively' visualised in our mind. A and B are the same colour, yet we can only see A as much darker. Even our eyes don't see the world as it really is, they fill in gaps, use heuristics, experience biases too.

See, here you are filling in gaps, and operating under biased assumptions (as we all do at times).

You are assigning motives to my words, that I am deliberately misrepresenting you and committing fallacies all because you have made an error in reasoning as to what I actually meant. You no doubt believe you are in the right while you are doing so, even though you are clearly misrepresenting my idea as has been explained.

I believe it is impossible to see the world as it is because the world is too complex, we have insufficient information and cognitive ability yet have a psychological need to make sense of what we experience. The world is cold, uncaring, ultimately purposeless, but we want to live in a fulfilling reality, so we invent one.

Nobody can see the world as it really is (religious and irreligious alike). It is a false belief caused by excessive confidence in one's cognitive abilities: a conceit.

The utility of false beliefs is any benefit you get from holding them. Religions, for example, enabled the formation of larger groups of unrelated people to form common bonds and encouraged some degree of altruistic behaviour within these groups. Alternatively, the belief that all humans have inalienable rights is obviously a fiction, but I certainly believe we should operate under the assumption that it is true.




We are not purely rational creatures as we are animals that evolved for survival and being perfectly rational and objective would be a massive disadvantage. Compartmentalisation is merely one evolutionary adaptation that makes us irrational, there are many others. Being biased towards an in-group helps us form coalitions to protect ourselves, self-deception makes us better at manipulating others, mental heuristics save us time and energy etc. etc.

See for example: Coalitional Instincts | Edge.org



Again, this wasn't what I was really getting at.

My point was that people interpret facts differently based on their ideological and emotional bias while believing they are being genuinely fair minded and the 'other' is hideously biased and partisan. Emotions are generally more powerful than facts in our judgements about the world.

Actually some studies have shown that people may actually lose the ability to process information properly in such situations, other studies have shown that people with better reasoning abilities are less likely to change their minds when presented with evidence that contradicts their opinions than 'less intelligent' people.

"I try to be as unbiased and objective as humanly possible" does not mean "I see the world as it really is". The former is a perfectly reasonable goal to work towards, the latter is hubristic conceit.



In your opinion, to what degree can a person see the world as it really is? Not simply the basic, apples on tables physical world, but the totality of the human experience. How much can a worldview be based purely on objective reality, rather than subjective, culturally defined preferences and narrative constructs that give meaning where none ultimately exists?

Thanks for the discussion

I certainly agree that our brain represents our objective reality, only as its best-guess interpretation. Our sense organ receptors are imperfect biophysical mechanisms, that are directly connected to an imperfect physical environment. The transmission of neural signals is not perfect. The production and release of hormones and neural transmitters is also not exact. The function and number of rods and cones, olfactory bulbs, taste buds, sensory receptors, and the auditory receptor cells in the "organ of Corti(cochlea), all can't possibly render a perfect depiction of our physical reality. But, when all are collectively used, they provide us with enough information to safely navigate through our physical reality. Even though our senses have their mechanical and biophysical limitations, we are still the most specialized species, when compared to all other species. So, yes our senses can be easily fooled. But, these biological idiosyncrasies play little, if no role in our ability to survive, or in our ability to procreate. We are a species designed to adapt and to learn. We may not see the world exactly as it really is(red or blue pill), but close enough is still good enough to avoid extinction.

I believe that our physical reality, and our socio-cultural reality, are not mutually exclusive. Our environment has a strong influence on socio-cultural behavior. Also, with or without minimal instructions, the apple on the table would still be just an apple on the table. The variation you have created is not perceptual, it is conceptual. I think you misunderstand. The apple on the table is an OBJECTIVE representation of our physical reality. The PERCEPTION of the apple on the table is only objective from a SUBJECTIVE perspective. This means, that from every subjective perspective, the apple is on the table. Experiments have repeatedly demonstrated, that if enough people believe that something is true or false, eventually you will also begin to believe in the majority belief. I have seen these experiments, and cognitive dissonance is very real. Just ask our military. I see no reason to subject children to any ambiguous, inexplicit, or vague belief systems. Especially, when facts are replaced with fear and guilt. This IMHO is morally irresponsible, and inexcusable.

I certainly agree that our conception of self, is shaped by our interaction with other humans and our environment. This interaction is not objective. It is subjective. If our experiences were objective, we would all have the same personality. Everything we perceive through our senses is from a subjective perspective. We are not members of a collective mind. There is only the physical reality. There is nothing else. Conceptual reality is dimensionless.

You have repeatedly stated that no one can see the world as it really is. This I agree for obvious reasons. Even if we could "mind melt" with every human on the planet, we could never see the world as it really is. What is your point? I believe that close enough is good enough. I also agree that your depiction of the world may lead many to create in their mind a better one. I also agree with many of your other comments. The problem is that no matter how many truisms you surround your premises with, it doesn't make your conclusions correct. Firstly, only our physical reality is objective, not our perception of it(that is subjective). Secondly, the conscious mind only represents 0.01% of all experience by the conscious brain. Experiments demonstrate that the subconscious mind processes between 20MB to 400GB of information per second. While the conscious mind processes between 40B to 2KB of information per second. What do you think this suggests? Finally, facts are self-evident, or things that can be proved to be true. Their nature does not depend on the emotional or ideological biases of others. No matter what your emotional or ideological biases are, you'd better not jump out a 2 story window. http://spdrdng.com/posts/conscious-vs-subconscious-processing

You seem fixated on a person's ability to see the world as it really is. How accurate a person can see the world as it really is, depends entirely on the quality and number of his sensory organs. The totality of human experience is based entirely within the physical world. Even those on drugs, are still rooted in the physical world. All of our worldview and the narratives we construct, are based totally on our subjective perspective of our physical reality. Our conceptual reality does not exist outside of the mind.

Thank you. The pleasure is mine.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Due to their nature, it is easy to misunderstand someone's point on a forum, a good faith discussion should entail accepting the other person's clarification though, rather than rejecting it and sticking with your original assumption. I'm sure you would prefer that other people accepted your clarifications on your intent.

Claiming strawmen based on a misunderstanding of someone's argument, and then claiming moving the goalposts when they point this out makes it hard to reach understanding.

But best move on...



Rather than obtaining certainty, it's more about how we deal with the uncertainty present in a world which we can't really understand. You seem to have a lot more faith in human rationality than I do.

The following is a post from a different thread, but covers the main ideas. Does it answer your questions?





It wasn't a point about grammar, but that New Atheism is an ideological stance not simply disbelief in gods (atheism). New Atheism is the proper noun, not Atheism.

New Atheism - Wikipedia

Atheism on its own is a singular belief/position (depending on your preferred definition), whereas an atheistic ideology is more than this and denotes a wider range of beliefs/values. It doesn't get its meaning from contrasting with old atheism any more the New Zealand does by contrasting with Zeeland.

An atheistic ideology is an ideology that assumes no god: New Atheism, Marxism, Secular Humanism, etc. Just as a theistic ideology/religion is one that assumes the existence of God(s).



I'd say it is quite simple, and the key idea of what I've been saying: much of our worldview can not be said to be true/false in the sense of "is there an apple on the table?" As such, ideology is better understood in terms of utility than objective truth.

The core narratives of Christianity are not true in a factual sense, yet the influence of Christianity on 'rational' ideologies like Secular Humanism is quite clear. Most irreligious people have internalised so many basic assumptions of 'irrational' religions that they are unaware they are even doing so. Another example of why we can't see the world as it is.

Rather than obtaining certainty, it's more about how we deal with the uncertainty present in a world which we can't really understand. You seem to have a lot more faith in human rationality than I do.

Can you give me an example of these uncertainties in the world, that we really can't understand. My faith in human rationality, is supported by the fact that we are not extinct.

Atheism on its own is a singular belief/position (depending on your preferred definition), whereas an atheistic ideology is more than this and denotes a wider range of beliefs/values. It doesn't get its meaning from contrasting with old atheism any more the New Zealand does by contrasting with Zeeland.
An atheistic ideology is an ideology that assumes no god: New Atheism, Marxism, Secular Humanism, etc. Just as a theistic ideology/religion is one that assumes the existence of God(s).

My statement was that Atheism does not believe that a God exists, because there is no evidence to suggest that a God does. I added that New Atheism is the same as Atheism, except that they are people out of the closet, defending their position. But their position is still the same. A Non-belief in the existence of a God(s). Are you saying that the difference is that one is a proper noun and the other is a general noun? I will gladly stipulate that to avoid an argument. But, are the meanings different or the same? If so, specifically how? Smuggling in the adjective "atheistic ideology" is a straw man, and comparing it to Atheism, is a false equivocation. What is your definition of Atheism, and the "Atheism" in New Atheism? Are they the same, or are they different? This was my point.

I'd say it is quite simple, and the key idea of what I've been saying: much of our worldview can not be said to be true/false in the sense of "is there an apple on the table?" As such, ideology is better understood in terms of utility than objective truth.The core narratives of Christianity are not true in a factual sense, yet the influence of Christianity on 'rational' ideologies like Secular Humanism is quite clear. Most irreligious people have internalised so many basic assumptions of 'irrational' religions that they are unaware they are even doing so. Another example of why we can't see the world as it is.

I think you are just complicating the simplicity of cause and effect. Although there is no such thing as an objective truth, can you provide an example of any non-physical based ideology, that is better understood in terms of its utility? People were helping each other, long before the establishment of any religion. It is simply beneficial for the species, that all of its members be looked after. The irrational tenets of religion are not required, to justify rational acts of Humanism. But many religions want to take credit. I would prefer acts of altruism coming from the heart, and not from any book of instructions. I also don't see the connection between acts of altruism and why we can't see the world as it is. Considering the fact that the world IS exactly how our subjective perspective perceives it.

 

[atanu]

There is an evolutionary advantage in having all members of a tribe united and motivated for the common good of the tribe. For example, if it is shown that members with a propensity to follow a leader, will do better than members who do not, then that gene will be pass on to the next generation. Having more followers willing to be motivated/led would provide a united force to invade other lands and take their resources. Especially, if the force is convinced that their actions will give them everlasting life and a place in heaven. This highly motivated and united fighting force would also pass on their genetic trait. ​

What is "force"?

If you were required to falsify your thesis, how will you proceed?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What is "force"?

If you were required to falsify your thesis, how will you proceed?

From the prior sentence, "Having more followers willing to be motivated/led would provide a united force to invade other lands and take their resources", gives a clue that the force is the group of followers that was willing to be manipulated.

Why would I ever be in a position to falsify my thesis? If you were required to stop beating your wife, how would you proceed?

 

[atanu]

Why would I ever be in a position to falsify my thesis? If you were required to stop beating your wife, how would you proceed?

What an immature analogy.

Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method.

It is fashionable to employ jargon such as ‘Evolutionary advantage’ and then hypothesise something untestable. Furthermore, if you impute selfish human goals to the mix, are you true to natural selection?

 

[atanu]

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.

I was raised in an atheist family set up. There are good points there. Later in my 40s, I started questioning the materialistic-atheistic paradigms.

There are no doubt some negative aspects of religiosity too. But, imo, overall, the “I versus the world” materialistic notion, if instilled in children, would be far more disastrous than the worst of religious idea. The ‘I versus world’ thinking can only create a psychopathic population.

Furthermore it is now a fashion, following Dennet-Dawkins scientism lead, to forward anti religious ideas as if those ideas are evidence based and scientific.

Darwin’s natural selection is ruthlessly data based and is limited to ‘Origin of species’. But these new atheists extend ideas of natural selection to ‘Origin of life-consciousness and social evolution’.

There is no testable science in theories of Dawkins or Dennet et al.. But unfortunately large section of population are led to believe that these guys are scientific. OTOH, IMO, the fundamentalism and arrogance of religious people are also part causative factors for this.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What an immature analogy.

Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method.

It is fashionable to employ jargon such as ‘Evolutionary advantage’ and then hypothesise something untestable. Furthermore, if you impute selfish human goals to the mix, are you true to natural selection?

I am very aware of the meaning of the word "falsify"(the word you actually used), and the other word "falsifiability", the word you smuggled in to create your straw man. Both words have slightly different meaning. The first is a verb that means to alter information about a statement or idea, to prove the idea is false. The second word only means the capacity of being falsified. For example, if I said that all roofs in Australia are red, that statement has falsifiability. By scientific investigation, we can easily falsify this claim. Do you now understand the difference?

Firstly, I don't see the analogy between falsifying ones own thesis, and to stop beating his wife. My immature example was in response to, why would anyone purposely falsify their own thesis? Both are examples of nonsense questions. Secondly, what did I say that prompted you to ask such a question? If you wanted to ask a contextual question about "Evolutionary advantage", or "natural selection", then why not just ask it in the proper context? Why the need to create a straw man("falsifiability") as an excuse to editorialize fashionable jargon?

I answered you question about "force". Are there any questions that would be more germane to the topic?

 

[Neutral Name]

This topic is very near and dear to my heart. Our future as a species may depend on the cognitive development of our children. Our future generations will need to tackle the real problems in our future(climate change, food, water, energy, overpopulation, infrastructure, etc.). They can't simply say that "God will provide, if we believe hard enough".

There is an evolutionary advantage in having all members of a tribe united and motivated for the common good of the tribe. For example, if it is shown that members with a propensity to follow a leader, will do better than members who do not, then that gene will be pass on to the next generation. Having more followers willing to be motivated/led would provide a united force to invade other lands and take their resources. Especially, if the force is convinced that their actions will give them everlasting life and a place in heaven. This highly motivated and united fighting force would also pass on their genetic trait. Thus individuality begins its decline. If we multiply these genetic behavioral traits over generations, we end up with more people more likely to follow leaders, and believe in the incredulous than not believe or follow. This is exactly the society we see today. Over 90% followers of religions, and a scattering of leaders, skeptics, and free thinkers. So, is religion just an evolutionary niche that produces more followers than individualists?

Human babies require an enormous amount of time, resources and effort to carry to term. It takes even more time, effort, and resources, to raise babies to adulthood. One of the evolutionary instilled properties of children is their blind obedience and belief in whatever adults tell them. Children may imitate adults, but they are NOT little adults. This means that children are a blank canvass for religion to inculcate. The Jesuits knew what they were doing when they said “Give me the child till 8, they will give you the man.". "Get to your children while they are young, and you will trap them in religion for the rest of their life". But a child left alone with a good rational and questioning education will never become religious. Atheists, with a religious background, generally start to have their first doubts when they get to the sciences in their teens. They begin to realize that nature does not exist for the benefit of man, or that man is a necessary part of nature.

In many parts of the religious world, children are the first to suffer. Religious fundamentalists commit many atrocities and maintain cruel practices against children(genital mutilations, child marriages, job discrimination, poor access to healthcare, employment and education, and the prohibition/restriction of many social freedoms/behavior). All in the name of religion. Women and girls suffer the most. The Islamic religion(25% of world population) teaches children that women are inferior to and equal to only half of a man. Also, that women belong to men, and that men have the right to punish their wives if they do not obey them. And, that women are the potential source of corruption in society. Even in more modern religions, women are restricted in how far they can advance in education or position. Free thoughts are forbidden and punishable. Superstition is instilled in school science curricula. This all creates a very dark and stagnated milieu for children. School pupils are also taught that if they do not obey the rules of God, that they will burned in hell. But God is Love?

Religion emphasizes moral codes designed to instil values such as self-control and social competence. However, studies suggest that "parental religiosity" is a mixed blessing at best. It can produce positive psychological development, while potentially undermining later academic performances. Particularly in math and the physical sciences. Religion essentially tries to provide metaphysical explanations about existence to children(and adults). Hence the need to speak in allegories, parables, narratives, hyperboles, and tragedies. There is no excuse for deceiving our children into imagining that they'd be better off with religion, churches, priests, or the other trappings of religious faith. Unless of course, there is some verifiable evidence to suggest that you ARE justified. Nuff said.
​

I'm sorry but that is not true. I was raised by an atheist scientist. I believed in nothing but God came to me to show me the reality of the spiritual. It is actually up to God not man.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I'm sorry but that is not true. I was raised by an atheist scientist. I believed in nothing but God came to me to show me the reality of the spiritual. It is actually up to God not man.

Could you be more specific, as to WHAT is not true? And, why it is not true? What specifically is the "...reality of the spiritual.". Finally, how do you know it was God that came to you, and not any of the other 8 - 10,000 other Deities that have been worshipped on this planet? Was it an illusion, a sensory glitch as we age, a demon trickster, or just wishful thinking? Other than being just another unverifiable subjective testimonial to support another unverifiable truth claim, is there any evidence you can present? Maybe a vision or a prophesy to note? Maybe some information, or truth, that only a God would know? Just like those in an age without reason and knowledge, if it can't be explained, then "God did it" would be the only possible explanation.

I can only accept that YOU believe that you were visited by some imaginary entity, and taught the reality of spirituality. Unfortunately, this defies every natural law that I know to be real, so I would certainly need extraordinary evidence.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I was raised in an atheist family set up. There are good points there. Later in my 40s, I started questioning the materialistic-atheistic paradigms.

There are no doubt some negative aspects of religiosity too. But, imo, overall, the “I versus the world” materialistic notion, if instilled in children, would be far more disastrous than the worst of religious idea. The ‘I versus world’ thinking can only create a psychopathic population.

Furthermore it is now a fashion, following Dennet-Dawkins scientism lead, to forward anti religious ideas as if those ideas are evidence based and scientific.

Darwin’s natural selection is ruthlessly data based and is limited to ‘Origin of species’. But these new atheists extend ideas of natural selection to ‘Origin of life-consciousness and social evolution’.

There is no testable science in theories of Dawkins or Dennet et al.. But unfortunately large section of population are led to believe that these guys are scientific. OTOH, IMO, the fundamentalism and arrogance of religious people are also part causative factors for this.

Either you enjoy peddling lies and half-truths, or you are completely ignorant of the truth. Every person on the planet is materialistic to some extent, or they would die from a lack of basic materials(food, water, shelter, clothing, air, and the money to acquire them). No one can survive only on spiritual values. If you mean teaching children that GREED(not materialism) and APATHY, both have positive values that should be practiced, then I agree they should NOT be taught this. As would any other rationally sane parent. What are these, "materialistic-atheistic paradigms", you've mentioned? Or is this just another obfuscation of words that sound fashionable and credible, but contextually are irrelevant and meaningless?

Stating that by teaching children "materialistic notions", "can only create a psychopathic population", is just fear-mongering based on ignorance. Just remember, it is SOCIETY that creates sociopaths. But psychopaths are BORN psychopaths, because their Autonomic Nervous System is physically wired differently at birth. So, anything you teach children will not make them psychopaths. So stop saying, or implying that it will.

Please demonstrate what the mechanism is that these "New Atheists" use to extend the, "ideas of natural selection to ‘Origin of life-consciousness and social evolution’? Or, is this just your unsupported biased opinion? What evidence supports your accusation that Richard(Professor, Ethologist, Evolutionary Biologist), and Daniel(Professor, Philosopher, Cognitive scientists) are NOT scientific? What relevant credentials, or body of knowledge do you bring to the table that support your accusations?

No matter how much clear observable evidence is presented to support the Theory of Evolution, Creationist will only cling to the parts that only a God would know the answer to. Since no one can prove them wrong about their, "absolutes" or anything "unfalsifiable", they simply boost that their beliefs are right, because science can't disprove them. Maybe you can regale us with your version of how all life began, and the mechanics of bio-diversity? I didn't think so. It is always easy to tear down, create doubts, or disparage, what has taken others a lifetime to understand. It is also much easier to believe that "God did it all", than to spend a lifetime in academia facing the possibility of proving that He didn't.

 

[Augustus]

You have repeatedly stated that no one can see the world as it really is. This I agree for obvious reasons. Even if we could "mind melt" with every human on the planet, we could never see the world as it really is. What is your point? I believe that close enough is good enough. I also agree that your depiction of the world may lead many to create in their mind a better one. I also agree with many of your other comments. The problem is that no matter how many truisms you surround your premises with, it doesn't make your conclusions correct. Firstly, only our physical reality is objective, not our perception of it(that is subjective). Secondly, the conscious mind only represents 0.01% of all experience by the conscious brain. Experiments demonstrate that the subconscious mind processes between 20MB to 400GB of information per second. While the conscious mind processes between 40B to 2KB of information per second. What do you think this suggests?

Just to check we are on the same page, what do you believe my conclusions are?

I agree that a lot of our cognitive processing happens at a subconscious level, yet we see ourselves as rational actors making conscious decisions. Often we are being driven by instincts we don't understand and are constructing narrative explanations after the fact. These instincts are to some degree impacted by culture also.

You seem fixated on a person's ability to see the world as it really is. How accurate a person can see the world as it really is, depends entirely on the quality and number of his sensory organs. The totality of human experience is based entirely within the physical world. Even those on drugs, are still rooted in the physical world. All of our worldview and the narratives we construct, are based totally on our subjective perspective of our physical reality. Our conceptual reality does not exist outside of the mind.

Our subjective narratives are based on our perception of physical reality, but they add layers of meaning that are not objectively real. To make the world palatable we need to create meaning where none exists. A sense of purpose, a sense of belonging and sense of right and wrong. We justify these to ourselves and other people via worldviews/ideologies/mythos/comforting fictions or whatever your preferred terminology is.

These can be so different form person to person that they are incomprehensible to each other.

Is there any of this you disagree with?

Finally, facts are self-evident, or things that can be proved to be true. Their nature does not depend on the emotional or ideological biases of others. No matter what your emotional or ideological biases are, you'd better not jump out a 2 story window.

As I've acknowledged, it is sometimes important to be objectively correct, but that at other times it doesn't matter.

If you believe faith in Jesus will ensure you eternal life and this makes you happy, why does it matter if this is not objectively true? If you believe in karma, why does it matter if you are not objectively correct? If you believe human reason and compassion can bring an end to suffering and injustice and find this comforting, why does it matter if this is not objectively correct?

Also, we may experience the same fact, but interpret it in completely the opposite manner based on our ideological biases. Look at anything Trump does for example. There is an 'objective' reality of what happened, but how people interpret and respond to this is often a result of a complex and interconnecting series of narratives that are hugely subjective.

I'm still not quite sure I get your position or where we are disagreeing. (I think) you are saying our 'conceptual reality' doesn't exist outside the mind, and this is entails a high degree of subjectivity (in which case I agree with you). I agree that there is a reality that exists independently of our perception, and our 'conceptual reality' evolves from this.

We disagreed that it is a conceit to believe you see the world as it really is, by which I meant we add layers of meaning to the physical reality we perceive which are the subjective narratives we use to create meaning and make the world more palatable.

The beliefs are less important than their consequences. If a 'false' belief encourages positive actions then I don't see the problem in it.

Can you give me an example of these uncertainties in the world, that we really can't understand. My faith in human rationality, is supported by the fact that we are not extinct

We often don't understand the reasons for our behaviours, the consequences of our actions, why things happen. The larger the scale. the less we understand and the less we can control

My faith in human rationality, is supported by the fact that we are not extinct

It might be a more robust definition of rationality to say it is that which increases our chance of survival.

Survival doesn't require a detached objectivity though, many of our evolved characteristics prevent us from being rational in this sense. Being biased towards ourselves (self-deception) and towards our in-group facilitates survival for example.

 

[Augustus]

My statement was that Atheism does not believe that a God exists, because there is no evidence to suggest that a God does. I added that New Atheism is the same as Atheism, except that they are people out of the closet, defending their position. But their position is still the same. A Non-belief in the existence of a God(s). Are you saying that the difference is that one is a proper noun and the other is a general noun? I will gladly stipulate that to avoid an argument. But, are the meanings different or the same? If so, specifically how? Smuggling in the adjective "atheistic ideology" is a straw man, and comparing it to Atheism, is a false equivocation. What is your definition of Atheism, and the "Atheism" in New Atheism? Are they the same, or are they different? This was my point.

You've basically said the exact opposite of me and claimed it was a fallacy. As I said before, people claiming 'strawman' are often the ones creating a strawman.

I was not comparing them, I was very specifically differentiating them (as I've noted multiple times). Calling an atheistic ideology an atheistic ideology is hardly 'equivocating'. An atheistic ideology is not 'atheism'.

In reply to your guess that I was an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist, I said I am an atheist, and (as a minor aside) I even used to be a New Atheist. That's no different from saying I am an atheist and I even used to be a Marxist/Fascist/Secular Humanist/etc.

New Atheism isn't simply 'out of the closet' atheism. It's pretty much a staunchly anti-theistic and rationalistic form of Secular Humanism.

As a name it doesn't really matter what it's called. It could have been called Funglism or Moodoo instead of New Atheism and it wouldn't make any difference. The referent for atheism is disbelief in gods, the referent for New Atheism is a particular ideological stance. Augustus means 'Divinely favoured', but to use that as my screen name doesn't require me to be Divinely favoured or explain what Divine means. The name Augustus just points to me.

The meaning of a proper noun is purely a symbolic convention for whatever it refers to, so the definition of atheism is actually irrelevant to the term New Atheism. If it had been called Funglism or Moodoo then this would go without saying.

Of course New Atheists are also atheists in the basic sense of the term though.

I think you are just complicating the simplicity of cause and effect. Although there is no such thing as an objective truth, can you provide an example of any non-physical based ideology, that is better understood in terms of its utility?

Am not sure what you mean by 'non-physical based', all ideologies result from human experience.

All ideologies are better understood in terms of their utility though: do they produce desirable behaviour or not?

People were helping each other, long before the establishment of any religion. It is simply beneficial for the species, that all of its members be looked after. The irrational tenets of religion are not required, to justify rational acts of Humanism. But many religions want to take credit. I would prefer acts of altruism coming from the heart, and not from any book of instructions. I also don't see the connection between acts of altruism and why we can't see the world as it is. Considering the fact that the world IS exactly how our subjective perspective perceives it.

They were helping people who were art of their small group. To grow that small group and keep it cohesive required some artificial bonds of fictive kinship.

Religions are man-made so there is nothing magical about them, they are just distillations of human experience packaged for transmission and reinforced with rituals that also facilitate social cohesion. It just so happens that these were the main vehicles we used to spread values in basically every pre-modern society in the world. Different religions focused on different values, hence the differing cultures around the world.

If you went back in time and tried to explain Secular Humanism to an ancient Greek or Amazonian tribesman it wouldn't make any sense to them. Greeks believed humans were fundamentally unequal so it was fine to enslave and exploit the weak, also the idea of secularism would be nonsensical. Explaining to an Amazonian tribesman that we need to work for the good of Humanity as we are all one and the same would again make no sense, and neither would the Idea of Progress where humanity gets gradually more moral and civilised as time goes by. A concept of the primacy of the individual would also likely make no sense in a highly collectivist culture. There is no such thing as Humanity, just different people/groups with differing and conflicting aims and needs, and progress relies on a linear, teleological view of time whereas most cultures have had a cyclical view.

In the Western tradition, the concept of Humanity, equality, linear time, individualism and natural rights evolved in a specifically Christian context based on creation and eschatology. Had Europe remained Pagan, or become Confucian it's highly unlikely these things would have emerged in the way they did.

Of course it is possible that, in an alternative history, such things could have emerged in a completely different manner, but there is no reason to assume that they must necessarily develop.

"Rational" assumptions of Humanism are only rational given certain axiomatic beliefs, many of which are concept that grew out of 'irrational' religions. You no longer need religions to justify these axioms as they have become so thoroughly internalised in the culture, that doesn't make them any less artificial though.

It's very difficult for us to think outside our cultural mindset though. Could you imagine wanting to kill your daughter for bringing shame on the family? I can understand from an academic perspective the reasoning behind it, but I can't actually empathise with the position as it's so inimical with my values.

Most values are not independent of culture, they emerge out of it.