Let's define Religion.

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is at the core of what I would like to explore.

To summarize your position, humans cannot function without ideology, all ideology is justified by myth, and all myths are not objectively true.

If no ideology is objectively true, and there are many existing and often conflicting ideologies, and an ideology is required to function, how is one to choose an ideology? Can we choose, or must we accept only the ones to which we have been indoctrinated?

Can we make value judgements between different ideologies? What are the criteria? How are the criteria to be determined? In essence, how do we choose between fictions?

Well, no we can't because, there is no objectively true "we", so as long as you use your "we" as you do, I am not a part of your "we". I am one of them. BTW your "we" is a fiction.

 

[Secret Chief]

"we" is a fiction

I bet you say this to get out of sharing the bill in restaurants.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I bet you say this to get out of sharing the bill in restaurants.

No, that is a local inter-subjective we.

 

[Augustus]

I think you should give this a little more thought. Vertebrate senses provide objective, if not complete, information about the world around the organism. Absent abnormalities, the biological senses provide reliable information within the specific ranges (visible light spectrum, audible range of sound waves, specific chemical receptors). Our senses do not develop, they are what they are, what develops is our catalog of experience, where we see the patterns in the data and we begin to catalog the objects we encounter along with our experiences.

When presented with limited information, the central nervous system will try to find a likely match. The obvious advantage is that it allows the organism to react faster than waiting for complete information to come in, either in identifying threats or potential food. The advantage of quick reaction outweighs the disadvantage of misidentification. Again, given close and careful inspection of something, maximizing the observable data of the thing in question, allows for accurate, objective conclusion at a macroscopic level.

For human beings, the sensory data is objective, it is what we think about that data that is subjective.

Saying our sense organs provide objective data, but our brains process it subjectively is exactly the same as saying we don't see the world as it is.

Light waves and sound waves which are completely meaningless absent the subjective 'what we think about that data' which is mediated by experience. Also, our senses absolutely do develop, we are not born fully functioning and senses, to some extent, can be developed like skills.

In most situations, it is functional enough to serve a purpose, but it in no way is objective and can sometimes be outright misleading.

Our senses provide an incomplete, subjective approximation of some aspects of reality that is biased towards
survival and utility rather than objective fidelity. These biases derive both from both our genetic hardwiring and our specific experiences.

Yes, those are objective criteria upon which they made a subjective value choice.

Do you believe your moral system is more virtuous than 'might makes right'?

If both are just self-interested, subjective preferences, why should one be better than the other? How would that be justified?

I have used scripture to broadly mean any religious text which may be an inaccurate use of the word. The fact is that these texts describe religious myth, myths that are not objectively true, that can evolve and change over time as society changes, and that in part, provide answers to unanswerable questions.

In what way do they differ from secular ideologies then? These are not objectively true and they 'provide answers to unanswerable questions' in the same way: how we ought to live. They are just frameworks of meaning that help us make sense of a meaningless world.

Acknowledging reality, what is objectively real, neither values or devalues one's life. Fictitious belief, beliefs built upon artificial constructs of reality, are harmful because they cannot be easily challenged and modified. This can result in societal stagnation and entrenchment of harmful beliefs.

Why is a fictitious belief that drives virtuous behaviour 'harmful'? The only beliefs that are harmful are those that create harm.

Fictitious beliefs, in general, can be changed as easily, if not more easily, than your 'subjective value choices' based on 'objective' criteria.

Religions have been endlessly adaptive, that is why they are so enduring.

The subjective value choices based on what ought to be are ultimately no more real than any other 'ought' derived from fiction though.

If I say we should be charitable because god wants us to take care of his creation, or we should be charitable because of our shared humanity what is the difference and why should we care if one believes the same thing for one reason or the other?

Absolutely true. And we have to acknowledge and deal with that as best we can. If the wellbeing of humanity has always been up to humanity, then humanity must embrace that fact and make the best possible decisions based on what is real, to the best of our understanding. As that understanding improves, we can continually improve our value choices accordingly and not be trapped by ancient mythology.

Why should it improve? Why should anyone act outwith their own self-interest? You might think we should, but many people will disagree. It won't produce unity or humanistic values, it just leaves it up to us to do whatever we want while acknowledging that there is no reason anyone can object to us doing what we want other than their own self-interest.

Why would embracing that reality be intrinsically better than embracing a mythology that we are all part of god's creation and have an obligation to take care of it?

Earlier you asked about a teleology. Your idea that rejecting myth in favour of 'reality' is intrinsically good and will lead to progress is just that.

You misunderstand. I agree that our default instinctual behavior is for human beings to divide into groups. I am saying that religions, ideologies, and nations reinforce and strengthen that divide.

That wasn't my point.

Our default state is to be divided into small, kinship groups like chimps. Chimps can't create larger groups because they can't create abstract linguistic constructs that facilitate fictive kinships.

Religions, ideologies, and nations allow us to form larger groups. They are the greatest unifying factors in animal history. To see them as more divisive than unifying is absurd.

We have, very slowly, been in the process of transcending our animalistic nature for millennia. And you are correct that as individuals, we are all as unique as snowflakes and there never has been, nor ever will be complete unanimity of value choices. However, it is much better to manage our differences based on a realistic understanding of human behavior as opposed to trapping ourselves in divisive myths. This is what we should be striving for.

I get the impression that you feel something would be lost if we were to abandon myth. I am curious as to which myths you feel must be preserved?

I believe a realistic understanding of human behaviour based on mountains of evidence is that humans need to make meaning in a meaningless world and one way they do this is via religion and/or ideology. Both are grounded in myth/narrative.

I find the idea that we can transcend our animalistic nature and do without religion and/or ideology simply making rational self-interested 'subjective judgements from objective facts' as fantastical a myth as any that has ever been created.

Ignoring the fact that these subjective value choices are not really being made rationally, but as the result of centuries of cultural conditioning that is the product of myth internalised as 'neutral reason', a moral order that is founded purely on 'objective facts' is ultimately ends up as a system of pure self-interest.

People who like to think they 'see the world as it is' tend to think we can 'fix' many of the problems caused by human nature simply by applying rational principles. The problem is humans are not a particularly rational species either as individuals, or especially groups and also that reason is as likely to drive harmful behaviours as it is virtuous ones.