Religion a confidence game?

[Quintessence]

Is there any reason to suppose that religions are not scams?

I would think that simple common sense would make it apparent there is no reason at all to suppose this. I don't know how one could possibly look at all of the world's religions throughout history and somehow conclude that they are all scams. One would have to have a very special sort of selective observation to possibly find that even remotely reasonable.

But I'm probably being too generous with my expectations for people's understanding of religion. Ignorance about religions is even worse than people's ignorance about the sciences in my country.

 

[LuisDantas]

What does that mean in English?

By my interpretation, that atheists manage to be atheists only because they are stubborn and unfair in their judgment of religion.

Needless to say, I don't agree. I particularly don't like the insistence in presenting "religion" as something in opposition to "atheism", which is neither accurate nor honest.

 

[Corvus]

By my interpretation, that atheists manage to be atheists only because they are stubborn and unfair in their judgment of religion.

Needless to say, I don't agree.

Ah, I thought as much. Absurd. I don't agree either. That would be illogical.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have been thoroughly immunized, I am completely impervious to articles to faith. Education and knowledge reveal the irrationality of faith.

You have a biological brain. Have you embraced a religion called Scientific Reductionism? Some have. It makes the illogical claim that all which is can be discovered Scientifically. That's where people get the ridiculous notion that Science is a religion. What can be said for Science is that its good discipline and useful for disproving things that are made up, but its not able to comment on some things and doesn't solve the problem of universal human perceptual instability.

 

[Looncall]

While popular, that conception of religion is at best one among several other competing ones. Several of the other conceptions are, in a word, saner.

In any case, even by that understanding of religion that you propose - and I will reluctanctly agree that it can be argued that it is "mainstream" - the actual product is clearly ready answers, motivation and hope, not the actual afterlives and the like.

But, but, but ... those products are bogus: inaccurate answers, toxic motivation, false hope. Better to live in reality.

 

[Kemosloby]

Ah, but they are also scamming people into doing things that no decent person should do. Just read the news: bigotry, oppression, terrorism. Religion gives justification for them all.

A quotation (I forget the source, my bad): good people do good things, bad people do bad things, to get good people to do bad things takes religion. I would add ideologies that operate like religions, like some communist regimes.

It's a good thing that most folks are more moral than their religions.

I suppose it's a hazard that by allowing bad people into religion it could become corrupted, but Jesus came to save sinners, so what would be the point of having religion for good people only? I'm not sure what you mean by ideologies that operate like religions. It seems all your hate is directed at religion. Perhaps as a result of ideological propaganda of the media, the ideology of no religion. Communism is a no religion ideology.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I appreciate that. He is still utterly mistaken. This is the kind of language used by certain theists that does not assist them in any way whatsoever. It in fact creates antipathy and resentment. It gives ammunition to atheists who do actively hate believers.

What atheists actively hate believers? That seems pretty rare wherever I go, including among the ex-Christians I have met. I think the haters tend to be those who have really been badly hurt in a religious situation, not those who simply don't agree anymore. As for me I've been badly hurt, and there's been some anger but hate and anger don't have to be the same thing. That's an important lesson that religion (and not Science) teaches.

 

[Corvus]

but its not able to comment on some things and doesn't solve the problem of universal human perceptual instability.

I don't see human perceptual instability, whatever that is, as a major issue facing the word. Science deals with everything that actually matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

But, but, but ... those products are bogus: inaccurate answers, toxic motivation, false hope. Better to live in reality.

Well, sure. But far as I am concerned, it is not religion that you are criticizing, but rather a caricature that is all too often mistaken for the real thing.

It is true that is very much a living, even thriving caricature (after a fashion).

The word has acquired far too many conflicting understandings. I happen to favor constructive understandings of same, which puts me at least arguably in the position of denouncing "mainstream" religion as not being religion at all.

The bottom line is that I think religion is all too often plagued by a lack of enough criticism and has largely become corrupted as a consequence. But it does not have to be that way.

 

[Corvus]

What atheists actively hate believers? That seems pretty rare wherever I go, including among the ex-Christians I have met..

Your anecdotal opinion.

 

[Rival]

Rival seems to be talking about postmodernism and not about you in particular.

He put me on ignore for saying that. That is hilarious. Could you at least tell him I'm a girl?

 

[Deidre]

It doesn't feel like a scam....when you believe it.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a good thing that most folks are more moral than their religions.

So true. There is a lot of bitter irony in the plain fact that some of the most damaging doctrines out there are proponents of authoritative scripture and end up being protected from causing further damage because, after all, their adherents are actual human beings who know better even if they don't always realize that.

 

[Corvus]

Have you embraced a religion called Scientific Reductionism? Some have. It makes the illogical claim that all which is can be discovered Scientifically.

You have a better method of investigation do you? One that is more successful? You must tell me about it sometime. (My heavy use of sarcasm is implying my considerable skepticism)

 

[Augustus]

good people do good things, bad people do bad things, to get good people to do bad things takes religion. I would add ideologies that operate like religions, like some communist regimes.

Can add family, friends, greed, jealousy, love, hate, fear, etc, etc. too.

You underestimate how easily 'good' people can do bad things.

 

[Corvus]

As for me I've been badly hurt, and there's been some anger but hate and anger don't have to be the same thing. That's an important lesson that religion (and not Science) teaches.

I do not understand what you mean?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't see human perceptual instability, whatever that is, as a major issue facing the word. Science deals with everything that actually matters.

You are the embodiment of scientific reductionism.

Your anecdotal opinion.

Versus yours.

He put me on ignore for saying that. That is hilarious. Could you at least tell him I'm a girl?

If he wants to find out your a girl he can use Science! (Assuming he is a he and not a she.)

You have a better method of investigation do you? One that is more successful? You must tell me about it sometime.

Irrelevant straw argument. Science isn't a religion, and religion isn't Science. Science is a discipline for discovery. Religion is a practice in which there is some discovery. Reductionism is counterproductive in either case.

 

[bobhikes]

What would you think of a business that peddles products that it cannot demonstrate that it can deliver? A scam, right?

Religions strike me as entirely analogous, peddling afterlives, invisible deities, uninvestigatable swarms of saints, angels, spirits etc. Requests for verification are met with "have faith", "trust me", "the more absurd it is, the more it must be true", etc, all marks of the con artist.

I suppose that the first prehistoric tribesman who found that he could escape the daily grind of survival by pretending to talk to gods realized quickly that he was onto a good thing (for him). And so it goes on.

Is there any reason to suppose that religions are not scams?

What would you think of a business that peddles products that it cannot demonstrate that it can deliver? A scam, right?

Religions strike me as entirely analogous, peddling afterlives, invisible deities, uninvestigatable swarms of saints, angels, spirits etc. Requests for verification are met with "have faith", "trust me", "the more absurd it is, the more it must be true", etc, all marks of the con artist.

I suppose that the first prehistoric tribesman who found that he could escape the daily grind of survival by pretending to talk to gods realized quickly that he was onto a good thing (for him). And so it goes on.

Is there any reason to suppose that religions are not scams?

Feel free and let me add a few more
Politics Scam
Monetary System Scam
Global Warming Scam
War Scam
Atheism Scam

I could go on and maybe you get my point but it doesn't matter because its all a scam. Reality is just an illusion.

 

[Corvus]

Irrelevant straw argument. Science isn't a religion, and religion isn't Science. Science is a discipline for discovery. Religion is a practice in which there is some discovery. Reductionism is counterproductive in either case.

No, scientific reduction is the way in which we make complex systems and interactions easier to study, however it is not the be all and end all. It is useful but not absolute.

''Unlike Newtonian physics, modern research takes into account the complex interactions between the particles, rather than looking at them individually.

Chaotic systems, such as turbulence, weather patterns and even the behavior of crowds are difficult to explain by the process of scientific reductionism.

In addition, isolating one phenomenon and studying it often changes its behavior. For example, it is impossible to measure both the position and speed of an electron, because measuring one affects the other. Therefore, the very purest reductionist principles cannot be used to describe anything.

The common consensus seems to be that scientific reductionism is too flawed to act as a valid philosophical viewpoint. Aside from the problems involved in applying the idea to abstract ideas such as emotion and being, it is very impractical. Many areas, such as quantum physics, are too complicated to describe by studying the individual parts, and doing so does not always give the best picture.'' https://explorable.com/scientific-reductionism

 

[Corvus]

You are the embodiment of scientific reductionism.

Wrong. But close.