Re: Why do people believe?

Bastian wrote: 
"Lance" <lachenicht@xxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1130837978.827913.95730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bastian wrote:

"One could also write:
It seems to me that in the absence of any proof that one mode of
feeding is
correct and another wrong, and in the absence of any proof that one
view within a particular mode of  feeding is right and the others
wrong, and
in the light of your contention that the meal with the same  cake (and
wine)
may serve social and group functions, then
             throwing away all traditional cookbooks and old recipes
and free mixing and matching may serve to enhance happiness rather than

minimize it. "

---------------

That is pretty much how the world is these days. Where I live there are
African, Italian, French, German, Thai, Indian, Chinese, Greek,
American, Japanese, and many more eating places. there are also the
ingrediants for North African and other foods on sale in all the
markets. We get fruit from all over the world. We are the better for
it...

-------------- 


Pity that I could not write unmistakable.
I  did not mean these modern conditions.
Only one attempt again:
Try to imagine, which problems may emerge if someone several months was
under compulsion to eat only vegetarian food. And then he comes free. At the
first evening he eats three pork cutlets.  He says: there were rules but
know I can push aside all rules.  Can you imagine what may happen? Perhaps
you should phone to a emergency doctor.
There are problems of  freedom - also with reference to
religion/non-religion. The problems can be solved. But one must see them -
only if one sees them.


Am I correct in reading that you are agreeing that religion limits freedom?

Am I also correct that you think the absence of religion equals "anything is permitted".

The first seems problematic for someone in favour of religion. After all if religion has any purpose it has to serve to increase human happiness.

The second one is problematic because atheists and non religious people can be both law abiding and moral people.

I suspect the problem that you talk about arises from the fact that many religious people abide by morality out of fear of consequences (such as hell) or in the hope of rewards. Of course morality should be intrinsic, not provoked by rewards and punishments. You should do the right thing because it is right - not because someone will reserve a place for you in heaven if you do the right thing.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

Bastian wrote:

"I thought a little bit about the Hindu problem. [I try to understand
it from
a view of "science about religion". I dont' t quite know if this
notion is
correct - in German "Religionswissenschaft".]
You know the degradiation of darker people had it's historical reasons.
Now
the religion brought a claim which consolidated this arrangement - told

stories why it is so how it is. Obvious  it brought an adaptive
advantage
in cultural evolution (Not good for many persons but good for the might
of
the upper class and therefore for the might of the state). Nowadays
they see
also other cultures and occasionally were conquered by them; and the
industrialization sets new marks. Therefore the advantage crumbles.
Religion
which at first brought an advantage can now hinder the development.
(But
perhaps it is very convenient to modern capitalism...).  That is the
ambivalence of each cutural arrangement, I see my task to push  it - in
my
place - in a good direction (also against some unpleasant aspects which
you
named). Something may happen, someting may disappear. "

----------

I don't see why religion should be the organising principle of society.
Some criterion such as human welfare, as well as some economic
principles seem much more rational to me.



I cannot enough English, but I suppose that your word "should"  is
misleading. I did not ask what should have be done or not done. I asked what
happened in the last ten thousand years, before such criterions as "human
welfare" were defined in a scientific way.  And I reminded at the functional
theory of religion (Durkheim and others - I think you know these theories of
_sciences about religion_ (Religionswissenschaft)).
 Even if in present time I push economic principles or other human views, my
motives may come from a religion. And if my motives come from a religion I
hope that I find arguments which are compatible with non-religious
arguments.
I hope, now it's clear.
I remember at Crick/Voltaire: It's not the time to make enemies.


Again this seems self-defeating to me. Perhaps I haven't understood. For if religion is functional then it is a part of a great system, not an end in itself. But the only reason to believe is that religion offers some truth or insight above and beyond the system of society in which we live.

If you mean that most people have multiple motives then so what? That remains true at the trivial level and at a deep level. It is part of the complexity of human life. But I can't see why having religious motives (whatever that might mean) makes actions better. Rather, if it brings about an external orientation to acting well, then it may do harm.

Lance
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Recumbents dorky - think again
    ... since atheism is the _absence_ of religion. ... Monotheistic religion was their motivation. ... An atheist has faith that there is no God. ... respect the mythologies they have been brainwashed into believing. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Why do people believe?
    ... > Bastian wrote: ... and in the absence of any proof that one ... > view within a particular mode of feeding is right and the others ... > a view of "science about religion". ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Physics Cultists
    ... So, in this case, an absence of evidence is ... >>past the 30 years war) had much to do with religion. ... Yes, of course:-) Though, I would say that communism ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Atheists dying
    ... > It's the simple absence of the defining property of most Western ... anybody who imagines atheism is a religion is being stupid. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Why do people believe?
    ... By the cinemas it becoms perhaps ... But now each one may mix his own religion - has he the ... > It seems to me that in the absence of any proof that one religion is ... > mixing and matching may serve to enhance happiness rather than minimize ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)