A new approach

[realthinker]

There is a lot of effort in these forums being made regarding the proof or disproof of religion. That effort has been going on for generations among the simplest and the grandest of thinkers. There has obviously been no progress made on either side. Why do people continue to ask the same questions to which there are no answers?

A new approach for many of the debaters would be to look at how religion has contributed to the evolution of society and to understand how individuals build their understanding of truth. Looking at the fundamental nature of religion and truth rather than debating about instances of both should prove enlightening. Add to that a bit of motivation -- a need for spirituality -- and the picture starts to become complete.

Understanding the two-faceted nature of personal beliefs explains how people can cling to religion despite its obvious logical shortcomings. An individual maintains an understanding of reality that consists of a number of statements of belief. Each of those statements has a degree of <b>correspondence</b> to objective, measurable reality. Each also has a degree of <b>coherency</b> within the totality of the individual's understanding of truth. That is, each statement has a degree of logical compatibility with all of the other statements of belief.

Some things have wonderful correspondence and are accepted as fact. Gravity holds us to the Earth. Water flows downhill. Other things simply cannot be evaluated for correspondence as there is no measure of their validity. God created the Earth. When we die we go to heaven or hell. There is simply no way to connect those statements of belief to measurable phenomenon to establish them as objective facts.

So why do those beliefs come about? People generate those notions to increase the overall coherency of their set of beliefs. We all know people who cling to beliefs, religious or otherwise, that aren't exactly true. Some believe the government was in on the 9/11 attacks. Some believe that there are aliens visiting the Earth and that the government is covering it up. These beliefs make other items of belief seem to be coherent.

Now, why would people invent religious beliefs? Spirituality. Spirituality is that understanding we have that makes us comfortable with our existence and our mortality. Why are we here? What happens when we die? Why do things happen that seem so contrary to our general experience, like natural disasters? Those are natural anxieties that we all encounter as we mature.

The stories that helped to ease that natural anxiety regarding things about which we could never establish firm, factual understanding helped early man survive. The myths of the angry gods made people respect nature. What's more, populations that shared a set of those stores survived better than populations that had a diverse reaction to that anxiety. Populations get along better, cooperate more effectively, when they share a common understanding of the truth.

It just so happens that some sets of stories and social customs are more effective at satisfying an individual's spiritual anxieties and at greasing the wheels of social evolution. Those have become our prominent religions.

Now, it's obvious that when two religions collide both of their lack of correspondence becomes apparent. The fact that they contradict, that one cannot be more true than another, becomes entirely obvious. When populations became less isolated with the ease of modern travel and the incredible growth in long distance communication the incidence of religious friction became more frequent. That's what we're up against today. That same force that made earlier, smaller populations more successful is working today to tear our modern populations apart.

The remedy is to replace what religion has done for the individual with something that is more universally acceptable as truth. The old creation and death superstitions have to fall away. It'll take generations, but I'm convinced that's the only way our international society will succeed.

[Confused]

Um, good luck on getting both sides to agree to that. I doubt one could get both sides on this forum to agree with you let alone in a city, a state, a country, etc.... I won't say i don't like the concept you suggest, but it is utopian and this is anything but utopia

[realthinker]

I don't expect to get anyone religious to agree to it. And i don't expect to see much movement on it in my lifetime. But what i would like to see is the non-religious community stop granting religion any legitimacy by debating its validity. Simply expose it as the social phenomenon that it is and let the myths die in their natural course.

Look at all the myths regarding disease that have died once people understood that hygiene was really what was saving them. Understanding is what makes people give up their superstitions.

The ideas describing individual need for and the social benefits of religion are more sophisticated than most people will spend time to understand on their own. Especially when it's likely to go against what their whole lifetime of indoctrination has lead them to believe.

I would like to promote this as the basis of a coordinated approach to diminishing the role of religion. I'd like to get more people to help craft this into a firm position and real, marketable alternative to religion and to start taking it to the streets.

[realthinker]

<snip>Duplicated post removed.</snip>

[Confused]

I don't expect to get anyone religious to agree to it. And i don't expect to see much movement on it in my lifetime. But what i would like to see is the non-religious community stop granting religion any legitimacy by debating its validity. Simply expose it as the social phenomenon that it is and let the myths die in their natural course.

Look at all the myths regarding disease that have died once people understood that hygiene was really what was saving them. Understanding is what makes people give up their superstitions.

The ideas describing individual need for and the social benefits of religion are more sophisticated than most people will spend time to understand on their own. Especially when it's likely to go against what their whole lifetime of indoctrination has lead them to believe.

I would like to promote this as the basis of a coordinated approach to diminishing the role of religion. I'd like to get more people to help craft this into a firm position and real, marketable alternative to religion and to start taking it to the streets.

If you recall, the scientific community gave no credence to religion or their assertions on creationism and ID, and it ended up in one of the largest screw ups ever, the Dover case. When we actually had to legally defend science, term the amicus curiae, etc.... We learned, ignoring things isn't the best option. If something as large are religion is left unchecked, well, we already know what happens. Religion has to much of a strong hold on society, everywhere, despite what some say. It is gaining power again. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Redefining it just leads to new denominations or cults. In short, what humanism does is offers a different view of humanity, one that is an alternative to being degraded or labeled a sinner from birth. One in which man is responsible for mans actions so man not only must account for his digressions, but he also gets credit for his accomplishments. He stands on his own merit, not one of an eye in the sky.

[realthinker]

I certainly don't propose ignoring religion. What I propose is exposing the behavioral basis for religion. Attacking the symptoms, the instances of religion such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, is fruitless. But if you expose what about their human condition and social evolutionary history compels people to cling to such superstitions there may be some hope that religion will start to lose its power.

When very usual childhood behavior is labeled as 'peer pressure' people can identify it and make it an issue. This is something similar. Describe it, name it, expose it.

When people understand why they behave as they do, how religion's ceaseless indoctrination manipulates them, why they are vulnerable to it, you are not playing religion's game. Who cares what the bible says about salvation. We know that the bible is an arbitrary adjudicator of an argument whose boundaries are set by the church. Take that out of the equation and stop having those fruitless arguments. Show them examples of the peer pressure, the routine logical fallacies, the circular reasoning that makes religion work. But don't try to negate their claims. Ignore their claims and focus on the behavior.

[Confused]

I certainly don't propose ignoring religion. What I propose is exposing the behavioral basis for religion. Attacking the symptoms, the instances of religion such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, is fruitless. But if you expose what about their human condition and social evolutionary history compels people to cling to such superstitions there may be some hope that religion will start to lose its power.

When very usual childhood behavior is labeled as 'peer pressure' people can identify it and make it an issue. This is something similar. Describe it, name it, expose it.

When people understand why they behave as they do, how religion's ceaseless indoctrination manipulates them, why they are vulnerable to it, you are not playing religion's game. Who cares what the bible says about salvation. We know that the bible is an arbitrary adjudicator of an argument whose boundaries are set by the church. Take that out of the equation and stop having those fruitless arguments. Show them examples of the peer pressure, the routine logical fallacies, the circular reasoning that makes religion work. But don't try to negate their claims. Ignore their claims and focus on the behavior.

Ok, I see what you are saying. But I don't understand how you would go about explaining to people why they believe what they believe about religion without exposing the fallacies of religion? How do you explain behavior to believers?

[bernee51]

I certainly don't propose ignoring religion. What I propose is exposing the behavioral basis for religion.

Despite an objective analysis of religion people are still going to, or want to, or need to, believe…in something. The two main functions are religion are translative and transformative. For the vast majority of people the former is all that really comes into play. It serves to give meaning and legitimacy to existence in the face of the obvious pain, suffering inequities etc that are observed and experienced in life. The latter – transformative – rarely occurs. This is when a particular belief totally changes the consciousness of believers. It disrupts the sense of ‘self’ and replaces it with a ‘transformed’ version.

The way is see it is that there are two issues. The - ‘where did we come from”? - and the - ‘now that I’m here how do I make sense of it”. I see these as two separate issues. Religion, for the most part, conflates these two i.e. wants to provide a single answer to both.

Attacking the symptoms, the instances of religion such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, is fruitless. But if you expose what about their human condition and social evolutionary history compels people to cling to such superstitions there may be some hope that religion will start to lose its power.

It is clear (to me at least) that religious belief, and, in fact, the god concept is evolutionary…it has changed over time. One version has been Incorporated and transcended by a subsequent one. For example Christianity has its foundations in the belief systems of the ancient Israeli tribes. These beliefs were added to over time with the inclusion of eastern (e.g. Hindu/Buddhist) thought as well as Greek philosophies. The subsequent involvement of secular aims in matters ‘spiritual’ has left us with religion we currently call christianity. This is not unique to christianity – it is symptomatic of the total history of belief. The use of whatever is necessary to effect control over the greatest number of people.

When very usual childhood behavior is labeled as 'peer pressure' people can identify it and make it an issue. This is something similar. Describe it, name it, expose it.

I agree. However, until such time as an alternative can be provided which fills the need for meaning, purpose and legitimacy there will always be those who believe ‘their’ religion is ‘true’.

Witness the illogic of those who have no issue with rejecting the ancient roman or greek gods as being myth yet hold firmly (sometimes militantly so) to belief in their own mythical being.

When people understand why they behave as they do, how religion's ceaseless indoctrination manipulates them, why they are vulnerable to it, you are not playing religion's game.

Believers do not hold they are being manipulated.

Who cares what the bible says about salvation.

Those who believe ‘salvation’ is necessary. Those who truly believe that god exists and sent his ‘only begotten’ to provide that salvation. They care.

We know that the bible is an arbitrary adjudicator of an argument whose boundaries are set by the church.

You know it, I know it. Some – many – believe it is the word of god. And ‘inerrant’ at that.

Take that out of the equation and stop having those fruitless arguments. Show them examples of the peer pressure, the routine logical fallacies, the circular reasoning that makes religion work.

Until a suitable and acceptable replacement is found which fills the need that religion currently addresses believers will use whatever self-deceptions are deemed necessary to substantiate their belief.

But don't try to negate their claims. Ignore their claims and focus on the behavior.

Behaviours are entwined with claims.

Humankind has historically felt that there was some ‘other’ present in existence. This sense of the ‘other’ is what gives rise to ‘spiritual’ pursuits which in turn get subsumed by dogma to form religion.

Convincing fearful, uncertain, confused mammals, blessed with the ability to self reflect, that this ‘other’ is nothing more than their ability to self reflect is a difficult, some would say impossible, task.

[realthinker]

I agree that without a substitute for religion that satisfies the very real need for spirituality, understanding why we're here and what happens after, it's going to be tough to push for change. I think it's going to be a change over generations, not within a generation.

What's I'm finding very interesting in my own situation is bring up two children, now 4 and 6, without religion. I myself find it a bit hard to imagine not having even a notion of what prayer is, yet that's where my kids are. They don't have an idea of what sin is. We don't talk that way. But we do have some real spiritual discussions, mostly regarding what happens at death. I've explained it as returning the stuff and the energy that makes us back to the universe. Our stuff goes back to the ground and it gets turned into new life. The energy that makes us alive gets released. It might be absorbed by those around us who love us. It may radiate out and someday be part of the stars. In a thermodynamic sense I think I've been accurate, and at the same time I think they're satisfied with it. So far I've not had a child up in the middle of hte night totally afraid they're going to hell because they did something bad and lied about it. My son has had to wake me up to confess that he did something he shouldn't have, but that was about us, our relationship and our need to be honest with one another. It wasn't about eternal damnation.

I believe that in the (hopefully near) future there will be social consequence to having obvious religions tendencies. It will become an evolutionary liability, just as it once was an evolutionary benefit. I just wish there were some way we could promote that.

Part of the difficulty in that is that there's not an identity, a dogma, or an organization to promote non-religiosity. It's not a something that will reach a critical mass because there's nothing to measure about it. People don't identify with not identifying with religion. It's ideas and motivations are too diverse.

[bernee51]

I agree that without a substitute for religion that satisfies the very real need for spirituality,

Can you think of a 'secular' manner in which to address this perceived need for spirituality?

Or...just because mankind appears to have had this need - is it real?

Personally I believe it is a matter of changing perceptions. The idea of 'the other' of 'god' is the idea that somewhere out there is a 'big mind' while ours is puny in comparison.

Our small mind percieves from a position called “me.” All the arrows point “out there” so everything else appears to be on the outside. When we look “out there,” we are left feeling rather empty, unimportant and incomplete “in here.” How many times have I heard christians parroting this inferior position?

Naturally want arises; we want to feel better, more complete. As long as we believe that something outside ourselves can make us feel whole, we will be driven to grasp at things.

In short - we want god.

This is ignorance. We ignore our intrinsic wholeness.

...understanding why we're here and what happens after, it's going to be tough to push for change.

I think this is a furphy.

We exist. Mixing up any 'why' with that is waht leads to religious belief.

If you are asking what is the purpose of existence. To live purposely is answer enough for me.

What happens after? Does it matter? We are dead.

Why should we consider ourselves different from every other object in this universe?

I think it's going to be a change over generations, not within a generation.

Probably millennia - if we survive as a species.

What's I'm finding very interesting in my own situation is bring up two children, now 4 and 6, without religion. I myself find it a bit hard to imagine not having even a notion of what prayer is, yet that's where my kids are. They don't have an idea of what sin is. We don't talk that way.

Your children are very fortunate.

Does this open-minded approach cause problems with their peers who may be beleivers? I have heard stories of the children such as yours being victimized at school - bullied with stories of their likelihood to face 'eternal damnation'.

My son is now 16 and has never had exposure to reliious belief other than in an academic sense. We have visited churches, mosques, sufi dance, hindu temples, buddhist shrines, sikh gurudwara, et al and discussed, in varying details each of these belief systems. I felt it more important to ensure he developed critical thinking skills. We have long ranging discussions on the nature of being. What is reality? What is the self? Why do people believe? I even leave open the possibility that he may in time develop theistic beliefs - although he denies it is even a possibility.

All we can do I believe is to encourage a 'big mind'.

I believe that in the (hopefully near) future there will be social consequence to having obvious religions tendencies. It will become an evolutionary liability, just as it once was an evolutionary benefit. I just wish there were some way we could promote that.

I hope that is not just wishful thinking on your part. However, promoting such a future is what you are doing with your children. It is also what we are doing posting on fora such as this.

It is about informing not just christians but all religious believers, that there are those who see through the whole charade and can live lives of meaning and purpose without the need for superstition.

Part of the difficulty in that is that there's not an identity, a dogma, or an organization to promote non-religiosity. It's not a something that will reach a critical mass because there's nothing to measure about it. People don't identify with not identifying with religion. It's ideas and motivations are too diverse.

Such a thing may arise in time - a basis for a secular spirituality will develop.

When I look at the development of belief and its relationship to the development of human consiousness (both at a individual and communal level) I get mildly optimistic.

The problem we face however is the fact we have 21st century technology in the hands of those who are stuck in a first century (or 7th century - as the case may be) mythical mindset.

That is scary.