Basic Orientation
Book1: R-E Living & "Homo Rationalis"
Book2: Mind-Body Problem
Book3: Humanianity
Introduction: Humanianity 2020
Philosophico-Religious Issues
Psycho-Socio-Cultural Issues
01 Enormous Good Is For The Doing
02 Friendly vs Hostile Debate
03 Rational Ethics-Joy in Doing Right
04 Explanation of Humanianity
05 Religion: Again Discussion Failed
06 Never Punish Children
07 My Posts On Spanking Thread
08
09
10
11
12
The Twelve Articles
Relevant Autobiography
 

"HOMO RATIONALIS" AND HUMANIANITY

 
HELPING TO PROMOTE OUR THIRD EXPONENTIAL CHANGE
 

PSYCHO-SOCIO-CULTURAL ISSUES

RELIGION

AGAIN DISCUSSION FAILED



This discussion took place on a social media site:


Bill Van Fleet posted:


No. It is not our religions. It is our naturally occurring parts of our basic hominid nature that manifest themselves in many of our productions. Our religions are our effort to work together on how to be good people, but they have within them our naturally occurring tribalism. We have to give up our tribalism, not religion. Our religions have to become non-tribalistic. And this change is occurring, but is still very early in this change. Hatred, i.e., chronic anger, especially toward "others" outside our tribe, is a natural part of our tribalism. Turning against religion is an example of that tribalism. "We" (who are atheists, and therefore the good ones) "must stamp out theism, and even anyone who advocates for 'religion,' because they are the bad ones and the cause of our problems." Our religions have bad stuff in them because their creators do. The answer is in self improvement and modeling and advocacy, not in war. And it includes giving up commitment to beliefs as an act of loyalty to our tribe. Religion is not some alien that has agency and is therefore doing bad things to us. It is a part of our culture that is for a good purpose but is still highly flawed because the hominids that produce it and engage in it still are close to other hominid species ethically.


Person A posted:


Bill Van Fleet I disagree with you completely. Religions are not our effort to work together on how to become better people. We are not moving in that direction due to religion whatsoever at this time. In fact, we are diverging further and further from that direction. Spirituality is a different story but religions cause more harm than they do good.


Bill Van Fleet posted:


Person A,


[I disagree with you completely. Religions are not our effort to work together on how to become better people. We are not moving in that direction due to religion whatsoever at this time. In fact, we are diverging further and further from that direction. Spirituality is a different story but religions cause more harm than they do good.]


Thank you for responding. I am fully aware that the opinion I expressed is out of step with current cultural developments, in this case a turning against “religion” based upon seeing all the problems that are presumably caused by many of the beliefs that are endorsed by many of the religions. However, I think if you and others fully understood what I was saying, and had freedom to change opinions, you and they would agree with me. On the other hand, it is difficult to clarify what I mean, though I will attempt to do so.


First, religion is not an agent. It doesn’t decide to do anything. It is not an external agent that does something to us humans; it is something that we humans do. It is a label for a social activity, and the beliefs that we humans have that are related to them, within most cultures and subcultures. When we say that the things that a subculture does that cause pain, suffering, disability, and/or early death are due to the religion of that subculture, we are really just describing another manifestation (the things found in those religions) of the tendencies that are in the humans that engage in the religious activities. Those activities are engaged in because they are activities that we humans have a tendency to engage in. Those tendencies manifest themselves in many or most of the things we do. So, to simplify, if we were to say that “all religions are bad,” we would actually mean that we humans do some bad things, as can be seen from observing lots of our activities, including all those activities that we label “religion” or “religions”. But that is just the first issue.


Second, yes, people do object to describing “religion” as our working together on how to be good people. They will instead say that religion is our beliefs in God, gods, spirits, etc. So that is defining “religion” not by its function but by some of its content (which is highly variable from (sub)culture to (sub)culture. We do not describe other social entities by their content, but instead by their function. Science is not our beliefs in black holes or superstrings, but instead our methods of achieving ever more accurate existential beliefs (about what exists and how it works). Government is not our belief in democracy, but instead our methods of making decisions related to important decision-making on a large scale. Politics is not our belief in Trump or Obama, but instead our methods of working together on deciding what individuals to choose to make certain decisions. We have gotten used to religion involving certain widespread beliefs, but any such belief we chose would be found to be absent from some religions. It is not religion that we disapprove of, but instead some of the beliefs and related activities that some of the people that consider themselves as belonging to certain religions engage in or have. Because we disagree with some beliefs maintained by some of the religions, and some of the activities related to the having of those beliefs, we consider such religions to be bad, and some of us have the idea that if we just banned religious activity, the bad would go away. That is a picture of us humans as being fairly ideal in our naturally occurring behavior, only to have that naturally occurring behavior become corrupted by this external force called “religion”. But our religions are a part of our socialization brought about by our cultural activities, and without socialization we remain mentally uncivilized little children. Parents help their children to give up some of their natural tendencies so as to become mature, well-socialized adults. And that process of becoming better people does not stop in mid-adolescence; we adults continuously have to work at making better decisions in the face of natural tendencies that often make things even worse.





Third, if we use our knowledge of history, our imaginations, and our observations of current events, I think we can readily see that over thousands of years the religions have had the function of social cohesiveness, i.e., of doing the right thing as defined with the social groups (e.g., tribes) that have those religions. What the religions have been about has been the doing of the right things, i.e., working on how to think, feel, and do the right things, to whatever extent there is seemingly any control of those entities (thinking, feeling, and doing). In fact, those who are against religion readily refer to it as some kind of control, also thought of negatively. Being a good person is indeed defined differently within certain cultures and subcultures, but studying and learning being a good person is the main groundwork for all of the religions, again defined differently by the different religions. Just within Christianity, why do people listen to sermons and engage in Bible study? What about the right living within Buddhism? Where do we find religion that does not advocate for a way of life that involves how one treats oneself and others, i.e., what one should and should not do, i.e., ethics?


Now I agree that there is much that is non-optimal about religion, as well as science (bad science), government, politics, etc. But it is not that we started out so good and pure and then degenerated as we developed our religions, but instead that we humans have much in our basic hominid nature that may well promote survival of the species but has nothing to do with quality of life. Pain and suffering promote survival of the species, just as does our joy and specific pleasurable activities. But we humans are increasingly realizing that we can do better than chimpanzees. E.g., we can stop our fighting. E.g., we can train ourselves to be more empathetic and generous, overcoming our natural tendency to be “greedy”. And that is what is being worked on in our religions, in both primitive and advanced ways. And our religions are becoming less authoritarian, though they have a long way to go, of course.


When people want to turn against religion, they frequently say that they are, however, “spiritual”. I am interested in what that means. What has often been referred to as “spiritual” has indeed been a part of our religions. This would be good to delve into more deeply.


We have a tendency to look at what we do and say that we are getting worse, ethically. The evidence seems to be that we are getting better as a species, but we are becoming much more aware, because of our communication technology, of how awful we are, and therefore think we are getting worse. Recognizing how awful we are is necessary in order to work on changing for the better.


Person B posted:


The basis of religion is the wish to control others’ thoughts and actions and to force them to conform to certain beliefs and conventions. It is one of the strongest sources of conflict, and probably the greatest outlet for humans’ natural us-vs-them mentality. Humanity must outgrow religion before it can begin to set aside its differences and learn to work together.


Bill Van Fleet posted:


Person B Please see my response to Person A. (Shown above.)


Person B posted:


Yes, Bill, I read through your responses. And yes, I do understand what you’re saying. But, respectfully, I think you are wrong. The heart of religion is the belief in beings and systems that don’t exist. It’s purpose is not to bring people together for the common good but rather to give them simple comforting answers and keep them in line with the type of society desired by the religious elite. We shouldn’t confuse philosophical movements with religions, nor should we assume that because people who do good are religious that religion is necessary for doing good.


Bill Van Fleet posted:


Person B,


[Yes, Bill, I read through your responses. And yes, I do understand what you’re saying. But, respectfully, I think you are wrong.]


I appreciate your engaging in sharing and comparing of our opinions. That is the way we increase the depth of our thinking.


[The heart of religion is the belief in beings and systems that don’t exist.]


What does the “heart” mean in this case? It seems to mean here that, in your mind, that is the first thing you think of when you think of “religion”. That doesn’t mean that that is what first comes to the mind of everyone. On the other hand, I believe that you are right as far as our culture is concerned (i.e., that that is the way most of us think, though not myself), and one of the reasons for that way of thinking, I believe, is that, indeed, some of the concepts in many of our religions are seemingly in conflict with the content of the sciences, or at least cannot be found within the natural scientific models of reality, and that there is an increasing tendency to turn against “religion”, whatever that does mean to people.


But if by “heart of religion” you mean “primary function of religion”, then I think what you describe can’t be “the heart”. The function of science is not the belief in quarks, black holes, etc.; the function of science is the development of methods and models of reality that are as accurate as possible (enabling markedly successful prediction and therefore markedly successful construction). And by your next statement, you seem indeed to be referring to the function of religion, not some of the contents of some of the religions, i.e., beliefs in certain supernatural entities.


[It’s purpose is not to bring people together for the common good but rather to give them simple comforting answers and keep them in line with the type of society desired by the religious elite.]


There are several issues in the above, which is therefore a complex proposition needing to be teased apart.


(1) “bring people together for the common good” and “keep them in line with the type of society” are two ways of saying the same thing, i.e., promoting ethical beliefs (about what should and should not be done) that are in keeping with the culture or subculture that one is talking about. Indeed, I agree that our religions do have that as their primary function, i.e., our working together as adults on being good people as defined by the culture or subculture.


(2) “the type of society desired by the religious elite” implies, I think most likely, that you think that the “religious elite” (by which I assume you mean the people in leadership roles within religious organizations) have a different idea as to what brings people together and/or should bring people together within the culture than do the other individuals within that culture, i.e., that somehow the “religious elite” are outside of the culture and imposing something on the people within that culture that is foreign to them. I think instead that the reason people attend a particular religious organization is that it is in keeping with the ethical beliefs of the people of that culture, and that religious activity within the organization will help them to think, feel, and do things that are consistent with the basic values of that culture. Otherwise, people would just not attend that religious organization. And indeed people are dropping out of religious organizations that seem to them to be out of step with more modern ethical views, a good example being views related to the acceptability of homosexuality.


(3) You refer to answers being “comforting”. Here I believe you are probably referring specifically to the belief in many religions that when we die, we continue to exist disembodied, and may even return in another body. Yes indeed, the contemplation of the likelihood that one is going to cease to exist has been recognized as a very painful state, a contemplation that is not possible for most, perhaps all, non-human species, so of course we humans tend to have beliefs that are more comfortable, and therefore comforting. This is a human phenomenon, which therefore appears in many of our religions. But many people these days say they are not religious, just “spiritual”, by which they mean that they believe that when they die they will continue to exist in some way, e.g., as mentioned above, or as merging back into a general, perhaps pervasive, consciousness. So yes, one of the functions of religion is indeed optimism.


So far, my concept of the functions of religion are five, namely, ethics, optimism, helping, belonging, and entertainment, but the primary one is ethics. Our religions are that set of intracultural social activities that is available to everyone in the culture (even those without money) that is for the function of working on ethics. The other functions can be accomplished in other, non-religious social activities. But admittedly this is a complicated line of thought, and may turn out to require improvement, but at least needs significant elaboration.


(4) And finally, I receive the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you are seeing the “religious elite” as being a set of sociopathic individuals that have as their primary or only goal some kind of domination for self-benefit. This tendency to look for and denigrate certain groups of people is, I believe, one of our strong tendencies, built into us by evolution (called “tribalism”), that causes much of our pain, suffering, disability, and early death. It is in the same group as antisemitism, homophobia, racism, etc. I do recognize that there have been good examples of religious leaders being sociopathic, but to attribute those same characteristics to all religious leaders is a great mistake. I believe that most are what we would consider good, well-motivated individuals who are trying to make the world a better place in ways that their particular courses in life have led them.


[We shouldn’t confuse philosophical movements with religions,]


Nor have I said so. A “movement” (as used in “philosophical movement”) is a change in something, such as a change within predominant philosophical thinking. There is change occurring within many of our religions, so there are religious movements. Such changes reflect changes within the cultures that those religions are a part of, so such religious movements are part of broader movements within cultures. And one of the movements within religion, meaning within many (but not necessarily all) religions is away from authoritarian foundations for ethical beliefs toward foundations that are related to the social contract by all involved for all involved. I label this movement “Humanianity”, and you can see much more about this at humanianity.com.


[nor should we assume that because people who do good are religious that religion is necessary for doing good.]


Nowhere have I said that religion was necessary for doing good. Religion is our effort to work together on studying how to be and do good. One can cook and never have gone to cooking school, but one can indeed work on improving one’s cooking skill by doing so, and the same thing can be said for a cooking club. Much of our informal, daily social interaction involves working on how better to handle situations. But the formal organizational activities within the religions are specifically for that purpose, making that at least an important, if not the primary, function of religion, as discussed above.


I will be interested in any of my thinking that you still think is inaccurate. Thanks for the feedback.


Person B posted:


As far as I can tell, all of your thinking is still inaccurate, as well as your understanding of what I say. But perhaps your misunderstandings are deliberate? At any rate, it is obvious, despite the amount of digital ink expended, that you and I will never agree. And debating for the sake of debate was never my thing. Pax.


Bill Van Fleet posted:


Person B, I believe that the sharing and comparing of differences of opinion is one of the most important things we humans can do. It is so important that we come to accurate understanding so that we can improve our terrible ways of living on this planet. Having others critique our own ideas is the best way of correcting one's own mistaken ideas, I believe. And I assure you that I do not knowingly misrepresent your views. It is true, I believe, that we humans have great trouble understanding each other, because our tool, symbolic language, is so imprecise (except in technical fields). It is not obvious to me that we will never agree. I would like very much to be corrected in my misunderstandings of what you have written, so that I can work on any tendencies I have to misunderstand. Also, I welcome and appreciate your pointing out things that I say that you don't agree with, and the reasons why. It helps me to think more deeply. I realize, of course, that thorough discussion can be extremely time consuming and can be inconsistent with appropriate time management. We all have priorities. And if you don't wish to explore our differences of belief, I will understand. On the other hand, I think the sharing and comparing of beliefs is an extremely beneficial use of Facebook (where others can join in or at least benefit from such discussions), and I appreciate your willingness up to this point to engage in discussion. And thank you so much for getting back to me.