For reasons I am not entirely sure of, a three-part belief prevails these days amongst many "right-thinking people", including many ex-Mormons. It goes like this:

When it comes to the human family, falsehood is per se "bad", whereas truth is per se "good". (Let's call this belief [F]). Therefore, because (creedal) religion contains much falsehood, it must, by inevitable extension, *necessarily* and in all cases be bad. (Let's call this proposition [F2]). Therefore, right-thinking people have a humanitarian obligation to try to eliminate religion from earth. (Let's call that [F3]).

From a scientific perspective, this entire sequence is objectionable. In scientific/evolutionary terms, (F) never rises above being either meaningless, groundless or false. Since that is true, neither (F2) and (F3) follow from (F); that is, (F) provides no good reason to believe (F2) or (F3).

Regarding (F), there is simply nothing in the Darwinist account of the evolution of life which in any way implies selection for brains which would DIS-believe a false proposition, *where that false proposition aids in survival*. To the extent that "good" can be imagined to exist within Darwinism, it can only mean "what aids survival"; and there are many conceivable and documented cases in which a false proposition is much "more good" (more useful) than a true proposition in aiding individual or group survival.

Consider this plausible hypothetical:

Tribe A and Tribe B both live in a remote area suddenly stricken by drought. They both wind up approaching the last remaining water source for a hundred miles in all directions; but the water source is dwindling, and seemingly not big enough to support both tribes.

Tribe A discusses the situation, and finally comes up with what seems like a rational, true belief: Tribe B members are just like them - ordinary people trying to survive the drought. They are not "enemies". Tribe A can't muster any desire to fight people who are just like them. They decide to try to work out a sharing arrangement with Tribe B, even though it just doesn't seem like there will be enough water. Still, that's the right thing to do.

By contrast, Tribe B's religion teaches that Tribe A members are entirely unlike them, and are all possessed by evil demons; that some god gave them (Tribe B) the water source; and that for Tribe B to massacre Tribe A - their demonic enemies - would be an act of piety. Accordingly, Tribe B massacres Tribe A, gets the water they need, and continues to reproduce - bearing babies who grow up holding the same sorts of religious (false) beliefs which inspired the original massacre. In time, Tribe B establishes a robust, thriving, fecund community based around the now-restored (and jealously guarded) water source.

In this little example, Tribe B survived and replicated because of a crazy false belief. They even turned into a thriving little nation. Or maybe a great nation. By contrast, Tribe A died off long earlier as a result of their truer, more rational beliefs.

Charles Darwin himself contemplated and defended scenarios just like this in "The Descent of Man", and it is indisputable that innumerable cases like this have played out, in all sorts of ways, throughout human history. What that means is that to believe in (F), one must reject science, reason, history, and evolutionary theory. That means that the "right-thinkers" are actually "wrong-thinkers" when they preach (F), and are as irrational and credulous as any religionist.

What science actually indicates on this point is only that what helps us survive has a better chance of sticking around within our species, than something which doesn't. To the extent that cosmological mythmaking - religion-making - falsehood - aids in survival and replication, it will triumph over whatever patterns of thought don't, the end, and no doubt has in many instances. It is simply unscientific to suggest anything else.

Just my two cents.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2015 03:59PM by Tal Bachman.

I've noticed, too, that religion can be a binding force that encourages the elimination of anyone not of the faith. I wonder how many religions were strengthened by a charismatic, intelligent sociopath, or several, in their leadership. A sociopath would make the same decision as the religious leader of Tribe B. Any doubters could be handily "eliminated." Maybe religion attracts sociopaths.

I'm not sure to what extent Tribe B would be genetically predisposed to their false belief. Maybe the belief itself is the basis for selection.

What often happens in history, at least since the agricultural revolution, is that refugees from Tribe A make contact with Nation C, which needs land but has huge advantages in population, organization, and technology over both tribes. Nation C uses Tribe B's hostile behavior as a pretext to wipe out Tribe B, and then allows Tribe A to regain a small amount of land and submit to Nation C through taxes and trade. It turns out that Nation C was just tolerant enough to make the whole superiority thing work.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For reasons I am not entirely sure of, a
> three-part belief prevails these days amongst many
> "right-thinking people", including many
> ex-Mormons. It goes like this:

Can you provide evidence for the prevalence of this belief? Of all the exmo's, for instance, how many hold this belief?

RT - For years this board has featured rants which implicitly and explicitly claim (F), (F2), and (F3). Outside of the board, amongst self-styled intellectuals, this belief is also quite common (you could start with the first few pages of "The God Delusion", and go from there).

But I think for you to demand a precise percentage is to miss the point - if only one person held this belief, it would still be untrue/unscientific, and maybe worth mentioning.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2015 06:22PM by Tal Bachman.

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tal Bachman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For reasons I am not entirely sure of, a
> > three-part belief prevails these days amongst
> many
> > "right-thinking people", including many
> > ex-Mormons. It goes like this:
>
> Can you provide evidence for the prevalence of
> this belief? Of all the exmo's, for instance, how
> many hold this belief?
None I know of.
True facts are far more useful for making decisions that will be useful.
Tal's post was neither true nor useful.

Yes, that can happen, Historischer. But my point is that in all cases, the question of the ultimate veracity or falsity of any particular proposition, or set of propositions, which guide individual or group behaviour is not on the evolutionary radar screen; and in fact, a false belief can sometimes aid survival far more effectively than a true one; and for this reason, (F) is not a scientific proposition.

My perspective is that any false belief is inadvisable, and that you can only get closer to truth by rational analysis of evidence, all the while being wary of one's own biases. The base approach should be unbelief. Eagerness to believe is for suckers.

It would be bad form for tribe B to commit genocide of tribe B on the false belief that there is no solution that would find enough water for both to survive.

I don't know of many "right thinking" people who do not recognize the role of delusion, both in survival from an evolutionary standpoint or for every day advantage.

That is what a placebo is all about, after all.

There's a blurry line for how much delusion is functional in practice.

Do we want a thug to believe a Sky Cop is watching him? Yes, if it keeps him from bad behavior.

Do we like being deceived? Probably sometimes.

Once you know how the tricks are performed, can you "unlearn" them and go back to believing they were magic? Not usually.

If a person talks to Elvis in his basement, he is in an institution. If he talks to Jesus with a group of people, it's called religion. It's all in what the group determines is acceptable.

It's no secret that religion is a tool to keep the masses under control. This in turn can be an advantage ...or not. Does this mean delusion should be encouraged? It depends on what you value.

I do not understand how you think science does not describe this concept. Science takes steps to align what we know with reality. Science isn't going to lie because it finds out some fact is good or bad for survival.

So the key is to allow others to be decieved for your own advantage, but not be decieved yourself. OK. Got it

Got it.

If a bunch of religious zealots are going to use their religion to justify genocide of my tribe, it is rational to use self defense to fight back, and if need be, kill those that are trying to kill me or my tribe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2015 06:43PM by MJ.

Why wouldn't tribe A, following the rational true belief that there isn't enough water for both tribes, just kill off tribe B, and keep the water for themselves. No irrational thought process necessary.

It seems that it is okay to create hypothetical situations born of sweeping and simplistic points. Obviously the hypothetical situations are also simple so that they can only confirm said points.

Who cares what stance evolution takes on truth and falsehood. I see that as an utterly irrelevant and senseless way for me to judge the rightness or logic of my actions. "Right thinking people" think that your whole scenario is nonsensical.

However, this idea that truth should be venerated is something I would like to explore. Particularly the idea the belief that truth is somehow inherently good. I'm of the opinion that truth holds no moral high ground. If only because truth itself doesn't make any claim of morality.

As I have said before, religion is a great tool for waging war. Which seems to me to be the point you are making. If war is your solution to problems, religion is a great tool for you.

Another way of looking at it, religion gets one tribe to pray and dance for rain without doing anything search for solutions, science gets the other tribe to work on solutions and perhaps figure out that drilling a well may hit water underground. There is a lot of science to getting water out of aquifers and to the places it is needed.

Science provides the chance of finding a solution that keeps everyone alive. Religion? Sorry, I don't see religion providing such an answer.

Then again, there would be no Los Angeles, as we know it, without applied science. Science, (not prayer) brings water from hundreds of miles away for millions. Just another solution that works without using religion to commit genocide.

So, religion, dance and pray, or kill off your neighbors, science try to find a way to get enough for all.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2015 09:38PM by MJ.

It's deceptive to use broad terms like "good" and "bad" when what you describe is "moral" or "amoral," and to use irrelevant hypotheticals. Can you use an example from modern civilization to make your point? You referenced modern attitudes, then use an ancient scenario. Irrelevant.

If survival is to mean "good," were holocaust victims "bad?"

That is the "meaningless" conclusion of the argument.

What you argue is that slaughter is superior, as it's in keeping with survival of the fittest.

Perhaps we are descendants of tribe b, because we exist. I, for one, am willing to stand to look beyond the tall grasses for another source of water, in preference to killing tribe a.

Does that make me bad?

I have a suspicion that the Neanderthals were intellectually superior but less warlike.

This thread would be more fun if someone used the word "boobs".

Who's with me!?

I am always revolted when I hear a Mormon stating that he knows his religion is "true" -- only because for me it is not! How can one anyone prove that something is true and something else is false? It's all a matter of personal choice and perception.

I personally ascribe "truth" to this quote by Joseph Campbell. It rings true to my belief system. It may be "false" to you, or to a million others:

"Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”

I think all traditions (religion included) are just metaphors that explain how we view our lives and the world around us. Nothing more, nothing less. They are neither true, nor false -- they are just metaphors.

We are born and we ascribe meaning to every idea, person, or object we see or hear.

The Lamanite theory is repulsive to me because I am Latina and I believe the theory is "false". But perhaps it is honey from God's mouth (and true) to a Mormon because of his beliefs.

Not all religions believe that science is bunk. The Bahai faith, for instance believes that science and religion go hand in hand.

I personally believe in the biological aspects of natural selection (Darwinism). However, as a person who suffered in a Church that taught that my brown skin, Hispanic/Indian background and gender made me sinful and inferior, I chafe at the social, economic and political ramifications of "social" Darwinism. Somehow I cannot divorce the two Darwinisms from my mind. I guess you would call this mental divide "self preservation."

Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was the father of Eugenics and they wrote over 500 letters to one another -- comparing notes and admiring one another's work. (Scary!)

I guess what I am trying to say is that defining "truth" drives me just as nuts outside the church as it does inside. We cannot create a "utopian" society by eliminating all believers. First we would have to decide what ideas of theirs were truth and which were false.

The idea of eradicating religion may be tempting to me (as an agnostic/atheist) but it is not possible.

Joseph Campbell's quote about religion as metaphor is as close to the truth as I allow myself.

Laugh if you will, but I am the God of my own myopic universe and I've got to live with my own choices, whether they are "true" or "false."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2015 07:06PM by Senoritalamanita.

Nice work. Ready to get re-baptized?

I see your career in incomprehension continues unabated, thingsithink...

I'm reminded of another prick on the board who made similar comments.

Can we test this and put some money on it? One one one?

By "prick", do you mean someone who dares object to your weird projections? Indeed I must qualify...

No idea what it is you'd like to put money on, but nothing in my post implies any yearning for Mormonism.

Whatever is not evident - my ability to comprehend what someone writes. You seem to have some time on your hands. Line up a test. We can agree on a reasonable wager and see how we both fare. Your local university should have someone who can administer something. I'll show up.

you will understand after viewing the movie "Ideocracy".

Dave - Is that a movie about idiots who can't spell "Idiocracy"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2015 11:49PM by Tal Bachman.

stupid show. I'm gonna watch it again.

Believable

Unbelievable

So, religionists desperate3y try to claim that their beliefs can actually be "proven" by science but, alas, they abuse basic scientific methodology in order to try shoving their religion's square head into science's round hole. '

Whether religionists realize it or not, their attempt to "validate" their faith through rational, testable, observable evidence-based science is a tacit admission that their religion is on the ropes. Seeing it hopelessly tangled up and hanging there, religion's faithful followers just as hopelessly look to Scientific reason, not Redeemer "revelation," to save them from themselves and their mythologies.

I suggest that defenders of the divinely disreputable quit while they're behind and stop their vain, fruitless head-banging when it comes to their sincere but silly efforts to hijack real science in order to save their inherently unscientific churches of choice. They should, instead, seriously consider sucking it up and accepting the reality that their "magical mystery tour" through life is illusion buried in ignorance. When it comes to trying to duke it out with scientific professionals in the real world, ragged religionists keep soundly, and repeatedly, getting their tails whipped and--like John the Baptist--getting their heads unceremoniously handed back back to them on a platter. .

Bloodied believers should soberly consider abandoning their time-honored ritual of offering up their brains as a sacrificial lamb to their Lord. It's time to pause, take a deep breath and reflect on a more thoughtful approach--namely, ducking and covering for their cranially non-credible Christ in retreating to their corner of faith, where there they can pull up the stool that is waiting to receive them and in that ltttle cormer of their world honestly embrace the brutal reality that their faith in the fanciful is all they've got.

That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee. On second thought, only the buck fifty will.

Reason will only survive in this world when, and if, religionists decide to try using it. Earth to the other-worlders: It is reason alone that will keep us from destroying the planet in the name of (insert your favorite god here).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 12:24AM by steve benson.