Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Sorry, I shouldn't poke fun at people's religion. If it works for them then that's fine with me. I was just chuckling about Sy Borg's thing about the koalas and Eucalyptus trees and that made me think about Answers in Genesis.

The absurdity of Noah's Ark taken literally ... well, it's worthy of ridicule.

More seriously, if you take the story as a parable, as it was no doubt intended, it becomes far more interesting. To start, all societies have a Great Flood myth. The cynic in me thinks that it's only natural that, over millennia, one flood would be considered the worst. For instance, if New Orleans was a subject of ancient mythology, their Great Flood myth would pertain to Hurricane Katrina. The non-cynic in me wonders about the Younger Dryas or later glaciation melts. It makes sense that such huge events would leave a mark on people, and they would want to warn future generations of potential dangers.

Yes, stories of a Great Flood are part of the cultural heritage of may different societies and religions and that leads me to think they are not just mythical. At the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, vast areas which had once been home to our ancestors were flooded under more than four hundred feet(120 meters) of water.

Britain and Ireland were cut off from Europe, the Black Sea may have filled at this time, there were great flood events from the collapsing N America ice sheet, and New Guinea and Tasmania became separated form mainland Australia. Australian indigenous people, both from the mainland and from Tasmania, have such stories.

This great inundation took place quickly. Water level rose rapidly and would have been noticed within a single lifetime - especially by coastal people. The inundation came to an end about 11,000 BP which is only roughly 390 generations ago. So it's not really surprising that flood stories have been passed down.

If global heating and sea level rise continue we are likely to see a similar great inundation. There has been over 20 centimeters of seal level rise since 1900. And 4 inches (9.4 centimeters) of that has been since 1993. So it's accelerating. This time the Great Flood stories will be written by eye witnesses and not just passed down in stories.

[Sy Borg]

This time the Great Flood stories will be written by eye witnesses and not just passed down in stories.

But will people in 2,000 years' time believe the stories.

Heck, there's millions of people denying really obvious things that are right in front of our eyes, so the chances that our successors will see us as being as credible as we see ourselves, would seem to be remote.

[Lagayascienza]

They won't need to believe our written accounts. After only 2000 years, the archeological and environmental evidence will be all around them. That's assuming there will be archeologists and other scientists still around to make sense of all the evidence.

[Sy Borg]

They won't need to believe our written accounts. After only 2000 years, the archeological and environmental evidence will be all around them.

Has that stopped the growth of belief in a flat Earth and faked Moon landing?

Many will probably suspect that the video footage from this era are all deep fakes, especially when ever more convincing deep fakes proliferate.

[Lagayascienza]

Of course, people will, and do, believe what they want to believe. It sucks. But it is what it is. The universe couldn't give a sh*t about what people believe.

The universe will just continue doing what it does regardless. How could it be otherwise? So why fight it? All most people can do is carve out little areas of comfort where they can. And who can blame them? I don't.

If they want to do their silly gods and kill themselves over it, then all I can say is, have at it, while I try stay out of it, in my little area of comfort, for as long as possible.

And the kids, well, they'll negotiate it like we did. Or not. Whatever happens, it won't be anyone's fault. We're all just froth on the surface of a vast, unfathomable ocean. Everything will be as it must be.

[Sy Borg]

Ah, but the universe *does* care what people believe. Most of it doesn't care, sure, but there are tiny pockets of the universe that do care. Some of those tiny pockets might post on this forum.

As I said earlier, beliefs that soften the harshness of life make good personal and evolutionary sense. Does it matter if one's beliefs are true or not if they help a person to function?

Think of the Wests Tigers, a Sydney rugby league club that almost always lose. Imagine being one of their players before a game. You know you'll lose, since they lose about 80-90% of their games. But each week, the lads would be getting together before the game ... 'Yeah, we got this!' ... 'We're gunna gettem!' ... and the coach might be telling the media that the team is improving and the next win is just around the corner.

It's all nonsense, of course. As sure as the sun rises, the Wests Tigers will lose, but they have to tell themselves sweet lies or they wouldn't be able to muster the motivation to at least try their best. Likewise, if many people did not think there was something better than the dire circumstances they find themselves in now, they wouldn't bother living, or breeding. Along with the competitive advantages of group cohesion, religious belief is more-or-less naturally selected.

The gods of all religions are real, subjectively, and these memes* are potent agents in the way the world pans out.


* Dawkins memes, not internet memes

[LuckyR]

Ah, but the universe *does* care what people believe. Most of it doesn't care, sure, but there are tiny pockets of the universe that do care. Some of those tiny pockets might post on this forum.

As I said earlier, beliefs that soften the harshness of life make good personal and evolutionary sense. Does it matter if one's beliefs are true or not if they help a person to function?

Think of the Wests Tigers, a Sydney rugby league club that almost always lose. Imagine being one of their players before a game. You know you'll lose, since they lose about 80-90% of their games. But each week, the lads would be getting together before the game ... 'Yeah, we got this!' ... 'We're gunna gettem!' ... and the coach might be telling the media that the team is improving and the next win is just around the corner.

It's all nonsense, of course. As sure as the sun rises, the Wests Tigers will lose, but they have to tell themselves sweet lies or they wouldn't be able to muster the motivation to at least try their best. Likewise, if many people did not think there was something better than the dire circumstances they find themselves in now, they wouldn't bother living, or breeding. Along with the competitive advantages of group cohesion, religious belief is more-or-less naturally selected.

The gods of all religions are real, subjectively, and these memes* are potent agents in the way the world pans out.


* Dawkins memes, not internet memes

Exactly. One of the main reasons religions (and thus gods) were invented by the power structure was to keep the rabble from rebelling against the wealthy because the meek were going to get their reward (inheriting the Earth) in heaven, so be patient (and docile) here on Earth with no material wealth, you'll get eternal life and infinite joy after you die.

Brilliant, really.

[Lagayascienza]

I wouldn't argue that "memes" are not powerful. They clearly are. And, as I have often said, if beliefs help people cope with life, then, as long as they hurt no one else, it doesn't matter whether the beliefs are true or not. The problem is that people's beliefs often do hurt others.

But I guess it's unavoidable. It's hard to live without beliefs, true or not. People will believe what they want to believe. Or what they are indoctrinated or coerced into believing. When individuals' beliefs become big communal beliefs, (Christianity or Islam, for example) then we call them religions. And religions can be useful. As LuckyR says, they can keep the the rabble in check while propping up a power structure. What's not to like?

[Pattern-chaser]

One of the main reasons religions (and thus gods) were invented by the power structure was to keep the rabble from rebelling against the wealthy because the meek were going to get their reward (inheriting the Earth) in heaven, so be patient (and docile) here on Earth with no material wealth, you'll get eternal life and infinite joy after you die.

A Billionaires Charter! I agree, but would comment that this is not the *whole* story of religion/belief.

[Sy Borg]

Ah, but the universe *does* care what people believe. Most of it doesn't care, sure, but there are tiny pockets of the universe that do care. Some of those tiny pockets might post on this forum.

As I said earlier, beliefs that soften the harshness of life make good personal and evolutionary sense. Does it matter if one's beliefs are true or not if they help a person to function?

Think of the Wests Tigers, a Sydney rugby league club that almost always lose. Imagine being one of their players before a game. You know you'll lose, since they lose about 80-90% of their games. But each week, the lads would be getting together before the game ... 'Yeah, we got this!' ... 'We're gunna gettem!' ... and the coach might be telling the media that the team is improving and the next win is just around the corner.

It's all nonsense, of course. As sure as the sun rises, the Wests Tigers will lose, but they have to tell themselves sweet lies or they wouldn't be able to muster the motivation to at least try their best. Likewise, if many people did not think there was something better than the dire circumstances they find themselves in now, they wouldn't bother living, or breeding. Along with the competitive advantages of group cohesion, religious belief is more-or-less naturally selected.

The gods of all religions are real, subjectively, and these memes* are potent agents in the way the world pans out.


* Dawkins memes, not internet memes

Exactly. One of the main reasons religions (and thus gods) were invented by the power structure was to keep the rabble from rebelling against the wealthy because the meek were going to get their reward (inheriting the Earth) in heaven, so be patient (and docile) here on Earth with no material wealth, you'll get eternal life and infinite joy after you die.

Brilliant, really.

Remember, at the time, the rabble was not like today's relatively genteel and domesticated rabbles. In Biblical times, rabbles effin meant business. These were harsh and violent times. The polity was ruthless and violent because that's what's needed to turn a ruthless and violet culture into a functioning society.

Even in today's slightly more mature human world, look at Iraq and Libya. Gaddafi and Saddam were made out by the west to be needlessly cruel tyrants, yet their demise brought rise to sectarian violence and an end to civil order, and then they were replaced by extremists. What was more cruel for the people? South Africa finally shook off their colonial masters and then the people, new to the extremely complex business of nation-scale administration and organisation, mismanaged the nation into chaos.

I always end up with "What have the Romans Ever Done for Us?". Theocrats and colonialists, for all their flaws, brought an (underestimated) amount of expertise to any place they conquered - power made possible by the largely-enforced cooperation of large numbers of people.

I do not like organisations or institutions, but only due to the inherent conflicts of interest between them and individuals. Despite those conflicts, both (most) institutions and individuals have a stake in their society's wellbeing. Strong institutions - even if they are manipulative, self-interested and dodgy - are necessary for any modern society to succeed. But I still dislike 'em :)

[Pattern-chaser]

Gaddafi and Saddam were made out by the west to be needlessly cruel tyrants...

...and yet no-one includes the likes of Winston Churchill in their number. During WW2, Churchill imported food from a colony (India), leaving more than a million Indian people to starve. There are other examples from Churchill, and more examples of ruthless dictators too. What happened here is that the victors wrote the history books, I think?

[LuckyR]

One of the main reasons religions (and thus gods) were invented by the power structure was to keep the rabble from rebelling against the wealthy because the meek were going to get their reward (inheriting the Earth) in heaven, so be patient (and docile) here on Earth with no material wealth, you'll get eternal life and infinite joy after you die.

A Billionaires Charter! I agree, but would comment that this is not the *whole* story of religion/belief.

Nope, not the whole story, but a major component of the origin story. Later after the religion was established, it's easy to add this or that philosophical "meaning" in a post hoc manner (and make it appear to be the driving force of the concept).

[LuckyR]

Gaddafi and Saddam were made out by the west to be needlessly cruel tyrants...

...and yet no-one includes the likes of Winston Churchill in their number. During WW2, Churchill imported food from a colony (India), leaving more than a million Indian people to starve. There are other examples from Churchill, and more examples of ruthless dictators too. What happened here is that the victors wrote the history books, I think?

Textbooks and academic thought definitely has a Western bias. Surprising noone (with an ounce of life experience).

[Sy Borg]

Gaddafi and Saddam were made out by the west to be needlessly cruel tyrants...

...and yet no-one includes the likes of Winston Churchill in their number. During WW2, Churchill imported food from a colony (India), leaving more than a million Indian people to starve. There are other examples from Churchill, and more examples of ruthless dictators too. What happened here is that the victors wrote the history books, I think?

Your reply misses the point - point that dictators can be less cruel than the sectarian chaos that they prevent.

Sorry, but I no longer care about your western guilt and self-flagellation. I did for most of my life, but no more. Today, western guilt is being hypocritically leveraged against us by cultures who treat people much worse than the west did, and over longer periods.

I also note that, despite your apparent distaste for your own culture, if not for the British, slavery would still be accepted as normal worldwide. There was a time when only the Brits were fighting against slavery. All the other hypocrite nations resisted Britain's push to outlaw slavery for some time.

[Thomyum2]

One of the main reasons religions (and thus gods) were invented by the power structure was to keep the rabble from rebelling against the wealthy because the meek were going to get their reward (inheriting the Earth) in heaven, so be patient (and docile) here on Earth with no material wealth, you'll get eternal life and infinite joy after you die.

A Billionaires Charter! I agree, but would comment that this is not the *whole* story of religion/belief.

I agree, it’s certainly not the whole story by any means. Humans have always created and invested authority into all kinds of institutions to support their communities. And the individuals entrusted with those powers, do sometimes give in to the temptation to abuse them in service of their own egos and ambitions rather than the communities for which they were intended. That’s true whether we’re talking about government or business or any organization really, so we can't reasonably expect religious institutions to be any different. But I think it’s a mistake to think that because the powers are sometimes abused implies there’s no value to religion at all. We don’t simply eliminate government, for example, just because it’s sometimes subject to corruption.

I think that if we call ourselves philosophers, purportedly 'lovers of wisdom' and seekers of truth, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss religion or belief in God as solely superstition and nonsense. In some specific cases there might be truth to that, but the world’s faiths are varied and rich wisdom traditions that have given countless people meaning and purpose for thousands of years and defy broad generalization. In my experience, much of value can been learned for those who are willing to invest the time and energy to seek it out and look beyond the surface with an open mind. Not that any one set of beliefs should be imposed or will be a fit for everyone. But whatever our own faith, if any, we have more to learn from those who think differently from ourselves than we do from those who agree with us about everything.

I hold in high regard the attitude of Gandhi who, although being a devout Hindu, advocated the importance of studying and learning from others’ beliefs:

Let no one even for a moment entertain the fear that a reverent study of other religions is likely to weaken or shake one's faith in one's own. The Hindu system of philosophy regards all religions as containing the elements of truth in them and enjoins an attitude of respect and reverence towards them all. This of course presupposes regard for one's own religion. Study and appreciation of other religions need not cause a weakening of that regard; it should mean extension of that regard to other religions.

I came to the conclusion long ago that all religions were true and that also that all had some error in them, and while I hold by my own religion, I should hold other religions as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we were Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu; but our innermost prayer should be that a Hindu should become a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, and a Christian a better Christian.