The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

Now I'm curious in how this relates to Nihilism and Nietzsche's philosophy.

This is more philosophical I suppose but we're getting into where morality comes from. At least that was my understanding of the Discord quote. (which wa amazing and I should red those books) I've heard it argued that "altruism" is actually a biological trait. Or maybe it's some evolutionary psychology gibberish. Anyway the point is that we help each other, not because of some metaphysical concept, but because it's simply in our best interest to do so and it's all instinctual and perfectly mundane.

Of course this doesn't answer my issues. Like, we wouldn't label everyone who owned slaves back in the day as evil, right? That's absolutist shit. They just didn't know any better. HOWEVER it's true that somebody came along and realized slavery was wrong. Why did they do this? Where did their valuing black people as actual people come from? How did they break free from societal and cultural influences?

I was listening to a really dumb debate earlier today about this same exact thing with one guy arguing that it doesn't matter that African-Americans face discrimination and ghettoization, each of them is still ultimately responsible for being poor or pursuing a life of crime. "They made their choice." In the debate the topic of state-issued contraceptives and how they improve communities came up and the same guy, again, said "they chose to fuck. It's their own fault if they can't handle having children."

But you know...people can't stop fucking. Fuck altruism, the human race shouldn't even exist today if we cared about each other that much. I cannot imagine a more immoral thing than impregnating a woman in ancient times. Like, a caveman 50,000 years ago? He doomed his mate. She's gonna suffer and suffer and probably die. Same for the baby. Even a 100 or 200 years ago childbirth was heinous and torturous. Yet people still did it. They can't stop themselves. It was an immoral act in every manner I can imagine given you were pushing suffering onto somebody you were supposed to love and also maybe bringing children into this world when you couldn't take care of them. But people still did it. We wouldn't be here without al that awfulness.

This is all a big ramble but I dunno where to talk about it and it's been weighing on my mind a lot today. and I can't even begin to imagine what thread it would go in.

I think actually life in hunter gatherer times life wasnt that nasty. And the women themselves were not without choice. It was only after urbanism and agriculture became widedpread that conditions declined.

But iiuc your larger point is how good can come out of bad. If the bubonic plague hadnt struck Europe, the life of the peasants might never have imoroved. If the Japanese hadnt attacked Pearl Harbor, perhaps the US wouldnt have entered WWII, and Nazi Germany might have survived.If businesses never automated jobs (disrupting the lives of those thrown out of work), our economy would be less innovative, and our standard of living much lower. For all that we know, one hundred years from now historians will see the backlash against the Trump Admin as the beginning of a new progressive era. Its a moral conundrum born of the fact that we can never know for sure how things will turn out.

edited 1st Dec '17 3:45:04 PM by DeMarquis

If you have to believe something despite evidence to the contrary to satisfy your emotional/spiritual truth... then your emotional "truth" is a great big lie. And if you actively promote it... well that's not a good thing.

In fact this is the point with using the term "turth" when regarding subjective experiences. Because they are subjective they cannot be true, not in the same way that independent verifiable facts can be true. In fact I would go one step further and say that using the word "truth" for something subjective either a) degrades the meaning of the word truth or b) artificially inflates the subjective experience to a level that it neither deserves or needs (or c) both of the above).

I'm not saying that emotional needs and wants aren't important. As an atheist I would in fact argue that they're more important in some ways because there's nothing out there to take care of them so it's up to us (ie humanity in the collective sense) to deal fufil because we're the only ones who can. But we must do so by facing reality head on because no matter how fluffy and harmless those might be otherwise, it sends the message that those beliefs don't need to be tested or stand up to reality and that enables the worst kind of beliefs, the ones that actively harm people.

Calling impregnating a woman in the stone age "immoral" is a bit of a stretch to say the least. As stereotypical as it sounds, it is ultimately true that motherhood is among the most normal things for a women to desire. To women who desire it, almost nothing brings more joy. It is equally normal for men to desire fatherhood.

Life in the stone age was pretty rough, but not as bad as you make it sound. People tended to live in tightly knit communities. They were at the mercy of nature (who is a cruel mistress indeed), but people were strong and persevered, and lived happy lives.

I would say that humans are bastards, but pragmatic bastards. We live in a universe corrupted by evil, and we have responded in kind to preserve what is good.

I don't think I'd call God a "subjective truth"-which itself is probably an oxymoron. Rather, I would call it an objective truth that's difficult to prove in the way that you prove that the Earth is round. There are things I would argue can be interpreted as evidence of God, but I will admit they're not hard proofs.

For example, I'd argue that the fact science and math can explain the universe would be evidence that the universe is not a fluke but rather something crafted by something with a rational mind. I would also argue that the fact that the universe is not eternal (having a beginning and an end) would imply that there's something outside the universe. It doesn't add up for the universe to be a brief fluke of things existing in an eternity of nothingness before and after it. Now, God isn't the only thing that would qualify for this, but he is among them.

"Because they are subjective they cannot be true, not in the same way that independent verifiable facts can be true. In fact I would go one step further and say that using the word "truth" for something subjective either a) degrades the meaning of the word truth or b) artificially inflates the subjective experience to a level that it neither deserves or needs (or c) both of the above)."

This is so what I was talking about earlier. You actually believe that objectivity matters more than emotions? That sounds very similar to Straw Vulcan arguments. Without emotional meaning attached to them, objective truths are entirely without value. Emotion provides the motivation, as empiricism provides the means, for survival and success in this world. Believe me, you are not going to convince very many people to abandon the ideal of subjective truths. And as long as we remember the difference between the two kinds of truths, and do not let one intrude on the proper philosophical ground of the other, there is little danger. Or at least less danger than believing that one approach is more important, and could somehow partially replace, the other one.

Honestly, trying to bring objectivity into religion always struck me as odd. It's called FAITH for a reason, you know?

It's more about believing than actually knowing.

edited 1st Dec '17 4:17:44 PM by DrunkenNordmann

Well, there's a role. Facts should inform decisions that have real world consequences (just as ethics should inform scientific investigations). But the core essence of religion is not an objective thing.

I admit I know very little of Stone Age society or hunter-gatherer tribes. I've always just heard it was extremely unpleasant. And while I know parenthood is perfectly natural, human childbirth seems almost uniquely cruel and awful in the animal world. I even heard other animals have the ability to "self-abort" if their lives are in danger. But we humans, apparently from what I know, have to have our big heads so we can be all sapient and shit and this causes immense pain and potential death to our mothers.

Parenthood might be natural but not everything natural is good. And it's not just parenthood people like, it's sexual intercourse. That's why contraceptives significantly stem the flow of births - people are still doing it but now they don't have to fear ruining their lives with babies they aren't prepared for. But they will still do it in either case, consequences be damned. That's how humans got here as far as I can tell. Mother might tdie? Meh. Fuckin' time. Can't raise a third kid? Meh, fuckin' time.

Paternalism is an ugly word nowadays for some reason but human beings really need it. Religion is one manifestation of that. It can hopefully persuade enough people to think about what they are doing to avoid giving into unhealthy impulses. (sex is not an unhealthy impulse in the abstract but it can be disastrous in certain situations and, as noted, people just don't care)

As for religions being about faith or truth...that's a very case-by-case basis. The various "Satanist" groups (actual theistic satanists) set themselves against normal Christianity because they do not believe in blind obedience. They believe the Serpent brought wisdom and knowledge. Same for a lot of the old Gnostic sects. They want to learn, to understand, not just get lectured about how they will go Heaven if they do A, B and C. They absolutely reject that type of thinking. And even a lot of "normal" Christians have sought to prove God's existence intellectually in one form or another instead of just saying "He's up there because this book says He is." Thomas Aquinas might be he most famous example of this. And a lot of Theravada Buddhists shit on Pure Land Buddhists because "here we are reflecting on the mysteries of the universe and all they have to do is say a name a lot. What bullshit."

But religious truth takes many forms. as others have said. You want to come up with big, sweeping theories to explain everything? Cool. You wan t to just say "there's a god up there and I like them"? That's cool too. All are equally valid expressions of the emotional truth mentioned earlier.

edited 1st Dec '17 5:05:22 PM by Nikkolas

Hunter-Gatherers have a 4-hour work day. It wasn't all bad. The prime advantage we now have is better medicine. But that's relatively new. For most of history, Hunter-Gatherers probably had it better than sedentary, agricultural people.

x5 I have a "She's not into you" doctrine. No matter how much you feel for a person, no matter how much you want to get together with her, if confronted with the fact that she's not into you, you must change your feelings to accommodate that fact. I won't deny that your feelings are real, or strong, or valuable to you, but when it comes up against the cold, hard reality that she's not into you, your feelings are irrelevant. No matter how much you hope or pine, it will not change the objective fact that she doesn't return your feelings. There is no emotional truth in believing otherwise.

To base emotional values on falsehoods is to believe in illusions. It's like indulging in the Lotus-Eater Machine.

edited 1st Dec '17 5:32:44 PM by nightwyrm_zero

1

I'm sort of Nihilistic? I don't think things have inherent meaning or worth, and ascribe to them those properties because I do not wish to organize my life under principles that don't include justice and compassion.

Humans are unimportant specks in an uncaring universe.

I'm choosing so say that other people matter, that our societies should be just, and that compassion is important.

I'm not even religious- this is just something I've decided because descending into nihilistic apathetic despair is unappealing.

If I'm going to classify myself as anything, I'd say I'm more of an absurdist than anything else.

As for Nihilism, if nothing matters, then I don't see why I should be bothered to care if nothing matters. That's usually my response to moral nihilism as well-if good and evil don't exist, then there's no particular reason to behave as though it doesn't. All it would mean is that I can't be wrong.

@Antiteilchen Calling it better than early agriculturalists isn't necessarily accurate. There were a lot of pros to living in a society like Egypt rather than a Hunger-Gatherer tribe, though it was a trade off. For example:

-Writing isn't really viable in a hunter-gatherer tribe. I would argue writing is the best thing ever invented, as it's what led to most other inventions. Also very important to art.

-You can settle down and create better, permanent shelters rather than having to be mobile all the time. This also lets you build cool monuments.

-Forager life is usually more violent than civilized life. Hobbes wasn't entirely right, but forager tribes tend to be hit pretty often by raiders looking to do hit-and-run attacks to grab resources. Having dedicated soldiers to protect you lets you live a more peaceful life.

edited 1st Dec '17 6:49:04 PM by Protagonist506

x3 I wouldn't call building and maintaining a just, compassionate society a lie. If instead we say the universe is just and compassionate, then it would be a lie. A just society is a social construct that we find useful. A social construct that we modify and change over time to bring more happiness to more people. But rarely do you find religions come out and say that their institutions and their deities is a social construct they find useful.

I mean, on what basis does one justify constructing a more just society?

Based on a highly questionable theory.

Only if you count the hunting part, not the food preparation, setting up camp, moving to another hunting grounds, surviving other tribes and shitting yourself to death due to diseases, etc then you have a lot more work on your hands and the type that may kill you if you fail.

Not really. Agriculture and sedentary settlements were exactly what allowed humanity to develop and achieve a life style that wasn't prone of killing you suddenly either through diseases you'd be exposed to during the migrant movements or dangerous prey or predators or put you directly in confront with other tribes fighting for the same hunting grounds.

Besides, humanity only advanced after it could actually spend less time surviving and having more opportunities to create and think about stuff. Even if you have slightly move work hours, harvests and agriculture are much more reliable food sources than foraging and hunting.

What good does it do working 4 hours a day when your life expectancy doesn't even go beyond 30? Hunter-Gathers had a painful, brutish and short life and the only thing they could afford to do was hunting-foraging and moving to the next hunting-foraging grounds. Hardly the definition of a comfortable life.

It makes things easier for everyone as a whole, less cut throats and more just members ensure that everyone is capable of developing and count on others towards that development.

edited 1st Dec '17 8:13:38 PM by AngelusNox

Why is making people's lives easier something we should do?

I know my reasons, but they're based on my subjective personal feels and beliefs.

Which, as we've established, are not true.

Emphasis added

You guys. You guys get it. (Even if you don't agree on the exact specifics).

When if comes to the big things? Absolutely, a thousand, million times, yes. Because ultimately there are things that wanting, feeling and believing cannot change, from things as large and all encompassing as the physical laws to something as small and personal as another person's own feelings. (To shamelessly borrow nightwyrm_zeros's analogy).

I've got bad news for you there. That gate is wide open, ripped off its hinges and the horse is heading for the horizon. Stuff like The Secret and all sorts crap like faith healing are based on the conflation of subjective experience for objective truth (and helped by massive doses of confirmation bias).

So no, truth is not subjective and never will be.

Edit for typo.

edited 1st Dec '17 9:01:44 PM by KnightofLsama

Comparing a romantic relationship to a religious belief feels a bit like a non-sequitur to me.

For the record, I'm not religious. I agree that there's no real reason to believe any deities or otherwordly beings exist in empirical terms, and I agree that if you're going to be making truth claims about the material world you can't just rely on gut feelings.

My only point was that in general we as humans need to believe in something to give our lives purpose beyond empirical observations and feel connected to each other and the world; a religious belief is just one thing people have found over time to fulfill that need. You can find fullfillment in other ways, of course, but I don't really begrudge people for finding it that way over another. Like I said earlier, any reasonable religious person can separate their private spiritual convictions from material, empirical based reasoning that governs policy decisions, administration, etc.

I don't think anyone here actually disagrees about anything, it's mostly just a question of what we're emphasizing and some quibbles over semantics. For my part, I only brought up the concept of "emotional truth" to explain why people hold religious beliefs, not to imply that any person's convictions are equally helpful or empirically valid, especially when they start to hurt other people.

To cite an unrelated example, a number of men are completely convinced that they're the real victims and that women are trying to ruin things for everyone and only gain more and more power for themselves at their expense. That's their emotional truth, but it's not one that really holds up to a more nuanced analysis of the world and its facts, and it's very harmful.

edited 1st Dec '17 9:14:10 PM by Draghinazzo

Well, the simple logic of morality IMO is that the world would overall be a better place for everyone without evil. It is therefore in your own interests to fight evil, and the easiest way to do that is to be good.

I think it's faulty to claim that just because some hacks try to sell their one-size-fits-all life hacks to the gullible, that the idea of subjective truths - which I would define as philosophy, a completely separate domain from scientific fact - has been completely and thoroughly discredited. That people try to claim objective reality can be ignored because shut up doesn't mean that the idea that multiple, conflicting philosophies can be equally valid is objectively disproven. That is what subjective truths are.

See I agree that the world ought to be just, and the world ought o be better. I have lots of beliefs about how the world ought to be-

And if I were a stronger person, I'd do more to try to make reality align to those beliefs.

But fundamentally, I hold beliefs about how the world ought to be, rather than how it is.

The subjective emotional states are my aspirations and desires, they have to be true, or be possible, or become true because to accept otherwise is fo fall into despair.

I'm saying you can't build a system of values without making the same sort of subjective statement about what's important because there's no objectively based system of value.

They all end with an arbitrary value statement.

"Good is maximizing happiness for the most people" "Good is aligning yourself with, and living towards the principles of God" "Good is the pursuit of truth and knowledge"

Those can all be admirable bases for your system of values, but they're all also arbitrary things you've decided on.

I will admit that my stances of atheism and absurdism are not for everyone. I am fortunate that so far my beliefs do not conflict with a lot of objective reality.

Also, I think we are drifting into philosophy thread territory.

edited 1st Dec '17 9:31:53 PM by M84