Real-world sensitivities and game names

[JimMorrison]

So there is potentially a religion in New Guinea that not seek to spread itself to willing minds to survive? That would rock my entire concept of what the term religion actually means, as opposed to philosophy or just plain reasoning.

I think in a nutshell Badger was simply stating that people are people, and religion didn't change anything intrinsic about our properties as organisms.

I have to admit though, I've been having trouble seeing a difference in the rate at which the vector manifests itself in the darker desires of humanity - but this could just be because of the sheer volume of the population who carry it.


That's why I prefer philosophies and reasonings though, they don't pull guilt trips on you when you grow past them.

[MaxWilson]

JimMorrison said:
So there is potentially a religion in New Guinea that not seek to spread itself to willing minds to survive? That would rock my entire concept of what the term religion actually means, as opposed to philosophy or just plain reasoning.

I think in a nutshell Badger was simply stating that people are people, and religion didn't change anything intrinsic about our properties as organisms.

HoneyBadger said explicitly, "Religion-and by this I mean the People of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is like a virus of ideas and ideals." It's explicitly not applicable to our hypothetical weird little religion (it is not, hypothetically, that of the People of the Book).

Anyway, if you equate "religion" = "meme" you are missing out IMHO on some of the richer meaning of the word. I'd probably define it differently, something like: "Religion is that which a person implicitly or explicitly holds to be true independent of social consensus of its truthfulness." From this standpoint, "Jesus was divine" and "humans have a responsibility to conserve resources for other animals" are both religious beliefs for certain people because they are not (easily) subject to disproof or argument from other people. They're simply fundamental to that person's worldview. Note that this definition diverges starkly from the traditional view that "religion is any belief which has something to do with God," but I think it's a nicer, more fundamental definition.

-Max

[thejeff]

MaxWilson said:
Anyway, if you equate "religion" = "meme" you are missing out IMHO on some of the richer meaning of the word. I'd probably define it differently, something like: "Religion is that which a person implicitly or explicitly holds to be true independent of social consensus of its truthfulness." From this standpoint, "Jesus was divine" and "humans have a responsibility to conserve resources for other animals" are both religious beliefs for certain people because they are not (easily) subject to disproof or argument from other people. They're simply fundamental to that person's worldview. Note that this definition diverges starkly from the traditional view that "religion is any belief which has something to do with God," but I think it's a nicer, more fundamental definition.

It's also a very nice definition for theists who don't want to actually deal with other's arguments. "The basic tenets of science have to be taken on faith, so that's just your religion." "Atheism is just another religious belief." etc, etc.
(I'm not saying that's your intent, but I've run into it often enough that I'm wary.)
It's more useful to leave religion dealing with God and have other words for other types of philosophical worldviews.

[MaxWilson]

thejeff said:

It's also a very nice definition for theists who don't want to actually deal with other's arguments. "The basic tenets of science have to be taken on faith, so that's just your religion." "Atheism is just another religious belief." etc, etc.
(I'm not saying that's your intent, but I've run into it often enough that I'm wary.)
It's more useful to leave religion dealing with God and have other words for other types of philosophical worldviews.

Isn't the above definition what people are trying to say, though, when they say that science is "just another religious belief"? If you actually engaged their arguments you would acknowledge that science is based on certain assumptions, lay out the fundamental premises upon which science is based (empirical, repeatable experiment is the best way of reaching conclusions; the universe is basically reductionist, you can make conclusions about universal phenomena from local observations) and ask if they bought into those premises. You might then be able to have a reasonable discussion. Instead you dismiss their argument because to you "religion == God" and so "science is a religious belief" is simply gibberish to you. I think this is missing the point...

-Max

[thejeff]

MaxWilson said:

Isn't the above definition what people are trying to say, though, when they say that science is "just another religious belief"? If you actually engaged their arguments you would acknowledge that science is based on certain assumptions, lay out the fundamental premises upon which science is based (empirical, repeatable experiment is the best way of reaching conclusions; the universe is basically reductionist, you can make conclusions about universal phenomena from local observations) and ask if they bought into those premises. You might then be able to have a reasonable discussion. Instead you dismiss their argument because to you "religion == God" and so "science is a religious belief" is simply gibberish to you. I think this is missing the point...

It isn't missing the point. It's a tactic for avoiding the argument. It's not productive to have to try to define and teach the entire philosophy of science and the scientific method to a hostile audience in every discussion. You can have a reasonable discussion about the philosophy of science that starts there, but if this is brought up in any of the hot button science/religion issues, it's brought up as a means of dismissing science.
Every time I've seen it used in such a context it's been used to mean, "I have my religious belief, you have yours, therefore I don't have to pay any attention to your arguments." Scientific arguments are logically unprovable, since they rest on unprovable assumptions, therefore, despite mountains of evidence, they are no more reliable than any crackpot idea.

"Science is a religious belief" is not gibberish to me. I simply don't find it a useful categorization.

On the deepest level, science isn't a belief at all. It's a method of making models based on existing data, using them to make predictions and seeing whether those predictions work. If so the model is useful, if not it must be rejected, replaced or improved. Whether a working models actually corresponds to "Truth" or "Reality" is not important. What is important is that it can be used to make accurate predictions.
Scientists being human, they often do believe in their models, but that's not a characteristic of science. It's also often a convenient shorthand to speak of the models, especially solid, long established ones, as reality.

On another note, looking back at your definition, I'd quibble on other grounds as well. Throughout much of history, religions have been believed precisely because of social consensus. This is much less true in the West today, but if you consider medieval Europe or any pre-modern society, when the social consensus was deeply religious, how could it make sense to talk about religion being independent of the social consensus.

[thejeff]

JimMorrison said:
So there is potentially a religion in New Guinea that not seek to spread itself to willing minds to survive? That would rock my entire concept of what the term religion actually means, as opposed to philosophy or just plain reasoning.

I don't know about New Guinea, but as a larger example: For most of it's history Judaism has been the religion of the Jewish people. Children were raised in the religion, but outside converts were not sought and depending on the time and particular variant of the religion may not have been allowed.

There are other examples...