Is religious belief 2d?

[natty dread]

How do you know? Shall we hear about how your subjective valuation is the correct one for all individuals?

If there were no religions, no one would think "man, our life sucks because there is no religion", because no one would even know what a religion is. It's like, a 100 years ago, people weren't all depressed that they didn't have computers, because they didn't know anything about computers.

I'm not saying I know for certain, because it's not something anyone can know, but I would guesstimate that most people would be better off (happier or whatever) if religions didn't exist.

You're right in that we can't say that religion benefits or fails to benefit "society as a whole" because as Rothbard says, this "is the fallacy of treating collective constructs as 'social wholes.' " As Hayek says, these "only are metaphorical constructs for describing the similar or concerted actions of individuals."

There are such things as collective benefits, like for example, we all benefit if we prevent our planet from becoming uninhabitable.

as soon as you commit to the fallacy of thinking that "society as a whole" acts

A society can work in unison towards a common goal, if everyone in the society agrees about the goal. Yeah yeah, it's not actually the "society" working, it's the individuals that make up the society who each make the choice to work towards that goal, but it's pretty pedantic to complain about the wording there. By the same logic, you couldn't say "our football team scored 3 goals yesterday", because it's not the entire team that scored those goals, it's the individual players who actually kicked the balls in the goal...

If you want to talk about "society" gaining value, then please explain how you can tell if society has gained value or lost value...

I never said that.

[BigBallinStalin]

How do you know? Shall we hear about how your subjective valuation is the correct one for all individuals?

If there were no religions, no one would think "man, our life sucks because there is no religion", because no one would even know what a religion is. It's like, a 100 years ago, people weren't all depressed that they didn't have computers, because they didn't know anything about computers.

I'm not saying I know for certain, because it's not something anyone can know, but I would guesstimate that most people would be better off (happier or whatever) if religions didn't exist.

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Your guess would be as good as mine.

We can't predict the future knowledge of people and then determine from the present how people would value religion, and thereby know if they would be better off without it.

Perhaps, all we can say with certainty is this:

show

You're right in that we can't say that religion benefits or fails to benefit "society as a whole" because as Rothbard says, this "is the fallacy of treating collective constructs as 'social wholes.' " As Hayek says, these "only are metaphorical constructs for describing the similar or concerted actions of individuals."

There are such things as collective benefits, like for example, we all benefit if we prevent our planet from becoming uninhabitable.

It depends on the means and the costs. Sure, you can say, "collectively we benefit," as in "society as a whole would benefit," but without knowing the means and the costs, then your statement becomes useless because determining benefits requires knowledge of the costs.

And since benefit and cost are valued subjectively, how can you make interpersonal comparisons of utility (i.e. benefits - costs) in order to discover that we collectively benefited?

as soon as you commit to the fallacy of thinking that "society as a whole" acts

A society can work in unison towards a common goal, if everyone in the society agrees about the goal. Yeah yeah, it's not actually the "society" working, it's the individuals that make up the society who each make the choice to work towards that goal, but it's pretty pedantic to complain about the wording there. By the same logic, you couldn't say "our football team scored 3 goals yesterday", because it's not the entire team that scored those goals, it's the individual players who actually kicked the balls in the goal...

Okay, sure, if everyone agrees on the goal and the means, and then initially accept the plan. After that, who knows if the benefits will continue exceeding the costs for each individual. Nearly always, your example isn't the case, so phrases like "society as a whole wills it, needs this, is better with this or without that" are fallacious--unless your very unlikely example holds true.

The main point is that using a metaphorical construct like "society as a whole" can be dangerous because it can be so misleading--whenever your example is not the case. That way of communicating is used to justify all sorts of political action. "The people would be better if we did this." "Society as a whole would benefit from my bodacious, totes awesome 5-year plan." etc. These kinds of statements are made by people who presume such knowledge, or they're lying (maybe unintentionally).

[natty dread]

It depends on the means and the costs. Sure, you can say, "collectively we benefit," as in "society as a whole would benefit," but without knowing the means and the costs, then your statement becomes useless because determining benefits requires knowledge of the costs.

And since benefit and cost are valued subjectively, how can you make interpersonal comparisons of utility (i.e. benefits - costs) in order to discover that we collectively benefited?

Well if we prevent our planet from becoming uninhabitable, everyone benefits, because the alternative is we all fucking DIE. The costs don't matter, if it's the only way to keep everyone alive.

[Army of GOD]

It depends on the means and the costs. Sure, you can say, "collectively we benefit," as in "society as a whole would benefit," but without knowing the means and the costs, then your statement becomes useless because determining benefits requires knowledge of the costs.

And since benefit and cost are valued subjectively, how can you make interpersonal comparisons of utility (i.e. benefits - costs) in order to discover that we collectively benefited?

Well if we prevent our planet from becoming uninhabitable, everyone benefits, because the alternative is we all fucking DIE. The costs don't matter, if it's the only way to keep everyone alive.

This implies that everyone agrees that not dying is a benefit, which, I'm not sure is true.

[BigBallinStalin]

It depends on the means and the costs. Sure, you can say, "collectively we benefit," as in "society as a whole would benefit," but without knowing the means and the costs, then your statement becomes useless because determining benefits requires knowledge of the costs.

And since benefit and cost are valued subjectively, how can you make interpersonal comparisons of utility (i.e. benefits - costs) in order to discover that we collectively benefited?

Well if we prevent our planet from becoming uninhabitable, everyone benefits, because the alternative is we all fucking DIE. The costs don't matter, if it's the only way to keep everyone alive.

Still depends on the means. Without knowledge of the means, then weighing benefits versus the cost for each individual is impossible, even if you erroneously make interpersonal comparisons of utility.

Of course, I'd agree if you said, "the means are Magic, not the Gathering," but that's just silly-talk.


If everyone was like happy, then we'd all benefit collectively! Totes YEAH! (I agree with this, but it's not useful. How would that happen? lol i dunno! but it would be AWESOME!).

Or how about this? "If there was total world peace, then no human or animal would kill a human; therefore, total world peace would collectively benefit us." Yes, total world peace is that powerful. But what is the price of total world peace? If we wish to weigh the benefits and the costs, then we have to know the means. Exchanges have to occur, and any exchange requires a means.

[chang50]

AGNOSTIC
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

THEISM
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).

These CANNOT work together.

Your example can. The Gnostics can in a literal translation....

If you are saying agnostic theism is absurd,then I tend to agree,but then I think all theism is absurd,however it is possible theoretically.

[KoolBak]

You're saying an the statement "agnostic theist" is viable? I can state shit all day long too man....why don't you explain yourself?

Here's the statement you're supporting: "I believe in god but I dont know if he exists'' Literal translation....ok..assuming one statement is coming from each half of your brain and you just like to argue for arguments sake....viable statement? f*ck no.

[Haggis_McMutton]

You're saying an the statement "agnostic theist" is viable? I can state shit all day long too man....why don't you explain yourself?

Here's the statement you're supporting: "I believe in god but I dont know if he exists'' Literal translation....ok..assuming one statement is coming from each half of your brain and you just like to argue for arguments sake....viable statement? f*ck no.

It is viable.

Here's some other examples:

I know I could win the lottery but I believe I won't so I don't play.

I know a plane could crash into my house, but I believe it won't so I don't go in the basement.

I know I might not survive skydiving, but I believe I will, so I'll jump.

I know god might not exist, but I believe he does, so I go to church.

knowledge is a stronger statement than belief.

[chang50]

You're saying an the statement "agnostic theist" is viable? I can state shit all day long too man....why don't you explain yourself?

Here's the statement you're supporting: "I believe in god but I dont know if he exists'' Literal translation....ok..assuming one statement is coming from each half of your brain and you just like to argue for arguments sake....viable statement? f*ck no.

This is not difficult dude,as Haggis says people believe all sorts of things without knowing them.Belief is not always rational,in fact it is quite often not grounded in reality at all.Just follow any of the numerous religious threads on cc to see my point.

[KoolBak]

I dont like to argue...with my wife, kids, friends or any of you.

Realistically, if you believe, you believe. I agree completely that FAITH and LOGIC are completely different animals...my point is you cannot mix them.

Its a ridiculous context you're supporting I'm done.....

[BigBallinStalin]

You're saying an the statement "agnostic theist" is viable? I can state shit all day long too man....why don't you explain yourself?

Here's the statement you're supporting: "I believe in god but I dont know if he exists'' Literal translation....ok..assuming one statement is coming from each half of your brain and you just like to argue for arguments sake....viable statement? f*ck no.

It is viable.

Here's some other examples:

I know I could win the lottery but I believe I won't so I don't play.

I know a plane could crash into my house, but I believe it won't so I don't go in the basement.

I know I might not survive skydiving, but I believe I will, so I'll jump.

I know god might not exist, but I believe he does, so I go to church.

knowledge is a stronger statement than belief.

Suppose that an agnostic theist were to pray. Even then, this action only reveals his belief but not knowledge of God?

Is it kind of like posting an offering on eBay while remaining uncertain that anyone is there to take the offer? In other words, this person is praying--just in case God might exist?

If that's the case, then the agnostic theist who prays seems disingenuous.

[Army of GOD]

You're saying an the statement "agnostic theist" is viable? I can state shit all day long too man....why don't you explain yourself?

Here's the statement you're supporting: "I believe in god but I dont know if he exists'' Literal translation....ok..assuming one statement is coming from each half of your brain and you just like to argue for arguments sake....viable statement? f*ck no.

It is viable.

Here's some other examples:

I know I could win the lottery but I believe I won't so I don't play.

I know a plane could crash into my house, but I believe it won't so I don't go in the basement.

I know I might not survive skydiving, but I believe I will, so I'll jump.

I know god might not exist, but I believe he does, so I go to church.

knowledge is a stronger statement than belief.

Suppose that an agnostic theist were to pray. Even then, this action only reveals his belief but not knowledge of God?

Is it kind of like posting an offering on eBay while remaining uncertain that anyone is there to take the offer? In other words, this person is praying--just in case God might exist?

If that's the case, then the agnostic theist who prays seems disingenuous.

It's not disingenuous at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

I kind of want to agree with you, AoG, but I have to ask:

Why do you disagree that praying to a god, believing in that god, but doubting god's existence is "not genuinely sincere: giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity"?

How can an agnostic theist sincerely pray to god while doubting god's existence? Doesn't doubting god's existence makes the act of praying insincere, i.e. not genuine? (genuine meaning: "sincerely and honestly felt or experienced")

[Army of GOD]

I kind of want to agree with you, AoG, but I have to ask:

Why do you disagree that praying to a god, believing in that god, but doubting god's existence is "not genuinely sincere: giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity"?

How can an agnostic theist sincerely pray to god while doubting god's existence? Doesn't doubting god's existence makes the act of praying insincere, i.e. not genuine? (genuine meaning: "sincerely and honestly felt or experienced")

no, because doubting he exists still allow you to believe he exists, just not as strongly as someone who "knows" he exists.

[pmchugh]

Personally I think agnostic theist makes more sense than gnostic theist as a position.

[chang50]

I dont like to argue...with my wife, kids, friends or any of you.

Realistically, if you believe, you believe. I agree completely that FAITH and LOGIC are completely different animals...my point is you cannot mix them.

Its a ridiculous context you're supporting I'm done.....

It's cool,it's only philosophy,ie ideas and opinions.In b4 someone says that's an oversimplification

[chang50]

Personally I think agnostic theist makes more sense than gnostic theist as a position.

Me too,but they seem to be quite rare.Would you say agnostic theist makes more sense than gnostic atheist?It's an interesting one...