Is religious belief 2d?

[chang50]

So what value is that? Anyone? There's three people here who all think religion provides some kind of vague service or value to society, but no one is telling me what that is?

Is it something irreplaceable? Is it something inherent to religion that we couldn't implement with secular organizations? I'm really failing to see what you guys are talking about here.

How about it gives believers something they need,that you and me do not need,at least not from religion.A crutch if you like.Not many people get thru life without leaning on something ever.

Do they really need it though? If there was no religion, would they even know to miss it?

I am not a psychologist,but it appears so to my untrained eye.To answer your hypothetical question,obviously not,but humankind did develop in that way,and perhaps it could not have been otherwise...

[Army of GOD]

religion had an important impact on keeping early civilizations civilized. Weren't like, all of the early civilizations (Egyptian, Mesopotamia, Chinese and Indian) hugely religious?

I bet you could argue that religion made people happy and kept people orderly.

[pmchugh]

Religion and superstition are seen everywhere around the world. They were a bi-product of our evolution but rather like our gallbladder it could be removed without any real consequences in most cases. I find some non believers to be particularly condescending to theists, there is an attitude that we don't need religion but without it other people would go crazy and become completely immoral.

[BigBallinStalin]

So what value is that? Anyone? There's three people here who all think religion provides some kind of vague service or value to society, but no one is telling me what that is?

Is it something irreplaceable? Is it something inherent to religion that we couldn't implement with secular organizations? I'm really failing to see what you guys are talking about here.

club goods, fear of persecution, desire to be accepted, provides a low-cost explanation to certain questions... Then there's social network benefits, a perceived sense of security (god will take care of you), charity services, and blah blah blah.

Think about it. There's plenty of value to be had in joining a religion.


Is it something inherent to religion that we couldn't implement with secular organizations?

Yeah. "Cool" rituals, unfalsifiable beliefs, and all that. Ooh, and fanaticism. If you think Jesus is the only way to get into heaven, then wow, you're likely to feel real special, and maybe have a strong desire to "correct" everyone's beliefs.

Regarding fanaticism, secular organizations which come close are nationalistic ones--think of the Cultural Revolution in China. Or a bunch of dumb Americans yelling about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq 2003, and then yelling people down if they disagree. So, a secular organization would be the state. Not too sure I like that idea.

[BigBallinStalin]

religion had an important impact on keeping early civilizations civilized. Weren't like, all of the early civilizations (Egyptian, Mesopotamia, Chinese and Indian) hugely religious?

I bet you could argue that religion made people happy and kept people orderly.

Of course. Religion served as a means of social control. Think of all the monarchs and sovereigns who pulled the "divine ruler" card. Priests were able to predict the future by turtle shells, tea leaves in a cup, animal guts, etc. It puts on a great show for the people.

[BigBallinStalin]

So what value is that? Anyone? There's three people here who all think religion provides some kind of vague service or value to society, but no one is telling me what that is?

Is it something irreplaceable? Is it something inherent to religion that we couldn't implement with secular organizations? I'm really failing to see what you guys are talking about here.

How about it gives believers something they need,that you and me do not need,at least not from religion.A crutch if you like.Not many people get thru life without leaning on something ever.

Do they really need it though? If there was no religion, would they even know to miss it?

What do you mean by "really need it"?

If there was no ConquerClub, would you even know to miss it? If there was no [insert your favorite coffeeshop or store here], then would you even know to miss it?

[natty dread]

So what value is that? Anyone? There's three people here who all think religion provides some kind of vague service or value to society, but no one is telling me what that is?

Is it something irreplaceable? Is it something inherent to religion that we couldn't implement with secular organizations? I'm really failing to see what you guys are talking about here.

How about it gives believers something they need,that you and me do not need,at least not from religion.A crutch if you like.Not many people get thru life without leaning on something ever.

Do they really need it though? If there was no religion, would they even know to miss it?

What do you mean by "really need it"?

If there was no ConquerClub, would you even know to miss it? If there was no [insert your favorite coffeeshop or store here], then would you even know to miss it?

I've never claimed that Conquerclub has some kind of inherent value to society...

club goods, fear of persecution, desire to be accepted, provides a low-cost explanation to certain questions... Then there's social network benefits, a perceived sense of security (god will take care of you), charity services, and blah blah blah.

Think about it. There's plenty of value to be had in joining a religion.

Those are all benefits that are not inherent to religion, and as such are not good reasons why religions are necessary.

If there were no religion, there would be other ways for people to get "club goods", or feel accepted, or get explanations to questions... social network? We have facebook now, no need for religion there... sense of security? Well, one could argue that this is independent of religion - lots of people live in perpetual fear and/or guilt because of their religion, and lots of people feel secure without religion. Charity services can be arranged without religion.

There's plenty of "value" in joining a religion right now, because religions work hard to make themselves needed. Kind of like antivirus companies who hire hackers to write viruses to make themselves necessary.

[BigBallinStalin]

So what value is that? Anyone? There's three people here who all think religion provides some kind of vague service or value to society, but no one is telling me what that is?

Is it something irreplaceable? Is it something inherent to religion that we couldn't implement with secular organizations? I'm really failing to see what you guys are talking about here.

How about it gives believers something they need,that you and me do not need,at least not from religion.A crutch if you like.Not many people get thru life without leaning on something ever.

Do they really need it though? If there was no religion, would they even know to miss it?

What do you mean by "really need it"?

If there was no ConquerClub, would you even know to miss it? If there was no [insert your favorite coffeeshop or store here], then would you even know to miss it?

I've never claimed that Conquerclub has some kind of inherent value to society...

Neither have I. Value isn't inherent, or intrinsic. It's subjectively perceived. If a religious organization offers something of value, then sure, people may perceive that they "need" it--just as they perceive that they "need" other valuable goods available through other organizations, individuals, places, etc.

The word "need" doesn't describe this phenomenon well. Instead, "demand" is better. Demand is the willingness and capability to "pay" for something--whether it be through monetary or non-monetary means.

That's why I asked, "What do you mean by 'really need it'"? (hopefully that clears that up).

club goods, fear of persecution, desire to be accepted, provides a low-cost explanation to certain questions... Then there's social network benefits, a perceived sense of security (god will take care of you), charity services, and blah blah blah.

Think about it. There's plenty of value to be had in joining a religion.

Those are all benefits that are not inherent to religion, and as such are not good reasons why religions are necessary.

If there were no religion, there would be other ways for people to get "club goods", or feel accepted, or get explanations to questions... social network? We have facebook now, no need for religion there... sense of security? Well, one could argue that this is independent of religion - lots of people live in perpetual fear and/or guilt because of their religion, and lots of people feel secure without religion. Charity services can be arranged without religion.

There's plenty of "value" in joining a religion right now, because religions work hard to make themselves needed. Kind of like antivirus companies who hire hackers to write viruses to make themselves necessary.

Well, as I said, value isn't inherent. And the value of the religious club goods comes with religion, which is distinct from the value of goods offered through non-religious groups. Goods aren't homogenous or perfectly substitutable. It depends on the marketing and how people respond to it (and more as I'll explain later). For example:

"Those are all benefits that are not inherent to religion"
Those club goods are "part and parcel" with the religion. The social network offered through a particular church at place X can't be offered through a coffee shop or facebook because those aren't the same benefits nor is the response to the marketing the same--even if both offer a social network, the social network itself is still different. Therefore, your retort "we have facebook now" doesn't cut it. It's different benefits, different costs, and a different means, thus valued differently.

Substitutes aren't perfect, and they aren't homogenous. Just because some organization may offer similar benefits compared to a religious organization, it doesn't follow that the benefits of a religious organization can be perfectly substituted or replicated through other organizations. It's different goods, which are valued differently. These goods vary in costs and benefits depending on the individual.


EDIT: added list

[BigBallinStalin]

There's plenty of "value" in joining a religion right now, because religions work hard to make themselves needed. Kind of like antivirus companies who hire hackers to write viruses to make themselves necessary.

There's plenty of value in exchanging money, time, etc. for membership access to many organizations. These organizations respond to the demand of their consumers with various efficiency and so forth. In that sense, any organization "works hard to make themselves needed"; otherwise, they would be out of business. If the demand still exists, then another supplier has the incentive to move in in order to capture the profits.

Your word "need" is just insufficient. In your sense, what do people "really need"? Shall we hear about how your subjective valuation is the correct one for all individuals?

[Army of GOD]

Everyone knows that building the Oracle either (1) acts as a temple in all of your cities or (2) gives you a free technology depending on which game you play. Having a temple in a city increases that city's happiness by 1.

[natty dread]

Neither have I. Value isn't inherent, or intrinsic. It's subjectively perceived

Ok sure but that's irrelevant to the subject at hand. It was proposed by someone who isn't me that religions provide value as social institutions.

That's why I asked, "What do you mean by 'really need it'"?

That religion is not necessarily necessary for fulfilling that particular need. If there were no religion, then the needs catered to by religion would be fulfilled by other means, or other institutions.

And the value of the religious club goods comes with religion

But "club goods" are valuable only to the people who receive those goods, ie. they only benefit the people who are part of said religion. Even if some people personally benefit from being part of a religion it still doesn't mean that religion is beneficial to the society as a whole.

I think that was the real question here, if we go by this post, where 3 atheists seem to assert that religions provide some kind of value "as social institutions" which to me seems to imply that religion provides value to the society as a whole, and not just on an individual level. So I think you're arguing against the wrong argument here, because I certainly agree that some people do receive personal benefits from being part of a religion. What I dispute is that religions provide some kind of value or benefit to the society as a whole, ie. I posit that the society would probably ultimately be better off without religions.

[Symmetry]

Slightly off topic, but one of the most convincing arguments for there being a God for me comes from a really short novel called Flatland by Edwin Abbott, that draws heavily on mathematics.

Wiki The Wiki has links to the original text, as it's out of copyright.

The argument isn't explicit, but it was one of the points I took from it anyway. It's not long.

[Army of GOD]

Saying something is better/worse with/without something else and with a lack of evidence is pretty pointless.

Religion in the past has done some good things (contribute to charities, supporting the sick, sheltering the homeless, making people happier by giving them hope for what comes after death, etc.) and some shitty things (priests molesting chi'dren, wars over religion, persecutions, etc.). The typical person would argue "WELL THOSE GOOD THINGS WOULD HAPPEN SANS RELIGION" and then that is when I respond "the shitty things would happen sans religion too, amirite?"

[BigBallinStalin]

If you agree that value is subjective, benefits differ, costs differ, and goods aren't homogenous nor are they perfectly substitutable, then the following can't be correct:

Those are all benefits that are not inherent to religion, and as such are not good reasons why religions are necessary.

If there were no religion, there would be other ways for people to get "club goods", or feel accepted, or get explanations to questions.

Anyway:

And the value of the religious club goods comes with religion

But "club goods" are valuable only to the people who receive those goods, ie. they only benefit the people who are part of said religion. Even if some people personally benefit from being part of a religion it still doesn't mean that religion is beneficial to the society as a whole.

I think that was the real question here, if we go by this post, where 3 atheists seem to assert that religions provide some kind of value "as social institutions" which to me seems to imply that religion provides value to the society as a whole, and not just on an individual level. So I think you're arguing against the wrong argument here, because I certainly agree that some people do receive personal benefits from being part of a religion. What I dispute is that religions provide some kind of value or benefit to the society as a whole, ie. I posit that the society would probably ultimately be better off without religions.

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


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."

Society is only a collective metaphor, and that's it. It doesn't act, or feel. Society is only composed of individuals, who each have their subjective value, their own actions, etc. Since it doesn't act, it can't engage in exchanges, it can't produce, save, or consume anything; therefore, it can't gain value.

Here's an example by Mises:

The hangman, not the state, executes a criminal. It is the meaning of those concerned that discerns in the hangman's action an action of the state."

The above is the proper use of "society" or "the state." But as soon as you commit to the fallacy of thinking that "society as a whole" acts, then you lose, sir. Good day.

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

[BigBallinStalin]

Saying something is better/worse with/without something else and with a lack of evidence is pretty pointless.

Religion in the past has done some good things (contribute to charities, supporting the sick, sheltering the homeless, making people happier by giving them hope for what comes after death, etc.) and some shitty things (priests molesting chi'dren, wars over religion, persecutions, etc.). The typical person would argue "WELL THOSE GOOD THINGS WOULD HAPPEN SANS RELIGION" and then that is when I respond "the shitty things would happen sans religion too, amirite?"

I agree, and you make a good point. It's more than "religion with" or "religion without" because it depends on so many other factors.

I'm eager to see how natty dread explains how he knows that the application of his subjective values would offer everyone, who subscribes to a religious groups, more value than which they currently gain.

[Symmetry]

I've always been kind of curious about your use of that quote. I've not read Mises, to be fair, so I don't know the context, but my impression was that executions (to take the example given) are more of a process than a single action, and that rather than the action of that individual representing the state, it's more of collective process. From, to take a more modern example, the company that manufactures the drug, the people who work for that company to manufacture it, and those who developed it, on toward those who deemed it suitable for executions. Then the trial process, leading from arrest, and all those involved in the trial, to the judge issuing the sentence. From then on, the appeals, following similar protocols, to the elected officials who have the ability to grant clemency. Then the guards and wardens who chose to strap the prisoner down, and the medical professionals who examine the doses and administer the drugs.

As I said, I've not read the context of Mises quote, but it seems like a fair more people are involved in the execution.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've always been kind of curious about your use of that quote. I've not read Mises, to be fair, so I don't know the context, but my impression was that executions (to take the example given) are more of a process than a single action, and that rather than the action of that individual representing the state, it's more of collective process. From, to take a more modern example, the company that manufactures the drug, the people who work for that company to manufacture it, and those who developed it, on toward those who deemed it suitable for executions. Then the trial process, leading from arrest, and all those involved in the trial, to the judge issuing the sentence. From then on, the appeals, following similar protocols, to the elected officials who have the ability to grant clemency. Then the guards and wardens who chose to strap the prisoner down, and the medical professionals who examine the doses and administer the drugs.

As I said, I've not read the context of Mises quote, but it seems like a fair more people are involved in the execution.

Sure, all those actions by individuals are involved in the process of executing a criminal. In that quote, he's not talking about the process. He's talking about a single act, where one individual cuts off the head of another individual, and what he means when he says "the state executed the criminal."

Here's more:

First we must realize that all actions arc performed by individuals.
A collective operates always through the intermediary of one or
several individuals whose actions are related to the collective as the
secondary source. It is the meaning which the acting individuals and
all those who are touched by their action attribute to an action, that
determines its character. It is the meaning that marks one action as the
action of an individual and another action as the action of the state or
of the municipality. The hangman, not the state, cxccutcs a criminal.
It is the meaning of those concerned that discerns in the hangman's
action an action of the state. A group of armed men occupies a place.
It is the meaning of those concerned which imputes this occupation
not to the officers and soldiers on the spot, but to their nation.-1f we
scrutinize the meaning of the various actions performed by individuals
we must necessarily learn everything about the actions of collective
wholes. For a social collective has no existence and reality outside of
the individual members' actions. The life of a collective is lived in the
actions of the individuals constituting% body.There is no social
collective conceivable which is not operative in the actions of some
individuals. The reality of a social integer consists in its directing and
releasing definite actions on the part of individuals. Thus the way to
a cognition of collective wholes is through an analysis of the in-
dividuals' actions.

If I recall correctly, this quote is embedded within the greater context of why methodological individualism matters.

[Symmetry]

That's kind of interesting, I'm not sure I agree with the general line of thinking, which seems kind of reductive in some ways, but weirdly like an excuse in other ways. That is to say that it both argues to a certain extent that an individual is society, and that society is embodied in an individual.

I'll have to look him up and have a read.

Have you read Foucault's Discipline and Punish? You might like it.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's kind of interesting, I'm not sure I agree with the general line of thinking, which seems kind of reductive in some ways, but weirdly like an excuse in other ways. That is to say that it both argues to a certain extent that an individual is society, and that society is embodied in an individual.

I'll have to look him up and have a read.

Have you read Foucault's Discipline and Punish? You might like it.

I've read most of it. It's interesting. Unfortunately, his methodology is lacking at times, but much can be extracted and used correctly.


Regarding Mises, his economic theory isn't reductive. His economy theory is grounded in a priori synthetic propositions, and from there the deductive reasoning begins (a.k.a. praxeology). Remember, that larger quote is still taken out of context.

Hans Herman-Hoppe outlines this in about 30 pages (compared to Mises first four or five chapters). [url=mises.org/pdf/esam.pdf]Economic Science and the Austrian Method[/url]. Here's a quick intro.

It's rough to jump into it, so it might be better reading Mises first chapter of Human Action. (link to $0.00 PDF.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Slightly off topic, but one of the most convincing arguments for there being a God for me comes from a really short novel called Flatland by Edwin Abbott, that draws heavily on mathematics.

Wiki The Wiki has links to the original text, as it's out of copyright.

The argument isn't explicit, but it was one of the points I took from it anyway. It's not long.

I read Flatland a couple years ago but don't remember getting anything like you describe from it.

Now you've made me curious. Might have to re-read it.

[Symmetry]

Slightly off topic, but one of the most convincing arguments for there being a God for me comes from a really short novel called Flatland by Edwin Abbott, that draws heavily on mathematics.

Wiki The Wiki has links to the original text, as it's out of copyright.

The argument isn't explicit, but it was one of the points I took from it anyway. It's not long.

I read Flatland a couple years ago but don't remember getting anything like you describe from it.

Now you've made me curious. Might have to re-read it.

The bit that made me curious was that a 2D shape needed a 3D element to put it into perspective, and saw that as a god-like ability. The point couldn't perceive anything but itself, but could be perceived by 2D lifeforms. Taking that back up to 3D, and there must be a 4D element, and so on up.

May well be just my reading, and I can't say I found God in it, but after all the observations of more limited forms downwards, I thought about how far upward you could progress. Remember that the point conceives nothing but itself, but can be seen by an inconceivable second dimension.

[KoolBak]

I don't understand the poll; an Agnostic cannot be either a theist or an atheist....same with a gnostic....the terms are mutually exclusive.....explain please.

[chang50]

I don't understand the poll; an Agnostic cannot be either a theist or an atheist....same with a gnostic....the terms are mutually exclusive.....explain please.

They are most definitely not mutually exclusive.Theism/atheism refers to belief,gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge.Hence an agnostic atheist like me does not believe in the existence of deities,but does not claim to know that they do not exist.

[KoolBak]

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....

[Army of GOD]

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....

There's a huge difference between the two. (A)gnosticism uses the word "knowledge", while (a)theism uses belief.

I don't know if a god exists nor do I know if it's possible to know if god exists, but if someone put a gun to my head and asked me if a god existed, I would say no.