Religion Is Insanity

[RCSaunders]

And the point is that "insane" notions regarding the nature of reality are not limited to religions.

Oh, absolutely. Most of philosophy is as insane and inane as any other superstition and much of what goes by the name science today is equally specious, especially the pseudo-sciences, psychology and sociology.

[Immanuel Can]

I totally agree with Mencken:

1. "So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots, and so long as 99 percent of them are idiots they will thirst for religion ..."

To be pithy and sarcastic...is that the same as to speak truth? Not in the world in which I live.

I guess I can kind of admire his snark, but I can't admire his logic at all. There's something terribly hubristic about such an utterance...Mr. Mencken believed himself to be truly special, and this not on the basis of some personal achievement, but merely by dint of not believing things?

He set his own bar far too low, I would suggest. That he "cleared it," and declared his own victory, warrants giving him no special regard, I would suggest.

[RCSaunders]

PROOF Religion Is Insanity

I totally agree with Mencken:

1. "So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots, and so long as 99 percent of them are idiots they will thirst for religion ..."

To be pithy and sarcastic...is that the same as to speak truth? Not in the world in which I live.

I guess I can kind of admire his snark, but I can't admire his logic at all. There's something terribly hubristic about such an utterance...Mr. Mencken believed himself to be truly special, and this not on the basis of some personal achievement, but merely by dint of not believing things?

He set his own bar far too low, I would suggest. That he "cleared it," and declared his own victory, warrants giving him no special regard, I would suggest.

Mencken was making an argument, only a statement of what is obvious to any fully rational intelligent human being.

Apparently an argument is needed for some, so:

Here Is Proof All Religion Is Insanity

Silly Religion

[The article is right here on Philosophy Now. If you wish to comment on the article, please do it here. The article is very long and idiots kept copying the entire article in their replies.]

[Immanuel Can]

Mencken was making an argument, only a statement...

No, Mencken was making a cheap quip. That's the most that can be said of that.

[Lacewing]

No, it's not. Look at the wording. It claims that all "religion" IS "insanity."

That's true in part, especially of the opening post. But the discussion has included more than that.

I haven't noticed that it's even got so far as defining its own key term, "religion." That seems awfully basic.

There are varying definitions which are coming through from the range of perspectives and questions/points being raised. The discussion doesn't have to fit into a certain structure or use a certain approach to point out truth and provide value.

There are many reasonable potentials to point out... and that's certainly something to offer, no?

Sure. But one has to know something to offer anything: one has to have a premise even in order to generate a question. One has to have a sense of what "potentials" exist in order to point one out.

Having a sense of potentials can be based on all that one can see (and has seen). People can offer through reflection.

When someone's belief system is so rigid as to dismiss all other potential, and reject all other people, that seems ridiculously unreasonable and worth challenging.

Absolutely. But that bill actually fits the OP very well. It "dismisses all other potential" religions, calls "religious" people "insane," and is pretty obviously "ridiculously unreasonable" and grossly prejudicial, to boot -- an impression very well reinforced by the example it supplies.

So I think we're well within our brief to challenge it.

Of course. We challenge such an idea by discussing what is true and what is not, yes? That's what this thread includes.

[seeds]

Why does anyone have to claim to know?

For the same reason you do.

First of all, it was Lacewing who said that, not me. So you need to get your quote attribution sorted out.

It is not, "incumbent," on anyone to convince idiots they are idiots.

Ah yes, there it is. Thanks for providing a clear example of the lack of "empathy" I mentioned to Lacewing in an earlier post.

Are the members of say, for instance, the Yanomami tribe of humans in the Amazonian rain forest, "idiots" because they may have a peculiar belief system or rituals? Or, are they "victims" of the unique circumstances in which they were born?

It seems to me that someone who obviously regards himself as possessing a superior intellect...

(at least when compared to the "idiots")

...would be able to discern the difference between the two and understand that the same situation applies to the members (brainwashed adherents) of the various world religions.

And in regards to this:

What is this, "order," you insist exists....Except for human understanding, there is no, "order," in the univers.

If I need to explain it to you then I'm afraid you are suffering from a widely shared "variant" of the Dunning-Kruger Effect wherein you are simply not conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to understand what I am talking about.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

That's true in part, especially of the opening post. But the discussion has included more than that.

I haven't noticed that it's even got so far as defining its own key term, "religion." That seems awfully basic.

There are varying definitions which are coming through from the range of perspectives and questions/points being raised. The discussion doesn't have to fit into a certain structure or use a certain approach to provide value.

Actually, it does.

A discussion in which the key terms are left loose and allowed to vacillate ends up with ridiculous conclusions. Undefined terms create a logical fallacy called "amphiboly," that all logicians recognize.

As for the term "religion," I can tell you for certain that it remains a highly disputed term, especially among experts in the secular studies of "religion." There is no settled definition for the term: just a pack of proposals, many contradictory, and none satisfactory. It's one of the persistent problems in the field itself.

There are many reasonable potentials to point out... and that's certainly something to offer, no?

Sure. But one has to know something to offer anything: one has to have a premise even in order to generate a question. One has to have a sense of what "potentials" exist in order to point one out.

Having a sense of potentials can be based on all that one can see (and has seen).

Yes: but then we can't pretend we're coming with no premises in hand. We are basing our claims on "what appears to me"...not a very good or comprehensive place to get data, maybe; but it's a starting point. And that's what we always need. There's no such thing as a "totally impartial" person who has anything to contribute to a discussion. There is only relative impartiality. The question itself always expresses one's starting assumptions.

We challenge such an idea by discussing what is true and what is not, yes?

But first, we have to say what our real "idea" is, before anybody can discuss "it." Definitions come first: and the first definition here is "religion." The second will be "insanity." Neither term currently has a specific definition in this conversation.

[RCSaunders]

It is not, "incumbent," on anyone to convince idiots they are idiots.

Ah yes, there it is. Thanks for providing a clear example of the lack of "empathy" I mentioned to Lacewing in an earlier post.

That's right. I have no, "empathy," "sympathy," or, "compassion," [all words that mean, "feel with,"] others. Feelings are always deceptive, especially the irrational sentimental variety, in the name of which every possible outrage and atrocity is committed. I base my evaluation of others only on what they choose to be and do, not my own irrational feelings.
Sentimental Journey

Are the members of say, for instance, the Yanomami tribe of humans in the Amazonian rain forest, "idiots" because they may have a peculiar belief system or rituals? Or, are they "victims" of the unique circumstances in which they were born?

Oh, no. They're all geniuses who know all about life and we should run right down there and learn how to live from them. What difference does it make why someone is an idiot? An idiot is an idiot, period. Excusing their idiocy doesn't make them any brighter.

What is this, "order," you insist exists....Except for human understanding, there is no, "order," in the universe.

If I need to explain it to you then I'm afraid you are suffering from a widely shared "variant" of the Dunning-Kruger Effect wherein you are simply not conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to understand what I am talking about.

Speaking of superstition, there is hardly anything less rational anything that which comes for a social psychologist.

I think you hold the superstitious view of, "order," being something imposed by some kind of mystical intelligence. It's the common view of all religions. The problem is, it is wrong about the nature of, "order," itself. If you are really interested, you may find this article interesting, even if you disagree with it:
Disorder, Chaos, and Existence

[Lacewing]

A discussion in which the key terms are left loose and allowed to vacillate ends up with ridiculous conclusions. Undefined terms create a logical fallacy called "amphiboly," that all logicians recognize.

As for the term "religion," I can tell you for certain that it remains a highly disputed term, especially among experts in the secular studies of "religion." There is no settled definition for the term: just a pack of proposals, many contradictory, and none satisfactory. It's one of the persistent problems in the field itself.

Sooo... you're saying that we must settle on a definition, but you acknowledge that's not possible?

Do you understand the implications and potentials of broadly varying perspectives throughout humankind? Can you see the value in that?

We are basing our claims on "what appears to me"...not a very good or comprehensive place to get data, maybe; but it's a starting point. And that's what we always need.

Do you think that what you talk about is anything more than what appears to you?

There's no such thing as a "totally impartial" person who has anything to contribute to a discussion. There is only relative impartiality. The question itself always expresses one's starting assumptions.

That sounds clever, but I don't know that it's completely true. Is it necessary to take a certain position in order to recognize foolishness or lies?

first, we have to say what our real "idea" is, before anybody can discuss "it." Definitions come first: and the first definition here is "religion." The second will be "insanity." Neither term currently has a specific definition in this conversation.

This conversation is a collection of viewpoints and contexts. The definitions will vary according to that. We don't all have to discuss it on any person's single terms (else we would have no discussions!). There is value in seeing across the spectrum. Attempting to fit everything into any certain structure is forced and untrue.

[Immanuel Can]

A discussion in which the key terms are left loose and allowed to vacillate ends up with ridiculous conclusions. Undefined terms create a logical fallacy called "amphiboly," that all logicians recognize.

As for the term "religion," I can tell you for certain that it remains a highly disputed term, especially among experts in the secular studies of "religion." There is no settled definition for the term: just a pack of proposals, many contradictory, and none satisfactory. It's one of the persistent problems in the field itself.

Sooo... you're saying that we must settle on a definition, but you acknowledge that's not possible?

No. I'm saying "religion" is a vague term. It's been used to describe practically everything, to the point where it's become useless. I'm saying "Pick a precise term."

We are basing our claims on "what appears to me"...not a very good or comprehensive place to get data, maybe; but it's a starting point. And that's what we always need.

Do you think that what you talk about is anything more than what appears to you?

We'll find out, I expect.

There's no such thing as a "totally impartial" person who has anything to contribute to a discussion. There is only relative impartiality. The question itself always expresses one's starting assumptions.

That sounds clever, but I don't know that it's absolutely true. Is it necessary to take a position in order to recognize foolishness or lies?

Of course. If one does not already know that 2+2=4, they're in no position to say whether 2+2+5 is a lie or foolishness, or just a better answer.

The definitions will vary according to that.

If "the definitions vary," then that's what logicians call "amphiboly." It creates nothing but confusion and fallacies, and results in nonsense.

[RCSaunders]

That's true in part, especially of the opening post. But the discussion has included more than that.

I haven't noticed that it's even got so far as defining its own key term, "religion." That seems awfully basic.

There are varying definitions which are coming through from the range of perspectives and questions/points being raised. The discussion doesn't have to fit into a certain structure or use a certain approach to point out truth and provide value.

Since I am the one who claims all religion is a kind of self-induced insanity I'll tell you what I mean by religion.

First, I mean anything anyone believes they claim is their religion. Because there are more varieties of religion than there are cereals, these days, it is impossible to define religion in terms of any specific beliefs. It is possible to identify some fundamental categories of beliefs that subsume most religious teachings, such as:

Any belief in any kind of knowledge that does not have to be discovered or learned. [Usually some form of "inspiration," or, "revelation," or other mystical source of "knowledge."]

Any belief in a contingent reality. [Usually some form of supernatural creation or mystical control of existence.]

Any belief that truth can be based on authority. [Usually some form of supernatural dictator, like a God, (it's true because God said so), or mystical, "force."]

The belief in anything ineffable. [Omniscience, omnipotence, Infallability, any eternal existent, anything said cannot to be understood but must be believed.]

By a religion I mean any ideology or belief that includes any of these. There are others including all those superstitions people have just because it's what they've always been taught or is what everyone else believes.

[henry quirk]

I don't post to convince you.

If you say so.


Do you post to convince me?

In context: I'm postin' to defend a friend who I believe is bein' unfairly and inaccurately assessed. To that end: I offered, what I believe is, the true undergirdin' of the opposition. As I say: nuthin' offered by anyone here moves me from that view.


I post because it's fun and interesting to challenge the status quo and the absurd claims that people come up with.

If you say so.

[Lacewing]

I'm saying "religion" is a vague term. It's been used to describe practically everything, to the point where it's become useless. I'm saying "Pick a precise term."

But people think of it differently, and have different insights to offer based on how they think of it. You reject that?

Do you think that what you talk about is anything more than what appears to you?

We'll find out, I expect.

I asked you what you think?

If one does not already know that 2+2=4, they're in no position to say whether 2+2+5 is a lie or foolishness, or just a better answer.

I think it's important not to go to extremes with definitions and positions. Everything does not need to be rigidly defined or agreed upon, nor does everyone have to have a specific position in order to notice things and add value. Putting everything into such rigid structures and ideas is a very controlling mindset which limits its potential to that, and seems completely oblivious to naturally diverse potential.

[Immanuel Can]

Any belief in any kind of knowledge that does not have to be discovered or learned.

Fits Atheism, for sure.

Any belief in a contingent reality.

Fits Atheism: it ONLY believes reality is "contingent."

Any belief that truth can be based on authority.

Fits Atheism: it claims it is authorized by "science," but is actually only authorized by wish.

The belief in anything ineffable.

Doesn't fit Atheism, but only because Atheism just denies that things like mind, consciousness, will, identity and so on are anything but materials.

By a religion I mean any ideology or belief that includes any of these.

Then Atheism is one of these. It fits at least three of the four, but plausibly all four.

[henry quirk]

In the case of Mr Can, you are a rare voice of support; but your reason - that Mr Can is your buddy, which is a fine and noble thing - doesn't have the objective weight of the evidence of Mr Can being precisely the crapsack I believe he is, and which other contributors confirm.

I support and defend him not cuz he's my buddy, but becuz my buddy is bein' --as I say -- unfairly and inaccurately assessed.

If Mannie were sketchy the way you folks describe (sumthin' three people in-thread disagree with, btw) he wouldn't be my friend and wouldn't have my support.