Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've hesitated to jump in to this (and any of the other atheist) discussions but a thought (simplistic as it is) occurs to me that the founding kernel of the idea of religion was based solely as a means for man to control mankind, through fear and intimidation. Period.
Which, I think, is why I have formed such a disdain for religion - all religion - and all of those in charge of its perpetuation. and the older I get the more it repels me.
Oh, and WE DO HONOLULU BLUE - RESTORE THE ROAR - GO LIONS!
Carry on.
Thank you for jumping in. I ascribe religion to a sorta instinctive reaction to danger from the unknown and a feeling of helplessness in the face of natural powers. It seems certain to me that humans invented the idea of appeasing these natural powers with gifts and the idea of sacrifice was developed. The powers became big invisible humans who could understand the favors the sacrifices were supposed to pay for, and the bods who evolved the prayers and sacrifices soon found that they did very nicely thank you out of the gifts (1) and the scam became pretty much part of social life. It was even better if the priesthood could compel people to do and provide for the religion and not just make it a social norm.
This of course led to a dodgy relationship between religious authority and kingship. Both knew the needed the other to maintain control, but neither wanted to become subject to the other. This became most obvious in medieval Europe where the Papacy had become rulers and war broke out between French kings and Italian popes.
I can only shake my head and long for the day when scammers who use religions, cults and superstitions (as well as political and social dogmas) to rip the gullible off and make it a profitable business find people refuse to be bamboozled and vote with their wallets.
(1) one of my favourite passages from Asteryx the Gaul was in 'Asteryx and the Soothsayer' where prophecy was best enabled by a three course lunch with beer.
"You can read prophecy in beer?" "If it's well - kept, it becomes very legible".
We can debate everything we humans do that is problematic and try to blame the various institutions that are involved but it would not remove the PROXIMAL cause which is our human nature. That is and will remain the "culprit." This does not mean we do not try to change what we can to mitigate or minimize the effects of that nature. But if we misidentify the "culprit" as anything other than our human nature, we will choose stupid and ineffective solutions or policies or whatnot as we have consistently done with government policies.
Human nature will be with us for the foreseeable future in relatively unchanged form. We need to be intelligent about what we institute to mitigate or minimize its destructive impacts and encourage and promote productive impacts. We need to know and understand that nature to do so. Dealing with all the externalities is just confusing and distracting and more often than not worsens the problems as is evident in many of our social policies.
You are correct that human nature is at the root of the problem, but institutions are not blameless when they exploit human nature to advance themselves. How institutions and individuals within them conduct themselves is discussable and criticizable.
You are correct that human nature is at the root of the problem, but institutions are not blameless when they exploit human nature to advance themselves. How institutions and individuals within them conduct themselves is discussable and criticizable.
I agree, but when we do criticize them we should not lose sight of the central fact that motivates the misuse of the institutions or we will choose stupid "corrections and solutions" that worsen the situation.
You are correct that human nature is at the root of the problem, but institutions are not blameless when they exploit human nature to advance themselves. How institutions and individuals within them conduct themselves is discussable and criticizable.
Correct. Religious organizations teach principles that 'the flock' then act on and/or develop logic about. And then those religious organizations do pretty much nothing to fix the problem they hatched.
You are correct that human nature is at the root of the problem, but institutions are not blameless when they exploit human nature to advance themselves. How institutions and individuals within them conduct themselves is discussable and criticizable.
We can debate everything we humans do that is problematic and try to blame the various institutions that are involved but it would not remove the PROXIMAL cause which is our human nature. That is and will remain the "culprit." This does not mean we do not try to change what we can to mitigate or minimize the effects of that nature. But if we misidentify the "culprit" as anything other than our human nature, we will choose stupid and ineffective solutions or policies or whatnot as we have consistently done with government policies.
Human nature will be with us for the foreseeable future in relatively unchanged form. We need to be intelligent about what we institute to mitigate or minimize its destructive impacts and encourage and promote productive impacts. We need to know and understand that nature to do so. Dealing with all the externalities is just confusing and distracting and more often than not worsens the problems as is evident in many of our social policies.
As it is again time for me to begin moving on to other things now, I remain more than a little confused about whatever your "bottom line" might be here. No less your rationale...
Maybe you can help me by explaining what about any of these issues we humans have been forever grappling with since the beginning CAN'T be blamed on human nature?
Hard for me to understand. As if for example we can't all recognize that the sinking of every boat that has ever been sunk isn't caused by the intrusion of water, but we're somehow supposed to leave the blame for all sinking boats on just the water?!?
As it is again time for me to begin moving on to other things now, I remain more than a little confused about whatever your "bottom line" might be here. No less your rationale...
Maybe you can help me by explaining what about any of these issues we humans have been forever grappling with since the beginning CAN'T be blamed on human nature?
Hard for me to understand. As if for example we can't all recognize that the sinking of every boat that has ever been sunk isn't caused by the intrusion of water, but we're somehow supposed to leave the blame for all sinking boats on just the water?!?
I believe I see where the disconnect is. My bottom line is that identifying the problem as anything OTHER than our human nature tends to place consideration of that nature outside the considerations and development of solutions. This invariably leads to collisions with the idealistic conceptions of humans and their "rights" and "dignity" that foster stupid solutions that simply incentivize the very irresponsible flaws that are the source of the problems in the first place. For example, -our reliance on punitive solutions is particularly ineffective and counterproductive. It requires the "catching in the act" or "proving" that which is to be punished (and of course, there will be total cooperation from the one to be punished and certainly no lawyers opposing your efforts).
Positive solutions require incentivizing proving the lack of any such bad behavior and placing the burden of proof on the one seeking the positive incentive. That means total cooperation, access to investigators, records, employees, etc., and NO lawyers opposing your efforts. The same approach should apply to providing individual "benefits" for those in need, IMO. Humans should never just be trusted to be ethical and honest.
I believe I see where the disconnect is. My bottom line is that identifying the problem as anything OTHER than our human nature tends to place consideration of that nature outside the considerations and development of solutions. This invariably leads to collisions with the idealistic conceptions of humans and their "rights" and "dignity" that foster stupid solutions that simply incentivize the very irresponsible flaws that are the source of the problems in the first place. For example, -our reliance on punitive solutions is particularly ineffective and counterproductive. It requires the "catching in the act" or "proving" that which is to be punished (and of course, there will be total cooperation from the one to be punished and certainly no lawyers opposing your efforts).
Positive solutions require incentivizing proving the lack of any such bad behavior and placing the burden of proof on the one seeking the positive incentive. That means total cooperation, access to investigators, records, employees, etc., and NO lawyers opposing your efforts. The same approach should apply to providing individual "benefits" for those in need, IMO. Humans should never just be trusted to be ethical and honest.
I see...
Now I think I better understand and can perhaps more accurately describe the disconnect as follows:
My focus or direction has been on identifying the sources of the problem(s).
Your focus or direction is more about the solution(s).
I tend to believe it is important to get the former well understood, defined and agreed upon first and foremost before then the solution(s) can best be considered. Blaming everything on human nature is not good enough when it comes to the former, and what I describe as the "slow maturing of man" is about as close a hope I can offer when it comes to one possible solution. If not a solution, at least some progress anyway. Given human nature, however, "easier said than done."
I believe I see where the disconnect is. My bottom line is that identifying the problem as anything OTHER than our human nature tends to place consideration of that nature outside the considerations and development of solutions. This invariably leads to collisions with the idealistic conceptions of humans and their "rights" and "dignity" that foster stupid solutions that simply incentivize the very irresponsible flaws that are the source of the problems in the first place. For example, -our reliance on punitive solutions is particularly ineffective and counterproductive. It requires the "catching in the act" or "proving" that which is to be punished (and of course, there will be total cooperation from the one to be punished and certainly no lawyers opposing your efforts).
Positive solutions require incentivizing proving the lack of any such bad behavior and placing the burden of proof on the one seeking the positive incentive. That means total cooperation, access to investigators, records, employees, etc., and NO lawyers opposing your efforts. The same approach should apply to providing individual "benefits" for those in need, IMO. Humans should never just be trusted to be ethical and honest.
That's all good thinking. My Bottom Line relevant to topic is that human social and moral problems are what they are, and religion is not the quick - fix answer. Which you are not claiming, but so many like to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
