Do Not Bash Muslims!

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
There are those who are aware of the evil verses in the Quran.
But the majority cannot 'see' them due to confirmation bias, e.g. not seeing the 500 pound gorrilla in the room.


I think this is very speculative, because you're seemingly claiming to know the level of understanding of all, or the majority of Muslims – how could you know that? I would argue that the majority of Muslims are aware that there are “evil” verses in the Koran, because they are easily interpreted as instructions which propagate harm to non-believers, such that I don't think there is another way they can be perceived. All I can say is that if these verses are not practised by the majority, it is because the majority of Muslims are aware that those verse are “evil” and therefore don't engage in them. There are Muslims (those who harm others) who seemingly interpret those verses as being “right”, but the issue here is not IMV interpretation of those verses, rather the perspective / world view of the believer. I'm not sure how “confirmation bias” enters the picture, perhaps you could explain?
Legislation is the last resort.
In what context? Attacking the ideology of Islam? I don't think that the authorities would even consider creating legislation controlling people's beliefs and the state of Islamic based terrorist attacks is already a complete atrocity - we've reached "last resort" status a long time ago IMV. Wouldn't the authorities doing so contradict human rights legislation?
Once this project has reached it advance stage [in 50, 75, 100 year??] it will be easily available for any individual to find out how their brain and which neurons are triggering them to be theistic and how the idea of God arose to deal with the existential crisis.
Then there will be easily available foolproof means to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis and theists will voluntarily give up believing in a God proven to be illusory.


It seems as though you believe that this project will confirm all of your ideas? IMV, the problem of “choice” remains. Why do you believe that theists will want to take part in such a project and how would you deal with theists who don't and would rather keep their beliefs? Also, when was God proven to be illusory, as a fact?
I am also optimistic because at present, the Eastern religions [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.] which are non-theistic are already doing that without any side effects of evil and violence.
Optimistic about what specifically? It seems that by your reasoning, theism is something that needs to be "cured".
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 5th, 2018, 5:49 am Spectrum:
There are those who are aware of the evil verses in the Quran.
But the majority cannot 'see' them due to confirmation bias, e.g. not seeing the 500 pound gorrilla in the room.

I think this is very speculative, because you're seemingly claiming to know the level of understanding of all, or the majority of Muslims – how could you know that?
Because I am doing a serious research on this topic, I have a responsibility to read as much as possible on whatever is related to the issues. Thus I have a reasonable database of knowledge to support my above points.

In my extensive coverage, we rarely hear of Muslims admitting there are evils and violent verses in the Quran. Where there are, these are 'needles in a haystack.' One example is from this Iman [controversial]. Click to 4:30 in this video;
I tried to find some others where I have heard before but it is so difficult to find those where Muslims admit their religion is inherently evil and violent.

I would argue that the majority of Muslims are aware that there are “evil” verses in the Koran, because they are easily interpreted as instructions which propagate harm to non-believers, such that I don't think there is another way they can be perceived. All I can say is that if these verses are not practised by the majority, it is because the majority of Muslims are aware that those verse are “evil” and therefore don't engage in them.

There are Muslims (those who harm others) who seemingly interpret those verses as being “right”, but the issue here is not IMV interpretation of those verses, rather the perspective / world view of the believer. I'm not sure how “confirmation bias” enters the picture, perhaps you could explain?
The majority of Muslims are influenced by 'confirmation bias' to be 'blinded' the Quran do not contain violent verses.
The main purpose of the majority of Muslims in being Muslim is for salvation purpose and it is deemed whatever God does is good ultimately.
Wiki wrote:Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
When a normal Muslim read the Quran, his/her attention is focused to look for statements that reinforced psychological security against angst. Their subconscious mind will drive them pass whatever elements in the Quran that are likely to be unpleasant.

Where evil and violent laden elements are brought to the attention of Muslims as in the case of debates and discussions, the strategy is generally to defend them as time-based historical, just-wars, justified violence, self-defense.

Legislation is the last resort.
In what context? Attacking the ideology of Islam? I don't think that the authorities would even consider creating legislation controlling people's beliefs and the state of Islamic based terrorist attacks is already a complete atrocity - we've reached "last resort" status a long time ago IMV. Wouldn't the authorities doing so contradict human rights legislation?
As I had stated when we have the precise knowledge and technology to understand the link between the existential angst and religion, and religion to atrocities, we will come up with methodologies to get rid of religions [especially Islam] on a fool proof and voluntary basis.

Legislation as the last resort would be on the propagation of lies [Islam is absolutely 100% a religion of peace] in contrast to the truths of Islam, i.e. that Islam in part is inherently evil.
Once this project has reached it advance stage [in 50, 75, 100 year??] it will be easily available for any individual to find out how their brain and which neurons are triggering them to be theistic and how the idea of God arose to deal with the existential crisis.
Then there will be easily available foolproof means to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis and theists will voluntarily give up believing in a God proven to be illusory.

It seems as though you believe that this project will confirm all of your ideas? IMV, the problem of “choice” remains. Why do you believe that theists will want to take part in such a project and how would you deal with theists who don't and would rather keep their beliefs?
Also, when was God proven to be illusory, as a fact?
Not the objective is to make the fool proof alternatives so obvious as taking aspirin to relieve pain. Then it will be adopted voluntarily.

Note this optical illusion;
Image
Optical illusions are one type of illusion of the senses and they can be easily proven to be illusion, e.g. in the above case, taking away the other divergent lines to expose the real straight lines.

The idea of God is an transcendental illusion of reasoning.
Such an illusion is not easy to expose but I have done that in various threads and posts.
I have given arguments from Kant.

Point is both illusions of the sense and reason are due to psychological factors. The idea of God which is illusory arose out of a psychological existential crisis.
I am also optimistic because at present, the Eastern religions [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.] which are non-theistic are already doing that without any side effects of evil and violence.
Optimistic about what specifically? It seems that by your reasoning, theism is something that needs to be "cured".
Note my reasoning,
  • 1. theistic religions [in part] = terrible evils, violence a potential critical threat to humanity in the future.
    2. The most serious theistic religion, i.e. is leveraged on immutable doctrines.
    3. theism-in-general provide very strong psychological support to the evil prone believers.

    4. non-theistic religions = no terrible evils, violence a potential critical thus not a threat to humanity in the future.
    5. theistic and non-theistic religions are driven by the same inherent existential crisis.
Therefore if we can wean off theistic religions and replace them with fool proof alternative to deal with the same existential crisis, there will be no terrible evils, violence a potential critical thus not a threat to humanity in the future.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
Because I am doing a serious research on this topic, I have a responsibility to read as much as possible on whatever is related to the issues. Thus I have a reasonable database of knowledge to support my above points.
No matter how much research you do, I don't think its possible to know the level of understanding of all Muslims. I don't think you can count upon statistical data to give you a complete picture in this case, and I don't think (I could be wrong) that there are any studies that would undertake such a task, as it is something which is very difficult or maybe even impossible to extrapolate, because its qualitative. Even if we were to subject all Muslims to some type of intelligence test there's no guarantee that the results could be the basis of a valid conclusion. IMV, there is no database of knowledge that can accurately inform us of the level of understanding of an entire religion of people. How would you objectively define what pertains to level of understanding?
The majority of Muslims are influenced by 'confirmation bias' to be 'blinded' the Quran do not contain violent verses.
The main purpose of the majority of Muslims in being Muslim is for salvation purpose and it is deemed whatever God does is good ultimately.
Without hearing directly from Muslims I wouldn't claim that they're committing confirmation bias. I understand that they perceive God as being good, but that interpretation and may be justified, in the sense that in Koran God claims to be good, and I'm guessing that many of the verses reinforce that view. So they aren't claiming that God does / is good purely of their own interpretation, but because "God" expressly claims to be good - they have scriptural references. If good things happen in Muslim's lives I expect that they attribute those things to God, which may be confirmation bias based upon their belief system, but I think that's debatable. Is “God did it” as according to what he says in the Koran, confirmation bias? I suppose that is a matter of perspective.
Where evil and violent laden elements are brought to the attention of Muslims as in the case of debates and discussions, the strategy is generally to defend them as time-based historical, just-wars, justified violence, self-defense.
Then how do you explain the majority of Muslims not acting on the verses in the Koran that propagate violence?
Not the objective is to make the fool proof alternatives so obvious as taking aspirin to relieve pain. Then it will be adopted voluntarily.
This is very problematic, and I'm surprised that you would say something like this. Not only does it encounter the problem of choice, it also requires the theist to recognise their theism as being something that is inherently wrong with them or something negative that requires "treatment". Ethically, I think that you're skating on thin ice here.
Optical illusions are one type of illusion of the senses and they can be easily proven to be illusion, e.g. in the above case, taking away the other divergent lines to expose the real straight lines.
I don't really see the correlation, what must be “taken away” to reveal that God is illusory?
The idea of God is an transcendental illusion of reasoning.
Such an illusion is not easy to expose but I have done that in various threads and posts.
I have given arguments from Kant.
To be clear, are you claiming to have proven that God is illusory, as a fact?
Point is both illusions of the sense and reason are due to psychological factors. The idea of God which is illusory arose out of a psychological existential crisis.
This point has been debated extensively, and I don't think that its possible to know precisely how and why religion originated, we can at best speculate. If that's what you want to believe then fine, you're entitled to, but in terms of falsifiability, you shouldn't say it as though it is a fact.
Note my reasoning,
1. theistic religions [in part] = terrible evils, violence a potential critical threat to humanity in the future.
2. The most serious theistic religion, i.e. is leveraged on immutable doctrines.
3. theism-in-general provide very strong psychological support to the evil prone believers.

4. non-theistic religions = no terrible evils, violence a potential critical thus not a threat to humanity in the future.
5. theistic and non-theistic religions are driven by the same inherent existential crisis.
What about the positive aspects of theism? Should we just ignore them as though there aren't any?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 6th, 2018, 7:40 am Spectrum:
Because I am doing a serious research on this topic, I have a responsibility to read as much as possible on whatever is related to the issues. Thus I have a reasonable database of knowledge to support my above points.
No matter how much research you do, I don't think its possible to know the level of understanding of all Muslims. I don't think you can count upon statistical data to give you a complete picture in this case, and I don't think (I could be wrong) that there are any studies that would undertake such a task, as it is something which is very difficult or maybe even impossible to extrapolate, because its qualitative. Even if we were to subject all Muslims to some type of intelligence test there's no guarantee that the results could be the basis of a valid conclusion. IMV, there is no database of knowledge that can accurately inform us of the level of understanding of an entire religion of people. How would you objectively define what pertains to level of understanding?
I agree, there is no way we can know the understanding of ALL Muslims.
I don't have actual objective data, so I have to agree what I stated is merely a hypothesis which is justified from empirical evidence and reasoning based on some generic patterns.

As for generic patterns, note the Normal Distribution Curve;
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =1&t=15378
I believe most of human variables when considered in a large population will conform to the pattern of the Normal Distribution. So far no one has given me any exceptions.
This will apply to the point I raised re 'confirmation bias.'
Note I am not claiming facts but what is most probable.
The majority of Muslims are influenced by 'confirmation bias' to be 'blinded' the Quran do not contain violent verses.
The main purpose of the majority of Muslims in being Muslim is for salvation purpose and it is deemed whatever God does is good ultimately.
Without hearing directly from Muslims I wouldn't claim that they're committing confirmation bias.
I understand that they perceive God as being good, but that interpretation and may be justified, in the sense that in Koran God claims to be good, and I'm guessing that many of the verses reinforce that view. So they aren't claiming that God does / is good purely of their own interpretation, but because "God" expressly claims to be good - they have scriptural references. If good things happen in Muslim's lives I expect that they attribute those things to God, which may be confirmation bias based upon their belief system, but I think that's debatable. Is “God did it” as according to what he says in the Koran, confirmation bias? I suppose that is a matter of perspective.
Here is one evidence directly from an ex-Muslim, once a famous Sunni Islam debater.
My education in Psychology from the University of Maryland and subsequent work in Mental Health guided me in a whole new direction in life. I realized that I was attached to my identity as derived from positive and spiritual experiences with Islam.
I realized too that I was a victim of what social psychologists call “confirmation bias,” where a person digs themselves deeper and deeper into their preconceived notions. I further realized what indoctrination, attachment, brainwashing and conditioning of the human psyche means, not just theoretically – when I actually observed it in society, it hit me like an epiphany. This state is precisely what confirmation bias looks like! It’s what indoctrination does! I saw it for what it was in human behavior. Upon introspection, contemplation, prayer, research, I could no longer hold back, and I publicly announced my apostasy from Islam. I should note that, prior to coming out publicly on Dr. Ali Sina’s Faith Freedom International website, I used to debate theology with Christian missionaries.
https://blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2015/02/02 ... n-qureshi/
He spoke the same in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65O2mAZ8CHQ

Note there are many other references, it is too tedious to hunt for them.

"Confirmation bias" is the defensiveness to defend one's beliefs to protect one's self-interests despite the facts and rationality. E.g. the Abrahamic theists are promised eternal life in Paradise, thus they must a bias to ensure this promise is intact regardless of the fact. If Allah sanction the killing of non-believers as good then they must insist it is good regardless of the universal values on this point.
Where evil and violent laden elements are brought to the attention of Muslims as in the case of debates and discussions, the strategy is generally to defend them as time-based historical, just-wars, justified violence, self-defense.
Then how do you explain the majority of Muslims not acting on the verses in the Koran that propagate violence?
Why the majority do not act of the violent verse [if when they are aware it is evil] is because of their inherent human nature of having a reasonable active 'good' tendencies.
Not the objective is to make the fool proof alternatives so obvious as taking aspirin to relieve pain. Then it will be adopted voluntarily.
This is very problematic, and I'm surprised that you would say something like this. Not only does it encounter the problem of choice, it also requires the theist to recognise their theism as being something that is inherently wrong with them or something negative that requires "treatment". Ethically, I think that you're skating on thin ice here.
You are conflating the present with the future.
Point is by the time in the future, theists would have progressively acquired more knowledge [neuroscience, psychology, etc.] about themselves on why they are theists in the first place. Their level of wisdom would have also increased.
So there will be a smooth transition for them to shift from theism to non-theism with an effective fool proof method to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Optical illusions are one type of illusion of the senses and they can be easily proven to be illusion, e.g. in the above case, taking away the other divergent lines to expose the real straight lines.
I don't really see the correlation, what must be “taken away” to reveal that God is illusory?
The 'taken away' is two prong; the explanation of the transcendental illusion will be based directly on higher refined philosophical reasoning.
In addition, in the future [when the connectome project and other knowledge is advanced] theists will be able to do repeatable self-tests and link their own experiences of dread and despair to the idea of God.
The idea of God is an transcendental illusion of reasoning.
Such an illusion is not easy to expose but I have done that in various threads and posts.
I have given arguments from Kant.
To be clear, are you claiming to have proven that God is illusory, as a fact?
It is not a fact per se.
The idea of God arose from crude reason, the solution to counter it is to use higher and more refined philosophical reasonings.
Point is both illusions of the sense and reason are due to psychological factors. The idea of God which is illusory arose out of a psychological existential crisis.
This point has been debated extensively, and I don't think that its possible to know precisely how and why religion originated, we can at best speculate. If that's what you want to believe then fine, you're entitled to, but in terms of falsifiability, you shouldn't say it as though it is a fact.
As I had in the future it is not merely a question of debate [reasoning and logic] but one can do one's own self-tests to confirm the point.
Note my reasoning,
1. theistic religions [in part] = terrible evils, violence a potential critical threat to humanity in the future.
2. The most serious theistic religion, i.e. is leveraged on immutable doctrines.
3. theism-in-general provide very strong psychological support to the evil prone believers.

4. non-theistic religions = no terrible evils, violence a potential critical thus not a threat to humanity in the future.
5. theistic and non-theistic religions are driven by the same inherent existential crisis.
What about the positive aspects of theism? Should we just ignore them as though there aren't any?
I have NOT denied nor ignored the positives from religion.
Note my signature below in anticipation of your question - religion is a critical necessity for the majority at the present. At present there is a net-pro over cons but I believe [as justified elsewhere] the trend is the cons are outweighing the pros towards the future.

Note his trend;

Image

which is critical since there is also a trend of the increasing easy availability of nukes and the Islamists has a lot of oil money. Also note despite the preventive measure, North Korea managed to slip through to be a nuclear nation. There is also a widening black market to get cheap WMDs.
The cocking of the trigger is Islamists are in a win-win position because MAD will not deter them as even if the Earth is destroyed totally, ultimately they will end up in paradise with eternal life [for some with 72 virgins].
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
I agree, there is no way we can know the understanding of ALL Muslims.
I don't have actual objective data, so I have to agree what I stated is merely a hypothesis which is justified from empirical evidence and reasoning based on some generic patterns.
I'm not saying this just because we agree, but that is reasonable. I don't think that you're entirely wrong, because there are verses in the Koran that propagate violence, and some Muslims do act on those verses - therefore the ideology is a dangerous problem. More so, when considered how sensitive Muslims are when they perceive an offence towards their ideology. I think that the generic patterns within Islam are the best means of extrapolating the trends, and statistical evidence is the best information available from which to base your ideas. I think there is some veracity in your ideas re Islam, but I don't agree with the entire picture which you present.
Here is one evidence directly from an ex-Muslim, once a famous Sunni Islam debater.
That's fair enough and supports your point sufficiently IMO. From my perspective, I think that theists are vulnerable to confirmation bias, because they relate events in their lives (spiritual and secular) to being the agency of the God they believe in. Which can have the effect of further reinforcing their belief in scriptures. From the theist's perspective, the agency of God in their lives is a fact and a confirmation that the scriptures are an accurate representation of reality. From our position of scepticism and non-belief we perceive this as "confirmation bias". Being on the fence, I am inclined to think that it is a form of confirmation bias, but I feel there is the remote possibility that theists thinking (purely in the respect of agency) may not be as irrational as sceptics and non-believers would posit.
"Confirmation bias" is the defensiveness to defend one's beliefs to protect one's self-interests despite the facts and rationality. E.g. the Abrahamic theists are promised eternal life in Paradise, thus they must a bias to ensure this promise is intact regardless of the fact. If Allah sanction the killing of non-believers as good then they must insist it is good regardless of the universal values on this point.
I think that the religious take on a responsibility to both maintain their faith and do as their God instructs is "right", and I've observed that they will generally do so despite there being no empirical evidence of God actually existing, because they believe that God is a spiritual entity and that they'll be rewarded for doing so. As much as people as explicitly claim to believe in God, I think that everyone has their doubts, so they may implicitly feel that certain verses of the Koran are wrong or evil, but they may not express that view openly. I agree that believers may have a bias which causes them to believe that the actions of their God are right, regardless of how wrong they may seem to others who don't believe. In such a case of going to the extent harming non-believers, I think we can call such people irrational and the verses they rely on to commit harm as being extremely dangerous. Hence I think that you have a point for weaning off religions.
Why the majority do not act of the violent verse [if when they are aware it is evil] is because of their inherent human nature of having a reasonable active 'good' tendencies.
I agree that is one of the reasons. There could be others, they may want to act on those verses (because they are the instructions of their God), but they fear the repercussions of any such actions. I think this point must be difficult to ethically reconcile for Muslims in that, if their God is “all good” why are there verses which propagate harm? If they don't follow these verses, will they lose their reward of eternal life? Will Allah reject them if they don't adhere to all of his instructions? Its an interesting point.
You are conflating the present with the future.
Point is by the time in the future, theists would have progressively acquired more knowledge [neuroscience, psychology, etc.] about themselves on why they are theists in the first place. Their level of wisdom would have also increased.
So there will be a smooth transition for them to shift from theism to non-theism with an effective fool proof method to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
I see your point, but I don't think I can conflate the present with the future? The future has yet to be realised and your hypothesis is a predicted future, so I can disagree with it based upon the way things currently are. I agree that knowledge will obviously increase exponentially in 100 or so years, but there is no guarantee that the grounds for theism will decrease, bar some huge scientific finding(s). At the moment theism is thriving, is there anything to suggest that it will decline to the point where it completely disappears?
The 'taken away' is two prong; the explanation of the transcendental illusion will be based directly on higher refined philosophical reasoning.
In addition, in the future [when the connectome project and other knowledge is advanced] theists will be able to do repeatable self-tests and link their own experiences of dread and despair to the idea of God.
I think that theists are capable of “higher refined philosophical reasoning” and they believe that God exists, one need not preclude the other. I don't know if knowledge will develop in such a way that it refutes the existence of God. Philosophers of the past may have thought along the same lines, that in a 100 or so years belief in God would be outmoded, yet theism remains, because no one has been able to show beyond doubt that God is a transcendental illusion. I think there is more to theism than "dread and despair", it is a system which has many facets and aspects. In order for theism to disappear, the whole system would have to be deconstructed. Even if you could isolate the root cause it would be difficult / problematic to apply the “perfect science” which collapses the entire system. What if each facet has it's own root system? Perhaps the only way theism will end, is if it proven that God does not exist, as all the facets and aspects of theism are dependant upon the existence of God.
I have NOT denied nor ignored the positives from religion.
Note my signature below in anticipation of your question - religion is a critical necessity for the majority at the present. At present there is a net-pro over cons but I believe [as justified elsewhere] the trend is the cons are outweighing the pros towards the future.


I agree that there are pros and cons with religion. I don't know if the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, but the Islamic terrorist acts are unacceptable. There's a decent point that If religion is a cause of terrible evil then it should be weaned off, but then we would also lose the good that it does. Yes, that good could be done through secular vehicles, but so could the evil. Perhaps the problem of the human condition is more pertinent than the problem of the religion itself? If we remove the vehicle used for evil we still have immoral people who want to commit harm to others, surely such people will just find another way to harm others?
which is critical since there is also a trend of the increasing easy availability of nukes and the Islamists has a lot of oil money. Also note despite the preventive measure, North Korea managed to slip through to be a nuclear nation. There is also a widening black market to get cheap WMDs.
The cocking of the trigger is Islamists are in a win-win position because MAD will not deter them as even if the Earth is destroyed totally, ultimately they will end up in paradise with eternal life [for some with 72 virgins].
I don't think that Islamic terrorists want the world to be destroyed. They seem to want the world to conform to their ideology. If their mission was to destroy the world and they had easy access to nukes, they may have launched them already.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:39 am Spectrum:
I agree, there is no way we can know the understanding of ALL Muslims.
I don't have actual objective data, so I have to agree what I stated is merely a hypothesis which is justified from empirical evidence and reasoning based on some generic patterns.
I'm not saying this just because we agree, but that is reasonable. I don't think that you're entirely wrong, because there are verses in the Koran that propagate violence, and some Muslims do act on those verses - therefore the ideology is a dangerous problem. More so, when considered how sensitive Muslims are when they perceive an offence towards their ideology. I think that the generic patterns within Islam are the best means of extrapolating the trends, and statistical evidence is the best information available from which to base your ideas. I think there is some veracity in your ideas re Islam, but I don't agree with the entire picture which you present.
Here is one evidence directly from an ex-Muslim, once a famous Sunni Islam debater.
That's fair enough and supports your point sufficiently IMO. From my perspective, I think that theists are vulnerable to confirmation bias, because they relate events in their lives (spiritual and secular) to being the agency of the God they believe in. Which can have the effect of further reinforcing their belief in scriptures. From the theist's perspective, the agency of God in their lives is a fact and a confirmation that the scriptures are an accurate representation of reality. From our position of scepticism and non-belief we perceive this as "confirmation bias". Being on the fence, I am inclined to think that it is a form of confirmation bias, but I feel there is the remote possibility that theists thinking (purely in the respect of agency) may not be as irrational as sceptics and non-believers would posit.
"Confirmation bias" is the defensiveness to defend one's beliefs to protect one's self-interests despite the facts and rationality. E.g. the Abrahamic theists are promised eternal life in Paradise, thus they must a bias to ensure this promise is intact regardless of the fact. If Allah sanction the killing of non-believers as good then they must insist it is good regardless of the universal values on this point.
I think that the religious take on a responsibility to both maintain their faith and do as their God instructs is "right", and I've observed that they will generally do so despite there being no empirical evidence of God actually existing, because they believe that God is a spiritual entity and that they'll be rewarded for doing so. As much as people as explicitly claim to believe in God, I think that everyone has their doubts, so they may implicitly feel that certain verses of the Koran are wrong or evil, but they may not express that view openly. I agree that believers may have a bias which causes them to believe that the actions of their God are right, regardless of how wrong they may seem to others who don't believe. In such a case of going to the extent harming non-believers, I think we can call such people irrational and the verses they rely on to commit harm as being extremely dangerous. Hence I think that you have a point for weaning off religions.
Why the majority do not act of the violent verse [if when they are aware it is evil] is because of their inherent human nature of having a reasonable active 'good' tendencies.
I agree that is one of the reasons. There could be others, they may want to act on those verses (because they are the instructions of their God), but they fear the repercussions of any such actions. I think this point must be difficult to ethically reconcile for Muslims in that, if their God is “all good” why are there verses which propagate harm? If they don't follow these verses, will they lose their reward of eternal life? Will Allah reject them if they don't adhere to all of his instructions? Its an interesting point.
I agree with your points above.
I see your point, but I don't think I can conflate the present with the future? The future has yet to be realised and your hypothesis is a predicted future, so I can disagree with it based upon the way things currently are.
I agree that knowledge will obviously increase exponentially in 100 or so years, but there is no guarantee that the grounds for theism will decrease, bar some huge scientific finding(s). At the moment theism is thriving, is there anything to suggest that it will decline to the point where it completely disappears?
I meant you conflate in thoughts not physically [obviously impossible].

If you review the evolution of religion and theism anthropologically since humankind first emerged, there is trend in the practices [human sacrifice to meditation] and idea-of-God [bearded man in the sky to the ontological God].

I have produced charts to show evidence there is a downtrend in religiosity within the USA and it is observable elsewhere as well.Meanwhile there is an uptrend is non-theism and non-theists.

Why I am so optimistic is the progressing Human Connectome Project,
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
to map all the neural connections to their activities in the brain.

Besides we already have non-theistic approaches [with no evil baggage] to deal with the same critical existential crisis that theistic religions are desperately addressing.

There are already tons of research in neurosciences on the link between the brain and religion.
e.g. http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
The 'taken away' is two prong; the explanation of the transcendental illusion will be based directly on higher refined philosophical reasoning.
In addition, in the future [when the connectome project and other knowledge is advanced] theists will be able to do repeatable self-tests and link their own experiences of dread and despair to the idea of God.
I think that theists are capable of “higher refined philosophical reasoning” and they believe that God exists, one need not preclude the other. I don't know if knowledge will develop in such a way that it refutes the existence of God. Philosophers of the past may have thought along the same lines, that in a 100 or so years belief in God would be outmoded, yet theism remains, because no one has been able to show beyond doubt that God is a transcendental illusion.
I think there is more to theism than "dread and despair", it is a system which has many facets and aspects. In order for theism to disappear, the whole system would have to be deconstructed. Even if you could isolate the root cause it would be difficult / problematic to apply the “perfect science” which collapses the entire system. What if each facet has it's own root system? Perhaps the only way theism will end, is if it proven that God does not exist, as all the facets and aspects of theism are dependant upon the existence of God.
In this case one cannot rely on the past trend because there is no trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge like we have in the last 30 years involving mainly, genomics, neurosciences, information technology and others. So we can expect a very significant paradigm shift from the past and a big jump in the graph.

It is not belief in God that is the most critical, but its root cause, i.e. the existential crisis which is a very complex subject. Once we can trace this to their respective neurons then we can come up with techniques to modulate them efficiently.
I have NOT denied nor ignored the positives from religion.
Note my signature below in anticipation of your question - religion is a critical necessity for the majority at the present. At present there is a net-pro over cons but I believe [as justified elsewhere] the trend is the cons are outweighing the pros towards the future.

I agree that there are pros and cons with religion. I don't know if the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, but the Islamic terrorist acts are unacceptable. There's a decent point that If religion is a cause of terrible evil then it should be weaned off, but then we would also lose the good that it does. Yes, that good could be done through secular vehicles, but so could the evil. Perhaps the problem of the human condition is more pertinent than the problem of the religion itself? If we remove the vehicle used for evil we still have immoral people who want to commit harm to others, surely such people will just find another way to harm others?
It is quite obvious the pros [mainly existential] is outweighing the cons because the majority are still theistic despite the increasing trend in rationality, knowledge and technology, plus the very significant evils and violence committed in the name of God by SOME theists.

The trend of the cons of religions are outweighing the pros are indicated by the various charts of the downtrend of religiosity, the increasing threat of evils and violence from SOME theists to the potential of exterminating the human species.
which is critical since there is also a trend of the increasing easy availability of nukes and the Islamists has a lot of oil money. Also note despite the preventive measure, North Korea managed to slip through to be a nuclear nation. There is also a widening black market to get cheap WMDs.
The cocking of the trigger is Islamists are in a win-win position because MAD will not deter them as even if the Earth is destroyed totally, ultimately they will end up in paradise with eternal life [for some with 72 virgins].
I don't think that Islamic terrorists want the world to be destroyed. They seem to want the world to conform to their ideology. If their mission was to destroy the world and they had easy access to nukes, they may have launched them already.
It is likely the Islamist terrorists do not set out to destroy the World.
Note how easily they could form a State and operated it efficiently in Iraq-Syria. This is because the masterplan is already in their ethos.
This time around when they were cornered into destruction they ran when overpowered.
But this time they don't have nukes yet.

But next time round [avoiding past mistakes and plan more carefully], they are likely to have nukes more easily - given the advancement in technology and knowledge.
They may not deliberately use the nukes but when they are cornered again the next time and if they have the nukes, they will likely to launch them given they believed they are in a win-win position.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
I meant you conflate in thoughts not physically [obviously impossible].
No worries, I understood your point, perhaps there was a conflation on my part. I was considering the future from the perspective of what is occurring in the present. I don't see the huge paradigm shift occurring that you do with religion. Perhaps something along those lines will occur in the very distant future, but in the next 100 years or so, I don't think anything will occur that causes the total decline of religion. I could of course be wrong though.
If you review the evolution of religion and theism anthropologically since humankind first emerged, there is trend in the practices [human sacrifice to meditation] and idea-of-God [bearded man in the sky to the ontological God].
Good point, I don't doubt that the idea and conceptions of God or gods has evolved over time, there's plenty of evidence which supports that view. But I think that trying to find causation within evolution of God or gods is difficult. We can justifiably claim that God or gods have changed to suit the zeitgeist, but postulating specific psychological causes for why God arose requires actual insight into the minds of people throughout the different periods of time. Since we cannot obtain that – I think the best we can do is to make educated guesses, based upon what remains of those time periods. Postulating a constant theme within the human psyche (existential angst/crisis) is so generic that it equates to a regular bodily function as a cause for belief in God. Reasons for belief in God could be much more complex than that. Everybody experiences existential angst/crisis, but not everyone believes in God for the same reason.
I have produced charts to show evidence there is a downtrend in religiosity within the USA and it is observable elsewhere as well. Meanwhile there is an uptrend is non-theism and non-theists.
But is the downtrend significant enough to suggest that theism will eventually disappear world-wide?
In this case one cannot rely on the past trend because there is no trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge like we have in the last 30 years involving mainly, genomics, neurosciences, information technology and others. So we can expect a very significant paradigm shift from the past and a big jump in the graph.
Maybe, but how do we know that an expansion in knowledge will have implications for religiosity?
It is not belief in God that is the most critical, but its root cause, i.e. the existential crisis which is a very complex subject. Once we can trace this to their respective neurons then we can come up with techniques to modulate them efficiently.
I disagree with you on this point, I think that belief in God in the most important aspect of any theistic religion; because they are all necessarily contingent upon the claimed existence of God. Without God, there is simply no grounds for theism. I think that existential crisis can be a cause of theistic beliefs, but religions are not contingent upon existential crisis IMO. Religions may rely on people's existential crisis in terms of people having a cause to be religious amongst other causes, but God is the veritable oxygen of religion.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 8th, 2018, 1:56 am Spectrum:
I meant you conflate in thoughts not physically [obviously impossible].
No worries, I understood your point, perhaps there was a conflation on my part. I was considering the future from the perspective of what is occurring in the present. I don't see the huge paradigm shift occurring that you do with religion. Perhaps something along those lines will occur in the very distant future, but in the next 100 years or so, I don't think anything will occur that causes the total decline of religion. I could of course be wrong though.
Perhaps not 100% but a critical say 90% which is sufficient to defang religions especially the evil laden ones.

The fortunate part is religions and theism are based on ideologies, beliefs and faith which are in one way can be very fluid once the base is loosen up. Note what happened to Nazism, chattel slavery, Soviet Union, East Berlin, Communism [eroding], etc. which changed drastically almost immediately once a critical mass is achieved.

Religions and theism are much harder because it is leveraged deep in the brain, but once we weakened its foundation, it will slip off very fast like the above ideologies. I am optimistic we can soften their foundation based on reasons expounded earlier.
If you review the evolution of religion and theism anthropologically since humankind first emerged, there is trend in the practices [human sacrifice to meditation] and idea-of-God [bearded man in the sky to the ontological God].
Good point, I don't doubt that the idea and conceptions of God or gods has evolved over time, there's plenty of evidence which supports that view.
But I think that trying to find causation within evolution of God or gods is difficult. We can justifiably claim that God or gods have changed to suit the zeitgeist, but postulating specific psychological causes for why God arose requires actual insight into the minds of people throughout the different periods of time. Since we cannot obtain that – I think the best we can do is to make educated guesses, based upon what remains of those time periods. Postulating a constant theme within the human psyche (existential angst/crisis) is so generic that it equates to a regular bodily function as a cause for belief in God. Reasons for belief in God could be much more complex than that. Everybody experiences existential angst/crisis, but not everyone believes in God for the same reason.
There is a trend in the evolution of the idea of God from the very cruel God who demand human sacrifice to the bearded man in the sky to the ontological God.
This can be correlated to the impulse controls i.e. activation of inhibitors in our brain to shift focus from the lower instinctual brain to the emotional brain to the higher cortical and wisdom brain. There are lots of research in these areas which we can use to match the above correlation to come up with a reasonable hypothesis.

My primarily basis of religion and theism is the existential crisis. I have not gone into the details of the extensive research I have done in this area. The term 'existential crisis' is merely a crude term, I have used terms like existential dilemma, cognitive dissonance, zombie parasite :shock: , etc. but the truth and mechanisms are very complex.
I have produced charts to show evidence there is a downtrend in religiosity within the USA and it is observable elsewhere as well. Meanwhile there is an uptrend is non-theism and non-theists.
But is the downtrend significant enough to suggest that theism will eventually disappear world-wide?
I believe we already have the necessary resources but merely to expedite certain processes like the Human Connectome Project.
As I had stated once we reach a certain critical mass the whole 'mountain of it' will slide off.
In this case one cannot rely on the past trend because there is no trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge like we have in the last 30 years involving mainly, genomics, neurosciences, information technology and others. So we can expect a very significant paradigm shift from the past and a big jump in the graph.
Maybe, but how do we know that an expansion in knowledge will have implications for religiosity?
What is critical here is humanity must establish alternative fool proof methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Once we have that and with the relevant knowledge all one need is just to step over.
It is not belief in God that is the most critical, but its root cause, i.e. the existential crisis which is a very complex subject. Once we can trace this to their respective neurons then we can come up with techniques to modulate them efficiently.
I disagree with you on this point, I think that belief in God in the most important aspect of any theistic religion; because they are all necessarily contingent upon the claimed existence of God. Without God, there is simply no grounds for theism. I think that existential crisis can be a cause of theistic beliefs, but religions are not contingent upon existential crisis IMO. Religions may rely on people's existential crisis in terms of people having a cause to be religious amongst other causes, but God is the veritable oxygen of religion.
As I had stated, my view is the existential crisis is fundamental that drive the majority to believe in a God to deal with the related angst.

Note the basic sexual drive in human is responsible to drive all form of sexuality and its related behavior.
Then there is the hunger drive that is responsible for all things related to food.
The existential drive [re existential crisis] is more fundamental than the sexual and hunger drives, that is why religious impulses/desperation can override sexual and hunger impulses.

Whatever things you can linked to religions and theism they are at most secondary to the existential crisis factor.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
Whatever things you can linked to religions and theism they are at most secondary to the existential crisis factor.
There cannot be theistic religions without a deity, we know this a priori. Therefore it follows that “God” is the essential element for the existence of theistic religions. With or without the including the factor of existential crisis, I think that people would still believe in God, because there are other reasons why people believe in God. Whether people's reasons for belief are “primary” or “secondary” (a distinction I don't believe exists) is not so important IMV, because the result of belief is the same – reverence of a deity and adherence to a religious ideology.

You seem to think that if the factor existential crisis is removed from the equation of belief, theism will eventually disappear, but if there are other reasons for believing in God, those other reasons will cause people to believe in God regardless of whether there is existential crisis or not. In order to weaken the grounds of religion, we'd have to be able to demonstrate that every reason for belief in God is not valid, but because it cannot be proven beyond doubt that God doesn't exist – that task is... Problematic.

I don't see a reason why existential crisis is a “deeper-rooted” cause for belief in God than any other reason for belief, how would you measure “specific psychological depth”, so as to certainly claim one reason is "deeper" than another? Unless you can provide valid reasons for why “primary” and “secondary” reasons for belief exist, I think that you may be postulating an invalid stratification.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 8th, 2018, 5:36 pm Spectrum:
Whatever things you can linked to religions and theism they are at most secondary to the existential crisis factor.
There cannot be theistic religions without a deity, we know this a priori. Therefore it follows that “God” is the essential element for the existence of theistic religions. With or without the including the factor of existential crisis, I think that people would still believe in God, because there are other reasons why people believe in God. Whether people's reasons for belief are “primary” or “secondary” (a distinction I don't believe exists) is not so important IMV, because the result of belief is the same – reverence of a deity and adherence to a religious ideology.

You seem to think that if the factor existential crisis is removed from the equation of belief, theism will eventually disappear, but if there are other reasons for believing in God, those other reasons will cause people to believe in God regardless of whether there is existential crisis or not. In order to weaken the grounds of religion, we'd have to be able to demonstrate that every reason for belief in God is not valid, but because it cannot be proven beyond doubt that God doesn't exist – that task is... Problematic.

I don't see a reason why existential crisis is a “deeper-rooted” cause for belief in God than any other reason for belief, how would you measure “specific psychological depth”, so as to certainly claim one reason is "deeper" than another? Unless you can provide valid reasons for why “primary” and “secondary” reasons for belief exist, I think that you may be postulating an invalid stratification.
I believe there are various perspective to consider on this, i.e.
  • 1. Mainstream and non-mainstream theistic religions
    2. Theistic - God of absolute perfection -ontological God or an empirical-based deity - monkey god.
    3. Whether one is born into the religion or converted to the religion.
I assume in this case, most of the theists will have a reasonable average standard of rational and critical thinking, if not now, then some time in the future.

If you review the mainstream non-theistic religions are centered on the idea of an ontological God, i.e. Abrahamic + Hinduism = 5.5/6.5 [appx] billion theists.

It is very noticeable the focus of religion in general on mortality [even non-theistic ones] and for the theistic ones it is the afterlife.
In all funerals re theistic religions I have attended or heard, the pastor or priest will state the deceased is in heaven [say add - looking down] or in another higher form of entity.
So I can inferred very strongly the main reason 'why theism?' is because of the existential crisis in various forms and degrees of it manifestations.
Note there are various sources of knowledge to support this point.

One critical point is theism provide an immediate relieve for the existential angst for the majority. Believe and viola! one is saved.

Thus I can bet 100% of those who converted into theism in the face of an existential threat [e.g. terminal illness, and the likes] are likely to be due to existential reasons.

It is also understood many are born into the religion.
The point is if they deliberately choose to stay within the theistic religion and have a propensity to stick to or promote it, it is because of their existential impulses.

You may say there is a social reason why people are theists.
The social factor cannot be a critical factor because there are so many avenues for one be a member of a group for social reasons.
There are many religious groups who present a social front where people can join to have fun, games, socializing, etc. but the ulterior motive is to trigger the existential impulse so some members can be serious religious members.

You may say there is a political reason.
It is true there are political elements within Islam, but note the default religions and politics should never be mixed.
In the past many exploited and established theistic religions for political reason, but while the political factor disappeared the religion still remain, e.g. Islam, The protestants of England, etc.

Can you list what other reasons for people to be theist other than for the soteriological-salvation purpose?
In addition give me as estimate rating for each reason.
I would rate the soteriological-salvation purpose at 90% while the others are 10%.
I don't see a reason why existential crisis is a “deeper-rooted” cause for belief in God than any other reason for belief, how would you measure “specific psychological depth”, so as to certainly claim one reason is "deeper" than another? Unless you can provide valid reasons for why “primary” and “secondary” reasons for belief exist, I think that you may be postulating an invalid stratification.
For anything that is related to an existential threat the human system generate the most strongest primal impulse to ensure the person survives.

1. Real Physical threat
I am sure you will know what a drowning person will do instinctually to save him/herself or what anyone under a life threatening situation will do to save oneself. At the point of a critical existential threat, many will be like animals rather than being human.

2. Perceived existential threat
The above relate to real existential threats which will trigger the primal responses, fight or flight, kill or be killed, but a perceived [actually non-existent] existential threat can also trigger the same animal responses. There are many killings by those who wrong perceived an existential threat.

3. Certainty of Mortality
With 1 [real] and 2 [perceived] above the human system will generate to the extreme of primal & animal responses. Now what do you think the dominant subconscious mind will react when it is aware of the certain 'threat' of 100% mortality when the time is not due yet? This is the starting point of the complexity of the existential crisis that lead the majority to theism to deal with the crisis.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
One critical point is theism provide an immediate relieve for the existential angst for the majority. Believe and viola! one is saved.
I agree with you in principle. I think the synthesis between the believer and the religious texts / ideology is more complex than you give credit and covers more than just salvation. I don't think that religion "cures" existential angst, but I think you are right in saying that it does relieve it to a degree - fundamentally because it claims by way of the "ultimate authority" that death is not the end of existence.
It is also understood many are born into the religion.
The point is if they deliberately choose to stay within the theistic religion and have a propensity to stick to or promote it, it is because of their existential impulses.
How do know that?
You may say there is a social reason why people are theists.
The social factor cannot be a critical factor because there are so many avenues for one be a member of a group for social reasons.
There are many religious groups who present a social front where people can join to have fun, games, socializing, etc. but the ulterior motive is to trigger the existential impulse so some members can be serious religious members.
What do you mean by your use of the term “critical” in this context? Why do you think one stipulation is a critical factor and another is not?
Can you list what other reasons for people to be theist other than for the soteriological-salvation purpose?
In addition give me as estimate rating for each reason.
I would rate the soteriological-salvation purpose at 90% while the others are 10%.
I'm not going to create a list and create percentages, that's too arbitrary for my tastes, but one reason why people may believe in God is teleology. They may believe that the things which exists (in nature) were created to serve the purpose / have the effect that they do, and that there's a form of universal agency - I think that many theists may reason in such a way. Another may be something that you're familiar with – the ontological argument. I don't really see how you can reduce either of those two theories to existential angst / crisis, because teleology is based upon observation and interpretation and the ontological argument is based upon the reasoning of a “greatest” or “most-high” being.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 9th, 2018, 4:59 pm Spectrum:
One critical point is theism provide an immediate relieve for the existential angst for the majority. Believe and viola! one is saved.
I agree with you in principle. I think the synthesis between the believer and the religious texts / ideology is more complex than you give credit and covers more than just salvation. I don't think that religion "cures" existential angst, but I think you are right in saying that it does relieve it to a degree - fundamentally because it claims by way of the "ultimate authority" that death is not the end of existence.
I have mentioned before.
If you research deeply into ALL religions, i.e. both theistic and non-theistic the central theme that is common to both is the existential crisis, i.e. the question of mortality.
Note for example, reincarnation [re afterlife] in Hinduism and the other manifestation of the religion, the priests, the temples, the caste system, are secondary. Same with Buddhism [the Buddha Story re old age, illness, corpse-death].
It is also understood many are born into the religion.
The point is if they deliberately choose to stay within the theistic religion and have a propensity to stick to or promote it, it is because of their existential impulses.
How do know that?
I infer the above from the central theme of all religions, i.e. the existential crisis and the question of mortality - see above.
You may say there is a social reason why people are theists.
The social factor cannot be a critical factor because there are so many avenues for one be a member of a group for social reasons.
There are many religious groups who present a social front where people can join to have fun, games, socializing, etc. but the ulterior motive is to trigger the existential impulse so some members can be serious religious members.
What do you mean by your use of the term “critical” in this context? Why do you think one stipulation is a critical factor and another is not?
Note my points above.
If it is not for the critical existential crisis, religions will not be the way it is. The temples and churches and their side buildings that are used for ceremonies, meeting places and as dance halls are not for there primary as social centers but rather the main reasons why they are there is directed at the existential crisis.
Can you list what other reasons for people to be theist other than for the soteriological-salvation purpose?
In addition give me as estimate rating for each reason.
I would rate the soteriological-salvation purpose at 90% while the others are 10%.
I'm not going to create a list and create percentages, that's too arbitrary for my tastes, but one reason why people may believe in God is teleology. They may believe that the things which exists (in nature) were created to serve the purpose / have the effect that they do, and that there's a form of universal agency - I think that many theists may reason in such a way.
Another may be something that you're familiar with – the ontological argument.
I don't really see how you can reduce either of those two theories to existential angst / crisis, because teleology is based upon observation and interpretation and the ontological argument is based upon the reasoning of a “greatest” or “most-high” being.
Even if you do not provide % whatever reasons you list, the existential factor will be very glaring and the most significant.

Ontological - YES.
To be confident one will be saved with an eternal life in heaven [related existential crisis], one has to ensure with the maximum confidence level the God they believed is the greatest than which no greater can exists.
It is very typical for theists-A to condemn the god of another belief [theist-B] as inferior to their God. Theists-A will insist theists-B will go to Hell because their God is an inferior god.
To get 100% assurance, all theists will end up with the ontological God than which no greater can exists.

Teleology
This is the belief all things are created by God for God's purpose which God only knows.
So the purpose humans were created is to serves God's purpose to believe in God so that they can securely end up in heaven with eternal life [surely not Hell] thus this is reduced to the existential crisis.

What I noted in every proselytizing approach by Christians or Muslims, the central theme explicit and implicitly targeted at the "victim" is 'are you saved' which is used to trigger, invoke and highlight the existential crisis within the 'victim'. This is most effective with vulnerable teenagers and those grieving at funerals.

Give me any others and I will reduce it to the existential crisis, if not it will be a secondary purpose.

For the various reasons of being a theist one can groups them into the following;
  • 1. Social
    2. Culture
    3. Politics
    4. Economics
    5. Pychology
    6. What else?
If you dig deep enough the proximate cause of theism is psychological down to the existential crisis.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
I have mentioned before.
If you research deeply into ALL religions, i.e. both theistic and non-theistic the central theme that is common to both is the existential crisis, i.e. the question of mortality.
Note for example, reincarnation [re afterlife] in Hinduism and the other manifestation of the religion, the priests, the temples, the caste system, are secondary. Same with Buddhism [the Buddha Story re old age, illness, corpse-death].
We've discussed this previously. What I perceive as one of the main themes of all religions is expressly “how best to live” which you thought was too general. I don't agree that the "central theme" of all religions is existential crisis or even that all religions have a central theme - that is your interpretation. I don't believe that you can see that "how best to live" is too general, and not see that how you're applying "existential crisis" is too general. No one is that blinkered by their own views. If all theistic religions have a central theme, surely it is their postulated deities.
I infer the above from the central theme of all religions, i.e. the existential crisis and the question of mortality - see above.


So you're using a general observation (existential crisis) to make a specific claim - without considering that there could be alternative reasons? Surely that is confirmation bias? How do you know that you've inferred correctly, if you've only done so using your own observations? If you haven't “asked” the theist for their reasons, why are you assuming what the cause is?
Note my points above.
If it is not for the critical existential crisis, religions will not be the way it is. The temples and churches and their side buildings that are used for ceremonies, meeting places and as dance halls are not for there primary as social centers but rather the main reasons why they are there is directed at the existential crisis.
This is deeply arbitrary. I think that your application of existential crisis is too generic. You're attributing every religious action to existential crisis, which amounts to a generalisation, and perhaps a hasty one at that. I don't think that you (or anyone) possesses the knowledge to make the kind of claims that you're making, which is why they are very questionable.
Even if you do not provide % whatever reasons you list, the existential factor will be very glaring and the most significant.
In your opinion.
Ontological - YES.
To be confident one will be saved with an eternal life in heaven [related existential crisis], one has to ensure with the maximum confidence level the God they believed is the greatest than which no greater can exists.
It is very typical for theists-A to condemn the god of another belief [theist-B] as inferior to their God. Theists-A will insist theists-B will go to Hell because their God is an inferior god.
To get 100% assurance, all theists will end up with the ontological God than which no greater can exists.
This strikes me as 100% opinion. I think you present a bias perspective of the theistic perspective here, which is inferred completely by your world view and your need to be right about existential crisis. Where is the objectivity?
Teleology
This is the belief all things are created by God for God's purpose which God only knows.
So the purpose humans were created is to serves God's purpose to believe in God so that they can securely end up in heaven with eternal life [surely not Hell] thus this is reduced to the existential crisis.
I don't think that your definition of teleology is correct...

Teleology: “The explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.”

Again what you say here is very opinionated. I didn't find anything regarding teleology claiming “God's purpose” or “God only knows” or that “the purpose of humans is to serve God”, you may be conflating different religious perspectives here? Regardless, IMV your reduction here is not correct, and you're not only reducing, but also over simplifying.
Give me any others and I will reduce it to the existential crisis, if not it will be a secondary purpose.
Not correctly. I don't think there is an objective measurement for belief which makes a distinction between primary and secondary reasons. If there isn't there is probably a valid reason for that.
If you dig deep enough the proximate cause of theism is psychological down to the existential crisis.
Not necessarily, because you perceive / infer that existential crisis is the proximate cause of theism obviously doesn't mean that it is. IMV your claim is not so substantive, that we should rule out all other possibilities. I don't really understand why you think it is? Many aspects of the human-condition can be "reduced" to existential issues, but that doesn't mean that everything concerning theism can be or is. To reason in that way is a huge generalisation.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:

Note, re what you've stated about the Islamic Ideology being very dangerous, I think that you're right, you've convinced me on that score. I think it is also repressive (especially towards women) and I find it to be anachronistic; more so than Christianity, which has shown signs of evolution such as allowing gay marriage, would Islam ever allow that to occur? Bearing the dangers and repressive nature of Islamic ideology in mind, I think (purely my opinion) that it will either evolve or dissipate as human rights action progresses - given "x" number of years.

No matter how many Muslims practice their beliefs in peace, because of the negative verses in the Koran which propagate harm, Islam cannot justifiably, in terms of the Ideology, be called "a religion of peace" - so the authorities position on Islam is questionable. This is my opinion and it may be bias as I'm a Westerner, but that's the way I see things at this time. Does any of this mean that we should bash Muslims, of course not, but since there's nothing that can be done to "fix" the ideology, it is understandable that people vent their frustrations regarding the acts of terror towards the culprits.

The authorities will play the politics which best benefit their political position, and at this time, because the majority of Muslims conduct their beliefs in peace, there is no reason to attack the Ideology. In my experience, the West must always seen to be open-minded and accommodating / tolerant of others. I think that where political relationships are beneficial and also generate hard cash, the authorities will tolerate a lot more than if there is nothing to gain - perhaps even the loss of lives. I'm not saying that the authorities are implicit, but even they believe Islam is very dangerous I wouldn't expect them to express that view, not only because of the ramifications of doing so, but it would contradict their own Western Ideology.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 10th, 2018, 5:56 am Spectrum:
I have mentioned before.
If you research deeply into ALL religions, i.e. both theistic and non-theistic the central theme that is common to both is the existential crisis, i.e. the question of mortality.
Note for example, reincarnation [re afterlife] in Hinduism and the other manifestation of the religion, the priests, the temples, the caste system, are secondary. Same with Buddhism [the Buddha Story re old age, illness, corpse-death].
We've discussed this previously. What I perceive as one of the main themes of all religions is expressly “how best to live” which you thought was too general. I don't agree that the "central theme" of all religions is existential crisis or even that all religions have a central theme - that is your interpretation. I don't believe that you can see that "how best to live" is too general, and not see that how you're applying "existential crisis" is too general. No one is that blinkered by their own views. If all theistic religions have a central theme, surely it is their postulated deities.
Yes, 'how best to live' is too general, subjective and dangerous if not qualified properly. Note the violent Islamists believed theirs is the best way to live. There are so much negative baggage attached to religions, how can one claimed religion is 'the best way to live'.
Obviously all [if not most] believers will insists their religion provide the best way to live.

But being philosophically oriented we have to research to find the truths via proper analysis and critical thinking.

The best way to live would be philosophy - the way of wisdom and living optimally within one's constraints. Therein is the Philosophy of Morality showing the good and avoiding evil. Religion do cover morality but on a very crude, rigid and limited basis, thus not sufficient nor effective for the future's complexity.

The best way to live is conditioned by one's and group's Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threat [SWOT].

Before one can progress with 'the best way to live' [tap opportunities] one has to deal with threats and the mother of all threats is the existential crisis. To deal with this existential crisis humans created religions - theistic and non-theistic.

I infer the above from the central theme of all religions, i.e. the existential crisis and the question of mortality - see above.


So you're using a general observation (existential crisis) to make a specific claim - without considering that there could be alternative reasons? Surely that is confirmation bias? How do you know that you've inferred correctly, if you've only done so using your own observations? If you haven't “asked” the theist for their reasons, why are you assuming what the cause is?
Note my points above.
If it is not for the critical existential crisis, religions will not be the way it is. The temples and churches and their side buildings that are used for ceremonies, meeting places and as dance halls are not for there primary as social centers but rather the main reasons why they are there is directed at the existential crisis.
This is deeply arbitrary. I think that your application of existential crisis is too generic. You're attributing every religious action to existential crisis, which amounts to a generalisation, and perhaps a hasty one at that. I don't think that you (or anyone) possesses the knowledge to make the kind of claims that you're making, which is why they are very questionable.
Even if you do not provide % whatever reasons you list, the existential factor will be very glaring and the most significant.
In your opinion.
Ontological - YES.
To be confident one will be saved with an eternal life in heaven [related existential crisis], one has to ensure with the maximum confidence level the God they believed is the greatest than which no greater can exists.
It is very typical for theists-A to condemn the god of another belief [theist-B] as inferior to their God. Theists-A will insist theists-B will go to Hell because their God is an inferior god.
To get 100% assurance, all theists will end up with the ontological God than which no greater can exists.
This strikes me as 100% opinion. I think you present a bias perspective of the theistic perspective here, which is inferred completely by your world view and your need to be right about existential crisis. Where is the objectivity?
Teleology
This is the belief all things are created by God for God's purpose which God only knows.
So the purpose humans were created is to serves God's purpose to believe in God so that they can securely end up in heaven with eternal life [surely not Hell] thus this is reduced to the existential crisis.
I don't think that your definition of teleology is correct...

Teleology: “The explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.”

Again what you say here is very opinionated. I didn't find anything regarding teleology claiming “God's purpose” or “God only knows” or that “the purpose of humans is to serve God”, you may be conflating different religious perspectives here? Regardless, IMV your reduction here is not correct, and you're not only reducing, but also over simplifying.
Give me any others and I will reduce it to the existential crisis, if not it will be a secondary purpose.
Not correctly. I don't think there is an objective measurement for belief which makes a distinction between primary and secondary reasons. If there isn't there is probably a valid reason for that.
If you dig deep enough the proximate cause of theism is psychological down to the existential crisis.
Not necessarily, because you perceive / infer that existential crisis is the proximate cause of theism obviously doesn't mean that it is. IMV your claim is not so substantive, that we should rule out all other possibilities. I don't really understand why you think it is? Many aspects of the human-condition can be "reduced" to existential issues, but that doesn't mean that everything concerning theism can be or is. To reason in that way is a huge generalisation.
The rest of the points gravitate toward;
  • 1. My thesis is 'the existential crisis is the proximate root cause of religion'
    2. You disagree to the above.
So far you have not given any convincing causes of religions.

Teleology: “The explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.”

I had stated the explanation of religions is they serve to resolve the existential angst arising from its cause, i.e. existential crisis.

Re my explanation re Ontological God - that is not an opinion.
I have provided very substantial arguments why a God MUST ultimately be ontological in the 'God is Impossible' thread and other posts.

Note my point again;
If you research deeply into ALL religions, i.e. both theistic and non-theistic the central theme that is common to both is the existential crisis, i.e. the question of mortality.
Note for example, reincarnation [re afterlife] in Hinduism and the other manifestation of the religion, the priests, the temples, the caste system, are secondary. Same with Buddhism [the Buddha Story re old age, illness, corpse-death].
I don't think you have researched and reflect deeply on the doctrines of ALL religions. Thus yours is like opinions.

Btw, I have not gone into depth regarding the concept of the existential crisis, but what I have provided [the question of mortality and afterlife] is sufficient to point to the existential crisis as the main and proximate cause of all religions. What is more critical than avoiding the threat of premature* death and for the majority - what will happen after physical death?
* dying before one's time is up, especially from teenage years to one's peak of life.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021