DiscussMormonism.com

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 8:42 pm

Believing the unscientific can be innocuous until there is action taken. The "oracles" act to twist the unscientific narratives to their advantage--haven't seen the LDS church leaders release the members from tithing, as was predicted by Joseph F. Smith once the church was financially self-sufficient, as it is today. Those that delve into the beliefs, digging deeper and deeper into the implications, take actions like Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell, or like Ron and Dan Lafferty. Indulging foundationless beliefs by others has created large-scale movements in the U.S. in the name of Jesus that are anathema to the New Testament teachings, and manifest in anti-civil ways such as the 1.6.2021 siege on the U.S. Capitol building. If one wants to start a corporation in America, the best chance for it to grow big is to form it as a "religion" so that you don't pay taxes; if you instead make a product, that growth and the corporation's survival chances agre greatly encumbered by taxation. At the trajectory of the last 25 years, unbridled religion could swallow up and take over the U.S. in the next 20 years.

This is unrealistic. You are horriblizing the case relying on extreme examples and failing to acknowledge the good that organized religion does.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 8:40 pm

I don’t think “it’s all make-believe” adequately covers what is going on. Humans create stories. All stories are inadequate as a representation of reality, and yet narrating will inevitably continue. I agree that it is important to think critically about everything, but I don’t agree that mythology is as trivial as you make it out to be.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 9:10 pm

Religion isn't a monolith.

It can seem like one big stone rolling, all right. There are a lot of stupid things that have a certain kind of religiosity in common. It's not just a straw person. I really think, though, that the active ingredient in stupid religion is the stupidity and not the religion.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is crouching like sin to devour us when we start trying to distinguish one from the other; but that does cut both ways. If you define "religion" to mean "stupid things", to the point where any religious thought which isn't entirely stupid must have been no true religion, then you're really just advocating the redundancy of having two words for stupid.

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Tue May 10, 2022 12:57 am

Unrealistic? You see the end game? Did you envision 1.6.2021 four months before it happened, or was it in September 2020 "unrealistic"?

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Tue May 10, 2022 1:13 am

Why would myth be trivial simply because it’s make believe? I don’t think that. I’d simply contend myth should be myth and not be elevated to the status of objective truth or the ultimate source of understanding reality.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 9:10 pm

I really think, though, that the active ingredient in stupid religion is the stupidity and not the religion.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 11, 2022 3:24 pm

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Tue May 10, 2022 12:57 am

Unrealistic? You see the end game? Did you envision 1.6.2021 four months before it happened, or was it in September 2020 "unrealistic"?

I take issue with the way you diagnose problems and propose solutions. The events you are talking about are a lot more complicated in their origins than simply "religion." The way out of those nightmares will also be more complicated that just getting rid of religion. Q would be Q with or without religion. Conspiracy thinking is not religion.

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Wed May 11, 2022 6:48 pm

Obviously, but I answer questions when you pose them rather than skirt around them.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 11, 2022 3:27 pm

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Tue May 10, 2022 1:13 am

Why would myth be trivial simply because it’s make believe? I don’t think that. I’d simply contend myth should be myth and not be elevated to the status of objective truth or the ultimate source of understanding reality.

What is "objective truth"? How do we access the "ultimate source of understanding reality"? If we are responsible we tend to follow the best evidence we have, not assuming, as Socrates' opponents did, that because they have one area of expertise, they know it all. Epistemic humility should be applied more universally. At the same time, epistemic humility should not be replaced with clumsy cynicism.

Analytics wrote: ↑

Thu May 12, 2022 3:29 pm

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 11, 2022 3:27 pm

What is "objective truth"? How do we access the "ultimate source of understanding reality"? If we are responsible we tend to follow the best evidence we have, not assuming, as Socrates' opponents did, that because they have one area of expertise, they know it all. Epistemic humility should be applied more universally. At the same time, epistemic humility should not be replaced with clumsy cynicism.

I'd suggest that George E. P. Box's maxim is applicable here. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Different myths and philosophies can be thought of as models for making sense of the world.

I don't need to know what "objective truth" actually means in order to confidently say when somebody claims that their mythology is objectively "true," they are wrong.