'Why We Need Religion'

[Nearly Sane]

The interview doesn't really give much of a case.




https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/76597-why-an-agnostic-philosopher-says-we-re-all-religious.html

[floo]

I think he makes some interesting suggestions, which might explain why many humans have a religious need.

[Nearly Sane]

Seems very circular to me in that the main argument is we need religion because we have it. It also seems to confuse religion with anything non science, makes the usual mistake on agnostic, and talks of 'spontaneous conversations with the universe' as if that has clear meaning

[floo]

Seems very circular to me in that the main argument is we need religion because we have it. It also seems to confuse religion with anything non science, makes the usual mistake on agnostic, and talks of 'spontaneous conversations with the universe' as if that has clear meaning

I didn't quite see it that way.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't quite see it that way.

Yes, I get that. Why?

[floo]

These two suggestions make sense to me as to why some people find religion helpful in their lives.

People think of religion as a system of beliefs but it is fundamentally an emotional management system, one that science and any other kind of “cultural technology” cannot offer.

We evolved things such as prayer to manage our spontaneous yearning to survive and flourish

[Nearly Sane]

These two suggestions make sense to me as to why some people find religion helpful in their lives.

People think of religion as a system of beliefs but it is fundamentally an emotional management system, one that science and any other kind of “cultural technology” cannot offer.

We evolved things such as prayer to manage our spontaneous yearning to survive and flourish

So the first is an argument by incredulity.

And I have no idea what the second point is trying to say - he likes the word spontaneous but he seems to use it in a way with which I'm not familiar.

[floo]

So the first is an argument by incredulity.

And I have no idea what the second point is trying to say - he likes the word spontaneous but he seems to use it in a way with which I'm not familiar.

As I said it seems to make sense to me, even though it wouldn't work for me.

[Nearly Sane]

As I said it seems to make sense to me, even though it wouldn't work for me.

So do you agree that the first statement being an argument by incredulity is using a fallacy?


And what do you think the second statement means?

[SteveH]

People think of religion as a system of beliefs but it is fundamentally an emotional management system, one that science and any other kind of “cultural technology” cannot offer.

...is an argument by incredulity.

Please explain why you think it's an argument from incredulity.

[Nearly Sane]

...is an argument by incredulity.
Please explain why you think it's an argument from incredulity.

Because it rules out all possible other 'cultural technology' without being able to state what all that would be. He cannot imagine any 'cultural technology' that could do so it is an argument by incredulity.

[SteveH]

He is suggesting that religion offers emotional reassurance in a way that science cannot. That seems a pretty unremarkable statement to me, and I fail to see how it comes under the incredulity fallacy.

[Nearly Sane]

He is suggesting that religion offers emotional reassurance in a way that science cannot. That seems a pretty unremarkable statement to me, and I fail to see how it comes under the incredulity fallacy.

He's adding in something called 'cultural technology' without defining it, that seems to be something other than science though so concentrating on science would be a mistake here and ignoring what is written. If he cannot know all 'cultural technologies' then he cannot rule out except by incredulity that none of them could be sufficient.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apparently some wealthy atheists have done really well out of religion. There should be a windfall tax on such.

[Aruntraveller]

Apparently some wealthy atheists have done really well out of religion. There should be a windfall tax on such.

Well I'd quite like to see a windfall tax on any one or any organization that becomes wealthy out of religion. I don't see that there needs to be a distinction based on atheism.

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently some wealthy atheists have done really well out of religion. There should be a windfall tax on such.

I think they paid tax though unlike the churches.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think they paid tax though unlike the churches.

Churches getting tax relief, Good because pissing certain people off is always worth the investment.
Atheist writers not paying windfall tax, Bad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I'd quite like to see a windfall tax on any one or any organization that becomes wealthy out of religion. I don't see that there needs to be a distinction based on atheism.

Balanced, reasoned thinking on your part Trent.

[Nearly Sane]

Churches getting tax relief, Good because pissing certain people off is always worth the investment.
Atheist writers not paying windfall tax, Bad.

  That sounds awfully Stalinist

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  That sounds awfully Stalinist

More Stalinesque.
I have repented and go along with Trent's Nike Trainers approach ''Just Tax it!''

[Nearly Sane]

More Stalinesque.
I have repented and go along with Trent's Nike Trainers approach ''Just Tax it!''

So given the atheists are taxed already, you just want to additionally tax churches? Or do you want atheists to be taxed more, which would put you back in Stalinacry again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So given the atheists are taxed already, you just want to additionally tax churches? Or do you want atheists to be taxed more, which would put you back in Stalinacry again?

No........ I want rich atheists windfall Taxed. Them and televangelists.

[Nearly Sane]

No........ I want rich atheists windfall Taxed. Them and televangelists.

All rich atheists or are you passing a special tax for monies made in connection with religion? Surely you don't want an actual windfall tax anyway but just a graduated tax system that applies to religious as well as non religious?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All rich atheists or are you passing a special tax for monies made in connection with religion? Surely you don't want an actual windfall tax anyway but just a graduated tax system that applies to religious as well as non religious?

Anything that means fifth floor Garret rather than Miami Condo.

[Nearly Sane]

Anything that means fifth floor Garret rather than Miami Condo.

Miami Vice recast with Dawkins and Craig - two mismatched cops, one an antitheist who hates blind watchmakers, the other an apologist who starts every interview with 'what was the first cause.' Separately, they rock, together they roll,