News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The conflation of personal belief with objective reality.
When someone tells me they are religious, they are saying the voices in their heads are more important than the voices in their ears. They are saying the vision in their mind's eye is more important than the vision in their eyeballs.
When a schizophrenic tells us they are going to listen to the voices in their head, we should be worried. We should be worried even if their voices are currently telling them to be an upstanding member of society, because we don't know what those voices will be saying tomorrow.
I find the comparison between religion and schizophrenia to be a little over the top. There is a big difference between believing something that cannot be proven true, and having actual schizophrenic delusions.
Religious beliefs don't inherently impair your ability to function. And clearly they have some emotional function or value given that peoples around the world created their own unique religions without fail.
I really don't see why you care so much about what people believe as long as their beliefs aren't hurting anyone else. You are creating a problem where there is none.
I would argue the former is the more worrying of the two. We all know not to trust the schizophrenic.
But religious people aren't just saying "God Bless You" when we sneeze. They are telling us how to vote, whether to wear masks, vaccinate our children, shun our neighbors, annihilate nations, and they are doing this on the basis of entirely unsupported, yet strongly held personal belief.
Any suggestion that there isn't a problem is demonstrably false, and your claim that I am creating the problem is gaslighting. I'm not going to waste a bunch of time pointing at a bunch of lesser religiously-supported evils to prove it. I'm just going to take them as read, and skip to the end: religious zealots fly planes into buildings.
Ah, so your problems with religion are actually problems with specific religious practices. Its almost like you should just hate those practices instead of directing your anger at a very broad concept.
Your justification for distrusting all religious people is a small minority of Christians and Muslims. Grow up and treat people like people
Where did you get that idea? I don't believe that is a valid conclusion raising from my arguments.
My "anger at a very broad concept" should have been a clue that those specific harmful practices I mentioned were exemplar, and not an exhaustive list. Further examples could be drawn from every organized religion, as well as from any and all individual "spiritual" beliefs.
No, my distrust of religious people is not based solely on those few examples of harm that I have presented, but on the underlying philosophical model, which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation. This is a "content of character" question, not a condemnation of specific religions.
This is an oversimplification of religion. There is a difference between someone's religious beliefs, and how they approach logic in a real world situation. A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what. They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion. If they aren't capable of this, then I agree its a problem. But its not a problem with religion, its a problem with the person.
So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.
And no, it is not gaslighting to point out why you are wrong about something. That's a ridiculous tactic to avoid the tiniest bit of self reflection.
None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.
It is the fundamental basis of religion. The common denominator. The sine qua non: the component without which the philosophical model in question could not be reasonably described as religious.
Conceded.
The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact. In declaring themselves religious, they indicate that there are certain circumstances where they intend to do just that.
From what I can gather, it effectively is your argument. You dislike that people believe things that are not supported with evidence. I do not personally think it matters because they gain value from it and do not harm others in the process. What am I missing?
I can't disagree with that, but I just don't see why it matters so much. If they seriously gain that much value from believing something, then let them.
I have presented no arguments suggesting they are harmless. I have not accepted your premise that they cause no harm. Indeed, I have provided a few examples of common, relatively minor harms, as well as references to the 9/11 attacks as non-exhaustive examples.
You acknowledged these harms when you strawmanned my position. You can't rationally claim that no such harms exist, when you have directly acknowledged they do.
We can disagree on the prevalence of such harms: you have indicated a belief they are rare, and I have refused to waste my time producing an exhaustive list.
You say your problem is that they believe things that are unsupported. Is that all, or do you dislike that because you think it leads to practices you don't like?
Such things do of course exist, but they don't constitute the dislike for all religion. Religious beliefs differ wildly and it makes little sense to denounce all of them because some cause problems.
Earlier you said that it wasn't any specific practices that caused you to dislike religion. So, I focused on your problem just with the unsupported beliefs. Now you again bring up specific practices you don't like.
I don't understand what you are even trying to say at this point.
Faith is a disease. In the faithful who aren't currently hurting anyone, the disease is dormant. They are still infected, and given the right set of circumstances, they will cause harm. A particular variety of the faithful were not putting people at risk, until COVID came around and their faithful infections came to be known as "antivax" and "antimask".
Trying to stop the "specific practices" without inoculating against faith is like trying to stop the spread of typhoid without innoculating Mary Mallon against the disease. The faithful are the cause and carriers, regardless of whether they are currently showing symptoms.
This makes slightly more sense to me although it is painfully overdramatic.
I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm. As far as I am aware, a religious person is not any more of a ticking time bomb than anyone else.
Blaming religion for these problems without tackling the underlying psychological issues is not going to help in any meaningful way. You just spread more hate and make the world a worse place, instead of approaching the situation with the slightest bit of empathy.
I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do. Its not a characteristic of religion or the lack thereof, its a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.
If you care so much about these problems, then recognize that the world is not so black and white that you can always find an idea to make your enemy no matter the circumstances. The way to fix these problems is not to alienate massive groups of people because you think they might become bad one day. That's a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.
Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality. The faithful merely need to imagine the existence of their own triggers.
I do not concede that this is a symptom of mental illness. What I am talking about is an error in judgment, not a defect in the ability to reason.
I'm not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups "conflate personal belief with objective reality"? If so, I would likely have the same criticism.
Where did I claim to "hate" anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was "distrust". I did once use the word "anger" in a description of my position, but I was directly quoting you at the time. You have inserted quite a lot of emotive concepts on my behalf that I have not actually expressed. I will renew my claims of "strawmen" and "gaslighting".
No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.
That's just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them. It is very possible to have incorrect reasoning without being religious.
The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general. Everyone has justified a belief with bad logic because its too difficult to admit you are wrong. I've done it and still occasionally catch myself doing it. I believe you're doing it right now, although I'll admit I don't know you well enough to know for sure. I'm guessing you had some negative experience with religion and now justify your distaste for it by claiming religious people are more prone to doing horrible things.
Yes, the only difference is that their bad reasoning is not religious in nature. That's why your problem should be people that do that, not religious people. They are not related.
Here I was using hate to refer to the examples you gave like anti vaccine and anti mask people. I'm assuming you do hate that, as you should.
Remember what "faith" means in this context: the conflation of personal belief with objective reality. The act of "Justify[ing] any belief" is an act of "faith".
That is how certain people work, not all people. You have identified a set of people who "conflate their personal beliefs with objective reality".
I don't think so, but let's check on it: is it a mental health issue when we use an incorrect order of operations in a mathematical statement? For example, x=1+2*3. Is the person who gets "7" mentally healthy? Is the person who gets "9" mentally unhealthy? What of the 3-year-old, who has not yet been taught numbers, and scribbles a stick image of a cat on the sheet?
An individual who does not comprehend the meaning of PEMDAS/BEDMAS is still capable of rational thought. The lack of knowledge will lead them to a fallacious conclusion, but their process of reaching that conclusion is still rational.
A deliberate refusal to accept and follow PEMDAS/BEDMAS rules is an error, but is not an indication of mental illness.
The knowledge that individual belief must be subordinate to objective reality is a philosophical model that not everyone has learned, but ignorance of that philosophy is certainly not indicative of a mental health condition.
No. It is literally a function of the human brain. https://www.healthline.com/health/stress/amygdala-hijack#how-to-stop Every single person on earth has done this and will do it again.
That is simple incorrect logic. What I'm talking about is emotions overriding logic.
Having faith in a religion is very different from justifying emotional reactions with bad logic. You are conflating your personal belief that they are the same with objective reality.
Everyone conflates personal belief with objective reality to varying degrees. A mentally healthy person can process their emotions well and recognize when they do so most of the time. A mentally unhealthy person will not recognize it because of their lack of emotional intelligence.
Again, I am not talking about a clinical condition that inhibits clear logic. I'm talking about the ability to process your emotions in a healthy way.
From your link, emphasis mine:
"Belief" is a "conscious input." Conflating belief with objective reality is a conscious act, as is "declaration of an individual's religiosity". "Philosophy" is a consciously-developed worldview. As an unconscious response, "Amygdala hijack" is well outside the scope of these conscious, deliberate acts.
I have confined the scope of my discussion to the realm of consciousness, as it is only within this realm that we are capable of deliberate action. The unconscious realm does not interest me.
Yes, you do not consciously make the decision to give up rational thought to emotion. This does not detract from my argument.
Have you considered that an automatic response might have a large impact on what you believe? The reason people don't see the lack of logic in their beliefs is because their emotions don't allow it.
Even outside of this specific function, neocortex activity is inversely correlated with amygdala activity. The more emotionally attached to a belief they are, the more difficult it is to stop believing it.
I don't see how you can just ignore this and pretend it has nothing to do with our conversation. It is literally the entire cause of the problems you've mentioned.
I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision, and you are ignoring their emotional response to their own rationalization.
There's a video floating around of a guy who instinctively reacted to a threat by hiding behind his significant other. He reacted in fear. Now comes the rationalization phase: He tries to understand the act he instinctively performed. Rationalization is the act of applying his philosophical model to his actions. He evaluates his behavior against the expectations of his model.
He could subscribe to a philosophical model where the sanctity of his body is greater than that of hers, in which case he could rationalize that his actions were good and proper. (He would then experience the emotion of "pride" that he followed his philosophical model correctly.)
He could subscribe to a philosophical model where he is expected to protect other people from harm. He would then rationalize that his actions were improper. (He would then experience the emotion of "shame" for falling short of his idealizes principles.)
(It is important to note that we are talking about a fraction of a second between the unconscious act and the rationalization of that act: the actor is feeling "pride" or "shame" at his action before his significant other has even realized what he has done. His initial, instantaneous reaction may not be controllable by his philosophical model. He might initially flinch behind her in fear, realize his error, and move to shield her from harm. Or, he might deliberately abandon her, and seek better protection from the perceived threat by fleeing. The point is that within fractions of a second, his actions are being influenced by his philosophical model. The "automatic response" you are talking stops being relevant as soon as this has occurred, and the philosophical model becomes the driving factor.)
In both cases, the initial act is identical, sparked by an unconscious, unintentional process. "Amygdala hijacking" may, indeed, be responsible for this initial act, but it is not responsible for the differing effects. The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor. Philosophy plays a big part in driving emotion.
I am uninterested in discussing the conditions that are, by definition, outside of the will and control of the individual. My interest here extends only to those things we can consciously affect.
The outcome is whatever avoids the feeling of shame, unless the person is emotionally intelligent enough to recognize it happening. It absolutely can and will affect your logic.
The response is not just to physical threats, it is trying to avoid negative emotions. That may be the shame from recognizing your actions, or realizing your belief is illogical.
Emotion is the initial decision. The rationalizations are just an attempt to pretend is reasonable.
Do you have any relevant issues to add, or shall we conclude our discussion?
That's what I was just doing, but I guess I'll expand upon it.
Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief? No, they did not sit down and logically come to the conclusion that vaccines or masks are bad. Chances are, they heard a story on Facebook about it that scared them into that belief.
They thought with their emotions instead of actual logic, because they aren't in touch with their emotions enough to reliably differentiate between the two.
There was no conscious decision to conflate personal belief with reality. All of the examples you've given were not caused by a conscious decision at all. They were caused by unconscious emotional processes that they failed to recognize.
To say that things that happen without conscious input are irrelevant to this conversation is completely incorrect. The difference between a normal religious person and a religious person with the problematic beliefs you've mentioned is this unconscious process.
A normal person regardless of religiosity is mentally capable of recognizing that process. A mentally unhealthy person regardless of religiosity is not capable of this.
When you say that's outside of the scope of this conversation, here's what I hear:
I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation, so I will desperately try to end it while maintaining the illusion that my argument had any value in the first place.
That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses. By definition, they are not controllable. There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.
The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy. We can't affect the immediate response, but we can affect the rationalization process by focusing on a different philosophical model.
A philosophy that an individual's personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss. A philosophy that rejects this mitigates your issues.
Your condescending tone aside, that is correct. You are diverting us away from a path of consciously affecting behavior and mindsets, and toward a path that, by definition, we cannot. You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road; I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.
There absolutely is a point in discussing things you can't affect. Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.
It is. If part of the topic of this conversation is people that think with their emotions, it would tell you that emotions are absolutely related to this conversation. You brought those groups up as examples yourself.
Not true. You can learn to control your emotions to some extent without changing philosophy. Also, your philosophy is usually based on your emotions. Not the other way around. The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion. There is no argument to be made that a human life has value. We all agree its bad anyway though, because death causes negative emotions.
No one believes their personal beliefs to be more important than objective reality. They believe their personal beliefs are objective reality. They do this because of their emotions. That's why its important to discuss them.
It is a destination, not a dead end. The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.
You had nothing of value to add to begin with. You literally just dislike religion for no reason.
"Emotions" are the unconscious responses. "Emotional awareness" is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model against which to evaluate the emotional reaction. You are restating my arguments.
Rejected. Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.
It seems important that you be right. I have already conceded that I have nothing to add to that aspect of the conversation. You won.
Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?
No, I am describing emotional awareness. The ability to understand your emotions and limit their effect on your reasoning is not a philosophical model.
This is a surprisingly good argument, but it does not prove the conclusion you came to. Its more of an exception to what I said. It demonstrates that emotional responses can be impacted by philosophy. It does not demonstrate that this is always how it works, or even most of the time.
Yes, my goal in this argument was in fact to prove I am right. I do not like hateful views with no reasoning behind them.
I'm not particularly happy because you are going to continue believing hateful nonsense, but at least I tried. I should've expected as much anyway, given that I'm arguing with people on the internet.
Rejected, with my previous arguments. Strawman, gaslighting, ad hominem.
Nothing else you have said furthers the discussion.
The discussion is apparently over now because you won't continue it. But that doesn't stop you from naming fallacies at me I guess.
We've had quite a long conversation, and you have yet to provide a half decent argument for your distrust of religious people. Therefore, hateful nonsense. I can't misrepresent your argument when I'm not even actually representing it. I'm just describing what I think it essentially boils down to. Its hateful nonsense.
Again, correcting you is not gaslighting. You are literally just wrong.
I did not personally attack you. I have worded things in passive aggressive ways throughout this conversation, but that's about it. If you are referring specifically to the "hateful nonsense" part, that's again just a description of your belief.
Are you actually done now? Or will you keep saying random words hoping something works.
I couldnt agree more. I have totally underestimated how nutty religious people truly are. I used to think Christians are good neighbours and boring law abiding citizens, but when push comes to shove and you really need them it turns out that they are just nutcases who are very adept at playing the good neighbour role. At least that has been my experience. I just can't trust adults who believe in fairy tales anymore.
I totally get what you're saying, but that's not at all what religion is. If someone is listening to voices in their head, they're not religious. They're just crazy. I know many religious people who do not "listen to voices in their head" and it's my belief that you've had terrible encounters and experiences with people claiming to be religious. But to generalize is not a good thing. I've met very sane religious people that do not do the things you say, I think it's unfair of you to make such a sweeping claim that anyone who claims to be religious is immediately a crazy person to you. That idea itself sounds crazy to me
I did not mean to claim religious people are "crazy." What I described is "faith", but without the virtuous connotations commonly ascribed to that concept.
Based on your comment, though, I would say I have accurately conveyed to you my state of mind upon hearing an individual proudly portray themselves as "religious" or "spiritual". It is profoundly disturbing to hear someone readily admit a belief that their thoughts supersede reality.
To be fair, a large amount of Christians, including many at the church I used to attend in my younger days, will often recommend they "Ask God for advice" on big or troubling decisions or issues in their life, and those people will then say "God told me to do X" after they asked God for help.
So... I think there actually is a pretty fair amount of crazy religious types out there. The churches I've been to almost always had a big emphasis on getting to the point where you're having a conversation with god, asking him for guidance, etc. I always interpreted that as being literal, and not a metaphor.