41–50 of 113 posts
The point of religion is to solve civilization-scale game theory coordination dilemmas. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a mutually beneficial metastable equilibrium but is only stable to the extent that it is a universally adopted principle. A lot of modern tragedies like climate change can be tackled in this way if we can establish universal shared values that apply to all people independent of nationality, status and in p…
The article says the study suggests there's not a really strong causal relationship in either way which surprises me a little but yeah I can see it given the experience.
And If I were to find religion suddenly again now I imagine it may only increase life satisfaction based on the fact I have no real community at the moment and that I think is probably a more interesting study.
How much has external community (i.e. not close friends, partners and families) breakdown occurred over the last 40 years and what is the effect on our life satisfaction? My grandfather was a part of a bunch of men's clubs etc last I checked most of those are floundering now.
Which is the same as life satisfaction. (If you think people who live longer are unhappy or blobs stuck in a bed that's your bizarre world)
Blue Zone theory isn't a great theory, but it's very logical. Ie. Religious people have support later in life, it's a life long hobby anyone can do etc etc.
This 'meta study' of only 4000 is poorly written. I'll assume it's because they are Korean and not because in science poorly written Journal Articles do better.
You can't read much from this study.
Religiosity means little.
They mention in the study they have no idea about attendance for instance which is what matters.
It's not about how strongly you believe. More the fact to use the support structure when needed.
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." -Mark 2:17
The point of religion is to solve civilization-scale game theory coordination dilemmas. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a mutually beneficial metastable equilibrium but is only stable to the extent that it is a universally adopted principle. A lot of modern tragedies like climate change can be tackled in this way if we can establish universal shared values that apply to all people independent of nationality, status and in p…
The point of religion is to solve civilisation wide coordination dilemmas like war. How do you get people to kill and die for strangers?
Religion's purpose is to get people to do horrible things not to behave nicely. It's used for wars mostly (plus genocides etc).
That's why we no longer need it. If we were fighting a ground war against a dangerous invading force it would be socially useful. But we're not.
This is also why religion has only flourished in places with exactly those issues (Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine recently).
Unless the plan for solving climate change is to convince x% of people to kill themselves, religion won't help with that any more than it helps with poverty or crime.
The point of religion is to solve civilization-scale game theory coordination dilemmas. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a mutually beneficial metastable equilibrium but is only stable to the extent that it is a universally adopted principle. A lot of modern tragedies like climate change can be tackled in this way if we can establish universal shared values that apply to all people independent of nationality, status and in p…
Except that problem is already solved by a bunch of things like empathy and reputation. The point of religion is to solve civilisation wide coordination dilemmas like war. How do you get people to kill and die for strangers? Religion's purpose is to get people to do horrible things not to behave nicely. It's used for wars mostly (plus genocides etc). That's why we no longer need it. If we were fighting a ground war a…
we all have existential crysis, deep fear, doubts, dilemmas. These questions are also in religion, now religion was probably a huge pile of everything from existence, to social life, morality, sexuality and family and yeah converting / conquering other people or other faiths.
You don't go to church to gather weapons but to marry, celebrate birth and grieve death.
The point of religion is to solve civilization-scale game theory coordination dilemmas. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a mutually beneficial metastable equilibrium but is only stable to the extent that it is a universally adopted principle. A lot of modern tragedies like climate change can be tackled in this way if we can establish universal shared values that apply to all people independent of nationality, status and in p…
Except that problem is already solved by a bunch of things like empathy and reputation. The point of religion is to solve civilisation wide coordination dilemmas like war. How do you get people to kill and die for strangers? Religion's purpose is to get people to do horrible things not to behave nicely. It's used for wars mostly (plus genocides etc). That's why we no longer need it. If we were fighting a ground war a…
> Unless the plan for solving climate change is to convince x% of people to kill themselves, religion won't help with that any more than it helps with poverty or crime.
Climate religion basically is telling people they need to go without the comforts of modern society (and generally live in some sort of centrally controlled societal construct that minimizes individual rights) in the name of some eternal paradise. It's not quite as severe as sending people to their deaths, but it's the same idea of convincing people to act against their own interests (and to let the priests continue to do what they want in the name of spreading the word) in order to fulfill some divine purpose.
(I should add as a sibling post did, I believe there are many positive points to religion as well, I'm responding to your post that essentially addresses religion as a coercion (sp?) mechanism
So I always find it strange when 'religiosity' is used as a catch-all personality trait and everyone who identifies as religious is lumped together.
I haven't been able to look at the specific six-question set used in the study to measure religiosity, but something tells me that with only six questions, we can ascertain the impact of a person's particular religious beliefs and practices on their life in only the vaguest way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the point of religion, it's a side-effect. While religion is a remarkably effective control/coercion tool, there are more ethical ways to establish universal shared values. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" isn't exactly inspirational coming from a book filled with god-sanctioned rape, incest, genocide, and infanticide. People didn't adopt that principle because religion told them to, they adopted it because it allowed…
People didn't adopt that principle because religion told them to, they adopted it because it allowed them to outcompete the primitive societies that didn't. But the divine nature of mankind makes that commandment more powerful because, one, you're killing God's creation and, two, it directly comes from God. It is not a simple "yeah, lets agree on that".
If I had a bad day and it so happened that it was the day where I was supposed to fill in a form on my life satisfaction, my answer would probably be very biased regardless if I was religious or not.
It also fails to take into account that not all religions are based on happiness meaning that life satisfaction in this world is not the be all and all.
An example is Islam. In Islam this worldly life is considered as a test. So you're going to be tested with hardship, afflictions and so on. There is also the concept of this being cyclical. After hardship comes ease. (not really cyclical in the sense that hardship comes because you had some ease before it but more like tuples of (hardship, ease) coming your way one after the other)
If you keep steady while you're being tested you'll be rewarded with paradise or/and a period of ease in this life.
Otherwise if you disobey Allah's commandements and die upon disbelief (You did not repent sincerely while you were still alive.) you'll likely go to hell.
Here it would be understandable to the believer that their life will not be all roses.