Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[grumbler]

Can we really say that though?

Yes.

The earliest recorded history goes back about 6000 years.

Judaism is probably the oldest continually practiced religion, and it goes back almost 4000 years.  Christianity of course goes back 2000 years, and Islam some 1400 years.  They're really remarkably long-lived institutions in human society.

Hell, doing a quick bit of googling, some suggest that the Hindu faith goes right back the full 6000 years.

Mankind has been around, and worshiping gods and stuff, for more than 6,000 years.  All indications are that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism will, like all religions, be abandoned some time in the future. There is nothing exceptional about them that distinguished them from Mithraism or Baal worship.

[grumbler]

I dunno man.  I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person.  I do not think that it is amoral to do so.

Santa Claus is to God as Beorn is to Tom Bombadill.

I know these words,, but their overall meaning escapes me.

It is an analogy, like those we once saw on SAT tests.

[crazy canuck]

I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference.  You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false.  I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.

let me restate the berkut argument (or advance a different variant) by going at it backwards.

Would a socio-ethical system based on "noble lie" be acceptable?  I.e. is it proper to promote deliberately  false ideas or propositions in the belief that even though false, it would be beneficial if society believed in them.

Assume the answer to that question is no - the noble lie can not be justified.  Then it follows that any proposed socio-ethical system should not be based on falsehoods.  But it also follows that such systems should not be based on propositions which are (a) not subject to proof AND (b) that are based on unusual or outlandish assumptions that objectively have a poor case for truth unless simply assumed to be (faith), because such systems are very likely to be noble lies at best.

I agree that the noble lie cannot be justified.  But if you go as far to say that to be valid a system must be able to prove that it is based on truth or at least not based on a falsehood then you rule out any religious belief as it is necessarily based on faith.  One can never prove that there is a god.

But, importantly, the lack of such prove does not make it a noble lie either.  The noble lie is reprehensible because the proponents of the lie know it they are spreading a falsehood.  That is not an accurate description of religious people who believe that their faith is based on truth just as much as Berkut believes it is based on an unprovable falsehood.

Your objection is based on whether or not the noble lie is moral

No, my objection is that it is not a noble lie as JR defined that term or at all.

[Barrister]

Can we really say that though?

Yes.

The earliest recorded history goes back about 6000 years.

Judaism is probably the oldest continually practiced religion, and it goes back almost 4000 years.  Christianity of course goes back 2000 years, and Islam some 1400 years.  They're really remarkably long-lived institutions in human society.

Hell, doing a quick bit of googling, some suggest that the Hindu faith goes right back the full 6000 years.

Mankind has been around, and worshiping gods and stuff, for more than 6,000 years.  All indications are that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism will, like all religions, be abandoned some time in the future. There is nothing exceptional about them that distinguished them from Mithraism or Baal worship.

Mithraism lasted for a period of about 400 years and was confined to the Roman empire.

Ba'al was an alternate israelite god who has not been worshipped for over 2000 years.

There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.

[grumbler]

There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.

Of course it seems that way to you.  The priests of Baal probably felt the same way.

[Barrister]

There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.

Of course it seems that way to you.  The priests of Baal probably felt the same way.

The problem with that comparison is that I am neither a rabbi, an imam, or whatever the hell a hindu priest is.

[Jacob]

There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.

Yeah - they were found useful by successful conquerors in motivating their followers, establishing group cohesion, and providing the framework for founding states.

The would be conquerors of Ba'alites and Mithraists did not ultimately succeed on the battlefield

[garbon]

There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.

Yeah - they were found useful by successful conquerors in motivating their followers, establishing group cohesion, and providing the framework for founding states.

The would be conquerors of Ba'alites and Mithraists did not ultimately succeed on the battlefield

Judaism was?

[crazy canuck]

Another factor to remember when discussing religion is that there are only two types of religions
(1) the millions of religions abandoned as false already, and
(2) the handful of religions that will be abandoned as false, but have't yet suffered that fate.

We know that the fate of a religion is to be abandoned, eventually.  When we assess the social utility of any religion (or religion in general), we should keep that in mind.

Can we really say that though?

The earliest recorded history goes back about 6000 years.

Judaism is probably the oldest continually practiced religion, and it goes back almost 4000 years.  Christianity of course goes back 2000 years, and Islam some 1400 years.  They're really remarkably long-lived institutions in human society.

Hell, doing a quick bit of googling, some suggest that the Hindu faith goes right back the full 6000 years.

You have to forgive Grumbler.  He tried to start his own religion centred around his immortality.  However it was a complete failure as his personal charms became apparent to his flock.  It has been a couple millenia but he continues to feel the pain of that failure and so he desperately wishes to see the day all religion fails reasoning that if he couldnt succeed then nobody could or should.

The curse of immortality is that one must live with failure forever.

[Jacob]

Judaism was?

The existence of the state of Israel points to "yes".

That said, point taken about the diaspora

More seriously, I'd say that the survival of a religion derives from a number of factors. Military and state building success were certainly key to the success of Christianity and Islam, but there are other factors beyond that, I'm sure.

[Barrister]

There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.

Yeah - they were found useful by successful conquerors in motivating their followers, establishing group cohesion, and providing the framework for founding states.

The would be conquerors of Ba'alites and Mithraists did not ultimately succeed on the battlefield

Judaism was?

That was my first thought.

I should be clear that although I am arguing grumbler's point that all religions are doomed to failure (with, I guess, the unstated conclusion that this questions their 'truthfulness'), the opposite point is similarly invalid - you can't argue for the inherent 'truthfulness' of a religion merely because it is long-lived.

[crazy canuck]

you can't argue for the inherent 'truthfulness' of a religion merely because it is long-lived.

Using Grumber's logic you could - but that just underscores the problem with his logic on that point.

[Viking]

Observing that the same BS crops up when I'm not in the argument.

Berkut's Invisible 800lb Gorilla is a variant of the Russel's teapot or The Invisible Pink Unicorn or Sagan's Dragon

The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age

[Viking]

There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.

Yeah - they were found useful by successful conquerors in motivating their followers, establishing group cohesion, and providing the framework for founding states.

The would be conquerors of Ba'alites and Mithraists did not ultimately succeed on the battlefield

Judaism was?

Jews invented self-loathing rather than join the winning side.

[The Brain]

They joined the whining side.