What important truth do very few people agree with you on?

[red_pill]

Grass lawns are ugly and are probably one of the more damaging impacts that humans have had on the earth.  And people with fake grass are stupid.

Depends on the local climate. A lawn in the arid southwest is a problem,, but in a place where the lawn never needs irrigation it can be quite fine unless chemical herbicides are misused.

Exactly. Elsewhere on this forum I detailed being on a bus tour of gardens for people from all over the country. We were in Central Iowa. A Californian with a loud booming voice lamented throughout much of the trip about the tragic waste of chemicals and water systems needed to maintain the acres of grass we saw I was as we drove by.

Sadly this was a horticulture group, so I don’t understand why he was so damn dumb. Bluegrass loves cold Midwestern climates. No chemicals Needed for these country places to maintain large swaths of grass, and certainly there are clovers and etc. mixed in but that’s no big deal when you look at it at a big scale. As for irrigation systems, Ha ha ha. Ha ha Ha ha ha. Hah.

My point is more about the loss of biodiversity.  Sure, grass that doesn't require pesticides and irrigation is better than grass that does... but grass is never as good as whatever would be naturally growing in that space.

Humans suck.

[GuitarStv]

Religion is foolish made up bullshit - but can still have societal value.

Did you grow up religious or have close religious friends? This is just my own curiosity at how you distilled it to this statement.

We moved a lot when I was a kid, and my dad figured that it was all the same God so we always went to the closest church.  At different times in childhood I was Episcopalian, United, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and (for 8 very strange months) Baptist.  While religious organizations never stuck, it gave a pretty good view of the things that they get right and wrong.  :P

[Morning Glory]

Religion is foolish made up bullshit - but can still have societal value.

Did you grow up religious or have close religious friends? This is just my own curiosity at how you distilled it to this statement.

We moved a lot when I was a kid, and my dad figured that it was all the same God so we always went to the closest church.  At different times in childhood I was Episcopalian, United, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and (for 8 very strange months) Baptist.  While religious organizations never stuck, it gave a pretty good view of the things that they get right and wrong.  :P

Ooh, did they talk in tongues? I went to church with a friend in high school once and they did that. So interesting.

That's a cool story @GuitarStv . I will tell you mine.

My dad is an Atheist, one of the ones who is obnoxious about it and will blame religion for all of society's ills. As a result I was always curious about religion as a child and looked forward to staying at friends's houses so I could go to church/temple with them.

 When I was about ten I was angry at my dad for moving out of state so I convinced my mom that we needed to go to church. I made friends there and kept going to their youth group thing until about ninth grade when I finally got sick of the dogma (it was a fairly mainline protestant church, but I didn't like being shamed for having sex with my boyfriend).

In high school/college I kept trying to find a religion. I would go with friends when they invited me, and I took a world religions class in college. They all have their good and bad points, and I don't particularly believe in one over the other. I have never understood how people choose a sports team either.

I've made peace with my dad but still change the subject as soon as possible when he gets on about religion.

I've been around enough dying people to see the benefit of religion, but I think it's extremely improbable that there's any kind of afterlife.  However, just because I don't believe something doesn't mean it's not true.

[SwordGuy]

My important truth that very few people agree with me about?

I'm not nearly as smart as people I've worked with think I am.

All joking aside, there's some truth to that.    Most people can't tell the difference between talent and hard work unless they personally see all the hard work that went into building the skill in question.   So they don't try doing the hard work themselves because it's easier to assume the other person is really good at something because of "talent".

I feel as if this deserves its own thread. 

I spent many years of my working life with long hours, taking work home, and studying on my free time so that the next day I wouldn't look like a complete bungling idiot.  I've had jobs I was completely unqualified for, but somehow got through each day with an excuse like "I'd like some time to think that over" then working overnight on it and coming in the next day with an answer.  All of that hard work "in secret" made me qualified for what I do now.  And I'm now recognized as one of roughly 200 people in the world who can do what I do.  Yay recognition and yay compensation. 

BUT...I've also realized in the past few years that I could just stop doing what I do, with no replacement, and all of the work around me would continue just as well, if not better without me.  My job is completely unnecessary!  I'm so glad I didn't figure this out until I also had an escape plan.

I never had imposter syndrome (thank God!) but I did get into my career of software programming by accident.   So I read.  And read.   And read.   We were very poor for the first 6 years so I joined computer book clubs.   Get so many books for $1 a piece, buy a few, and get bonus books if you signed up a friend.    I joined, my wife joined, our two kids joined, and several of our cats became computer book aficionados.    I read more book on the field than most with a degree in the field had read.   

Then I started writing how-to articles and publishing them.   Instead of just learning on my own at home, I turned it into a learning and teaching exercise.   I started writing conference papers so my employer would send me to conferences, where I learned even more great stuff.   Then I wrote a book as well.

Co-workers would come to me for advice on software products I barely knew.   I would tell them (honestly) that I didn't know how to do what they wanted to do, but here would be the first 3 lines of attack to solve the problem that I would try.   Usually one of them was close enough that they would find a solution.   It's weird to be the go-to guy for a tool you barely know.   I wasn't afraid to be wrong or honest.   A lot of people are.   

[LadyMaWhiskers]

All categories are arbitrary. Observable reality is based on continuous phenomena. Categories vary in their utility and defensibility, but not in their trueness.

Sadly, this statement seems to rely on a categorical dichotomy of true/false, so maybe it self-destructs.

[phildonnia]

4. If you have a lot of money, it means that you have given more value than you've taken.

Hunter Biden?

All right, let me back off that statement then.  There are 11 million millionaire households in the US.  It is possible -- likely even -- that one or two thousand of them obtained it by cheating elderly people and exploiting minority workers, or by inheriting it from privileged ancestors that did so.

So let me qualify the statement for the sake of a few exceptions. 

4. If you have a lot of money, my first assumption is that it is just possible that you have given more value than you've taken.

What's your definition of value though?

Biggest economic impact or greatest good? Because a lot of people who make more money aren't doing a whole lot for the greater good, and many people doing incredibly important work are paid very little. So it really depends on what you are defining as "value"

"Value" is what you're willing to pay for.  If someone is rich, then someone else must have given them money.  Assuming that trade only occurs voluntarily, it means someone else thought they were receiving value.

Reasonable people disagree about what work is "incredibly important", but when the talk is over, people's values are expressed in whom they give their money to. 

Everyone is free to give more money to a teacher or a farmer, and less to a pharmaceutical company executive.  But they don't.  They spend their money according to what their values actually are, and then go on about how rich people are stealing or something.

As someone who has set a lot of people's salaries, that's not exactly how it works.

Also, executives tend to have salaries and bonus structures virtually untethered from actual performance, this is well documented.

Yes, there are economic forces at play that determine these things, but that's why I asked if you meant just economic value.

That's fine if that's your only definition of value, but most people won't agree with you, which is again fine, there's no law that says you need to hold a majority opinion.

If you think major criminals who engage in atrocities are more valuable than you are in this world, you are entitled to that opinion.

Well, my reasoning assumed voluntary transactions, which is how most people get rich.  But yes, it falls apart when people get rich by grabbing stuff that isn't theirs.  Hence, I backed off of the absolute principle that all rich people provided value.  I think it still applies in most cases.

[phildonnia]

4. If you have a lot of money, it means that you have given more value than you've taken.

Hunter Biden?

All right, let me back off that statement then.  There are 11 million millionaire households in the US.  It is possible -- likely even -- that one or two thousand of them obtained it by cheating elderly people and exploiting minority workers, or by inheriting it from privileged ancestors that did so.

So let me qualify the statement for the sake of a few exceptions. 

4. If you have a lot of money, my first assumption is that it is just possible that you have given more value than you've taken.

What's your definition of value though?

Biggest economic impact or greatest good? Because a lot of people who make more money aren't doing a whole lot for the greater good, and many people doing incredibly important work are paid very little. So it really depends on what you are defining as "value"

"Value" is what you're willing to pay for.  If someone is rich, then someone else must have given them money.  Assuming that trade only occurs voluntarily, it means someone else thought they were receiving value.

Reasonable people disagree about what work is "incredibly important", but when the talk is over, people's values are expressed in whom they give their money to. 

Everyone is free to give more money to a teacher or a farmer, and less to a pharmaceutical company executive.  But they don't.  They spend their money according to what their values actually are, and then go on about how rich people are stealing or something.

I'm not willing to pay for sex, or to pay for a wife.  By your definition both are thus worthless/unimportant to me.  Doesn't make any kind of sense.

I was always told (and found it to be true) that having a marriage involves considerable sacrifice and compromise.  But if you can get it without providing any value in return, good for you.

[Metalcat]

4. If you have a lot of money, it means that you have given more value than you've taken.

Hunter Biden?

All right, let me back off that statement then.  There are 11 million millionaire households in the US.  It is possible -- likely even -- that one or two thousand of them obtained it by cheating elderly people and exploiting minority workers, or by inheriting it from privileged ancestors that did so.

So let me qualify the statement for the sake of a few exceptions. 

4. If you have a lot of money, my first assumption is that it is just possible that you have given more value than you've taken.

What's your definition of value though?

Biggest economic impact or greatest good? Because a lot of people who make more money aren't doing a whole lot for the greater good, and many people doing incredibly important work are paid very little. So it really depends on what you are defining as "value"

"Value" is what you're willing to pay for.  If someone is rich, then someone else must have given them money.  Assuming that trade only occurs voluntarily, it means someone else thought they were receiving value.

Reasonable people disagree about what work is "incredibly important", but when the talk is over, people's values are expressed in whom they give their money to. 

Everyone is free to give more money to a teacher or a farmer, and less to a pharmaceutical company executive.  But they don't.  They spend their money according to what their values actually are, and then go on about how rich people are stealing or something.

As someone who has set a lot of people's salaries, that's not exactly how it works.

Also, executives tend to have salaries and bonus structures virtually untethered from actual performance, this is well documented.

Yes, there are economic forces at play that determine these things, but that's why I asked if you meant just economic value.

That's fine if that's your only definition of value, but most people won't agree with you, which is again fine, there's no law that says you need to hold a majority opinion.

If you think major criminals who engage in atrocities are more valuable than you are in this world, you are entitled to that opinion.

Well, my reasoning assumed voluntary transactions, which is how most people get rich.  But yes, it falls apart when people get rich by grabbing stuff that isn't theirs.  Hence, I backed off of the absolute principle that all rich people provided value.  I think it still applies in most cases.

A lot of crime is voluntary.

Also, a ton of legitimate business is rife with crime.

I'm not sure how you can separate the two.

Anyway, I asked what you considered value and you said money. Now you want to qualify that as only money that is legitimately acquired? Well, that gets much more complicated and includes value other than just money, and introduces an astronomical amount of grey area.

I like the example of Teodorin Obiang because the line between what he does that's criminal and what is totally legal is quite fascinating. Not to mention what his father does.

In our global economy, how do you resolve the fact that different jurisdictions have different laws?

If I'm making a TON of money off of a supply chain that horrifically violates human rights, but it's technically legal because the violations aren't done in *this* country, am I still within the bounds of "value" because it's legal even though I'm profiting off of conduct that my country considers illegal??

[GuitarStv]

4. If you have a lot of money, it means that you have given more value than you've taken.

Hunter Biden?

All right, let me back off that statement then.  There are 11 million millionaire households in the US.  It is possible -- likely even -- that one or two thousand of them obtained it by cheating elderly people and exploiting minority workers, or by inheriting it from privileged ancestors that did so.

So let me qualify the statement for the sake of a few exceptions. 

4. If you have a lot of money, my first assumption is that it is just possible that you have given more value than you've taken.

What's your definition of value though?

Biggest economic impact or greatest good? Because a lot of people who make more money aren't doing a whole lot for the greater good, and many people doing incredibly important work are paid very little. So it really depends on what you are defining as "value"

"Value" is what you're willing to pay for.  If someone is rich, then someone else must have given them money.  Assuming that trade only occurs voluntarily, it means someone else thought they were receiving value.

Reasonable people disagree about what work is "incredibly important", but when the talk is over, people's values are expressed in whom they give their money to. 

Everyone is free to give more money to a teacher or a farmer, and less to a pharmaceutical company executive.  But they don't.  They spend their money according to what their values actually are, and then go on about how rich people are stealing or something.

I'm not willing to pay for sex, or to pay for a wife.  By your definition both are thus worthless/unimportant to me.  Doesn't make any kind of sense.

I was always told (and found it to be true) that having a marriage involves considerable sacrifice and compromise.  But if you can get it without providing any value in return, good for you.

You explicitly said "value is what you're willing to pay for".  I don't pay for marriage.  Any sacrifice or compromise as part of marriage is done not in return for goods received or debt incurred . . . it's freely given and voluntarily made.  As it was before we were married.

This isn't a sophist argument . . . I think that the relatively common practice of treating marriage as some sort of tit for tat business transaction leads to a lot of problems (and divorces).

[markbike528CBX]

Important Truth for me:  Chemistry and radiochemistry is fun! Fun I say!.     

There, that should be a thing that very few people, even on MMM fora, could agree with me on.

[Zikoris]

Important Truth for me:  Chemistry and radiochemistry is fun! Fun I say!.     

There, that should be a thing that very few people, even on MMM fora, could agree with me on.

Science in general is so much fun. I love designing mini-experiments. My boyfriend has been the subject of so, so many blind tests over the years to see if he can tell the difference between things, from tasting different colored carrots or brands of peanut butter to feeling different pillows to determine if he can tell the difference in firmness (so far the only test he's ever passed was peanut butter brands). He's a pretty good sport about it. He does say "oh no" any time I say "Let's do an experiment!", but he still does it mostly.

Apparently my dad was the same way growing up - I was just talking to him yesterday about a chemistry-related topic and he mentioned when he was a kid he used to use the ingredients in question to make smoke bombs.

[alcon835]

Easy, low-interest debt is the underlying cause of price inflation for college, houses, healthcare, and (more recently) automobiles. Worse, this is also the underlying cause of the large wealth divide. The poor's use of debt is inflating the costs of things, the rich own inflating assets and take advantage of the value increase.

In other words, without fundamentally changing the way we offer debt, we will never solve the price inflation problem or the wealth gap. In fact, any solution that doesn't eliminate these debt vehicles will only make the problem worse.

It's important, it's true, but no one wants to even begin to consider it.

[foghorn]

An important truth that I think very few people will agree with me?:

All children are special.

No, they are not.  To paraphrase George Carlin - "Children are like any other large group of people, a few winners and a whole lot of losers".

[StashingAway]

All categories are arbitrary. Observable reality is based on continuous phenomena. Categories vary in their utility and defensibility, but not in their trueness.

Sadly, this statement seems to rely on a categorical dichotomy of true/false, so maybe it self-destructs.

Robert Pirsig?

[StashingAway]

Religion is foolish made up bullshit - but can still have societal value.

Did you grow up religious or have close religious friends? This is just my own curiosity at how you distilled it to this statement.

We moved a lot when I was a kid, and my dad figured that it was all the same God so we always went to the closest church.  At different times in childhood I was Episcopalian, United, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and (for 8 very strange months) Baptist.  While religious organizations never stuck, it gave a pretty good view of the things that they get right and wrong.  :P

That seems like a good learning opportunity for this kind of thing. I tend to have a similar stance. The question that gets me is what to do with that viewpoint. In summary, I have spent too much time trying to figure out:

1) Religion appears to meet some kind of basic human need (either directly or as a byproduct of our evolution)

2) Religions are made up

3) How can one replicate the benefits knowing this? Having faith for the sake of it's benefits doesn't work (at least for me). Once you reach point (2), I don't think there's a way to be religious without some kind of catch 22.

[Metalcat]

Religion is foolish made up bullshit - but can still have societal value.

Did you grow up religious or have close religious friends? This is just my own curiosity at how you distilled it to this statement.

We moved a lot when I was a kid, and my dad figured that it was all the same God so we always went to the closest church.  At different times in childhood I was Episcopalian, United, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and (for 8 very strange months) Baptist.  While religious organizations never stuck, it gave a pretty good view of the things that they get right and wrong.  :P

That seems like a good learning opportunity for this kind of thing. I tend to have a similar stance. The question that gets me is what to do with that viewpoint. In summary, I have spent too much time trying to figure out:

1) Religion appears to meet some kind of basic human need (either directly or as a byproduct of our evolution)

2) Religions are made up

3) How can one replicate the benefits knowing this? Having faith for the sake of it's benefits doesn't work (at least for me). Once you reach point (2), I don't think there's a way to be religious without some kind of catch 22.

Not all religions require faith. Many forms of spirituality around the world don't require any faith in any particular higher power, and even if they do, some religions like Sikhism don't believe that their God can be understood, so that's pretty compatible with understanding that religions are made up.

Many religions are more about how one behaves and engages with the world, not so much about what specifics one believes about how spirituality is structured.

Many religions make a lot of space for not really needing or even trying to understand or define how it all works.

[StashingAway]

Not all religions require faith. Many forms of spirituality around the world don't require any faith in any particular higher power, and even if they do, some religions like Sikhism don't believe that their God can be understood, so that's pretty compatible with understanding that religions are made up.

Many religions are more about how one behaves and engages with the world, not so much about what specifics one believes about how spirituality is structured.

Many religions make a lot of space for not really needing or even trying to understand or define how it all works.

It's probably more of a personal struggle to understand. I grew up heavily religious (Catholic). Nothing I've found about the "open" religions that you are describing offers the same kind of security blanket that a true belief does. Things like humanitarianism, Taoism, etc. do replicate many of the good parts, so to speak, from a theological standpoint. But the large majority of people who heavily practice their religion tend to be bathed in ritual and some kind of belief/faith in the process. It's difficult to describe for those who haven't experienced a portion of the cult gradient.

I've seen this in western and eastern religions in personal acquaintances; Hindu, Mormon, Islam, etc.

Most atheists that I have this discussion with have a hard time connecting with what I'm trying to convey. Probably a bit of fault on my end for being unable to articulate it. It's uncommon for me to come across folks like GuitarStv who seem to have a similar view of the subject.

[Metalcat]

Not all religions require faith. Many forms of spirituality around the world don't require any faith in any particular higher power, and even if they do, some religions like Sikhism don't believe that their God can be understood, so that's pretty compatible with understanding that religions are made up.

Many religions are more about how one behaves and engages with the world, not so much about what specifics one believes about how spirituality is structured.

Many religions make a lot of space for not really needing or even trying to understand or define how it all works.

It's probably more of a personal struggle to understand. I grew up heavily religious (Catholic). Nothing I've found about the "open" religions that you are describing offers the same kind of security blanket that a true belief does. Things like humanitarianism, Taoism, etc. do replicate many of the good parts, so to speak, from a theological standpoint. But the large majority of people who heavily practice their religion tend to be bathed in ritual and some kind of belief/faith in the process. It's difficult to describe for those who haven't been on the cult gradient.

I've seen this in western and eastern religions in personal acquaintances; Hindu, Mormon, Islam, etc.

Most atheists that I have this discussion with have a hard time connecting with what I'm trying to convey. Probably a bit of fault on my end for being unable to articulate it. It's uncommon for me to come across folks like GuitarStv who seem to have a similar view of the subject.

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

I get that. I thought you were making a statement about religion in general, which I found odd since so many religions make space for question and doubt. You're right though, they don't make the same lofty promises that Catholicism does. 

[StashingAway]

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

At least the viewpoint was extrapolated from the personal experience. But I did make a general statement about religion. There is plenty of "doubt" allowed in the Catholic church; many of their most well regarded saints expressed loads of it. It is encouraged in many groups. What it comes down to is still a belief in something; or at least a belief in a process, or an attempt to belief the process. I think there is some form of cognitive dissonance if a religion truly allows for doubt. Otherwise, the religion vanishes as soon as one examines it.

[Metalcat]

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

At least the viewpoint was extrapolated from the personal experience. But I did make a general statement about religion. There is plenty of "doubt" allowed in the Catholic church; many of their most well regarded saints expressed loads of it. It is encouraged in many groups. What it comes down to is still a belief in something; or at least a belief in a process, or an attempt to belief the process. I think there is some form of cognitive dissonance if a religion truly allows for doubt. Otherwise, the religion vanishes as soon as one examines it.

I completely disagree.
The basic foundation of Christianity is faith, and doubt may be permitted, but only on the path towards faith. If one loses their faith in God and Jesus, one is basically no longer abiding by the fundamentals of the religion.

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually. How good a Jew you are also depends on how we behave, not necessarily what we believe at any one time about God. God doesn't actually ask for our faith.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things.

It's not that there are other religions that allow for more doubt, it's that there are other religions that simply don't depend on much faith in the first place.

ETA: Those tend to be religions far more concerned with how we engage with the world around us as opposed to our personal relationships with some higher power.

Christianity and Islam are all about that personal relationship with God, and that's where faith is so important. Other religions are more about how we live.

[GuitarStv]

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

At least the viewpoint was extrapolated from the personal experience. But I did make a general statement about religion. There is plenty of "doubt" allowed in the Catholic church; many of their most well regarded saints expressed loads of it. It is encouraged in many groups. What it comes down to is still a belief in something; or at least a belief in a process, or an attempt to belief the process. I think there is some form of cognitive dissonance if a religion truly allows for doubt. Otherwise, the religion vanishes as soon as one examines it.

I completely disagree.
The basic foundation of Christianity is faith, and doubt may be permitted, but only on the path towards faith. If one loses their faith in God and Jesus, one is basically no longer abiding by the fundamentals of the religion.

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually. How good a Jew you are also depends on how we behave, not necessarily what we believe at any one time about God. God doesn't actually ask for our faith.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things.

It's not that there are other religions that allow for more doubt, it's that there are other religions that simply don't depend on much faith in the first place.

That's interesting!  So can there be atheist Jews?

[Metalcat]

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

At least the viewpoint was extrapolated from the personal experience. But I did make a general statement about religion. There is plenty of "doubt" allowed in the Catholic church; many of their most well regarded saints expressed loads of it. It is encouraged in many groups. What it comes down to is still a belief in something; or at least a belief in a process, or an attempt to belief the process. I think there is some form of cognitive dissonance if a religion truly allows for doubt. Otherwise, the religion vanishes as soon as one examines it.

I completely disagree.
The basic foundation of Christianity is faith, and doubt may be permitted, but only on the path towards faith. If one loses their faith in God and Jesus, one is basically no longer abiding by the fundamentals of the religion.

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually. How good a Jew you are also depends on how we behave, not necessarily what we believe at any one time about God. God doesn't actually ask for our faith.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things.

It's not that there are other religions that allow for more doubt, it's that there are other religions that simply don't depend on much faith in the first place.

That's interesting!  So can there be atheist Jews?

Well yeah, by definition, of course you can.

ETA: you can also be an agnostic Buddhist, or an agnostic or even atheist Hindu.

[StashingAway]

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually.

Many Christians say the same about baptism.

In the end, I'm OK with the disagreement. After all, it is the point of this thread ;).

It's something difficult for me to articulate. This is usually how the conversation goes- I'm well aware that the fault could be on my end, I just can't find it.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things

The ones that I've seen still all have some kind of "human purpose" that is at the root. Perhaps not origin story, although most have that as well.

Also note, I'm not a religious scholar but I have spent a significant amount of my time and sanity on this question.

[Psychstache]

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

At least the viewpoint was extrapolated from the personal experience. But I did make a general statement about religion. There is plenty of "doubt" allowed in the Catholic church; many of their most well regarded saints expressed loads of it. It is encouraged in many groups. What it comes down to is still a belief in something; or at least a belief in a process, or an attempt to belief the process. I think there is some form of cognitive dissonance if a religion truly allows for doubt. Otherwise, the religion vanishes as soon as one examines it.

I completely disagree.
The basic foundation of Christianity is faith, and doubt may be permitted, but only on the path towards faith. If one loses their faith in God and Jesus, one is basically no longer abiding by the fundamentals of the religion.

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually. How good a Jew you are also depends on how we behave, not necessarily what we believe at any one time about God. God doesn't actually ask for our faith.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things.

It's not that there are other religions that allow for more doubt, it's that there are other religions that simply don't depend on much faith in the first place.

That's interesting!  So can there be atheist Jews?

Yes, in fact you can find a great many atheist Jews out in the wild.

[Kris]

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

At least the viewpoint was extrapolated from the personal experience. But I did make a general statement about religion. There is plenty of "doubt" allowed in the Catholic church; many of their most well regarded saints expressed loads of it. It is encouraged in many groups. What it comes down to is still a belief in something; or at least a belief in a process, or an attempt to belief the process. I think there is some form of cognitive dissonance if a religion truly allows for doubt. Otherwise, the religion vanishes as soon as one examines it.

I completely disagree.
The basic foundation of Christianity is faith, and doubt may be permitted, but only on the path towards faith. If one loses their faith in God and Jesus, one is basically no longer abiding by the fundamentals of the religion.

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually. How good a Jew you are also depends on how we behave, not necessarily what we believe at any one time about God. God doesn't actually ask for our faith.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things.

It's not that there are other religions that allow for more doubt, it's that there are other religions that simply don't depend on much faith in the first place.

That's interesting!  So can there be atheist Jews?

I know a fair number of them. Yes, definitely.

[StashingAway]

Well yeah, by definition, of course you can.

Jews are hard. The term defines a religion, culture and race.

I have a good friend who is an athiest Jew. He fits the "culture" and "race" definitions. He is a Jew. But he is not religious. So I don't count it in what I am describing. This is perhaps a "no true scottsman" fallacy on my part, but what he gets from religion is not a basic belief in the nature of the world. You can culturally follow many religions. Many athiests celebrate Christmas, for instance. Does that mean they're Christian?

I think there is a difference between culture and religion. And what I've been trying to describe applies to religion but not culture (at least, as far as I have been able to figure it out).

Again, it's really difficult to describe to folks who have not been religious. It's a different kind of experience to truly believe in something. It cannot be replicated by culture.

[Metalcat]

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually.

Many Christians say the same about baptism.

In the end, I'm OK with the disagreement. After all, it is the point of this thread ;).

It's something difficult for me to articulate. This is usually how the conversation goes- I'm well aware that the fault could be on my end, I just can't find it.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things

The ones that I've seen still all have some kind of "human purpose" that is at the root. Perhaps not origin story, although most have that as well.

Also note, I'm not a religious scholar but I have spent a significant amount of my time and sanity on this question.

I think I might be the one not expressing myself in a way that can resonate with you, because I think I understand you quite well. I was raised an Anglican, found out later that I was Jewish, but don't practice either.

There really is a HUGE fundamental difference between the two. Yes, baptism permanently makes one a Christian according to some senses, but it doesn't eternally forgive one of ones sins.

As a Jew, I am not judged AT ALL by what I believe, according to my Jewish God, what I feel or think virtually does not matter in terms of outcome. I will be judged based on my behaviours, and there are strict rules as to how I am supposed to behave. As such, I am a shitty Jew and should expect to be punished as I don't even engage is the most sacred of Jewish behaviours. Essentially, I piss off my Jewish God every day.

I also piss off my Christian God every day because I refuse to believe that I need to ask for their forgiveness. Not my jam.

So yeah, I'm fucked on two God fronts. Lol.

I'm a half decent Buddhist though, and since there's, like, no judgement from any God on the Buddhism front, I really don't need to worry about disappointing any father figures, so that's cool.

If you want a really funky take on Christianity and Jesus, read some Eckhart Tolle. He opened me back up to an interpretation of Christianity that I really enjoy.

[Metalcat]

Well yeah, by definition, of course you can.

Jews are hard. The term defines a religion, culture and race.

I have a good friend who is an athiest Jew. He fits the "culture" and "race" definitions. He is a Jew. But he is not religious. So I don't count it in what I am describing. This is perhaps a "no true scottsman" fallacy on my part, but what he gets from religion is not a basic belief in the nature of the world. You can culturally follow many religions. Many athiests celebrate Christmas, for instance. Does that mean they're Christian?

I think there is a difference between culture and religion. And what I've been trying to describe applies to religion but not culture (at least, as far as I have been able to figure it out).

Again, it's really difficult to describe to folks who have not been religious. It's a different kind of experience to truly believe in something. It cannot be replicated by culture.

Trust me, the Jewish thing is not as simple as you are making it out to be.

See my other post as to why I have such a deep personal understanding of both Christianity and Judaism.

[GuitarStv]

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

At least the viewpoint was extrapolated from the personal experience. But I did make a general statement about religion. There is plenty of "doubt" allowed in the Catholic church; many of their most well regarded saints expressed loads of it. It is encouraged in many groups. What it comes down to is still a belief in something; or at least a belief in a process, or an attempt to belief the process. I think there is some form of cognitive dissonance if a religion truly allows for doubt. Otherwise, the religion vanishes as soon as one examines it.

I completely disagree.
The basic foundation of Christianity is faith, and doubt may be permitted, but only on the path towards faith. If one loses their faith in God and Jesus, one is basically no longer abiding by the fundamentals of the religion.

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually. How good a Jew you are also depends on how we behave, not necessarily what we believe at any one time about God. God doesn't actually ask for our faith.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things.

It's not that there are other religions that allow for more doubt, it's that there are other religions that simply don't depend on much faith in the first place.

That's interesting!  So can there be atheist Jews?

Well yeah, by definition, of course you can.

ETA: you can also be an agnostic Buddhist, or an agnostic or even atheist Hindu.

Yeah, depending on the sect/teachings of Buddhism you follow, it can be more of a philosophy than a religion so that makes sense.

But the religion that Jesus actually followed allows atheists to be a part of it, and the majority of religions based upon the teachings of Jesus do not?  This stuff is so weird.  :P

[Metalcat]

Ah, okay, so you're saying it's a personal struggle to reconcile what you want from Catholicism with the knowledge that it's a fallible human religion.

At least the viewpoint was extrapolated from the personal experience. But I did make a general statement about religion. There is plenty of "doubt" allowed in the Catholic church; many of their most well regarded saints expressed loads of it. It is encouraged in many groups. What it comes down to is still a belief in something; or at least a belief in a process, or an attempt to belief the process. I think there is some form of cognitive dissonance if a religion truly allows for doubt. Otherwise, the religion vanishes as soon as one examines it.

I completely disagree.
The basic foundation of Christianity is faith, and doubt may be permitted, but only on the path towards faith. If one loses their faith in God and Jesus, one is basically no longer abiding by the fundamentals of the religion.

Meanwhile there are other religions that don't have that kind of faith demand at all. Judaism doesn't require faith, once you're a Jew, you're a Jew forever, regardless of what you believe. It's not really up to you at all actually. How good a Jew you are also depends on how we behave, not necessarily what we believe at any one time about God. God doesn't actually ask for our faith.

Many indigenous cultures have their spirituality revolve around respect for nature, where the stories passed down aren't so much about faith in a higher power, but instead a framework for how to view and behave towards all living things.

It's not that there are other religions that allow for more doubt, it's that there are other religions that simply don't depend on much faith in the first place.

That's interesting!  So can there be atheist Jews?

Well yeah, by definition, of course you can.

ETA: you can also be an agnostic Buddhist, or an agnostic or even atheist Hindu.

Yeah, depending on the sect/teachings of Buddhism you follow, it can be more of a philosophy than a religion so that makes sense.

But the religion that Jesus actually followed allows atheists to be a part of it, and the majority of religions based upon the teachings of Jesus do not?  This stuff is so weird.  :P

It actually makes perfect sense.

He started something new, something very different. So of course the basis is fundamentally different.

[StashingAway]

atheist Hindu.

I've been close to an athiest Hindu as well. It doesn't take many discussions for their breakdown of the purpose of life to turn into nonsense if they try to speak to the theology of being athiest and Hindu simultaneously. This is a sample size of one, so I can't make a blanket statement, but at some point it's not a Religion in the sense that I'm speaking of. It's a cultural tradition.

Perhaps I have a more narrow definition of "Religion", or perhaps I have difficulty with the analytics that make sense to other people. I don't understand chemistry very well, but that doesn't mean that chemists don't know what they're talking about.

[Metalcat]

atheist Hindu.

I've been close to an athiest Hindu as well. It doesn't take many discussions for their breakdown of the purpose of life to turn into nonsense if they try to speak to the theology of being athiest and Hindu simultaneously. This is a sample size of one, so I can't make a blanket statement, but at some point it's not a Religion in the sense that I'm speaking of. It's a cultural tradition.

Perhaps I have a more narrow definition of "Religion", or perhaps I have difficulty with the analytics that make sense to other people. I don't understand chemistry very well, but that doesn't mean that chemists don't know what they're talking about.

You're absolutely entitled to however a narrow definition of religion you choose. At no point have I been trying to argue with your personal struggles or experiences with religion.

I was only challenging your generalizations as they apply to the vast range of religions around the world, many of which, yes, challenge the very basis of delineating between religion and philosophy.

On the personal front though, I had a similar struggle as you did, which is why I've studied religions fairly intensely since I was 13. Over many years, a ton of reading, and attending as many varied religious services as possible, I've personally found a lot of spiritual peace through better understanding what religion and spirituality mean to different people around the world.

Right now I'm taking an intensive 3 month course on Canadian Indigenous culture, which I've studied quite a bit about before, but never in this much depth from a non-white perspective. It's really cool to appreciate a completely different take on spirituality.

That's just my personal experience I wanted to share, I hope you find some spiritual peace along the way. I really do think I understand, at least to some degree, the conflict you are experiencing.

[MilesTeg]

Respect is something that is earned, not given.

[Metalcat]

Respect is something that is earned, not given.

Is that really something few people agree with though?

[GuitarStv]

You're absolutely entitled to however a narrow definition of religion you choose.

Given that it's all stuff somebody made up to begin with, the definition of what constitutes religion is a really tricky thing to come to a consensus on.

[MilesTeg]

Respect is something that is earned, not given.

Is that really something few people agree with though?

In my experience most people disagree with me on that, but maybe that's just me.

[Tigerpine]

Respect is something that is earned, not given.

Is that really something few people agree with though?

In my experience most people disagree with me on that, but maybe that's just me.

A lot of people seem to agree when it's their respect to pay to others in question.
When it comes to them receiving the respect of others, however, beliefs may be a bit more fluid.

edit:  fixed typo

[MilesTeg]

Respect is something that is earned, not given.

Is that really something few people agree with though?

In my experience most people disagree with me on that, but maybe that's just me.

A lot of people seem to agree when it's their respect to pay to others in question.
When it comes to them receiving the respect of others, however, believes may be a bit more fluid.

True, though many times people confuse respect and pther things like courtesy/decency/etc.

[yakamashii]

The people who have the most to say about respect often are the ones who have the most to learn about it.

True of a lot of other things, I reckon.

[fpjeepy]

Synthetic media, Ai-generated Media, deepfakes etc will soon become so fast, easy, and indistinguishable that there will be no purpose for modern media (mainstream or social) because no one will be able to tell what is the truth.

Ai-assisted hacking will be a huge problem in the future

Genetic engineering will make natural-born humans incapable of competing with engineered humans. And will reduce the burden on a lot of modern medicine.

Most Americans care more about their image amongst their peers than authenticity.

Nuance is the most lacking virtue in our society.

Travel that doesn't build on a relationship or provide solitude is pointless.

[Metalcat]

Synthetic media, Ai-generated Media, deepfakes etc will soon become so fast, easy, and indistinguishable that there will be no purpose for modern media (mainstream or social) because no one will be able to tell what is the truth.

Ai-assisted hacking will be a huge problem in the future

Genetic engineering will make natural-born humans incapable of competing with engineered humans. And will reduce the burden on a lot of modern medicine.

Most Americans care more about their image amongst their peers than authenticity.

Nuance is the most lacking virtue in our society.

Travel that doesn't build on a relationship or provide solitude is pointless.

Can you explain this?
I do know a whole bunch of douchebags who travel constantly and never seem to gain anything from it other than bragging rights, but I also know people who gain enormously from travel, and not just for solitude or building a relationship.

[fpjeepy]

Solitude is necessary for humans to process so that is beneficial. Relationships are also important. But traveling so that you can post pictures on your Instagram that check off ticket items on your bucket list are a waste of resources, in my opinion. "Seeing with your own eyes" sounds cool, but I don't think it means anything. If seeing with your own eyes is so important then why does everyone there have their phones out?

At a more detailed level ordering budlights from the server by the pool on the cruise ship is of less value than sharing a homecooked meal with a person who lives in a different part of the world in a different economic class.

[DocToDisco]

Religion is foolish made up bullshit - but can still have societal value.

Totally agree with that, it was just a form of Law & Order back in the day so that your Daddy wouldn't rape you and your neighbor wouldn't murder you!!

[DocToDisco]

Inspired by a catchy flash-in-the-pan song currently popular with kids born after 1995,

Disney movies are bullshit and engender unrealistic expectations about life and your progression from childhood to adulthood.

HAHAHAHAHA So true!

And Tigger in your pic is REAL??????
hahahahahahaha

[Metalcat]

Religion is foolish made up bullshit - but can still have societal value.

Totally agree with that, it was just a form of Law & Order back in the day so that your Daddy wouldn't rape you and your neighbor wouldn't murder you!!

I'm sorry, which specific religion back in which day are you referring to?

[RedmondStash]

"White" isn't really a race, and is a poorly defined concept. It basically means sort of European, or northwestern European, including or excluding Irish and Italians, depending on the time period. (Don't get me started about "Caucasian," which derives from a specific part of Turkey.)

And "white" also means 100% northwest European -- or at least looking 100% northwest European -- because adding in any other race means you're "mixed" or "nonwhite" or defined as whatever that other race is now. The only way to be white is to be only white. (Or at least to pass as only white.)

It's a really weird concept when you stop to think about it. Just one drop of some other blood, and you're technically no longer white, at least by American standards. No other race is defined that exclusively in America. You can be half-Chinese, but not half-white, unless you're famous or accomplished -- and then as soon as you mess up, the white part gets disavowed.

The whole concept of human racial groups is weird, but "white" is the weirdest of all.

[ChpBstrd]

"White" isn't really a race, and is a poorly defined concept. It basically means sort of European, or northwestern European, including or excluding Irish and Italians, depending on the time period. (Don't get me started about "Caucasian," which derives from a specific part of Turkey.)

And "white" also means 100% northwest European -- or at least looking 100% northwest European -- because adding in any other race means you're "mixed" or "nonwhite" or defined as whatever that other race is now. The only way to be white is to be only white. (Or at least to pass as only white.)

It's a really weird concept when you stop to think about it. Just one drop of some other blood, and you're technically no longer white, at least by American standards. No other race is defined that exclusively in America. You can be half-Chinese, but not half-white, unless you're famous or accomplished -- and then as soon as you mess up, the white part gets disavowed.

The whole concept of human racial groups is weird, but "white" is the weirdest of all.

As a kid, I wondered how I could be "white" when my skin was closer to the "tan" crayon. I also wondered how my classmates could be "black" when their skin was obviously the color of the "brown" crayon". Later in life, I learned that people with slightly darker tan skin were to be referred to as "brown" even though they were not brown, and other people who were called black actually were brown.

It was decades later that I learned "white" was a figurative term meaning unstained by the sin of Cain. Cain killed his brother and was given "a mark" by God, which in the tradition of European and early American Christianity was considered dark skin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

[fpjeepy]

"White" isn't really a race, and is a poorly defined concept. It basically means sort of European, or northwestern European, including or excluding Irish and Italians, depending on the time period. (Don't get me started about "Caucasian," which derives from a specific part of Turkey.)

And "white" also means 100% northwest European -- or at least looking 100% northwest European -- because adding in any other race means you're "mixed" or "nonwhite" or defined as whatever that other race is now. The only way to be white is to be only white. (Or at least to pass as only white.)

It's a really weird concept when you stop to think about it. Just one drop of some other blood, and you're technically no longer white, at least by American standards. No other race is defined that exclusively in America. You can be half-Chinese, but not half-white, unless you're famous or accomplished -- and then as soon as you mess up, the white part gets disavowed.

The whole concept of human racial groups is weird, but "white" is the weirdest of all.

As a kid, I wondered how I could be "white" when my skin was closer to the "tan" crayon. I also wondered how my classmates could be "black" when their skin was obviously the color of the "brown" crayon". Later in life, I learned that people with slightly darker tan skin were to be referred to as "brown" even though they were not brown, and other people who were called black actually were brown.

It was decades later that I learned "white" was a figurative term meaning unstained by the sin of Cain. Cain killed his brother and was given "a mark" by God, which in the tradition of European and early American Christianity was considered dark skin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Very interesting. I did not know this.

But yeah I think Dravidian Albinos would be the most accurate.

[StashingAway]

On the personal front though, I had a similar struggle as you did, which is why I've studied religions fairly intensely since I was 13. Over many years, a ton of reading, and attending as many varied religious services as possible, I've personally found a lot of spiritual peace through better understanding what religion and spirituality mean to different people around the world.

Right now I'm taking an intensive 3 month course on Canadian Indigenous culture, which I've studied quite a bit about before, but never in this much depth from a non-white perspective. It's really cool to appreciate a completely different take on spirituality.

That's just my personal experience I wanted to share, I hope you find some spiritual peace along the way. I really do think I understand, at least to some degree, the conflict you are experiencing.

I do appreciate you sharing; I feel that I am only beginning this journey so it is sometimes foggy when projecting where it will go.  And from the context I do believe that you recognize the conflict that I am describing ;)

[eyesonthehorizon]

[excerpted]...
1) Religion appears to meet some kind of basic human need (either directly or as a byproduct of our evolution)
2) Religions are made up
3) How can one replicate the benefits knowing this? Having faith for the sake of it's benefits doesn't work (at least for me). Once you reach point (2), I don't think there's a way to be religious without some kind of catch 22.

This is one I've been dealing with most my life as well. Atheist here. The only religions or traditions or faiths that ever held any real calling for me beyond anthropological curiosity were pretty close to animistic. There's also a materialist bent to them, since most were formed out of, & reflect, observation of the natural world.

I think organized religion serves the human need for connection with people through organizational structure that is mostly coincidental to religious purpose; you can get it elsewhere. The thing which distinguishes religion is a sense of connection or relationship to the world outside ourselves, in the broadest possible sense, & where that connection or relationship is perceived is what we deem holy. Whether you personally get that from Sagan's "We are a way for the universe to know itself," or from the notion that we are all dreaming our separateness from the whole, or that some god birthed us or made us of wood or clay, it seems to be the same emotional experience of the sacred.

Combining that emotional experience with social & personal purpose, tribal markers, a couple of beloved narratives, maybe a few symbols for shorthand, & ritual behavior has plenty of neurological basis for something intensely satisfying to the primate brain; the question if you're trying to build that whole capital-R Religion experience from scrap is, are any of those constituent elements mere mental junk food or do they each convey separate benefits? Because if any of them are crap, in absence of some faith (an emotional experience you can't control) in their rightness it degrades the rest of the experience, it won't cohere. (Malcat will perhaps laugh in context of a recent thread when I say that the one part I still find lacking is the community....)

I'd also say that like most emotions, you can practice the experience of perceiving the holy to learn to access it more easily (& thus frequently.) It's a neurological habit you can build. Which things trigger it for you can change or multiply over time, but the more easily you access that state the more opportunities you have to share it with others as they experience it, imho.

(The fact that I'm reasonably inclined to believe this is reducible to molecules zinging around under the influence of a predictable physics is, to me, part of what makes it beautiful, holy, good. The certainty of faith, for me, is in the resonant emotional experience, not the particulars of whether our science is good enough yet or if we're all actually borne on the back of a turtle.)

Elsewhere in the thread, I quite agree with this & think it's related!!

All categories are arbitrary. Observable reality is based on continuous phenomena. Categories vary in their utility and defensibility, but not in their trueness.

But it doesn't have to be true to be real, in human experience. It'd be fairly easy to say that most people's experiences of the holy fall into the experience of accepting, affirming a relationship between self & else: a state of perceived comprehension (even just comprehension of the existence of mystery. ...This is also why drugs do it for some people.) In brief, humans really get a kick out of categorizing, deciding/ discerning things; it's installing handles on otherwise unwieldy experiences.