Religious Economics

[GrayAngel]

What would happen if we chose our religious views based on an economic-like view of the options? What if we chose based on what each had the most to offer? This is something that's been on my mind lately. Let's try this out.

What advantage does atheism or agnosticism have over other religions? I've heard some claim vague things like "integrity" to be theirs, but this means nothing. Integrity exists with members of religion and the atheism alike.

You don't have to come to church, but then again, neither do Christians. Christians can really only be counted on to attend church two times a year: Easter and Christmas. Not only that, but many, such as myself, don't consider going to church something we have to do, rather it is something we are delighted to do. For me, personally, there are few times when when I am happier than when I am gathered with other believers.

As for non-Christian religions, I can't speak for them. I don't think Jews have holy places (in local areas), and I don't know much about what Muslims do in their buildings or how often they meet.

What most religions have to offer is the promise of an afterlife. This offers comfort for the dying as well as those who mourn the deaths of others. But an atheist doesn't believe in the afterlife, so death is final. The loss of a loved one is a permanent loss.

An atheist doesn't even get the pleasure of saying, "I told you so." If they're right, they will cease to exist, just like everyone else. But if they're wrong, they run the risk of having an unpleasant afterlife because of their disbelief. Some will say that this is a bad reason to convert, but I don't see why. This looks to be a lose-lose situation no matter how you spin it.

Some also claim that life is more precious if it is finite. This, again, doesn't make any sense to me. If life is good, why would you want it to end? If finite is better than infinite, than shouldn't a shorter life be even better than a longer life? Is it better to die after one million years or one hundred years? How about one seventy years versus seven days?

Religion usually offers community for those who are of like mind, but I've never heard of an atheist church/temple/gathering place. Granted, most people tend to side on atheists on political and moral issues, so they might not need it.

Atheism has science on its side, since science is forced to operate on the assumption that there is no such thing as gods, angels, demons, spirits, or any kind of supernatural phenomenon. But religion is not always opposed to science. The two are distinctly different things. One is concerned with the physical world, the other with the supernatural (i.e. the things science can't touch).

I wrote this up mostly in the order that it came to mind. If you think I've missed something, feel free to add to it.

 

[quatona]

It seems to me that basing economic considerations on the promises made by the vendor would be a tad naive.

You didn´t mention the 72 virgins, btw.

 

[quatona]

An atheist doesn't even get the pleasure of saying, "I told you so."

Personally I don´t find saying "I told you so" a pleasure - but to each their own.

Then again, if there were no non-Christians there wouldn´t be anyone whom you could visit in hell to tell them "I told you so". So your pleasure depends on us non-believers being non-believers. Consider it selfless altruism on our part.

On another note, I tend to think that even pleasures such as saying "I told you so" down to people who are burning in eternal torment will wear off after a timespan way short of eternity.

 

[quatona]

What most religions have to offer is the promise of an afterlife. This offers comfort for the dying as well as those who mourn the deaths of others. But an atheist doesn't believe in the afterlife, so death is final. The loss of a loved one is a permanent loss.

OTOH, we don´t have to deal with the prospect of our ceased loved ones burning in hell for all eternity.

 

[KCfromNC]

What would happen if we chose our religious views based on an economic-like view of the options? What if we chose based on what each had the most to offer? This is something that's been on my mind lately. Let's try this out.

What advantage does atheism or agnosticism have over other religions?

The best correlation to the facts as we know them. What other metric is there for a question about the nature of the universe?

 

[GrayAngel]

It seems to me that basing economic considerations on the promises made by the vendor would be a tad naive.

You didn´t mention the 72 virgins, btw.

Not sure what you mean.

While I've read the part where the virgins are mentioned as part of the Muslim Heaven, I wouldn't include it because I don't know what Muslims think about that. Makes me wonder what the incentive is for the women, though.

Personally I don´t find saying "I told you so" a pleasure - but to each their own.

Then again, if there were no non-Christians there wouldn´t be anyone whom you could visit in hell to tell them "I told you so". So your pleasure depends on us non-believers being non-believers. Consider it selfless altruism on our part.

On another note, I tend to think that even pleasures such as saying "I told you so" down to people who are burning in eternal torment will wear off after a timespan way short of eternity.

That's not exactly what I was getting at. I meant that whether or not you are right, you will still end up in the same boat as everyone else. You wouldn't win anything by being right.

OTOH, we don´t have to deal with the prospect of our ceased loved ones burning in hell for all eternity.

Fair enough.

The best correlation to the facts as we know them. What other metric is there for a question about the nature of the universe?

I pretty much covered that in the paragraph, "Atheism has science on its side." The religious are not automatically opposed to science. At the very least, many of us can listen to a scientist speaking and not plug our fingers in our ears while chanting, "Lalalala! I can't hear you!"

 

[Paradoxum]

You didn´t mention the 72 virgins, btw.

What are the virgins? Angels? Is that inappropriate behavior with animals because they aren't human? Can they only have sex once because after that they aren't virgins anymore? If they are humans who died as virgins that probably means many will be children... does it then endorse pedophillia?

What do women get in Muslim heaven?

Completely irrelevant but interesting thoughts IMO

 

[Paradoxum]

Liberal Christian universalism.

You can get meaning from being Christian in life, freedom from being liberal, and you, your friends, and family get to go to heaven because of the universalism. I say Christian because it preserves your individuality after death, and is based on love and personal relationship with God.

Worryingly that is what I used to believe in, which means it is probably wrong... unless I am extremely luckly to be right about something so important at such a young age.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What advantage does atheism or agnosticism have over other religions?

Wrong move right there. You would have to look at secular humanism, or what have you, because neither atheism or agnosticism is a proper religion. It is also a tad iffy to juxtapose them with "other religions".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I've heard some claim vague things like "integrity" to be theirs, but this means nothing. Integrity exists with members of religion and the atheism alike.

Intellectual intergrity maybe; instead of just integrity without qualifier. But intellectual integrity stands in stark contrast to the whole theme of the ('mock')inquiry of your post. This can be seen especially well when it comes to things like promises of an afterlife or I-told-you-sos:

What most religions have to offer is the promise of an afterlife. This offers comfort for the dying as well as those who mourn the deaths of others. But an atheist doesn't believe in the afterlife, so death is final. The loss of a loved one is a permanent loss.

An atheist doesn't even get the pleasure of saying, "I told you so." If they're right, they will cease to exist, just like everyone else. But if they're wrong, they run the risk of having an unpleasant afterlife because of their disbelief. Some will say that this is a bad reason to convert, but I don't see why. This looks to be a lose-lose situation no matter how you spin it.

Intellectual integrity demands the most likely, and not the coolest and most shiny.

(Plus, atheism/agnosticism and intellectual integrity are not married anyway. )

 

[GrayAngel]

What are the virgins? Angels? Is that inappropriate behavior with animals because they aren't human? Can they only have sex once because after that they aren't virgins anymore? If they are humans who died as virgins that probably means many will be children... does it then endorse pedophillia?

What do women get in Muslim heaven?

Completely irrelevant but interesting thoughts IMO

These are good questions you can ask Muslims in the Christian and World Religion forum. It's not a Christian only area.

Liberal Christian universalism.

You can get meaning from being Christian in life, freedom from being liberal, and you, your friends, and family get to go to heaven because of the universalism. I say Christian because it preserves your individuality after death, and is based on love and personal relationship with God.

Worryingly that is what I used to believe in, which means it is probably wrong... unless I am extremely luckly to be right about something so important at such a young age.

I think there's a limit to this approach to the economical approach to religion, but I think it is something to consider. I personally find little appeal to be atheist.

If you would choose Christianity because you believe it has the most to offer, then you'll have to decide how far you'll go with it. With Christian universalism, you accept the parts of Christianity that appeal to you while rejecting what doesn't. But does it make sense to trust the Gospel of a book that you mostly don't believe in, to believe in God and Jesus while denying the teachings of Jesus' disciples, the ones who knew Jesus better than anyone?

Interesting that you would assume you're wrong because it is something you came up with at an early age. The faith of children is something Christ treasured very highly, although they do come up with some very wild ideas.

Wrong move right there. You would have to look at secular humanism, or what have you, because neither atheism or agnosticism is a proper religion. It is also a tad iffy to juxtapose them with "other religions".

I was wondering how long it will take before somebody brought this up. I do consider atheism and agnosticism to be religions. Not all religions are centered on the worship of a god, such as Buddhism. They also don't all believe in the afterlife. Buddhists believe in reincarnation, but their goal is to reach Nirvana, which is a state of non-existence if my understanding is correct. During Jesus' time, there were also Sadducees who didn't believe in the afterlife.

The only things I see in common in all religions is that they:

1. Are a collection of beliefs that are held by a group of like-minded individuals.

2. Are essential to the daily functioning of individuals.

3. Contain a collection of myths, which are accepted based on faith, even if they are supported by reason.

4. Are opposed to other religious views.

You might not think that atheism has myths, but they do. A myth is a story meant to explain something. The Big Bang is atheism's creation story. We can't go back in time and see if this is what actually took place, but many are convinced that this is how the universe began. There are also ideas made up to explain how our universe could come from nothing, such as the idea that there's some inter-dimensional plane of infinite energy that bubbles up and creates different universes.

The reason I included 4. was because I wanted to exclude political positions from religion. Conservatism, Liberalism, etc., are similar to religion, but they fit in a different spectrum.

 

[David Jerome]

What advantage does atheism or agnosticism have over other religions?

Not having to deal with man-made restrictions that offer no benefit to those being restricted, but instead are harmful. For example, Catholics denying couples the right to birth-control, resulting in financial troubles for the couples who can't afford the kids they have, and a sub-standard of living for children in those struggling families.

There are MANY more I can name.

Atheism has science on its side, since science is forced to operate on the assumption that there is no such thing as gods, angels, demons, spirits, or any kind of supernatural phenomenon. But religion is not always opposed to science. The two are distinctly different things. One is concerned with the physical world, the other with the supernatural (i.e. the things science can't touch).

That's not correct. Science relies on evidence; if evidence of any deities ever surfaces, science will acknowledge it. Conversly, religion ignores evidence, like with Christians and evolution.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That's not correct. Science relies on evidence; if evidence of any deities ever surfaces, science will acknowledge it.

Can sound waves be caught on camera?

 

[David Jerome]

Can sound waves be caught on camera?

Yes. Any camera-phone can record sounds in a room.

 

[Davian]

...
Atheism has science on its side, since science is forced to operate on the assumption that there is no such thing as gods, angels, demons, spirits, or any kind of supernatural phenomenon.

Forced? on what do you base that? All that is required is for evidence for such things to be examined. Testable, repeatable evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

But religion is not always opposed to science. The two are distinctly different things. One is concerned with the physical world, the other with the supernatural (i.e. the things science can't touch).

How would you differentiate between "supernatural" and "non-existent"?

 

[Davian]

Can sound waves be caught on camera?

I was at the museum of modern art in Amsterdam last month.

They had a projector aimed at a tray of water, reflecting its image onto the wall. The tray was filled with water, and under the tray was a large speaker.

The soundtrack to the video being played created varied standing waves in the water, which then created complex visuals on the wall.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I was wondering how long it will take before somebody brought this up. I do consider atheism and agnosticism to be religions.

That is your opinion. But how about monotheism? Do you consider that a religion too? You should.

Not all religions are centered on the worship of a god, such as Buddhism.

Yes, Buddhism is considered to be a religion. If somebody is both, an agnostic and a buddhist, then we consider this person's religion to be Buddism, and not agnosticism. Similarly with monotheism and Islam, for example.

The Big Bang is atheism's creation story.

That is projection.

 

[Davian]

...
The only things I see in common in all religions is that they:

1. Are a collection of beliefs that are held by a group of like-minded individuals.

Which may only speak to the normal functioning of the human brain, and its predilection for seeing patterns. What may have been an evolutionary advantage long ago is now hijacked by religion.

Pareidolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The commonality of religions arises from the commonality of how our brains work.

2. Are essential to the daily functioning of individuals.

We *are* social animals.

3. Contain a collection of myths, which are accepted based on faith, even if they are supported by reason.

And protected by our demonstrable ability for self deception.

4. Are opposed to other religious views.

I would expect that religions that do not practice divisiveness would not last long.

You might not think that atheism has myths, but they do.

No, atheism is the absence of belief. Individuals may have their own myths.

A myth is a story meant to explain something. The Big Bang is atheism's creation story. We can't go back in time and see if this is what actually took place, but many are convinced that this is how the universe began.

We do not need to go back in time. Evidence for the initial expansion of the cosmos is readily observable.

There are also ideas made up to explain how our universe could come from nothing, such as the idea that there's some inter-dimensional plane of infinite energy that bubbles up and creates different universes.

These hypotheses may be unfalsifiable -at this time - but how does adding deities to the mix provide any explanatory power?

 

[Paradoxum]

These are good questions you can ask Muslims in the Christian and World Religion forum. It's not a Christian only area.

To be honest I don't care all that much about the answer

I think there's a limit to this approach to the economical approach to religion, but I think it is something to consider. I personally find little appeal to be atheist.

One should believe what is true, but I also little appeal to atheism. Can't help my doubt though.

If you would choose Christianity because you believe it has the most to offer, then you'll have to decide how far you'll go with it. With Christian universalism, you accept the parts of Christianity that appeal to you while rejecting what doesn't. But does it make sense to trust the Gospel of a book that you mostly don't believe in, to believe in God and Jesus while denying the teachings of Jesus' disciples, the ones who knew Jesus better than anyone?

Well I don't plan to commit my life to follow Christ right now (if ever again). I could potentially believe Jesus was God incarnate, and I still do value (some?) Christian moral principles. I also think the Bible has errors.

Interesting that you would assume you're wrong because it is something you came up with at an early age. The faith of children is something Christ treasured very highly, although they do come up with some very wild ideas.

The faith of children might be treasured, but they don't understand existence. My thinking is that so many intelligent people have gone before me and been wildly wrong, why should I think myself magically right. Of course I done think I'm right about some things, but it is quite possible to doubt them too.

 

[GrayAngel]

Not having to deal with man-made restrictions that offer no benefit to those being restricted, but instead are harmful. For example, Catholics denying couples the right to birth-control, resulting in financial troubles for the couples who can't afford the kids they have, and a sub-standard of living for children in those struggling families.

There are MANY more I can name.

I am not Catholic, so that restriction wouldn't apply to me. Catholics seem to think that everything is evil.

I have heard that birth control, or at least some forms of it, work by terminating pregnancies early on. I'm not planning on having any kids soon, so I haven't looked into that. I know there are other forms of birth control other than the pills, though.

And you can find churches these days that are accepting of pretty much everything. Not that I like it, but it's true.

That's not correct. Science relies on evidence; if evidence of any deities ever surfaces, science will acknowledge it. Conversly, religion ignores evidence, like with Christians and evolution.

Science assumes that there is a natural explanation for everything. It's an assumption just like any other. I can't fault science because there are some things you cannot observe directly. You can't exactly put God in a test tube and measure His weight.

And like I said, Christians do not automatically reject science. Personally, I don't care whether we evolved from lesser lifeforms (something, by the way, that has yet to be proven) or if we were created in a single day from the dust of the earth. It doesn't make much difference to me.

Forced? on what do you base that? All that is required is for evidence for such things to be examined. Testable, repeatable evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

How would you differentiate between "supernatural" and "non-existent"?

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

The supernatural is more real than the natural. Without God, there would be no physical world. And when God turns His back on the world, it will cease to exist. Without a mind to experience the world, the world does not exist.

At least, that's my view on it.

I was at the museum of modern art in Amsterdam last month.

They had a projector aimed at a tray of water, reflecting its image onto the wall. The tray was filled with water, and under the tray was a large speaker.

The soundtrack to the video being played created varied standing waves in the water, which then created complex visuals on the wall.

Even then, you're not seeing the sound, but you're observing the affects that sound has on the water, and the way light travels through that water and onto the wall.

Bats can "see" sound, though. I think snakes can too.

That is your opinion. But how about monotheism? Do you consider that a religion too? You should.

Yes, Buddhism is considered to be a religion. If somebody is both, an agnostic and a buddhist, then we consider this person's religion to be Buddism, and not agnosticism. Similarly with monotheism and Islam, for example.

Monotheism is a branch of different religions, just like polytheism. I could also call agnosticism a branch or denomination of atheism.

That is projection.

It is true. The seven day creation is Christianity's creation story. The most popular creation story of atheism is the Big Bang, which claims that all the energy in the universe came from a single explosion that came from nothing, which is contrary to the scientifically supported belief that energy can neither be created or destroyed.