vERY GOOD, but it does not deal with the greater problem. I can prove beyond any doubt (and disprove whoever claims the opposite), that people need the warm fuzzies they receive from the fundamental aspects of relgion: God, pentitude, heaven/hell, etc. I challenge somebody to invent a type of rationality that satisfies the need for the warm fuzzies when presented to minds that are inherently opposed to derive such from rationality. Then, and only then, will religiosity wither.
Otherwise, my dear writer, you are preaching to the choir.
I can prove beyond any doubt (and disprove whoever claims the opposite), that people need the warm fuzzies they receive from the fundamental aspects of relgion [sic]: God, pentitude, heaven/hell, etc.
I can prove beyond any doubt (and disprove whoever claims the opposite), that people need the warm fuzzies they receive from the fundamental aspects of relgion: God, pentitude, heaven/hell, etc.
I think that, in general, there usually can’t be an X that provides Y even to someone that is inherently opposed to get Y from X.
However, there might be a type of rationality that satisfies the need for the warm fuzzies when presented to minds that are not inherently predisposed to derive such from rationality, that works for moderate-minded skeptics, for people who aren’t actively trying to believe in it but also aren’t actively trying not to believe in it.
I challenge somebody to invent a type of rationality that satisfies the need for the warm fuzzies when presented to minds that are inherently opposed to derive such from rationality.
You are basically asking to start with a=FALSE (“inherently opposed to derive such from rationality”) and prove that a=TRUE (“invent a type of rationality that satisfies the need for the warm fuzzies”). I hope that asking to prove that TRUE=FALSE was not your intention.
At the risk of repeating myself and no-one caring, I’d state the following: I get my divine kick out of occasional meditations on Gnosticism, sometimes slapping on consciously useless justifications for it, like “It’s not dissimliar to the Simulation Argument, which is acceptable”. Reading Philip K. Dick led me to it, so it’s pretty much narrating fanfiction of my favourite science fantasy to myself. I guess you could call that religious masturbation. What do you think about this, huh?
I may misunderstand your meaning of “warm fuzzies”, but I find I obtain significant emotional satisfaction from mathematics, music, and my social interactions with certain people. I see no reason to believe that people receive some important thing from the fundamental aspects of religion that cannot be obtained in less detrimental ways.
vERY GOOD, but it does not deal with the greater problem. I can prove beyond any doubt (and disprove whoever claims the opposite), that people need the warm fuzzies they receive from the fundamental aspects of relgion: God, pentitude, heaven/hell, etc. I challenge somebody to invent a type of rationality that satisfies the need for the warm fuzzies when presented to minds that are inherently opposed to derive such from rationality. Then, and only then, will religiosity wither. Otherwise, my dear writer, you are preaching to the choir.
Really? Please do.
Have you looked for a Third Alternative?
all people? some people? typical people?
I think that, in general, there usually can’t be an X that provides Y even to someone that is inherently opposed to get Y from X.
However, there might be a type of rationality that satisfies the need for the warm fuzzies when presented to minds that are not inherently predisposed to derive such from rationality, that works for moderate-minded skeptics, for people who aren’t actively trying to believe in it but also aren’t actively trying not to believe in it.
You are basically asking to start with a=FALSE (“inherently opposed to derive such from rationality”) and prove that a=TRUE (“invent a type of rationality that satisfies the need for the warm fuzzies”). I hope that asking to prove that TRUE=FALSE was not your intention.
At the risk of repeating myself and no-one caring, I’d state the following: I get my divine kick out of occasional meditations on Gnosticism, sometimes slapping on consciously useless justifications for it, like “It’s not dissimliar to the Simulation Argument, which is acceptable”. Reading Philip K. Dick led me to it, so it’s pretty much narrating fanfiction of my favourite science fantasy to myself. I guess you could call that religious masturbation. What do you think about this, huh?
Also, see the Ecclesia Gnostica website for a whole lot of tasty, slippery, easily digestable woo.
I may misunderstand your meaning of “warm fuzzies”, but I find I obtain significant emotional satisfaction from mathematics, music, and my social interactions with certain people. I see no reason to believe that people receive some important thing from the fundamental aspects of religion that cannot be obtained in less detrimental ways.