The Pope ordered the crusades, not a deity. In the same way, organized religions are social constructs, not the characters they’re based on. I don’t think anyone would argue that religions aren’t real, it’s just that the claims they make are untrue.
That’s a double standard. Money is to gods as capitalism is to religion. You said money is real, you didn’t specify that money is fake and only capitalism is real. But now you’re saying gods are fake and only religions are real. You said money has effects on the world despite being a mere idea, but now you’re saying Deus can’t have effects on the world because She’s a mere idea.
Your beliefs aren’t consistent, you didn’t think this all the way through. Fortunately, My goal with this gotcha is to encourage you towards deeper reflection, not to dismiss you. I will be satisfied with your logical consistency if you either say that money isn’t real, or that gods are real.
Ok, I kinda see where you’re coming from. However, I think there’s still a difference. The system is what gives “legitimacy” (for lack of a better word) to a social construct. So a god is not real to people without the religion, just as money as a concept wouldn’t be real to people living outside of capitalism. The problem for this analogy is that outside of a few uncontacted tribes, capitalism is inescapable for virtually everyone on earth. Even “communist” countries rely on the global capitalist market to some extent at this point in history. So money is more real to more people if that makes sense.
Elohim once promised the Holy Land to the Hebrews. The Zionists in Israel believe they have a divine blessing to commit their genocide and settle Palestine. I have a theological rebuttal to that mindset, but because I am only using Zionists as an example, I will not use it today.
You say we can’t escape capitalism. I agree. I assert that Palestinians cannot escape Judaism, regardless of their own beliefs. Thus, religion can be very much like capitalism, and gods can be inescapable even to those who do not believe.
That is not a valid counterexample. I repeat, no one here is arguing that religions or political philosophies aren’t real or that they don’t have tangible effects. The fact that the religion exists does not make the fictional characters in it real to those outside the religion.
If that’s so, then why does capitalism make money real to you? I don’t believe money is real. Though I still do often believe in it without believing it’s real, just for convenience’s sake.
Because I am forced to operate within capitalism. I work to earn money, and I exchange it for goods and services daily. I don’t like capitalism, to be clear, but that doesn’t mean I don’t live in it.
Now you’re the one not being consistent, what do you mean by “believing in it without believing it’s real”?
And likewise, the Palestinians are forced to operate under the tyranny of a Jewish theocratic regime. They are forced to operate within Judaism. So Elohim is a present force in their lives, and they don’t get much choice in the matter. Just like money is.
what do You mean by “believing in it without believing it’s real”?
Reality is “that which when you stoop believing in it, goes away”. Reality is objective. I believe in money, but I don’t believe in it objectively. I believe money exists subjectively. Just like love, justice, gender, national borders, and spacetime.
Again, not a valid example. Palestinians do not practice or believe in Judaism, even if they are forced to live with the actions of some of its adherents. The religion is real to them, not the god.
You don’t need to pester about it. You’re doing this logic trick to show how epistemic difference between spirituality and materialism have ontological similarity. You are correct BTW, to point out the similarities between money and god, church and capital.
But in demanding “logical consistency” you’ve turned a teaching exercise into a debate. The standard that you set that the person be “logically consistent” is part of the ontology that lumps yours and rarWars comments together. By adopting the post - enlightenment ideal of rational, logical consistency as a means to invalidate your opponent’s position, you are performing an act of hegemony.
Contradiction also has consistent logic to it. The way contradiction appears within the individual subject is mysterious, but it drives a lot of activity, both constructive and destructive.
I think you have a good criticism of rational atheism, but the content of these comments aren’t practical or pedagogical, which I believe harms your argument. I think your perspective is pretty good but you got lost in the bit
I agree with your logic and points of emphasis. I can’t make any more presumptions based on these few paragraphs.
I think there are times in a discussion where it can veer into many different directions. I’m very practical minded when it comes to criticism and analysis. It is a good discussion. Sorry if I came off lecturey I think I just felt like writing something lol
The Pope ordered the crusades, not a deity. In the same way, organized religions are social constructs, not the characters they’re based on. I don’t think anyone would argue that religions aren’t real, it’s just that the claims they make are untrue.
That’s a double standard. Money is to gods as capitalism is to religion. You said money is real, you didn’t specify that money is fake and only capitalism is real. But now you’re saying gods are fake and only religions are real. You said money has effects on the world despite being a mere idea, but now you’re saying Deus can’t have effects on the world because She’s a mere idea.
Your beliefs aren’t consistent, you didn’t think this all the way through. Fortunately, My goal with this gotcha is to encourage you towards deeper reflection, not to dismiss you. I will be satisfied with your logical consistency if you either say that money isn’t real, or that gods are real.
Ok, I kinda see where you’re coming from. However, I think there’s still a difference. The system is what gives “legitimacy” (for lack of a better word) to a social construct. So a god is not real to people without the religion, just as money as a concept wouldn’t be real to people living outside of capitalism. The problem for this analogy is that outside of a few uncontacted tribes, capitalism is inescapable for virtually everyone on earth. Even “communist” countries rely on the global capitalist market to some extent at this point in history. So money is more real to more people if that makes sense.
Elohim once promised the Holy Land to the Hebrews. The Zionists in Israel believe they have a divine blessing to commit their genocide and settle Palestine. I have a theological rebuttal to that mindset, but because I am only using Zionists as an example, I will not use it today.
You say we can’t escape capitalism. I agree. I assert that Palestinians cannot escape Judaism, regardless of their own beliefs. Thus, religion can be very much like capitalism, and gods can be inescapable even to those who do not believe.
That is not a valid counterexample. I repeat, no one here is arguing that religions or political philosophies aren’t real or that they don’t have tangible effects. The fact that the religion exists does not make the fictional characters in it real to those outside the religion.
If that’s so, then why does capitalism make money real to you? I don’t believe money is real. Though I still do often believe in it without believing it’s real, just for convenience’s sake.
Because I am forced to operate within capitalism. I work to earn money, and I exchange it for goods and services daily. I don’t like capitalism, to be clear, but that doesn’t mean I don’t live in it.
Now you’re the one not being consistent, what do you mean by “believing in it without believing it’s real”?
And likewise, the Palestinians are forced to operate under the tyranny of a Jewish theocratic regime. They are forced to operate within Judaism. So Elohim is a present force in their lives, and they don’t get much choice in the matter. Just like money is.
Reality is “that which when you stoop believing in it, goes away”. Reality is objective. I believe in money, but I don’t believe in it objectively. I believe money exists subjectively. Just like love, justice, gender, national borders, and spacetime.
Again, not a valid example. Palestinians do not practice or believe in Judaism, even if they are forced to live with the actions of some of its adherents. The religion is real to them, not the god.
You don’t need to pester about it. You’re doing this logic trick to show how epistemic difference between spirituality and materialism have ontological similarity. You are correct BTW, to point out the similarities between money and god, church and capital.
But in demanding “logical consistency” you’ve turned a teaching exercise into a debate. The standard that you set that the person be “logically consistent” is part of the ontology that lumps yours and rarWars comments together. By adopting the post - enlightenment ideal of rational, logical consistency as a means to invalidate your opponent’s position, you are performing an act of hegemony.
Contradiction also has consistent logic to it. The way contradiction appears within the individual subject is mysterious, but it drives a lot of activity, both constructive and destructive.
I think you have a good criticism of rational atheism, but the content of these comments aren’t practical or pedagogical, which I believe harms your argument. I think your perspective is pretty good but you got lost in the bit
Your criticisms are likely valid. How can I do better?
I think youre doing well.
I agree with your logic and points of emphasis. I can’t make any more presumptions based on these few paragraphs.
I think there are times in a discussion where it can veer into many different directions. I’m very practical minded when it comes to criticism and analysis. It is a good discussion. Sorry if I came off lecturey I think I just felt like writing something lol
Ever read Pedagogy of the Oppressed?
Thanks! No, tell Me more