Recent Activity
William Chrisholm commented on What is human nature? on January 24, 2008, 3:49 PM
So if I understand what you are saying Rajarr, you think we should study the mind through the lens of meditation instead of the lens of science? In other words, you think we should trade in one possibly useless lense for another possibly useless lense?
William Chrisholm commented on Yes on January 20, 2008, 4:07 AM
Faceless, your argument is like saying we should disallow guns because some people use them to kill others. But that's not true. As someone once said, if we outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have them. In this situation, that would mean that if we get rid of religion, it wouldn't be useful as I described for those who need it. Yes, some people use religion as an excuse to hurt others, but those people are nuts. If you give a gun to a nut, they're going to hurt people too. You can't stop a crazy person from hurting others, you can only try to mitigate the damage and make sure it doesn't happen again. For this, I believe Absurdist has a similiar idea ti mine, in that we need rational people teaching religion to those who need it, which is similiar to the idea of police officers with guns stopping criminals or shooting range instructors teaching about gun safety. Although, I think it is wrong to say that irrationality can be got rid of, by teaching skepticism. Teaching others to question ideas is good, but it doesn't cure irrationality. As a good example, consider conspiracy theorists, who question things in an irrational manner.
Religion is still necessary because humans are not naturally good, but actually naturally evil. We are always tempted to lie, cheat, steal, all to gain as much power as we can as fast as we can. Even your example of back scratching is based on power. If we were truly good, we would give out of the goodness of our hearts and expect nothing in return. Now, a rational human may find that religion is unneeded, but the world is not full of rational people. I would bet that you will find a higher concentration of them here, which means that when you appeal to them, they will respond. But really, the irrational people of this world probably outnumber the rational, and therefore you would not have peace if you somehow did away completely with religion. By the way, whenever I talk about a rational or irrational person, I mean someone who can or cannot tell why we should do good things and avoid bad things. The rational human can see that, if humans work together and get along, we can achieve greatness for everyone. A rational human can see that if they do good things and don't do bad things, even though it may not immediately bring them power, it will eventually do so because it aids humanity as a whole and therefore that individual personally. But the irrational human, the majority I would bet, only thinks of themselves and their own immediate power. Which is where religion comes in. Religion tells us to do good and not to do evil, but instead of explaining reality, it makes up parable after parable to explain why we should do so. Interestingly, if we look at religion logically, we can see that many parts of it are irrational, namely the ideas about the supernatural. A place in the sky where you go when you die? A cosmic being that can do anything, that can cause seas to part and bread to multiply? These ideas violate rationality and reality, yet they have meaning for the irrational mind. Irrational reasons that influence irrational people. These stories teach people morals about right and wrong, that one should do right and not do wrong. These ideas are important to the irrational person, who without them may indeed cause harm to others and end up decaying society. Basically, my response is this. While I wholeheartedly support the idea that religion is unnecessary for the rational human, who can see for themselves why one should not do wrong, it still seems necessary to have religion because not all humans are rational. Some people need religion to tell them how to behave, and so for them we must keep it. I will end with a final note. Throughout this posting I have made reference to irrational humans. This is not to say that an irrational person is a bad person, in any sense of the word. Some people are born strong, some people are born intelligent, and some people are born irrational. A strong person may or may not also be dumb, if you believe stereotypes, but if they are, then it is a good thing for the intelligent person to help them out. The same may be true for the intelligent person, who may, if stereotypically weak, need help lifting things. The irrational person is like this too, in that they need the help of religion to tell them why they should do good and not do evil. … Read More
January 19, 2008 | In
I am a college student studying philosophy and also english/sociology/humans. Basically, humans and their craziness fascinate me, and I have ideas on just about every facet of them. I am also rather egotistical, which is why I refer to humans as “them”, in that I feel separate from them.I believe that humanity is moving towards a point where your ideas will define who you are, in the same way that who and what you were used to define you. It used to be that strong people worked, intelligent people managed, and you moved up in the world by improving your qualities, either mental or physical. So in the future, we will move up in the world because of what we think. And the best way to strengthen our ideas is to put them out there for others to comment on, to pit ourselves and our ideas against the ideas of others, to face criticism and critique and either change our ideas or argue for them.Another aspect of my egotistical nature is that I tend to believe I am always right, and will fight for what I believe is true. And if I happen to believe some things that the majority do not understand, that just means I will have more fun trying to prove myself to everyone else.

William Chrisholm commented on What is human nature? on January 24, 2008, 8:49 PM
So if I understand what you are saying Rajarr, you think we should study the mind through the lens of meditation instead of the lens of science? In other words, you think we should trade in one possibly useless lense for another possibly useless lense?