Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The whole point of religion is to control 
> people "now", in order to save them "later", in some vague sense.

I actually had an interesting thought about this a long time ago that I 
never wrote up extensively.

Consider the tragedy of the commons, or any other problem where individual 
selfishness is bad for everyone compared to individual altruism, *if* you 
can get everyone to cooperate.

Government can avoid this by making the "cost" function of being selfish 
high enough that the altruism mechanism is more attractive. E.g., cheating 
on a contract can cost you more than the value of the contract.

Religion can avoid this by making the "reward" function of being altruistic 
high enough that the selfishness is less attractive. E.g., cheating on a 
contract now gets you money but loses you eternal bliss.

In the best of worlds, both government and religion are in the same business.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you to
>> do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.
> 
> Perhaps, though the struggle/journey may have benefit as well for the 
> long term.  That's the problem with trying to second-guess God's 
> motivations, too.  There may be a reason why he might put someone on a 
> collision course with the Church leadership that isn't apparent to anyone.

Once you start trying to second guess an absent figure with no physical 
manifestation and no reliable means of communication, then you really 
need to take a break.

> I was raised Lutheran myself, though - though I identify as non-Christian 
> now (I'd probably say mostly agnostic to be honest - don't know if 
> there's a God or not, don't really care, I guess I may find out at some 
> point.

Yeah, at this point I'd probably say I'm agnostic with atheist leanings. 
  Quite a change from my upbringing ;)

> it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined the 
> parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in 
> motion.  But once the rules for how things interact in the universe were 
> set, they can't be changed.

The clockmaker theory, then?

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Once you start trying to second guess an absent figure with no physical 

Once you start trying to first guess an absent figure ....


FTFY. HTH. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:08:07 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)
>>> That's not the half of it.  Mormons actually believe in a form of
>>> Stewardship where everything is essentially owned by the Church, but
>>> given to the members to use (and care for) responsibly.  However, God
>>> stopped asking them to try living that way, because people in general
>>> are too selfish, greedy and petty to live up to it.
>> 
>> That's interesting, I hadn't heard that before.
> 
> It's not something they advertise, of course, since most people have
> enough of a problem with the 10% tithe :)  If you look for information
> on it, it's called the Law of Consecration.

Thanks, I'll do some more reading - helps me understand people I work 
with and who live around me. :-)

>>> At one point, after everyone is righteous enough, that policy will
>>> again be implemented.
>> 
>> Which kinda trods on God's grant of "free will", no?
> 
> Not any more than having commandments in general does, I believe.

Well, there's a bit of a difference between commandments and "waiting 
until enough people are righteous enough", I think...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:21:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The whole point of religion is to control people "now", in order to save
> them "later", in some vague sense.

Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to get 
people to believe in an afterlife and then use that belief in an 
afterlife to control them now (by implanting fears about how they will 
spend eternity if they don't do the things the religious leadership wants 
them to do).  Making people think they will spend an eternity in hellfire 
and pain will motivate people to do a lot of things.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:11:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> In the best of worlds, both government and religion are in the same
> business.

Very true.  The fundamental difference is that the Government deals in 
your life today, religion typically deals in your eternal life.  Of 
course that differs from religion to religion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:40:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Assuming the creation
>> story happened in a way that's perhaps vaguely similar to the story in
>> Genesis, it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined
>> the parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in
>> motion.
> 
> That's a complete non-sequitar. How is Genesis anything like "setting up
> physics then sitting back and watching"?

God created x, y, and z.  After that some stuff happened, maybe God did 
some fine tuning, but now we don't see that type of intervention because 
things are in motion and God cant' change them, or perhaps he's bored 
with this universe and working on another.

It's not really a non-sequitor, I just didn't explain my thought fully 
enough.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:12:17 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you
>>> to do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.
>> 
>> Perhaps, though the struggle/journey may have benefit as well for the
>> long term.  That's the problem with trying to second-guess God's
>> motivations, too.  There may be a reason why he might put someone on a
>> collision course with the Church leadership that isn't apparent to
>> anyone.
> 
> Once you start trying to second guess an absent figure with no physical
> manifestation and no reliable means of communication, then you really
> need to take a break.

Well, I have discussions like this with my brother from time to time - 
his degree is in philosophy & religion.  "absent figure" might also be 
"nonexistent figure" for that matter. :-)

>> I was raised Lutheran myself, though - though I identify as
>> non-Christian now (I'd probably say mostly agnostic to be honest -
>> don't know if there's a God or not, don't really care, I guess I may
>> find out at some point.
> 
> Yeah, at this point I'd probably say I'm agnostic with atheist leanings.
>   Quite a change from my upbringing ;)

I bet it is. :-)

>> it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined the
>> parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in
>> motion.  But once the rules for how things interact in the universe
>> were set, they can't be changed.
> 
> The clockmaker theory, then?

Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:38:32 +0200, andrel wrote:

> An agnost is someone who thinks that he *can* not know the answer to
> fundamental questions like the existence of one or more Gods. That is
> fundamentally different from someone who merely does not know, or
> doesn't care.

Well, yes and no.  It may be that we cannot know the answer to these 
questions, but the acknowledgment that one doesn't know (or doesn't care) 
is a type of manifestation of the same line of thinking, at least from my 
point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:41:37 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 8-7-2009 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:14:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended
>>> "Traditional" marriage when I was born didn't include allowing whites
>>> to marry blacks, either, so I'm not sure I *want* to support
>>> "traditional marriage."
>> 
>> Yeah, agreed with that.  It strikes me that those who defend so-called
>> "traditional marriage" don't really know what traditional marriage is.
>> They've co-opted the term to mean "one man and one woman", but that's
>> actually a relatively recent thing when it comes to the history of
>> humanity, from what I've read on the subject.
> 
> There is your problem, you have been reading too much.

Certainly some people thinks so.  There are others who think that we 
think to much, and should just go with *their* gut. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message