The energy expended in "religious debates".

Energy is wasted is many pursuits. If one enjoys the discussion I see no reason to quit.

Craven

I can understand "enjoy" as participation in a "game", but most games are winable in principle at least which religious debates are not ! So are we left with the mental equivalent of mere physical exercise, or are we "defeating the opposition" in our own heads ...the opposition of course being ignorant of our victory?

Hmmm - well, when it comes to brains; use, use and use again seems to be a good thing - the richer our neuronal connections, the better our brains - and the more resistant to decay, too - so, if it keeps our mental coherence up and at 'em, it is not a waste of time, almost by definition! LOL

Also - it is fun - which is almost certainly not a waste of time - (unless, as in my case, I should be writing an essay and doing other paperwork...sigh).

Also - exercise of the brain in debate is something it seems to need - as muscles need use - so, I am happy if my brain is happy.

The "eternal verities" are of eternal interest, too - discussing and pondering them adds interest and takes one out of one's daily rut - even if it is to run in meta-trails in the abstract.

One has to do SOMETHING 'twixt birth and death - why not spend part of it in hot discussion?

Not as a game, just as enjoyment. A conversation can be enjoyed without winning being the objective.

Energy expenditure for "self maintenance exercises"

Interesting hypothesis, but to say "since we all know from the start that our positions are unlikely to alter," is inaccurate because I know I've altered my positions a lot during my life. I wasn't always leaning towards agnosticism until I read about it. I was convinced by Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Jehova's Witnesses (Russellites), etc. at one time, until I took Humanities - Western Culture at university, and learned about their, the good doctors' there, general method of historical criticism, deconstruction, etc., and the philosophical problems of each when I investigated philosophy a bit more closely. It was my investigations into philosophy that lead me to agree with the idea of agnosticism as an outright philosophical and therefor intellectual position. Do I entertain the idea of god, and the idea of the existence of god? Certainly. I felt compelled to say "of course," but I don't know if the entertainment of the idea of God is a matter of course. I am only certain that ideas of god occur to me.

Beliefs are more, much more, deeply held than thoughts and ideas, because they are held primarily with emotion, and I think you are right about energy expenditure for self maintenance.

Everyone needs a good bitch fest, if not to resolve something, to affirm and boldly decare one's beliefs, a maintenance of one's beliefs.

What things, as de Kere pointed out, are maintained by the other pursuits upon which we waste energy?

Video games? At the very least, maintenance of motor-function and hand eye coordination in regard to maintenance of the physiological self.

This points to a reason why i leave such discussions, and frequently do not return, or stay away for long periods of time. I do believe that there are many who are trying to "win" these arguments. I confess to being sufficiently weak in character as to wish to continue to defend my position, but i feel there are far too many who see debate as a contest which can be won. If you read their statements, they will almost always eventually declare themselves to have "won." Structured debate such as is practiced in schools usually stresses that the object of debate is to make one's best case, but that "winning" is not the goal.

And i'm quite willing to stipulate that i'm just as bad as others about being sucked back into these silly debates.

If I enter any topic in Religion or Philosophy, I go in with no expectation of 'winning' anything, but I enjoy a good mental stretch, and a lot of the questions interest me, so I get sucked in. I don't think that's always a bad thing.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with some mental exercise.

Sometimes you even pick up tidbits into how others think. You don't have to agree with them but the insight can be useful (sometimes even inspiring!).

Thanks all for some good responses so far...

...dlowans "eternal verities" are indeed problematic if both "time" and "truth" turn out to be purely relative to "the self" !

The point I want to stress is that "the religion debate" is unlike most others in that "facts" are absent except for the practice of religions per se.
So whereas in other debates we are open to be persuaded by "points of information" there seem to no substantive issues to argue about except perhaps for the nature and origins of "morality", which we can do anyway under the general field of "ethics". And we should note that this is less popular than "religion" as a debating forum.

So the paradox remains - we expend energy on this particular aspect of our personal beliefs despite being unlikely to get any "answers". Therefore I continue to be drawn to the idea of some form of cognitive overhaul schedule - a fence mending operation for the boundaries of self/others definition perhaps -and the difference between "believers" and "non-believers" being something to do with their perception of the nature of the fence. (I could extend this point by a consideration of "fences" as boundaries with respect to "control"- a central feature of human "cognition" - if so prompted).

Ise agree with fishin.

BTW I am purposely ignoring (above) as "obvious" those lower level motives for engagement in religious debates such as attempts to "convert", or my own occasional anti-theism which sees "religion" as pernicious.

Hi Fresco,

I don't think it's our desire to "convince" that drives us to communicate. I think it's our desire to be known.

Spiritual beliefs are choices which are made without empirical foundation, and as such, they reveal much more about what we're really like than do those things which have absolute answers.

For example, in such debates as you suggest... which is more compelling, to hear someone say "I agree", or to hear them say "I understand" (even if they don't agree).

Best Regards,

rosborne

Yes - "desire to be known"...but perhaps you can extrapolate this because "knowledge" is up for grabs at this level.

and Infrablue

I have not said energy is "wasted" - only that we seem compelled to expend it.

It's interesting. In the "real" world, I seldom discuss religion. I enjoy discussing concepts on A2K for many of the reasons mentioned.........to stretch my brain, to understand how and why other people have come to their conclusions, and to just have an interesting interaction.

No, I don't want to "win", or convert anyone to my way of thinking. At my stage of life, where my philosophy of life has metamorphized a number of times, I really doubt that anything another person could say would change my basic core beliefs. I do think though, that it is very important to keep an open mind, and to constantly integrate new knowledge and insights with what has come before.

I am generally drawn into religious "discussion" because I feel all too often that the religious are trying to take away my freedom to disbelieve. Were it not for this aspect of it, I would be able to shun such threads.

edgarblythe -



Good point, to which I agree. I think that a bigger problem are the religious folk who attempt to influence legislation based on their own religious precepts.

That's an aspect of what I was thinking in my post. Essentially, I don't care if there is a god or organized religion; I just want it to butt out of my life.

edgarblythe

Welcome on board.

Yes - but thats one of the pernicious aspects of religion with which I heartily concur - but which I maintain is not vulnerable to "debate".

So let us examine our mutual feelings of curtailment of our "freedom". I don't think we mean freedom to "think" - I think we mean something about the nature of our psychological "existence". I suspect that you like me feel overextended with the energy we need to expend in order maintain our island of rationality in what we see as an ocean of irrationality. We see politicians jumping on the bandwagon of "faith" and we rightly fear the dangers of the popularist powerbase which results.....? ?

Pipped at the post !