How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

I suspect that most of us think: "I do not know if my religion is right, but I'm certain that yours is wrong.

Artic? The word you wanted was Arctic. You may object that this is a small point, buta it is symptomatic of the sloppiness of the argument you are advancing. JLN has said that the superstitious beliefs of all religions are wrong. You resapond with statements such as this:



Nothing was shown. Speck is speculating here, he (she?) is not making a categorical allegation of fact. Even if Speck is correct, these hunters are benefiting from a coincidence, not some mystical power lent them by superstition. But even the prospect of animals being "allowed" to avoid certain areas shows Speck having not even a rudimentary understanding of the mechanism of natural selection. Animals which avoid an area frequented by hunters, for whatever reason, have a greater opportunity to pass on their genetic material, and to produce offspring who avoid those areas, for whatever reason, than animals who don't. Most game animals will reproduce within a year, so any effect will, once again, be coincidental rather than deterministic.

The superstition was not "right," its effect simply coincided with the needs of the hunters. The argument is sufficiently vague as it is stated, but more than that, there is no examination of migration habits of the game animals, of the numbers of game animals available, either in the area frequented by the hunters, or in areas to which the hunters did not go. Statistically, there is no basis for the speculation, for the good and sufficient reason that there is no statistical evidence provided.

As for the pastoralists of Kenya, they were able to survive in an arid area (it's not a desert) because they were nomadic, which gave them a grater range in which to find fodder for their livestock. Those who suffered from the intervention of Westerners did not suffer because they abandoned superstition, but because they abandoned the nomadic life style.

The suffering and deaths of those who relied on Western food aid is a product of the fuzzy thinking of Westerners. In the 50 years or so of famine relief programs by Westerners, a principle of food distribution has been to set up food distribution centers on a Western industrial model. This however, means that those receiving food aid, whether or not they risk death in going to the food distribution centers, are obliged to abandon their fields or their herds in order to make the trek to the food distribution centers, which simply exacerbates the problems of food production which endangered them in the first place. If food were delivered to them in situ, they would have the opportunity to continue to farm and/or herd their livestock, thereby reducing their need for Western food aid.

That some Westerners may claim that "sacred cows" are a manifestation of superstition is not demonstrated, just because someone makes the claim. The cows of India produce food in the form of milk and butter. Additionally, they provide fertilizer and fuel from the animals' dung. Perhaps at some time in the past, intelligent men and women ascertained the equation--that killing the cows for beef eliminated the dairy food production, and the fertilizer and fuel provided by the dung. If they then declared the cows to be "sacred," thereby preserving them as a continuing source of food and a source of fertilizer and fuel, they were simply accommodating the ignorance and illiteracy of their audience. Even that is not assured, however. Just because someone is illiterate and ignorant is not evidence that they are stupid. Both conditions are curable. It is equally possible that at the time that cows were declared "sacred" that the principle had been explained to the people, that they understood, and that they then undertook to preserve their herds as sources of dairy food and of fertilizer and fuel. If over many generations people later came to continue the preservation for reasons which Westerners consider superstition, that does not mean that there were no sound reasons for the practice, or that the people did not understand the value of the practice. It is certainly not evidence that superstition provided the benefit. If it can be reasonably termed superstition, the superstition is not "right," the preservation of the herds provides the benefit, not the superstition.

You have utterly failed to convince me that superstition is not "wrong."

I do not think it is unlikely at all that cows became sacred because of their value. I also don't think it is unlikely that it started off as something much more mundane. Perhaps specific circumstances in the past forced the people to rely on the cow a lot more for their survival. Then, two generations later, there might be no real need anymore to rely specifically on the cow, but the practice continues because that is the life the people were taught. But the old reasons to revere the cow aren't valid anymore, so new ones are invented to account for their own behavior.
When I think about the beliefs of religion, I can't help but wonder how much of it started off as something practical and neccesary which then evolved into an abstraction no one really understands.

To this day, cattle in India are a major source of fertilizer and fuel. Whether or not they are as crucial a food sources as they once were, i'm not able to say. This value is not unique to India, either. The Maasai and other tribes of the African grasslands will, in times of dearth, nick the veins of their cattle's necks to draw off blood, which is then mixed with the milk that they drink. Of course, they're not slaughtering the cattle, they bind the wounds--they're just taking an extra resource from them. For the tribesmen of eastern and southern Africa, cattle are a sign of wealth, a status symbol. That's not superstition, but it is a value which still functions to preserve the lives of the cattle, which, as in India, are also a source of fertilizer and fuel.

It seems to me that both Setanta and Cryacuz ar right.

It does seem that way to me as well or at the least they both have something that should be considered.

Over the years I've read much of the social anthropological literature, and most of Setanta's and Cryacus" statements of fact are consistent with most conclusions. This is less so, perhaps, with post Harrisian cultural materialism. Twenty-first century post-modern anthropology is, I believe, (I haven't kept up with its literature) more attuned to the psychological implications of Culture (as a system of meanings) than with its value for explaining behavior (as a system of rules).

I find practically any association or group who tell me what to think, say or wear wrong. Except for the law obviously. I have chosen to not have a belief system overall and therefore be more open. It is sometimes a matter of comfort or need for somebody to understand them. It is also sometimes a family thing seeking closeness as opposed to belief in a higher power or actual need for religion.
Hope this helps Lexy

In the grand scheme of things, would not a religion be judged on its effects?
If its adherents become better citizens, for example, would not that need consideration?

If its adherents become suicide bombers, would we consider that?

I was Catholic. Catholics readily killed other Catholics in WWII and other venues. Should that count? It did to me.

Yes...that should "be taken into consideration."

Members of Elks Lodges normally do not kill other Elks...or other people. That should count.

Members of the PTA normally do not kill other PTA members...or other people. That should count.

Religion is another thing completely, Neo.

Religion attempts to explain the REALITY of existence...and most religions attempt to tell us what is good or right...and what is evil or wrong.

So...the people who form religions make guesses about what gods would consider evil or right...and then try to impose those considerations on others.

It sucks.

I am delighted that some theists feel their lives are made fuller and more meaningful by their religion...but I deplore the influence religion has in general. Even those religions that do not kill others.

Do you feel yours is one of the most peaceful religions, neo? If so why do you think that is?

I'm certain

It is nice to know someone is.

But, of course, Frank. The operative word in your reply is 'normally'

I am certain that the vast majority of people in the world would make perfect neighbors. Were it not for wars, the fellow who might be shooting at me could be with his wife in our game room playing pinochle and sipping libations.

But that was not the question implied by the OP. RL asked a question about religion. I am sad to say I believe that, in wartime, our would be pinochle adversary would place religion and patriotism above human kindness. If he happens to be a JW, none of us have anything to fear. Can't say that for a PTA member who might be a citizen of a hostile nation.

Again do JW's serve in wars?

I found my answer, No they do not.

I hope that they do not send others to fight for them.

I'm sure there are others whose members would rather go to prison before taking up arms. But we have brothers in Eritrea and South Korea currently serving time. In WWII Germany, many died in concentration camps rather than do anything to advance the war effort, including working in munitions factories. All some had to do for their freedom was to 'Heil Hitler'

Always? No. My son in law, a baptized brother, decided to join the navy back in '95. Basically, he stopped being a Witness. He is no longer counted as a member.

No need to worry.

I will be honest and say that I find value in any ideology that refuses to fight its neighbors.

I will also say that if my neighbor comes to me and threatens to kill me I will try and kill him first if I can not convince him otherwise.

I'd go to extremes to protect family, but I don't own anything that would make an effective weapon. Used to be just looking at my ugly maw would discourage most people. Now, I suppose I would have to use a stick