Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

Enlightenment is advancement of comprehension not ego stroking.
Its not rare I feel enlightened by distinct views of the world other then my own.
But yeah I am tempted to believe some places are more keen to your pragmatical approach to the matter...we are used to expect it by now.

Advancement of comprehension is ego stroking. I mean, have you ever gone backwards in your comprehension? (I thought not). Every time we develop a new idea, in our own minds we think it is progress. Of course, when we consider other people's new ideas... we don't see it that way.

You are basically saying that anyone who agrees with you is enlightened and advanced... while trying not to say it.

I think that calling your new ideas "advancement", while judging the ideas of people with differing ideas as not advance, is the very definition of ego stroking.

Ain't what they do at "Weight Watchers" ...considered enlightening?

...this obsession with absolute relativism will be our doom as a species...
I look at it as a convenient hideout where people seek solace from dealing with huge amounts of data.

It is, after all, an oxymoron.

Frank thinks it makes sense. It one of his new one-liners.

Mine????

How did I get into this?

Fresco...you get all out of control when you are losing. Get over that. We love you too much to allow you to do that to yourself.

When I wake up, when I make breakfast, when I go out for the day, when I meet friends, when I drive my car, in fact, when I do just about anything, I operate from the point of view of a naive realist.

Imagine driving in traffic, constantly aware of the nuances of perception:
Is that truck in my lane real? What if . . . . . .
What the . . . ?

Life is not a virtual re run of the X files

I suspect we all operate from the point of view of a naive realist.

I only suspect it...because there is no way I can know there is anyone else out there.

...hehehe...the man probably is tired let him breath.

The most entertaining aspect about Fresco's discourse on naive realism that immediately comes to mind on a close inspection is that he is very consistent in his own "thinging" of what reality really is..."a social construct on which people's minds agree upon"...count the words/adjectives in there...see how much "thinging" he is doing...unless of course he has an alien notion on what "thinging" refers to...

Breaking it down it requires:

Minds
Social
Construct
Agreement

Those are no less objective starting axioms for his claim having any intended direction whatsoever...
One can't help but jaw dropping when he pushes the matter with a straight face.

The specially entertaining bit of it all is that even if we were to take him seriously we hit a contradiction in terms...his theory is self defeating...it immediately requires what he claims is true being false.

I am pleased you are entertained !
I would make two points.
1. You may be simply cashing in on the point that we are all stuck with words to account for our use of words. Its a soft target for criticism.
2. Writers like Heidegger, attempt to transcend that limitation by coining neologisms. I claim my arguments are consistent with such attempts and that you cannot fully "understand" my position from the point of view of traditional rhetoric or logic. In short lay concepts of "truth" are left behind in the foothills. As one writer put it, acceptance of such positions is "visceral" not "logical".

I am not a Nazi Fresco...I am tolerant and easily accept distinct points of view when they rise with humble contributions into the diverse set of ideas good philosophy requires... I would put up with your own contribution wasn't it the case you were so adamant so intense in portraying no possible truth as truth itself...I can't help but react. I don't know you as a person and I am sure as a person you can possibly be the friendliest of chaps...nonetheless I have to confront the philosopher.

In good truth in the last few days I have the impression your attitude has been more open and straight forward honest. The result seems good or at least better then it was before when we exchange ideas. So there is hope.

Of course we all tend to operate as naive realists in daily transactions. The raison d'etre of philosophy is to question the basis of such "normality" especially in social transactions where matters of differential existential belief tend to come to the fore. But a secondary consideration of more recent years has involved the status of the "observer" in frontier physics. For example physicists are reluctant to state what "an electron IS", or even what "a particle IS". At the very least, therefore, the nature of is-ness, cannot be assumed by philosophers (as you have already pointed out) and any subsequent use of "is" at this level of analysis cannot signify epistemological or ontological closure. Indeed, that is why pragmatists have abandoned such issues as intellectually futile.

In another thread, where Fresco claims that he has met my challenge to present a scenario where REALITY is relative/subjective rather than absolute/objective...he asserts that he has done exactly that. (The scenario is a classic case of using words to hide the fact that he is avoiding the challenge.) But he cannot seem to acknowledge that even if he HAD created a scenario showing REALITY as subjective and relative...

...THAT WOULD BE SELF-DEFEATING TO THE ARGUMENT. That...the "relative and subjective nature"...would be the objective absolute REALITY.

For some reason, apparently ego related, he cannot acknowledge that the entirety of his argument has not been about the REALITY at all...but about attempts to understand and communicate about the REALITY...about the limits of human understanding and inadequacy of human language.

Once he finally gets to where he can acknowledge that...this discussion is over, because at that point, just about everyone will be in agreement.

There is a certain irony in you writing that...asserting it, in fact.

I cannot logically write that sentence . I can only communicate what I suspect you are trying to communicate (as I have indeed done so elsewhere) in a variation of:

I operate as a naive realist in my daily transactions. I am not going to step out in front of a speeding tractor trailer in order to test one possible REALITY.

If there actually is anything else out there...if this is not all just an illusion created by my mind...then all the rest of the people seem to be doing the same.

If history has anything to say about it then no it wouldn't; without Religion we'd find different reasons to kill each other and/or someone with good public speaking skills, Self-Confidence, and Charisma will convince people to do so!

Sounds about right. I suspect that some leaders just use (or invent) religion as a political expedience. If it weren't there, nationaligion, regionalism, racism, tribalism, etc, would probably serve just as well.

...fully agree. Its baffling some of the world top class scientists really believe with a straight face a world without religion would change for the better. Wasn't it so sad to watch I would be laughing hard at it. Unfortunately it saddens me beyond words that our species elite cannot do better, it makes me fear for our species as a whole when our top best are so dumb at understanding the social environment around them...I feel like there is no hope for this group of monkeys in this little blue planet.
Note please I am not defending religion I am for all common sense purposes an atheist but I know better when it comes to public entertainment.

No, I get your message. I don't fault scientists or anyone else for thinking that the world would be better off without religion, but with the caveat that that's just one of many of mankind's ills that are holding us back. The nationaligion, tribaliism, racism, etc, that I mentioned should be resisted just as much, if not more, than religion. And then there's pseudoscience, which may as well be a religion. Need to snuff that out too, I'd think, if we're going to make this utopia we're shooting for. Aim towards more cooperation and less competition, I think.