Kant,
OK I don’t mind expanding on some of my statements.
1) Dogmatism in your own belief:
-- "The term 'religious experience' is an inaccurate label for certain emotions whose cause the claimant has mistakenly assigned to an alleged external supernatural influence."
Since the supernatural is a product of human imagination and there remains no evidence to suggest a supernatural realm might or could exist then the only remaining rational explanation for ‘religious experiences’ is one of mis-labeled emotions. Emotions are something that we do know exist and which have been widely studied by psychologists. I can quote cases from mental health institutes, if you wish, where people suffer severally from such ‘religious experience’ delusions. My position here is taken from known phenomena, i.e. the power of human emotion. I can be easily proved wrong by anyone who can show that the supernatural is either possible or actually exists. To date no one has succeeded. It therefore seems rational to proceed to explain phenomena on what we know rather than on imaginative fantasies.
2) Please "justify, prove, or attempt to explain" this claim:
-- "To believe a fantasy as true is foolish."
--Further, what is so "self-evident"?
If I fantasize that I can fly, believe it is true, and then jump off a high cliff to prove it, then wouldn’t you consider that foolish? Fantasies are fine providing one recognizes them as fantasies. A rational person doesn’t have to jump of a cliff to prove this, i.e. it is self-evident.
-- "...religion the placebo has null active ingredients. It doesn’t matter whether the religion contains truth or not to have a positive effect."
I assume you understand the principles of the placebo effect. If you believe something strongly enough then the effects can be real. Many people certainly believe strongly in religion, however, without any evidence of a supernatural influence how can you tell whether it is a God at work or the placebo effect? Again we know that the placebo effect is real and proven, yet we have nothing to indicate that the supernatural exists. Isn’t the rational choice to choose the explanation that has evidential support?
-- "It is called the power of positive thinking, and has well known characteristics but it has nothing to do with external alleged supernatural forces."
Once you have determined and convinced yourself that you have found the answer to life and death then you will indeed experience a perceived epiphany. However, while the effects can be positive it need not have, and in the case of religion, does not have any basis in factual truth. The effects are generated purely by a personal conviction that something is true, whether it is true or not is immaterial."
This is similar to the placebo argument. There are even many courses that teach methods that empower the individual to succeed through positive thinking. The effects are real and identifiable, but again the supernatural has not been shown to be real or identifiable.
-- " One must also realize that those who are attracted to religion also tend to be those who are attracted to altruistic ideals. It is not that religion necessarily makes people altruistic but rather that many altruists tend to adopt religion as an excuse to be altruistic.
Christianity offers altruistic rules. The idea is that if you help others without regard to yourself or actual cost to yourself, then you will be rewarded in heaven. Strictly speaking this isn’t altruism since ultimately you expect to gain, but then I have argued elsewhere that I do not see how altruism can ever be achieved. Everyone always makes a voluntary action only if they see a benefit for themselves. Even if the benefit is the enjoyment of helping others and this is true of many people which you can confirm by direct observation.
So the net result is that those who genuinely enjoy helping others at some cost to themselves are certainly more likely to be attracted to religions that support such concepts. Isn’t this also self-evident?
-- "The underlying root basis of every religion is the need to cheat death."
Consider the alternative. If religion did not offer a life after death then what value is religion? Isn’t the reason that the western legal systems ask witnesses to swear an oath on the bible is because of the idea that if you lie then you may be condemning your eternal soul to some really unpleasant punishment? Without the threat of eternal damnation or the reward of eternal paradise religions offer very little. So if God existed but there are no souls then what would be his value?
I was simply arguing that perhaps you take the position not because it does not appeal to reason, but because to assent to any "religionist position" would be to violate a position which you have already decided for yourself; almost how a politician molds the circumstances to fit the mold of his/her ideology.
Yes I see your point although I’m not sure that I consciously do that. However, I do see the religionist position as very weak and it is not too difficult to show alternative explanations to religionist claims. When clear evidence linking an effect with a cause is absent then multiple explanations become possible. All I do is look at the possibilities that have the most credibility.
After 5 decades I have not seen any religionist arguments explain anything that cannot be explained by something simpler or natural. I would like to think that if something new were presented then I’d consider it based on reason rather than dogma.
And as for my request that you explain for me how your claims are "rational", any of your quotes I have above listed would suffice.
Without any physical evidence then almost any argument against the religionist position would have either equal or better weight.
(I could agree with you to a certain point on the point of Law. But, as you have implied, most people are not "reasonable"--and many are wont to request their check from the welfare office, notwithstanding the fact that they could work for the money if they needed it.)
The world needs to become better educated, less competitive, and more cooperative, before any chance of real universal enlightenment will appear.
