Money is a social construct, but it has real measurable effects. You can physically go into a real-life shop and exchange it for tangible goods. Others can believe what they want, but I agree with the above commenter that the real is all there is.
Yes, but you would agree that the gods are social constructs? And that in the same way that money affects the world, the gods affect the world. Deus ordered the Crusaders to ransack the Holy Land, for example. Now, you can say it was just the followers deciding on all of this, and the social construct of Deus had no agency. But the same is equally true of money, so Deus is as real as money is. Of course, I use Deus as an example of a well known god for convenience, I am no Christian.
No. Rules based on gods are social constructs.
The gods themselves were never constructed and do not exist.
Deus is not as real as money is. I can touch money, I can exchange money for goods and services.
I cannot touch or interact with Deus, only the rules it’s devotees impose on me.
You can’t touch money. You can touch a physical representation of money. Bills and coins are as much money as a wooden statuette of a man being crucified is Jesus. You can’t touch the numbers in your bank account.
The Pope ordered the crusades, not a deity. In the same way, organized religions are social constructs, not the characters they’re based on. I don’t think anyone would argue that religions aren’t real, it’s just that the claims they make are untrue.
That’s a double standard. Money is to gods as capitalism is to religion. You said money is real, you didn’t specify that money is fake and only capitalism is real. But now you’re saying gods are fake and only religions are real. You said money has effects on the world despite being a mere idea, but now you’re saying Deus can’t have effects on the world because She’s a mere idea.
Your beliefs aren’t consistent, you didn’t think this all the way through. Fortunately, My goal with this gotcha is to encourage you towards deeper reflection, not to dismiss you. I will be satisfied with your logical consistency if you either say that money isn’t real, or that gods are real.
You don’t need to pester about it. You’re doing this logic trick to show how epistemic difference between spirituality and materialism have ontological similarity. You are correct BTW, to point out the similarities between money and god, church and capital.
But in demanding “logical consistency” you’ve turned a teaching exercise into a debate. The standard that you set that the person be “logically consistent” is part of the ontology that lumps yours and rarWars comments together. By adopting the post - enlightenment ideal of rational, logical consistency as a means to invalidate your opponent’s position, you are performing an act of hegemony.
Contradiction also has consistent logic to it. The way contradiction appears within the individual subject is mysterious, but it drives a lot of activity, both constructive and destructive.
I think you have a good criticism of rational atheism, but the content of these comments aren’t practical or pedagogical, which I believe harms your argument. I think your perspective is pretty good but you got lost in the bit
I agree with your logic and points of emphasis. I can’t make any more presumptions based on these few paragraphs.
I think there are times in a discussion where it can veer into many different directions. I’m very practical minded when it comes to criticism and analysis. It is a good discussion. Sorry if I came off lecturey I think I just felt like writing something lol
Ok, I kinda see where you’re coming from. However, I think there’s still a difference. The system is what gives “legitimacy” (for lack of a better word) to a social construct. So a god is not real to people without the religion, just as money as a concept wouldn’t be real to people living outside of capitalism. The problem for this analogy is that outside of a few uncontacted tribes, capitalism is inescapable for virtually everyone on earth. Even “communist” countries rely on the global capitalist market to some extent at this point in history. So money is more real to more people if that makes sense.
Elohim once promised the Holy Land to the Hebrews. The Zionists in Israel believe they have a divine blessing to commit their genocide and settle Palestine. I have a theological rebuttal to that mindset, but because I am only using Zionists as an example, I will not use it today.
You say we can’t escape capitalism. I agree. I assert that Palestinians cannot escape Judaism, regardless of their own beliefs. Thus, religion can be very much like capitalism, and gods can be inescapable even to those who do not believe.
That is not a valid counterexample. I repeat, no one here is arguing that religions or political philosophies aren’t real or that they don’t have tangible effects. The fact that the religion exists does not make the fictional characters in it real to those outside the religion.
Money is a social construct, but it has real measurable effects. You can physically go into a real-life shop and exchange it for tangible goods. Others can believe what they want, but I agree with the above commenter that the real is all there is.
Ah, so you believe social constructs can have physical effects on the world!
That’s not the gotcha you think it is. Spiritual woo and real-life social constructs are two totally different things.
Yes, but you would agree that the gods are social constructs? And that in the same way that money affects the world, the gods affect the world. Deus ordered the Crusaders to ransack the Holy Land, for example. Now, you can say it was just the followers deciding on all of this, and the social construct of Deus had no agency. But the same is equally true of money, so Deus is as real as money is. Of course, I use Deus as an example of a well known god for convenience, I am no Christian.
No. Rules based on gods are social constructs.
The gods themselves were never constructed and do not exist.
Deus is not as real as money is. I can touch money, I can exchange money for goods and services.
I cannot touch or interact with Deus, only the rules it’s devotees impose on me.
You can’t touch money. You can touch a physical representation of money. Bills and coins are as much money as a wooden statuette of a man being crucified is Jesus. You can’t touch the numbers in your bank account.
The Pope ordered the crusades, not a deity. In the same way, organized religions are social constructs, not the characters they’re based on. I don’t think anyone would argue that religions aren’t real, it’s just that the claims they make are untrue.
That’s a double standard. Money is to gods as capitalism is to religion. You said money is real, you didn’t specify that money is fake and only capitalism is real. But now you’re saying gods are fake and only religions are real. You said money has effects on the world despite being a mere idea, but now you’re saying Deus can’t have effects on the world because She’s a mere idea.
Your beliefs aren’t consistent, you didn’t think this all the way through. Fortunately, My goal with this gotcha is to encourage you towards deeper reflection, not to dismiss you. I will be satisfied with your logical consistency if you either say that money isn’t real, or that gods are real.
You don’t need to pester about it. You’re doing this logic trick to show how epistemic difference between spirituality and materialism have ontological similarity. You are correct BTW, to point out the similarities between money and god, church and capital.
But in demanding “logical consistency” you’ve turned a teaching exercise into a debate. The standard that you set that the person be “logically consistent” is part of the ontology that lumps yours and rarWars comments together. By adopting the post - enlightenment ideal of rational, logical consistency as a means to invalidate your opponent’s position, you are performing an act of hegemony.
Contradiction also has consistent logic to it. The way contradiction appears within the individual subject is mysterious, but it drives a lot of activity, both constructive and destructive.
I think you have a good criticism of rational atheism, but the content of these comments aren’t practical or pedagogical, which I believe harms your argument. I think your perspective is pretty good but you got lost in the bit
Your criticisms are likely valid. How can I do better?
I think youre doing well.
I agree with your logic and points of emphasis. I can’t make any more presumptions based on these few paragraphs.
I think there are times in a discussion where it can veer into many different directions. I’m very practical minded when it comes to criticism and analysis. It is a good discussion. Sorry if I came off lecturey I think I just felt like writing something lol
Ever read Pedagogy of the Oppressed?
Ok, I kinda see where you’re coming from. However, I think there’s still a difference. The system is what gives “legitimacy” (for lack of a better word) to a social construct. So a god is not real to people without the religion, just as money as a concept wouldn’t be real to people living outside of capitalism. The problem for this analogy is that outside of a few uncontacted tribes, capitalism is inescapable for virtually everyone on earth. Even “communist” countries rely on the global capitalist market to some extent at this point in history. So money is more real to more people if that makes sense.
Elohim once promised the Holy Land to the Hebrews. The Zionists in Israel believe they have a divine blessing to commit their genocide and settle Palestine. I have a theological rebuttal to that mindset, but because I am only using Zionists as an example, I will not use it today.
You say we can’t escape capitalism. I agree. I assert that Palestinians cannot escape Judaism, regardless of their own beliefs. Thus, religion can be very much like capitalism, and gods can be inescapable even to those who do not believe.
That is not a valid counterexample. I repeat, no one here is arguing that religions or political philosophies aren’t real or that they don’t have tangible effects. The fact that the religion exists does not make the fictional characters in it real to those outside the religion.