# Why is most of society based on religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2002, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432 "2002-05-11T03:41:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/21 "2002-05-12T16:33:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*—Be that as it may, it is still a belief, and one that is arrived at without absolute proof.— > > But the whole point is that a) it doesn’t claim to be absolutely true and b) is thus not a “belief” in the sense you are using (which appears to be rather equivocative) \*\* Ah. So you say that it’s NOT absolutely true that it’s foolish to say that others are wrong in their beliefs. Let us summarize. We are evaluating the belief that “It is wrong to maintain that your belief is correct, and that opposing beliefs are incorrect.” Is this statement absolutely true? If so, then it contradicts itself. If not, well then, it’s NOT absolutely true. > [@](#): > > \*\* > —There is no doubt that religion and science use different methodologies. That’s not the issue under debate. Rather, the question is whether “belief” necessarily entails “absolute certainty.” The example of science shows that it does not.— > > Not in the example of science. But you are arguing for the validity of beliefs which are absolute judgements. \*\* That’s an irrelevant distinction. One can have an absolute judgment, yet acknowledge the possibility of error on one’s part. (In fact, mathematical axioms are about as absolute as one can get, and yet any honest mathematician would acknowledge that they remain unproven.) The bottom line is that BELIEF – whether religious, scientific, historical or whatnot – does not have to entail absolute certainty. One can have deep, abiding conviction, but that is not the same as maintaining absolute certainty. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/22 "2002-05-12T16:36:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ice1000 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by JThunder > > > > Including the truth of your statement that everything’s relative? If nothing is absolute, then the truth of that statement is not absolute either, no? > > \*\* > Correct. \*\* In that case, the statement “Nothing is absolute” (or equivalently, “Everything is relative”) contradicts itself. It is, quite simply, a self-refuting statement. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/23 "2002-05-12T16:45:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\* > —In other words, you clearly consider your own viewpoint to be correct and reasonable, and you consider mine to be in error. Is that so?— > > Indeed. Because we are discussing our logical meta-principles, not the empirical knowledge that they are supposed to enable. These meta-principles _can_ be certain, even if their conclusion is that absolute certainty of knowledge is not. \*\* Once again though, you’re missing the point. That statement is self-contradictory, and thus, self-refuting. The fact that it’s a meta-principle does not redeem that contradiction. Once again, the statement “It is wrong to claim that your belief is correct, and that other beliefs are wrong” is itself a belief. As such, anyone who proposes this view contradicts himself. Being a meta-principle does not make a self-refuting view acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![ice1000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ice1000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ice1000)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/24 "2002-05-12T17:54:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > \*\* > In that case, the statement “Nothing is absolute” (or equivalently, “Everything is relative”) contradicts itself. It is, quite simply, a self-refuting statement. \*\* It is self-refuting if you want it to be. If you want it to be absolute, then it is…_for you_. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/25 "2002-05-12T18:25:19Z")
Disregarding the word games being played by JThunder, trying to say that beliefs are equivilent because there are no absolute proofs for any beliefs is just silly. Some beliefs have no evidence, some have little evidence, and some have a preponderance of evidence. Thus, it is possible that, while it cannot be proved that any belief is “absolutely” wrong or right, it _can_ be shown that one belief is currently more likely right than another based of the evidence gathered. IMHO, any belief with no evidence that is not subject to testing might as well be discarded because it is the equal of any other non-testable belief without any evidence to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/26 "2002-05-12T21:35:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ice1000 \* > \*\* > > It is self-refuting if you want it to be. If you want it to be absolute, then it is…_for you_. \*\* No, it is self-refuting because it contradicts itself. The rules of formal logic do not vary from person to person. This is not a matter of it simply being true “for me.” Whenever a person says “It’s wrong to insist on being correct, and I am correct in saying so,” he has just contradicted himself. This is not a mere subjective evaluation. Rather, that statement is self-contradictory on a most obvious and fundamental level. ---
**Author:** ![ice1000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ice1000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ice1000)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/27 "2002-05-13T01:51:40Z")
I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![king\_of\_spain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7cd45c/32.png) [@king\_of\_spain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/king_of_spain)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/28 "2002-05-13T02:58:12Z")
**ice1000** , just to be clear on what you’re saying, please evaluate the truth of these two statements, both of which I believe (i.e., are they right, wrong or “different?”) 1. **Some absolute truths exist.** 2. **The statement “everything’s relative” is false.** ---
**Author:** ![ice1000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ice1000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ice1000)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/29 "2002-05-13T03:43:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by king of spain \* > > 1. **Some absolute truths exist.** Hmmmm…for me the jury’s still out for me on that one. Can you give me some examples of absolute truths? > [@](#): > > 1. **The statement “everything’s relative” is false.** Well, if Einstein and others proved that Time and Space are relative to you, and these things are intrinsic to the Universe, how can everything else not be? ---
**Author:** ![king\_of\_spain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7cd45c/32.png) [@king\_of\_spain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/king_of_spain)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/30 "2002-05-13T04:03:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, if Einstein and others proved that Time and Space are relative to you, and these things are intrinsic to the Universe, how can everything else not be? Didn’t answer my question. I just asked how you would classify the statement - right, wrong or “different?” Pick one. (I’ll get back on #1 later this week - sorry for the inconvenience, but it’s late now, and I’m leaving for a couple days in the morning.) ---
**Author:** ![ice1000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ice1000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ice1000)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/31 "2002-05-13T04:12:14Z")
The statement “everything’s relative” is false. That is false for me. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/32 "2002-05-13T05:44:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ice1000 \* > \*\*Well, if Einstein and others proved that Time and Space are relative to you, and these things are intrinsic to the Universe, how can everything else not be? \*\* I think there are several flaws in your reasoning. For one thing, so what if time and space are relative? How does it necessarily follow that everything else is relative? Ripe bananas and ripe lemons are both yellow, but does this imply that everything is yellow? Second, the laws of physics only apply to physical phenomena. One can not use Einstein’s relativistic equations to draw conclusions about non-physical matters such as logic, religion or morality. Third, Einstein’s equations REQUIRED postulating one absolute – the speed of light! So relativity does not imply that everything is relative. Quite the contrary; it postulates at least one absolute quantity! And fourth, relativistic equations are founded on mathematical axioms – statements which are assumed to be absolute in their truth. Hence, their mere application requires the use of commonly accepted absolute truths. Finally, there’s that contention which I raised before. If it’s not absolutely true that everything is relative, then there must be at least one thing which is absolute – and thus, your statement disproves itself. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/33 "2002-05-13T05:48:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ice1000 \* > **The statement “everything’s relative” is false.** Really, **ice1000**? On 5-11-2002, at 9:29 a.m., you said, > [@](#): > > No. I think everything’s relative. Please make up your mind. ---
**Author:** ![ice1000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ice1000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ice1000)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/34 "2002-05-13T13:37:14Z")
When I stated “The statement “everything’s relative” is false.” I was quoting the king of spain’s statement. ---
**Author:** ![ice1000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ice1000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ice1000)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/35 "2002-05-13T13:41:47Z")
> [@](#): > > One can not use Einstein’s relativistic equations to draw conclusions about non-physical matters such as logic, religion or morality. Why not? > [@](#): > > Third, Einstein’s equations REQUIRED postulating one absolute – the speed of light! So relativity does not imply that everything is relative. Quite the contrary; it postulates at least one absolute quantity! [Maybe not](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/36 "2002-05-13T14:12:47Z")
—Ah. So you say that it’s NOT absolutely true that it’s foolish to say that others are wrong in their beliefs.— Are you high? This is like having a discussion with an amnesiac. It is absolutely true that claiming to have absolute _knowledge_ is foolish. —“It is wrong to maintain that your belief is correct, and that opposing beliefs are incorrect.” Is this statement absolutely true? If so, then it contradicts itself. If not, well then, it’s NOT absolutely true.— You are forgetting that these statements can apply to different contexts: so which context are you using it in? It NOT wrong to maintain that you are correct if we are talking about contextual, like knowledge. It IS wrong to maintain that you are absolutely correct in terms of knowledge. —That’s an irrelevant distinction. One can have an absolute judgment, yet acknowledge the possibility of error on one’s part. — Oops: now you’ve changed the subject, from being absolutely true, to making a claim for an absolute. —(In fact, mathematical axioms are about as absolute as one can get, and yet any honest mathematician would acknowledge that they remain unproven.)— They aren’t supposed to NEED to be proven: they define the ground rules of a particular game. Just like the axioms of knowledge define the basic game of empirical knowledge, but are themselves utterly unprovable. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/37 "2002-05-13T15:39:37Z")
Surely it is easy to see that these statements are different: **A. I think I am correct, and I may be wrong. B. I must be correct, and I can not be wrong.** I think that sentiments like the one in B are foolish, and I may be wrong. \*No absolutism in that last sentence, but there is some here: \* I know the true nature of the creator of everything and I cannot be wrong. It seems obvious to me that the sentiments are different. To say that ones absolute belief in a god is the same as anothers theory that such belief is foolish and inaccurate is not true. Only one side seems to accept that they could be wrong here. There IS a difference. These sentiments are NOT the same. DaLovin’ Dj ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/38 "2002-05-13T17:47:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ice1000 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > One can not use Einstein’s relativistic equations to draw conclusions about non-physical matters such as logic, religion or morality. > > Why not? \*\* Because they are non-physical phenomena. The laws of physics only describe physical phenomena. Are you familiar with Einstein’s equations? If so, then please show us how they would apply to religion or morality. Quite simply, it can’t be done, since religion and morality are not mathematical in nature. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Third, Einstein’s equations REQUIRED postulating one absolute – the speed of light! So relativity does not imply that everything is relative. Quite the contrary; it postulates at least one absolute quantity! > > [Maybe not](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm) \*\* That link which you provided is old news, and it does not support your claim. It merely argues for a possible flaw in Einstein’s assumption. It does NOT claim that Einstein did not postulate an absolute in his theories. Remember, you’re the one who argued that everything is relative, based on Einstein’s theories. The burden of proof thus rests on you to prove that this follows. Besides which, the article you cited merely states that light speed might be changing with time. Even if it does – and that’s far from proven – that would merely alter the nature of Einstein’s absolute. It would mean that the speed of light is still absolute at any given moment in time – or alternately, that it can be absolutely described by a time-dependent but spatially invariant equation. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/39 "2002-05-13T18:06:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Are you high? This is like having a discussion with an amnesiac. > > It is absolutely true that claiming to have absolute _knowledge_ is foolish.\*\* In many cases, that’s true… but that’s not one of the question at hand. The questions being asked where (a) whether absolutes exist, as prompted by some of **ice1000** ’s comments, and (b) whether it’s wrong to maintain one’s belief to be wrong. Arguments for the latter have been based on the assumption that belief implies absolute knowledge. That is simply false. One can believe in something without claiming to have absolute knowledge of it. Note how [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) defines belief: [list=1] [li]The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. [/li][li]Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.[/li][li]Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. [/li][/list=1] None of these definitions require absolute knowledge. Hence, it is foolish to attack the notion of upholding one’s beliefs, based on the mere possibility for error. This is the trap that pervades your thinking on this matter. > [@](#): > > \*\* > —“It is wrong to maintain that your belief is correct, and that opposing beliefs are incorrect.” Is this statement absolutely true? If so, then it contradicts itself. If not, well then, it’s NOT absolutely true.— > > You are forgetting that these statements can apply to different contexts: so which context are you using it in? It NOT wrong to maintain that you are correct if we are talking about contextual, like knowledge. It IS wrong to maintain that you are absolutely correct in terms of knowledge.\*\* Can you please explain what you mean by “contextual, like knowledge”? Again, it sounds to me like your statement is confused about the nature of belief. > [@](#): > > \*\* > —That’s an irrelevant distinction. One can have an absolute judgment, yet acknowledge the possibility of error on one’s part. — > > Oops: now you’ve changed the subject, from being absolutely true, to making a claim for an absolute.\*\* I think you are making an irrelevant distinction. Claiming something to be absolutely true IS the same as making a claim for an absolute. > [@](#): > > \*\*—(In fact, mathematical axioms are about as absolute as one can get, and yet any honest mathematician would acknowledge that they remain unproven.)— > > They aren’t supposed to NEED to be proven: \*\* Did I ever claim otherwise? Certainly not. Rather, they merely demosntrate that one can belief in an absolute statement without having absolute knowledge of its correctness. Asserting that axioms don’t require proof is an argument of irrelevancy. ---
**Author:** ![ice1000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ice1000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ice1000)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432/40 "2002-05-13T18:11:43Z")
Since morality and religion aren’t mathematical then maybe mathematical methods can’t be used to support/refute them. I am not a mathematician or theoretical physicist so a complete understanding of the Theory of General Relativity is beyond me at this point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-most-of-society-based-on-religion/108432.md?page=1)