@TheMiddleWay, you asked: "...what is gained by changing your religious beliefs, what incentive is there for a person to seek change and lose long held beliefs? ..."

I think it's a matter of asking what incentive any of us has to have better thinking and beliefs. As it becomes more apparent to a person that their beliefs do not match up with reality, and may not be that inspiring, I think there is a real need that is inherent to the situation for them to change their beliefs.

@TheMiddleWay

Well, if religions amount (variously, depending on the religion) to early efforts at philosophy (and all of its sub-areas), science, history and inspirational mythology, then I"ll say it doesn't necessarily offer an easy way out (a comment you made in the other sub-thread).... I think it depends on the religion.

As to whether philosophy is of practical use to humans, I think as humans come increasingly to recognize that they are creatures of mind and (in the poetic sense) soul, then they want something along the lines of a philosophy or religion in their lives.

To some extent I guess I just see philosophy as improved or changed religion. Some religions can have very practical implications. They may dictate entire days of rest, exactly which foods to eat or not, and ultimately which wars to fight or not fight. Likewise, philosophy, in my view. One might object and say, for example, "well, we have figured out that it is science and government which are best suited to guide our food choices and regulations", but I'd say it's philosophy which gets you to the point of figuring that out and untangling the science and government from the mythology and rules about other matters.

Hi @TheMiddleWay

"...That is what I mean by the easy way out... why spend tons of time studying and learning science over something that, ultimately, isn't going to change your way of life, how you sleep, how you eat, or whether you go to war or not (astrology and divination non-withstanding LOL)..."

I think this is to a large degree a straw man presentation... specifically it presents science (and, elsewhere, presents philosophy) as time-consuming and substantially useless in the lives of earlier peoples. As to science, I think it would be of paramount importance to do what one could (for example) to identify improved food and nutritional practices. As to philosophy, I'm not sure I can tackle it in short or at length, but we seem to have different ideas as to the role philosophy would play in the life of a person living an earlier simpler life. I don't think it's any sort of luxury, but could help a person maintain perspective and find direction, even in a simpler society. As to time, maybe religions have the "division of labor" right, allowing for priests (and such) to spend large amounts of time studying while lay people check in as possible.

I'm not a believing or observant Jew (especially considering the day on which I'm writing) but I have thought a bit about the culture into which I was born. There's a trivia point that I like that may pertain. In the movie Fiddler On The Roof, in the song "If I Were A Rich Man", what is the highest goal of all the things that the singer would like? It is this:

"...If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all...."

Maybe there is something over-idealized here, but be that as it may, I'm pointing out that people living an earlier relatively primitive lifestyle can still idealize and yearn for a rich life of ideas. I think this yearning comes from within themselves qua human beings, and is not necessarily triggered by societal accomplishment of various thresholds perceived as advanced science and societal organization.

@TheMiddleWay

I'm confused as to whether you are saying that science is useless to earlier peoples or if you are saying philosophy is as well.

As to science, again, in my view, you have set up a straw man definition here. When earlier humans thought about and innovated better ways to start and keep fires, which foods to eat or not eat, build roads, build boats, better tricks for animal husbandry, how better to cure illness or injury, etc., this incorporated something that I would call early scientific effort.

@TheMiddleWay

I'd say overall that I think:

• Religion encompasses primitive philosophy and primitive science.
• The immediate practical impact of primitive, ancient and often (but not always) delusional and wildly irrational philosophic and scientific beliefs may not be apparent at first glance, but over the course of their lives, such delusions do have impact, both for them personally and for their families and communities.
• Thus, I think it is incorrect to claim that a person has no selfish personal incentive to rid themselves of delusional thinking, as possible, whether in science or philosophy.
• I do agree that it would be not in a person's self-interest to spend ridiculous amounts of time in study, whether of science or philosophy, but I think this falls under the heading of division of labor and of personal sometimes-difficult decisions as to how to apportion one's time. Further, personal study of philosophic points is a matter idealized by some religions and perhaps some philosophies. A philosophy or religion which required wild amounts of study of hard sciences would in my view be extreme and wrong, but it is not much to ask of a person that they make even just a tiny effort to use their brains, and many people engage in thinking because they like it and want to understand the world around them, and because it ties in not only with science but with the philosophy and inspiration and idealism in their lives. Deliberately maintaining absurdist nonsense as strictly scientifically correct will eventually have (in my view) massively negative impact across their lives and their children's lives.
• given the intractability of the delusions in philosophy and science society-wide (sort of a momentum concept, but anthropological rather than physical), I can agree that it is in someone's self-interest not to get drawn into never-ending delusion cleanup both in their own minds and the minds of other community members. From the standpoint of analyzing for personal incentives and rational self-interest, it does seem correct to ask where the line should be drawn when one seeks to identify both scientific and philosophic posts on which to hang one's first-handed thinking.

@TheMiddleWay

addendum:

to some extent the question here may be to what extent it hurts people to compartmentalize. - to carry out comparatively rational thinking and behavior with respect to the part of their lives that from an immediate practical standpoint has to be as consistent as possible with reality, but then (to go with one of the examples given) to come home and pray to an invisible entity that doesn't actually exist. An incentive for such compartmentalization would seem to be division of labor and taking "on faith" not just god, but that the pronouncements of people in other professions (such as religion) are on-track.

@TheMiddleWay

you wrote "...But for a mechanic to spend the time correcting their religious views... when those views don't affect their profession as a mechanic one iota... is what I was originally putting forth as lacking incentive for change...."

Not agreed.

In my view:

• there are long-term real-world consequences to being and maintaining serious delusions in any area. This includes in philosophy.
• in general a person should spend time on various pursuits (philosophic, scientific, other) only such as they are able and is reasonable for them as an individual.

Martin Luther was a rebel, a traitor and a Jew hater.i grew up in a catholic/lutheran environment. Primary schooling was only provided by those two brands.
By my catholic, non practising, excommunicated mother' hypocritical sister we were branded heathens..
What the Lutherans didn't tell us was Luther's betrayal of Thomas Muentzer and his profound hatred of the Jew; nor were we toold that the Nazis picked Luther's birthday as the beginning of the "final solution" of the Jewish question: the infamous Reichskrystallnacht.

@PontifexMarximus i did not know that. I just never knew many protestants that spoke of god. It seemed more of a social gatheting. A culture you are born into. I assumed it was a religion out of many. And seemed natvisdistic to imagine anyone thought theirs eas true.

@gigihein They porbably hardly ever do. But the ones I knew were incredibly self-rightuous.

@Matias do you think that any astrophysicist has ever seen the inside of a Black hole?

@Matias The founder of microbiology, Felix d'Herelle, couldn't see the bacteriophageous viruses either.