On what metric can you say that life in New Robotnik or Toothfairyville is better? In all three cases, nobody ever actually gets punished by the system, so there is zero harm from that. In all three, people live in constant fear of the system punishing them, and the harm from living a life of fear is exactly the same.
On what metric can you say that life in New Robotnik or Toothfairyville is better? In all three cases, nobody ever actually gets punished by the system, so there is zero harm from that. In all three, people live in constant fear of the system punishing them, and the harm from living a life of fear is exactly the same.
You've actually proven that religion is just as bad as a totalitarian police state, if the rules it enforces are the same. It is not better in any sense. And if the rules it enforces are less aligned to human flourishing, it will be worse. Atheists propose replacing the fear of one totalitarian punishment regime with the fear of a different totalitarian punishment regime. But if the atheist regime enforces fewer commandments, it will be better. And building a competent police state is plausibly cheaper than building a brainwashing engine that requires everyone to burn several hours a week going to an indoctrination camp.
Plus, it actually works, so when people test the system, they don't get away with crimes.
It is true that the $150 billion buys many valuable social services in addition to the indoctrination, but this does not count the time cost. Valuing leisure time is a tricky and unresolved issue (see my discussion at https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DoED83teKobgyZMji/valuing-leisure-time ), but requiring everyone in a society to spend 2+ hours per week (when counting the commute) on forced indoctrination sessions will cost the equivalent of at least 2% of GDP.
So the police state clearly wins the cost-benefit analysis. It is cheaper and more effective. I am also fairly confident that people feel more free in modern Singapore than in 1950s America, because there is more de facto freedom of speech and thought.
>requiring everyone in a society to spend 2+ hours per week (when counting the commute) on forced indoctrination sessions will cost the equivalent of at least 2% of GDP
That seems like a pretty weak objection. Most people don't work on Sundays anyway.
Going to church was traditionally an excellent networking opportunity, both in a professional and personal/romantic sense. It's hard to imagine that the costs associated with mandatory churchgoing (the hit to GDP you describe) could be greater than the benefits provided in fertility and increased economic productivity.
On what metric can you say that life in New Robotnik or Toothfairyville is better? In all three cases, nobody ever actually gets punished by the system, so there is zero harm from that. In all three, people live in constant fear of the system punishing them, and the harm from living a life of fear is exactly the same.
You've actually proven that religion is just as bad as a totalitarian police state, if the rules it enforces are the same. It is not better in any sense. And if the rules it enforces are less aligned to human flourishing, it will be worse. Atheists propose replacing the fear of one totalitarian punishment regime with the fear of a different totalitarian punishment regime. But if the atheist regime enforces fewer commandments, it will be better. And building a competent police state is plausibly cheaper than building a brainwashing engine that requires everyone to burn several hours a week going to an indoctrination camp.
Plus, it actually works, so when people test the system, they don't get away with crimes.
Demonstrating that faith comes in many forms.
The Singapore Police Force cost roughly SGD 2 billion per year in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Police_Force), which was USD 1.6 billion, or about 0.5% of Singapore's GDP that year.
Traditionally, religion is expected to consume 10% of GDP. Currently in the US, religious organizations have a total revenue of about $150 billion (https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/market-research-reports/religious-organizations-industry/), which is 0.6% of our GDP, for a small fraction of the indoctrination that happened in the past and would be required in the future.
It is true that the $150 billion buys many valuable social services in addition to the indoctrination, but this does not count the time cost. Valuing leisure time is a tricky and unresolved issue (see my discussion at https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DoED83teKobgyZMji/valuing-leisure-time ), but requiring everyone in a society to spend 2+ hours per week (when counting the commute) on forced indoctrination sessions will cost the equivalent of at least 2% of GDP.
So the police state clearly wins the cost-benefit analysis. It is cheaper and more effective. I am also fairly confident that people feel more free in modern Singapore than in 1950s America, because there is more de facto freedom of speech and thought.
>requiring everyone in a society to spend 2+ hours per week (when counting the commute) on forced indoctrination sessions will cost the equivalent of at least 2% of GDP
That seems like a pretty weak objection. Most people don't work on Sundays anyway.
Going to church was traditionally an excellent networking opportunity, both in a professional and personal/romantic sense. It's hard to imagine that the costs associated with mandatory churchgoing (the hit to GDP you describe) could be greater than the benefits provided in fertility and increased economic productivity.