Religion — Page 42

Ryan McAvoy said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

In all seriousness, I'd like to ask...

What is the point of Religion?

I've never understood what the practical benefit is of believing in something that by default has no proof behind it (That's what faith is). I'd be genuinely interested in how and what it adds to life that many consider it worth spending time, effort and money on?

When travelling in a car, I'd rather there by someone behind the wheel to steer the damn thing than for the front seat to be empty and the car to be headed on a course straight off the edge of a cliff.

Of course, this analogy applies to theism more than religion specifically.  

Whether an athiest or a theist, the car never has anybody behind the wheel. Because, for a theist to believe that God would favour their car over anyone else's on the highway is shear vanity and the athiest believes that random chance is driving the car and nought else.

JFTR, the car I refer to is all of physical existence, whether it be a single universe, a multiverse, etc. As such, we all share the same car.

It's what you do while you are in the car that matters

Nothing in an atheistic cosmology ultimately matters in the end.

It doesn't matter whether you're naughty or nice, it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, it doesn't matter if you're healthy or sick, it doesn't matter if you make anybody else's life better or not, 'cause in the end you die, they die, there is nothing for either of you beyond, and in time the Earth, the solar system, and the very universe will die, and none of it will have mattered or had any significant effect in the slightest.

Ryan McAvoy said:

A theist would spend their time reading and re-reading the owners manual and trying to gleam some sort of meaning from it and building a shrine in the glove box.

And what, exactly, is wrong with this? That it takes effort? 

Ryan McAvoy said:

Occasionaly looking out the windows and disaproving of other motorists who weren't driving according to their interpretation of the highway code or were driving cars of different makes and colours (Especially the pink cars!).

Pigeonholing all theists into a set mold, I see.

While far too many believers have a conceited view of their own beliefs -- my parents among them-- I am sure there are others out there for are able to appreciate and respect the theological worldviews of others even if they don't hold to them.

Ryan McAvoy said:

The atheist would just marvel at the beautiful view out the window, stick the radio on to their favourite station and enjoy the music for as long as the journey lasted.

So, in other words, just ignore -- or at least put to the back of your mind -- any distasteful aspects of your (dis)belief system, and just distract yourself with a bunch of pretty colours and loud noises.

I used to do that when I was a believer, and it only worked until I grew out of my teens; I'm never going back into the box of naivete, no matter how reassuring it may be.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

Nothing in an atheistic cosmology ultimately matters in the end.

Pigeonholing all theists into a set mold, I see.

You're not only pigeonholing atheists, but you're having the presumption and gall to tell them what they believe. 

Leonardo said:

mrbenja0618 said:

[Dissertation about the Grand Canyon]

Yeah, but you really can't compare a finite hole in the ground (no matter how big) to an infinite Deity, can you? Even if you never ever ever leave the house, you're still going to somehow have the experience of a hole in the ground.

However, I still think it's impossible to disprove God's existence.

You don't know everything either. I could even ask if you know half of everything, and you would probably tell me no. You couldn't know half of everything, just like I couldn't. But let's just say for the sake of discussion that you do know half of everything. But, alas, you still do not know everything, so I ask you. Is it possible that this Jesus/God/Heaven thing could exist on the other half of the stuff you haven't learned yet?

I'll tell you, I don't know a quarter of everything. But to use a poker analogy, if I may, by looking at the cards I have in my hand, I can tell you, I'm pretty sure the rest of the deck is cards. There's not gonna be a blue whale in it.

Yes, but in that case, you already have experience with decks of cards and know that the rest of the deck will also consist of cards. If you are given two chests of unknown objects, and look in one, but only get a glimpse of the contents of the other, you won't be able to say whether or not the second chest contained certain objects or not. Some people, however, may have opened both chests (or just the second one) and told you the contents (and others may have repeated it based on the testimony of those who actually saw the contents). You could believe it, or you could disbelieve it, not having seen it for yourself.

Still an imperfect analogy, but somewhat more accurate.

Leonardo said:

And now, let's hear the other side of the argument.

RicOlie_2 said:

1. Hope: religion often provides hope in an afterlife.

There is no evidence of any existence beyond the one we're currently experimenting. If you're gonna be good, do it for the sake of it, not for some sort of reward you're going to get at the pearly gates.

Quoting Queen.... Who wants to life forever????

If one lives with the opportunity to explore something infinite, then it might not be so bad.

2. Happiness: religion and prayer have been shown to increase happiness in multiple studies.

So have done many, many opium derivatives.

Fair enough, but prayer could be considered somewhat healthier than drugs. The healthiness of religion, on the other hand, is debatable.

3. Explanation of the supernatural.

Again, no evidence whatsoever of any "supernatural".

Miracles are almost dime a dozen and the existence of God would explain them. Some of them are explained by science, some proven to be hoaxes, others have no explanation.

4. Unification: this is debatable, but in theory, if everyone followed one religion there would be a lot fewer problems in the world, depending on the religion.

And everything would be really gray and boring, which is why I'm fine with people having different ideas, opinions, and that includes religion, too. People are always going to find something to disagree on.

Life would certainly be boring if everyone agreed with each other. Sharing the same religion would not necessitate that though. I do agree with you for the most part, however.

5. Community: by sharing beliefs and meeting every so often, communities of people are formed and people have a chance to meet with people who share their beliefs.

In theory. In practice churches are a nest for gossips in fur coats.

Depends on the church of course. Such is not the case in my Church. There are many parishioners who go there on Sunday for an hour and have nothing to do with it otherwise, but those who are active in the parish are generally good friends with each other and it's a good opportunity for people of all ages and varying interests to come together.

6. It explains the origins of the universe (science does this, but it doesn't give a very satisfactory answer).

Religion will always say one thing. [Insert message here]

Science can't be and doesn't want to be definitive. Our understanding of gravity, for example, has chanced during the centuries. Because science is not a doctrine.

I don't get the "satisfactory" part.

Science is not a doctrine, and I am glad you recognize that, because some think it is. What I mean by "satisfactory" is that science has provided an explanation for the universe's origins, but the origins aren't truly explained. Belief in a creator furthers the explanation greatly. I don't mean it is necessary, but I am giving reasons why people, not necessarily myself, hold religious beliefs.

7. Religion gives life meaning and purpose in a way that cannot be without religion.

Not everything is supposed to have a meaning, I'm afraid. We, as humans, have this ingrained reaction to all the things we do not understand, and that is trying to give them an explanation, a meaning.

Meanings are meaningless. It's all in the gooey gray and white matter inside our boney skulls.

 That is an opinion, and a valid one. This goes hand in hand with comfort. It is comforting to know that there is some purpose to your life, and religion is one way to achieve that comfort. Meaning is certainly not something I, personally, need, though my life would change drastically if I were not religious. I would spend nearly all my time learning, because I enjoy it, even if there was no point to my knowledge.

RicOlie_2 said:

Science is not a doctrine, and I am glad you recognize that, because some think it is. What I mean by "satisfactory" is that science has provided an explanation for the universe's origins, but the origins aren't truly explained. Belief in a creator furthers the explanation greatly. I don't mean it is necessary, but I am giving reasons why people, not necessarily myself, hold religious beliefs.

Belief in a creator might further an explanation of the universe greatly but belief in the Biblical creator furthering our current explanation of the universe???

I fail to see how talking snakes and sinful scrumping have anything to do with the already shaky branches of string theory, for example. I also fail to see how the whore of Babylon and the fiery pit have any bearing on the entropic heat death hypothesis.

Indeed I fail to see how it explains anything other than the mindset of a bronze age people hoping to maintain some sense of order out of the chaos of living a desert beset by the dangers of nature and rival communities.

Applying that God to that situation makes perfect sense.

TheBoost said:

You're not only pigeonholing atheists, but you're having the presumption and gall to tell them what they believe. 

In what way am I pigeonholing atheists or telling them what they believe?

Yeah, I'm detecting a lot of that around here.  It's not even worth joining the discussion with so little time available.  Honestly, it seems like the atheists here are basing their arguments on far too many false dichotomies, and seem to think that philosophically they've proven why I shouldn't believe in God.  Poor arguments, I'm afraid.  Not worth the time when I have so little at present.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

In what way am I pigeonholing atheists or telling them what they believe?

Many atheists would disagree strongly with this:

Nothing in an atheistic cosmology ultimately matters in the end.

as well as any religion that doesn't believe in an afterlife. 

If the atheists discover reliable immortality and discover a means of outliving entropy... then their cosmology may have proven to be a bit handy.

Otherwise it's just learning things for the sake of it which is fun and mind-expanding but really just another way of killing time while waiting for an afterlife free death.

TheBoost said:

Many atheists would disagree strongly with this:

Nothing in an atheistic cosmology ultimately matters in the end.

 

You said that I was pigeonholing atheists and telling them what it was they believed in; giving my own opinion on atheistic cosmology doesn't mean that I think atheists share that opinion.

TheBoost said:

as well as any religion that doesn't believe in an afterlife.

Of course they would.

Perhaps I should have made it clear that I'm aware that not all religions believe in the existence of an afterlife, that the existence of a god/higher power doesn't necessarily mean that life has any meaning, and found a way to incorporate it all into my central argument. 

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Science is not a doctrine, and I am glad you recognize that, because some think it is. What I mean by "satisfactory" is that science has provided an explanation for the universe's origins, but the origins aren't truly explained. Belief in a creator furthers the explanation greatly. I don't mean it is necessary, but I am giving reasons why people, not necessarily myself, hold religious beliefs.

Belief in a creator might further an explanation of the universe greatly but belief in the Biblical creator furthering our current explanation of the universe???

I fail to see how talking snakes and sinful scrumping have anything to do with the already shaky branches of string theory, for example. I also fail to see how the whore of Babylon and the fiery pit have any bearing on the entropic heat death hypothesis.

Indeed I fail to see how it explains anything other than the mindset of a bronze age people hoping to maintain some sense of order out of the chaos of living a desert beset by the dangers of nature and rival communities.

Applying that God to that situation makes perfect sense.

 A) I did not specify the Judeo-Christian God.

B) Why would I have to read the Bible for an explanation? Since the Biblical creation story is allegorical/symbolical, that would seem kind of silly.

So Bronze age people and talking dragons don't have any bearing on the matter.

What I mean is that a primary mover of some kind seems necessary to initiate things like the Big Bang. Specifically a mover who is by his/her/its very nature omniscient, omnipotent, and existing not as a thing but rather just "being" if that makes any sense (I find it a difficult concept to explain).

RicOlie_2 said:

What I mean is that a primary mover of some kind seems necessary to initiate things like the Big Bang. Specifically a mover who is by his/her/its very nature omniscient, omnipotent, and existing not as a thing but rather just "being" if that makes any sense (I find it a difficult concept to explain).

That sounds similar to what the theologian Paul Tillich had to say about God's existence.

Lately, I've started to see myself less an agnostic and more an agnostic maltheist -- ie. someone who suspects (but isn't sure) that the universe is ruled by an evil, demiurgic god of madness and chaos.

I still hold out hope that there's a completely transcendant, benevolent Deity out there somewhere, though.

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Science is not a doctrine, and I am glad you recognize that, because some think it is. What I mean by "satisfactory" is that science has provided an explanation for the universe's origins, but the origins aren't truly explained. Belief in a creator furthers the explanation greatly. I don't mean it is necessary, but I am giving reasons why people, not necessarily myself, hold religious beliefs.

Belief in a creator might further an explanation of the universe greatly but belief in the Biblical creator furthering our current explanation of the universe???

I fail to see how talking snakes and sinful scrumping have anything to do with the already shaky branches of string theory, for example. I also fail to see how the whore of Babylon and the fiery pit have any bearing on the entropic heat death hypothesis.

Indeed I fail to see how it explains anything other than the mindset of a bronze age people hoping to maintain some sense of order out of the chaos of living a desert beset by the dangers of nature and rival communities.

Applying that God to that situation makes perfect sense.

 A) I did not specify the Judeo-Christian God.

B) Why would I have to read the Bible for an explanation? Since the Biblical creation story is allegorical/symbolical, that would seem kind of silly.

So Bronze age people and talking dragons don't have any bearing on the matter.

What I mean is that a primary mover of some kind seems necessary to initiate things like the Big Bang. Specifically a mover who is by his/her/its very nature omniscient, omnipotent, and existing not as a thing but rather just "being" if that makes any sense (I find it a difficult concept to explain).

A) You are a Catholic so belief in other Gods is naughty.

B) You are a Catholic and the tradition of Catholic doctrine stems from a literal interpretation of the allegorical/symbolic literature most people call The Bible.

Indeed people have been burned to death for suggesting it was anything more than the literal truth.

You have moved on in some respects (that doesn't mean you can't move back) but as a religious organisation and a political entity the Catholic church does lobby world leaders, corporate big-wigs, dictators, voters etc on ideas which stem from reading the text and coming to a set of conclusions that have a basis in bronze age ideas about what a God of the middle east expected of those people to do then.

From what I understand from content written on these threads there are people who use these boards that believe Adam was a man and not a metaphor and that Samson really did live and wasn't Heracles by another name.

Ergo my answer.

There may be some variant of the prime-mover hypothesis which helps to explain the increasing holes in the current scientifically accepted model of the origin of this universe but it's not the Biblical Literalist one, that much I can reveal.

Bingowings, St. Augustine recognized in the 4th century that the Genesis creation story could not be literal. Some have since taken it as entirely literal, but the idea that it is allegorical is not recent.

I doubt if they believed it to be literally the truth in ancient Sumeria either.

Did I ever tell you I met Bill Gamesh (he hates it when you get his name wrong)?

Bingowings said:

I doubt if they believed it to be literally the truth in ancient Sumeria either.

I am responding to your statement that "[y]ou are a Catholic and the tradition of Catholic doctrine stems from a literal interpretation of the allegorical/symbolic literature most people call The Bible" and apparently misread "The Bible" as "Genesis." It depends on which part of the Bible you're referring to. The books of Jonah, Tobit, a lot of Genesis, etc., are not generally considered literal.

Did I ever tell you I met Bill Gamesh (he hates it when you get his name wrong)?

 It took me a moment to get that. :D

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

I doubt if they believed it to be literally the truth in ancient Sumeria either.

I am responding to your statement that "[y]ou are a Catholic and the tradition of Catholic doctrine stems from a literal interpretation of the allegorical/symbolic literature most people call The Bible" and apparently misread "The Bible" as "Genesis." It depends on which part of the Bible you're referring to. The books of Jonah, Tobit, a lot of Genesis, etc., are not generally considered literal.

 You should have represented Galileo at his trial.

Galileo was certainly unjustly accused over a misinterpretation of the Bible. Yes, I would love to be able to change that in his favour, but as for representing him, I think I would have ended up being declared a heretic and tossed into jail or something like that. Some very narrow-minded people have been in high positions in the Church throughout history.

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Science is not a doctrine, and I am glad you recognize that, because some think it is. What I mean by "satisfactory" is that science has provided an explanation for the universe's origins, but the origins aren't truly explained. Belief in a creator furthers the explanation greatly. I don't mean it is necessary, but I am giving reasons why people, not necessarily myself, hold religious beliefs.

Belief in a creator might further an explanation of the universe greatly but belief in the Biblical creator furthering our current explanation of the universe???

I fail to see how talking snakes and sinful scrumping have anything to do with the already shaky branches of string theory, for example. I also fail to see how the whore of Babylon and the fiery pit have any bearing on the entropic heat death hypothesis.

Indeed I fail to see how it explains anything other than the mindset of a bronze age people hoping to maintain some sense of order out of the chaos of living a desert beset by the dangers of nature and rival communities.

Applying that God to that situation makes perfect sense.

 A) I did not specify the Judeo-Christian God.

B) Why would I have to read the Bible for an explanation? Since the Biblical creation story is allegorical/symbolical, that would seem kind of silly.

So Bronze age people and talking dragons don't have any bearing on the matter.

What I mean is that a primary mover of some kind seems necessary to initiate things like the Big Bang. Specifically a mover who is by his/her/its very nature omniscient, omnipotent, and existing not as a thing but rather just "being" if that makes any sense (I find it a difficult concept to explain).

A) You are a Catholic so belief in other Gods is naughty.

B) You are a Catholic and the tradition of Catholic doctrine stems from a literal interpretation of the allegorical/symbolic literature most people call The Bible.

Indeed people have been burned to death for suggesting it was anything more than the literal truth.

You have moved on in some respects (that doesn't mean you can't move back) but as a religious organisation and a political entity the Catholic church does lobby world leaders, corporate big-wigs, dictators, voters etc on ideas which stem from reading the text and coming to a set of conclusions that have a basis in bronze age ideas about what a God of the middle east expected of those people to do then.

From what I understand from content written on these threads there are people who use these boards that believe Adam was a man and not a metaphor and that Samson really did live and wasn't Heracles by another name.

Ergo my answer.

There may be some variant of the prime-mover hypothesis which helps to explain the increasing holes in the current scientifically accepted model of the origin of this universe but it's not the Biblical Literalist one, that much I can reveal.

        Is it reasonable to criticise Christianity for the doings of religious organisations when the Christian scriptures themselves predict that these groups and their leaders will become terribly corrupt? Isn't that too easy?

        "Christianity" is the One Will of the Trinity. This Will is revealed through Inspired Scripture or designed nature.

        Of course Scripture that was intended to help a Bronze Age people cope with the conditions of the time would present material relevant to those people. 

        Anyway, The Trinity, if it exists, is omniscient with respect to THIS Universe. It may be "omnipotent" with respect to our "reality". You have the power to stomp on the toes of any passerby. You are an omnipotent lord over the toes of the unsuspecting. There are higher authorities who restrain you. 

thejediknighthusezni said:

Anyway, The Trinity, if it exists, is omniscient with respect to THIS Universe. It may be "omnipotent" with respect to our "reality".

Are you suggesting that Elohim is only a god -- and not the God -- when it comes to the greater multiverse?

     ^I'm suspecting as much.

       I'm thinking in terms of potential/kinetic energies. The boulder at the top of the hill is loaded with power, but it might require an additional force beyond itself to trigger the realization. The outside agency might be much less than the power, potential or kinetic, of the rock. 

       Chess is a popular subject around these parts. Reminds me of an experience: I was still a boy when the first computer Chess games came out (lights for column and row, I moved the pieces for it.) I had rarely played before that time. I was eerily impressed by this superior intelligence as it quickly and relentlessly grinded me down.

        The Chess playing computers are now superior to the designers in ability to play the game. They are superior to the players. Yet, they are utter slaves to the logic and design and the users can turn them off and on at will.