Religion — Page 44

Um, I think you guys are looking for the Random Thoughts thread.

imperialscum said:

So I am curious if there is anyone who believes in evolution rather than creationism and still practises religion. If so, how can you and why would you even practise religion at all?

     I see no necessary contradiction between directed evolution and a Creator.

     I also believe it is quite possible for this universe to have been created from a "template" a few thousand years ago.

     Perhaps the "template" was gained from acts of directed evolution.

     I believe it is possible for the Creator to sit at a point or points inside or outside of this universe and experience 14 billion years as 7 days.

     In any case, I believe this world was deliberately designed in such a way that the more enlightened among us could fall for the unguided evolution delusion.

     This world is a testing grounds. You can't have a real test without any (at least theoretical) possibility that some might fail the test.

     Logically, undeniable evidence of a Creator would defeat the point of the exercise.

     Edit: I meant to post this in the NFL thread

I am responding to a comment imperialscum made in the Random Thoughts thread here, as it is better suited for this thread.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.

First, you are saying that one religion will protect us from the other, which is kind of a paradox in this discussion. So if it is the religion that may harm us in the first place, why don't we just get rid of all religions if they are the problem?

Had you read his post in full, you would have noted that he showed that religion itself is not the problem, as the Soviet Union and North Korea help demonstrate.

darth_ender said:

In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

I hope that this was some kind of joke. You speak like Christianity gave us freedom and stuff. You better learn the history of Europe. The Church (in the name of Christianity) was exploiting people for centuries (it still does to a lesser degree). Funny how you mentioned "branding one a heretic" and executions in the name of religion. In medieval Europe, that was a very common practice of Church ... burning people alive, invention of unimaginably sick torture devices to extract the "confessions" out of "heretics", etc. The Church actively suppressed the freedom and sabotaged the secular progress in Europe for many centuries (Copernicus, Galileo, etc.).

You speak as if people's torture was caused by religion. A quick look at some tyrannical, non-religious governments will dispel that notion. Religion was thickly intertwined with politics during the Middle Ages, and many so-called religious leaders could be considered more political leaders than anything. The human organization called the Catholic Church was often filled with corrupt people, seeking power and control.

Here is the Wikipedia article on the Medieval Inquisition (which preceded the Spanish Inquisition).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

Under "History" the following paragraph may be found:

Wikipedia says:

Another reason for Pope Gregory IX's creation of the Inquisition was to bring order and legality to the process of dealing with heresy, since there had been tendencies by mobs of townspeople to burn alleged heretics without much of a trial. Pope Gregory's original intent for the Inquisition was a court of exception to inquire into and glean the beliefs of those differing from Catholic teaching, and to instruct them in the orthodox doctrine. It was hoped that heretics would see the falsity of their opinion and would return to the Roman Catholic Church. If they persisted in their heresy, however, Pope Gregory, finding it necessary to protect the Catholic community from infection, would have suspects handed over to civil authorities, since public heresy was a crime under civil law as well as Church law. The secular authorities would apply their own brands of punishment for civil disobedience which, at the time, included burning at the stake.[4] Over centuries the tribunals took different forms, investigating and stamping out various forms of heresy, including witchcraft.

Several things may be noted here.

One is that religious fervour was strong in the early Middle Ages. In this way, religion could be blamed for a great many things. However, upon examination of non-religious societies, we see huge atrocities that have nothing to do with religion. A prime example is the Holocaust. Had Hitler lived in the Middle Ages, religion would have been used as a means of perpetrating it. He would have recalled how the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death, conveniently forgetting that Jesus was himself a Jew. In the end, people like you would be blaming that holocaust on religion, despite it clearly not having had religious causes in World War II. When one delves further into the history behind such things as the Inquisition, and one expands one's knowledge of history, it becomes clear that it is not religion that is at fault. It is humankind itself, which is a fallen race in the theology of the Abrahamic religions, and clearly not a perfect one from any point of view.

In the same way that you place blame on religion, I could place blame on liberty. In our society today, unborn babies can be killed, being denied their chance to live, in the name of other's "freedom." Yet freedom is most clearly not a bad thing. It is through people's freedom that many crimes have been committed. Were people examined before getting on the subway or the bus as they are before taking an airplane, I'm sure several terrorist attacks would never have happened. However, I am strongly opposed to such security measures, and think security should be decreased at airports. (I also think that terrorists will just find other means of causing destruction if one way is cut off.) That isn't to say I am opposed to security altogether, but that I would rather take a minute risk of being blown to pieces than lose my privacy and freedom. The government would have to have to be Big Brother in order to truly put an end to terrorism.

Again, I don't see many people condemning liberty because of what it allows. It clearly has benefits, and I think it is clear that religion has benefits as well. The times when society's morals are the lowest seem to correspond with decrease in genuine religious conviction. This can be seen in the Middle Ages, during which religion was often a means of achieving power, and few followed the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.

A second thing may be noted by the above quote. That is that the pope who founded this particular inquisition did so hoping to give the heretics a fair trial. He wanted to protect innocent people from the mobs. The mob mentality has always been a part of humanity. We see it today when people riot, or when they condemn an innocent person due to reverse racism, or when they gang up on gay people, or when people opposing gay marriage get ganged up on because they are so clearly medieval-minded and have no compassion, or when people get ganged up on for condemning the sexual depravity rampant in our society, and the glorification of sexual pleasure separated entirely from love. That again has nothing to do with religion.

Note also that burning at the stake was the secular punishment for heresy. Heresy meant social disorder, and social disorder was not something any monarchs etc. wanted. A state religion was a good way to preserve order. I think many false, polytheistic religions developed in large part because it was one of the best ways to unify primitive peoples. I think religion's success in that respect is one of the reasons we're not all members of tribes living in grass huts today.

Naturally, people could not be condemned for heresy without religion. But without religion, governments would still have needed to preserve public order. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they wouldn't have burnt people at the stake just because there was no religion. There would have been other forms of dissent, and people would have been executed for other reasons, but they would still have been executed.

A final thing I would like to point out about that quote is that condemnation of heresy was done partly out of concern for people's souls. When one believes that someone is going to live for eternity, and that that eternity could be spent in paradise or in hell, then our short existence on earth seems to matter far less than the bigger picture. Thus, heresies were stamped out, not just to maintain control, but because the Church didn't want many people ending up in hell, the popular belief being that only practicing Catholics would go to heaven.

Moving on to the Spanish Inquisition:

Wikipedia says:

Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' decision to found the Inquisition such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, suppressing conversos, profiting from confiscation of the property of convicted heretics, reducing social tensions, and protecting the kingdom from the danger of a fifth column.

Of those, only the suppression of conversos can be said to be a religious reason. Their suppression can easily be said to be political, however, and ties in with the final reason quoted.

Of possible interest is that the Spanish Inquisition rarely tortured those it tried, as discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Torture.

It was only when secular sphere (such as science), led by intellectuals, forced the Church to change and accept new norms that were demanded by the people. So I hope we are now clear on the fact that it is the secular sphere to be credited for the modern western society and NOT the religion.

Galileo was Catholic, and was friendly with Pope Urban VIII until he offended the pope by publishing arguments that the pope had made against his theory in a book, with the arguments portrayed as coming from a simpleton. Urban VIII had given Galileo permission to write about his theory, but took offense at the personal attack. Thus, Galileo's insensitivity is partly at fault as well.

Galileo's condemnation as a heretic as well as Copernicus' condemnation can be blamed as being caused by religion, and I can concede you that. However, that was not grounded in Catholic doctrine, but rather in a literal interpretation of the Bible which was never officially infallible, and is not an intrinsic problem of religion, but rather a misuse of it.

Take a look at this list of Roman Catholic scientists found on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists

Many of those listed are among the greatest scientists that have ever lived. The man who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest. Few of those men felt that their scientific endeavours conflicted with their religion. A few of the earlier ones did indeed have trouble with the Church, but it remains to be demonstrated that religion itself is a problem. Certain religious mindsets are the problem. One would not say that government ought to be abolished because dictatorships and fascist regimes have caused a great deal of evil, one would say that dictatorship and fascism ought to be abolished. In the same way, it is certain mentalities within religion that we should discourage and seek to eliminate, not religion itself.

It is fair to mention that in northern countries the Church wasn't forced but rather reformed itself. But still, the reformation was a result of influence and progress in the secular sphere.

Your latter statement is not supported by any history I have read on the Protestant Reformation. It was many people's dissatisfaction with the abuses by the clergy of the Catholic Church, and certain doctrines that brought it about. Secularism had nothing to do with it, as far as I am aware, and expect to be aware in the future.

The religious wars that resulted had religion as there cause. But again, the wars were contrary to the doctrines of the religions involved, and war was never a product of religion. If people aren't fighting over religion, they're fighting for economic or political reasons. There is absolutely no evidence that secularism would remedy this in any way, so unless you produce some, I must conclude that religion is not itself the problem—people are.

darth_ender said:

Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims

Some Muslim countries have their "middle age" as we had ours in Europe. A common denominator in both cases is/was a religion.

Don't forget the medieval-minded people. I don't know of any nations that went through their "Middle Age" as a secular state, so it is almost impossible to say if religion is really the cause, and not just a good launching platform for the violence we are seeing today. Again, I do not really think religion itself is the problem.

darth_ender said:

I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

Of course there are some exceptions. But a vast majority of atheistic societies (EU countries) are doing very well in terms of moral norms.

You must realize that that is subjective if there is no God, and thus no definitive "truth." I do not agree with you at all. I think abortion is evil, and that is only in a small part due to my religion. I also think Euthanasia is wrong, and it is far too easy to abuse. Note also that their moral systems are founded upon those of Christianity.

Btw this sounded like you consider USA a theocracy? It is kinda funny that it actually have some elements of theocracy, such as the use of bible in court. As an atheist, can you refuse to participate in that ritual?

 It doesn't sound as if he considered the U.S.A. a theocracy, but rather that he considered there to be enough of a religious presence in his country that it cannot be identified as "atheistic."

Here I diverge from addressing your above quote and expand upon my earlier statement about being able to thank religion for hospitals.

Here is Wikipedia's history of hospitals, beginning when they really took off and weren't just people flocking to temples to be healed by imaginary gods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital#Roman_Empire

If you read it, it is clear enough that Christianity can be thanked for the medical system we have today. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, hospitals were founded in every major city, and it spread from there, with many religious orders being founded to care for the sick and poor. The first charities developed this way, and we can thank Christianity for them in a large part.

I now await the inevitable bunny skyscraper....

imperialscum said:

So I am curious if there is anyone who believes in evolution rather than creationism and still practises religion. If so, how can you and why would you even practise religion at all?

Imperialscum, I consider evolution barely plausible without a God. It's chances of producing an intelligent being, and the chances of the process actually starting at all are so incredibly low that it could almost be deemed impossible. I also do not understand your idea that religion is incompatible with evolution, unless you refer solely to atheistic evolution. In fact, I find it quite humourous that you assume that they do not work together. Could you elaborate on why you think it doesn't jive with Christianity, or religion in general?

I posted this in the random thoughts thread but then I saw that what I was responding too moved here so I hope no one minds if I post it here too since it is relevant to both thread.

I will post it here and then move on.

You know I had a revelation this weekend.

As Christians it is not up to us to make others believe, or talk them into it.  That is where we run into trouble. Christianity is about a personal relationship with god and that can not be forced.  Once someone is saved they will not want to sin any more. I think maybe we have been going about things backwards.  It is true certain sins cloud your mind and spirit and cut you off from God and that is why we are told not to do them, but the point of avoiding sin is to grow closer to God.  Without that relationship many of the teaching of the Bible make no sense.  It is tragic when a single soul is lost so that is what we should focus on. Instead of teaching the law first the way to truly change what is wrong with the world is to witness and focus on saving souls.

The good thing about that is that it isn't even up to us to make people believe, God doesn't even give himself the right to force people to obey him.  All Christians should do is state what we know to be the truth, the rest is between the person we are talking to and God.  We don't need to worry about winning points in debates and we should not get mad at others for not seeing the truth because that is where we were before the grace of God touched us through Jesus his son.

I know I have not been a good witness in the past and I was not keeping faith but that changes now.  I am not getting mad at people or engaging in pointless debates that there is no way to win, instead I will just say what I know to be true and trust in God for the rest.  After all if I truly am I Christian I should believe every word of the Bible is divine and that means trusting in God for everything I need and not hating others for what they says about me or my faith.  After all the Bible does say that God's word will not return void, so I will follow that from now on and will stop complaining and stop fighting with people.

After all it's not my battle to win.

Sorry about the long winded post and sorry for the way I have acted in the past, talking about killing myself and wishing death on others, that was very wrong of me.

One thing I would point out to anyone who says that Religion has caused wars so it is evil and should not be practiced is that in the past nations have gone to war over money and fishing rights.  So does that make those things in and of themselves evil, do you refuse to eat fish or get paid in money for your job because those things are evil and using them means you are trying to throw mankind back to the dark ages?

Okay I will go now, but I think it is a good point to make.  Man has a long sad history of using just about anything as an excuse to kill.  It's a fact of history.

imperialscum said:

RicOlie_2 said:

imperialscum said:

So I am curious if there is anyone who believes in evolution rather than creationism and still practises religion. If so, how can you and why would you even practise religion at all?

Imperialscum, I consider evolution barely plausible without a God. It's chances of producing an intelligent being, and the chances of the process actually starting at all are so incredibly low that it could almost be deemed impossible. I also do not understand your idea that religion is incompatible with evolution, unless you refer solely to atheistic evolution. In fact, I find it quite humourous that you assume that they do not work together. Could you elaborate on why you think it doesn't jive with Christianity, or religion in general?

The chances of initial (primitive) life being started on Earth are indeed very low. But to say that it was started by a divine intervention it makes the entire thing infinitely less possible.

In what way? I'm afraid I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

And the idea that God merely created the process of evolution completely contradicts to with what it is written in the bible. To my humble knowledge there is no mention or description of anything even close to evolution in the bible. Btw by evolution I refer to Darwin's theory of natural selection.

It does not contradict the Bible, aside from an overly universal interpretation of it. St. Augustine of Hippo recognized in the fourth century that the beginning of Genesis was probably not literal. This isn't something we came up all of a sudden to make our beliefs fit with science. Also, the Bible is not a science book, nor was it ever meant to be. The creation account focuses more on the why than the how, and it is meant to be a largely religious narrative rather than a scientific origin story.

A further argument of complete incompatibility of evolution and religion is that the biblical principles, to which people should abide to, go against the laws of the evolution.

 In what way? As has been noted, they are a byproduct of evolution if evolution occurred with no divine intervention. Religion is built into the human brain to a certain extent. That is, prayer tends to make people happier, regardless of whether or not it does anything else. People also yearn for meaning in their lives, and religion is better able to give that than an atheistic worldview.

imperialscum said:

Frank your Majesty said:

If you don't take the bible literally, you can easily say that God creating earth and life in seven days was a way for people 2500 years ago to imagine how everything started. You can still believe in Heaven and Jesus dying for your sins. That's the essence of not taking something literally.

Of course, evolution is nowhere mentioned in the bible, but neither is electricity and yet, even members of the Westboro Baptist Church use electric light.

Yes I suppose you could twist everything around and fool yourself so that it somehow fits with the modern science. But for what reason would someone then even believe in such nonsense if he accepts science? Why not just take science and forget about the bed-time story level material?

 If you think it's simply bedtime story material, then you display your ignorance of the story. The creation story in Genesis is a carefully crafted narrative that has some clearly symbolic elements woven into it. The order of the things created is definitely deliberate, and not the result of some primitive mind making up crap. The author(s) conveyed theological ideas through the story, and thus it has theological value, if not scientific value.

That being said, I agree with you that it is illogical to reject the latest scientific advances in favour of a primitive story completed only a few millennia ago.

Suddenly I'm hungry for fish.

imperialscum said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

imperialscum said:

Citizen Kane... I don't like it

Obviously this statement calls in to question the validity of your opinions on everything else.

Saying that an opinion can be valid or invalid is pretty much one of the must stupid things one can say. Especially when it comes to an opinion of an art.

 Saying that an opinion can't be invalid is also stupid. If I thought that the earth revolved around the moon, it would not be a valid opinion.

imperialscum said:

RicOlie_2 said:

If you think it's simply bedtime story material, then you display your ignorance of the story. The creation story in Genesis is a carefully crafted narrative that has some clearly symbolic elements woven into it. The order of the things created is definitely deliberate, and not the result of some primitive mind making up crap. The author(s) conveyed theological ideas through the story, and thus it has theological value, if not scientific value.

Well it falls under category of art since it is clearly not a scientific book. Therefore it is completely subjective. It is not to my taste. So now you are trying to tell me that I should like it (or should consider it good) just because it was "carefully crafted" (another completely subjective thing)? Creation process, primitive or sophisticated, has very little affect here.

For example, I am sure Lucas "carefully crafted" the prequels in his own right. I don't like them. And let's take another example of something that is widely acclaimed, Citizen Kane... I don't like it and I couldn't care less how "carefully it was crafted".

 ??

Where did I write anything about you having to like it, or even think it great? I only meant that it is at a higher level than a bedtime story. The fact that it was carefully crafted is only slightly subjective. It certainly wasn't carelessly cobbled together. It could be considered to fall under the category of art, but since it is also a theological work, and not all such works are any more art than science books, it is not entirely subjective. It has certain characteristics that are revealed through textual analysis, and are more than just private opinion.

While the Genesis story was created to entertain to some degree, it was also created to teach, and so I don't agree that they are only art. And the prequels or Citizen Kane were not created to teach, but solely to entertain.

I never know whether to find people like imperialscum funny, or to be sad that half of our society thinks in the way they do.

EDIT: Apologies impscum if that comes across as a low personal attack. It is indeed the way I feel, but I don't want to be mean about it, and it need not really be said.