"Religulous".....comments? (ducks and covers)

quote:

The argument that organised religion should be allowed to continue to exist because the vast majority of proponents are "moderate" and because it is "based on faith" just doesn't cut it with me.

Now at this point, we start to differ.

I would, however, accept government "regulation" in some shape or form, much as we have with science, or banking (ok not a good example this week)or education in general. But I leave the development of such regulation to others.

Cheers

Don

OK. I admit "be allowed to continue to exist" might have been a bit strong. "continue to attract differential treatment in social, legislative and financial matters, and continue to demand and receive respect" could be substituted.

Organised religion should not be above the law, and it certainly should not be above ridicule (which is always fun right up until the chanting and the flag burning and the riots and the slaughter yet again reinforce the inherent destructive nature and intolerance of such organisations). People ridicule me all the time for my stupid little quirks - but I don't feel I have a license from god to go and kill them because of it.

quote:

religion should not be above the law

Agreed by me.

You might have difficulty convincing others. Who might, ultimately, be right!!

Cheers

Don

quote:

In response to your first question, I can't, by definition, since defining God would mean understanding Him. I guess if you wanted my concept of Him, I'd say 'He' is a being of great and powerful means with a vested interest in Creation (meaning our universe and all that's in it). In some ways I think the latter part is merely a forlorn hope that He really IS interested in me and my kind, but I have faith so that's alright then! (I can hear you laughing now because I am!)

The Soul - hmmm - I think I have a very personal view on this. My soul is the essence of who I am in spirit form. It's the child within me that makes me want to do or think of things irrationally; it's my mature self too, bending my will to whatever I do. It also provides a mirror to evaluate my actions in the sense of good and bad. My actions have an effect on my soul though, so as I grow it grows with me, and how it grows depends on the battle of good and evil within. In many ways it's more than I am and at the same time less, but as a whole I believe I would be much less without it - I would lose my moral compass. (Yes, I have been described as having a strong but impossible belief system).

Hi Frank,

They are two sound definitions by my own reckoning, but I asked them for a specific purpose. I knew before you posted your answers that giving definitions of such type would create problems; although that is so, it is still essential to define as if you don’t define what is meant by "God" you have no
description or definition to work from and will literally fail to know what you’re talking about. For example, if I say I believe in ‘Unie’ and you ask me what ‘Unie’ is, and I say “I don’t know”, there is no basis for any discussion as to whether I’m right or not! I believe a theist wishes to convey the idea of 'God' as a being that exists beyond the framework of natural law, and so posits god as creating the universe – the source
of natural law.

This exemption from natural law therefore falls BEYOND the scope of human intellectual comprehension so the full nature of god
is not merely unknown, but it is unknowable!!

If a god is a natural being, if his actions can be explained in terms of normal causal relationships, then he would be a knowable creature – so, if god can be known, he cannot be supernatural. Without mystery and without some element of the incomprehensible, a being cannot be supernatural – and to believe and preach that a being is supernatural implies that this being is beyond human knowledge. Logically then, believers are therefore agnostics.

What is your view to that? Do you understand my logic?

So this always comes back to agnosticism and
the Christian God uses the terms: being omniscient, being omnipotent, and of
course, being omnibenevolent.

These terms are positive characteristics in the sense that the believer says God has them rather than God does not have them (which would be negative characteristics).

When a Christian says that God is alive, do they mean that God is alive in the same sense as natural organisms? If so, God must be a
material entity who will eventually die. When God is said to be wise or possess knowledge, is this the ‘conceptual’ knowledge with which
humans are familiar? If so, God is capable of error and can acquire his knowledge through mental effort. When God is said to have a
certain power or capacity, is this power similar to the concept as we understand it? If so, God must be limited. When God is said to be
loving, is this a love with which we are familiar? If so, God must have emotions with which to feel passion.

The reason why these questions are asked is because if the Christian wishes to use positive characteristics for God while retaining their
meaning, he must reduce his god to a human level. If, on the other hand, these characteristics do not mean the same when applied to god as they do when applied to natural entities, they assume some unknown
meaning and are virtually emptied of their significance. God is pushed into agnosticism.

What are your views on the logic trail I'm crafting?

Please take these questions with respect, as I find this topic rivetting. With regard to the 'soul' I have lots to follow up on, but as this post I'm leaving here is so long, I'll write this in a future post!

To answer your question, 'what is love?' the best answer I can give is this. I have experienced true love with a partner on two separate occasions, so I know the subjective feeling of emotional closeness, trust, intimacy, the fact that I would die or kill for them; I remember once upon a time when I was with my first love, looking at her and feeling tears coming from my eyes because I loved her so much. I have experienced heart break from her and found love again 3 years after.

Putting the subjective qualia into words is what poets do, but I have to say that I categorically 'believe' that we are entirely material and the experience of love can be explained as the emergent property of our electro-chemical neurons.

Kind regards,

Jon

quote:

but I have to say that I categorically 'believe' that we are entirely material and the experience of love can be explained as the emergent property of our electro-chemical neurons.

You soppy old romantic!

Seriously, nice post. I especially liked this point: Logically then, believers are therefore agnostics. My claim that there are no supernatural facts points to the same conclusion. Personally, I'd be happy to ditch the link between religion and propositional belief ("belief that p") altogether. Religion as a way of being (or, to use Wittgenstein's phrase, "a way of life"), underpinned by certain "special" ineffable experiences, seems like a far more promising approach. Put less abstractly, maybe having faith is more like having a skill than believing certain propositions. Talented runners (or cooks) have something in common, but it is not (or not solely) a set of shared beliefs.

I know I said I'd sit out the rest of this thread, but, like you Jon, I find the topic fascinating, and couldn't resist!

Regards
Nigel

Food for thought...
The Cosmological Argument(Referenced from www.carm.org)
The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
The Cosmological Argument takes several forms, but is basically represented below.

Cosmological Argument
1)Things exist.
2)It is possible for those things to not exist.
3)Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4)There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5)Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6)The uncaused cause must be God.
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion, but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.

Strengths of the argument
The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.

Weaknesses of the argument
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.

Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

To me it takes more faith to believe that in the beginning nothing exploded and voila...here we are?!(All the best...From and atheist/agnostic to a beliver!)

IMHO we need to overcome the limitations of assuming that "God" has to be associated with (any form of) logic invented by man.

One of these days, scientists might discover the real logic of existence. we might then discover the existence or non-existence of a creator.

Can we even answer three simple questions

has "something" ALWAYS existed
did "something" emerge from "nothing"
what alternatives are there to either of the above

"something" can be any form of matter (or matter/anti-matter); energy (or energy/anti-energy); etc etc
"nothing" is the (absolute) absence of "something" but it definitely is NOT the "sum" of [matter + anti-matter] etc

do we have to have absolute certainty about something before we allow it to be taught in our schools?

Cheers

Don

Hi Don,

I see your point, but the implications of that are far and wide. To illustrate what I mean when I say this, I could say that I firmly believe in a 'flying spaghetti monster'. This is a classic argument as there is no way of empirically testing this, and some might find me weird in claiming in my passionate faith.

That is equated with a belief in God, or Wotan, or Thor, or Voodoo, or Pegasus....

Another implication is this. What does this say about the soul? I question this as there is no logic for something that is the essence of us to have eternal life. I remember when I was much younger and I worked in a home for the mentally infirm, and it dawned on me there that the 'soul' could not be anything that what we are now. If it wasn't then when we died what is it that has eternal life? If it's not the essence of me now, then it's not me that dies.

There were residents at the nursing home who suffered from terrible Alzheimer's and based on the soul hypothesis, their soul could be nothing else that what they were - anything else would mean that it wasn't them. Take this hypothesis further:

Imagine 3 people: Person A is sharp, confident and a regular professional; Person B has profound autism who suffers inflexibility of thought, tremendous anxiety for anything, does not recognise his own family members as he is so 'obsessed' in doing the same task; Person C has a collection of symptoms we label 'paranoid schizophrenia'.

The manifestation each individual is is their 'soul' so upon death they will be that way for eternity. And does this mean with or without medication????

It is logically farcical to believe in a soul!!

I have also just finished a book called "The end of biblical studies", which I found highly erudite but persisted to the end and it essentially presents the fact that all biblical translations are based on the culture and values of the time, so none of the stories in the bible have any relevance today.

Regards,

Jon

Jon

quote:

I see your point, but the implications of that are far and wide. To illustrate what I mean when I say this, I could say that I firmly believe in a 'flying spaghetti monster'. This is a classic argument as there is no way of empirically testing this, and some might find me weird in claiming in my passionate faith.

That is equated with a belief in God, or Wotan, or Thor, or Voodoo, or Pegasus....

Jon, you’ve lost me. What’s so difficult recognizing that man-made logic; and our limited ability to conduct “experiments”; might not be adequate for deciding if there is a God or not. Basically, we might not even know what experiments to conduct in the first place!

quote:

Another implication is this. What does this say about the soul? I question this as there is no logic for something that is the essence of us to have eternal life. I remember when I was much younger and I worked in a home for the mentally infirm, and it dawned on me there that the 'soul' could not be anything that what we are now. If it wasn't then when we died what is it that has eternal life? If it's not the essence of me now, then it's not me that dies.

There were residents at the nursing home who suffered from terrible Alzheimer's and based on the soul hypothesis, their soul could be nothing else that what they were - anything else would mean that it wasn't them. Take this hypothesis further:

Imagine 3 people: Person A is sharp, confident and a regular professional; Person B has profound autism who suffers inflexibility of thought, tremendous anxiety for anything, does not recognise his own family members as he is so 'obsessed' in doing the same task; Person C has a collection of symptoms we label 'paranoid schizophrenia'.

The manifestation each individual is is their 'soul' so upon death they will be that way for eternity. And does this mean with or without medication????

It is logically farcical to believe in a soul!!

Again, you’ve lost me. I don't recall saying, or implying, that man has a “soul”? Just because there is a God, doesn’t mean there has to be a soul, or for that matter, everlasting life beyond the grave. However, assuming there might be a soul (Christian or Bhudist), just because we haven’t yet found out what constitutes a soul, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Scientists are only just coming to terms with sub-atomic matter and energy, plenty of time for them to find the "soul" particle - assuming they are clever enough!

Why does God have to have created a “just” universe/world? Even individuals within all the major religions don't agree on this !!

quote:

I have also just finished a book called "The end of biblical studies", which I found highly erudite but persisted to the end and it essentially presents the fact that all biblical translations are based on the culture and values of the time, so none of the stories in the bible have any relevance today.

I’m not entirely certain I understand the point you are making. The problem of relevance today would be adequately overcome by a modern translation. I have always read the bible with an open mind (I think!). The Old Testament looks to be simply a history of the Jews. It contains some useful “codes of moral behaviour” such as the Ten Commandments. The exaggerated stories usually have some basis in fact, but as for “God caused a great flood”, God caused “a rainbow” well, even the Archbishop of Canterbury wouldn’t argue that one!! The New Testament covers the life of Jesus. Christians (and others) accept it as “fact” on an individual basis to varying degrees. Proof of Fact for the miracles is pretty limited IMHO.

However, ISTM that you might be confusing Religion with God. To me, this is a bit like confusing science with the universe and everything outside the universe.

BTW, very few people are prepared to tackle the questions I asked above. You are not alone.

Cheers

Don

Don,

I have to say that I liked your post, sincerely.

The world where there is zero dogma, people are open and allowed to have their own opinions would be fine, but I have to repeat myself when I said that the evolution of the scientific method is the only way to rationally increase knowledge. Period.

I am totally aware that we do not have technology to investigate everything, but then again I arbitarily ask you what was the view on humans flying 200 years ago? In fact, what was the view about communicating with someone 1000s of miles away in just a couple of seconds?

What we say we can't do now doesn't pre-empt categorically.

The belief and viewpoint you shared in your last post is wonderful and that is how I would want all believers to be. In a sense you show critical thought coupled with your belief, which I appreciate.

With regard to the holy books, I want to close illustrating the sheer irrationality of the concept of God that has been espoused over the years. It is claimed that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

That therefore means that God knows a man will perish in hell for eternity before that man is even conceived. It also suggests that if God has omnisicience or is ALL KNOWING, then there is no such thing as free will for mankind.

On top of this, if you are omnipotent you can do ANYTHING you want INSTANTLY. For there to be a purpose for anything to be done there has to be unfulfiulled desires and goals otherwise there is no purpose in doing it.

This God being omnipotent, omniscient therefore does not have a purpose to create the universe as by definition he has no unfulfilled desires and goals. I think the presence of natural disasters and innocent children suffering in the world indicates suffering; an omnibenevolent deity who CREATED EVERYTHING therefore cannot exist.

Kind regards,

Jon

Jon

I have much respect for scientists and depend on the consistency and accuracy of our knowledge of maths and physiscs every time I go flying. Most of what I teach, involves maths and physics.

And I am as interested in the origins of species and the universe as much as the next person. And I certainly don't consider it all started c10,000 years ago.

Just keep teaching subjects honestly and accurately, without resorting to the Dawkins' style.

Cheers

Don

Don,

I have to say that I do teach my subject honestly and I also respect all faiths in the process. I must do this as the insitution I teach in incorporates and embraces all ethnic backgrounds.

The limiting factor to this is that the subject I teach, psychology, follows the scientific method. I therefore instil a thorough understanding of evolution by natural selection and all the implications for evolutionary psychology. This does challenge two Muslim students I teach, but THEY will be the ones who fail if they don't provide a positive critique...

Regards,

Jon

This is where we differ. I don't respect any faiths. That is not to say that I don't respect the people who practice them. I also respect the rights of those people to hold those faiths. But the faiths themselves? No.

Winkyincanada, you misunderstand!!

I have to respect all these faiths as I'd lose my job!! Underneath this, I think a lot of it is Bronze Age and totally irrational - and I am an avid reader of this debate.

Regards,

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
And I am as interested in the origins of species and the universe as much as the next person. And I certainly don't consider it all started c10,000 years ago.

I've still yet to find the passage that says that the Universe or even the world was created 10,000 years ago.

The closest I have found is the 6,000 years of the Jewish calendar - which refers to the beginning of "their world".

Interestingly, much of the critical parts of Genesis uses the word "eretz" the Hebrew word for "land". To say that their historical land is 6,000 years old makes more sense than applying it to the whole planet.

This similarly applies to Noah's flood, which many assert this to being a localised (but large-scale) event. Again the story uses the word "eretz".

Genesis 1 merely sets the scene of the whole Bible/Torah and refers to creation in a stylistic and snapshot manner. One should look at the scope of the Bible as serving people seeking spiritual salvation and not scientific enlightenment. A true former would be more important to everyone than any knowledge.

Andrew Randle

quote:

Genesis 1 merely sets the scene of the whole Bible/Torah and refers to creation in a stylistic and snapshot manner. One should look at the scope of the Bible as serving people seeking spiritual salvation and not scientific enlightenment.

I couldn't agree more, and I'm surprised if anybody imagined I thought otherwise. Ditto the Flood, and the parting of the Red Sea etc etc

The choice of c.10,000 was a very round number.

cheers

Don

No worries about the 10,000. I really meant that I could not find in the Bible any specific statement on the age of a "young Earth".

Andrew Randle

quote:

I could not find in the Bible any specific statement on the age of a "young Earth".

I haven't made any claim that the bible states a specific age for the earth or the universe. (I did make a statement about scientists claiming that the bible stated such an age and I used 10,000 as a round number to avoid any quibbling)

My recollection is that the bible clearly states that God created Man on day 5 (or thereabouts). 1st Man was Adam. Adam lived to be c950, etc etc with Noah knocking up 500 years. I gather that some people (creationists?) have totted up the decendents from Adam and concluded that God created the Heavens and Earth c10,000 years ago (give or take a millenium or two!!)

When I said I don't believe this figure of 10,000 years it was in the following context. We know that the earth is c4.5 billion years and the universe (heavens?) is c15 billion years. Also I've never considered that the bible stories were intended to be taken literally, and I think that is the point you were making when you wrote:-

"Genesis 1 merely sets the scene of the whole Bible/Torah and refers to creation in a stylistic and snapshot manner. One should look at the scope of the Bible as serving people seeking spiritual salvation and not scientific enlightenment. A true former would be more important to everyone than any knowledge."

Cheers

Don

This touches on an important issue with respect to literal reading of "holy" texts. The texts are self-referential in their claims to "truth". Fundamentalists take a very literal view of what the books say - right up to the point of killing the non-believers or those who would darw cartoons or make movies etc. or do something else that "offends" them.

The more moderate believers say that the books aren't to be taken literally, but that they are still useful as a moral compass telling them how to act and live their lives. The question is, how do they then know which bits of the books to take literally and obey such as love thy neighbour, and which bits to ignore such as kill a daughter who tells you she is leaving the church - (the bible literally instructs people to do this)? The answer is that the morality that guides the choices for moderates is humanistic and societal, and not intrinsic in the scriptures.

Therefore, not only do we not need the scriptures to tell us what to do, but dangerously, the scriptures allow moral justification of abhorrent acts by fundamentalists and extremists.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

When I said I don't believe this figure of 10,000 years it was in the following context. We know that the earth is c4.5 billion years and the universe (heavens?) is c15 billion years. Also I've never considered that the bible stories were intended to be taken literally, and I think that is the point you were making when you wrote:-

Just to clarify, I was addressing the issue in general and know that you were not at that point identifying your personal opinion - your post wasn't worded to suggest that.

Best,

Andrew Randle

quote:

The question is, how do they then know which bits of the books to take literally

I would start with the four gospels and ignore the rest, at least so far as any moral compass is concerned. But even these need to sympathetically interpreted.

Not perfect, I know. But then I don't have any more confidence in humanistic moral compasses.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

The more moderate believers say that the books aren't to be taken literally, but that they are still useful as a moral compass telling them how to act and live their lives. The question is, how do they then know which bits of the books to take literally and obey such as love thy neighbour, and which bits to ignore such as kill a daughter who tells you she is leaving the church - (the bible literally instructs people to do this)? The answer is that the morality that guides the choices for moderates is humanistic and societal, and not intrinsic in the scriptures.

A key question: is an action good because God wills it; or does God will it because it is good. Most people opt for the latter - correctly, I think. On the subject of interpretation, Christianity has a long, vast (and I mean VAST) tradition of hermeneutics - the study of the interpretation of scripture. The issue you raise has been discussed at great length within the tradition. I assume the same applies to the other major religions.

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Not perfect, I know. But then I don't have any more confidence in humanistic moral compasses.

Agreed - someone with a wonky compass is going to go astray - with or without the justification of scripture.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
This touches on an important issue with respect to literal reading of "holy" texts. The texts are self-referential in their claims to "truth". Fundamentalists take a very literal view of what the books say - right up to the point of killing the non-believers or those who would darw cartoons or make movies etc. or do something else that "offends" them.

The more moderate believers say that the books aren't to be taken literally, but that they are still useful as a moral compass telling them how to act and live their lives. The question is, how do they then know which bits of the books to take literally and obey such as love thy neighbour, and which bits to ignore such as kill a daughter who tells you she is leaving the church - (the bible literally instructs people to do this)? The answer is that the morality that guides the choices for moderates is humanistic and societal, and not intrinsic in the scriptures.

Queue the screeching of brakes. I can't speak for other religions, but from a Christian perspective, I have a number of opinions here:

1) 99% of Bible translations cover the main tenants and 99% of the minor details very well - particularly where God puts events in place that culminate up to the crucifixion and the crucifixion being God's statement to humanity saying "look this is what I am prepared to go through for you and your friendship"
2) Where is this passage regarding killing a daughter who leaves a Church??? Not to my knowledge (even after a keyword search) in the New Testament where the term "Church" is applicable...
3) If an interpretation of the English translation is questioned, looking that the literal Hebrew (Old Testament) or Aramaic|Greek (New Testament) will usually reveal insight into the cultural/linguistic context and bring a logical conclusion that is consistent.

quote:

Therefore, not only do we not need the scriptures to tell us what to do, but dangerously, the scriptures allow moral justification of abhorrent acts by fundamentalists and extremists.

Again it depends on how it is read, e.g. the context. For example, instances in the Old Testament of God's "tough love" or ruthlessness were temporary and necessary means to an end - such as steering history or creating obedience or a referenced example among for Jews. As they say, "a little knowledge can be dangerous" and extremists tend to have varying combinations of self-interest/hidden agendas, poor contextual knowledge of the subject or plain personality problems.

Andrew Randle

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Not perfect, I know. But then I don't have any more confidence in humanistic moral compasses.

Agreed - someone with a wonky compass is going to go astray - with or without the justification of scripture.

In some cases. But there are also people who state very clearly that it is their faith that compels then to commit (or at least justifies it) what society generally regards as atrocities. We shouldn't ignore this.