State Your Religion

[BlueFire]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I think that would just be to piss off the religious people.

lmao, I don't think so. Seattle is liberal city. The booth wasn't really popular.. because.. well, I guess it was kind of boring. Really plain looking.

The other funny sight was the pro-life booth which was virtually empty and the Planned Parenthood booth (which was 2 booths away) with a heavy crowd.

[Bond]

I picked up this book today:



Of course we can never really answer the question of whether God exists. And of course it would have been highly unlikely for Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis to discuss this question in person, considering that they were born in different countries and a generation apart. Nonetheless, The Question of God allows readers to listen in on one of the most articulate debates possible by creating a virtual meeting of Freud and Lewis. For the past 25 years, Armand M. Nicholi has taught a similar course at Harvard, where he compares Freud’s atheist-based reasoning against the atheist-turned-believer C.S. Lewis. Both men were considered brilliant, highly educated thinkers who profoundly influenced 20th-century thought. And both men presented compelling arguments for and against the existence of God.

At the core is Freud’s assertion that God is a figment of the imagination (more accurately, God is an outcome of our deep-seated need for protection, stemming from the helplessness of early childhood). Lewis, on the other hand, did not see the belief in a higher power as a childish need for comfort. In fact, he wrote, "rendering back one's will which we have so long claimed for our own, is, in itself, extremely painful. To surrender a self-will inflamed and swollen with years of usurpation is a kind of death." Nicholi never take sides. Instead he gives both men a chance to eloquently answer the big questions of humanity: why is there suffering? What should be our guiding belief? How do we form a moral compass? Surprisingly, this debate turns out to be a fascinating page-turner, with most of the credit going to Nicholi. Because he understands these men's arguments so well and respects their beliefs so thoroughly, believers could begin to have doubts and atheists could start to wonder. Regardless of where you ultimately land on the question of God, this stellar book will deeply enrich your understanding of humanity.

[Neo]

Just for fun allow me to summarize the Religion v Science debate.


Originally, religion told us the Bible was the literal truth and that we were at the center of the universe. The first two humans, Adam and Eve, were materialized out of thin air.

Then came Galileo who theorized that the sun was at the center of the solar system, and the earth revolved around it. Oops! Bad choice. The church quickly put him to death.

After the evidence finally became too great the church caved and said "okay okay, earth isn't at the center. But God still created man and the stars are tiny lights hanging from the ceiling of heaven." Of course they eventually lost the star debate as well.

Then came evolution which the church also denounced. But eventually after overwhelming evidence they said "okay okay, evolution exists but it was guided by God." Okay....

Then came near death experiences. Finally! Evidence of the afterlife! Ah but then scientists were able to reproduce this effect in the lab, showing it to be biological in origin. "okay okay", said the church, "maybe it's not a mystical experience. Though what you've found is simply the the physical mechanism though which God works." Wholly unecessary, but whatever...

Then the church said "many people can FEEL God inside them, we know God exists because we can tell the spirit is in us." Oops, wrong again. Turns out those are hormones. New studies show that a person's tendency to be religious is linked to a certain area of the brain. The more developed is this area of the brain, the more likely the person is to have a sense of a higher power or a belief in a supreme being. It's a survival characteristic. "Okay okay" says the church, "maybe it's not the spirit in us. But it is the physical mechanism that God uses to let us know his presence."

Do you see a pattern here? Religion has been on a constant retreat from science and will continue to be in the future. The fact is that science doesn't need God to explain the existence of this universe or anything in it. There are even theories about why there is something (anything at all) rather than nothing. No they are not complete, but they give a glimpse into the kind of understanding that is possible through science (specifically physics). God is continually being pushed to the side and is becoming less and less necessary for explaining this world.

I maintain that if you put a universe with God (as the Christians personify him) next to a universe without God, you would not be able to tell the difference between the two.

Now before you label me as an atheist or an agnostic, know that I'm not saying God does not exist (I have my own beliefs in this area). I actually hope that a personal God does exist. Afterall who wouldn't want that? Nobody wants to die. We all want to live forever and be reunited with our loved ones. Unfortunately wishing for something doesn't make it so, and we must guard against our desire to believe in something just because it is comforting to us. I am desperately looking for a way to make it true.

[Professor S]

I am a Deist, meaining I believe in one God, not unlike many of my nation's founding fathers.

Now as we see this topic wildly turning off course into a pro-religion vs. anti-religion slime fest (yet again, I swear Bond makes these just to rile people up), I will simply broach one question: Why do science and religion have to be separate and divisive? I mean, they are really alike in most ways.

Most of science's facts are in actuality theories, which we accept on faith. Yes, it is faith in man's empirical knowledge of the subject, but it still unproven. Just like religion.

Many of science's real facts and "rules" have been disproven on numerous occassions, yet we don't throw them out. EX. Electrons jump levels at times and places where it defies the laws of physics... the laws of physics... yet we still recognize them even though they are not absolute.

Personally, I think it is the peak of arrogance to just throw away one theory of the univers that has been tested by faith and number over thousands of years for science that is both young and constantly correcting itself for its constant errors. But then again, I guess that requires a different kind of faith, so its all the same really.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Yes, it is faith in man's empirical knowledge of the subject, but it still unproven. Just like religion.

I dont know about you, but I've seen the chain of evolution. I can piece it together, I can see how it works and how it makes sense. I've never seen two people materialize out of thin air.



And I've never understood why there are so many religions. Surely, each God is the god, so why does the rest of the world not worship him/her/it/them as well?

Can a god not just "rule" a certain section of the planet? Much like a president.

In a sense what I'm trying to get across here would be like telling an army of ants that we cut the world up into sections and let a handful of people dictate that region, if you get what I'm saying.

[Neo]

You're definitely right about science. Physics will tell you nothing about truth - Instead it provides models to describe and predict the behavior of the world. Occasionally new evidence will emerge which will make us alter or discard certain theories. That is the beauty of science and what sets it apart from religion. Science changes as our understanding of the world increases, whereas religion remains static. Scientists are often accused of being closed-minded, but I maintain that they are the most open-minded of individuals because they are willing to change their beliefs and alter their theories based on new evidence. Religious people tend to hold on to their beliefs and rationalize away any evidence to the contrary.

While there of course scientists who are close-minded, a true scientist is one who is willing to grow. For example, while they may be 99% sure that Relativity is a valid description of reality since it has agreed perfectly with every test ever conceived, there is still that 1% room for doubt.

Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of nature, only in contradiction to what we know of them.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I dont know about you, but I've seen the chain of evolution. I can piece it together, I can see how it works and how it makes sense. I've never seen two people materialize out of thin air.

And I've never understood why there are so many religions. Surely, each God is the god, so why does the rest of the world not worship him/her/it/them as well?

Can a god not just "rule" a certain section of the planet? Much like a president.

In a sense what I'm trying to get across here would be like telling an army of ants that we cut the world up into sections and let a handful of people dictate that region, if you get what I'm saying.

You raise some important issues and good questions. Questions are always good, especially when it comes to religion. Afterall, how deep can one's faith be if it cannot withstand an objective analysis.

1) Evolution - Yes, it is accepted to be the leading theory, but it is still a theory, regardless of common sense related observation. The "missing link", as in man's missing link in the evolutionary chain, is not the only questionable area of evolution. The most controversial area in evolution is one of the earliest in the fossil record: The jump from bacteria and virulent organisms to that of single celled. Now that might not sound like a big jump, but in terms of bio-engineering they are worlds apart in both size and complexity. There is also no evidence of a beginning of evolution. Once again, it is accepted and probably theory, but still theory. Not fact and probably never will be.

2) Number fo Religions - Yes, there are many religions, but most of them are pretty similar. Even the religions that do not prescribe to a single god have other areas in common. EX. Many theologists separate modern religions from paganism is one important area: morals are not separate from the religion. Most early "pagan" belief structures treated morals independently from the religion. To give some kind of frame of reference let me say this: If Christianity was structured like a "pagan" religion, it would be possible to murder someone, cheat on your wife, etc. and still be considered a "good Christian" as long as you loved Christ above all others. Now Catholocism technically has the "get out of jail free card" of confession, I still doubt any Catholic would consider a murderer to be a good Christian regardless of confessional visits. Catholicism also had the habit of assimillating pagan rituals into their dogma and confession may have been a moral compromise to attract converts that had trouble living up to a Christian code of morals.

3) God as Governor - This one is easy to address. Any Christian would say that God gave man free will along with the teachings of the bible. It is up to man to live up to those teachings, not up to God to impose those teachings on them. Treating God as a parent who must eventually allow his children to make their own decisions/mistakes is a common theme that goes back to Adam and Eve. And as illustrated by Adam and Eve, there are consequences when man fails to live up to God's teachings. This all harkens back to the incorporation of morals into religion. I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to with you "ants" post, but its either this or a polytheist approach that is reminiscent of pagan views of multiple Gods that anyone can choose to prescribe to.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

(yet again, I swear Bond makes these just to rile people up),

Shhhhhhh.

Originally Posted by Neo

Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of nature, only in contradiction to what we know of them.

So then I can say this: Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of Christianity, only in contradiction to what we know of Christianity.

[Xantar]

I don't really understand why some Christians (note: I said some Christians) feel some kind of need to have their religion explain the physical facts of life. Why do the planets circle the sun? Is it because a big mass of cosmic dust had some kind of force acting on it before it all clumped together into the sun and the planets? Or is it because God made it that way? Who knows, but the problem with the debate is that both sides, with sufficient ingenuity, can make everything fit their theory. The fundamentalist says that there is a hole in the theory and that therefore God must be involved. The scientist says that there is a hole in the theory and therefore we need to figure out a new theory. It gets nowhere.

Besides, it never seemed to me that Abrahamic religions were really very concerned with explaining the ways of the world. By their very nature, science is concerned with explaining this world that we know and religion is concerned with the other world that we can never know. The two just have nothing to do with each other. Whenever a debate like this pops up, I always wonder What Would Jesus Do. In other words, if Jesus were to suddenly walk the earth again and look around, what would his sermon be?

Would it be something to the effect of, "We have too much cruelty and lack of compassion towards our fellow man. Our lives are made poor by our pursuit of material wealth. We need to discover our spirituality and humanity again."

Or would Jesus say, "Our world is a terrible place because we believe that the world is 6 billion years old instead of 10,000"?

Somehow, I just think Jesus would find better things to talk about.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bond

So then I can say this: Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of Christianity, only in contradiction to what we know of Christianity.

I find that the confusion that Neo has over religion is pretty common, especially in young people, and most of that is the fault of those that have the strongest voices in religion. It often see that idiots like Pat Robertson get all of the press because of the outlandish things that they say, while those like Billy Graham (while respected) tend to be ignored because of their tolerant speech and belief.

Neo, you seem to think that Religion is static, and its anything but. Christianity alone has changed untold times in its brief history, but change does not neccessarily equal invalidity. Some would lead you to believe that on both sides, but not those that understand what they are discussing. Religion is no more invalidated by change than science is, and in fact its even less likely to be invalidated by change because the only evidence that religion is beholden to is one's faith.

Religion is more powerful than just what someone is religious about. Its about faith and belief, not about what God is the right one or whether or not the earth was created in 7 days. A world without God is one in which the only in which its inhabitants believe in nothing but themselves, and eventually will believe in nothing at all.

[Neo]

Originally Posted by Bond

Shhhhhhh.


So then I can say this: Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of Christianity, only in contradiction to what we know of Christianity.

Different kinds of laws. Laws of physics describe and predict nature, laws of religion dicate personal behavior.

Originally Posted by Xantar

I don't really understand why some Christians (note: I said some Christians) feel some kind of need to have their religion explain the physical facts of life. Why do the planets circle the sun? Is it because a big mass of cosmic dust had some kind of force acting on it before it all clumped together into the sun and the planets? Or is it because God made it that way? Who knows, but the problem with the debate is that both sides, with sufficient ingenuity, can make everything fit their theory.

That's not true. A theory is based on observable evidence. Religious notions of the beginning of life aren't "theories" at all. They're based on wishful thinking and ancient contradictory texts. And scientists do not twist the facts to fit the theory, they alter the theory to fit the facts. Religious people do not do this. And yes there are scientists which will attempt to modify facts to fit their own pet theories but on the whole that is not what science is about.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Neo, you seem to think that Religion is static, and its anything but. Christianity alone has changed untold times in its brief history, but change does not neccessarily equal invalidity. Some would lead you to believe that on both sides, but not those that understand what they are discussing. Religion is no more invalidated by change than science is, and in fact its even less likely to be invalidated by change because the only evidence that religion is beholden to is one's faith.

Religion is more powerful than just what someone is religious about. Its about faith and belief, not about what God is the right one or whether or not the earth was created in 7 days.

Religion seems to be static on all the points of consequence. There are the 10 Commandments, the story of creation, the ark story, there is salvation through Christ, and so forth. Will Christianity ever turn around and alter or renounce any of these things? Not a chance. Christianity is based on Christ afterall, and if he was ever invalidated then the whole religion would collapse. Science is not dependent on any one person or theory. Newton, Einstein, Shroedinger, they've all made contributions. Scientists thought Newton was the God of physics until Einstein created a revolution. Did physics simply go away? Of course not. It grew and adapted to the new evidence, something religion is very uncomfortable with. The only time religion really changes is when it is giving way to science.

A world without God is one in which the only in which its inhabitants believe in nothing but themselves, and eventually will believe in nothing at all.

I couldn't disagree more. As I said before there are plenty of atheists who live happy, moral lives and are excited about the future. There is no sign that they are on a path to believing nothing at all. I believe the confusion lies in the notion that a God is necessary to have a meaningful life. Meaning is a concept and only exists if you convey it onto something.

Besides, it never seemed to me that Abrahamic religions were really very concerned with explaining the ways of the world. By their very nature, science is concerned with explaining this world that we know and religion is concerned with the other world that we can never know. The two just have nothing to do with each other.

I actually disagree with this to, though I'm mainly alone with this position even among scientists. I don't believe that religion is immune to the reach of science. For example, if souls exist then they can be explained in terms of some yet undiscovered "soul particles" which can be measured and predicted. There is nothing truly paranormal or supernatural; Everything is normal and natural once we understand how it works. This is what I meant by my comment about things happening in contradiction to what we know of natural laws. Nothing is beyond the reach of physics, not even God.

/me activates heat shield

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Neo

I couldn't disagree more. As I said before there are plenty of atheists who live happy, moral lives and are excited about the future. There is no sign that they are on a path to believing nothing at all.

Exactly where do you think those morals came from? How bout those 10 Commandments? Your very being is ensconced in religion and you don't even realize it. Our greatest artistic achievements on the planet were born from man's love of God, not himself. We are at our best when we believe in more than ourselves. Love thy Neighbor was born from religion, not secular thought.

As for religin being static, that is up to interpretation and honestly your ideas about the modern state of religion and its arguments show a lack of knowledge on your side about what you are criticizing. EX. Creation: The Earth was Created in 7 Days. Well, how long is a day to God? If there were no days before the world was created, how were they measured? Most importantly, WHO CARES? You harp on the inconsequential and hand-picked specifics that have nothing to do with the modern religion. The 7 day adventist belief means almost noithing to the modern Christian who views the whole of the message and applies it to their belief.

By your logic the Mona Lisa is a horrible painting because the bitch ain't got no eyebrows.

You see the loud minority fringe of fundamentalists and then paint the entire religion that way because that is how you WANT to see religion, but you ignore the majority of Christian's beliefs and even the religions most ancient interpretations which saw the Bible a book of moral parables. I really recommend you do more research into an area that you feel so strongly about and try and look at it objectively. You are letting your dislike, and even anger at religion cloud your judgement. I'm not saying you convert to a believer of any religion, but to not see the value of religion is just absurd and shows a faulire to see the world through a large view.

FYI: I used Christianity as an example here because it is a great example of a large modern religion, not because it is my religion. It is not, I just think Jesus was a hell of a philospher.

[Neo]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Exactly where do you think those morals came from? How bout those 10 Commandments? Your very being is ensconced in religion and you don't even realize it.

No, morality is a survival characteristic which was created through evolution. It's in our best interest not to kill others so we don't have to worry about them killing or hurting us. The ten commandments were a result of these tendencies, not the other way around.

You see the loud minority fringe of fundamentalists and then paint the entire religion that way because that is how you WANT to see religion, but you ignore the majority of Christian's beliefs and even the religions most ancient interpretations which saw the Bible a book of moral parables. I really recommend you do more research into an area that you feel so strongly about and try and look at it objectively. You are letting your dislike, and even anger at religion cloud your judgement. I'm not saying you convert to a believer of any religion, but to not see the value of religion is just absurd and shows a faulire to see the world through a large view.

More people have died because of religious hatred than for any other reason. How's that for value? I agree it is a book of moral parables, but that doesn't change the static nature of religion. And how am I hand-picking specifics? The things I mentioned are all CRITICAL aspects of religion and have not changed. What important aspects of religion do you think have changed over the years, other than those that have changed due to the pressure of rational scientific thinking? I'm not taunting here, I genuinely would like to know. Maybe you're right and I'm not being objective. I can admit that.

Jesus was a hell of a philospher.

I agree with this too. He had several good ideas which I believe do have value. It's all the other things that go along with it that I have a problem with.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Neo

No, morality is a survival characteristic which was created through evolution. It's in our best interest not to kill others so we don't have to worry about them killing or hurting us. The ten commandments were a result of these tendencies, not the other way around.

I do not agree at all and honestly history doesn;t agree with you either. Look up the history of religions and morality and how they relate to one another. Look up how advanced man was before they were combined and advanced through religion. This idea that the morals that we hold dear today would exist without religion is a complete fabrication.

More people have died because of religious hatred than for any other reason. How's that for value? I agree it is a book of moral parables, but that doesn't change the static nature of religion. And how am I hand-picking specifics? The things I mentioned are all CRITICAL aspects of religion and have not changed. What important aspects of religion do you think have changed over the years, other than those that have changed due to the pressure of rational scientific thinking? I'm not taunting here, I genuinely would like to know. Maybe you're right and I'm not being objective. I can admit that.

I think you aren't being objective and thats whats keeping you from seeing the big picture. I'm not here to absolve religion of any of its wrong-doings, but I'm not going to let those wrong-doings blind me the the mountain of benefits religion has blessed humanity with. And by benefits, I mean CIVILIZATION. Religion was the first ever tie that bound man together beyond family and immediate tribe. It allowed for people to relate to one another and create bonds. You claim how religion has killed so many people, I see how very likely most of us wouldn't be here without it. Also, your opinion that science has been the leading force in religious changes is rediculous. The leading force has always been assimillation. Catholics don't follow ritual because of physics. It was because they wanted to "save" other peoples.

I'm also shocked that you don't realize your own religious tendencies in your posts. Your absolute faith is science to answer all questions smacks more of religion that empiricism.

I'll leave you with this little idea. If you are going to continue with the argument that religion does not exist because of inconsistencies in its practice and dogma, then I'll make this absolute statement of fact:

Since the level changing of electrons in many atoms defies all scientific laws that we know, and those laws are considered hard facts and we base all of atomic theory on them, the fact that they defy those laws means that the atom doesn't exist. There are no atoms now. But wait, don't there have to be atoms? Then what are we touching? Well, who knows, but we do know since atoms don't make any sense anymore because of a minor contradiction. They don't exist anymore. We don't exist. I'm not writing this right now.

Chew on it, its delicious.

Neo, you do not understand faith and its immense power for good as well as evil. All you see is evil because you've never cared to examine the good. Until you do, you will never understand religion or really understand why you are so angry at it.

[Bond]

*cough*Mere Christianity*cough*