Religion... why?

[Abcdenfp]

I understand both sides. Religion can empower you for a sense of purpose and fulfillment, or a reassurance that you won't say "burn in hell" for being not "good enough", or indoctrinate you into a life where you lose your own sense of self. But to me it's always been off. While we can't know there's something on the other side I've 'felt' someone there. Something greater than I, and upon researching other similar experiences from others, I concluded it's real. Especially in some nde's where they're brain dead. Does this mean I believe it's God (or a Goddess? because WHY does it have to be a male deity anyway, or any gender for that matter?)? Maybe, or maybe it's just some kind of essence of the universal with an intelligent consciousness or something. I don't claim to understand it and tbh. Putting feelings aside. I don't believe it makes any sense for any religion to be spot on about any diety or purpose in life, and I believe WE have the most value. Work on yourself and be the best you can be. Find a greater purpose that YOU yourself resonate and desire to follow and Be. Only then shall you be free. All this aside though, given my experiences it's fairly personal, but I don't believe religion is key. Those systems are confining and depressing to me, overly traditional. I grew up having to follow it... and it took over a great deal of my psych in a negative way. So I only really believe in spirituality. As I've said before.

But for so long we believed in gods and goddesses who were just as powerful as the gods. We believed in their direct ties to nature and used them as a connection to all living life and ourselves only this disjointed Christianity that places no joy on this life but the next has stripped the world from that view and removed the feminine from the mystical.
I believe there is something too but my belief is much more expansive then this Christian rhetoric and I grew up in a super Christian country but I know the truth about nature and our nature is so much more complex then this doctrine

 

[Abcdenfp]

This is to underestimate the plural and diverse character of Christianity, even before the numerous schisms and present day factionalism, in the RCC tradition at least there are examples of matriarchal thinking, for a time where was even a "cult" of the holy mother or virgin Mary.

Plus I dont see why Christianity has to be considered to be "pie in the sky" or "jam tomorrow" anymore than different sorts of utopianism, or "progress", see the present as being something you sacrifice for a "better tomorrow". The idea of a "messianic time" or "apocalypse" or "end of days" is something common to a lot of religions and traditions in the western world. For instance, much of what is in marxism was borrowed from christianity which was borrowed in turn from the Jews etc.

Which sort of makes my point about the invention-reinvention constantly. Jung wrote about this too when he said that if you reach ancient texts about alchemy or magic you could discern the psychology or psychologists of yester year.

i agree with the invention-reinvention "nothing is new under the sun" concept.

My point really is that the centralized characters, father/ son/ holy spirit are masculine and Mary is simply viewed as a vessel, of course there would be break off cults looking for a divine feminism "feel" because its missing but its not accepted in mainstream Christianity. Mary is certainly not seen as a goddess or someone to be worshipped but to intercede to the powers that be on their behalf.

 

[Mole]

We have learnt to distinguish what is true from what is not true by evidence and reason. And when we put any religion to the test of evidence and reason, we find they are not true.

Nonetheless, religions are immensely powerful, and their power lies in time honoured means of entrancement.

And when we are entranced by religion, our critical mind goes to sleep, and our imaginative mind wakes up, and we believe whatever we are told.

The core business of religion is entrancement, particularly the entrancement of children. And the entrancement of children is so powerful, for most of us, it lasts a lifetime. The Jesuits say, "Give me a child by the age of seven, and we have them for life".

However we can take entrancement into our own hands, and become trance designers. A good place to start is, "The Way of Trance", by Dennis R. Wier, click The Way of Trance( Dennis Wier) - Free Download PDF.

 

[Mole]

Wada we want? We want to be entranced, and we want it now!

The drug addict is entranced by their first careless rapture with their narcotic, and they spend the rest of their addiction chasing this first enchantment

The gambler chases the enchantment of their first big win, and interestingly the gambler will even chase the enchantment of their loses.

The porn addict chases the dopamine hit with each new porn star.

We are first enchanted by our parents, so we spend the rest of our lives looking for someone to enchant us.

We don't realise we can become trance designers ourselves, and create specific trances for specific purposes

So wada ya want? We want to become an independent trance designer. So click Trance: From Magic to Technology - PDF Free Download. .

 

[Kanra Jest]

But for so long we believed in gods and goddesses who were just as powerful as the gods. We believed in their direct ties to nature and used them as a connection to all living life and ourselves only this disjointed Christianity that places no joy on this life but the next has stripped the world from that view and removed the feminine from the mystical.
I believe there is something too but my belief is much more expansive then this Christian rhetoric and I grew up in a super Christian country but I know the truth about nature and our nature is so much more complex then this doctrine

I've always sympathized with the goddess concept. At some point it got treated with distain and destroyed to be replaced fully and solely by the masculine. Nowadays it's very rare to be truly acknowledged unless under, say, paganism (which often has very negative connotations by masculine religions), because of the masculine religions domination. Even Mary is indeed a vessel, a humanized form that was to give birth to the male god, instead of the goddess of wisdom Sophia for example, or Asherah, the rumored former consort to Yahweh, or El, who was once worshipped alongside. Eve was made of Adam's rib so Adam wasn't alone, and that only Man was made in God's image, leaving Wo-man to be an extension of sorts, for example. The concept seemed to bring more of a balance at one point (when both were equally acknowledged) until something changed. Lots of perceivable and observable symbolism.

 

[Red Memories]

as a Catholic I feel inclined to speak of my chosen saint which was St. Catherine of Siena, only doctor of the church, who experienced the stigmata and a mystical marriage.

Women are involved with God.

 

[Red Memories]

In our age of scientific discovery I would like to pose the question...

Why is religion still relevant in out time?

Obviously in past centuries it was a form of mind control and personality cults. Myths and legends to explain our Earth and the Universe and why we were here and to be good people or we shall rot in hell or be reborn as amoebas... but now in the year 2007, why is religion still relevant?

Science does not give you the meaning of life or sense of purpose. As also, Science cannot completely explain our earth and universe either. There are scientific facts and then there are theories, theories of evolution, of creation. To follow any requires a certain extent of faith, as none of the options can properly be explained merely by science alone. There are many things we can entrust to science and rely on science for.

I think science and religion can most certainly coexist together and should, because God would not intend for scientific knowledge and discovery to go unused. Nevertheless, having faith can also instill a stronger boundary upon not misusing science, if blended correctly.

The problem with faith today is as many will with science, they attempt to conform the facts and theories to fit what they want rather than what is true. So today we have a lot of false religious people. Because faith transforms you, not you transform God.

 

[Abcdenfp]

as a Catholic I feel inclined to speak of my chosen saint which was St. Catherine of Siena, only doctor of the church, who experienced the stigmata and a mystical marriage.

Women are involved with God.

I have never understood the concept of St's for Catholics, the saints speak to god on your behalf? They aren't deities. So i don't consider them a part of what i am talking about. They are more like a messenger acting on your behalf.

I think that the removal of the female DIVINITY is responsible for a lot of the imbalance in the church, (I was raised Anglican) and seeing my priest with his wife and watching the women's guild work under her direction was wholesome and felt natural.

This marriage to the church is, removes the feminine Divinity and makes it nameless faceless sexless.

 

[Mole]

as a Catholic I feel inclined to speak of my chosen saint which was St. Catherine of Siena, only doctor of the church, who experienced the stigmata and a mystical marriage.

Women are involved with God.

If we are not practising a deception by claiming the stigmata and mystical marriage, we are likely mentally ill.

This is common with saints and gurus. Our very own guru Carl Jung was psychotic.

 

[Abcdenfp]

Participating in this course today, so much learning and exploring , the aspects of my spiritual journey that are new to me but a deep calling..

 

[Mole]

Participating in this course today, so much learning and exploring , the aspects of my spiritual journey that are new to me but a deep calling..

Revenge is as American as apple pie, and there is little darker than revenge, particularly revenge justified by religion and fashion..

 

[citizen cane]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION] "Why is religion still relevant in our time?

Obviously in past centuries it was a form of mind control and personality cults."

Given that this has probably been answered in numerous ways by now, i suggest turning this on its head.

If religion now exists concurs with science, many believe in both, and it is sometimes not a form of mind control or a cult, then why not?

 

[Mole]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION] "Why is religion still relevant in our time? Obviously in past centuries it was a form of mind control and personality cults." Given that this has probably been answered in numerous ways by now, i suggest turning this on its head. If religion now exists concurs with science, many believe in both, and it is sometimes not a form of mind control or a cult, then why not?

Yes, religion is a matter of faith, while science is a matter of evidence and reason.

Scientists don't believe in science, scientists don't have faith in science.

 

[Mole]

Local Religion and Universal Science

Through our telescopes in Space we have discovered there are four trillion galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, most of which contain planets, with many suitable for life.

And many of these planets will contain intelligent life.

And we can say this intelligent life will discover exactly the same Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Cosmology as we have.

And we can equally say the religions created by this intelligent life will be unlike any religion on Earth.

This is because science is based on evidence and reason and is the same wherever we go in our universe, and religion is based on faith and imagination and is different wherever we go in our universe.

So religion is a local expression even on Earth, while science is a universal expression of fact.

 

[Coriolis]

Science does not give you the meaning of life or sense of purpose. As also, Science cannot completely explain our earth and universe either. There are scientific facts and then there are theories, theories of evolution, of creation. To follow any requires a certain extent of faith, as none of the options can properly be explained merely by science alone. There are many things we can entrust to science and rely on science for.

I think science and religion can most certainly coexist together and should, because God would not intend for scientific knowledge and discovery to go unused. Nevertheless, having faith can also instill a stronger boundary upon not misusing science, if blended correctly.

The problem with faith today is as many will with science, they attempt to conform the facts and theories to fit what they want rather than what is true. So today we have a lot of false religious people. Because faith transforms you, not you transform God.

I agree about the complementary nature of religion and science, and the need for both to have a complete understanding of our world and existence. Science aims only to explain the physical aspects of our universe. It may never be able to do even this completely, but with every generation, it is able to explain more and more.

It is wrong to speak of faith in the context of science, though. We don't accept scientific principles or observations on faith, we accept them because they are repeatable and are able to predict future events with accuracy. When they stop doing so - when new events or observations arise which cannot be explained - we must revise or discard the theory. Note that in science, a theory is not some unproven, tentative conjecture. It represents our best explanation of a phenomenon to date; the one that best explains all available observations. That sort of unproven conjecture is a hypothesis. These are routinely disproven as part of the scientific process.

Science also has no place for conforming facts or theories to wishful thinking. Facts, often in the form of observations or raw data, are validated through repeated measurement, and are discarded only with very good cause. Theories, as Sherlock Holmes insisted, must then be modified to fit the facts rather than the reverse. Reproducibility is an essential part of the process, since if an explanation is real, it should be what everyone finds if they look.

The nature of science is explained briefly in this article about the need to revise the standard model of particle physics:

The purpose of science is to seek truth. With this goal in mind, researchers are constantly returning to their data and checking to see if measurements and theories agree or disagree. While agreement is always satisfying, it's in the disagreement that progress is made. When a theory is shown to predict something other than what a valid measurement has revealed, scientists rethink their theory and adjust it.

 

[Earl Grey]

I agree about the complementary nature of religion and science, and the need for both to have a complete understanding of our world and existence. Science aims only to explain the physical aspects of our universe. It may never be able to do even this completely, but with every generation, it is able to explain more and more.

I agree with what Coriolis has said. Science doesn't explain every aspect of life, and it makes sense to want to and explore the world and ourselves, and religion can fit into spaces science cannot, and not necessarily contradict each other.

What is religion but a belief system? People routinely have their own belief systems without formal doctrine. It is inseparable from how we interact with the world. What beliefs religion stands for and what parts of human experience it supports differs from religion to religion. People follow religious doctrine or some other system- their own, or one in their own community or communities, etc. People also follow a doctrine for various reasons, and implement them in their lives in different ways, and the information and facts that science provides can be used to supplement carrying our one's belief system, at least in my opinion.

This is because science is based on evidence and reason and is the same wherever we go in our universe, and religion is based on faith and imagination and is different wherever we go in our universe.

So religion is a local expression even on Earth, while science is a universal expression of fact.

This is true (sans imagination), but you seem to be trying to make the point that it follows that religion would thus be unreliable because it is non-standardised.

Take a look at what you believe. What do you believe we should do about the environment? The future? How we should treat our fellow human beings? People would likely have very different answers. Those are things science cannot answer- but can support with data and the scientific method. Religion and science need not be at war. We figure out a system that works for ourselves, and that forms our belief, outlook, morality, and influences our actions. Just because your method isn't standardised, it doesn't mean it isn't valid, or that it doesn't work.

It is wrong to speak of faith in the context of science, though. We don't accept scientific principles or observations on faith, we accept them because they are repeatable and are able to predict future events with accuracy. When they stop doing so - when new events or observations arise which cannot be explained - we must revise or discard the theory. Note that in science, a theory is not some unproven, tentative conjecture. It represents our best explanation of a phenomenon to date; the one that best explains all available observations. That sort of unproven conjecture is a hypothesis. These are routinely disproven as part of the scientific process.

Science also has no place for conforming facts or theories to wishful thinking. Facts, often in the form of observations or raw data, are validated through repeated measurement, and are discarded only with very good cause. Theories, as Sherlock Holmes insisted, must then be modified to fit the facts rather than the reverse. Reproducibility is an essential part of the process, since if an explanation is real, it should be what everyone finds if they look.

Coriolis has explained it well, but to add to his post- for anyone who wants to know more of the bolded in a nutshell, this guy explains it well:

I hope this also explains how 'scientific fact' or 'scientific theory' cannot really be equated to religion in that it's- as some people say it- 'just a theory' that can just be swapped out for any other theory.

 

[Mole]

If we have been educated in a religion like Islam or Catholicism, we know each religion has its own dogma. Dogma is not determined by an individual, but by an established institution.

Dogmas are mutually exclusive. Dogmas are indoctrinated at an early age before the age of reason at seven years of age, and the indoctrination stays for life.

And it is fatuous to think religions can be reconciled with each other - this is called whisful thinking, and it makes us feel good at the expense of reality.

 

[Coriolis]

This is true (sans imagination), but you seem to be trying to make the point that it follows that religion would thus be unreliable because it is non-standardised.

Take a look at what you believe. What do you believe we should do about the environment? The future? How we should treat our fellow human beings? People would likely have very different answers. Those are things science cannot answer- but can support with data and the scientific method. Religion and science need not be at war. We figure out a system that works for ourselves, and that forms our belief, outlook, morality, and influences our actions. Just because your method isn't standardised, it doesn't mean it isn't valid, or that it doesn't work.




Coriolis has explained it well, but to add to his post- for anyone who wants to know more of the bolded in a nutshell, this guy explains it well:

I hope this also explains how 'scientific fact' or 'scientific theory' cannot really be equated to religion in that it's- as some people say it- 'just a theory' that can just be swapped out for any other theory.

I like this video. It does a good job of explaining the scientific usage of the words in question, which differs from layman's usage. I do wish he had used a cleaner example to illustrate what a hypothesis is, though. If his point was that, to test the hypothesis, we examine the relationship between the items he lists and incidents of people falling ill, he should also see a correlation with gluten. Gluten is not a germ, though, so to distinguish the two and formulate a germ theory separate from an allergy/insensitivity theory would require another hypothesis, and additional testing.

Religion can be reliable, too, but only if you rely upon it for the right thing. It cannot tell you the age of the earth or explain why we have rainbows. Those questions should be left to science. In fact, those who argue over the historical veracity of our religious stories are missing the point entirely. The reliable part of religion is what it has to teach us: values, morals, observations about our place and purpose in the world. We don't have to accept that a tortoise really did beat a hare in a foot race in order to accept and learn from the truth of that story.

 

[Earl Grey]

I like this video. It does a good job of explaining the scientific usage of the words in question, which differs from layman's usage. I do wish he had used a cleaner example to illustrate what a hypothesis is, though. If his point was that, to test the hypothesis, we examine the relationship between the items he lists and incidents of people falling ill, he should also see a correlation with gluten. Gluten is not a germ, though, so to distinguish the two and formulate a germ theory separate from an allergy/insensitivity theory would require another hypothesis, and additional testing.

This is basically Science:TLDR, and this guy does a lot of videos for us Gen Z-ers who can't really sit and listen unless it's colourful, talking, and moving, with memes for laymen that serves as an introduction to a lot of scientific concepts instead of being 1 hour long lecture-podcasts. If you want to check him and his team out, he has a bunch of science videos out there that are really interesting and all delivered in a very interesting way.

 

[Mole]

Most ideology, mythology, and religion is based on sympathetic magic. And sympathetic magic is based on correlation. And anything can be correlated with anything else. And correlation is not causation.

Astrology is based on sympathetic magic where our feelings and life chances are correlated with the stars, but not caused by the stars.

Mbti is also based on sympathetic magic, as is Tarot.

We perceive by making distinctions, and the more distinctions, the more we see. So the educated make the distinction between correlation and causation, and the uneducated don't make the distinction between correlation and causation, and so believe in sympathetic magic.