Religion... why?

[jnpl0011]

I. Doesn't that amount to just saying that you don't care? Interesting, but fair enough.

II. Cool. As long as we are making these distinctions.

III. Most agnostics I know are actively interested in the question, but they claim that the divine can not be proven to exist. Most I know do not shrug, though.

IV. Don't put words into my mouth, please. Instead, ask if you think I am taking a certain position that is unclear. I never said animals are lower creatures, but I certainly do think human beings are smarter if the word "intelligence" means anything in the first place. Are you arguing that it does not mean anything? Certainly we are better able reason and this is valuable for a number of reasons? This seems to make sense to me. this does not mean more valuable, and besides, you are dodging the point I was trying to make and the question that I asked. This has no relevence to my question, which has to do with how an animal can be expected to have faith when they cannot conceive of abstract concepts.

V. I never said that something that is not proven untrue must be true. If you read my post, I said it can be true. We are not in a position to judge one way or the other, however. It was unclear as to your position on this, and I was attempting to clarify. In fact, I'm still not 100% clear as I don't think my questions were outright answered. You think that it is unlikely that a divine exists, but are not interested enough to pursue the question, though you admit that a divine could or could not exist, correct?

VI. This last point is difficult. You would shame others for ignoring "the core point" and yet you ignore their perspectives, believing, before giving them a chance, that they are wrong? Why would you ignore anything that may contribute to an overall, educated perspective? If you yourself are looking to "get to grips with the subject as a whole", shouldn't you try to gather as many perspectives as possible? Also, I wasn't talking only about "developed thinkers", whoever those might be, but all possible perspectives that might lend to an understanding of the topic. I don't know who you are accusing of not being able to focus on the big picture here.

[Xander]

I. Doesn't that amount to just saying that you don't care? Interesting, but fair enough.

When it comes down to everyday life, no I don't care. However when dealing with those with faith, I do. I care on their behalf. I also care enough to think about it before I stick my foot in it (I'm not saying I'm successfull though).

II. Cool. As long as we are making these distinctions.

I presume your refering to those distinctions made about interior and exterior triggers for decisions/ reasoning. I think that this is pertinent for the discussion. I am however holding back from saying with conviction that all those with faith are not objective creatures. I don't know. I've not witnessed what they have nor walked a day in their shoes. I do however postulate that it is a very personal and not objective thing.

III. Most agnostics I know are actively interested in the question, but they claim that the divine can not be proven to exist. Most I know do not shrug, though.

The most concise definition for agnostic was a person who believes that the presence or absence of the divine has no relevance to their life but does not define if there is the divine or not. Hence I don't think the question is relevant to my life but I am not given to ruling out the chance of a god/ gods.

IV. Don't put words into my mouth, please. Instead, ask if you think I am taking a certain position that is unclear. I never said animals are lower creatures, but I certainly do think human beings are smarter if the word "intelligence" means anything in the first place. Are you arguing that it does not mean anything? Certainly we are better able reason and this is valuable for a number of reasons? This seems to make sense to me. this does not mean more valuable, and besides, you are dodging the point I was trying to make and the question that I asked. This has no relevence to my question, which has to do with how an animal can be expected to have faith when they cannot conceive of abstract concepts.

My apologies if I sounded accusatory. I am used to the point of "we iz the bestest cause we say so".

Basically "abstract concepts" is an attempt by humans to label something. We may have it right, we may be talking out of our arses. If our understanding of the world is correct then yes we can say that animals are incapable of faith. However if we consider that our definitions may be off then it is perfectly possible that animals are capable of faith. As we are discussing the unknowable I'd consider it inaccurate to not consider such things.

V. I never said that something that is not proven untrue must be true. If you read my post, I said it can be true. We are not in a position to judge one way or the other, however. It was unclear as to your position on this, and I was attempting to clarify. In fact, I'm still not 100% clear as I don't think my questions were outright answered. You think that it is unlikely that a divine exists, but are not interested enough to pursue the question, though you admit that a divine could or could not exist, correct?

I was agreeing with you. It does make it possible that it's true and all the things we've mentioned and many more make it also possible to be untrue (the question of is there a god, that is). We can say that we cannot know the answer to the question. I am interested in the thinking over the question but I am not interested in any answers which fail to overcome this basic unknowable problem.

I am interested in quantum physics but I am no physicist. I am interested in faith but I am not religious. Should something come of the discussions then my position changes (hence I used to be an athiest). You could say that I am disinterested but I think it would be more accurate to say that I'm detached and place no specific value on one outcome or another.

VI. This last point is difficult. You would shame others for ignoring "the core point" and yet you ignore their perspectives, believing, before giving them a chance, that they are wrong? Why would you ignore anything that may contribute to an overall, educated perspective? If you yourself are looking to "get to grips with the subject as a whole", shouldn't you try to gather as many perspectives as possible? Also, I wasn't talking only about "developed thinkers", whoever those might be, but all possible perspectives that might lend to an understanding of the topic. I don't know who you are accusing of not being able to focus on the big picture here.

I've had this kind of discussion before, I have thought about such things before and I have read things which make me think that the perspective of how much the human creates the faith to be the most insightful and productive. It is my opinion. Please do argue another path if you think there is a better one.

As for ignoring people's perspectives, I very rarely do. However that does not mean that I will engage them on it. I may merely store it alongside all the rest of the information I've recorded about this subject. I may not react to it at all, especially if it duplicates what I already have stored.

Oh and I'm refering to "developed thinkers" as an alternative to "intelligent" as there are many prejudices associated with intelligence which aren't present when considering developed. Also developed refers to the probability that these people have studied this subject a little too far and are becoming like statisticians, able to proove anything with their "data".

Make no mistake, my intention is not to attack. At worst challenge but not attack.

[wyrdsister]

I propose that religion is needed to feel part of a culture that believes that goodness is rewarded and heaven awaits us after death because the alternative is far too difficult to approach.. that being we create our own individual meaning and we cannot be sure either way whether we go somewhere after death.

Therefore it is a mass delusion or *belief* to cushion ourselves against reality.

The reality that we simply do not know what comes next.

Sometimes I think that pagan religions are a lot more *true* than our *modern* personality cults. Sun worship as one of them. Without the sun there would be no life and so metaphorically the sun is a *god*.

[Xander]

I propose that religion is needed to feel part of a culture that believes that goodness is rewarded and heaven awaits us after death because the alternative is far too difficult to approach.. that being we create our own individual meaning and we cannot be sure either way whether we go somewhere after death.

Therefore it is a mass delusion or *belief* to cushion ourselves against reality.

The reality that we simply do not know what comes next.

Sometimes I think that pagan religions are a lot more *true* than our *modern* personality cults. Sun worship as one of them. Without the sun there would be no life and so metaphorically the sun is a *god*.

The flipside to your argument is that you don't believe in these religions because you can't handle the idea of the world including such a deity.

(Just playing a little devil's advocate )

[wyrdsister]

The flipside to your argument is that you don't believe in these religions because you can't handle the idea of the world including such a deity.

(Just playing a little devil's advocate )

Perhaps, but it's not because I can't handle it I just think that it is an outdated view. If there is a creator of the universe I doubt *it* is up there with a white beard and pearly gates.

[Xander]

Perhaps, but it's not because I can't handle it I just think that it is an outdated view. If there is a creator of the universe I doubt *it* is up there with a white beard and pearly gates.

Isn't that like arguing that the whole thing is bad because the iconography is poor? That'd be like persecuting Buddhism for praising a fat guy

[Geoff]

I propose that religion is needed to feel part of a culture that believes that goodness is rewarded and heaven awaits us after death because the alternative is far too difficult to approach.. that being we create our own individual meaning and we cannot be sure either way whether we go somewhere after death.

Therefore it is a mass delusion or *belief* to cushion ourselves against reality.

The reality that we simply do not know what comes next.

Sometimes I think that pagan religions are a lot more *true* than our *modern* personality cults. Sun worship as one of them. Without the sun there would be no life and so metaphorically the sun is a *god*.

Religion and pagan mysticism often attempts to explain the unexplainable, which is why we may remain fixated on an afterlife when it seems so patently absurd in the traditional sense. Pagan/early gods were attempts to understand things that we've now explained away without needing religion (thunder and lightning, the sun, a successful hunt). Which is why a modern God just tries to cover the "why everything" and the "what next" questions, rather than the "will it rain tomorrow" questions of the past.

So the pagan gods are no longer needed to cushion ourselves against things like rainfall....

-Geoff

[wyrdsister]

Isn't that like arguing that the whole thing is bad because the iconography is poor? That'd be like persecuting Buddhism for praising a fat guy

I'm not saying that *loving thy neighbour* and *the kingdom of god is within you* are obsolete I'm thinking more not of the moral lessons but of the legends myths and stories contained within texts. Why aren't they seen as metaphors and moral tales rather than the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The literal *word of god*.

[wyrdsister]

Religion and pagan mysticism often attempts to explain the unexplainable, which is why we may remain fixated on an afterlife when it seems so patently absurd in the traditional sense. Pagan/early gods were attempts to understand things that we've now explained away without needing religion (thunder and lightning, the sun, a successful hunt). Which is why a modern God just tries to cover the "why everything" and the "what next" questions, rather than the "will it rain tomorrow" questions of the past.

So the pagan gods are no longer needed to cushion ourselves against things like rainfall....

-Geoff

Indeed, now we know how the sun functions and its fusion reaction we now do not need the *story* of the pagan gods.

As we now know almost for sure about evolution, we do not need the story of Adam and Eve.

We need a new story, it's called science.

[Xander]

I'm not saying that *loving thy neighbour* and *the kingdom of god is within you* are obsolete I'm thinking more not of the moral lessons but of the legends myths and stories contained within texts. Why aren't they seen as metaphors and moral tales rather than the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The literal *word of god*.

So in direct your refering to the maxim of the faith is fine it's just the faithful are idiots? Sounds about right for most religions IMO.

I've found a few people who do seem to understand the forces at work in their religion, they're generally the intelligent ones, but yeah there are far too many who just sing along blindly. Mind you though, is that really a fault of the faith itself or is it more the failings of those who try to follow it?