• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Religion... why?

wyrdsister

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
106
MBTI Type
Ape
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?

It becomes a problem when it is taken literally and not metaphorically and that all other religions apart from your own are *false*, instead of realising that all religions have some moral foundation even though based on personality cults, myths and legend.

Myths and Legends can tell us a lot about how to live our lives. Doesn't make them *fact* though.

As I said I'm asking why *in particular* we still need religion when we have a new story.

The new story being that our universe is inflating, we are a part of the creative process and we want to *know* what our reality is.

Perhaps we still need religion to answer the questions that science can't, like what is after death, but again it's not logical it's not fact it's just a story to tell yourself to make yourself feel better.

What's wrong with saying *I don't know what comes after death but I sure as hell am going to make the best out of this life*???

It's a more rational stance to take is it not?

But then humans haven't got the best track record for being rational have we?
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
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.

Right, so we can work out the chapters and all, but we don't know who wrote it. The "why everything" that remains at the heart of most modern believers...?

-Geoff
 

wyrdsister

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
106
MBTI Type
Ape
Right, so we can work out the chapters and all, but we don't know who wrote it. The "why everything" that remains at the heart of most modern believers...?

-Geoff

Indeed but why do we need religion?

This question is one that science is trying to explain, why can't we give it time instead of burying our heads in the sand?
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
It becomes a problem when it is taken literally and not metaphorically and that all other religions apart from your own are *false*, instead of realising that all religions have some moral foundation even though based on personality cults, myths and legend.

Myths and Legends can tell us a lot about how to live our lives. Doesn't make them *fact* though.

As I said I'm asking why *in particular* we still need religion when we have a new story.

The new story being that our universe is inflating, we are a part of the creative process and we want to *know* what our reality is.

Perhaps we still need religion to answer the questions that science can't, like what is after death, but again it's not logical it's not fact it's just a story to tell yourself to make yourself feel better.

What's wrong with saying *I don't know what comes after death but I sure as hell am going to make the best out of this life*???

It's a more rational stance to take is it not?

But then humans haven't got the best track record for being rational have we?
With this whole universe expanding theory your sounding dangerously like replacing one religion with another. Both have their myths and legends. Both are prone to be being taken too literally and thought of as facts.
 

wyrdsister

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
106
MBTI Type
Ape
With this whole universe expanding theory your sounding dangerously like replacing one religion with another. Both have their myths and legends. Both are prone to be being taken too literally and thought of as facts.

Nope falsifyability.. remember?
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
Indeed but why do we need religion?

This question is one that science is trying to explain, why can't we give it time instead of burying our heads in the sand?

I suppose ultimately it depends upon whether one wants to, or can accept a scientific answer. Or even if one believes a scientific answer can even be possible for such questions.

I'm inclined to think it can, but many aren't.

Edit : Also.. perhaps.. humanity requires uncertainty, the spark of unknown, the faerie stories, the religions to keep us from humdrum certainty which would surely kill us.

-Geoff
 

wyrdsister

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
106
MBTI Type
Ape
I suppose ultimately it depends upon whether one wants to, or can accept a scientific answer. Or even if one believes a scientific answer can even be possible for such questions.

I'm inclined to think it can, but many aren't.

Edit : Also.. perhaps.. humanity requires uncertainty, the spark of unknown, the faerie stories, the religions to keep us from humdrum certainty which would surely kill us.

-Geoff

But the only certain thing is uncertainty!
 

Camelopardalis

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
58
MBTI Type
INTJ
Perhaps we still need religion to answer the questions that science can't, like what is after death, but again it's not logical it's not fact it's just a story to tell yourself to make yourself feel better.

Indeed it makes you feel better to know that you have some answers, but for me personally, even though I know that science would not provide these answers, it would be foolish of me to believe in an answer provided by an equally unqualified person (here I'm talking about priests and legends) who knows in reality nothing more than you and I. Maybe it's just me, but I'd feel better not having the answer than having the wrong one.
 

Insidious 3

New member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
18
MBTI Type
INTJ
How can there logically be one allmighty being who created everything?
I don't know of anyone who can explain it logically, and i doubt i ever will.
 

IlyaK1986

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
481
MBTI Type
ENTJ
What's after death? The answer is: we don't know. We don't know if we have a soul or not. We don't know if there's another reality, or if we go "to sleep" for a very long time and are reincarnated or whatnot...

After all, after you die, what do you feel? What do you see?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

Religion comes from the breakdown of the bicameral mind.

Before the breakdown, we literally heard the voice of god. And villages were organised around a central hut which contained a statue of the god and his or her voice. And the voice of the god guided the whole tribe.

But after the breakdown, the people who heard voices were called schizophrenic.

And today neither you nor I hear the voice of god - so we might reasonably conclude she or he is dead.

But oddly enough we are once again organising ourselves into tribes in the Noosphere. For instance, we are organised into the MBTI-Central tribe.

And emerging from the tribe will be the voice of the tribe. At the moment we are typing electronically to one another, but voice Skype is but a keystroke away. And soon your warm muzzle will be whispering in my ear. And the voice of the tribe will reassert itself.

And oh yes, you can read about the breakdown in - "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" - by Julian Jaynes.

Or you can read about the Noosphere in - "Understanding Media" - by Marshall McLuhan.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
The Problem for Atheists

The problem for atheists is to explain why there has been no civilization not based on a religion.

But rather than address this problem, they prefer to criticise religion on logical grounds.

This is a wise choice because their problem is difficult - so better to avoid it.

However the - "breakdown of the bicameral mind" - does address this issue.

And - "the breakdown" - is falsifiable so it may well be wrong. But at least it addresses the issue.

And even if it is wrong, it gives atheists a place to start addressing their problem.

And if it is right, it solves their problem.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Religion comes from the breakdown of the bicameral mind.

Before the breakdown, we literally heard the voice of god. And villages were organised around a central hut which contained a statue of the god and his or her voice. And the voice of the god guided the whole tribe.

But after the breakdown, the people who heard voices were called schizophrenic.

What, the integration of the inner voice to the modern sense of self?

And today neither you nor I hear the voice of god - so we might reasonably conclude she or he is dead.

Or else the voice has been re-identified as something else.

What's after death? The answer is: we don't know. We don't know if we have a soul or not. We don't know if there's another reality, or if we go "to sleep" for a very long time and are reincarnated or whatnot...After all, after you die, what do you feel? What do you see?

That's really the problem, isn't it?

If someone could just come back and "tell us," then all the speculation could end.

Then again, you know that no matter who might come up saying something, people just would choose not to believe if they did not like the answer.

The problem for atheists is to explain why there has been no civilization not based on a religion. But rather than address this problem, they prefer to criticise religion on logical grounds.

Good assess.

Namely, no matter how much people want to eradicate religion, it persists.
Why?
It's intrinsic to human survival in some way.

It makes more sense to integrate it properly than trying to eradicate it.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
That's really the problem, isn't it?

If someone could just come back and "tell us," then all the speculation could end.

If that were to happen, what would such an event look like?

I'll venture it would look like just another wild tale out of irrational religious hysteria, and only worthy of dismissal by those who weren't actually there to witness the event.

People always find some reason to believe, or disbelieve, as they choose.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
How can there logically be one allmighty being who created everything?

The presence of such a being is no less improbable than the absence of such a being. Existentialism's metaphysical ramifications are no less profound than those of theism.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
What, the integration of the inner voice to the modern sense of self?

This is the most interesting and radical part of Jaynes' work.

He claims the voice of god was heard literally.

He thinks the brain was literally bicameral so that when one part of the camera spoke, the other part heard this as a literal voice.

It was not an inner voice but an outer voice.

And that when the bicamerality broke down, the voice was no longer heard. Except in pathological cases such as schizophrenia.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
The presence of such a being is no less improbable than the absence of such a being. Existentialism's metaphysical ramifications are no less profound than those of theism.

This is true from a logical point of view. But it is a complete failure to explain why no civilization is not based on a religion.

This is a very interesting question. And going round in logical circles gets us nowhere.

No, what we need is evidence, archeological evidence, historical evidence and neurological evidence.

And it is this evidence that can be tested against Jaynes' theory. Of course he may be completely wrong.

But this is a way out of the logical loop.

Staying in the loop, no matter how logical, is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. While seeking evidence gives us a way of falsifying Jaynes' theory or not.

Using logic without evidence leaves us in the same position as the Scholastics of the Middle Ages.

The Enlightenment taught us to apply logic to evidence. So let's collect the evidence and analyse and evaluate it - as we do in every other intellectual endeavour since the Enlightenment.

Of course there is a political element to this - neither the theists nor the atheists want to see this problem addressed because it would put both of them out of business.

It has been noted that in other areas of politics that the two extremes reinforce and feed off each other. And this is true for theists and atheists - they are two sides of the same coin - or spuds and potatoes - choose your own metaphor.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
And Jaynes' theory is eminently testable as he claims bicamerality broke down only a few thousand years ago.

And even more interesting Jaynes' claims that human consciousness only came into existence a few thousand years ago.

This is not in the dim distant past and so evidence is available.

And if the evidence can't prove him wrong, then our whole view of humanity and god would change.

And this is what you would expect - if the theists and the atheists present us with an insoluble argument, then we can expect the answer will be to an entirely different question.

And Julian Jaynes may have asked that question.
 
Top