The RPG Maker Resource Kit

This is not a criticism of belief, or an atheist spouting anti-christian/muslim/jewish/etc... propaganda.
This is not a wake up call from a pretentious ego.
This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

This is pure reason.

It is fine for people to have beliefs in an afterlife, a god or gods, and spiritual rules.  It is fine for people to be strengthened by spiritual rituals or assemblies.  It is perfectly fine that you do not agree with me.

So if it is none of those, then what is this?  Simple.
This is why, in modern society, Religion -does not work-.
More specifically, it is why many standards of religion and many standards of practice are obsolete, and clash with the modern world.

It is as simple as the advance of technology.
Technology creates new ways to live, as well as the ease of living, which fosters the desire for freedom, and the desire for expression.  It opens doors, creating opportunity, and it allows for people to be more diverse, while still surviving.

But why then, did religion work before?  Was it never a human desire to live as one wished, and express oneself?

Simple answer: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
To elaborate (taken from About.com (http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm))

QuotePsychologist Abraham Maslow first introduced his concept of a hierarchy of needs in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation"1 and his subsequent book, Motivation and Personality.2 This hierarchy suggests that people are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to other needs.

As you can clearly see in this diagram (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mlyount/MySites/Pictures/hierarchy.JPG), the most important need for any human being is physical survival, followed by physical comfort and safety.

Back in the dark ages or (to use a term coined by someone else) the 'age of religion', these needs were dire.  In fact, they were so important because sickness was rampant, food was scarce, and the local governments typically took luxuries for themselves while forsaking the general populace.  Thus survival and basic safety were the highest priorities on the minds of those still living.  However, offering safety, offering psychological reassurance, and offering hope, was religion.  It worked.  People lived optimistically, hoping for the day that everything is made better by the return of their savior, or that their afterlife might have meaning.  

That was the one thing religion did right, and the one thing I appreciate about it.  Rather than condemning totally and wholly with laws and punishments without any form of recourse or salvation, they offered a way out, they offered hope, they offered people something more to enrich their otherwise bleak, starved, hopeless existence.  And it helped people get through.  It caused countless wars when in the wrong hands, but int he right hands it helped society move forward, and it helped the world recover from the plagues without losing writing, without losing basic education and without losing humanity.  

Without modern technology, things such as plagues or natural disasters seemed very much like the act of god (more so than they do now) and therefore created more belief, more superstition, and more emphasis on religion.

Look before the dark ages, to Rome and Greece.  They had wonderful technology, irrigation for crops, building tools, and they created wonderful art the likes of which never came before.  This art was created as expression, as 'self-actualization' because they were living comfortably and safely, and could be more frivolous because of it.  We know little about these cultures except that their architecture, mathematics, art, and society were highly enlightened and advanced for their time, likely because BASIC NEEDS WERE MET.

Flash forward to now.  Present day.  Are your basic needs met easily on a daily basis through work, or perhaps provided by your parents?  Sure they are.  Is everything in your life made easier via a computer, or modern luxuries such as Cars, Pencils, Pens, Paper, Supermarkets, Vending Machines, Spring Mattresses, Tractors, Fertilizer, and etc...?  Absolutely.

Basic Physical Needs are met more easily nowadays due to Technology, facilitating frivolous thought and ventures, and encouraging people to branch out, encouraging people to be diverse, encouraging self-expression and 'self actualization'.  Thus, moving beyond the need for safety, strict rules and regulations and in most cases strict spiritual beliefs are cast away in favor of breaking out, challenging convention, and expressing oneself to the desired level.

Society has changed along with the advance of technology.  Women, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, they all have human rights protected by the government.  Art is prominent, entertainment is more valuable than food to society (just look at the prices), and people are more willing to branch out.  New laws and freedoms are granted to society, challenging religious doctrine that has been (mostly) unchanged for centuries.

Thus, the two are destined to clash.  Technology out dates itself in months, and out dates religious doctrine by its very existence.

I will wrap this up by saying I believe in an afterlife, and I believe that I should be a good human being.  Not to suck up to a God or group of Gods, not to abide by some laws I set for myself or are set for me by an invisible hand, not to get into some heaven somewhere, but because that's what I feel I was created to do.  I believe I was created to live in a manner that makes me happy, and interact peacefully with other human beings, regardless of how they believe, think, act, feel, look, speak, walk, dress, or any other difference.

I do not condemn intolerance as this would be hypocrisy.
However, if I am condemned for my beliefs, thoughts, actions, feelings, looks, speech, walk, dress, or anything else, I will defend myself.  Being open-minded does not mean one must believe the same as someone else, just that you accept them for who they are, and are willing to move beyond it.

So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Uh... people are allowed to believe what they wish. Some are philosophical religions based on logic or reason, others are based on tradition. Yeah, certain religious doctrines are annoying, and I absolutely hate it when one person tries to force their view on someone else. But as long as they do not interfere with the beliefs of others, there's no reason for us to ever say they shouldn't hold their faith. Religion works to make their life fulfilling to them, and if religion is what keeps them spiritually satisfied with their life, why shouldn't they stay with it?

Quote from: Zylos on May 03, 2010, 06:02:41 PM
Uh... people are allowed to believe what they wish. Some are philosophical religions based on logic or reason, others are based on tradition. Yeah, certain religious doctrines are annoying, and I absolutely hate it when one person tries to force their view on someone else. But as long as they do not interfere with the beliefs of others, there's no reason for us to ever say they shouldn't hold their faith. Religion works to make their life fulfilling to them, and if religion is what keeps them spiritually satisfied with their life, why shouldn't they stay with it?

read the first few sentences over again.

Zeitgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#)

I'm currently watching this. Interesting.

Zeitgeist is awesome! Let me know what you think of it after.

Zeitgeist is not awesome. Belief is personal, and religion is very rarely connected to true spirituality. Science is not a replacement for belief.

I knew about the first two topics, Christianity (which is why I posted the video) and 9/11 -

- but I didn't know all about the Federal Reserve and not having to ever pay the federal income tax. Is this still real? This came out in 2007. If it's still real, then fuuuuuuck, I'm not ever paying the federal income tax again.

The movie was interesting overall.

---

I think religion is simply faith in anything at this point.

Quote from: Holk on May 03, 2010, 10:11:02 PM
Zeitgeist is not awesome. Belief is personal, and religion is very rarely connected to true spirituality. Science is not a replacement for belief.

I'm not talking about belief, I'm talking about religion.

Do you mean organized religion, with its hierarchies and strict rules? A blind adherence to tradition independant of thought? If so, then I would agree that religion is not beneficial. History has shown that religious organizations use several negative devices to control their faithful- which is, IMO, a gravely evil thing to do; using someone's faith to get what you can out of them, like the Catholic and Anglican churches did in european history (among others worldwide) is just plain predatory.

On the other hand, if a religion (read tradition of belief) enriches the lives of its faithful in some way, and the flock is not composed of people simply going through motions, then  I see no reason it should be discarded. It then becomes a real spiritual experience, which sadly, as Holk said, is so seldom seen in religion. I would say that I am one of those whose lives are enriched by their faith and celebrate it every day in many ways. If that means I am backwards or superstitious, okay by me because I find more joy in life in general now than I ever have. It is by my own decision that I say I am incomplete without the higher powers I revere, not because someone told me so. This is my path.

By the nature of my argument, though, I have to accept that there are as many paths as there are people and move beyond those differences, even if others are unwilling to do so for me.

I was just explaining why organized religion tends to cause spectacular clashes with modern society.

Not condemning religion in any way, people can have it if they want it, I'm just observing.

[spoiler=Really really long]
I'm inclined to disagree.

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that your disclaimer is truthful.

Quote
This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

Quote
So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Beyond the seeming contradiction, I actually think the final sentence is quite curious in and of itself, as it asks believers to violate what they believe to be true on the basis that they are not significantly benefited by it. It is therefore an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as it asks them to ignore the truth (what they believe is true) on the basis that it is inconvenient. In that sense, your argument is a pragmatic one, which is fine, but it seems a curious approach. I will simply say that most religious people don't adopt a religion because it will fill some need they are conscious of – they are religious because they believe it to be true, so an argument that is primarily utilitarian I think should fail to convince most religious people.

But in any case, I am not overly convinced by the hierarchy of needs argument. Firstly, I do not think religion fits very comfortably in Maslow's hierarchy. To the extent that religion affects an individual, it must be within the top rungs – certainly it does not give physical survival or physical comfort. However, religion can give people a remarkable power to endure the deprivation of those needs. A good example of this is the death of St. Maximillian Kolbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe), who was a remarkable man by any means but the part of the article I am interested in primarily is:

Quote from: Wikipedia
During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. When the remaining men had died and Kolbe was the last remaining he was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.

So these victims, through the intervention of this priest, were singing hymns as they starved to death; it suggests to me that religion can serve a purpose that transcends the basic pyramid, or at the very least that the fulfillment of psychological needs can allow an individual to endure the deprivation of needs supposedly more basic, which contravenes the structure of the pyramid itself. Either way, I don't think that Maslow's hierarchy of needs has any straightforward application to religion, and I am reticent to accept a waving away of religion that is based on a particular theory that doesn't adequately address religion in the first place.

However, the fact that religion can overcome lower needs in the hierarchy is kind of accepted in your argument, and so ignoring that previous analysis the second thing I find is weak about the hierarchy argument is that I fail to see how technology replaces religion at the higher levels of the pyramid. I can understand, for instance, that technology can make it easier for us to meet our physical needs; I can also see how the fulfillment of those needs can encourage the growth of industries such as art that will help fulfill some of the other needs. But, taking Christianity for example, as that is the one I know best. Christianity teaches that there is a supreme deity who loves you no matter what you do – being loved is a pretty basic need in my opinion (and I actually disagree with how Maslow hierarchizes the needs, or that there is an absolute hierarchy of needs that applies to every individual, but I'll get off that for now). So, that is at least one thing that religion gives a person – no matter how outcast they are; no matter what society may think of them, they can at least rest assured in the knowledge that they are loved. I fail to see how technology or the products of technology can replace that. As Holk said, science doesn't replace belief (though I disagree with him that religion is very rarely connected to spirituality – I would say it is connected to spirituality most of the time for most religious people). Another thing I find sketchy about your argument is that on a global level, most people absolutely do not have their basic needs met by technology or anything else, but assuming that your post is meant to explicate its apparent clash with first world societies I will ignore that. However, I will simply mention that there are plenty of people in North America and Europe whose basic needs are not met.

This brings me to one of my last points: I disagree with the proposition you're trying to explain: that religion doesn't work in today's society. I don't know enough about most other religions to speak about them, so I will only speak about Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally based on a total inversion of typical human power structures. It is a belief in an all-powerful deity who can do anything, and yet comes to earth as a baby; a being completely vulnerable and reliant entirely on the love and care of others. The same deity that is later tortured and crucified– sacrifices Himself for the sake of the very people who kill him. "The first will be last" etc... That is to say that Christians believe that true power is not through subjugation or through control over others or the ability to make yourself happy, but only through love. Love for one another and love for God. I would suggest that as long as there is suffering and injustice in this world, or abuse of power or whatever, then Christianity will "work" in the utilitarian sense you are using – and there is suffering in this world, not only in Africa or South America but everywhere, and not just through deprivation of basic needs but even through being unloved, etc... To say therefore that religion doesn't work in society is to say that there is no suffering in society, and it's simply untrue.

And finally, I do not make the same connection that you do between the growth of technology and the growth of human rights. In fact, if anything, the growth of a belief in human rights is more appropriately attributed to Christianity; I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity. It seems to me that to believe that a human life, who is one speck of dust on a planet that is itself one speck of dust in a galaxy that is a speck of dust in a universe, that that human life somehow magically matters is logically impossible. The fact is that every single human life will be forgotten almost immediately after they're dead. You probably don't even know what your great grandfather's name was, let alone how he lived, what he felt – you certainly don't care that he may have been punched once and thus that his "universal" human right to physical security was violated. Why should we be moral in that case, particularly where it does not benefit us in some material way? The fact is that this belief that human lives matter is fundamentally a religious belief, and it is one that arises primarily out of the Christian heritage of the west which prioritizes love of others, not just reciprocal treatment (golden rule); certainly human rights discourse does not exist in all other cultures. So I think it is dangerous to offer up a belief in human rights as an alternative to a belief in religion when, in my opinion, human rights discourse makes no sense whatsoever without a foundation in religion.

Anyway, I could say a lot more if you have any questions, but this post is already waaaay too long. So I'm going to stop.
[/spoiler]

Quote from: modern algebra on May 04, 2010, 01:38:51 AM
[spoiler=Really really long]
I'm inclined to disagree.

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that your disclaimer is truthful.

Quote
This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

Quote
So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Beyond the seeming contradiction, I actually think the final sentence is quite curious in and of itself, as it asks believers to violate what they believe to be true on the basis that they are not significantly benefited by it. It is therefore an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as it asks them to ignore the truth (what they believe is true) on the basis that it is inconvenient. In that sense, your argument is a pragmatic one, which is fine, but it seems a curious approach. I will simply say that most religious people don't adopt a religion because it will fill some need they are conscious of – they are religious because they believe it to be true, so an argument that is primarily utilitarian I think should fail to convince most religious people.

But in any case, I am not overly convinced by the hierarchy of needs argument. Firstly, I do not think religion fits very comfortably in Maslow's hierarchy. To the extent that religion affects an individual, it must be within the top rungs – certainly it does not give physical survival or physical comfort. However, religion can give people a remarkable power to endure the deprivation of those needs. A good example of this is the death of St. Maximillian Kolbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe), who was a remarkable man by any means but the part of the article I am interested in primarily is:

Quote from: Wikipedia
During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. When the remaining men had died and Kolbe was the last remaining he was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.

So these victims, through the intervention of this priest, were singing hymns as they starved to death; it suggests to me that religion can serve a purpose that transcends the basic pyramid, or at the very least that the fulfillment of psychological needs can allow an individual to endure the deprivation of needs supposedly more basic, which contravenes the structure of the pyramid itself. Either way, I don't think that Maslow's hierarchy of needs has any straightforward application to religion, and I am reticent to accept a waving away of religion that is based on a particular theory that doesn't adequately address religion in the first place.

However, the fact that religion can overcome lower needs in the hierarchy is kind of accepted in your argument, and so ignoring that previous analysis the second thing I find is weak about the hierarchy argument is that I fail to see how technology replaces religion at the higher levels of the pyramid. I can understand, for instance, that technology can make it easier for us to meet our physical needs; I can also see how the fulfillment of those needs can encourage the growth of industries such as art that will help fulfill some of the other needs. But, taking Christianity for example, as that is the one I know best. Christianity teaches that there is a supreme deity who loves you no matter what you do – being loved is a pretty basic need in my opinion (and I actually disagree with how Maslow hierarchizes the needs, or that there is an absolute hierarchy of needs that applies to every individual, but I'll get off that for now). So, that is at least one thing that religion gives a person – no matter how outcast they are; no matter what society may think of them, they can at least rest assured in the knowledge that they are loved. I fail to see how technology or the products of technology can replace that. As Holk said, science doesn't replace belief (though I disagree with him that religion is very rarely connected to spirituality – I would say it is connected to spirituality most of the time for most religious people). Another thing I find sketchy about your argument is that on a global level, most people absolutely do not have their basic needs met by technology or anything else, but assuming that your post is meant to explicate its apparent clash with first world societies I will ignore that. However, I will simply mention that there are plenty of people in North America and Europe whose basic needs are not met.

This brings me to one of my last points: I disagree with the proposition you're trying to explain: that religion doesn't work in today's society. I don't know enough about most other religions to speak about them, so I will only speak about Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally based on a total inversion of typical human power structures. It is a belief in an all-powerful deity who can do anything, and yet comes to earth as a baby; a being completely vulnerable and reliant entirely on the love and care of others. The same deity that is later tortured and crucified– sacrifices Himself for the sake of the very people who kill him. "The first will be last" etc... That is to say that Christians believe that true power is not through subjugation or through control over others or the ability to make yourself happy, but only through love. Love for one another and love for God. I would suggest that as long as there is suffering and injustice in this world, or abuse of power or whatever, then Christianity will "work" in the utilitarian sense you are using – and there is suffering in this world, not only in Africa or South America but everywhere, and not just through deprivation of basic needs but even through being unloved, etc... To say therefore that religion doesn't work in society is to say that there is no suffering in society, and it's simply untrue.

And finally, I do not make the same connection that you do between the growth of technology and the growth of human rights. In fact, if anything, the growth of a belief in human rights is more appropriately attributed to Christianity; I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity. It seems to me that to believe that a human life, who is one speck of dust on a planet that is itself one speck of dust in a galaxy that is a speck of dust in a universe, that that human life somehow magically matters is logically impossible. The fact is that every single human life will be forgotten almost immediately after they're dead. You probably don't even know what your great grandfather's name was, let alone how he lived, what he felt – you certainly don't care that he may have been punched once and thus that his "universal" human right to physical security was violated. Why should we be moral in that case, particularly where it does not benefit us in some material way? The fact is that this belief that human lives matter is fundamentally a religious belief, and it is one that arises primarily out of the Christian heritage of the west which prioritizes love of others, not just reciprocal treatment (golden rule); certainly human rights discourse does not exist in all other cultures. So I think it is dangerous to offer up a belief in human rights as an alternative to a belief in religion when, in my opinion, human rights discourse makes no sense whatsoever without a foundation in religion.

Anyway, I could say a lot more if you have any questions, but this post is already waaaay too long. So I'm going to stop.
[/spoiler]

I love you, Modern. :3

Quote from: modern algebra on May 04, 2010, 01:38:51 AM
[spoiler=Really really long]
I'm inclined to disagree.

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that your disclaimer is truthful.

Quote
This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

Quote
So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Beyond the seeming contradiction, I actually think the final sentence is quite curious in and of itself, as it asks believers to violate what they believe to be true on the basis that they are not significantly benefited by it. It is therefore an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as it asks them to ignore the truth (what they believe is true) on the basis that it is inconvenient. In that sense, your argument is a pragmatic one, which is fine, but it seems a curious approach. I will simply say that most religious people don't adopt a religion because it will fill some need they are conscious of – they are religious because they believe it to be true, so an argument that is primarily utilitarian I think should fail to convince most religious people.

But in any case, I am not overly convinced by the hierarchy of needs argument. Firstly, I do not think religion fits very comfortably in Maslow's hierarchy. To the extent that religion affects an individual, it must be within the top rungs – certainly it does not give physical survival or physical comfort. However, religion can give people a remarkable power to endure the deprivation of those needs. A good example of this is the death of St. Maximillian Kolbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe), who was a remarkable man by any means but the part of the article I am interested in primarily is:

Quote from: Wikipedia
During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. When the remaining men had died and Kolbe was the last remaining he was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.

So these victims, through the intervention of this priest, were singing hymns as they starved to death; it suggests to me that religion can serve a purpose that transcends the basic pyramid, or at the very least that the fulfillment of psychological needs can allow an individual to endure the deprivation of needs supposedly more basic, which contravenes the structure of the pyramid itself. Either way, I don't think that Maslow's hierarchy of needs has any straightforward application to religion, and I am reticent to accept a waving away of religion that is based on a particular theory that doesn't adequately address religion in the first place.

However, the fact that religion can overcome lower needs in the hierarchy is kind of accepted in your argument, and so ignoring that previous analysis the second thing I find is weak about the hierarchy argument is that I fail to see how technology replaces religion at the higher levels of the pyramid. I can understand, for instance, that technology can make it easier for us to meet our physical needs; I can also see how the fulfillment of those needs can encourage the growth of industries such as art that will help fulfill some of the other needs. But, taking Christianity for example, as that is the one I know best. Christianity teaches that there is a supreme deity who loves you no matter what you do – being loved is a pretty basic need in my opinion (and I actually disagree with how Maslow hierarchizes the needs, or that there is an absolute hierarchy of needs that applies to every individual, but I'll get off that for now). So, that is at least one thing that religion gives a person – no matter how outcast they are; no matter what society may think of them, they can at least rest assured in the knowledge that they are loved. I fail to see how technology or the products of technology can replace that. As Holk said, science doesn't replace belief (though I disagree with him that religion is very rarely connected to spirituality – I would say it is connected to spirituality most of the time for most religious people). Another thing I find sketchy about your argument is that on a global level, most people absolutely do not have their basic needs met by technology or anything else, but assuming that your post is meant to explicate its apparent clash with first world societies I will ignore that. However, I will simply mention that there are plenty of people in North America and Europe whose basic needs are not met.

This brings me to one of my last points: I disagree with the proposition you're trying to explain: that religion doesn't work in today's society. I don't know enough about most other religions to speak about them, so I will only speak about Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally based on a total inversion of typical human power structures. It is a belief in an all-powerful deity who can do anything, and yet comes to earth as a baby; a being completely vulnerable and reliant entirely on the love and care of others. The same deity that is later tortured and crucified– sacrifices Himself for the sake of the very people who kill him. "The first will be last" etc... That is to say that Christians believe that true power is not through subjugation or through control over others or the ability to make yourself happy, but only through love. Love for one another and love for God. I would suggest that as long as there is suffering and injustice in this world, or abuse of power or whatever, then Christianity will "work" in the utilitarian sense you are using – and there is suffering in this world, not only in Africa or South America but everywhere, and not just through deprivation of basic needs but even through being unloved, etc... To say therefore that religion doesn't work in society is to say that there is no suffering in society, and it's simply untrue.

And finally, I do not make the same connection that you do between the growth of technology and the growth of human rights. In fact, if anything, the growth of a belief in human rights is more appropriately attributed to Christianity; I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity. It seems to me that to believe that a human life, who is one speck of dust on a planet that is itself one speck of dust in a galaxy that is a speck of dust in a universe, that that human life somehow magically matters is logically impossible. The fact is that every single human life will be forgotten almost immediately after they're dead. You probably don't even know what your great grandfather's name was, let alone how he lived, what he felt – you certainly don't care that he may have been punched once and thus that his "universal" human right to physical security was violated. Why should we be moral in that case, particularly where it does not benefit us in some material way? The fact is that this belief that human lives matter is fundamentally a religious belief, and it is one that arises primarily out of the Christian heritage of the west which prioritizes love of others, not just reciprocal treatment (golden rule); certainly human rights discourse does not exist in all other cultures. So I think it is dangerous to offer up a belief in human rights as an alternative to a belief in religion when, in my opinion, human rights discourse makes no sense whatsoever without a foundation in religion.

Anyway, I could say a lot more if you have any questions, but this post is already waaaay too long. So I'm going to stop.
[/spoiler]

I agree with all but the last bit: In a world with no deity, it is true that humanity has little meaning in a lonely, lonely universe. However, we can give ourselves meaning through each other, I think. More of that "your Universe is your perceptions" stuff. I find it hard to believe, personally, that every person can be given a different purpose. Then again, if that purpose is the pursuit of happiness, that can also exist as an evolutionary instinct of some sort: As beings with emotions, if we don't keep on believing that there's something better to chase, we might fall into despair.

Anyways, as I write this I realize that I have pondering to do, so I better stop this.

By the way, as you might be able to tell, I'm kind of struggling with this religion stuff myself *headdesk*

If I know (err, think) one thing, though, it's that religion in today's society is less an idea to keep people going and more a lens with which people see something greater with. So perhaps the modern, doubtful, guy may not find his happiness in any one religion. Maybe the modern, doubtful guy has to figure out things for himself. But that's not to say that people who are happy with their religions should go on that journey if they don't want to: It's not a shortcoming, at least I don't think so. Those magical "christians" C.S. Lewis writes of have already gone on this journey and somehow ended up at Christianity. Er, one thing C.S. Lewis wrote about is how Christianity always comes back when it seems to be dead, something that's happened several times throughout history. I have no idea how this goes about happening, but I'm not adverse to finding out.

And I better cut of the rambling there, because I have suspicions that I might be rambling.

Quote from: modern algebra on May 04, 2010, 01:38:51 AM
[spoiler=Really really long]
I'm inclined to disagree.

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that your disclaimer is truthful.

Quote
This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

Quote
So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Beyond the seeming contradiction, I actually think the final sentence is quite curious in and of itself, as it asks believers to violate what they believe to be true on the basis that they are not significantly benefited by it. It is therefore an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as it asks them to ignore the truth (what they believe is true) on the basis that it is inconvenient. In that sense, your argument is a pragmatic one, which is fine, but it seems a curious approach. I will simply say that most religious people don't adopt a religion because it will fill some need they are conscious of – they are religious because they believe it to be true, so an argument that is primarily utilitarian I think should fail to convince most religious people.

But in any case, I am not overly convinced by the hierarchy of needs argument. Firstly, I do not think religion fits very comfortably in Maslow's hierarchy. To the extent that religion affects an individual, it must be within the top rungs – certainly it does not give physical survival or physical comfort. However, religion can give people a remarkable power to endure the deprivation of those needs. A good example of this is the death of St. Maximillian Kolbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe), who was a remarkable man by any means but the part of the article I am interested in primarily is:

Quote from: Wikipedia
During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. When the remaining men had died and Kolbe was the last remaining he was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.

So these victims, through the intervention of this priest, were singing hymns as they starved to death; it suggests to me that religion can serve a purpose that transcends the basic pyramid, or at the very least that the fulfillment of psychological needs can allow an individual to endure the deprivation of needs supposedly more basic, which contravenes the structure of the pyramid itself. Either way, I don't think that Maslow's hierarchy of needs has any straightforward application to religion, and I am reticent to accept a waving away of religion that is based on a particular theory that doesn't adequately address religion in the first place.

However, the fact that religion can overcome lower needs in the hierarchy is kind of accepted in your argument, and so ignoring that previous analysis the second thing I find is weak about the hierarchy argument is that I fail to see how technology replaces religion at the higher levels of the pyramid. I can understand, for instance, that technology can make it easier for us to meet our physical needs; I can also see how the fulfillment of those needs can encourage the growth of industries such as art that will help fulfill some of the other needs. But, taking Christianity for example, as that is the one I know best. Christianity teaches that there is a supreme deity who loves you no matter what you do – being loved is a pretty basic need in my opinion (and I actually disagree with how Maslow hierarchizes the needs, or that there is an absolute hierarchy of needs that applies to every individual, but I'll get off that for now). So, that is at least one thing that religion gives a person – no matter how outcast they are; no matter what society may think of them, they can at least rest assured in the knowledge that they are loved. I fail to see how technology or the products of technology can replace that. As Holk said, science doesn't replace belief (though I disagree with him that religion is very rarely connected to spirituality – I would say it is connected to spirituality most of the time for most religious people). Another thing I find sketchy about your argument is that on a global level, most people absolutely do not have their basic needs met by technology or anything else, but assuming that your post is meant to explicate its apparent clash with first world societies I will ignore that. However, I will simply mention that there are plenty of people in North America and Europe whose basic needs are not met.

This brings me to one of my last points: I disagree with the proposition you're trying to explain: that religion doesn't work in today's society. I don't know enough about most other religions to speak about them, so I will only speak about Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally based on a total inversion of typical human power structures. It is a belief in an all-powerful deity who can do anything, and yet comes to earth as a baby; a being completely vulnerable and reliant entirely on the love and care of others. The same deity that is later tortured and crucified– sacrifices Himself for the sake of the very people who kill him. "The first will be last" etc... That is to say that Christians believe that true power is not through subjugation or through control over others or the ability to make yourself happy, but only through love. Love for one another and love for God. I would suggest that as long as there is suffering and injustice in this world, or abuse of power or whatever, then Christianity will "work" in the utilitarian sense you are using – and there is suffering in this world, not only in Africa or South America but everywhere, and not just through deprivation of basic needs but even through being unloved, etc... To say therefore that religion doesn't work in society is to say that there is no suffering in society, and it's simply untrue.

And finally, I do not make the same connection that you do between the growth of technology and the growth of human rights. In fact, if anything, the growth of a belief in human rights is more appropriately attributed to Christianity; I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity. It seems to me that to believe that a human life, who is one speck of dust on a planet that is itself one speck of dust in a galaxy that is a speck of dust in a universe, that that human life somehow magically matters is logically impossible. The fact is that every single human life will be forgotten almost immediately after they're dead. You probably don't even know what your great grandfather's name was, let alone how he lived, what he felt – you certainly don't care that he may have been punched once and thus that his "universal" human right to physical security was violated. Why should we be moral in that case, particularly where it does not benefit us in some material way? The fact is that this belief that human lives matter is fundamentally a religious belief, and it is one that arises primarily out of the Christian heritage of the west which prioritizes love of others, not just reciprocal treatment (golden rule); certainly human rights discourse does not exist in all other cultures. So I think it is dangerous to offer up a belief in human rights as an alternative to a belief in religion when, in my opinion, human rights discourse makes no sense whatsoever without a foundation in religion.

Anyway, I could say a lot more if you have any questions, but this post is already waaaay too long. So I'm going to stop.
[/spoiler]

I didn't say that people had to agree to get along.  I don't feel that worship is necessary and a devout christian friend of mine thinks I'm wrong, but we agree to disagree and we get along peacefully.  By 'move beyond' I'm talking about a peaceful coexistence where people don't hold "prayer vigils" with coffins and shotguns outside peoples' houses.

As far as technology 'replacing' religion, I never said that.  Nor did I say that religion didn't bring something to the table to help people get along, nor did I say it was worthless.  I said the advance of technology makes base needs easier to obtain, which means more time is spent thinking and expressing oneself.  If someone happens to believe in something and feel religion is their expression, then there you go.  If they don't, it's easier for them to express themselves, which makes it more prominent now than it was when we were digging ditches to crap in and dealing with plagues.

Lastly, I didn't connect the growth of technology with the growth of human rights, I'm just explaining that modern society has the rights now, when they didn't before, and a lot of them clash with religions.

Edit: I'd also like to mention that the topic title is a bit of a misnomer, I admit I called it what I did to get people to look, a more accurate title would be "Why Religion keeps clashing with Modern Society", because it does.  I'm not condemning either side for it, or praising either side for it, but it does truthfully clash.

tldr at the moment
I think people need to define their own meaning-or lack thereof-of life. If they want to have a prayer vigil with shotguns, and believe that god drives modern society, isn't that their right to do so?
I don't see how religion clashes with modern society and our rights, and see no connection between the two in the examples you have given. Expressing oneself has nothing to do with religion beyond the influence that religion might have upon ones beliefs, which is comparable to the way "modern society" has influenced your beliefs.

Also, I really hate the word "zeitgeist." I don't know why, but I do. It kind of has this pretentious cloud about it.

Quote from: SirJackRex on May 04, 2010, 06:42:07 PM
tldr at the moment
I think people need to define their own meaning-or lack thereof-of life. If they want to have a prayer vigil with shotguns, and believe that god drives modern society, isn't that their right to do so?
I don't see how religion clashes with modern society and our rights, and see no connection between the two in the examples you have given. Expressing oneself has nothing to do with religion beyond the influence that religion might have upon ones beliefs, which is comparable to the way "modern society" has influenced your beliefs.

Also, I really hate the word "zeitgeist." I don't know why, but I do. It kind of has this pretentious cloud about it.

Typically standing outside someone's house with shotguns and a coffin is considered a threat.

As far as no crashes: gay rights (most religions), freedom of speech (YOU CAN'T DRAW MOHAMMED CUZ OUR BOOK SAYS SO), etc...

Whoopsiedaisie.
I thought you had meant outside their own house...which is why I thought that part was so funny!

True, but I don't see how that equates to it not working with a modern society. Plenty of things clash yet they continue to coexist...
...The English language and Japan. :V
Seriously though, I believe that religion gives a much needed idea to certain people. Isn't the idea that we're a meaningless spec of dust on a rock in a larger cloud of dust rather scary? The idea that something has created us and has given us purpose is something that many cannot live without, which is why I believe that it still functions properly in society today.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on May 04, 2010, 12:19:37 PM
I'd also like to mention that the topic title is a bit of a misnomer, I admit I called it what I did to get people to look, a more accurate title would be "Why Religion keeps clashing with Modern Society", because it does.  I'm not condemning either side for it, or praising either side for it, but it does truthfully clash.

QuoteI personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity.

Don't you think that's just sad? and it's sadder when you come to think that there are no evidence about the existance of any deity.
Anyway, religion must be needed for some reason. Atheism is not new. Philosopers have talked about there being no God at many different times of History, and many of them have already said that religion would not work or would not be needed in the close future. But obviously they were wrong. Why would religion exist nowadays, if it just doesn't work? We don't longer need it to explain how the world was created or why the stars shine. We already know the answers. And even if they are in contradiction with our religion, we still believe. If some statements of the Bible are proved wrong, there are always statements that just can't be proved wrong (neither right) so we hold on these things to keep our beliefs in God. Why? Why just accept something just because it cannot be proven wrong?

Because we need to...

The truth is that life is sometimes very hard and painful, and that we feel lost when that happens. We wish we had an almighty dad who would watch over us. And when bad things happens to us or to people we love, we find some consolation in thinking that God will be just, or that God has a masterplan and we just can't understand.
Every one of that statements sound a little childish (someone is caring for me and, if i don't understand, it doesn't matter, he's doing it right. It's like when we were children and we trusted our parent's, isn't it?) But if there's no almighty dad, then we are on our own, and all the promeses of care and justice just vanish.

You see? That's because religion actually works. It will work as long as we suffer.

yet it continues to create suffering.

People can create their own happiness through whatever means they wish, be it religion or otherwise, it is not necessary for someone to be happy.  

Personally, I'm a good person because I don't like assholes in society.  If you need incentive and rewards to be decent to your fellow man, then I believe you are not, in actuality, a good person.

Personally, I am much happier now that i don't believe in god. But I was raised in a christian family, and studied for 13 years in a christian school and institute. It was very difficult for me to "move beyond" (as you said), it's even difficult when every single person around you is a christian, parents, teachers and friends. I'm sure you're aware of "groupal pressure" (don't know the exact translation to english, as i am an spanish psichology student). My mother tells me that she always prays for me to start believing again. Some of my close friends make fun of me sometimes, i felt like a retarded cause i could'nt see the obvious truth of His Divine Existance. :P You can't argue with a group if they are on the same boat and you're not, it's worthless.
For me, being a christian was sometimes exhausting. I felt like i was kidding myself all the time. Because if you believe, you have to come up with all kinds to excuse His behavior (bad things happening to good people, for example.) But for me, everything is easier now, consistant, logical.
But this is not this way for everyone. Some people just need to believe. My parents, for example, have a bad relationship. They're now too old to just restart. Their lifes are now closer to the end, and looking back, they have'nt much to be proud about. Their belief on God comforts them. They will have eternal joy and peace, so they have no reason to be regretful about their lifes.
This is why religion works for them.
What I'm trying to say is that religion is not necesary for some people (like me) to be happy, but maybe for others it is like a painkiller.
Does this make sense to you?

[spoiler=Also really long, AKA I'm really bad at editing]

Quote from: NAMKCOR on May 06, 2010, 05:38:29 PM
Personally, I'm a good person because I don't like assholes in society.  If you need incentive and rewards to be decent to your fellow man, then I believe you are not, in actuality, a good person.

I don't think most people believe in religion because they want the incentives and rewards though. I think it happens the other way around. I think it's as simple as this: the majority of human beings believe that their lives and the lives of others mean something; are worth something. They think that to kill another human being is wrong; they think that to love others is right. This can easily be an evolutionary trait - certainly it is one that promotes societal groupings and that would present an evolutionary advantage. But at the heart of those feelings of compassion and love is, I would say, an inherent belief that human lives have meaning.

That belief, absent some supernatural belief, is illogical; or at least I have never been persuaded by any reasoning to the contrary. From a purely material perspective, human lives have no inherent value whatsoever. As I mentioned in my first post, we live for maybe 80 years as an insignificant speck of dust on an insignificant planet in an infinite and probably also insignificant universe. To say that it is wrong to kill another person is to say that it is wrong to shorten an insignificant speck of dust's life. Maybe you can say that loving and being loved by others gives our lives meaning, but how can two meaningless existences give each other meaning by loving others unless love itself has some supernatural power. Let's say you are one of the rare people who have some significant impact on the whole human race. Maybe you have a chapter in a textbook 400 years after your death and your name is vaguely remembered by some people. But if simply being known about by other just-as-insignificant humans magically gives your life meaning, then you might as well be Hitler as Gandhi. In the grand scheme of things, humans may as well be ants. You could have reduced or improved the lot of every human on earth but that doesn't give your life meaning, because all you've done is improve the lives of other ants as insignificant as you are. Even if you disagree and think that somehow a whole race of insignificant beings can somehow make the members of that race individually significant, for how long? Humanity will eventually become extinct. Moreover, if we believe that social interaction gives life meaning, does that mean that a hermit's life is meaningless and it would be OK to kill one of them?

This isn't to say that being rational necessarily forces you to become a sociopath; firstly, a system of morality can as easily be built upon an idea of reciprocity, for one thing (we criminalize and enforce penalties against murder because we don't want to be murdered and life is more enjoyable than death, for instance). And secondly, whether you have some rational basis for believing in the inherent dignity of human life doesn't really matter, because most people believe it anyway and will still love others whether or not they think it's rational. (However, I do think that a belief in universal human rights would be inconsistent, as it implies an objective morality even outside of social perception - that the violation of one of those rights would be wrong even if nobody else thought it was wrong; the most you could say for human rights is that a certain society in a certain period of time chose those particular aspects of its subjects to be worthy of protection.)

Either way, most people are left with a choice; either they accept a system of supernatural belief that makes their inherent belief in the meaning of life rational (essentially by saying that something outside our perception or understanding gives us meaning), or they simply accept that human life has no meaning, contrary to their inherent belief that it does.

Either choice is logical in my opinion, but I think you're wrong to assert that religious people will only act good because their religion gives incentives to be good. Maybe they're religious because it makes their inherent desire to be good logical. I don't think that this is necessarily a conscious determination, but I do believe, wholeheartedly, that most people who are religious believe in their religion not because they're indoctrinated, not because it's easier, and not because they're scared of the alternative, but because it grants them access to a supernatural truth otherwise unascertainable through natural perception.




Also, almost everyone thinks they're a good person, and the assholes you don't like think they're good people too, and probably the serial rapists in prison think they're good people too. Without a belief in objective morality, is it right to condemn people and take away their freedom when they simply have a different perception of good and evil?


@kukusu - no, I don't really think that my inabilty to justify the idea that human life has meaning without some supernatural belief is sad. If human life has no meaning, then it just means I'm right, which is a good thing. If it does, then it means there must be some supernatural reason for it, which would also be a good thing. It's kind of like a win/win. I'm just joking of course, but my ultimate point is that even if you don't believe in God, a belief that human life has meaning is just as impossible to prove by natural perception. So you are only substituting a belief in the supernatural that cannot be proven through natural means with a belief that could only be true if there was some supernatural reason for it which again, cannot be proven through natural means.[/spoiler]

Sorry if i misunderstood, i though you were saying that, if there were no god, then human life had not dignity. I was not talking about "a meaning" of life. Just about dignity. Now I understand what you mean. :)

And about the meaning of life... As long as my life is significant for me, i don't care if it has a meaning to the universe. For me, what the universe thinks about my life is irrelevant. Even if God doesn't exist and humanity becomes extinct tomorrow and nobody ever remembers the human race anymore, it wouldn't make me think that the human life has no dignity or no meaning, cause, the way i see things, the meaning of my life can be anything i want it to be.
I do not need any God to give a meaning to my life.
Does Pluto existance have "meaning"? It just exist, the same as mankind. There is no reason to think that there is any further "meaning" in anything.
And I don't find it uncomfortable. Just more natural, and free.

I completely agree with Modern, as well. It's nice to hear someone else thinks we're all meaningless and irrational! :)
As an absurdist, the absurdities of life are what make it worth living.

Quote from: modern algebra on May 06, 2010, 08:40:07 PM
I don't think that this is necessarily a conscious determination, but I do believe, wholeheartedly, that most people who are religious believe in their religion not because they're indoctrinated, not because it's easier, and not because they're scared of the alternative, but because it grants them access to a supernatural truth otherwise unascertainable through natural perception.

This xD

I bet you'd be deadly in a debate class. 

To start with, religion in general will likely always clash in some way with something, either with science, with modern society, or with other religions. Oftentimes, it has been the source of great conflict and tragedy. This much, based on evidence throughout history, I believe everyone here can agree on.

Namkcor's main point as far as I can tell is that religion is not required in order to survive, and it is not necessary in order to be happy or be able to find meaning in one's life. In fact, it generally has caused problems in society due to differences in belief. Gay rights is a big personal example we can use. Is religion considered pointless then? Would we be better without it, so to speak?

Let me ask something else then. The human race has continued for thousands of years through reproduction. Love between two humans is not a requirement in order to do this. All that is needed is a man and a woman. Yet, would you then say that love is pointless? Would we be better off without it? Logically you could say we would, given the rate of crimes of passion. But, it can provide you with happiness, meaning, perhaps even inner-peace. You don't need it, and in fact you could (or in some cases should) find the same happiness and definition without love. However, if you have experienced love at least once in your life, I'd dare you to honestly say that love is not worth having. It is not a tool that you use to make yourself feel better, it is just something you grow and know to have.

Religion can be much the same. It provides hope, meaning, purpose, insight, etc., and fulfills their need for definition or certainty in their life (not to mention it's quite obviously what you personally believe the truth to be). It is not a tool, it is a belief and connection just like love. Don't get me wrong, religion does cause problems at times because of differences in beliefs. Those people with coffins and shotguns, the 9/11 attacks, gay rights. When someone does what they believe to be right, it is always going to clash with someone else's sense of morals when they do not believe it to be right. Beliefs needs to learn to coexist better. Yet, religion itself does "work" moreorless, it does provide the happiness and purpose that it is supposed to (and again, it is not a tool but simply what they believe the truth to be), and we are a thriving society. The peace between beliefs can be improved, but religion itself works.

On a personal note, I'm torn in religion and believe mostly in the naturalization of the soul, the removal of the supernatural in life and stepping forward to "fill the shoes of God" as it were. I wish for morals and laws based on human nature and society rather than the words of ancient text and tradition. I wish for meaning and purpose to be found not in the promise of an afterlife but in life itself, as exceedingly difficult as it may seem sometimes. Kinda hypocritical of me since I'm technically in support of religion in this thread, but if someone believes in something, why should we tell them to "move on" from it aside from our own beliefs?

I was agnostic for a long time however, I've been atheist for a while now. Religion does nothing for me. I don't, however, care if others believe in it or not cause I'm not going to tell you that it's a waste of time. It's just a waste of time for me. I truly believe in "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time". I don't remember who said it or where I found it, but that's been my most favorite quote for years now. Occasionally I go to church with a friend or two if they ask me to go, and I don't complain about it. I just sit there and day dream or something, lol. I always end up going to the Easter and Christmas services at my parents' church cause they make me. haha. I'm friends with some people at my parents' church too and occasionally help out with whatever church activities are going on. This past Easter I helped make peanut butter eggs.

So I say that religion doesn't inherently provide anything. It provides only what you want it to provide. Isn't there a religion based on Yoda somewhere? Odd, but whatever. People find what they're looking for there than they do Christianity so obviously it doesn't matter what religion you are or how it works in what time period. Anything can be a religion.

Jedism, I believe it's called.

AHH yeah. That's right lol. I kept thinking YODISM YODISM YODISM?? NOOO NOT RIGHT. lol

Thank you Zylos, that's exactly what I meant.

However people are taking "move on" to mean ignore your beliefs.  I'm saying we can exist peacefully without necessarily seeing eye to eye.  It's called agreeing to disagree.  If you don't agree with someone and you can't help but get in a fight with them, then don't socialize with them, or learn how to exist without fighting.  You don't have to abandon your beliefs to avoid conflict.

Also I said 'move beyond' not 'move on'.

While I don't have much to say about the original goal this thread sets out to achieve (I am not sure who it is trying to convince, but it seems very obviously versed in a handful of specific theoretical strains which I could probably pinpoint, if I were more interested in doing so), I would like to raise a few relevant points that everyone has touched upon already.

The nature of "religion" as a faulty institution is a very tired subject; no reasonable person, religious or otherwise, would say that it is a perfect or even universally positive entity. Alternatively, nihilism, atheism, existentialism or any other general "category" which attempts to find meaning (or to acknowledge a lack thereof) are all, in their intellectual springs, more or less neutral entities (which is to say, they do not produce anything radical; more often than not, these modes of philosophical discourse focus on the deconstruction of opposing radical ideas). When one of these discourses becomes radical, it leads to something close to extremism, which is where most of the problems arise. I think immediately of Nietzsche, who has been widely influential, but is just as widely discredited for his speculative and inconsistent philosophy.

It is no less foolish to think that religion is obsolete than it is to think that a lack of religion is obsolete, as they are much the same thing, only mirrored. Consider a Buddhist who is moderately fervent in his or her beliefs and a nihilist that is moderately fervent in his or her beliefs; the degree to which they are invested leaves room for a remainder of theological tolerance. If you imagine that each person is invested in an idea to a certain degree (or in more than one idea to certain degrees), then the question becomes not what their belief is, but rather what is left over from their investment in these beliefs. It may sound silly to assume that someone who is only half Christian would tolerate an equal or lesser amount of another philosophy simultaneously, but give it some consideration (although not too much--this is still a digression!).

Now that we each have the image of a human measuring cup filled with belief A or belief B, I should note that the problem does not arise when the cup is full. In other words, someone who is wholly devoted to their beliefs is not necessarily someone who is wholly incompatible with other ideals (although, it is very likely that they will not take in any other ideals). The problem arises when someone who is wholly devoted to a specific belief is uniquely incompatible with another human being or belief.

Religion, therefore, is often confused with the convenient scapegoat labeled as the cause of an individual's hatred for another person or beliefs. Consider the crusades, for a moment. Countless unnecessary deaths were caused in the name of "religion." But consider for a moment how war works (we are all somewhat familiar with it by now): a person--generally a person of significant influence (or a person straightforwardly in charge) will order his armies to action for reason X. The armies comply because they are either told that it is the right thing to do, or else they feel as though there is no choice. Let us assume for the sake of this conversation that "reason X" is religious differences. A Christian leader therefore orders his armies into action because the enemy is non-Christian. The impetus is still ultimately one man's desire, regardless of the resulting death toll. A person (or persons) in charge (whether truthfully or not) declared that the reason for war was religion, and therefore it is recorded as a war which can be attributed to religion. But we are now faced with a new quandary: that of a person ordering armies to action based on a religion which professes peace. Is it therefore the religion's fault that its followers have chosen to disregard the tenants of the very thing they claim to be fighting for, or the person's? And since the person is fighting for something by which he does not truthfully abide, does it remain a religious war any longer, or a war of personal pride and hatred (two more things Christianity will preach against)? The obvious contemporary parallel becomes 9-11.


This has all been a very convoluted way of saying that philosophical beliefs cause problems directly proportionate to the sensitivities of the individual man, and his intrinsic flaws, and that it does not particularly matter to which belief you are referring.

Please forgive the inevitable mistakes--it's 2:30am and I'm more or less in a state of semi-consciousness.

Interesting...

The only point I would argue there is that there are certainly cases where people do truly believe that their religion dictates the violence they administer onto others, not because their cup is half full. I believe it's mentioned in various religious doctrines of how wrong-doers must be stoned or put to death, though if anyone can confirm this and provide exact examples I'd be grateful. These problems can also be subtler. Take gay marriage for an example. Many Christian denominations believe that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore they would vote against the legalization of same-sex marriage because "it's not moral" in their books. Anyways, the point is that these clashes of beliefs can be personal, but it can also just be solely because of religion (or at least interpretations of it since it can be very ambiguous sometimes).


I also have no idea what we're really arguing about now to be honest, so just go to sleep, you drunkard. :V

Yeah, I can't be held responsible for what I type at such hours, and under such influences.

technology doesn't require science to function or be used by a community. Science is a rather recent invention, a school of philosophy designed shortly after the Renaissance and just before the Scottish Enlightenment. Roman water canals and plumbing, Egyptian pyramids, Chinese gunpowder, Japanese hygiene, Greek calculators, and Mayan calendars all functioned perfectly fine without it, and most were financed by religions. 

I think you'll find the problem of antinomianism isn't universal to all religions, and you may also realize the law of averages say it's always better to be religious.

For example, if you have two scenarios, Nothing, and Something, but may only attain something by reaching for it, even if you are blind folded, it behooves you to reach for the something, even if nothing is there. If there is no karma, tao, ain sof, or afterlife, you really don't lose anything by believing it, and stand to gain if it's true. By not believing it, if its not true, you lose nothing, but if it is true, you also gain nothing, and possibly lose a great deal.

Ecumenical theologians would agree, with most systems, even being faithful to a 'false cause' or entity is better than being faithless or not even trying.

I personally don't think you should do anything that wastes your time, but that gets dangerously close to nihilism and antinomianism if you aren't careful. I think programming our own little pocket dimensions in RPGmaker is sufficient for some including me to recognize the possibility that something more awesome than me is busy decompiling or writing new worlds that I may some day explore.

Firstly, I have only skimmed over some of the long posts and most of the short ones. I have tons of input for this conversation. There are many things I think need clarifying, and many things that really need to be straightened out.

Now, I'll just come out and say I am an Agnostic Atheist (if you need help understanding why both simutaneously apply, I am more than happy to explain) and to a lesser degree, an Antitheist. This sets the stage of my position and my arguments to come.

Unfortunately, it is 4am here; I will only address one point that is right at the end here, and I'll have to wait until tomorrow to continue posting. The one thing I am choosing to oppose is this idea:

Quote from: shintashi on May 28, 2010, 05:54:25 AM
For example, if you have two scenarios, Nothing, and Something, but may only attain something by reaching for it, even if you are blind folded, it behooves you to reach for the something, even if nothing is there. If there is no karma, tao, ain sof, or afterlife, you really don't lose anything by believing it, and stand to gain if it's true. By not believing it, if its not true, you lose nothing, but if it is true, you also gain nothing, and possibly lose a great deal.

The idea you are presenting is called Pascal's Wager. Under the pretense that the options are something and nothing, grabbing in the fark for either, would be beneficial; This is what you are saying, and what you are saying is true, and follows with Pascal's Wager. However, this is not the case when comparing belief in religion/Cthulhu and disblief. I will clarify using an example:

There is a barrel, it is closed and no one can see inside. There is a possibility that there is something valueable inside, or there could be nothing. So, would you put your hand in? By Pascal's Wager (your argument), you should put your hand in the barrel since there may be something, and you have a possibility of gaining that thing. But here is the dilema and problem with that idea; the third possibility. What if you put your hand iin the barrel and there is something, but not something good? Like, let us say, used syringes? Would the risk still be worth the possible reward? What if, just to get to the barrel, you have to first pay a relatively large sum of money just to see that barrel, no matter how poor you are?

I digress. When it comes to Pascal's Wager and religious belief, it is not a matter of only something and nothing; this is because there is a price paid for the -possibility- of something, and no price is paid for the possibility of nothing. Not only is the price paid on a personal level (time, money, resources) but it is also paid on a worldly level (wars, genocide, indoctrination). There is also the issue of what that -something- is. In the example of the barrel, if there was something in the barrel, at the very least you are guaranteed that it will be something knowable and measureably present. In the case of Cthulhu or religious promises, you cannot verifiably test wether or not that -something- was attained.

And then, there is another thing that seems off. You reference Karma, Tao, Ain Sof, and the Afterlife, however, the belief in any one of those phenomenon would not change wether or not the phenomenon would occur. IE, even though I am a disbeliever in the afterlife, I would still be reborn; my belief or lack therefof plays no role.

And finally, how would you distinguish which of the 30000+ religious views is the one to follow? It is impossible to follow all of them; you couldn't follow more than a couple ideologies without running into walls (IE Judeaism, Christianity, and Islam... try following all of those). How could Pascal's Wager calculate the odds of the 30000 religious beliefs independantly? the truth is, it cannot. It is only applicable to the Something vs. Nothing stance, not Nothing vs.  Possible Something vs. Possible Something vs. Possible Something vs. Possible Something vs. Possible Something vs. etc....



BTW, NAMKCOR, you got this idea partly from the Stephen Hawkings discussion that was aired this week?

actually I posted this entirely from my own head because I'm getting sick of how every time someone tries to make the world a better place for some alternative belief or minority (in the past: women's rights, interracial marriage, black rights; in the present: homosexuals) religion, the people who claim to have a monopoly over the open-minded, respectful, humanity-loving, equality-respecting people of the world are the ones rabidly fighting the new liberty tooth and nail because it somehow hampers their ability to respect their beliefs if something against them is legally sanctioned by anybody else in the world.

Note: this is a generalization about the BAD PART of religions that we all know exist, I don't judge and am not prejudiced against people who follow religions as a base point, I just dislike these hypocrites who do this.

Could you explain what "agnostic atheist" is?
Is it the belief that there is nothing to suggest a creator deity's existence, so you are open to the idea but without anything to suggest the existence of one, you do not believe in it?

I think I know a guy who might be one, actually.

Technically, anyone who says they are "atheist" or "agnostic" are usually both. I'll explain.

Theist and Atheist are both positions based on thelogy. Theism is "I believe there is a God", Atheism is "I do not believe there is a God". 
Gnostic and Agnostic are both position based on knowing. Gnostic is "I know without a doubt" and Agnostic is "I do not know without a doubt"

Gnostic Theists are people who say "I know for a fact there is a god"
Agnostic Theists are people who say "I dont know for certain, but I believe there is a god"
Agnostic Atheists are people who say "I dont know for certain, but i do not believe in god"
Gnostic Theists are people who say "I know for a fact there is a god"

Anyone who is gnostic on the position of god have their work cut out, because they have to prove a supernatural entity.
Anyone who is agnostic on the position of god can choose to wait until more evidence for or against god to arrive before making any supernatural claims.

Technically, anyone who has a position on religion falls into one of those four types.

This is similar with Politics; there is not only Liberal vs. Conservative. there is also Authoritairian and Libertarian that play a role in political poistions.

It is a False Dichotomy when people say "You are either a Theist or Atheist" or "You are either a Liberal or Conservative"

Since I brougth it up, I am a Liberal who wants balance between Authoritairian and Libertarian goals.

I know this is completely off-topic, but I will get back to replying to the other bits. I must go to work now.

Hmm. Fascinating and convincing etymological analysis, my friend.

Now, I am a person of faith, but here are some interesting things to consider on the subject of the belief in the divine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn)

Follow the links to other arguments such as The Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Dragon in My Garage, all of which seem to illustrate the point that people will believe what they want. However, Carl Sagan's Dragon in his Garage is possibly the happy medium we are looking for in this thread; it expressly states that science cannot prove a negative, and thus with no other explanation we follow the principle of Occam's Razor- the simplest explanation must be true, which is that there is no god. However, it also states that scientific thought is not nearly as powerful a motivator of belief as is faith. I'm paraphrasing there, but that's what I got from it.

I've only skimmed the conversation so far, but I thought I'd leave my two cents as I'm new here and quite opinionated on this topic.

Firstly, I've read it here and heard it said that we should let people believe whatever they want. After all, beliefs are internal and completely private, right? Wrong. Beliefs inform our actions, we act according to what we believe.  I don't think we should respect the right of racists to have racists beliefs, because sooner or later they will affect someone negatively. They should be corrected, for they are clearly wrong. Racism is a belief that is morally wrong, but there are also beliefs that are factually wrong, such as a geocentric view of the universe. Holding those beliefs are dangerous because it can cause ill-informed actions. I don't think society will progress if we continue to act as if all beliefs are equally valid. If we actually care about whether something is true it has to be open to fierce debate, not protected as 'sacred' or 'personal'.

If we can agree on that, than the question is: Are religious beliefs logical and do they have a positive effect on society? Personally I would answer no to both parts of that question.

Now obviously science cannot disprove the existence of God. There are plenty of things we can't disprove, like the flying spaghetti monster which was already mentioned. What's important is not whether something COULD exist, but whether we have any reason to think it does. The amount of things that could exists are infinite. Despite being brought up as christian, I have not found any evidence of a God, let alone a specific one.

I must say I completely agree with Savarast, Pascal's wager is dead

I have nothing to contribute to this thread except that my wordfilter makes this all HILARIOUS.

That and I believe Carl Sagan was right in that science cannot disprove the big man upstairs.

I miss our friend Carl...

You know, you can work around the wordfilter like this:
"Jesus Christ!"
"God dam neck!" (in reference to Dam Neck, an area near Virginia Beach, I think?)

You can also break by just opening and closing a tag right in the middle of the word God or Jesus Christ.

(Quote me to see.)

Carl was/is awesome. :)
Humans also think too much of themselves, which I think is another reason why a creator deity cannot exist for some.
There's nothing wrong with the disbelief of a creator deity, though.

"What's important is not whether something COULD exist, but whether we have any reason to think it does. The amount of things that could exists are infinite."
That's actually a pretty egotistical statement. Who gave you the right to say something might only exist if we have objective reasons to believe that it exists? (I do not say this to you specifically, but rather the entire race.)
It's about damn time people stopped thinking that they're gods unto themselves, and making up all of these stupid philosophical and scientific questions and rules that try to rationalize personal belief.
I love science, but I don't like science as a way of life. It should tell us about life, not how to live it. :(

Quote from: SirJackRex on June 17, 2010, 03:10:16 PM
I love science, but I don't like science as a way of life. It should tell us about life, not how to live it. :(

It doesn't.

Quote from: SirJackRex on June 17, 2010, 03:10:16 PM
Carl was/is awesome. :)
Humans also think too much of themselves, which I think is another reason why a creator deity cannot exist for some.
There's nothing wrong with the disbelief of a creator deity, though.

"What's important is not whether something COULD exist, but whether we have any reason to think it does. The amount of things that could exists are infinite."
That's actually a pretty egotistical statement. Who gave you the right to say something might only exist if we have objective reasons to believe that it exists? (I do not say this to you specifically, but rather the entire race.)
It's about damn time people stopped thinking that they're gods unto themselves, and making up all of these stupid philosophical and scientific questions and rules that try to rationalize personal belief.
I love science, but I don't like science as a way of life. It should tell us about life, not how to live it. :(

** I can't be bothered to fight the chat filter. It makes it more interesting anyway.

Actually I found that I became much more humble when I became an atheist. Tell me which view is more humble.  The one that says we are insignificant pieces of carbon, or the one that says the creator of the universe loves us deeply and created the universe for us? Face it, religion has always revolved around man. Gods have always been like men, and in most religions man tends to be more important than other things. That is why the church adopted a geo-centric view of the universe, because it fit with their religious beliefs that the whole universe should revolve around them.

I don't claim to know there are no Gods. That would be arrogant. But I do claim we have no good reason to believe in a Cthulhu. The statement you quoted from me was not egotistical, perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. The point was that there are an infinite amount of things that could exist. Just think about all the Cthulhu's that man has thought up. Each one of those Gods could possibly exist. If the fact that something could exist were reason enough to believe in it, we would have to believe in all Gods, all mythical creatures, and all flying spaghetti monsters. You see, we actually don't believe in most of the things that could exist. We require some proof of their existence first, not simply the possibility of their existence.

I'm saying this because too often I've heard the theist say in a debate; "well you can't prove there is no Cthulhu!", or something to that effect. The point is they are the ones trying to prove that Cthulhu exists, and you can't prove me wrong is not a good argument.

Now if you think I've made a mistake somewhere feel free to correct me, but please don't try to assume my state of mind. I do not think I'm a Cthulhu. Science doesn't tell us how to live our lives, but it does tell us what we should believe. It tells us how the universe works, and therefore what to believe about the universe.  The problem is that religious beliefs seem to be put in their own category, in an area that doesn't require justification. I find it odd that you seem to oppose rationalizing personal belief. Don't you want your beliefs to be rational?

I think that FSM and IPU are absolutely terrible analogies; I have no idea why otherwise intelligent people think that they prove some point. They aren't a proper comparator to any actual religious belief because those beings serve no purpose, which is not true of a belief in a religion. It approaches it as if a belief in God comes prior or is distinct from other religious beliefs. As I mentioned in an earlier post:

Quote
I think it happens the other way around. I think it's as simple as this: the majority of human beings believe that their lives and the lives of others mean something; are worth something. They think that to kill another human being is wrong; they think that to love others is right. This can easily be an evolutionary trait - certainly it is one that promotes societal groupings and that would present an evolutionary advantage. But at the heart of those feelings of compassion and love is, I would say, an inherent belief that human lives have meaning.

That belief, absent some supernatural belief, is illogical; or at least I have never been persuaded by any reasoning to the contrary. From a purely material perspective, human lives have no inherent value whatsoever. As I mentioned in my first post, we live for maybe 80 years as an insignificant speck of dust on an insignificant planet in an infinite and probably also insignificant universe. To say that it is wrong to kill another person is to say that it is wrong to shorten an insignificant speck of dust's life.

Whether objectively true or not, whether simply another trait developed through evolution or not, most human beings have an inherent belief that human lives matter and empathize with other human beings. Moreover, they think some things are objectively wrong. I think you probably share such a conviction, considering that you condemned racism in fairly absolutist terms in an earlier post. A belief in objective morality is entirely irrational, unless you postulate some supernatural truth that would make it rational. At the very least, religion gives a rational basis to the belief that human lives matter, one that cannot possibly be supported without supernatural explanation. I think that is one very good reason to believe in God. There are others. I therefore disagree with your assertion that there are no good reasons to believe in God.

Also, FSM and IPU are so incredibly stupid.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was not saying one is better than the other, nor was I taking a side.
You know...I even said "There's nothing wrong with the disbelief of a creator deity, though.", and I myself am not a religious person. I was tired when I wrote that, so I can see how it may have come off sounding as though I was.

I agree that every belief revolves around man. You think that being an atheist and thinking that you are an insignificant piece of carbon makes you more humble, and you like that. Believing in Cthulhu to some makes those people happy. It's just a another guise. You like being humble, and atheism gives you that feeling. You can happily believe in it. But can I ask you to put forth your rational explanation of why and how it will bring about the feeling of humbleness in others (just so I know it's really objective)?

I also agree with Modern. The arrogance stems from the "objective" stance that many of us like to take. Survival instinct is a good example. Killing another member of your own species is "irrational," but if if you were in a life or death situation in which the only way out is to kill him, it would in fact be the rational decision (as set in place by our survival instincts). To say that killing is the irrational decision is to say that you know what is actually rational and irrational, which goes back to the idea that you don't actually know. The fact is, if we only believed in things with "rational" justification, there would be this TINY group of things we believed in. Probably wouldn't even exist...I mean, yeah believe in rational things. I believe in that, but I don't think it, in and of itself, is completely rational. I have and will continue to draw conclusions based on experiences as to what is rational and what is not, and I shall act accordingly. Beyond that, who knows. Rational to me may not be rational to the next man.

IPU and FSM are annoying as hell.

 I don't believe things because they make me happy. In fact, looking back I might be less happy as an atheist. This is because my family, friends and community are highly religious and it creates tension. Also I can no longer believe the assurance 'everything will work out for the best', and know that God's got my back. There are certainly withdrawal symptoms in some cases, such as loneliness or lack of purpose. Modern was saying how humans inherently think life has meaning. That's true by default, but I think it can change. I can not say for sure whether life has any meaning or not, and that's the honest truth.

What it comes down to is this. If our beliefs are formed by what makes us happy or what we would like to believe, that makes them pretty much useless. We would have no idea if our beliefs accurately reflected the real world. However if we approach beliefs skeptically and test to see if they are true, than we can be much more sure our beliefs are true. I can sum it up in this question; "Which is more important to you? Truth or happiness?

I'm slightly confused by your last paragraph SirJackRex. Whether an action is rational or not depends on the context. Morality is not simple, which is why I don't like how holy books try to make it simple. I think killing is wrong...in most circumstances. But there are circumstances where it might be morally praiseworthy to kill. I think we agree there?

Living rationally does not mean only believing things you absolutely know. You can believe things that you don't know. If the chance of rain tomorrow is greater than 50%, It would be rational for me to believe it will rain. I don't know that however. An example of living irrationally is not going to work in the morning on the off-chance your office was hit by a meteor.

Modern, while I agree that the existence of a God solves the problem of objective morality and purpose, I do not think this is a reason to believe in God. In short what you are saying is you want to believe human life has worth, if God exists human life has worth, therefore God exists. Surely you realize that your desire that human life has worth has nothing to do with the facts? While we are dancing around the subject, the utility of a belief is also not a reason to believe it. For example, let's say believing in God made you live longer. That has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. When I say a reason to believe, I literally mean evidence that the belief is true. Perhaps that clarifies things.

QuoteI think that FSM and IPU are absolutely terrible analogies; I have no idea why otherwise intelligent people think that they prove some point. They aren't a proper comparator to any actual religious belief because those beings serve no purpose, which is not true of a belief in a religion. It approaches it as if a belief in Cthulhu comes prior or is distinct from other religious beliefs.

Perhaps you two will have to elaborate as to why the FSM is so bad? I know that some find it offensive, but it does make a good point. I should be clear I'm not talking about religion. Religion involves hundreds of beliefs, community, as well as various other factors. I'm talking about a single belief, whether God exists or not. The point of the FSM is to confront the theist with the fact that they have about as much evidence for the existence of their God as we do for the FSM. The other purpose of the FSM is to be ridiculous. I don't mean to be rude, but some atheists(including myself) do find religious beliefs to be ridiculous, and will continue to think this way until there is evidence for them.

Logically, belief in God MUST come before any other religious beliefs. I view the entire belief system of any religion as some sort of upside down pyramid, all balancing and dependent on God's existence.  Now you bring up a good point Modern, and that is some beliefs that can be considered religious such as human worth could have occurred naturally and would have been selected for. Religion would than be our way of using reason to justify an otherwise illogical belief. That makes sense, but what I am saying is that we can overcome that human need for worth and purpose, and instead make logic the priority. If we do this we no longer need religion to justify human worth, as we can simply leave the question of human worth unanswered for now. What I just said sounds kind of cold and inhuman, but you'd be surprised how many good arguments there are for morality and worth there are that don't involve God.

Science doesn't tell you what to believe, and it certainly doesn't tell us how the universe works.

Science is the process of finding our best possible conclusion based on the data we can derive.  It's a system of observation and debunking previous observations with new data, not about proving anything.

QuoteLogically, belief in Cthulhu MUST come before any other religious beliefs. I view the entire belief system of any religion as some sort of upside down pyramid, all balancing and dependent on Cthulhu's existence.

I don't think that's accurate. A better analogy than FSM for a belief in Cthulhu would be the theory of dark matter. People don't think dark matter exists because they've observed it; they postulate the existence of dark matter because they observe what effect it has; the same is true of a belief in Cthulhu. Religious beliefs are developed from the bottom up. I think C.S. Lewis wrote something along the lines that he believed in Christianity as he believed in the sun; not only because he sees it, but because by it he sees everything else. FSM is an incomplete analogy because it does not take into account the latter part of that sentence; there is a substantial difference between believing in something that is unprovable and irrelevant and believing in something that is unprovable but relevant.

Moreover, I don't think it's correct to characterize it as believing something because it makes you happy. I am sure many religious people would be happier if they didn't believe in Cthulhu. Religious people often restrict themselves from particular activities that they are tempted by solely because of their belief. Nor is it a desire to think that human life has worth; it is not simply "meh, I think it would be really cool if human life had meaning, so let's just pretend it does and say that Cthulhu is the reason." People believe in a religion or spirituality because they perceive truth in it. I don't think that is a material perception; I think it is nonetheless a genuine perception. If every human were blind, would you deny the existence of light? By your logic, you must, since there would be no way to confirm its existence through the limited means we would have available. Would you then ridicule anyone who claimed to be able to see, since you cannot confirm the existence of light yourself? For those people who are blind, is it logical for them to deny the existence of light since they are unable to perceive it themselves, even if others tell them it exists? Human faculties are limited; to reject anything that cannot be confirmed through what limited faculties humans have is not a search for truth, per se; it is a search for certainty, and you will necessarily deny many things that are true. I am not saying that anyone who perceives some supernatural truth is perceiving something actually true; there are many beliefs or belief systems that I too reject. Just as people can see things that do not exist, I suspect that people, if they perceive supernatural truths at all and if there are supernatural truths to perceive, are even less likely to be perceiving them accurately or completely.

However, the gist of my post is this: I do not believe that it is illogical to believe in something of which you are not certain. For instance, much of what I know about scientific knowledge or otherwise I did not learn through direct perception or experience, but through reading the accounts other people have written of their experiments, etc... I trust in the scientific method; I trust that people who follow it are less likely to draw inaccurate conclusions; I trust those people not to be biased and not to lie; I accept that others have done the work that I have not to confirm hypotheses. I cannot say I am certain, but I still believe, and I believe despite knowing that some new study could come along and completely contradict what I believe, and if it does, I will probably believe that study too. I believe them based solely on the testimony of others and without any direct perception whatsoever. To require certainty is unnecessarily limiting. I genuinely believe that there exist things that are true that exist outside of natural human perception (the five senses) or capability, and I believe that religion is capable of granting access to supernatural truths that are outside our perception, whether through the testimony of others who have perceived them or through some non-physical perception, such as a perception that human life has meaning.

Quoteyou'd be surprised how many good arguments there are for morality and worth there are that don't involve Cthulhu.

I've heard a lot of them; none of them are very compelling - 80 years of life among a race of 7 billion people that is hurdling toward extinction on one tiny planet in a huge galaxy in a huge universe; no naturally apparent reason why something exists rather than nothing - pretty damn sure that nothing within natural perception could possibly justify that life has meaning, so anything that could is just as or more unprovable than Cthulhu.


Anyway, I'm really tired now, so hopefully that didn't come out incoherently.

Science attempts to tell us how the universe works. There are some things we cannot yet explain, and something we probably never will. Scientists admit that. You're right, since science works on observing patterns technically it never 'proves' anything, it can only disprove. But if something is repeatedly tested and hasn't been disproven, than chances are pretty good it's true. It's the best possible method we have for determing truth from fiction in my opinion, would you agree? As such, if the majority of scientists believe something than It would be wise for us to believe it as well. It would certainly be unwise to hold a belief that goes against common scientific beliefs, unless you had very good reason.

That certainly is an interesting way of looking at it Modern, I'll have to think about that for a while. But let me just say that that wasn't my experience. I became a christian at such a young age I can't remember it. My young mind couldn't grapple with the philosophy necessary to even understand the concept of God. I only believed it because my parents told me it was true. But if I had never formed that initial belief in God I don't think I'd have aquired the numerous religious beliefs I formed throughout my life. So while I will concede that for some people religion is built for the bottom up, for me it was all dependant on that one belief.

Again, I fully admit that the human power for observation is limited, and there are things that we cannot know. But that doesn't mean we should guess. It simply means we will never know. If all humans were blind, and there was no way to measure the effects of light through our other senses, than we would have no evidence for belief in light.

Quote from: archon on June 18, 2010, 04:56:11 AM
Science attempts to tell us how the universe works. There are some things we cannot yet explain, and something we probably never will. Scientists admit that. You're right, since science works on observing patterns technically it never 'proves' anything, it can only disprove. But if something is repeatedly tested and hasn't been disproven, than chances are pretty good it's true. It's the best possible method we have for determing truth from fiction in my opinion, would you agree? As such, if the majority of scientists believe something than It would be wise for us to believe it as well. It would certainly be unwise to hold a belief that goes against common scientific beliefs, unless you had very good reason.

You can't say that the chances are 'pretty good' that it's true, considering how often things change, that's subjective.  We don't know how good the chances are that we're right, we only know what we can see based on the data we can currently get, and the patterns we can observe.

There are some very general things that we can be correct about.

For instance:
-Stars are hot (common sense)
-Creatures and plants kill other creatures and plants
-People, creatures, and plants die
-People have died

Usually, our "laws" amended or partially revised rather than completely re-written nowadays, so we must be doing the right thing somewhere.

Anything that we didn't observe, we are standing at the chalkboard with numbers and formulae to postulate. Somehow, the relation between math (especially theoretical) and the actual world around us is great. The number of links we've found is staggering. I'd like to cite the Fibonacci sequence as one of them.

To say that we basically don't know anything is alternatively baseless and disheartening.

We cannot know everything, it is true, but there are a lot of "concrete" things we can record and generally pass on.

Actually, hot is a relative term, to other stars some might be rather cold, but yes, to us they would be considered hot.

As far as laws of nature are concerned, those are due to the years and years and years and years and years and years of unbreakability, but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to the possibility of being completely wrong.

We know a lot of things, but most of what Science explains, as theories, hypothesis, or laws, are simply the best answer we can come up with, and only tend to last until a better one comes along.

Considering that almost all stars are so energetic that molecule formation is almost nigh impossible, I'd say that they were hot even when you disregard relative terms. Especially the blue ones.

As far as general things go, we have a perfectly good idea of what has happened, and we form postulates based on that. This, of course, does leave possibilities open.

This has to do with the future being almost entirely unclear at all points in time, however.

Quote from: Mikhail Faulken on June 19, 2010, 04:58:50 AM
Considering that almost all stars are so energetic that molecule formation is almost nigh impossible, I'd say that they were hot even when you disregard relative terms. Especially the blue ones.

Ignoring relative terms is what makes them 'hot' universally.
Consider that to a Blue star, a Red star could be extremely cold.

But yes, the future is uncertain which is why Scientists do not claim to have fully explained anything.

An example of religion not working=Scientology
And thats really all that has to be said

Wow. All this deep stuff flying around, and all I want to do is make i t through the day. Damn.

Religion (usually) expects you do follow certain rules to avoid eternal damnation and suffering. It's scaremongering to get more followers and more church-gooers (if the religion has a weekly mass or something), when often, or at least as far as I'm aware, there's always second chances.

Okay, to re-iterate, Christianity. Depending on who you ask, certain things will result in you going to hell. But God gives people second chances. No matter how hard you screw up, you'll be given another chance in heaven. At least, as I recall reading. That's what I mean by scaremongering. There's always another chance, but telling people that won't get followers.

Spirituality though is a self-sustaining paradox. I'm a very scientific and philosophical person. I can think of many things to debunk what I believe (the scientific side), or explain why I believe it (the philosophical/psychological side). But that doesn't stop me from believing. I believe because it gives me a sense of purpose or security maybe, maybe that's what keeps it alive.

I don't need to follow set rules every day, avoid doing things or whatever. I don't think a heavenly body will smite me for killing someone, I just will feel guilty for it. My beliefs are something that I live with, but not around.