Religion, what's the point?

[Roane]

Because if it’s all knowing and all powerful then free will doesn’t make sense, unless it’s also content with watching humans feck everything up despite knowing that they’re going to and having the power to stop it.

I don't get this argument.

 

[Moby]

Abolishing the texts wouldn't achieve anything in my opinion. The texts have never been the issue.

Keep your own opinion aside for one second and focus on what has actually happened, which is what would be expected from someone who are genuinely interested in discovering the root cause of the neverending violence that has happened associated to these texts, and not interested in being stubborn over a bunch of words. It's this very rigid attitude that absolutely stinks of being happy in denial of the atrocities that have gone on.

 

[Carolina Red]

I don't get this argument.

What about it do you not understand?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I don't get this argument.

An omnipotent and omniscient god who introduces free will has knowingly created a human society capable of utter horrors, as well as a hostile environment, all of which causes immense suffering knowingly. Ergo: such a god is moral in no way that we could relate to. In fact, such a god is objectively callous at best and evil at worst.

 

[Moby]

religion is universal. there's something about human nature which places some analogue of religion everywhere. in pre-industrial societies it would be called animism. then you have atheists who believe in something which is almost religious. the idea of mathematics as "divine", or to know the mind of "god" as Einstein said speaking about the connection between natural science and all things. religious institutions, broadly speaking, are evil.

Religion existing prior to us having any understanding of our nature made sense simply from a giving a name to everything that was mysterious to us. As has been pointed out, a lot of ancient gods revolved around natural phenomenon because people couldn't make sense of it and had no means to understand it. They didn't understand how rubbing stones created fire or why water started pouring from the sky, and used the concept of a mysterious force and gave it names.

However over time those things have been cleared up, and none of it is any kind of mystery. Which is why the same concept was taken and converted into more of a moral code rather than something that just gave a meaning to natural phenomenon, when in reality there was zero need of having any mysterious entity getting associated to a moral code. Moral code exists in all living species, fecking ants get the fact they need to preserve their own species, as did humans. Hence the entire scepticism around these things having anything to do with morals in the first place.

 

[Roane]

Keep your own opinion aside for one second and focus on what has actually happened, which is what would be expected from someone who are genuinely interested in discovering the root cause of the neverending violence that has happened associated to these texts, and not interested in being stubborn over a bunch of words. It's this very rigid attitude that absolutely stinks of being happy in denial of the atrocities that have gone on.

I resent that to be honest. There is no denial of atrocities here. Neither is there a rigid attitude on my side.

 

[WI_Red]

I have been following the last few pages with interest and with a growing sadness. It reminds me of my early years, which I spoke of previously, in graduate school where I was surrounded by those who mocked, with quite some glee, my quest to find faith.

I have rewritten this post a dozen times but each iteration led me to see that it was pointless. I think I will simply bow out of this thread and say that faith, when practiced in a way that is not harmful to others, and in a way that brings meaning to someone, is not something that should be mocked. It is personal to that person and if it gives them something, whether it be peace, or comfort, or some semblance of meaning, it is worthy of basic decency. That’s my belief, and one which is lacking apparently in many.

 

[neverdie]

Religion existing prior to us having any understanding of our nature made sense simply from a giving a name to everything that was mysterious to us. As has been pointed out, a lot of ancient gods revolved around natural phenomenon because people couldn't make sense of it and had no means to understand it. They didn't understand how rubbing stones created fire or why water started pouring from the sky, and used the concept of a mysterious force and gave it names.

However over time those things have been cleared up, and none of it is any kind of mystery. Which is why the same concept was taken and converted into more of a moral code rather than something that just gave a meaning to natural phenomenon, when in reality there was zero need of having any mysterious entity getting associated to a moral code. Moral code exists in all living species, fecking ants get the fact they need to preserve their own species, as did humans. Hence the entire scepticism around these things having anything to do with morals in the first place.

religion exists beyond us knowing how things work though. i think the underlying principle is probably hardwired into the human, and maybe even the mammalian, brain. i think there's some truth to this hypothesis but the timespan is off by a long distance. closer to 300000 years than 3000.

 

[Roane]

An omnipotent and omniscient god who introduces free will has knowingly created a human society capable of utter horrors, as well as a hostile environment, all of which causes immense suffering knowingly. Ergo: such a god is moral in no way that we could relate to. In fact, such a god is objectively callous at best and evil at worst.

I suppose I get that. However in a religious context that argent doesn't make sense.

The notion of life being a test, the achievement of auccess in the after life etc etc makes sense to have free will.

Also going through bad times (predestination if you will) and how you cope and don't resort to evil/bad but "trust in God" because the hereafter is the aim kind of addresses this no?

Just to be clear here I'm not saying all must believe or accept this. I'm speaking from a religious point of view (put simply in my own terminology). I'm just saying it's not mysterious to religious folk.

Ronuavw just goodness and wipe all bad away kind of defeats point?

 

[Moby]

I resent that to be honest. There is no denial of atrocities here. Neither is there a rigid attitude on my side.

Then what is the problem in getting rid of these texts as we currently know them? Even if you don't think it's the root cause, what is stopping you simply removing these texts written thousands of years ago from existence?

Heck, there are tons of ways to massively improve the current status of religion which directly causes countless atrocities. All these 'spiritual' people across all religions who consider religion as a moral code of conduct and consider following that moral code to reach their god could come together and form one single religion at the very fecking least. One of the biggest things religions are used for is creating divide and hatred (you and me are from the subcontinent, it's what our entire region has been destroyed using), so if there was so much good faith they would be able to agree in unanimously giving up their individual texts, gods, deities and what not and remove the means for causing such divide.

But please tell me with a straight face that any of the 'spiritual' hindus have it in them to say we will not worship Ram anymore and move to something that unites us with others who believe the same thing with a different name. As if they fecking would. Especially in India, people love going on about 'all gods are one' 'all religions are one' yet we see what has always happened and will continue to happen and it shows the true colors of all these hypocrites.

 

[neverdie]

I have been following the last few pages with interest and with a growing sadness. It reminds me of my early years, which I spoke of previously, in graduate school where I was surrounded by those who mocked, with quite some glee, my quest to find faith.

I have rewritten this post a dozen times but each iteration led me to see that it was pointless. I think I will simply bow out of this thread and say that faith, when practiced in a way that is not harmful to others, and in a way that brings meaning to someone, is not something that should be mocked. It is personal to that person and if it gives them something, whether it be peace, or comfort, or some semblance of meaning, it is worthy of basic decency. That’s my belief, and one which is lacking apparently in many.

atheism became a kind of militant religion. i don't believe in any religion personally, but don't understand the mentality of those who spend their lives opposed to it. i get opposition to fundamentalists but not to the majority who really don't do any harm to anyone.

 

[Moby]

religion exists beyond us knowing how things work though.

Except religion as we know it right now does far more, and far worse than just giving an answer for the currently uncovered mysteries. There wouldn't be a debate about it's existence if it was as simple and plain and non-controversial as that.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I suppose I get that. However in a religious context that argent doesn't make sense.

The notion of life being a test, the achievement of auccess in the after life etc etc makes sense to have free will.

Also going through bad times (predestination if you will) and how you cope and don't resort to evil/bad but "trust in God" because the hereafter is the aim kind of addresses this no?

Just to be clear here I'm not saying all must believe or accept this. I'm speaking from a religious point of view (put simply in my own terminology). I'm just saying it's not mysterious to religious folk.

Ronuavw just goodness and wipe all bad away kind of defeats point?

I get it, sure. However, if the above is so, the "test" as you put it, is set by this god in order to judge then this is a perverse god, happy to cause great suffering to facilitate this test even for those who pass.

Such a being is certainly not kind not moral or good to my mind.

 

[Wibble]

Why is the idea of God giving free will disingenuous or like having your cake and eating it?

The Christian God is interventionist/allows free will depending on the circumstance. It seems that free will is proposed merely to excuse god from from preventing evil and suffering, or influencing who goes to heaven or hell. Yet he gets credit for alleged intervention when good stuff happens. Cake and eat it.

 

[neverdie]

Except religion as we know it right now does far more, and far worse than just giving an answer for the currently uncovered mysteries. There wouldn't be a debate about it's existence if it was as simple and plain and non-controversial as that.

religion plays a social role. in societies without religion you find a kind of religious substitute. or in societies which have been kept apart in evolutionary terms and which have no history of abrahamic religion you find an interesting correlation. they all have very similar ideas about things like witchcraft and substance and so on. this is, or was, as true in africa as it was or is in the pacific islands and even parts of europe. it's a remarkable overlap and has to be biological.

 

[Moby]

but don't understand the mentality of those who spend their lives opposed to it.

You don't understand people opposing something that has been used to propel hatred, divide, violence and massacres? I oppose religion for the same reason I opposed natural disasters, discrimination, disease and anything else that has brought about destruction of mankind.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

atheism became a kind of militant religion. i don't believe in any religion personally, but don't understand the mentality of those who spend their lives opposed to it. i get opposition to fundamentalists but not to the majority who really don't do any harm to anyone.

I, with respect, could not disagree more with your first sentence. Atheism is not a movement with unified principles.

 

[Moby]

religion plays a social role. in societies without religion you find a kind of religious substitute. or in societies which have been kept apart in evolutionary terms and which have no history of abrahamic religion you find an interesting correlation. they all have very similar ideas about things like witchcraft and substance and so on. this is, or was, as true in africa as it was or is in the pacific islands and even parts of europe. it's a remarkable overlap and has to be biological.

Just because it was a part of historical societies doesn't mean it needs to be a part of the current one. Things change, as does our code of conduct, our social values and our existentialist queries. There's zero logic in continuing to follow an outdated practice.

 

[neverdie]

You don't understand people opposing something that has been used to propel hatred, divide, violence and massacres? I oppose religion for the same reason I opposed natural disasters, discrimination, disease and anything else that has brought about destruction of mankind.

all of that covers the fundamentalists. what about vatican 2? was that used, in south america, to do the things you talk about? it really wasn't and most of the countries involved were in some form of socialist revolution. i oppose fundamentalist but have no problem with religion generally and find people invent replacement cults for the religious function very easily.

 

[Wibble]

But yeah the locusts and flood etc were not general but specific stories. As far as I know.

But if it were merely a well understood biological phenomenon why would they have been thought to be a punishment from an angry god in the first place?

In the Qur'an for example we are told there were 125k prophets, starting with Adam and finishing with Muhammad.

That is quite a few. Of there better known ones some existed, some may have existed or some may been a merging of a few people and some, like Adam or Noah didn't exists or were just stories or parables.

 

[neverdie]

I, with respect, could not disagree more with your first sentence. Atheism is not a movement with unified principles.

certain strands of it are. the line which runs from Dawkins through the other latter day atheistic saints possesses a kind of unity. an unnecessary hostility. hitchens adopted it before he died too.

 

[Moby]

all of that covers the fundamentalists. what about vatican 2? was that used, in south america, to do the things you talk about? it really wasn't and most of the countries involved were in some form of socialist revolution. i oppose fundamentalist but have no problem with religion generally and find people invent replacement cults for the religious function very easily.

And for me the selectiveness is genuinely abhorrent and as said above, contributes to the ignorance that helps justify the existence of a faith that is continuously the reason for people losing lives every single day. The fundamentalist belong to the exact same organisation you do, no matter how much you try to distant yourself from them and as long as these source texts and organisations exist these atrocities will continue. But you don't really care about that as much as you do about having a false sense of comfort that you can easily find elsewhere.

 

[Moby]

an unnecessary hostility

Let's reserve that notion for organisations that actually implement mass murders and terrorist activities.

 

[neverdie]

Just because it was a part of historical societies doesn't mean it needs to be a part of the current one. Things change, as does our code of conduct, our social values and our existentialist queries. There's zero logic in continuing to follow an outdated practice.

my argument is that religion is biological. that it spills into human morality and thought from a kind of biological preload. it's not that you need it. the world has become less religious over the past however many centuries anyway. but in terms of where it comes from, my point is you would experience some form of it whether or not you ever read a religious text in your life. the most militant atheists will experience "religious qualities" without even realising that religious people will consider those qualities to be "religious".

 

[Roane]

Then what is the problem in getting rid of these texts as we currently know them? Even if you don't think it's the root cause, what is stopping you simply removing these texts written thousands of years ago from existence?

Heck, there are tons of ways to massively improve the current status of religion which directly causes countless atrocities. All these 'spiritual' people across all religions who consider religion as a moral code of conduct and consider following that moral code to reach their god could come together and form one single religion at the very fecking least. One of the biggest things religions are used for is creating divide and hatred (you and me are from the subcontinent, it's what our entire region has been destroyed using), so if there was so much good faith they would be able to agree in unanimously giving up their individual texts, gods, deities and what not and remove the means for causing such divide.

But please tell me with a straight face that any of the 'spiritual' hindus have it in them to say we will not worship Ram anymore and move to something that unites us with others who believe the same thing with a different name. As if they fecking would. Especially in India, people love going on about 'all gods are one' 'all religions are one' yet we see what has always happened and will continue to happen and it shows the true colors of all these hypocrites.

My own view is to get people adhering to those texts properly and we would be better for it.

Strangely of we did peopleay see that although the names may have become different ultimately it's the same entity they believe in.

 

[neverdie]

Let's reserve that notion for organisations that actually implement mass murders and terrorist activities.

that's every organisation in human history, i think. atheistic societies have their share of terrorists and murders. see the USSR.

 

[Moby]

my argument is that religion is biological. that it spills into human morality and thought from a kind of biological preload. it's not that you need it. the world has become less religious over the past however many centuries anyway. but in terms of where it comes from, my point is you would experience some form of it whether or not you ever read a religious text in your life. the most militant atheists will experience "religious qualities" without even realising that religious people will consider those qualities to be "religious".

You can have that experience without justifying the need for books and organisations that give birth to criminal activities. The experience you are referring to has nothing to do with religion.

 

[neverdie]

You can have that experience without justifying the need for books and organisations that give birth to criminal activities. The experience you are referring to has nothing to do with religion.

has an organization formed around a book, even science books, ever not been terrible? the eugenics movement wasn't religious but it's where we get nazism.

 

[Wibble]

religion plays a social role. in societies without religion you find a kind of religious substitute. or in societies which have been kept apart in evolutionary terms and which have no history of abrahamic religion you find an interesting correlation. they all have very similar ideas about things like witchcraft and substance and so on. this is, or was, as true in africa as it was or is in the pacific islands and even parts of europe. it's a remarkable overlap and has to be biological.

Religion does play a part in society. What people want to believe or worship in their own time is their own business. But religion having any impact on government is a stain on society.

And in no way does it have to be biological. Animal behaviour can be genetic but doesn't have to be. You would need to prove how being religious gave a fitness (breeding) benefit and that it was also a genetically carried trait. I think it is far more likely that it is a deeply embed meme rather than a gene.

One of the things humans do really well is fill in gaps (sensory or factual) but as well as being a great ability it can also lead us astray when we fill the gaps incorrectly. I think religion often fills the gap of people not liking the idea that once you are gone that is it. Mental comfort food in effect.

 

[Roane]

But if it were merely a well understood biological phenomenon why would they have been thought to be a punishment from an angry god in the first place?



That is quite a few. Of there better known ones some existed, some may have existed or some may been a merging of a few people and some, like Adam or Noah didn't exists or were just stories or parables.

From an Abrahamic religion point of view they weren't seen as a generic punishment from an angry God. Specifically yes.

Sure we have beliefs that existed who had rituals to appease natural phenomena. Not always in a religious framework though.


With regards to the 125k not all are named. About 25-30 are. Including Noah, Moses, Adam, Isaac, Enoch, Jonas etc

 

[Moby]

My own view is to get people adhering to those texts properly and we would be better for it.

So back to the stubborn-ness with zero logic or any genuine interest in the so called wellbeing of everyone. I mean, how do people with such absolute rejection to any kind of reform even think of being on any kind of moral high ground with a straight face? As I said previously, you and the 'good faith' majority of all religions is hardwired into never being able to question a single word of these centuries old books. The whole 'only fringe elements are bad' is genuinely one of the most pathetic stances that majority of these people take while intentionally or unintentionally enabling exactly the kind of practices that apparently completely go against their beliefs. It's genuinely hopeless to expect any of these to come to their senses.

 

[Wibble]

I, with respect, could not disagree more with your first sentence. Atheism is not a movement with unified principles.

Even if it were unified how can a lack of belief be in any way a parallel of religion? I actually don't believe in anything, merely understand things based on the current evidence. I don't think that makes me a gravitationist church member.

 

[Wibble]

My own view is to get people adhering to those texts properly and we would be better for it.

All of the bits?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

certain strands of it are. the line which runs from Dawkins through the other latter day atheistic saints possesses a kind of unity. an unnecessary hostility. hitchens adopted it before he died too.

I assume you mean the so called "Four Horseman"? Very different characters.

Hitch was always an atheist, certainly from his ultra left wing days and, yes, aggressive and an agent provocateur.

Dawkins a highly successful biologist and, to my mind, not an aggressive character at all. He's old school University debater.

Dennett is a gentle and thoughtful man and as unaggressive as you could imagine.

Harris is a bit a dick.

They all only met once as far as I know and I don't think you could claim there is a sufficient commonality or detail around this group to really call it a movement.

But, fair enough, if you find atheism aggressive. I don't see it. It never comes up in my life and I never see atheist demonstrations or atheism ever mentioned really. In fact, in general, I think being religious is broadly seen as a "good thing" in of itself by society.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Even if it were unified how can a lack of belief be in any way a parallel of religion? I actually don't believe in anything, merely understand things based on the current evidence. I don't think that makes me a gravitationist church member.

Quite.

 

[Moby]

has an organization formed around a book, even science books, ever not been terrible? the eugenics movement wasn't religious but it's where we get nazism.

Don't think anyone has said religion is the only source of any evil practices, but it still has and continues to be one of the biggest sources and like any of those other sources, this shouldn't exist.

 

[neverdie]

Religion does play a part in society. What people want to believe or worship in their own time is their own business. But religion having any impact on government is a stain on society.

And in no way does it have to be biological. Animal behaviour can be genetic but doesn't have to be. You would need to prove how being religious gave a fitness (breeding) benefit and that it was also a genetically carried trait. I think it is far more likely that it is a deeply embed meme rather than a gene.

One of the things humans do really well is fill in gaps (sensory or factual) but as well as being a great ability it can also lead us astray when we fill the gaps incorrectly. I think religion often fills the gap of people not liking the idea that once you are gone that is it. Mental comfort food in effect.

just on the biological. isn't the argument that consciousness itself is what we recognise as religion? the bicameral mentality would posit it in something like those terms. a dialogical form of consciousness which means that the entry of dialogue often can, or did, sound like "god" speaking.

i agree with the principle of secular society btw. separation of religion and state, or church and state, is sensible.

 

[Carolina Red]

Morality has an evolutionary origin and predates religion, not the other way around.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/2/10/religion-hauser-moral-cognitive/

 

[Moby]

i agree with the principle of secular society btw. separation of religion and state, or church and state, is sensible.

It's never gonna happen because religion exists to control territory and states, not to teach people how to be good people or how the universe was created.

 

[neverdie]

Even if it were unified how can a lack of belief be in any way a parallel of religion? I actually don't believe in anything, merely understand things based on the current evidence. I don't think that makes me a gravitationist church member.

only because atheism is the negation of belief. that's not the fault of atheists but simply the way the world works. we didn't begin as atheists and come to believe in religion. at least the data wouldn't suggest that is how we got to the state of secularism. and when you form principles based in negation, surely that acts as a means of attraction? aren't atheists more likely to maintain common groups than otherwise? it becomes a kind of soft cult. don't mean that in a bad way, but not sure how else to put it. it maintains all the aspects of a group culture.