Religion, what's the point?

Werewolf said:
Please, if you don't know something, refrain from making comments. You are coming off as a complete ignorant.
Read about the scientific methods used in social sciences. However, if you don't accept scientific evidence then say it loud and stop waisting my time.


Given the assumption that all humans' nature is to believe in one single God, we should expect an overwhelming evidence in religion's history. However, it appears from evidence gathered that this is not the case. The assumption that humans fundamentally believe in one God is very very strong and should be backed with undisputable evidence. This is hardly the case.


I certainly can't say that nobody believed in a single God. But there were no major monotheistic religions which is inconsistent with the assumption of "Fitrah". Again, you seem to have problems with logical thinking.
Click to expand...

Present your "evidences". And let's talk about them.

You're judging again based on the outcome, totally neglecting the other factors that lead to the outcome. And then you talk about logic, the irony..

All clothes are made clean. That's how they are made. But all of them get dirty when used.. The fact that they all get dirty doesn't mean that they were made dirty, no, they were still clean when they were made.. How is this tough to understand I don't know..
 
Silva said:
Have you found the evidence?

There is evidence that Jesus and Mohammed were lunatics who spread their message, there's nothing similar for Abraham.
Click to expand...

Does the lack of evidence means that something doesn't exist? (Again) :)

Especially in this case, where there are similar people proven to exist, why Abraham suddenly "can't exist"?!
 
Danny1982 said:
Present your "evidences". And let's talk about them.
Click to expand...
Do you need evidence that ancient people followed polytheism ? Read about Ancient Egypt mythology.

Here is a link which gives you some insight on Ancient Mesopotamian religion (see the list of Gods for details on artifacts and iconography) :
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/


You're judging again based on the outcome, totally neglecting the other factors that lead to the outcome. And then you talk about logic, the irony..

All clothes are made clean. That's how they are made. But all of them get dirty when used.. The fact that they all get dirty doesn't mean that they were made dirty, no, they were still clean when they were made.. How is this tough to understand I don't know..
Click to expand...

Quite unbelievable how religion can completely cloud someone's judgement. I am not even going to bother with your poor analogy.
 
FAO all those here who are under the illusion that Science wiill disprove religion...

Max Planck
"It was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls."
Click to expand...

Erwin Schroedinger
"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, god and eternity."
Click to expand...

William H. Bragg
"From religion comes a man's purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped."
Click to expand...
.
.
and finally
.
.
Albert Einstein

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain so-called primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted.
Click to expand...

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals andevaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.
Click to expand...

Einstein's conclusion: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"
 
Danny1982 said:
Does the lack of evidence means that something doesn't exist? (Again) :)
Click to expand...

Oftentimes it does, yes.

A case in point would be the complete lack of evidence of monotheistic beliefs in the Stone Age meaning that your Fitrah doesn't exist.

You say this isn't crucial anyway, that different Muslim sects disagree over what's crucial to Islam and what's not, so I ask you again: why is god mentioning things that aren't crucial in the holy text? Surely every word of the Quran is absolutely crucial?

Just like the Bible, the Quran is supposedly the word of god written to guide us on our devout lives and secure our passages to heaven; but, just like the Bible, the Quran is undeniably full of errors and contradictions. When studied meticulously it seems clear that god gives out all kinds of mixed messages and on occasion advises outright atrocity and immorality (ex: the stoning and beating of women and the sin of homosexuality); so how could the direct word of god be so poorly depicted as this?

If it's just a matter of poor translation on the part of humans then nevertheless god is to blame as it's entirely illogical that any god will have allowed his word to be so inexpertly reproduced. The existence of the holy texts is yet one more thing indicative of a contrary, vengeful, blundering and morally flawed god; yet we're expected to believe that god is anything but these things! Further evidence that god in fact does not exist; clearly not an infallible superbeing but instead the demonstrably flawed creation of man.
 
Fruitcake

The last of those scientists died in 1961, 52 years ago. Religion has died a considerable death in Western society since then and science has moved on considerably too. The societies that those scientists grew up in were still very religious, there was societal pressure for religious apologism from scientists in those days. The landscape is very different now. That is why you get great academics like Dawkin's and Hitchen's going for the religions jugular with fervent enthusiasm. The majority of Western scientists now identify themselves as atheist. Thankfully our society now allows them to do so without fear of derision.
 
Fruit Cake said:
FAO all those here who are under the illusion that Science wiill disprove religion...

Max Planck


Erwin Schroedinger


William H. Bragg

.
.
and finally
.
.
Albert Einstein





Einstein's conclusion: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that you've proved anything by bringing up these quotes. You haven't. And science has disproved countless religious myths.

Einstein was an atheist by the way (he called himself an agnostic and rejected the term atheist, but that's either because of semantical confusion, or because being an atheist was frowned upon)). You've misunderstood his quote. Here are a few more quotes from him:

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
Click to expand...

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."
Click to expand...

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Click to expand...

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
Click to expand...
 
Saliph said:
You seem to be under the impression that you've proved anything by bringing up these quotes. You haven't. And science has disproved countless religious myths.
Click to expand...

You know there is a reason they are called 'myths' in the first place. By definition "Myths may arise as either truthful depictions or overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. They are transmitted to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach". A releigion has a lot more to offer than myths.

Einstein opposed to having a 'personal god' but not of religion per se. Science does not talk about morality. Though morality does not require releigion, religion does strive to offer guidance and principles that work for the betterment of humanity as a whole. I do support that religion has to change with science and following outdated concepts work negatively, but that does not derail the purpose of religion, only it's current use. Even then not all religious people are misled and naive and outdated as people here claim. Lots do benefit and perform good simple because they are 'religious'. I think you are confusing purpose with use.

ciderman9000000 said:
Oftentimes it does, yes.
Click to expand...

..and in many cases it does not. It is not an absolute. Refer argumentum ad ignorantiam. I did post this before...lack of evidence just means it is not known...yet. It is not to be taken as a proof of absence.
 
Ask yourself the question "Does the concept of a divine god and concepts of heaven and hell help you better in living a moral life?" If yes, choose to be religions. If not, be a freethinker or atheist or whatever. If others need more support in living morally, then who are you to question that?

I dont understand the concept of militant atheism. It is as bad as forced conversions.
 
Fruit Cake said:
Ask yourself the question "Does the concept of a divine god and concepts of heaven and hell help you better in living a moral life?" If yes, choose to be religions. If not, be a freethinker or atheist or whatever. If others need more support in living morally, then who are you to question that?

I dont understand the concept of militant atheism. It is as bad as forced conversions.
Click to expand...



These threads tend to be somewhat akin to thought experiments where we challenge one another's ideas. If you were to say God, religion and so on, help you live a better, more moral life - then you're likely to get challenged based on the moral indiscretions of all the religions throughout history. More broadly, there seems to be a rather disturbing epistemological problem wherein those who believe in most organized religions find their beliefs to be unprovable based on what we understand knowledge to be. At that point, belief in religion becomes a collective interpretation of man made ideas that have been sporadically disseminated throughout the ages. Religions are therefore just ideas that were invented by people throughout history. Unfortunately, from an Atheists perspective, those ideas are not only morally flawed, but also unprovable in the fundamental reality that we all share. So going back to your original point of whether religion helps people life a more moral life - you should expect the relationship between religion and morality to be firmly scrutinized in debates such as the one in this thread.
 
This thread made me put 3 people in my ignore list. I do think there is plenty of room for the 2 camps to have dialogue. But some of the examples posted on here and the manner of such examples presented I'm finding very hard to think it's possible for some representatives of Atheism to reach a sophisticated level morality and therefore dialogue. This includes some 'religious' people too in general terms but not so much from this thread.

To treat all religions like jenga is childlish. This is re-enforced by a statement like juju in the bottom of the ocean. Some people think that if someone called Ali or Mohammad is automatically a Muslim which again shows how ignorance is a human trait regardless of the discipline.

I have yet to see a post on here (a reasonable argument which not based on a spaghetti dish) which explores for example consciousness. Personally, I think science encourages enquiry not dismissiveness. If there is something I can't figure out, I'll put it aside and come back to it later when I have better data.

My 'faith' encourages me to better myself by self analysis and to think about the consequences of my actions be it physical or verbal. What I have discovered on here is science cannot teach you manners. Yes it can identify or categorise various elements of our behaviour but it practical terms religion can speed up the learning far more quickly than 'nature' can.

@Raoul: I have actually took the time to watch your 1.5 hour (Hitchens with the Rabbis) video and I do have some questions to expand my thinking but I know now from this thread that others will reply with juju monsters and virgins etc. To me that's not scrutiny... it's bullying.
 
What kind of argument would you want to see which explores consciousness? It's just neurons flying around in your brain. There's nothing mystical about it.

Science does encourage inquiry, but even the slightest inquiry into the religions shows them to be societal constructs. They're really not worth taking seriously.
 
Fruit Cake said:
...and in many cases it does not. It is not an absolute. Refer argumentum ad ignorantiam. I did post this before...lack of evidence just means it is not known...yet. It is not to be taken as a proof of absence.
Click to expand...

It's not definitive proof, no, but of course no definitive proof of the nonexistence of anything can be reasonably expected.

To any reasonable mind though a complete lack of evidence alongside a fair degree of evidence to the contrary is all the proof one needs to reasonably state that something doesn't exist.

This is where the devout and scientific minds collide. The devout mind believes something entirely without evidence to support those beliefs and wholly in spite of the ever increasing evidence that conflicts with those beliefs.

The devout mind is by definition unreasonable. This is why religion is doomed; because religious beliefs are unsustainable in the modern era of reason.
 
Raoul said:
Religions are therefore just ideas that were invented by people throughout history.
Click to expand...
Anyone who doubts this should read Frazer's 'The Golden Bough'. I becomes clear that 'modern' religion is simply a more sophisticated descendent of primitive magic by which ancient peoples sought to interpret and control nature.
 
Danny1982 said:
Do you agree if somebody doesn't show respect for homosexuals, or homosexuality?
Click to expand...

There's a tiny difference between laughing at someone for who they are, rather than for what they believe.

Other than that, I find homophobia to be sordid, but if you have an objection to sexual preferences, by all means try to express it. You won't have a leg to stand on of course, but as long as you don't advocate and incite violence, or discrimination you'll shouldn't be obliged to show respect, and people often don't. It's a weird notion anyway, showing respect for one's sexual orientation. It would be like someone saying: "I respect you because you have dark hair".

I'm probably indulging this weird tangent needlessly. Not sure what this tenuous analogy is supposed to demonstrate.
 
peterstorey said:
Anyone who doubts this should read Frazer's 'The Golden Bough'. I becomes clear that 'modern' religion is simply a more sophisticated descendent of primitive magic by which ancient peoples sought to interpret and control nature.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendation. I have added it to my reading list.
 
Every time I dip into this thread there's always someone who completely fails to understand science's role in the world, and continues to persist with the idea that it's failed to, and is even TRYING to replace religion's moral code.

Unless you subscribe to some of Sam Harris's theories, it doesn't even come into it. This thinking seems to work under the assumption that science is deliberately trying to replace religion step by step. As if some evil scientists sat around one day and plotted it;

"First we'll replace it's facts, then we'll replace it's morality, then we'll take over the World!! Mwa ha ha ha!"

What? All science has ever tried to do is work things out, prove fact in it's own way and generally ignores religion, occasionally coming into conflict with it's outdated views of the Universe as a consequence.

Morality is something completely different you get from other places, in the way plenty of people throughout history, before religion, and yonks before Abrahamic religions managed to do on their own (otherwise everyone would've just been murdering, raping and killing everyone else constantly for millennia until the end of the roman empire. Somehow we did actually manage to survive as a species with rules and codes and laws quite a long way before the current model of religion began to surface)

Parents teach you morality. Teachers, peer groups, role models teach you morality. History & life teach you morality. And if they can't convince you of it's in-life consequences without resorting to comforting notions of post-life justice then either they're just not very good at being parents, teachers or role models or you're not very good at life.
 
Abbsta said:
If that's your logic, you are a sick man. GTFO.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to specifically offend you but your stance is a bit hypocritical. If I understand your religion (islam?) right, you're one of the religions that doesn't like the re-incarnation hypothesis and holds the theory that life in this world is a blink of an eye compared to everlasting life in eternity. By killing as many babies as possible soon after birth (or in fact by aborting them), you're basically guaranteeing them heaven and eternal bliss. This especially applies to babies born in households of other religions since because of parental brainwashing, they're starting with a high probability of going to hell. You'd be doing a kindness by guaranteeing their heaven residency before they had a chance to start to make the wrong choices.
 
Werewolf said:
Do you need evidence that ancient people followed polytheism ? Read about Ancient Egypt mythology.

Here is a link which gives you some insight on Ancient Mesopotamian religion (see the list of Gods for details on artifacts and iconography) :
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/




Quite unbelievable how religion can completely cloud someone's judgement. I am not even going to bother with your poor analogy.
Click to expand...

No, not that.. It's even mentioned in the Quran, and I already said it. It's when you stretch the "evidence" to claim things that are not really supported by that "evidence", that's when I object.

The analogy actually quite clearly answers your question, whether you want to stop or continue the debate is up to you.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Oftentimes it does, yes.

A case in point would be the complete lack of evidence of monotheistic beliefs in the Stone Age meaning that your Fitrah doesn't exist.

You say this isn't crucial anyway, that different Muslim sects disagree over what's crucial to Islam and what's not, so I ask you again: why is god mentioning things that aren't crucial in the holy text? Surely every word of the Quran is absolutely crucial?

Just like the Bible, the Quran is supposedly the word of god written to guide us on our devout lives and secure our passages to heaven; but, just like the Bible, the Quran is undeniably full of errors and contradictions. When studied meticulously it seems clear that god gives out all kinds of mixed messages and on occasion advises outright atrocity and immorality (ex: the stoning and beating of women and the sin of homosexuality); so how could the direct word of god be so poorly depicted as this?

If it's just a matter of poor translation on the part of humans then nevertheless god is to blame as it's entirely illogical that any god will have allowed his word to be so inexpertly reproduced. The existence of the holy texts is yet one more thing indicative of a contrary, vengeful, blundering and morally flawed god; yet we're expected to believe that god is anything but these things! Further evidence that god in fact does not exist; clearly not an infallible superbeing but instead the demonstrably flawed creation of man.
Click to expand...

Wrong. This is not what science says.
 
Moonwalker said:
There's a tiny difference between laughing at someone for who they are, rather than for what they believe.
Click to expand...

Why? Where do you think my behavior/belief came from?! Isn't it all Genetics?! Isn't it all in the DNA?

Is there is anything more to a human being than his DNA??
 
Fantastic public speaking from Oxford University's 'Union', the most famous debating society in the world. A lot to learn about style, posture as well as the subject matter. ​

Subject: Islam is a peaceful religion.​

Mehdi Hasan is a prominent British journalist. He recently moved from the New Statesman to become political editor of the Huffington Post. He is also a graduate of Oxford University where he attained a 1st class degree reading Philosophy, Politics and Economics.​
​
​
 
Danny1982 said:
Are you claiming that the plethora of scientists believe that the lack of evidence for existence means an evidence for lack of existence?
Click to expand...

Because all scientific theories are based on some evidence, be it physical or mathematical. If, however, there is nothing to suggest that the hypothesis should be taken seriously, it's not taken as true and the lack of evidence is enough.

I've linked you to this page before, feel free to actually read it this time because you don't seem too familiar with the concept of a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
 
Silva said:
Because all scientific theories are based on some evidence, be it physical or mathematical. If, however, there is nothing to suggest that the hypothesis should be taken seriously, it's not taken as true and the lack of evidence is enough.

I've linked you to this page before, feel free to actually read it this time because you don't seem too familiar with the concept of a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Click to expand...

Answer my question with a clear Yes or No.
 
 
The gist of the philosophy of science is that absolute proof of anything is an impossible goal, but that we can make what are seemingly extremely accurate educated guesses nevertheless by being reasonable and discarding the incredibly implausible.

Consider an entirely unsubstantiated theory which I'm about to pluck from thin air as an example of how we cannot definitively prove anything at all:

"There exists a super-powerful, telekinetic and infallible lobster living at the bottom of the sea who tampers with the output of every scientific device ever created with the intention of causing humans to believe anything but the reality of every situation they test."

If the above theory was correct then every truth produced by science to date would in fact be false.

Can we prove that this lobster doesn't exist? Of course we can't. Does the fact that we cannot prove the nonexistence of this malevolent lobster render science impotent? Of course it doesn't.

Science disregards the completely implausible by being an extremely practical instrument of reason and logic. We know full well that it isn't impossible that the lobster exists, but we can nevertheless say with great conviction and assured accuracy that the lobster doesn't exist, because the chances of its existence would be infinitesimal.

Using the same logic a reasonable mind must rule out the existence of god.
 
Raoul said:
Religions are therefore just ideas that were invented by people throughout history. Unfortunately, from an Atheists perspective, those ideas are not only morally flawed, but also unprovable in the fundamental reality that we all share. So going back to your original point of whether religion helps people life a more moral life - you should expect the relationship between religion and morality to be firmly scrutinized in debates such as the one in this thread.
Click to expand...

Let's define morality: A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) . Morals can exist without religions, but where is the standard? What I consider moral may not be accepted by you and vice versa. I believe Religion is one of the popular means which establishes a standard set of moral codes. It offers people a means of escape through spirituality when the cold logic of science does not offer hope. Anthropologists John Monoghan and Peter Just state that, "it seems apparent that one thing religion or belief helps us do is deal with problems of human life that are significant, persistent, and intolerable. One important way in which religious beliefs accomplish this is by providing a set of ideas about how and why the world is put together that allows people to accommodate anxieties and deal with misfortune.".

If you look at the core of all religions (ignoring the myths and stories) they all have one objective...betterment of human being as a individual and as a society. If I start a thread on morality and moral codes, I'm sure it will be a equally divided debate as this. What a religion attempts is the prescribe a common code of morality so that any common man can follow. Not everyone is a philosopher and many do need guidance on morality. The codes against harm, jealousy, greed etc are common and are still valid in current day and time...much more so. And religion is one tool which enforces that through threats of spiritual means.

Mockney said:
Every time I dip into this thread there's always someone who completely fails to understand science's role in the world, and continues to persist with the idea that it's failed to, and is even TRYING to replace religion's moral code.

Morality is something completely different you get from other places, in the way plenty of people throughout history, before religion, and yonks before Abrahamic religions managed to do on their own (otherwise everyone would've just been murdering, raping and killing everyone else constantly for millennia until the end of the roman empire. Somehow we did actually manage to survive as a species with rules and codes and laws quite a long way before the current model of religion began to surface)

Parents teach you morality. Teachers, peer groups, role models teach you morality. History & life teach you morality. And if they can't convince you of it's in-life consequences without resorting to comforting notions of post-life justice then either they're just not very good at being parents, teachers or role models or you're not very good at life.
Click to expand...

One, Science does not have a moral code.

Two, roman empire was around 44BC whereas the earliest man made evidence of worship existed
from around 9100 BC (link) much earlier than that.

Three, how do you convince a child what what is good and what is evil? Is there a standard definition for those? and why would any person choose to be "good"? Murder and rape are easy, but what about convincing kids about greed & jealousy? If they ask, why...what would your answer be? "Psychologist Matt J. Rossano argues that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behaviour to include supernatural agents. By including ever-watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups. The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival."

In the same context, I recommend you read this article from National Geographic:

We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization.
 
Yes, morality is a complicated issue. We might actually have to use our brain a little bit on that one.

But that's a daunting task for the 'common man', so let's have a textbook instead.
 
I'm with Sam Harris on morality, at least until I hear a good counter-argument against him. I think it's a remarkably philosophically elegant theory that makes a lot of sense.
 
Religion won't survive anyway regardless of any higher levels of morality it may or may not instill in the devout. Religion requires belief in order to operate; if that belief breaks down – as it is doing and will continue to do so under the onslaught of rapidly mounting evidence against it – then no amount of supposed higher moral standing will ensure its continued existence. Human civilisation will have to find another means of perpetuating its morals through the generations; one that doesn't by requirement rely upon the mass delusion of its many populations through the indoctrinated beliefs in imaginary beings. I'm sure we'll cope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.