[Closed] Religion - theological question

Because the beliefs have been with them for centuries, probably run society at some point, been fought over etc.

vest interested

Some issues that the Christian church, never mind other religions, has debated for two millenia.

Lets see if STW manages to sort it out this evening, eh?

We just like to have somebody to blame, basically.

a) Adult discussion only please - this is STW 🙂
b) don't we all give preference to our own beliefs, whatever they happen to be ?

Believe that life has a higher purpose

I am at a loss why anyone else's purpose would be important than one's own

Believe that there is something after death

this seems to me a corrosive escapism - deal with stuff now instead of waiting for redemption

You know how all the Richard Dawkins lick arses on here will stop at nothing to belittle and ridicule anyone who shows even the slightest tendency toward spirituality?

It's like that only the other way round.

Because the beliefs have been with them for centuries

surely a belief is an individual thing and thus necessarily limited to a single lifespan ?

You know how all the Richard Dawkins lick arses on here will stop at nothing to belittle and ridicule anyone who shows even the slightest tendency toward spirituality?

I was going to reply to this but decided it demolishes itself...

I think I see just as much dogma in science as there is in religion (speaking as a shamanic Taoist 😀 )

I think I see just as much dogma in science as there is in religion

OK, slot "Science" in as another religion and then address the original questions ?

[i]I think I see just as much dogma in science as there is in religion [/i]

How can that be true? Over the years, science has revised and re-written it's theories/laws as new facts are discovered, put forward new hypotheses, proved/disproved them etc etc. Textbooks get updated, new facts are passed on, papers are published and are subjected to peer review and scrutiny, and someone then tries to move to the next step and so the cycle continues.

Religion doesn't do that, it sticks to the same basic premise. OK you can argue that the Bible has been edited/revised/rewritten by hundreds of authors over thousands of years but the same basic storyline is stuck to throughout.

How can that be true?

well one might say that the reductionist ideal is constantly undermined by fallible or self serving people. Also, there is so much to Science that most non-polymaths have to take a lot on trust as they'd never have time to check stuff for themselves

My question is fundamentaly what makes the faithful believe their answers have more merit than the answers of other cultures?

surely a belief is an individual thing and thus necessarily limited to a single lifespan ?
not necessarily certainly in olden times beliefs would have been handed down through the generations

Afterall a god(s) that was fully understandable to humans would have to be a pretty simple and uncomplicated thing(s)

this kinda begs the question of where one could start understanding a thing with no obvious manifestation in our sphere of existence. One can construct elaborate theories but at root it's guesswork

surely a belief is an individual thing and thus necessarily limited to a single lifespan ?

Hmm.

But individuals are part of Humanity, which is a constantly evolving thing, so therefore beliefs can evolve alongside?

I think one of the main problems is that Religious Doctrine tends to be set in stone, and has little or no scope to evolve accordingly. Exemplified perhaps in something like the Vatican condemning and forbidding the use of condoms while AIDS is rife in Catholic regions.

The religious people I know tend to follow a more pragmatic approach to faith, whilst following doctrine as close as is practical. I think this is why schisms occur within religions, when more pragmatic individuals and groups veer away from fundamentalism.

Where's Woppit?

If you can justify these three statements I will believe in religeon, until then forget it.......

God is good
God is all powerful
there is evil in the world.....

My question is fundamentaly what makes the faithful believe their answers have more merit than the answers of other cultures?

I don't think that applies only to religion.

Most people believe that the way they were brought up, has more merit than the way other people in different cultures are brought up. And that applies just as much to atheists.

Most people believe that their upbringing was superior to other peoples' upbringing.........the world would be very chaotic indeed, if we all started shopping around for different sets of values once we became adults.

Of course we might well have slightly different preferences and values to our parents, but generally speaking they are not major fundamental differences - certainly not on par with the differences which occur between cultures.

[i]what makes the faithful believe their answers have more merit than the answers of other cultures? [/i]

My gang is better than your gang...

My question is fundamentaly what makes the faithful believe their answers have more merit than the answers of other cultures?

Because the alternative would require admitting that you're wrong, which is hard. And that your ancesters were wrong, while someone else's were right.

But it's not only about whose dad could have whose dad - changing entrenched belief systems would also mean abandoning accepted points of reference, culture etc. For a religious person it would likely mean changing one's entire perception and understanding of the world.

And so they would lose what I guess are the main functions of religion: as an explainer, a guide, a comforter & a consoler. A useful fairy tale.

And people always seem to want an excuse to ruck.

Similarly I can't understand why you would:

-take the word of the Old testament but not the New
-teach the New testament but ignore the Old
-read the bible but not the Qu'ran (which is clearly written as a sequel to the bible).

Asking my Christian sister this question I got the answer that 'there was archaeological evidence for Jesus'

Which to my eyes dodges the question, I won't even debate that Jesus (and Moses etc) lived but that does not prove the existence of a god. Personally I feel that religion get onto very dodgy ground when it tries to provide evidence.
To me religion does require a massive leap of 'faith' which is obviously what it's all about.

Although that makes sense, it's not for me and it still leaves my question, Christians see it as part of their duty to spread the word but how can they tell someone Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc they have got it wrong when no religion can offer any more proof of it's truth than any other

My question is fundamentaly what makes the faithful believe their answers have more merit than the answers of other cultures?

Am I missing something big here? Surely this question answers itself.

If people thought another cultures answers had more merit then their own, they would instead believe in the other cultures, which would thus make it their culture.

For example, if you're a Christian, but you believe that the Muslim religion offers better answers, then it suggests you believe more in the Muslim religion then the Christian, so surely you are a Muslim.

People believe in what they think is right. There are thousands of reasons why people think one thing is right. Helmets vs no helmet. Tubeless vs tubes. Religion vs atheism.

For example, if you had someone who was running tubeless, but believed tubes were better, then you have someone who's a bit odd. If you have someone who believes in one religion, but thinks of themselves as a member of another religion, is this any different?

I got the answer that 'there was archaeological evidence for Jesus'

so if that turned out to be false the meaning of what he was supposed to have said would be lost ??

they would instead believe in the other cultures, which would thus make it their culture.

culture isn't the same thing as religion...

Read it as religion then, you must understand my point.

Read it as religion then, you must understand my point.

Of course he does. It's not going to stop him though. 🙂

muddybum.(You know how all the Richard Dawkins lick arses on here will stop at nothing to belittle and ridicule anyone who shows even the slightest tendency toward spirituality) oh dear 😯

Keep tyres out of it, or it'll turn nasty! 😆

simonfbarnes - Member

I got the answer that 'there was archaeological evidence for Jesus'

so if that turned out to be false the meaning of what he was supposed to have said would be lost ??

Irrelevant as there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of JC.

For example, if you're a Christian, but you believe that the Muslim religion offers better answers, then it suggests you believe more in the Muslim religion then the Christian, so surely you are a Muslim.

but how often do people investigate other beliefs to arrive at such decisions ?

but how often do people investigate other beliefs to arrive at such decisions ?

Cat Stevens did...and if it's good enough for him...

Cat Stevens did

one person, once ??

if you're a Christian, but you believe that the Muslim religion offers better answers, then it suggests you believe more in the Muslim religion then the Christian, so surely you are a Muslim

Correct, but I'd suggest that very few Christians have read the Qu'ran.

I suppose the real question is why do some people make a decision without investigating and understanding the alternatives?

Irrelevant as there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of JC.

is it, if someone believes there is ? But my point is, does religious belief depend on evidence or intrinsic merit?

My question is fundamentaly what makes the faithful believe their answers have more merit than the answers of other cultures?

Dunno, but supposing one religion was proved to be true, by miracles on demand, prayers being answered, appearance of the deity, or some other incontrovertible means, would the followers of all the other religions admit they were wrong ?

but I'd suggest that very few Christians have read the Qu'ran.

I tried reading the bible a few times but it was dead boring 🙁

but supposing one religion was proved to be true, by miracles on demand, prayers being answered, appearance of the deity

and how likely is that?

I have supposed that whatever gods there are have reached the rather obvious conclusion that providing incontrovertible evidence infringes free will and faith

I suppose the real question is why do some people make a decision without investigating and understanding the alternatives?

Because people are stupid/ignorant/lazy. Take your pick.

but I'd suggest that very few Christians have read the Qu'ran.

And nowadays, how many Christians have even read the bible? Religion isn't really about the book. IMO, most religions are exactly the same. Pray to god, don't hurt other people, etc etc. Just different names and different ways of going about it.

It's like a sort of cartel isn't it ?
Each religion knows that all the others are made up, so none of the others are going to prove that their's is made up as well.

Belief is exactly that - it has no need of evidence.
Science is a method used to describe the world around us and that is all it is. Science will not find a cure for cancer, scientists using scientific methods to test a hypothesis may.

Pray to god, don't hurt other people, etc etc.

hmmm, they don't seem to be all that good at the 2nd part 🙁

OMG a grown up discussion about faith! A few ramblings...

Doctrine/Dogma: People make a psychological and social commitment to certain ideas - ideas are mentally expensive to re-construct. e.g. TJ and helmets. I think that fundamentalism (in religion and science) is a psychological defect. I think that an important difference between fundamentalists and normal people is that fundamentalists think they know it all.

it suggests you believe more in the Muslim religion then the Christian, so surely you are a Muslim.

Not really IMO. I moved from atheist to Christian because of an interest in Buddhism! I very nearly started to practise Buddhism but decided that my tradition was really Christian. Being a non-fundamentalist Christian does not force me to reject other religions' ideas. Neither does it force me to accept all current Christian ideas. Only a fundamentalist believes there is a single path.

Perhaps something that confuses my atheist friends (it confused me for three decades) is that an idea without proof has little value - which is true in science. But practising religion is not scientific, and faith is not proof. Faith, and religion practised well, also have value for individuals and for societies; you may dispute that.

but decided that my tradition was really Christian

That's the bit I can never understand.

How do you decide what religion you are? Surely you believe in it or you don't.. I don't understand how it can be a concious decision.

I may decide to go on the road bike rather then the mountain bike because my camelbak is leaky or something. But once I'm on the bike, I don't decide to believe I can go around that corner at whatever speed, I either already believe I can, or I believe I can't.