[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.

Bikes aren't religion, RealMan.

Try thinking about religion as a religion and stop comparing it to road bikes v MTBs - it may help.

You're not getting my point. At all. I'm comparing belief to choice. They're different, surely?

Neither does it force me to accept all current Christian ideas

This is what I don't understand. Why accept some aspects of a book/religion/doctrine/whatever, but not others? How do you decide which in the absence of evidence? Gut feeling? Doesn't that make you agnostic?

I normally stay out of these dicussions as they always end up the same way ...polarised.

I will however make a single point!

Faith requires a suspension of reason. The common mistake being that as you cannot prove neither the existance or non-existance of God then the theory of God is just as valid as say the 'big bang' theory.

I belive in the big bang theory because the evidence points me in that direction and of all the answers it is the most probable. This does not mean that I would not revise my belief if the evidence were to change.

For this reason faith is incompatible with science.

So if you like going to church and praying five times a day? Well good on you if it makes you happy. But please don't try to tell me that I will burn in hell for not having faith. I'm happy to take that chance.

Mr Frodo

And if you can accept some aspects of a religion while dismissing others, it's not so different to those of us that dismiss all of it.

Religion is something you have to practice. As a Engineer with a strong interest in science, I find it extremely hard to put aside my rationality. Faith is not a muscle that gets exercised much.

Can you manual your bike? Think of it as learning how to manual your bike.

I think your point about being able to reject some religious ideas and/or all being the same is valid. I have no problem with Atheism. Atheists can be good people too 🙂

For this reason faith is incompatible with science.

happen so, but that wasn't the question, though of course unless you conduct the experiments yourself you have to believe whoever it was that claims the results

as for "burning in hell", any god that would inflict that for lack of belief in the face of equivocal evidence would deserve nothing but contempt!

Religion is something you have to practice. As a Engineer with a strong interest in science, I find it extremely hard to put aside my rationality. Faith is not a muscle that gets exercised much.

I appreciate you trying to explain it, but you could say the same about a lot of things. I rarely exercise my belief in fairies/dragons/ghosts 'muscle' - by your logic I if I practiced I would believe? Perhaps that's true but why is that a [b]good[/b] thing?

"burning in hell", any god that would inflict that ... would deserve nothing but contempt!

Absolutely. God does not want you to suffer. A little faith in God, may save a man from a personal hell.

I also usually stay out of these things as arguing on the internet is like shouting at a duck, quite satisfying initially but can only end in frustration and embarrassing misunderstanding...

Why do religions differ? Each religious structure may be the cultural exposition of a universal idea, in that all people* experience a god consciousness that is filtered through a cultural understanding of the reality they exist in. Spiritual texts are experiences of god in a context, socially and historically. The Qu'ran may be an experience of the same god as the Bible, indeed most scholars would back this up. Whether the stories are literally true is another issue.

Is faith a suspension of reason? I don't believe so. We experience reality through a filter of consciousness, my truth is not necessarily yours and it is (as yet) impossible to verify the validity of the data we receive. A belief in the divine may be the result of rational analysis of data available - existence demands initial impetus cal it god if you want.

Can atheism offer morality - yes an atheist can be a moral agent but can a godless universe support an empirical morality? I don't think so. I understand the requirements of moral code for societies to function but even hat is a fairly shaky explanation - there are plenty of examples where successful evolution demands a step away from social morality and even if that weren't the case the morality of society is entirely without lasting foundation. I struggle to understand how any materialist atheist is not compelled to become nihilistic or at least a gyroscopic libertarian.

I'd describe myself as an active agnostic with significant theistic tendencies or as John Updike puts it "I just can't seem to shake it"...

*all people refers to the 'people of the earth' rather than you, yes you, the one at the back with no soul...

belief in fairies/dragons/ghosts ... Perhaps that's true but why is that a good thing?

A very good question I think. I don't think belief in dragons, fairies, ghosts and space aliens is going to add value.

can a godless universe support an empirical morality?

A very very important question I think. One motivation for me to take up religion was an inability to continue justifying moral behaviour. How can we look at a history of human behaviour and still say we have faith in humanity?

ps.

There is some weight in the argument that science is not a linear understanding of the world, constantly moulding itself to new evidence but rather a series of paradigms defended by the old guard in the face of opposition, just like...er...religion?

The fairies/ ghosts/ dragons argument is not a particularly rigorous one in that a commonly understood experience of a reality with a deity in it is shared and reviewed by plenty of peers, whereas fairytale creatures may be the preserve of an individual.

People can believe in just what the hell they like just so long as they don't try to force their own ideology on me, and that includes political as well as religious. I have my own ideas about how the universe works that I'm quite happy with, that don't involve any particular deity, but Buddhism probably gets closest, with hints of paganism here and there. I have actually read chunks of the Bible, and the Q'ran as well, in fact I had an app on my phone for a while as I was curious as to how Islamists could justify many of their actions. They can't, basically.

On complex matters of theology I would refer you to the learned scholar

[img] [/img]

Didn't someone once ask Ricky Gervais about being an atheist and how it would look in the eyes of God. His reply was along the lines of if he died and met God and was asked why he was an atheist he would just blame God as he created him!

but can a godless universe support an empirical morality?

sounds good but what does it mean ?

I struggle to understand how any materialist atheist is not compelled to become nihilistic or at least a gyroscopic libertarian.

perhaps all others' beliefs are incomprehensible ? Fortunately we are not required to believe stuff for other people...

One motivation for me to take up religion was an inability to continue justifying moral behaviour.

is not the desire to be treated fairly suuficient ?

The fairies/ ghosts/ dragons argument is not a particularly rigorous one in that a commonly understood experience of a reality with a deity in it is shared and reviewed by plenty of peers, whereas fairytale creatures may be the preserve of an individual.

again, I don't know what this means 🙁

Adult discussion only please

ask Ricky Gervais

😉

Faith, and religion practised well, also have value for individuals and for societies; you may dispute that.

Well I do dispute that but I am willing to be persuaded if you be so kind as to demonstrate what the value to both the individual and society in general are, although I would appreciate a balance with the undoubted harm that it has also done.

Absolutely. God does not want you to suffer. A little faith in God, may save a man from a personal hell.

Ah pascal's wager. Sorry but that sort of argument is bollox. It effectively says that "god" is bullying you into having "faith" thereby overriding free will which is inherent in all Christian faiths that I am aware of. Saying that someone [i]must[/i] have faith is surely an example of cognitive dissonance. Is not faith something that you have to either accept (as you have) or reject (as I have) on your own terms?

I don't think belief in dragons, fairies, ghosts and space aliens is going to add value.

Why not? After all ghosts would demonstrate and after life (thereby reinforcing your faith in God) and is there are space alien then there is probably a lot we could learn thereby adding benefit although it would undermine most religious teachings that man is somehow a favoured being.

I struggle to understand how any materialist atheist is not compelled to become nihilistic or at least a gyroscopic libertarian

God may or may not exist, but a moral structure in society certainly does. My values are of course originally based on Anglo-Saxon Christian ideas, but the society in which I live has evolved from that a fair way. An awful lot of accepted morals were arrived at by debate and philosophising in the 19th century and disseminated. I find myself rather proud of that heritage in fact. So a secular moral culture can certainly exist, and arguably does.

Ultimately, I try to be as nice as possible to other people, because it makes me feel good. That's basically it. There's evidence for a this kind of behaviour buried very deep in our evolutionary history, I seem to recall. So you could say it was in-built. However there is also the tendency to be crappy towards abstract people to whom you cannot relate directly (ie that aren't standing infront of you), hence a lot of bad parts of history.

To the OP, it's fairly easy to reconcile the different religions. They are all different manifestations of the same divine thing. Bear in mind though that religion is more than just the books it's based on, or the creation stories. It's a body of thought and belief that's evolved over many years. So just because the canonical texts of various religions are at odds, doesn't mean the actual faiths necessarily are.

Morality can exist without religeon. Religeon is simply a way for people to frame rules. If you look at the Bible, Q'ran or any holy text the rules were creasted at the time it was written which is why many seem out of place now but at the time would have made perfect sense. For example the treatment of women and selection of allowable food etc ....

Our morality has evolved with us and the need to cooperate and look after one another. The zeitgeist has generally become more caring and colective as the human species has developed. Look at modern britain compared to the dark ages, eqaulity in law, the NHS and welfare state. Exacly as religen is dimishing as an influence on modern life.

All I can say is lets not let religeon and fundamentalists to drag us back to the dark ages.

Do you need to be an atheist to be able to look at religion as an obvious social construct?

This is my tribe. If you are in my tribe, you will dress a certain way, you will behave in a certain way, you will only marry and procreate with someone from the tribe, and you will teach your children the ways of the tribe.

It's about social control in a primitive social environment, and has been very very successful in terms of longevity, until people have developed sufficiently to begin to understand how it works and question it.

The funniest thing is watching gatherings of 'religious leaders' all getting along so well, when one of the fundamental tenets of all major
religions is 'be like us, not like them or you will go to hell or (insert punishment of choice)'.

Funny things, people.

Thread killed, unless you're all saying your prayers..... 😉

God/religion is a concept that exists in the mind and imagination. The fact it exists in the minds/imaginations of over 90% of the worlds population must, at least, give it meaning, only as a concept. It's not something tangible you can measure and quantify. Atheism just meaning everyone else is stupid isn't something I can subscribe to either though.

To the OP, it's fairly easy to reconcile the different religions. They are all different manifestations of the same divine thing.

a religion is a manifestion of a belief, not a god

Bear in mind though that religion is more than just the books it's based on, or the creation stories. It's a body of thought and belief that's evolved over many years. So just because the canonical texts of various religions are at odds, doesn't mean the actual faiths necessarily are.

so why don't they all merge?

I wrote a long response to Monkeeknutz's post, but other people got there quicker and better. So have [url=

instead.

so why don't they all merge?

Ah, the joys of ecumenism. I think monkeeknutz had it with

Why do religions differ? Each religious structure may be the cultural exposition of a universal idea, in that all people* experience a god consciousness that is filtered through a cultural understanding of the reality they exist in. Spiritual texts are experiences of god in a context, socially and historically.

Religions can get together an agree strongly on lots of stuff, but changing views formed a long time ago is slightly harder - especially when so much of the flavour of the religion and the culture is defined by those views

Ah pascal's wager.

Hope of reciprocity was not enough for me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I notice that most people simply suit themselves most of the time, regardless of the effect on others, as long as they are permitted to. Secondly there are circumstances where I would also suit myself but then worry about the morality of that. This seems like natural, logical behaviour and I was despondent about it.

So perhaps faith benefits me by helping justify the moral behaviour I want. Perhaps if there was more of that in society it would be more meaningful, happy and resilient.

The questions about what the religions say is and is not moral behaviour comes next!

I think faiths have merged - belief in one/zero God is now most prevalent. I think ideas will continue to unify in line with the growth in global communication and travel. I think that as the interconnections increase, humanity seems increasingly like a hive mind.

So perhaps faith benefits me by helping justify the moral behaviour I want. Perhaps if there was more of that in society it would be more meaningful, happy and resilient.

the trouble is that people within religions use it to justify the moral behaviour and outcomes [i]they[/i] want - and not always with a happy ending. If you need religion/faith to behave morally, it rather casts doubt on your true character.

Bottom line - Certainty is dangerous, causes wars, abuse of power and cruelty. Religion is predicated on certainty based on a lack of empirical evidence and allows any nutjob to set up and justify their own faith. Science should start with acceptance of lack of certainty and move forwards, but because it involves humans - often it experiences just the same belief/faith pattern that religion does, but at least starts by admitting that it may not know .

And religions cannot all be right - far more likely that all are wrong.

The people of Tanna worship their own god - Prince Phillip.

Now this sounds really bizarre. Surely these people are nuts, but at least their god is a real person.

Religion, yawn!

Religion, yawn!

but isn't religion an attempt to understand existence? How can that be boring ? A failed attempt perhaps, but at least trying...

you can't say religion is boring. just look at the art! the buildings!

Just look at all the threads !

And the [i]size[/i] of the threads !

STW [i]loves[/i] religion !

heeeooUUGe!!

I'm trying my best, I'm making a big pot of chilli with lots of contarsting coloured ingredients. As much as I stir it and let it settle. As much as I try to see the face of God. As of yet, I've seen the face of Mathew Kelley and Russell Crow and Noel Edmonds. perhaps I need to change my perception.

God/religion is a concept that exists in the mind and imagination.

But why do we form that concept? Why do we, as a species, seem to need God/s?Why do we constantly strive to find meaning to everything, when a cah is content just chewing grass, shitting, going moo now and then and sleeping? Why have we evolved from primitive creatures to the incredibly complex beings we are now, with language and social organisation?

And when I sometimes sit and ponder the absurdity of Human existence, together with the preposterousness of the supposed vastness of the Universe, I simply can't accept that it's all just an accident. Nah, not having that. That's rubbish, limiting, nihilistic and quite frankly, boring. Nope. Not having it.

Even a cah has a point to it's life. Even an amoeba.

Atheism is like Vegetarian Bacon.