The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Demetrius]

Tydeus,
To solve the paradox of GOD with the whole time thing is fairly simple (in my mind at least), GOD is not temporal; he is omnipresent, in all places and times. We being corporeal and temporal cannot function or comprehend things in that scope. This is somewhat akin to what I am saying.

I think there is also some confusion in terminology involving religion as the semi-political entity of the church (historically the Catholic Church), and the actual personal set of beliefs and personal relationship with GOD (in Christianity).

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

I'm not being unfair. I dare you to come up with a mark on humankind made by religion that hasn't been negative.

Genetics: Started by Austrian Monks.

Education: Most schools and modern education system started by churches and missions originally.

History: Printing press and keeping of historical records in monasteries.

Art: Do I even need to list the number of paintings, sculptures, and the like that have been inspired by the Bible?

Civil Rights: Rev. Martin Luther King Jr,

Abolishment of Slavery: Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, Abraham Lincoln, a Christian.

Development of modern democracy: John Locke, wrote treatise of government which inspired the American Constitution and promoted gender/racial equality based on rationalization from Scripture.

Anti-Vietnam War: Rev. William Sloan Coffin.


I could keep going, but I think my point has been made. In fact, for your 'religious wars' point I could also say very few wars have been solely religious. Usually they're a political maneuver by a charismatic leader who simply uses religion to control the populace. So even then, its bad man using something for bad purposes. Religion was just a misused tool, not the cause.

You see, Locke, when people take an extreme stance on a philosophical subject without making any concessions, they become that much easier to dismiss. If you take points of view that are blatantly wrong, even to those who would generally agree with you, the leaps and gaps in your logic come to a conclusion which becomes very easy to rip apart. In fact, most of your premises are highly debatable (and some are outright obviously wrong). If you want to persuade or convince people, you have to take a well-rounded approach which will appeal to people. Otherwise you might come across as uninformed or immature about the subject, and we wouldn't want that now would we?

In fact, even before your call for "specific examples of the good of religion", you failed to give any specific examples of the bad. They were generalizations. There are specific examples, to be sure, but not in 'science=only good, religion=only bad' that you imply. In fact the biggest wars of our time (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Cold War) weren't religious at all... in fact you could say some of the concepts of Communism and Nazism came from the deductive, philosophical reasoning you prize so much. Godless societies (Soviet Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany) have been just as warlike, or more so, than Christian societies. If religion was the cause of wars, that would imply those places would be havens of peace.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Tydeus,
To solve the paradox of GOD with the whole time thing is fairly simple (in my mind at least), GOD is not temporal; he is omnipresent, in all places and times. We being corporeal and temporal cannot function or comprehend things in that scope. This is somewhat akin to what I am saying.

Actually, the paradox arose from the idea of an omnipresent God, which exists in all times at once. To quote myself (bold added):

"I suppose the only counter-argument to offer is that God knows our decision only after we make it, in the future, or something? But then we have a God who exists in all times at once, and a non-linear idea of time. And then we, at a given instant, would be coexisting with ourselves at all other instants throughout our life. Of course, this would mean infinite selves, which is awkward certainly, but it would also mean that we are not one single being progressing through time, but rather simply a collection of beings, each one bound to his own instant. And each one has memories of the ones that dwell to the "before" of him (much as one would dwell to the north or south) as being part of himself, so the illusion is maintained. Each instant self is perfectly unchanging for all eternity.

If God knows our choices because he exists in all times, we therfore have non-linear time. God is distinctly unique in such a scenario because he is somehow able to transmit information between his instantaneous selves (or somehow exists "outside of time" whatever the hell that means), and remain a whole, unified, progressive being. Meanwhile we are but predestined particle conglomerations, frozen for eternity in place, and our non-linear God has already seen and known these simultaneous realities as unchanging since the beginning of the universe. Indeed, if this is correct, than an infinity of realities feature particles arranged as "mes," at various stages of typing this post. If this is correct, then the end of the universe happened at the very beginning, because the whole thing would have just popped into existence, and we're all just foolish, deluded selves existing with false memories of anythin but the instant we truly live in.

I really don't see how free will and a knowable future are compatible.

Further, if God knew that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree -- betraying God -- before he even made them, why would he make them, if he already knew how such an endeavor would end? Or at least, wouldn't he remove the tree? But of course, then Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten of the tree, and God's knowledge of the event would then correspond to their obedience, which in turn eliminates the need for God to retroactively fix the problem of obedience, because futre God would never have relayed to past God what Adam and Eve were to do, and so past God would have made the tree, as that was apparently the original design. But, then, Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree to future God's knowledge, and he would inform past God, and so we have a paradox."

I made some edits to this to clean it up and make my point even clearer, so please take a look even if you read it the first time.

I think there is also some confusion in terminology involving religion as the semi-political entity of the church (historically the Catholic Church), and the actual personal set of beliefs and personal relationship with GOD (in Christianity).

Is this regarding me, or others? I don't think I addressed any Catholic dogma specifically...

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Genetics: Started by Austrian Monks.

Education: Most schools and modern education system started by churches and missions originally.

Well, the Greeks and Romans had their academies, and really while the Church still controlled all the institutions of learning in the Middle Ages, it made them rather stagnant, repetitive places, where there was very little in the way of generative academia, until about the 12th century at the earliest, and even then, what do you have? Aquinas? Not a hugely relevant guy to this day, whereas Greek and Roman philosophical schools have shaped philosophical ideation to this day.

History: Printing press and keeping of historical records in monasteries.

The printing press was indeed a very useful invention, with wonderous ramifications for mankind. However, I'd hardly say that Christians were keepers of history, exactly. After all, a tremendous amount of historical documentation was lost in fall of the Western Empire. Really, we should have far more Roman works than we do -- it's just that Rome's products were treated with such callous contempt that there was almost no preservation, as opposed to the Byzantines' comparative success in sustaining much ancient Greek knowledge.

Art: Do I even need to list the number of paintings, sculptures, and the like that have been inspired by the Bible?

Civil Rights: Rev. Martin Luther King Jr,

Abolishment of Slavery: Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, Abraham Lincoln, a Christian.

Development of modern democracy: John Locke, wrote treatise of government which inspired the American Constitution and promoted gender/racial equality based on rationalization from Scripture.

Though, really it'd be more honest to admit that most of the men involved in Enlightenment thinking, and fostering the rebirth of democratic ideals were moving away from their time period's established religions. Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Voltaire, Diderot, Bacon, Spinoza, etc, etc. All were moving basically towards atheism, though hardly any went that far, due to the lack of understanding of where the universe could have originated from without a creator.


Ultimately, we come to a causation/correlation debate. Would these advancements have happened without religion? If so, would they have been slower to come, or faster? Would they have been more successful? And so on.

I'm not disagreeing with you, exactly Swordchucks -- I think Locke is being rather simplistic. However, I think you are perhaps overstating religions' claims to worldly advancements.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Well, the Greeks and Romans had their academies, and really while the Church still controlled all the institutions of learning in the Middle Ages, it made them rather stagnant, repetitive places, where there was very little in the way of generative academia, until about the 12th century at the earliest, and even then, what do you have? Aquinas? Not a hugely relevant guy to this day, whereas Greek and Roman philosophical schools have shaped philosophical ideation to this day.

I'm talking about the little schools started in towns and villages all across North America from 18th century onwards. Much of our education system owed itself to church funding until the separation of church and state. In my province, about 3 of every 4 schools was started by a minister of some kind.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

All were moving basically towards atheism, though hardly any went that far, due to the lack of understanding of where the universe could have originated from without a creator.

I'm not sure if you can actually say they were moving towards atheism exactly. It's wholely possible they could have rested neatly in the same place people like I stand right now. After all, its completely possible to believe in God and still think very logically and rationally (in spite of what some people would have you believe). They may have been bucking the traditional role of blind faith, but that doesn't neccessarily lead towards atheism.

It's a common mistake to place atheism as higher up on the rationalization ladder, and that the more you reason and logically analyze the situation, the more you'll come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Thats not true.

C.S. Lewis, for instance started off, as an atheist, and reasoned and logically analyzed the situation until he came to the conclusion that God DOES exist. Those guys may have come to conclusions that rejected traditional Catholicism, but to state if they went further they'd have ended up as atheists is a claim that has absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever. It comes down to merely a 'what you think would have happened'. Thats not a very convincing line of reasoning, its a very subjective extrapolation.

[Loki, The Fallen]

Yes, I equate it with religious doctrine. Why? First, it appears to be one of the purposes of this thread, to discuss our beliefs and thoughts. To quote its creator

We, the Nuklear Power Forums moderators and administrators, are putting our faith in you the community, to be able to discuss faith, metaphysics, theology and belief, in a reasoned, civilized, adult manner.

And so I am. Is it really apples and oranges? It can be your belief that science is greater then religion, that logic trumps faith, but how is this different from someone who believes faith trumps logic, which their belief system is greater then your 'scientific' beliefs on how one should live?

This leads me to my discussion with Locke:

I don’t believe in controlling these things...

How? That's the only way to prevent their 'bad' usages.

Okay, so that was a bad way of phrasing it. I don't believe that they should be removed from society, that we should completely abandon them, which you appear to be advocating.

We must stop thinking about thoughts and ideas as harmless wisps in the wind. They are real and they exist, and they have tangible effects on our society in every way. You can't and shouldn't be able to go around with unjustified ideas unchecked. It is dangerous, because ideas are memetic. And bad ideas spread just as much as good ones.

Wow. 'Unjustified' ideas, in this society, are definitely not left unchecked. We as a society are constantly arguing and discussing ideas, faiths, and thought. Even in our entertainment industry, in our newspapers, in our blogs, and even on our forums we constantly discuss and argue ideas each side may believe is unjustified, and it appears to work so far, until either side decides that their ideals, their thought pattern, is so much greater that others cannot express their own, such as extremists of their ideology.

This leads me to your ideology, your belief structure. You were kind enough to point to Sam Harris's books. I asked because I wanted to learn from your side, from your thought line if you will, like those who believe in their doctrines have posted to their respective books, and cited their teachers. His point of view from his books and your quotes is quite easy to read, and I'm sure he makes points that can make sense to you. Forgive me for the use of Wiki, because it has a wealth of information on the man.

Wiki:

Harris's basic theme is that fallacious religious beliefs are the primary cause of injustice, brutality and violence among human beings and that the time has come to speak openly and unambiguously about what he sees as the dangers posed to society by religious belief.

Which he is perfectly allowed to do. His belief structure questions a large amount of religions, like Christianity and Islam, and he wants open and unambiguous discussion. The very ideologies he question also question other beliefs, and advocate against it. In this society, open discussions among 'moderates' are the norm, with extremists usually fighting it all the way.

Later in Wiki:

That the world would be a happier place if religious extremism were replaced by religious moderation is plainly suggested by Harris. He then proceeds to turn some of his strongest fire upon religious moderates themselves.

I agree on some of his point. Mainly, anyone who uses their religion as a reason to kill anyone who believes otherwise is definitely a bit extreme, and the world would be a happier place without it. But then he fires on moderates. Well, it's his beliefs.

Even Later in Wiki:

The current state of affairs in contemporary religious America is something which Harris feels should be a matter for profound national embarrassment. He notes that 44 percent of Americans, according to polls, believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years. This is roughly the same number who think that creationism should be taught in schools, to the complete exclusion of Darwinian evolution; or that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews.[3]

And you will find strange people everywhere. As George Carlin said so well:

"Think of the average stupid person and realize that half of them are stupider than that!"

But then again, polls are used by people to further their agenda. You can manipulate numbers and over sample to make your point. That has most likely been stated in another thread.

Wiki quoting Sam:

It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say “not in our name.” They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling. It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet. Moderate Muslims themselves must acknowledge this fact without equivocation.

I agree, if we found that the Terrorists were Caucasian males from 20 to 49 who believe in freedom to practice any religion you wish, but 'they believe that there is one God and He sent his only son to die for their sins', sure, I'll show up early to the airport, get my bags sifted through, and just generally be inconvenienced. Why? I'd be fricken ticked that anyone would say they followed the same beliefs as me and tried doing these things, and I'd show that I am so not them. And I'd make the same argument for Christians who follow Doctrines such as those who advocate slavery, and intolerance to the point of violence.

I also disagree with his take on spirituality, his belief on the use of torture, and his belief that 'religion is a travesty of good ethical behavior'. But once again, I advocate freedom of thought, or even peoples freedom from thought, so long as they realize they are responsible for their actions.

Now perhaps for some questions for you and your belief system? You state that science is better then religion.

How can you so blithely belittle intelligence, like that? Yes! Super smart people do say so. And we have a reason to believe them!

Because they are super smart, right?

This is where you are again mistaken and have repeatedly ignored my previous posts. These beliefs aren't so harmless as 1 + 1 = 2 (though if everyone followed your logic, the economies of the world would be in ruin). The exact literal second stem-cell research began being bogged down by religious morals, you became wrong. The exact second the planes hit the WTC, you became wrong. In your arguments, you continually try to paint religion as a harmless indulgence, but what it's about is massive, group unthinking, and this is NOT up to you. Beliefs are reflections about THE WAY THE WORLD IS. If billions of people think the world is a way which is so inconsistent and skewed that it brings about tragedies like 9/11 or the halting of stem-cell research, what you are saying is clearly false.

With your same logic, the moment science had its Josef Mengele, science became wrong. The moment science was used to create Nuclear Weaponry, science became wrong. Science and Logic are not harmless. There are people who will use science for evil, believing that they are following the right path, for the good of humanity even, but this does not mean we should stop all thought.

-Me-
This leads me to stating one of my beliefs, which a man I admire put quite well. "Undeniable Truth of Life Number 12: Freedom is God given."

Given to all, whether we deserve it or not.

I am a huge believer in freedom. Freedom to think, Freedom to strive for high goals, Freedom to learn, and Freedom to invent. It is a massive part of my faith. We are given the Freedom to make any choices we want. Consequences of those actions are deserved. Follow or violate society or God's laws and reap the rewards. Live a perfect life and you don't even need to accept His Son. But if you are not perfect, if you have lied, if you have disrespected your parents, you may need to find a different way.

And because I am nowhere near perfect, in fact, consider myself to be a pretty bad person, I believe in His Son, that he took the fall for me, and that I should constantly strive for excellence so I can try to be a decent example to those I meet, to those I speak to. But I know I can never be good enough. He knows this, and loves me anyway.
-End Me-

This leads me to ask of your Doctrine, to ask of your faith. Logic was 'discovered' by a few men long ago. It is a study of patterns found in reasoning. It is used in our computers, and in discussions of science.

What happens when someone questions scientific thought? I'm sure they are considered mad. The simple thought that scientific reasoning could fail is considered impossible to scientists, because science uses this reasoning, it cannot be questioned.

Consider for a second that someone discovers that logic is broken, that this entire line of reasoning no longer fits reality? Could you even fathom the thought that two thousand years of human thought is rendered completely false, that any such thought is proven completely bunk? Could you consider that, for even the second that I ask, that all the time you have spent thinking that reality must follow these rules, these 'laws', that something happens, something that can be demonstrated over and over, something that no part of science or logic can explain, that now all you have learned and believe is now completely false?

If you truly believe in all the knowledge man has accumulated, could you let yourself leave it? Could you allow yourself to embrace an entirely different way of thinking? Could you abandon it as easily as one changes their socks?

What if the man you believe in is discovered to be mentally unstable? What if your doctrine's leader is discovered to be an actor, a fake? What if he was simply saying such things just to rake the coals, just to stir an argument? Or even more, find that the man you believe in never really existed?

What if everything you have your faith in is completely destroyed by a new line of thought? One that can more better explain everything in reality, and perhaps can lead to greater discoveries, and perhaps a more unified thought?

It is a bunch of what ifs. And maybe it shouldn't be aimed directly at you, perhaps everyone should consider it for a second, and realize that they have a faith in something, a doctrine that cannot be questioned in their mind, one they will believe in regardless of whether they are having a nice conversation with their friends or are being asked with a gun to their head.

I presume it is for the same reason I wish that everyone was a member of my religion (didn't someone say I didn't have a religion a couple pages back? I thought I wasn't being very subtle at all when I was linking the Jehovah's Witness website, but whatever...). If everyone shared belief in the ultimate truth about existence, what big problems could we possibly have?

Exactly. Everyone should be free to share their faith, their belief. They should be allowed to think, and be responsible for their thought. The problem begins when someone's freedom is removed. Militant Islam preaches conversion by the sword. Twisted Christianity can claim to advocate the murder of homosexuals. And some faiths believe that all other religions should not be even thought of.

(Of course, according to wiki, Sam stops short of starting a Gulag. He does believe in spirituality though. It is an interesting belief he has.)

Such is why I compare it to a religion, to a doctrine. People will cling to this knowledge that other people say is true, which they may be able to prove. They cannot doubt it. To them, it cannot be questioned.

But even if I compare it to a religion, do I believe we should treat like we currently treat religion? Currently in our country there are people wish to remove all religious thought, expression, from every part of public life. I think we should allow all thought to be discussed openly, regardless. If it one doesn't like it, they can leave it. There are consequences to all choices, people have to live with them.

But because of the freedom we have now, anyone can believe what they wish. And because most moderate people believe in the freedom of religion, we can ask questions, we can talk of these things, and the only real side effect is that someone might think "God he's an idiot, the Great Unicorn is Pink!"

It's White dammit.

And now I need a break.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

I'm talking about the little schools started in towns and villages all across North America from 18th century onwards. Much of our education system owed itself to church funding until the separation of church and state. In my province, about 3 of every 4 schools was started by a minister of some kind.

Well, in America, the public school system is based heavily on the Napoleonic and Prussian systems, both of which were highly nationalistic, and relatively secular. Really, public education is more a product of the Enlightenment. That's not to say that Christianity (or Islam or Judaism for that matter) hasn't produced many great academic minds, or hasn't been host to many academic traditions (like the Jesuits, for example). However, really modern public education in the West is based more on secular, Enlightenment thinking and 19th century nationalism.

I'm not sure if you can actually say they were moving towards atheism exactly. It's wholely possible they could have rested neatly in the same place people like I stand right now. After all, its completely possible to believe in God and still think very logically and rationally (in spite of what some people would have you believe). They may have been bucking the traditional role of blind faith, but that doesn't neccessarily lead towards atheism.

It's a common mistake to place atheism as higher up on the rationalization ladder, and that the more you reason and logically analyze the situation, the more you'll come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Thats not true.

C.S. Lewis, for instance started off, as an atheist, and reasoned and logically analyzed the situation until he came to the conclusion that God DOES exist. Those guys may have come to conclusions that rejected traditional Catholicism, but to state if they went further they'd have ended up as atheists is a claim that has absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever. It comes down to merely a 'what you think would have happened'. Thats not a very convincing line of reasoning, its a very subjective extrapolation.

You've got me there, sir.

[ZAKtheGeek]

How does it not make any sense to use a deterrent in a world full of temptation.

Because God is ultimately the cause of the temptation as well, so it's like God made us to want to do things it doesn't want us to do. Confusing!

We all seem to be forgetting Satan in all this. The reason God didn't make us machines and do just as he wills all the time was because he wanted us to make the choice to follow him on our own, thus "free will". But, Satan continually tries to derail that through tempting us all day every day. Satan gives the urges, not God. And if you look at the bible, he's given us plenty of warnings.

Does Satan actually create urges, or does he simply provide the temptation? I thought the urges were always there, and Satan just plays to them. But even if not, it doesn't really matter, since God made everything, including Satan, and since God is also all-knowing it knew exactly how all these creations would interact and ultimately turn out. If God didn't want people to be tempted, it could have done at least one of the following:
A) Never create Satan
B) Not create people with urges

And instead of launching into a free-will argument, I'm going to relaunch into a free-will argument, by quoting myself:

But it's not a choice. If God wanted all people to live in a perfect world, they would. Since God is all-knowing, it knew based simply on the concept of everything it was to create that many people would end up suffering in hell. Even if you call it free will, the choice one makes is still a function of how their mind is made and what's in it, which is something God would have known ahead of time, as well as something that resulted directly from God's own actions, since it made everything.

Basically, the choices a man makes depend on how the man's mind works, and since God made that mind, God always knew what man was going to do, before it even created him. My only assumptions here are creation (of all) and absolute knowledge.

I know this can be hard to grasp. Let's say you wrote, like, an action game. And you made a very smart AI so the game can actually be played by a CPU player. Then you make the obstacles and challenges in the game in such a way that the AI can't beat. Then you let it loose on your game. You can claim that it has "free will" due to its complex decision-making processes, but ultimately, you're the one that made those processes work the way they do, and you know exactly what it will and won't be screwed over by.

Not a perfect analogy, but I think it would help.

[Bob The Mercenary]

But even if not, it doesn't really matter, since God made everything, including Satan, and since God is also all-knowing it knew exactly how all these creations would interact and ultimately turn out. If God didn't want people to be tempted, it could have done at least one of the following:

This really leads back to the age old question, "why?" Why were we made in the first place? Which no one knows the answer to, but I have some fun guesses.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It really doesn't. Even if you completely disregard what I said, the question stands. Why would God make these things that could feel both pleasure and pain? Why so flawed and disobedient?

It can be your belief that science is greater then religion, that logic trumps faith, but how is this different from someone who believes faith trumps logic, which their belief system is greater then your 'scientific' beliefs on how one should live?

That's simple. Logic is the core of mathematics and of science. The only reason we're even communicating with each other is because of people's power for rational assessment. Good or bad, you cannot deny that, objectively, logic works. It's proven itself to work through thousands of years of scientific advancement, through principles and laws logically concluded by man from empirical observations; principles and laws which have been successfully used, and can be successfully used (today! even by you!) to predict the outcomes of various actions given some pieces of prior knowledge.

What I'm saying is that, through logic and observation alone, we've been unraveling the very functions of everything around us, in concrete, mathematical terms, with absolutely proven results. That's what I put my faith in.

[Bailey]

And of course, who can forget Eru, who created Elves and Men, and gave sapience to the Dwarves?