Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Why Does Religion Still Exist?


bendy

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442

Aw, computers there too. I won't be joining them then, I need my filth conduits.

I checked up on PCs this morning and, apparently, it's been OK to use them for the last few years, provided protection is in place. I'm not sure if the protection comprises Internet filters or chanting, maybe both.

And I got the technical terminology wrong. Apparently they're 'pipelines' rather than conduits of filth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

control is a part but only a part IMO. It's pretty clear that people need some form of control, whether it's religion, politics, culture etc. we have some dark tendencies and societies can turn nasty quickly.

Partly that we are pattern seeking animals who naturally ascribe more causation than a 'scientific' worldview allows for. Partly allows people to feel connected to a group bigger than themselves, go to church, sing songs etc.

Main reason IMO, for why it persists in rich and educated countries is fear of death and the cosmic meaninglessness of life. I know so many smart, well adapted people who can't resign themselves to the idea that we're a biological creature on a speck of cosmic dusk. (I actually find this empowering but still have the primal fear of death, presumably this is evolutionarily hardwired)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
4
HOLA445

Main reason IMO, for why it persists in rich and educated countries is fear of death and the cosmic meaninglessness of life. I know so many smart, well adapted people who can't resign themselves to the idea that we're a biological creature on a speck of cosmic dusk. (I actually find this empowering but still have the primal fear of death, presumably this is evolutionarily hardwired)

A fear of death sounds like a logical thing to evolve. As for the rest I agree with you entirely.

For some reason people seem to be really, really bad at dealing with chance and luck, and if they can't eliminate it they seem desperate to be able to explain it in a way beyond sh1t happens. Religion plays into that (as does the blame culture for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447

As a strict empiricist one would conclude that religion is adaptive in an evolutionary sense, some scientists say that -others don't like the idea. Interestingly Dawkins doesn't like the idea, but then if it is adaptive we are likely stuck with it and he seems to have some "imagine no religion too" view of the world.

I have always found it interesting how many supposed religious traits are clearly cultural and predate the religion. E..g which religion insists women cover their head and threatens honour killing to thos who marry out? Actually as much a characteristic of Arab Christians as Muslims. Which religion is responsible for innumerable suicide bombings, actually the Tamil Tigers have the greatest record here ( Hindu or Marxist depending on who you listen to)

So a more interesting question perhaps is what is a religion? I understand that Zen Buddhism is a religion with no strict belief in god...

An interesting aspect of Islam is that it refers to "people of the book" it has always occurred to me that modern organised religion relies on technology (pen and paper) perhaps future ones will rely on other technologies? For instance, I am sure that the invention of immortality would shake up the current religions quite a bit. As would, for instance , crosses bred humans/chimps (do they have a soul or not?) or A.I.

For me, god is far too obviously an anthropomorphisation of nature. He hate loves etc, these are the properties of a creature that has evolved. Not the something outside time/space. So I don't know if god exists or not, I just want someone to define a god that could possibly exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

In one of his books (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon) Daniel Dennett pitches the suggestion that there is a gene for credulity which was preferentially selected because people with it believed mumbo jumbo and got better when sick as a result of a placebo effect.

Good luck with that one Daniel.

Alain de Botton started pontificating a few years ago about Atheism 2.0 and 'Religion for Atheists', which would cater to a human need for 'connection, ritual and transcendence', without the God stuff. He's even set up a 'church' for hip atheists, complete with Sunday meetings, and sermons, and everything - The School of Life

And the best of British to Alain too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

Alain de Botton has always struck me as remarkably lacking in awareness of his own motivations. I once watched a documentary of his in which he spent a great deal of time telling off overly sentimental British people for wanting to build and live in houses similar to the ones that they grew up in, when in his view what they should really want to build and live in was Scandinavian style houses similar to the ones that he grew up in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

In one of his books (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon) Daniel Dennett pitches the suggestion that there is a gene for credulity which was preferentially selected because people with it believed mumbo jumbo and got better when sick as a result of a placebo effect.

Good luck with that one Daniel.

Alain de Botton started pontificating a few years ago about Atheism 2.0 and 'Religion for Atheists', which would cater to a human need for 'connection, ritual and transcendence', without the God stuff. He's even set up a 'church' for hip atheists, complete with Sunday meetings, and sermons, and everything - The School of Life

And the best of British to Alain too.

Yes of course you are right. The idea religion is just going to go poof and disappear is ridiculous. This whole debate is full of sound bites, my favourite (fwiw) is by Arthur Clarke of all people "it may be the religion is a necessary evil, but why should it be more evil than necessary, killing in the name of god is a pretty good definition of insanity"

I have met many people who have no interest in religion, as it happens many of them are from the Muslim community (in private!) what I want is a world that is tolerant of all beliefs except intolerance. Perhaps moonshine too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

I just want someone to define a god that could possibly exist.

This isn't going to help in any way but there's a branch of Eastern Orthodox theology which argues that trying to pin down what God might be is beyond the capability of the human mind and therefore a mug's game.

Instead it concerns itself with figuring out what God is not.

wiki: Apophatic theology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

So a more interesting question perhaps is what is a religion?

Personally, I don't find that question particularly interesting. Scientology managed to get itself classed as religion but I don't think belief in a Deity is involved. So while many people assume religion requires a belief in some form of God or "higher power", I guess the best definition, IMO, is really just "an organized system of spiritual beliefs". I suppose that now poses the question of, what do we mean by "spiritual"? Well, I added that word to distinguish religion from, say, organized systems of political belief, such as political parties.

For me, god is far too obviously an anthropomorphisation of nature. He hate loves etc, these are the properties of a creature that has evolved. Not the something outside time/space. So I don't know if god exists or not, I just want someone to define a god that could possibly exist.

Ah, now that's more interesting. How to define "God".

Unfortunately, we don't have one single definition of this. The Hindu concept of god is different from the Christian one which is different from... etc etc.

My definition of God is pretty simple... the Creator of the universe. I'm not sure why "outside time/space" part is a problem, since we usually assume that something was "outside" of what we call "space", in order for our universe to have a beginning.

Why could this God not possibly exist?

The "infinite regress" objection (i.e. who created God? And who created the thing that created God? etc) is a red herring, in my opinion. It's quite possible that nobody created God, and that God "arose" in some manner... perhaps an infinite sea of quantum fluctuations becoming intelligent, or perhaps God even created himself, just as a single cell replicates itself and eventually constructs a body.

Of course, I have no proof of this, but you said, "I just want someone to define a god that could possibly exist". Well, either of these ideas could exist, and to all intents and purposes from our perspective, be "God".

Our current scientific understanding believes that biological evolution is basically the only way life can arise... but what if there is another way? (And I'm not arguing here for "creation", in the sense of an "evolution vs creation" debate.)

For example, is it possible for life and intelligence to arise in an energy field, or in a quantum vacuum? If so, it might evolve or arise in a completely different way from biological evolution,

My argument is that these are perhaps possible, although I'm quite happy to admit it's unproven as yet. Then again, it's only in the last decade or so that scientists discovered the neuroplasticity of the brain, so we have a long way to go before we fully understand the universe and the things in it, let alone what might be "outside" of it, whatever that means.

(And no, I'm not appealing to a "god of the gaps" here. I'm explaining one way God could exist.)

So God could be the product of an infinite sea of quantum fluctuations or perhaps some vast electromagnetic or energy "field" which perhaps end up forming the quantum or energy equivalent of a neural net. I'd argue this is quite possible.

Of course, this concept of "God" precedes the present universe, and the problem I would have in proving (or in you disproving) this idea is in knowing the "rules" that apply to whatever was in existence "prior to" the beginning of the universe; and unfortunately, none of us know what those "rules" are. At best, we can make educated guesses based on what we currently know. But we really do not know.

Anyway, I put this forward as what I consider to be a valid possibility.

I appreciate the traditional Christian view is that God has always existed (whatever that means), but that may not have been the case. He may have actually arisen in some sense, which eliminates the "infinite regress" problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

Why does party politics still exist? Why does the state capitalism establishment still exist?

Its because religion is brainwashed in at birth...propagated by peers as the status quo...just like party politics or state capitalism.

People often say 'Islam is the fastest growing religion' as if thats something to be proud of, like a company is of its market share. Its child abuse, plain and simple, growing simply because Muslims breed more.

The number of teenage or adult converts, though overrepresented in the group of Muslims doing terrible things, is tiny. And usually theyre converted in prisons...the kind who 25 years ago would have 'converted' into the aryan brotherhood or similar. Lets face it, you'd have to be pretty unbalanced to convert...so the only other way for the cancer of religion to spread is indoctrination at birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

Personally, I don't find that question particularly interesting. Scientology managed to get itself classed as religion but I don't think belief in a Deity is involved. So while many people assume religion requires a belief in some form of God or "higher power", I guess the best definition, IMO, is really just "an organized system of spiritual beliefs". I suppose that now poses the question of, what do we mean by "spiritual"? Well, I added that word to distinguish religion from, say, organized systems of political belief, such as political parties.

Ah, now that's more interesting. How to define "God".

Unfortunately, we don't have one single definition of this. The Hindu concept of god is different from the Christian one which is different from... etc etc.

My definition of God is pretty simple... the Creator of the universe. I'm not sure why "outside time/space" part is a problem, since we usually assume that something was "outside" of what we call "space", in order for our universe to have a beginning.

Why could this God not possibly exist?

The "infinite regress" objection (i.e. who created God? And who created the thing that created God? etc) is a red herring, in my opinion. It's quite possible that nobody created God, and that God "arose" in some manner... perhaps an infinite sea of quantum fluctuations becoming intelligent, or perhaps God even created himself, just as a single cell replicates itself and eventually constructs a body.

Of course, I have no proof of this, but you said, "I just want someone to define a god that could possibly exist". Well, either of these ideas could exist, and to all intents and purposes from our perspective, be "God".

Our current scientific understanding believes that biological evolution is basically the only way life can arise... but what if there is another way? (And I'm not arguing here for "creation", in the sense of an "evolution vs creation" debate.)

For example, is it possible for life and intelligence to arise in an energy field, or in a quantum vacuum? If so, it might evolve or arise in a completely different way from biological evolution,

My argument is that these are perhaps possible, although I'm quite happy to admit it's unproven as yet. Then again, it's only in the last decade or so that scientists discovered the neuroplasticity of the brain, so we have a long way to go before we fully understand the universe and the things in it, let alone what might be "outside" of it, whatever that means.

(And no, I'm not appealing to a "god of the gaps" here. I'm explaining one way God could exist.)

So God could be the product of an infinite sea of quantum fluctuations or perhaps some vast electromagnetic or energy "field" which perhaps end up forming the quantum or energy equivalent of a neural net. I'd argue this is quite possible.

Of course, this concept of "God" precedes the present universe, and the problem I would have in proving (or in you disproving) this idea is in knowing the "rules" that apply to whatever was in existence "prior to" the beginning of the universe; and unfortunately, none of us know what those "rules" are. At best, we can make educated guesses based on what we currently know. But we really do not know.

Anyway, I put this forward as what I consider to be a valid possibility.

I appreciate the traditional Christian view is that God has always existed (whatever that means), but that may not have been the case. He may have actually arisen in some sense, which eliminates the "infinite regress" problem.

If God existed, how could "he" allow child abuse, torture, murder or rape? Or does human freewill bypass this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

Personally, I don't find that question particularly interesting. Scientology managed to get itself classed as religion but I don't think belief in a Deity is involved...

/snip

As I understand it, at present, the point of principle that separates science and religion is the question of whether there is any purpose to the Universe.

Dave Beans, on 29 Oct 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:
If God existed, how could "he" allow child abuse, torture, murder or rape? Or does human freewill bypass this?

I've seen that described as being the trickiest question people who believe in an all-powerful creator God who cares for humanity have to address. Quite a few have had a try.

Tuck in, if you feel so inclined...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

As I understand it, at present, the point of principle that separates science and religion is the question of whether there is any purpose to the Universe.

I've seen that described as being the trickiest question people who believe in an all-powerful creator God who cares for humanity have to address. Quite a few have had a try.

Tuck in, if you feel so inclined...

...how about those people who were born with disabilities? They didn't have freewill when they were born with a heart defect or downs syndrome...you could argue that's nature, but then isn't that saying that god made a mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

If God existed, how could "he" allow child abuse, torture, murder or rape? Or does human freewill bypass this?

Well, he doesn't allow it. At least, not unless you were one of the 7 child-sacrificing Canaanite tribes. Those things are prohibited by law by most nations that have an underlying Judeo-Christian inheritance... and if you engage in those things and are found out, you are tried by law and can go to prison. Not too long ago you could have even been put to death.

So I guess you're asking (or perhaps simply making a statement) why he doesn't simply prevent those things in the first place.

So where does God draw the line? Obviously you would want God to step in with the things you listed... but what about, let's say... murder in self-defense. Should God step in to prevent the murder here? Or should he step in to prevent the attacker from getting anywhere close? Then again, should he have stepped in when the attacker purchased the knife? Or what about when his father treated him badly, which inclined him towards criminality? Should God have stepped in, and at what point? At birth? At 3? At 5?

And if we're going back to root causes, not only when but also how should God step in? Should he suddenly change the father's heart, so he stops treating the son badly? Or just prevent the action while leaving the father's attitude in place? Should he suddenly give the son a flash of insight at age 5, that makes him become a monk instead of a criminal?

In the end, I cannot see how a line could be easily drawn. If God intervened to prevent a rape, he would have to intervene to stop domestic abuse (because that is also violent), and he would then have to intervene to stop a small fight (which is also violent), and he would then have to intervene to stop an angry word (which could have bad intentions and/or motivations and could lead to such things as a broken heart).

You might have a "line in the sand" here, a point at which you expect God, if he existed, to intervene, but others would have a different line to you, i.e. a person who has been domestically abused, or who hates even angry words and has been hurt by them.

Yes of course "rape" is bad, but really, so are all forms of physical violence by one human being upon another... and then, as our government has decided, so is "mental violence" etc etc.

I personally think that, rather than live in some "Minority Report" pre-crime world, God has chosen not to intervene in such matters for now, and instead allow humans to get on with the business of preventing where possible, and prosecuting such crimes if they happen.

And yes, free will... or rather, as I prefer to call it, freedom of choice, does play an important part.

You might be quite happy to live in a "Minority Report" world where God intervenes in your and everybody else's life the moment any bad thing is done (although I suspect you probably wouldn't be), but others would find that to be a living hell.

If you don't have the freedom to choose bad, then you don't have freedom of choice.

And if you can't do any bad, then you don't learn about bad consequences, because there are none. (This, by the way, is not an argument for being bad, it's simply an argument for allowing bad to exist.)

You are then reduced to merely a series of laws to obey... kinda like the Old Testament "though shalt not 1....2....10.." etc.

On the other hand, if you're trying to elevate the human race to, how can I put it, transcend those kinds of laws... then you need frames of reference in which to understand them.

For example... "you must not commit adultery"... apparently. But why? Sounds like fun!

If you are prevented from actually committing adultery by God's big hand suddenly swooping in, then neither you nor anybody else can get past the stage of learning about the consequences of doing so... the sense of betrayal, the heartbreak etc etc... all part of the experience which should really provide us with the real, physical, empathy-based HUMAN reason for not doing it.

No, I am not therefore saying it is necessary for people to be raped or murdered or cheated on, in order for humans to understand the wrong nature of those things.

I am simply saying that, by having the freedom to do the bad things, and in seeing the consequences of those bad things, we learn EMPATHY for our fellow human beings... and therefore, in a lot of cases and for a lot of people, we choose not to do the bad things.

A certain wise person in the 1st century... darn it, I've forgotten his name at the moment... said that the bad things we do ultimately stem from the heart.

So you cannot really eliminate "the bad stuff" without changing people's hearts first.

I think that's what God's up to... rather than sending Tom Cruise in to prevent crimes in some Minority Report re-enactment.

Sheesh... and all that came from a post on quantum fluctuations :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

...how about those people who were born with disabilities? They didn't have freewill when they were born with a heart defect or downs syndrome...you could argue that's nature, but then isn't that saying that god made a mistake?

Maybe we go through this experience more than once and endure a full spectrum of nice and not so nice trips.

Maybe we're all individual fragments of a greater consciouness looking to try everything out.

Maybe only some of us have souls.

Maybe our eventual fate is already decided before we're even born. We might have free will but God knows in advance what decisions we're going to make

Maybe we're just too thick to understand what's going on.

Alternatively

Maybe sh1t just happens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

Maybe we go through this experience more than once and endure a full spectrum of nice and not so nice trips.

Maybe we're all individual fragments of a greater consciouness looking to try everything out.

Maybe only some of us have souls.

Maybe our eventual fate is already decided before we're even born. We might have free will but God knows in advance what decisions we're going to make

Maybe we're just too thick to understand what's going on.

Alternatively

Maybe sh1t just happens

I'll probably sound all morbid here, but that's why I find death and the potential existence of an afterlife so fascinating...we're all heading that way..we cannot stop it...its the only thing that's inevitable in life, we cannot control it..but we cannot prove anything until it happens to us in real time..you hear about all these theories, about NDEs or whatever, but they are just that...If you go down David Icke's route, that we are all infinite consciousness, and our body is just a physical computer to contain our soul, spirit, whatever you want to call it.. Its interesting that we know nothing about what happens to the hereafter, if anything...For me, I see Clairvoyants and Mediums to be charlatans, and I don't think past life regression is reliable enough..

Do have a predetermined agenda when we get here? Why are so many people such bastards then? Do they choose to be? Were they supposed to be "created" that way? or again, were they supposed to be good, and these people managed to break their "programming"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

If God existed, how could "he" allow child abuse, torture, murder or rape? Or does human freewill bypass this?

There is both good and bad in this world...we have been given freewill...for everything that is good can always be turned into something bad...bad happenings can produce and bring out the best in people and the things put on this world to help us....up to us how we choose to do it.

...how about those people who were born with disabilities? They didn't have freewill when they were born with a heart defect or downs syndrome...you could argue that's nature, but then isn't that saying that god made a mistake?

None of us are born perfect..... It is up to us to help each other with our imperfections using the gifts we were all born with...up to us how we choose to do it.

Time is something we live with.....just because we know understand and take for granted time......time does not have to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

Ah, now that's more interesting. How to define "God".

Unfortunately, we don't have one single definition of this. The Hindu concept of god is different from the Christian one which is different from... etc etc.

My definition of God is pretty simple... the Creator of the universe. I'm not sure why "outside time/space" part is a problem, since we usually assume that something was "outside" of what we call "space", in order for our universe to have a beginning.

.

Even this is not obvious, time was create when the university was created, it is part of it. So,a god that exists outside of the universe is not subject to time evolving the way we see it. This implies that he/she sees all events in the universe simultaneously. Where is the room for free will in this? God know if we will be good or bad immediately?

A god as some mechanism (quantum mechanical or otherwise) is possible but how does worshipping the law of gravity (for example) help with daily life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
22
HOLA4423
23
HOLA4424
24
HOLA4425

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information