The Religious Theories Thread

[Sir Pinkleton]

I suppose I, personally, don't find much self-fulfillment or self-enrichment by thinking of myself as an object of destiny, as you do. I'll actually let on a little more of what I actually believe now, and say that I think I do believe that life is determined, in that all actions have consequences, so all actions and consequences since the beginning of time have led up to the present moment and lead the present moment into the future. But knowing that hasn't changed my life much, and I don't feel more enlightened for believing it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "we can make observations and obtain a general understanding of what makes us who we are." Observations of what? Past events/actions? How does accepting that there is no free will allow us to obtain a general understanding of what makes us who we are? "What makes us who we are" is the culmination of past experiences, in my view. Whether free will is accepted or not doesn't change that, other than to say "the culmination of past experiences makes us who we are and will continue to ordain who we will become" and "the culmination of past experiences makes us who we are and we can use that to make the best decisions for us in the future." It seems that, to you, this distinction is profound and rewarding to analyze, but I don't believe that feeling you have is universal, nor necessary to have an enriching life. I don't know why you believe people are afraid of thinking of themselves as not what modern society tells them they are. Artists have for years challenged what it means to be human, and tried to capture or question what the human experience means. I don't think it is the norm that people do not question who they are or their place in life like you say they do, rather I think most people meet this question in their teens years, in some form.

It sounds less like you advocate challenging free will and more like you advocate looking at the past to obtain a better future. I see accepting and denying free will as two ways of understanding the universe, but ultimately the goal is the same: learning from the past, and working towards a better future. The main difference being whether we think we have a choice in making that future, or if we are naturally creating that future by virtue of living.

It sounds like you're assuming that the universe is ordered in such a way that, if we could analyze the past, much like analyzing the solar system or DNA, that we could then make predictions, or otherwise use this knowledge beneficially. It remains to be seen, however, if this is truth, or if it's even possible. That you hold this understanding of the universe as a stepping stone towards creating the best future is, I think, a bit too hopeful. I would rather us spend time on developing the future, not on trying to trace back the fabric of space such that we can predict the future.

My last point (because I too have made too many) is to question the motivation to be "successful in the universe." I don't even know what that means, and am unconvinced that that is what we should all be working towards.

EDIT: ...Is there really choice when literally only one option is available?

[Eisen]

I'm not sure what you mean by "we can make observations and obtain a general understanding of what makes us who we are." Observations of what? Past events/actions?

I was being a little vague. My apologies. The statement you quoted essentially means that scientists are able to make observations using science about events which occurred in the past, which allows us to propel ourselves out of the realm of ignorance. Events like this might be: the birth of the first organism, the creation of the moon, the changes in Earth's atmosphere as more and more life was able to inhabit our planet.

How does accepting that there is no free will allow us to obtain a general understanding of what makes us who we are? "What makes us who we are" is the culmination of past experiences, in my view.

Accepting that means that you are stepping beyond explanations such as "we feel like we have free will, so we do [and rightfully should believe that (<--part of the side of the argument you were on)]". It essentially allows your mind to be open to something other than nonsense.

Whether free will is accepted or not doesn't change that, other than to say "the culmination of past experiences makes us who we are and will continue to ordain who we will become" and "the culmination of past experiences makes us who we are and we can use that to make the best decisions for us in the future."

I've simply connected scientific methods with the understanding that humans are sentient machines that will influence on a very tiny scale a FINAL, SINGULAR outcome and not "a for-certain-unique form of existence that can make more than one choice, whose choices are 'supernatural' (so to speak) which can have multiple outcomes." All I am saying is that understanding this concept is small, but part of the much more encompassing realm of understanding things through logic and observation.

It seems that, to you, this distinction is profound and rewarding to analyze, but I don't believe that feeling you have is universal, nor necessary to have an enriching life. I don't know why you believe people are afraid of thinking of themselves as not what modern society tells them they are. Artists have for years challenged what it means to be human, and tried to capture or question what the human experience means. I don't think it is the norm that people do not question who they are or their place in life like you say they do, rather I think most people meet this question in their teens years, in some form.

Just for the record, I was not advocating that it is necessary to analyze that distinction in order to have an enriching life.

If one analyzes human social behavior, one could make the conclusion that humans allow gaps in knowledge to exist so that they feel comfortable in society. It is not so much that people are not free to speak their minds or that people are restricted on what they can believe. The most influential motive for many people is social acceptance. If someone sees a classmate on the first day of elementary school get beaten up because he was smart enough to question the existence of a god that has no proof for existing, it is likely that for their own benefit/survival/welfare, they will not openly question such things. It becomes so ingrained within people like this to accept god (again, for example) or face persecution from people they wish to surround themselves with, it becomes a normal, everyday reaction to outright ignore information which might compromise their "beliefs". I emphasize "beliefs" because in the scenario I've described, the person only "believes" what they believe because in essence, they just want to. They do not care about truth or science like people such as myself. Those people wish to socialize, interact, hang out with friends, do things, adventure, find some way to kill time and have fun. Now, I want to be perfectly clear. No, not everyone on the planet is like this, but a good majority are. Way more than should be the case. It seems to me that if you have some reason, whether it's a sign in the heavens, an act of miracles, or whatever, to believe that some entity is real, that is acceptable enough, I suppose. But when it comes to the point like where it did hundreds of years ago where it became social taboo, if not trial and execution, to question the existence of something that has in no way shown its divinity to you or anyone you know (and even to a lesser extent where a religious majority think that they can control you based on THEIR beliefs on something they cannot prove), faith becomes unacceptable. It is when belief finds its way into the minds of corrupt, uncaring, self-centered, greedy (etc) people that it becomes more than a harmless hope for something greater. And even in society today there is an unacceptable level of intolerance and resulting atrocities.

It sounds less like you advocate challenging free will and more like you advocate looking at the past to obtain a better future.

I have to explain how looking at the past (and the present) can help our future in order to explain why it is I believe that scientific understanding = the road to improvement. I'm having to go into deeper and deeper topics. In part because you are misunderstanding, and in part because you're bringing up additional things that need to be addressed.

I see accepting and denying free will as two ways of understanding the universe, but ultimately the goal is the same: learning from the past, and working towards a better future. The main difference being whether we think we have a choice in making that future, or if we are naturally creating that future by virtue of living.

Essentially, yes, the goal is the same. But on the side of accepting "free will", you get this kind of vague message about our potentials. Stating that humans have DNA which programs their actions and reactions is basically saying "we're machines with a choice. It is our hope to achieve the best level of existence we can by making these choices." It is merely accepting that we have programming, and understanding that if we are to survive we must put our programming to constructive use.

It sounds like you're assuming that the universe is ordered in such a way that, if we could analyze the past, much like analyzing the solar system or DNA, that we could then make predictions, or otherwise use this knowledge beneficially. It remains to be seen, however, if this is truth, or if it's even possible. That you hold this understanding of the universe as a stepping stone towards creating the best future is, I think, a bit too hopeful. I would rather us spend time on developing the future, not on trying to trace back the fabric of space such that we can predict the future.

You took what I said a bit more literally and scientifically than were my intentions. Understanding the universe, which INCLUDES its laws and details, not literally just "understanding the history of Mars". The latter example (EXAMPLE is the key word here. I don't want an argument on how Mars may or may not have had an atmosphere) would be useful in scientific studies such as atmosphere study. Researchers, I think, have been investigating the possibility that Mars once had an atmosphere much like ours, or at the very least, it had one. If that were true, wouldn't it be important to be aware of that which caused its atmosphere to erode? Without an atmosphere, humans and all forms of life on our planet cannot breathe; without an atmosphere, the Earth would die, ending all which has been achieved in the past several million years. I do not know what we can learn from studying the universe, or whether or not we can learn everything. I certainly doubt we can know literally everything, but there's a lot more we don't know than we do know. Perhaps we are at our limits? Perhaps. But what good would it do to stagnate or give up? Human progression is pushing on, however slowly one might see it. I don't think I ever invoked attempting to "predict" the future. I'm not going to go back and look, but if I did, I definitely didn't mean it. But I'm pretty sure I didn't. Yes, it is important to develop the future. That is what science is about.

I'm not sure what you mean by "we can make observations and obtain a general understanding of what makes us who we are." Observations of what? Past events/actions?

I was being a little vague. My apologies. The statement you quoted essentially means that scientists are able to make observations using science about events which occurred in the past, which allows us to propel ourselves out of the realm of ignorance. Events like this might be: the birth of the first organism, the creation of the moon, the changes in Earth's atmosphere as more and more life was able to inhabit our planet.

How does accepting that there is no free will allow us to obtain a general understanding of what makes us who we are? "What makes us who we are" is the culmination of past experiences, in my view.

Accepting that means that you are stepping beyond explanations such as "we feel like we have free will, so we do [and rightfully should believe that (<--part of the side of the argument you were on)]". It essentially allows your mind to be open to something other than nonsense.

Whether free will is accepted or not doesn't change that, other than to say "the culmination of past experiences makes us who we are and will continue to ordain who we will become" and "the culmination of past experiences makes us who we are and we can use that to make the best decisions for us in the future."

I've simply connected scientific methods with the understanding that humans are sentient machines that will influence on a very tiny scale a FINAL, SINGULAR outcome and not "a for-certain-unique form of existence that can make more than one choice, whose choices are 'supernatural' (so to speak) which can have multiple outcomes." All I am saying is that understanding this concept is small, but part of the much more encompassing realm of understanding things through logic and observation.

It seems that, to you, this distinction is profound and rewarding to analyze, but I don't believe that feeling you have is universal, nor necessary to have an enriching life. I don't know why you believe people are afraid of thinking of themselves as not what modern society tells them they are. Artists have for years challenged what it means to be human, and tried to capture or question what the human experience means. I don't think it is the norm that people do not question who they are or their place in life like you say they do, rather I think most people meet this question in their teens years, in some form.

Just for the record, I was not advocating that it is necessary to analyze that distinction in order to have an enriching life.

If one analyzes human social behavior, one could make the conclusion that humans allow gaps in knowledge to exist so that they feel comfortable in society. It is not so much that people are not free to speak their minds or that people are restricted on what they can believe. The most influential motive for many people is social acceptance. If someone sees a classmate on the first day of elementary school get beaten up because he was smart enough to question the existence of a god that has no proof for existing, it is likely that for their own benefit/survival/welfare, they will not openly question such things. It becomes so ingrained within people like this to accept god (again, for example) or face persecution from people they wish to surround themselves with, it becomes a normal, everyday reaction to outright ignore information which might compromise their "beliefs". I emphasize "beliefs" because in the scenario I've described, the person only "believes" what they believe because in essence, they just want to. They do not care about truth or science like people such as myself. Those people wish to socialize, interact, hang out with friends, do things, adventure, find some way to kill time and have fun. Now, I want to be perfectly clear. No, not everyone on the planet is like this, but a good majority are. Way more than should be the case. It seems to me that if you have some reason, whether it's a sign in the heavens, an act of miracles, or whatever, to believe that some entity is real, that is acceptable enough, I suppose. But when it comes to the point like where it did hundreds of years ago where it became social taboo, if not trial and execution, to question the existence of something that has in no way shown its divinity to you or anyone you know (and even to a lesser extent where a religious majority think that they can control you based on THEIR beliefs on something they cannot prove), faith becomes unacceptable. It is when belief finds its way into the minds of corrupt, uncaring, self-centered, greedy (etc) people that it becomes more than a harmless hope for something greater. And even in society today there is an unacceptable level of intolerance and resulting atrocities.

It sounds less like you advocate challenging free will and more like you advocate looking at the past to obtain a better future.

I have to explain how looking at the past (and the present) can help our future in order to explain why it is I believe that scientific understanding = the road to improvement. I'm having to go into deeper and deeper topics. In part because you are misunderstanding, and in part because you're bringing up additional things that need to be addressed.

I see accepting and denying free will as two ways of understanding the universe, but ultimately the goal is the same: learning from the past, and working towards a better future. The main difference being whether we think we have a choice in making that future, or if we are naturally creating that future by virtue of living.

Essentially, yes, the goal is the same. But on the side of accepting "free will", you get this kind of vague message about our potentials. Stating that humans have DNA which programs their actions and reactions is basically saying "we're machines with a choice. It is our hope to achieve the best level of existence we can by making these choices." It is merely accepting that we have programming, and understanding that if we are to survive we must put our programming to constructive use.

It sounds like you're assuming that the universe is ordered in such a way that, if we could analyze the past, much like analyzing the solar system or DNA, that we could then make predictions, or otherwise use this knowledge beneficially. It remains to be seen, however, if this is truth, or if it's even possible. That you hold this understanding of the universe as a stepping stone towards creating the best future is, I think, a bit too hopeful. I would rather us spend time on developing the future, not on trying to trace back the fabric of space such that we can predict the future.

You took what I said a bit more literally and scientifically than were my intentions. Understanding the universe, which INCLUDES its laws and details, not literally just "understanding the history of Mars". The latter example would be useful in scientific studies such as atmosphere study. Researchers, I think, have been investigating the possibility that Mars once had an atmosphere much like ours, or at the very least, it had one. If that were true, wouldn't it be important to be aware of that which caused its atmosphere to erode? Without an atmosphere, humans and all forms of life on our planet cannot breathe; without an atmosphere, the Earth would die, ending all which has been achieved in the past several million years.

I do not know what we can learn from studying the universe, or whether or not we can learn everything. I certainly doubt we can know literally everything, but there's a lot more we don't know than we do know. Perhaps we are at our limits? Perhaps. But what good would it do to stagnate or give up? Human progression is pushing on, however slowly one might see it.

I don't think I ever invoked "predicting" the future. If I used that exact wording, I certainly did not mean it in that way. But I am not going to go back and look for something I am pretty sure I did not say. As for developing the future, that is right to the point. That is what science is about, for the most part (sans the ambitions of some not-so-trustworthy people).

My last point (because I too have made too many) is to question the motivation to be "successful in the universe." I don't even know what that means, and am unconvinced that that is what we should all be working towards.

Essentially it means "not dying".

EDIT: ...Is there really choice when literally only one option is available?

Why even add onto an already festering and enormous discussion? It's obviously going to require a lot more discussion. Addons like these in your posts are why this is getting so unorganized and ambiguous. ... I'm not mad at you for it or saying anything about you for it, just making sure you understand what all the unrelated questioning does.

What I can say is that there's a very fine line between allowing ignorance to hinder our species and being so anal about understanding truth that humans become desensitized to other things in life. But that is a much larger topic involving anarchy vs the state, AKA: freedom versus collectivization. And I am not going into that. Not right now. I am tired. If it makes you feel any better though, I can at least assure you that I am NOT so anal about discovering truth that I would do anything to attain it. There are different times and places for asserting truth for the advancement of one or more people, and times/places for allowing others to discover it for themselves. It's like raising children. Humans are children.
!!!

[*Sigh*]

My God this got huge rather quickly.

[Sir Pinkleton]

I don't really see this discussion as unorganized and ambiguous. On the contrary, because I pressed you on some things, I feel I more fully understand what you've been saying. If anything, we're successfully discussing this topic.

My only real problem is that you seem to be viewing us as on opposite sides, as you on the side of logic and reason and science and progress and me on the side of ignorance and stagnation. Rather, I agree with a lot of what you say. For example, looking at DNA so that we gain a better understanding of ourselves is very important and worthwhile to understand. I see now that you've explained it more that viewing people as machines, guided by the processes down at the DNA level, is a unique perspective that's perhaps necessary for actually understanding ourselves. I get that now, and I think I agree.

However, I think we're ultimately talking about different things, which is why you don't seem to understand why I'm bringing up certain things, and likewise I don't understand why you feel like making the distinctions and points you make (such as the DNA example above. I hope I didn't imply anywhere that I wouldn't believe in something like that). The largest disagreement I see us having is that you seem to be making the assumption that we-have-no-free-will is a fact, but I don't think everyone has agreed on that. When you say things like "[If you accept that we have no free will,] It essentially allows your mind to be open to something other than nonsense," it makes you come off as accusatory and, well, mean. I haven't been vocal about it, but I think you've said numerous times now, subtly or unsubtly, that I'm ignorant and I don't know what I'm actually saying. I don't claim to be some expert, but I'm uncomfortable when you seem to think you're in the right and that your side is obviously right. I'd prefer it if you were more open-minded to the idea that perhaps you don't have the whole picture. Maybe that's the case and you just don't sound that way, I'm not sure, but You make having this discussion less fun by speaking the way you do.

Ultimately, I don't really agree with some of the conclusions you come to, but rather than question you, I think it's evident that we've displayed both of our sides enough. We should halt this discussion, at least here in this thread, as it's ceasing to be constructive.

[Graknorke]

I wanted to contribute to this discussion, but every time I try to pretend I believe in religion I just can't. The closest I can get is analysing the Bible as a historical source but even then I end up just saying it's wrong/point out how much circular logic is in there/make sarcastic comments.
I will however post to show that I appreciate the purpose of the thread, even though I'll ever be able to get involved in it.

[*Sigh*]

No need to be so serious about it, this is just a theory thread after all!

[Eisen]

I don't really see this discussion as unorganized and ambiguous. On the contrary, because I pressed you on some things, I feel I more fully understand what you've been saying. If anything, we're successfully discussing this topic.

My only real problem is that you seem to be viewing us as on opposite sides, as you on the side of logic and reason and science and progress and me on the side of ignorance and stagnation. Rather, I agree with a lot of what you say. For example, looking at DNA so that we gain a better understanding of ourselves is very important and worthwhile to understand. I see now that you've explained it more that viewing people as machines, guided by the processes down at the DNA level, is a unique perspective that's perhaps necessary for actually understanding ourselves. I get that now, and I think I agree.

Oh! No, no! I didn't mean to come across as labeling you specifically as ignorant. :c I just mean the institution of religion in general is ignorant whenever it denounces science because they feel like they can. As for the topic direction, I understand that it is part of this gigantic spectrum of ideas, I just don't want to crowd the thread with off-shoot arguments that might put others off.

However, I think we're ultimately talking about different things, which is why you don't seem to understand why I'm bringing up certain things, and likewise I don't understand why you feel like making the distinctions and points you make (such as the DNA example above. I hope I didn't imply anywhere that I wouldn't believe in something like that).

Nah, you implied nowhere that you wouldn't believe in it. Hopefully I didn't imply that I thought you didn't believe in it. I understand, bro.

The largest disagreement I see us having is that you seem to be making the assumption that we-have-no-free-will is a fact, but I don't think everyone has agreed on that. When you say things like "[If you accept that we have no free will,] It essentially allows your mind to be open to something other than nonsense," it makes you come off as accusatory and, well, mean. I haven't been vocal about it, but I think you've said numerous times now, subtly or unsubtly, that I'm ignorant and I don't know what I'm actually saying.

Not at all. I promise that it was just me not putting anything into it other than the point itself, because to explain all the details would add to my already-enormous post. I am aware that often science attacks religion in ways that can be borderline hurtful, but if you've ever watched a segment from Carl Sagan's series "Cosmos", you might get a better general idea of how I am trying to say this (it is on Youtube if you're concerned about fully understanding how I am attempting to come across)... It's all a matter of wanting to improve and expand knowledge and educate, and even take in counter-arguments into consideration. Though maybe I just suck at it.

I don't claim to be some expert, but I'm uncomfortable when you seem to think you're in the right and that your side is obviously right. I'd prefer it if you were more open-minded to the idea that perhaps you don't have the whole picture. Maybe that's the case and you just don't sound that way, I'm not sure, but You make having this discussion less fun by speaking the way you do.

I understand whole-heartedly that I do not have all the facts. In fact... I often wonder just how real our reality is, if truth can so easily be toppled by something simple like a new idea is. In addition, the human mind is a powerful thing. It in itself can form lies out of facts, or vice versa. However, if we endow confidence in ourselves, we can make observations that are hopefully always true; if not, we can reform hypotheses, come up with ideas, etc. <- Just making the point that there's a solid (but not "perfect" in that we don't know everything 100% just by doing science) foundation to it as long as one can assume something unforeseen like their own mind creating an entire facade of reality.

Not saying I'm perfect in how I observe the world, but I do my best. It's not so much that I "think I'm in the right and that my side is obviously right" so much as the fact that I am presenting my argument, and awaiting rebuttal or agreement. If I receive neither, I cannot think much differently without new facts/information/ideas.

Ultimately, I don't really agree with some of the conclusions you come to, but rather than question you, I think it's evident that we've displayed both of our sides enough. We should halt this discussion, at least here in this thread, as it's ceasing to be constructive.

I suppose. As long as we're at an understanding, that's fine for me most of the time.

Thank you for indulging me, by the way. And sorry if you took what I said personally and/or negatively.

[bystander]

I like to say a few things about religion, theories-wise.

Now, be forewarned, you are hearing this from an ultra-orthodox jew. This is a practical statement, and is not necessarily related to or consistent with my own personal beliefs and/or actions.

If we were to say that organized religion was created to serve a purpose or purposes in our society, we would have to identify categories of these purposes.

Category 1) Does it make you a better person?

This is my number one in organized religion. It has to serve to make you a better, more constructive person in society. It cannot result in you becoming bigoted, supremacist, or self-righteous.

Category 2) Does it make the world a better place?

This is a big one, for those who note that the church prevented scientific advancement for 1000 years, and also for those who note Westboro Baptist Church, and Jihadist Islam, as negative forces in society. A general rule, is that if a religion or sect of a religion has a destructive affect on society, whether it be by spreading hate, or by killing innocent people... or for that matter, killing anyone -not including the death sentence as ruled by a secular court-, it does not stand up to judgement in this category.

Category 3) It must make you happy! Organized religion is supposed to be an outlet of positive spirituality and self-fulfillment, combatting loneliness and uncertainty -among other negativities that plague our society-. If it does not make you happy, I can say 1 of 2 things; either 1) "YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG" or 2) your personal religion does not stand up to judgement in this category.

I consider these general rules as both guiding factors for my exploration of my own faith, as well as ideals that others should have to hold themselves to, in order for our society to continue to develop in a progressive, positive fashion, without the total exclusion of organized religion.
--
Aharon Ephraim

[memento vivere]

Since it's not necessarily appropriate for the Christianity thread, I'll ramble on a bit about my own beliefs here. It's been a while since I wrote it out, and it might help me get some of my current thoughts in order. Keep in mind that these are MY views on sprituality—if I ever talk as if they're objectively true, it's because it's easier than constantly going "in my opinion..." for everything.

I'm agnostic, though I grew up very Christian... like, I was "born again" at age 5 or so, I was speaking in tongues, the whole shebang. Whenever I talk about my beliefs, some Christians like to smugly/disdainfully assume that I cast off my faith due to not being able to handle the shame of my "sinful lifestyle" or whatever (I'm gay), and while that may be the case for some people, it's honestly NOT true for me. I realized I was gay when I was like 16, and I didn't start questioning my faith until I was 19 or so... but for those 3 years I really didn't have a lot of problems reconciling my faith with the fact that I was attracted to guys. The God I grew up knowing was a God of love, and whenever I prayed long and hard about it I didn't feel any of the guilt that I was "supposed" to feel for my attractions. Sure, it was called an abomination in the Bible, but so was SO MUCH other ridiculous arbitrary stuff like gendered hair length and eating shellfish and whatever else. I grew up in a church that believed Harry Potter and countless other arbitrary things were Satanic or evil... and even as a kid I was able to recognize when people were letting their own fears and prejudices cloud their judgment about their faith. So, what was more likely... that a loving God would fill me with attractions and emotions that he then wanted me to reject for the rest of my life in some kind of twisted "test" of sexual morality, or that maybe God just wants us to be happy and these arbitrary rules were made up by a bunch of Bronze-Age men who were capable of similarly clouded judgment because they found gay stuff icky? The "men make mistakes" conclusion just felt right to me at the time, and any time I prayed it just ended up feeling like he cared more about me being a good person and helping people than he did about the gender I loved.

The REAL reason I became agnostic was because I started learning about other faiths. One thing I remember that was a catalyst was this lecture I went to at school that compared and contrasted this one mythological figure from the Islamic and Hindu faiths. I knew jack shit about either religion... but I've always been interested in mythologies of ALL kinds, ESPECIALLY the kind that people still believe, so I paid attention. I don't remember the details because it was 3 years ago... but I remember that the figure in both the Islamic and Hindu faiths in many ways seemed to have a lot of similarities to Moses, in addition to a couple of other Biblical figures. There were a few other stories brought up during the lecture that ALSO seemed like "alternate" versions of the Biblical stories I grew up with... and I remember being struck with how much it reminded me of the difference between Greek and Roman mythologies, largely similar storylines but with somewhat different names and details involved, usually with some kind of "moral" involved. Odd, then, that people were SO sure that their version was the "correct" one... but if one version was truly true, then why so much difference between the two? If you chalk it up to details about true events changing over time due to humans passing down their history orally... then wasn't it kind of hubristic to say that only MY faith just happened to get it right? I had the Bible, Muslims had the Koran... but neither had more proof than the other, so why were Christians so quick to claim the Bible was the OBVIOUS right choice when most of them hadn't even READ the Koran and had no idea what they were disagreeing with?

Meanwhile, in some of my other classes, I was learning about OTHER faiths and mythologies, such as this long story from the 1600's describing one Native American view of the afterlife. I'd heard plenty of versions of the afterlife, because I always found it interesting and still do... but with all of my questions about the accuracy of Christianity, I started to think more critically about it this time around. The Native American afterlife had some similarities to the Christian afterlife, and to many afterlives... it had a good place and a bad place, reward and punishment for good or bad behavior, it involved eternal life in spirit form, as well as some other similarities that I forget now. The main thing, though, was the slowly creeping realization that ALL religions, for the most part, had similar elements, and I had to begin wondering why this was.

Was it because all religions were derivative of the "truth", Christianity, and therefore borrowed elements from it?
But if that was the case... then why was Christianity so geographically based? If it was really the "truth", then shouldn't versions of Christianity have popped up in OTHER parts of the world independently, instead of being mostly bound to the Middle East when it began, then spreading? And how would all unrelated religions throughout history have "borrowed" from a religion halfway across the world?

If all religions were similar, and religion/spirituality was something that existed in pretty much every human civilization in some form or another, then I reasoned that there were only two main ways that this could realistically come about.

Possibility 1: All civilizations somehow sensed the "truth" of the nature of the universe through their own spiritualities, and had all formed their own way to interpret it... whether Christian, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Shinto, and so on. Of course, that being the case, then they were ALL linked to the truth in their own way... but it wasn't realistic to suggest that it was MY geographically-bound religion in MY corner of the world that got it right EXACTLY, so if ALL religions couldn't be fully right, then NONE of them could be, including my own.

Possibility 2: Religion serves an evolutionary purpose in humanity, and a byproduct of the evolution of consciousness as a way to help us cope with the questions we can't answer and the phenomena we can't explain. This is why most spiritualities have shared elements, because humans NEED them. We almost always come up with the concept of the afterlife, because we simply CAN'T accept that our sense of self will one day be snuffed out, nor can we accept the pain of losing our loved ones forever. Generally there's some kind of punishment and/or reward system for bad behavior, because it gives us more of an incentive to work together as a society without everyone hurting everyone else. Generally there's a creation myth of some kind, because humans are curious creatures who HAVE to know where they began even if they have to make up stories to believe it. Add in a bunch more myths centered around explaining other unexplained phenomena, maybe with some pomp and circumstance thrown in for good measure, and you've got religion.

No matter which possibility was right, this new world view left no room for belief in Christianity as the one true faith, and I began to see it for what it was—it wasn't a faith that I chose because it sounded the closest to the truth, it was a faith that I was born into. Hell, I didn't know ANYTHING about other faiths before I was pledging my very SOUL to the one deity I'd ever known... within a religion that can't even agree on what it believes, and so divides itself into innumerable denominations because nobody can agree on which interpretation is right. Shouldn't the "truth" be more self-evident than that? If nobody was born into religion or taught it from a young age, would most people still end up believing what they do?

Anyway, that's why I'm agnostic... cause I DON'T believe I can say with 100% certainty that there IS nothing more. Maybe there's not, and that's the way I lean most of the time... but if there IS something more, I don't think it'll be something we're able to know before our time comes. If nothing else, it's not going to be wrapped up in quaint myths about magical gardens and talking animals.

[Descriptor]

I like to say a few things about religion, theories-wise.

Now, be forewarned, you are hearing this from an ultra-orthodox jew. This is a practical statement, and is not necessarily related to or consistent with my own personal beliefs and/or actions.

If we were to say that organized religion was created to serve a purpose or purposes in our society, we would have to identify categories of these purposes.

Category 1) Does it make you a better person?

This is my number one in organized religion. It has to serve to make you a better, more constructive person in society. It cannot result in you becoming bigoted, supremacist, or self-righteous.

Category 2) Does it make the world a better place?

This is a big one, for those who note that the church prevented scientific advancement for 1000 years, and also for those who note Westboro Baptist Church, and Jihadist Islam, as negative forces in society. A general rule, is that if a religion or sect of a religion has a destructive affect on society, whether it be by spreading hate, or by killing innocent people... or for that matter, killing anyone -not including the death sentence as ruled by a secular court-, it does not stand up to judgement in this category.

Category 3) It must make you happy! Organized religion is supposed to be an outlet of positive spirituality and self-fulfillment, combatting loneliness and uncertainty -among other negativities that plague our society-. If it does not make you happy, I can say 1 of 2 things; either 1) "YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG" or 2) your personal religion does not stand up to judgement in this category.

I consider these general rules as both guiding factors for my exploration of my own faith, as well as ideals that others should have to hold themselves to, in order for our society to continue to develop in a progressive, positive fashion, without the total exclusion of organized religion.
--
Aharon Ephraim

I kinda always took issue with the whole "prevented scientific advancement for 1000 years" thing.
I think most people are forgetting that the period of time also involved the collapse of the friggen Roman empire, the kind of event which has been known to kinda slow down development of things a lot. Granted, the Church has had occasions of questioning some scientific advancement, it's not nearly as bad as people tend to exaggerate it to. Like the whole Galileo affair? Much more based on politics, namely that Galileo openly made fun of the Pope in his book arguing for heliocentricism. This combined with urgings by a lot of Spanish bishops towards conservatism made the whole thing kinda a show trial more than anything. For instance, the punishment was house arrest, and they didn't exactly have trackers back then. It was basically them just telling him not to skip town, and also supplying free food for the rest of his life since he couldn't technically provide for himself any more.
Not to mention, a lot of those objections came more out of adherence to Greek thinking rather than Biblical thinking.
In fact, a lot of scientific advancement came from religion, as after all, Copernicus himself was a priest, and many of his colleagues supported his findings.
Plus the work of monks to maintain literature.

And that's not even starting on the work of the early Muslim empire translating and building upon the works of the Greeks.

Sorry, the whole religion hating science thing has just always kinda bugged the heck outta me...

[ArmsAreLoud]

Science and religion acting in opposition to each other didn't really start up on a large scale until the early 20th century when evolution started gaining ground in scientific communities

Before that, it wouldn't be hard to argue that in many ways science was religion. Priests were the only ones given the tools to advance science in the Middle Ages, and despite the era's reputation they used them (this era of scientific study was called Humanism, look it up). The Muslim Empire of the Caliphate jump started many of history's greatest advances in the name of God. And the further back in history you go the more science that you see that could just as easily be called mysticism.

[Selcouth]

Science and religion acting in opposition to each other didn't really start up on a large scale until the early 20th century when evolution started gaining ground in scientific communities

Before that, it wouldn't be hard to argue that in many ways science was religion. Priests were the only ones given the tools to advance science in the Middle Ages, and despite the era's reputation they used them (this era of scientific study was called Humanism, look it up). The Muslim Empire of the Caliphate jump started many of history's greatest advances in the name of God. And the further back in history you go the more science that you see that could just as easily be called mysticism.

Well, yes, but the Catholic Church in particular had a tendency of making up small details in order to emphasize doctrine that goes very far back indeed. In the 1400s, for example, no one thought anything of the Church saying that the Sun revolved around Earth - it was a minor detail, and impossible to be proven. In the early 1600s, however, Galileo published his result, indirectly implying that the Church was wrong (wrong!) on this topic, and the issue suddenly became HUGE as the two clashed. That's one example of religion and science - or, really, anything that disproves religion - fighting.

This probably stems from inter-religious dissent. Different religions fight among themselves quite often, each seeking to disprove the other. As a result, most modern religions are extremely leery of anything that seems to be arguing against it. Of course, nowadays, scientists are discovering many things that seem to, or outright, contradict things taken as fact in religious texts, and these discoveries come one after another. Thus science is a main point of opposition because it disagrees with religion, and not just one religion - nearly all of them at once.

[BlackholePA]

My religious theory is that it's an institution primarily built to provide answers about the world when humanity had none and to provide us with courage in the face of death. It still functions today through its merits as a psychological crutch and through its ability to give people a sense of purpose and/or fulfilment, as well due to its exploitation of the human tendency to see patterns and assign meaning and will to the meaningless, coincidental and inanimate. Furthermore it serves as a great excuse to control large groups of people, justify your questionable actions, and feel forgiven for offences committed against your fellow man. In addition to those already mentioned such as fulfilment and a buffer against the fear of death, advantages for the religious individual also include a support system to uphold external morals, where these may be internally lacking, albeit one that is largely fear-based. Disadvantages for the individual include delusion, a sentiment whereby the value of life is lessened to that of a preparatory period for a perceived (and non-existent) afterlife, and a disproportionate devotion to largely meaningless goals and ideals. Advantages for society include a framework to support an emerging complex civilisation and huge scope for the select few in power to sway the masses. Disadvantages for society, especially in a modern world, include extremism, atrocities committed in the name of faith, strife between opposing beliefs, prejudice, suppression of truth and progression as they are supplanted by egocentric and comforting fantasy, and a general weight on the advancement of civilisation.

These are conclusions reached after spending a large part of my life observing religion from an objective standpoint.

I'm not the greatest fan of religious institution.

show spoiler

hide spoiler

Seeing as this post might seem to come to the conclusion that religion is negative, and also operates under the assumption that it is false, then this post has the inherent potential to offend some people. These inclusions were inevitable, as a) the falsity of almost all faiths is something that to me seems not only blindingly self-evident but has also been effectively proven on a number of occasions through argument and b) the overall negative impact of religion in a modern society has indeed been my conclusion through both observation and the application of logic. In the event that you have been offended, please accept that we will have to agree to disagree with regard to our beliefs, and please remember that I am in no way opposed to people believing in a faith; merely, I am opposed to organised religious institution in this sense as a whole. Your beliefs are your own, and you have every right to them as does everyone.

Also, if any religion were to be proved to have merit in my eyes then all of this would be rendered false, so by all means do step forward if you can present me with a system of beliefs that appears to be irrefutably correct.

[Phantos]

I'm curious what your thoughts on Galileo were, given Religion's views on science during the time.

[*Sigh*]

Whoah this thread arose from the dead out of nowhere. Glad to see my idea wasn't COMPLETELY useless.

[memento vivere]

Spoilered for bigness.

show spoiler

hide spoiler

Quran 5:46: And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

^ So I found that posted on the Westboro Baptist Church facebook page (which Anonymous has currently taken over, go them) and thought that was interesting. I find all religions interesting, but I'm admittedly not as well-versed in Islam as I'd like to be since I grew up in America which is obviously pretty Christian-centric. I guess I just always figured, like most people, that Islam was it's whole other thing, with some some similarities shared between the Abrahamic religions... but I didn't realize that the Quran straight up says "yes, Moses and Jesus were totally legit, but here's some MORE stuff you need to know about!" I really need to read the Quran at some point, along with a lot of other religious texts...

[Phantos]

The Book of Mormon is another good sequel to the new testament as well, yeah. I cannot recommend reading religious texts enough to people curious about religion.

Mostly it boils down to a discussion of Messiahs and which one is the true savior, which one is a double savior what came later, and whether or not the savior has even shown up yet.

[Wuggums47]

When I was little I believed everything had a soul. Even rocks. And some of them where evil too.

[Graknorke]

It's not entirely relevant to the discussion, but I've seen some usage of the phrase "open minded" in this thread where it isn't appropriate. And that bugs me.
Open mindedness is not accepting all ideas, that's gullibility. Open mindedness is listening to and considering them. A closed minded person would be someone who refused to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. Where the accusation of closed mindedness is often inaccurately made is when someone is told an idea, and then says that it is wrong and gives a reason, or that it's a baseless statement. That isn't closed mindedness. It's just not accepting something that is factually unsound.

[HenBarrison]

I have this "belief" that eventually, all religion will eventually cease to be practiced/believed in/exist.

Or maybe not go away entirely, but only be upheld by few, who by then will be considered freaks and weirdos by society as a whole.

I look forward to that time. And not because of the people being looked down on because of their beliefs, but because of the benefits of not having religion being a dominant force in anything.

I don't think I'll be alive, if it ever happens, but if it does, I'll be glad.