Justification for the Spread of Anti-Religious Sentiments

[Elephant]

Life contains fear, anxiety, and confusion. Therefore in an attempt to decipher its meaning one would have to face these things.

I do not know whether religions were created in celebration of life. The fundamental philosophy of the majority of religious dogmas at the very least embrace life. For instance, Buddhism sees this life as a journey of suffering, but it doesn't suggest suicide.

Perhaps we have two different definitions of life. I am talking about the state of being alive. It may be that you are referring to the series of events that make up a life.

[Marshall McDaniel]

A couple of facts. About 93% of scientists are Atheists. And less than 1% of the people in prison are atheists. I agree that religions are primarily based on fear.
---
Today was Christmas. I was out moving cars in my short sleeves and slippers making room for company for our Christmas dinner (having just contracted some type of upper respiratory ailment like the cold or flu the day before). An elderly black couple in a big black car pulled up to my neighbor's townhouse. I assumed they were visitors. I wished them a Merry Christmas, and the man asked me if i would be eating Turkey today, i responded that i am a vegetarian. The converation continued to Mad cow's disease and as the couple meandered closer i noticed the bibles in their bags. I slowly turned to face them as the we talked and sure enough, at the end of the discussion, they start telling me a little about Jesus and about God and how you can't see the wind, but it's there. (Am i wrong for not trying to talk these people back to their senses?). I even accepted their Watchtower literature. Even after pointing out where i live during the course of the conversation, they still proceed up to my townhouse. The wife (who is a Christian) is busy in the kitchen cooking, and has the window down, she yells out the window, "If you're who i think you are, you'd better turn around." The woman immediately confirms that they are indeed Jehovah's witnesses and my wife responds that she thinks this tacky. I understand from my friends who are Jehovah's witnesses ( i have talked to them and explained why i am a devout Atheist) that this particular flavor of belief does not celebrate Christmas which brings up the question: why don't these people respect the holidays of other religions? My only regret is saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy holidays".
---
I have a friend who once received two Mormon would-be proselytizers. He told them about how Mormons could treat black people better, treat women with equal respect, and similiar advice. He even had them write notes to take back to their elders. Perhaps i should try this tact. My friend is a secular humanist.

[Matt]

What do Matt, cba etc think about non-theistic relgions such as Taoism and Buddhism (though not all Buddhist lineages are non-theistic)?

Don't know all that much about them to be honest.

Is my previous post on the 21st of Dec invisible to everyone? I thought I'd get at least a few insults from religious types. I also put across my counter arguments to Metavoid far more eloquently than the feeble attempts afterwards. Oh well, one can lead a horse to water and all that. I was rather pleased with the fanatical stamp collector point.

______________________

M McD, I suppose it's because they feel obliged to do that.

It;'s a double edged sword they feel that they are saving you if they convert you, hence they should try their best even on Xmas day. But as a human to a human, it's quite insulting.

[jgfan]

From the little I know about Jehovous Witnesses wouldn't wishing happy holidays with the sense of enjoyment and lack of traditional holy-day meaning be even more offensive than merry christmas?

[trix]

hey matt!

Is my previous post on the 21st of Dec invisible to everyone?

i read your post. if you are expressing resentment in the mindless following of a movement, then i agree with you. this mob-mentality is a huge threat to the world, and determinetal to the individual -- this is the point of all philosophy.

as there are reasons to not believe in god, they are reasons to believe in god. either choice, it seems to me, requires a leap that is no one's decision but the individual.

In other words, tolerate religion, yes, respect it, no.

yes, i'll agree with this.

[Matt]

I just wanted to have a paddy. I could have pretended twas my b'day and I could cry if I wanted to, but twas two days ago.

[cba1067950]

I slowly turned to face them as the we talked and sure enough, at the end of the discussion, they start telling me a little about Jesus and about God and how you can't see the wind, but it's there.

It's ironic how the word "wind" is synonymous with trendy and nothing.

[Bob]

Hi,
I'm new here but I have read through a lot of what has already been written. I think that there are plenty of reasons for anti-religious sentiment - even though I regard myself as being "religious".

It is all quite simple really, but we seem to miss it all the same. Religion is a method of interpreting the world in a non-scientific manner. Since the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" and especially since humanistic teaching methods have been adopted, we all tend to mix the two, which doesn't work.

It is the same as using literature to explain a phenomena of human behaviour. If you are open for what literature can impart, then that's fine, but it won't do for a scientific disquisition.

We need to find out what we are trying to prove when discussing Religion. If we are trying to "prove" God, well sorry, I can't subscribe. If we are arguing human experience with inexplicable phenomena, then I can communicate.

Religion also has several levels. We can approach the subject from a level of emotional historicity, from a level of interpretation of occurences, from the level of apologetics etc. Religion is really the emotional translation of real human experience.

Anti-religious sentiments are justified if we mix the apples and pears, if we jumble up the discussion, or if we use religious enlightenment as a basis for political aims (e.g. the present American administration). That is where things become dangerous and the confrontation between opposing fundamentalist groups become unavoidable.

I believe in Christ as the opposite to the Roman Emperor - as it were the anti-caesar - and as the personified or the true nature of wisdom. I believe that all Powerpolitics, whoever is pushing the pieces on the board, are doomed to a short life (taking many lives with them). I believe that the hypothesis "God" is substantiated in Christ's life and death, and in the subsequent faith in his resurrection.

But I also understand the Jews, who hold on to their waiting for the Messiach; the Muslims who regard Judaismus and Chritianity to have failed; the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Taoists and whoever else is out there. The reason is this: God cannot be anything but universal, and I cannot be anything but ignorant to the miriad of ways that divine wisdom takes. Who am I to say that my faith is superior to others?

I see I have written rather a lot for a beginner. Please excuse me.

Shalom
Bob

[detrop]

Welcome aboard, Bob. You'll make an excellent addition to this lively bunch.

We need to find out what we are trying to prove when discussing Religion. If we are trying to "prove" God, well sorry, I can't subscribe. If we are arguing human experience with inexplicable phenomena, then I can communicate.

This specific statement caught my eye and I'd like to give you some of my ideas concerning it.

What I really liked was your admission that religion doesn't support any "proof" for the existence of a "god." However, what I do not understand is how you would believe that "inexplicable phenomena" serves as some kind of evidence for proving what religion cannot. It seems that you might subscribe to the notion that "proof" is a very scientific and logical affair, which, indeed it is, yet when faced with some phenomena that isn't explained "scientifically," you might want to say that it cannot be explained, and that this failure is some necessary proof for an experience that is neither "scientific" or "logical."

To give you an example of what I mean, consider a primitive man's experience of a thunder storm. For him, the experience is very real, but the phenomena of a bolt of lightening is "inexplicable" because, without the means of science, he has no way to explain it, it's origins, it's reason for striking, etc., etc. He will then interpret the phenomena as "supernatural" and might likely attribute it to some kind of "divine" intervention, being caused by something above and beyond his worldy experience. Then, a thousand years later, through the use of scientific technology, the lightening is discovered to be electricity, and there is no longer a need to attribute the phenomena to some supernatural event.

Likewise, as Nietzsche mentioned, a primitive man might have a dream in which he interacts with a dead relative. Upon waking, he might propose to the others that "the dead live on, for I have seen them in my dreams." This experience would be the origins of what we now call "metaphysics," and it would introduce a facet of experience that could not be interperated in terms of "explicable phenomena," giving rise to various mysticisms, religions, and other types of dogmatic assertions. And, of course, now we can regard dreams as quite natural brain activity that occurs while we are sleeping, so we no longer invest much belief in the possibility that one enters into "another world" where "spirits" reside, etc., which would be the common tenents of these primitive dualisms and mysticisms.

Another "inexplicable phenomena" we have heard of is in the experiences of people who have been pronounced dead. Many, when revived, claim to have seen a "tunnel" of light. Today scientists say that this is the result of optical nerves shutting down in such a way that causes one's peripheral vision to diminish, making one's last visions appear to be "tunnel" of light surrounded by darkness.

And, of course, we've heard tales of psychic prediction, clairvoyance, telekinesis, faith healing, so on and so forth. My concern is that these events, and I'm not saying they can't happen, aren't any more "proof" of a supernatural or devine experience then the lightening or the dream. They are only more ordinary natural phenomena that hasn't yet been explained by science.

Religion is a method of interpreting the world in a non-scientific manner.

You see, Bob, I don't think it is possible to interpret the world in a non-scientific manner. If there is any interpretation going on whatsoever, it will involve elements that can very well be explained by logic and/or physics(physical sciences). If they are not yet explained in such a way, I see no reason to believe that they escape the possibility of being explained.

Religion is really the emotional translation of real human experience.

I agree completely. But I also believe that "emotion" and human psychology can be understood through science, and specifically through a discipline known as Phenomenology(Husserl).

Really, religion is a set of organized principles and fundamentals that are practiced by groups of people. The validity of these things isn't important because the practice itself involves "beliefs," which are synonomous with ignorance, and which is completely different from matters of science and logic.

Please feel free to raise any objections or clear up any misunderstandings I might have had with your post.

Good to have ya,' Bob.

[Bob]

Hi de'trop,

what I do not understand is how you would believe that "inexplicable phenomena" serves as some kind of evidence for proving what religion cannot

Well I don't actually, I missed a word out of what I should have written: "If we are arguing human experience with rationally inexplicable phenomena, then I can communicate."

You see, I don't believe that there is a rational explanation for everything. You have quoted the common example with the thunderbolt, I could quote the example of love being not proveable, other than in the actions we witness (Love is a "doing-word"- Erich Fromm).

The Gospels and the Epistels are for me the work of people trying to pass on an experience, not the attempt to prove things in the way we would today, or indeed as we would be told. They pass it on combined with their interpretation of scripture, which is meant to show that it is all within the boundaries of prophecy - this being an important must for any acceptance within a jewish society.

It reminds me of a passage that James Carroll wrote in his book about mourning for a dear friend, how he and the group of mourners gathered in the way they had when their friend was with them, how they remembered the experiences they had had together, how they sang songs they had sung together, and how a lasting memory grew, perhaps larger than life. Knowing the jewish tradition with the psalms and tenach, the experience of the apostles could have been a similar kind of affair.

The emotional translation of experiences in this way provides a way ahead, and when an assurance rises within people, combined with possible hysteria and perhaps even manipulation (on the side of the authorities) - you have an effect that can change the flow of things. These are all things that in an effective combination present the facts somewhat differently than a scientific investigation might.

Reality is what becomes real for people, what moves them, spurns them on, gives them hope. It was the hope of the early Christians that left the authorities speechless. I believe that this hope ignited the faith that Christ looked for amongst his people, faith that can move mountains.

Bob, I don't think it is possible to interpret the world in a non-scientific manner

I would hope that science isn't into interpretation but into objective proof. When I say interpretation, I mean the way that wisdom grows. The way that street-orphans become "streetwise". There is enough human experience in the world to fill volumes of Wisdom - some of it (perhaps a lot of it) lost through the ignorance of "civilised" nations, bungling about as Colonials..

This kind of wisdom is different to science, it lacks the "proof" of empirical assessment, but has the knowledge of generations. There are so many aspects of life that we have yet to scientifically assess, that it is good that we have good old wisdom to lean on

Have to close now, but I'll be back
Shalom
Bob

[Marshall McDaniel]

Welcome to the forum Bob. I have to agree with the dangers of a 'one size fits all' religion as Matt puts it. This attitude is dangerous in politics, 'right through the party', and a number of other disciplines.
---
Bob said

Religion is really the emotional translation of real human experience.

This seems to come close close to the archetypal mythological experience, as seen by Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. Religion has been an important tool for teaching, rights of passage, etc in the past, even though it's current purview is dwindling somewhat. It is when religion steps outside of these bounds and attempts to politicize, mandate fables, destroy other religions, etc that religion becomes a dark force. Some people see the shrinking scope of religion with fear and some look at the sciences which have benefited from religion, like mythology, philosophy, and science and are invigorated anew.
---
Cba1067950 said

Marshall McDaniel wrote:

I slowly turned to face them as the we talked and sure enough, at the end of the discussion, they start telling me a little about Jesus and about God and how you can't see the wind, but it's there.

It's ironic how the word "wind" is synonymous with trendy and nothing.

They always use that analogy as if it suffices for a proof of God's existence, and maybe it does, for them. The word superficial comes to mind ( a trendy nothing) many such proofs are like that.
---
As for the earlier question about non-theistic religions (I still read the World's major religions even though a devout Atheist, so they must have some emotional import and nuggets of wisdom at least for me) I greatly admire Buddhism and Jainism for their respect for life. I like Confucianism for it's humbleness, although one can find the same sort of thing in Socrates and Jesus as in the Analects of Confucious.
---
Why aren't children simply taught the golden rule (which predates Christ) and a few other odds and ends in order to get along with other people and allowed to choose on their own?

[detrop]

I should have written: "If we are arguing human experience with rationally inexplicable phenomena, then I can communicate."

This is the same thing as saying evidence for the existence of a "god" is the fact that human experience isn't rational. Then it might seem like our idea of "god" is irrational as well, if our ideas involve our experiences which aren't rational. We would end up with a self refuting proposition.

I still see no reason to say because all experiences can't be explained- God necessarily exists. That would seem to complicate things and make them more complex then they really are. What's that fella's name..."Okham?" The guy with the razor. (suddenly, Rafajafar appears spontaneously and posts the correct spelling, and a brief introduction)

The Gospels and the Epistels are for me the work of people trying to pass on an experience, not the attempt to prove things in the way we would today, or indeed as we would be told.

I don't see how this is so important though. Passing stories through tradition from generation to generation has a social and historical value, but why is that so great?

They pass it on combined with their interpretation of scripture, which is meant to show that it is all within the boundaries of prophecy -

Prophecy is future seeing. If you can prove that events happen that are exactly the events that are forseen to happen, then you've got some cutting edge science, pal, let me be your manager.

Are you saying that not only is experience irrational, there IS a God and part of the evidence of this is the fact that events happen that have been claimed to be forseen?

I would hope that science isn't into interpretation but into objective proof. When I say interpretation, I mean the way that wisdom grows.

We need to stop for a moment and agree on some definitions for these new terms and words and how they would relate. What is "wisdom?" Is it a type of knowledge? Ya' know, I think I've used that word exactly twice in my life. It's just a polished version of knowledge, made for story telling and fortune cookies. Sure, I'd use it in a narration or something, but would never feel the need to introduce it into my vocabulary(bleak at that).

The way that street-orphans become "streetwise".

I am interested in this. Please elaborate.

There is enough human experience in the world to fill volumes of Wisdom

Why is that such a wonderful fact?

This kind of wisdom is different to science, it lacks the "proof" of empirical assessment, but has the knowledge of generations.

I don't really know what you mean here.

You know what I like to do, Bob? When I spend more than thirty minutes discussing "religion" and "god" with someone, I like to cut to the chase. What we are really asking is "what happens when we die." If we were to disembody and rise above as a spirit fully conscious and eternally "alive," we'd answer a whole lot of our questions. Still, there you are....what now?

I am a very sad, selfish and secretly depressed person who doesn't want to die, doesn't want you to die, and doesn't want the star to grow cold. What boggles my mind is that nobody else seems to really fret over what I consider a legitimate existential absurdity. I don't even need to go further than to ask why is it even possible for it to be so. Obviously a brick doesn't dislodge itself from a roof on the occasion of a passing man, slide down the tin, and plop a man dead, every day, but that's not a point I think I need to defend myself from. It is just the possibility that that can happen that I place myself in that mans shoes and ask the questions we ask here. Forget about it, I don't even need to consider war, natural disaster, disease, famine, poverty, etc. We don't have to mention those things to make the point, right, because it is that man's experience and welt on the head that we are dealing with. He tells a different story, he is as real of an experience as we are an experience of our own.

But this is just pouting.

I have considered some very radical "philsophical/scientific" ideas regarding "God" that far surpass what content the Bible might offer. As I see you make various references to tradition and its lore value, as well as religious literature, I'm not quick to react and feel like I need to defend my previous stance.

Aside from a few new words being intrduced; wisdom, interpretation, objective, irrational,; we've done nothing more than gotten farther from what we are really trying to ask and "proof," if indeed there is, a "god."

My point is that such a concept doesn't even qualify logically, it needn't be sure it made sense to me, it doesn't even get that far. What I believe is so utterly simple, anything more than that evokes my suspicion. I also say that there is a great distinction between knowledge and belief, so I don't run ahead and try to accept things I haven't experienced myself. I am skeptical of all theistic religion. I'm sorry.

Especially in matters of "God," because I would at least like to be sure that God was aware of that brick, that man, and the explaination he'd better have ready when the dude shows up wanting answers. This is tactless and rude. Whether it is metaphysically or ontologically possible that a God exists and we are here talking about him, makes no difference to me at this point. The concept is reckless, clumsy, and remains only a desperate belief in a God I would certainly hope didn't exist. I could absolutely never be able to justify all the suffering, violence, struggle, and failure in the world no matter what I wanted to "belief" in, so any concept I could have of God would be very critical and weary.

The burden is ours, Bob, I'd like to think. This would give me something to do in this otherwise boring existence. To bear it.

[Metavoid]

Is my previous post on the 21st of Dec invisible to everyone? I thought I'd get at least a few insults from religious types. I also put across my counter arguments to Metavoid far more eloquently than the feeble attempts afterwards. Oh well, one can lead a horse to water and all that. I was rather pleased with the fanatical stamp collector point.

I was too lazy, really. I think what you fail to realise is the dual nature of religion - it, like most human institutions and activities, has done good things as well as bad.

[Bob]

Hi Marshall,

I have to agree with the dangers of a 'one size fits all' religion as Matt puts it. This attitude is dangerous in politics, 'right through the party', and a number of other disciplines.

If I seemed to make that case I apologise. I am ecumenical-minded because I believe that what we call “God” is one, but that our concepts of what we mean by that are many. Your know the story about the blind men around the elephant ... I believe that human experience is much the same where ever you may be. We just present our experiences from different perspectives.

Religion is really the emotional translation of real human experience.
This seems to come close close to the archetypal mythological experience, as seen by Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.

Yes, I have to confess that I didn't think it up myself. I think that there are so many archetypes in the Bible alone. And watching people generally, there is a lot to say for “types” of people, even though their interweaving is extremely complex. In my job I get to assess psychiatric disorders a lot – mainly of older people – because we have no resident Doctor and the Neurologists rely upon our diagnostic abilities. I think we look for archetypes for security and latch on to them when we feel secure. That would explain why Religion has used them effectively as well.

It is when religion steps outside of these bounds and attempts to politicize, mandate fables, destroy other religions, etc that religion becomes a dark force. Some people see the shrinking scope of religion with fear and some look at the sciences which have benefited from religion, like mythology, philosophy, and science and are invigorated anew.

I agree, but we have to use what we have to assess our situation. I am “Religious” because I believe in a semblance of order and see it even in the chaos we believe we see. Indeed, I think that the chaotic influence in this world comes from human beings – even though we often think it is the other way around. Whatever put the order into the micro- and macro-cosmos is what made my life possible – and thanking “God” is what Religion is essentially is about.
Shalom
Bob

[Bob]

Hi de'trop,

I should have written: "If we are arguing human experience with rationally inexplicable phenomena, then I can communicate."
This is the same thing as saying evidence for the existence of a "god" is the fact that human experience isn't rational. Then it might seem like our idea of "god" is irrational as well, if our ideas involve our experiences which aren't rational. We would end up with a self refuting proposition.

Perhaps I'm not looking for evidence for the existence of a “god”. I sometimes think that using these words and expressions immediately clogs up our ability to differentiate. Our rationality is always trying to reason, or to make sense of things. It isn't even something we can control. The brain is always working overtime -even in brains we wouldn't think capable – to rationalise and find security.
I like to use Maslow's hierarchical theory of human needs to show how we're always looking for the next step up in life:
Life begins with Physiological needs. These are biological such as the need of oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. If we were deprived of these things, death would be inevitable.
We go on to look for Safety. As Adults we are rarely aware of our need for security, except perhaps in times of emergency or periods of disorganisation in the social structure. But actually, it isn't just children who often display signs of insecurity and their need to be safe.
The need of Love, Affection and a sense of Belonging grows on us with puberty. People normally need to escape feelings of loneliness and alienation and give (and receive) love, affection and the sense of belonging.
The need for Esteem grows with experience. People require a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others in order to feel satisfied, self confident and valuable. The only alternative is feeling inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.
An ongoing process that brings out the best in human beings is what Maslow calls self-actualisation. People who achieve this are involved in a cause other than themselves. They are devoted, working hard at something, they may have the feeling of some calling or vocation in the old sense - the priestly sense.
I like to believe that this is also the way people move through life towards fulfilment – something that far too many do not achieve. In this sense, Religion is about life and fulfilment, not proof of God. God is to be seen as the prime-cause that makes it possible and is assumed, more than proven. That is why experiences supporting this assumption and that are not rationally explainable are ascribed to a divine entity.

The Gospels and the Epistels are for me the work of people trying to pass on an experience, not the attempt to prove things in the way we would today, or indeed as we would be told.
I don't see how this is so important though. Passing stories through tradition from generation to generation has a social and historical value, but why is that so great?

There was healing power in stories and perhaps one of the reasons why we have stopped advancing spiritually is because we don't tell stories in our social groups anymore. Perhaps we have become so “enlightened” that we think that psychosomatic complaints are one of the many ailments that life brings with it. I believe that we are weakening because we have lost the “primitive” aspects of life that makes people healthy.

They pass it on combined with their interpretation of scripture, which is meant to show that it is all within the boundaries of prophecy -
Prophecy is future seeing. If you can prove that events happen that are exactly the events that are forseen to happen, then you've got some cutting edge science, pal, let me be your manager.

I think that prophecy can be “saying things before”, or a “saying forth of things” – if you get my meaning. Prophecy in the Old Testament is very often a “saying forth of things” that need to be said. John the Baptist was a prophet, but one that couldn't keep himself from revealing the moral decadence of Herod. When punishing Christ the guards made fun of Christ by telling him to prophecy who hit him – an example of what prophecy is not.

What is "wisdom?" Is it a type of knowledge? Ya' know, I think I've used that word exactly twice in my life. It's just a polished version of knowledge, made for story telling and fortune cookies. Sure, I'd use it in a narration or something, but would never feel the need to introduce it into my vocabulary(bleak at that).

Wisdom is the combination of experience and knowledge in critical or practical application. Some say it is common sense – though few adopt such “common” sense. The literature of wisdom is very often full of things that we all agree to, but seldom adhere to.

The way that street-orphans become "streetwise".
I am interested in this. Please elaborate.

Streetwise is the strategy of survival with the least of means, with little knowledge and bad experience as the basis of successfully surviving. It is a collection of “truths” that are viable in a particular situation, but not universally practicable. The kids learn to survive, even begin their own subculture, but it is very often the rule of the strongest. They very often fail in larger society.
That is generally what I meant when I wrote: This kind of wisdom is different to science, it lacks the "proof" of empirical assessment, but has the knowledge of generations.

Shalom
Bob

[Elephant]

What boggles my mind is that nobody else seems to really fret over what I consider a legitimate existential absurdity. I don't even need to go further than to ask why is it even possible for it to be so.

Why is it that you believe nobody seems to fret about this? I think everyone does, to some extent; people concerned with philosophy are usually more baffled by this absurdity than most.

But this is just pouting.

I think you've hit on an important chord here. Why do we even care if there is a God or not? We should probably try to stay away from reinventing the wheel, but when a debate takes proportions, such a basic question might not be unreasonable. Why are we talking about this? You seem to suggest that it is because we don't know what happens after we die. Bob (incidentally, welcome, Bob!) says that it is because we don't know what happens during our life. I think religion and the subject of God are so delicate in part because of the complexity of the matter and the amount of our existence that it touches (aside from the emotional aspect, and we are all rather emotional under a shallow facade). Because, really, is there any aspect of life that isn't affected by religion? Once you accept (by faith) the idea of a higher power and of a spiritual reality, you place the entirety of the immediate, material world in dependence to this idea.

Is this not so?

I have considered some very radical "philsophical/scientific" ideas regarding "God" that far surpass what content the Bible might offer.

I am very interested in hearing more about these ideas, if you are willing to share.

My point is that such a concept doesn't even qualify logically, it needn't be sure it made sense to me, it doesn't even get that far.

Because God is thought of as infinite and all-encompassing? If that is the case, I see where you're coming from. Nevertheless, people are attempting to solve (scientifically) Markov Decision Processes that have an indefinite horizon, problems that are NP-hard, and they have proven that there are several degrees of infinity (Cantor's diagonal argument). I see no reason why God's existence could not one day be proven or disproven scientifically. Perhaps science will be able to explain why people believe in God.

Perhaps it already has.

Especially in matters of "God," because I would at least like to be sure that God was aware of that brick, that man, and the explaination he'd better have ready when the dude shows up wanting answers. This is tactless and rude. Whether it is metaphysically or ontologically possible that a God exists and we are here talking about him, makes no difference to me at this point. The concept is reckless, clumsy, and remains only a desperate belief in a God I would certainly hope didn't exist. I could absolutely never be able to justify all the suffering, violence, struggle, and failure in the world no matter what I wanted to "belief" in, so any concept I could have of God would be very critical and weary.

God will likely know about the brick, if He or She exists. You seem to be attributing human emotions to a spiritual being, the supreme one, nonetheless. May I ask what brings you to the conclusion that God's standards of suffering and struggle are the same as ours?

[detrop]

Why is it that you believe nobody seems to fret about this?

Nonchalance. People are very casual about such shocking truths, and this disturbs me. I'm not saying that everyone should drop what their doing and complain about something, just that I thought there would be a greater response to the problems that I think are dangerously important and ignored. There is a general malaise in everyone, I see it in public, at work, on TV, the radio, everywhere. The walking dead would be a decent exaggeration.

In other words, I don't see signs of recognition like I want to see.

I also thought that part of the recognition of these problems would be a sudden reaction to "religion" and a quick disposal. Yet 70% of the world claims to be religious, and the numbers are growing.

Why do we even care if there is a God or not?

Well, its not even that, really. What we want to be is immortal, something permanent. It comes necessarily that "God" exists when people begin pondering the existence of "spiritual" immortality. A human being doesn't set out to believe in a "God," indeed that is incomprehensible, but rather begins a search for answers regarding his existence, and more precislely, his duration. He confronts his mortality, shudders, and devotes the rest of his life to that acceptance. In a reaction to this consolation he imagines what it might take for him to exist eternally, in some form or another, for some reason or another, and the possibility that this existence be for and toward such ends. No other concern can be of more importance to man than this, but there is no other way to reconcile it without a plunge into faith and the paradoxical. "God" is this, as an expediency for supporting a more obvious anxiety...that of approaching death. Would we need a god if we lived for ever? Surely not. But we aren't yet concerned with whether or not God exists, but only what happens after death.

You seem to suggest that it is because we don't know what happens after we die. Bob (incidentally, welcome, Bob!) says that it is because we don't know what happens during our life.

Sure, but understanding our existence doesn't change the impossibility of concieving an existence other than this one, whether we understand it or not. My point is that even if someone claims to understand "what happens during life," they are still confronted with the same question as one who admits the contrary. Their both after the same answer, the tangibility of experience has nothing to do with this endeavor. The contemplation of death begins all metaphysical thinking.

I think religion and the subject of God are so delicate in part because of the complexity of the matter and the amount of our existence that it touches

Religion is delicate because it is metaphysics. But I think that the desire to find meaning, purpose, and permanence is a basic structure in our existence and is more virtual that a system of metaphysics. Again, it is the simple animalistic response to physical death that produces our questions that consequently create postulates such as "spirit," and "God." Religion is only an elaborate hypothesis that can be anything, as long as it answers man's most primordial question. "Metaphysics" means "man has stopped to think about it."

Once you accept (by faith) the idea of a higher power and of a spiritual reality, you place the entirety of the immediate, material world in dependence to this idea.

"Higher power" and "spiritual reality" can mean anything. What lies underneath these projections is a psychological tic that is easily diagnosed. What each will represent is a foundation for values that man has experienced as lacking. Moral objectivity and necessity, firstly, a justification and absolution administrated by a conducting higher power. Permanence of existence- eternal consciousness and spirit. Two questions are answered for a man..

1. What am I.
2. What do I do.

The rest is metaphysics.

I see no reason why God's existence could not one day be proven or disproven scientifically.

Kierkegaard asks "how could that be demonstrated?" Does one hear a voice from the sky? Does one rise above one's dead body and ascend into the heavens? Does one find a grand unified theory?

How do we know he isn't a fake?

May I ask what brings you to the conclusion that God's standards of suffering and struggle are the same as ours?

Nothing. I do not conclude that. I don't need to think about that. I don't care what his standards are....it is human standards that I am concerned about, and how we would place value in them in the absence of a benevolent god or in the presence of an indifferent one. I agree with Sartre here, it doesn't matter either way. We cannot go further.

[Marshall McDaniel]

De'trop. I think this is where a lot of religions fail. They are concerned with eternal heaven, their doctrine, increasing their fold, and have forgotten to reach out to the poor and their fellow man. As an Atheist, i find that i have more time to help those around me, which i believe is one of the principal things that religion should be concerned with.
---
Fear and the question of death is behind a lot of these religious explanations, as Bertrand Russell asks, [paraphrase] "why do we not ask that our soul take up all of space after death instead of enduring for all eternity." The attitude towards death is one of the main delineating aspects between theist/atheist, there are, however, some people who believe in life after death or reincarnation without necessarily espousing any deities. Perhaps the longing for immortality that one finds in almost all religions can be secretly traced to insecurity. Perhaps if people truly embraced their freedom and lived their lives, they would embrace death with the same kind of love.
---
De'trop said

I also thought that part of the recognition of these problems would be a sudden reaction to "religion" and a quick disposal. Yet 70% of the world claims to be religious, and the numbers are growing.

I was under the impression that the number of people who believed in God was declining. What evidence do you have for these assertions? I am aware that certain religions such as Islam are on the rise, but the overall percentage of theists should be declining.
---
Find out about William of Ockham and his sharp razor
HERE
---
Bob said:

Hi Marshall,

I have to agree with the dangers of a 'one size fits all' religion as Matt puts it. This attitude is dangerous in politics, 'right through the party', and a number of other disciplines.

If I seemed to make that case I apologise. I am ecumenical-minded because I believe that what we call “God” is one, but that our concepts of what we mean by that are many. Your know the story about the blind men around the elephant ... I believe that human experience is much the same where ever you may be. We just present our experiences from different perspectives.

I was making a general statement and was not referring to you, Bob. I agree that we transmit our similiar experiences through a multitude of perspectives. Sometimes it seems that we are completely different, but a lot of times, maybe the inerpretation is the only different thing.
---

I too reject the notion of God for rational reasons, this does not, however address the role that religions and myths have played in helping us to relate to our experiences, adjust to different stages in our life, etc. Many people still go to church to get married even though they might not secretly buy into the overall religious viewpoint, or even believe in God. Myths have played a major role in the lives of people throughout the generations. Some of us aren't able to see the myth as myth, but this is not the fault of the myth. The myth is merely the noble lie which in the past has helped us to relate to the World at large and the fact that some people choose to do this empirically instead of rationally seems no reason to reject myths out of hand.
---
Great posts everyone. I have enjoyed the lengthy detailed posts which have characterized this thread.

[Elephant]

Nonchalance. People are very casual about such shocking truths, and this disturbs me.

I think people are trying to make the reality cause less of a shock by diminishing its importance. I suspect this is only on the outside, though. On the other hand...

In other words, I don't see signs of recognition like I want to see.

I'm sorry.

I also thought that part of the recognition of these problems would be a sudden reaction to "religion" and a quick disposal.

I doubt it. Recognition might result in a search for an escape or solution; certainly religion will provide such for some.

Yet 70% of the world claims to be religious, and the numbers are growing.

If we give credit to statistics. What was it, 60% of statistics are wrong? Maybe the number of religious people is increasing, but is their proportion?

What we want to be is immortal, something permanent.

Please forgive me, but it seems that you are making a number of generalizations. I am sure there are quite a few people alive that are happy with their transitoriness. In fact, it seems that some might even reason that permanence is not a possible goal.

It comes necessarily that "God" exists when people begin pondering the existence of "spiritual" immortality.

Why is that? If spirits did exist and were immortal, would God be necessarily set apart from the rest?

A human being doesn't set out to believe in a "God," indeed that is incomprehensible, but rather begins a search for answers regarding his existence, and more precislely, his duration. He confronts his mortality, shudders, and devotes the rest of his life to that acceptance.

Some human beings have an unmovable belief in God even before they know they are going to die.

In a reaction to this consolation he imagines what it might take for him to exist eternally, in some form or another, for some reason or another, and the possibility that this existence be for and toward such ends. No other concern can be of more importance to man than this, but there is no other way to reconcile it without a plunge into faith and the paradoxical. "God" is this, as an expediency for supporting a more obvious anxiety...that of approaching death. Would we need a god if we lived for ever? Surely not. But we aren't yet concerned with whether or not God exists, but only what happens after death.

I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but personally, I don't give a flip what happens after I die. I do fear death, simply because my body (which encompasses, as far as I know, all my perceptions) understands very little about it. However, if God exists, perhaps I can (or even should), in some way, interact with Him or Her, during this life.

The contemplation of death begins all metaphysical thinking.

Very well, I will agree with that. I don't know how much this matters. I am ignorant about what came first, the phenomena that couldn't be explained, or the realization of one's mortality.

"Metaphysics" means "man has stopped to think about it."

Main Entry: meta·phys·ic
1 a : METAPHYSICS b : a particular system of metaphysics
2 : the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject : PHILOSOPHY 3b
(http://www.webster.com)

Perhaps we're not talking about the same metaphysics.

Two questions are answered for a man..

1. What am I.
2. What do I do.

The rest is metaphysics.

What is the rest? The rest that religion offers man?

I see no reason why God's existence could not one day be proven or disproven scientifically.

Kierkegaard asks "how could that be demonstrated?" Does one hear a voice from the sky? Does one rise above one's dead body and ascend into the heavens? Does one find a grand unified theory?

I don't know the answer. Perhaps humanity will die before finding it. Do we know, for instance, that atoms aren't sentient? And if, for the sake of argument, they were, do we know they don't have intercommunication? Perhaps then, the sum of all things would be God. This belief exists already, doesn't it?

I don't care what his standards are....it is human standards that I am concerned about, and how we would place value in them in the absence of a benevolent god or in the presence of an indifferent one. I agree with Sartre here, it doesn't matter either way. We cannot go further.

I don't understand. So you are saying that even if God did exist, you wouldn't care what His or Her nature is? Then why were you looking for Him or Her in the first place?

[Bob]

Marshall wrote:

De'trop. I think this is where a lot of religions fail. They are concerned with eternal heaven, their doctrine, increasing their fold, and have forgotten to reach out to the poor and their fellow man. As an Atheist, i find that i have more time to help those around me, which i believe is one of the principal things that religion should be concerned with.

I disagree that religions have forgotten to reach out to the poor, especially the Mystics were particularly active towards their fellow man. Christ and subsequent followers were also particularly compassionate. The churches still spend a lot of money on projects helping the poor.
What happens is that religions become a part of social life into which we are practically born. The only active part a lot of people take is in getting out. Millions are passively Christians, many take the view that it would be good to stay put "just in case" - which is what a passage of the Bible describes as being "lukewarm" and promises no good for such people.
I grasped the faith - even though I have made my own development within - particularly because of its social bearing. Church is about Community and looking after each other. That is where church has succeeded in the past. I wouldn't have made my way into professional Care without the experience.
Church fails when it becomes the ping-pong ball of politics, when it becomes dependant upon generous donations and allows itself to be used by local notables. The local Church is effective when it is poor and the Pastor or Priest rubs shoulders with the congregation. But it is here where the teaching also takes on the "subversive" tone that Christ had on his lips.
It wasn't only Leonardo Boff and his Liberation Theology that has caused a contraversial debate and a militant reaction from the henchmen of dictators. For me, this is the reminder of where Christianity came from - and it is sometimes a painful reminder for the politicians.
In the present climate of Globalisation, it would be fitting if all Christians stood up for liberation. It may be that the battle would end as it very often has done, with poor Christians being killed or suppressed, but it should send a message to those "lukewarmers" who hold onto traditions with no basis.
Christianity is about resistence to evil - which isn't merely something spiritual, but often something political. The difference to Communism or other similiar movements is that it is non-violent. I ask myself sometimes whether many Christians even think about resisting evil - in whatever form they may see it. That is where religions often fail.
Shalom
Bob

[Marshall McDaniel]

The rejection of Christianity solely for the reason that it's adherents aren't up to snuff would be a philosophical mistake. Still you say that the problem is not with religion, but with my perception of it. You may be right. A lot of what i see are people who profess Christianity, but fail to live up to it's precepts. You can not force people to love the way that Jesus loved, that is something that is either in the heart or not.
---
Krishnamurti says that authority and spirituality are at odds, and i for one, have reached the same conclusion. Great teachers like Jesus, The Buddha, The Mahavira, Spitama Zarathustra, Confucious, Lao tzu, and Heraclitus arise and pour their teachings out like honey. Some of the honey fails to reach parched tongues. Parables, necessarily of a mystical nature due to the nature of the subject, are misunderstood, or misinterpreted. What does get through is eventually memorized, canonized, and thereby sanitized and thus unable to plumb the spiritual depths of the average man on the streets who desperately needs this sweet elixir.

I see this same theme adumbrating throughout your last post, so i'll further support it with my silence.
---
Yes many times religions have failed to resist evil, sometimes they have even supported it, but that is what it means to be human.

[detrop]

Bob and the Elephant,

I apologize for my tardiness and am also sorry to say that I must withdraw from this discussion.

I don't have a clue what is going on, what is being argued, or exactly what the point of "atheistic sentiments" might be.

Atheism makes no more sense to me than theism, for I still have no idea what a "God" may or may not be, and am not yet in a position to question the existence of such.

Please excuse me.