Religion is not logical

Big revelation there, eh?

(Heare me out)

No matter how you try, religious assertions can not be justified by logic. Religion (Christianity as my example) has so many contradictions, so many stupidities, that to look at it as truth, as literal truth, is so incredibly dumb that it will have a negative effect on you.

Christianity contradicts observable evidence:

Why is there suffering if god is all good?
Why does the world seem older than you said it was, god?
Why are there fossils?
Why doesn’t everything orbit us?

Christianity contradicts itself:

How did evil come from good?
If god is perfectly efficient than why didn’t he do everything at the start?
That spinoza argument theonefroberg quoted in my efficiency post.
If there has to be a first cause, why is it god? Why can’t it be the big bang?

So its best to accept it, that religion is not logically valid and thus will not work as a scientific theory.

Religion has no place in science, and is a worse way to explain observable events than science is.

This is not to say that religion is worthless! That’s not what I meant. To look at it as an explanation of why lightning strikes is counter-productive, as it eschews other explanations that could yield technologies in favor of one that will not. Scientifically, it is worthless.

Socially, it is not. Religion is one of the best social doctrines ever created. It has an encompassing and effective set of morals, and does a good job of making sure that its adherents follow them. It creates a great society. Like I said before; in a prisoner’s dilemma, the Christians usually win.

So, can it be accepted that religion is scientifically worthless, but is wonderful as a social doctrine?

Explaining the unknown with the known is science
explaining the known with the unknown is religion

Sorry, you misunderstand. Religion is not meant to explain. It is meant to suggest.

Then why it is not called ‘Ten Suggestions’ but ‘Ten Commandments’.

Commandment ( from dictionary.com):
An authoritative indication to be obeyed

The correct spelling is “hear”

Neither can atheist assertions. We cannot say anything meaningful about things outside the realm of our experience, which implied that both “God exists” and “God does not exist” are meanigless. We just don’t know, either way. That epistemic failure, the impossibilty of knowing a thing in itself (a thing existing outside of space-time, outside of the universe, a thing like God) opens up the door to individual, subjective faith in the God of your choice.

Religion isn’t science. It can’t be. Science tries to provide a complete picture of how and why the universe works, religion tries to picture how and why the universe exists. Religious statements cannot be proven true or false objectively, but they can be believed in by individuals. That’s why religion requires faith, removing the faith from religion (or trying to) pretty much turns it into some sort of almost political ideology.

Religion cannot describe observable events. That’s just not it’s job.

You say religion is “good” for societies. What’s your standard of “good”? It seems to me that you say that religion makes societies function well. But what is so inherently “good” about functioning well?

What is the Genesis chapter in the Bible, then?

A myth, logically invalid and almost completely scientifically unsupported.

Zeus, I’d just like to point out that you didn’t cite any contradictions in Christianity. You asked questions, and then left it to the reader to assume that the forthcoming answers would be contradictory.

Buddha says religion should be enlightenment, right?
But you’re all just talkin’ about the semitic jazz.

Hmm.

I did that deliberately, for reasons beyond my knowledge. I seemed to think it was a joke or something. Evidently not a very good one.

I didn’t say they could be. I don’t understand, why not?

I don’t understand. But I like the first sentence.

Functioning well increases happiness.

True. Come up with some answers and maybe I’ll retract whatever it is I extended.

I don’t have as much of a qualm with buddhism, it isn’t taking itself as literal truth, is it?

you asked why the big bang couldn’t be the start of the universe, and seemed to think that it was a much more plausible explanation.

well…

if all of the matter in the universe was condensed into an infinitely dense point, it would have infinite gravity. what could possibly cause something with infinite gravity to explode?

that’s just as much of a leap of faith as saying that God created the earth. the only difference is, God isn’t in it.

Hello thezeus18 and Uccisore,

Heh. Christianity is guilty until proven innocent, eh?

But I’m quite interested (I’m a theist myself) on Uccisore’s perspective on the Problem of Evil, formulated thus:

1. God is commonly described as “omnipotent and omnibenevolent” amongst other attributes
2. There is natural evil in the world (thus avoiding human evil and the obvious free-will based rebuttal)
3. Permitting natural evil, when God has the power to prevent it/create a world without it is inconsistent with God’s omnibenevolent nature
4. Therefore, a contradiction.

Now, I have my own preferred answers to that, but I’m interested what you have to say on the topic.

No, it is. Buddhists sincerely believe that the world is impermanent, that we do not have a fixed sense of self, that the cessation of our suffering comes from the cessation of our lustful and greedy propensities, and that we are reincarnated and forced to suffer through multiple lifetimes until we attain that cessation (a.k.a. “Nirvana”).

Sure it isn’t. Kierkegaard insists that Christianity is scandal and a paradox for reason. If reasons would seem sufficient for it to work, then it would no longer be a task for your own existence, would it ?

phawkins,

What do you mean by “natural evil” ?

The difference isn’t that it isn’t taken literally, but that it isn’t as metaphorical imo. I think I agree with what you mean to say in your OP, but I don’t think religion is only valuable as social doctrine, at least not in the way I interpret what you mean by “social doctrine”.

There is a way of thinking about religion in which it is not contradictory; in which the parts that, when interpretted literally, talk about the empirical world, are simply irrelevent in that sense. I see religion as humans putting ultimate meaning into things. Granted, today’s organized religions and their detractors have put together a picture of religion as being far more than this, so I usually prefer “faith” in reference to the role in individuals that I feel religion should be limited to.

Point being that faith is how people see things as valuable; clearly, things work more smoothly when people do this. But the effectiveness as social doctrine when faith is institutionalized and applied to a community is just an effect of its basic role in a person’s self. Furthermore, there are ways to accomplish the same social results without creating the type of consumer (put up for sale, advertised, and bought) religion much of Christianity feels like it is in the West today, and so I don’t think religion’s capacity as effective social doctrine is its fundamental role, its natural state, or the best way for faith to be pursued.

Hello all,

Looking at evil-we can all agree that it sucks. Would it still be a problem if there was a greater good to justify it? Perhaps like the death of one person to save 1000 people. Would that justly reconcile “the problem of evil”? I look forward to your thoughts.

Connect

It is taking itself as literal truth, but at the same time it is not very strict, so many Buddhists don’t have to believe in things such as reincarnation. It’s rather liberal in nature, focusing on enlightenment and compassion instead of moral codes & showy ritualism.

Eternal things are not created.
The universe is eternal.

BigBang & creation are proofless.

I agree with you, the universe is eternal. But, it being eternal doesn’t mean there isn’t a big bang or creation. Okay, it does mean there isn’t creation.

I did not say that, nor think it. That aside,

If that were the only difference, then occam’s razor proclaims that god should be taken out of picture as he adds unnecessary complication.

That wasn’t my point, though. The point: If there has to be a first cause, why can’t it be us?

Why does there have to be any death at all? Oh, and welcome to the forums.

Exactly. That’s why I like it. It sees that the most important thing is that people follow the commandments, the suggestions of the religion. Empathy is what is important, not that you shave your head. “It doesn’t matter whether god exists or not (or whether you can be reincarnated), you’ll be better off if you do this, this and this.” Kinda consequentialist.

I don’t understand fully. but…

Yes! The foundings are irrelevant, what is important is the action you take. Consequentialist! (Right?) If you could explain the other parts (which I have infinite confidence you can), I would be happy, as I think they have content.

Good.

I’m trying, but I don’t understand.

The reason I like buddhism is that it doesn’t foist itself on others (or doesn’t appear to), and is coming away from the above beliefs.

If I held it vice-versa, I wouldn’t have a discussion, would I?

Oh, and the problem of evil is, as I’ve heard, that the existence of evil means that god is unable to stop it but wants to, or the opposite, meaning that he cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Bye bye, for another night.