Religion and its Negative Impact on Reason.

[Ade]

Something I've been working on for awhile. I'm sure it's not that great, but maybe it will help one or two people become more self-actualized. I have been out of formal instruction for quite some time, so I apologize if any formatting errors are present.

The main document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SHD ... y=COu_0KUP

Notes page: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEI ... y=COeSwckE

[Ade]

Normally I would never bump a topic, but considering the high number of essays that have been posted in a very short time, I decided to give this one a solitary bump. Hopefully it wasn't all for nothing.

[James S Saint]

With respect to the efforts of the actual writing and discourse,

Only partly through the reading...
A) "Religion" literally means "RE-enforcing the LEGION", from the Latin "ligit" (binding). It refers to a method of maintaining a gathering or group via their beliefs. It is analogous to a personal ego but applied to a society.

B) "God" has not been defined in the writing yet is being argued as non-existent. How can you logically determine the existence of something not yet defined?

C) The writing has (commonly) presumed that the universe's eternal existence forbids the notion of God. It does not. The God of the Bible is referring to the ONE HIGHEST CAUSE for all things being as they are. It never had anything to do with the creation of a universe from nothingness. Nothingness is an impossible state. The "void" mentioned in English Bibles is referring to the chaos, void of structure (and happens to be talking about society and the mind, not the physical universe as we think of it today).

That is as far as I have read in the writing so far, but as you can see. The writing is actually addressing a strawman issue, a "leaning windmill".

[Ade]

@ James,

You:

It refers to a method of maintaining a gathering or group via their beliefs.

From the essay:

but the term “religion” literally means “what one does about what one believes.”

You:

"God" has not been defined in the writing yet is being argued as non-existent. How can you logically determine the existence of something not yet defined?

From the essay:

The only other possibility for the origination of the universe, apart from an infinitely existing one, is through the work of an eternally existent Creator.

This would constitute a definition. God is the alternative to the infinitely existing universe. This essay was not intended to disprove God. Nobody has the ability to do so. It was intended to show that religion discourages the development of reason.

You:

Nothingness is an impossible state.

From the essay:

There was never a time when absolutely nothing existed. There must have always been some sort of eternal matter, energy, or being.

We seem to agree on most things.

I know it's boring, but maybe finish it first?

Furthermore, a Strawman argument requires that an opponent has raised an opposing argument, and the offender substitutes a similar argument and considers the initial proposition "defeated" through his refutation of the substituted proposition. I have not argued with anyone yet, so I could not have committed this offense unless I misrepresented a dissenting proposition in the initial work itself.

[James S Saint]

Furthermore, a Strawman argument requires that an opponent has raised an opposing argument, and the offender substitutes a similar argument and considers the initial proposition "defeated" through his refutation of the substituted proposition. I have not argued with anyone yet, so I could not have committed this offense unless I misrepresented a dissenting proposition in the initial work itself.

Weee..e.e.ell.l.l... I suspect that you are perhaps being over gracious to the author ("omitted" from the University of Omitted - must be nice to have a university named after yourself ).

If the author defines "God" as He/It that sparked the universe from nothingness, then the author is defining God to be an impossibility from the start. But by doing so, he is substituting the real argument with a false argument and thus accomplishing the exact scenario you spelled out as "strawman". The Jewish and Christian higher priests /rabbis understand the real definition despite many confusions injected into the masses (I'm not so sure that is true of the Muslims or Mormons).

And it is an "argument" because anything proposing a negative aspect of what people already have accepted as good, is an inherent argument against their acceptance.

And I didn't wait until I had finished reading it because of two things;
1) Errors and issues accumulate and become over burdensome to track,
2) Definition errors defeat the entire writing and thus everything after such an error becomes pointless (a "strawman").
3) (not to mention an eye infection I am currently suffering)

By connotating and switching definitions around, anything can be made to seem negative.

[Ade]

If the author defines "God" as He/It that sparked the universe from nothingness, then the author is defining God to be an impossibility from the start. But by doing so, he is substituting the real argument with a false argument and thus accomplishing the exact scenario you spelled out as "strawman".

That which "sparks the universe from nothingness" doesn't necessarily have to follow the rules of the universe itself, and thus is not necessarily an impossibility. I am not arguing likelihoods here. What I am saying is that if there IS a Creator that exists apart from the rules of the universe, it would have to exist in the manner I described.

I think Christians and Jewish people agree that God was prior to the universe and made it from "nothing," so to speak. The "matter that comprises the universe" and "God" were not existent at the same time, according to these doctrines. "In the beginning the world was formless and void...," yet the author of Genesis quickly acknowledges that God formed everything in this world.

As the author of the essay, I omitted my name and school because this is the Internet...using that as a strike against the paper is a fallacy called "poisoning the well."

Nothing was defined incorrectly. The terms were laid out fairly and understandably. I only want to see if others have the same experience of religion as I do, and if they feel it should be dealt with in the same way.

I also want to know if people think that natural morals can and SHOULD be reached without the use of religion.

This paper was an attempt at discovery, not an attempt to "defeat" anyone.

[James S Saint]

That which "sparks the universe from nothingness" doesn't necessarily have to follow the rules of the universe itself, and thus is not necessarily an impossibility.

That is another speculation of yours and happens to be false for reasons that get very metaphysically deep.

I am not arguing likelihoods here. What I am saying is that if there IS a Creator that exists apart from the rules of the universe, it would have to exist in the manner I described.

But do you understand that within the set of "rules of the universe" the TOP rule is what they called "Lord Allmight" - "God". In Science terms, God is the "Unified Field Theory" or the "Grand Unified Theory"; the one rule.law above all others.

I think Christians and Jewish people agree that God was prior to the universe and made it from "nothing," so to speak. The "matter that comprises the universe" and "God" were not existent at the same time, according to these doctrines. "In the beginning the world was formless and void...," yet the author of Genesis quickly acknowledges that God formed everything in this world.

Only if scriptures were so simple. There are those who believe as you say, and quite a number of them. They are NOT the leaders of those religions. But that doesn't stop them from allowing you and anyone else from accepting that thought if it pleases you most. There is an element of psychology in all religions (necessarily).

Note that the pasage says, In the beginning the world was without shape. In other words, the world existed without order/shape. The later passage refers to God's responsibility in being the cause of all things being as they are. They didn;t mean that God created them from absolute nothingness, but is the cause for ALL things to be how they are and thus the "Creator" of them - the orders and shapes (but not from nothingness, but from the void of order and shapes, the "formless", the chaos).

As the author of the essay, I omitted my name and school because this is the Internet...using that as a strike against the paper is a fallacy called "poisoning the well."

I wasn't being serious.. merely lightening the load...

Nothing was defined incorrectly. The terms were laid out fairly and understandably. I only want to see if others have the same experience of religion as I do, and if they feel it should be dealt with in the same way.

You asked, so I pointed out that you really have defined "God" incorrectly, but not everyone writes to be right.

I also want to know if people think that natural morals can and SHOULD be reached without the use of religion.

They certainly can be, but they instantly cause religion by doing so. Anything that most people will agree to will instantly become the religion (that which keeps them together).

This paper was an attempt at discovery, not an attempt to "defeat" anyone.

Well, I don't know if I believe that, but okay.

[Ade]

Anything that most people will agree to will instantly become the religion (that which keeps them together).

I disagree. Religion hands the doctrine to the believer.

If everyone had to discover moral behavior through rational inquiry, there would be no coercion involved, and no system of "belief." It would be hard work, but it would be worth it because people would understand why something is good or bad beyond "it has been decreed."

Other than nuances of doctrine, you agree with me about how one must think of God as the Creator of the universe. I really don't see where our disagreement is, or where anything was defined incorrectly. I think you are just spoiling for a fight.

Either matter/energy is eternal, or the Creator is; it cannot be both. If there IS a Creator, it does not necessarily have to be comprised of matter/energy. Nobody knows what the "Grand Unifier" is.

The great thing is that it does not actually matter if God exists. You can still conceive of the being and strive to be like it. The major problem I'm after here is that religions waste energy and resources trying to NAME this thing, or figuring out how this thing ought to be praised. It is clear that, given what we can know, none of this ritual benefits mankind. We would be better to conceive of God as a purely theoretical being and free ourselves from the concern of whether or not He actually exists.

[James S Saint]

If everyone had to discover moral behavior through rational inquiry, there would be no coercion involved, and no system of "belief." It would be hard work, but it would be worth it because people would understand why something is good or bad beyond "it has been decreed."

Now how they discover it is another issue. I am currently discussing that very issue on another thread ("Master of the World" in Philosophy).

Other than nuances of doctrine, you agree with me about how one must think of God as the Creator of the universe. I really don't see where our disagreement is, or where anything was defined incorrectly. I think you are just spoiling for a fight.

No. I'm far too altruistic for that. It is a problem a language.

What causes electricity to be the way it is? Isn't that the same as "what causes electricity?" Yet one implies a creator of the electricity where the other more implies by what mechanism/principle does electricity behave. God is the issue of "by what highest principle" are things brought about? It is not about how they sprang from nothingness, but how they come into being each day and pass from being each day. God is a Principle/"Spirit". That is why God is eternal, "outside of time" because time has nothing to do with principles or concepts ("angels").

Either matter/energy is eternal, or the Creator is; it cannot be both.

On the contrary, if the Creator is eternal, the universe must also be eternal. Where the cause of something exists, that something must also exist, else it wasn't really the cause. Do you think God sat around knitting for an infinite number of years until on a lark He decided to create a universe? God is the Cause of there being a universe. Because the CAUSE is eternal (always present) the EFFECT (the universe) must also be eternal.

Elohim == the Cause of changing
Universe == the changing.

If there IS a Creator, it does not necessarily have to be comprised of matter/energy.

Actually the Creator/Cause ("First Cause", "Principle Cause") CANNOT be made of energy/matter. The energy/matter is the effect, not the cause/principle. Principles are not of physical existence, but conceptual (ie. "spiritual")

Nobody knows what the "Grand Unifier" is.

Well that isn't exactly true, but such isn't necessary to know that one exists. I don't have to know what caused my cold to know that it really had a cause.

The great thing is that it does not actually matter if God exists. You can still conceive of the being and strive to be like it. The major problem I'm after here is that religions waste energy and resources trying to NAME this thing, or figuring out how this thing ought to be praised. It is clear that, given what we can know, none of this ritual benefits mankind. We would be better to conceive of God as a purely theoretical being and free ourselves from the concern of whether or not He actually exists.

Well, the religions don't' really bother with that much at all. They assume God exists. The Bible doesn't attempt to prove God at all. It is only society in the midst of political conflict that is creating all the distractive fuss. The secular humanists want to claim the thrown of belief so they are at war against the Christians (specifically). Before that, very few people spent hardly any time arguing the issue or performing any rituals. The priests did that sort of thing. People were freed to go live their lives with merely an occasional contact. But today, the war against the Christians is hot, so everyone gets into distractive debate and arguments (like this one) .

Secular Humanists want everyone to be their puppets rather than the worshipers of any religions. So there is a war. I am "none of the above".

[victorel21]

The major problem I'm after here is that religions waste energy and resources trying to NAME this thing, or figuring out how this thing ought to be praised. It is clear that, given what we can know, none of this ritual benefits mankind.

Why take out such a important thing out of peoples lives? As long as people are curious they shall seek god and thus, it´s definition.

[Ade]

Hmm...I am willing to modify my beliefs thanks to some of your help, James.

If God exists beyond time, then it is true that the universe, which is the only place in which time matters, must have always existed, though it is dependent on God. I recall reading something like this in Aquinas years ago.It would be silly for God to sit alone for aeons when such a measure of time means nothing to him. So, either the universe has existed for an infinite period of time as infinitely existing matter, or the universe is eternal through the existence of an eternal God.

I guess the core problem remains the same, but this clarifies the initial terms.

There is still a huge, irrational fear that morals can somehow be dis-proven (or highly discredited) by disproving the existence of God. I am seeking to remedy that.

I should not have to change any of the wording of my paper due to the above notion, but I will add a note, in the part about "God as the alternative to the infinitely existing universe" that the universe in the God-created universe is eternal, as well (it's just eternal-contingent rather than eternal proper).

Why take out such a important thing out of peoples lives? As long as people are curious they shall seek god and thus, it´s definition.

Oh, we should let them partake in all of the wasteful rituals they wish. However, we shouldn't spread it any further. Eventually it will die on its own if religious civilizations stop promoting and protecting low intelligence.

God does not need or want praise. I can say this with certainty to any person of any religion.

A thing that does not exist "in time" cannot change, and has no needs. It is also incapable of caring for you (at least in the way that you're used to being "cared about").

People argue and say that "the praise is for OUR benefit, not God's."

Well guess what? Sitting around and theorizing about God as the "greatest possible being" is praise! It's even better praise than mindlessly chanting lyrics whose meaning nobody considers! I would think that God would be much more pleased with the endeavors I'm making with this investigation than with anyone who never considers such questions and simply "praises."

People who "praise" don't even know what they are praising. It's such a waste of energy!

The best thing you can do with your energy is to ponder this unanswerable question as often as possible. All other answers to all other questions will come more easily, as the importance of these axillary questions will pale in comparison to the big one.

[Xunzian]

I'm not so sure that your arguments against moral transmission via religion nor your arguments against tradition really work all that well. Indeed, I think they often go hand-in-hand in a functioning system. Consider:

I think we need to sit back and think about what is entailed within the term "religion". It is a very broad one and because of that, discussions like this one can easily get stuck in the murk. Let's consider what traditional organized religion represents. It is an incredibly effective vector for the transmission of values. These are values which have persisted for generation after generation because they either work or are neutral with respect to how things work, hence the Kamehameha II example, where the old order was swept away without a peep of complaint except for the most ardent of traditionalists, a peep which was (importantly) ignored.

To say that "it hasn't killed us yet" is really all that is required for it to pass the selective test. Lacking a crystal orb with which to see into the future, I can't say with absolute certainty what will and won't work in the future but I can tell you what does work in the present and what has worked (and what hasn't worked) in the past. Remember Master Eisai's famous maxim: I know nothing of Buddhas present, or future. But I know that cows exist." Cancer kills people, most assuredly, but that doesn't mean that the balance between the potential for cancer and the ability for our cells to regenerate themselves hasn't struck a fine balance, right? People still get sick and people still get arthritis (an auto-immune disease) but that doesn't mean that our immune system hasn't struct a workable balance between fighting off the causes of sickness and not doing so in so valiant a manner that the body destroys itself. That sickness and arthritis exist is proof that this system is imperfect, but so what? I think it is a fair assumption to say that these elements have persisted because they work. Granted, that is circular but it is a foundational assumption and one that I think can be meaningfully built off of. Now, the mechanisms whereby they work are often seem suboptimal from an outside perspective, especially when it comes to dealing with members of the out-group but under most situations even that is stable. Those situations are, for better or for worse, the bread-and-butter of society. Time allows human nature to shape both the philosophy and manifestation of these institutions to fit its needs. I think that is a sound way to proceed since we don't fully understand human nature.

Newer institutions don't have the luxury of being worn down into a sleek package by the sands of time. That means we have to relive all the growing pains all over again. And for what? So that we can end up with an institution that looks just like the one it sought to replace, only this time there is an added hundred-or-so years of bloody transition? We've vetted all manner of post-religious systems since the Enlightenment and they all have either embraced basic religious sensibilities or gone the way of the Dodo. Not merely extinct, but extinct by human hands!

That doesn't meant that modern movements in religion aren't problematic. They have the same problems that secular humanism, communism, fascism, nazism, hippi-ism, objectivism, positivism/modernism, and so on have. Again, this makes sense because modern religious movements tend to be reactions to these movements so they necessary adopt the means and techniques of them while modifying the message to agree with their worldview. Christian Fundamentalism in America, for example, is a very modern movement. I'll leave the precise dating to Christian scholars who know more about it than I do, but it happened sometime around the end of the long 19th Century. That doesn't mean that there weren't other crazy religious movements in America (the Great Awakenings come to mind), crazy religious movements seem to be part of the American national character. But what we think of as Fundamentalist Christians in a prejorative sense, you know the anti-science YECs frothing at the mouth, stems from that time. The alliance of this group with the economic right wing happened a little later as a reaction to the Red Scare. This is a very modern group. Likewise, radical Islam (Al-Qaeda and such) is a modern phenomenon. Radical Islam was a reaction to the failures of both capitalist and communist ideologies in the Middle East due to Cold War power-plays by both sides and so it dates to the post-WWII period!

Now, both Christian Fundamentalism and Radical Islam do have antecedents in history. They didn't appear out of nowhere whole cloth, but the same can be said of anything. They represent significant departures from the older system which they have replaced (or seek to replace/are replacing, depending on your view of the matter) and their point of departure stems from the adoption of the means/tactics of the newer ideologies. They have tried to co-opt their competitor by being more modern (even if that entails a rejection of the project of modernity in toto), but the important thing is that their origins are rooted not in the traditional systems with which they are normally associated but rather with the modern systems they are engaged in a struggle with! A nasty arms race that ends rather badly.

We should not create a false religious/secular lens through which to view history and the modern world but rather to examine systems which represent gradual change and systems which represent radical change. The pricetag attached to radical change is always massive. So when asking ourselves whether we want radical change, what we need to ask ourselves is whether or not the price is worth it. If you are a starving farmer, the price is probably worth it. Right? You are boned either way, so you may as well take a chance on creating a situation where you are somewhat less boned. When the choices are "starving to death", "dead", or "very hungry but surviving", the third choice is clearly the best one. On the other hand, from the comfort of the middle class, the difference between the first and last possibility are usually sufficiently slim not to matter but that middle one, ohhh, that is a doosy!

So morality then becomes expanding the self to encompass ever larger groups so that the traditional, gradual systems can create an environment where radical change becomes unnecessary.

I'd further argue that we can and do observe paradigm shifts in religious movements, a few of which I pointed out in the essay.

[Ade]

The pricetag attached to radical change is always massive.

Which is why we should just "go through the motions" of our predecessors' religions so that they aren't "triggered" to save us. As soon as they die off, we can be at objective moral peace.

I have already conceded that paradigm shifts are unlikely, inexpedient, and possibly dangerous. "Going through the motions" will protect our religious friends from the distress caused from worrying about our salvation.

We still love them. But we love them because we are able to will the maxims behind our actions as universal laws; not because a deity told us to do so.

[Ade]

I guess I'm a little irritated that this conversation keeps on dropping off. Is the paper really that boring?

I guess what I want to know is whether the idea should be pursued. Is "going through the motions" of religion for the sake of killing it a legitimate solution to a legitimate philosophical problem? Has someone already posited this idea (as so commonly happens when a philosophy student thinks he has discovered something new)?

[Xunzian]

I guess I'm still not sure what the thesis is here. It isn't always "going through the motions" it can be (as in the case of Kamehameha) but other times it can have dire consequences (like Nazism) or a mixed bag (like Ataturk's reforms).

[Ade]

I guess the thesis would have to be this:

As long as our predecessors and friends are participating peaceful religions, we should "go through the motions" as much as possible to prevent the spread of religion. By "going through the motions" we will not trigger our friends to "save us."

[James S Saint]

I would recommend that you not attempt to change something until you are very certain of what you are doing.

Have you ever formed a snow cone in hell?

If you find one, don't just eat it before you are certain of how to make another.

[Silhouette]

This may seem like an odd starting point, but the term “religion” literally means “what one does about what one believes.”

A) "Religion" literally means "RE-enforcing the LEGION", from the Latin "ligit" (binding). It refers to a method of maintaining a gathering or group via their beliefs. It is analogous to a personal ego but applied to a society.

Both incorrect.

Religion does indeed come from the Latin "ligare", meaning "to bind", but this has nothing to do with "legion" or "re-enforcing" (reinforcing?).
Legion comes from the Latin "legere", meaning "to gather/choose" (incidentally the same root as "intelligence").

While we're on the subject of religion, etymology doesn't just come from what you'd like to believe is true but isn't. I've seen you do this more than once, JSS...

The God of the Bible is referring to the ONE HIGHEST CAUSE for all things being as they are. It never had anything to do with the creation of a universe from nothingness. Nothingness is an impossible state. The "void" mentioned in English Bibles is referring to the chaos, void of structure (and happens to be talking about society and the mind, not the physical universe as we think of it today).

Whilst this resembles my thoughts on "nothingness" and chaos, the need to call the cause of structure "God" is superfluous. And the need to infer a creator at all is presumptuous.

We witness relative chaos and structure all the time. We witness our ability to understand in terms of cause and effect, despite only ever witnessing effects and inferring causes. A ball hitting another ball that then moves is an effect/are effects - in order for the first ball to be the "cause" of the second ball moving, properties must be inferred.
Even if we accept the existence of abstract inferred properties, and thus the objective existence of causality, it is another step entirely to personify any cause as "God". If "God" were merely a word for unpersonified causal force, we would just be talking science - no bible needed. And this is assuming we take causality to exist objectively at all, as opposed to it just being some way in which humans make sense of what they sense.
And even if we take the bible as mere metaphorical myth, there is still so much confusing baggage in it. The bible, it's stories and terminology are only misleading, especially when considered in the context of today's myriad popular interpretations of it.

The bible, along with any devoted binding (religion) to some particular truths rather than others, certainly does negatively impact on reason.

[Ade]

OK...so should we fake religion so it doesn't spread any further or not? Also, I will update the meaning of the religion in the paper. Thank you.

Still, I want to know if this idea is worth spreading to others who are as frustrated with religion as I am. I see a tremendous amount of resources wasted on the worship of something that either isn't there or doesn't care (by this I mean: it doesn't need your prayers and is not improved in any way by them).

[James S Saint]

I'm amazed by people who can't even see the connection between "ligit" and "ligara", but that certainly explains why they can't see more relevant truths.

OK...so should we fake religion so it doesn't spread any further or not? Also, I will update the meaning of the religion in the paper. Thank you.

Still, I want to know if this idea is worth spreading to others who are as frustrated with religion as I am. I see a tremendous amount of resources wasted on the worship of something that either isn't there or doesn't care (by this I mean: it doesn't need your prayers and is not improved in any way by them).

I don't recommend that you fake anything. If you believe that there is no God, then just leave it at that. If you believe there is a God, but it is being worshiped improperly, then it would be good to join a religion that comes somewhere close such that you do not have to lie, and then gradually, from within, discuss corrections.

Faking, lying, stealing, extortion, terrorism, and so on, all eventually lead to murder and misery. Although there are religions just for that too.

[Ade]

I don't recommend that you fake anything. If you believe that there is no God, then just leave it at that. If you believe there is a God, but it is being worshiped improperly, then it would be good to join a religion that comes somewhere close such that you do not have to lie, and then gradually, from within, discuss corrections.

I assert that any religion that wastes energy and resources on worship has no logical recourse for its actions. Any religion that acknowledges God as a perfect being fully understands that a perfect being cannot be benefitted or improved by offerings of inferior beings (nor can this perfect being be pleased, as moving from a state of "not pleased" to "pleased" implies that an imperfection was present).

If there were a religion that recognized God only in terms of His logically necessary qualities, then I would join them. All of the religions that go on to speculate what this being wants (or needs) are wrong. Or, if they are right, it is only by chance.

The reason I ask if this should be "faked" is that "faking it" might decrease the chances of a religious person spreading his ideals (and the subsequent waste of energy and resources that comes from worshipping). I want to know that, if enough people did this, would it put a dent in religion? I'm asking these questions for the good of future generations. Think about all the energy that is expended on a being that does not depend on our existence or worship to subsist. It would be impossible for such a being to command that its subjects worship Him, as that implies a need, an inferiority.

Any religion that asserts that "God has commanded us to worship him" is either lying, or was deceived by an inferior being. A perfect being would not, CANNOT ask such a thing, as it implies a need.

[James S Saint]

I don't recommend that you fake anything. If you believe that there is no God, then just leave it at that. If you believe there is a God, but it is being worshiped improperly, then it would be good to join a religion that comes somewhere close such that you do not have to lie, and then gradually, from within, discuss corrections.

I assert that any religion that wastes energy and resources on worship has no logical recourse for its actions. Any religion that acknowledges God as a perfect being fully understands that a perfect being cannot be benefitted or improved by offerings of inferior beings (nor can this perfect being be pleased, as moving from a state of "not pleased" to "pleased" implies that an imperfection was present).

If there were a religion that recognized God only in terms of His logically necessary qualities, then I would join them. All of the religions that go on to speculate what this being wants (or needs) are wrong. Or, if they are right, it is only by chance.

The reason I ask if this should be "faked" is that "faking it" might decrease the chances of a religious person spreading his ideals (and the subsequent waste of energy and resources that comes from worshipping). I want to know that, if enough people did this, would it put a dent in religion? I'm asking these questions for the good of future generations. Think about all the energy that is expended on a being that does not depend on our existence or worship to subsist. It would be impossible for such a being to command that its subjects worship Him, as that implies a need, an inferiority.

Any religion that asserts that "God has commanded us to worship him" is either lying, or was deceived by an inferior being. A perfect being would not, CANNOT ask such a thing, as it implies a need.

Well, a couple of points..

First, you are saying that because worship is a waste of time, you should lie in order to stop the waste from spreading, right? So you propose to do what you know to be a bad thing because you speculate a bad thing from someone else.

But additionally, I am pretty certain you wouldn't be able to stand in debate against me on the issue of which you are so certain. And with that in mind, realize that you must be less certain of your accusation than you are of your certain lie.

In addition to that, what is this energy you see as being wasted? Wasted in what sense? A waste to whom? What would these people being doing instead that would not be a waste?

[Ade]

First of all, don't waste words saying that "you're certain you could beat me in a debate" over some issue. Simply debate it.

Secondly, the "noble lie" has been a commonly accepted method to improve the character of others since the times of Plato. The great myths about kings and heroes, though fiction, were used as examples to improve the character of the youth. I assert that "going through the motions of religion to bring about its demise" is a similar "noble lie" because it maintains the peace while improving the objectivity of later generations. The subsequent morality these youth derive using reason will be stronger than the dogmatic, religious morality of their predecessors.

Finally, to address the question of wastefulness. Although religious organizations devote resources to helping the less fortunate, a secular organization could do the same without the costs associated with maintaining a place of worship. The "worshipping' is a waste of resources because it has been proven that a perfect being does not need to be worshipped, nor could He ask (or command) for worship, as this would imply a void / need; an imperfection. This same being would rather see His other creations have their needs met than be worshipped. Each second you spend in church, you could be out helping someone who needs it.

I suppose if these religions want to concede that they are worshipping an imperfect being, a being that NEEDS worship to subsist, then I would allow their actions to pass without the accusation of wastefulness. As it stands, however, most religion is unacceptable because it allocates resources to the most wasteful activities imaginable, and does not admit of the fiction it propagates.

Why would you waste a single breath telling a pefect being that it is perfect? It's a freakin' perfect being; IT ALREADY KNOWS THIS.

[James S Saint]

First of all, don't waste words saying that "you're certain you could beat me in a debate" over some issue. Simply debate it.

This isn't the thread.

Secondly, the "noble lie" has been a commonly accepted method to improve the character of others since the times of Plato.

And with that, you complain of the religions???

Look around you at the results of "Noble Lies".

Finally, to address the question of wastefulness. Although religious organizations devote resources to helping the less fortunate, a secular organization could do the same without the costs associated with maintaining a place of worship.

I doubt that their costs would be any less, but until they actually DO, you don't have an argument.

The "worshipping' is a waste of resources because it has been proven that a perfect being does not need to be worshipped, nor could He ask (or command) for worship, as this would imply a void / need; an imperfection.

Proven to whom? Certainly not me.

Each second you spend in church, you could be out helping someone who needs it.

And each second you are watching TV, politically advocating, trying to get higher education for yourself, or arguing online, you could also be out helping someone who needs it.

Why would you waste a single breath telling a pefect being that it is perfect? It's a freakin' perfect being; IT ALREADY KNOWS THIS.

Obviously you haven't seen the many explanations revealing that the purpose isn't for the Being, but for the person doing it. Yes, I know, you don't understand that, but it happens to be easily proven to be of benefit and has been for very many years even by Science. But from your disbelef in God perspective, perhaps to you, it is merely one of those "Noble Lies".

[Ade]

I noticed you put "has been proven" in red text, as though it's some key point.

I think it's pretty damn obvious that a perfect being has no needs. I shouldn't have to prove anything here.