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: docs.google.com/document/d/1SHD … y=COu_0KUP
Notes page: docs.google.com/document/d/1FEI … y=COeSwckE
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.
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”.
@ James,
You:
From the essay:
You:
From the essay:
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:
From the essay:
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.
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;
By connotating and switching definitions around, anything can be made to seem negative.
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.
That is another speculation of yours and happens to be false for reasons that get very metaphysically deep.
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.
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).
I wasn’t being serious… merely lightening the load… 
You asked, so I pointed out that you really have defined “God” incorrectly, but not everyone writes to be right.
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).
Well, I don’t know if I believe that, but okay.
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.
Now how they discover it is another issue. I am currently discussing that very issue on another thread (“Master of the World” in Philosophy).
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”).
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.
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”)
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.
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”.
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.
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).
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.
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’d further argue that we can and do observe paradigm shifts in religious movements, a few of which I pointed out in the essay.
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.
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)?
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).
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.”
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.
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…
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.
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’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.
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.