The Faith & Religion mega Thread

The mind is like an OS running on hardware (brain). It is self-aware, but aware of nothing else, hence there is an illusion that you are a unique entity. When the hardware is destroyed, the software ceases to exist along with the illusion. However, there was nothing unique about it from an objective point of view. Also, from split brain studies it is known that if you split the brain, the mind also splits into two different entities, each believing it is unique, because they are unaware of one another.

That is the view of today's average scientist and philosopher of mind. Unfortunately, it looks like those people have not read their classics. Twenty five centuries ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle already argued that man consists of mind, body and soul and that the first two cease to exist after death but that the soul does not. It is because of today's dogma that "it must be scientific if is to be taken seriously" that modern scientists and philosophers have come to equate the soul with the mind - which inevitably leads to the conclusion that there is nothing left to survive. But mind the presupposition.

Of course, the existence of the soul must be denied if one believes that empiricism is the basis of all truth. But is it really? If modern science is traced back to its origins in the Renaissance, it becomes obvious that the empirical view is an amputee - one that is doing very well because of the operation, but an amputee nevertheless. Questions about reason and purpose were eliminated because they were incompatible with the scientific method, which does not know how to deal with unquantifiables like "reason" or "purpose". This does not say much about the concepts of reason and purpose but all the more about the limitations of science. It is the same kind of distortion that allowed Mill to ask "If God created the universe, then who created God?". If Mill had stopped to think for two seconds, he would have remembered Genesis 1:1, which states that the universe was created by God; and since time and space (and thus material causality) are features of the universe, which did not exist until created, it does not follow that God is just another link in the causal chain; rather God exists outside time and space and thus does not obey the laws of material causality. The only justification for those skewered and reductionist kinds of reasoning is rationalism (which is different from and frequently at odds with reason). If you study sociological systems theory, you will find that the economy, law, government, art, etc are autonomous systems that have their own unique concept of rationality, that these various concepts are incompatible but that each system is constantly involved in trying to maximize itself (that is what rationalism is all about) by taking over other systems (consider the case of businesses or other interest groups trying to influence government or the other way round). In short, if the scientific method is believed to be generally valid (that is, outside science as well), it is only because a specific type of scientist tells us that it is - which would be a prime example of indoctrination.

Does any of that imply that God or the afterlife are real? Of course not - but it does mean that science does not offer anything to prove they do not. Science is a lens that provides a particular perspective on the world; the concept of a "God of the gaps" is just a straw man as it implies that science is the only valid perspective and that any alternative view should have no claims beyond filling in the holes of what science has not yet been able to explain (and whence the confidence that these thing will ever receive any scientific explanation?). The taste of an apple is both a chemico-neural process and an individual experience that cannot be measured by science; one act, two views. Unfortunately, many still live under the delusion that there is ever only one valid answer. Yes, it is attractive; it is clear-cut so there is no stress resulting from uncertainty. Which is no doubt why people are so quick to shoot the other guy who happens to believe in the "wrong" answer. A lot has been written about the evil effects of religion. Maybe it wouldn't be bad to look a little deeper and realize that the real trouble is a digital world view (black or white, on or off) and that it has corrupted not only religion but the economy (free market, yay!), politics ("either you are with us or against us") and so much more. As a Greek philosopher said: "Know yourself".

Since religion is used to control people via fear, maybe we should evaluate religiousness with IQ level? Assuming lower IQ with people who have more fear and higher IQ's with those who are less consumed by fear. The US average IQ used to be 98-100 where 80-89 is considered dull. Maybe we're all getting stupid? Too much lead in our diet?

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H EDIT: At one point, upon finding out I was atheist, some girls told me: "It's sad that you won't be going to heaven.". I was dumbfounded and didn't say anything. But, I wanted to say: "No, it's sad that you're not either ...".

I have something to add to that, and I have come to realization that I am mostly mistrustful of 'western' Christians in general.


When I was in middle school, there was a Christian group (most likely Baptist; I don't know some Protestant offshoot, probably Baptist), well
whatever, anyways; It was after school and this group was holding one of those after school Bible studies. I unfortunately happen to be walking down the same hall where they were. So I get stopped and get the usual question if I am a Christian, did I accept Jesus as my personal savior. Anyways at that time I was proud to proclaim I was a Christian, but apparently my answer did not suit them: I replied that I was Christian-Orthodox; let the 'third degree begin'

"Oh no no no" that one person said: "You have to embrace Jesus, not patriarchy of the Pope" -- WAIT WHAT!? Did this person just lump me in with the Catholics!? I replied that I wasn't Catholic, yet that dumbass insisted that I was. Being at that age though, I wasn't as confrontational so I just said that I had to go, and promptly started to walk away FAST.

I told my parents what happened that day, and what they told me not to pay any attention to them since clearly they sure like to profess 'knowledge' of the Bible, yet don't know any real history behind Christianity, especially between the split between east and west. After all Orthodox != Catholics, and if these people really studied history, they would realize that the Catholics split from US. Plus the very difference between us and the Catholics, is ironically why there are Protestants in the first place, we do not recognize the so-called 'authority of a Pope.' But it is not like that person ever stopped to realize that in the first place!

I am now forced to agree, and now I realize that all of my feelings of distrust and even disdain for these kind of people is from that day and it just piles up whenever another useless jackoff comes to my door and tries to shove their distorted version of Christianity down my throat *cough* Mormons *cough* Jehovah's Witnesses, *cough* Evangelicals, ahem, excuse me, got something in my throat.

The way I see it as far as I'm concerned, even though I voted agnostic, I would much rather identify myself as an 'eastern' Christian if I were to re-affirm my faith. I draw a clear straight line between east and west, since it was the split between us (Byzantine) and them (Catholics), then the split from Catholics to Protestant and to many other subgroups that begin to make less and less sense, screw up the message further and further.

It is like making a copy of a copy of a copy on a xerox machine, to where you just don't understand anything anymore, and things get weirder and weirder, which is why we have Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, etc. In short, I have a deep mistrust of western Christians (particularly Evangelicals, Mormons, and others), and actually they are the ones that tend to push me away from religion in the first place.

I meanwhile never had the 'luxory' of having overly zealous religious parents, which is why I am an agnostic but that doesn't mean I don't question things, and I think the best conclusion and the most logical is that nobody really KNOWS what happens after death. No real way to prove one over the other, and although I liked to quote George Carlin (he did become an atheist), I tend to agree more with Bill Maher (another great philosopher ), since he also in the end says that one cannot really know what happens, atheists aren't necessarily right, but neither are believers, since it just cannot really be proven one way or the other.

Back to Carlin though, he did give out one theory that I thought was rather clever, and that is how I want to end with, he stated:

"I believe that we are apart of a greater wisdom that we won't ever understand. Call it what you will, you know what I call it? The Big Electron! The Big Electron... 'wwwhhooooowww, wwwhhooooowww, wwwhhooooowww.' It doesn't judge, it doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it just is, just like we are, for a little while anyways." --George Carlin

maybe we should evaluate religiousness with IQ level?

Maybe you should realize that intelligent people are every bit as susceptible to fear as less intelligent ones. Why do they rush up the social hierarchy if not for fear of not getting what they feel entitled to, of having no control over others, of some day facing threats (imaginary or not) that they may not be protected from unless they become a recognized "valuable member of society". They are just better at hiding their fear. Like white-collar crime.

Originally Posted by yonnieboy Since religion is used to control people via fear, maybe we should evaluate religiousness with IQ level? Assuming lower IQ with people who have more fear and higher IQ's with those who are less consumed by fear. The US average IQ used to be 98-100 where 80-89 is considered dull. Maybe we're all getting stupid? Too much lead in our diet?

Not just lead, but also fluoride in our water, the tea party movement, fox, all are contributing factors.

Originally Posted by Jeebizz The way I see it as far as I'm concerned, even though I voted agnostic, I would much rather identify myself as an 'eastern' Christian if I were to re-affirm my faith. I draw a clear straight line between east and west, since it was the split between us (Byzantine) and them (Catholics), then the split from Catholics to Protestant and to many other subgroups that begin to make less and less sense, screw up the message further and further.

divide et impera

Originally Posted by Jeebizz I meanwhile never had the 'luxory' of having overly zealous religious parents, which is why I am an agnostic but that doesn't mean I don't question things, and I think the best conclusion and the most logical is that nobody really KNOWS what happens after death. No real way to prove one over the other, and although I liked to quote George Carlin (he did become an atheist), I tend to agree more with Bill Maher (another great philosopher ), since he also in the end says that one cannot really know what happens, atheists aren't necessarily right, but neither are believers, since it just cannot really be proven one way or the other.

It's true I can also be considered an agnostic that also believes in Occam's razor. However, again, I do not know what happens after death ... Heaven seems highly implausible tho. A true agnostic would not say this.

well since this thread is about religion

http://www.ao.com/~regan/penguins/tux.html


floppy

Originally Posted by jay73 It is because of today's dogma that "it must be scientific if is to be taken seriously" that modern scientists and philosophers have come to equate the soul with the mind - which inevitably leads to the conclusion that there is nothing left to survive.

That "dogma" probably exists because scientists have a lot more to show for their claims than theologians. Excuse me for leaning towards the philosophy that so far has given us the best way to understand our universe. If it implies that I can't find any strong basis to believe in cushy fantasies of immortality...well, tough luck for me I guess

I would like to add that Aristotle said some rather stupid s***. For example, check his recipe on how to create flies.

The only useful thing he did were his writing on rhetoric: ethos, pathos, logos, and stuff like that.

Originally Posted by easuter That "dogma" probably exists because scientists have a lot more to show for their claims than theologists. Excuse me for leaning towards the philosophy that so far has given us the best way to understand our universe. If it implies that I can't find any strong basis to believe in cushy fantasies of immortality...well, tough luck for me I guess

What I like about science is that it is the only philosophy that contains the idea that it (science itself) could be wrong on any given point. Most of what it provides are called "theories". Even its "laws" are based on observation and are abandoned if observation shows they aren't correct.

Sure you'll find dogmatic individuals or groups that try to hold to one position or another even in the face of evidence but over time they'll be swept away by the scientific method. There were folks that thought Einstein was an apostate when he suggested Newtonian physics wasn't the be all and end all. There were folks that hated the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (including Einstein himself who famously said "God, does not play dice!" ) when it was proposed but over time it has been incorporated into quantum physics. It is difficult to ignore theories that accurately predict things and are borne out on experimentation and obvservation. It is also difficult to hold to positions that are NOT borne out by such experimentation and observation.

Religion does seem to evolve somewhat slowly over time to accept things it can't deny any longer but only after huge battles and major persecutions of individuals that don't agree with the orthodoxy. Even then we see it slip back time and time again. Look at the current desire of so many fundamentalists to "prove" dinosaurs never existed and the earth is only a few thousand years old. (To say nothing of evolution.)

Originally Posted by jay73 If you study sociological systems theory, you will find that the economy, law, government, art, etc are autonomous systems

Great. Thanks.

Now I know that even art and creativity is yet another cog in the inescapable machine of determinism. Now I'm gonna see nothing but cold logic and equations next time I listen to music (well, okay, I can already dissect music, but not in a depressing way) or watch a movie/video, or look at a picture. Nothing more than the output of a program.

I liked what you had to say up until this point...then you had to go and spoil it all.

I know I said I was gonna leave, but this just took it too far for me.

MrCode ... dont take it all so seriously... I am forgetting as much as I read as fast as I read it... now what was I saying I seem to have forgot... Oh well where was I LOL

Originally Posted by MensaWater What I like about science is that it is the only philosophy that contains the idea that it (science itself) could be wrong on any given point. Most of what it provides are called "theories". Even its "laws" are based on observation and are abandoned if observation shows they aren't correct. Sure you'll find dogmatic individuals or groups that try to hold to one position or another even in the face of evidence but over time they'll be swept away by the scientific method. There were folks that thought Einstein was an apostate when he suggested Newtonian physics wasn't the be all and end all. There were folks that hated the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (including Einstein himself who famously said "God, does not play dice!" ) when it was proposed but over time it has been incorporated into quantum physics. It is difficult to ignore theories that accurately predict things and are borne out on experimentation and obvservation. It is also difficult to hold to positions that are NOT borne out by such experimentation and observation. Religion does seem to evolve somewhat slowly over time to accept things it can't deny any longer but only after huge battles and major persecutions of individuals that don't agree with the orthodoxy. Even then we see it slip back time and time again. Look at the current desire of so many fundamentalists to "prove" dinosaurs never existed and the earth is only a few thousand years old. (To say nothing of evolution.)

Absolutely, If a scientist is shown a proof that their theory is wrong, they will change their stance straight away because they are concerned with the truth (or what we think is the truth given our limited perception of the world). Science is constantly revisiting its theories to describe the world as best as it can at a given point of our scientific knowledge. It would be rather arrogant of a scientist to claim they know the ultimate truth about the universe which will never be disproven. Over centuries science has change its version of a scientific truth many times following the thesis->antithesis->synthesis=thesis->antithesis... pattern. Failing is inherent to being a scientist (or as Edison said, "I have not failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT make a light bulb" - depending how you look at it.)

Religion, on the other hand, is not really concerned with discovering the truth, and therefore, allowing for the possibility that it might be wrong. It's still based on some ancient scripts, the origins of which are controversial depending on who you ask.
Whether it's god's words or the words of some ancient mortal thinker doesn't change the fact that over time it hasn't changed much. I get the impression that with each century the bible is just being taken less and less literarily, treating some of its stories more and more allegorically. Regardless of some changes in interpretation, I just don't think that it happens very often that the pope says something along the lines: hmmm, I think we might have been wrong here. I think the acceptance of god's/pope's infallibility is part of believing.

What does it prove? Not much, perhaps that science deals with facts, religion with beliefs.

And so the king said to the (pope|bishop)
"You keep them dumb, and I'll keep them poor"

That "dogma" probably exists because scientists have a lot more to show for their claims than theologists.

Yes, but that is just reiterating what I already said: every branch of activity adopts whatever suits its own purpose. When I say "dogma", I do not mean that scientific methodology is random or inefficient; I am really referring to claims made by more than one scientist and many a non-scientist about the universal appropriateness of the tools of science. When I have a nail to drive into a wall, I'll select a tool that is well-suited to the task at hand. Say, a hammer. But to go on and claim that a hammer is the best tool for anything else, that would be pretty dogmatic. Saying that science is going to solve non-scientific issues makes as much sense as saying that creationism is a scientific theory. And whatever the success of science, it does not make non-scientific questions disappear. They make come to look less relevant but that is something else again.
When you say that "it has more to show for its claims", it is, in fact, the whole question of relevance you are raising: "practical usefulness is judged more relevant than alternative aims". But how can relevance be measured or compared? Is there an objective criterion that would prove that medieval Japan was wrong to value taste, elegance and honour above all else? That would prove that the ancient Greek were wrong to value pure science and to neglect technology? The problem is that relevance is the expression of culturally determined emotions; and emotions can be represented scientifically (just take a brain scan) but it is not clear how, to the neutral observer, such a representation would show the desirability of one emotion/brain state over another. So if you prefer "practical usefulness", that is largely the result of emotions that are characteristic of the modern West. It is not a law cast in stone. It was different in the past and I strongly believe it will be different again in the near future if the human species means to survive.