The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Religion: is it forever? > Comments

Religion: is it forever? : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 22/7/2009

Rational beliefs in atheism will never entirely win out, for they are a total misunderstanding of human nature.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Religion: is it forever...Well as they say there is a sucker born every day.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 9:50:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The same old story

Who am I?
How did I get here?
Why am I here?

Religion can seem to give the answers people are looking for even if those answers are at the best extremely unlikely. So the curse of religion will probably stay with us forever propelled by a mass of unthinking scared little people who cannot face reality. The answer to the three questions? We are who we are, and our reason for being here is whatever we want to make it.

Is there a God? As an agnostic (not atheist) I have no idea. But I can say that it is not the God of religions.
Posted by Daviy, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:08:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the best articles on this issue – thanks Peter.

I used to think as the world becomes more educated and well-off the need for religion will diminish but I am no longer sure that is true. The US is one of the richest and educated (while in an insular way) and still remains a heavily Christian dominated country at the powerbroker level. Even President Bush declared he invaded Iraq on the advice of God.

I tend to agree with most of what you put forward Peter although I would hope that the negative aspects of religious extremism might cease in favour of a more moderate and tolerant religious landscape which I think would evolve over time with education and contact with different cultures (under multi-culturalism).

In relation to the concept of heaven, I think this still holds strong with most Christians as there is still much talk of forgiveness of the sin (to be accepted into heaven) rather than a more in-depth and altruistic seeking to understand the morality of the sin itself. Even in Buddhism the idea of reincarnation, like Heaven, is used to enforce a kind of moral law and the idea of being rewarded for good behaviour. Reincarnation would suggest forgiveness is not as important as adherence.

On point five, when arguing the existence of something that cannot be proved, the burden of proof should not lie with those seeking evidence.

Overall I think you are probably right, humans have always sought for something spiritual, meaning or a sense of community which the Church provides. I think that these things can be found via other means if one is sufficiently possessed of the means and inclination to seek community and human connections. The proof is in the many non-religious charities that have grown over the years through a sense of altruism and egalitarianism.

I think basically humans are naturally 'spiritual' (defined as seeking to understand those questions that Daviy posed above) and good but until we trust in our own self-determination, religions will continue to prosper.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:18:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the Christian religion we only have to look at the Bible and its values for a community. The baby born in a stable; fury at merchants in the Temple; the Sabbath as a day of rest; the truth that shall make you free; the parables of Good Samaritan; the Prodigal Son; and others. The Sermon on the Mount; blessed are the meek …

Much of the above is nonsense. Anyone who accepts such information as factual should have some courage and go to
www.godisimaginary.com
and see how many of the 50 arguments presented they can refute.
Or link to the video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4339200993563581344
and see why Christian clerics are very selective when they quote from the Bible, from either testament.
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:27:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see no need for religion to disappear. I see a great need for government to stop supporting it by such activities as the school chaplaincy program and taxpayer funding given to religious schools. People derive comfort and bonding through religion. Although I think all religion is basically nonsense and have no truck with any sort of supernatural belief I belong to a religious group and bond with it. I also belong to a secular humanist group and bond with that. If others think that is contradictory that's their problem not mine.

There is no special virtue in religious belief or in the rejection of religious belief. There are dirty dogs and good guys on both sides.

I think rejection of religious belief makes good sense. However, nobody should be obligated to follow what I consider good sense.

I object to the assumption that those who share one's beliefs are somehow better people than those who don't. I object to the assumption that what one believes is more important than what one does. Belief in a particular religious mumbo jumbo as a means of salvation is nonsense. Belief in salvation is nonsense. However, who am I to object to nonsense? Who do I have to be to object to nonsense?
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:42:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle and david f
This article is not about the truth or otherwise of religious belief but whether religion will survive or not, and why.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:52:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Rational beliefs in atheism will never entirely win out, for they are a total misunderstanding of human nature."

The above sentence is problematical. Atheism is not a belief. Any Christian does not believe in the pagan gods. That does not mean he is a believer in that regard.

I do not believe in any God. Atheism is not a belief. In my feeling toward God I am not making any statement about human nature so I don't know why atheism is a misunderstanding of human nature.

Does the sentence mean that it is a misunderstanding of human nature to accept that a rational acceptance of atheism will entirely win out? I accept that people will continue to believe in such nonsense as astrology, lucky numbers, God or gods and the like.

The sentence sets up a straw man in assuming the human population of this world will ever be entirely rational.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:55:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good attempt to bring some sanity into the debate.

But I find some of the arguments to be somewhat tenuous.

>>We have had religious beliefs in all communities and all races since the beginnings of historical knowledge<<

Offset against that must surely be the increase in knowledge we have accumulated over the years. "We have always believed the sun revolves around the earth" had a pretty long run, too, only finally to be overwhelmed.

What happens as we gradually determine how this universe began, why it has evolved the way it has, and how it will end? There will be less and less compulsion to fill out our lack of certainty with fairy stories.

>>Religion... creates a community, a sense of belonging...[c]ommunities are social vehicles, coherent, protective of members, offering assistance to and engagement with others in the group.<<

Bikie gangs operate along similar lines. As, I understand, does the Mafia.

>>Religion offers consolation in times of great suffering<<

Ye-e-e-e-s. But only by substituting fiction for fact.

>>If the research is valid, it also demonstrates that religion complies with the conditions for an evolved behaviour<<

I can only be sceptical of the research on this. I suspect the researcher may have fallen into the trap of identifying one attribute among many to explain an anomalous result.

>>The absence of valid counterarguments.<<

A counterargument against religion? Surely, when there are so many examples of it in the world, you can't actually argue that it doesn't exist.

I certainly don't belong to the school that says religion is always a bad thing. I have met plenty of fine, healthy and intelligent people who are also religious.

But it is instructive that the writer does not address the situation where the selection of a particular religion determines whether or not you want to go out and kill other people.

Having lived and worked in London in the 1970s, on constant lookout for unattended bags on the underground, I can only hope that if religion is destined to last "forever", it evolves into a form substantially less dangerous that it presently manifests.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 11:08:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Bowden needs to work on the idea that atheism is a belief: most atheists understand it as a lack of belief, or a declining to believe. It always astounds me when people claim, with no further justification, that declining to join a group of believers is of itself a belief.

Aside from that, he’s running a curious set of arguments, and as Pericles has pointed out, they don’t really connect together. It’s a bit like my old high-school debating strategy of thinking up as many points as possible to support your argument, and then firing away. It seems to me he can support the case he is trying to make simply with his fourth point, about religious belief being wired into our brains (cf. Pinker, Dennett and many others).

Still, it’s nice to have an atheist/”Huxley agnostic” talking about religion without ridiculing it. Too much of the discourse these days is in the Dawkins “religion is the root of all evil” vein. It’s good to acknowledge that for individual believers religious beliefs are perceived as well-founded and useful in their personal lives.

The challenge is to get believers to acknowledge the same about non-believers.
Posted by woulfe, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 12:06:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion is government. Atheism can be government but it is bad government like a ship without a rudder. Australia currently has bad government because the logic chips of atheists are hot wired to dishonesty. The logic chip of many beliefs are headed for law and order, and law and order are the centerpiece of all religions, even atheism.

Those of us who are and remain Church going Christians are still under instruction in the Religion that founded the great societies of Europe that dominated the world for so long. The legacy of Christianity is sound government. When it is abandoned as it is in Australia today, the result is bad government. Like stray cattle we are wandering in the wilderness and a quote from Ephesians 2 verse 12 comes to mind. That at that time you were without Christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world.

This passage is cited by Quick and Garran annotated Australian Constitution, and adequately expresses the feelings of a huge number of Australians. Commonwealth is a word from the Holy Bible, and is coupled with Israel. In the Holy Bible the meaning of Israel, is defined way back in Exodus 32, and Israel meant man of God. When Jacob, the heel grabber, a grasping avaricious man, had a God Encounter, his whole life changed, and Almighty God himself changed his name to Israel.

A Man of God, should never accept slavery. He should not be a slave himself or condone enslavement of others. Unfortunately for those who benefit from the discipline of Islam, slavery is not anathema to that religion. The Christian religion is about justice. The justice it delivers when the authorities adhere to its teaching is universal, fair and ubiquitous. It does not tolerate whoremasters like Abe Saffron, making sex slaves of women for money, supplying sly grog to circumvent the liquor laws, and promoting illegal gambling. The State of New South Wales now allows almost unlimited sales of liquor, 24/7. Is New South Wales a religion?
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 1:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Sartre pointed out that we have no purpose, we exist only. The arguments are quite frightening. Life is absurd, abandoned, it has no meaning."

I'm with Satre, and anyway what's frightening about no meaning? existing is beautiful, i don't need meaning as well. i am over all this "meaning". quite happy to be god free, post-modern and meaningless.
Posted by E.Sykes, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 1:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When we get all excited about the State of Origin Football series, between Queensland and New South Wales what are we doing? We are worshipping and celebrating a State. For a few weeks we forget we are Australians, and become partisan for our own particular religion, which may be rugby.

We have our saints and sinners, champions and losers, but it is all about passion. It is about fun and appeasing the deep seated desire to see people compete with each other at the highest level. I am told women enjoy seeing healthy fit men doing men things. Some of them even lead them into temptation, and being men they are tempted. We seem to think they should all be saints. Is this a form of Religious Instruction?

The false morality of football as a Religion, is reflected in the mock outrage when a man does what men do, when pumped full of testosterone, fed well, fit and away from home. They get tempted. So what? Hasim Al Nasri is a Muslim. He plays excellent football, and if his boot is anything to go by God loves him. He is a man of high morals, has never been accused of being unfaithful to his wife, although he probably has the same opportunities to be tempted as any other man.

We need to be realistic about things. When a religion is about love, as the Christian religion is, and a person is committed to a Church, married to a loving woman or man, drinks only in moderation, and is humble in the face of Almighty God, than the blessing of a good life is more than likely to follow than not. Community living is about religion. When Religion becomes fanatical, as it has in Belfast, they have erected walls to keep the two sides apart, and the walls work.

The Constitution of Australia is a Christian document, and it has all the attributes necessary to promote harmonious living within our borders. We live in a world full of religion, and we are tolerant of others, but can be too religious
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 1:45:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Society would be better off without religion.

1) less war
2) less interference in provision of education and health
3) greater understanding between races
4) greater freedom to marry, and to have social intercourse
5) greater freedom in clothing and other activity like driving cars
6) improved efficiency in incorporating new ideas into life-experiences
7) more laughter, creativity and enjoyment
8) greater unity of humanity.
Posted by old zygote, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 1:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the diary of a gentlewoman:

"Will humanity ever come to believe that women are intellectually equal to men? Surely not! It is such a comfort to men to contemplate their extra wealth and privileges and believe that they deserve these through their superiority; and such a comfort to women, when they are frustrated and defeated, to believe that this the fault lies in their gender and not themselves. How is it possible for women to understand why they are so permanently fixed in a subordinate position unless they first believe in their inherent inferiority? How can women seek a fulfilling life unless they acknowledge the biological drives implacably pulling them towards domestic duties and motherhood? So many things about the state of the world cannot be comprehended without a firm grasp of the inherent inferiority of women -- why would anyone ever want to give it up? For the truth? But what is true? As long as women consider themselves inferior to men then they will BE inferior; they will receive less education because they feel they need less education. How could that change? No, women will continue to feel inferior to men forever."

Patricia Bowden, 1869
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 2:04:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with E.Sykes!

Also, Foyle's suggestion www.godisimaginary.com is a hoot.

If you want to save time read 1 Kings, Chapter 18.

Peter the Believer, you can't have it both ways! ;))

What was the article about again?
Posted by bitey, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 2:34:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every person on this planet has faith in someone or something. Unfortunately due to idiotic humanistic secular belief that faith is often in corruptible man. Religion will remain forever because like every other prophecy in the bible that has come to pass so will the one that declares that every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. People will do it voluntarily in this life or at Judgement Day. The age of reason has now left us due to people putting their faith in idiotic pseudo science theories such as evolution. Anyone with a half honest heart can see that man has been designed which requires a Designer.

The author is partly right in saying that religion is wired in us. We see that by the way people worship the earth. What he fails to acknowledge is the clear sinful nature that he and every other person has is as obvious as the sickness of 'Henson' art. Instead of bowing our knee to the Only One who can forgive us we try and pretend that somehow we don't need a Saviour. The evidence is obvious for all to see,
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 2:45:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When people like the author try to show us that religion is a good thing they use arguments. They appeal to our sense of reason and logic and hope to convince us that they are right because they think it is in the best interests of society and individuals that we too become religious.

This is fair enough and it is how we normally go about changing things for the better. We appeal to the reason and logic in our fellow human beings and if that does not work we often resort to more aggressive forms of persuasion. Religious people follow these same methods. They acknowledge the importance of reason and logic until they are challenged. When they are asked questions for which they have no answers they then claim that religion is fundamentally a matter of ‘faith’ or ‘belief’. This means that the normal rules of reason and logic no longer apply. Some even go so far as to say such ‘faith’ is a gift from God and it is not subject to human logic or reasoning.

If the goodness of religion is ultimately beyond the rules of reason and logic to which we adhere in every other daily activity then why bother trying to convince others by reasonable arguments? It is totally illogical to try and persuade by reason when ultimately it is all a matter of ‘faith’. It is this lack of integrity between what religious people say and what they do that suggests the only people they are really trying to convince is themselves. If they were really sure that religion is ultimately about faith there would be no articles at all on OLO about the value of what they do.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 2:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said E sykes. I too am more than happy to be God free.
However, I think it will be a long time before religion goes the way of the dinosaurs. Humans are tribal by nature and religion and belief gives a sense of community. Throughout history, anything that is not understood is rationalised by being ordained by a Deity and so myths and superstition develops. I cannot argue with some of the philosophies that are espoused by some religions, but one doesn't have to have to believe in God to agree with many of these.

It is impossible to have a rational argument against "faith" as the mere term implies an illogical belief with no practical answer or reason. That's why it is used and unfortunately will remain as the mainstay in all these discussions and will be impossible to shift.
Posted by snake, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 4:45:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1 deals merely with precedent. Evolutionary history is replete with the unprecedented.

2 is a negative take on positivism, robbing the term of its aspirations and usurping it for a retrograde retreat into constructivist culturalism. Your take is not “total rationality”, but “rationale”—a cynical and provincial acceptance of the absurdity of life outside your cosy little beliefs. “Communities” will always also contain radical elements, a cohort that sees beyond the termite mound. Moreover, in your simplistic take on social convention you elide the individual psyche, possibly a microcosmic realm antimonious to spurious cultural reality—or at least not limited to it.
3 Having been through this loss scenario, I attest that religion offers nothing but banal convention, an insult to the injury—a Panglossian/Pascalian palliative or wager. Life is of course finally overwhelming, and there was no shame in Foucault’s or Oscar Wilde’s deathbed concessions.
4 Who cares if these terminal optimists, these Ned Flanders' of the world, squeeze more out of their pathetic lives? Longevity is overrated. And evolution of course is not synonymous with progress—humans might well evolve the lifespan of a housefly!
5 Surely before we have to come up with a valid “counter-argument” you, or religion, has to come up with a “valid” argument? Sorry, but wishful thinking, even under the grandiose heading “Faith”, just doesn’t cut it.

Anyway, what is wrong with plain old ignorance? Better to accept one’s ignorance than to be ignorant, however pious.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 6:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion will be with us for all time,in one form or another, I agree.
Religious beliefs are different to cultural beliefs, by which many people of the world live by.
So, as far as I am concerned, we do not need religion to live a good, moral life.
Christians especially do not agree with this argument. The country with the largest population on Earth is China, with their people spread all over the world after emmigrating. Do Christians suggest that the largely non-Christain majority of peoples in this world are not morally sound? Probably.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 8:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Bowden's conclusion that some humans will probably always persist in believing in religious ideas, his reasoning and evidence leave much to be desired.

Others have pointed out the specifics of his spurious arguments, but this one jumped out at me:

<< Or Jainism, 10,000 years earlier stated an overriding rule of life - not to hurt one another. >>

Really? The earliest records of Jainism date back to about 1000 BCE. Undoubtedly people articulated the general desirability of not hurting each other prior to that, but 12,000 years ago the ancestors of the Jains were still tribal nomads who hadn't invented writing yet (as, indeed, were the ancestors of followers of all major religions).

Oh well, at least his intent seems worthy, and he ultimately arrives at the most likely conclusion - albeit accidentally.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 8:30:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALWAYS remember that your inherent heart-disposition wants and needs Infinite, Absolute, True, Eternal Happiness.

A quote from the author of these two references re why the religious or rather Spiritual impulse is our primary urge and need.

1. http://www.dabase.org/dualsens.htm

2. http://www.dabase.org/tfrbkyml.htm

ALL of human culture, philosophy and ideas (including atheism), and even our individual life-strategies, are an attempt to either come to terms with the over-whelming fact of death. Or to de-sensitize ourselves to our hell-deep fear of death---and of course for good reason, because sheer naked exposure to our always existential terror would drive us mad.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 23 July 2009 2:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican wrote: "This article is not about the truth or otherwise of religious belief but whether religion will survive or not, and why."

Dear Pelican,

I have the hope, perhaps unreasonable, that the survival of religion is related to the truth of religion. Some people abandon their beliefs when they are shown to be untrue. Others abandon their beliefs when they become convinced there is no evidence to sustain those beliefs. I used to believe in God and was fairly religious. Finally, I gave up that belief when I became convinced that it was not supported by the evidence. I doubt that I am unique.

All religions are human inventions. The particular invention called Christianity will disappear as the belief in the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods, Manichaeism and other religious flights of fancy have disappeared. However, other superstitions will emerge. However, one can hope that they will in general be restricted to the more gullible and uneducated parts of the population. Unfortunately intelligent and educated people can sometimes be as gullible as others the hope may be in vain.

Dear Ho Hum,

I think that those who talk about the fear of death as common to all humans may be assuming that all humans share their fear. My former wife who was a nurse told me that her patients who knew they were terminal in general were ready for their approaching death. I am 83 and feel I have made many mistakes and wrong turns in life. It is comforting to realise that probably in the near future I will not be able to continue.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 23 July 2009 2:59:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PTB wrote: "Australia currently has bad government because the logic chips of atheists are hot wired to dishonesty."

The above is an example of the prejudice of the religious bigot. Bigoted religionists believe people who don't believe in the same nonsense as they do are not as good. There is absolutely no evidence that atheists are more or less honest than people who believe in religion. Of course if religious believers based their beliefs on evidence there would be no religious believers. Europe was once almost completely dominated by Christianity. The period is with good reason called The Dark Ages. Charles Freeman wrote "The Closing of the Western Mind" which described how the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire caused European humanity to replace the spirit of enquiry in the ancient world with the dogmas of Christianity. The French and American Revolutions brought the idea of separation of church and state where democratic governments were supposed to treat all citizens equally regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of them. European civilisation moved out from under the darkness, mind-deadening influence and evil of Christianity.

I gave up belief in God because honesty demanded it.

PTB also wrote: "When a religion is about love, as the Christian religion is"

Here PTB ignores the evidence of the Crusades, the Inquisition, imperialism justified to convert the heathen, the wars of the Reformation, the conversion of Europe by violence and the twentieth century Holocaust, the product of centuries of Christian-inspired hate. Of course if Christians based their beliefs on evidence there would be no Christians. From my reading of history Christianity is a religion of hate that uses the word, love, to describe itself. It is Orwellian. War is peace, and Christian hate is love.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 23 July 2009 3:01:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dishonest atheists--no doubt about that.

But what about dishonest power and control seeking religionists PRETENDING that they are/were doing "god's" work, or bringing "jesus" to the "heathen savages"!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/darkness.html

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/1031

Hi ho,hi ho plundering we will go and onward christian soldiers marching into war, including in Iraq,
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 23 July 2009 3:11:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I started to glaze over reading this one but at least he is an academic who is trying.
Good effort B+
Posted by Priscillian, Thursday, 23 July 2009 7:27:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know where you are coming from david f.

Truth is relative to one's point of view and you and I agree about the 'truth' from our viewpoint however, others of a different ilk will be as confident about their version of 'truth'.

It has already been 2000 years and we have come a long way in terms of technology, education and intellectual advancement and still religion persists, not only in primitive societies, but modern, educated Western societies.

I don't necessarily think religion will be forever, however I would not be surprised if it takes another 2000 years until we have evolved from the need to search and find meaning in the supernatural. Even if that meaning is different for everybody. If it is in our nature to do so, then perhaps we never will.

I am not sure what the difference between Atheists and Theists in terms of our intrinsic natures - what makes one group seek meaning in a deity and what makes the other seek truth through science or evidence. Atheists perhpas have more faith in the nature of man to form societies with an agreed set of values and 'morals' (held up in law) rather than one where laws are fashioned on the basis of the existence of one or more deities.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 25 July 2009 3:24:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican wrote: It has already been 2000 years and we have come a long way in terms of technology, education and intellectual advancement and still religion persists, not only in primitive societies, but modern, educated Western societies.

Dear Pelican,

Much of education in modern, educated Western societies equips the student to be literate, use computational tools and develop employable skills. Few are trained in general analytical skills applied to other than their trade or profession, critical thinking and a broad view of the humanities. Without the latter most absorb the received wisdom around them without question. They are less able to question religion than a citizen of classical Athens.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 25 July 2009 3:41:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavifF
it's a pleasure to read your refreshingly lucid thoughts. Education in the humanities is indeed vital to a balanced perspective--some acquaintance with Shakespeare or Montaigne or Emerson alone would be enough to throw the average Christian into a quandry and question the wisdom of treating any text as gospel. Any thinking person surely acknowledges the precariousness of any human perspective. And yet there is a solemn pleasure and confederacy and consolation in sharing one's existential pain with the great thinkers of times long past. Socrates was the wisest because he knew he knew nothing; Pliny (the younger) said that nothing is certain except that nothing is certain; Montaigne opined that it is nothing to realise that one has said or done a foolish thing, "one must realise that one is nothing but a fool"; and Emerson said that consistency was the hobgoblin of small minds. These were religious men who had the strength of character to think for themselves during much more oppressive times. Religion might be here to stay, but so is philosophy. And faith might be a comfort but "the unexamined life is not worth living".
My wife was a nurse too and saw a great deal of suffering during her many years in the spinal unit at PAH (Brisbane). She died of cancer at the age of 39, not wanting to leave me or her four very young kids, but she went without fear or hope.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 25 July 2009 6:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the author is probably right. A key component of human intelligence is the ability to detect patterns, and make accurate predictions based on those patterns.
Of course, this ability has not only led to scientific endeavour, but also numerology, astrology etc., and probably religion in general. Some patterns are easier to predict than others, and arguably there could be a pattern that is impossible to detect until the end of days.
After all, even Dawkins doesn't give himself 10 out of 10 in the atheist stakes.
We judge the value of 'belief' systems by this ability to make accurate predictions. Quantum mechanics, physics, chemistry and so on are more highly valued than numerology and astrology for instance (or economics or meteorology, for that matter).
Isn't this how religion was created? It's all about prophets, making accurate (?) predictions. Perhaps that's why religious thought is slowly dying, it hasn't really made any good predictions lately, has it?
BTW, Runner, I'm reminded of Matthew 24. 34: “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
Marvellous how the faithful can interpret any prophecy to be true.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 26 July 2009 10:57:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These comments interest me greatly, Grim, as I’m researching in a related area. It’s entirely plausible for me that religions, indeed all mysticisms and metaphysics, as you mention, are reifications based on prediction (perhaps hypotheses is a better word) as much as wishful thinking. We have no direct access to the “noumenal” or the “real” or the “divine”—if these categories actually exist in any sense—outside their respective hypotheses (I allude of course to Kantian philosophy and Lacanian Psychoanalysis as well as theism). Each of these hypotheses is an elaboration of thought, an attempt to make sense of consciousness, life, the universe and everything. Humans are definitely into prediction and theories of everything (TOE: the holy grail of physics); and the plausible or “attractive” models, that “great” thinkers or divines invoke, attract followings that sometimes become “great” traditions, before they erode, fall away, or are superseded—Christianity today in its myriad forms bares little resemblance to the original. Secularism superseded theism, for some, and is now being superseded for others. Socialism superseded Capitalism for a moment etc. All this surely demonstrates human vulnerability to ideas—what Dawkins calls “memes”. What we humans really have, all we have, in my book, is our ignorance, and we should guard it like the precious thing it is. Who knows how vast our ignorance is—it comprehends all that we don’t know! I for one would rather be in awe of my ignorance, and the infinite possibilities it entails, than give it up for some faddish certainty.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 26 July 2009 12:21:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi david f
I agree about education but it would have to be done in a non-biased format with the goal of allowing students to think for themselves, to toss around ideas and develop analytical skills. The only problem I can see with this is that some very highly intelligent people are also religious mainly (if the ones I know are indicative) due to their upbringing and belief that society is better off with religion.

The human brain is an interesting organ in the way it processes information such as in relation to illness, pain and general health. The notion of mind over matter. Religion perhaps, works in a similar way as a placebo effect. You only have to observe some congregational activities where people by virtue only of their belief believe they can be cured by an evangelical type character even if he/she the demeanour of a car salesman and overtly seeks 'donations'. Or witness those who really believe they are speaking in tongues.

It is testament to how vulnerable we are in terms of mass indoctrination and manipulation whether it be of a political, religious or commercial nature.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 26 July 2009 2:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A week or so ago we learned that a meteorite the size of earth crashed into the planet Jupiter. If this happened to earth, we'd all be dust floating around in Space. Where does Religion/God fit in to this. It won't save us. Is this God a God of the Universe or just planet Earth? I have so many unanswerede questions that I find it difficult to have a place for Religion in my life.
Posted by Margie2, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 1:35:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a couple of answers to your question, Margie2, depending on your religious tendencies.

>>A week or so ago we learned that a meteorite the size of earth crashed into the planet Jupiter. If this happened to earth, we'd all be dust floating around in Space. Where does Religion/God fit in to this. It won't save us. Is this God a God of the Universe or just planet Earth?<<

If you are not religious, you would point out that one of Jupiter's characteristics in our solar system is to use its massive gravitational pull to attract space debris like this to itself, and to deflect it away from earth to a large extent.

So while we can expect a hit like this every few hundred million years or so, the odds of it happening while you are waiting for the bus are pretty tiny.

If you are religious, of course, you would point out that one of Jupiter's characteristics in our solar system is to use its massive gravitational pull to attract space debris like this to itself, and to deflect it away from earth to a large extent.

And that's God's plan.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 4:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beautifully expressed, Pericles

Don't tell the religious that gas giants are being discovered elsewhere in the universe and we may well discover our type of solar system is not all that unique at all...

As for religion being forever, as we learn more, formal religion becomes increasingly meaningless. However, that inner feeling of the joy of life, the universe and everything will stay with us. Well, with most of us.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 8:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it amusing that people consistently look for explanations for religious belief, as if that gives them some right to clear them off with a wave of the hand. Religion is wishful thinking, or religion gives acceptance to people, etc etc etc. But almost all of these weak explanations commit serious logical fallacies. They inevitably commit the fallacy of attempting to explain the origins behind a person's belief, without realising that such explanations say nothing of the truth of the belief itself.

Such explanations can easily be turned back on the person making the claims. Serious religion is not meant to be a "comfort", and it also has it's disadvantages. Atheists, imagine for a second that there's a force far greater than you, to whom you will one day be held accountable for all of your actions. Not a very comforting thought, is it? So one could easily make the counter claim that the NON religious are avoiding such issues by choosing not to believe, and that they are giving themselves the ability to do whatever they want without any lasting consequence. This, of course, would be a poor explanation for the truth of their beliefs, just as their explanations that religious people want a "comforting blanket" are equally inept at explaining the truth of religious belief.
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 11:30:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What an odd opinion, Trav.

>>people consistently look for explanations for religious belief... They inevitably commit the fallacy of attempting to explain the origins behind a person's belief, without realising that such explanations say nothing of the truth of the belief itself.<<

We do realise it, Trav, we most certainly do.

But when we try to make sense of it all, we face the insurmountable problem that there are so many such beliefs going around, that it is impossible for anyone who is not already that way inclined, to proffer an explanation of the "truth" behind each one.

It would be a total waste of energy even trying to contemplate what is essentially the "why" factor behind religious belief.

Ask "what" religious truth is, and you will get as many answers as the religions you ask.

Then ask "why" they believe what they believe, and they will simply say "because it is the truth".

So we unbelievers observe from the sidelines, and the only explanation we can reasonably aspire to, is that religion is a psychological condition.

It acts as an emotional prop, we surmise. Or perhaps helps avoid having to think about really difficult stuff. Or maybe it provides a level of self-confidence that would otherwise be absent.

>>one could easily make the counter claim that the NON religious are avoiding such issues [facing a judgemental God] by choosing not to believe<<

Doesn't work, sorry. Avoiding confronting something you don't believe in? Hardly.

I spend exactly the same amount of time avoiding contemplation of Judgement Day as I spend avoiding contemplation of being eaten by zombies.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 6:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy