What makes a religion a religion?

[Gatsby]

Truth doesnt help you to arrive, belief does.

Why does belief help you arrive? What is it about belief as opposed to say, an evidence- and observation-based investigation which makes belief so well suited to arriving at truth? And wouldn't a belief, by its very nature, have a very big effect on the "truth" it led you to anyway?

Belief isnt foundation but every thruth is self-supported on its own level.

What do you mean by this? Provide examples.

If something is true on "higher" level it means it has more capacity and force- its more genuine and more potent.

Again, what does this mean exactly? Because it sounds suspiciously like Expedient Truth, i.e. measuring a truth based on how good it is at affecting people's attitudes and behaviours rather than its consistency with facts and evidence.

 

[Gatsby]

God created the world through agents. This doesnt disaproof anything. The proof here would be if you could show me that the universe came out of nothing.

Evolution isnt inconsistent with God since again Nature is just a Gods agent.


The cultural evolution and humanism are the ideals of crucifided Christ. Evolution is more then just biological process. Its manifestation of involved spirit. Animals are part of that too. But how come that mind was developed only in one line of evolution(human)? Monkeys has been around longer then humans but they didnt develope the same capacity? Any explanation?

Can't you see how desperately you're trying to rationalise the existence of God by cramming Him into anything that looks even remotely like a gap to you?

 

[Gatsby]

And this is your own belief, I believe....
I have my own explanation of the methaphor.

No it's not, it's an observation. Your particular interpretation of that idea is beside the point.

 

[Gatsby]

God created the earth and the universe. Cosmology can track the universe back to 10-35 seconds after the big bang

[SNIP]

While we are not quite certain exactly how the first life began, there are many good explanations and it is only a matter of time till we will have discovered the answer.

I'd also like to stress that although we don't currently know how life first began or what happened before 10-35 seconds after the big bang, this doesn't mean that there is any rational justification for saying "God did it!" Particularly when you consider the track record of people who said the same thing about other phenomena that are now well understood by science.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I will come back tomorrow with some answers. Meanwhile I will keep wondering how you can see as "unjustified" creating of the universe by God. Since God is something no one has yet provided clear definition of...

 

[Gatsby]

Since God is something no one has yet provided cleared definition of...

Yes, exactly...

 

[Funky]

God created the world through agents. (...) Evolution isnt inconsistent with God since again Nature is just a Gods agent.

Of course we can claim that God is responsible for the big bang and for evolution. Yet apart from the fact that it's strange that the bible contains very different stories about creation, these theories work totally well on their own. They don't require any further assumptions, let alone that of a divine being overseeing the processes for whom we have no evidence for at all.

The proof here would be if you could show me that the universe came out of nothing.

I recently finished reading "A Universe from Nothing" by the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, in which he presents a plausible theory of how the universe could indeed come out of nothing. Yet even if he is wrong, simply placing a god at the starting point of the universe is unelegant, to say the least, because it only raises the question where this god came from.

But how come that mind was developed only in one line of evolution(human)? Monkeys has been around longer then humans but they didnt develope the same capacity? Any explanation?

Well, we are essentially highly developed monkeys. We gained our mind by acquiring larger brains through evolution. It's really that simple.

I can see how we are trying to flourish. There is lot of corruption, greed and killing. Its the highest ideals of religions which has the capacity to keep this place in shape. Nothing better was invented yet.

I'm afraid to say that this is absurd. Religion is by its very nature devisive and has led to unimaginable amounts of needless human suffering throughout the ages. The human rights were hard fought for against the influence of the church. Even today, religious ideas of morality struggle to keep up with what for most people is common sense.
The countries which do the best on all social matters, such as subjective happiness, crime rates, charity etc, are the least religious countries, like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, or Australia, where up to 80 percent of the population don't believe in a god. The countries which do the worst are theocracies and other countries with high religiosity.

You quote an Old Testament as Christianity? It was Christ who inspired us to overcome the ancient barbaric religions.

Actually the old testament was never declared obsolete by Christianity, quite the contrary. Don't forget, Adam and Eve are in the old testament, and only through them do we get the concept of original sin which Jesus died for on the cross.

More we are able to plunge into the discovery of our own consciousness more of God appears.

I am all for exploring our consciousness and striving for spiritual experiences. There are ways of meditation that can have a strong impact on how we think about compassion, say, which I regard as very useful. The point is, it is totally possible to have these experiences without believing in religious dogma.

 

[timtofly]

I am going to ask this question before I address your post.

Would you say that you pick and choose the evidence that goes with your belief system?

Of course we can claim that God is responsible for the big bang and for evolution. Yet apart from the fact that it's strange that the bible contains very different stories about creation, these theories work totally well on their own. They don't require any further assumptions, let alone that of a divine being overseeing the processes for whom we have no evidence for at all.

What evidence is there of something coming from nothing? It would seem to me to be a "finished" product. Is it a coincidence that while there has been evolution, there has been no jumps in evolution for the last 10,000 years? It is not that the evidence is not there. It is that the evidence does not match one's time scale. And nothing written down at that time matches modern time scales. It is then relegated to mythology, and imagination instead of humans putting their thoughts down how they saw them at the time.

I recently finished reading "A Universe from Nothing" by the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, in which he presents a plausible theory of how the universe could indeed come out of nothing. Yet even if he is wrong, simply placing a god at the starting point of the universe is unelegant, to say the least, because it only raises the question where this god came from.

We have little idea where this God came from nor where this God is going. That is the definition of the term infinite. The concept of infinity came before the concept of first cause. God had already announced himself as the first cause even before humans had the concept of first cause. It would seem that God gave the idea of first cause before it even occurred to humans that there needed to be one.

Well, we are essentially highly developed monkeys. We gained our mind by acquiring larger brains through evolution. It's really that simple.

That sounds nice in theory, but that is not how evolution works in practice, but if you want me to prove it, explain how mutation creates new information.

I'm afraid to say that this is absurd. Religion is by its very nature devisive and has led to unimaginable amounts of needless human suffering throughout the ages. The human rights were hard fought for against the influence of the church. Even today, religious ideas of morality struggle to keep up with what for most people is common sense.

Do you think there is a difference between the Bible and the religion that is called Christianity? It seems to me that Christianity is a private interpretation and rarely lines up with the Bible, and at the risk of stirring up the ire of it's followers, I will state that they pride themselves that Scripture has very little to do with their beliefs. It is the traditions of men and relies heavily on certain interpretations that have in some cases completely separated it from anything in the Bible.

The countries which do the best on all social matters, such as subjective happiness, crime rates, charity etc, are the least religious countries, like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, or Australia, where up to 80 percent of the population don't believe in a god. The countries which do the worst are theocracies and other countries with high religiosity.

God never intended humans to form their own religions, and control people's minds. As you pointed out humans can figure out just fine on their own what works to bring peace to a society and what does not.

Actually the old testament was never declared obsolete by Christianity, quite the contrary. Don't forget, Adam and Eve are in the old testament, and only through them do we get the concept of original sin which Jesus died for on the cross.

Actually the Bible is the result of people writing down their thoughts. It technically does not in and of itself replace anything within itself. The concept of original sin replaced Paul's concept that sin entered into the world. While Adam's choice or disobedience did introduce the concept of good and evil, there was no "original" sin. What it did introduce is the consequences that we call evil and associated evil with certain choices that we make. Now if we can figure out how to avoid death, and evil and still let humans do whatever they please, we can wipe out the concept of sin altogether.

I am all for exploring our consciousness and striving for spiritual experiences. There are ways of meditation that can have a strong impact on how we think about compassion, say, which I regard as very useful. The point is, it is totally possible to have these experiences without believing in religious dogma.

I agree that we do not need religious dogma, but what would you call getting rid of evil and death? Is that not what humans have been striving for for centuries? Christianity was never supposed to be dogmatic, but it seemed that humans thought they could change things through dogmatic means. Life is supposed to be a free choice, not a control mechanism.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Evolution is more then just biological process. Its manifestation of involved spirit.

No. It. Is. Not.

More we are able to plunge into the discovery of our own consciousness more of God appears.

If you cram it in where it's not needed you can convince yourself of that. Like you did with evolution. Just going: manifestation of involved spirit, doesn't make it so.

There isn't a single scrap of evidence for the manifestation of involved spirit in evolution. Evolution is a well understood proces which operates fine without vague baseless claims of unneeded spirits.

I also wonder why you'd want a conscious involved in such a cruel and uncaring proces. If you have understood evolution, and you believe there is guidance in that proces, you would have to conclude the Source of that guidance is an immense bastard.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

No. It. Is. Not.

Well I have given an example with the different lines of evolution. From which only one has developed capacity for intelect. Chimpanzee are probably along as long as humans but how come they didnt develop it?

If you cram it in where it's not needed you can convince yourself of that. Like you did with evolution. Just going: manifestation of involved spirit, doesn't make it so.

We know that existence of life and mind are both miracles of sorts. Just taking these for granted doesnt explain them away either.

There isn't a single scrap of evidence for the manifestation of involved spirit in evolution. Evolution is a well understood proces which operates fine without vague baseless claims of unneeded spirits.

The possibility of combining of aminoacid in such a way that out of mineral stuff organic life comes to existence is statisticaly zero.

I also wonder why you'd want a conscious involved in such a cruel and uncaring proces. If you have understood evolution, and you believe there is guidance in that proces, you would have to conclude the Source of that guidance is an immense bastard.

The cruelty has justification and meaning only if it is part of process which in every step is accompanied by sense of delight even if concealed to the surface outer consciousness and if the end of this process is yet greater delight.

The Source is undoubtedlly imnense bastard but since it is the Source itself which is involved it is mainly bastard to Itself. That of course means that you and I and everything else are in quintessence that what religions call God.

 

[Funky]

Timtofly, I mean no offence, but some of your points seem nonsensical to me. Feel free to elaborate. Meanwhile let me just respond to those which I find noteworthy.

Would you say that you pick and choose the evidence that goes with your belief system?

The great thing about science is that it doesn't work like that. There is no my evidence vs. your evidence, Christian physics vs. Muslim physics etc. There can be varying interpretations of the available evidence for certain things. But ultimately only one interpretation is correct.
If reliable evidence for a god showed up, I would be the first to admit I was wrong and change my mind. But, I'll say it again, there has never been any evidence for a god whatsoever, so why should we believe in one?

That sounds nice in theory, but that is not how evolution works in practice, but if you want me to prove it, explain how mutation creates new information.

That is exactly how evolution works. Certain mutations prove advantageous for a creature and it is more likely to reproduce and pass on its genes. This is how giraffes got their long necks, cheetahs their speed, and humans their brains.

Do you think there is a difference between the Bible and the religion that is called Christianity? It seems to me that Christianity is a private interpretation and rarely lines up with the Bible, and at the risk of stirring up the ire of it's followers, I will state that they pride themselves that Scripture has very little to do with their beliefs. It is the traditions of men and relies heavily on certain interpretations that have in some cases completely separated it from anything in the Bible.

Thanks to the extreme collision of religion with modernity over the last centuries, we have fortunately jettisoned many of the appalling bits of the bible. Today, I certainly have no problem with people who refer to the Golden Rule, say, as a guide to live by. Yet religion is far from being a private matter, and Christianity still produces massive needless suffering in the world, by viciously combatting stem cell research, condom use, gay rights, and medically assisted suicide, just to name few. It is important to note that the reasons given by the religious for their attitudes to these things are not based on objective ethical evaluations of the pros and cons, they are founded solely on theological claims, and the discussion stops before it can even be had.

God never intended humans to form their own religions, and control people's minds.

How do you know what God intended? What we do know is that our world has been fragmented into seperate moral communities by different religions, resulting in immense conflicts and preventing us from having an honest discussion on how we can best live together and flourish as a global civilization.

I agree that we do not need religious dogma, but what would you call getting rid of evil and death? Is that not what humans have been striving for for centuries? Christianity was never supposed to be dogmatic, but it seemed that humans thought they could change things through dogmatic means. Life is supposed to be a free choice, not a control mechanism.

We won't get rid of death, and "evil" is just a construct. Christianity, by making unjustified claims about the world and setting up unchangeble rules which we should live by, is by definition a dogma.
I agree with your last sentence, and this is precisely why religion is so harmful. It is perhaps the best control mechanism ever invented. And unlike other such mechanisms and dogmas, religion is shielded from criticism by its sanctification.

 

[Domen]

God created the earth and the universe. Cosmology can track the universe back to 10-35 seconds after the big bang. Everything after that, such as the expansion of the universe, the development of particles, and the formation of stars and planets is well understood.

Science describes only the mechanism of the expaansion and of the development of the universe.

It is well understood how Ancient Egyptian pyramids were built, but we don't know the names of architects, do we?

Well, it is "believed", that the architect of the Great Pyramid was Khufu's vizier, a certain Hemon, or Hemiunu.

But there is no direct evidence, i.e. no surviving documents which say who was the architect.

and "evil" is just a construct.

Saying such things is dangerous. If "evil" is just a construct, then gassing 6 million people was OK ???

Most people do recognize what is evil and what is good.

Even psychopaths actually do recognize this, which is why it is accepted that they commit their crimes consciously.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well I have given an example with the different lines of evolution. From which only one has developed capacity for intelect. Chimpanzee are probably along as long as humans but how come they didnt develop it?

From this you conclude a manifestation of involved spirit?

In that case you don't understand evolution. Which is not a product of time, but of circumstances.

We know that existence of life and mind are both miracles of sorts. Just taking these for granted doesnt explain them away either.

Miracles of sorts. Heh. No they are not. Not in anything but a poetic sense.

Why don't you start providing even a single scrap of evidence for your claims for once?

The possibility of combining of aminoacid in such a way that out of mineral stuff organic life comes to existence is statisticaly zero.

You really have a wrong idea of evolution. I'll give a hint: it has very little to do with the creation of life. It has everything to do with the way that live diversifies.

So, you want to try that again, but with evolution in mind this time?

The cruelty has justification and meaning only if it is part of process which in every step is accompanied by sense of delight even if concealed to the surface outer consciousness and if the end of this process is yet greater delight.

No it is not. This is another one of your claims which I can counter that way.

Tell the victim of the emerald cockroach wasp about your concealed sense of delight.

The Source is undoubtedly immense bastard but since it is the Source itself which is involved it is mainly bastard to Itself. That of course means that you and I and everything else are in quintessence that what religions call God.

The Source does not exist. It's a made up concept.

If you disagree, how about some flipping evidence for a start. I know about your claims. I have been reading them. But so far, that's all they are. Your claims. Without evidence, no credibility.

How about you start providing?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Saying such things is dangerous. If "evil" is just a construct, then gassing 6 million people was OK ???

Most people do recognize what is evil and what is good.

Even psychopaths actually do recognize this, which is why it is accepted that they commit their crimes consciously.

Evil and sin are both lesser truths. There is no such thing as complete darkness. If you observe the behaviour of insects or animal life you see something quite natural but if you would transfer those formulas of behaviour into human existence we would call it an evil. Our sense of sin and evil help us to try to detach ourselves from it and aspire for higher truth.

 

[Gatsby]

Science describes only the mechanism of the expaansion and of the development of the universe.

It is well understood how Ancient Egyptian pyramids were built, but we don't know the names of architects, do we?

So you're saying that science only tells us 'how' but not 'why'? If so, what makes you think that 'why' even applies to the universe?

Your pyramids analogy is a classic example of the human tendency to personify the rest of the world: if we can conceive of ourselves as having "purpose" and personal agency, then everything else must also have purpose and personal agency! It's quite an egocentric and narcissistic tendency when you think about it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

From this you conclude a manifestation of involved spirit?

In that case you don't understand evolution. Which is not a product of time, but of circumstances?

No existence of time, no evolution. Mattter and its formation isnt enough on its own to create life. Thats why I am talking of involved spirit within. But apparently just like we dont have definite definition of God we miss one for matter as well. In my wiev matter cant be anything separate from Gods existence - matter itself is God.

Miracles of sorts. Heh. No they are not. Not in anything but a poetic sense.

Why don't you start providing even a single scrap of evidence for your claims for once?

I am not a scientist but a poet...
You know how dramaticaly has changed our view on matter over last hundred years or so. What scientist now say about it would be just a pure poetry some 100 years ago.

You really have a wrong idea of evolution. I'll give a hint: it has very little to do with the creation of life. It has everything to do with the way that live diversifies.

So, you want to try that again, but with evolution in mind this time?

I am happy to take a lesson from you. Show me on the example with chimpansee how life diversifies.

No it is not. This is another one of your claims which I can counter that way.

Tell the victim of the emerald cockroach wasp about your concealed sense of delight.

I would like to but I dont speak Cockroach....

The Source does not exist. It's a made up concept.

No it is not. This is another one of your claims which I can counter that way. See what I did there? There is a Source which is the same for scientist and religionist as well. Only they both talk about it and try to arrive at it from different angles which may creates potential missunderstandings.

 

[Gatsby]

The Source is undoubtedlly imnense bastard but since it is the Source itself which is involved it is mainly bastard to Itself. That of course means that you and I and everything else are in quintessence that what religions call God.

So that makes it all okay then?

By that logic, if I were to stab you through the chest and then immediately stab myself in the arm then that would make it all good. In fact by that logic all crimes, no matter how heinous, are really okay because it's "mainly" the Source being a bastard to Itself?

Oh well, at least we've gotten you to admit that God (if he existed) would be a stone-cold psychopath! And apparently both a sadist and a masochist as well. Lovely.

So basically you'd rather believe in a sadistic, masochistic, psychopathic God than accept that there is no God at all?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So that makes it all okay then?

So by that logic, if I were to stab you through the chest and then immediately stab myself in the arm then that would make it all good.

Oh well, at least we've gotten you to admit that God (if he existed) would be a stone-cold psychopath!

You can destroy the body, not the immortal spirit. Your sense of destruction itself is an illusion. How can there be anything not okay in the economy of eternal and infinite existence?

 

[Gatsby]

You can destroy the body, not the immortal spirit. Your sense of destruction itself is an illusion. How can there be anything not okay in the economy of eternal and infinite existence?

What immortal spirit?? And even if some part of a person were immortal, how does that make their suffering okay? I could just as well say that the matter/energy which makes up my body is "immortal", but that doesn't make me the slightest bit less prone to suffering.

Again, if everything is okay "in the economy of eternal and infinite existence", then all crimes and atrocities no matter how terrible are okay too. Indeed, not only would crimes and atrocities be okay, they would effectively be as moral as the most generous and selfless acts of kindness!

Do you realize that what you're espousing here is functionally equivalent to nihilism?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What immortal spirit?? And even if some part of a person were immortal, how does that make their suffering okay? I could just as well say that the matter/energy which makes up my body is "immortal", but that doesn't make me the slightest bit less prone to suffering.

Well if there is some part immortal that actually means that suffering and death are an illusion.

Again, if everything is okay "in the economy of eternal and infinite existence", then all crimes and atrocities no matter how terrible are okay too. Indeed, not only would crimes and atrocities be okay, they would effectively be as moral as the most generous and selfless acts of kindness!

Morality is a product of finite consciousness. To this finite consciousness everything is relative and subjective. It progresses along the lines of morality but its goal is to go beyond it. As a finite cosciousness our suffering can be undoubtedly unbearable but to the immortal part of us any movement of energy (good or evil) is just ripple of delight