Religion?

[GuitarStv]

Let's chase down this rational theist hole a bit further. Using the mathematical approach to the statistical probability of a greater architect, and then framing and utilizing the idea that if there is one, the belief system left in place by that architect with its creation will most rationally and predictably reflect what is observable and has been recorded. We must leave as little room as possible for conflict and errancy, as well, as it must also be consistent. Cleaving to the whole Occam's Razor approach to the religions, that leads us to Judaism as being the most scientifically, historically and philosophically consistent of all the known faiths presented. It also opens up the Yeshua question.

Do you consider Judaism more scientifically, historically, or philosophically consistent than Taoism or Buddhism?  Cleaving to the Occam's Razor approach (as you proposed) they would win out  . . .  'no God' carries fewer assumptions than 'there is a God'.

[Daley]

Let's chase down this rational theist hole a bit further. Using the mathematical approach to the statistical probability of a greater architect, and then framing and utilizing the idea that if there is one, the belief system left in place by that architect with its creation will most rationally and predictably reflect what is observable and has been recorded. We must leave as little room as possible for conflict and errancy, as well, as it must also be consistent. Cleaving to the whole Occam's Razor approach to the religions, that leads us to Judaism as being the most scientifically, historically and philosophically consistent of all the known faiths presented. It also opens up the Yeshua question.

Do you consider Judaism more scientifically, historically, or philosophically consistent than Taoism or Buddhism?  Cleaving to the Occam's Razor approach (as you proposed) they would win out  . . .  'no God' carries fewer assumptions than 'there is a God'.

Well, before we can even get to that point, we have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics. If there is no architect, somewhere along the line we had to do the impossible and violate simple physics to get here.

Our existence no more proves or disproves a G-d anymore than the ability for the universe to defy entropy, but at least a supreme creator can more rationally account for an impossible feat of physics than pure happenstance.

[GuitarStv]

Let's chase down this rational theist hole a bit further. Using the mathematical approach to the statistical probability of a greater architect, and then framing and utilizing the idea that if there is one, the belief system left in place by that architect with its creation will most rationally and predictably reflect what is observable and has been recorded. We must leave as little room as possible for conflict and errancy, as well, as it must also be consistent. Cleaving to the whole Occam's Razor approach to the religions, that leads us to Judaism as being the most scientifically, historically and philosophically consistent of all the known faiths presented. It also opens up the Yeshua question.

Do you consider Judaism more scientifically, historically, or philosophically consistent than Taoism or Buddhism?  Cleaving to the Occam's Razor approach (as you proposed) they would win out  . . .  'no God' carries fewer assumptions than 'there is a God'.

Well, before we can even get to that point, we have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics. If there is no architect, somewhere along the line we had to do the impossible and violate simple physics to get here.

Our existence no more proves or disproves a G-d anymore than the ability for the universe to defy entropy, but at least a supreme creator can more rationally account for an impossible feat of physics than pure happenstance.

Or we could use Occam's Razor again (remember how you proposed that?).  Rather than assume that the laws of thermodynamics were violated, assume that the laws of thermodynamics work in this case (that we are looking at a closed system), and assume that there is a God who is not bound by the rules we understand for the universe . . . maybe we could just assume that thermodynamics second law doesn't hold due to our lack of understanding of a particular case.

[Daley]

Let's chase down this rational theist hole a bit further. Using the mathematical approach to the statistical probability of a greater architect, and then framing and utilizing the idea that if there is one, the belief system left in place by that architect with its creation will most rationally and predictably reflect what is observable and has been recorded. We must leave as little room as possible for conflict and errancy, as well, as it must also be consistent. Cleaving to the whole Occam's Razor approach to the religions, that leads us to Judaism as being the most scientifically, historically and philosophically consistent of all the known faiths presented. It also opens up the Yeshua question.

Do you consider Judaism more scientifically, historically, or philosophically consistent than Taoism or Buddhism?  Cleaving to the Occam's Razor approach (as you proposed) they would win out  . . .  'no God' carries fewer assumptions than 'there is a God'.

Well, before we can even get to that point, we have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics. If there is no architect, somewhere along the line we had to do the impossible and violate simple physics to get here.

Our existence no more proves or disproves a G-d anymore than the ability for the universe to defy entropy, but at least a supreme creator can more rationally account for an impossible feat of physics than pure happenstance.

Or we could use Occam's Razor again (remember how you proposed that?).  Rather than assume that the laws of thermodynamics were violated, assume that the laws of thermodynamics work in this case (that we are looking at a closed system), and assume that there is a God who is not bound by the rules we understand for the universe . . . maybe we could just assume that thermodynamics second law doesn't hold due to our lack of understanding of a particular case.

Okay, simple question. Let's say that it is a closed system. How did that closed system get here in the first place?

[arebelspy]

Okay, simple question. Let's say that it is a closed system. How did that closed system get here in the first place?

How did G-d get there in the first place?

Do you have a valid answer for that which is not valid for your question?

[FIPurpose]

I think the discussion is going in circles now....

[Daley]

Okay, simple question. Let's say that it is a closed system. How did that closed system get here in the first place?

How did G-d get there in the first place?

Do you have a valid answer for that which is not valid for your question?

Nope. The point being that both takes a huge leap of faith regarding something that we have no proof of. There are unknowns, and the whole of creation holds a lot more that we do not understand than what we do... which brings us back to William of Ockham and statistical mathematics. Either we have defied all rational knowledge that we have amassed within the discipline of science in the odds that right here and now arose solely by chance (basically a 1:∞ chance), or there's a 1:1 chance that there might be an architect. It's no less a colossal leap of faith to choose either one, but one instills far more fear within the heart of man than the other.

[GuitarStv]

Do unknowns exist?  Yes.  Does this prove that there is a God?  No.

There is no leap of faith required to indicate that something (creation of the universe) isn't fully understood.  This has been a good demonstration of wild assumptions leading to unsupportable conclusions though, so I thank you for that IP.

[Philociraptor]

Okay, simple question. Let's say that it is a closed system. How did that closed system get here in the first place?

How did G-d get there in the first place?

Do you have a valid answer for that which is not valid for your question?

Nope. The point being that both takes a huge leap of faith regarding something that we have no proof of. There are unknowns, and the whole of creation holds a lot more that we do not understand than what we do... which brings us back to William of Ockham and statistical mathematics. Either we have defied all rational knowledge that we have amassed within the discipline of science in the odds that right here and now arose solely by chance (basically a 1:∞ chance), or there's a 1:1 chance that there might be an architect. It's no less a colossal leap of faith to choose either one, but one instills far more fear within the heart of man than the other.

I conclude that any architect that is capable of created the universe must be more complex than the current universe and thus less likely to have appeared from nothing than the current universe having done so. 

[arebelspy]

Nope. The point being that both takes a huge leap of faith regarding something that we have no proof of. There are unknowns, and the whole of creation holds a lot more that we do not understand than what we do... which brings us back to William of Ockham and statistical mathematics. Either we have defied all rational knowledge that we have amassed within the discipline of science in the odds that right here and now arose solely by chance (basically a 1:∞ chance), or there's a 1:1 chance that there might be an architect. It's no less a colossal leap of faith to choose either one, but one instills far more fear within the heart of man than the other.

And then a 1:1 that there's an architect of that architect?  How far back do you go?  You seem to think you've solved infinite regression, but I don't see how.

[Daley]

And then a 1:1 that there's an architect of that architect?  How far back do you go?  You seem to think you've solved infinite regression, but I don't see how.

Never said that I solved infinite regression. I'm just pointing out that it's just as much a leap of faith, but one that requires far fewer rational somersaults to explain with the unknown from a strictly KISS engineering standpoint. It's also one that better preserves the known knowledge of mankind and our universe, in my humble opinion. What harm is there in exploring both paths from a logical standpoint when you get to this point? Let the truth lead in our understanding. If there is no G-d, then there probably shouldn't be any semblance of a rational, organized, and sound faith that echoes (and pre-dates) both the range of orderly physical knowledge of our universe and an intimate understanding of the human condition... but there is one, one that speaks heavily of love, grace, forgiveness, and compassion. One that embraces what we know of our world and doesn't contradict it. One that comes from a place of humility, and not hubris. One that if followed and taken to its logical conclusion in teaching makes the world a better place for all involved, G-d or not.

The idea that faith is exclusive from intellect is a false dichotomy. Both can live in harmony, it's only the institutions built by man for the sake of preserving control over others that fights to keep them divided.

Do unknowns exist?  Yes.  Does this prove that there is a God?  No.

Nor does it disprove. Just remember, it cuts both ways Steve.

[arebelspy]

Never said that I solved infinite regression. I'm just pointing out that it's just as much a leap of faith, but one that requires far fewer rational somersaults to explain with the unknown from a strictly KISS engineering standpoint.

I don't see how it requires fewer, because you always get back to the "first" one and go "how"?  So you still have the same question with the "first" one that you're asking, plus you have the subsequent questions of "why" and "how"?  It seems to add more questions as you go back, and you still end with the same question you do in either case.

[arebelspy]

Since I'm just throwing out questions, I'll go ahead and actually state an opinion too.

Deus sive natura is the necessary thing upon which all is contingent.  IP and GuitarStv both believe the same thing, they just don't have the vocabulary to express it and reach understanding.

[Russ]

Heyy about time there was some monism in here. Spinoza's great and all, but I do wish the westerners would get over using such pre-defined a word as "god". Taoism in its similarity is so much less confusing.

IP and GuitarStv both believe the same thing, they just don't have the vocabulary to express it and reach understanding.

Please explain how you mean to say this without the undercurrent of "I'm right but you just don't know it yet", because that's the only way I'm reading it right now and it doesn't sound like you.

[arebelspy]

IP and GuitarStv both believe the same thing, they just don't have the vocabulary to express it and reach understanding.

Please explain how you mean to say this without the undercurrent of "I'm right but you just don't know it yet", because that's the only way I'm reading it right now and it doesn't sound like you.

Sorry it came off that way.

Does it help if I add that I don't have the vocabulary either?  :)

(EDIT: Nor, perhaps, does anyone, yet, or we wouldn't think we were disagreeing.)

[GuitarStv]

These aren't the droids you're looking for . . .

. . . these aren't the droids we're looking for!






Wait, what just happened?






In all seriousness, I'm liking the stuff about Spinoza's philosophy on wiki.

[darkadams00]

The constraint that we can't overcome in this discussion is our reliance on linear time. We know the ordinals--first, second, third...last. We know the tenses--past, present, and future. We know the human cycle--birth, life, and death. "When was the beginning?" "If there was a Who at the moment of The Beginning, how did that Who get there?" and so on. We insist on defining our existence within the terms we know and currently operate--linear time.

Multiple religious texts refer to an "eternity past" and an "eternity future" with the current timeline of our universe sandwiched in the middle. Think of a number line--the beginning of time being the first point of a segment on that line, the end of time being the second point of that segment on the line. Before the first point--infinity. After the second point--infinity. We can't even explain what infinity really means mathematically ("Infinity = the quality of being infinite"), but we gloss over that fact and use it to advance our study of mathematics and physics anyway. And that analogy is still probably weak because it again relies on the concept of linearity--a fact that we can't definitively say is the true boundary of our existence.

The Judeo-Christian texts refer to Jehovah/God as "I AM," with no past or future, only an eternal present. Is there possibly a bit of truth to the concept that we can't understand? An ant, a dog, heck, a caveman can't understand the intricacies of science that we understand today. With all of our learning, what do we still not know? Personally, I think that any advances that we make with respect to our understanding of time offers the most bang for the buck in our quest. In the next 500 years, we might uncover ideas that would make our time questions today seem more like the gravity questions of past centuries.

I enjoy the discussion as well as reading about new advances, but I'm always in awe of the continuing shortcomings in our body of knowledge.

[Daley]

Aah, always good to see Spinoza's approach brought up. I actually do not disagree with many of his conclusions, except the idea of an uncaring G-d. If G-d is infinite and unbound in all manners, then I don't feel it to be a stretch for the possibility of some part of the nature of a G-d to be compassionate and loving about His creation (amongst other things).

I don't see how it requires fewer, because you always get back to the "first" one and go "how"?  So you still have the same question with the "first" one that you're asking, plus you have the subsequent questions of "why" and "how"?  It seems to add more questions as you go back, and you still end with the same question you do in either case.

Well, there-in lies the approach and where you go looking for the answers. As science fails, philosophy begins to rise. This is where my own search lead me and why I wound up in Judaism initially. There is both an intellectual and scientific consistency across the board (one that even maintains and deepens as our greater understanding expands) that is difficult to impossible to find in other philosophies/religions, and if you simply accept that there is simply going to be stuff that will always be beyond our understanding, Judaism's response to that question lathered up with just enough faith is sufficient to keep the recursiveness from spiraling out of control as it is quite literally presented as being simply beyond our limited three-dimensional, entropy driven capacity for understanding. Fortunately, there's enough other meat there in the approach and understanding when layered with modern science to easily keep one intellectually sated for more than a lifetime. As such, "I AM" is reasonably sufficient for myself when that statement is found pressed within some of the most scientifically accurate accounts of the nature and impact of sin (or disorder/chaos/entropy if you like) upon life weaved in with some of the deepest nuanced philosophical understandings regarding the human condition one might ever encounter.

Sometimes (and frequently) as humans, we look too hard for answers that we can understand. So long as the approach in how we hand-wave away the unknown and unexplainable does not result in a belief that causes harm upon our fellow man or strong conflict in the knowable, there should be no problem with eliminating the duality of so many of these questions with the possibility of a power beyond our understanding.

[jordanread]

   
Maybe you say my faith is a delusion, then I would say it's a delusion that gives me a great life.

[..]
If you start arguing for the usefulness of a belief you have essentially ceased to argue for its truthfulness. And I care about truth. Even if I don't like it. Especially if I don't like it.
[...]

+1
Many times I've argued that religion, or more accurately the fact that one thinks they have the answer (i.e. God did it), it short-circuits the thought process, the desire to know more, the quest for knowledge, the search for actual answers. I think you've done a great job articulating that in a different manner.

Not explain or discuss---defend, as in why this theory is correct, i.e. the truth that can never change or be proven wrong now or in the future. Again, I have no issue with asking a student to explain what he has read/studied about the theory or even being required to know the body of facts that support the theory. I just would like for the teacher (any of the ones in our local schools) to admit that this is all we know to date but subject to change. To allow this semblance of doubt--even the idea that we might never know the truth--is not unscientific. It's what causes us to ask "What if?"

All in all, I favor scientific methods, etc. I just don't understand the rigidity attached to a theory by a teacher with a BA who never studied said theory in more than a cursory undergrad reading. It's taking someone's study, calling it true, and teaching others to repeat without question. This approaches the same level of rigidity I see in some Christians who have never examined their faith critically. This is the unwillingness to say "We don't know" that some folks refuse to admit.

You should have complained to the school board.  Asking a student to do this is actually anti-science.  The fundamental tenant of science is that if new evidence is brought forth that renders an old theory obsolete, it is replaced with one that better fits the facts.  That's the mechanism that forces continual improvement.  Without it, you're practising some form of faith based study.

I agree with GuitarStv on this one. If the sense that you got from the teacher is that this current understanding is canon, then that person has no place teaching the next generation science. That's not what we are about.

However, you mentioned something that I feel has become an issue lately:

This is the unwillingness to say "We don't know" that some folks refuse to admit.

The phrase: "We don't know" is almost a cornerstone of science. The first step in the Scientific Method is hypothesis/conjectures, which pretty much means that We Don't Know...but we are going to do everything we can to find out!!!

Too often, especially in internet arguments, this gets overlooked. Science is not static. We constantly learn more. If something turns out to be wrong, it's dismissed once proven wrong (at least by those who truly attempt to find the truth - i.e. Hawking Radiation, and the initial theories created vs. the currently accepted understanding). There is a blog post in draft phases about this, but essentially it comes down to Athiesm vs. atheism in this day and age, and how believing something doesn't exist has turned into an absolute that something doesn't exist (which makes many theistic arguments regarding Atheism as a religion a bit more accurate).

[...]
The faith has always been about love, grace and forgiveness since its foundation...

...which brings us to the points made by non-believers dismissing the value of any faith as superstitious and irrelevant simply based on what man has done over the millennia in the name of religion, dogma, faith, and worst of all, the name of G-d and Jesus both.

I feel that you are generalizing (like way too many on my side do) here. I like to think that most of us dismiss faith because the definition is dangerous. Even in the Old Testament (Hebrews 11:1) it says that faith is the belief/understanding/expectation of things not beheld. That usually manifests as something with no evidence being taken as true. It appears to me that this glorifies ignorance, which is appalling. This is where the entire "arguing with religious people is like playing chess with a pigeon" thing comes from. For those of you who haven't heard this:

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

There's two points that need to be addressed here.
1) All of the problems harped upon by those in this thread as being problematic with religion, especially Judaeo-Christianity, are problems with man's teachings. These things are extra-biblical, man-made. You are quite correct in that various religions have been used as a form of social control. No denying of that. However, it's quite obvious that even a faith founded upon love has had a majority of its followers completely miss the point of the faith itself, and instead utilize it to fuel and justify hate, wickedness and lord superiority over others to condemn those who are not like them and cast them away. This is not the teachings of that faith, and Yeshua said as much when He made it clear that not everyone who professes His name will be known in the Kingdom.

Your argument here seems to have less to do with actually demonstrating that we are attacking a straw-man (as the first sentence indicates) than it does with double-downing on your faith being right. That beings said, if a faith was truly founded on Love, how could it possibly be misinterpreted? If that was the foundation, where would the room for misinterpretation be?

2) Anyone who dismisses another's faith and beliefs as superstitious garbage based solely on the actions and deeds of wicked men within that faith do not hold the higher moral ground in the argument. Anyone in their self-styled pronouncements of personal judgment and prejudice against a faith are just as guilty of the exact same wickedness that is dismissed as being an abomination deserving of abandonment by a more enlightened mankind. I wholly agree with the idea of not feeding that sort of behavior, so I point this hypocrisy out in your own beliefs from a place of love and concern, not rancor. Your condemnation is not an action performed out of love, but out of hatred and a fear of the unknown, and it is necessary to denounce that and simply allow truth to lead us if we are to try and truly make the world a better place.

Dismissing faith as garbage goes back to my earlier point regarding the danger of short-circuiting the quest for truth. It also seems to be a bullshit argument that theists use in the face of actual facts. Where does our moral high ground stand then? And how does judgement=wickedness? Based on our previous conversations, I definitely feel that you aren't coming from any place of negativity, just from a conclusion incongruent with those of us who go another route not based on faith. For those of you who do think this way, you just don't know him well enough. :-)

[...]
You are so focused on the past and present in its analysis, you fail to see that faith is a thing that looks forward to the future, not the past. It is supposed to be a thing of hope and love, and to criticize what you do not understand or comprehend is a fool's errand. Just as science addresses the physical, it struggles with the philosophical just as much as religion can fail at addressing the physical while demonstrating an understanding of the philosophical.

Faith is something that looks forward to the future with complete knowledge of how everything happened. How is that looking forward? Or, more accurately, how is that beneficial to anybody? Once we have the answer, we shouldn't need to look any further. That is the dangerous part, and the part which I will personally challenge at every opportunity, because it will make the world a better place. Hope is a valuable thing, but hope in something that defies definition falls back on the faith issue above.

[...]
I think the interpretation of the data kind of misses the point that we are ultimately what we practice the most, and that we choose what we practice.

It's all about interpretation here, and we are willing to look at it all so long as it is based on the evidence. The human mind is a crazy place, but we learn more and more about it every day. You are absolutely right in that the brains justifies certain behaviours as logically getting there, when in reality it's based on sub-concious methods that generate the decision and we back-fill the justification. That is our current understanding. If that changes, so will our interpretation. I think that's the difference here.

As to Sol's, "Do you believe in ghosts and werewolves?" line, I could counter with an equally snide retort of, "Well, as a man of science, does that mean you believe in time travel and parallel universes?" Unfortunately, this sort of combative dismissal of beliefs doesn't advance the discussion or broaden understanding any, and is designed only to deliberately insult the intelligence of those you disagree with. However, I respect and have a fondness for Sol all the same, so I will answer the question from my place of humble understanding as it ties into an interesting line of thought that has unfolded with the whole, "Are we smart enough to recognize extra-terrestrial life?" question.

I cannot discount the possibility of what you and society would label "ghosts". There's currently estimated at least seven higher dimensions of existence and creation that we simply cannot interact with due to the restrictions of our temporal universe and our lives. The math seems to dictate their rational presence, and the Relativity buffs have faith that these higher planes exist even without physical evidence that can be directly observed. If we're having such a lively debate about how we could even be capable of recognizing alien life within our own observable universe, what about the possibility of life and intelligence that may exist outside our own three-dimensional universe? Odds are, if they exist, they may have the capacity to bridge dimensions as well and poke into our reality. It seems reasonable that a divine architect that is described as "I Am" would exist as such. Does that mean I go around buying into the whole Scooby Doo level of ghost reports and beliefs? Of course not! It's pretty safe to assume that most all that stuff is bunk. However, it is the absolute peak of mankind's hubris to deny the possibility of life in places we cannot observe or dismiss anything that cannot be easily explained.

Emphasis mine
I think you misunderstand faith vs. conclusions made via the scientific method. You are not far off base, however. It's just a manner of the leap one takes once at the end of what we know currently. How far do you go? Farther than me, obviously. I will take the next small step, and prove or disprove it. You jump to an intelligent creator, which may cause you to stop searching for answers. That is the short-circuit I talked about above. I take the math, and I take the conclusions made to mean that we (as humanity) are exploring those conclusions, and figuring out ways to prove them. If we can't, or don't, then we have to figure out some other explanation. Which may mean that you are right, but it may mean that you are mistaken...

As for werewolves? Depends on how you define a werewolf. Are we just talking a genetic chimera of man and wolf, or are we talking the full-on full moon howling transformation and silver bullet killable werewolf? The latter is fairytale fodder, but the last time I checked, man's ability to spindle and mutilate the building blocks of life is more than capable of creating some sort of human-wolf genetic hybrid. Do I think it's been done? Most likely not, but we cannot discount the possibility of such a creature ever existing in a world that now has spider goats.

My belief and understanding of these things are not blind, they are built upon and limited to the full scope of scientific understanding... just as they should be.

Emphasis mine
I agree with you in that we as a species are currently just stumbling around, making things fit together, just because they seem to. This gets into an entirely different discussion, though. Other than that, I totally agree.

[...]
tarted up polytheistic Babylonian sun worship, and tales of ascension to godhood through secret handshakes and practices so that you too can have sex with another god/goddess from your church to create an entire civilization to worship you after your first death.

Well shit, that sounds good to me. Not so much the godhood part, but the bit about awesome sex...;-)

This isn't to say that there cannot or will not be those genuinely saved within these ranks as only HaShem knows what is in the hearts of men, but going by the criteria laid out for salvation in contrast to the doctrine preached, a grave concern rooted in love for these people does present itself.

I would encourage anyone here who doesn't understand the need and purpose of faith or the value of Christianity to consider giving Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You: Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion but as a New Theory of Life a read. It's in the public domain and free to access. If you're confident enough in your conclusions and beliefs, then there's no harm in challenging and refining them. It's a good read that goes quickly, and might give you a bit more depth of understanding to the faith than what you currently hold.

I will read the article, but I haven't as of yet.

The entire concept of 'being saved' is based on some pretty interesting assumptions; mainly that people are inherently evil/not good/not what god wants/douchey, and require 'being saved'. I know you and I have discussed this before, but wouldn't that cast all of humanity in a super-negative light? Why even bother, at that point. I need to think this through a bit more, but if that's what one thinks, no wonder one needs to believe in something beyond what we currently have. If I thought everyone around me was evil, I'd have to believe that there was something after I escaped this cess-pool of a planet, otherwise I'd just off myself to avoid the bullshit.

[...]
I enjoy the discussion as well as reading about new advances, but I'm always in awe of the continuing shortcomings in our body of knowledge.

I love the shortcomings in our current understanding!! We challenge everything, and we always wind up learning more, whether we are right or wrong! That, my friend, is what I feel being human is all about.

I don't see how it requires fewer, because you always get back to the "first" one and go "how"?  So you still have the same question with the "first" one that you're asking, plus you have the subsequent questions of "why" and "how"?  It seems to add more questions as you go back, and you still end with the same question you do in either case.

Well, there-in lies the approach and where you go looking for the answers. As science fails, philosophy begins to rise.
[...]

Emphasis mine
Science failing is a wonderful thing. That is a conclusion!!! Philosophy/Religion seem to be embraced by those who want the easy way out, not the truth as Lyssa said above.



All that being said: Thank you everyone, for participating is such a 'touchy' topic, and being open to everyone's position. That is what makes us all great!!!!

[FIPurpose]

I don't see how it requires fewer, because you always get back to the "first" one and go "how"?  So you still have the same question with the "first" one that you're asking, plus you have the subsequent questions of "why" and "how"?  It seems to add more questions as you go back, and you still end with the same question you do in either case.

Well, there-in lies the approach and where you go looking for the answers. As science fails, philosophy begins to rise.
[...]

Emphasis mine
Science failing is a wonderful thing. That is a conclusion!!! Philosophy/Religion seem to be embraced by those who want the easy way out, not the truth as Lyssa said above.

I think this statement does a disservice to religion and philosophy. There are simply questions that science cannot answer, and denying reality despite science is just as wrong as thinking science can somehow answer questions of morals or the supernatural.

There will always be a place for religion in society because science does not answer questions about things beyond this universe. What gets heavily debated more often than the science itself is the meaning of the science.

Debating the meaning of scientific findings is not science. There may be instances where the scientists that gathered the findings are more apt to make conclusions, but are still not scientific.

Science may say that the Earth is currently trending warmer, but that does not tell us what the proper response is morally or ethically or even necessarily how to go about reversing it (Since proving that it could be reversed in the first place would have to be observed to follow the scientific method).

I've watched countless Hitchens/ Lennox debates on evolution v. creation, and they talk past each other because one only argues scientific points and the other only ever talks philosophy.

So it's not science or philosophy; it's what can science answer and what can philosophy answer. I suggest that there is very little overlap.

[jordanread]

I don't see how it requires fewer, because you always get back to the "first" one and go "how"?  So you still have the same question with the "first" one that you're asking, plus you have the subsequent questions of "why" and "how"?  It seems to add more questions as you go back, and you still end with the same question you do in either case.

Well, there-in lies the approach and where you go looking for the answers. As science fails, philosophy begins to rise.
[...]

Emphasis mine
Science failing is a wonderful thing. That is a conclusion!!! Philosophy/Religion seem to be embraced by those who want the easy way out, not the truth as Lyssa said above.

I think this statement does a disservice to religion and philosophy. There are simply questions that science cannot answer, and denying reality despite science is just as wrong as thinking science can somehow answer questions of morals or the supernatural.

There will always be a place for religion in society because science does not answer questions about things beyond this universe. What gets heavily debated more often than the science itself is the meaning of the science.

Debating the meaning of scientific findings is not science. There may be instances where the scientists that gathered the findings are more apt to make conclusions, but are still not scientific.

Science may say that the Earth is currently trending warmer, but that does not tell us what the proper response is morally or ethically or even necessarily how to go about reversing it (Since proving that it could be reversed in the first place would have to be observed to follow the scientific method).

I've watched countless Hitchens/ Lennox debates on evolution v. creation, and they talk past each other because one only argues scientific points and the other only ever talks philosophy.

So it's not science or philosophy; it's what can science answer and what can philosophy answer. I suggest that there is very little overlap.

Hmm. That would be something I'd have to think about. I can see what you mean regarding religion/philosophy not necessarily being an escape, but something to fill in the gap. That being said, wouldn't that prevent someone from trying to fill in the gap with something provable? It ties in with my point regarding thinking that we know the answer vs. actually "knowing" the answer, and how that affects where we go from here. Since I think that we can all agree that science is constantly moving forward, it seems that you are saying that philosophy and religion are simply tiding us over until we get real answers. That is their place. To me, that shows a position that is ...

Okay, I left that last sentence hanging because I'm in bed, and truly hate writing responses on my phone. I'll continue that thought tomorrow when I have access to a real keyboard.

[bluecheeze]

The good thing about this thread is everyone will eventually find out the truth to their beliefs- you just have to die to find out :-)
Non believer correct = nothing (life lived and it is over)
Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)
Believer correct = something eternal (again assuming our understanding of God's word is correct this should be pleasant)
Believer wrong =  nothing (life lived and it is over)

If both sides live their life according to their beliefs and faiths you should have a full and complete life (although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate).  What happens after we die is where everything changes.  I would say enjoy the ride- most of us Christians want the rest of you to enjoy it with us but if you don't it is OK- we won't (or shouldn't) lose much sleep over it- your free will not ours.  Just like an atheist should not really care if a believer believes. Again I am talking about the ones that produce the fruit of love, joy, happyness, etc- not the 90% (pulled that number out of my ass) of in name only Christians.  Believers who make the world a better place are not a bad thing, just like atheists who make the world a better place are not a bad thing.

"You will know them by their fruit"

[HappyRock]

I am very limited on time so let me just quickly comment on this last post. Thanks for all the other great responses. (Lyssa, I.P, Guitar I want to reply to all of you in depth.)

The good thing about this thread is everyone will eventually find out the truth to their beliefs- you just have to die to find out :-)
Non believer correct = nothing (life lived and it is over)
Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)
Believer correct = something eternal (again assuming our understanding of God's word is correct this should be pleasant)
Believer wrong =  nothing (life lived and it is over)

If both sides live their life according to their beliefs and faiths you should have a full and complete life (although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate).  What happens after we die is where everything changes.  I would say enjoy the ride- most of us Christians want the rest of you to enjoy it with us but if you don't it is OK- we won't (or shouldn't) lose much sleep over it- your free will not ours.  Just like an atheist should not really care if a believer believes. Again I am talking about the ones that produce the fruit of love, joy, happyness, etc- not the 90% (pulled that number out of my ass) of in name only Christians.  Believers who make the world a better place are not a bad thing, just like atheists who make the world a better place are not a bad thing.

"You will know them by their fruit"

"Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)"

Sorry to say this, but it simply amazes me how a person or religion can believe this pitiful view. How can you logically accept that good people will automatically be punished or excluded from heaven for not "knowing Christ"?

Take Bill Gates for example, the man has invested billions in the U.S economy and donated billions to people in need. He has helped save thousands of lives and is working to find cures to different world diseases. He is agnostic and has no single affiliation with a religion. He is also a ethical, good, and very smart person. Now my question is, if it exists, does this mean he is sent to "heaven" or "hell"? He doesn't directly follow any religion, therefore your statement suggests the latter.

Can you elaborate a little more on your beliefs on this?

"If both sides live their life according to their beliefs and faiths you should have a full and complete life (although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate).  What happens after we die is where everything changes.  I would say enjoy the ride- most of us Christians want the rest of you to enjoy it with us but if you don't it is OK- we won't (or shouldn't) lose much sleep over it- your free will not ours.  Just like an atheist should not really care if a believer believes. "

Firstly, I think for many atheists and agnostics it is less about caring about others beliefs, and more about interest in others beliefs. I enjoy hearing beliefs from the religious and more importantly understanding how these beliefs started. What caused you to have these incredibly strong beliefs on Christianity? Chances are, it was how you were raised and how your brain works.

But for my brain, after viewing all of the facts about humanities past (and how each religion began), the contradictions of innumerable religions, and the complete lack of physical evidence, I simply can NOT follow a specific religion.

Also, my thoughts on this : "although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate"

In my opinion, this requires little to no debate at all. This idea is one of the most ridiculous of any I have heard. Sadly, I fear that many people who believe this are mentally controlled by their belief system. The truth is this can't be debated because it doesn't follow logic or science. Followers of Christ can live sad lives, or incredible, full ones. Same goes for people of every single other belief system including atheists.

The bottom line is this "experiencing a full life" is based on individual people's successes and accomplishments, and not a religious view. Some people will have fuller lives than others, REGARDLESS of their religion.

Think of it this way :

A religious Christian who claims that you can not experience life to the fullest without Christ is correct, but ONLY in their own brain's view. Their brains are hardwired to the idea that they are happier with their beliefs, therefore living a fuller life. Lets rate this full life at 8/10 (above average life, lived by a devout christian)

However, a non religious individual experiences in his own opinion and brain one of the best and fullest lives ever. His brain is not hardwired to ANY religious beliefs, therefore he has lived in his mind an incredibly full life. Lets rate this life at 10/10, and use Bill Gates as an example again because he has agnostic views. (Very above average and full life)

This simple example represents how INDIVIDUAL people's brains, beliefs, and successes result in a "fuller life". For any religious Christian, you may have a fuller life from your beliefs, but not for us. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

To claim that you will not experience as full of a life if you don't "know Christ" is utterly pointless. Because to any atheist or agnostic person, "knowing Christ" leads to a life that doesn't make logical sense to them, which wouldn't result in a fuller life at all.


EDIT : Thanks Guitar for this great input as always :

"Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands are some of the happiest countries in the world, and also the least religious. ( http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960 )  This would seem to contradict claims that a full life can only be known through following one religion over all other belief systems."

[jordanread]

I don't see how it requires fewer, because you always get back to the "first" one and go "how"?  So you still have the same question with the "first" one that you're asking, plus you have the subsequent questions of "why" and "how"?  It seems to add more questions as you go back, and you still end with the same question you do in either case.

Well, there-in lies the approach and where you go looking for the answers. As science fails, philosophy begins to rise.
[...]

Emphasis mine
Science failing is a wonderful thing. That is a conclusion!!! Philosophy/Religion seem to be embraced by those who want the easy way out, not the truth as Lyssa said above.

I think this statement does a disservice to religion and philosophy. There are simply questions that science cannot answer, and denying reality despite science is just as wrong as thinking science can somehow answer questions of morals or the supernatural.

There will always be a place for religion in society because science does not answer questions about things beyond this universe. What gets heavily debated more often than the science itself is the meaning of the science.

Debating the meaning of scientific findings is not science. There may be instances where the scientists that gathered the findings are more apt to make conclusions, but are still not scientific.

Science may say that the Earth is currently trending warmer, but that does not tell us what the proper response is morally or ethically or even necessarily how to go about reversing it (Since proving that it could be reversed in the first place would have to be observed to follow the scientific method).

I've watched countless Hitchens/ Lennox debates on evolution v. creation, and they talk past each other because one only argues scientific points and the other only ever talks philosophy.

So it's not science or philosophy; it's what can science answer and what can philosophy answer. I suggest that there is very little overlap.

Hmm. That would be something I'd have to think about. I can see what you mean regarding religion/philosophy not necessarily being an escape, but something to fill in the gap. That being said, wouldn't that prevent someone from trying to fill in the gap with something provable? It ties in with my point regarding thinking that we know the answer vs. actually "knowing" the answer, and how that affects where we go from here. Since I think that we can all agree that science is constantly moving forward, it seems that you are saying that philosophy and religion are simply tiding us over until we get real answers. That is their place. To me, that shows a position that is ...

Okay, I left that last sentence hanging because I'm in bed, and truly hate writing responses on my phone. I'll continue that thought tomorrow when I have access to a real keyboard.

All right!! Fresh and rested. Sorry about the split little bit there, I really suck at typing on a phone, and hate having to go back and check the auto-complete.

I was going to start over, and as I started typing my response, it got a bit convoluted, but wound up at the same spot, so I'll continue the thought. So my understanding of your statement is that there is always a place for religion and philosophy, and there is little overlap between the two, as religion/philosophy primarily answers questions that science can't yet. However, science is expanding, and under my understanding of your statement, the domain of philosophy and religion gets smaller with every new finding. This would seem to me that eventually there wouldn't be a space left for religion.

As far as your example, and the statement that science can't tell us what is the moral and ethical route is getting into a bit of a hazy area. Morality and ethics are subjective. What's the old phrase? Nobody in history ever thought they were evil (or something like that - Socrates maybe?). I was going to dismiss subjective questions as questions generally, but lately I've been spending a lot of time thinking about values. I think that science can provide plenty of options based on an array of underlying ethics. Science can determine the most effective options, based on the view. If the view is of the planet as a whole, and the corresponding intertwined ecosystems, there is one route that will provide the desired response. If the view is mostly from a human perspective, there is another route that would make it better for us. If the view is purely from a resources standpoint, there is yet another route. So I guess that choosing one of those routes wouldn't be something science can answer definitively, if that is what you are getting at. And the argument that morality is purely the domain of religion was mentioned earlier in this thread, so I won't re-kindle that.

So was I doing a dis-service to religion and philosophy? Only if one has the belief that they are necessary, which I don't. For the most part, as outlined in my comment earlier, I think that (very generally) religion and philosophy do a dis-service to progress. Why bother challenging ourselves if we already have the answers? Now, do I think religion should be abolished? Not via external sources, since my non-religious based code of ethics state that decisions made by one person for another isn't something that usually works out well. Do I think the world would be a better place without it? Definitely. Granted, that was a bit of a tangent.

[...]
I think for many atheists and agnostics it is less about caring about others beliefs, and more about interest in others beliefs.

Well said. I agree that we are definitely interested in others' believes, and only really care when they start messing with other people.

Totally digging the conversation so far. And I love the back and forth. Keep it up everyone!!

[GuitarStv]

Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands are some of the happiest countries in the world, and also the least religious. ( http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960 )  This would seem to contradict claims that a full life can only be known through following one religion over all other belief systems.

[FIPurpose]

I have to reply because I was not understood correctly.

No I do not think religion and philosophy fill some gap until science can take over. My point is that they each deal with different questions, and those questions are not asked by the other.

Science does not ask if there is a supernatural being because it is beyond the natural world. Science cannot and does not attempt to answers the very questions being asked in this post.
Philosophy likewise does not ask questions about the easily observable. It asks abstract questions. It asks about the supernatural.
I also am typing on my phone so this post is short. Hope that clarified what I was trying to say.

[bluecheeze]

I am very limited on time so let me just quickly comment on this last post. Thanks for all the other great responses. (Lyssa, I.P, Guitar I want to reply to all of you in depth.)

The good thing about this thread is everyone will eventually find out the truth to their beliefs- you just have to die to find out :-)
Non believer correct = nothing (life lived and it is over)
Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)
Believer correct = something eternal (again assuming our understanding of God's word is correct this should be pleasant)
Believer wrong =  nothing (life lived and it is over)

If both sides live their life according to their beliefs and faiths you should have a full and complete life (although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate).  What happens after we die is where everything changes.  I would say enjoy the ride- most of us Christians want the rest of you to enjoy it with us but if you don't it is OK- we won't (or shouldn't) lose much sleep over it- your free will not ours.  Just like an atheist should not really care if a believer believes. Again I am talking about the ones that produce the fruit of love, joy, happyness, etc- not the 90% (pulled that number out of my ass) of in name only Christians.  Believers who make the world a better place are not a bad thing, just like atheists who make the world a better place are not a bad thing.

"You will know them by their fruit"

"Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)"

Sorry to say this, but it simply amazes me how a person or religion can believe this pitiful view. How can you logically accept that good people will automatically be punished or excluded from heaven for not "knowing Christ"?

Take Bill Gates for example, the man has invested billions in the U.S economy and donated billions to people in need. He has helped save thousands of lives and is working to find cures to different world diseases. He is agnostic and has no single affiliation with a religion. He is also a ethical, good, and very smart person. Now my question is, if it exists, does this mean he is sent to "heaven" or "hell"? He doesn't directly follow any religion, therefore your statement suggests the latter.

Can you elaborate a little more on your beliefs on this?

"If both sides live their life according to their beliefs and faiths you should have a full and complete life (although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate).  What happens after we die is where everything changes.  I would say enjoy the ride- most of us Christians want the rest of you to enjoy it with us but if you don't it is OK- we won't (or shouldn't) lose much sleep over it- your free will not ours.  Just like an atheist should not really care if a believer believes. "

Firstly, I think for many atheists and agnostics it is less about caring about others beliefs, and more about interest in others beliefs. I enjoy hearing beliefs from the religious and more importantly understanding how these beliefs started. What caused you to have these incredibly strong beliefs on Christianity? Chances are, it was how you were raised and how your brain works.

But for my brain, after viewing all of the facts about humanities past (and how each religion began), the contradictions of innumerable religions, and the complete lack of physical evidence, I simply can NOT follow a specific religion.

Also, my thoughts on this : "although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate"

In my opinion, this requires little to no debate at all. This idea is one of the most ridiculous of any I have heard. Sadly, I fear that many people who believe this are mentally controlled by their belief system. The truth is this can't be debated because it doesn't follow logic or science. Followers of Christ can live sad lives, or incredible, full ones. Same goes for people of every single other belief system including atheists.

The bottom line is this "experiencing a full life" is based on individual people's successes and accomplishments, and not a religious view. Some people will have fuller lives than others, REGARDLESS of their religion.

Think of it this way :

A religious Christian who claims that you can not experience life to the fullest without Christ is correct, but ONLY in their own brain's view. Their brains are hardwired to the idea that they are happier with their beliefs, therefore living a fuller life. Lets rate this full life at 8/10 (above average life, lived by a devout christian)

However, a non religious individual experiences in his own opinion and brain one of the best and fullest lives ever. His brain is not hardwired to ANY religious beliefs, therefore he has lived in his mind an incredibly full life. Lets rate this life at 10/10, and use Bill Gates as an example again because he has agnostic views. (Very above average and full life)

This simple example represents how INDIVIDUAL people's brains, beliefs, and successes result in a "fuller life". For any religious Christian, you may have a fuller life from your beliefs, but not for us. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

To claim that you will not experience as full of a life if you don't "know Christ" is utterly pointless. Because to any atheist or agnostic person, "knowing Christ" leads to a life that doesn't make logical sense to them, which wouldn't result in a fuller life at all.


EDIT : Thanks Guitar for this great input as always :

"Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands are some of the happiest countries in the world, and also the least religious. ( http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960 )  This would seem to contradict claims that a full life can only be known through following one religion over all other belief systems."

Sure- I'll try- though I am not a master debater by any means ;-)
(1)
Heaven/hell
My belief formulated from the life and teachings of Christ and who/what God really is points me to the following;
Heaven= being in the presence of God; who is by definition life.  All goodness and love is substantially amplified because you are in direct contact and unity with Him.  That's it.  Just pure life- no death (be it sin, negative thoughts, sickness)- nothing that we gained by the fall of man and everything that we were intended to be.  The true desires of your heart are amplified several times over (like compounding interest as time goes to infinity)

Hell= being completely removed from the wellspring of life.  God is not around and there is no connection to Him.  I guess it would be just like an eternal- bleh? Just like in heaven the true desires of your heart are amplified several times over.   I really don't think the fire and brimstone belief is biblical- from my recollection the only source of this is from the "pit" is explained in some chapters (mainly the VERY prophetic and abstract Revelations)- and even that I see as meaning the "void" or destitute place.

Again this matters because every soul is eternal- life and death are not defined by when our earthly bodies no longer function. Life and death are active states that we experience. 

(Full disclosure I am a very avid fan of fiction so I am biased- but C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce captures this in a very cool way.  Only a few hours read if you are interested.  He was also a very prominent non believer who became a Christian apologist and quite frankly I love his writings)

(2)
I actually do quite enjoy hearing about others beliefs also and how they were formed.  Though I have learned that I really can't change anyone so I try not to do that.  I will tell my story if one inquires.  I can plant a seed.  That's it.  Hopefully the seed that I plant is a representation of Christ, if not, then I could have done more harm then help.  It is not up to me if that seed grows to full maturity (though I am not opposed to "water" it if the person has interest).

It is really difficult to distinguish the "religions".  I can't explain how my faith is continuously strengthened by what I see in this world- It just is.  I also believe that religion is a dangerous thing.  People follow it blindly and what they are really following is the corrupted nature of men- not God.  This is how people are murdered and evil is done in the name of "God".  I believe it is a relationship- we are currently in the presence of God- some just choose not- or can not- feel it.  Reflecting on this I suppose it is a VERY spiritual view which I am not in the least ashamed of.  I do think that God chooses to reveal Himself to all in His own time.  Sometimes it could be at the point of death- which makes no difference at all- the only requisite is that you accept Christ and repent, not what you have done or how long you have believed.  But yes- strangely enough- I believe EVERYONE will have a choice.  (This also opens up the whole age of innocence debate- but the bible says that all children are loved and cherished above all, which to me means that if they die before the ability to make a choice they are not precluded from eternity in heaven).  So yes the Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Christian, list on and on, will all have a choice to accept or reject Him.

I do accept that is is a belief completely based on faith which is no argument- which is why I initially said we will all learn the truth in death :-)

(3)
Someone who has not experienced the spirit of God personally will not understand this.  I can't fully understand this.  We have been too far removed from our spiritual side that it is nearly impossible to understand this at the present time.  All I can say is there there have been times in my life where I have rejected Christ and times where I was led by Him and there is a TREMENDOUS difference in.....everything I guess.  Again sorry probably too abstract for this conversation just trying to answer from a Christian POV.   Yes it is true that from my POV you will never experience the "fullest" life and vice versa. You may reach level 10 in your life being an atheist.  But what if you could reach lvl 20 and just don't know it?  Again I understand very well your point of view and believed it myself.  All I can say is that you just become- different.

Again arguing a lot of this is pointless- no one side can prove anything until they are in the ground. What I was trying to get at in the original post was that time is better spent living then wasted on who's right who's wrong.  We can all coexist. As long as you aren't violently forcing your beliefs upon others at pain of death like ***edited*** are currently doing- enjoy.

Just because you don't understand something it makes it a pitiful view?  To be honest can't believe how people who claim to be so smart can't see divinity in life.  I don't think it's pitiful though.  We are all brothers in this life no?  Let's not try to belittle each other. And I completely agree that that brains are hardwired differently.  It is a tenet of Christianity that I be different from you.

[jordanread]

I have to reply because I was not understood correctly.

No I do not think religion and philosophy fill some gap until science can take over. My point is that they each deal with different questions, and those questions are not asked by the other.

Science does not ask if there is a supernatural being because it is beyond the natural world. Science cannot and does not attempt to answers the very questions being asked in this post.
Philosophy likewise does not ask questions about the easily observable. It asks abstract questions. It asks about the supernatural.
I also am typing on my phone so this post is short. Hope that clarified what I was trying to say.

Ah, I think I understand what you are saying. I get that they deal with different questions, and now I understand what you meant when you said there is little overlap. To me, though, that means that science handles the domain of questions that have actual answers, while religion and philosophy exist in the domain of more ethereal questions that don't have provable answers (which to me means not actual answers).

Now this opens up an interesting line of thought. Following that reasoning, the questions that religion and philosophy address seem like they would be awesome for sparking conversations, and creating dialogue. The problem is that those questions and discussions only seem to happen when something is challenged by one of the non-believers. I haven't heard any actual discussion from that camp itself. I haven't even heard of stories of these discussions. Why do you think that is? Am I missing something?

[...]
What I was trying to get at in the original post was that time is better spent living then wasted on who's right who's wrong.  We can all coexist.
[...]

^This. I feel that is one of the biggest issues with organized religion in general is that they all think they are right, and it becomes that kind of argument. So much time is spent trying to be right, that nothing of value actually gets accomplished.

[HappyRock]

I am very limited on time so let me just quickly comment on this last post. Thanks for all the other great responses. (Lyssa, I.P, Guitar I want to reply to all of you in depth.)

The good thing about this thread is everyone will eventually find out the truth to their beliefs- you just have to die to find out :-)
Non believer correct = nothing (life lived and it is over)
Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)
Believer correct = something eternal (again assuming our understanding of God's word is correct this should be pleasant)
Believer wrong =  nothing (life lived and it is over)

If both sides live their life according to their beliefs and faiths you should have a full and complete life (although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate).  What happens after we die is where everything changes.  I would say enjoy the ride- most of us Christians want the rest of you to enjoy it with us but if you don't it is OK- we won't (or shouldn't) lose much sleep over it- your free will not ours.  Just like an atheist should not really care if a believer believes. Again I am talking about the ones that produce the fruit of love, joy, happyness, etc- not the 90% (pulled that number out of my ass) of in name only Christians.  Believers who make the world a better place are not a bad thing, just like atheists who make the world a better place are not a bad thing.

"You will know them by their fruit"

"Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)"

Sorry to say this, but it simply amazes me how a person or religion can believe this pitiful view. How can you logically accept that good people will automatically be punished or excluded from heaven for not "knowing Christ"?

Take Bill Gates for example, the man has invested billions in the U.S economy and donated billions to people in need. He has helped save thousands of lives and is working to find cures to different world diseases. He is agnostic and has no single affiliation with a religion. He is also a ethical, good, and very smart person. Now my question is, if it exists, does this mean he is sent to "heaven" or "hell"? He doesn't directly follow any religion, therefore your statement suggests the latter.

Can you elaborate a little more on your beliefs on this?

"If both sides live their life according to their beliefs and faiths you should have a full and complete life (although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate).  What happens after we die is where everything changes.  I would say enjoy the ride- most of us Christians want the rest of you to enjoy it with us but if you don't it is OK- we won't (or shouldn't) lose much sleep over it- your free will not ours.  Just like an atheist should not really care if a believer believes. "

Firstly, I think for many atheists and agnostics it is less about caring about others beliefs, and more about interest in others beliefs. I enjoy hearing beliefs from the religious and more importantly understanding how these beliefs started. What caused you to have these incredibly strong beliefs on Christianity? Chances are, it was how you were raised and how your brain works.

But for my brain, after viewing all of the facts about humanities past (and how each religion began), the contradictions of innumerable religions, and the complete lack of physical evidence, I simply can NOT follow a specific religion.

Also, my thoughts on this : "although Christianity argues that you cannot experience as full of a life without knowing Christ- which I know is a whole other debate"

In my opinion, this requires little to no debate at all. This idea is one of the most ridiculous of any I have heard. Sadly, I fear that many people who believe this are mentally controlled by their belief system. The truth is this can't be debated because it doesn't follow logic or science. Followers of Christ can live sad lives, or incredible, full ones. Same goes for people of every single other belief system including atheists.

The bottom line is this "experiencing a full life" is based on individual people's successes and accomplishments, and not a religious view. Some people will have fuller lives than others, REGARDLESS of their religion.

Think of it this way :

A religious Christian who claims that you can not experience life to the fullest without Christ is correct, but ONLY in their own brain's view. Their brains are hardwired to the idea that they are happier with their beliefs, therefore living a fuller life. Lets rate this full life at 8/10 (above average life, lived by a devout christian)

However, a non religious individual experiences in his own opinion and brain one of the best and fullest lives ever. His brain is not hardwired to ANY religious beliefs, therefore he has lived in his mind an incredibly full life. Lets rate this life at 10/10, and use Bill Gates as an example again because he has agnostic views. (Very above average and full life)

This simple example represents how INDIVIDUAL people's brains, beliefs, and successes result in a "fuller life". For any religious Christian, you may have a fuller life from your beliefs, but not for us. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

To claim that you will not experience as full of a life if you don't "know Christ" is utterly pointless. Because to any atheist or agnostic person, "knowing Christ" leads to a life that doesn't make logical sense to them, which wouldn't result in a fuller life at all.


EDIT : Thanks Guitar for this great input as always :

"Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands are some of the happiest countries in the world, and also the least religious. ( http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960 )  This would seem to contradict claims that a full life can only be known through following one religion over all other belief systems."

Sure- I'll try- though I am not a master debater by any means ;-)
(1)
Heaven/hell
My belief formulated from the life and teachings of Christ and who/what God really is points me to the following;
Heaven= being in the presence of God; who is by definition life.  All goodness and love is substantially amplified because you are in direct contact and unity with Him.  That's it.  Just pure life- no death (be it sin, negative thoughts, sickness)- nothing that we gained by the fall of man and everything that we were intended to be.  The true desires of your heart are amplified several times over (like compounding interest as time goes to infinity)

Hell= being completely removed from the wellspring of life.  God is not around and there is no connection to Him.  I guess it would be just like an eternal- bleh? Just like in heaven the true desires of your heart are amplified several times over.   I really don't think the fire and brimstone belief is biblical- from my recollection the only source of this is from the "pit" is explained in some chapters (mainly the VERY prophetic and abstract Revelations)- and even that I see as meaning the "void" or destitute place.

Again this matters because every soul is eternal- life and death are not defined by when our earthly bodies no longer function. Life and death are active states that we experience. 

(Full disclosure I am a very avid fan of fiction so I am biased- but C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce captures this in a very cool way.  Only a few hours read if you are interested.  He was also a very prominent non believer who became a Christian apologist and quite frankly I love his writings)

(2)
I actually do quite enjoy hearing about others beliefs also and how they were formed.  Though I have learned that I really can't change anyone so I try not to do that.  I will tell my story if one inquires.  I can plant a seed.  That's it.  Hopefully the seed that I plant is a representation of Christ, if not, then I could have done more harm then help.  It is not up to me if that seed grows to full maturity (though I am not opposed to "water" it if the person has interest).

It is really difficult to distinguish the "religions".  I can't explain how my faith is continuously strengthened by what I see in this world- It just is.  I also believe that religion is a dangerous thing.  People follow it blindly and what they are really following is the corrupted nature of men- not God.  This is how people are murdered and evil is done in the name of "God".  I believe it is a relationship- we are currently in the presence of God- some just choose not- or can not- feel it.  Reflecting on this I suppose it is a VERY spiritual view which I am not in the least ashamed of.  I do think that God chooses to reveal Himself to all in His own time.  Sometimes it could be at the point of death- which makes no difference at all- the only requisite is that you accept Christ and repent, not what you have done or how long you have believed.  But yes- strangely enough- I believe EVERYONE will have a choice.  (This also opens up the whole age of innocence debate- but the bible says that all children are loved and cherished above all, which to me means that if they die before the ability to make a choice they are not precluded from eternity in heaven).  So yes the Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Christian, list on and on, will all have a choice to accept or reject Him.

I do accept that is is a belief completely based on faith which is no argument- which is why I initially said we will all learn the truth in death :-)

(3)
Someone who has not experienced the spirit of God personally will not understand this.  I can't fully understand this.  We have been too far removed from our spiritual side that it is nearly impossible to understand this at the present time.  All I can say is there there have been times in my life where I have rejected Christ and times where I was led by Him and there is a TREMENDOUS difference in.....everything I guess.  Again sorry probably too abstract for this conversation just trying to answer from a Christian POV.   Yes it is true that from my POV you will never experience the "fullest" life and vice versa. You may reach level 10 in your life being an atheist.  But what if you could reach lvl 20 and just don't know it?  Again I understand very well your point of view and believed it myself.  All I can say is that you just become- different.

Again arguing a lot of this is pointless- no one side can prove anything until they are in the ground. What I was trying to get at in the original post was that time is better spent living then wasted on who's right who's wrong.  We can all coexist. As long as you aren't violently forcing your beliefs upon others at pain of death like ***edited*** are currently doing- enjoy.

Just because you don't understand something it makes it a pitiful view?  To be honest can't believe how people who claim to be so smart can't see divinity in life.  I don't think it's pitiful though.  We are all brothers in this life no?  Let's not try to belittle each other. And I completely agree that that brains are hardwired differently.  It is a tenet of Christianity that I be different from you.

"Just because you don't understand something it makes it a pitiful view?"

The only thing I thought pitiful was the idea that good, ethical non-believers would be excluded from heaven, as suggested by this statement. : "Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)"

At this point in my life, I do not see how my brain would allow me to choose to follow a religion. It just doesn't make logical sense to me. There is simply no evidence that the writings of the Bible is what God intended. It could be no more than ancient accounts of high ranking philosophers, religious leaders, and writers. Who quite possibly had no real interaction with the true "God".

The belief in God has become ingrained in to our culture and maybe even human nature itself, and for that reason I even believe that a supernatural or "God" being can exist. But I still can't accept that one religion is right while all others wrong. Which is why I don't choose to put my time and faith in to following one.

Regardless, thanks for the great response and good counter-view. I will think about it.

[hybrid]

Do unknowns exist?  Yes.  Does this prove that there is a God?  No.

There is no leap of faith required to indicate that something (creation of the universe) isn't fully understood.  This has been a good demonstration of wild assumptions leading to unsupportable conclusions though, so I thank you for that IP.

+1   I read IPs well thought out reasoning as little more than "Of all the various religions, this one holds up best over time for these reasons".  OK, fine, for sake of argument I'll accept all of that on face value. All that really tells me is that of all the thousands of religions that eventually died out for all sorts of reasons, Judaism (and a few others in other parts of the world) have held up. I don't think the reason for that is because it is the One True Faith, but because it is grounded in universal truths that have withstood the test of time. Shoot enough arrows and a few are bound to hit the mark.

When a religion loses its relevance with the people that practice it, it dies. Judaism could eventually succumb to the same fate as all the myriad religions before it.

[Eric]

The good thing about this thread is everyone will eventually find out the truth to their beliefs- you just have to die to find out :-)
Non believer correct = nothing (life lived and it is over)
Non believer wrong = something eternal (assuming the believers are correct this will not be pleasant)
Believer correct = something eternal (again assuming our understanding of God's word is correct this should be pleasant)
Believer wrong =  nothing (life lived and it is over)

This seems to assume that "Believer" is an all encompassing term, whereas the vast majority of religions claim that theirs is the correct one.  That of course leads back to the discussion of which is the One True Religion.  And the answer of course is all of them.  Or none of them.  Depends on the person.

However, your first & last scenario don't actually find out "the truth".  They're just dead.

[Daley]

Aah! Nested discussion! *rips out hair* As if the depth of the discussion itself wasn't enough of a time-sink, now I have to edit nested quotes for continuity and clarity sake. I may have to bow out soon just for the sake of not letting this discussion consume all my time. ;)

[...]
The faith has always been about love, grace and forgiveness since its foundation...

...which brings us to the points made by non-believers dismissing the value of any faith as superstitious and irrelevant simply based on what man has done over the millennia in the name of religion, dogma, faith, and worst of all, the name of G-d and Jesus both.

I feel that you are generalizing (like way too many on my side do) here. I like to think that most of us dismiss faith because the definition is dangerous. Even in the Old Testament (Hebrews 11:1) it says that faith is the belief/understanding/expectation of things not beheld. That usually manifests as something with no evidence being taken as true. It appears to me that this glorifies ignorance, which is appalling. This is where the entire "arguing with religious people is like playing chess with a pigeon" thing comes from.

First, I feel it important to correct you on a minor point. The book of Hebrews is not part of the Tanakh (Old Testament), it is part of the New Testament/Covenant as it is authored by an unknown individual to a group of Hebrew Nazarite believers trying to reinforce the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy in Yeshua, and to contrast and emphasize faith in HaShem as the root of Torah and works as the fruits of that faith.

We'll start with the Greek translations.

Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων. ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. Πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι.

-Hebrews 11:1-3, Nestle Greek New Testament

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

-Hebrews 11:1-3, King James Version

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at G-d's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

-Hebrews 11:1-3, New International Version, Biblica, 1973

Now, onto the Aramaic translations. (I've love to get the Khabouris Codex and the AENT in on this, but they're not digitally available and I haven't access to the AENT currently.)

ܐܝܬܝܗ ܕܝܢ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܦܝܤܐ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܝܢ ܒܤܒܪܐ ܐܝܟ ܗܘ ܕܗܘܝ ܠܗܝܢ ܒܤܘܥܪܢܐ ܘܓܠܝܢܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܡܬܚܙܝܢ ܀ ܘܒܗܕܐ ܗܘܬ ܤܗܕܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܀ ܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܓܝܪ ܡܤܬܟܠܝܢܢ ܕܐܬܬܩܢܘ ܥܠܡܐ ܒܡܠܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܚܙܝܢ ܗܘܝ ܡܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܡܬܚܙܝܢ ܀

-Hebrews 11:1-3, Aramaic Peshitta

Now faith is the persuasion (ܦܝܤܐ) of the things that are in hope, as if they were in act; and [it is] the manifestness (ܓܠܝܢܐ) of the things not seen. And for it the ancients are all well testified of. For by faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of G-d; and that things seen, originated from those that are not seen.

-Hebrews 11:1-3, James Murdock Aramaic New Testament Translation, 1852

It's clunkier in English from the Aramaic, which is understandable, but I'm fond of the more nuanced ideas being communicated from its clunkiness versus the more elegant literary Greek translations.

You will note that nowhere within the (slightly larger) context of this passage (which still does no justice to the entirety of the point being made), is there any possible reading that may imply that the author is glorifying ignorance. The purpose is to convey the concept of faith in G-d based upon that which is physically impossible to reveal, manifesting in the acts of the believer, resulting in righteousness in the eyes of G-d. This is partly the danger of surgically extracting and manipulating the purpose and understanding of passages of scripture to suit whatever biased point one is attempting to convey. Believers and critics both are equally guilty of this charge.

My purpose to this exercise is to demonstrate and define the correct understanding and purpose of faith within, well, the faith. This attitude and approach is rooted within the exact same misunderstanding of the purpose and usage of faith as those who equally and liberally wield the word incorrectly to cover a multitude of sins that unfold from any sort of intellectual discord between the scripture, the dogma, and reality. So, you are correct in your concerns, but you are also in as much errancy with this interpretation and application of faith as those you rightfully call out for using it as a tool to preserve all stripes of ignorance. Faith has unfortunately turned into a weapon used to dismiss both reality and scripture in favor of human dogma.

However, let us briefly indulge your reading of faith as a covering for ignorance within the concept of the greater passage . L-rd knows that none of us are perfect, and there are not many who could profess and debate the faith at the levels in which we are approaching (though I'd still consider this pretty shallow in the greater pools of theology), let alone do so without blowing a gasket and having this devolve into a hate-filled flame war. It's the nature of man, man. All the same, let's pursue the implication of this.

At its heart, what is being taught is a covering of mercy. It means that you don't have to be any sort of human intellectual scholar to understand and receive the gift of grace. Even in our various levels of understanding and foolishness, so long as the core of faith and heart of service is there in G-d, He shows mercy and grace to us all. Baruch HaShem!

At its heart, faith answers the recursive question of how we came into being, but faith is to be informed and shaped by truth, just as science is and should be. It is a matter of trust in the evidence provided to make an educated and rational conclusion, and this is one of the many functions of Torah. It speaks to the condition of the world and the hearts of man, and it should (and does) reinforce accurate scientific knowledge (only where applicable and appropriate). It is through these truths learned and understood that faith in the higher power is established and the greater authority of the teachings are established. The thing to understand is that both our understandings of science and philosophy are ultimately going to be limited by the nature of the slice of creation that we're constrained to. It's a bit of a tease. We can pursue both for eternity within this realm but always end up with unanswered questions by both. It's simply not a complete picture. It's great that we strive to grow and understand, but there's simply going to be core questions that cannot be wholly explained without expanding beyond what we can observe personally. Faith fills the gap for what is not revealed to us in this universe, but if the faith is in the correct creator, anything revealed in our refined human understanding should not result in conflict with this leap if our understanding of the divine is approached in a grounded manner.

There's two points that need to be addressed here.
1) All of the problems harped upon by those in this thread as being problematic with religion, especially Judaeo-Christianity, are problems with man's teachings. These things are extra-biblical, man-made. You are quite correct in that various religions have been used as a form of social control. No denying of that. However, it's quite obvious that even a faith founded upon love has had a majority of its followers completely miss the point of the faith itself, and instead utilize it to fuel and justify hate, wickedness and lord superiority over others to condemn those who are not like them and cast them away. This is not the teachings of that faith, and Yeshua said as much when He made it clear that not everyone who professes His name will be known in the Kingdom.

Your argument here seems to have less to do with actually demonstrating that we are attacking a straw-man (as the first sentence indicates) than it does with double-downing on your faith being right. That beings said, if a faith was truly founded on Love, how could it possibly be misinterpreted? If that was the foundation, where would the room for misinterpretation be?

Have faith that I am not doubling down on my faith being right. *cough cough, wink wink, nudge nudge* (For those who aren't Jordan, I'm highlighting for him the unseen and unstated in my quoted beliefs and contrasting it against what he personally knows of my personality and approach which is in contrast to the conclusion he has reached about what I was trying to say in a language far from perfect and frequently inelegant.)

What I am doubling down on is the fact that this is attacking a straw-man with modern Christianity as it is taught and practiced as it has very little to do with what is in the scriptures its based off of. Even if I found no "thumbprint of the divine" in my own search and fell over on your side of the fence, I would still say the same thing about Christianity right here and now, though I think Mahatma Gandhi said it more elegantly:

I have a great respect for Christianity. I often read the Sermon on the Mount and have gained much from it. I know of no one who has done more for humanity than Jesus. In fact, there is nothing wrong with Christianity, but the trouble is with you Christians. You do not begin to live up to your own teachings.

2) Anyone who dismisses another's faith and beliefs as superstitious garbage based solely on the actions and deeds of wicked men within that faith do not hold the higher moral ground in the argument. Anyone in their self-styled pronouncements of personal judgment and prejudice against a faith are just as guilty of the exact same wickedness that is dismissed as being an abomination deserving of abandonment by a more enlightened mankind. I wholly agree with the idea of not feeding that sort of behavior, so I point this hypocrisy out in your own beliefs from a place of love and concern, not rancor. Your condemnation is not an action performed out of love, but out of hatred and a fear of the unknown, and it is necessary to denounce that and simply allow truth to lead us if we are to try and truly make the world a better place.

Dismissing faith as garbage goes back to my earlier point regarding the danger of short-circuiting the quest for truth. It also seems to be a bullshit argument that theists use in the face of actual facts. Where does our moral high ground stand then? And how does judgement=wickedness? Based on our previous conversations, I definitely feel that you aren't coming from any place of negativity, just from a conclusion incongruent with those of us who go another route not based on faith.

[...]
You are so focused on the past and present in its analysis, you fail to see that faith is a thing that looks forward to the future, not the past. It is supposed to be a thing of hope and love, and to criticize what you do not understand or comprehend is a fool's errand. Just as science addresses the physical, it struggles with the philosophical just as much as religion can fail at addressing the physical while demonstrating an understanding of the philosophical.

Faith is something that looks forward to the future with complete knowledge of how everything happened. How is that looking forward? Or, more accurately, how is that beneficial to anybody? Once we have the answer, we shouldn't need to look any further. That is the dangerous part, and the part which I will personally challenge at every opportunity, because it will make the world a better place. Hope is a valuable thing, but hope in something that defies definition falls back on the faith issue above.

You're absolutely right on with this observation, but once again, we're getting into applying the practice of faith by modern Christian theism against the reality of what the faith should be. It's another straw-man, as you're calling into question the practices of not just fools and the intellectually lazy, but of people who use the faith as a weapon of control and justified tribal hatred, and mistaking their acts as representative of what the faith actually is.

Seeing this particular short circuit on your end laid out in writing, I think I finally understand how to broach it. The short circuit exists because it's all you've seen. Having faith in no way should stunt or cease continued growth in learning and understanding. I believe, I have faith, and yet I still ask questions and still strive for a greater understanding of all truths. The heart and soul of Judaism can be boiled down to a monosyllabic, one word question: WHY?

This can be clearly seen in the Oral Torah and the Talmud, as there's millennia of conversations between scholars and rabbis responding and debating, asking questions and seeking answers. In a way, its formatting is not wholly unlike this nested discussion.

The point being, both are incomplete. Religion is not some panacea cop-out to stop looking for understanding and growing. It is a vehicle in which we grow to better understand the divine so we can better understand ourselves as well. Nobody within the faith should ever give up seeking and growing, that's counter-productive and antithetical to the message that man doesn't know everything. It turns our understanding into humility, realizing how little we understand, but it never should quench the desire to grow and understand. It just serves to better... focus those efforts holistically.

As to your point of how does judgement=wickedness? Let me quote myself and add emphasis: Anyone in their self-styled pronouncements of personal judgment and prejudice against a faith are just as guilty of the exact same wickedness that is dismissed as being an abomination deserving of abandonment by a more enlightened mankind.

Treat the bold part of the text as a wholly inseparable idea. The wickedness comes from the purpose this act is done in: to discriminate, hate, belittle and dismiss anyone that the person doesn't agree with. It is an act of hubris and self-righteousness, core problems to so many beliefs within human execution.

I think you misunderstand faith vs. conclusions made via the scientific method. You are not far off base, however. It's just a manner of the leap one takes once at the end of what we know currently. How far do you go? Farther than me, obviously. I will take the next small step, and prove or disprove it. You jump to an intelligent creator, which may cause you to stop searching for answers. That is the short-circuit I talked about above. I take the math, and I take the conclusions made to mean that we (as humanity) are exploring those conclusions, and figuring out ways to prove them. If we can't, or don't, then we have to figure out some other explanation. Which may mean that you are right, but it may mean that you are mistaken...

And I would counter that you're misunderstanding the purpose that faith should serve as I've tried to illustrate myself, we are seeking and implementing the same thing. My approach simply casts a larger net than yours does, and has weighed all the evidence with and without a creator in my understanding. The creator approach may assist in revealing a more complete picture, but in the grand scheme of things, it's like adding an extra five puzzle pieces (a couple being edge pieces) to an assembled patch of another five puzzle pieces from a 2500 piece puzzle.

The entire concept of 'being saved' is based on some pretty interesting assumptions; mainly that people are inherently evil/not good/not what god wants/douchey, and require 'being saved'. I know you and I have discussed this before, but wouldn't that cast all of humanity in a super-negative light? Why even bother, at that point. I need to think this through a bit more, but if that's what one thinks, no wonder one needs to believe in something beyond what we currently have. If I thought everyone around me was evil, I'd have to believe that there was something after I escaped this cess-pool of a planet, otherwise I'd just off myself to avoid the bullshit.

Well, it comes down to establishing reasonable authority and cleaving to the consistency in the teachings. It's one of the things I would like to point out about the authority I give Judaism. It is only with the advances of more accurate scientific understanding that the teaching of Torah have taken on greater relevance and lost their superstitious edge. It is not just that Judaism makes the most sense intellectually and scientifically, it's that its case actually strengthens the more our secular and worldly knowledge grows. For me, when there's enough evidence to make an educated leap of faith towards something that I don't wholly understand but it makes rational sense when weighed against all that is understandable, I have to trust that He is the creator. If He lays down a groundwork and mechanism, even if I don't wholly understand why that mechanism should be put in place, I have to trust that it's there for a reason. It also means that I'm going to continue to seek after an understanding of it and not just blindly trust, as to understand this is to better help understand and draw closer to my creator. Fortunately, that additional leap of trust and faith doesn't counter or invalidate the larger picture so much as contrasts the will of man against the will of G-d.

From that point, I'd like to remind you personally of that one conversation we've had, Jordan. It is my faith that actually cured me of my nihilism towards my fellow man. There is something amazing about love when it is learned and practiced.

And with that, I'm tapped.

[Philociraptor]

This entire thread, while stimulating, is subjecting us all to The Backfire Effect.

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
 
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

The more we discuss religion, the more we will retreat to our respective camps. It's pretty great.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

[jordanread]

This entire thread, while stimulating, is subjecting us all to The Backfire Effect.

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
 
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

The more we discuss religion, the more we will retreat to our respective camps. It's pretty great.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Cool article. I kind of think that we've (for the most part) been able to avoid it so far as what we've said. I think there has been some good back and forth, and I think everyone understands at least a bit more about the other side, or at least particular individuals here. The other thing is that I don't know that anyone here has directly challenged anyone else's beliefs, more questioned. I think this may have something to do with how we've managed to stay so civil. I dig it.


Daley, I'll respond in depth later, but for now...I'll just say that it's difficult to separate the usage of faith with the intentions. I'll think more on this, but does the underlying intention really matter when the usage is so different?

[DoubleDown]

I don't get the dilemma people have over the question of, "Did God create everything, or did the universe just come about from nothing?" This scientifically unresolvable question is then used to supposedly demonstrate that belief in God is tantamount to belief in the Easter Bunny, because no one can answer where God came from, and you supposedly get into an infinite regression problem. It's not a problem though -- there are really only two fundamental possibilities we can logically pose*:

1. God created everything (so then where did he come from?)
2. There is no architect. The universe we observe came from nothing (so then how did something come from nothing?)

#1 and #2 suffer from the same credulity problem (well, they don't suffer, we just don't understand it), which is we cannot comprehend something coming from nothing. Therefore, I don't see how #1 is any less plausible than #2. They are both beyond our comprehension or ability to explain.

But #1 provides an explanation for the order we see in the universe and the existence of life, how it all exists and works in defiance of the infinite odds against creation happening "by chance." So if I had to pick one (and one of them is true, by definition), I'd pick #1.

* A related corollary could be that our concept of cause/effect and linear time is completely ignorant, and there really is no such thing as before vs. after. But that concept is completely alien to our experience, understanding, and scientific observation. And, even if it was true, it just means again that either #1 or #2 is true, and we just don't understand how the time order of things work.

[jordanread]

[...]
Therefore, I don't see how #1 is any less plausible than #2. They are both beyond our comprehension or ability to explain.

But that's kind of where I was going earlier. #2 our only beyond our current comprehension, while by definition (if I'm understanding correctly) #1 can't be explained. It seems almost like admitting failure (IMHO) and that rubs me the wrong way.

[arebelspy]

And I'm not sure it is beyond our current comprehension.  Did you all read about the latest theories on how nothingness is unstable?

[HappyRock]

I don't get the dilemma people have over the question of, "Did God create everything, or did the universe just come about from nothing?" This scientifically unresolvable question is then used to supposedly demonstrate that belief in God is tantamount to belief in the Easter Bunny, because no one can answer where God came from, and you supposedly get into an infinite regression problem. It's not a problem though -- there are really only two fundamental possibilities we can logically pose*:

1. God created everything (so then where did he come from?)
2. There is no architect. The universe we observe came from nothing (so then how did something come from nothing?)

#1 and #2 suffer from the same credulity problem (well, they don't suffer, we just don't understand it), which is we cannot comprehend something coming from nothing. Therefore, I don't see how #1 is any less plausible than #2. They are both beyond our comprehension or ability to explain.

But #1 provides an explanation for the order we see in the universe and the existence of life, how it all exists and works in defiance of the infinite odds against creation happening "by chance." So if I had to pick one (and one of them is true, by definition), I'd pick #1.

* A related corollary could be that our concept of cause/effect and linear time is completely ignorant, and there really is no such thing as before vs. after. But that concept is completely alien to our experience, understanding, and scientific observation. And, even if it was true, it just means again that either #1 or #2 is true, and we just don't understand how the time order of things work.

This sorta describes my side on this. I also prefer to believe #1 but that still doesn't make me want to follow a specific religion and call it the right one.

It is impossible to learn the absolute truth about what caused the big bang, but I still enjoy trying to understand it as much as humans can. Also, there are more options than just #1 and #2 that you listed. A good example is this : http://www.space.com/21335-black-holes-time-universe-creation.html

I also read this answer long ago on what caused this big bang, curious to your thoughts :

Question : What caused the big bang?

Scientific answer :

"So you understand, I must first explain to you what the Higgs Boson particle is. About 40 years ago, physicists tried to put together a theory that would explain why stuff behaves the way it does. They called it the Standard Model. One of the things they believed they would need to be part of that Standard Model was this "boson", a type of particle that would allow other particles to do the kinds of things that particles do. In July 4, 2012, they finally found it and on March 4, 2013 they confirmed it exists.

That was the history, now for what it exactly is. It is a particle that gives everything in the universe it's mass. It is often named the "God Particle" because of this. It is said that there is always a Higgs field around all matter. Just like there is a magnetic field around a magnet, there is a Higgs field around ANYTHING that has mass. The Higgs Boson is looking to be the last piece of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

The model consists of Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Gravitation, and Electromagnetism. The Higgs Boson is believed to be the last missing piece of the puzzle. The model defies original particle physics and helps explain how particle physics works.

Now let's move on to how the big bang got started connecting it with the Higgs Boson. I hope you know what a "singularity" is, because i'm not explaining that. The singularity was the only point before the big bang. It was a point of absolute nothing but infinite potential. Because of this potential and the "God particle", it rapidly expanded and cooled. Why did that happen? It is theoretically observed that Quantum Mechanics absolutely allows this to happen. And physics show that there can never be nothing because infinity cannot exist. Thus, there is always a quantum field existing in any defying point.

In Quantum Mechanics, a point with the infinitely least probability of potential will act because there is indefinite order in how things work. So if a random singularity has a chance of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance to separate, it will separate no matter the chance. This is what proves the Big Bang can be true. Things can act according to their potential no matter the consequences or before-actions.

The Higgs Boson shows that because Quantum Mechanics allows spontaneous actions, and that the Higgs Boson gave the singularity the mass to expand and cool. Since there was always a Quantum field, anything could happen. Therefore, the Higgs Boson happened to appear and gave the singularity 3 dimensions + time (Our known universe). The Higgs Boson with the combination of Quantum Mechanics is the most widely accepted part-theory scientifically speaking."

Theistic answer :

The most obvious is that God allowed the big bang to happen. But then this pulls up a question: Where did God come from? If the answer is God is eternal, then this raises a problem. If everything had to have an origin according to physics, then God can't exist. But I can challenge that.

If God is omnipotent and is the creator of all things, then he is also the creator of physics. Laws DO NOT apply to God because if they did then this God would not be God. (If that makes sense to you) God is infinite, limitless, omniscient, omnipotent, rules absolutely DO NOT apply to God. Most widely accepted theory which caused the big bang according to religion is that God created the singularity outside of space and time (even though there was no space and time) and allowed everything to happen the way it did."

I don't see how this view on theistic belief answers who or what exactly created "God", it only further reinforces my belief if God exists it is unlikely that any single religion is correct.

[Simple Abundant Living]

I don't see how it requires fewer, because you always get back to the "first" one and go "how"?  So you still have the same question with the "first" one that you're asking, plus you have the subsequent questions of "why" and "how"?  It seems to add more questions as you go back, and you still end with the same question you do in either case.

Well, there-in lies the approach and where you go looking for the answers. As science fails, philosophy begins to rise.
[...]

Emphasis mine
Science failing is a wonderful thing. That is a conclusion!!! Philosophy/Religion seem to be embraced by those who want the easy way out, not the truth as Lyssa said above.

I think this statement does a disservice to religion and philosophy. There are simply questions that science cannot answer, and denying reality despite science is just as wrong as thinking science can somehow answer questions of morals or the supernatural.

There will always be a place for religion in society because science does not answer questions about things beyond this universe. What gets heavily debated more often than the science itself is the meaning of the science.

Debating the meaning of scientific findings is not science. There may be instances where the scientists that gathered the findings are more apt to make conclusions, but are still not scientific.

Science may say that the Earth is currently trending warmer, but that does not tell us what the proper response is morally or ethically or even necessarily how to go about reversing it (Since proving that it could be reversed in the first place would have to be observed to follow the scientific method).

I've watched countless Hitchens/ Lennox debates on evolution v. creation, and they talk past each other because one only argues scientific points and the other only ever talks philosophy.

So it's not science or philosophy; it's what can science answer and what can philosophy answer. I suggest that there is very little overlap.

Very well put.  I am someone who majored in Philosophy, believe in God, and embrace Science.  I'm not looking for an easy way out.  I accept scientific principles and see no conflict with also believing in the Creator of the universe. 

[Lyssa]

So it's not science or philosophy; it's what can science answer and what can philosophy answer. I suggest that there is very little overlap.

I have several problems with that statement.

Firstly, as science evolves the room for philosophy get's smaller and smaller in that model. It's essentially the philosophical version of the "god of the gaps". At a certain time t you look for all the questions the answer of which has not yet been provided by science and then declare "And this is the domain of religion/philosophy! - Non-overlapping." Of course to prevent overlaps, you need to re-define this domain every other week...

Secondly, Philosophy done right can fruitfully overlap with science. See Dan Dennetts work regarding consciousness.

Thirdly, and now I am going to say something mean: The "non-overlapping domains" point is most forcefully made by philosophers who simply don't care to admit they are either too lazy or incapable of mastering the area of science relevant to their area of interest. Much easier to fill hundreds of pages with arcane made-up definitions and circular gibberish than to sit down and study evolution (took me quite a few years to really understand) or Maxwell's equations (which I do not understand at all. That's why I'm not lecturing people who do where their relevance starts and ends) or you name it. Much better to claim that what you have to say about the world can not possibly have anything to do with physics (often combined with the explicit or implied assumtion that it is you working on a somehow higher level while all those strange science people are some form of engineering department of society; getting shit done but not really interesting or important enough to be listended to) and to throw in some fancy concept you have no real grasp of but which sounds really cool now and then (quantum physics! Heisenberg! Higgs Boson!).

With a only a few exeptions I am not at all impressed by post-modern philosophy. And the lack of scientific knowledge among today's philosophers has contributed a great deal to this.

[Daley]

With a only a few exeptions I am not at all impressed by post-modern philosophy. And the lack of scientific knowledge among today's philosophers has contributed a great deal to this.

Wholeheartedly agree, Lyssa.

May the L-rd love and forgive Ken Ham as his heart is in the right place, but stuff like the Creation Museum in Kentucky is part of the reason why the philosophical arguments of Christianity is taken with such a grain of salt anymore - it's because they so poorly grasp the very science (and even religion) they try to use to defend their philosophical conclusions where the two overlap.

I once saw a picture of the Adam and Eve exhibit there... their wax sculpture Adam looked like a 1970's era shirtless Lou Ferrigno with a beard, as did most of the other "early" men of the bible. It's not science, it's a punchline.

[Left Bank]

To I.P: 
In one of your first posts you state " how anger and hatred can actually negatively influence genetic expression" .  I would like to see the original data on that and understand this better- do you have a citation?
Thanks
LB

[HappyRock]

Okay one final question to this statement before I stop :

"If God is omnipotent and is the creator of all things, then he is also the creator of physics. Laws DO NOT apply to God because if they did then this God would not be God. (If that makes sense to you) God is infinite, limitless, omniscient, omnipotent, rules absolutely DO NOT apply to God. The most widely accepted theory which caused the big bang according to religion, is that God created the singularity outside of space and time (even though there was no space and time) and allowed everything to happen the way it did."

If laws and rules do not apply to god, then why would he allow horrible things to happen to those who worship him in this life?

I will use an old friend as an example : If Christianity is the true and correct religion, then why would a limitless and omnipotent god allow this devout Christian and good person to lose his parents? Thus resulting in severe depression that led to a terrible drug addiction that still continues.

People of every religion experience things like this all the time. Some say "God" is just testing us, or he can't control individual things. But, many writings and popular beliefs contradict this entirely. Isn't god suppose to be all powerful and limitless?

Can anyone explain what I am missing?

[arebelspy]

IFMMMM: The popular answer is "free will," though that doesn't account for natural disasters.

You are using a very specific definition of God for that, many believe it set things in motion and stepped back. 

In any case, your question is a very, very old one, and much ink has been spilled on it.

It's commonly called "The Problem of Evil".

Here's some reading for you if you're really interested in the "answers" to your question, it'll have much more information than anyone is likely to type out here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

[HappyRock]

IFMMMM: The popular answer is "free will," though that doesn't account for natural disasters.

You are using a very specific definition of God for that, many believe it set things in motion and stepped back. 

In any case, your question is a very, very old one, and much ink has been spilled on it.

It's commonly called "The Problem of Evil".

Here's some reading for you if you're really interested in the "answers" to your question, it'll have much more information than anyone is likely to type out here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Of course I am interested. Thanks for the links, I will check it out

"You are using a very specific definition of God for that, many believe it set things in motion and stepped back." On a side note, many theistic followers who believe this would be contradicting themselves. According to most religions, over time in our history god has personally played a big role in many situations.

The truth is all of these conflicts and contradictions between religions make it hard for me to claim one is more true than the others. Which is why I take the best parts and ignore the bull.

Regardless, I have enjoyed this so thanks to all who responded.

[Daley]

To I.P: 
In one of your first posts you state " how anger and hatred can actually negatively influence genetic expression" .  I would like to see the original data on that and understand this better- do you have a citation?
Thanks
LB

I don't have the specific citations right at my fingertips, but I will try to dredge it up for you soon. If you want to go looking on your own, I think one of the more useful bits is something called the "the physiology of anger" to begin with. The other major field of development lending itself to better understanding this topic in total is epigenetics when layered with what we already know thus far about the chemical and physical stresses anger can create in the body. Here's a recent, simplified Epigenetics 101 overview to get you started. A huge resource on epigenetics research can be found over at the IHEC. Study and understanding is still in the earlier stages, but there's interesting studies thus far establishing epigenetic inheritance of up to three generations, and links between dietary, physiological and chemical body stresses significantly influencing epigenetic markers.

Can anyone explain what I am missing?

I haven't forgotten about you or this question. Rebel's pointed out that a great deal of ink has been spilled on the subject already, and I'll be adding a small bit to it here shortly... but addressing this point specifically should never be done hastily. As such, I am carefully weighing my words on my response because it truly is a difficult question to answer as most explanations are hinged upon a far greater understanding of the nature of HaShem than the incredibly shallow (yet reasonably accurate) "G-d is good", which can require the initial leap of believing in the first place for some people to even take the time necessary to better learn and understand His nature, which can cause a bit of an intellectual short circuit as Jordan is fond of saying. Please be patient with me.

If you're interested and inclined in the meantime, I think Ecclesiastes can be an interesting read that's tangentially related to the question posited for the more intellectually inclined. Any translation of this book into English will be greatly lacking as there's concepts and ideas communicated within the Hebrew language itself, and this semitic linguistic style of communicating ideas is something that often gets lost in the translation, but a balance in flavor can kind of be reached by contrasting the JPS Tanakh and Biblica's NIV translations. If you only read one translation (it's not a long book, only twelve short chapters), go with the NIV as it better captures the spirit of the teacher in a more modern and relevant English, IMHO.

[smalllife]

Can anyone explain what I am missing?

If you're interested and inclined in the meantime, I think Ecclesiastes can be an interesting read that's tangentially related to the question posited for the more intellectually inclined. Any translation of this book into English will be greatly lacking as there's concepts and ideas communicated within the Hebrew language itself, and this semitic linguistic style of communicating ideas is something that often gets lost in the translation, but a balance in flavor can kind of be reached by contrasting the JPS Tanakh and Biblica's NIV translations. If you only read one translation (it's not a long book, only twelve short chapters), go with the NIV as it better captures the spirit of the teacher in a more modern and relevant English, IMHO.

Why should I trust the Bible to prove what the Bible's trying to say?  To be fair, it has some great quotes, but it's still just a book written by man.  How is that different than any of the other religious texts of the pre-modern era?

[FIPurpose]

Why should I trust the Bible to prove what the Bible's trying to say?

This question is kind of ambiguous to me. Can explain more what exactly you are asking?

[arebelspy]

Why should I trust the Bible to prove what the Bible's trying to say?

This question is kind of ambiguous to me. Can explain more what exactly you are asking?

I think he's saying its circular logic to trust a source as to the veracity of itself.

It's like saying "I'm not sure if Wikipedia is credible" and someone says "Here, read this Wikipedia article about it."

[smalllife]

Why should I trust the Bible to prove what the Bible's trying to say?

This question is kind of ambiguous to me. Can explain more what exactly you are asking?

I think he's saying its circular logic to trust a source as to the veracity of itself.

It's like saying "I'm not sure if Wikipedia is credible" and someone says "Here, read this Wikipedia article about it."

Yes, *she did.

The Wikipedia analogy is a good one.  There are many religious texts, believed both now and in the past, each making the same truth claim.  Why is one self-referencing religious text any more truthful than the other?