The use of religion in modern society

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Ever heard birds singing in the morning?

I’ve heard birds in the morning, but I wouldn’t say they were singing, however, there is nothing to stop me thinking that they’re singing.

Why do you have to demean the very meaning of existence by attributing that which we have to something supernatural?

Your use of “demean” is only your opinion, as far as I am concerned, that is neither my intention or action. If you read my post carefully, you will understand why I think formulating music is an act which falls outside of the mechanism of nature.

Every time i feel a thump at the door i could consider it to be aliens. To do so is foolishness is it not? If i attributed everything we have and everything that happens to little green men you'd assume me to be an idiot, why expect anything else in return?

I would consider you an idiot, if you seriously thought this statement, in any way, was connected to the point of my reply.

The fact is we need more than heresay, we need more than an old book.

[/b]
I totally agree, this is why we need to develop our intelligence. An “old book” cannot give knowledge, but the knowledge, written inside, can.

We are that which has been created, so how could we ever be at fault?

You need to ask yourself that question.

I have refused my daughter being taught religious education. Many question me like i'm doing a bad thing. The facts of the matter remains: Nobody has the right to tell my daughter santa claus is fake over something with even less evidence. She will learn as she ages what, who, god is and if he's there. She will hear him if she wants to- and if not, she's not at fault- she's merely human.

You are doing what you feel is right, in order to protect your daughter, that is also knowledge ( science), but do you know for sure, that what you are doing is right, only you can effectively answer this.

To take away basic understanding and replace it with heresay, groundless speculation and assumption is not the way any person should be forced to proceed.

I totally agree, but I know what you are getting at.

Religion caters for the week hearted, the slow minded.

You are emotionally upset, and therefore seek to insult. From what I have read, you have no understanding of the essence of “religion” as opposed to “institutionalised religion”, therefore your arguments, imho, are null and void.

It answers the questions when we're on our deathbeds, it sustains as an answer to the emotionally weak and crippled. Anyone who subjects a young and impressionable mind to such basic probable fiction is evil beyond comparison.

Most people (i know) love their children and want the best for them. The truth of the matter is we have no choice but to subject their young and impressionable minds to something, be it direct or indirect. Evil, is a deliberate act that can only be meted out by a person of sufficient intelligence, with an intention to harm another. What you are accusing people of has nothing to do with religion or science, but to do with that particular individual, and is also a very serious accusation, so unless you can back that up with intelligent reason, I would prefer to leave it there, thank you very much.

Let every man of sane mind judge for himself and remain non-convicted for whatever answer he ends up with. Nobody has right to judge the human mind, not even god.

This is a very mixed up statement.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Avatar]

The use of religion in modern society

just a crowd control tool

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
"Supernatural” means, something that acts outside the known laws of nature.

No, supernatural means above/beyond nature. More specifically, it means a power that is not limited to/by natural laws. It does not mean outside known laws.

If I were to give a basic reason why I believe in God, it would be, that every creation has to have a creator, and whoever created this manifestation, has to be great.

You're basing this, however, upon a presumption that the Universe is a creation, which is a circular argument. What if the Universe is not a creation? What if it is self-caused or eternal; attributes you arbitrarily assign to God?

The ultimate aim of all God-based religions, is “to go back to Godhead, the original cause of all causes.” But to do this there are many ways, due to the fact that there are many different levels of consciousness, which creates different types of mentalities. So God has many ways of reaching every living entity.

Then why attempt to argue against any particular paradigm? If God has provided a way for every entity to connect with him then any honest search for truth will find him; even if it does not label it as such. An Atheist, honestly seeking truth, is as justified as an honest Christian, Buddhist, or Satanist. The only thing you should be arguing against in this case is falsehood.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,

No, supernatural means above/beyond nature. More specifically, it means a power that is not limited to/by natural laws. It does not mean outside known laws.

If that is the case, you are now telling me you know the full extent of the laws of nature. Do you?

You're basing this, however, upon a presumption that the Universe is a creation, which is a circular argument. What if the Universe is not a creation? What if it is self-caused or eternal; attributes you arbitrarily assign to God?

I have no reason to think that the universe was not created, and as we are not in actual debate, but a discussion of opinions, circular argument does not apply.

Then why attempt to argue against any particular paradigm?

I have not argued against anything, questions were raised for all and sundry, I gave answers from my perspective as did others, but no argument occurred.

If God has provided a way for every entity to connect with him then any honest search for truth will find him; even if it does not label it as such.

I agree, but there comes a time when one has to follow a particular way, a way authorised by God.

An Atheist, honestly seeking truth, is as justified as an honest Christian, Buddhist, or Satanist.

These are just descriptions, they mean nothing, how you act is everything.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
If that is the case, you are now telling me you know the full extent of the laws of nature. Do you?

No, I am informing you as to the meaning of the word supernatural which you have been misusing.
If you believe that God, Love, and Music operate through unknown natural laws then say so because the word supernatural does not apply. I'd also like to see some evidence or reason why you believe in these unknown laws; mind you that an argument from ignorance is invalid.

I have no reason to think that the universe was not created, and as we are not in actual debate, but a discussion of opinions, circular argument does not apply.

Logic always applies. Circular reasoning is not logically valid; if you are not using reason simply tell us that your belief is illogical. You can't have it both ways.

I have not argued against anything, questions were raised for all and sundry, I gave answers from my perspective as did others, but no argument occurred.

You are telling us the reasoning for you belief; which is, by default, a logical argument.

I agree, but there comes a time when one has to follow a particular way, a way authorised by God.

What could possibly be more directly attributable to a creator God than the study of his creation?

These are just descriptions, they mean nothing, how you act is everything.

I already supplied the action; "honestly seeking truth".

~Raithere

 

[MShark]

Raithere:

How does a person get to be "The" authority on a particular word? I would like to be in charge of some words myself.

The funny thing about the word "supernatural " is that my Websters dictionary agrees with Jan Ardena. However, since you are the final authority you shoud write them and have them replace their incorrect definition with yours.

I personally do not disagree with either definition. I think the initial users definition should take precedence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

m informing you as to the meaning of the word supernatural which you have been misusing.

You said;
…..supernatural means above/beyond nature.

Do you know what lies above or beyond nature?

More specifically, it means a power that is not limited to/by natural laws. It does not mean outside known laws.

For you to know whether or not something is not limited by natural laws, you would need to know the extent of said laws, so we have to assume that walking on water is a supernatural act, or an encounter with a ghost, because it falls outside of the known laws of nature.

If you believe that God, Love, and Music operate through unknown natural laws then say so because the word supernatural does not apply.

It does, to me.

I'd also like to see some evidence or reason why you believe in these unknown laws; mind you that an argument from ignorance is invalid.

I do not regard them as unknown laws.

Logic always applies.

Logic applies where logic is nesaccery.

Circular reasoning is not logically valid;

To whom?

You are telling us the reasoning for you belief; which is, by default, a logical argument.

I am answering a request, if you want to argue, that’s okay, but don’t try and make out that I am arguing, and must therefore back it up with logic and reason.
There is a certain nastiness to your approach, which is pointless and uncalled for. Set the premise and lets begin, and please don’t assume that you are always right.

What could possibly be more directly attributable to a creator God than the study of his creation?

Devotional service.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MShark
How does a person get to be "The" authority on a particular word? I would like to be in charge of some words myself.

The funny thing about the word "supernatural " is that my Websters dictionary agrees with Jan Ardena. However, since you are the final authority you shoud write them and have them replace their incorrect definition with yours.

I don't consider myself an authority, I consult them via dictionaries. That is quite interesting though, I have yet to see a dictionary definition that equates the supernatural with unknown natural laws. What version are you using?

Here's what I find:

supernatural

\Su`per*nat"u*ral\, a. [Pref. super- + natural: cf. OF. supernaturel, F. surnaturel.] Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous.

Syn: Preternatural.

Usage: Supernatural, Preternatural. Preternatural signifies beside nature, and supernatural, above or beyond nature. What is very greatly aside from the ordinary course of things is preternatural; what is above or beyond the established laws of the universe is supernatural. The dark day which terrified all Europe nearly a century ago was preternatural; the resurrection of the dead is supernatural. ``That form which the earth is under at present is preternatural, like a statue made and broken again.'' --T. Burnet. ``Cures wrought by medicines are natural operations; but the miraculous ones wrought by Christ and his apostles were supernatural.'' --Boyle.

That is supernatural, whether it be, that is either not in the chain of natural cause and effect, or which acts on the chain of cause and effect in nature, from without the chain. --Bushnell.

We must not view creation as supernatural, but we do look upon it as miraculous. --McCosh.

The supernatural, whatever is above and beyond the scope, or the established course, of the laws of nature. ``Nature and the supernatural.'' --H. Bushnell.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Most of the time I'm willing to work with whatever consensual definition seems to be prevalent in the conversation. However, I have played this game with Jan on many previous occasions and Jan has a proclivity for changing around the definition of terms to suit whatever he says. He'll call Atheism a religion but if you point out that it does not fit the definition of religion he'll come up with his own definition.

I'm always willing to take correction but please provide evidence and loose the snide tone.

~Raithere

 

[MShark]

Websters New World Dictionary - College Edition 1966
supernatural - 1. existing or occuring outside of the normal experience or knowledge of man; caused by other than the known forces of nature.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
For you to know whether or not something is not limited by natural laws, you would need to know the extent of said laws, so we have to assume that walking on water is a supernatural act, or an encounter with a ghost, because it falls outside of the known laws of nature.

It's a matter of using the proper terminology. I'm quite willing to accept that an event that does not seem to obey any known law may or may not be the result of an unknown law. However, this is not what the word supernatural means. The supernatural would be inherently unknowable through any empirical means.

I do not regard them as unknown laws.

But you just said that's what the supernatural was.... :sigh: Okay... forget it, I'll not play games.

I am answering a request, if you want to argue, that’s okay, but don’t try and make out that I am arguing, and must therefore back it up with logic and reason.

It's not an argument... it's not a fight... it's a discussion, a debate. If you choose to post your thoughts on a forum that is focused upon discussion and debate then you need to be prepared to have your thoughts critically analyzed. This is not a church service where everyone chants "Amen" after every thing you say.

You were the one that stated that you had a reason for believing in God. I merely pointed out that the 'reason' you gave was not logically valid. Now if you don't want to follow logic... that's fine with me. But don't state that you have a reason and then give an illogical one. Your reason breaks down like this:

1. The universe was created.
2. By definition, something created must have a creator.
3. Therefore God.

But you have not proven 1, it's an assumption. And that's fine, by itself. But it does not prove 3. All you have really said is "I assume God exists."

There is a certain nastiness to your approach, which is pointless and uncalled for.

I'm really not trying to be nasty and I apologize if I come off that way sometimes. But I'm here to consider, discuss, and debate various ideas and this requires that I take a particular position. I also believe in being direct, it's much clearer and more efficient. If we were sitting in a cafe my manner would be different. But I'm not here simply to chat.

Set the premise and lets begin, and please don’t assume that you are always right.

I try to assume as little as I can but that just the point. I expect people to critique my posts and I want them to. Because when someone points out where I am, or might be mistaken I have a chance to learn and improve. Contention is the reason that I'm here.

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed that the prior segment of the discussion grew so prevalent. I was much more interested in this part of the discussion:

Devotional service.

Why is that? Why does God need our attention and why would he create this tremendous existence only to have us ignore it?

~Raithere

 

[Cris]

From Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary 2000.

Supernatural.

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).

It seems to me that something allegedly supernatural is outside of or transcends nature. It is not simply an unknown natural law.

From Mshark –

Websters New World Dictionary - College Edition 1966
supernatural - 1. existing or occuring outside of the normal experience or knowledge of man; caused by other than the known forces of nature.

So from all these definitions we can see that ‘supernatural’ will always be outside of nature and outside of man’s knowledge or ability to know.

Could something ‘supernatural’ become natural once we understand more of the universe? No never. What we really mean here is that could something that has been mislabeled as supernatural really be natural. And that of course if what we always find as science and our knowledge evolves. As we learn more then the superstitions of religions erode even further.

Something supernatural is synonymous to unknowable, since if it was knowable then it would not be supernatural. See above ‘outside of the normal experience or knowledge of man’, from Mshark’s definition.

Claims to ‘know’ God are all therefore false, since God is defined as supernatural and as we can see above anything supernatural is unknowable.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MShark
Websters New World Dictionary - College Edition 19 66
supernatural - 1. existing or occuring outside of the normal experience or knowledge of man; caused by other than the known forces of nature.

Huh, interesting. I can accept that it was the definition although I still have a problem with it.

Actually it's even worse than Jan's definition (from a philosophical perspective), it confuses things immensely. I mean, the 'normal man' has little to no knowledge of particle physics or nuclear fission; by this definition supercolliders and nuclear power plants are supernatural. So was the Moon Landing. I think they changed it for good reason. And I'll trust to the more recent versions.

Quite interesting in any case... thanks.

~Raithere

P.S. It might be time to get a new dictionary.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The supernatural would be inherently unknowable through any empirical means.

Super; 1. A prefix signifying above, over, beyond, and hence often denoting in a superior position, in excess, over and above, in addition, exceedingly; as in superimpose, supersede, supernatural, superabundance.
Natural; Fixed or determined by nature; pertaining to the constitution of a thing; belonging to native character; according to nature; essential; characteristic; not artifical, foreign, assumed, put on, or acquired; as, the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color.
The term “natural” indicates that it is to do with nature, it would be silly to have something totally outside of nature, to describe nature.
Why the “supernatural” is unknowable through empirical means, is because the current people who set the standards of those means, do not accept it, and only accept that which they themselves lay claim to its discovery, in other words, they are too proud.

But you just said that's what the supernatural was.... :sigh: Okay... forget it, I'll not play games.

Apologies, when I said “it does to me”, I meant it means it is supernatural to me
quote:

I merely pointed out that the 'reason' you gave was not logically valid.

Why do you think it is not logically valid?

Now if you don't want to follow logic... that's fine with me.

As far as I’m concerned that’s logic, if you don’t think so, then tell me why?

But don't state that you have a reason and then give an illogical one.
The universe was created.
By definition, something created must have a creator.
Therefore God.

That is the way you would go about it, maybe, but not me. You see Rait, I’m not a robot, I can look at things, be they science, philosphy, art, religion and so on, and make my own choices. There are many ways and means to come to a decision, I do not discount any. Your mind (on the subject of God anyways), is stiff and regimental, you believe that the way to come to the decision, that God created the universe, is through some stiff, mechanical, unwavering method of logic, devised most probably, by a stiff, mechanical, unwavering person(s).
Now, if you want to talk with me, then talk, but don’t try and put me in a box, as if to say, “I have to do it like this, or it doesn’t count”.
Loosen up for cryin out loud!

But I'm here to consider, discuss, and debate various ideas and this requires that I take a particular position.

Then accept the people whom you are discussing and debating with, or go and debate with Cris, James or any other person you see fit. When you can say something of real value and worth, something that makes people seriously stop and think, then your elitist act will get some respect.
I am not dogging you, i think you are an extremely bright person, far brighter than myself, but it seems all you are using it for is to demean, you do not, imho, contribute anything of value, as far as our discussions go.
I say lets forgo all this evidence, proof and logic bullshit, and take it to the next stage.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[MShark]

supernatural means above/beyond nature. More specifically, it means a power that is not limited to/by natural laws. It does not mean outside known laws.

Since we do not know all of the laws of nature, and we may never know all of them, wouldn't that make the word "supernatural" meaningless? If an event occurs that we can not currently explain it is just an event waiting for an explination.

Claims to ‘know’ God are all therefore false, since God is defined as supernatural

For me "Claims to ‘know’ God", are troubling also. But I have just as much trouble accepting "God is defined as supernatural".

After some thought I think I understand the statement, "God is defined as supernatural", from an atheistic perspective. if God is supernatural and supernatural is meaningless than God must meaningless. Very nice logic.

From my personal theistic perspective defining God, beyond my own personal relationship with God, is not appropriate.

 

[karnie]

Hi, I'm doing a philosohy assignment on the philosophy of religion and I'm particularly interested in the role of religion in modern life. What are your thoughts? In what ways is religion useful in our modern society and/or detrimental? Is religous belief rationally possible with scientific understanding, or has the function of religion died out? Reading your thread has enriched my understanding immensely and i hope to hear more of your thoughts and ideas. Thanks!

 

[charles cure]

Religion was created by man to opiate mankind?

Do you think that we still need this calming of our society? Have we grown as a people to the point where we can do away with religion?

ZERO MASS

i think that the crux of the problem is that my society (i am from the US but not everyone on here is) is almost completely based on a religious concept. christians started my country, christianity was promoted above and beyond other religions here even if it wasnt mandated, and christianity remains the majority religion among the population today. we could do away with religion, but that would mean coming up with a system of ethics that is humanist in origin, and doing away with the figure of god entirely. what religion does beside provide a set of inflexible moral laws and modes of behavior for people to view as either "right"or "wrong", is provide "answers" to the questions brought forth from the unknown quantities of human life. to do away with the popularity and influence of religion, you would either have to provide real scientific answers to those questions, or convince people that it is ok to admit that we dont know everything about life and that a fantasy answer is no better than no answer at all. change is slow enough when you have momentum on your side, this kind of change will be like a glacier slipping down a mountain side. reason gains about a half an inch of ground per year.

 

[duendy]

Hi, I'm doing a philosohy assignment on the philosophy of religion and I'm particularly interested in the role of religion in modern life. What are your thoughts? In what ways is religion useful in our modern society and/or detrimental?

me:::religion as it is known to us via Abrahamic religions and Eastern religions are basically social controlling strategies.
They promote a higher abstraction that makes you into a subject-who-must'conform-to...'God's authority/the'Word' etc. This is useful for te power elte who reap its benefits is all, and detrimental for pople and Nature as has/is being shown. for when peopl arecoerced to JUSt care for some ideal in the sky, te cease to care about ACTUAL NAture, and relationships wit oter pople not part of teir tradition and other species

Is religous belief rationally possible with scientific understandinmg, or has the function of religion died out?

me::: te PRETENCE is that religion has died out--ie., from ppple and scientists who claim to be atiests. but what happens is that te rerssed religious symbolism translates into their actions and dream!.....for example now. the Christian dream was eternallife. well in ome corners of scientific thinking guess what? they are proclaimin they will soon do away wit decay an death--at least for up to a 1000 years. not understanding the consequences of such an event on Nature as a whole....religion be
comes their 'God'.

Reading your thread has enriched my understanding immensely and i hope to hear more of your thoughts and ideas. Thanks!

religion in its originary form, wa the religion of the EARTH.....'to bind' us to earth, and community via deep ecstatic experience....THAT is what religion should be. science of course can be included, but it must know it's limitations

 

[KennyJC]

THAT is what religion should be. science of course can be included, but it must know it's limitations

As far as I can see so far, there aren't many limitations. By the grace of your very own God, he gave us these abilities.

 

[duendy]

As far as I can see so far, there aren't many limitations. By the grace of your very own God, he gave us these abilities.

your reponse to that bit makes me sense you are still caught up in the 'he God' belief....i am not.
what i mean by limitations is that science as is mainstream science has its own process.......so for example for it to try and anylize ecstasy absurd.....so to REALIZE that and know its limiations. sure it could measre chemicals and whatnot whe omeone is being ecstatic. but that is not the EXPERIENCE.......i am not putting science down. just saying it is a different language from actual ecstatic religious experience

 

[charles cure]

Originally posted by Zero Mass


“Supernatural” means, something that acts outside the known laws of nature.
What is music? Where in nature does music form naturally, in recognisable harmony, yet we see it as natural. When intelligence is used to combine natural phenomenon, and create such wonderful objects and concepts, then to me, that is a form of supernatural. So, i see creation as an act outside of the laws of nature, therefore supernatural. Of course, once it becomes common knowledge, it is no longer regarded as such. If I were to give a basic reason why I believe in God, it would be, that every creation has to have a creator, and whoever created this manifestation, has to be great.
.

do you or do you not see fallacy in your statement? how do you think that god in its role as creator can be anything other than supernatural? god does not reside amongst nature, god has been the creative force that causes nature to manifest if you believe that god is a creator. so if you believe that god is the one time creator of life and all that it involves, how can you ever seperate out the detail that in the beginning there was god and nothing else and then somehow relegate it to the realm of nature? it cant work. it doesnt work.