What will we replace religion with?

[Syne]

Karl Marx - Religion is the Opiate of the Masses:

According to Karl Marx, religion is a social institutions which is dependent upon material and economic realities in a given society. With no independent history, it is a creature of productive forces. Marx wrote: “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” Marx argued that religion is an illusion whose chief purpose is to provide reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them. - http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/p/ExplainReligion.htm


For example, at one point Marx argued "there should be less trifling with the label 'atheism,'” as he insisted "religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism#Overview​

Yeah, because theists call religion illusion all the time.

 

[Kittamaru]

I still maintain we should just supplement religion with the Vulcan ideal of logic above all else... because lets face it; the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, so long as there is supporting evidence to make religion a logical belief.

That, and if people could learn to temper their emotions with logic, we'd have a lot less random violence... but then again, I'm a dreamer *shrug*

 

[Jan Ardena]

Kittamaru,

I still maintain we should just supplement religion with the Vulcan ideal of logic above all else... because lets face it; the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, so long as there is supporting evidence to make religion a logical belief.

You need to define ''religion''.
Do you see it as one thing from which all religions stem from?
Or do you see every religion (ie, Christianity etc...) as it's own meaning of what religion is, even to the point of claiming to be the only religion.
If you see it as the first one, then ultimately ''religion'' is nothing but a way of life, and as such, the point about ''so long as there is supporting evidence to make religion a logical belief'' is kind of redundant.
If it's the second option, then I see your point.

What kind of evidence would determine religion a logical belief, and who would determine it?
Would logic be the be all end all of decisions?

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Karl Marx - Religion is the Opiate of the Masses:

According to Karl Marx, religion is a social institutions which is dependent upon material and economic realities in a given society. With no independent history, it is a creature of productive forces. Marx wrote: “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” Marx argued that religion is an illusion whose chief purpose is to provide reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them. - http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/p/ExplainReligion.htm


For example, at one point Marx argued "there should be less trifling with the label 'atheism,'” as he insisted "religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism#Overview​

Yeah, because theists call religion illusion all the time.

What theists do "all the time" has no bearing on the conversation. And Mwrx's problems with religion were obviously problems with the institutionalization of It, not a problem with faith itself.

 

[Ahriman]

Religion at its best inspires the believer with a sense of kinship with others and wonder at the natural world. I get this same feeling when I consider the billions of galaxies that make up our universe and the impossibly vast gulfs of cold space that nonetheless contain a small speck of dust that houses everything we care about. How can a person really hate his neighbor when he realizes that person is in the same circumstances as he is, relatively speaking. The same wonderment that commends religion can be found a hundred fold whole contemplating the causality chains that allowed us to have this discussion from thousands of kilometers away.

 

[Syne]

I still maintain we should just supplement religion with the Vulcan ideal of logic above all else... because lets face it; the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, so long as there is supporting evidence to make religion a logical belief.

You sound more and more like a pseudo-religious concern troll. While I agree that reason and religion are not mutually exclusive, what "supporting evidence" does your religion provide?

What theists do "all the time" has no bearing on the conversation. And Mwrx's problems with religion were obviously problems with the institutionalization of It, not a problem with faith itself.

Maybe you could provide a reference you think supports your opinion of Marx's views on religion. Or just read something like this: http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx_4.htm

 

[Balerion]

Maybe you could provide a reference you think supports your opinion of Marx's views on religion. Or just read something like this: http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx_4.htm

Your own link supports supports my argument. Marx's atheism--or theism--is irrelevant to his beliefs about the institution of religion, which he decried for its reliance on irrational thought. You don't need to be an atheist to think this way.

 

[Kittamaru]

You sound more and more like a pseudo-religious concern troll. While I agree that reason and religion are not mutually exclusive, what "supporting evidence" does your religion provide?

Supporting evidence for what? That Religion and Science/Logic don't have to be mutually exclusive? I should think that to be obvious... we were created "in God's own image". We have been granted an incredible blessing that most of animal kind does not have - the ability to rationalize experiences and better ourselves for them; to be able to think abstractly and use that ability to accomplish incredible feats of research and scientific discovery. We can organize and theorize and hypothesize and test like no other creature on this planet. The simple fact that we can do so should indicate a purpose of some sort. To me, that purpose is to USE those talents to create a better world overall. To learn and to feel and to discover new ways to better ourselves...

Then again, supposedly our eyes were only opened to these abilities once Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit... so, yeah. Take your pick I guess.

OH, and could I have the dictionary definition of a "pseudo-religious concern troll" please? That's a new one to me - quite cute actually.

 

[Cris]

Kittamaru,

Supporting evidence for what? That Religion and Science/Logic don't have to be mutually exclusive?

Religion and science are natural opposites of each other with no point of intersection.

In science, evidence is everything. Science starts by asking questions as a method of discovery, and where any answers are always considered contingent on possible new evidence, and where nothing is ever considered certain or absolutely true.

In religion, faith is everything and faith is belief without evidence. Religion starts by asserting absolute truth (answers) and then attempts to explain everything else in terms of those assertions, even when logically inconsistent.

These two systems are mutually exclusive.

I should think that to be obvious... we were created "in God's own image".

That is not evidence, just unsupported religious assertions.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Kittamaru,

Religion and science are natural opposites of each other with no point of intersection.

In science, evidence is everything. Science starts by asking questions as a method of discovery, and nothing is ever considered certain or absolutely true.

In religion, faith is everything and faith is belief without evidence. Religion starts by asserting absolute truth (answers) and then attempts to explain everything else in terms of those assertions, even when logically inconsistent.

These two systems are mutually exclusive.

That is not evidence, just unsupported religious assertions.

Hello there. I would only add to the first part of what you said the concept of knowledge. Possession of evidence is knowledge and vice versa. That sets it apart from belief, which an extrapolation or interpolation on facts, leading to conjecture. When that conjecture operates outside the logic which allow for it with consistency (ie whien it's more than theory or postulate) and esp when it contradicts the evidence, then we call it superstition. Superstition becomes so extensively built up out of prior conjecture that it's inherently as fragile as a house of cards. On Questioning Dawin the fundies they interviewed were convinced that if Darwin was to be "proved right" it would spell the end of God. Their superstition was that fragile, having built itself out of interpreting myth and legend as historical narrative, so much that they are certain it couldn't withstand any case for evolution without implying that there could be no creation, and if no creation, then no God.

That last part of what you said, that religious claims are just assertions, is equivalent to the standards in court for admissibility of evidence. That is, it's not enough to simply declare a fact to be true. There must be testimony of physical evidence to substantiate a simple declaratory statement.

Overriding all of this is that the entire premise of religion is that some artifice of human culture, which has somehow arrived at a set of seminal legends which give birth to the god, is (to the atheist, anthropologist/historian or theologist) evidence unto itself which proves the nonexistence of the god, that is, it bears physical evidence of the facts held true as a matter of common sense, namely, that it's impossible for the god to exist since it never was more than a piece of fiction to begin with. But for the purists, the epistemologists, that cultural evidence is there in the form of tells, clay tablets, statuary and monuments, steles, and inscriptions of every kind.

Whether relying on common sense or some deep philosophical quest for evidence (that the god is fiction) this leaves only one plausible verdict: God does not exist.

 

[river]

Kittamaru

Supporting evidence for what? That Religion and Science/Logic don't have to be mutually exclusive? I should think that to be obvious... we were created "in God's own image".

The image though that I get , of god , is a dictator and immature ( condemn Humanity because of the actions of Eve ) , one would think that god would KNOWN the weakness of Humanity

Further this god is mean , proof , the flood , the purpose , to wipe out Humanity

I hardly think that I want to be an " image of god " , why would you ?

 

[Syne]

Your own link supports supports my argument. Marx's atheism--or theism--is irrelevant to his beliefs about the institution of religion, which he decried for its reliance on irrational thought. You don't need to be an atheist to think this way.

Educate yourself: http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/atheism.htm

Marx saw the label "atheist" as an anachronistic way to define the value and existence of man, specifically over the notion of a god. Nowhere does he validate that a god in fact exists, which is the definition of a theist, regardless of any distancing from the label atheist. It would be a false dilemma to assume denying one label necessitated espousing the other.

Supporting evidence for what? That Religion and Science/Logic don't have to be mutually exclusive? I should think that to be obvious... we were created "in God's own image". We have been granted an incredible blessing that most of animal kind does not have - the ability to rationalize experiences and better ourselves for them; to be able to think abstractly and use that ability to accomplish incredible feats of research and scientific discovery. We can organize and theorize and hypothesize and test like no other creature on this planet. The simple fact that we can do so should indicate a purpose of some sort. To me, that purpose is to USE those talents to create a better world overall. To learn and to feel and to discover new ways to better ourselves...

Then again, supposedly our eyes were only opened to these abilities once Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit... so, yeah. Take your pick I guess.

OH, and could I have the dictionary definition of a "pseudo-religious concern troll" please? That's a new one to me - quite cute actually.

Many would say that "supplement[ing] religion with...logic" would exclude assuming anyone created "in God's image". At best, it seems you subscribe to Gould's NOMA, in that you do not seem to apply the need for "supporting evidence to make religion a logical belief" to the ontological existence of a god nor its creation of man. Everything you assume about the abilities of man can be logically made without any assumption of a god, which would be the more parsimonious logical conclusion.

So what "supporting evidence" makes religion a "logical belief"? Supporting evidence generally excludes other alternatives or makes one more likely. What evidence do you figure makes religion more likely? Remember, science assumes that no special relationship exists without evidence.


As it pertains to claiming to be religious should be fairly obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll
It just seems that you are either flying a false flag about being religious or about being logical.

 

[Cris]

Aqueous,

Hi.

I see science as the embodiment of human knowledge combined with a verifiable methodology of collection. We have not defined anything superior yet. The religious claims to knowledge, e.g. direct perception, might be valid, but they do not offer or can describe any method of verification. Until they do we as the human race should use the only demonstrably verifiable method for obtaining useful and practical knowledge. To date I am not aware of any religious claims to knowledge that have ever been shown as true. A 100% failure rate does not bode well for religious claims to survive.

That last part of what you said, that religious claims are just assertions, is equivalent to the standards in court for admissibility of evidence. That is, it's not enough to simply declare a fact to be true. There must be testimony of physical evidence to substantiate a simple declaratory statement.

Understood but I did say “unsupported religious assertions”, a qualification that goes to your point.

Overriding all of this is that the entire premise of religion is that some artifice of human culture, which has somehow arrived at a set of seminal legends which give birth to the god, is (to the atheist, anthropologist/historian or theologist) evidence unto itself which proves the nonexistence of the god, that is, it bears physical evidence of the facts held true as a matter of common sense, namely, that it's impossible for the god to exist since it never was more than a piece of fiction to begin with. But for the purists, the epistemologists, that cultural evidence is there in the form of tells, clay tablets, statuary and monuments, steles, and inscriptions of every kind.

I agree that once we can see past all the supposed indirect and speculative evidence we in fact are left with nothing other than human created fantasies. It is not the absence of evidence that is our problem but the perpetual existence of religious memes, cultural conditioning, and continued propaganda that keeps people from seeing their beliefs as empty fantasies. To change those deep seated perceptions cannot occur overnight, the human mind doesn’t work like that, but will take time, decades at least.

Whether relying on common sense or some deep philosophical quest for evidence (that the god is fiction) this leaves only one plausible verdict: God does not exist.

Given the current dominant religions, then yes for sure. But beyond that I cannot foresee, for example, where evolution might take human intelligence in its development over the next countless billions of years. Could we in fact evolve and combine with other intelligent alien species to develop into something godlike? The exact fantasy is unimportant other than an acceptance of not closing my mind to anything.

My approach is more along the lines, not of an atheist perspective, but simply that I do not find any religious claims credible or believable. The assertion of the atheist label tends to evoke entrenched expectations and conditions of what is meant by “atheist”, and that is generally unhelpful in face to face real world discussions.

 

[Syne]

To date I am not aware of any religious claims to knowledge that have ever been shown as true. A 100% failure rate does not bode well for religious claims to survive.

Religious claims tend to be about the immaterial, which is necessarily outside of the domain of the physical sciences.

 

[Magical Realist]

Religious claims tend to be about the immaterial, which is necessarily outside of the domain of the physical sciences.

No they do not. The Bible is filled with claims about God incinerating cities, sending plagues upon evil empires, hailstones the size of boulders, seas parting, the dead being raised, miraculous healings, the sun standing still during a battle, wine turning into water, bread and fish being generated out of thin air, prophets foretelling the future, a flood that covered all the mountains of earth, virgins conceiving, donkeys and snakes talking, angels appearing in the sky, pillars of fire, Jesus walking on the sea, Jesus floating up into the sky, men living inside big fish for 3 days, demon possession, etc. It also claims man and all the animals were instantaneously created out of dust 6000 years ago. That's not beyond the domain of science. It's not even beyond the domain of everyday common sense reality.

 

[Cris]

No they do not. The Bible is filled with claims about God incinerating cities, sending plagues upon evil empires, hailstones the size of boulders, seas parting, the dead being raised, miraculous healings, the sun standing still during a battle, wine turning into water, bread and fish being generated out of thin air, prophets foretelling the future, a flood that covered all the mountains of earth, virgins conceiving, donkeys and snakes talking, angels appearing in the sky, pillars of fire, Jesus walking on the sea, Jesus floating up into the sky, men living inside big fish for 3 days, demon possession, etc. It also claims man and all the animals were instantaneously created out of dust 6000 years ago. That's not beyond the domain of science. It's not even beyond the domain of everyday common sense reality.

All of which requires a supernatural component. Not sure you have any point here.

 

[Magical Realist]

All of which requires a supernatural component. Not sure you have any point here.

Not sure you do either. Was I even posting to you?

 

[Cris]

Religious claims tend to be about the immaterial, which is necessarily outside of the domain of the physical sciences.

All religious claims are about the supernatural, they wouldn't be religious claims otherwise. So of course such claims would be outside the physical sciences. But that assumes there is no other method to knowledge, and we have no right to assume that. The problem is that the religious cannot show that there is any other method than the physical sciences.

 

[Syne]

No they do not. The Bible is filled with claims about God incinerating cities, sending plagues upon evil empires, hailstones the size of boulders, seas parting, the dead being raised, miraculous healings, the sun standing still during a battle, wine turning into water, bread and fish being generated out of thin air, prophets foretelling the future, a flood that covered all the mountains of earth, virgins conceiving, donkeys and snakes talking, angels appearing in the sky, pillars of fire, Jesus walking on the sea, Jesus floating up into the sky, men living inside big fish for 3 days, demon possession, etc. It also claims man and all the animals were instantaneously created out of dust 6000 years ago. That's not beyond the domain of science. It's not even beyond the domain of everyday common sense reality.

Well just as soon as you finish building a time machine you can go and scientifically check the veracity of those claims. Or you can just realize that ancient men wrote the Bible.

 

[Syne]

All religious claims are about the supernatural, they wouldn't be religious claims otherwise. So of course such claims would be outside the physical sciences. But that assumes there is no other method to knowledge, and we have no right to assume that. The problem is that the religious cannot show that there is any other method than the physical sciences.

"Show"? By what means? If things can only be demonstrated physically within the physical world, demonstration may not be reliable in all cases.