Why We Need Good Religion...

[spidergoat]

I think I've shown that the Tao described in e.g. the Tao Te Ching is very like the view of God in apophatic (mystical) Christianity, and also in neo-Platonist Christianity. It may not be what George Bush believed in... But don't take his beliefs as a well considered theology!

Perhaps. I like to interpret the Gnostic gospels like this, but the fact that this view isn't popular means that it is missing that aspect that makes a personal God so popular. So there is little hope for popularity of this concept.

Science's mechanistic view of Nature is cultural, and an assumption, not self-evident. Some still believe that animals are just biological mechanisms! We vivisect them for 'scientific purposes', which we would never do with e.g. mentally retarded children of similar sentience!

It is a tentative assumption in science (but not an aspect of popular culture). It does fit with observation. There is nothing in biology that doesn't look like a mechanism. The fact that we dissect animals is not due to our perceptions of them as machines, but because we have always eaten them. We also dissect human beings you know. However we seldom kill them for this purpose.

Science is revealing our interdependence with nature, and therefore highlighting our long term self-interest in reducing emissions etc. However, the problem with it's mechanistic assumption is why should we care for a machine, beyond our own self-interests? So of course we don't when personal profit is involved. Doomed planet, alienated humanity.

Your unspoken assumption is that there is something about a mechanism that means we don't have to care about it. I know many people who care more about machines than people! I agree that there is an element of the tragedy of the commons going on. For instance, it's harmful to drive a car, but if giving up your car means your job, you won't do it. It might be good to paint your roof white, but no one will if it costs two house payments and won't have any personal benefit.

The fact that a thought (e.g. 2+2=4) is accompanied by activity in the brain, does NOT make it the same entity as that activity. This is a basic category error.

I disagree. The assumption that thinking is the activity we observe is logical. If the brain is stimulated with electricity in a small area, it evokes a memory or sensation. When we destroy a small area of the brain that is linked to a memory, that memory is lost. That shows a cause and effect relationship.

You may believe thought is supervenient on brain activity, but there are a number of objections and a total lack of bridging laws to connect the two.

I agree there is no complete comprehensive theory of the brain yet, but so far nothing has been revealed that requires any supernatural or non-physical hypothesis.

Well, yes and no! That's a gross misunderstanding of 'mind' in Eastern religion if you think that means mind does not exist whereas 'states of the brain' do! Buddhists have a doctrine of emptiness, (shunyata) of "no self". Nothing exists in its own right. All perceptions are fleeting, impermanent. That also means your 'states of the brain' are a transitory illusion in Buddhism (and Vedanta):

I don't think I'm misunderstanding. The states of the brain are the physical part. The subjective experience of a continuous mind is not. There are only thoughts, no self. When there are no thoughts, there is no self.

However, I'd agree with your second bit. The goal of enlightenment to escape the illusion of duality - maya. That's what I am talking about in my original post with 'cosmic consciousness'. All is One! That can be a non-theistic or a theistic concept, depending on your culture and religion.

My view is that theism is an obstacle to such understanding. If you want everything, give everything up (including God).

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Dog,

i think you will get your wish. it seems to me that what you're suggesting is really similar to what will be the religion of the false prophet and antichrist in the end times.

Sounds scary Lori_7!

they will believe in god....

Maybe it's a case that "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." ...I hope so NMS!

i must say that anyone who thinks a religion is going to solve humanity's problems hasn't been paying attention...at all...not even a little.

Sadly that is too often true Lori. However, we have to ask why?

Religious conflicts happen when religions teach that theirs is the only way, and that other religions and other people are evil! How many people have been burned, tortured and executed throughout history for that prejudice!?

Perhaps there is a better way.... re-connection? Loving our enemies?

 

[spidergoat]

Religions cause evil because they teach that belief in the absence of evidence is a virtue.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Problematic...

First of all, "the world we create for ourselves depends on how we see ourselves and our mutual relationship with each other and nature" has nothing to do with advanced level of technology. Humans were doing this "before" technology was so advanced, as you mentioned:

True, however I am saying that technology gives us much greater power to define our world than was the case for previous generations.

Secondly, religion, due to its definition and characteristics, aims to unite people around irrational things. So you can not establish any "rational religion"; if you could, this would not be called as religion. It can be called ideology, programme, social agreement, this or that, anything but religion. Religion is partly about social harmony and unification; and it is partly about personal imagination on unclear phenomenons (death, will power, creation, etc.)

Religions may rely on other things as well as rationality e.g. faith. However, I see no reason why a religion should not be internally coherent, and consistent with observations of the world made through e.g. science. Many religions already have this.

I sense your good intention, and I am sorry that I could not make a positive contribution.

No problem baftan!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Diog,

While the observation is dubious your conclusion is simply unfounded. The only underlying reality is that the human mind seeks answers and will tend to speculate more than take the more painful route of reasoned investigation. The numerous and vastly varied forms of religion and the nearly 3000 different gods man has imagined give ample testimony that there is no underlying truth since most of these religious ideas contradict each other. Even within the same religions there are major disagreements, just look at the two major factions within Islam, or the protestant and catholic versions of Christianity.

I think religions of the past were most often attempts to form a relationship with some aspect of nature or the environment. I think the relationship with that which appears to be 'outside' of ourselves, IS real, even if it meant a crowd of 'unreal' gods. All gods (including concepts of God) are metaphorical representations anyway. That does not make the unity between subject and object unreal!

Nice idea if you could show how consciousness could exist without a physical brain.

I'm talking of similar embodied "I" consciousness going on not just in your brain, but in my brain and many brains. I'm not talking of OBEs NDEs etc.

 

[Cris]

diog...,

I think the relationship with that which appears to be 'outside' of ourselves, IS real

I don't know what that means. I only perceive myself and I appear to be entirely dependent on my body for continued survival.

I'm talking of similar embodied "I" consciousness going on not just in your brain, but in my brain and many brains.

But these are all seperate entities.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

That is the claim, but having done the xtian and Buddhist thing I find the dissimilarities are at least as telling as the similarities.

The extrinsic forms are very different, the intrinsic content quite similar. All aim at eliminating our sense of ego. They may use different methods and concepts.

I don't think that is supportable in general. Nirvana and heaven in particular are very divergent concepts as they are usually represented. Of course there is a lot of vagueness and variation on both sides there. For example if you go through enough esoterica on either side there is some overlap, like "the cloud of unknowing" or "pureland," but I feel this is attributable more to similarities in humanity than any "goal" and it is debatable if the more extreme esoterica like the cloud of unknowing are really still "christian."

I don't know if you have ever read "The Cloud of Unknowing", swarm? It is very much Christian. The main focus is on love. All else gets left behind (or put under a cloud of forgetting). In this way, drawn by love, through 'unknowing', the anonymous author achieves a similar "emptiness" or negation of ego to the Sunyata of Buddhism, but filled instead with love of the divine.

Likewise many muslims eminently deny that sufism is actually still islam, ditto for jews and the kaballa. If we stick with the generally accepted core beliefs, I would definitely disagree with your claim. If we are discussing esoterica then I feel we need to be far more specific.

Nonetheless, these are the mystical parts of these religious traditions. The core beliefs are similar between all mystical parts of all the traditions. What differs is the external practices of different religions, and the cultural baggage they carry.

Not really. For those who've never encountered it "Via Negativa" is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology
So god is not existent. God is non rational. God is not a sandwich. God is not here.

God is beyond what you or I can imagine or describe. The 'via negativa' is the way to find God through UNKNOWING! That is the same functional method as Sunyata in Buddhism or the void in Taoism or "neti neti" in Vedanta Hinduism.

In the Dao de jing, the void has two levels of functional and existential meaning. [...] On the human level, the void is mental and affective emptiness, the absence of prejudices and partialities dictated by the desire or will to attain a goal.

As you hopefully can see, the same word has very different meanings here.

No, they are two movements of the same process. "On the human level it is mental and affective emptiness" i.e. the absence of action and desire, which is similar to non-attachment in Buddhism, which is similar to "sin" in Christianity. (Sin means only to 'miss' the target i.e. become attached to something other than God.) They are similar concepts.

That underlying reality being that humans aren't really that different from each other.

My point exactly. Religions all describe a similar (if esoteric) human experience.

You realize that consciousness is actually quite rare, happening only in organisms with complex neural nets, consciousness is consciousness and not "soul," and being ubiquitous doesn't mean something has duration after it is lost??? Also, that there is consciousness after my consciousness is lost doesn't mean that my consciousness continues

It's not strictly 'your' consciousness - it's just consciousness! That's my point. Your identity (memories, personality, appearance etc.) IS yours, but I believe it will perish with your body. Your identity and consciousness are only temporarily associated. The one decays, the other lives on in other beings.

I suggest buying a calculator quick!

LOL! But I've got a sentient neural net with a basic adding function!

 

[mike47]

There are lots of people who do not believe in religion but they are nice, honest, law abiding, hard working and with many good qualities . I do not see any necessity for any religion . You do not have to be a philosopher to be a good person and you do not have to be religious to be a nice individual .

 

[NMSquirrel]

ok..so you have a group of ppl who dont believe in religion..they believe in god..they get together to discuss there shared beliefs about god and against religion..they begin to form relationships with each other (imho the point.)

soon they are meeting on a regular basis..through sharing their beliefs they find others to join them..soon other ppl start talking about them and to simplify things they give them a label, so they can talk about them..

that is the start of religion....

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

It is a tentative assumption in science (but not an aspect of popular culture). It does fit with observation. There is nothing in biology that doesn't look like a mechanism. The fact that we dissect animals is not due to our perceptions of them as machines, but because we have always eaten them. We also dissect human beings you know. However we seldom kill them for this purpose.

We only dissect dead humans. With animals we do really horrible things to them alive. If we perceived animals as entities having value in themselves and able to experience pain, would we vivisect them live for research? That is different from killing them humanely to eat.

Your unspoken assumption is that there is something about a mechanism that means we don't have to care about it. I know many people who care more about machines than people!

Because we see matter as indifferent to us, yet our own existence is very much of concern to us, we are naturally going to feel alienated from an indifferent universe, with which we cannot communicate (only use). Primative tribes who see the world in a personified form, (i.e. as a deity), will not have that feeling of alienation we have, because they have some relationship, as with a person. My own take on it is that we can see our lives as having purpose, that our destiny includes what happens to us, i.e. our interaction with the material world.

I agree there is no complete comprehensive theory of the brain yet, but so far nothing has been revealed that requires any supernatural or non-physical hypothesis.

No, though physicalism has run into problems explaining consciousness. I think a solution may come from left field e.g. Process Philosophy.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding. The states of the brain are the physical part. The subjective experience of a continuous mind is not. There are only thoughts, no self. When there are no thoughts, there is no self.

So, can 'states of the brian' exist when no-one is there to experience them? I think when there is no thought, there is no universe either.

My view is that theism is an obstacle to such understanding. If you want everything, give everything up (including God). Or... give everything up except God!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

ok..so you have a group of ppl who dont believe in religion..they believe in god..they get together to discuss there shared beliefs about god and against religion..they begin to form relationships with each other (imho the point.)

soon they are meeting on a regular basis..through sharing their beliefs they find others to join them..soon other ppl start talking about them and to simplify things they give them a label, so they can talk about them..

that is the start of religion....

I like your thinking Squirrel! ...and your sig: "God is not inside the box".

 

[Sarkus]

ok..so you have a group of ppl who dont believe in religion..they believe in god..they get together to discuss there shared beliefs about god and against religion..they begin to form relationships with each other (imho the point.)

soon they are meeting on a regular basis..through sharing their beliefs they find others to join them..soon other ppl start talking about them and to simplify things they give them a label, so they can talk about them..

that is the start of religion....

Yet adequately describes football fans, gathering to watch a football match (their "God") - making friends, discussing it, and undoubtedly forming relationships through it. They meet regularly and find others to join them - and others start talking about them and give them a label: "fans". A religion??

Same with any society based around a core theme.
Or even, you could argue, any forum on the internet such as this.

But surely you're not saying that these are religions?

So what differentiates such a mere society/gathering from a religion?
Is it merely the core theme of the gathering - i.e. God rather than wine for a wine-society?

 

[yasmin]

To sarkus:
good point!
I think this tendency to gather in groups with a common trait?, thought? culture? et c is a basic tendency we have and is part of our gregarious human nature.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Yet adequately describes football fans, gathering to watch a football match (their "God") - making friends, discussing it, and undoubtedly forming relationships through it. They meet regularly and find others to join them - and others start talking about them and give them a label: "fans". A religion??

LOL..I know of many Football fans that would argue that football is their religion..

Same with any society based around a core theme.
Or even, you could argue, any forum on the internet such as this.

But surely you're not saying that these are religions?

well..i wouldnt, but then again it would depend on how you define religion

So what differentiates such a mere society/gathering from a religion?
Is it merely the core theme of the gathering - i.e. God rather than wine for a wine-society?

so is religion defined by what/who you are worshiping?


but i see your point...do you see mine?

 

[Lori_7]

Perhaps there is a better way.... re-connection? Loving our enemies?

redemption, rebirth, and communion with each other and god?

 

[jayleew]

Glad to see other people are thinking similar things. I was going to create a topic, but this one will do.

Reason for religion?

The road to enlightenment is long. I wonder if it ever ends. I've discussed reasonings for religion months back, and I'd like to revist the topic, but instead go in a new direction. In my quest for the truth, it is clear to me now that science, in essence, is about discovery, observation, and deductions of probability. In science, there are no absolutes. We are left with an educated guess based on fact-finding experimentation and study. It is about removing improbabilities from the equation, so all that is left is the probability. With science's findings, we can make a respectable argument that there is no god. Or, we can try to contest the thesis or the methods used to arrive at the conclusion, with philosophy.

One thing for sure is that we all have our own perceptions of what the truth is, and there cannot be an end to the question of the existence of a god without the manifestation of it. Because perceived truth is not consistent, thoughtlessly abandoning one's position is most times just that...thoughtless. What I mean is it takes an infinite amount of time to arrive at the truth, so it doesn't make sense to hastily change one's viewpoint.

-Background Tangent-
For the past couple years, i've leaned heavily on my rational mind and grew into atheism. Through experiences unrelated to religion, I found that it is not healthy to attempt to be anything resembling a Vulcan. What I thought was a strength and an improvement was just that (coming from being a Christian), but at the same time, in the extreme it was also just as damaging as a mind without sound rationality supporting belief. We humans need a healthy balance rationality and emotionality to reach our full potential in wisdom.
-End Background Tangent-

For the life of me I can't find the author, but I read a sign that said, "The more we use our intellect to learn about life, the less we understand about life." After getting a little defensive at the shtick, it grew on me because I've been wondering what all this debate is worth. Is it worth the fight to bring people out of blind faith? Yes, I think so. But, I am wondering if what we are left with after everyone is not believing in anything that isn't proven, is worth the battle?

Science concludes that in all likelihood, there probably is no god. Is that enough to take to the bank? I think it's a safe bet. Does it matter if there is a god? Only to theists. Up until now, I haven't questioned the worth of this position that there is no god, but given that the truth is indefinite in my lifetime I am beginning to waver once again, and I wonder if others feel the same way.

From my perspective, I'm not interested in an agenda. I want the truth. But, in all honesty, I don't think I'm going to get that in my lifetime. So, embrace Pascal's wager? I don't think so, the evidence is convincing enough that the wager is irrelevant if there is no god. If there were perhaps some evidence of god, maybe then Pascal's wager would be relevant. I refuse to believe in something without a solid reason. But, is that my downfall? I'm not going to get a reason to believe in god. So, I should abandon religion forever? Is it worth it to believe in the insignificant chance of a creator?

It just seems that religion offers a rich outlook on life that I appreciate, but I just don't appreciate all the crappy fundamentalists that have an agenda and are ignorant or uneducated and spout off regulations and interpretations that are definite truths to them.

Is there a perfectly rational reason (aside from mental defeciency, emotional defeciency, or monetary gain) to have religion? Can someone believe in a creator, but yet recognize the absurdity of entertaining the idea? Is there a reason? Is that sane?

My idea of a religion that I would welcome is one that free thought, exploration, doubt, and belief are all encouraged. It would be a religion that is appologetic to science or other teachings (within reason), but yet with the teachings of the ideas of justice and honor in its roots. The single goal would be to bring people together in love and seek the truth of life's origins without any agenda to prove it either way, because many are stronger than one.

The problem I have with good 'ol Christianity is that the Bible gives no allowance in the end. It requires that you reach an unwavering decision to believe in god in order to benefit from its grace. I just don't see how that will be possible without divine intervention. So given my state of mind, what is the value of not believing in god, and what is the value of believing in god aside from current religious dogma or scriptural offerings of blessings?

This question goes back to the tangent, which has affected my viewpoint, which is my thesis: that human beings require a balance of rationality and spirit (ie emotion and intuition). It isn't healthy from a mental standpoint to rely solely on rationality, and I had to have 15 weeks of therapy to be convinced of this.

Maybe that is why religion exists, the reason for it: It serves many types of clients in different ways. It serves the introvert and extrovert in synergic fashion. Where we get into trouble is with the Bible thumpers who can't see anything past the scripture, who believe that everything is explained in scripture and there is no need for anything else. Who has the truth? You? Me? Jesus? Buddah? They all claim they have it, but only one can be correct...right? Maybe none have it. Or, maybe the scriptures have distorted the truth over generations and can't be trusted without testing.

I'm back in church now, but not in worship service. It pains me be in the midst of it and to know that not everyone, or perhaps no one has the truth and is singing praise to no one. I won't do it unless I mean it.

I'm attending an open forum styled Sunday school trying to find if anyone has a part of the truth. It cracks me up though that they assume that I am a believer just because I've been educated in scripture. I've only been going now for a few weeks, so I haven't had a chance to connect yet. But, honestly, it is helping me find good answers to the Christian truth (the one eluded to in the Bible). I am encouraged to find that there appears to be strong thinkers in the Christian community afterall. One of these may have a clue for me.

 

[NMSquirrel]

My idea of a religion that I would welcome is one that free thought, exploration, doubt, and belief are all encouraged. It would be a religion that is appologetic to science or other teachings (within reason), but yet with the teachings of the ideas of justice and honor in its roots.

sounds like an agenda

The single goal would be to bring people together in love and seek the truth of life's origins without any agenda to prove it either way, because many are stronger than one.

This is Ideal!

that human beings require a balance of rationality and spirit (ie emotion and intuition).

um..uh..imho its mind/heart/body/soul....mentaly/emotionaly/physicaly/spiritually....but that is another can of worms....

They all claim they have it, but only one can be correct...right? Maybe none have it. Or, maybe the scriptures have distorted the truth over generations and can't be trusted without testing.

i believe they all have a clue..but until we can get past the worthyness issues
we will never begin to see a whole picture

I'm attending an open forum styled Sunday school trying to find if anyone has a part of the truth.

online?where?

One of these may have a clue for me.

works both ways..

i say do not take any ONE mans opinion as truth..test all things,hold onto what is good..

 

[Grim_Reaper]

From what I have experienced seen and participated in over my 42 years of life thus far. All I see religion doing is creating more tension in the world then it releaves the only reson that there are religions is to comfort the friends and relatives of dying pepole and of course the dying themselves. Some people cannot come to terms with there is nothing after dying just darkness and the smell of decay if the body is not enbalmed right away. Some people need something to look orward too and have a safe felling that they will live on after they are dead. Well news flash dead people are dead there is no life after death. So with that said there is no need for a religion of any kind in fact what religion should be replaced with and this is my thoughts only are a set of very strict rules. If the said ruleset was adhered too there would be less problems in the world perhaps but not likely. There are no "good" religions and there never will be it will all ways be a pissing match between one sect of cult members against the other. OOPPs did I say cult I meant religion.

 

[NMSquirrel]

From what I have experienced seen and participated in over my 42 years of life thus far. All I see religion doing is creating more tension in the world then it releaves the only reson that there are religions is to comfort the friends and relatives of dying pepole and of course the dying themselves. Some people cannot come to terms with there is nothing after dying just darkness and the smell of decay if the body is not enbalmed right away. Some people need something to look orward too and have a safe felling that they will live on after they are dead. Well news flash dead people are dead there is no life after death. So with that said there is no need for a religion of any kind in fact what religion should be replaced with and this is my thoughts only are a set of very strict rules. If the said ruleset was adhered too there would be less problems in the world perhaps but not likely. There are no "good" religions and there never will be it will all ways be a pissing match between one sect of cult members against the other. OOPPs did I say cult I meant religion.

i agree with most all this, just because you used the word religion..instead of god..religion is man made and therefor prone to mans own mistakes

what i dont agree with is your certainty that nothing exist after death..(did you die and experiance it?)
what if you lived like there was no god and when you died you found out there was...what would you loose?
what if you lived like there was a god and you died and it was nonexistence what would you loose?..(your dead..you cant regret....)

as far as a set of rules...we dont need any more laws! they already have too many laws telling us what to do and where to spend our money..
any law that man has made..man has broke..

 

[yasmin]

@jayleew
I like your line of thought! Interesting points.