Why do you believe in YOUR religion

[path_of_one]

for this you would only receive my undying gratitude.

Aw, I will feel so loved and appreciated.

So I think you should commence work on an online book; I'm sure you've got the time.

I may be teaming up with another anthropologist on a book; it's in the works but it's sharing burners with the ethnography I'm trying to write and a couple others. There really is a desperate need for a good discussion of religion, magic, and science though. Poor definitions of all three abound, leading to lots of misunderstanding.

 

[cyberpi]

That is meant to have meaning?

Yes. You claim that the products came from science, but you did not design and make the products. The individuals who designed and made the products may have a different understanding of what it took to design and make the products. Maybe they were religionists <gasp>. Whereas the skill sets required to purchase and use a product do not include the scientific experiment or knowledge that went into making it. It does however require a relationship with someone.

Similarly a person could say that religion reveals truths simply because they receive things from the members of that religion... rather than from having learned any truths from the religion themselves.

Dont be ridiculous Cyberpi. If any of these people or any of the churches they belong to could prove they worked they would be front page news. That you fall back to such a position and challenge is nothing but desperation. Are you and Netti related by any chance?

Well as an engineer I find your scientific method flawed. You assert data where you haven't collected it. If you tout science or scientific methods then I would expect you to live and behave with science and scientific methods. Alternatively I recognize it is hypocricy when a person claims a virtue but doesn't themselves practice it.

 

[path_of_one]

I think what I find fascinating is that atheists (whether also scientists or not) find it uncomfortable that there are many scientists and engineers that have a religion or consider themselves spiritual or are theists.

I haven't seen much in the way of real science attacking theism. I see a lot of people uncomfortable with theism and using science as the oppositional category, which is in fact unsubstantiated by data/evidence. Which makes their position just as counter-evidential as the positions they claim to oppose.

The theists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God exists.

The atheists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God doesn't exist.

Both claim that their experiences are the accurate ones, and the others are delusional or limited.

Am I the only person who finds this amusing? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Everyone bickers about the details, and yet the spectre of common human cognition and behavior looms before us all...

 

[Snoopy]

Am I the only person who finds this amusing?

No.

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

The theists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God exists.

The atheists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God doesn't exist.

Atheists use logical argumentation to support their contentions. Interestingly, they adduce evidence that has questionable value with respect to their arguments. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding lots of analyses showing that atheists' arguments are logically unsound in terms of both the validity of the premises and the logical leaps that atheists make to get to their conclusion. I've even presented a few here and there on this forum. You'll find accessible analyses along these lines in book reviews of some of the more popular recent restatements of the old atheist arguments, some of which have actually been best sellers of late.


One of the oldest (as in hundreds of years old) formal logical arguments against the existence of G-d is known as the "Argument from Evil." There are four variations of it:

1)the argument from imperfection ​

2) the argument from natural evil ​

3) the argument from moral evil ​

4) and the argument from unbelief​

Each of the four arguments from evil begins with the claim that if God existed then the world would reach a certain standard. The standard anticipated differs between the different forms of the argument, each argument claiming that the evil named in its title—imperfection, natural evil, moral evil and unbelief respectively—would not exist in a world created and sustained by God.​

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=52


Religionists also have logical arguments that presumably prove the existence. The main difference between the atheists and religionists is that atheists are totally dependent on logical argument because they haven't had an experience of G-d or any other experience that leads them to believe.

You can't very well argue from nonexperience because it does not necessarily reflect on the potential object of the nonexperience (e.g., G-d). That is, you can't say G-d does not exist just because you've had no experience of Him or because you choose to believe others who report not experiencing G-d.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Everyone bickers about the details, and yet the spectre of common human cognition and behavior looms before us all...

I think the religionist and atheists are miles apart in terms of world view, ethical framework, and cognitive style. These people are basically living in totally different worlds.

 

[wil]

Atheists use logical argumentation to support their contentions. Interestingly, they adduce evidence that has questionable value with respect to their arguments.

I think the religionist and atheists are miles apart in terms of world view, ethical framework, and cognitive style.

Now words are so interesting. What is the diffence between a religionist and an atheist? Are they opposite? Is there a diffence between a religionist and a theist? Is there an anti-religionist an atheist?

And why are atheists so dogmatic? Why do the atheists think every word of the bible must be inerrant in order to believe in it as a worthwhile book?

 

[path_of_one]

You can't very well argue from nonexperience because it does not necessarily reflect on the potential object of the nonexperience (e.g., G-d). That is, you can't say G-d does not exist just because you've had no experience of Him or because you choose to believe others who report not experiencing G-d.

Yet this is precisely the argument that many atheists present. They have not experienced God, and they believe their own experience more valid than that of others who disagree with them. So they say there is no God.

I agree that it is a lousy argument, but it is an argument I've run across time and again.

And I also agree that the "logical" arguments are faulty. Lots of good book reviews on Dawkins point this out.

 

[Snoopy]

I may be teaming up with another anthropologist on a book

Ha! Proof there is a God!

I sensed something bookish, I could feel it in my kyôsaku!

s.

 

[Dawud]

I challenge you to make a list of even 5 provable religious 'hits'.


tao

Baha'u'llah made historical prophecies that were subsequently fulfilled:

1. The Fall of Napoleon III
2. The Defeat of Germany (twice)
3. The Success of Queen Victoria
4. Sultan and Minister of Turkey warned
5. Breakup of the Ottoman Empire
6. Downfall of the Persian Monarch
7. Constitutional Government for Persia
8. Massive decline in World Monarchy
9. End of Caliphate
10. Communism, its Rise and Fall
11. Rise of Israel as Jewish Homeland
12. Jewish Persecution
13. America's Racial Struggles
14. Baha'u'llah's Release from Prison
15. Destruction of Baha'u'llah's House

 

[17th Angel]

Are they like "zomgz look at the precise detail!!"

Or are they like "Oh that is so nostradamus..."

?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

So, let's see...arguing for religion we have Path and SG, both non-joiners who have eschewed organized religion, Wil who is UU (the closest thing to an organized non-religion, and Netti and Cyberpi who won't say what their religious affiliation is. Interesting.

Chris

 

[path_of_one]

So, let's see...arguing for religion we have Path and SG, both non-joiners who have eschewed organized religion, Wil who is UU (the closest thing to an organized non-religion, and Netti and Cyberpi who won't say what their religious affiliation is. Interesting.

Chris

Go figure. LOL

Actually, I am not arguing "for" religion, as in "we all need religion." What I am arguing for is seeing religion for what it is- advantages, disadvantages, stuff that is an awful lot like other aspects of culture. Religion is, like government and science and all other sorts of social organizations, an imperfect way to get some folks together in a community of some sort of practice. I suppose I see it as potentially (and in reality) sometimes useful and sometimes not. Like any social organization, it depends on the intent of the people participating.

ETA: I'm not a non-joiner because I'm against organized spiritual practice. I'm a non-joiner (at the moment) because I can't seem to find a community of practice that is authentic enough not to cause me dissonance. I'd *love* to find a church or any sort of community that did the basic work of Christ- that followed the teachings and from which I could be refreshed and learn and grow with a community. I do think communal spirituality is ideal. I just can't find one. I give it a go, but in the end, if a community is not practicing the teachings of Christ, then what is the point of my being there? Perfection isn't needed, but genuine intent in some sort of critical mass seems to me to be necessary. It's not all about me- I'd be happy to serve, but if my service is incongruent and not wanted, then what?

*** Back to the regular programming... ***

What I am arguing for is God. Why? Because I experience God. So, I find it logical to argue that my experience is as valid as anyone else's.

Atheism is not just anti-religious, it is anti-theist and frequently anti-spirit. There's the issue for me- it is not rallying against just a social organization, but against individuals' experiences. Atheists claim that others' experiences are invalid, and their own are not. Which seems narrow-minded and short-sighted to me.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Atheism is not just anti-religious, it is anti-theist and frequently anti-spirit. There's the issue for me- it is not rallying against just a social organization, but against individuals' experiences. Atheists claim that others' experiences are invalid, and their own are not. Which seems narrow-minded and short-sighted to me.

That's why I'm not an atheist. At least not with a big A. I just think that the language of religion about God is so tainted with emotional neediness, social control structures, idolatry and outright superstition, and anthropomorphic constructs that it's unusable as a vehicle. I believe in what you would call God. But what I believe in is an impersonal force which resides beyond the limits of our imaginings, beyond the Ain Soph. I experience it. I participate with it. I don't think it works out well with the mechanics of religion as it doesn't require devotion or promise an after life. It may be a state of being, but it is not a being in the sense of residing in a particular locale. It doesn't punish evil. It doesn't desire. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't reward good. It is not a Thing. It is a metaphysical mega-concept.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I need to qualify what I mean by "language of religion." I'll have to think about that.

Chris

 

[wil]

... language of religion about God is so tainted with emotional neediness, social control structures, idolatry and outright superstition, and anthropomorphic constructs that it's unusable as a vehicle. I believe in what you would call God. But what I believe in is an impersonal force which resides beyond the limits of our imaginings, beyond the Ain Soph. I experience it. I participate with it. I don't think it works out well with the mechanics of religion as it doesn't require devotion or promise an after life. It may be a state of being, but it is not a being in the sense of residing in a particular locale. It doesn't punish evil. It doesn't desire. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't reward good. It is not a Thing. It is a metaphysical mega-concept.

Chris

You know I can agree just about completely with all of that except for what I've put at the beginning. I feel I was right there, but have found that that understanding and I can fit within the bounds of religion, just not within the bounds of what many have as their version of Christianity...fortunately I am not alone and their are millions who agree just took me forty years to find them.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Thanks for that Wil!

For me there isn't any conflict between my conception of what others call God and science. I see "belief" as an active process of exploration beyond the safety net. I recognize that the same things that I dislike about religion also exist in other intellectual and emotional arenas. I don't invest blind belief in science any more than I would in religion. I have to say, though, that I don't see science, as a whole, demonizing religion. What I see is religion, Christianity specifically, trying to diminish science in order to equate it with "bible based" pseudo science as if the two shared equal intellectual footing. In that sense "belief" becomes a process of swallowing what one is told rather than a willingness to step off into the unknown. It's not just a matter of logical versus illogical thinking. It's a matter of intellectual honesty versus intellectual laziness.

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

Thanks for that Wil!

For me there isn't any conflict between my conception of what others call God and science. I see "belief" as an active process of exploration beyond the safety net. I recognize that the same things that I dislike about religion also exist in other intellectual and emotional arenas. I don't invest blind belief in science any more than I would in religion. I have to say, though, that I don't see science, as a whole, demonizing religion. What I see is religion, Christianity specifically, trying to diminish science in order to equate it with "bible based" pseudo science as if the two shared equal intellectual footing. In that sense "belief" becomes a process of swallowing what one is told rather than a willingness to step off into the unknown. It's not just a matter of logical versus illogical thinking. It's a matter of intellectual honesty versus intellectual laziness.

Chris

The questions would then be: can science study the universe as a possible work of art? If it is possible, does science have the guts to do so?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

The questions would then be: can science study the universe as a possible work of art? If it is possible, does science have the guts to do so?

Well, beyond science there are all of the arts, liberal and otherwise, which are secular endeavors. I'm sure you've seen some of the spectacular photos from the Hubbel telescope.

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

Well, beyond science there are all of the arts, liberal and otherwise, which are secular endeavors.

Not necessarily all. (See below.)

I'm sure you've seen some of the spectacular photos from the Hubbel telescope.

Chris

Of course.
How can you discern between the 'inkblot effect' from what we see in nature, and what might actually be there by design. We would have to examine our mind, which is not only within the realm of psychology, but has been within the realm of relgion for a much longer time.

 

[path_of_one]

That's why I'm not an atheist. At least not with a big A. I just think that the language of religion about God is so tainted with emotional neediness, social control structures, idolatry and outright superstition, and anthropomorphic constructs that it's unusable as a vehicle.

Yet somehow it still serves as a vehicle for some of the most loving, compassionate, and effective people we have on earth-- Mother Theresa, MLK Jr., etc.

I think its useable, but flawed. Pretty much like everything else humans come up with.

But I do believe that those that seek, find. Those that knock, are answered. It is our intent that leads us to spiritual growth, no matter what our religious limitations may be.

I believe in what you would call God. But what I believe in is an impersonal force which resides beyond the limits of our imaginings, beyond the Ain Soph. I experience it. I participate with it. I don't think it works out well with the mechanics of religion as it doesn't require devotion or promise an after life. It may be a state of being, but it is not a being in the sense of residing in a particular locale. It doesn't punish evil. It doesn't desire. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't reward good. It is not a Thing. It is a metaphysical mega-concept.

Chris

I would say I don't see God as a Thing either. More like a Process and a Force. But I don't see God quite as... sterile (?) as you seem to. I would say that God has, perhaps, not Person-hood, but rather Being-ness. Eh, it's hard to describe what I'm getting at.