Thread: why does someone in full reason..

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That's lazy rebuttal. What am I missing? I work hard to understand stuff. If it's so plain explain it to me. If you poke around and look at my posts, you will see me plainly stating what i do and don't know and admitting, unprompted, when I'm wrong about something. It hasn't happened on this forum yet (I don't think at least), but I have had my mind changed many times. It is that process of admitting that you are wrong and don't know that allows you to be right as often as I (now!) am.

@Invader. That clears it up. The form of reasoning that you are looking for is abductive, I believe. It seems to be a fancy way of saying 'lazy'. I just found it on google. EDIT: Although I still wonder why the assume that it's god that is the answer and not something to do with their behavior. I suppose the quick answer is that its cultural prejudice but I still feel like there is something deeper. Daniel Dennet wrote a book about it that I haven't had a chance to read yet.

If you narrow the definition to only apply to the specific group of people you disagree with (the fraction of judeo-cristianity that believes in a literal genesis) then you are not working very hard to understand the belief in god or religion as a whole. What you are doing is abandoning intellectual integrity in order to appear correct.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you narrow the definition to only apply to the specific group of people you disagree with (the fraction of judeo-cristianity that believes in a literal genesis) then you are not working very hard to understand the belief in god or religion as a whole. What you are doing is abandoning intellectual integrity in order to appear correct.

Now it's you that's putting words in my mouth. I'm not restricting it to abrahamians that stick to a literal interpretation. I'm drawing the line of demarcation on the issue of evolution and "intelligent design". What I am saying is that religion of any sort can effectively contradict science only by spreading ignorance. For example, "there is no evidence that amphibians transitioned into reptiles." That is as close to pure evil as I can think. The holocaust was just a consequence of ignorance. Here we have it at its root.

EDIT: The holocaust was formed by ignorance caused by patriotism (or is it nationalism? I can't really tell the difference) which is the other thing that I consider to be on the same level as fundamentalist religion on the scale of "threat to the survival of our species."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Now it's you that's putting words in my mouth. I'm not restricting it to abrahamians that stick to a literal interpretation. I'm drawing the line of demarcation on the issue of evolution and "intelligent design". What I am saying is that religion of any sort can effectively contradict science only by spreading ignorance. For example, "there is no evidence that amphibians transitioned into reptiles." That is as close to pure evil as I can think. The holocaust was just a consequence of ignorance. Here we have it at its root.

You say that your aren't doing a thing, and then continue to do it. You are building elaborate strawmen. What do you mean "here we have it at its root?" Here is what, the claim that there is no evidence of amphibians transitioning into reptiles? If so, who exactly has made that claim? I still feel as though you are saying that religion as a whole claims that evolution is false, is therefore ignorant and evil, and caused the holocaust. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to make sense of your convoluted and seemingly irrational arguments.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but lets be clear here. The topic asked how a person utilizing full reason can believe in god or hold a religion; I questioned the validity of that question when it is phrased in such a way (including the accompanied rhetoric) as to imply that anyone who does believe in god or have religion is in fact incapable of utilizing full reason, thus negating any response that might be had, and you responded with a long winded post that seems to only be about how religious people must be unintelligent and therefore incapable of utilizing full reason because they believe in creationism; which to me is actually completely irrelevant to the initial question. This leads me to believe that you are narrowing the definition of religion to only apply to creationists who are actually a very small fraction of religious society and those that believe in god.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You say that your aren't doing a thing, and then continue to do it. You are building elaborate strawmen. What do you mean "here we have it at its root?" Here is what, the claim that there is no evidence of amphibians transitioning into reptiles? If so, who exactly has made that claim? I still feel as though you are saying that religion as a whole claims that evolution is false, is therefore ignorant and evil, and caused the holocaust. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to make sense of your convoluted and seemingly irrational arguments.

I edited my claim about the holocaust as you were posting this. There is no strawman here. I might be in the wrong thread but I am clearly demarcating the issue of evolution as the dividing line. I didn't say that religion caused the holocaust at any rate. I said that ignorance caused it. I also said that religion can only refute science by spreading ignorance. I am explicitly equating ignorance with evil. That is the root of all things that we would call evil and religion (that feels it is threatened by science) is one of the major culprits. There might be an appearance of a strawman because intelligent design doesn't refute that amphibians transitioned into reptiles but I have met many people that believe that. I live in the south. Intelligent design does spread lies about "irreducible complexity" and other such nonsense. Is behavior like that really anything other then contemptible? It's not so bad in the northeast and west coast but fundamentalism is living large in the south.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Not to put too fine a point on it, but lets be clear here. The topic asked how a person utilizing full reason can believe in god or hold a religion; I questioned the validity of that question when it is phrased in such a way (including the accompanied rhetoric) as to imply that anyone who does believe in god or have religion is in fact incapable of utilizing full reason, thus negating any response that might be had, and you responded with a long winded post that seems to only be about how religious people must be unintelligent and therefore incapable of utilizing full reason because they believe in creationism; which to me is actually completely irrelevant to the initial question. This leads me to believe that you are narrowing the definition of religion to only apply to creationists who are actually a very small fraction of religious society and those that believe in god.

Point taken. I suppose i am doing so. It's just that if I talk about fundamentalism, people somehow miss the point. And creationists are not so small a majority as you might believe. I've seen figures as high as 90% of americans believing in it but I think thats propaganda. Lets say 40%. That's a huge problem. I am on the wrong thread though, as I said above.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

And creationists are not so small a majority as you might believe. I've seen figures as high as 90% of americans believing in it but I think thats propaganda. Lets say 40%. That's a huge problem. I am on the wrong thread though, as I said above.

This illustrates why I don't think you are really trying to see any other perspective other than your own. If you take your own estimate of who you arguments apply to, 40% of the population of the US (roughly 300 million people) and compare it to the total number of people who have religion (roughly 80% of the about 7 billion people on the planet), you'd see that you are only talking about somewhere in the ballpark of 2% of religious people, and yet you think its not a small minority (or at least I assume that is what you meant to say). At this point I have to go back to my original statement towards Kromoh and say that maybe if you widen your perspective beyond your own and your perception of 2% of the opposition, maybe you would have a better time at reaching understanding.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This illustrates why I don't think you are really trying to see any other perspective other than your own. If you take your own estimate of who you arguments apply to, 40% of the population of the US (roughly 300 million people) and compare it to the total number of people who have religion (roughly 80% of the about 7 billion people on the planet), you'd see that you are only talking about somewhere in the ballpark of 2% of religious people, and yet you think its not a small minority (or at least I assume that is what you meant to say). At this point I have to go back to my original statement towards Kromoh and say that maybe if you widen your perspective beyond your own and your perception of 2% of the opposition, maybe you would have a better time at reaching understanding.

40% of the population believing in evolution and 80% of them religious means that 50% of the religious population believes in creationism or some dressed up variant so I'm not exaggerating it to quite the degree you are painting. We're just playing with numbers though. I didn't count buddhists out for instance. lets say 30%

I also don't view religious people as the 'opposition' so long as they don't spread ignorance or support those that do. I have no beef with those that accept that science talks about shared, objective reality. I just need to work on not conflating religion with "intelligent design" and I'll be fine.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

40% of the population believing in evolution and 80% of them religious means that 50% of the religious population believes in creationism or some dressed up variant so I'm not exaggerating it to quite the degree you are painting. We're just playing with numbers though. I didn't count buddhists out for instance. lets say 30%

I also don't view religious people as the 'opposition' so long as they don't spread ignorance or support those that do. I have no beef with those that accept that science talks about shared, objective reality. I just need to work on not conflating religion with "intelligent design" and I'll be fine.

Well actually, you said 40% of the US, and religious people make up 80% of the global population. 40% of US pop is 120 million, and 80% of world pop is 5.6 Billion. That works out to 2% of all relgious people across the globe.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well actually, you said 40% of the US, and religious people make up 80% of the global population. 40% of US pop is 120 million, and 80% of world pop is 5.6 Billion. That works out to 2% of all relgious people across the globe.

So only people from the US believe in creationism? I'd wager that it's prevalent through much of the middle east, africa and south/central america. I don't know about asia but to the extent that they are christians (the majority now, right?), the may well do so. Do hindus accept evolution? They can be pretty fundamentalist at times. I'd say that anybody who actually believes that somebody can be born with the purpose of cleaning their sewers is a fundamentalist. I don't know what percentage of them still believe that crap but it's still very present in indian culture. At least from what I've read.

Why do reasonable people believe in God? Because "God," "The Tao," "Nirvana" and a host of other names and stories refer to a real aspect of existence that is not subject to explanation, but with which some humans of all cultures reliably come in contact and find compelling--often the most compelling thing in their lives. Why do reasonable people then join, practice or pursue religion(s)? Because having made contact with the eternal, the generative stillness underpinning reality which expresses itself in our hearts as universal love, they seek out a means of maintaining or renewing that contact, and a community in which to share it.

Whether or not you presently believe, belong to or practice a religion, if you don't personally know what people are talking about when they talk about God (or Nirvana, The Tao, etc), you have two options,
A) Don't worry about it
B) Study and contemplate the teachings and follow the practices of your chosen religion

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Why do reasonable people believe in God? Because "God," "The Tao," "Nirvana" and a host of other names and stories refer to a real aspect of existence that is not subject to explanation, but with which some humans of all cultures reliably come in contact and find compelling--often the most compelling thing in their lives. Why do reasonable people then join, practice or pursue religion(s)? Because having made contact with the eternal, the generative stillness underpinning reality which expresses itself in our hearts as universal love, they seek out a means of maintaining or renewing that contact, and a community in which to share it.

This is well and good but it completely disregards the danger that happens when we surrender our power of thought to others as happens in any organized religion. If you have a connection with tao then that is your business and, while you may read the works of the masters, you have no fundamental need for someone to tell you what to think or feel about it because you have that direct connection.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Whether or not you presently believe, belong to or practice a religion, if you don't personally know what people are talking about when they talk about God (or Nirvana, The Tao, etc), you have two options,
A) Don't worry about it
B) Study and contemplate the teachings and follow the practices of your chosen religion

C) ridicule and marginalize the dangerous ones like the superstitious ignorance-mongers they are.

To say that all religion is benign is pretty silly. You strike me as an intelligent fellow. Do you really believe that ignorance is not dangerous and that most organized religions do not depend upon it for their existence? The good religions do not depend on it and are hence not threatened by science. Hence they do not purposefully spread lies and ignorance and are not dangerous. Buddhism, Taoism, Gnosticism; no problem. Southern Baptists and other fundamentalists? That's a big fucking deal. They are dangerous and should be dealt with according to option C.

Originally Posted by Michael

Believing in god or not has nothing to do with how smart you are.

Statistics show otherwise. I'm not just being arrogant.

---

I have yet to meet a benign religion.

Out of curiosity, what's your gripe with buddhism and taoism?

You talking to me?

In any case: Buddhism and taoism are relative. They can be taken as life philosophies, and they can be taken as religions. "Religion" comes from religare, which means uniting the profane with the ideal --in other words, human beings are profane and the main object of the religion is the ideal. To buddhism, all consciousnesses are sacred, while to catholicism, all humans are sinners. I think you get the distinction.

i thought buddhism had nothing to do with gods. and i thought gods = religion.

doesnt that mean that buddhism can't be taken as religion?

Speaking about an afterlife is a philosophical endeavor. You are going to be hard pressed to try and prove or disprove anything related to it. So the idea, that all smart people agree there is no afterlife, is silly at best. There is no practical reason, to say that an afterlife is impossible.

The general concept of religion, is that a person is more than the sum of their parts. That you are not just an animal but you have a conscious and morals and a sense of self. This sense of self, is your soul and it makes you different from the other creatures on earth.

It is obvious than humans are different than animals, in our ability to think and perceive things. So we ask our self, what is it that makes us difference? Some people believe they have a soul, and that is what makes us different.

The obvious flow of this line of thinking, eventually leads you to death, and asking. What happens when I die? Even a person who do not believe in souls, will find them self asking. What happens when I die? It is extremely difficult to perceive what it would be like to no longer exist as if we have never existed, and so people wonder if there is more.

Nothing in this line of thinking, is ignorant or stupid. You might as well say all philosophy is moronic, if you are going to make the claim that no reasonable person would ever consider religion.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Why does someone in full reason believe in God/have a religion? I simply cannot understand it.


-- If you're not gonna propose an answer, simply don't post. I will ignore bashing.

Kromoh!! What is the value of this post!? What growth does this facilitate?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is well and good but it completely disregards the danger that happens when we surrender our power of thought to others as happens in any organized religion. If you have a connection with tao then that is your business and, while you may read the works of the masters, you have no fundamental need for someone to tell you what to think or feel about it because you have that direct connection.



C) ridicule and marginalize the dangerous ones like the superstitious ignorance-mongers they are.

To say that all religion is benign is pretty silly. You strike me as an intelligent fellow. Do you really believe that ignorance is not dangerous and that most organized religions do not depend upon it for their existence? The good religions do not depend on it and are hence not threatened by science. Hence they do not purposefully spread lies and ignorance and are not dangerous. Buddhism, Taoism, Gnosticism; no problem. Southern Baptists and other fundamentalists? That's a big fucking deal. They are dangerous and should be dealt with according to option C.

You are so right you have no need for anyone to tell you what to think or feel!!

All religion is NOT benign. But RELIGION are just PERSPECTIVES of inherent spirituality and religion often times does NOT represent the original teachings and intentions of the masters who taught inherent spirituality and NOT RELIGION.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

Kromoh!! What is the value of this post!? What growth does this facilitate?

Couldn't care less about value, I just asked a question I sincerely want the answer to. I don't abide by a religion and I don't understand what on Earth makes someone do.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You talking to me?

In any case: Buddhism and taoism are relative. They can be taken as life philosophies, and they can be taken as religions. "Religion" comes from religare, which means uniting the profane with the ideal --in other words, human beings are profane and the main object of the religion is the ideal. To buddhism, all consciousnesses are sacred, while to catholicism, all humans are sinners. I think you get the distinction.

Where did you find that definition?

Religare means "to bind fast" in latin. The other etymological roots could be religere, which means "to read again" or religiens which is "careful".

"Religare" translates to "reunite".

Originally Posted by Kromoh

"Religare" translates to "reunite".

No it doesn't. I've studied latin for two years and written papers on the meaning of religion.

Edit: Also, if you don't accept my credentials, you could always just look it up.

Yes it does. Re- means again (as in 'redo', 'resort', 'resolve'), and -ligare means "to tie", "to unite" (as in 'ligature').

Unless you have a whole new theory about the translation that has been accepted for centuries. In that case, do post the abstract of your work.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes it does. Re- means again (as in 'redo', 'resort', 'resolve'), and -ligare means "to tie", "to unite" (as in 'ligature').

Unless you have a whole new theory about the translation that has been accepted for centuries. In that case, do post the abstract of your work.

re- when used in latin doesn't just mean "again". It is also used in an intensive form, so that although literally it is again, it really should be translated as "doubly"; which is where the "fast" (i.e. securely, solidly, etc.) comes from. The reason why this is the most accepted etymology is because "to bind fast" is representative of devotion, which is what religion is most often identified with. One devotes oneself or binds oneself to the practice of religion.

I encourage you to read an article by Jonathan Smith on the subject, entitled "Religion, Religions, Religious". If that source doesn't satisfy you, or if you have trouble finding it, I'm sure I will be able to remember many more if I put a little thought into it.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

All religion is NOT benign. But RELIGION are just PERSPECTIVES of inherent spirituality and religion often times does NOT represent the original teachings and intentions of the masters who taught inherent spirituality and NOT RELIGION.

I totally agree with that. I posted something here about that one time. I said religions are like good radio stations. A lot of stations start out playing nothing but classic rock from the 60's and 70's and advertize themselves as that kind of station. Months later, they are playing Hughey Lewis songs and "Walking on Sunshine" all the time. Religions always go from ideas like, "This is how you can raise your consciousness to awareness of ultimate reality," to things like, "Tap on a tree four times and then walk in a triangle. If you wear yellow clothes in a barn on a Tuesday, you will burn!"