|
A Crusade vs. Blind-Faith
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Seventil |
This is mainly directed toward Arbiter, but I'm sure Opus and occrider will be here soon as well!
Arbiter, I am curious about your idea to abolish (right word?) blind-faith. We were speaking about it earlier. I understand your point of view, although I don't agree with you - but I was hoping you could shed some light on your thought process.
I agree that religion has a shakey past - things have been done in the name of religion myself and mostly everyone is not proud of. That aside -
Do you honestly think society would be healthy without blind-faith - without religion?
Next question - let's pretend yourself and fellow crusaders succeed and religion is but a thing of the past, in say, 100 years. How would this affect the basic moral and ethical principles that we've lived by for quite a while? Do you use the established morals (from the Bible and whatnot) - or do you get rid of those as well?
On the subject of morals and ethics - you said earlier that you would not "murder" or "steal" because your ego would not let you - that doing so would show you are weaker than the person because you cannot get something by normal means, or your willpower faltered and you lost control.
My argument for that - in a case where a person is raised outside of society, alone (like the Jungle Book, heh) - does that person have a natural instinct to kill? (besides for food) Do you believe that there is no "moral compass" that human beings are born with - that our morals are given to us by our parents, and decided soley on interaction of other people, etc?
We'll go from there. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| All religion or non religion is based on faith because you are basically believing what you don't see. My viewpoint is that people will always believe in something, religion or not, so if you get rid of it, you are getting rid of people's right to decide what they believe. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by D.Edge
for future generations, past religions being phased out would make no difference whatsoever. the people will still have their right to decide what they believe. but these religions that once were simply become myths and legends (if they aren't already myths).
but maybe you would have to analyse how religion would be phased out. by means of oppression or conversion? in any case, there will always be a hardcore following that seeks to continue their beliefs/traditions. Wiccans still exist despite oppression from the church. Tribal religions still continue despite the missionaries. |
I agree. I see the future of Christianity as that - outlawed or anti-"human" sects that are considered extremist. Maybe I've read too many 1984-like books or something - it just seems that the way the current world is going, religion will be one more thing we will reminisce about. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
This is mainly directed toward Arbiter, but I'm sure Opus and occrider will be here soon as well!
Arbiter, I am curious about your idea to abolish (right word?) blind-faith. We were speaking about it earlier. I understand your point of view, although I don't agree with you - but I was hoping you could shed some light on your thought process.
|
I don't know what Arbiter's solution is, but mine would be education ;)
| quote: |
Do you honestly think society would be healthy without blind-faith - without religion?
|
Why not? Do you think society is incapable of being healthy without blind-faith? France is probably one of the most secular nations on the planet. I don't see any deterioration in their moral compass ... no more than any other country at least.
| quote: |
Next question - let's pretend yourself and fellow crusaders succeed and religion is but a thing of the past, in say, 100 years. How would this affect the basic moral and ethical principles that we've lived by for quite a while? Do you use the established morals (from the Bible and whatnot) - or do you get rid of those as well?
|
My goal wouldn't be the elimination of religion ... it would be the elimination of fundamentalists. But even if all religion were eliminated I see no reason why this would affect moral or ethical principles. Adopting religion does not necessarily grant an individual with greater moral fiber than an aetheist. Nor does it excuse the religious individual from amoral behaviour as we've come to know all too well. A greater determinant of morality and ethics is, in my opinion, education.
| quote: |
On the subject of morals and ethics - you said earlier that you would not "murder" or "steal" because your ego would not let you - that doing so would show you are weaker than the person because you cannot get something by normal means, or your willpower faltered and you lost control.
My argument for that - in a case where a person is raised outside of society, alone (like the Jungle Book, heh) - does that person have a natural instinct to kill? (besides for food) Do you believe that there is no "moral compass" that human beings are born with - that our morals are given to us by our parents, and decided soley on interaction of other people, etc?
We'll go from there. |
My belief is that humans are intrinsically social creatures. Biologically we strive companionship and social interaction in the avoidance of isolation. As such, much of our individuality is ascribed by and validated by and with others. Therefore we establish and maintain a basic set of co-operative, reciprocal relationships with friends and associates many of whom in one way or another may be rivals also. From this stems a moral code of ethics that guide these relationship types. Similar types of complex social structures and behaviour can be observed in the animal kingdom. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by D.Edge
for future generations, past religions being phased out would make no difference whatsoever. the people will still have their right to decide what they believe. but these religions that once were simply become myths and legends (if they aren't already myths).
but maybe you would have to analyse how religion would be phased out. by means of oppression or conversion? in any case, there will always be a hardcore following that seeks to continue their beliefs/traditions. Wiccans still exist despite oppression from the church. Tribal religions still continue despite the missionaries. |
nice post but you are assuming too many things.
1)You are assuming that all religions are myths, there must be the real truth out there somewhere? but how would you know they are myths?
Are you the judge? who made you the judge?
2)You are assuming that all religions try to convert based on that. Yes some have tried that in the past and given bad names for their religions. The real Christian will share his or her faith, but they won't push you on it, the choice is yours to make but all religions don't attempt to convert you. Most people live by example and then let you ask them questions.
3)You assume there is one church, I'm Christian, yet we don't believe in the authority of the Pope or the Catholic Church. I assumed you meant the Catholic church, see you assume too much, all religions are not the same and even if some of one faith do one thing, that does not mean that all faiths are like that. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
I'll get right to the point.
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Do you honestly think society would be healthy without blind-faith - without religion? |
Yes, I do. The only use for blind faith in society would be to control a large mass of uneducated people: in modern society, education has reached a point where this is no longer necessary or useful. As a means by which to come to a decision, blind faith is no better than random selection (in fact it has a great deal of inherent similarity). I would prefer people come to decisions based upon available evidence, sound reasoning, and a commitment to a respect for individuality rather than blind faith.
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Next question - let's pretend yourself and fellow crusaders succeed and religion is but a thing of the past, in say, 100 years. How would this affect the basic moral and ethical principles that we've lived by for quite a while? Do you use the established morals (from the Bible and whatnot) - or do you get rid of those as well? |
I don't think morality would change much. Christianity didn't invent many new morals - it primarily just codified existing moral values which had arisen due to the social interaction of human beings.
| quote: | [QUOTE]Originally posted by Seventil
On the subject of morals and ethics - you said earlier that you would not "murder" or "steal" because your ego would not let you - that doing so would show you are weaker than the person because you cannot get something by normal means, or your willpower faltered and you lost control.
My argument for that - in a case where a person is raised outside of society, alone (like the Jungle Book, heh) - does that person have a natural instinct to kill? (besides for food) Do you believe that there is no "moral compass" that human beings are born with - that our morals are given to us by our parents, and decided soley on interaction of other people, etc? |
I do not believe there is a "moral compass" per se that human beings are born with. I do believe that human beings are born with the ability to empathize and may naturally apply principles such as the golden rule without ever being formally introduced to them. However, the majority of morals are probably assimilated from the surrounding community during early developmental stages of children: this hypothesis is supported by the majority of psychological and anthropological research. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'll get right to the point.
Yes, I do. The only use for blind faith in society would be to control a large mass of uneducated people: in modern society, education has reached a point where this is no longer necessary or useful. As a means by which to come to a decision, blind faith is no better than random selection (in fact it has a great deal of inherent similarity). I would prefer people come to decisions based upon available evidence, sound reasoning, and a commitment to a respect for individuality rather than blind faith.
|
Interesting.
I'm assuming you've never had a "supernatural" experience? Do you explain them by emotional overreactions, mental disorders, etc?
What do you think of people like myself, who have came to a decision based upon available evidence, sound reasoning, and a commitment to a respect for individuality? (That decision is believing in God, if you didn't know) - ;)
| quote: |
I don't think morality would change much. Christianity didn't invent many new morals - it primarily just codified existing moral values which had arisen due to the social interaction of human beings.
|
Why invent religion in the first place then? According to you, from a scientific, economic and social standpoint - no religion (or blind-faith), if you will, is better overall.
| quote: |
I do not believe there is a "moral compass" per se that human beings are born with. I do believe that human beings are born with the ability to empathize and may naturally apply principles such as the golden rule without ever being formally introduced to them. However, the majority of morals are probably assimilated from the surrounding community during early developmental stages of children: this hypothesis is supported by the majority of psychological and anthropological research. |
Ok, I respect your opinion on this. Do you believe morals are inherited genetically then?
On a somewhat related topic: what are your thoughts on abiogenesis? (we can discuss this in the Creation vs. Evolution thread if needbe) |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Interesting.
I'm assuming you've never had a "supernatural" experience? Do you explain them by emotional overreactions, mental disorders, etc? |
I've never had an experience which I could justify classifying as "supernatural." While I can't deny there have been experiences in my life that I cannot fully explain with my knowledge of the natural world, it seems to me a more reasonable explanation that such events are the result of natural phenomena which are yet unexplained or about which I am insufficiently educated than that those experiences can be attributed to something wholly outside of the natural order.
| quote: |
What do you think of people like myself, who have came to a decision based upon available evidence, sound reasoning, and a commitment to a respect for individuality? (That decision is believing in God, if you didn't know) - ;) |
I think your reasoning is unsound naturally. :)
| quote: |
Why invent religion in the first place then? According to you, from a scientific, economic and social standpoint - no religion (or blind-faith), if you will, is better overall. |
The earliest religions most likely evolved out of a series of fables invented by primitive storytelling societies to explain natural phenomena. Later, ritual and faith were used as tools by the wealthy and educated class to control the lower classes with a minimal commitment of resources. Only in modern society is religion purposeless, but due to its addictive nature it has been slow to fade in popular acceptance.
| quote: |
Ok, I respect your opinion on this. Do you believe morals are inherited genetically then? |
I don't believe that morals themselves are inherited genetically, but in humans various instincts and other genetic attributes function in a nearly identical fashion. So in a practical sense I would agree that some kinds of moral beliefs can be genetically encoded.
| quote: |
On a somewhat related topic: what are your thoughts on abiogenesis? (we can discuss this in the Creation vs. Evolution thread if needbe) |
I do not endorse any particular theory of abiogenesis, because my judgment is that the evidence supporting them is highly speculative at this point and insufficient to justify a commitment of belief. I'm interested in ongoing research regarding the issue, but I believe that at this point no-one can honestly claim to know the origin of life. |
|
|
| Streakfury |
I've often thought about this subject. I know quite a lot of religious people, and for the most part they all seem to be decent people. But I personally am not religious, yet I would condider myself to be just as decent and tolerant as them.
A lot of the friends I've had discussions with say that they believe what they believe because it gives them guidlines by which to lead their lives, which is fair enough. Their argument as to why religion should exist (or at least, why they themselves follow a religion) is because without it, there would be very little in the way of guidence. But I disagree with that. I'm not religious, but I still have rules and ethics that keep me on the straight and narrow. If anyone asks me "how do you know what's right and wrong without the guidence of a religion (or equivelent)??", my answer would be simple: I would only treat people as I myself would like to be treated. The easiest way to know if what you're about to do is wrong or not, is to think how you would feel if somebody did it to you.
So my opinion is the same as Arbiter's (I'm assuming :p). You dont necessarily need a religion in your life to know what is right and wrong, and to know how to live a good life.
Having said that, I have a lot of respect for people who do follow a religion, because they do sometjhing everyday that I know I couldn't possibly do. And that is to follow something out of pure faith, with no proof that what they believe actually exists. I know I couldnt do that, so big up the religious people!! :p |
|
|
| Seventil |
Arbiter - I read all your replies and I understand your point of view, and respect it.
I've been really thinking about this subject, and doing a bit of research. Please add your thoughts on the following matters, if you have the time. (invitation open to anyone else as well)
Religion, from a sociological and physcological standpoint, is harming itself with the diversity of religions.
To support this statement, I will give a *rough* estimation of the percentage of people that believe in a certain religion.
Christianity: 33% (2 billion)
Islamic: 22% (1.3 billion)
Hinduism: 15% (900 million)
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 14% (850 million)
Buddhism: 6% (360 million)
Taken from:http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Image:
Now, religious diversity can be used to prove that people are capable of deluding themselves into believing in a God. Why? Because every major religion makes simliar claims that their God is the "one true God." Now - if this is correct - the other 70% (or more) of the world are wrong in their beliefs.
This simple, logical fact has brought me to three possible conclusions:
1. Religion is simply a self-manifested "delusion" of sorts; something made up by people to explain the unexplainable and give purpose to life and afterlife. There is no God, and life came to be from a naturalistic evolution.
2. From a Christian point of view, the other 67% of the population (that is not Christian) are paying for the beliefs of their ancestors - at some point in a cultures history, they turned their back from God. This can be countered with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who says that all persons will hear the Word of God, and be given a choice whether to believe in Him or to deny Him.
3. God does exist, but in a higher form that encapsulates all the major religions. (A daoistic, agnostic sort of view)
For quite a long time, I've believed in option #2. I still do, to a point. However, the more and more I learn and think about the subject, the more option #3 intrigues me.
I've been reading Dan Brown recently, and I'm sure this is what has spawned this sort of thinking. To quote him:
Science and religion are not at odds;
Science is simply too young to understand.
I was intrigued by this statement; and also of the factual references to the "Illuminati". As a Christian - why can I see where the "Illuminati" were coming from - and actually agree with them?
I've always had issues with organized religion; it's hard to not have issues with an organization that has such a rough past. While I consider myself a Christian, is it only because I myself have adopted this particular faith out of circumstance?
I have no doubt that people of other religions have felt the "prescence of God" - as I have through Christianity. Does this mean one of our beliefs is wrong - or having a belief system in the first place is wrong?
Simply asked - do you need religion to find God? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Religion, from a sociological and physcological standpoint, is harming itself with the diversity of religions.
Now, religious diversity can be used to prove that people are capable of deluding themselves into believing in a God. Why? Because every major religion makes simliar claims that their God is the "one true God." Now - if this is correct - the other 70% (or more) of the world are wrong in their beliefs. |
Very true. There have also been many other religions throughout history, the vast majority of which have died out either by gradual conversion or force.
| quote: | This simple, logical fact has brought me to three possible conclusions:
1. Religion is simply a self-manifested "delusion" of sorts; something made up by people to explain the unexplainable and give purpose to life and afterlife. There is no God, and life came to be from a naturalistic evolution. |
That is the simplest explanation (in terms of Occam's Razor), and is fairly consistent with other, more mundane, examples of self-deception such as denial among the chronically ill and also with seemingly absurd cultural practices of "less developed" cultures both past and present (particularly those fundamentally based on "magical thinking."
| quote: | 2. From a Christian point of view, the other 67% of the population (that is not Christian) are paying for the beliefs of their ancestors - at some point in a cultures history, they turned their back from God. This can be countered with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who says that all persons will hear the Word of God, and be given a choice whether to believe in Him or to deny Him.
3. God does exist, but in a higher form that encapsulates all the major religions. (A daoistic, agnostic sort of view) |
Either of these is theoretically within the realm of possibility. I'm personally inclined to discount #2 due to the logical problems that the Christian God seems to me to raise, but I recognize that it isn't impossible that my logic could be flawed.
| quote: | I've been reading Dan Brown recently, and I'm sure this is what has spawned this sort of thinking. To quote him:
Science and religion are not at odds;
Science is simply too young to understand.
I was intrigued by this statement; and also of the factual references to the "Illuminati". As a Christian - why can I see where the "Illuminati" were coming from - and actually agree with them? |
I've been known to remark that modern scientific thought (as opposed to simply science itself) is somewhat of a religion. While science has provided great insight into some fields, it has been shown to be quite fallible (Newtonian physics was once accepted as dogma). Additionally, point-of-view problems including positive outcome bias as well as fallacious (typically post hoc ergo propter hoc) reasoning have created a large body of scientific "knowledge" of which I am just as skeptical as theology.
Based on our previous discussion (and your next paragraph), I suspect your feelings with regard to the Illuminati are primarily are due to their opposition to organized religion, especially Catholocism.
On the topic of the Illuminati, I'm curious as to whether or not you've read Foucault's Pendulum. If not, I highly recommend it: I suspect you'll find it both interesting and enjoyable.
| quote: | | I've always had issues with organized religion; it's hard to not have issues with an organization that has such a rough past. While I consider myself a Christian, is it only because I myself have adopted this particular faith out of circumstance? |
I think that everyone must search for meaning in their life. Most people learn a set of beliefs from their parents which gives them meaning. Those who are not indoctrinated or who later break away from their prior beliefs still possess a fundamental psychological need to find meaning in life. The question of you found that meaning from Christianity is not one I would expect you to be able to answer easily, but it is an important question to ask (and one that many believers and nonbelievers alike cannot answer).
| quote: | | I have no doubt that people of other religions have felt the "prescence of God" - as I have through Christianity. Does this mean one of our beliefs is wrong - or having a belief system in the first place is wrong? |
Well if those beliefs are mutually exclusive as many religions' are, then one of them must be wrong. As to whether it is having a belief system per se that is wrong... although that is a close approximation of what I personally believe to be true, I don't think that is what's implicated by this conflict. I think what it really means is, as I've said in many topics before, emotions and "feelings" are not valid tools of cognition. That is, I think what it means is that you should have something more substantial than just a "feeling," no matter how compelling the feeling, before you commit yourself to a belief system.
| quote: | | Simply asked - do you need religion to find God? |
Well, I think that depends upon what you look for in a God. If you want a God who can explain the universe to you, to tell you what is right and what is wrong, to explain the origin of life and the universe, and to tell you how to live your life and what happens after life, then I'm afraid you might be out of luck because that - essentially - is what religion is.
If your God is something else - a silent, non-judgmental First Cause which no longer actively affects the universe it created, or simply a spiritual manifestation of the inherent order and beauty of life and nature, then I would say it is entirely possible. |
|
|
| Dervish |
I belive that religion has just, as some others have said, appeared beside the development of life as we know it. As an example even in times when the goverment or king (or whatever) of a nation has been e.g. Christian or Islamic thing which we would now find unacceptable have occured. The claim could be made that the problem was mearly with said king/whatever's interpretation of said religion however isn't that an intrinsic fault within religion? That is its ability to be completly open to interpretation.
It could be said that laws are open to interpretation also but these are instead the peoples laws. Not a books or the current pope/grand whatever's interpretation of said book. Obviously laws change and develop with the people but they are always developed and passed by people representing the public as a whole. And as such in the people and as such each individuals best intrests. The same can not be said for religion, it is in any form by its nature dogmatic and cannot and willnot develop as the human race develops.
Therefore the time will come when religion is seen as the old dogmatic thing it is. As less and less people need it to make thier lifes and the thought of death bearable. |
|
|
|
|
