|
A Plea for Religion (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
False. Looking cool is a supreme benefit. |
It also helps with digestion! |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
False. Looking cool is a supreme benefit. |
Well, that's a social benefit. We need an entire new thread if you want to discuss smoking in detail.
When I used the example, I was quite certain that it could spawn another discussion, yet I still used it :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
We do. Plenty of our modern research through sound logic and observation can tell anyone with a decent level of intelligence how illogical and improbable a large portion of what religion teaches is.
Turn water into wine? Rubbish.
Earth is only about 6000 years old? Rubbish.
Resurrection? Rubbish.
Heaven or Hell? I won't say rubbish but the probability is high that it is rubbish. |
Actually, it's much more complicated that that.
For one, only the 2nd bit was definitely falsified, religiously speaking: there's a very good probability that all of that is rubbish, but given the fact that turning water into wine and resurrection are supposed to have been actions performed by an extraordinary human being (as in "not at all ordinary"), we'd need an equally extraordinary person to fail to turn water into wine and resurrect to somehow disprove what happened in the Bible. If we allfail to run 100 metres under 10 seconds, that doesn't mean we proved it is impossible - all we showed is that we can't do it (although Usain Bolt can).
And also, that's not the core of Christianity: most Christians I know aren't Young Earth Creationists, for example. You'd have to somehow prove the tenets of the religion are false - from the existence of all possible definitions of God to loving one another.
What we'd need is a rival theory, much more capable to prove its worth, that answers questions similar to those religion tries to address: Why are we here? What happens after we die? What should we do? What happens if we don't do what we must do?
Science can, to some extent, give descriptive questions that helps us understand the two last questions: the normative leap is a tricky one, and the answers are so appealing that even atheists like Sam Harris seem to ignore all the work done in moral philosophy and moral psychology. The second question could easily be answered with a "nothing, you die!", but it doesn't seem to agree with our intuitive belief that we must always exist (which seems to be quasi-universal) and the solace we want from an after-life. As for the first question... I don't even see science trying to answer that one. Until it does, there's nothing to rival religion. |
|
|
| Fledz |
I think we need to make a distinction between religion and spirituality. You don't need to be religious to accept philosophy and what could potentially be there in the after life if it exists. I don't believe it does but that's me.
It should be personal though. Why do we need organised religion to tell us what to think? We don't. Just because you're not religious doesn't mean that you can't hypothesise what happens after death. |
|
|
| Lira |
I take spirituality to be personal and religion to be "the school" from which people learn to improve their ideas about spirituality. A spiritual person can be not religious, but I can't conceive a religious person who isn't spiritual.
Is this good enough a distinction? I assume I never gave it much thought. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
I think we need to make a distinction between religion and spirituality. You don't need to be religious to accept philosophy and what could potentially be there in the after life if it exists. I don't believe it does but that's me.
It should be personal though. Why do we need organised religion to tell us what to think? We don't. Just because you're not religious doesn't mean that you can't hypothesise what happens after death. |
All good points. I guess religion is more of an organized spirituality. So not only are you forming a spiritual bond with whatever you want to believe in, but also a bond with other members of the religion.
People tend to gravitate towards others who have the same beliefs anyways. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I take spirituality to be personal and religion to be "the school" from which people learn to improve their ideas about spirituality. A spiritual person can be not religious, but I can't conceive a religious person who isn't spiritual.
Is this good enough a distinction? I assume I never gave it much thought. |
spirituality is just new-age faggotry, as if nonsense made up yesterday is more credible than nonsense made up 4000 years ago. it's the term used by idiots who are too non-conformist to attach themselves to a traditional faith, but like magic and make believe anyway. it's also handy coz you can literally make it up as you go along, without having to listen to the made up ideas of others. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
spirituality is just new-age faggotry, as if nonsense made up yesterday is more credible than nonsense made up 4000 years ago. |
I almost feel like adopting your distinction, but we need something more elaborate here: I had in mind something like a personal belief vs. an institutionalised set of beliefs because what you call new-age faggotry fits well into this distinction as being a kind of spirituality but too wacky and inconsistent to be anything like a religion. However, everyone who abides by a set of institutionalised beliefs has personal beliefs - even if most (or all) of them happen to match what's written in the canon.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
it's the term used by idiots who are too non-conformist to attach themselves to a traditional faith, but like magic and make believe anyway. it's also handy coz you can literally make it up as you go along, without having to listen to the made up ideas of others. |
Can't disagree much with you there... but I'm not sure about the non-conformism bit though: here where I live, new-age nutters are usually so acritical as to try to embrace pretty much everything they can without looking at the inconsistencies. It's like suddenly everyone found out you CAN have Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism together if you don't think too hard about it :p |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Well I can't prove God exists, and you can't prove otherwise. It appears we are at a stalemate. :o |
Kant:
Thesis: If the Universe had a beginning then why did it wait an infinite time before it began?
Anti-thesis: if the Universe had existed forever then why did it take an infinite time to reach this present stage? |
|
|
| aquila |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
Kant:
Thesis: If the Universe had a beginning then why did it wait an infinite time before it began?
Anti-thesis: if the Universe had existed forever then why did it take an infinite time to reach this present stage? |
OMG my head asplode!!! |
|
|
| Redd |
| Kant sure was a .. yeah |
|
|
| aquila |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
Kant sure was a .. |
Tank? :p |
|
|
|
|
