Why do people believe in religion?

[DaveC426913]

quite to the contrary, change is always good, even if it comes in the form of war...

As you then go on to demonstrate better than I could, change that has benefits is not automatically bad.

But if you read what I wrote, you'll see my claim is that change in and of itself is not good unless it provides some benefit (perhaps merely as a side effect, but still...).

And certainly not deliberate changes. When we choose to make radical changes, we don't make them just because we can. We assess the risks and benefits. Realize we are not talking about a new skin for your cellphone or a new coat, we are talking about developing nuclear technology or harvesting stem cells. These things must happen in the context of the risks/benefits to humanity.

 

[loseyourname]

1] When I said 'you', it was of the 'you all' form, not you specifically.

Would that be the judging of an entire group of people based on the aberrant behavior of a few individuals? Isn't that what you are warning against?

The New Testament. God's gotten a makeover, he's hip and cool and down wit da new generation. Not so much on the pillars of salt, big on the love and forgiveness.

I suppose this is one of the parts I have some difficulty understanding. Christians say that God is eternal and unchanging, that he exists outside of time, is perfect, and has always been perfect. How do they reconcile that with this idea that what he did in the Old Testament was wrong and he changed his mind to suddenly become loving and merciful in the New Testament?

As pointed out before and since, it does result in the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians. I know, it wasn't the fault of science, it was people. That's my point. You don't blame a system, you blame the people who abuse it.

But the system is at fault when it is the system that tells you to do bad things. Whether that system be Randian ethics or Islamic fundamentalism, if it is the system telling you to do bad things, then the system is at fault. This idea of separating the system from the people that constitute and create it just doesn't fly over so well with me. I've never tried to say that religions go out and fight wars and dehumanize people that don't subscribe to them. That, of course, is absurd. The qualm is always with people, but when the belief systems of these people cause them to do immoral things, then I want to say that the belief system itself is a bad thing. In fact, even if it doesn't result in immoral actions on the parts of its subscribers, many religions are still bad systems from an epistemological perspective. They aren't the only bad epistemologies, and I don't want to single them out completely, but this thread was asking about religion specifically.

The field of science doesn't?

Name a scientific doctrine that labels those who don't believe it as 'evil' or 'infidels' or 'sinners' and name me a scientific doctrine that tells us to kill non-believers.

So, a system that puts forth apparent paradox's must be fundamentally flawed? Like, say Quantum Mechanics and Relativity?

Perhaps. I suppose that isn't necessarily so, but most physicists, so far as I know, do consider this to be a flaw, and do assume that a more fundamental theory exists that can reconcile the two and remove the contradictions.

Systems that don't have ethical checks and balances are in (principle) anti-human and a negative thing. Science does not provide a human-centred self-check. That is the field of other disciplines to decide.

Science doesn't need ethical checks and balances because it isn't an ethical system. Science doesn't tell the scientist how to behave. I was thinking more along the lines of epistemological checks, though, not ethical checks, with my reference to dogmatism. Dogma states revealed truths that cannot be challenged and have no rational basis. As such, it is a difficult epistemology to reconcile with our empirical observations of the world, which often conflict with what dogma teaches, and, in fact, it is even difficult to reconcile at times with basic intuition and reasoning. This is why I prefer systems of epistemology that simply make an attempt at finding a way to the truth, perhaps even realizing that their statements will inevitably be only approximations, rather than systems that proclaim they have the truth, for no reason other than that they believe they do. Too much question-begging.

Science champions progress. Religion champions caution. Change - in and of itself - is not a good thing. Change requires reflection and consideration of the consequences. Traditions ensure that things don't change so fast that they get away from us.

Why don't we get away from science for a moment and focus on what I'm trying to bring up here. There is a natural dichotomy between dogmatic epistemologies and epistemologies that are open to being changed. Most religions fall into the former category and science happens to fall into the latter category. It isn't by virtue of being science or being religion that I prefer one over the other, however. It is simply an epistemological choice between one category that is question-begging and one that is seemingly still question-begging foundationally, but not question-begging in any everyday manner.

Don't think of religion as the enemy of science, think of it as its complement.

I don't think of science and religion as enemies. In fact, I never even brought up anything about science (I've only responded to what you've brought up). I won't see them as complementary either, however. I see ethics as complementary to epistemology. Science has no ethics, only an epistemology, and so it needs some outside system of ethics to complement it. There is no reason why it needs religious ethics, however, which I do not feel have a very good history. The other problem is that religions brings with it both an ethics and an epistemology, and the epistemology of religion is naturally opposed to the epistemology of science. I think that the latter is very clearly a better epistemology than the former. For these two reasons, I would greatly prefer to complement science with a secular ethics that is unemcumbered by dogmatism and has no accompanying epistemology of its own.

 

[Icebreaker]

No, science isn't the thing doing the 'needing'. Science is merely a tool. The Human Race is doing the needing.

We need a pro-change force and a pro-'it-ain't-broke' force acting as complements of each other. Religion acts to hold back consequences of unfettered science, while science eggs on the stodgy dogmatism of the religion.

Pretend Einstein (or Netwon) and the Pope (or Buddha) are the Human Race's "shoulder angels".

No, what you are saying is not "religion", it's ethics. We may need ethicists; religion does not come into the picture.

 

[lordinfamous]

No, it's called supression and choice. Just like the fact that your genes compels you to have sex, whether you choose to, capable of, or not to.

genes don't compel you to have sex, your brain releases a chemical into the bloodstream every time you have a thought about sex or see something that triggers your thought about sex.

 

[Icebreaker]

And your DNA is the blueprint for your brain.

 

[lordinfamous]

And your DNA is the blueprint for your brain.

What I was attempting to say is that conscious,subconscious thought and your bodies addiction to the protien that is released when you have those thoughts that compel you to have sex.

 

[guevaramartyr]

But if you read what I wrote, you'll see my claim is that change in and of itself is not good unless it provides some benefit (perhaps merely as a side effect, but still...).

what i was trying to say in my earlier post is that change is good in and of itself. without change, stagnation of a society is inevitable. this is one of the fundamental problems with the image that American culture says is normal. suburbanite, mildly pudgy dad, trophy wife and two adorable children, all of whom buy products made by such and such companies, take the occasional vacation, and from time to time buy the shiny new car. by presenting this as the norm, more and more people try to obtain it (i'm not saying this is everyone's dream life). the problem is that as this becomes more generalized, the other elements of society that cause division are eroding away. I'm not saying racism is good or that we are a big happy family here, but some kind of upheaval is essential to the long term survival of any people or species. lack of stress on the individual halts evolution and causes regression in physical traits, if not societal and mental as well.

also i realize that you were not talking about minor changes for an individual, although those can be beneficial as well. but as i said before, a war is an excellent example of how negative influences cause positive change. with massive numbers of people dying or wounded, medicine is often improved, as happened during world war I and II. if you want examples of societies brought down by stagnation, look at the kingdoms of egypt, or the fall of rome. any halfway decent historian could make an excellent case for the cause of these downfalls being stagnation. with a lack of new input or influences into these states, the societal collapse was near complete. it is because of this that the resistance to change that religion inevitably advocates should be feared. no religion can embrace change completely, because that would mean itself shifting out of existence. what self-respecting institution would allow this to happen?

sorry if this is kind of disjointed, I am pretty tired

 

[DaveC426913]

It's been fun and very intriguing, but I guess we have to adjourn at some point.

 

[Icebreaker]

I'll close with this:

"Yes, reason has been a part of organized religion, ever since two nudists took dietary advice from a talking snake."

 

[1123581321]

There is religion simply for the reason that humans can't grasp the 'afterlife'. If we understood everything, science would be the religion. The only hitch is, we will never understand everyting, so we have gods and religion. Personally, I believe there is a God, and that there is an afterlife. Space and time has to start somewhere from somthing, why not a God? until science explains the origins and the ends of the universe, there will be religion.

 

[The Rev]

I have not seen anything in any holly book including (Bible & Quran) that bears any evidence of a super being’s writing , secretes of the universe or even a plausible reason for creation, other then things like worship me for I am your lord (medieval kings like attitudes) … I am not saying that there is no creator or GOD of laws, but religion what’s up with religion/s? And why would GOD even create religions when he can just give us a self judging ever evolving brain?

Inadequate parenting.

A person who's not prepared, emotionally and psychologically, to be independent in the world is going to need something to be dependent on. Since mom and dad don't want this kid living with them forever, he falls back on the next best thing: an abstraction of mom and dad, complete with punishments if your bad, rewards if your good, and someone to make sure "everything will be alright."



The Rev