Religion, why do you believe?

[Kulindahr]

How can you understand the physics of the universe if you believe that an unfathomable supernatural agent created everything just a few thousand years ago?

For that, you have to believe that God is whimsical at best, certainly untrustworthy, and at worst a liar not much different from Lucifer except that He allegedly has a nicer place to hang out for eternity.

The problem at the root of many religions, however, is that it promotes a methodology to approaching the nature of reality that is problematic: faith -- the very antithesis to inquiry and freethought. At its most benign level it can present itself as a mental obstruction and at its worst can inform actions in the most horrid way imaginable. We can all learn from religions without needing to take anything on faith.

Something needs to be made clear: Dawkins is an ignoramus on this point, because faith is not "the very antithesis to inquiry and free thought". Granting that many preachers certainly make it look that way, the evidence of the history of the Christian belief is that it isn't so; rather, faith as set out in the Bible demands inquiry and logical thought.
I knew I was at home for sure when I met John 1:1 in the Greek:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

"In the beginning, (that which) was being (was the) Logic." "Logos" is reason, logic, principle, (proper) form, and -- as commonly translated -- word. In some ancient writings it comes close to connoting "clear thought". The use of that word to denote the pre-incarnate Son of God says that clear, inquisitive thought is central and key.

So whatever definition you want to place on the word faith, in Christianity, at any rate, it can't be set against logic. Individual Christians may set themselves against logic, but that occurs in any realm of thought, not just religion.

 

[bankside]

Zeus doesn't inhabit any terrain anywhere near Christianity.
Zeus was held to be a material being, just another part of the universe. That puts him out of the running for consideration right there. Yes, Jesus was born into the universe, but the Greek gods were born in the universe, from it and part of it. Even the so-called primordial figures are part and parcel of a material universe.

Yet Zeus was not accessible -- he didn't really care about anyone or anything, he was just there. To him, humans were toys, or irritants, but not of importance either way. (That, again, removes him from consideration.)

You concede that these tales are myth -- fables would be a better term. Indeed, no matter what you do with them, they remain myth, a bunch of stories about a bunch of folks no one would really want to live anywhere near.

The whole point of Christianity is that myth became reality. If all the Greek figures were meant to be were stories to make people go "WTF?", then there's no comparison -- they're so different that rather than being neighbors, they're in entirely different terrain altogether. To have any standing as worth comparing to Christianity, there'd have to be a claim not only that they were real, but that they were actually running the whole show, indeed that they'd started it, and that they were around to show an interest of sort sort (even throwing parties) in their critters.

To claim any comparison here would be like observing that both my porch and the Queen Elizabeth II have railings -- a point to which the best response is, "So what?"

So, yes, I gave consideration to the Greek mythos, and found it without substance: it's either, on the one hand, merely tales not meant to be taken seriously, or, on the other, a set of tales that even if real shouldn't be taken seriously.

I am really beginning to doubt my powers of communication, because as many ways as I put this, I only succeed in eliciting from you the restating of your position and I am no closer to an answer to my question. To your point I've bolded above: On what evidence? How is that evidence any different from the evidence supporting claims of dozens or hundreds of other contrary claims about the veracity of their own myths.

And I might add, if you wish to answer that question I'd be thrilled, but I think we are also going to stumble over conflicting definitions of "the universe." So, as I understand it, the universe is the "set of all things which might interact." If the Abrahamic god is able to intervene or to create anything we observe directly or indirectly, or if he was able to, he is part of that set. And he or zeus or vishnu or yaluk or thor, if any of them exist, would be part of the universe.

By the way the best response is not "So what?" The best response, if one truly wished to educate the person posing the question, would be to answer how they are functionally different.

It isn't enough to say "so what?" I don't claim it would require an exhaustive comparison of each of the truth claims and every shred of evidence for every religion and every possible religion before one of them might be seen as substantive. But to say "so what?" reduces the value of any claim about the veracity of a religion to mere opinion rather than a substantive finding.

By the way, greek mythology certainly doesn't suffer in its plausibility for the reasons you state: they did start it, they were running the show. Greeks might have argued whether Æether came before Uranus, but they were there. They even would have run into the same inconvenient question plaguing Christians; well where did divinity come from then?

 

[poolerboy]

^ I don't "jump on the faith wagon" and nor am I suggesting that anyone else does so.

Your summary proves the previous point that each side only sees the other through the prism of their own preconceptions and prejudices. To dismiss religion just because of the element of faith or the shortcomings of particular religions is myopic.

Although religion isn't scientifically verifiable, it's consequences haven't just been the negatives on your shopping list. It has advanced education and even science at times when no one else was doing so in an organized way. It has helped to provide a framework of social compassion. It has motivated and provided both spiritual and physical comfort for many people. It has sponsored great art and architecture, etc., etc.

You have committed a non sequitur. Just because a few Christians did scientific work or that the Church funded science has nothing to do with the advancement of science. It does not follow. On the contrary science progressed in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

I could also argue that Kovalev, Landau, Tsiolkovski, Kapitza, and hundreds of other communists built post-modern science. These men were nurtured in the communist belief system, financed by communism.
Have I made a case for communism? Of course not. This also represents a non sequitur.

The Catholic Church has been the largest stumbling block against scientific progress in the history of mankind. When Constantine established orthodox Christianity, science virtually stopped. Greek & Roman medicine and science stood as the highest level of science for centuries. As Ruth Hurmence Green once wrote, "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as The Dark Ages." It was religion that destroyed the Greek libraries including the great library of Alexandria. It was Christianity that put to death many infidel scientists. Christians killed Hypatia, Giordano Bruno (a priest). They imprisoned Galileo and rejected his science. The list against scientists and freethinkers goes on and on.

Moreover, the members of imperial Christianity keep education for themselves. They discouraged the masses from learning.

The Christian scientists that you mentioned were mostly heretics or did their science in secret. These scientists had to fight, tooth and claw, against Christian dogma to get their ideas accepted. You had to be a Christian in those days or else fear death, ostracism, or ridicule. Moreover, they lived during the Renaissance or after, when the Church began to lose its power. It was science that influenced religion, not the other way around.

Christianity held back modern science for 1,500 years. Imagine what we could have learned about the world if not for the barriers constructed by religion?

Unfortunately, Christianity today, continues to place barriers against science. Many Christians reject modern biology, geology, and physics. They deny global warming, stem cell research, birth control, and many other scientific advances that could save millions of people, if not the entire human race.

The idea that Christianity founded modern science is a myth and a bad one at that.

My point is that, in some respects, religion can be like any great poetry or imaginative writing. Whether you like it or not, it does have a strong impact on many people and it does contain, sometimes relatively consistent, principles that may, or may not, have some ultimate value.

I already addressed this point and you seemed to have missed it. I said, "We can all learn from religions without needing to take anything on faith." Moreover, your prism reference is inapplicable to me insofar as you realize that I was once a believer too. The fact that I have a world view in no way suggests I'm intransigent simply because I forcefully oppose religion. Am I intransigent and closeminded because I forcefully oppose fascism? Please.

For that, you have to believe that God is whimsical at best, certainly untrustworthy, and at worst a liar not much different from Lucifer except that He allegedly has a nicer place to hang out for eternity.

Lucifer and Satan are two different characters (see Isaiah 14:3-20). So much for disregarding the text and projecting your own beliefs onto it.

Something needs to be made clear: Dawkins is an ignoramus on this point, because faith is not "the very antithesis to inquiry and free thought". Granting that many preachers certainly make it look that way, the evidence of the history of the Christian belief is that it isn't so; rather, faith as set out in the Bible demands inquiry and logical thought.

Those are my words, not Dawkins. Moreover, much of this inquiry and logical thought is only to validate convictions that are held as being absolute; it's essentially working backward where you start with a belief (which gives you the "feeling" of truth) and then you go out looking for any argument to confirm it. The story of Doubting Thomas is a good example that highlights just how frowned upon skepticism and inquiry have and that those "blessed" are who believe without evidence.

"In the beginning, (that which) was being (was the) Logic." "Logos" is reason, logic, principle, (proper) form, and -- as commonly translated -- word. In some ancient writings it comes close to connoting "clear thought". The use of that word to denote the pre-incarnate Son of God says that clear, inquisitive thought is central and key.

So whatever definition you want to place on the word faith, in Christianity, at any rate, it can't be set against logic. Individual Christians may set themselves against logic, but that occurs in any realm of thought, not just religion.

And the Bible also says that "fear in the lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7). Does that make it true simply because it makes the assertion and is repeated throughout scripture? I would agree that irrationality occurs outside the realm of religion. Religion just happens to enshirne dogmatism and makes itself an easy target of criticism. We're also far removing ourselves from the original point in quibbling over semantics and textual citations.

 

[Spensed]

You have committed a non sequitur. Just because a few Christians did scientific work or that the Church funded science has nothing to do with the advancement of science. It does not follow.

Of course it does. The fact that the Church also opposed scientific progress may outweigh, but doesn't change, the positive things it did, including the cultivation of education and learning during the Dark Ages, etc.

I could also argue that Kovalev, Landau, Tsiolkovski, Kapitza, and hundreds of other communists built post-modern science. These men were nurtured in the communist belief system, financed by communism.
Have I made a case for communism? Of course not. This also represents a non sequitur.

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with what I said. Scientific progress doesn't make the case for communism any more than it may, or may not, for Christianity. The fact remains that, in both cases, significant educational achievements and new thinking occurred, which suggests that the picture isn't as black and white as you're trying to make out.

Moreover, the members of imperial Christianity keep education for themselves. They discouraged the masses from learning.

Well they did to a point. They also brought "public" schools to the laity that could afford them in England and spread Western education throughout the world. OK it was on an imperialistic and Euro-centric basis, but it still had some positive benefits along with the negative ones.

Christianity held back modern science for 1,500 years. Imagine what we could have learned about the world if not for the barriers constructed by religion?

Again with the black and white stuff. No one's arguing that the Church fought against scientific progress, but it also set up the educational context in which that progress found root. Who knows when Western schooling and education might have arisen without the foundations set down by the Church, not only with respect to the centers of learning themselves, but also with the more benign aspects of Christian teaching?

Christianity today, continues to place barriers against science. Many Christians reject modern biology, geology, and physics. They deny global warming, stem cell research, birth control, and many other scientific advances that could save millions of people, if not the entire human race.

So do many non-Christians. And many Christian do not. As I keep saying, it's simply not as black and white as you see it.

The idea that Christianity founded modern science is a myth and a bad one at that.

I say, in effect, that Christianity contributed to the education context, in which modern science arose, and all you hear something completely different. Kinda proves my point about zealots on both sides.

I already addressed this point and you seemed to have missed it. I said, "We can all learn from religions without needing to take anything on faith." Moreover, your prism reference is inapplicable to me insofar as you realize that I was once a believer too. The fact that I have a world view in no way suggests I'm intransigent simply because I forcefully oppose religion. Am I intransigent and closeminded because I forcefully oppose fascism? Please.

Of course the prism reference is applicable to you. Ex-believers, like ex-lovers, often can't see when they're just grinding old axes. I'm simply suggesting that you acknowledge the very considerable contributions made by the different religions in the world, even as you reach your conclusions that they're not necessary or that their bad side outweighs the good. You pay lip service to do that and then spout list after list dealing with only one side of the equation.

As for taking things on faith, even the scientific method ultimately has to do that. In the unknown extremes of the universe, who even knows whether the scientific method as we know it might just be more metaphysics?

I'm not promoting blind faith or religion. I am, however, arguing for the need to see and assess the poetic or sociological value of faith based religions where it may be there to be seen.

 

[bankside]

Of course it does. The fact that the Church also opposed scientific progress may outweigh, but doesn't change, the positive things it did, including the cultivation of education and learning during the Dark Ages, etc.



Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with what I said. Scientific progress doesn't make the case for communism any more than it may, or may not, for Christianity. The fact remains that, in both cases, significant educational achievements and new thinking occurred, which suggests that the picture isn't as black and white as you're trying to make out.



Well they did to a point. They also brought "public" schools to the laity that could afford them in England and spread Western education throughout the world. OK it was on an imperialistic and Euro-centric basis, but it still had some positive benefits along with the negative ones.



Again with the black and white stuff. No one's arguing that the Church fought against scientific progress, but it also set up the educational context in which that progress found root. Who knows when Western schooling and education might have arisen without the foundations set down by the Church, not only with respect to the centers of learning themselves, but also with the more benign aspects of Christian teaching?



So do many non-Christians. And many Christian do not. As I keep saying, it's simply not as black and white as you see it.



I say, in effect, that Christianity contributed to the education context, in which modern science arose, and all you hear something completely different. Kinda proves my point about zealots on both sides.



Of course the prism reference is applicable to you. Ex-believers, like ex-lovers, often can't see when they're just grinding old axes. I'm simply suggesting that you acknowledge the very considerable contributions made by the different religions in the world, even as you reach your conclusions that they're not necessary or that their bad side outweighs the good. You pay lip service to do that and then spout list after list dealing with only one side of the equation.

As for taking things on faith, even the scientific method ultimately has to do that. In the unknown extremes of the universe, who even knows whether the scientific method as we know it might just be more metaphysics?

I'm not promoting blind faith or religion. I am, however, arguing for the need to see and assess the poetic or sociological value of faith based religions where it may be there to be seen.

I think even sociology and poetry are more black-and-white than you realise. Pointilism!

Anyway, I've made this contribution before in response to an equivalent post, but it bears repeating; why confuse poetry and truth? Why not simply call it poetry? There is no value in conflating them.

 

[Spensed]

^ Pointilism is but a minor school of art, the exception, if you like, which proves the rule.

There's a value in recognizing that the poetry and truth are, or may be, conflated. At its best poetry or any great literature or art expresses its own truth.

To deny that there is, or may be, elements of truth in faith based religions simply because they're faith based religions may be swapping one type of extremism for another.

 

[poolerboy]

Of course it does. The fact that the Church also opposed scientific progress may outweigh, but doesn't change, the positive things it did, including the cultivation of education and learning during the Dark Ages, etc.

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with what I said. Scientific progress doesn't make the case for communism any more than it may, or may not, for Christianity. The fact remains that, in both cases, significant educational achievements and new thinking occurred, which suggests that the picture isn't as black and white as you're trying to make out.

Can't see how the point was so far missed even with an analogy. Martin Luther, in fact, called for public education not because sophisticated piety beckoned him to, but because of the corruption and obfuscation of the Church which led him to turn away from this foundational structure. We have to be honest about where this advancement and progress comes from -- is it from within or from the outside applying pressure? A mere correlation of X person/institution adheres to some religion A and some positive variable B manifested, therefore A caused B doesn't make a solid case.

Well they did to a point. They also brought "public" schools to the laity that could afford them in England and spread Western education throughout the world. OK it was on an imperialistic and Euro-centric basis, but it still had some positive benefits along with the negative ones.

We should thank Greek mythology because without it we wouldn't have the Parthenon and a myriad of particular stories, certain sculptures and what not. Human creativity and ingenuity have projected skill and hard labor of the arts to their particular beliefs. This has been the case in human societies across cultures across the board. In the case of education, imagine if it had sprang out without the hinderance of dogmaticm. How much time had to pass before the vast majority of the public became literate? These institutions weren't even concerned about educating their believers at least to be able to read their own holy texts. Did the public eventually get to do so? Sure. And religion, here, clearly doesn't get the credit. And yes I will mention the bad parts and stress them more than the good. It's high time someone did so. Ethics, art, reason, education, science, hope, wonder, transcendence -- all of this can be attained without faith or adhereing to the tenents of a tainted organization that, hitherto, persists in dangerous beliefs like the Church which promotes the idea that condom use is sinful when we have regions of the world plagued with AIDS that could do well with contraception. If we can attain the postive list aforementioned without religion, what are we left with? We're left with tradition, superstition, authority, fear, and instransigence. If calling a spade a spade is zealotry be my guest and hurl whatever label you want. I'll do the same for fascism. You'll be raising quite a few eyebrows if you apply the same label to me should I forcefully go after the latter.

Again with the black and white stuff. No one's arguing that the Church fought against scientific progress, but it also set up the educational context in which that progress found root. Who knows when Western schooling and education might have arisen without the foundations set down by the Church, not only with respect to the centers of learning themselves, but also with the more benign aspects of Christian teaching?

That would be like me thanking the Church for its Inquisitions, dogmas, corruption and so forth for sparking a dissident movement in which the Enlightenment flourished and freethought emerged. Or being greatful to governments for creating indigent persons in the world because that brought about charitable foundations. The benign movements are a reaction to its fundamentalist past, not part of some esoteric genuine faith doctrine. Again, much of these so-called benefits seem to be coming as a reaction to horrid states in antiquity.

Of course the prism reference is applicable to you. Ex-believers, like ex-lovers, often can't see when they're just grinding old axes. I'm simply suggesting that you acknowledge the very considerable contributions made by the different religions in the world, even as you reach your conclusions that they're not necessary or that their bad side outweighs the good. You pay lip service to do that and then spout list after list dealing with only one side of the equation.

I never claimed that only bad things emanate from religion. I already submitted that any one of us can adopt brilliant contributions that have been made by religions all without taking anything on faith. It is this which poisons otherwise well-intentioned people to, for example, feel that homosexuals are a plague because their texts say they do. A dilution of this dogma is credited to awakening eyes seeing the archaicness of such mentality. The best one could hope for is juggle the two (modernity and bronze age mythology) and hope that they can both live compatibly with each other.

As for taking things on faith, even the scientific method ultimately has to do that. In the unknown extremes of the universe, who even knows whether the scientific method as we know it might just be more metaphysics?

You have no idea what the scientific method is do you. Moreover, scientists are free to admit when they don't know something. "I don't know" is a wonderful position that takes honesty and humility. It takes someone of great arrogance to claim what no human can possibly know: not only is the entire cosmos running on the agency of a supreme entity (this nebulous idea only gets you as far as deism), but I also happen to know its mind (here we cross the threshold to theism, the requirement to be a religious believer) and all this is to be taken on faith (the feeling of truth sans evidence). I'm sorry but speculation within reason is not at par with faith; not even remotely.

I'm not promoting blind faith or religion. I am, however, arguing for the need to see and assess the poetic or sociological value of faith based religions where it may be there to be seen.

I didn't say one shouldn't. You're arguing with yourself at this point.

 

[bankside]

Can't see how the point was so far missed even with an analogy. Martin Luther, in fact, called for public education not because sophisticated piety beckoned him to, but because of the corruption and obfuscation of the Church which led him to turn away from this foundational structure. We have to be honest about where this advancement and progress comes from -- is it from within or from the outside applying pressure? A mere correlation of X person/institution adheres to some religion A and some positive variable B manifested, therefore A caused B doesn't make a solid case.

To be fair, yes he did, or at least claimed to. His position was that education would herald a more Christian sort of person. That he missed the point - education is for the sake of knowing - is another matter.

 

[bankside]

Man will always have a very deep seated need for Religion, it is something that none of us can shake off. Man has had the need from the very beginning of the dawn of time.

I should have said, "in the beginning of Man's existance".

When was that then? Homo Habilis? Homo Neanderthalensis?

 

[poolerboy]

To be fair, yes he did, or at least claimed to. His position was that education would herald a more Christian sort of person. That he missed the point - education is for the sake of knowing - is another matter.

Well, there's a difference between the push for education stemming from piety as far as the principles of the religion are working toward this goal versus someone seeking reform (hence the Reformation) after corruption and obfuscation of the Church drove him to protest.

In any event the Spartans take the credit for first starting public education. There's also a question of just how much education he was willing to push for: "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and...know nothing but the word of God." --Martin Luther

Yes, religious people do good things and religious institutions do charitable deeds. The issue is that religion doesn't have a monopoly on these things. All these things as well as a craving for the transcendent, learning from studying religions -- all be acquired without falling prey to the problems of faith and dogmatism nor in affiliating oneself with a disreputable organization.

I should have said, "in the beginning of Man's existance".

There's a difference between having such an impulse and being incapable of "shaking off" that supposed need. Not only is it capable of being done all while leading an ethical and worthwhile life as evidenced by those living in Denmark, for example, which are highly irreligious and rated one of the most happiest people in comparison to citizens of other nations like the U.S.

Some have speculated that religion itself may have played an important role in getting large groups of prehistoric humans to socially cohere. If this is true, we can say that religion has served an important purpose. This does not suggest, however, that it serves an important purpose now.

 

[Spensed]

Can't see how the point was so far missed even with an analogy. Martin Luther, in fact, called for public education not because sophisticated piety beckoned him to, but because of the corruption and obfuscation of the Church which led him to turn away from this foundational structure. We have to be honest about where this advancement and progress comes from -- is it from within or from the outside applying pressure? A mere correlation of X person/institution adheres to some religion A and some positive variable B manifested, therefore A caused B doesn't make a solid case.


We should thank Greek mythology because without it we wouldn't have the Parthenon and a myriad of particular stories, certain sculptures and what not. Human creativity and ingenuity have projected skill and hard labor of the arts to their particular beliefs. This has been the case in human societies across cultures across the board. In the case of education, imagine if it had sprang out without the hinderance of dogmaticm. How much time had to pass before the vast majority of the public became literate? These institutions weren't even concerned about educating their believers at least to be able to read their own holy texts. Did the public eventually get to do so? Sure. And religion, here, clearly doesn't get the credit. And yes I will mention the bad parts and stress them more than the good. It's high time someone did so. Ethics, art, reason, education, science, hope, wonder, transcendence -- all of this can be attained without faith or adhereing to the tenents of a tainted organization that, hitherto, persists in dangerous beliefs like the Church which promotes the idea that condom use is sinful when we have regions of the world plagued with AIDS that could do well with contraception. If we can attain the postive list aforementioned without religion, what are we left with? We're left with tradition, superstition, authority, fear, and instransigence. If calling a spade a spade is zealotry be my guest and hurl whatever label you want. I'll do the same for fascism. You'll be raising quite a few eyebrows if you apply the same label to me should I forcefully go after the latter.


That would be like me thanking the Church for its Inquisitions, dogmas, corruption and so forth for sparking a dissident movement in which the Enlightenment flourished and freethought emerged. Or being greatful to governments for creating indigent persons in the world because that brought about charitable foundations. The benign movements are a reaction to its fundamentalist past, not part of some esoteric genuine faith doctrine. Again, much of these so-called benefits seem to be coming as a reaction to horrid states in antiquity.


I never claimed that only bad things emanate from religion. I already submitted that any one of us can adopt brilliant contributions that have been made by religions all without taking anything on faith. It is this which poisons otherwise well-intentioned people to, for example, feel that homosexuals are a plague because their texts say they do. A dilution of this dogma is credited to awakening eyes seeing the archaicness of such mentality. The best one could hope for is juggle the two (modernity and bronze age mythology) and hope that they can both live compatibly with each other.


You have no idea what the scientific method is do you. Moreover, scientists are free to admit when they don't know something. "I don't know" is a wonderful position that takes honesty and humility. It takes someone of great arrogance to claim what no human can possibly know: not only is the entire cosmos running on the agency of a supreme entity (this nebulous idea only gets you as far as deism), but I also happen to know its mind (here we cross the threshold to theism, the requirement to be a religious believer) and all this is to be taken on faith (the feeling of truth sans evidence). I'm sorry but speculation within reason is not at par with faith; not even remotely.


I didn't say one shouldn't. You're arguing with yourself at this point.

Funny then that you have to marshall so much verbiage to rebut an argument that you think isn't with you. LOL.

You say the pressure for advancement and reform came from the outside and that may, or may not be right. But your one sided perspective doesn't permit you to acknowledge the centuries of Christian scholarship and education that came before Martin Luther et al. If you only look at half the facts, I guess you can make up whatever you want.

It doesn't take more than a modicum of common sense to appreciate that making a case for appreciating the laudable achievements of Christianity is completely different from trying to find and argue the laudable achievements of facism. In the first case, there's a long list of items that can be objectively appreciated. Appreciate the artistic and architectural acheivements, if you can't deal with anything else. In the case of fascism, all people can come up is typically that the trains get to run on time. There are no good results. Apples and oranges.

In the case of Christianity, one doesn't need to laud the bad to see the good. You don't have to accept the bad side of Christianity to appreciate that its considerable historical efforts in, for example, helping the poor and the sick are worthwhile.

I suspect my knowledge of scientific method is a little more extensive than your myopic and earthbound view of it. I'm not equating science with faith. In metaphysics, one's dealing in realms outside science. Once again, apples and oranges.

If you used your right brain as much as your left, you wouldn't need to distort the case against religion with your one sided litanies. Your conclusions might be the same, but you wouldn't need to protest too much to try to get to them. Just saying.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am really beginning to doubt my powers of communication, because as many ways as I put this, I only succeed in eliciting from you the restating of your position and I am no closer to an answer to my question. To your point I've bolded above: On what evidence? How is that evidence any different from the evidence supporting claims of dozens or hundreds of other contrary claims about the veracity of their own myths.

I was really only talking about the claims at that point -- that the claim of Christianity is that "myth" became reality, indeed that all the myths of all the tales became reality, because they spoke of a reality behind the reality we perceive, and that Christ was/is that reality, the One the myths -- all the myths, not just the Christian ones -- were always really about.

And I might add, if you wish to answer that question I'd be thrilled, but I think we are also going to stumble over conflicting definitions of "the universe." So, as I understand it, the universe is the "set of all things which might interact." If the Abrahamic god is able to intervene or to create anything we observe directly or indirectly, or if he was able to, he is part of that set. And he or zeus or vishnu or yaluk or thor, if any of them exist, would be part of the universe.

All the others are plainly part of the universe, because they didn't create it. They emerge from or with it, they order or shape it, but they are not Other, truly. The Abrahamic God is different: He stands apart from the universe, not dependent on it in any way, able to interact with it because it is in effect little other than an extension of His will; it exists and persists only by a continuous act of that will.
Using the origin of the universe as a point of comparison, in the Greek myths the gods emerge as part of what comes from the Big Bang; YHWH is already self-subsistent, and himself gives rise to the Big Bang.

By the way, greek mythology certainly doesn't suffer in its plausibility for the reasons you state: they did start it, they were running the show. Greeks might have argued whether Æether came before Uranus, but they were there. They even would have run into the same inconvenient question plaguing Christians; well where did divinity come from then?

No, they didn't start it, they emerged from and with it. In the terms of Genesis, the Greek gods came out of the part that was "without form, and void" -- but in Genesis, the claim is that God made that "without form, and void" realm.

That alone is sufficient to dismiss the Greek pantheon, and all others suffering the same deficiency: even their claim is not grand enough to consider them as the real player(s); even if they turned out to be real, they are not independent creatures, but dependent, contingent ones.

What you call an "inconvenient question" does not, in fact, plague Christians; it is answered in YHWH's response to Moses when asked for a name: He declares Himself to be the self-generating one, the one whose foundation of being is that same being. Whereas in answer to that question modern science can only venture, "More of the same", and the Greek mythology essentially says, "we don't know" (chaos being the nullification of information, so that nothing earlier can be glimpsed), the answer from the Christian view to the question of where everything came from is "somewhere totally Other", or rather someOne totally Other. The Greek myth is trapped in the limitations of the same universe with which we deal, and the same is true of science, but the Bible claims that it all came from something completely different, something that is not the same at all -- if for no other cause than that it is self-generating.

It's a deep, qualitative difference that separates the Greek and other mythologies from the claims of the Bible.

 

[bankside]

Well, there's a difference between the push for education stemming from piety as far as the principles of the religion are working toward this goal versus someone seeking reform (hence the Reformation) after corruption and obfuscation of the Church drove him to protest.

In any event the Spartans take the credit for first starting public education. There's also a question of just how much education he was willing to push for: "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and...know nothing but the word of God." --Martin Luther

My point is that Luther did not favour education (such as it was) in order to bring about an end to the institution of Christianity; he meant to reform it and make it vigorous by way of education, albeit in a direction of his choosing.

Yes, religious people do good things and religious institutions do charitable deeds. The issue is that religion doesn't have a monopoly on these things. All these things as well as a craving for the transcendent, learning from studying religions -- all be acquired without falling prey to the problems of faith and dogmatism nor in affiliating oneself with a disreputable organization.

There's a difference between having such an impulse and being incapable of "shaking off" that supposed need. Not only is it capable of being done all while leading an ethical and worthwhile life as evidenced by those living in Denmark, for example, which are highly irreligious and rated one of the most happiest people in comparison to citizens of other nations like the U.S.

Some have speculated that religion itself may have played an important role in getting large groups of prehistoric humans to socially cohere. If this is true, we can say that religion has served an important purpose. This does not suggest, however, that it serves an important purpose now.

I agree with your points here, except I might have said that religion, or any number of better and more accurate understandings that we might have wished for sooner, and which eventually came along, served an important purpose in fostering social cohesion. In a strange way, religion gave a push to publishing as well, and it has done so much good out of the hands of the churches, but again I'm wondering if there couldn't have been a better way. I think any religious cohesion has been paid back in division many times over, incidentally.

Funny then that you have to marshall so much verbiage to rebut an argument that you think isn't with you. LOL.

I'd say he wasn't fighting an argument any more but perhaps trying to build a bridge. As for verbiage, sometimes most of the construction materials are on one side of the river.

You say the pressure for advancement and reform came from the outside and that may, or may not be right. But your one sided perspective doesn't permit you to acknowledge the centuries of Christian scholarship and education that came before Martin Luther et al. If you only look at half the facts, I guess you can make up whatever you want.

It doesn't take more than a modicum of common sense to appreciate that making a case for appreciating the laudable achievements of Christianity is completely different from trying to find and argue the laudable achievements of facism. In the first case, there's a long list of items that can be objectively appreciated. Appreciate the artistic and architectural acheivements, if you can't deal with anything else. In the case of fascism, all people can come up is typically that the trains get to run on time. There are no good results. Apples and oranges.

Chaplain: Let us praise God. O Lord...
Congregation: O Lord...
Chaplain: ...Ooh, You are so big...
Congregation: ...ooh, You are so big...
Chaplain: ...So absolutely huge.
Congregation: ...So absolutely huge.
Chaplain: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Congregation: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Chaplain: Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...
Congregation: And barefaced flattery.
Chaplain: But You are so strong and, well, just so super.
Congregation: Fantastic.
Humphrey: Amen.
Congregation: Amen.

If there were a god, I'm not sure he would want to primarily be known for stained glass windows and flying buttresses. Even the really big ones!

In the case of Christianity, one doesn't need to laud the bad to see the good. You don't have to accept the bad side of Christianity to appreciate that its considerable historical efforts in, for example, helping the poor and the sick are worthwhile.

I suspect my knowledge of scientific method is a little more extensive than your myopic and earthbound view of it. I'm not equating science with faith. In metaphysics, one's dealing in realms outside science. Once again, apples and oranges.

If you used your right brain as much as your left, you wouldn't need to distort the case against religion with your one sided litanies. Your conclusions might be the same, but you wouldn't need to protest too much to try to get to them. Just saying.

I am inclined to grant full credence to the idea that religions can reform themselves and "improve" if you will. But the minute they pick up that tool, they can no longer claim to be the custodians of inerrant immutable knowledge. There can be no reverence for the precepts of dead men unless they meet the test of fresh eyes.

By the way, the role of Christianity in helping the poor and the sick is really a wash at best. If one does not need to laud the bad to see the good, there should be a much more forthright condemnation of the bad from those who would wish to salvage something good from its two millennia of undue influence and corrupt power peddling.

And above all, there is no realm outside science. There is no fact that can exist that science would not accept, accommodate and align itself around, because science is a method of discovery, not a body of dogma.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have committed a non sequitur. Just because a few Christians did scientific work or that the Church funded science has nothing to do with the advancement of science. It does not follow. On the contrary science progressed in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

"A few"?
What of science survived from Rome through the Middle Ages did so because of the church, mostly the monasteries. Most scientific advancement in that period -- and yes, there was some -- was also in the monasteries (notably advancement in timekeeping, husbandry, viniculture, architecture, even metallurgy [mostly for the making of bells]).
Science advanced both then and after because of the Christian belief that the universe is an orderly place which can be studied, and isn't subject to the whims and caprices of moody and inconstant gods. That this advancement was "in spite of" Christianity is a false myth based on a few selected scenarios.

Lucifer and Satan are two different characters (see Isaiah 14:3-20). So much for disregarding the text and projecting your own beliefs onto it.

The import of that text is debatable -- and has, in fact, been debated since about the time of Tertullian. But the debate doesn't preclude using the now-traditional reference.

Those are my words, not Dawkins. Moreover, much of this inquiry and logical thought is only to validate convictions that are held as being absolute; it's essentially working backward where you start with a belief (which gives you the "feeling" of truth) and then you go out looking for any argument to confirm it. The story of Doubting Thomas is a good example that highlights just how frowned upon skepticism and inquiry have and that those "blessed" are who believe without evidence.

The tale of Thomas doesn't address the issue of "believing without evidence"; what it addresses is refusing to believe in spite of overwhelming testimony -- testimony, indeed, from those on whom one has counted and in whom one has trusted.

The words you used are, in fact, Dawkins; I can't find the specific item at the moment, but he uses the same ones.

You're evidencing a bit of prejudice here: over and over again in history, it has been inquiry and application of logical thought which have brought people to believe that the God of the Bible is the real one. People as diverse as jurists, archaeologists, astrophysicists, and philologists have come down the path in the opposite direction of the one you describe.

That people use reasoning to support what they already want to believe is hardly a condemnation of religion; if for that reason you reject religion, you ought also to reject politics, academia, and science. The important question is whether such a practice is a proper part of an integral to the discipline; there, one disvocers that it is not so to any of those mentioned, including religion.

And the Bible also says that "fear in the lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7). Does that make it true simply because it makes the assertion and is repeated throughout scripture? I would agree that irrationality occurs outside the realm of religion. Religion just happens to enshirne dogmatism and makes itself an easy target of criticism. We're also far removing ourselves from the original point in quibbling over semantics and textual citations.

That's an interesting way to avoid addressing the point: I was presenting a defining aspect of Christianity, setting it against your definition which has nothing to do with Christianity. And the definition under consideration was hardly one of semantics; the meaning of "faith" is fundamental to Christianity (as well as to attempts to attack religion). My point was that employing your definition, which has nothing to do with Christianity, as a basis for an attack constitutes a straw-man argument.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well they did to a point. They also brought "public" schools to the laity that could afford them in England and spread Western education throughout the world.

That the church began and continued schools for others than churchmen to learn to read, write, and "cipher" is not commonly acknowledged, but it's true. In many areas, religious establishments in the middle ages required such a number of skilled administrators that there were simply not enough educated churchmen for the task. For that reason alone, schools were begun, yet also for others reasons, among them the need for secular 'clerics' (clerks, clarks) to keep accounts for, first, noblemen with extensive estates and, later, for merchants, civic administration, and more.

And of course since non-churchmen were charged tuition (the cost for the act of tutoring), to help with the costs of the schools, enrollment was thrown open to all who could pay.

In some places, they even taught (gasp!) girls.

 

[Kulindahr]

Can't see how the point was so far missed even with an analogy. Martin Luther, in fact, called for public education not because sophisticated piety beckoned him to, but because of the corruption and obfuscation of the Church which led him to turn away from this foundational structure. We have to be honest about where this advancement and progress comes from -- is it from within or from the outside applying pressure?

To be fair, yes he did, or at least claimed to. His position was that education would herald a more Christian sort of person. That he missed the point - education is for the sake of knowing - is another matter.

Luther was reforming an existing system, trying to make it work better. Among the things he wanted to do with education was to deliver it from pious mouthing of priests and make it useful for life.

Whether education should be just for the sake of knowing could be an interesting debate, but Luther was not in a social situation where that was even an imaginable luxury. Yet even today, it's hard to find adherents of education for the sake of knowing; advocates of education argue from utility, either for the individual (conservatives, usually) or for society (liberals, usually).

 

[Kulindahr]

You have no idea what the scientific method is do you. Moreover, scientists are free to admit when they don't know something. "I don't know" is a wonderful position that takes honesty and humility. It takes someone of great arrogance to claim what no human can possibly know: not only is the entire cosmos running on the agency of a supreme entity (this nebulous idea only gets you as far as deism), but I also happen to know its mind (here we cross the threshold to theism, the requirement to be a religious believer) and all this is to be taken on faith (the feeling of truth sans evidence). I'm sorry but speculation within reason is not at par with faith; not even remotely.

Again you set forth the straw man argument with this definition of faith.

I don't know your background, but "feeling of truth sans evidence" doesn't fit the definition of faith found in Christianity, or in Judaism for that matter.

I didn't arrive at being a Christian "sans evidence" -- and I don't understand those who did.


Yet for a statement of "feeling of truth sans evidence", I offer this one: "It takes someone of great arrogance to claim what no human can possibly know: not only is the entire cosmos running on the agency of a supreme entity...."

I would have found that laughable even before I was a Christian, on the reasonable premise that if there is a Creator, I'd expect him to attempt some sort of communication with his critters, and thus that some of them, somewhere and sometime, would be contacted in order that he might tell them certain things -- so even before I reached what you would call faith, I would have found your assertion, given the proposition of a supreme being, astoundingly wrongheaded.

 

[Spensed]

I agree with your points here, except I might have said that religion, or any number of better and more accurate understandings that we might have wished for sooner, and which eventually came along, served an important purpose in fostering social cohesion. In a strange way, religion gave a push to publishing as well, and it has done so much good out of the hands of the churches, but again I'm wondering if there couldn't have been a better way. I think any religious cohesion has been paid back in division many times over, incidentally.

That's probably true. But the fact remains that, for many centuries, the Church carried the flame of education and scholarship, when others, for one reason or another, didn't.

I'd say he wasn't fighting an argument any more but perhaps trying to build a bridge. As for verbiage, sometimes most of the construction materials are on one side of the river.

Still, it's hard building a bridge if one understands only one side of the river.

Chaplain: Let us praise God. O Lord...
Congregation: O Lord...
Chaplain: ...Ooh, You are so big...
Congregation: ...ooh, You are so big...
Chaplain: ...So absolutely huge.
Congregation: ...So absolutely huge.
Chaplain: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Congregation: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Chaplain: Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...
Congregation: And barefaced flattery.
Chaplain: But You are so strong and, well, just so super.
Congregation: Fantastic.
Humphrey: Amen.
Congregation: Amen.

Funny. But, if that's all you think there is to religious worship, then that's all you think there is to religious worship.

If there were a god, I'm not sure he would want to primarily be known for stained glass windows and flying buttresses. Even the really big ones!

Of course, not.

By the way, the role of Christianity in helping the poor and the sick is really a wash at best. If one does not need to laud the bad to see the good, there should be a much more forthright condemnation of the bad from those who would wish to salvage something good from its two millennia of undue influence and corrupt power peddling.

Obviously. But one can do that without overstating the negatives even as one finds fault with pro-faith arguments allegedly doing the same thing.

And above all, there is no realm outside science. There is no fact that can exist that science would not accept, accommodate and align itself around, because science is a method of discovery, not a body of dogma.

Well I guess you're right as far as you go. But the completely unknown and the imagination are two examples of realms outside science, science can get things wrong and dogma can spin scientific results, etc., etc.

 

[Kulindahr]

In any event the Spartans take the credit for first starting public education. There's also a question of just how much education he was willing to push for: "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and...know nothing but the word of God." --Martin Luther

If you line up Luther quotes about reason, you can get the impression of a nearly psychotic mind; there are also places where he lauds and exalts reason.

They statements have to be taken in context, and what he's addressing in that one, if I'm recalling the context correctly, is people making up their own shit and rationalizing it as being Christianity. So stick in the word "rationalizing" in place of "reason", and think about the statement.

Chaplain: Let us praise God. O Lord...
Congregation: O Lord...
....
Chaplain: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Congregation: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Chaplain: Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...
Congregation: And barefaced flattery.
Chaplain: But You are so strong and, well, just so super.
Congregation: Fantastic.
Humphrey: Amen.
Congregation: Amen.

I have been to liturgies that this would fit so well....
The worst are where the prayers are constructed so as to flatter the bishop, or a visiting dignitary.

If there were a god, I'm not sure he would want to primarily be known for stained glass windows and flying buttresses. Even the really big ones!

What about big censers and bell towers?

I am inclined to grant full credence to the idea that religions can reform themselves and "improve" if you will. But the minute they pick up that tool, they can no longer claim to be the custodians of inerrant immutable knowledge. There can be no reverence for the precepts of dead men unless they meet the test of fresh eyes.

Your second statement is insufficient: they can still claim to be such custodians, but not claim to be infallible ones -- because if reform was needed, obviously the custodians can screw up.

And above all, there is no realm outside science. There is no fact that can exist that science would not accept, accommodate and align itself around, because science is a method of discovery, not a body of dogma.

Dawkins holds that statement, in a false fashion; he's making the arrogant assertion that methods of inquiry dependent on human senses can reach every item there is, making all knowable.
I gather from what follows that you don't mean it that way, that what you mean is that whatever might be demonstrable, by whatever method, will be accepted by science.

 

[poolerboy]

You're evidencing a bit of prejudice here: over and over again in history, it has been inquiry and application of logical thought which have brought people to believe that the God of the Bible is the real one.

And the definition under consideration was hardly one of semantics; the meaning of "faith" is fundamental to Christianity (as well as to attempts to attack religion). My point was that employing your definition, which has nothing to do with Christianity, as a basis for an attack constitutes a straw-man argument.

I'm in no way caricaturing here. It isn't my fault that believers have given inconsistent definitions. Every believer will usually at this point always come out with an objection that the other side is misrepresenting their beliefs.

Again you set forth the straw man argument with this definition of faith.

I don't know your background, but "feeling of truth sans evidence" doesn't fit the definition of faith found in Christianity, or in Judaism for that matter.

I didn't arrive at being a Christian "sans evidence" -- and I don't understand those who did.

I'm still waiting for a workable definition of faith. What evidence pointed to not only some nebulous speculation that someone's running the show but that it's your specific one of Christianity? Pure a priori deduction like the ontological argument isn't going to cut it in terms of evidence as its opposite can also be conceived.

Yet for a statement of "feeling of truth sans evidence", I offer this one: "It takes someone of great arrogance to claim what no human can possibly know: not only is the entire cosmos running on the agency of a supreme entity...."

I would have found that laughable even before I was a Christian, on the reasonable premise that if there is a Creator, I'd expect him to attempt some sort of communication with his critters, and thus that some of them, somewhere and sometime, would be contacted in order that he might tell them certain things -- so even before I reached what you would call faith, I would have found your assertion, given the proposition of a supreme being, astoundingly wrongheaded.

You would expect that and yet all we have is hearsay that such a thing occurred. If you're convinced either by textual witness alone and the number of adherents as evidence, then anything can and will convince you.