This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
If Religion did not exist how far more advanced and how, much more tolerant of each other would we be?
After reading Umberto Eco's name of the rose (again) I started to think about the way religion has always been open to personal interpretation and the influence it has had by using fear and superstition and even ignorance to not only keep people in line but supress free thinking and invention.
So I started to thinking how further advanced we could be. Could we of already of colonised Mars and found and interacted with other species or would they of reached out to us?
Would we be more tolerant of each other and treat each other on a more equal footing than we have, had and still do???
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Even today those whom pride themselves on being atheist: follow cultural trends, have patterned arguments of belief, appeal to writers/scientist, perhaps have militant behaviors, outcast those who do not share basic thoughts, etc.
The defining point between before disorganized thoughts/practices become an organized belief system - is the moment where the people self recognize the fact they are a group who shares these values in morality, existing, metaphysics, etc.
A better question for me: When will religions evolve into something similar to that of the Vulcan faith? lol
Otherwise: When will people stop overstating the word religion...?
A good moment in time will be when the atheist leaders will just settle and try to manifest a religion... At least that religion would be more substantial than most we have presently existing today.. I speak taboo, good, we need some extreme changes to catch up with how rapid this world is evolving with technology and knowledge.
Joseph Dorrell
EDIT The above claim that atheistic religion is an oxymoron, has been retracted ENDEDIT
But I would like to see atheists meeting together on Sunday mornings for stories and lectures on morality, atheists celebrating the passing of the seasons and the rites of passage of their friends and family, atheists performing rituals and spiritual cleansing, atheists meditating and contemplating upon wisdom. Hell, you can even do it together with theists (!!)
I think too man people are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and a rejection of faith does not need to imply a rejection of everything that religions do. Once faith is disentangled from religion, what is left over is culture... And culture is fun!!
Adriaan Braam 20+
Faith or belief or trust in a higher power has always existed. But even worshipping the sun or believing in ghosts in trees is in itself not harmful. The trouble starts when people assume they have it right and try to influence and control others.
It certainly does not help the situation if it is believed that those that believe differently than we do, are going to a hell. Which is totally absurd.
But i'd be very interested to hear your reaction to our doctrine of Faith
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/documents/DocFaith.pdf
Best wishes.
Joseph Dorrell
The problem wit the word faith, is that it has several meanings and although our languages are useful for everyday communication, they can sometimes lead us astray when it comes to philosophy and science, where it is important that we define exactly what we mean.
What I mean when I say faith is:
> Grossly incorrect apportionment of belief in a statement concerning the objective nature of reality, with respect to the available evidence.
Alternative definitions of faith suggest that
> Faith is truth. I reject this definition. If this is so, then we can get rid of the word faith entirely, but the question would still remain 'Why do you believe something is true?'.
> Faith is trust. I reject this definition in a philosophical context, but have no problem with people using it colloquially. Trust is based upon evidence: 'I trust my brother to buy me a nice present for my birthday - because he has always done so before'. Therefore, trust is in the realm of rational belief. Faith in a god or gods is different, because it is not based upon evidence, it is in the realm of irrational beliefs.
> Faith is a system of belief. I agree with this, and we hear it all the time 'the Christian faith', 'the Jewish faith'...etc. However, what makes these systems of belief different from other systems of belief is that they are based upon faith (see definition above)
------------
'Faith... in a higher power has always existed'. Logical fallacy - argumentum ad antiquitam
'The trouble starts when people assume they have it right and try to influence and control others' - People always control and influence others, we are a social species. Education controls and influences people, the courts of justice control and influence people. No, the problem is when this control and influence is based upon false premises - e.g. 'We are God's chosen people', 'I will go to heaven when I die'
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
In response to everything else, what Adriaan said.
Joseph Dorrell
I correct my statement to say that rationalist religion is an oxymoron, where rationalism is the rejection of faith.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
But atheism, the non belief in gods is not a religion. It is just a position on one issue, belief in gods.
Adriaan Braam 20+
Our definition of faith is as follows.
Faith is an internal acknowledgement and affection: an internal acknowledgement of truth from sight and understanding!! of it, and an internal affection of truth from willing the truth because it is true; and it consists in desiring from the heart to know what is good and true for the sake of life. It is therefore inseparable from life and is one with the good of charity. Indeed we are taught the understanding of good is what is principally called the truth of faith, and that faith is the operation of the Lord alone through the charity in a person.
Also, there is historical faith which rests upon human authorities; and persuasive faith is a belief for the sake of selfish or worldly ends; and spurious faith is that in which falsities are mixed with truths.
When enough people have a similar faith, they car-pool, spiritually and call it a religion. As car-pooling is not without its faults, neither is a religion.
About your last point,
I regard myself as rational, recognizing the fact that we live on two distinct levels. We are spirits living in a material, scientific realm.
That's why science can tell us that we think, but not WHAT we think. Science can measure our temperature but not our love for our partner or our sport.
To 'see' the spiritual from a scientific stand, is like standing on the street and 'seeing' what is on the roof of a building high above.
The more we know about the why of life, the more we'll know about the how of life.
Joseph Dorrell
"Faith is an internal acknowledgement and affection"
Internal to what? Human minds? So we acknowledge something in our minds. Thinking. Affection like... a love of knowledge? Faith is thinking and loving.
"an internal acknowledgement of truth from sight and understanding!!" from sight... so, we use our senses to work out what is true. and understanding... I can only think you mean logical reasoning here. That bit sounds a bit like science, using observation and logic to work out what is true.
"of it," Was this supposed to come with the previous or next clause?
"...and an internal affection of truth from willing the truth because it is true;"
Loving things that are true. From willing the truth...what? willing like wanting? Wanting to have truth?
"and it consists in desiring from the heart to know what is good and true for the sake of life." You're starting to loose me! Poetic use of heart... instinctive desire to know truth and morality?
"It is therefore inseparable from life and is one with the good of charity."
Whoa... non-sequitur. Is one with... as in the same, or ... no, I have no idea what you're saying.
"Indeed we are taught the understanding of good is what is principally called the truth of faith"
understanding of good... morality? Is principally called... is the same as? The truth of faith... Wait, that's cheating, you can't include the truth or falseness of something within it's definition!! That's like saying 'Allah is defined as a really cool god who exists'. Islam is true by definition. And what does truth have to do with morality?
"and that faith is the operation of the Lord alone through the charity in a person."
Only God can 'do' faith?? Charity???
That definition really is a mess. Can you come up with a better, shorter, clearer one?
Joseph Dorrell
I regard you as irrational with regards to your belief in a god.
"...recognizing the fact that we live on two distinct levels."
...a spiritual level separate from the material realm? Please provide a reason to believe in such a thing, or refrain from stating it as a fact.
"We are spirits living in a material, scientific realm."
What do you mean by spirit?
"Science can measure our temperature but not our love for our partner or our sport."
Yes... we can measure love, we can explore brain chemistry, we can do psychology, we can observe human behaviour... and even if we don't know everything about it, this does not mean it is unknowable.
"To 'see' the spiritual from a scientific stand, is like standing on the street and 'seeing' what is on the roof of a building high above."
A glib proverb does not wisdom make.
Adriaan Braam 20+
"Grossly incorrect apportionment of belief in a statement concerning the objective nature of reality, with respect to the available evidence."
"Did you have a similar difficulty in understanding mine, or do you simply reject it."
It seemed to me not so much a definition of faith but more your opinion and rejection of faith.
Just a note about your comment on faith and truth is that in the Hebrew language those two words were one and the same word.
But maybe we have to take a step back.
When in your 'definition' you say "..,with respect to the available evidence" that puts it totally outside of the spiritual realm. You seem to have decided to completely disregard anything spiritual because it is above the material and cannot be proven.
A thousand people can do a same action but not one of those people will have exactly the same motive for why they do it, as the other.
You say love can be proven. No it can not! Love is a spiritual substance and cannot be detected by ANY material or scientific instrument. We can assume, speculate and interpret what we see physically, but that is in no way proof. Humans can pretend to love because there is no proof, unless we make a mistake and then show we did not tell the truth.
If we could not pretend it would be so much easier to defend our home or country. If we could, the border guards would measure our intention (or love) and so determine that we are going to fly into some buildings in New York City.
"we can explore brain chemistry" yes, but that does not show if we have good or evil intentions. It all boils down to freewill. We were created with the ability to choose what to believe, to choose what to love or who to love. If that were not the case we would be puppets, or animals. Now we have even the option to kill someone we have chosen to hate, or love someone we see as an enemy..
You ask "what do you mean by spirit?" pls next post
Adriaan Braam 20+
Our eyes can only see the three dimensions of our physical world but our understanding can see into the higher dimensions of spirit. CAN, if we so choose!
One of Swedenborg's most famous quotes is
"Thought based on the eye closes the understanding, but thought based on the understanding opens the eye."
What is spirit? You may have heard the expression 'We are what we love.' Our character is determined by what we have decided and learned to love. So spirit is a form of love. If we love evil, we are an evil spirit. If we love good, we are a good spirit.
This booklet is called "The Nature of Spirit" and deals with it many, many times better than I can even attempt.
http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/nature/nat1.htm
Sorry Joseph, I said "an internal acknowledgement of truth from sight and understanding!! of it"
The whole point I was trying to make is that we should understand truth. How can we decide something is truth if we do not understand it? That's why my emphasis of two "!!". If you had read my first link (to DocFaith.pdf) that was the first point made. We cannot have faith in mysteries or things we do not understand because then it would be 'blind faith.'
You may have noticed that our view on faith is different than the normal Christian idea of faith. That's why we also call ourselves New Christians. We do not think that we only received our brains to become smart shoppers.
It is our conviction that it is now permissible to enter into the world and concepts of religion with our understanding. Questions are encouraged.
The better we understand life, the better we can live.
This relates to your point "and it consists in desiring from the heart to know what is good and true for the sake of life. Poetic use of heart... instinctive desire to know truth and morality?
Not instinctive.
We have a will and an understanding. These relate perfectly with each other as our heart and lungs do. Pls see link
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
A lot of things wrong with your responses and thoughts, collectively.
First and foremost Adriaan is trying to find common ground between the supposed left and right (theist v. atheist). Which makes him neither right nor wrong but rather allowing more room for interpretation of all thoughts rather than either 'sides' fundamentalism.
I will stand on the same ground as Adriaan, coming from the position as a religious naturalist.
Now, a few points of biases in thought... Not all who value faith in God are fundamentalist/extremist in the sense of denying reality and/or being open minded - this position just satisfies the rest of your arguments.
Next, you claim there is no 'rational religion' - sorry again, wrong. Two points:
1. rationality is debatable; I consider the longevity of actions being in the positive spectrum to be rational. So obviously, yes, historically fundamentalist proved irrational and do so today while being conservative in issues of marriage, abortion, etc.
2. Asides from those who practice fundamentalism in faith/thought, religions prove very rational therefore morality, ethics and family values are constantly in that state of mind. I fear you are talking out of ignorance about world religion, but rather are looking at this in a historic scope (which is a partial stipulation) and/or perhaps just the Abrahamics. Muslims happen to be some of the greatest people, if you were to visit one and were to admire something of theirs, in Iraq especially, they would offer you that item in good nature - irrational? No way, in the long accord, I am assured that gentleman would be happier knowing you are happy than he was with that item.
2. a. If you can argue any Eastern religion is irrational, I can argue you have no idea about their history, fundamentals and/or ideologies.
Lastly, if you are to talk of cognitive studies here, you better know your stuff. Neuroactivity is unique in all of us, thus there is no universal way to depict exact emotions.