A Fundamental Question

Religion, in my most humble of opinions, is an acceptable con.

It sets standards of social behaviour and demands time for inner reflection on how we meet these standards, in return for this it offers the reward of eternal life, of some sort, for those who maintain these standards.

I don't know the ins and outs of most religions, but barring a few bells and whistles and I don't think it's too far of the mark.
 
Originally posted by simmo@Aug 25 2006, 09:36 AM
I understand that faith is irrational etc etc. What I don't understand is how a person reconciles within themselves something which is proven to be incorrect.

For example, with the Darwinian thing - you have a person who believes that god created man (in one day). You then have the supposedly proven fact that man was not created in one day, he evolved into the being that he is (and has continued evolving).

As I see it, the options are:

1) Decry the evolution thing as lies.
2) Believe in both, ignoring the fact that they contradict each other.
3) Invent some addition to the god created man in one day story so that it also fits the evolutionary theory.
4) Decry the teachings of the church as lies and take a steadfast stand on the side of science.
5) Believe in evolution and mentally gloss over the bible's version of events (although to my way of thinking, this would lead in fairly short order to the option directly above).

No doubt there are other options which I have not considered.
Of the options above, I believe that options 1 and 4 are the most satisfactory with the others all being a cop-out to some degree.

Anyone who has faith care to add another option or choose one from above?
Click to expand...
Simmo,

Firstly, unless I misunderstand you, you're confusing Darwinism with creationism.

There was a documentary on telly not so long ago in which a number of eminent scientists were discussing the relationship/difficulties between science & nature and God. I was very surprised how many of them claimed the more they found out about the universe the more they were becoming convinced that there was some kind of guiding power behind it. Many of these scientists claimed to be either atheist or agnostic and many were now questioning their previously-held beliefs.

As for creationism, while I reckon that if you believe in God you can believe anything is possible, I'm much more convinced by the interpretation of the word 'day' as meaning a long period of time.
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid@Aug 25 2006, 10:29 AM
Firstly, unless I misunderstand you, you're confusing Darwinism with creationism.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not totally up on it, but I believe creationism would be the belief that a single being/deity created earth and all on it.

A quick look at Wikipedia has revealed that Darwinism is more directed towards the "survival of the fittest" than I had thought. Perhaps the term "evolutionism" would be more appropriate.



Would I be correct in saying that the interpretation of the word "day" part would fall into the same sort of bracket as option 3?

I don't want to argue the rights and wrongs of our individual perceptions, so don't take the next question as inflammatory, but where does that piece of faith stand with regard to Eve's creation?
 
Kri - I was going to get all intellectual and read up on Aquinas and all the metaphysical poets to try answer your question. But I dumped that idea, in favour of my own simple interpretation.

A soul is that touch from God that differentiates us from other life forms. It manifests itself in our free will and opportunity to have a faith and believe we have been so touched. It is non sectarian, and non judgemental, and good souls make life better, in the main, for other people.

If your supplementary question is for a definition of God, it is that higher power that gives out souls. She is non sectarian.
 
So "soul" is what makes us humans different from animals.

There is a theory that we have descended from the apes and that perhaps the chimpanzee is our closest relative.

If that theory is correct, and as with most theories it is just a best-guess, at what stage did this "soul" develop?
 
If atomic surgery was possible (i.e. an atom could be removed from anywhere in your body and replaced by another) then consider the following :-

An atomic surgeon removes an atom from your body and replaces it with one in an identical state. I don't know about you, but I think I'd still be me. Let's suppose the surgeon replaces every atom in your body, one by one, with an atom in an identical state. Would there ever be a point at which you wouldn't be you? And yet, suppose he mapped each atom he took from you exactly 3 feet to your left behind a screen. At the end of the exercise, you still feel like you are you and yet, when the screen is removed, there you are, three feet to your left, all the original atoms.

I've no idea what the above suggests. Do we contain a special atom (or atoms) that uniquely define us? Are we really made up of atoms or do we only experience this without it actually being true? Personally I haven't a fkng clue but, there are more things on heaven and earth etc. etc. Maybe in the future they will be able to travel back in time and invisibly capture what uniquely defines us and download us into the future (without changing the time-line in any way) with each generation bringing back their parents/family until it filters back through time. There again, maybe we're a hard drive simulation of some superior race's past, they in turn may be nothing more than a hard drive simulation .......... and so on all the way back to the original ones (or one). When we reach the stage where we can create hard drive universes with creatures that can think and feel as we once did, would we deny them an after-life to save RAM?

I have plenty of questions and no answers but, what I will say is this. When you consider things such as the accuracy of the universal constants and the old maxim"if it can happen then it will" then, those people who express the certainty that "this is it", "there's nothing more" etc. etc. are IMO the neo-flat earthers.
 
Do you really believe it though, or are you just clinging to the hope that all the Rangers scum will be doomed to an eternity in hell.
 
If there was no belief in God the world would be a bigger mess than it is now.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Not so sure about that one - it is mankind's varying interpretations of God/Gods, religion and religious writings that have caused many of our conflicts, past and present.
 
I'm glad you saved your time with the metaphysicals, AC - I've read enough over the years to be none the wiser, as are they. All they've done is to ask and ask and find no definitive answer. If I'd had my questions answered by them, I'd be quoting them, too, but I haven't.

Okay, so you get a soul if God touches you (metaphysically speaking, of course). If He doesn't, your luck's out. You go through physical life soullessly, and you die without finding your soul awaiting you on t'other side of Jordan, etc. So the world breaks down into the soulless untouched, and the soulful touched. As it were.

Fine and dandy - but WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF A SOUL? I can be a helpful, ethical, caring, averagely decent sort of person in this life, helping my neighbour, respecting my (surviving) parent, etc., etc. I am doing those things without being conscious of having a soul. When I die, I don't expect - and I'll be flippin' amazed if - I'll see spectral hordes of pre-deceased friends and family at my bedside or wherever it is I lay a'dyin'. I'm not vexed by the notion of my mortality. I don't worry I may not have the right badge to get through dem Pearly Gates. I just want to know, as a matter of secular interest: WHAT IS A SOUL - not who gets it, who gives it, who doesn't. What is it, what does it DO that can't be done normally, and why do we want one?
 
Originally posted by Melendez@Aug 25 2006, 12:37 PM
If there was no belief in God the world would be a bigger mess than it is now.
Click to expand...
Er, sorry? So far as I can see from a reading of history and a quick look from behind the sofa at current world events, belief in 'God' and an obsession that your own 'God' is not just the one and only, but wants you to go out and wage war/jihad against the adherents of any other 'God', are the major causes of discord and mass murder in the world - and always have been. Not that humankind wouldn't find other excuses, viz Soviet Russia, Cambodia etc etc. Religion is an attempt to make some sense out of the random violence and terror of the natural state of things;and as it becomes organised - even in very primitive societies - it becomes a mechanism fo rsocial and plitical control, also of male control over women.

I respect the belief of others so long as they don't try to dictate to me how to behave; but I fear the whole 'Religion' thing is just a self-serving human construct - we are children afraid of the dark.
 
Originally posted by Honest Tom@Aug 25 2006, 12:38 PM

..... An atomic surgeon removes an atom from your body and replaces it with one in an identical state. I don't know about you, but I think I'd still be me. Let's suppose the surgeon replaces every atom in your body, one by one, with an atom in an identical state. Would there ever be a point at which you wouldn't be you? [......... snipped]
Click to expand...
If you substitute the word - ie the correct biological term - "cell" for 'atom' in Ted's post, and then reflect upon the biological fact that EVERY SINGLE CELL in the human body is replaced within each seven years, it might make you wonder if you were truly still the same person as that young thing who used to ......
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Aug 25 2006, 09:01 PM
Not that humankind wouldn't find other excuses
Click to expand...
You kinda replied for me there.

Religion was used, and is used, as a cover for most of the biggies. Most have really been raw naked tribalism. Do we really believe that God told Bush to invade Iraq? Is it really written in Jewish scripture that they should bomb that they should bomb the shite out Lebanon etc etc. These are all obscene misrepresentation of what was originally intended as God's law, by people wanting to justify, and get tribal support, for tribal wars.

What religion does do is provide a world order. A structure for how individuals should behave, bringing with it millions of tiny little changes for the better.
 
Presumably you mean 'religion' in the sense of people adhering religiously to an agreed (some hope) code of conduct, Mel? Because if not, then whose religion would you have order the world? Islam and Jewry, with proscriptions against pork, shellfish and alcohol? With dismemberment and stoning to death still perfectly correct religious punishments for transgressions under Shari'ah law? With all three intoning heavily against homosexuality, and no sex at all if you're not married?

Hinduism, where when communities can get away with it, it's still right and correct for widows to be pushed to burn alive on their husbands' funeral pyres? And where, even should they be spared suttee, they must never re-marry, while widowers can?

All religions provide for codes of conduct, all right, but you need to know the ins and outs of their Laws on property, inheritance, tax, marriage, sexual activity, crime, eating and drinking, before you decide that any one religion is the RIGHT one. That's what previous postings suggest: there is no one 'right' way, since every religion believes it is the best, the truest, the most correct way for humans to behave. You can hardly opt for a pick 'n' mix when devout Muslims would be horrified that you've included 'alcohol is okay' to suit more relaxed Christians, and Hindus would be appalled that beef was on the menu of your religion, as much as Jews would throw up their hands, aghast, at lobster and crab.

'Religion' does indeed provide codes of conduct, but they're a lot more sweeping, including a full recital of how communities should order their entire lives from birth to death (hmm, everyone for circumcision?).

And what to do with the dead, in fact? Christians are buried with ceremonies and memorials; memorials are anathema to Muslims and you must be buried by the next day; Hindus insist on being burned on open pyres (oh, dear, there go the local Health & Safety regs!), and so on. And what to do with animists, who have their own 'religion' inasmuchas it's as valid a set of beliefs as anyone, Amer-Indian customs, Innuit customs (prior to the attempts of meddling missions to Christianize them all).... :blink:

There is so MUCH to take into account when trying to assume world order from 'religion', because there are so many differences between them. Hence the wars fought because 'mine's better than yours'.
 
A soul has nothing whatever to do with organised religion. What I am trying winkle out is whether or not it has anything to do with the pattern race programme.

This has turned into a good read though. Seems incongruous that a discussion topic at this depth had some of the fluffy bunnies braying for my head on a plate.
 
Back
Top