Theological Opinions , PART II

[inked]

JD,

This is an April Fools Day post, right? You trot out hackneyed old communist arguments and expect us to think you are serious, right? And the Beatles as philosophers? (They never seemed to connect with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi did they?)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I think what religion boils down to are several things...

1) As the Beatles said - "God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
2) Death is scary, by believing in an afterlife, it makes it easier to deal with someone dying, let alone oneself (if I believed in heaven - I would see my mother when I die).
3) Religion was a way to explain natural phenomenon that was not understood at the time, but today we have science to explain.
4) Religion was a way for governments to control people, by putting the fear of god into them.

no. 2 & 3 explain my PoV partly
4 is common sociological explanation, nice post JD

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

JD,

This is an April Fools Day post, right? You trot out hackneyed old communist arguments and expect us to think you are serious, right? And the Beatles as philosophers? (They never seemed to connect with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi did they?)

Nope - it's serious. It has nothing to do with communism - it has to do with what the purpose of religion is based on years of me observing how people react toward religion.

As for the beatles quote - that's dead serious. Why do you think after 9/11 the churches were filled. What - it lasted maybe a month or two? That is an example of god being a concept by which we measure our pain. For the most part when things are going badly - people have a habit of turning toward god and religion. When things are going good, god is many times the furtherst thing from people's minds.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Thanks for posting that, Lief. It's an interesting theory, although still lacking in sufficient supporting evidence. The radiation IMO cannot have had such an overwhelming influence on life spans.

That really depends how much of it there was. Significant short term radiation exposure has already been shown to do all of the things that normally happen toward the end of life. I believe most of radiocarbon radiation originates in space, which means that a different atmosphere very possibly could decrease the amount that these harmful race can hit human tissues. More supporting evidence is needed though, I agree .

Originally Posted by Eärniel

And the theory doesn't take into account the other factors such as state of the medicine arts which would no doubt have had a more significant impact on the lengths of life spans.

Once again, it entirely depends how much of this radiation there used to be. That's what it all depends on, and right now we don't know (or I don't think we do).

Anyway, just a theory .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I disagree. How can not knowing something be a belief?

Here's the belief - if I were to ask the atheists I've spoken with if he/she based their morality on the Bible being the word of God, they would say no. They BELIEVE (based on subjective evidence) it is NOT the word of God, therefore why would they base their morality on it? They will base their morality on whatever they subjectively BELIEVE it is right to base it on - science, popular opinion, talking with others, pondering it on their own, etc. etc. - just like I base my morality on whatever I subjectively believe it is right to base it on.

Morals do not uniquely belong to religion. I think you can have morality and morals without accepting the presence of a devine being.

I agree. I agree.

And I"m too pooped to answer the rest - I have some wedding stuff going on this weekend and I have a bunch of clean-up and decorating to do - I'll be back next week

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It will never fail to amaze me that you are incapable or seperating religion from person. or maybe you just have a maddening need to equivocate christianity with everything you see. even if its nothing at all.

(btw, I'm NOT on the Christian themes in Harry Potter, because I don't think there really are any besides the common virtues - so neener neener! )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You are attempting to pull me down to the level of religion and slap me with a nice big label: CHURCH OF AGNOSTICISM.

Why did you use the word "down", IRex?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Here's the belief - if I were to ask the atheists I've spoken with if he/she based their morality on the Bible being the word of God, they would say no. They BELIEVE (based on subjective evidence) it is NOT the word of God, therefore why would they base their morality on it? They will base their morality on whatever they subjectively BELIEVE it is right to base it on - science, popular opinion, talking with others, pondering it on their own, etc. etc. - just like I base my morality on whatever I subjectively believe it is right to base it on.

And here you speak about atheists - whereas what Eärniel was commenting on was your comment regarding agnostics who don't claim to have an answer one way or the other.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why did you use the word "down", IRex?

because he's "above" organised religion i would assume, and i would generalise that people who dont take part in organised religion are intellectually ahead of those who do (this is a generalisation not applied to you or Inked who both seem very intelligent).
thats my elitist coment for the day....
JD nice with the Beatles quote, we should make a thread were we can discuss lyrics that deal with religion and philosophy, make for some interesting discussion.

[inked]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Nope - it's serious. It has nothing to do with communism - it has to do with what the purpose of religion is based on years of me observing how people react toward religion.

As for the beatles quote - that's dead serious. Why do you think after 9/11 the churches were filled. What - it lasted maybe a month or two? That is an example of god being a concept by which we measure our pain. For the most part when things are going badly - people have a habit of turning toward god and religion. When things are going good, god is many times the furtherst thing from people's minds.

"Originally Posted by jerseydevil
I think what religion boils down to are several things...

1) As the Beatles said - "God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
2) Death is scary, by believing in an afterlife, it makes it easier to deal with someone dying, let alone oneself (if I believed in heaven - I would see my mother when I die).
3) Religion was a way to explain natural phenomenon that was not understood at the time, but today we have science to explain.
4) Religion was a way for governments to control people, by putting the fear of god into them."

OK, JD, since I now understand you were serious, I'll respond seriously.
#4 is the standard Marxist argument "religion is the opiate of the people" which is why I made the remark about the hackneyed phrase. But his and subsequent attempts to replace religion with government resulted in multitudinous and greater massacres and destruction than all the religious wars combined. Government control under communism meant in most places the substitution of the state (and whoever had control of it's apparatik) for God with the usurpation of perogatives previously limited to Him and none of His consolations. The 20 million Stalin starved to death in forced relocations and communalisation of farming are one glaring example.

#3 There is no doubt that some aspects of nature religions were intended to explain natural phenomena, eg, the virgin in the volcano and storm gods et alia. But religion goes beyond this to assert the encounter with the numinous, the AWE-ful, for which nature is but the universal symbolic experience. The explanation of natural phenomena by science equally can move persons to the numinous - whether on the macro-, micro-, or quantum level! So while this accounts for a subset of religious experiences (explanation of natural process by idealized human-like gods), it does not explain all of them. The religious experiences of Hinduism and Buddhism come to mind.

#2 Death can be scary. But it too is a universal human experience - going back to early stone-age cultures for which we have archeological evidence - that has been met with specific actions at burial revealing a near-universal expectation of an afterlife. This belief that the individual survives somehow into the next existence after the body loses its active principle has many expressions in many modes. It would seem that the expectation preceded formal religious experience or intellectualization. Religions then proffered explanations and beliefs. In this case, I think the evidence points to a universal human experience of which religion is a major manifestation with the emphasis on the on-going connectedness of humans. The details differ to be sure from religion to religion.

#1 If we are to regard the Beatle's statement philosphically, it is a valid comment on human experience as you have it stated. For many persons the turn to religion or God indeed comes at events in which their previously ordered world fell into chaos. For religious persons, it can be point at which their trust level is overwhelmed and they become a-religious or anti-religious.
Folks who have some underlying religious belief not impacting most of their lives are brought up against the inevitability of death and human wickedness and seek answers. That is a valid religious response. It is not, however, the only measure of religious belief. It is a rather obvious one.

So, IMHO, these views do not explain away religion, but point to the interfaces of human experience which make humans respond religiously. And that response may be the substitution of one religion for another (as in the opiat of the people is the government, for instance); its incorporation of scientific explanation and relocation of the object of belief and purpose of belief; its value in affirming the interconnectedness of humans in life and beyond; and, its resources for dealing with the big problems of natural disaster and human wickedness.

None of these points invalidate religion(s). They provide points for entry or exit. Differing religions can be assessed on how they deal with these issues and ranked in moral qualities. But then again, I believe. That means, as CS Lewis observed in MERE CHRISTIANITY, that I may well have more in common with a tribal fetishist than adamant non-believers. Not necessarily in specific beliefs, but in a common understanding of belief.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by inked

OK, JD, since I now understand you were serious, I'll respond seriously.
#4 is the standard Marxist argument "religion is the opiate of the people" which is why I made the remark about the hackneyed phrase. But his and subsequent attempts to replace religion with government resulted in multitudinous and greater massacres and destruction than all the religious wars combined. Government control under communism meant in most places the substitution of the state (and whoever had control of it's apparatik) for God with the usurpation of perogatives previously limited to Him and none of His consolations. The 20 million Stalin starved to death in forced relocations and communalisation of farming are one glaring example.

The fact that these massacres and destruction were more casastrophic then all religious wars combined is not a very significant evidence, unless you mean by ratio, or by percentage. The percentage of people taken against the population as a whole has to be taken into account when measuring which was "more bloody."

Also, the fact that these disasters marked his efforts to subdue religion do not mean that he was right. Just as the fact that some people were involved in the Crusades do not mean that Christians are wrong, the fact that some atheists were involved in massive persecution of the religious does not mean that they are wrong.

Originally Posted by inked

#1 If we are to regard the Beatle's statement philosphically, it is a valid comment on human experience as you have it stated. For many persons the turn to religion or God indeed comes at events in which their previously ordered world fell into chaos.

As C.S. Lewis said, "pain is God's loudspeaker to humanity."

Originally Posted by inked

None of these points invalidate religion(s). They provide points for entry or exit.

I agree completely. I in part agree with Jerseydevil's points, 2-4. I'm not positive what #1 means. These last three things are true for some people. For some, God is only their "opiate," their comfort in the face of death, and sometimes governments or church have used religion to manipulate the masses.

However, none of these points invalidates religion. It is impossible to make the assertion that these points are true for everyone or every case. They are the case sometimes. That doesn't make them constants. Indeed, they are very, very far from constants. Like you pointed out, Inked, religion is enormously expansive, throughout human lifespan. Indeed, there are indications that even the neanderthals believed in an afterlife and carefully buried one another. It is far from always a mechanism for control, an explanation of natural phenomenon, or interest in the afterlife. Countless people come to religion entirely of their own volition, for none of these reasons. Indeed, many people come to religion out of spiritual hunger, out of need, out of sensing their own inadequecy. This quiet desperation frequently has nothing to do with the later, but much more to do with the here and now. It can arise among those who are in great homes, in successful businesses- in any station in life or surroundings. I know because I felt that desperation completely separate from any real "reason" that can be pointed to. I was extremely comfortable, had numerous games about me, a marvelous family. I was under no pressures of any kind. Suddenly this hunger began to grow in me, a hunger that actually sometimes felt almost physical. I felt as though I had a second stomach, and one of them could never be filled. Once or twice I even considered eating a large amount more then normal, just to see if that would fill it, it was such a real hunger. It was a constant though, one that would not depart until I experienced meeting God. This hunger was utterly separate and inexplicable. It was something placed on me by the High One, an extremely unpleasant thing that led to marvelous blessings.

Anyway . . . those reasons the Beatles have fall short and are inadequate for countless people's experiences. They are interesting food for thought. They are accurate pointers to some people's religion. They are ridiculous if viewed as "the explanation" for religion .

[jerseydevil]

Although I'm quoting Lief here - not all my response is directed at him, some doesn't even portain to him.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Anyway . . . those reasons the Beatles have fall short and are inadequate for countless people's experiences. They are interesting food for thought. They are accurate pointers to some people's religion. They are ridiculous if viewed as "the explanation" for religion .

You can think of them as ridiculous. As having lived in and outside of religion. Watching extremely religious people in Indiana and human nature - I feel they are very valid explanations for religion. They may not be valid for you - but you have to look at the the beginning purposes of religion anyway. Do you really think you would be a Christian if your parents were Muslim? I seriously doubt it. A person's religion has more today to do with how they were brought up than anything, but that doesn't diminish the original causes for religion.

Inked scoffs at religion being a way for government to control the masses. He seems to be looking at a very narrow view of history though. I'm not talking about the limited 50 years in the 20th century. For one thing - that isn't even considered historical. I'm talking about how in medieval times religion was used by governments and even before that. Many of those things became part of culture, but today we no longer look at the historical aspects of why things are the way they are with a religion Look at the way religion - islam in this case - is used in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries by the Imans. Inks statements and some of yours show me that you only look at religion from the modern chirstian view - in which case I was not merely talking about christianity - nor was I talking about only modern times.

Many people on entmoot look at religion through a very very narrow lens. When religion is mentioned - they automatically think of Christianity. Well I have news for people out there - the world is a big big place - and Christianity is NOT the only religion out there. It may sound surprising - but it's a fact. People should try celebrating a Sader or a muslim festival. I don't mean to recruit either - but to actually open your eyes and see the differences in religion and actually learn about another culture.

Also - I'm not anti-religion at all. I just don't really care about it too much.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree completely. I in part agree with Jerseydevil's points, 2-4. I'm not positive what #1 means. These last three things are true for some people. For some, God is only their "opiate," their comfort in the face of death, and sometimes governments or church have used religion to manipulate the masses.

When I said religion has been used by governments or church to manipulate the masses, I was referring specifically to Christianity during the Medieval Ages. I don't think that happens nearly as much any more, within Christianity, because of the separation of Church and State.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

When I said religion has been used by governments or church to manipulate the masses, I was referring specifically to Christianity during the Medieval Ages. I don't think that happens nearly as much any more, within Christianity, because of the separation of Church and State.

Again narrow view. Here you are only looking at the US and the FEW countries that have a seperation of church and state. Look at Britain - the head of state is the head of the church also and has an OFFICIAL religion.

[Lief Erikson]

I am curious to hear what examples you can site as to how the Church of England has manipulated the masses in recent years.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

if 500,000 people state a certain religion as their religion on their census returns, it becomas one of the official religions of britain, there was a plot for Jedi to become an official religion by the Sun newspaper last time (2001)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Do you really think you would be a Christian if your parents were Muslim? I seriously doubt it. A person's religion has more today to do with how they were brought up than anything, but that doesn't diminish the original causes for religion.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Inked scoffs at religion being a way for government to control the masses. He seems to be looking at a very narrow view of history though. I'm not talking about the limited 50 years in the 20th century. For one thing - that isn't even considered historical. I'm talking about how in medieval times religion was used by governments and even before that. Many of those things became part of culture, but today we no longer look at the historical aspects of why things are the way they are with a religion Look at the way religion - islam in this case - is used in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries by the Imans. Inks statements and some of yours show me that you only look at religion from the modern chirstian view - in which case I was not merely talking about christianity - nor was I talking about only modern times.

I don't understand your main argument, though. The fact that some governments have manipulated religions to their own ends doesn't say much about the religions. It says something about the governments. Forced conversions have happened and do continue to happen, in places. These are definitely not the primary means of gaining converts. Governments can only manipulate religions so long as they have a very great control over people's psyche. They manipulate people based on what is important to those people. I don't think you'll find very many examples of the government making religion interesting to people and then controlling them based upon the religion. Rather, you'll find numerous examples of the government using the beliefs that are already in place. Whatever they may be! Or if you don't find many examples like that, I assure you that I will . Remember that Christianity definitely did not start out as a political tool. Muhammad started out leading only a very persecuted minority. Religion's origins start in people's belief. After the belief is in place, then governments tend to take control of it . . . as they utilize or manipulate people based on whatever is important to them .

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Many people on entmoot look at religion through a very very narrow lens. When religion is mentioned - they automatically think of Christianity.

Yes, because the main belief cores here that express themselves are either Christianity or agnosticism and atheism. There are one or two Hindus or Buddhists here, as well.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I have news for people out there - the world is a big big place - and Christianity is NOT the only religion out there. It may sound surprising - but it's a fact.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

People should try celebrating a Sader or a muslim festival. I don't mean to recruit either - but to actually open your eyes and see the differences in religion and actually learn about another culture.

Some of us actually do, you know. I agree that some tend to just relax on a cushion Christianity that is not real Christianity, and like to close their eyes to everything around them. Others research other religions, and there are a fair number of us that do that.

Speaking just for myself, the instant I learned of Ñólendil being a Hindu, I started an email contact with him (her?) to discuss religion, with an emphasis on learning about Hinduism. I have researched Islam some, writing a report on Early Islam and doing research on their beliefs. I wouldn't be in all of these debate threads if I wasn't interested in learning at all about atheism or agnosticism . The fact is, we aren't all potatoes spending all our time revelling on heavenly couches . I am only four years old spiritually, still, also. Give me more time, and I'll have done more . This is also just me. Your general statement about Christians definitely is only related to a part of our number, and possibly that part of our number is not the majority. Neither of us knows how many heavenly couch potatoes there are in Christianity.

Your statement that we should celebrate a religious festival to a different religion seems rather strange to me. Should I show that I am a Christian by involving myself in a pagan religion? What does that show about my faith, except that it is weak?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I am curious to hear what examples you can site as to how the Church of England has manipulated the masses in recent years.

Again - whwere do I say anythign about just recent years. I'm talkingn about the HISTORY of religion itself. You seem to wish to have a narrow view of everything it seems - so you can comfortably be satisified with your beliefs.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Again - whwere do I say anythign about just recent years.

I know you were talking about the medieval ages too, and about Islam. I addressed that in my longer post. You also mentioned the modern Church of England specifically. I was responding to that. Unless you can present examples of how it has manipulated the masses, it is one example that is actually not very relevant to this point the Beatles made.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm talkingn about the HISTORY of religion itself.

So are you backing out on having the modern Church of England as one of your examples?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So are you backing out on having the modern Church of England as one of your examples?

No - why? It came about because of the king. It is a very good example of what I am talking about. It was an invented religion based on the needs of a king, not on spiritual belief.