What is "religion"?

[alexander]

3) they require money for sustainability.

Now there are a ton of religions that dont use any form of monetary donations and indeed don't require money for sustainability, infact i would say that the majority of religions (not to be mistaken for "religious majority"), do not collect or require money to exist...

 

Indeed, if there is one religion that does not recruit (as seems to be the case with Judaism), then the third conclusion is not satisfied, it is only a special case of a more general definition.

:)

Even if you still dont agree that Judaism recruits even today, and they most certainly openly recruited before, even if you look past historical evidence, and just side with the scripture, it could always be an exception to the rule. If English is full of them, i can have at least one...

 

i guess leo was not trying to define religion but explained its origin

yeah, perhaps in another thread :)

Origin as in where we got it, or origin, why did we come up with it and how it got so out of hand, both of which are fascinating topics of a good discussion over a couple of cups of coffee, and perhaps a snack, perhaps a lunch some ways through the conversation....

 

When I read passages like these from the Bible

Yes, and lets not forget that Christians have been getting back at them for it, for the past 2000 years, on and off...

circumcision

reminds me, something i wanted to bring up, contrary to popular belief, Judaism is not the only religion that practices that, some religions even practice female circumcision (scary as that may sound)

 

I think god ended up in a coma

Jesus turned around in his grave...

Hey, but tell me, as a satirical video documentary, "religion market" would be rather hilarious?

[Qfwfq]

Alex, I was under the impression that what we're talking about is how the concept of religion can be defined. Now certainly we can say, first of all, that it is a doctrine but we must specify criteria of demarcation between religions and other doctrines. This means we must examine what all religious doctrines must and do have.

 

But that is not to say the judaism does not proselytize in other ways, tell me what religion, unconditionally and without a saying, are children of Jewish parents initiated in?

 

Jews are free to proselytize but it isn't part of the doctrine. They consider their children to be Jewish by descent, heck the kids are born Jewish and so they gotta prepare them for their obligations toward יהוה. This is not proselytizing or recruiting, any more than you could say peoples' children are immigrates into the nation of their parents. According to the doctrine it's indoctrination but isn't proselytizing, the children of Israel are born with these obligations, they will become self responsible with adolescence and until then the parents are responsible for them.

 

The word salvation, as a latinate term can certainly mean rescue from a shipwreck, earthquake or other disaster, but as we're discussing the matter in English we should consider that it is much associated with the Christian concept which is not a hallmark of all religions. Further, when ancient farmers performed sacrifices or other rites in fear of drought, floods &c. or when sailors invoked Poseidon, you might say they were warding off destruction or failure, but when they did not so much fear adverse weather and they were simply auspicating the best of crops or when hunter-gatherers invoke gods for nature's bounty, that's a benefit that can't really be called salvation.

 

I say a religion is a doctrine of belief in metaphysical entities that are able to control material reality at their own discretion, that one may strive to appease to remain in their favour or anger by wrong action. We still can't expect this to be an all-encompassing definition however, there will still be some borderline cases.

[Little Bang]

All religions have a creator called God. Some have many many Gods. I have a creator and that creator I call the Universe. So I see no difference in my religion and all other religions. I have a creator and they have a creator.

[alexander]

Alex, I was under the impression that what we're talking about is how the concept of religion can be defined. Now certainly we can say, first of all, that it is a doctrine but we must specify criteria of demarcation between religions and other doctrines. This means we must examine what all religious doctrines must and do have.

 

 

 

Jews are free to proselytize but it isn't part of the doctrine. They consider their children to be Jewish by descent, heck the kids are born Jewish and so they gotta prepare them for their obligations toward יהוה. This is not proselytizing or recruiting, any more than you could say peoples' children are immigrates into the nation of their parents. According to the doctrine it's indoctrination but isn't proselytizing, the children of Israel are born with these obligations, they will become self responsible with adolescence and until then the parents are responsible for them.

 

The word salvation, as a latinate term can certainly mean rescue from a shipwreck, earthquake or other disaster, but as we're discussing the matter in English we should consider that it is much associated with the Christian concept which is not a hallmark of all religions. Further, when ancient farmers performed sacrifices or other rites in fear of drought, floods &c. or when sailors invoked Poseidon, you might say they were warding off destruction or failure, but when they did not so much fear adverse weather and they were simply auspicating the best of crops or when hunter-gatherers invoke gods for nature's bounty, that's a benefit that can't really be called salvation.

 

Thank you, finally a move in a constructive direction...

 

Firstly we are not examining religions doctrines specifically, not every religion has a doctrine that outlines how people in that religion should be/behave, in ancient egypt, for example, they lived by the rule of the pharaoh, and primary religious scriptures were the book of life and the book of the dead, but neither books outlines how humans are to behave, whether they are to proselytize or not, whether they are to live by themselves and isolate themselves or to live in families, how they are to look at life and sex. And yet it was a religion and yet it followed the rules i outlined above...

 

Salvation, oh no, i use it for every possible meaning of the term. Ancients belived that gods saved them from droughts, and from ship wrecks, so salvation for them is a bit different then salvation for a buddhist monk, and different yet from a christian. Not all necessarily seek spiritual salvation, but most have spiritual salvation in the list of things...

 

I am tired of arguing that jewish rabbis proselytize, if you choose to think they dont, you are entitled to your opinion, count it as an exception. I'm just saying that history doesn't agree with you, that's all...

 

I say a religion is a doctrine of belief in metaphysical entities that are able to control material reality at their own discretion, that one may strive to appease to remain in their favour or anger by wrong action. We still can't expect this to be an all-encompassing definition however, there will still be some borderline cases.

so buddhism is not a religion, neither is shinto, and at least a half dozen others that i'm blanking on atm...

Neither buddhism nor shinto believe in entities that are able to control material reality, in case of buddhism there is no discression, and there is no pleasing of any kind. Also in shinto you are not pleasing the spirits...

[modest]

Hey, but tell me, as a satirical video documentary, "religion market" would be rather hilarious?

 

Oh, no doubt that'd be hilarious. I'm just having trouble thinking of how a satirical video entitled "religion market" would be different from an honest-to-God documentary entitled "religion market". We would be pushing the boundaries of satire to try to make religion look more market-like than it already is. Then again... I guess it would be like a Waiting for Guffman like film... you're not sure if it's serious, completely absurd, or both, but it's hilarious in any case.

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

in ancient egypt, for example, they lived by the rule of the pharaoh,

Indeed the only doctrine was that people must obey the Pharaoh and, apart from enforcing his authority, the prime purpose was to appease the forces of nature that were of capital importance to their agriculture. It was like many state religions which really have no concern to be spread outside the land/people they serve to govern.

 

Salvation, oh no, i use it for every possible meaning of the term.

I respect your opinion about use of words but I think it is better to use one that's less associated (especially in English) with Judgement Day as preached by Christ and which also covers the cases I mention which are not safety from catastrophe.

 

I am tired too of arguing about Judaism when there are other cases. When a religion is a major part of a society's heritage, the children are considered to be members right from conception, so indoctrinating them isn't recruiting. As for some members or clerical figures indoctrinating others, this doesn't make it a characteristic of the religion itself. Similarly, some scientific people are very bent on indoctrinating others; that doesn't mean it should be included in the definition of science itself. Or should it?

 

so buddhism is not a religion, neither is shinto, and at least a half dozen others that i'm blanking on atm...

Neither buddhism nor shinto believe in entities that are able to control material reality, in case of buddhism there is no discression, and there is no pleasing of any kind. Also in shinto you are not pleasing the spirits...

As I said, it wasn't to be taken as the final definition and there are semantic hitches. Buddhism and Shinto believe in the soul as a metaphisical entity which controls a person at the very least but able to transcend the material person.

 

My reserve was in fact about my mention of "appease to remain in their favour or anger by wrong action" because it doesn't fit in with cases such as Buddhism wherein one simply respects and cultivates the soul. I think it does fit with Shinto and Taoism and even with religions in which it is basically the souls of the ancestors which are worshiped, they are called on to influence people's lives in some manner. So I proposed something to work on, rather than something final. :)

[Boerseun]

What is religion?

 

The biggest pyramid scheme in history, a con of epic proportions where you are being bullshitted out of your money, time and effort for a reward you only get after death (seen objectively, you must be a complete idiot to fall for this), and a protection racket of note (You better believe or else!).

 

Eskimo: "So, would I go to hell if I didn't know about God, the devil and sin?"

Missionary: "No, not if you didn't know about it."

Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

 

Religion is the point where humans decide that thinking about a problem becomes too much effort, and would rather assume that a jealous genocidal homophobic racist invisible dude is to blame for everything. This dude happen to be of your race, your culture, and even speak your language. Boy! Aren't you lucky to be born like you are? Keep in mind that the Papua New Guinean is of the exact same opinion.

 

Religion is an abomination of reason, and should be rooted out wherever it takes place. Luckily, it's a very fragile thing. A pinch of science and a dash of common sense, and it withers and dies.

[sman]

What is religion?

 

The biggest pyramid scheme in history, a con of epic proportions where you are being bullshitted out of your money, time and effort for a reward you only get after death (seen objectively, you must be a complete idiot to fall for this), and a protection racket of note (You better believe or else!).

 

Religion is not the product of stupidity. Rather, departure from religion is the product of education, information and the fabulous fortune of finding oneself born into a lifetime of relative liesure. We are very lucky for the method of science and the body of knowledge that has been obtained by it - and the fidelity of that knowledge. Without these things you, Boerseun, intelligent as you are, would subscribe to spirits and superstition.

 

You and me both. When atheists look at religion, we should try to think of how lucky we are, rather than how naive they are.

 

Religion is an abomination of reason, and should be rooted out wherever it takes place. Luckily, it's a very fragile thing. A pinch of science and a dash of common sense, and it withers and dies.

 

It doesn't seem to be that fragile. In fact, it's planet-dominating. I think a pinch of science is a good idea though. B)

[Qfwfq]

And yet there are some folks, even ones who are highly versed in the sciences, who see the most awesome facts as being a sign of the creator's intelligence; they consider a god of some kind to be the ultimate cause of reality and what we call "the laws of nature" and they believe the soul to be what makes our conciousness at all possible. Obviously I'm not talking about Creationist nuts, nor about those who take the book of Genesis literally. They usually consider these metaphysical things as being beyond the reach of science but many of them see scientific discovery as a means of at least approaching them.

 

Call them stupid, call them naive, call them even just unlucky, but there are even some of them better versed in science than most of us here. :shrug:

[Boerseun]

And yet there are some folks, even ones who are highly versed in the sciences, who see the most awesome facts as being a sign of the creator's intelligence; they consider a god of some kind to be the ultimate cause of reality and what we call "the laws of nature" and they believe the soul to be what makes our conciousness at all possible. Obviously I'm not talking about Creationist nuts, nor about those who take the book of Genesis literally. They usually consider these metaphysical things as being beyond the reach of science but many of them see scientific discovery as a means of at least approaching them.

 

Call them stupid, call them naive, call them even just unlucky, but there are even some of them better versed in science than most of us here. :)

Hey - there are limits to everyone's knowledge, even that of highly-educated genius scientists. And they know that. And if they choose to call their collective ignorance "God", then so be it. Good on 'em!

 

It is, however, diametrically opposed to the classic concept of "religion", because not everybody's ignorance shares the same borders. There are huge overlaps, of course, but each and everybody calling his own ignorance "God" will have a unique religion, and he will be the sole believer.

 

So, what you say is true. But I doubt its applicable when we're talking about religion in the classic sense. At best, it might simply be a misnomer. "Ignorance" tells you what lies beyond the boundaries of the totality of your knowledge. Saying that what lies beyond knowledge is "God", adds a mystic component to it which is thoroughly undeserved. A quick recap of our increase in knowledge over the last two hundred years would reveal that a lot of things we would have ascribed to God (in this approach) is completely understandable, and does not require God as an explanation. Darwin makes for a much better case for the species on Earth than Genesis does, although they did not know this in 1800.

 

So, it matter not who says it - they might even be "better versed in science than most of us here" - but calling God that which lies outside the boundaries of knowledge is just that - a misnomer for our collective ignorance. I see no need to introduce a new redundant element of omniscient and omnipotent powers to make up for that which we do not yet understand. Hit the books, rather. Do some research. Flex your brain muscle. And *POOF!* - just like that, God be gone (or His domain will shrink a little - at least in your head).

[Qfwfq]

And if they choose to call their collective ignorance "God",

If.

 

Apart from that "if" you appear to be making an assumption and you oversimplify matters and draw some conclusions which don't follow. Argue it with them though because I'm not interested in holding up their point of view and mostly it isn't the point of this thread, I only tried to point something out, about assuming the religious to be dumb, naive or even just not lucky enough to have had our education.

 

If you do argue it with them, I'd like to see you telling some of them to:

Hit the books, rather. Do some research. Flex your brain muscle.

because they might find it somewhat amusing.

 

You said this despite acknowledging my words about them often being well versed in sciences? Are you going to say that to the ones who are scientists, researchers, doctors and some of them even quite eminent? Or to a Jesuit Father? You might not find an easy opponent in your debate. Some of them could easily embarrass you somewhat, by inviting you to a critical discussion of things you've studied and things they've studied, after you telling them that. I would advise you to exercise a bit more caution in saying these things.

[modest]

I only tried to point something out, about assuming the religious to be dumb, naive or even just not lucky enough to have had our education.

 

Yeah, intelligence is a poor indicator of rationality. Studies show a weak correlation at best ^[1] Giving someone an IQ test, for example, will indicate little of the rationality aspects of cognitive capabilities. Empirical studies establish that people commonly,

assess probabilities incorrectly, they display confirmation bias, they test hypothesis inefficiently, they violate the axioms of utility theory, they do not properly calibrate degrees of belief, they overproject their own opinions onto others, they display illogical framing effects, they uneconomically honor sunk costs, they allow prior knowledge to become implicated in deductive reasoning and they display numerous other information processing biases

Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid - Google Books

It's because of that kind of irrationality that religious fundamentalism is not uncommon, and even a majority in some parts of the world—very intelligent and very prosperous people included. Qfwfq mentions what might seem like sensible spiritual beliefs, or at least beliefs which don't contradict scientific knowledge indicating that intelligent people can be religious / spiritual. But, in addition I think non-sensible beliefs are possible among highly intelligent people.

 

For example, life after death (a complete contradiction of scientific concepts and empirical knowledge), or that a person is controlled by their soul (which science replaced with the concept of a brain some time ago)—these are not rational beliefs. But, the vast majority of people who hold such beliefs do so despite having knowledge and intelligence otherwise and not because they are poorly educated and don't have the mental capacity to understand the concepts involved.

 

I don't think it's an issue of intelligence. I've known a lot of very intelligent and very delusional people.

 

~modest

[arkain101]

All religions have a creator called God. Some have many many Gods. I have a creator and that creator I call the Universe. So I see no difference in my religion and all other religions. I have a creator and they have a creator.

 

I see a difference.

 

In my experience with gods as creators, mainly western they are concretely defined. Considering them to change is, within the religion, wrong. In this sense the creator is defined, labeled and identified and understood as to never change from these understandings. The believers may discover more about this concept of a diety however typically the diety itself remains eternally the same.

 

In observing the universe as a creator, one can consider the universe to change. It is not concretely defined. As one discovers more about it, they can identify with it differently.

 

The thing that would tie the two together is whether or not you consider discoveries as a)revealing what has always been there all along or b)creating new understandings and meanings within the mind

 

This dichotomy of options, is what I believe to be the most fundamental issue to deal with for fundamental physics and philosophy.

 

There are area's in which each option is plausible. It seems to me that the definitive answer is not either but in fact an inclusion of a 3rd option. In a sense a fundamental trinity.

 

Not too purposely allude to the christian trinity. That is purely coincidence and not to be confused as something to directly relate to the philosophical trinity I am speaking about.

 

 

What is your opinion on the options of a)revealing what has always been there all along or b)creating new understandings and meanings within the mind?

[Boerseun]

If.

 

Apart from that "if" you appear to be making an assumption and you oversimplify matters and draw some conclusions which don't follow.

They actually do follow. Promise.

Argue it with them though because I'm not interested in holding up their point of view and mostly it isn't the point of this thread, I only tried to point something out, about assuming the religious to be dumb, naive or even just not lucky enough to have had our education.

Upon re-reading my post, it should be clear that I never said or even inferred that the religious are "dumb" or "naive". I have, however, called the concept of "God" the area that lies beyond the individual's understanding and knowledge. Call the totality of all possible knowledge x. Call the total knowledge of the individual y. God, then, should be x-y. This means that for any super-duper highly educated and well-read individual, x-y ought to be a lot smaller than for the average Joe on the street, who might be lacking in the knowledge department. You have to agree, though, that even for Einstein, x-y will not be zero. I think this is a very clear, concise and pretty eloquent definition as to the boundaries of the mental territory inhabited by what we Westerners might call "God". It's important, because it's the wellspring of religion, and pertains perfectly well to this thread. Evidence supporting this particular hypothesis includes, amongst others, the statistical support of the number of atheists in a given population when cross-referenced to their scientific education.

If you do argue it with them, I'd like to see you telling some of them to:

Hit the books, rather. Do some research. Flex your brain muscle.

because they might find it somewhat amusing.

I don't know why they would find it even remotely amusing. Any honest scientist (or lay scientist with a thorough knowledge of what science is about, and how its shrinking the boundaries defined by x-y above) should agree with this, even if they are fully paid-up church members. Utilizing Occam's razor, however much a rough-and-ready blunt instrument it might be, it's clear that whatever we don't know yet, should be understandable in scientific terms somewhere in the future, as opposed to being the express will and handiwork of a sentient being of indescribable knowledge and power. The odds of the former is by orders of magnitude likelier than the latter, which is the bedrock of religion. Anybody with a clear understanding of what science is and how it interrogates nature to get down to the real stuff, should agree with this - even if they do proclaim to believe in God.

You said this despite acknowledging my words about them often being well versed in sciences?

I have acknowledged you saying that. And I also acknowledge that even for Einstein, x-y won't be zero - leaving even in his mind a space for God's realm.

Are you going to say that to the ones who are scientists, researchers, doctors and some of them even quite eminent?

Their eminence or level of knowledge matters no wit. x-y will leave a number, however small, for any individual. And as time goes forward and our knowledge grows, x-y will become ever smaller for the average citizen, and even more so for committed people who will hit the books, and study further, to shrink x-y even closer to zero. I fail to see how any serious scientist can disagree with this, because by not doing so, they will acknowledge that there is a definite limit to our understanding - and that is impossible to know. If they maintain this dualism whereby they carry on with science and their belief in God, two incompatible and mutually exclusive world-views, it boils down to intellectual dishonesty, at best. And any serious scientist should agree with that, too.

Or to a Jesuit Father?

Why on Earth not? That should be rather easy, truth be told.

You might not find an easy opponent in your debate.

Q, I don't want to get in an argument with you regarding this particular topic, because I have a pretty good idea where you're batting from, and you should, by now, have a clear idea where I'm phoning from. But as to this last line, I seriously doubt it.

Some of them could easily embarrass you somewhat, by inviting you to a critical discussion of things you've studied and things they've studied, after you telling them that. I would advise you to exercise a bit more caution in saying these things.

Arguing from authority is what made the church what it is, and why it took more than 1500 years for the first serious objections being raised against the church. What I've studied, and what they've studied, is immaterial. It's what we do not know yet, that we call God, that is the crux of the matter. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that I'm a qualified electrician. Let's say that you're not. You know nothing about electricity. Nothing. You're an illiterate billy from the boondocks. You decide to assign Godliness to the magic of the lit globe. How the globe illuminates your house is thoroughly beyond your understanding. Yet, I can explain it perfectly to you - but you will now accuse me of blasphemy and reducing your God to earthly dimensions because the area of x-y in your head does not overlap the area of x-y in my head. And that delineation of what is "magic" or not, what is questionable or not, is one of the roots of religion - as per this thread. See how the entire concept of evolution is being actively pushed back by the Christian fundamentalists world-wide - it's the common understanding of basic science which intrudes on the area of x-y on those who don't understand it, who believe that entering that dark area is sacrilege.

 

But as far as science is concerned, there is no off-limits areas of knowledge. And any attempt to enforce such limits, by appealing to the authority of believers who might (and even do) know much more than us, will fail miserably, because it has no sound logical footing, and says nothing of what they do not know - i.e., God.

[Qfwfq]

Yeah, intelligence is a poor indicator of rationality.

This is true, too, but I don't see it as being the point when I mentioned people that are some amongst the most rational as well as intelligent in the world, folks that I envy for the opportunity of conducting the career they have.

 

I don't think it's an issue of intelligence. I've known a lot of very intelligent and very delusional people.

I don't see it this way. It is no less delusional to think that scientific knowledge can truly disprove beliefs which are purely metaphysical. There are epistemological subtleties about some slightly less purely metaphysical beliefs but it would be off topic here.

 

Of course it is definitely more delusional to think that science and reason are eventually going to defeat religion altogether. There will always be people who don't have even the intelligence and rationality.

 

Promise.

If you say so, but you gotta make that "Cross my heart and hope to die - If I ever tell a lie!" :D

 

Upon re-reading my post, it should be clear that I never said or even inferred that the religious are "dumb" or "naive".

Not in that post, no, but you had definitly said that one:

must be a complete idiot to fall for this

and on the basis of a somewhat restricted notion of what religion is.

 

Where your promise gets unsteady is:

I have, however, called the concept of "God" the area that lies beyond the individual's understanding and knowledge. Call the totality of all possible knowledge x. Call the total knowledge of the individual y. God, then, should be x-y.

God is not in x-y because god is not in x. Now even if you call [imath]\Omega[/imath] the set of All Truth (not coincident with APK = x), it does not follow that god would be [imath]\Omega[/imath]-y which of course includes many things that aren't god at all, such as knowledge of the current balance of your bank account in the case of everyone except you and your wife. If you don't seriously consider facts such as that one included in each person's religion, the conclusions about no two people having the same religion trivially fail.

 

Evidence supporting this particular hypothesis includes, amongst others, the statistical support of the number of atheists in a given population when cross-referenced to their scientific education.

It is obviously easier for folks less educated in the sciences to believe in god because they have a, errr... slightly wider choice of notions in which to believe, which even includes the less sophisticated ones. This is why some of the ancient beliefs were less sophisticated than the Jewish one, for instance the Greek and Roman notion was highly anthropomorphic and hardly metaphysical. The Romans didn't understand and caused indignation when they offered the Jews the tradeoff of having statues of each other's gods in each other's temples; imagine trying to pacify them by promising to keep a statue of יהוה in their own temples!

 

As far as I am concerned, it simply takes a higher degree of sophistication for the learned and scientific to contemplate the possibility of god having lit the fuse of the big bang and deciding at least the most fundamental laws of physics.

 

I don't know why they would find it even remotely amusing.

Sorry but you seem to have misunderstood what I said. Would you really tell people to crack a book and flex their cerebral beef when they've been doing it more and better than you and I put together? I was talking about folks that would be "mildly amused" if I told them that and the same if you did. Eminence does have a bearing on this and it would be out of place even with some who aren't famous.

 

Utilizing Occam's razor, however much a rough-and-ready blunt instrument it might be, it's clear that whatever we don't know yet, should be understandable in scientific terms somewhere in the future, as opposed to being the express will and handiwork of a sentient being of indescribable knowledge and power.

First, you are talking about two things that are not opposite each other, they are somewhat independent. For the sake of analogy, understanding how a swiss watch works doesn't give a complete picture of how the craftsman worked each piece into shape or even much tell you whether it was instead produced by hi-tech industrial robots. Second, the odds of science understanding cosmogony are not that great at all, they are actually rather slim. As for the most fundamental laws of physics, when will we get to the bottom-most turtle? Even at currently known scales, truly understanding quantum reality goes beyond the capability that our brains evolved for, if you're not a fan of eugenics you'll have to bear with a bit of patience before this evolution completes itself.

 

If they maintain this dualism whereby they carry on with science and their belief in God, two incompatible and mutually exclusive world-views, it boils down to intellectual dishonesty, at best. And any serious scientist should agree with that, too.

This is the typical kind of assumption you and your ilk are making: mutually exclusive. Some of the religious people are serious scientists and they don't agree with that, and neither do a few other serious scientists.

 

Why on Earth not? That should be rather easy, truth be told.

Because you misunderstood my words? Or you seriously say that you would tell a Jesuit Father to crack a few books and exercise his brain a bit more?

 

Arguing from authority is what made the church what it is, and why it took more than 1500 years for the first serious objections being raised against the church.

I was not arguing from authority, I was talking about the gross incongruity of you telling certain folks to do what they are much in the habit of doing. There are also some misconceptions there, surely you are able to understand that clinging to temporal power was the reason for silencing heretics? As for the specific case of Galileo, that's a different story. It wasn't religion but the stubbornest medieval peripatetics he was up against.

[Boerseun]

Not in that post, no, but you had definitly said that one:

you must be a complete idiot to fall for this

...when, what I actually said, was this:

seen objectively, you must be a complete idiot to fall for this

That little line about objectivity in front makes all the difference. In actual fact, let's appreciate the full context in which that offending sentence was offered:

The biggest pyramid scheme in history, a con of epic proportions where you are being bullshitted out of your money, time and effort for a reward you only get after death (seen objectively, you must be a complete idiot to fall for this), and a protection racket of note (You better believe or else!).

I would like to find a single scientist who will object to that. Being as well-read and studied as they should be, they should have no problem to divorce themselves from their feelings about any particular matter and consider it objectively.

and on the basis of a somewhat restricted notion of what religion is.

Now that, once again, is insufferable subjectivity. I cannot hold any discussion with you if you keep shifting the goalposts. What, pray tell, is your definition of religion, then? I seem to remember us having a similar fracas with your definition of atheism a while ago, that devolved into a shouting match. I do not want that to happen here, again. You cannot participate in a conversation when all you contribute is what religion is not. Tell me what you think it is, and tell me why you think your definition thereof would be any more valid than mine. The above quote applies as much to you if I said it. Keep that in mind. But I cannot engage you in discussion if this is your approach.

Where your promise gets unsteady is:God is not in x-y because god is not in x.

I have defined x as the area of all possible knowledge minus what we currently know. I cannot think where else God can be.

Now even if you call [imath]\Omega[/imath] the set of All Truth (not coincident with APK = x), it does not follow that god would be [imath]\Omega[/imath]-y which of course includes many things that aren't god at all, such as knowledge of the current balance of your bank account in the case of everyone except you and your wife. If you don't seriously consider facts such as that one included in each person's religion, the conclusions about no two people having the same religion trivially fail.

I don't think you quite understand what I meant with the whole x-y bit.

It is obviously easier for folks less educated in the sciences to believe in god because they have a, errr... slightly wider choice of notions in which to believe, which even includes the less sophisticated ones.

Then it readily follows that as the result of x-y shrinks, the space that God can occupy becomes less and less - or the options shrink, however you may call it. What you're saying here is exactly what I'm saying.

This is why some of the ancient beliefs were less sophisticated than the Jewish one, for instance the Greek and Roman notion was highly anthropomorphic and hardly metaphysical.

I would call the ancient beliefs lots of things, but I will not call them unsophisticated. Neither will I call the Jewish belief sophisticated in the least. When last have you read the Old Testament? That they are memes, is a fact. And the Judaism (which split into Christianity and Islam) merely outlived the other memes, is also a fact. But sophistication in the human sense has nothing at all to do with it. I will much rather tell my kids the story of the serial killer that stalks the park at night than about the kind old man at the seaside. The one is lethal, the other not - which meme will have better survival value? Like I said - the Old Testament has lots of survival value as a meme, because of the supposed undiluted horror visited upon them who doubt it.

The Romans didn't understand and caused indignation when they offered the Jews the tradeoff of having statues of each other's gods in each other's temples; imagine trying to pacify them by promising to keep a statue of יהוה in their own temples!

 

As far as I am concerned, it simply takes a higher degree of sophistication for the learned and scientific to contemplate the possibility of god having lit the fuse of the big bang and deciding at least the most fundamental laws of physics.

That is your opinion, and I will certainly grant you that. But what you call a "higher degree of sophistication" I might call intellectual laziness. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Sorry but you seem to have misunderstood what I said. Would you really tell people to crack a book and flex their cerebral beef when they've been doing it more and better than you and I put together?

In actual fact, yes, I will. Because although you might have a bit of a misunderstanding regarding the whole x-y bit, I firmly stand by it. And seeing as you're allowing your opinion to slip into your posts, this will be mine. If the area described by x-y defines the intellectual area where God might inhabit our minds, then the only way of getting past that point is to shrink the result given by x-y. In other words, crack the books. Do some research. If you're already in research, do some more. Doesn't matter if you're Einstein, x-y can never be zero. But we can shift it back. And why should I be afraid of saying anything to anybody who might be more clever than me, with more brains than the two of us put together? Einstein might have invented relativity and thrown the world on its head, but could he tie his shoelaces? If not, should I not say anything about it to him because he's better at physics than I am? It does not follow.

God can only reside in the result given by x-y because anywhere else falls within the realm of human knowledge and reason - and can be rationalized.

I was talking about folks that would be "mildly amused" if I told them that and the same if you did. Eminence does have a bearing on this and it would be out of place even with some who aren't famous.

Which folks will be "mildly amused"? I have presented a solid argument with which even the most religious of scientists will agree with. Please stop trying to intimidate me by referring to some faceless, nameless entities for whom you've already ascribed in opinion regarding this particular matter. Give me names.

First, you are talking about two things that are not opposite each other, they are somewhat independent. For the sake of analogy, understanding how a swiss watch works doesn't give a complete picture of how the craftsman worked each piece into shape or even much tell you whether it was instead produced by hi-tech industrial robots.

That's a bit disingenuous, won't you say? Let's take the swiss watch for a second. We understand perfectly well how it works, like you said. But now you say that we don't have a complete picture of how the craftsman worked each piece into shape? Of course we do. It's called evolution. I fail to see the relevance or even the applicability of this.

Second, the odds of science understanding cosmogony are not that great at all, they are actually rather slim.

Only because something lies outside the scope of current human knowledge, it does not follow that religion is valid or God did it. All that we can say, is that judging by the progression of science, changes are better that science will eventually be able to describe the origins of the universe than not. It does not validate religion or God in any way.

As for the most fundamental laws of physics, when will we get to the bottom-most turtle?

That's the beauty of Science. We'll never know. And who says the stack of turtles has a bottom?

Even at currently known scales, truly understanding quantum reality goes beyond the capability that our brains evolved for, if you're not a fan of eugenics you'll have to bear with a bit of patience before this evolution completes itself.

How does our failure to understand something (because of a possible physical limit on our mental hardware) validate God or religion? Because we don't understand something, God must exist? I don't follow - and I don't see your point.

If they maintain this dualism whereby they carry on with science and their belief in God, two incompatible and mutually exclusive world-views, it boils down to intellectual dishonesty, at best. And any serious scientist should agree with that, too.

This is the typical kind of assumption you and your ilk are making: mutually exclusive. Some of the religious people are serious scientists and they don't agree with that, and neither do a few other serious scientists.

Some... a few other... you're talking very authoratively about numbers and figures of opinions by scientists. I would like some backup to these claims you're making about the personal opinions and beliefs of scientists. I have never said what they think to opined personally - what I present is a line of reasoning - and the conclusion that any reasonable scientist will agree to it. You see, either Genesis is true or not. You believe it on Sundays, and then go back to your lab on Monday and believe the total opposite. It's an untenable intellectual dualism - both clearly cannot be true. And please give me a name for a scientist who can live with and justify this dualism. A single one would suffice. And also, sticking to your rules of the game, eminence counts.

Because you misunderstood my words? Or you seriously say that you would tell a Jesuit Father to crack a few books and exercise his brain a bit more?

I seriously say that I will tell a Jesuit Father to crack a few books and exercise his brain a bit more. It's not how much you read and study, it's what you read and study that counts. I can be the most well-read and highly trained astrologist in the entire world, with syndicated columns in the biggest papers in the world, but I'm still an idiot, and I have been wasting all my time on studying and dispensing crock. That's about the best analogy I can come up with on the short term.

 

I was not arguing from authority, I was talking about the gross incongruity of you telling certain folks to do what they are much in the habit of doing.

Not arguing from authority? 'Course you were. I'm not allowed to tell them anything because

Some of them could easily embarrass you somewhat, by inviting you to a critical discussion of things you've studied and things they've studied, after you telling them that. I would advise you to exercise a bit more caution in saying these things

whilst all I'm saying is that all we need to do is to shrink x-y, which can only be achieved through further study and research? After admitting that x-y for everybody will return a figure? x-y for me might be a ginormous number, and I will be the first to admit it. x-y for Stephen Hawking will return a much smaller number, and I will not hold it against him. But for both me and Stephen Hawking, the only way to shrink that figure is to hit the books, do further research, etc. And he will agree with me. I cannot, for the life of me, understand your problem with this. I'm not proposing a dick-measuring contest where we see who "knows the most". Whatever Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Darwin or little ol' Boerseun knows or knew, the solution will be the same for each case to shrink the result of x-y.

There are also some misconceptions there, surely you are able to understand that clinging to temporal power was the reason for silencing heretics?

I don't know. I'm sure the silencing of heretics also had a lot to do with what the bible tells it adherents to do to heretics. Even to this day. We just turn a blind eye to those passages.

As for the specific case of Galileo, that's a different story. It wasn't religion but the stubbornest medieval peripatetics he was up against.

How do you tell the difference? Seriously?

[modest]

Yeah, intelligence is a poor indicator of rationality.

This is true, too, but I don't see it as being the point when I mentioned people that are some amongst the most rational as well as intelligent in the world, folks that I envy for the opportunity of conducting the career they have.

 

I envy the Pope for his observatory and the Jesuits for the work they do there, but this does not make their religious beliefs rational.

 

I don't think it's an issue of intelligence. I've known a lot of very intelligent and very delusional people.

I don't see it this way. It is no less delusional to think that scientific knowledge can truly disprove beliefs which are purely metaphysical.

 

If the dichotomy were between; 1) thinking science can disprove purely metaphysical claims, and 2) having beliefs in purely metaphysical things, then I could agree that neither is much more or less rational than the other. But, that would be a false dichotomy. If we define “purely metaphysical” to be that which is unknowable by any means of current or future investigation then the irrational position is believing one knows the truth of such a claim—and, moreover, to find the truth of such a claim sacred or divine. For example, believing in and praying to a purely metaphysical concept is irrational. The diametric position which would then be rational is to admit what is true by definition: that which is unknowable is unknown.

 

There are epistemological subtleties about some slightly less purely metaphysical beliefs but it would be off topic here.

 

I think *purely* metaphysical beliefs are too far removed from the issue of “what is religion” but this would depend on exactly what that means. I like the example you give:

 

As far as I am concerned, it simply takes a higher degree of sophistication for the learned and scientific to contemplate the possibility of god having lit the fuse of the big bang and deciding at least the most fundamental laws of physics.

 

I don’t see “to contemplate the possibility of” to be religious. I see religion as being more than contemplating the questions regarding the true nature of things, but at least in some way proposing answers to those questions. It seems like you are once again subtly setting up a dichotomy where religious thought leaves open the possibility to “contemplate” metaphysical things while secular thought might consider such possibilities disproved.

 

On the contrary, I find the belief that god started the big bang and wrote the laws of physics to be irrational not only because “belief” assigns too high a probability to something so metaphysical, but also because such a belief fails to recognize the inevitable framing effects imposed by our human perspective and level of knowledge. In this respect, it should be clear that 3 millennia ago the belief that a Titan named Atlas held up the sky was not rational even if it was believed by very intelligent and prosperous people. We know better now—general relativity explains why the sky is held up but it gives no answers past the proposed singularity of the big bang. So, it is just as irrational for us now to believe in a god who “lit the fuse of the big bang” situated just outside our area of knowledge as it was for the Greeks to believe some sort of powerful being had to hold the sky up. We would be making the same mistake in rational cognition that keeps getting made throughout history, and I think Boerseun makes a good point of that. Religion anthropomorphizes the unknown (or the unknowable depending on how metaphysical the argument is).

 

In my mind: to question and consider the cause of the big bang is scientific. To assign a cause of the big bang without evidence or reason is unscientific. And, to have faith or unsubstantiated belief in a sacred or divine cause of the big bang without evidence is religious.

 

~modest