Creating a Religion

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

"I don't see why religion is necessary at all..... Personally I find the concept silly.."

 

but you never know. what wouldve happened in human's history without religions.

 

True, things could have been bad without religion too, but at least then we wouldn't have that in the way. Sure, we have all been thinking about questions such as "is there a god" etc., and that's great, people should think, but it's when someone simply decides that something is true when it gets weird, in my opinion.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Tormod

It does depend a bit on how we defined the term "religion". If any set of supersticious beliefs constitutes a religion, then I agree, there is no such thing as culture without religion.

 

What is the difference between religion and everyday superstition? Isn't a god required for a religion?

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

In early society, the primary method of gaining power was brute strength. The best warrior became leader by beating the competition. But the guy that seemed to recognize patterns hand a unigue advantage which had benefit to the power leader. The perhaps less strong, perhaps other gendered person could claim divinations, insites, cure illness, make good juju... This could create a cooperative effort between the strong and the wise. Each working to keep the other in power. And the more "mystical" the "wise" would make it the more ritual, the more that person was needed and revered.

 

IT is easy to see how this developed into formal religions. It is also easy to see why religion has a direct path to ignorance (to protect the standing of the religious authority) to aggressive warfare (my god is stronger than your god).

Very interesting thoughts there, and I agree. And then to keep the power, it's important to make sure people believe the religion's dogma and not a competing set of beliefs like another religion, or even science. Sure, science can be ok - as long as it doesn't contradict with the religious myths. I guess this is why the theory of evolution and big bang are more under fire by biblical literalists than the theories of relativity...

[TINNY]

Which religions did it replace and why did this replacement cause progress

Actually the middle east has been the centre of Islam even before Muhammad. But over the years, they strayed and practised idolatry. They were also many clans quarrelling all the time and there was no peace and progress. And so, Prophet Muhammad was given revelation to correct the society and reintroduce Islam to prominence. That's a bit about what I had learned in school.

 

You write about "the fall of Islam's glory". Do you mean that after this there was no progress in Arabic culture?

I'm not sure about cultural progress. but the Islamic empire was overwhelmed by European colonial powers. What I mean by the fall is the practise of Islam is not as complete and proper as it used to be, highly probably due to the influence of secular European thought. Then, the Islamic nations became backward and intellectual progress from Muslims slowed. Hmmm... it seems to show that secularism did not bring progress.

[TINNY]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

There was progress in the Muslim world during the Dark Ages of Europe, but that ended for some reason. That part of the world seem to be in a state of fundamentalism, which is bad. It's never a good idea to have religion and government tied closely to each other. The risk is that dogma and ideology comes before fact and reason.

 

You're saying secularism is the way? Islam is not just praying, fasting, repentence etc, but it's the way of life. Hence, religion and government is supposed to go hand in hand. If Islam is separated from law and governance, then Islam is not practised. by just pray, fast etc, then that is not Islam.

 

About dogma and ideology overruling fact and reason, it does not only apply to theocracy. What about communism? Karl Marx used the technique of dialectics - fact and reason. But that did not work. the point is, you just cannot get to absolute truth by secularism. The glory days of Islam was when secularism was completely shunned. There was great intellectual growth because in Islam, there is two 'Qurans', the direct revelation as is labelled as Quran, and the universe. And both has to be read and practised in a balance. It is mentioned in a verse about 'where the two seas meet', where 'tafsir' scholars elaborated; I can't remember the exact number.

[TINNY]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Interesting. This statement has the unstated assertion that Islam is on the down side of it's value/ era. Agreed!

Yes, the era is on the down side, but not the value. It is actually the Practise that has gone down as has been explained in my former post.

Yes it is interesting how, during the time that Christianity was most aggressively attacking the advancement of knowledge, the Muslem world was embracing knowledge and reason. If it had not been for Islam, many of the great preChristian works would have been lost. Destroyed by intentional and aggressive Christian efforts to suppress knowledge and any philosophy that contradicted it in any way.

The impetus for Muslims to embrace knowledge and reason was the Quran.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

Originally posted by: Tormod

It does depend a bit on how we defined the term "religion". If any set of supersticious beliefs constitutes a religion, then I agree, there is no such thing as culture without religion.

 

What is the difference between religion and everyday superstition? Isn't a god required for a religion?

 

Buddhism doesn't have gods.

 

There is a distinction between deities and gods, too, I reckon. Like saints, angels, and god in Christianity.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Islam is not just praying, fasting, repentence etc, but it's the way of life. Hence, religion and government is supposed to go hand in hand. If Islam is separated from law and governance, then Islam is not practised. by just pray, fast etc, then that is not Islam.

 

But why - and this is a central issue for a lot of non-muslims - do we see so much fanaticism in muslims? I see children spending years learning the Quran by heart. What sort of civilzation do their teachers think they can build from the knowledge of ONE book, which is 1400 years old?

 

About dogma and ideology overruling fact and reason, it does not only apply to theocracy. What about communism? Karl Marx used the technique of dialectics - fact and reason. But that did not work.

 

Granted, communism does not have a good track record. But I don't think that is down to his technique but to the way people have (mis)intepreted his works and created huge tyrannies out of his ideas. Many moslem states today are based on fundamentalist regimes (like Iran) where human rights are in a sorry state.

 

the point is, you just cannot get to absolute truth by secularism. The glory days of Islam was when secularism was completely shunned.

 

Which is a strange point to make in a science forum, Tinny. You are of course welcome to believe that there is an absolute truth, and equally welcome to believe that it lies in Islam (just as I am sure many here think it lies in Christianity). But the fight for the right to claim to have the one and only path to "the absolute truth" lies at the core of many of the most horrible human wars and conflicts.

 

I don't think there is such a thing as an absolute truth. Even in cosmology and physics - ANY science, in fact - I think there is no such thing as an absolute truth. We may be wrong with everything we believe is true. It's just that what we observe today very well explains the current theories of the universe - except for all those things which we *cannot* explain with today's theories.

 

The answer to these problems will not lie in any religion but in scientific revolutions. Now, those scientists may well be religious. But that does not mean that science is a religion.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Originally posted by: Stargazer

There was progress in the Muslim world during the Dark Ages of Europe, but that ended for some reason. That part of the world seem to be in a state of fundamentalism, which is bad. It's never a good idea to have religion and government tied closely to each other. The risk is that dogma and ideology comes before fact and reason.

 

You're saying secularism is the way? Islam is not just praying, fasting, repentence etc, but it's the way of life. Hence, religion and government is supposed to go hand in hand. If Islam is separated from law and governance, then Islam is not practised. by just pray, fast etc, then that is not Islam.

Yes it is the best way in my opinion. Religion is something that is not needed but if people wish to devote time on it, then by all means. However, the government should not promote one religion over another.

 

About dogma and ideology overruling fact and reason, it does not only apply to theocracy. What about communism? Karl Marx used the technique of dialectics - fact and reason. But that did not work. the point is, you just cannot get to absolute truth by secularism.

You can't get to absolute truth by any means, but science is the best set of methods we have. Why religion would be good at all is beyond me.

 

The glory days of Islam was when secularism was completely shunned. There was great intellectual growth because in Islam, there is two 'Qurans', the direct revelation as is labelled as Quran, and the universe. And both has to be read and practised in a balance. It is mentioned in a verse about 'where the two seas meet', where 'tafsir' scholars elaborated; I can't remember the exact number.

Hm, yes. And secularism as well as other religions were shunned and still are in the fundamentalist world of today. Why religion or dogma is dangerous when used as a powertool is because you take an old myth someone made up a long time ago, and you use it as some sort of guidance. The leader of a certain superpower is guided by his invisible friend and he likes to put ideology before fact. This is of course to go down the road of disaster.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Buddhism doesn't have gods.

 

There is a distinction between deities and gods, too, I reckon. Like saints, angels, and god in Christianity.

 

So the line between them is somewhat floating then? The thing they have in common must be belief in supernatural things, right?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

So the line between them is somewhat floating then? The thing they have in common must be belief in supernatural things, right?

 

Well, it may not be so easy to distinguish. I'd say that superstition is something everyone is prone to, while religion is "organized superstition" - or a less blasphemous version would be "organized worship".

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Which religions did it replace and why did this replacement cause progress

Actually the middle east has been the centre of Islam even before Muhammad.

That's as strange as Christians that claim Christianity existed before their supposed Jesus was born. It is an obvious attempt to give Islam a claim it can not support thru factual History.

 

Basically that area was all Semitic. A group of them left and wondered the world and kept their religion with them. They are today's Jews. While most of those that stayed in the area were converted (often by sword) to Islam some 1400 years ago.

And so, Prophet Muhammad was given revelation to correct the society and reintroduce Islam to prominence. That's a bit about what I had learned in school.

Ya, nice spin they have!

What I mean by the fall is the practise of Islam is not as complete and proper as it used to be,

As with any religion. Each follower has their own made up notion of what it is they are supposed to follow. In today's major Revelation based religions (those with written texts claimed to be from a god) they pick and choose which passages they want to follow and which to ignore ot twist into something else. Just as you want to claim a move away from, others would equally claim a move towards.

highly probably due to the influence of secular European thought. Then, the Islamic nations became backward and intellectual progress from Muslims slowed. Hmmm... it seems to show that secularism did not bring progress.

That the people choose to accept the promotion of ignorace based on Islam is NOT the fault of Secular movements. This should be listed as a PLUS in Secularism's column.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

You're saying secularism is the way? Islam is not just praying, fasting, repentence etc, but it's the way of life. Hence, religion and government is supposed to go hand in hand. If Islam is separated from law and governance, then Islam is not practised. by just pray, fast etc, then that is not Islam.

So you are saying that Islam is anti-equality. That as such it can not and should not be allowed in such Secular societies as the US and the new EU with it's intentional Secular Constitution?

 

Yet there are many Muslems that would assert that you are wrong. And the same problem exists with Christianity.

The glory days of Islam was when secularism was completely shunned.

And this is why we need to rid soceity of the harm religions bring. You had specifically stated that Islam is only practiced correctly when it is the ONLY philosophy allowed. When the Government itself is strictly aligned with Islam.

 

Such discriminatory prejudicial ideologies need to be removed from society. They are the reason we are seeing the fighting we are in the World.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Destroyed by intentional and aggressive Christian efforts to suppress knowledge and any philosophy that contradicted it in any way.

The impetus for Muslims to embrace knowledge and reason was the Quran.

Exactly. Just the same as the Christian effort to pursue knowledge as long as it stays with-in the boundaries established in the Bible.

 

BOTH are the WRONG WAY and have been shown throughout history to retard the positive advancement of Society. There is no such thing as an accumulation of texts that can reflect a singular ideology, staying correct for any length of time even if it started out OK. Definately NOT something from over 1,500 years ago!

[TINNY]

do we see so much fanaticism in muslims?

That's an interesting question. One that I have thought over a few times.

I think it is because of ignorance. most don't strive to perfect themselves, and understand the basic tenets and concepts of Islam as a whole. As FT said, they take certain verses and reject others that don't fit with their whim. They become complacent, lazy, and take the easy way. They don't bother to keep up with the latest developments

Don't you notice that top muslim scholars never preach fanaticism and terrorism? It's all coming from certaiin sects and wrongly guided fanatics, people who are ignorant. The reason they adopt terrorism and fanaticism could be selfishness, anger/hatred, etc. Freethinker has many a times said about people trying to create religions and their attitudes; it's similar with fanaticism. They are not adhering to the basic morality of the Quran. As far as I remember, I've never read or heard a hadith/sunnah (practise/words of Muhammad) about him acting in a violent way. In fact, his actions comply with contemporary SR psychology about skinner's operant learning (except the determinism part) in giving positive responses that results in positive character developments.

[TINNY]

Granted, communism does not have a good track record. But I don't think that is down to his technique but to the way people have (mis)intepreted his works and created huge tyrannies out of his ideas. Many moslem states today are based on fundamentalist regimes (like Iran) where human rights are in a sorry state.

Which reminds me of social Darwinism - racism, oppression, mistreatment etc. Ain't that secular? If the interpretation is wrong, I'm sure that is due to fanaticism as well

[TINNY]

Which is a strange point to make in a science forum, Tinny

Then, I take it back.

see children spending years learning the Quran by heart. What sort of civilzation do their teachers think they can build from the knowledge of ONE book, which is 1400 years old

I don't agree with muslims forcing their children to spend about a decade to just memorize the qur'an either. I think it was because of a misinterpretation of some who say that the parents of children who memorize the qur'an by heart are promised heaven. they always take literal meanings, ignoring (they cannot be bothered to really comprehend) the figurative aspect. what I think is meant (have to check later, I'm not learned in Tafsir, but just to give an idea) by the promise was those who comprehend and practise the Qur'an holistically will enjoy a better life, both in the hereafter and now. Memorizing wihtout understanding is not what is meant.