Can secular science ever oust religious belief?

[Qfwfq]

The English dictionaries in Italy must be twice the size of the ones we use over here. (and I wouldn't be surprised!)

Maybe it's Italian dictionaries that are twice the size. :naughty: Actually, these terms exist in English too, but lyncean refers to the Lyncean Academy.

 

:eek: Wow! I got the names confused in my hurry! It was Cardinal Bellarmino that did Galileo in, Barberini was the secular name of the Pope. :)

 

How about religions that "worship" or memorialize ancestors? Or honor Nature? Or that "deifies" an abstract "path" that leads one to inner peace?

Abraham and his seed? The Sun God, the god of the seas, or of thunder and lightning?

 

How about religions that "worship" the power within that can be manifest by mastering a martial art?

Mars?

 

Whatever you worship, you could call it some kind of a divinity. I don't quite agree with Dyothelite, an atheist doesn't worship "non-god", a radicated belief isn't necessarily worship.

[Pyrotex]

The weird thing about the term religionis that if you say you have no religion....then that's youre religion...

Did you have cereal and milk for breakfast this morning? Then that's your religion.

Did you blow your nose and examine the tissue before disposing of it? Then that's your religion.

Did you think of sex one or more times during the last 24 hours? Then that's your religion.

 

If you are going to define "religion" so broadly, then everything becomes a religion. And the word becomes meaningless. Cwes, on the other hand, defines "religion" so narrowly, that only HE has a religion at all; God personally told him so.

[Dyothelite]

Yeah, thats usually the first question ever asked in every entry level religious studies question: Define the word religion? 1 Some answers are very wide:....the cultural and social reflections of the customs and beliefs of a people. 2 Some are very narrow: the belief in God and the Bible. 3 Some involve the use of rituals and symbols, or dance and worship or singing and praising. 4. Some involve God, Gods, or just trees and animals.

 

My only point was if you say "I have no religion... " then your belief is that you believe in nothing. .....(We believes in nussing ....Labowski)

[Pyrotex]

...My only point was if you say "I have no religion... " then your belief is that you believe in nothing.

[nosarcasm]

I do not see that you have made any point here. Perhaps you were jesting. In any case, I have seen this statement made several hundred times over the last several years. It is a trite verbal paradox, attempting to equate "religion" with "belief", though the two words have only a slight overlap in meaning. The statement is also a pun, depending as it does on blurring the distinction between "believe" (I believe we should turn left here) and "believe in" (I believe in equality, democracy, and free enterprise).

 

I believe I have many, many beliefs. Many of these are just facts. I could say, Napolean was a French Emperor, or I believe Napolean was a French Emperor. The latter does NOT constitute anything religious or spiritual. It may only imply that I have some small doubt or uncertainty.

 

In any case, statements like "if you have no religion then you believe in nothing" (or words to that effect) are very likely to go over like a lead balloon in adult conversations. Especially if you think you are making some point. No offense intended, friend. :hihi:

 

You might want to avoid mixing serious points and puns, and check your language for ambiguous (multiple meanings) statements before you post. This will avoid a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.

[/nosarcasm]

[Dyothelite]

Eh I'll stay out of this. I guess.

[cwes99_03]

[nosarcasm]

I do not see that you have made any point here. Perhaps you were jesting. In any case, I have seen this statement made several hundred times over the last several years. It is a trite verbal paradox, attempting to equate "religion" with "belief", though the two words have only a slight overlap in meaning. The statement is also a pun, depending as it does on blurring the distinction between "believe" (I believe we should turn left here) and "believe in" (I believe in equality, democracy, and free enterprise).

 

I believe I have many, many beliefs. Many of these are just facts. I could say, Napolean was a French Emperor, or I believe Napolean was a French Emperor. The latter does NOT constitute anything religious or spiritual. It may only imply that I have some small doubt or uncertainty.

 

In any case, statements like "if you have no religion then you believe in nothing" (or words to that effect) are very likely to go over like a lead balloon in adult conversations. Especially if you think you are making some point. No offense intended, friend. ;)

 

You might want to avoid mixing serious points and puns, and check your language for ambiguous (multiple meanings) statements before you post. This will avoid a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.

[/nosarcasm]

 

Pyro, I get your point here. Let me ask, have you not seen the exact same point in my reason for attempting to separate human philosophy from religion?

 

Likewise, if someone says I believe that man and woman should be equal, is that the same as saying I believe that Napolean was a French emperor?

[HydrogenBond]

I was watching one of those religious season specials about the life of Jesus and something dawned on me that is relevant to this discussion. If we, for the sake of argument, assume Jesus was the son of God and therefore a God in his own right, than the son of God allowed culture to oust God 2000 years ago. In other words, God allowed man to manhandle and kill him, essentially ousting God from the earth.

 

What was so significant about this, after that people were less afraid of all the gods of mythology since they had kicked butt on who was considered the strongest god of the time, i.e., Hebrew God. Polytheism was never the same.

 

But as the story goes, you can't permanently oust God. God come back in a different guise, i.e., resurrection. What this sort of implies, is that humans have a type of god need. If you get rid of one, another will appear in its place. If we get rid of a long term image of God, we end up with short term gods. The problem with that is that it can create changes that are not always good in the long term, i.e., short sighted Gods. A good analogy is someone who goes out partying and gets drunk. They may be having the best time, but the next day they are hungover. They now also have to explain why they did a strip tease and yelled at their boss, at a time when they are unable to function the same way.

[Pyrotex]

...If we get rid of a long term image of God, we end up with short term gods. The problem with that is that it can create changes that are not always good in the long term,...

Good point.

It was thought in the 1300's through the 1600's that if True Christianity just purged the world of heresy and heathens, so that everybody practiced the Pure Mother Church Theology, then... well, God would throw us a party or something.

 

But it didn't turn out that way. And now the Catholic Church is saddled with a history full of war and bloodshed that didn't accomplish anything. Not to pick on just them, of course. Calvanists, Presbyterians, Methodists and others all have their short term gods in the closet.

[cwes99_03]

Hydro, re read that post, and then re read your source.

 

You say that Jesus was the son of God, then you say he was a God. The Bible differentiates the use of the word God with god. There is the true God, and then there are those with power that make them a god. In this example, the bible calls Marduk a god, but refers to YHWH as the God. Furthermore it refers to Jesus as a god, not the God.

If you think Jesus is God, however, then I would agree with your line of reasoning, which is actualy a reason I use to show people that Jesus himself was not God, but God's son. (If Jesus was killed, who resurrected him? If an angel resurrected him then wasn't that angel more powerful than Jesus/God? If God is all powerful, then how could a human kill him, how could the devil tempt him, etc.? If he didn't really die, then of what value is his death, since it would be a fake death as he was never really a man at all, but God the whole time?) These are all points I use to differentiate between human philosophy and bible teaching on the subject.

 

[grain of salt] God allowed Jesus to die because he was allowing man to show where his loyalty lived. By killing Jesus, God was allowing for a ransom against eternal death to be paid for all those who would put faith in him and his son and men were proving to God that they didn't want his help. Thus, they weren't "kicking butt" but identifying themselves as unrepentant and willing to be destroyed and not resurrected, though, they might imagine themselves as more powerful than God. [/grain of salt]

[Qfwfq]

According to most forms of Christianity (I won't claim quite all of them)

• All that happened was God's choice, so common mortals did not defeat God or even kick his butt.
  
• Jesus is not only just as much a God but (doctrine of Trinity) one and the same God along with the Holy Ghost, so it wasn't a different god that came after the Passion.
  

[cwes99_03]

I'd correct that slightly. It was not God's choice. God allowed it to take place. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between saying God causes good and bad, and god causes good, and allows the bad to occur due to Satan's challenge.

 

You would also be correct in asserting that many (if not most) forms of "christianity" claim Jesus is God, but when asked for scriptural proof, the World Book Encyclopedia, New Catholic Encyclopedia, and Encycolpedia Americana all say that there is no scriptural use of the term trinity nor reference of Jesus saying anything to the effect of "I am God" or "I am equal to God".

 

Sorry, I fear we are off topic.

[HydrogenBond]

Jesus was a sacrifice for sin. But he was also sacrificed at the hands of men. The only thing that really died was his human body. The rest of his stuff was conserved. This is what was resurrected; spirit of a living God, i.e, one substance with the Father.

 

But what it also shows it that although one can kill the body of a god, i.e, the statues and doctrines, there is a spirit, i.e., human need for a god, that will become resurrected into a different guise. Even Nazi Germany tried to get rid of God and replace it with social darwinism. This new god took its place. Hitler placed himself similar to Ceasar he was both human and the focus of this new god. That god was displaced being temporal but the need for gods still remains.

[Qfwfq]

As you please, cwes, but AFAIK Trinity was elevated to a dogma in interpretation of many things in the Gospels (Jesus talking about himself, the Father and the Holy Ghost and saying things implying identification) and other things depict him as being omniscient and considering his crucifiction as part of a design for offering people salvation. For example there are his symbolic words about destroying his Temple and re-erecting it in three days. Choose your own dogma, but what do you make of the above scriptural evidence?

 

What I do agree about is that we're off topic, especially in Philosophy of Science, so I really don't see the point of insisting on your rather arbitrary views on the matter.

 

As for his body, one is free to believe it or to take it hermeneutically but the Gospels clearly narrate a bodily resurrection and then an ascension.

[cwes99_03]

I ask you to check out some of the other posts, some exist in the history forum, that say very much to the contrary. Furthermore, look up the council of Niceae and then read the gospels and critical analysis of them. You'll see that a valid translation, that does not remove the name of God and replace it with terms like LORD, or GOD, usually capitalized but not always, that it is clear that nowhere does Jesus actually say he is lord. I can point you to a bunch of scriptures for your perusal to see this for yourself.

 

Ooops, you'd be correct in steering this back on topic.

[Qfwfq]

Ooops, you'd be correct in steering this back on topic.

Thanks. :eek2:

[Heresiarch]

Chomp chomp! :hihi: Masticating away Master Charlie. :lol:

I accept the implied premise that it is a favorable thing to have secular science and reason oust religion. :

 

Not so fast. :hyper: why assume that the two are incompatible? Each compensates for the deficiencies of the other.

[hallenrm]

Not so fast. why assume that the two are incompatible? Each compensates for the deficiencies of the other.

 

That is like saying 'East is east and West is west and the twain shall never meet'

Or alternatively

Women and men can never be alike, because they are complementary to each other.

 

The history has shown that both the statements are not absolute truths:)