Religion and Reason?

Chat about serious topics and issues. Any flaming/de-railing will be deleted.

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Unstoppable Florence on Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:40 pm

Dionysos wrote:Well, I think sometimes atheists get a little frustrated because they can't understand how someone can be convinced of the existence of a god.


I can be like that, and perhaps I should be less intolerant. But I do get annoyed when religious types refuse to accept that quite often they are born into their system, and in actual fact, no, they have not 'made the choice'. Richard Dawkins (yes, I realise that not only is he a bit of a red flag, referencing him makes me look like a somewhat amateur atheist 8) ) made the very good point that a belief system is by its very nature very good at being passed onto others. And also that children are, naturally, very able to lap up whatever their parents/teachers tell them.

As a child, up until age 12, I believed in God, quite simply because I had been taught from a very early age that God existed. It was never forced on me in any way, just the simple fact that my parents had a mild belief in God, and that the nice smiling Vicar who would hold assemblies in primary school every month said he was real, made me automatically accept it to be the truth. Then one day I just sat down and thought 'there is no conceivable place in my model of the universe that requires there to be a divine being.' It was only my highly analytical nature that broke me out of this belief, a belief that - I feel in my case - would have prevented me from being as happy as I am. But the sad fact is, I felt very slightly afraid that I had insulted a being that I had been told would smite my backside for such insolence. I can't imagine what it must be like for those who grow up in an environment where religion is pitched in a more aggressive way.

Most people I have talked to who grew up in stable, religious families have themselves become followers through choice. But when I ask what made them 'make the choice' they often draw up a blank. It's those people I become frustrated with, that they refuse to see that they are just blindly following a tradition their parents accidentally instilled them with and that they would probably be better without the self-doubt and worry that often come with being a reluctant adherent.

Oh and one thing that does annoy me, for good reason, is when Christians claim that Atheists can not be as moral as they, since they do not follow the bible. Unbelievable. Morality is a common human trait. If Christianity makes you so god-damned squeaky-clean, please explain the Crusades. And that's just the pre-starter bread. Compassion and sense are not things you learn from reading a superannuated textbook, they are traits that redeem our species, and help justify our continued existence. If there is a God that made us, claiming that he made us all to be born amoral is probably the greatest blasphemy you could summon on His creation.
Dives wrote:Source is kinda like that really old guy in your family that keeps getting older and older and just won't die, but he tells really great stories. And craps the bed on occasion.
User avatar
Unstoppable Florence
Been Here A While
Been Here A While
 
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Makkon on Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:20 pm

(I hate to skip the whole thread to comment; pardon my highjacking).

I served as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for two years in the region of Tulsa Oklahoma. This church has been given a nickname called 'mormons.' I used to just suspect that what my church teaches was true. But there comes a time in every religious man's life that he is backed up against the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand. I cannot describe to you what that is like. I have seen things I cannot explain away, felt influence and feelings that I cannot cause my own self to recreate, and I have seen clear, undeniable answers to prayers. Long ago I suspected or assumed that my church was true. But now I know more surely that I thought I ever would. I know that there is a God, one who loves us beyond our own comprehension. He is our father, we are his children, and we are therefore literally brothers and sisters.

I know there are plenty of rumors or speculation about my church. I can assume that this is the case with every religion, and most of what people hear is misrepresentation, out of context, and sometimes fabrication. When I want to learn about another person's religion, I don't go to their critics, I don't go to their 'competitors,' I ask them. I am not a fan of projecting 'just what I've heard' onto another persons faith. If I have a concern about what I've heard, I simply ask them if it's true, or what their thoughts are. That is only fair.

As for questions in science that religion so-to-speak conflicts, I've never had any trouble with that. "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant" ~D&C 58:26.
Here's my view: Religion does not contain all the truth in the world, nor should it; true religion just gives you what is needed for having a better life and preparing for what comes after. That is why we HAVE science, because it answers all of those other things, not to mention art and history. Science and religion are not meant to be enemies, I feel that science reveals how and religion reveals (or should reveal) why. There is so much truth in this world that doesn't have to be concerned with religion!

Now I hate to speak on such a broad sense of the term 'religion,' because I know very little about other religions. So I can't tell you what they believe. But when I speak of true religion, I speak of things the way I think they should be. Religion is not meant to be an alternative to science and reason, it is supposed to be a companion. It should not be the end-all answer, but the motivation to keep searching for more truth. And it should never be a system of control and manipulation; it should only be a liberator.

Can I also comment on general Christianity?
It has had a horrible past, as most religions. What Jesus Christ taught was a higher law of love, respect, and service. What it has become is a strange articulated lifestyle of judgment, guilt, and condemnation, both of the membership and those who are 'nonbelievers'. I am a Christian, but I am not that sort of Christian. There are many people who believe in Christ, but there are few who believe Christ or what he taught. I have met many Atheists or Agnostics who were more respectful, kind, and honorable than the great majority of Christians I encountered (but on the other hand, I've met the inverse just as often). So when we speak of Christianity as referred to as perhaps the mainstream in the world, please do not include me in that group.
User avatar
Makkon
Regular
Regular
 
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:15 am
Location: Utah

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Dionysos on Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:58 pm

Just a short note, science (or rather logic) isn't necessarily the enemy of religion. It does however make a couple of popular deities logically impossible. I would like to know what your view of the video that was posted some pages prior is ("putting faith in its place"). Also, you cannot prove that a prayer made something happen just because what you wished came true.

Are mormons the ones who have underwear that protects them from everything?
The Venus Project wrote:The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
User avatar
Dionysos
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:30 am
Location: Slush

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Makkon on Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:59 pm

This is perhaps a deviation from what the author intended, but that's okay. This is meant in the spirit of understanding.

Dionysos: Cool video, but very one sided. It presented people with beliefs as closed and dogmatic. It's logic was easily arguable. To say that a cube cannot contain a possible entity of some kind because there is no evidence is just as arguable as the possibilities of what it can't contain. Either side of the argument is a possibility. Both sides have no evidence. And so we come to the common conundrum of this subject: I can't prove it is, you can't prove it isn't (as with the case of my prayers). The thing is, I don't really care to prove anything to you or anyone, because I have nothing to prove. As the video stated, my faith works for me, but contrary to what the video super-imposed on me (as it depicted people with faith as dogmatic, closed minded, and judgmental), I will not impose my beliefs on you. I will defend my faith, but that is as far as it goes.

As as further defense, here's how I feel. I've experienced too many 'coincidences' to call them coincidences any more. The impossibility of a God becomes slimmer for me every day. I'm sorry if it hasn't worked for you if you've ever tried it (which, with the argument you have, I hope to have for validity to your position), but I would rather believe in God and live and good life and be wrong than I would want to disbelieve what I have experienced and live a bad life and find out there is a God. You and I both will have evidence enough the day we die. So for now, follow what you think is right. That's the best course of action for anyone.

Check your PM :P
User avatar
Makkon
Regular
Regular
 
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:15 am
Location: Utah

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Terr on Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:12 am

I suspect there are some studies out there showing people are biologically wired to find "coincidences" in what is actually random noise. Look at people who gamble at random games and insist that they can beat the odds, for one.

It's easy to show that people aren't really that logical by nature. To paraphrase Scrooge: "There's more of the Croissant than the Cross about you."
Last edited by Terr on Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Terr
Sir Post-a-lot
Sir Post-a-lot
 
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:35 pm

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby MayheM on Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:15 am

I have to agree with Makkon about the video. It is along the lines of walking into a pitch black room where in you remain completely quiet. A second person then walks in and tries to say because they can not see or hear you there can not possibly be anyone in the room. However the fact remains you are in the room...

Just because there is no proof right in front of you does not mean something is not true.

Though I myself was raised Catholic, my views of God and his existence are very close to that of Makkon's. Like I have stated in past posts I see no conflict in believing in both God and science. They are not mutually exclusive.
Image
User avatar
MayheM
Veteran
Veteran
 
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Lancaster SC

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Dionysos on Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:45 am

Oh god-damn (excuse the phrase :D) I had just written a long and well-written post and then the fuse went... oh well. Here we go again.

Terr wrote:I suspect there are some studies out there showing people are biologically wired to find "coincidences" in what is actually random noise. Look at people who gamble at random games and insist that they can beat the odds, for one.
...


I actually skimmed an article about exactly that (what a coincidence :D) just today. Basically, it's about being genetically pre-disposed to favor the right side of the brain to the left, trying to make connections and sacrificing logic. Unfortunately the article is in german, but if there is interest I can post the link for those who want a google-translated version.

[edit: ah what the hell:
german - http://www.wissenschaft.de/wissenschaft ... tml?page=0
awful googlish - http://translate.google.co.uk/translate ... =&ie=UTF-8 ]

MayheM wrote:I have to agree with Makkon about the video. It is along the lines of walking into a pitch black room where in you remain completely quiet. A second person then walks in and tries to say because they can not see or hear you there can not possibly be anyone in the room. However the fact remains you are in the room...

Just because there is no proof right in front of you does not mean something is not true.


I just have to get this one out of the way before I answer makkon proper. First off, your example is not analog to the "god vs logic" debate or the video. If someone really is a rational, and the video actually said the same thing, he will not claim that something simply isn't there just because it can't be proven (just as he won't claim it is). Even the "dubious atheist icon" Richard Dawkins says that he isn't strictly an atheist, but really just an agnostic strongly believing that there very probably isn't a god. That's the point many believers misunderstand, and sadly many atheists do as well. But that's not the point. The point of the video isn't that you're saying there is no other person in the room because you can't hear or see him. The point is that there can't be a bed made of sleep in that room, ever, because there can't be a bed made of sleep anywhere, it's a play of words. I think I'll get back to this.

Makkon, I really respect the way you argue and you are right, this is all in the spirit of understanding. I don't mean to push you into the defense as such, but I understand that it naturally ends up there. I just wanted to say thank you for joining the discussion in a civil and non-imposing manner. (I will get back to that pm after this reply)

Let me get back to the video and the box. It said exactly what you are saying: there are many things that could be in the box, but can't be proven or disproven to actually be in the box. That is what you are saying, and that is what the narrator is saying, he is agreeing with you. What the video is saying however is that there is an infinite amount of things that cannot possibly be in the box, because these things are intrinsically impossible to exist. A bed of sleep can't possibly be in the box, because it can't exist in itself. Therefor it doesn't have to be disproven to be shown false, just as it couldn't exist to be proven. That's the point of the box example. There might be a very powerful being that we don't know about, but there is a list of powerful beings that are intrinsically impossible (as listed).

I would also like to mention coincidences. Believe me, I've had a lot of really, REALLY, freaky coincidences happen to me up until now. Things that seem imbued with meaning and the effect of a calculated cause. However, these coincidences are precisely so freaky and weird to us because they are rare, unusual and out of the ordinary. It's why we notice. They fall within the unfortunately very sciency sounding boundaries of unlikely events, chance, probability. They are reasonable; they can happen, they are not super-natural. If they can be explained simply, that explanation is more likely to be true than an explanation which itself requires more explanations and itself is more complex. It is more likely that they are simply random and that they appear weird to me because they are exactly that, weird, and my mind isn't a mathematical one. It's a pattern-recognition machine, and can be fallacious. Which brings me to my next point.

I try to live as much as possible by the truth, so that I can live the best life possible and do the most good for me and others (a goal which you might say is in itself a result of that process). That implies that I try to base my actions on things that make the most sense to me, and that again implies that I base these actions on what is more likely to be the case. If something can't be proven one way or the other, I go by probability. Logically it simply is more likely that something occurred due to chance rather than prayer (I sometimes prayed when I was little, I prayed real hard), because probability suffices. If I want to make a god responsible, that explanation has to be logically superior to pure chance (as in more likely to be true, since it can't be proven) for me to accept it. I've never come across that. Which brings me to my next to last point.

If there was something freakish that happened to me that couldn't be accounted for by a simple explanation like chance it would still be more likely that lack of being able to explain it is due to lack of knowledge about our natural universe. There have always been aspects of our universe we don't understand, and we will never be all-knowing. But that case, that we can't explain it simply because we don't know enough, is still more likely than a complex deity (more or less, according to what kind of deity respectively). Bluntly put, aliens are more likely to be the case than god (or rather, god is the alien).

I really applaud you for not imposing your beliefs on others, no one should. I applaud you for discussing things freely, which also everyone should be able to. I agree that all anyone can ever do is what he or she thinks is right, and if that's someday the case for everyone, everything might get easier. However, there is one last (I promise) point I have. I too would rather live life believing in a god and living a good life, than not believing in a god and living a bad life. I agree with you. However, you seem to be implying that not believing in god (or the god), you automatically can't live a good life. I suppose we both pretty much have the same morals and live the same way. We probably both live according to a set of guidelines that are meant to not hurt people and do good and live a good life. I try to live a good life according to what is most probably the truth, so that my life can be as meaningful as possible (if that's at all possible). And here's the thing; even if I'm wrong but adhere to my ideals and there is a heaven (which I hope, who wants to completely vanish?) I will still have lived a good life in a modern, christian way. The god I was taught about and grew up with would approve, because our morals pretty much overlap (again according to todays modern view of christian belief). I will still get into heaven, for god knows my thoughts and is forgiving, he won't be selfish to punish me for not worshiping him personally. But I will be content with my basing my decisions and actions on the most likely truth.

I hope you know I don't mean to offend, even though some things do just do. People are different in all kinds of ways. And you are right, all anyone ever really can do is what they think is right, in their own personal way. Either way we'll see in the end, and maybe the beers will have to be on me :wink:

If you actually read all this, thank you very much.
Last edited by Dionysos on Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Venus Project wrote:The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
User avatar
Dionysos
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:30 am
Location: Slush

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby cashed on Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:51 am

MayheM wrote:Atheist believe there is not god and only scientific reasons for existence.


I just have to nit pick you and say this is completely false, and quite common.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Science has not given all of the answer we are asking, there is an entire universe that we have yet scratched. Aside from that, we have only gotten our feet wet here on earth and there is a lot left to discover. But because it has not given empirical data on major spiritual items, filling it with 2000+ year old myths to justify a "existence" does not make sense.

I was raised Roman Catholic, went to catholic school, and went through all the ceremonies. But I just did the motions because I was told what to believe and I never grasped it as a whole. Then I slowly started to drift, thinking I was a non-practicing catholic to not sound harsh, but it was a slow process to my atheism. I've always been fascinated with science and what it holds for the future, a structure that is forever evolving and open-minded with humanism driving its core. You cannot say the same for religions. Sure they offer charitable sectors but it is in no way beneficial to the greater being of the doctrine.
User avatar
cashed
Regular
Regular
 
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:21 am
Location: London, Ontario, Canada

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Terr on Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:03 am

The dark room example is deeply flawed. We know people exist, and that they can be quiet, and that they can be in rooms. The uncertainty is: "Is someone there or not".

By comparison, a God-centric analogy would be more like: "There is a pink squid-unicorn made of sentient dreams in the dark room." Now we have to question not just "is it here", but also whether it exists and how it could possibly exist and whether any of it's constituent parts could exist.

"Is this coin under my hand 'heads'?" is a 50/50 chance.
"Is my hand covering a tiny winged fairy-creature which grants wishes" is a much different question with a much different chance.
Terr
Sir Post-a-lot
Sir Post-a-lot
 
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:35 pm

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby RefaelBA on Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:33 pm

@Makkon:

First of all thanks for the well put and itneresting comment. You're right, Dionysos was deviating from the original idea- the thread is called "Religion AND Reason" and it was meant to help me understand how religious people that follow the spirit, treat reason which may contradict their beliefs, and how both religion and reason settle together in a person's mind. Like I said before whenever people tried to "debunk" religion in this thread, after all it's about getting another person's perspective rather than proving them wrong (which is actually not very polite if we really want to understand them). Perhaps it was wrong of me to just type all that stuff about my personal opinion because it encouraged people to try and disprove the idea of Faith, but I felt it was only proper that if I request for someone else's point of view, I should also explain my own. Like I said, if any of the posts here offend you (including mine) feel free to ignore them, there's nothing I'd like less than hurting people in this community.

And now to the point:

A

I see what you mean, that to you there's no conflict at all. I heard that before, I think even Mayhem said something similar. You know, I read this stupid book called The Da Vinci Code, and while a lot of ideas in that book seem far-fetched, there was one that seemed particularly and almost painfully logical: the idea that over the years, Christianity has made a very long way from what it was intended to be. I mean, it went through different leaders, different times and different situations for thousands of years. It's enough that every leader would just prefer one interpretation over another, to get a major blend of opinions and different customs.

Think of it that way: If we compare Christianity to a computer, then it will be a computer that has been running for thousands of years, when different people every few decades tell it how they want it to work and how it should look, every user installs the system updates of THEIR liking and uninstalls system updates done by others, and the computer was never rebooted. Now, that computer will be a serious mess, and in my opinion, that's exactly how Christianity deviated so far from its intended resolution to things like Inquisitions, "Witch" hunting, disgustingly violent Crusades and actually killing in the name of God. The Church's way of dealing with new things they didn't understand has mostly been violent. I don't need to tell you what the Church did to Galileo when he claimed the Earth was round. And back then, they were much closer to the original legacy of Christ, since the time itself was much closer and Christianity has exchanged less hands. Eventually the Church HAD to reluctantly accept that fact that science is not heresay.

That's what some radical muslims still do today, so I'm not blaming Christianity for the troubles of the world here, I'm just saying it took a wrong turn somewhere. When a system stays around for that long, and exchanges so many hands, especially in times when it was so easy to make radical changes and destroy evidence, it is only logical that Christianity today will be very different from the original cult back in Israel some 2000 years ago. I'd even dare call it a different religion altogether. And the same goes for other ancient religions too.

I don't know how much you've thought about this, but come on, you have to admit that there's no way the current system that you follow is identical to what they had a 1000 years ago. I'm telling you all this because I want to know how you deal with that. What gives you power to trust this system after all, even though it's pretty clear that it's been changing over the centuries? Why do you choose this system, that has faltered so many times in the past, instead of finding a "freelance" approach to Christianity?

A II
In the same notion, I'd also like to know how you feel about it when some researchers say they have found inconsistencies in the bible - certain parts that were written and fused in to serve a leader's goal. I mean, you probably don't want to think that there are "lies" in the bible or that it was tampered by people through the years, so what do you tell yourself in this context?

B
I just want to bring an interesting point to the table. Do you believe that if you were born in a very religious muslim country, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, would you have still found your way to Christianity in the end? Please consider before answering - and remember, that in some places in the world, changing your religion can get you killed. What I'm trying to say is that the way you grew up probably had an impact on what you're beliving right now, and chance had it that you weren't born a Muslim. Do you at all accept that idea? Do you think that because I was born a Jew, it was easier for me to stay Jewish and not accept Jesus, since the entire place I live in does the same thing and it's considered a concensus? And if that's the case, am I wrong? How do explain this to yourself? I'd like to know if you don't mind.

C
That last thing I want to ask you is this: I've carefully read your post and it was touching. I loved the part where you said that your way worked for you. Perhaps you've had this thought before, but it's obvious that other people have contradicting ways that also work for them. That's why we have tons of religions on Earth. It worked for early humans (findings suggest that even neanderthals had some sort of rituals!) and for different cultures all through history. It worked for tribes that danced around a fire so that it would rain, it worked for the Greeks that believed their gods were having a celestial soap opera and it still works today for billions of people. So the way I see it, it works on every different system and every different culture, because religion is a human trait. But how do you explain this history to yourself? I understand that you feel strongly for Jesus, but I bet you already know that people have been feeling the exact same way towards their religious ideals since the dawn of human history. People have seen miracles and prayers answered, whether in ancient egypt or in contemporary Buddhaism. I just really long to know how you deal with this truth?


I hope you lasted through this amazingly long read. I know I almost didn't. I'd be very happy to hear your opinion about these subjects.
Image
User avatar
RefaelBA
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:00 pm

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Makkon on Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:06 am

Wow, I have a lot to read and a lot to respond to. Might take a little while. I apologize in advance for having to keep these very short.

Dionysos: I read over your whole post yesterday (whooo!) and had to skim over it today to respond, sorry if I skip anything! Tons of really good points. I'm running low on sleep, as well as brainpower right now, so if I say some things that don't follow through, forgive me.
I totally get what you mean, honestly there are plenty of things in this universe that aren't capable of existing (which is also arguable by some). The conventional Christian view of God (which is a view I do not share) is simply incomprehensible. In traditional Christianity, God is viewed as being 3 distinct beings, yet not 3 but one(?). He is regarded as con-substantial, co-eternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions, dwelling outside of space and time(??). Does that sound like a being that can exist? No. A bed made of sleep seems more reasonable than an unknowable and incomprehensibly complex god.
This is what I believe: God is literally our Father, and we are literally his children. He loves us more than we have the capacity to understand. He wants the very best for us, that we could become like him (but as a good father, he will not force us, nor will he just make our lives a cake-walk. Just look at kids with parents that baby them their whole lives). He has a literal, tangible body of flesh and bone that is immortal. He is in a glorified, perfected state. He is a God of law, a God of cause and effect, and he operates upon these laws that he has established. That sounds like a being that is probable to exist, more so than other abstract or traditional conceptions.

As for coincidences, I think perhaps in our lives we all have many events that are simply that: coincidences. I've had a few freaking ones myself, and I think they make life rich and full of variety. But when I have a rapid succession of coincidences, spanning several years, that are the seeming result of a certain action (in this case, prayer, not wishing), and I find that this is an experiment that is not only repeatable but will start and stop dependent of my actions (prayer), then it becomes increasingly improbable that these are just simple coincidences. Faith is never meant to be blind, it's something that can grow with experiences, and should never be based on assumption or tradition. So far as I have experimented on faith and prayer, my results have been positive. Of course I've had prayers unanswered (good thing too, he knows me too well), and many that took work on my side, I've still had similar results throughout. And when I haven't prayed (like a good majority of my life, I used to be agnostic) the results have been rather disappointing. That is my experience.

Thank you so much for your honesty and integrity. Like you said, I can by no means assume that you cannot live a good life without faith, that would be bigotry. It's interesting that the Bible mentions "faith without works is dead, being alone," but on a different note, I think works without faith is better to have if you're only going to have one and not both. If a man does something contrary to his personal belief, that's not a pretty thing. Whatever your course in life, keep pursuing what feels right. Honestly, in this world of confusion, that's the only intelligent thing to do. And living your life the honest Christian way, even if you don't have that faith, is tremendous, and admirable; most Christians can't even do that.
But this is something to keep in mind:
"And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world." Alma 34;33-34 (Book of Mormon).
Here's my thoughts: people usually don't just up and change their minds on a whim because some big event took place in their lives. Patterns in thought and habit take a great deal of time and effort to change. Change is hard. According to that scripture that I quoted, even death doesn't change who you are. You are still the same person, with the same attitude, thoughts, personality, everything. Whatever views or beliefs you have at the time you leave this life, it's probably going to stick around for a while. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's probably really really hard. (but I don't really know, haven't been there yet).
Luckily, God has a plan for that too:
"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1Peter4:6 (New Testament). God doesn't set people up to fail. He doesn't stick someone in some life's circumstances to where they're likely to hold certain beliefs (whether they be right or wrong), or in a country where they never hear about God, and then at death say "Well, looks like YOU screwed this one up, BIG TIME. No salvation for you, you heathen!" He'll will, as you said, sort it all out in the end. Do your best, and do what feels right. Anything less would be a waste of existence.

Don't worry, man, it takes a lot to offend me. You seem like an awesome person anyway.

RefaelBA: Hey, no problem. I'm not offended at all by anything you've said. These are some beautiful meaty questions. Most of these I studied and taught a lot as a missionary, many people had the same questions as you. I hope I can articulate my thoughts well enough to give you a decent response.

A
Wonderful question! And one of my very favorite to answer!
As a missionary, the typical thing that I would say to a Christian was something similar to "we share a message that after centuries of darkness and apostasy, God has again reached out in love and restored his church once again on the earth today, and has done so by a living prophet. We have evidence of this found in a book called the Book of Mormon, which you can handle and see for yourself, to read the message that it contains, and to ask God himself if the book is true."

It's historically obvious that mainstream Christianity has deviated completely from the way it was established by Jesus Christ. Since the days of Adam, God had a standard procedure or how he did things. He would call a prophet (a chosen representative that God would speak through and give authority to act in his name) and that prophet would establish a church, or an organization, by which people could learn truth necessary to return to live with God. Since God gave man his agency, or freedom to chose, often times people would reject the prophets and their teachings, and that established church would crumble and decay. This would lead to change in doctrine by self-appointed leadership, change in ordinances and organization, and all kinds of horrible stuff follows (which you are familiar with). This is called apostasy, or a falling away or rebellion from truth. In apostasy emerges the ugly side or religion. The side that man himself creates, as God is not the author.
After a period of apostasy, when the people were willing and ready to receive the fullness of the truth again, he would send another prophet. And the pattern would repeat itself again. This is what has been observed in biblical history.

When the time came that Christ, the promised Messiah, should come, it was during a period of apostasy. Christ restored his church and called twelve apostles. He gave these apostles the 'priesthood' or the authority to govern his church, and all things that are associated with it.
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians2:19-20

--quick note, a good way to think of that: If a police officer pulled you over for speeding and wrote you a ticket, you would have to pay that ticket. Why? Because that police officer had the authority to enforce the law, as it was given to him by the state. The state will support all the actions this officer performs that are within his jurisdiction. But if an ice-cream truck driver tried to write you a ticket for speeding, you don't have to pay it. Why? Because he has no authority to enforce the law, no matter how good his intentions were.--
So if you can imagine, as the Jews rejected Christ and crucified him, what would happen to his apostles? They were persecuted and killed, along with those who were Christ's followers.
So the pattern repeats again.

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it." Amos 8:11-12

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." Acts 20:20-31 (Paul speaking to leaders of the church).

Well, I won't go on with too many, but here's a list if you want to see all the references:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?typ ... ecked&bt=1
and that's not a complete list.

Basically, what happened to Christ's church was an apostasy; a corruption of the government within, and rampant persecution from without. This was prophesied to happen from the very beginning.

Christ's own words, speaking to his apostles:
"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Matthew24:9-12

So the church crumbled, and only fragments of believers remained.

Around the 4th century, the Roman empire, which initially persecuted the Christians, later adopted Christianity, when Emperor Constantine's wife was converted to what remained of Christiandom, and so he followed. What happened from there was a very interesting transformation. As there was no leadership of the church for decades, there was no unity of belief among Christians. To solve this, Constantine thought, a council was held to establish a unity in doctrine. What resulted was a compromise, popular philosophers and unlearned men voting on what the true nature of God was, and how his church was to function.
And the rest is a montage of bloody history from there.

To answer your question, I don't follow the conventional system of Christianity. I believe that God himself has restored his church on the earth again through a modern prophet named was Joseph Smith (that's a ton of information to go over, so here's a link to read if you like: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 ).
I hope that sort of answers your question

A II I love this one too. :D
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Articles of Faith:8 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1
The Bible is not perfect. Nor is any scripture. It came in this manner:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 1Peter1:20-21
And as scripture is transcribed repeatedly, people are human, and things are changed over thousands of years. The Bible was translated a few hundred times, and you can only imagine what information can be lost that way. But that's not all, scriptural text was deliberately changed by many corrupt men during many periods of apostasy. So you can imagine it's going to have some inconsistencies. That's why, in my church, we have more scripture to act as a second witness to clarify the doctrines of the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Moreover there are Modern Prophets and Apostles who receive current revelation, and personal prayer for clarification.

B
Very good question. I really don't think I know myself well enough to tell you who I would be or what I would do. There really is no way of telling. I would probably be affected very much by my surroundings. But then again, you were raised a certain religion, and you have detached from it. People are not at the total mercy of their circumstances. But there are billions of people on the earth who are not Christian, and billions more who have lived and died without being Christian.
I hope this doesn't deviate from what you wanted to know, but: I asked a Christian man once (I won't mention his religious affiliation) "what happens if someone lives and dies without ever having a chance to hear about Christ?" His answer: "He's goin ta HELL." Seem fair? Of course not.
God knows and loves each and every one of his children. He knows them all by name. He knows their thoughts, intentions, words, deeds, feelings, and circumstances. Would a perfectly just and merciful God condemn his child who he loves so dearly to an endless misery because he was born in a country where there was no concept of God, and never had the chance to accept Christ? Obviously no.

"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1Peter4:6

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." John5:25

God is going to sort it all out in the end. Not that that excuses any of us from our responsibility to search for the truth, but so long as we do our very best, everything is going to be sorted out in the end. God takes all things into account: circumstances, education, disability, culture, social pressure, etc.

C
Good question, one that I haven't pondered on much. I think that there are plenty of ways to be happy, but there are some that do not last, some that do well, and some that do better than others. I think I can agree that religion is a human trait, I feel that sort of disposition is a trait that was God-given. The history isn't anything I have to explain to myself. I know that a search for meaning and happiness is a desire shared by every human being, and there are many parts of the world that have systems that work fantastically. But what I have found I feel works the very best. And I have tried many others. To this day I have not found anything that works better; if and when I do, I will accept whatever it is. I don't know how to answer that anymore than I have.

I hope that all answered your questions! I............got a little long winded, and probably shared more information than you really needed to know. But now I need to take a break from typing.

Maybe as a future note, I'd like to avoid long posts. :P
User avatar
Makkon
Regular
Regular
 
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:15 am
Location: Utah

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby RefaelBA on Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:47 pm

Yeah me too :)
Thanks for all of your answers, they were great. I'm glad you were willing to share a piece of your mind, let alone with a stranger from another part of the world, that's pretty rare right there. So thanks! I read through it all, I think I got what you're saying in the most part, and I'll go through it again soon hoping to completely understand your point of view. Your explnation of apostasy was brilliant. I'll touch a few of the things you've said, but I'll try to avoid a super-long post this time, and anyway you're not obligated to give a long answer if you're not in the mood, I won't think any less of you.

First, you said that I was born into my religion and yet came to detach from it. The truth is that my family isn't very religious, and if I were born into a really orthodox family, it's probable that I would have accepted Judaism completely. I can say that I WASN'T born into religion just the same as others WERE born into it, and that makes a great difference in a person's life, if not the most. Perhaps I didn't have much of a "choice", just like people who are born into their religion don't really have one. The "THEY GO TA HELL" part was hilarious though.

Luckily for me, I don't need religion to see the universe as a miraculous place, every thread of grass on Earth can take my breath away. Simply the wonders of life (biology and bottany for me) can make me gaze at the smallest things for hours, like a flower or a beetle and adore them. I'm surrounded by a living, breathing world from a microscopic level to global scale and that's amazing. The sheer chance of being here and seeing it all excites me, it's almost against the odds that either of us would be here. I do attribute it all to chance, and not to God, but actually that even makes it more magical for me - because if there's no real plan for us, if it's really all just chance, it's ten times more amazing to me. It's like winning the lottery every second you're alive. We were born and got to experience life until our time is up, and that's the greatest ride in the universe. I don't think that any religion would give me a better inner-integrity than what I just described in this paragraph. I hope you understand what I mean by that.

You know, it was a really beautiful thought about religion being a human trait, and that it was intended by God. It's an explanation I didn't expect. The only difference, if you care about what I think, is that to my opinion this trait is a result of our physiology. Today I see religion as a human phenomenon, like music, science and math. :)

And lastly, about our little discussion concerning the "system" of religion, Christianity's and other religions'. Personally I'm too curious and picky to accept things that people teach me without testing or approving them. I'm a researcher type, and I'll mostly never accept something just because someone says so, and I don't care how much power they have (Benedictus) or how convincing they may seem (Obama). They're people after all, and their word to me is only a starting point for an interesting research. That's why I can't accept, personally, the idea of an establishment such as the Church (or Synagouge) telling me what's intended, what's right and wrong based on the interpretations of a select few. That was my first step away from formal religion, and after a long while and some serious research and thinking, I found no reason to believe in God or accept that idea at all. So now I'm a whole-hearted atheist, but like I said, I don't feel like I lack a spiritual side.

BOTTOM LINE is, I'm really glad you shared that with me, thanks. I hope I got to share something back in this post, so perhaps you can understand my point of view in return. The great thing is that both of our ways work for us, as you said, so keep at it my friend! Thanks again for the cooperation.
Image
User avatar
RefaelBA
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:00 pm

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby marks on Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:47 pm

Code: Select all
faith
–noun

2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.


/thread
basically the reason people with faith dont care about inconsistencies in the logic of their religion/science disproving things ... is that it wouldnt really be faith if they needed concrete proof in order to believe in it. Faith is about believing when there is no evidence and proof and from a logical standpoint you just dont know. My stance is that faith is a fantastic, rare and powerful thing to have. Religion on the other hand, is dumb, enslaving, tyrannical and pretty much solely responsible for every genocide and atrocity for the last 2000-3000 years or so (basically before the 20th century). 2 cents from a raving agnostic ;)
User avatar
marks
Creative Assembly
Creative Assembly
 
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:07 pm

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Makkon on Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:37 am

RefaelBA: Sorry that I didn't respond to your post a while back, I'll need to do that when I can.

marks: Fair enough. That's a very good point; here's my view.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


I don't know how others do things, but my faith is not blind. I've based mine on consistently occurring experiences that I can trace back to a single instance, and that was usually by acting on faith. I always hear the argument of "you can't prove that happened because of faith/prayer." That's an easy retort to give when someone doesn't have an alternate explanation.

Alma32:17-21
Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.
Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?
Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.
And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.


That's a good definition of faith, I think. When you really think about it, what do we really know for a surety? In my opinion, any perspective, viewpoint, thought, theory, factual science, etc is all practically a form of faith. Because we really don't KNOW.

Very tired, goodnight.
User avatar
Makkon
Regular
Regular
 
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:15 am
Location: Utah

Re: Religion and Reason?

Postby Dionysos on Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:33 pm

Long time since I posted, but here goes nothing.

Makkon wrote:RefaelBA: Sorry that I didn't respond to your post a while back, I'll need to do that when I can.

marks: Fair enough. That's a very good point; here's my view.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



Faith is per definition not based on evidence. And saying faith is the evidence of things not seen just frankly doesn't make any logical sense, unfortunately. Faith need not be definition be evidence of anything other than that we are alive. I think therefor I am, but that is beside the point.


Makkon wrote:I don't know how others do things, but my faith is not blind. I've based mine on consistently occurring experiences that I can trace back to a single instance, and that was usually by acting on faith. I always hear the argument of "you can't prove that happened because of faith/prayer." That's an easy retort to give when someone doesn't have an alternate explanation.


Unfortunately, and I don't mean to offend but, chance and probability are more likely than effective faith or prayer. I would love an example of occurrences happening that are more likely to have been the result of prayer than simple chance (it would have to defy chance and probability, and not just seemingly).

Also, you don't have to have an alternative correct explanation to be able to exclude something from the list of possible explanations.


Alma32:17-21
Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.
Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?
Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.
And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.


That quote is a) saying that faith is hoping or believing something you can't know. So far so good. As far as I understand it it also says that b) faith is something which is true? Faith isn't true by definition.

Makkon wrote:That's a good definition of faith, I think. When you really think about it, what do we really know for a surety? In my opinion, any perspective, viewpoint, thought, theory, factual science, etc is all practically a form of faith. Because we really don't KNOW.


You are right, there is little we know for sure. We do however have a pretty firm grasp on whats more likely to be true, and that knowledge is getting more refined all the time. Therefor, different forms of "faith" can be treated differently, or rather, can be said to be more or less likely to be actually true.

Something else I just came to think of, is the emotional investment people of faith usually make into their faith-system. For instance, and this is all archetypical, a "perfect" rational scientist does not really "care" what his research shows. If a long-time standing theory is disproved and a radically different one shown to be "true" (as in more likely to be true) he has no reason to feel existential qualms or be crushed. Rather, he is happy to be closer to what is more likely to be the truth.
A religious faith on the other hand is based on "having faith that a certain concrete concept is true".

All I'm saying is that I don't see factual science as faith(other than having faith that living according to truth is right, which can be said of anyone). You don't have faith, you *know* what is at the moment and with your amount of knowledge more likely to be true. It isn't about the object, it's about the process.
The Venus Project wrote:The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
User avatar
Dionysos
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:30 am
Location: Slush
PreviousNext

Return to Serious Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users