Philosophy Now Forum

Human history has 'invented' so many religions, so different from each other, that it should be obvious for anyone that the entire concept of religion is man-made, evolved out of ignorance.

I understand the historical necessity of inventing religions, otherwise they would not have been invented. Each one served a purpose, at the time it was invented, in the context it was invented. Sometimes they served a social function, sometimes they served the ruling class, sometimes both.

They were all different and they all claimed to be the "right" belief. The masses usually believed in them because science was in its infancy and the scientific method for acquiring knowledge was not known and understood by most people.

One more reason for religion's 'popularity': very few people can accept that human beings may not be equipped to understand deep reality (quantum physics, Big Bang, evolution of life, etc.) and the concept of infinity, so they have to make it up for comfort's sake.

Add to it the fear of death and then you are home free.

Here is a list of just the major religions (practiced today), from Wikipedia.

See which of them appeals to you?

1 Abrahamic religions
1.1 Bábism
1.2 Bahá'í Faith
1.3 Christianity
1.3.1 Other groups
1.4 Gnosticism
1.5 Islam
1.6 Judaism
1.7 Rastafari movement
1.8 Mandaeans and Sabians
1.9 Samaritanism
1.10 Unitarian Universalism
2 Indian religions
2.1 Ayyavazhi
2.2 Bhakti Movement
2.3 Buddhism
2.4 Din-i-Ilahi
2.5 Hinduism
2.6 Jainism
2.7 Sikhism
3 Iranian religions
3.1 Manichaeism
3.2 Mazdakism
3.3 Mithraism
3.4 Yazdânism
3.5 Zoroastrianism
4 East Asian religions
4.1 Confucianism
4.2 Shinto
4.3 Taoism
4.4 Other
5 African diasporic religions
6 Indigenous traditional religions
6.1 African
6.2 American
6.3 Eurasian
6.4 Oceania/Pacific
6.4.1 Cargo cults
7 Historical polytheism
7.1 Ancient Near Eastern
7.2 Indo-European
7.3 Hellenistic
8 Mysticism and Occult
8.1 Esotericism and mysticism
8.2 Occult and magic
9 Neopaganism
9.1 Syncretic
9.2 Ethnic
10 New religious movements
10.1 Creativity
10.2 New Thought
10.3 Shinshukyo
11 Left-hand path religions
12 Fictional religions
13 Parody or mock religions
14 Others

Let me know which of them you fancy!

For this reason, Ned.

Here is all the proof I need about the hereafter and God's plan. One reason is that I have learned to trust in the competence of other people and not only my own to observe and figure things out.

Spinal orthopedic surgeon Dr. Mary Neal dies in a kayak pinned under water for close to 30 minutes. Comforted by Jesus as she dies, taken to the entrance to heaven and then told she must go back. One of the reasons, besides witnessing with her story, she is told is to be with her son when he is going to die at age 18. He was 5 years at this time. He died at 18 when he was hit by a car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xjYdm55k5U

Clearly, from what I have seen so far, the crowd over here cannot trust in someone else's competence when it goes against their ingrained biases. I am putting this out here in the hope that some unbiased objective people might sometimes stray onto this forum and take something from it.

Forgive me, QMan, if I take your story with a grain of salt.

As 'House" says in the TV drama: "Everybody lies".

(or deluded, mistaken, brainwashed, engaged in wishful thinking, unaware of the basic rules for acquiring knowledge).

All the believers in all of these religions were convinced that all the other were wrong.

They were all right (in believing that the others were all wrong).

See which of them appeals to you?

I guess that you are asking the atheists which religion they find the most amusing.

Everything you say indicated you think that religion is based on ignorance and believers are deluded, mistaken, brainwashed, engaged in wishful thinking, unaware of the basic rules for acquiring knowledge, or lying.

So you can't be expecting too many responses from believers.

Ned wrote:Forgive me, QMan, if I take your story with a grain of salt.

It's not my story, it's the story of a highly competent orthopedic surgeon who died and came back.
Bet you didn't even watch the clip and then form an opinion.

As 'House" says in the TV drama: "Everybody lies".

It is hard to discuss this topic with someone who takes their cues for life from "House" of all things.

(or deluded, mistaken, brainwashed, engaged in wishful thinking, unaware of the basic rules for acquiring knowledge).

Watch the clip please and then compare your credentials to the ones of the highly competent medical expert DR. Neal. Who do you think can be trusted? I know who I trust to be more competent.

All the believers in all of these religions were convinced that all the other were wrong.

That's baloney. You can't prove it so you are just dodging.

They were all right (in believing that the others were all wrong).

This makes no sense at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_(religion)

How very dare they

Ask yourself the question: “what is it I know from first-hand experience and what is it that I just accepted from others, without really examining how those others acquired that ‘knowledge’.

You might be tempted to say that the same is true for science, after all, we learn it from textbooks written by others. However, there is a difference. We can easily find out how those others (who have written the books) found their discoveries (based on what experiments) and how they reached their conclusions.

Interested amateurs can reproduce many of the simpler experiments themselves, at least in the domain of Classical Physics. You don’t really have to take anything on faith, as is the case with religions.

The problem with faith is the sad fact that people often lie, are often deluded and, the saddest fact of all, they often use psychological manipulation to achieve their aims: be it wealth or power over other people. Religion has been used for both over the centuries – bloody wars were fought using religion as an excuse.

In view of this, how much should we trust these assertions, handed down to us over history? Wouldn’t it be safer to rely on our own observations and our own minds?

Scientific thinking offers exactly that to us.

I was once asked if I ‘believed’ in electrons.

My answer was: I don’t need to ‘believe’ in electrons, because I have personally conducted experiments that proved it to me that material particles with a definite mass, charge and spin exist, even if I can’t see them. I don’t believe – I know.

The other arguments I often hear is based on lack of imagination. It goes like this: “how can you imagine that a world as complex and as perfectly interacting as ours, has evolved by chance? There had to be a creator”.

And, of course, this reply begs the question. If the world was created by a creator, then the creator had to be at least as complex as its creation. Then, using the same argument, the creator had to have a creator, so who created the creator?

The usual answer is: the creator has always existed, it was not created.

Then, the question is: if we can assume that something complex and powerful always existed, then why can’t we just assume that the universe has always existed, without a creator? Whichever way we look at religion, we either run into contradictions or find ourselves inventing arbitrary and totally unnecessary concepts.

Science saves you from all these problems: it is simple, logical, safe, available to everyone who wants to find out. You don’t have to take it on faith.

phyllo wrote:So you can't be expecting too many responses from believers.

I expect answers from people who can follow a logical argument, step by step, examine the issue from many different angles, consider all the pros and cons and respond in an intelligent, well balanced, intellectually honest way.

Both believers and non-believers can do that.

I have seen it done -- not very often though.

Ned wrote:Ask yourself the question: “what is it I know from first-hand experience and what is it that I just accepted from others, without really examining how those others acquired that ‘knowledge’.

You might be tempted to say that the same is true for science, after all, we learn it from textbooks written by others. However, there is a difference. We can easily find out how those others (who have written the books) found their discoveries (based on what experiments) and how they reached their conclusions.

Interested amateurs can reproduce many of the simpler experiments themselves, at least in the domain of Classical Physics. You don’t really have to take anything on faith, as is the case with religions.

The problem with faith is the sad fact that people often lie, are often deluded and, the saddest fact of all, they often use psychological manipulation to achieve their aims: be it wealth or power over other people. Religion has been used for both over the centuries – bloody wars were fought using religion as an excuse.

In view of this, how much should we trust these assertions, handed down to us over history? Wouldn’t it be safer to rely on our own observations and our own minds?

Scientific thinking offers exactly that to us.

I was once asked if I ‘believed’ in electrons.

My answer was: I don’t need to ‘believe’ in electrons, because I have personally conducted experiments that proved it to me that material particles with a definite mass, charge and spin exist, even if I can’t see them. I don’t believe – I know.

The other arguments I often hear is based on lack of imagination. It goes like this: “how can you imagine that a world as complex and as perfectly interacting as ours, has evolved by chance? There had to be a creator”.

And, of course, this reply begs the question. If the world was created by a creator, then the creator had to be at least as complex as its creation. Then, using the same argument, the creator had to have a creator, so who created the creator?

The usual answer is: the creator has always existed, it was not created.

Then, the question is: if we can assume that something complex and powerful always existed, then why can’t we just assume that the universe has always existed, without a creator? Whichever way we look at religion, we either run into contradictions or find ourselves inventing arbitrary and totally unnecessary concepts.

Science saves you from all these problems: it is simple, logical, safe, available to everyone who wants to find out. You don’t have to take it on faith.

I think there is a big misconception concerning science that really needs to be dealt with before any discussions in this forum are really useful.

Science has no particular magical properties or imparts anything special to any person. Science is nothing other than an activity of charting (cartography), cataloguing, warehousing, shelving, and categorizing of pre-existing facts that make up this universe. So, some items get stored on the energy shelf, some on the quantum mechanics shelf, others are stored in the thermodynamics drawer, etc.. Developing and discovering theorems or properties are simply rearranging and storing of knowledge in different boxes, drawers and on shelves.

So, nothing is added to or taken away from this universe that wasn't there to start with. Physical science is nothing more than doing the above activity the same way that knowledge of the non-material is treated.

There is also on the physical science shelf a place for the non-material. E.g. the bending of light when passing close by a star is attributed to the non-observable of distorted space time and its presumed, and non-material, manifestation by way of gravity. By this I mean that you can observe the effect of gravity but not gravity itself.

Similarly, the effect of the non-observable will of God is observable through its manifestation in the actions of the physical and spiritual entity called a human being.

By definition, when the actions are "moral and Good", then the will of God is manifest, if "Bad" it is not manifest (this applies also if you do not believe in God). Good and bad is defined through contents in the bible and from natural law. Thus, observable actions of the human agent and cataloguing of such facts is not a supernatural but a natural activity that integrates the presence and the influence of God in a natural way.

QMan wrote:So, nothing is added to or taken away from this universe that wasn't there to start with.

Since the universe, by definition, is everything that exists, nothing can be added to it from 'outside', because the universe has no outside. It's all inside.

Similarly, the effect of the non-observable will of God...

Stop right there.

You used an undefined word: 'God'

Until you define it by the well understood rules of epistemology, we cannot proceed any further.

Don't be silly, Ned!

That's as good a definition as I have ever heard!

Well, first, just because there are many religions it doesn’t necessarily follow that none of them are true.

Second, “historical necessity”??? Really? Do you think no one ponders whether matter is eternal or whether rocks and water can evolve into man even today? Since you seem to dismiss an intelligent designer from consideration regarding cosmology, how do you handle the issue of matter, scientific laws, the mind, etc?

“religion” is something I define as man’s attempt to understand and relate to God. Being an invention of man there’s plenty of room for mistake, but given the near universality of religion it would seem that one would explore the issue.

For me, atheism doesn’t provide any answers as to ethics other than relativism. Science is only as good as the operating technologies of the day allow and too many “historical” theories and laws have been factually wrong.

So while some religions may be odd or even untrue, it does not follow that all are.

MMasz wrote:“religion” is something I define as man’s attempt to understand and relate to God.

There is that undefined word again.

Look up 'epistemology' and the rules of 'definition', and then we can talk -- if you define the 'G' word in a way that makes sense.

But make sure that you don't make it circular by assuming the meaning as a fact and using it in the definition.

You also have to make sure that you start with a list of observable phenomena (repeatable and available for everyone) and then, based on this list, you propose a hypothesis that is both clear, logical and reasonable, without using more undefined words and unsubstantiated assumptions.

Go for it!

PS. Make sure you tell me which of the many gods you are talking about. You have a lot to choose from.