Gnosticism lives!
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
As far as I'm aware the Vedas don't claim any prior knowledge to a human discovery, they're just a collection of spiritual rituals, philosphical ideas and descriptions of the daily lives of Indians from that period of time.
The aim of human life is happiness, although the way you attain shouldn't be forced upon you. Hinduism is very flexible in that way because you don't have to have certain beliefs to be an Hindu. Heck, you could be an atheist and still be a Hindu. It's more of a philosophy or a way of life than religion. Have you read any Zen or Hindu books? One of the ways to attaining enlightenment is simply through introspection and asking the question 'Who am I?'. Anyway I can see where are you're coming from though. Religion should be and always be an essentially personal thing. The people who are in a 'heigtened state of consciousness' as you say, should not even feel the need to talk about it. (Those who speak do not know, those you know do not speak as the saying goes)
Again I must ask, why do you say that is the universal aim of every human? You've decided it is your aim, but why does that have to be everyone's aim for their life?
What utter crap!
I think you're being a bit pedantic here. I'm saying it is the universal aim because it simply is. What alternate aim of life can you think of? Everything is just another form of happiness, trying to satisfy our needs, or whatever you want to call it.
I am glad. The invention/discovery of the zero (delete according to philosophical preference) was a crucial moment in mathematics, which should be properly credited. But the zero would have been found eventually by someone. It did not require religious insights to find it.
What works of Newton were these then?
I think we are possibly just arguing over semantics then.
'Happiness' is an emotion that has a very strong correlation with the release of hormones in the body (endorphins for example). I do not see my universal aim being to act in a way that is most efficient at releasing these hormones so I feel 'happy'.
As a thought experiment, if there was some kind of risk-free operation, or pill you could take, that would release hormones in a controlled way so that you were in a permanent state of intoxicating 'happiness' would you take it? Maybe you would. I know that I wouldn't. It may sound somewhat perverse, but I think we do need the variation.
I don't see my aim in life being to try to attain 'happiness' per se, more to try and understand the world better. We have evolved a fantastic ability to learn, contemplate and understand, and at the moment, I think the thing I most live for is to quench my thirst for knowledge.
As I say, we may be disagreeing about nothing more than the meaning of words.
Yep, we definitely are. When I meant happiness, I didn't mean the emotion per se. Quenching your thirst for knowledge would fall under what I meant by happiness.
About the happiness pill, I probably wouldn't take it either. But when people talk about enlightenment it isn't being constantly happy. It's just being in a state of complete understanding of everything and to get this to this stage you'll need to contemplate/pray/meditate/reason. The means are as important as the end.
What science has failed to answer is the greatest question of all: genesis. Everyone believes in evolution of some form, i.e. algae to plants, etc. But what was the catalyst? What was the Big Bang?
Basically all I have heard is that it was just one big lucky event that's driven us to possess sentient thought. Hmmm, so atheists believe in Unseen Luck and (most) religious folk believe in an Unseen God.
Basically all I have heard is that it was just one big lucky event that's driven us to possess sentient thought. Hmmm, so atheists believe in Unseen Luck and (most) religious folk believe in an Unseen God.
True Science has not (yet) been able to answer the question of how it all started.
Unfortunately neither has any religion.
So we're a bit stuck aren't we?
As yet, it is an unanswered question. Scientists are working on it, maybe one day in the future we will have some answers. One thing is for sure though, anyone who currently claims to have all the answers is talking nonsense.
So science has 'failed' eh? Rather like saying United have 'failed' to win the EPL this season. We're not there yet; indeed the season has only just begun (in perhaps the late eighteenth century - whereas human history goes back around fifty times as long) and there are many ups and downs along the way. But we'll get there.
Also 'everyone' most emphatically does not believe in evolution. Creationists and ID merchants take their teaching from ancient scripture. This may be demonstrably ludicrous, but has, at least, the merit of consistency. If people find it convenient to reject the quite specific teachings of the bible concerning creation then it becomes only a matter of time before the whole edifice comes tumbling down. Creationists have, at least, the intellectual integrity to have grasped this.
Scripture asserts that god created not only mankind but all creatures else in a fully finished form. In six days what is more. Tinker with that one - and belief in evolution is not mere tinkering, it is wholesale rejection - and you question the revealed word of the god whom half the globe believes in and worships.
Personally I find the epistemological basis for understanding the development (a mistake, I think, to talk of 'the emergence') of life already in place. Complex molecules (replicators) absorbing bits of 'rival' replicators, the originally random accretions of protein molecules as part of the chemical structure affording 'protection' from other 'predatory' molecules, and thus the basis of natural selection - nothing whatever, I would add, to do with 'luck' -is in place. Wind forward almost four billion years and you have the higher mammals. One of which has just defined itself - come to understand itself - by unraveling its own compex genome. Amazing. But not so very hard to grasp.
Now this is the question I was talking about Mike. It is important to answer precisely because a non-believer will come across this answer, namely one which falls back on the 'god of the gaps'.
Now Dumpstar, I am going to treat you as an intelligent adult who wants to learn about the universe and how it came about, therefore I will suggest to you some viewing.
First, go to Google Video. Search for 'Atom'. There should be a three part series presented by Professor Jim Al-Khalili online (3x 1 hours) which introduces atomic theory and quantum theory. It is a superb watch and I would recommend it to everyone on here.
The fact that he will tell you are so fantastic that you may not believe them, let alone understand them, but they are the reality, and are testable and provable.
Next, 'genesis'. What do you mean by this? Abiogenesis or the origin of the universe?
Either way, here are some videos for you. Watch and learn. And marvel. Don't forget to do that.
History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 1)
History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 2)
The Origin of Life Made Easy
All videos courtesy of potholer54 on YouTube. I suggest you all check his channel out. It is superb.
Many thanks for that Frosty. Thoroughly enjoyable, and explaining that which I have been trying to, in a clear, convincing and utterly fascinating way (and I like the rather Pythonesque way it keeps introducing and then sweeping aside the utterly otiose figure of god, as limned by Michelangelo!)
There are fantastic videos on YouTube (with references no less!) made by truly amazing people.
Here is a scientific one, made by cdk007. Again, I recommend this channel for everyone. It debunks many of the claims made by Intelligent Design advocates and similar persons.
Actually I've just spent the last hour or more looking at various potholer54 vids on Youtube plus some linked ones. Particularly, er, interesting, were those giving advice on the 'correct' procedure for beating your wife, from a good muslim's perspective, by some Saudi imams.
Hmmm....I don't quite have the courage to start a new thread on that one.
Certain Wahhabi/Deobandi interpretations, or interpretations influenced by those sects of Islam are certainly worrying.
Again, sorry to keep recommending online videos, but there was a series on Channel 4 a while back (again available on Google Videos) that is titled 'Clash of the Worlds', dealing with the British Empire's reaction to, and exacerbation of what we would now call 'Islamic Radicalism'. It is again in three parts dealing with the Empire in India, the Sudan and Palestine. What is interesting is the fact that Sufism in India was combatted and opposed by Christian missionaries (despite the fact that both European and Indian communities lived peacefully side by side and even inter married under its generally benevolent purview) which lead to the growth of Deobandi and Wahhabist views to counter the proletysing Christian mission.
Anyway, that's not entirely relevant to your point, but is certainly interesting for some historical context.
Why do you have to consistent? After all these scriptures were written thousands years ago and hence can be open to intepretation. Surely you can believe in the theory of Evolution and still be a Christian?
Yes you can, obviously, but no one told the blinkered creo-cretins in the States.
Also, I don't think the theory of evolution is something you believe in, it's fact. Like water is wet, or Newtonian gravity is described by the equation F = G*m1*m2/r^2.
The Deobandi movement has within it a broad umbrella of Muslims, including in its ranks Muslims who remain absolutely aloof from all politics - there are others, like the Taliban, who are politically militant.
Deoband, is a small town in India, where the Seminary exist, and has no ties with the Saudi Salafist/Wahhabi movement. In fact they are mostly at odds with each others interpretations.
Sorry Sultan, I didn't mean to conflate the two. The clash was meant to signify an 'or', not lump them into one amorphous body (don't worry, I am aware of the difference, I just wanted to write a quick reply!).
Also, I tried to choose my language carefully. Namely that some of the beliefs professed under the various umbrellas are worrisome, at least from my view. However, it was not my intention to imply that those said beliefs are indicative of the whole, in fact it was my intention to imply that many of the beliefs are not indicative of the majority.
True. But I'm sure there'll be someone somewhere who doesn't accept gravity either.
Ah, the theory of gravity. Which is important to state as it tends to counter the inane and specious argument that you get from some quarters stating that evolution is just a theory, not a fact.
I saw one on the comments in a science blog once. He had some insane notion about relativity and how Einstein was wrong, and that the Bible described a theory of gravity far superior to either Newton's or Einstein's.
No, really. And there are flat earthers too. There's no notion stupid enough such that you won't find someone out there who thinks it's true.
This thread has reminded me of one of my favourite quotes I read a while back. Some moderate Christian spokesman was asked about whether Christianity was still relevant in the 21st century, or whether Science had left it redundant. He came up with these words of wisdom:
"Science is good for some things, but you have to realise that people need more than that. After all, science won't come and visit you when you're ill in the hospital."
How, pray?
Hello
Ken Miller is a good example of holding both beliefs, so it is possible.
I think that the fact that religious texts are open to interpretation are both their greatest strength, affording them a 'slippery' character almost so as to continually re-define themselves, and, ultimately, their greatest weakness.
Steven Weinberg puts it best: "They [Religious leaders] thought science was corrosive of religious belief, and they were scared of it as a result. And, damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief. And it's a good thing too".
Exactly, by praying.
To be honest I really don't know much about the Bible and Christianity, but surely you could take the deeper messages from the stories of Genesis bearing in mind when it was written.As I said earlier, religion should be an essentially personal thing. There really shouldn't be a need for a checklist for things you need to to believe in. It should simply be between you and your God. As long as you have intense faith/love of God and you live your life for God, surely you're a good Christian.
Hello Psmith. I was quite intrigued by your reply. Am I right in assuming that you are a Muslim? Apologies if I have attributed a faith to you by mistake.Exactly, by praying.
To be honest I really don't know much about the Bible and Christianity, but surely you could take the deeper messages from the stories of Genesis bearing in mind when it was written.As I said earlier, religion should be an essentially personal thing. There really shouldn't be a need for a checklist for things you need to to believe in. It should simply be between you and your God. As long as you have intense faith/love of God and you live your life for God, surely you're a good Christian.
There is, I suppose, no problem in principle that religion should be a personal, private thing (Soren Kierkegaard held that view). Would it be the same in Islam?
If you extrapolate that view across all religions, what happens if someone holds a view that I find pernicious or extremely distasteful? The problem with reducing religion to a personal issue is that any criticism of religion could therefore become a personal attack, or be seen that way. That may be unfortunate if true, but if the alternative becomes that religion should be placed above criticism, then it should be a necessary evil (if I can use that word without irony).
I know my father would hold similar views to you (he is a CofE vicar) but I think I must disagree. I avoid all categories of 'good' or 'bad' here, as they are too subjective and necessitate some kind of objective marker that I do not see. Let me illustrate this with an example below. I would argue that for this gentleman, he would say that he loves god and lives his life for god, yet the majority of Christians of all stripes would denounce him. I think that your view, although admirable, does lead us down a dangerous path.
Warning to all: This video contains views which may offend and cause mental retardation due to you hitting your head against the nearest wall wondering how people can think such things. Seriously, if you are having a bad day, don't watch. You will end up snapping like Michael Douglas in 'Falling Down'.
I'm actually a Hindu, thought I'd mentioned it earlier. No need to apologize though I also feel that in their simplest forms most religions are very similar, different routes to climb the same mountain so to speak. We've the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads and the Vedas, they're quite different from the Bible so I'm not sure if i'm in the best position to answer your question. But anyway you raise valid points and I was half expecting someone to raise them. To be perfectly honest I really don't know how to respond to that video.
My initial response was he's just a nutter. I'd say that though religion should be personal (although in this case it's clearly not personal) , there should be naturally denouncement when someone preaches or practices something that's clearly wrong or questionable. I don't see how an attack on religion becomes a personal attack though. That'd only be the case if your religion were your sole means of identity.
That's the best answer I can think but looking back it really doesn't address your points that well, but it's getting late I'll sleep over it and hopefully come up with a better response. Hopefully one of the CE heavyweights can help me out.
All religious beliefs are questionable.
The trouble with saying that belief is a private matter, is that people's actions are determined primarily by their beliefs about the world. If people's beliefs go unchallenged then we can hardly complain when they do something terrible as a result of these beliefs.
Jesus Christ...He might be there in spirit obviously, but he certainly won't be in the antibiotics.
Indeed he won't. He's really just the teddy-bear.
He might be there in spirit obviously, but he certainly won't be in the antibiotics.
you can, people have a personal responsibility, everyone is capable of reasoning.
My grandfather, one of the most intelligent people I've ever met, is a daily mail reading BNP voting cnut of the highest order. He has the brain to reason but will not engage in intelligent discussion with anyone so no one tries. His beliefs remain unchallenged but he is responsible for his words and actions when he votes for hatred.
I don't think we can blame the religion itself for people holding extremist views or taking the wrong intepretation. Naturally there will be always be people holding extremist beliefs with or without religion and as a society all we can do is try our best to educate them and have a sound legal system.
oh my, we really have only just come down from the trees haven't we.
btw I used to work with a guy whos father was a CofE vicar in Squires in Preston, he was extremely intelligent but was a practising Christian, I think, complete piss head though.
Not even where that religion offers scriptural justification for such extremism? For example, Deuteronomy Ch 13 vv1-16 which gives very explicit instructions as to what the true followers of god should do if non-believers are found in their midst;
'If a prophet arises among you and gives you signs and says 'let us go after other gods' you shall not listen to his words, for the lord thy god is testing you to know whether you love him.....that prophet shall be put to death because he has taught rebellion against the lord your god...So you shall purge this evil from your midst. If your own brother, or your son or your daughter or your wife or your friend entices you, saying 'let us go and serve other gods' ..you shall not yield to him or listen to him nor shall your eye pity him nor shall you spare him but you shall kill him; your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones because he sought to draw you away from the lord your god...If you hear in one of your cities which the lord has given you to dwell in that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants, saying 'let us go and serve other gods' then you shall enquire and make search and ask diligently, and behold! if it be true that such an abominable thing has been done among you you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it, all its cattle with the edge of the sword. You shall gather all its spoil in the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire...'
You can be certain that just as there are people out there like the guy (wearing an All-Blacks silver fern rugby shirt of all things!) in the clip posted by Frosty who takes it on the bible's authority that all babies - including aborted foetuses - are born sinful, having inherited the original sin enshrined in Adam's fall, there are others (check out 'Christian reconstructionists' via a Google search) who take literally the bible's hortatory wisdom as, for example, contained in my quotation above. The stoning of homosexuals and fornicators is only just the beginning I fear.
Religion? - Thank 'god' for Christopher Hitchins!