Halx

I'd prefer not to be argued with on these points, but respond to them however you wish. I'm simply thinking aloud to the forum. I have my views, you have yours. There should be no anger between us. I'll discuss if it's civil.

1. There are hundreds of thousands of religions in the world... each one would have you believe that IT is the ONE.

2. A lot of religions stress humility. All religions have leaders. To lead is to disregard humility. "Do as I say, not as I do"?

3. Many people have very customized visions of God. "I refuse to believe God is _____." "My God is _______." I don't know if this is self-delusion or self-confidence.

4. Man created God. God created man. What? How can God even exist by this logic?

5. I'm going to write an essay one day about how devout religion is simply autoschitzophrenia.

6. I can convince myself that Jesus speaks to me too. Very easily. The human brain is able to do that. I completely understand the mechanism through which you are communicating to God.

7. Here are two ways to look at religion skeptically. First is focusing on the fact that God is infallible. If God is infallible, then I have no options. I either conform or get left behind. This severely threatens my individuality. I enjoy humanity because we are all different. If everyone in Heaven is a conformist, however, that wouldn't be Heaven. That wouldn't be very interesting to me at all. Don't give me that, "You're free to be yourself" crap either. I've seen how religion turns people into drones, no matter how individual they may seek to become.

Second is focusing on the fact that God is *in* everything. First, that's creepy. So, God is evolution. God is science. God is nature. We have a conflict here. Where did my free will go? I'm not jiving in your world filled with God. Am I having these negative thoughts because of him? What's wrong with me? There must be something wrong with me. Where do you draw the line? Where does God end and Man begin? Well, the line is where ever you want it to be, isn't it?

8. Religion is always changing. We have gone through thousands of years of constantly changing religion. There are no cold, hard rules of religion. Thousands of years from now, they will be looking back, reading our IRC logs from #christianity and #islamrocks, and they will be going, "Shit, those motherfuckers had it WAY wrong."

In short.. I'm not religious. I'm critical.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

filtherton

I see what you are saying, but honestly since you mention the fact that there are a whole bootyload of religions in this world, you should also acknowldge that not all religions fit into the framings of your criticisms.

1. Not all religions believe in an infalllible deity.
2. Either god created man or man created god. I agree that both of these can't be true.
3. As other threads have convinced me, you only lack free will if god is infallible. So whether god's omniprescience robs you of your free will depends on how you define your faith.
4. Religion is always changing, but the focus generally remains the same. Most religions agree at least on the fact that there is at the very least one god. I don't think that fact has ever changed. The basic philosophies may change to reflect the ideas of the society but the concept of god is fairly universal.

I understand why your critical though. I try to develop and maintain my own sense of morals and a philosophy independent of any one source. That is all any nonreligious person(i don't mean nonspiritual) can really do.

prosequence

Interesting opinions. Do you mind expanding on the "Man created God, God created man." thought, it's new to me.

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

MSD

Here's my two cents on the traditional definition of God:

According to those who taught me, God created man in his image.

God then gave man free will, but threatened punishment if it was used in any way other than as God said to use it. The original two misused it, so he kicked them out of paradise and let them fend for themselves.

Then, God decided to flood the world and kill all but a few people when his plan didn't turn out the way he wanted it to. Then, he promised he'd never do it again. No more smitings.

He loves us all, but if we don't follow his orders, he sends us to hell for eternal punishment. Things we have to do include going to church every Sunday, not lying, stealing, having sex before marriage (actually, anything from french kissing and up is considered lust, so you go to hell for anythign but the most innocent ikiss,) or having much fun in general.

What I understand from these teachings is that God is sadistic, contradictory, insecure, egocentric, and generally does not have the qualities that I would associate with a supreme being. The qualities that he supposedly has are more human-like than anything else. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the most logical, therefore God did not create man in his image, man created God in his image.

This leaves me with the impression that the God that religion claimed created us does not exist. He was created by men to give them control over other men.

This leaves me with two equally illogical possibilities, that a supreme being created us then left us alone, or that he doesn't exist at all, and an almost infinitely improbable series of events led to the creation everything an infinite amount of time in the past.

I give it a 50/50 chance. I figur that either way, I should live my life in such a way that I enjoy it, and try to help others enjoy life more. If I die and there's nothing after life, I helped out. If I die, and and God does exist, I did good things, and should be rewarded for it. If it isn't good enough because I didn't follow the rules exactly as set forth in some ancient text, then I got this all backwards and God really is sadistic and evil.

:::OshnSoul:::

Ok, very good and respected points and thoughts.

As observances and statments of expression of My Truth:

1. So true. But keep in mind that religion is man-made.

2. Sometimes, yes. Espeically the bigger, more commercialized churches and congregations. It's all about preaching, not sharing or involvement, or even for that matter admittance to anything "wrong".

3. Both. The fact that they conjur up a personalized definition does not make them wrong, but it's what makes them feel comfortable. Although some can lack in open-mindedness.

4. God created Man: "in the image and likeness of Him", as offspring, pieces of Him. Man recreates God in every moment in every experience.

5. Can you discuss that more in detail, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Religion is a comfort thing, as I see it. It's a way of faith and an organized belief system to make people feel like they are on the right track in life. I sense a lot of fear-based teachings in many churches, which I have never understood, because it totally steers off course from the Old Testament beleifs.

6. Jesus is not the so-called "only" son, as, like I said in #4, we are all created in the image and likeness of Him. God divided Himself up into smaller pieces (Souls) and gave them form (bodies). And we can communicate with both.

7. With God being infalliable, we are infalliable, but religion has given us the division of "right" and "wrong". We have been given free will to choose without judgement by an "all-loving God", therefore, how could there be right and wrong? How could there be judgement? I observe religion to be very contradicting and on a hypocrytical rhythm.

The essence of God does not have form- God "is" in everything: God is the Energy that binds and moves all things. The energy changes, yet stays the same, thus having Humans change, yet stay the same, as well. Energy can do different things, move at different speeds and all directions, and change its pattern, yet still BE energy (staying the same). There is nothing wrong with you, you are heading on a path to realizing your Truth. You are questioning and wondering, and that is a helpful tool in evolving.
God IS everything. God IS Science. God IS Evolution. God is the Source which provides Life. We recreate it. Reamarkable and fascinating, but not impossible.

The way that we are brought up in life is a religion itself- it is what we are told that we base our decision upon instead of listening to ourselves and asking ourselves what works for us. Some think it's the easier route to simply live a life around what they have been told by parents, family, friends, classmates, churches, etc.

tecoyah

Thanx Halx....Its about time.

You get no debate from me, Religion is the endless debate of the bored. Philosophy and religion are not one and the same.

God Bless...lol

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Giltwist

I would say I have a theology, not a religion. Is that so bad? Nah. The difference is the same as saying I have a philosophy, not just a set of beliefs/ideals. What separates the sage from the fanatic is inspection and introspection. When people get angry about such topics as this, it isn't because they are truly mad, more often than not. In reality, it is little more than cognitive dissonance. When, for whatever reason, you decide to let others make your decisions for you, be it unquestioningly accepting what you are told or letting a few bad apples spoil the barrel, you commit yourself to that belief. Little beliefs, when challenged, create only a modicom of discomfort, but when core beliefs like the existance of one or more divine entities are challenged send the unprepared individual into a rage. When you inspect your beliefs, you can begin to weed out beliefs which aren't important or true. When you inspect the beliefs of others, you begin to see that they can have some pretty convincing arguments themselves. When you introspect your beliefs, you may learn that the reasoning behind your shake is no better or even worse than the reasoning of those you called idiots and fools. When it all comes down to it, we can't really KNOW much of anything for sure. So, lest you be pointed out for being a fool yourself, don't proclaim another the same.

irateplatypus

interesting...

perhaps halx should start all the tilted philosophy threads. i've never seen posts this civil.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

chavos

well, i can't say i agree much....

1. religions by definition do not have to beleive that they are the sole "right" religion. many polytheistic faiths are quite tolerant, adding and remaking gods to include new peoples, etc...
Monotheistic faiths (i will include envangelic bhuddism, for purposes of discussion) can develop claims to soley possess the truth more easily...but do not have to stick with them. Adaptation to pluralisitic society is simply a part of the journey called modernity.

2. i pray that leadership does not involve a loss of humility. i hope to involve myself in Christian leadership, and become ordained. i hope i never forget why, or for what purpose. Paul writes in 1 Corinithians, chapter 12:
Indeed-leadership is one gift among many...and it is possible to exercize in such a fashion as to remain connected and not elevated above the people.

3. problematic, yes. but i would say that in many ways, God is still speaking to God's people-and that this process of intentionally imaging God can be a healthy part of our collective search. the personal idol construction is an ever-present risk, and we need to keep ourselves honest, and grounded in scripture. This amounts to not so much a disagreement of fact, but a difference in what i see as possibilities.

4. Clarify perhaps? Not sure what's being said.

5. I beleive such an opinion has thin merit at best...and would confuse the issue greatly. I'm not sure what you define as devout, but pathologizing someone you disagree with is not an acceptable tactic in my opinion. "The other guy is sooo wrong, he needs to see a doctor" is incompatible with civil discussion, as you state that you desire.

6. if you control the content, the mechanism, and the means, i suggest that you have done something that does not resemble communication with God. If you wish to identify such moments, i would look to times when you really didn't expect it. the only common thread of the times i have felt the prescence strongly, is that i had no idea it was coming. Author Patrick Henry notes that we rarely can see grace coming a mile away-it surprises us, and often we only recognize it after the fact.

7. I suggest reading Beuchner, specifically "Telling Secrets." He deals with the problem, and speaks about the "quiet hush of God"...the ways in which God holds back from the world to let us have agency and choice. Its been the most compelling writing on free will that i've ever read.

8. I hope so. God is still speaking...and we have a lot to hear.

wilbjammin

A literal more direct translation from Hebrew of Genesis is that God created man in "our" image... that is, God is a "we" not an masculine "I"

You can see how social order and hierarchies have been adapted by the simple misuse of pronouns.



I propose this about religions, and these are my ideas (not in response to anything specific, just me spouting off what I think):


I. Religions are symbolic in nature.

II. Large religions represent social and political standards (more generally in practice, than in direct intrepretation).

III. Immersing children at a young age in any religion isn't fair because they don't have the mental faculities yet to tell the difference between symbolism and reality. Exposure is fine, I would encourage it, but with a balanced perspective towards many religions instead of one.

IV. God, too, is a symbolic concept... and to make declarative statements about God may metaphorically make sense within the symbolism, but is simultaneously abstract and completely indecipherable on a literal level.

V. One reason that humans are attracted to religions is that it gives them meaning in life. Religions do this by A) creating a frame of reference for all perceived phenomena, B) creating purpose and/or the metaphor of a "path" by which one can procede through live without a teleological crisis, and C) providing major social benefits.

VI. Contradictions found in religions are commonplace because of the metaphorical nature of religions (see point #1).

VII. Some religions are more inquisitive and less declarative about the nature of existence and meaning in life than others. These religions, from my perspective, allow for more critical thinking and tolerance.

VIII. A lot of fear and intolerance from religion comes from a fear of being wrong and not having a clear grasp of the symbolic nature of religion. Power structures that support the religion are embraced, and absolutely anything that threatens this power structure is viewed as evil.

IX. The focus on death and the afterlife is understandable, because no human has experienced being dead (for more than a few minutes, if that is really death...) and come back to tell us about it. It is a mysterious unknown. Nothing could be more metaphorical the ideas dealing with existence after death. It is my perspective that living for these ideas and directing life towards them is nihilistic and negates the only life that we truly know that we have.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop with this last one:

and finally...

X. There is no absolute Truth, and anyone declaring that they know an absolute Truth is deceiving their self. There are a few truths in life - we live, we die, and we don't know why we exist (though we generally try to find out). The rest we figure out through socialization, reflection, and experience. So - the rest is all relative.

These are just some of my views. I have held off on sharing them for a while, but it seems like an adequate time. As for Halx's points, I typically agree with him. I think he brings out some important points about the individual's ability (and responsibility) to choose as well as some inherent contradictions and the implications of taking symbolic ideas as literal fact.

Alright, I have said enough for now...

__________________
Innominate.

KellyC

Hope to read your Essay soooooon Halx

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.

davik

An interesting post, I'll have to start frequenting the philosophy board more... I'll start by saying that I'm a pretty hardcore atheist (to put things in perspective); I won't believe in a god until he/she/it shakes my hand and violates a law of physics for me. That being said, from a scientific basis every religion I have ever heard of is wrong, as every one of them has been disproven by science at some point in their history and has had to re-write a belief (think geo-centric views of the catholic church pre-gallileo). Now, religions being wrong doesn't imply the non-existence of god in the least, just says that no one on this planet has a truly correct view of god (save possibly the clock-maker theory, but that certainly isn't a religion). The way I see it if you trace religion and science back far enough they both end up with something that has to be taken on faith; in religion you have to accept that god existed and nothing came before. For science, you have to accept that the big bang happened, and nothing came before; sure, there are wild theories as to pre-big bang, but eventually in any theory, god or otherwise, you have to assume that there was an effect without a cause. This is the reason that spirituality by itself typically doesn't bother me; it's just the other equally plausible starting assumption. Religion on the other hand, seldom fails to piss me off.

As far as the improbabilities of sentient life evolving, you have to take in to account the sheer size of the universe. The human mind can't comprehend the numbers that represent how many stars there are in all the galaxies of the universe, but it comes out to something like a million stars for every grain of sand on this planet. Out of all of those it's almost impossible for life to have NOT evolved somewhere, and you can't really be around to question the probability unless you're in the spot where it did evolve :P Anyway, my 4 cents (hey, inflation's a bitch)

__________________
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."
-- Mark Twain

lurkette

....then why did you post them here and not, say, in a journal?

These are interesting thoughts, but there are some assumptions that simply don't hold. (Keep in mind I'm a skeptic/agnostic myself, so I'm not arguing, simply critiquing in the interest of developing consistency of thought).

As others pointed out, while there are many religions that would have you believe they are the one true way, there are a number of notable exceptions: Buddhism, Bahai, many types of Hinduism, Taoism, etc. Note, though, that they tend to be Eastern in origin.

This one's already been challenged. True leadership demands humility. Just because someone claims to be a leader does not mean they really are. Look at the difference between, say, Jerry Fallwell and Gandhi. For that matter, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha all exercised humility and recommended it for their followers. Just because the practitioners don't follow the recommendation doesn't negate the wisdom of the recommendation in the first place.

Neither. It is a human propensity to eliminate ambiguity. Note how prone you yourself are to this propensity in your arguments here.

Others have addressed this better than I can.

Er...okay. I don't know what autoschizophrenia is, but equating devotion with mental illness is a little insulting. You also need to draw a distinction between those who are devout and rational, and those who are fanatical. I doubt that there's mental illness involved, simply an amplification of normal human drives to simplify complex ideas and to be right at all costs. See above re: intolerance for ambiguity.

I think this is a matter of interpretation. If someone said Jesus was literally speaking to them, I guess I'd be pretty suspicious, too. But I know a lot of people who "hear" god in a number of ways - I take it to be their interpretation of events as "messages" from the divine.

I don't see how "infallibility" = "conformity". This doesn't follow.

Again, you're painting an antire population of people in very broad strokes. In oversimplifying the experience of religion, you're falling prey to the very impulse you are decrying in them. Just because you end up at a different conclusion than them (no religion vs. religion) doesn't mean you're not just as human as they are.

Deism (the concept that god is everywhere) generally does not presuppose a conscious, sentient "God". It's not "God is everything" but "everything is god." Key distinction.

The central flaws in your reasoning are:

1. religion != critical
2. all religious people believe in the same way
3. human tendencies toward oversimplification and rejection of difference are limited to those with religious beliefs

Physician, heal thyself.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

:::OshnSoul:::

Religion is living by what you have been told.

Spirituality is living by what you know intuitively.

Halx

Some people agree, some people disagree.

Hey, you can disagree and pick it apart all you like. Just means I didn't word myself well enough, and I can accept that.

I am approaching everything from the simple viewpoint that God, religion, and otherworldly matters do not exist. All that exists is physics. With this viewpoint, it is easy for me to be skeptical of religion because it is based off of unproven knowledge.

Now, don't mistake religion with ethics. When I say religion, I am assuming that there is a God or otherworldly being involved.

My intent to explain religion as autoschitzophrenia should not be insulting. How do you think people who suffer from malignant schitzophrenia feel about that? It's nothing to be ashamed of or ridiculed for. It's simply a scientific explanation for something that nobody else wants to provide a good enough explanation for.

This sounds very closed-minded, I'm sure. I assure you that I'm open to anything and everything, but I am just not the type to believe it without satisfactory proof. I may not know every little kink of every single religion in the world, but that's not necessarily needed with my viewpoint. In science, you need to assert general assumptions in order to get your point across in a reasonable amount of time. In psychology, which is becoming my specialty, it is accepted to proceed with a few assumptions because the human mind isn't running a program with just a couple variables involved.

So, to sum it up, I am viewing the world through my point of view. Your arguements are being acknowledged. They are being assessed so that I can formulate these assumptions more accurately on my next go around.

It's true, I am viewing everything from my highly biased, but not personally judgemental point of view. I am not open to adopting anyone else's way of thinking, however I am open to understanding it. Everything that people argue is beign construed to in turn fit my own arguement. However, my arguement changes as I learn more and more, so please don't feel the need to point your points into my skull. I'm letting you know what's happening when you reply, trying to set the record straight with me, or something.

So, to wrap it up. I don't think any of you are wrong, right, twisted, crazy, or anything. My take on life is very clinical, so I'm disappointed that some of you have taken offense to what I've said. All I'm doing is trying to explain things for myself. If any of you wanna agree with me, cool.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

chavos

Intent matters, and i appriciate yours. But i'll still repeat my objection to pathologizing a viewpoint you do not agree with. Schizophrenia is a biological brain disorder, which should not be stigmatized...or conflated with things it is not. It is not a choice, or a point of view, like faith is. There is difference between religion and schizotype behavior. It needs to be made, for the dignity of EVERYONE involved.

the following is excerpted from my journal (edited for forum use):
I'm not out to make you the evil guy for saying this. Nor is my reaction based soley on your comments...other board members have made very similar statements to me in the past. I nonetheless feel that its not okay to say, and am voicing that opposition, in hopes of reclaiming a positive tone for the debate.

Halx

Schitzophrenia and pathology do not always go hand in hand. Sure, in more cases than not, it affects a person's daily functioning, but there are cases in which it is not pathological.

'Autoschitzophrenia' notes that this condition is self-induced. Through strong, constant thoughts, one can induce any number of psychological abnormalities on oneself. In my example, funny enough, this happens quite often and is not abnormal. When one makes a choice, or is conditioned to a point of view, these changes can occur to the point where people DO see things that aren't there and hear things that aren't there.. IE, talking to Jesus. Make sure you note that I made a point of labeling only DEVOUT religion in my original post. It's not my intention to diagnose droves of church-going followers as schitzophrenics. Now that's lunacy.

Also, as I tried to point out... I am open and listeing to everything you say. You're free to contest me. I'm just not seeing the world like you are, so it is unreasonable to try to get me to do so. I am, however, trying to *understand* how you're seeing the world, so in fact more communication is beneficial. It all helps me out with my study of humanity.

I have two views on what your journal snippet is conveying. First, is the hypocracy of religious people becoming offended. This is merely a logic complaint, so feel free to justify this to me. To become offended and in turn try to set someone straight is to disregard the humility that your religion declares that you adopt. Maybe I'm being too black and white about this... and in fact I've assumed that your religion (still assuming you definately have one) even does stress humility. Pride, as you know, is sticking up for your home team. It's all debatable, I'm not here to debunk religion as an upright set of morals. The morals associated with religion make for some very enjoyable people to hang around with. I'm just a sucker for semantics.

My second view is this. I'm not attacking anything here. Why become offended? Perhaps, in your view, I am helplessly delusional in some respects, but you must realize that it's impractical to make everyone agree with you. I'm not trying to enforce my opinions on anyone. I noted as well that this is just how I choose to view things right now. I don't judge people and I hope that people don't judge me. When you think of me, just think, "There goes a guy who is trying to figure things out on his own, for himself, and he's not hurting anyone."

It's all civil, man.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

:::OshnSoul:::

You're cool, Halx. I enjoy your theory/ideas and explaination.

chavos

you can certainly explain, but it probably won't remove my objection. in using the language that you are, it certainly has every appearance of pathologizing a certain kind of belief. I outlined my reasons for objecting to this.

You speak of self-conditioning as a choice, but my question would be if this truely occurs in people with no pre-disposition for schizotype thinking. I can also find no articles discussing auto-schizophrenia...you might suggest where i find some?

Pride vs. humility. i honestly don't follow your arguement. partisanship (sticking up for only one's own team) is bad, but it isn't necessarily the same as pride. nor am i saying these things as pride kind of deal...i'm saying them because i honestly beleive the dialouge you started had the potential to be very harmful. i don't see that being in conflict with a goal of not seeking personal gain, and social rewards. humility doesn't equal silence...especially in a discussion between equals.

taking offense: i'd be lying if i said i wasn't the slightest bit upset by your words...but i'm not offended at this point. after venting to my journal, i took a deep breath, and thought about why i objected...and it was that i beleive that you were making unfair characterizations of people, ones that had the potential to be harmful. if you really care to keep that viewpoint, i can't keep you from it. but if i run across it in the future, i'll probably register my two cents, regardless.

why? its more or less what i do. my current project theologically is writing on mental illness and religious life-creating a liberation theology designed to help free persons with mental illness from oppression and stigma. at this point in my life, i see myself as an advocate for those whose voices have been marginalized, so i feel a need to speak up on their behalf.

its not about enforcing an orthodoxy on the issue...but it is about not letting shit slide. basically, i think i'm comfortable letting the following be my final words on the topic.

while i respect your intentions to explore the issues of faith and pyschology, i maintain that conflating mental pathologies and expressions of faith in the manner that you did has the potential of perpetuating stereotypes and stigmas. i'd hope that you refrain from making such statments in the future. thanks.

wilbjammin

Schizophrenia: 1) Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. 2) A situation or condition that results from the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic qualities, identities, or activities.

Earlier I had said:

Here is what can make religion schizophrenic in nature: Adopting the symbolic content as literal fact. Additionally, to note contradictions I said:

The reason for contradictions is that the metaphors remain intact in the symbolic stories, however, when reduced to literal interpretations maintaining a logical pattern of thinking that doesn't seem delusional for matching disparate pieces of information is impossible.

As a note: My psychology professor several years ago told the class about dozens and dozens of clinically diagnosed schizophrenics that thought that they were Jesus. A study was done on them. When put in the same room they were initially very confused. After much discussion between all of them, they chose one person from the group of "Jesuses" and ordained him the true Jesus. The rest, of course, became his follower. A classic example of being unable to determine the difference between symbolism and literal fact.

In severe circumstances this does lead to mental health problems. In less severe circumstances it leads to non-sequitur conversations and debates that get nowhere.

I used to argue with hardcore religious people a lot years ago. I stopped doing it because I realized that there was a wall in our understanding. I could understand the metaphors they were presenting me with, they couldn't understand me when I explained back to them the metaphors they were presenting me with.

I appreciate the value of the metaphors. They follow me everywhere, I see them in my writing and I use them all of the time during everyday conversations. When metaphors are seen solid solid facts like rock (a metaphor), then I think at least a mildly delusion reality is created. I'm resistant to calling it pathological, because it is so common. As we know, a pathology is something that is "A departure or deviation from a normal condition". I can't argue with normal; I can just bare witness and live in my seperate reality.

__________________
Innominate.

Halx

Coming to a personal understanding about the world can be achieved in several ways. Religion uses faith to explain all the gaps in human understanding and in many cases (please understand that this is a clinical term) denial. Science uses measurable, detectable and repeatable data to explain everything instead. Being a realist in mind and an idealist in heart, I hope to observe and learn from everyone I see with simply the respect for what they teach me.

My information is generally for my own understanding, but I post it here so that if anyone is nodding their head while reading, they can then do more research of their own. I understand where people who gain hold of such information can then use it to fuel prejudices and stereotypes, but these mechanisms are as human as speech and laughter. They cannot be prevented, and nobody's voice will be stifled, in the name of science.

While I wish to become a psychiatrist, dispensing perscriptions for those who require, I ultimately would like to delve deeper into my theories. It's going to take lots of funding, planning, and many participants. Experiment, experiment, experiment... then we'll see if I'm incorrect or in fact there is a little self-delusion fuelling the visions of our world's devout.

It hasn't been proven or experimented either way. You're free to argue, detest, denounce and object, but realize that this is only a theory. It's not like my life will come crashing down and I will give in to faith if my ideas are wrong. I'll just formulate new ones and test them out in turn. The life of a scientist.

So, understand that I am not trying to be harmful. I'll note yet again that the world is under my magnifying glass. I'm a geek in a lab coat. I am jotting down objective descriptive phrases. I may not be entirely neutral or politically correct, but unless I call you a stupid moron or something of the like, rest assured that even though you may not agree with me, I'd still invite you out for a drink just the same. No judgements applied. We're all just humans trying to understand our world.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

TheKak

I agree with you Halx. In fact I would venture to say I have been there myself (raised Christian, though I denounced it a long time ago). Though people may not be born with a pre-disposition to it (autoschitzophrenia), it is indoctrinated via parents. If you have a religion there is a VERY good chance that it is the same one as your parents. I think (purely opinion here) that most religious people never even had a choice to be religious, that it was basically fed to them when they were younger (kids tend to believe what their parents tell them reguardless of how rediculous it may sound to an adult (hi Santa)). But kids can grow out of a belief in Santa because it becomes obvious that the parents are leaving presents out and not some fat guy coming through your central air ducts. Its not so easy with God though, and no one ever told you that you would burn for eternity if you didnt believe in Santa.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

sprocket

The whole science vs religion thing comes up again and again. These are my thoughts on the age old battle. To say you beleive in science, over religion (or vice versa) is an invalid statement. These two things are most definately not mutually exclusive, they ultimately attempt to answer two different questions. Science attempts to explain how; most religions attempt to explain why (there are exceptions of course).

While many fall into the trap of using their religion to explain away gaps of scientific understanding, many scientists fall into the trap of using science to find an explanation or purpose to the universe, as if the answer to the meaning of life will be discovered at the bottom of a test tube. If the existence of God were provable via the scientific method, we would still be left with the question, "Why the hell does He/we exist?" On the other hand, people who use religion to explain away unanswered scientific problems are on very shakey ground, and primed to have the foundation of their beliefs ripped out from underneath them.

Frued would probably support that last statement. CG Jung would probably have a different opinion. Since your a psychiatrist in training and asking these types of questions, if you havnt read any Jung, you really should. He explores psychology and religion very thouroughly. While I'm not a head-doctor in training I enjoy reading Jungs dream anaylsis cases and his take on religion and its psychological implications. Interesting stuff. I definately recommend his autobiography (Memories, Dreams, Reflections) wich, for the most part, tells the story of his psychological evolution rather than a blow for blow account of the happenings of his life. He really delves into the kind of issues you raise in this thread.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

tecoyah

It seems to me that these religious debates were a wonderful testing ground for science.....about a hundred years ago. Most of the debate at this time revolves around "Faith vs. Science" and there is not likely to be resolution either way. The truly faithful cannot, or will not accept many of the theories science has provided us. The science minded will never revert to a strictly faith based approach.
I have found that to accept all, and believe none works for me.
That may seem a bit to simplistic, and it is. Generally, I have few problems with the devout I interact with, because they pose no threat to my world view. The problems arise when someone is threatened by my "lack of understanding the devine". Although I do find this relatively insulting, I refuse to take it personally.
This is the "do unto others" hypocracy. I will accept that you believe, so please accept that I do not.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Halx

I don't usually quote people to counterpoint because it adds a bit of aggression to the discussion, but I just wanted to point out that... this is purely opinion on your part.

Furthermore, on Freud vs Jung... I dont intend to follow either one's groundwork for psychology too closely. If you want to learn new stuff, you need to think new ideas, and that's exactly what I am trying to achieve.

I also feel like I should be commenting on your statement about proving if God exists via the scientific method. I won't go into it any more after this, though. Simply, if it was proven that God existed via scientific method, then his purpose should easily come along with the proof. Now that I've just said that, it makes me laugh a little. So, WHO'S God are we going to end up proving exists? I could go on and on about the impracticalities, but I just want to state that your assumptions about what would happen if this were to take place are, again, just speculation and not based off of any precidents.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

:::OshnSoul:::

Just one quick, out of the blue snippet I would like to toss in as far as science vs. religion.
Both are defended greatly, religion denies or ignores science- science denies or ignores religion.
So, in a sense, they are both cancelling each other out.
Therefore, showing that neither are right nor wrong. That there is a message there that both and all of both contain some truth. Look beyond science and truth, meshing them together, and see what results appear.

powerclown

Religion has its place.

My own belief is that there is an order to things, a continuity that will never change, the planets will continue to orbit, the universe will continue to evolve forever exactly the way it will. I believe there is a spiritual quantity central to existence, that which has already formed universal concepts such as the laws of physics, ways of nature (biology), science, so forth. As far as that spiritual constant goes, it doesn't concern itself with the everyday lives of people in my view. Thats obviously only one person's opinion. You are born, you live your life (in all its various states), you die. Like any other biological organism. I place a value on my life and those close to me, and the rest of us, but thats all inside me, of my own creation.

Johnny Rotten

Okay, I've scanned through the thread, and no one else seems to have touched upon this. I'm not arguing the nature or existence of God, but it sounds as though you are dismissing an entire thought model by using Occam's Razor, where one solves a mostly infinitely debateable problem by eliminating the more complex solution of the two provided. While this is efficient, it often comes at the cost of getting tripped up by bits and pieces of missed argument on your way out the door. Religion is so complex that, in my opinion, it can't quite ever be discarded as a point of view. You could spend the whole rest of your life studying the primary tracts and still get tripped up by a difficult question.

Respectfully, a gap in understanding is still a gap in understanding no matter who is trying to figuring it out. Ever heard of phlostigon? It and other scientific creations of days gone by sound fantastic by today's standards. And it was Aristotle and Ptolemy who decreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, not the Christian church. Science has served to explain most of the things we previously attributed to the divine, but remember, kids, it's called the Theory of Relativity for a reason.

Although it may not sound like it, I don't align myself with any religion and could just as easily imagine and accept oblivion over an afterlife. I've read too many "true account" ghost stories to be an atheist, however, thanks to Michael Norman and Beth Scott.

wilbjammin

I'm certainly not speaking for Hal, but I can speak for myself as to why I would be put in this same category that you're putting Hal in. I used to dig through the Christian texts and some theological historians to debate with Christians on the same grounds over their religion (and others in their respective religions). After doing this for several years, I realized that I was absolutely wasting my time. I was looking for answers, I wanted to be compelled... I never was, I always had a response for them on their own terms. Not only was I accomplishing nothing for myself (other than making Christians angry or frustrated, which wasn't something I was very proud of then and esp. now) but I felt that I wasn't even dealing with relevent issues about life, existence, and the nature of the universe. Religion to me is tangential when dealing with absurdity, which is at the core of all of these unanswered questions that science tries to empirically solve, and religion tries to solve with faith. Just as Hegel hated Christianity but stopped writing about it almost entirely after coming to his Philosophy of History, my dislike for religion has been trumped by my exposure to existentialism, ideas of the embodied mind, and extensive thinking about symbolism and metaphors in relationship to abstract thought. You could look at my arguments now and say that I'm leaving a lot out, but I've already been there... there is no need to go back.

Neverminding that the Theory of Relativity wasn't discovered by it being pulled out of a hat randomly... The Church did adopt the idea of a geocentric universe, if you're uncertain about it, ask Galileo. Science continues to shape the knowledge construct that we use to evaluate the world religiously and philosophically.

__________________
Innominate.

tecoyah

There is no time wasted on knowledge, and much can be gleaned from religious texts. But there does come a time when further delving becomes futile. I cannot imagine myself reading a history book daily, long after the information it contains has been incorporated into my knowledge base. The bible and similar texts are no different to me. I have studied many of the "holy" texts and gained valuable insight. They have served the purpose I required of them.
If someone decides to stall at this point, and continue no further, that is fine by me. An analogy would be dropping out of college without getting your degree. I am sure you gained much knowledge from classes, just not what was required to finish.
Life is a continuous learning experience, some will feel drawn to growth beyond others in one direction or another. If you were a chemist and I was a medical doctor, each of us has a path of skill, but none is better than the other because of this alone.

My point is, Those who focus on religious doctrine may indeed be limiting themselves as far as scientific understanding of the world they live in from a physical standpoint. But they may have insight into areas I will not , As I have no desire to go in that direction.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

chavos

a friend of mine reads "frannie and zoe" by salinger every year on his birthday. he's now read it around 12 times. sometimes i wonder, but he says he gets something different out of it every time-that he's in a different point in his life, brings something new to the text in his growth, and that it is ever new for him. if you can read the bible once and get everything out out of it, my congratulations. perhaps you'll understand if some of us linger a bit longer...

wilbjammin

There's a difference between knowledge and personal reflection and application. I'm sure that I could read Thus Spoke Zarathustra 100 more times and get something new out of it each time. The key not being that the book changed, but that I changed.

__________________
Innominate.

bermuDa

Religion is based on allegory, its only philanthropic goal is to teach us morals and make our lives here on earth better. It's when zealots take these allegories literally (and don't get me started on organized religion... spirituality for a stipend) do they undermine the intended function of religion, and instead focus on showing the rest of the world "the truth" by force if necessary.

Those of us with no faith have nothing to fear from the intelligent theists who understand the purpose of scriptures; we have a lot to fear from those who read the bible as non-fiction.

Man's greatest capacity is that of abstract thought and symbolic meaning, when we ignore that power, we're merely trained animals.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

wilbjammin

That pretty much boils down everything I've been saying in this thread thus far very clearly. The only thing I would have some contention with is that some religions don't even concern themselves with making our lives here on earth better. Some simply concern themselves with what comes after this world because dealing with this world that we're in now is too difficult. I guess they would view this as making our lives better here, because it has the effect of mitigating suffering on a cognitive level (nothing can bother you that badly if you know that everything will be great after you die)... but I see that as different than making life here better.

__________________
Innominate.

bermuDa

i suppose I should've specified what I meant by "better." I meant it not so much in the material sense but as filling a void that many are trained to feel in the absense of faith. Religion helps sedate people against the harsh realities of the material world, and although many of them address the issue of existence after death, people seek comfort in faith for other reasons.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

wilbjammin

Agreed.

Here's an anecdotal story: I have noticed that nearly every highly religious person I've meet on the corner of streets with their "Jesus Saves" signs and such who yell at passer-byers have a part of their story where they used to be alcoholics, or something like that and then suddenly they found God and everything was better. They think, because their void was filled getting rid of their maladies that they couldn't fix on their own, that everyone needs their voids fixed the same way. I never know what to think of those people. Am I glad that they aren't punch drunk, dirty, covered in piss and vomit in the gutter anymore? Or disappointed that they best they could come up with is yelling at people to be saved or ending up in hell? Not that this accounts for all corner-yellers, but I imagine most of you out there know the type. Typically, my thinking now is from a broader sociological level - there is a spectrum of people ranging from all sorts of different levels of faith and reliance on their beliefs to get them day to day. This is just a more extreme side of the spectrum, and there's nothing to be done about it as a passer-byer. I generally say "no thanks" and walk away, if I say anything at all.

__________________
Innominate.

bermuDa

I tell them I've already achieved spiritual tranquility, and merrily skip away.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

tecoyah

- smiles smugly-

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha