When people ask me what my problem with religion is, one answer is not enough

[Menang]

This isn't nearly as comprehensive or coherent as Aurelian's post (which said quite eloquently all the philosophical reasonings I was trying to think of). But it's my perspective on this as a Christian. It's a little personal (as this sort of debate tends to be), but I've also tried to make it clear as well.

If I understand Enwiabe's post correctly, he's saying that in the case of religious people
1. Religion is founded on the premise that God exists, and is the only Being that we are answerable to.
2. Morality is founded on religion.
3. Decisions are founded on morality.
Thus our decisions are only answerable to God, and not our peers.

While this fact may seem disconcerting, it is only really problematic if the decisions made (that are answerable to God) are harmful ones.

To quote enwiabe:

“Under these circumstances, you can convince yourself that anything is good, moral behaviour. If the text of your religion says it is your duty to kill those who refuse to believe, then in your mind you are doing the work of a supreme, divine being. You are unanswerable to your peers, only to this imaginary "god".”

These circumstances, I assume, would be the fact that decisions are answerable to a “being” that may or may not exist depending on who you ask.

“Obviously, most humans naturally want to avoid conflict, so they will tend to not convince themselves that this is what 'god' wants, but provided you are answering only to an imaginary being, you can pick and choose whatever morals you like and they are unshakeable because hey, they're what god wants...

But in that moment, this person becomes god. How do you know what god wants? How do you know what god specifically wants you to do? You've specifically chosen those morals for yourself that you'd like to follow, and then justified them by saying "well god said so" but it wasn't actually god. It was simply you, pretending to be god.”

The implication I’m hearing from this is that religious belief allows for an arbitrary “pick and choose” of morals (ie the classic “I’ll ignore the bit about pig skins but wholeheartedly support the homosexuality is wrong bit” argument). While this may apply to some people, I believe it doesn’t for the majority of religious believers.

To clarify, I’m defending Christianity, not the concept of religion itself.

1. Christians base their morality on the Bible, trusting it as the Word of God.
2. Theologians (and therefore Christians who listen to said theologians) have generally interpreted the Bible in two parts.
(a) The Old Testament: an account of people’s relationship with God before the birth of Jesus
(b) The New Testament: an account of people’s relationship with God after the birth of Jesus.
     Basically, there’s a set of rules for when there was no Jesus, and a different set of rules for when there is Jesus. Some call this inconsistency, I prefer the phrase “natural consequence of grace”.
3. Christians living in any sort of AD year will generally follow the set of rules under the “with Jesus” category.

And that’s that. There is no “picking and choosing of morals” and we are not god ourselves. We remain answerable to God, and even to earthly authority (iirc, the Bible has verses which remind Christians that they are to respect the leaders God as put in place on earth).

Look, to me, personally, as a Christian, my life is based primarily on a relationship with God, not a set of rules. The Bible is an extension of the relationship. Yes, it contains a lot of “do’s and don’t’s” but Christians have a different perspective on that - these rules help us live the way God wants us to.

Enwiabe’s conclusion that living by religious morality is a recipe for moral disaster hinges on the premises that (a) God is imaginary and (b) religious people tend to pick and choose which parts of their religion to follow.

Aside from the fact that using “God is imaginary” as a premise to prove that God is imaginary is obviously circular, I maintain that the Bible is not just something we pick and choose from. It’s a way of life I believe in unwaveringly.

[enwiabe]

Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?

[ninwa]

At Aurelian:

Furthermore, your understanding of “logic” and “reason” is far too narrow. Real reason is far more profound than simple debate-style justification or even rigorous mathematical deduction (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly). But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable.

You are essentially saying "you are wrong, but I refuse to explain why you are wrong".

Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science, but I’ll allow the debate to develop before elaborating on this.

I'd like to see you explain this.

You believe that science holds that answers to all when it does not, and can never answer essential questions about the human condition.

Fundamental misunderstanding of atheism/rationalism. We do not believe that science holds all the answers; far from it. However, I believe that the current state of scientific progress is the best possible explanation we have until evidence arises to the contrary.

It is the religious who are so afraid of things that they cannot explain that they latch on to any explanation they can find - in this case, "God did it, God has his own reasons for shitty things happening".

However, while certain aspects of religions perhaps ought to disappear, the essence of religious thought is utterly essential to humanity. If man is does not embrace, he is doomed.

Why?

You've made a lot of blanket statements here and very few actual explanations.

[Menang]

Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?

That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.

There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.

[shinny]

I maintain that the Bible is not just something we pick and choose from. It’s a way of life I believe in unwaveringly.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Clearly not following that now are you? But seriously, I can't see how Christians and the like are not picking and choosing at what they follow. There's just one example. Plenty more of others in there too which are obviously not followed.

[kamil9876]

literally uncountable

Any bigger than tho? (sorry, couldn't help it).

[enwiabe]

Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?

That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.

There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.

Er, what?

Have you... read... the story of Isaac? You clearly haven't read the bible. God tells PLENTY of people to kill other people. This includes genocides, fratricide etc. It's pretty fucking horrific.

[enwiabe]

literally uncountable

Any bigger than tho? (sorry, couldn't help it).

They would obviously be countable if they were all documented, sure

[aes_999]

Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?

That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.

There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.

Er, what?

Have you... read... the story of Isaac? You clearly haven't read the bible. God tells PLENTY of people to kill other people. This includes genocides, fratricide etc. It's pretty fucking horrific.

Umm, just saying, menang (or win in indo) did say that she's clearly following the rules
of the New Testament. Isaac's story was in the Old testament.

[enwiabe]

Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?

That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.

There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.

Er, what?

Have you... read... the story of Isaac? You clearly haven't read the bible. God tells PLENTY of people to kill other people. This includes genocides, fratricide etc. It's pretty fucking horrific.

Umm, just saying, menang (or win in indo) did say that she's clearly following the rules
of the New Testament. Isaac's story was in the Old testament.

OT is still canon. Jesus is the extension of Judaism. Or, Judaism++

It was still the same god...

[Aurelian]

Militant atheism is just as dangerous and just as dogmatic and fudamentalist religion.

I can take your pseudo-intellectual rant apart by simply nailing down that one statement.

And I'll do it with an imgur picture

http://i.imgur.com/oVXez.jpg

You focus far too much on the ad hominem, your tirade centres largely on your perceived problem with me, and not my arguments.

That's another thing I don't like, when people pull the ad hominem line where it is not warranted - especially when they use it as an excuse not to address comprehensive counter-arguments.

The following carries a major bullshit alert:

Furthermore, your understanding of “logic” and “reason” is far too narrow. Real reason is far more profound than simple debate-style justification or even rigorous mathematical deduction (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly). But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable

You have just said logic is something which cannot be explained.

There are no words for that kind of pseudo-intellectual pomposity that can adequately describe how incredibly stupid that entire paragraph was.

Pseudo-intellectual pomposity? Tell that to Plato, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. And yeah, fully aware I just 'appealed to authority', but if you're going to call me stupid, at least be aware who else you're calling stupid.

There is really no point in attempting to argue with someone like you. As I have said, in that respect, you are no better than any dogmatic religious adherent. I didn't really expect any other kind of response, but EZ egged me on haha. I am disappointed though that you wouldn't attempt to defend your reasoning against mine. I even granted you empiricism - we would've argued on your own terms!

Either way, if I pushed the matter, my prediction for this debate would be that your poorly defined terms would be constantly reassessed by yourself, until such a time where they become defined in such a way that your contention becomes trivially true. Then you'd probably say you won...

EDIT: Man, 9 new replies when I was typing... >_>

Oh also, nina, philosophy 101 student. I lol'd.

[Thu Thu Train]

I maintain that the Bible is not just something we pick and choose from. It’s a way of life I believe in unwaveringly.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Clearly not following that now are you? But seriously, I can't see how Christians and the like are not picking and choosing at what they follow. There's just one example. Plenty more of others in there too which are obviously not followed.

I'd like to point out that this isn't "God's word" as shinny seems to think it is. It's a letter from Paul to Timothy and these are Paul's guidelines, not God's.

[enwiabe]

Aurelian, there's no reason for me to argue with you. The only reason you argue is for grandeur and for show. You're very self-aggrandising, very pretentious. You make the most ridiculous fluff statements I've ever seen. You're not the kind of person I'm looking to engage with on this matter, because I don't want to get into a mental masturbation contest with you. I have no doubt you'd win easily.

[Menang]

Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?

That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.

There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.

Er, what?

Have you... read... the story of Isaac? You clearly haven't read the bible. God tells PLENTY of people to kill other people. This includes genocides, fratricide etc. It's pretty fucking horrific.

Umm, just saying, menang (or win in indo) did say that she's clearly following the rules
of the New Testament. Isaac's story was in the Old testament.

Thanks, aes_999.

Everything in the Bible was written or recorded within a context and to fully appreciate it takes a lot of study, and I (or anyone else, for the matter) don't make any claims about knowing it fully and completely. There are obvious things we live by (Jesus' sermon on the mount, for example). That doesn't mean we ignore everything else, though, but merely that we take context into account. To answer shinny:

I maintain that the Bible is not just something we pick and choose from. It’s a way of life I believe in unwaveringly.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Clearly not following that now are you? But seriously, I can't see how Christians and the like are not picking and choosing at what they follow. There's just one example. Plenty more of others in there too which are obviously not followed.

Historically, that example was written by Paul to a specific church where the women were being excessive in speaking in tongues to the point where it was distracting others from working/worshipping. I haven't studied enough of theology to know the full story, but it was a letter written to a specific church in a specific situation. I truly believe that in that context, Timothy was right in what he wrote.

If the same thing happened in a 21st century church (which it has, many times), I would support silence on however was talking too loud in church, to solve the issue, too. Jussayin.

[JellyDonut]

Well, scientific claims can be tested and either confirmed or rejected by others. I don't think you can do really do that with religious claims. Sure, there is still an element of faith regardless, but the leap wouldn't be as big as a religious one (?)

If A then B. B, therefore A. This is the fallacy. This is what you do when you “confirm” some scientific theory.

My understanding of the fallacy came from this story but since it led to infinite regress, I didn't (and still don't) know how to refute it. Felt sort of like dead end.
http://paradox.wikia.com/wiki/What_the_tortoise_said_to_achilles

Additionally, how, may I ask, are you quantifying the magnitude of the leaps at play here – and what is your justification that a scientific leap of faith is greater than a religious one? Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science, but I’ll allow the debate to develop before elaborating on this.

Well, my line of thought was that scientific proofs are in a sense, universal in that it could be repeated elsewhere and still hold consistent (eg. the theory of evolution does not just change depending on location). On the other hand, religious claims can vary according to culture. A christian idea of god differs from that of a norse one. I guess I can't really quantify the leaps but the former point seems a lot more rigorous then the latter.

I'd appreciate an explanation or some resources as I don't have any grounding in philosophy