The Religion Thread

[heids]

Somehow, AN seems to have missed religion in its off-education discussion topics... Let the discussion begin


P.S. Mod-style reminder of AN policy :

ATAR Notes will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.

[chasej]

discuss what about religion? when it comes to aimless discussion about religion there's a high probability it would devolve to shit.

plus, you missed Judaism, which would probably be one of the biggest religions on here.

there have been lots of discussions about religion more generally on AN also.

[Professor Polonsky]

Religion comes up quite regularly (most recently there was a topic on Islamism), and there was one on Ultra-Orthodox Judaism not too long ago too. I'm not exactly sure what we're supposed to say here -- especially considering it's in OGD rather than Rants & Debates. Is this supposed to just be a general discussion on personal beliefs and the like?

[heids]

Haha sorry, I really wasn't very clear.  And obviously joined AN too recently

Judaism fixed, it was on my list until I looked up the 'numbers' on Wikipedia and it swapped for Shinto .

Some ideas, maybe:
 - why do you believe in your religion? or, why do you not believe in religion at all?
 - does it matter what religion you believe in, or are they all the same/leading the same way?
 - is religion just our way of coping with life/creating some meaning in a meaning-less life?
 - discussion of the 'other' groups - Jainism, Ba'hai, minorities, etc.
 - any rants/debates that anyone feels like

And once people get started, things tend to take a channel - hopefully it wouldn't degenerate and become too aimless... Well yeah, this was kinda too abstract and vague (still is) , sorry...

[slothpomba]

AN hasn't missed religious topics. There's more than one reason they might not exist. For historical reasons, they do not tend to go too well around here. There is a mood of pessimism around them. Usually, they devolve to a shit storm. Many of those clauses, policies and stickies relating to religion weren't always there, they were inserted in reaction to specific events. It would be nice to have a discussion about it but history has shown us it will be difficult.

I find the topic lacking some direction as well which i think (a) has the potential for trouble and (b) might not stimulate many replies. Not to be harsh of course, we'll just wait and see. Hows this for general discussion:

Religion is a phenomenon that helps answer the big questions in life, indeed, it helps answer the big question in life. Why is there something rather than nothing? Against all odds and probability, there is something, rather than nothing. That is extraordinary, the probability of it boggles the mind.

Interrelated to that question is another question; why are we here? Not just how we got here (that's important too) but for what purpose? People ascribe almost a state of existential terror to the idea that the universe is inherently meaningless and indeed there is no meaning to our lives (some philosophers have said basically you either kill yourself or learn to deal with it by making your own meaning).

Also of important (but now mostly historical) interest is that most of the great religious traditions are also legal traditions. Religion is usually spoken of as lore but it is actually law as well. Islam and Judaism contain provisions for religious courts and indeed, a set of laws. Australian indigenous religion actually contains a legal tradition as well which way surprise many people. In this way, it functions as a glue that held together premodern societies (which explains why it was and still often is tied to ethnicity).

I think one flaw in your poll is missing the category of "spiritual but not religious". In polling about religious subject matters its quite a large emerging phenomenon and not many people can really pin down why. You would think most young people would tend towards atheism but we're seeing an explosion in this category which raises interesting questions in itself. I think i would put myself in this category but i am an atheist in the fact i think on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that no Gods i've looked at exist.

[Special At Specialist]

If you look at religion from a purely logical perspective - setting all emotions and traditions aside - you'll see how silly it really is.

Religion is a phenomenon that helps answer the big questions in life, indeed, it helps answer the big question in life. Why is there something rather than nothing? Against all odds and probability, there is something, rather than nothing. That is extraordinary, the probability of it boggles the mind.

There is something: the physical universe. We can't realistically dispute that (without going full Descartes) because we can detect it empirically: we can see it, feel it, hear it, touch it and taste it. But we cannot detect supernatural beings by our senses, nor does science suggest that supernatural beings exist, which is why many dispute the existence of such.

Interrelated to that question is another question; why are we here? Not just how we got here (that's important too) but for what purpose? People ascribe almost a state of existential terror to the idea that the universe is inherently meaningless and indeed there is no meaning to our lives (some philosophers have said basically you either kill yourself or learn to deal with it by making your own meaning).

Asking what the purpose of life without God is is like asking what purpose a slave has without a master. We are not robots. We were not built for a purpose. We are free.

Also of important (but now mostly historical) interest is that most of the great religious traditions are also legal traditions. Religion is usually spoken of as lore but it is actually law as well. Islam and Judaism contain provisions for religious courts and indeed, a set of laws. Australian indigenous religion actually contains a legal tradition as well which way surprise many people. In this way, it functions as a glue that held together premodern societies (which explains why it was and still often is tied to ethnicity).

There was a time when there was no separation of Church and State: that was called the Dark Ages. Having a secular government is essential for any fair, modern, democratic society. Take a look at the countries which still run off the Shariah Law and what the living conditions are like there. And take a look at countries such as Uganda where gay people are stoned to death and people accused of witchcraft are burnt alive (all because of Christian doctrine). Religion is far from a moral compass and should never be allowed to dictate law.

I think one flaw in your poll is missing the category of "spiritual but not religious". In polling about religious subject matters its quite a large emerging phenomenon and not many people can really pin down why. You would think most young people would tend towards atheism but we're seeing an explosion in this category which raises interesting questions in itself. I think i would put myself in this category but i am an atheist in the fact i think on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that no Gods i've looked at exist.

Yes, just like it's more likely than not that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, or that it's more likely than not that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The probability of gods or supernatural beings existing is extremely low, almost negligible. Religion is just wishful thinking.

EDIT: Of course, I encourage religious people to disagree with me and challenge my beliefs. I am interested to hear things from your perspective.

[Professor Polonsky]

> Bags religious law for being primitive and nonsensical

> Doesn't realise that plenty of religious law was very advanced for its time, and replaced far worse and at times 'secular' regimes

> Doesn't realise that the body of Jewish law is larger than the common law, is extremely philosophical in nature and, according to students of both, is far more demanding

I'm a secularist in the context of the world that we live in, because I believe that people should not be bound by systems of beliefs, as you've suggested. We also have advanced in recent times beyond much of religious law. (Though not all -- there are far more ethically pleasing aspects of religious law, especially in the way it provides a safety net for the poor, than many Western countries do.) But it's far more interesting than you've alluded to.

[Special At Specialist]

> Bags religious law for being primitive and nonsensical

> Doesn't realise that plenty of religious law was very advanced for its time, and replaced far worse and at times 'secular' regimes

This is irrelevant. The past is the past. The medieval concept of uniting a country under one religious banner so that they can fight together and conquer other nations is no longer useful to us. And I would argue that religion has held us back so much scientifically by teaching us not to question things. We would be far more advanced without it.

> Doesn't realise that the body of Jewish law is larger than the common law, is extremely philosophical in nature and, according to students of both, is far more demanding

I have heard this (it was briefly mentioned in my law subject at uni), although you must take into account that civil law is far less religious based than say, Shariah Law. Basically, the more secular the legal system, the more "philosophical" and fair it will be.

(Though not all -- there are far more ethically pleasing aspects of religious law, especially in the way it provides a safety net for the poor, than many Western countries do.) But it's far more interesting than you've alluded to.

A safety net for the poor? Take a look at the way Christian Fundamentalists in the USA (who almost always vote Republican) treat poor people. In my experiences, the Atheists tend to be far more left wing and have far more sympathy for the poor than the right winged religious people.

[slothpomba]

If you look at religion from a purely logical perspective - setting all emotions and traditions aside - you'll see how silly it really is.

You have to justify why you do something like that. Setting aside all emotions and traditions, it might be indeed logical to steal your lunch if i really want a sandwich. But why should i or indeed why do i need to set aside all traditions and emotions? If you looked at everything from a purely logical basis, the entire fabric of our lives and society would break down. There is no real logical reason to prefer peppermint to strawberry or AFL to soccer but many do. This is not an illogical thing, it is not a silly thing.

There is something: the physical universe. We can't realistically dispute that (without going full Descartes) because we can detect it empirically: we can see it, feel it, hear it, touch it and taste it. But we cannot detect supernatural beings by our senses, nor does science suggest that supernatural beings exist, which is why many dispute the existence of such.

Scientism is not the way forward. Scientism is the bastard perversion of science as much as the most fundamentalist religious people are. Not everything need to or ought to be subject to scientific inquiry as per my ice-cream example above. Furthermore, much like the philosophy of logical positivism, it is actually impossible to prove scientism is a valid idea using science.

There are many things we cannot detect empirically but they still exist. We cannot detect love in any empirical sense but it is very real. We also at one time or another lacked the understanding or capability to detect things. Pre-invention of the microscope by Hooke, people had no idea microorganisms like bacteria existed, they weren't detectable. Applying your idea, just because we couldn't see it or detect it at that time, microorganisms didnt exist.

Scientism: Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Asking what the purpose of life without God is is like asking what purpose a slave has without a master. We are not robots. We were not built for a purpose. We are free.

It ties into a larger current in philosophical thought, "Why are we here", "What is the meaning of life". Your lack of philosophical knowledge is evident here but it is one of the largest fields of inquiry in philosophy, in literature and indeed in human existence as a whole. It is indisputable that religion does provide a meaning to peoples lives, that's all i was getting at.

[Professor Polonsky]

This is irrelevant. The past is the past. The medieval concept of uniting a country under one religious banner so that they can fight together and conquer other nations is no longer useful to us. And I would argue that religion has held us back so much scientifically by teaching us not to question things. We would be far more advanced without it.

How Anglo-centric.

I have heard this (it was briefly mentioned in my law subject at uni), although you must take into account that civil law is far less religious based than say, Shariah Law. Basically, the more secular the legal system, the more "philosophical" and fair it will be.

There is absolutely no reason why secular legal systems will necessarily be fairer than religious-based ones. Of course, as I mentioned, all other things being equal, I'd prefer a secular system. But some religious law -- say, the hostility in the Old Testament to slavery -- was groundbreaking.

A safety net for the poor? Take a look at the way Christian Fundamentalists in the USA (who almost always vote Republican) treat poor people. In my experiences, the Atheists tend to be far more left wing and have far more sympathy for the poor than the right winged religious people.

Yes, there's plenty of religious law out there requiring a safety net for the poor. Farmers were supposed to leave 10% of their growth for charity, for example. under Jewish law (which I am most familiar with). Show me one corporation that donates even close to 10% of its proceedings...

You're assuming religious people are right-wing. You've begged the question. No one is arguing that atheists vote more towards the left than religious people. That doesn't prove anything about religion, however.

[Special At Specialist]

You have to justify why you do something like that. Setting aside all emotions and traditions, it might be indeed logical to steal your lunch if i really want a sandwich. But why should i or indeed why do i need to set aside all traditions and emotions? If you looked at everything from a purely logical basis, the entire fabric of our lives and society would break down. There is no real logical reason to prefer peppermint to strawberry or AFL to soccer but many do. This is not an illogical thing, it is not a silly thing.

It's not logical to steal my sandwich. Here's why:
1) You will have committed a criminal offence and will get yourself into trouble.
2) You will have ruined your reputation and people will view you as a thief.
3) You will have created an enemy which would make life more difficult for you.
That's logical reasoning. Using your emotions, you might say "I really want that sandwich", but logic is about weighing the positives and the negatives and deciding which option is better.

And yes, there is a logical reason to prefer peppermint to strawberries: your taste buds are different to the person next to you and you are trying to consume the substances that will satisfy your taste buds the best.

Logic is the only reasonable way to come up with consistently fair decisions.

Scientism is not the way forward. Scientism is the bastard perversion of science as much as the most fundamentalist religious people are. Not everything need to or ought to be subject to scientific inquiry as per my ice-cream example above. Furthermore, much like the philosophy of logical positivism, it is actually impossible to prove scientism is a valid idea using science.

You're not seriously suggesting that the scientific method of questioning, experimenting and investigating is equally as preposterous as the religious method of "everything in this book is the ultimate truth and you are not allowed to question it", are you?

There are many things we cannot detect empirically but they still exist. We cannot detect love in any empirical sense but it is very real. We also at one time or another lacked the understanding or capability to detect things. Pre-invention of the microscope by Hooke, people had no idea microorganisms like bacteria existed, they weren't detectable. Applying your idea, just because we couldn't see it or detect it at that time, microorganisms didnt exist.

Actually, we can detect love. It's all in the chemicals and electric pulses in our brains. Maybe not with our current technology, but it is possible.

Bacteria was never invisible. We just didn't have the technology to see it. But "God" on the other hand is supposedly invisible...

It ties into a larger current in philosophical thought, "Why are we here", "What is the meaning of life". Your lack of philosophical knowledge is evident here but it is one of the largest fields of inquiry in philosophy, in literature and indeed in human existence as a whole. It is indisputable that religion does provide a meaning to peoples lives, that's all i was getting at.

Philosophy is about asking questions and thinking deeply. Religion is about dodging difficult questions by saying "goddidit". No reasonable, unbiased philosopher would follow a specific religion.

How Anglo-centric.

How is that Anglo-centric? I made a generalisation about all countries, not just English countries. All religions are the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Each religion was fundamentally created as a way of controlling the masses, which is why some countries are referred to as a "Christian nation" or "Islamic nation", rather than having a consistent proportion of all religions in all countries. Like the old saying goes "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

There is absolutely no reason why secular legal systems will necessarily be fairer than religious-based ones.

I strongly disagree with this. Religion needs to stay out of politics. Many religions preach hatred and intolerance and that is something that we should not tolerate, given how little evidence there is for that religion being true in the first place.

With a secular legal system, no religion is discriminated against (secular is not the same as Atheist), but with a theocracy, everyone who is not part of the primary religion of that country/area is considered unequal.

Yes, there's plenty of religious law out there requiring a safety net for the poor. Farmers were supposed to leave 10% of their growth for charity, for example. under Jewish law (which I am most familiar with). Show me one corporation that donates even close to 10% of its proceedings...

If it's law, then it's called income tax. Most corporations pay far more than 10% income tax. And even if they didn't, your point would still be invalid because it's the religious people who vote the conservative parties that want to reduce taxes, whereas Atheists tend to vote parties that require corporations to pay more taxes.

You're assuming religious people are right-wing. You've begged the question. No one is arguing that atheists vote more towards the left than religious people. That doesn't prove anything about religion, however.

Most strongly religious people are right-wing, and it does prove a lot, actually. Religious figures (such as those on Fox News) brainwash people into believing that poor people, asylum seekers, homosexuals and many other innocent groups of people are lesser human beings.

And other countries are even worse. In Uganda for example, the leaders use Christianity as an excuse to kill "witches" and homosexuals. If religion didn't exist, then the proportion of left-wing voters would be much higher and there would be far fewer people calling for the murder of those in minority groups.

[MDMA]

Religion is the spawn of evil. Try prove that wrong.

[Special At Specialist]

Religion is the spawn of evil. Try prove that wrong.

Not sure if trolling or looking for a legitimate response...

[MDMA]

Not sure if trolling or looking for a legitimate response...

Try respond

[chasej]

Religion is the spawn of evil. Try prove that wrong.

try proving yourself right first. if you can't back up what you're saying, you're a bigot.