Is Faith/Religion needed to live -- my analysis of Jordan Peterson

[scott777]

You were saying art was sufficient to be faith?

No. I asked what you mean by sufficiently developed language. Doesn't art count as language that could convey a belief?

Have you ever been in a dangerous situation? As much as we like to think, dangerous situations typically aren't conductive to thinking or beliefs. You might volunteer to be in dangerous situations for a faith though, for good or bad cause.

Yes, I've been in dangerous situations. Look at suicide bombers, for example. They are better able to do this because they have faith in an afterlife.

Belief in an afterlife could also lead to wasting all your time on converting other people to the same belief or killing people for god to sort out. Perhaps the death of nearly a whole continent.

We were talking about primitive man. Do you think they spent much time worrying about converting people, or just surviving? I'd suggest surviving.

Well, you were talking about faith-based religions.

But since you couldn't give any example of a non-faith-based religion, I still believe they all are. But which religions are you talking about?

I've never had any "religious faith" as an atheist or now that I am theist, so the argument that we somehow need it is completely silly to me. Never needed any to wake up in the morning to go to school or work. Never needed it to eat and enjoy life. Never needed it to experience God. Never needed it to care for sick friends or pets. I guess some people might need it, but making it be a universal or even a majority need is just not right.

I never argued that we need religious faith. I said, in the past, homo sapiens have probably always had faith. Now you're talking about a completely different thing.

 

[scott777]

Sorry, not buying that, so we will have to disagree on this. Or we are talking about a different concept of agency. I doubt most animals are capable of doing that even if they react to many different circumstances that they cannot understand.

I reckon animals might have something rudimentary, so that surely homo sapiens could have something much better, that's all.

 

[Trailblazer]

In what way are Baha'u'llah's writings or life evidence of a god?

Baha'u'llah declared that God exists and claimed to be a Manifestation of God and a Representative of God:

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes. If any be set up by His side as peers, if they be regarded as identical with His Person, how can it, then, be maintained that the Divine Being is One and Incomparable, that His Essence is indivisible and peerless? Meditate on that which We have, through the power of truth, revealed unto thee, and be thou of them that comprehend its meaning.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

If we accept His claim, then what He claimed and wrote and did on His Mission indicate that God exists.
Of course, we have to check out who He was and what He claimed before we accept His claim.

 

[paarsurrey]

"A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone" *

Quran is different, and need no assumption.
G-d clearly mentions it in Quran.
For secular matters the source I gave and the one given by one is OK as an assumption, but for non-secular matters Quran is most relevant, it needs no assumption for obvious reasons.
One is welcome to check it , anytime one please. Right, please?
____________
*Quran [91:8]-[91:11]
[91:8]And by the soul and its perfection —
[91:9]And He revealed to it what is wrong for it and what is right for it
[91:10]He indeed truly prospers who purifies it,
[91:11]And he who corrupts it is ruined.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 91: Al-Shams

Anybody is welcome to check it with Quran, no compulsion, however, please

Regards

 

[Jumi]

No. I asked what you mean by sufficiently developed language. Doesn't art count as language that could convey a belief?

Only if language is already developed to convey the meanings of it first.

Yes, I've been in dangerous situations. Look at suicide bombers, for example. They are better able to do this because they have faith in an afterlife.

Marxist terrorists were able to do it without such belief. Though I fail to find existence of suicide bombers with a faith a convincing for needing faith to live.

We were talking about primitive man. Do you think they spent much time worrying about converting people, or just surviving? I'd suggest surviving.

Doctrines weren't very high up on the list for them either. I'd say they didn't exist until language developed and there was a group that could enforce doctrines on disbelievers.

I never argued that we need religious faith. I said, in the past, homo sapiens have probably always had faith.

Then explain what kind of faith do we need to live?

And I fail to find it convincing that "homo sapiens probably always had faith", since a lot of folks don't have it. Unless you and Peterson are arguing for something along the apologist lines of "everyone really believes in one god whether they admit it or not", but in a more generic packaging I don't really get where the argument comes from. edited sentence for completeness.

Now you're talking about a completely different thing.

Not in my opinion. I never wake up and go to work or study, or eat on account of faith.

 

[Sanzbir]

I'm not sure 'a system of values and meaning' is any less ambiguous.

I don't recall saying it wasn't ambiguous.

 

[scott777]

Baha'u'llah declared that God exists and claimed to be a Manifestation of God and a Representative of God:

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes. If any be set up by His side as peers, if they be regarded as identical with His Person, how can it, then, be maintained that the Divine Being is One and Incomparable, that His Essence is indivisible and peerless? Meditate on that which We have, through the power of truth, revealed unto thee, and be thou of them that comprehend its meaning.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

If we accept His claim, then what He claimed and wrote and did on His Mission indicate that God exists.
Of course, we have to check out who He was and what He claimed before we accept His claim.

If I declare that I'm a magical teapot and claim that I can fly, is that evidence that it's true?

 

[scott777]

Only if language is already developed to convey the meanings of it first.

Well, dogs have language. They exhibit signs of submission (tail between legs), for example. So if a prehistoric man draws a picture of a glowing man in the sky and bows down to it, don't you think that's likely to be interpreted in a particular way? Couldn't that convey a religious meaning?

Marxist terrorists were able to do it without such belief. Though I fail to find existence of suicide bombers with a faith a convincing for needing faith to live.

Again, I didn't say faith is needed. Just beneficial, for prehistoric people, when in dangerous, frightening or tough situations. That seems quite obvious to me. Being terrified is debilitating. Believing in an afterlife or in help from a god/spirit makes the prospect of harm and death less terrifying. You can't compare your life with the hardships of prehistoric people.

Then explain what kind of faith do we need to live?

I'm not saying we do.

And I fail to find it convincing that "homo sapiens probably always had faith", since a lot of folks don't have it.

A lot of folks not having it is irrelevant. How many folks didn't have it between 4000BC and 1600AD? How many folks didn't have it at the dawn of civilization?

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Baha'u'llah declared that God exists and claimed to be a Manifestation of God and a Representative of God:
If we accept His claim, then what He claimed and wrote and did on His Mission indicate that God exists.
Of course, we have to check out who He was and what He claimed before we accept His claim.

Scott777 said: If I declare that I'm a magical teapot and claim that I can fly, is that evidence that it's true?

As I said, we have to check out who He was and what He claimed before we accept His claim.That entails looking at the evidence that supports His claim.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His Person (His character); the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.

All this constitutes evidence that is verifiable.

 

[Jumi]

Well, dogs have language. They exhibit signs of submission (tail between legs), for example.

It's not enough to communicate doctrinal content. It's pure lacking anything of the sort.

So if a prehistoric man draws a picture of a glowing man in the sky and bows down to it, don't you think that's likely to be interpreted in a particular way? Couldn't that convey a religious meaning?

As a mystic I'd say it could be something they experienced for themselves, not necessarily any kind of doctrinal thing. Could also have been related to drugs or illness. Also how do you know that they would "bow" to these "glowing men"? Scholars can mostly compare with what exists today.

Again, I didn't say faith is needed. Just beneficial, for prehistoric people, when in dangerous, frightening or tough situations. That seems quite obvious to me. Being terrified is debilitating.

What seems obvious to you, doesn't seem obvious to me at all.

Believing in an afterlife or in help from a god/spirit makes the prospect of harm and death less terrifying.

It's an argument that some big religions make. But animals rarely "fear death", they haven't been introduced the concept. Faith can actually make it more terrifying with introduction of various hell-beliefs. Some have blamed organized religions for selling fear of death that weren't a problem for earlier man.

You can't compare your life with the hardships of prehistoric people.

Neither can you. So that point is moot.

A lot of folks not having it is irrelevant. How many folks didn't have it between 4000BC and 1600AD?

How many folks did? Tao t'eh ching speaks of times before when people didn't have all kinds of useless concepts and did right things naturally.

 

[scott777]

As I said, we have to check out who He was and what He claimed before we accept His claim.That entails looking at the evidence that supports His claim.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His Person (His character); the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.

All this constitutes evidence that is verifiable.

Don't think so. Unless you can advise how I verify it. Give me one of his prophecies, and let's have a go.

 

[scott777]

It's not enough to communicate doctrinal content. It's pure lacking anything of the sort.

I didn't say that was enough. I explained how even dogs have language.

As a mystic I'd say it could be something they experienced for themselves, not necessarily any kind of doctrinal thing. Could also have been related to drugs or illness. Also how do you know that they would "bow" to these "glowing men"? Scholars can mostly compare with what exists today.

If a belief can be taught like that, then that belief can be a doctrine. Therefore rudimentary religion could have existed for at least 64,000 years. It's irrelevant whether a belief had a drug or fever induced origin.

What seems obvious to you, doesn't seem obvious to me at all.

All you have to do is look at the evidence. In all the poorest and most violent countries in the world, where people struggle to survive, populations have a far higher occurrence of religion, but in the wealthiest countries where people have more comfortable lives, it is lower. There is very substantial statistical evidence that as quality of life improves, religion declines.

How many folks did? Tao t'eh ching speaks of times before when people didn't have all kinds of useless concepts and did right things naturally.

It's irrelevant unless the Tao Te Ching states that there were people who had no faith. Does it?

At least 99.9% of people were religious during those periods, according to a mass of historical evidence.

Here's some evidence of ancient religion: "The earliest evidence of religious ideas dates back several hundred thousand years to the Middle and Lower Paleolithic periods. Archaeologists refer to apparent intentional burials of early Homo sapiens from as early as 300,000 years ago as evidence of religious ideas. "


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion#History_of_study

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't think so. Unless you can advise how I verify it. Give me one of his prophecies, and let's have a go.

The prophecies are not really the best evidence that indicate that a Messenger of God is who He claimed to be but below is one you can look at that predicted WWI and WWII...

O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves.Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.
Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I from Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh

Baha'u'llah predicted the fall of all the kings and rulers of the world for having rejected Him, and they all fell from power shortly thereafter. For example, here is an excerpt from a longer Tablet to Napoleon III written in 1869...

“For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord.”
Tablet to Napoleon III, Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 20-21

In July 1870, Napoleon entered the Franco-Prussian War without allies and with inferior military forces. The French army was rapidly defeated and Napoleon III was captured at the Battle of Sedan.
Napoleon III - Wikipedia

 

[Jumi]

I didn't say that was enough. I explained how even dogs have language.

And I know about that and don't understand why it's relevant here.

If a belief can be taught like that, then that belief can be a doctrine. Therefore rudimentary religion could have existed for at least 64,000 years. It's irrelevant whether a belief had a drug or fever induced origin.

I think a lot of religions came from misunderstanding mystics. Then people took some misunderstandings to doctrine, the people didn't believe the doctrines and hence we have priesthoods complaining how people don't believe in their faiths.

All you have to do is look at the evidence. In all the poorest and most violent countries in the world, where people struggle to survive, populations have a far higher occurrence of religion, but in the wealthiest countries where people have more comfortable lives, it is lower. There is very substantial statistical evidence that as quality of life improves, religion declines.

That is today. The world where viking existed was quite poor, yet there we have in writing about people who believed in the strength of their arm instead of gods.

It's irrelevant unless the Tao Te Ching states that there were people who had no faith. Does it?

You could say it's a main theme.

At least 99.9% of people were religious during those periods, according to a mass of historical evidence.

Here's some evidence of ancient religion: "The earliest evidence of religious ideas dates back several hundred thousand years to the Middle and Lower Paleolithic periods. Archaeologists refer to apparent intentional burials of early Homo sapiens from as early as 300,000 years ago as evidence of religious ideas. "

See here you are jumping to conclusions. Nowhere does anyone worth their salt say that 99.9% were religious according to a mass of historical evidence. You just wish the evidence says that.

 

[scott777]

The prophecies are not really the best evidence that indicate that a Messenger of God is who He claimed to be but below is one you can look at that predicted WWI and WWII...

O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves.Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.
Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I from Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh

Baha'u'llah predicted the fall of all the kings and rulers of the world for having rejected Him, and they all fell from power shortly thereafter. For example, here is an excerpt from a longer Tablet to Napoleon III written in 1869...

“For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord.”
Tablet to Napoleon III, Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 20-21

In July 1870, Napoleon entered the Franco-Prussian War without allies and with inferior military forces. The French army was rapidly defeated and Napoleon III was captured at the Battle of Sedan.
Napoleon III - Wikipedia

It doesn't predict the wars and even if it did, that's not evidence of any god. It could be educated guesses, or even a supernatural ability to see the future, like Nostradamus is supposed to have had. Why don't you just say what the very best evidence is?

 

[scott777]

And I know about that and don't understand why it's relevant here.

It's relevant because if a dog can communicate something like submission, then surely a prehistoric man can communicate a lot more.

I think a lot of religions came from misunderstanding mystics. Then people took some misunderstandings to doctrine, the people didn't believe the doctrines and hence we have priesthoods complaining how people don't believe in their faiths.

Perhaps.

That is today. The world where viking existed was quite poor, yet there we have in writing about people who believed in the strength of their arm instead of gods.

Today's spread of religion is evidence that as quality of life improves, religion declines. What evidence is there that Vikings had no religion? I've heard of none.

You could say it's a main theme.

Taoism is still a faith. It is described as spiritual cultivation, and Tao is "a subtle universal force or cosmic creative power". These beliefs are not based on science, and are deeply held beliefs. Therefore they are forms of faith.

See here you are jumping to conclusions. Nowhere does anyone worth their salt say that 99.9% were religious according to a mass of historical evidence. You just wish the evidence says that.

Then it should be easy for you to give an example of a non-religious group from history.

 

[Jumi]

Today's spread of religion is evidence that as quality of life improves, religion declines. What evidence is there that Vikings had no religion? I've heard of none.

I didn't say there's evidence that viking didn't have religion. But there are people in the sagas who don't have faith in their religion.

Taoism is still a faith. It is described as spiritual cultivation, and Tao is "a subtle universal force or cosmic creative power". These beliefs are not based on science, and are deeply held beliefs. Therefore they are forms of faith.

You certainly have made up your mind about it, though you didn't know anything about it earlier. Your views still a bit wrong, possibly due to you being eager to call everything faiths.

Then it should be easy for you to give an example of a non-religious group from history.

Uh what? That's a strange way to think... Who said that people who didn't follow organized doctrines organized around non-faiths? I guess you have no proof that 99.9% were in a group called faith and are passing me the ball?

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't predict the wars and even if it did, that's not evidence of any god. It could be educated guesses, or even a supernatural ability to see the future, like Nostradamus is supposed to have had.

Right. That is why I told you it is not the best evidence that indicates Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but you asked me for one prophecy so I gave you one.

Why don't you just say what the very best evidence is?

The best evidence is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; and the scriptures that He wrote.

 

[scott777]

I didn't say there's evidence that viking didn't have religion. But there are people in the sagas who don't have faith in their religion.

Can you give an example?

You certainly have made up your mind about it, though you didn't know anything about it earlier. Your views still a bit wrong, possibly due to you being eager to call everything faiths.

I don't call everything faith. Atheism isn't. Science isn't. Taoism is, according to its description and definition.

Uh what? That's a strange way to think... Who said that people who didn't follow organized doctrines organized around non-faiths? I guess you have no proof that 99.9% were in a group called faith and are passing me the ball?

You said: "Nowhere does anyone worth their salt say that 99.9% were religious according to a mass of historical evidence." So therefore you think everyone worth their salt believes there were some non-religious groups of people in history. So who believes this and which groups?

It would take a long time for me to provide every bit of evidence for all the religious people from 4000BC to 1500AD. All you have to do is provide evidence on one group who weren't.

 

[scott777]

Right. That is why I told you it is not the best evidence that indicates Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but you asked me for one prophecy so I gave you one.

The best evidence is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; and the scriptures that He wrote.

But your given prophecy is not evidence at all.
So out of the four things you suggest are the best evidence, which one is the best?