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

[scott777]

I don't know how far back you are considering, but it is obvious (to some of us) that proto-humans will have at one time just accepted their condition without suppositions as to external agents - which is almost certainly where religious beliefs have been founded. Or are you only considering a certain portion of our past?

I would say the supposition of external agents in many unexplained things would be far more primitive than homo-sapiens. Even chimps exhibit a concept of 'self' and 'other' awareness, and that should be sufficient for speculation on an external presence being responsible for unexplained phenomena. I'm not saying chimps believe in a gods or spirits, but it seems reasonable that they might have a concept of another 'thinking' or 'animate' agent that could account for things that happen, in absence of direct observation. Or dogs for that matter.
It seems very unlikely that religion or faith suuddenly came from nowhere. Just as unlikely as homo-sapiens coming from nowhere. The processes are very, very gradual and long

 

[scott777]

As I wrote earlier, we can say that evolution has given our species a moral direction if the word "purpose" is a problem for you. Nevertheless, moral progress, becoming a better human being, gives our lives greater meaning.

As for reason being a higher function, I suggest you consider the fact that moral philosophers have tried to use their precious reason to come up with an ethical system to replace the intuition of conscience for about three centuries with nothing useful to show for their effort.

I mostly agree. Though the 'higher function' of reason does not mean 'better function'. It's certainly a higher brain function.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I guess you mean 'around you'. But around your country or the world, that might be very different.

Everybody starts out the same way.

 

[paarsurrey]

If by "truthful Word" you mean the sacred text of religion, I don't think so. Those works are products of the reasoning minds of men. In my opinion, they are useless at best and misleading at their worst in offering moral guidance.

Conscience may be the best evidence that a Loving Creator exists. However, at the same time, it is evidence that those sacred texts were not inspired by God.

I agree with about 50% of the article you quoted. Here's something for you to consider:

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

"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?

Regards
____________

*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

 

[joe1776]

"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?

Regards
____________

*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

We see things differently. I don't see "secular matters" and "religious matters." I only see it worthwhile to pursue the truth about human matters.

You see the Quran as needing no assumption. I think its a major assumption to regard the Quran as being inspired by God. That assumption requires faith; and my mind is not capable of that kind of faith.

 

[Jumi]

That goes against everything I've learnt about history.

Maybe you focused on the big countries beating each other down and stealing from the smaller ones over their belief in nation or religion, or more recently ideology.

Throughout civilization, faith must have existed, being the basis of religion. So how do you know we didn't always have faith?

"We" isn't what humanity is about. Sure, there are many who find comfort in being part of the masses moved around by someone, but there are always people outside of that who've focused on family, village, tribe, that sort of things.

Faith isn't actually needed for every religion and there are ways to interpret some religions where you don't need faith. I know we always didn't have faith because our cousins the great apes don't. Our starting points are quite clearly in our shared ancestors.

Aside from those, mystics tend to break with faiths, and it's not hard to see mystics have been around far longer than religions have.

 

[dianaiad]

Even at the macro-level, you have already put that into question. You mention the sun and it's visual delay. So the limitation of light itself causes uncertainty (is the sun still burning right now?) But everything we see depends on light. The same problems occur with all out senses. We are dependent on the accuracy of our senses.

Yes...except of course for the fact that if the sun did explode 4 minutes ago, or the bridge did fail to hold you up when you attempted to cross it, our senses would only help us register stuff until they ceased operating.....

There is nothing wrong with using our senses to acquire information, and no reason to mistrust them quite so completely as you seem to imply.

There is, after all, that story about Samuel Johnson and the stone, where Berkeley was going all metaphysical on him, and by kicking that stone, Johnson said 'I refute it thus!"

A fact is a fact whether WE know it is or not. However, knowledge is about whether we understand that fact completely ...or whether we simply believe, and happen to be right (but might not have been).

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would say the supposition of external agents in many unexplained things would be far more primitive than homo-sapiens. Even chimps exhibit a concept of 'self' and 'other' awareness, and that should be sufficient for speculation on an external presence being responsible for unexplained phenomena. I'm not saying chimps believe in a gods or spirits, but it seems reasonable that they might have a concept of another 'thinking' or 'animate' agent that could account for things that happen, in absence of direct observation. Or dogs for that matter.
It seems very unlikely that religion or faith suuddenly came from nowhere. Just as unlikely as homo-sapiens coming from nowhere. The processes are very, very gradual and long

I am sure the external agents thing is very old but we can hardly place a period on it can we. I very much doubt that any concept of the self thus leads to assigning agency elsewhere though - even in chimpanzees (or bonobos). Many animal species might not realise the power of another species, like humans for example, or very slowly, and to go a step further to assign greater agency to natural events is a bit of a push too far in my view. Of course religion didn't just come from nowhere, but we are fallible enough - and our ancestors even more so - that there will have been plenty of opportunities to form the wrong conclusions from all sorts of things - with unexplained natural events being the most likely origin perhaps. So, as I said, I'm sure at one time we did exist (or our ancestors at least did) without such beliefs - as all other animals no doubt do.

 

[scott777]

Maybe you focused on the big countries beating each other down and stealing from the smaller ones over their belief in nation or religion, or more recently ideology.


"We" isn't what humanity is about. Sure, there are many who find comfort in being part of the masses moved around by someone, but there are always people outside of that who've focused on family, village, tribe, that sort of things.

Faith isn't actually needed for every religion and there are ways to interpret some religions where you don't need faith. I know we always didn't have faith because our cousins the great apes don't. Our starting points are quite clearly in our shared ancestors.

Aside from those, mystics tend to break with faiths, and it's not hard to see mystics have been around far longer than religions have.

So which religions don't currently have any faith?
The great apes are going back a long way. I'm saying that at least homo sapiens probably had a sense of faith, but let's say, we have for 100,000 years.

 

[scott777]

Yes...except of course for the fact that if the sun did explode 4 minutes ago, or the bridge did fail to hold you up when you attempted to cross it, our senses would only help us register stuff until they ceased operating.....

There is nothing wrong with using our senses to acquire information, and no reason to mistrust them quite so completely as you seem to imply.

There is, after all, that story about Samuel Johnson and the stone, where Berkeley was going all metaphysical on him, and by kicking that stone, Johnson said 'I refute it thus!"

A fact is a fact whether WE know it is or not. However, knowledge is about whether we understand that fact completely ...or whether we simply believe, and happen to be right (but might not have been).

So the fact remains that right now, the sun might have exploded, or even be gone, and you wouldn't know (for 8 minutes). Or you might be in a computer simulation or having a vivid hallucination.

But I have to note your use of the word 'mistrust' that I might have. Does that imply that you 'trust' your senses? That would imply faith.

 

[scott777]

I am sure the external agents thing is very old but we can hardly place a period on it can we. I very much doubt that any concept of the self thus leads to assigning agency elsewhere though - even in chimpanzees (or bonobos). Many animal species might not realise the power of another species, like humans for example, or very slowly, and to go a step further to assign greater agency to natural events is a bit of a push too far in my view. Of course religion didn't just come from nowhere, but we are fallible enough - and our ancestors even more so - that there will have been plenty of opportunities to form the wrong conclusions from all sorts of things - with unexplained natural events being the most likely origin perhaps. So, as I said, I'm sure at one time we did exist (or our ancestors at least did) without such beliefs - as all other animals no doubt do.

Surely a concept of self is far more complex and abstract than a concept of other, so if you have a concept of self, as chimps do, why wouldn't they be capable of a concept of an unknown animate external agency?

Another species is irrelevant. It's suggested that dogs regard humans as 'sort of' dogs. It doesn't matter what species another agency might be. It needs only a concept of an agency that is animate and can 'do things', which clearly animals have, with regard to the other animals they interact with. It's not like a dog thinks the other dogs in a pack have ceased to exist when they cannot be detected. That seems like a feasible starting point for a concept of supernatural agency, and I'm sure by the time of homo sapiens it would have developed considerably.

I didn't follow your explanation for where religion came from. When I talk about 'we', I'm not going back to distant species, but homo sapiens is sufficient.

 

[Jumi]

So which religions don't currently have any faith?

Philosophical Taoism doesn't require it. I've never seen any use for it myself. Part of my ancestors relied on "strong arm, not the gods" although they might or might not have had any belief in them. There's not too much left of my other ancestors beliefs, since we were force converted into a religion. I'd say lack of faith is somewhat noticeable here. Ask about the gods or God and not even theists will care much for it.

The great apes are going back a long way. I'm saying that at least homo sapiens probably had a sense of faith, but let's say, we have for 100,000 years.

Since you are the one both claiming and asking for proof, how about you show some here that humans as a group have had faith for 100k years.

 

[dianaiad]

So the fact remains that right now, the sun might have exploded, or even be gone, and you wouldn't know (for 8 minutes). Or you might be in a computer simulation or having a vivid hallucination.

But I have to note your use of the word 'mistrust' that I might have. Does that imply that you 'trust' your senses? That would imply faith.

Yes.

I think, when I used the sun as an example, I was attempting to show just how rare a thing 'knowledge' actually is.

We all live on faith, in that there are precious few things around us that have no chance whatsoever of being something other than what we think we 'know' about them.

....and most of those are actually very simple, solid, physical things such as: we know the sun was shining eight minutes ago because we are still here, and we know that the bridge held us up because we crossed it an are on the other side, or that our friend kept his promise to pay us back because the money is in our hands.

(shrug)

Everything else is faith. Everything we do is done because we trust in things that we could be...no matter how distant and incredibly slim the possibilities are...wrong about.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've never seen any good evidence.

What is revealed by God to Messengers of God is the only direct evidence that God exists.
Have you looked at all the religions?

How do you know everything in creation has a purpose to exist?

Why would anything exist without a purpose for it to exist?
If God is responsible for Creation, then God knows the purpose for its existence.

I know the purpose according to what my religion teaches. Other religions teach similar things since all religions come from the same Source, i.e., God.

 

[paarsurrey]

We see things differently. I don't see "secular matters" and "religious matters." I only see it worthwhile to pursue the truth about human matters.

You see the Quran as needing no assumption. I think its a major assumption to regard the Quran as being inspired by God. That assumption requires faith; and my mind is not capable of that kind of faith.

It is OK with me, but I disagree with one.
Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

That depends on the individual definition of God.I think most have a conviction in 'something' higher, more perfect, more powerful than themselves. None of that specifically determines the way they live. It sounds like you are taking your own interpretation of God and then pointing out it's flaws.

You are right. Thanks for pointing that out.
How people live depends upon their individual definition of God and the religion they ascribe to, if they have a religion. If they do not have a religion and they believe in God, anything goes. I mean they are not going to necessarily care about living in unity and harmony with others just because they believe in a God that is higher, more perfect, more powerful than themselves.

Moreover, not all religions have the same teachings. Some religions such as Christianity teach individual salvation rather than the harmony and unity of all of mankind. I guess I was thinking that if everyone followed the teachings of "my religion," the Baha'i Faith, then everyone in the world would live in harmony and unity, because that is the primary goal of my religion, the Unity of Mankind.

 

[scott777]

Philosophical Taoism doesn't require it. I've never seen any use for it myself. Part of my ancestors relied on "strong arm, not the gods" although they might or might not have had any belief in them. There's not too much left of my other ancestors beliefs, since we were force converted into a religion. I'd say lack of faith is somewhat noticeable here. Ask about the gods or God and not even theists will care much for it.


Since you are the one both claiming and asking for proof, how about you show some here that humans as a group have had faith for 100k years.

Philosophical Taoism doesn't require it. I've never seen any use for it myself. Part of my ancestors relied on "strong arm, not the gods" although they might or might not have had any belief in them. There's not too much left of my other ancestors beliefs, since we were force converted into a religion. I'd say lack of faith is somewhat noticeable here. Ask about the gods or God and not even theists will care much for it.


Since you are the one both claiming and asking for proof, how about you show some here that humans as a group have had faith for 100k years.

It doesn't sound like you identify Philosophical Taoism as a religion, because you say your ancestors practised it, then were forced into a religion. Wikipedia describes it as a "philosophical doctrine". And the very name suggests it's a philosophy.

But if it is a religion, it must require faith according to this definition: "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." Or do Taoists have proof of their belief, or do they NOT have any conviction?

I said "homo sapiens probably had a sense of faith". When did I claim I have proof? The evidence is based upon history - that 99.9% of cultures have shown strong signs of religion, for the whole of history, and I'm just using reverse extrapolation. So you would need a reason to think that religion must have suddenly begun at some point, rather than developing, or perhaps evolving (as memes evolve) over a long period, just as language or biology evolved over very long periods.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your comment is, naturally, based on your myths. Outside of your myths, there is no evidence to substantiate your comments.

No, it is based upon what my religion teaches. You can call it myths if you want to.

• Do you have evidence for Messengers?
• Were these Messengers in human form?
• Are they the ones who told the ancient Norse that a God caused lightning and thunder?
• Are they the ones who convinced the Zulu that Unkulunkulu created the earth?
• Are they the ones who convinced the Inca that Viracocha created the earth and required human sacrifice?

• Yes, there is evidence for Messengers of God (Prophets), the facts surrounding their life and history and their scriptures.

• Yes, they were in human form, although they were more than human, since they all had a universal divine mind, a heavenly intellectual power which is beyond human nature.. Their minds embrace the existing reality, and they are cognizant of all things, aware of mysteries, realities and divine significations. Because they have a divine mind they are able to receive the light of the mysteries of God. That is what differentiates them from ordinary humans.

• No, these Messengers are not the ones who told the ancient Norse that a God caused lightning and thunder; they are not the ones who convinced the Zulu that Unkulunkulu created the earth; they are not the ones who convinced the Inca that Viracocha created the earth and required human sacrifice. Rather they are the ones who had a mission to educate and advance the world of humanity. They established the major religions and affected whole civilizations: RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

 

[scott777]

What is revealed by God to Messengers of God is the only direct evidence that God exists.
Have you looked at all the religions?

Why would anything exist without a purpose for it to exist?
If God is responsible for Creation, then God knows the purpose for its existence.

I know the purpose according to what my religion teaches. Other religions teach similar things since all religions come from the same Source, i.e., God.

What is revealed by God to Messengers of God is the only direct evidence that God exists.
Have you looked at all the religions?

Why would anything exist without a purpose for it to exist?
If God is responsible for Creation, then God knows the purpose for its existence.

I know the purpose according to what my religion teaches. Other religions teach similar things since all religions come from the same Source, i.e., God.

If it requires a messenger to deliver Gods message, then by definition, it's not direct evidence.

Most theistic religions seem to have general fundamental aspects of God, such as 'intelligent', powerful, knowledgeable, etc. I've seen no evidence of any such being.

"Why would anything exist without a purpose for it to exist?"

You need to clarify the word 'why'. If you mean 'for what reason', then the question is circular and unanswerable. If you mean 'what is the cause', then it obviously depends on which thing it is. A raindrop might exist because a cloud condensed. Cause and effect.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it requires a messenger to deliver Gods message, then by definition, it's not direct evidence.

It is as direct as possible. Since God an immaterial cannot deliver the message Himself, God “manifests” Himself in the form of a Messenger who is a perfect mirror image of Himself.

Most theistic religions seem to have general fundamental aspects of God, such as 'intelligent', powerful, knowledgeable, etc. I've seen no evidence of any such being.

There is no proof but there is evidence. Evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

Nobody can establish God’s existence as a fact. All we have are the body of facts or information surrounding the Messengers of God that indicate that God exists.

"Why would anything exist without a purpose for it to exist?"

You need to clarify the word 'why'. If you mean 'for what reason', then the question is circular and unanswerable. If you mean 'what is the cause', then it obviously depends on which thing it is. A raindrop might exist because a cloud condensed. Cause and effect.

I understand your point about cause and effect, things exist because something causes them to exist; but even that raindrop has a purpose for existing, because we need rain.