Is religion inferior to logic ?

[Bird123]

OK, explain cancers, especially in children. God's design?

You bet it's God's design!!!! Why would God do that? Widen your view!! I believe you are starting to walk.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

Well, I am not a 'SammaSambodhi Buddha' to show 'dhamma' to others. I am a 'Shiki Butsu'.

I'm afraid I do not know these labels. You are a Child of God sharing, I hope, That which is Special about you with others. Everyone is connected. We all learn from each other and we all teach each other. Look around you. Those in your life are there for a reason. Widen everyone's view. There is so much more for everyone to see at any level.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Sargonski]

You bet it's God's design!!!! Why would God do that? Widen your view!! I believe you are starting to walk.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

and only inferior religion is inferior to logic

 

[Audie]

and only inferior religion is inferior to logic

No there are other things besides
religion that are always inferior.
Coin toss, or a bigMac, for two.
In academics, history of rock and roll
or intro to psychology would be of inferior
merit to logic.

 

[Sargonski]

No there are other things besides
religion that are always inferior.
Coin toss, or a bigMac, for two.
In academics, history of rock and roll
or intro to psychology would be of inferior
merit to logic.

The idea here is that most religion is illogical if not all --- but that there could be a True Religion .. which would then be on par with Logic

 

[F1fan]

You assume so you do not have to leave your box of beliefs? Why? Because you do not want what I have said to be true. I can not change the facts to fit what you want them to be. I can point to where you can Discover these things for yourself.

None of this is true.

You are in the desert and ran out of water when you bump into me. I point. I say there is an oasis east 2 miles away with water. I have given you a fact yet this fact is only a belief to you until you Discover the water for yourself. You can discount what I say as a false belief however that does not change that it is true.

I have water, but you insist I don't. You point to a mirage that you believe is real.

You might want me to convince you to believe like so many religions do, however I do not want you to merely believe. I want you to Discover for yourself, but you do not seek to know.

I never said any such thing. You really think highly of yourself and what you believe. But you don't seem able to explain what it is.

OK, you say you have Discovered what is true about nature. Great, you are already studying God. What is it that you have Discovered?

It's more accurate to say that I am well informed and educated. I have discovered there are many people in the world that believe in ideas that have no basis in fact of reality. You haven't discovered this yet.

 

[F1fan]

OK, explain cancers, especially in children. God's design?

You bet it's God's design!!!!

Usually believers try to offer excuses and deflection. I think you're to first to admit God is a serial killer. That's got to lead to some disturbing inner thoughts.

Why would God do that? Widen your view!!

Because God is insane. No humanist in God's place would do such things.

I believe you are starting to walk.

Odd statement. Are you assuming I'm confined to a wheel chair and had a miracle?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are a Child of God sharing, I hope, Everyone is connected. We all learn from each other and we all teach each other. Widen everyone's view.

I follow Advaita Hinduism (complete non-duality without any exception). Therefore I do not believe in existence of any God or Goddess. I accept that everything is the same, not just connected, living as well as non-living. There is no more space to widen my views.

 

[PureX]

Omniscience isn’t required. Again, if you really want to discuss the supposed existence of your entity, we could certainly do that in another thread.

What means short of omniscience will define and determine the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is?

Or are you talking about playing 'whack-a-mole' with every mythical representation of this meta-mystery?

This is an interesting point and worth consideration. Does an ethical system for a given society require periodic reminders of the ethical principles for it to remain effective in society? I wonder if anyone has studied that. I will say that outside of periodic reminders, which, given all the reminding that is currently going on, you still seem dissatisfied with society's overall ethical behavior, the legal and judicial systems have always been in place to ensure compliance with societal norms that become codified in law, statute, and regulation.

What is needed is ongoing reinforcement and reassessment. That means a collective conscious awareness of the ethics of our individual and collective decision-making, and a value assessment of the results of our actions. The only institutions promoting this that I can see are religious. And they are not doing it well. But instead of attacking them for not doing it well, let's encourage them to do it better, and develop and offer better alternatives.

I will say there is no little amount of naivete on your part to think that church sermons challenge, inspire to investigate, and compare various common ethical imperatives. It would be my contention that for many church services, it is more about reviewing and reinforcing the minister’s/denominations dogmatic ethical imperatives. I think you might be shocked by some of the things that are preached from pulpits.

And you constantly sink to the lowest level and the worst examples to support you bias against region. Imagine if you were doing that to support a bias against a race of people ... what that would look like.

And yet, as of 2020, 70% of Americans identify as Christians. LINK You have lots of religion going on and you are still not happy. Your wishing to preserve the status quo does not seem to be meeting your desired goals. If the religious are in charge and we are still going to hell in a handbasket, it only makes my position all the stronger.

Who said the religious are in charge? Why are you so obsessed with blaming religion for all of mankind's failures?

Are you essentially saying the Emperor has no clothes?

Would the devoutly religious have those mythological truths for any other reason than that is how they were indoctrinated? What if they were raised differently? Why do I have access to other options that are somehow unavailable to everyone?

Learning to speak a language is "indoctrination" by your definition. But it's both inevitable, and a net positive. Get over it. Every society of humans "indoctrinates" itself for the sake of cohesion. How could it be otherwise?

Such movements must struggle against the institutional protectionism incorporated in religious belief.

Only it they seek conquest. But there are other methods to employ. Humanists could encourage and support their shared ideals with religion. Which are actually many.

You do not recognize the power of indoctrination, but it does not mean that it doesn’t exist or isn’t a powerful force in society.

I don't acknowledge it as being the evil puppet master that you imagine it to be. Mind control is very rare and very difficult to actually pull off. You just don't want to acknowledge that a lot of people like being told what to do and how to think. Or are too timid and lazy and comfortable to bother to resist it. And that they have that right.

So if you want them to do better, you're going to have to offer them a reward. Not insults and antagonism.

Indeed. A work in progress.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Divine ideologies = Religious myth born and institutionalized in our ancient and ignorant past

yeah .. same old .. you think you are so much smarter than your ancestors..
..when in fact, our arrogance is leading us into an apocalypse.

..throuigh that evolution they remained myth..

By my calculation, political and religious belief are simply products of the human mind influenced by human experience. I see both as equivalent, IMO.

You might see them as equivalent, but they are not.
Man-made ideologies cannot be the same as the Divine.
It makes no difference how you THINK they originated.
It is what other people think, that makes them different.

 

[Nakosis]

..not if it is the parents wishes.

Parents can teach whatever they wish at home. They shouldn't rely on public education for religious ideology, imo.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes they do..
Do not look at the world, look at what G-d teaches in the Qur'an.

So do we get to vote for which God to follow?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's more accurate to say that I am well informed and educated. I have discovered there are many people in the world that believe in ideas that have no basis in fact of reality. You haven't discovered this yet.

"fact of reality" .. what you consider "reality" is according to what you perceive.
The same goes for me.
There are plenty of "well-informed and educated" people in the world .. that has little bearing
on their perception of reality or religious belief.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Parents can teach whatever they wish at home. They shouldn't rely on public education for religious ideology, imo.

..there's always private education .. if anybody can afford it.
..and "Sunday school" etc.

 

[MikeF]

yeah .. same old .. you think you are so much smarter than your ancestors..
..when in fact, our arrogance is leading us into an apocalypse.

I am seeing this argument elsewhere. I don't dismiss your concerns for the ongoing health and wellbeing of society, but I also do not raise it to the level of "apocalypse". Of course, what constitutes an apocalypes is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't begrudge your use of the label.

You might see them as equivalent, but they are not.
Man-made ideologies cannot be the same as the Divine.

Simply saying this does not make it so. You would have to demonstrate that ideologies can be something other than man-made. In the long course of human affairs to date, there is nothing to indicate a source other than mankind itself.

It makes no difference how you THINK they originated.

Exactly! Nor how any individual things. The power of the ideology comes from the level of buy-in within a population base. This metric is the same for religious myth as it is for political ideologies. Don't get me wrong, political ideologies can also incorporate both secular and religious myths as well.

It is what other people think, that makes them different.

In just the same way Catholic ideology is different from Evangelical non-denominational Christianity, is different from the LDS church, is different from the wide array of Hindu ideologies, is different from the variety of indiginous peoples religious ideologies, is different from Budhist, Shinto, Taoist, differing Islamic sects, and then all the historical religious myth ideologies that are no longer adopted.

 

[MikeF]

What means short of omniscience will define and determine the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is?

Or are you talking about playing 'whack-a-mole' with every mythical representation of this meta-mystery?

Let’s not play whack-a-mole. I guess I’ll have to start another thread.

What is needed is ongoing reinforcement and reassessment. That means a collective conscious awareness of the ethics of our individual and collective decision-making, and a value assessment of the results of our actions. The only institutions promoting this that I can see are religious. And they are not doing it well. But instead of attacking them for not doing it well, let's encourage them to do it better, and develop and offer better alternatives.

And you constantly sink to the lowest level and the worst examples to support you bias against region. Imagine if you were doing that to support a bias against a race of people ... what that would look like.

You don’t seem to appreciate where my concern lies. Let us say that the founding fathers of the United States declared the independence of the colonies and presented a Constitution that they declared to be the divine word of their supposed divine entity, and consequently there were no clauses incorporated into the Constitution that allowed for its amendment in any way. How would you imagine the course of history unfolding, at the very least for those of the United States, if this had been the case? Would we have the same America today?

Who said the religious are in charge? Why are you so obsessed with blaming religion for all of mankind's failures?

What is your estimate for the number of individuals who hold elected or appointed office that openly reject all religious myth systems? What percentage actually tout their religious credentials? This would include historical office holders since any snapshot picture of the state of a society is simply a culmination of all the decisions that have come before.

Learning to speak a language is "indoctrination" by your definition. But it's both inevitable, and a net positive. Get over it. Every society of humans "indoctrinates" itself for the sake of cohesion. How could it be otherwise?

Exactly. However, is it something we can give conscious thought to, or must tradition prevail or trump regardless of the consequences? I say we put it all on the same level playing field. You seem to want to shelter a specific category of societal beliefs and conventions from any reassessments.

Take language for example. Many Liberal Arts programs encourage learning more than one language. Why? Should a society enforce a strict one-language policy in the interest of social cohesion, or can society accommodate multiple language traditions and still maintain cohesion. Should we even think about this in a thoughtful way, or simply let the chips fall where they may?

You seem to very strongly wish there to be more societal emphasis on ethics. Do we explore ways to do that or sit on our hands and let current conditions play out however they may?

Only it they seek conquest. But there are other methods to employ. Humanists could encourage and support their shared ideals with religion. Which are actually many.

And I agree. There develops mutual agreement in the values based on the merits of the values themselves, not from where they may have been historically sourced. This is the evolutionary process that we must muddle through. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consciously think about these things and continually make assessments of where we are and where we would like to end up.

I don't acknowledge it as being the evil puppet master that you imagine it to be. Mind control is very rare and very difficult to actually pull off. You just don't want to acknowledge that a lot of people like being told what to do and how to think. Or are too timid and lazy and comfortable to bother to resist it. And that they have that right.
So if you want them to do better, you're going to have to offer them a reward. Not insults and antagonism.

Mind control is difficult to pull off. However, that is not what we are talking about.

If you want to deny or downplay the effects of social psychological phenomena, great. Your choice and privilege. I would suggest that those who developed the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany, The Young Pioneers of China, Komsomol in the USSR, and The Boy Scouts of America did not do so simply to give kids something to do and keep them off the streets. I think they had expectations that such programs would have long-term lasting effects.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In just the same way Catholic ideology is different from Evangelical non-denominational Christianity, is different from the LDS church, is different from the wide array of Hindu ideologies, is different from the variety of indiginous peoples religious ideologies, is different from Budhist, Shinto, Taoist, differing Islamic sects, and then all the historical religious myth ideologies that are no longer adopted.

It's not the same at all.
The Divine is about god(s) .. yes.

..but the Abrahamic faiths are the ones we are discussing..
That is what most people subscribe to, one way or another.

People believe them to be true, and accept an authority superior to that of mankind.
They spread because they are believable .. and NOT due to coincident evolution.

 

[MikeF]

It's not the same at all.
The Divine is about god(s) .. yes.

..but the Abrahamic faiths are the ones we are discussing..
That is what most people subscribe to, one way or another.

That is not what @PureX and I were discussing when you jumped in with two examples of religious myth, Christianity and Islam. Both arose out of the many types of beliefs being expressed societally wide at those times and locations. Whence came the precursor beliefs and the beliefs before that, etc? Societies are a continuum, they evolve and change over time. We should try and identify all the complex factors involved when looking at historical phenomena, not simply those that tell a desired story, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't that be the scholarly approach?

People believe them to be true, and accept an authority superior to that of mankind.
They spread because they are believable .. and NOT due to coincident evolution.

And in political ideologies, people believe them to be true and accept the authority of them over that of the individual. It is the same sociological phenomenon or complex of phenomena.

The spread of beliefs are multifactoral. Why beliefs evolve is due to the reality that any society or group will have to respond to changing circumstances from all sources. In contrast, in small group societies isolated from other groups and in a state of equillibrium, we observe significantly less change over time. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[PureX]

You don’t seem to appreciate where my concern lies. Let us say that the founding fathers of the United States declared the independence of the colonies and presented a Constitution that they declared to be the divine word of their supposed divine entity, and consequently there were no clauses incorporated into the Constitution that allowed for its amendment in any way. How would you imagine the course of history unfolding, at the very least for those of the United States, if this had been the case? Would we have the same America today?

It would have played out very similarly to what it did because declarations of divine or 'inerrant' ideology don't convince anyone. And you can't make people follow them when they don't accept them; not without brute force. And even that won't succeed in the end. All that happens is a lot of unnecessary suffering.

What is your estimate for the number of individuals who hold elected or appointed office that openly reject all religious myth systems?

Why would anyone do that? Especially a public representative. I still can't figure out why so many atheists feel the need to run around telling us all what they DON'T believe. Why would anyone care what they don't believe? Why would they think anyone else would care? It makes no sense. It's the old; "whatever it is, I'm AGIN IT!" meme.

However, is it something we can give conscious thought to, or must tradition prevail or trump regardless of the consequences? I say we put it all on the same level playing field. You seem to want to shelter a specific category of societal beliefs and conventions from any reassessments.

The playing field of ideas is never level. Culture is always going to be a collection of biases. A healthy culture will be aware of that, however, and therefor able to re-assess itself and adapt to achieve better results.

Take language for example. Many Liberal Arts programs encourage learning more than one language. Why? Should a society enforce a strict one-language policy in the interest of social cohesion, or can society accommodate multiple language traditions and still maintain cohesion. Should we even think about this in a thoughtful way, or simply let the chips fall where they may?

Of course these questions need to be considered. But what matters more are the ethical imperatives being used to determine the answers. Is better really better? How do we tell? And it's better for whom? And why them? Better compared to what other oprions? "God says so" or "it's the law!" or "my tribe believes ..." doesn't teach anyone anything. And it's why this kind of morality doesn't work. It keeps people blind and stupid. But it's still better than nothing at all.

You seem to very strongly wish there to be more societal emphasis on ethics. Do we explore ways to do that or sit on our hands and let current conditions play out however they may?

We are running out of time. Science has finally given us the ability to annihilate ourselves, entirely. The proverbial loaded pistols are in the monkey's cage, now. And sooner or late one of those monkeys is going to pick one of those pistols up and start shooting it because he just doesn't know any better. And there is nothing in our culture that is currently helping us recognize and understand why we should not pick up those pistols, or let anyone else pick them up. Instead, some fool yells "WAR!" and a thousand more fools grab their guns and run to the fight. Even though death and destruction is all that ever results from it.

We are so ethically and morally blind that we think warfare is a good course of action. This has to change. And it's not just the violence of warfare, itself. It's the violence of political oppression, and the violence of economic oppression, and the violence of hopelessness and meaninglessness and of fundamental neglect.

And I agree. There develops mutual agreement in the values based on the merits of the values themselves, not from where they may have been historically sourced. This is the evolutionary process that we must muddle through. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consciously think about these things and continually make assessments of where we are and where we would like to end up.

Mind control is difficult to pull off. However, that is not what we are talking about.

If you want to deny or downplay the effects of social psychological phenomena, great. Your choice and privilege. I would suggest that those who developed the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany, The Young Pioneers of China, Komsomol in the USSR, and The Boy Scouts of America did not do so simply to give kids something to do and keep them off the streets. I think they had expectations that such programs would have long-term lasting effects.

They lie and deceive children because they know they can't lie and deceive most adults.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We should try and identify all the complex factors involved when looking at historical phenomena, not simply those that tell a desired story, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't that be the scholarly approach?

Of course, but I doubt that you and I will reach the same conclusion.

And in political ideologies, people believe them to be true and accept the authority of them over that of the individual. It is the same sociological phenomenon or complex of phenomena.

I don't think so.
Belief in Scripture is not identical to belief in Marx or Keynes.

The spread of beliefs are multifactoral. Why beliefs evolve is due to the reality that any society or group will have to respond to changing circumstances from all sources. In contrast, in small group societies isolated from other groups and in a state of equillibrium, we observe significantly less change over time. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes.
Demographics obviously comes into it.
..but we can see that Christianity and Islam have become multicultural,
and established civilisations, with their universities etc.

You can assume that it would have happened anyway, without religion..
..but that would be a pure assumption.
Churches and Mosques provided community cohesion .. ans so on..