Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[McBell]

like claiming there is no God?......

Yes, just like the claim there is no god.

However, that fact is not the trump card so many theists cling to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. In Buddhism, we are asked to use empirical investigation to determine whether the Buddha's teachings actually work. We are also asked to use observation to learn how the mental faculties work and to see whether there is an abiding self in all of that.

Buddhism is a religion, by the way. It is considered a non-theistic one by most, although many Buddhists believe in a god. Some Buddhists equate nirvana with God.

This is my first post here, and I expect civil dialogue on all sides. After writing 25,000+ posts on Beliefnet.com before it closed its forums this fall, I am hoping to find a good forum to replace it. Facebook has been a bit of a letdown in that regard.

Welcome to the forums! I hope you find this place an adequate replacement, although judging by your previous post count they may move here at slower space than you're used to.

I tend not to see to many Buddhist perspectives on these forums, but that may just be some form of cognitive dissonance. In the livelier debate forums such as these, you will see mostly atheists and Christians, but we also have a fairly large community of Muslims, Deists and spiritualists of assorted stripes. It'll be nice to see a fresh perspective on things!

 

[MMarcoe]

Now, do you have any actual evidence for the benefits of religion?

Fostering community, developing ethics, reducing stress, and expanding the boundaries of self are some that immediately come to mind.

All of these have been studied by science.

 

[Theunis]

.....

Belief in God It is a matter of faith and hope, not proof. And I am being biblical correct here.

Ciao

- viole

Yes I agree 100%. That is why I never try to cut anyone's anchor point in their lives.

This is one of my ways - I am at peace with all religions and non-religions. To them their ways is their comfort and anchor points in life, without it they may as well be like dust in the desert. Oh what is dust in the desert but tiny little pieces of silica blown in the wind, thoughtless and without destination or anchor points forever fruitless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

like claiming there is no God?......

You think the claim that there are no gods has the same level of support as the claim that there are gods? Interesting.

Wrong, but interesting.

 

[leibowde84]

Fostering community, developing ethics, reducing stress, and expanding the boundaries of self are some that immediately come to mind.

All of these have been studied by science.

I'm not sure whether it's as simple as that. For many, religion causes misguided ethics, increases stress, and a more limited self.

 

[leibowde84]

like claiming there is no God?......

If there is no verifiable evidence for something existing, isn't the prudent decision to withhold belief until evidence is presented? If there is a lack of evidence either way, isn't the most reasonable belief non-existence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Fostering community, developing ethics, reducing stress, and expanding the boundaries of self are some that immediately come to mind.

All of these have been studied by science.

All excellent examples of benefits from religion (although "expanding boundries" could be argued, you can argue the merits at least of the belief in such), but none of them are necessarily unique to religion. I don't believe religion is without benefit, but I believe that eschewing science in favour of religion specifically to cultivate those benefits is obscene.

 

[Erebus]

If there is no verifiable evidence for something existing, isn't the prudent decision to withhold belief until evidence is presented? If there is a lack of evidence either way, isn't the most reasonable belief non-existence?

If you don't mind my asking, do you believe this to be true?

Your religion is listed as Agnostic Christian (Theist) and you don't strike me as the kind of person who would attempt to provide verifiable evidence for the existence of the Christian God. Now maybe I'm being presumptuous, but that suggests to me that verifiable evidence isn't the only thing to factor in when forming your beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not sure whether it's as simple as that. For many, religion causes misguided ethics, increases stress, and a more limited self.

While I agree with you, for the sake of argument (and to avoid a potential flame war) I'm trying to stick strictly to tangible benefits rather than going into risk/cost assessment. I just know someone at some point will be tempted to pull out the "Yeah, but science also gave us nuclear weapons! *DUM-DUM-DUMMMMMM" line, and I'd rather avoid hurling myself into that particular nest of vipers. In fact, I would probably rather hurl myself into a literal nest of vipers.

 

[leibowde84]

If you don't mind my asking, do you believe this to be true?

Your religion is listed as Agnostic Christian (Theist) and you don't strike me as the kind of person who would attempt to provide verifiable evidence for the existence of the Christian God. Now maybe I'm being presumptuous, but that suggests to me that verifiable evidence isn't the only thing to factor in when forming your beliefs.

I'm happy to admit that my belief in God is not based on reason or verifiable evidence. My issue is with those who refuse to admit this.

 

[Theunis]

Fostering community, developing ethics, reducing stress, and expanding the boundaries of self are some that immediately come to mind.

All of these have been studied by science.

Studied and proved to be so. UCLA and the Massachusetts Hospital's Neurological Faculty in independent researches proved it a few years ago. Yoga is also a form of religion and using concepts from the awakening of the eternal dragon - Kulandini - Kirtan Kriya has also been researched by the Altzheimer Prevention Organization and proved it to be effective.

2012 the end of the world? No the Mayans predicted a new era. A new era of science and faith has emerged.

 

[Erebus]

I'm happy to admit that my belief in God is not based on reason or verifiable evidence. My issue is with those who refuse to admit this.

OK that's fair enough. Thanks

 

[viole]

If there is no verifiable evidence for something existing, isn't the prudent decision to withhold belief until evidence is presented? If there is a lack of evidence either way, isn't the most reasonable belief non-existence?

I don't know you. But I can say you are imprudent

Ciao

- viole

 

[MMarcoe]

I'm not sure whether it's as simple as that. For many, religion causes misguided ethics, increases stress, and a more limited self.

Untrue. Human behavior causes those things.

Your statement is akin to saying that atheism causes genocide simply because a number of nasty dictators were atheists.

Unless a religion specifically teaches misguided ethics, stress, and a more limited self, your assertion is false.

 

[MMarcoe]

All excellent examples of benefits from religion (although "expanding boundries" could be argued, you can argue the merits at least of the belief in such), but none of them are necessarily unique to religion.

But I would argue that it was religion that began those things.

 

[leibowde84]

Untrue. Human behavior causes those things.

Your statement is akin to saying that atheism causes genocide simply because a number of nasty dictators were atheists.

Unless a religion specifically teaches misguided ethics, stress, and a more limited self, your assertion is false.

That is what I'm saying. Some religions do teach these things. And, some use religions as a tool to teach these things. In both cases, religion, at least in part, causes these things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is no verifiable evidence for something existing, isn't the prudent decision to withhold belief until evidence is presented? If there is a lack of evidence either way, isn't the most reasonable belief non-existence?

If the claim implies a prediction of evidence that ought to be found if the claim is true, then a lack of that evidence implies that the claim is false.

If the claim implies no predictions, then it isn't necessarily false, but its truth or falsehood are indistinguishable from each other; the truth of the claim is irrelevant to what we experience.

The mere fact that we have no evidence to support a claim isn't evidence of the claim's falsehood, but it is evidence of lack of justification. If we flip a coin and nobody sees where it lands, someone claiming that it's heads, but this by itself doesn't imply that the claim is false (i.e. that the coin came up tails). However, it does imply that the claimant is making stuff up.

 

[leibowde84]

This is what I was saying

The mere fact that we have no evidence to support a claim isn't evidence of the claim's falsehood, but it is evidence of lack of justification.

 

[Augustus]

It seems unreasonable to request evidence for EVERY single benefit, but can you provide a benefit from religion that cannot be fulfilled using the scientific method?

Medicine, agriculture, electricity, biology, sociology, psychology, nutrition, lasers, microprocessors, mass production, communication technology, sanitation and photographic imaging.

Nothing to do with the benefits of religion. To be honest most of these things were started by religious people anyway, so it is not an "either, or". The Enlightenment was driven by religious people.

Nobody is saying "science" is bad

There you go. A small list of tangible benefits that have come from science that have vastly improved global understanding, happiness, storytelling and community, as well as saved and improved countless lives.

Now, do you have any actual evidence for the benefits of religion?

Lasers and electricity provide certain benefits, they don't provide a basis for values, meaning, identity, community or purpose in life.

Every society in history has relied on 'myths' to make meaning. These myths don't have to come from religion or god (mine don't), you can be a secular humanist to do this, or a nationalist, or a communist, or whatever you please. You decide what is important in life: piety, search for scientific truth, tolerance, kindness, wealth, power, racial purity, whatever... then construct a belief system around it.

You can have a happy, purposeful and ethical existence without being religious in the slightest. The ideologies, worldviews and myths that create meaning for you though are not based on the 'scientific method'. Religion (or ideology) is not a replacement for the sciences. Even a young earth creationist can be an engineer or a doctor.

Society relies on these myths though; purely subjective preferences. I do, you do, we all do.

Martin Luther King was a religious man who changed the world. The civil rights movement grew out of black Churches. The abolitionist movement was driven by Christians far more than 'enlightenment rationalists' (many of whom believed in scientific racialist theories anyway). In an alternative universe they could have been secular movements, but in this one they were not. They were driven by subjective values, in this case grounded in God.

Why do you feel sadness and anger when IS destroys some ancient temples? All they did was to rearrange some rocks. It's not a scientific belief, it's about values. They think rearranging rocks makes them heroes, I think it makes them scum. Ultimately, they are rearranging rocks which has no intrinsic value positive or negative.

You mistakenly believe that just because the sciences bring many tangible benefits, then they can replace all subjective ways of making meaning that add richness to life. That you believe we can make meaning purely through science is a decidedly unscientific perspective. We all rely on 'transcendental' and non-provable values to guide us through life.

If you could present a 2-3 sentence summary of your worldview and explain why it is objectively true, I would be interested in your reasoning.