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

[Etritonakin]

There is the fact that all of human history thus far -and things yet to happen -were written beforehand -but the study requires more time and effort than most (non-believers especially) are willing to expend.

Purposefully so, actually -as with other aspects of the word of God.....

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

 

[psychoslice]

*shrugs*

I'm sticking with the concept of free will for purposes of utility if nothing else.

Yes, but I think a big load is taken off when we realize that we have no free will, so we may as well give in and do what we want, because whatever we do is from the program and conditioning and genetics.

 

[Riverwolf]

"The arts" makes no claims about objective reality that can be subject to investigation. The claim that the earth is flat is a claim that can, and should, be investigated, be it a claim on religious grounds or otherwise. There is no "claim" being made by the Mona Lisa that can be investigated for truth value. Religions can and do make such claims, and these claims deserve to be investigated.

Yes. But making such claims is not an inherent aspect to religion. Plenty of "the arts" do make such claims, as well, most insideously in the form of propaganda.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

@ImmortalFlame, I'm going to have to decline having a drawn out conversation with you for various reasons. It seems to me you have your mind made up about the way thing are, and are more interested in arguing or being contrarian than understanding other perspectives. My only recommendation is that you work on broadening your understanding of religions. Many of the questions you've asked will likely be resolved by doing that, and you'll also better understand the things I've been getting at.

And I can only suggest you attempt engaging your reason more often and broadening your understanding of religion's fundamental logical problems as well as the arguments against them. I am a very open-minded person who has considered a great variety of views, and in spite of what you make think I have no interest in being contrarian. I have made it very clear, here and elsewhere, that my aim in discussing religion is an attempt to reach common understanding.

The fact of the matter is that your arguments do not stand on firm ground and fail to convince me to any reasonable degree, and you do not have the ability to answer my very simple questions and challenges. Of course, you are under no obligation or requirement to convince me, but please do not insult my intelligence by claiming that the reason you've stopped trying is because I'm "too narrow-minded" and need to "broaden my horizons". That is nothing but an excuse, and one that directly casts me in a bad light in order to avoid you having to justify your positions in any meaningful way. If you lack the ability to defend your beliefs, then perhaps you should wonder why you have them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. But making such claims is not an inherent aspect to religion.

I suppose that depends on what we are defining religion as, but debates about definitions on these forums tend to end up... Poorly, to say the least, so we'll try not to get into that.

To me, a religion that makes no objective claims about reality doesn't really fit the definition of religion, as religions are necessarily defined by tenets and beliefs (i.e: the acceptance of a truth claim).

Plenty of "the arts" do make such claims, as well, most insideously in the form of propaganda.

People can make claims using art as a medium, but the medium in and of itself cannot be said to be making, as you put it, inherent claims. Religion, by contrast, necessitates claims by definition - at least, by the definition I use. Do you know of any religions which are not fundamentally predicated on truth claims?

 

[Riverwolf]

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

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?

Religious thought provided the groundwork for all those things to exist.

Without European Christian alchemists trying to get closer to God, modern chemistry might not exist. Islam refined ALgebra, invented trigonometry to make it easier for Muslims abroad to know where to face in daily prayers, and made significant advancements in astronomy such that we still use many of their names for certain stars. The number "zero" has its roots in Buddhism with "nirvana", which translates to "blowing out", as in a candle, and basically means "nothingness"; a concept that didn't seem to exist beforehand.

That's just the three major world religions. What more goes unrecorded from what the thousands of regional folk traditions contributed to the modern world, for better or worse, or is not remembered from our own broken and fragmented traditions?

For the record, by the way, agriculture was invented several thousand years ago, presumably in cultures heavily steeped in their own religious traditions, and they certainly did not have the modern scientific method, so what they created cannot be called a benefit "from science". Medicine is far older than that, and likewise applies. Modern technology and sensibility has certainly refined these technologies, but that's different.

As for whether any of the listed things are "benefits", that depends on how one chooses to look at matters. Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I do fully believe that the modern world is overall "better", at least as far as my own standard of living could probably allow, compared to times before. I certainly don't want to live in a world where video games don't exist.

Those things you listed certainly able to make overpopulation easier, which in turn produces more waste that piles up, and allows for rapid evolution of bacterias and viruses that makes it harder for our own immune systems to fight disease off. Not to mention the lack of adequate resources and energy to sustain the world due to the current world's dependence on a previously non-existent beaurocracy.

Even in the question of whether they've "improved happiness", that also depends on how happiness is defined. Near as I can tell, anxiety and depression are EPIDEMIC in the US right now, partially thanks to all the cyberbullying that inevitably comes with social media. Hardly what I'd call a "happy" society.

These were all caused by solutions to "unhappiness" problems, so what assurance do I have that any new solutions to these problems won't just cause more unforseen problems and make us all coddled and unhappy again?

My point to this devil-advocacy is to point out that you're argument is very biased as well: it's a bias of familiarity. It's impossible for an individual or small group to be even decently unbiased in opinion, judgement, and worldview. THAT is probably the MOST IMPORTANT benefic that the scientific method has given us which nothing else can: the ability for our collective knowledge to be as unbiased as possible. All those toys you mentioned are just happy side-effects of that.

 

[Riverwolf]

People can make claims using art as a medium, but the medium in and of itself cannot be said to be making, as you put it, inherent claims. Religion, by contrast, necessitates claims by definition - at least, by the definition I use. Do you know of any religions which are not fundamentally predicated on truth claims?

Yes. My own. And pretty much every polytheist religion and indigenous tradition I can think of. Though there are exceptions, we generally don't even deal much in the way of "truth claims" about our own Gods, let alone the physical world. Are Woden and Oðinn the same God or different Gods? What of the matter of Frigg and Freyja? Is the Nerthus spoken of in Tacitus the unnamed spouse of Njorð, father of Freyr and Freyja? Are Gods, or wights in general, literal beings or archetypal metaphors? Who knows, who cares. Just don't drop the Meade.

Otherwise, going by your definition, there's only four religions, and there have only ever been four in recorded history: Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism (and even that last one is a bit iffy, since the Buddha actively encouraged his students to question his teachings and discard anything that didn't hold up). It would also mean that practitioners of Religio Romana would have to come up with a new name. (EDIT: ...okay, and maybe whatever Pharaoh Akhenaten tried unsucessfully to implement, but I know very little about that matter.)

 

[Thief]

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?

so stand still and do nothing.

 

[Thief]

Religious thought provided the groundwork for all those things to exist.

Without European Christian alchemists trying to get closer to God, modern chemistry might not exist. Islam refined ALgebra, invented trigonometry to make it easier for Muslims abroad to know where to face in daily prayers, and made significant advancements in astronomy such that we still use many of their names for certain stars. The number "zero" has its roots in Buddhism with "nirvana", which translates to "blowing out", as in a candle, and basically means "nothingness"; a concept that didn't seem to exist beforehand.

That's just the three major world religions. What more goes unrecorded from what the thousands of regional folk traditions contributed to the modern world, for better or worse, or is not remembered from our own broken and fragmented traditions?

For the record, by the way, agriculture was invented several thousand years ago, presumably in cultures heavily steeped in their own religious traditions, and they certainly did not have the modern scientific method, so what they created cannot be called a benefit "from science". Medicine is far older than that, and likewise applies. Modern technology and sensibility has certainly refined these technologies, but that's different.

As for whether any of the listed things are "benefits", that depends on how one chooses to look at matters. Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I do fully believe that the modern world is overall "better", at least as far as my own standard of living could probably allow, compared to times before. I certainly don't want to live in a world where video games don't exist.

Those things you listed certainly able to make overpopulation easier, which in turn produces more waste that piles up, and allows for rapid evolution of bacterias and viruses that makes it harder for our own immune systems to fight disease off. Not to mention the lack of adequate resources and energy to sustain the world due to the current world's dependence on a previously non-existent beaurocracy.

Even in the question of whether they've "improved happiness", that also depends on how happiness is defined. Near as I can tell, anxiety and depression are EPIDEMIC in the US right now, partially thanks to all the cyberbullying that inevitably comes with social media. Hardly what I'd call a "happy" society.

These were all caused by solutions to "unhappiness" problems, so what assurance do I have that any new solutions to these problems won't just cause more unforseen problems and make us all coddled and unhappy again?

My point to this devil-advocacy is to point out that you're argument is very biased as well: it's a bias of familiarity. It's impossible for an individual or small group to be even decently unbiased in opinion, judgement, and worldview. THAT is probably the MOST IMPORTANT benefic that the scientific method has given us which nothing else can: the ability for our collective knowledge to be as unbiased as possible. All those toys you mentioned are just happy side-effects of that.

so you would agree.....
the world of Man is on the road to extinction

this life as we know it will come crashing down all around us....
as we play our video games.....

I cannot agree it is impossible for one individual to have an unbiased opinion.
the world view should be....
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Thief]

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.

all these postings you have made...and at last your confession....

you believe in God....and you are unreasonable about it.

and then you go about refusing anyone's discussion of reason....

 

[Theunis]

LOL

You had better throw that ancient aliens garbage in a can where it belongs. It factually is not credible.

\
O well try this documentary on for size.

 

[psychoslice]

If there was such a religion that was true beyond doubt, everyone would be in that religion, but it aren't so, and hence so many religions.

 

[Theunis]

If there was such a religion that was true beyond doubt, everyone would be in that religion, but it aren't so, and hence so many religions.

With so may cultures there will never be any religion beyond doubt. The only thread through all religions and non-religions to make them compatible is the Golden Rule. It already appears in various forms in something like 17 ways of life.
On the about.com, Atheist Forum a woman, she was an atheist, told me that its precepts were taught to her by her mother. But wow it appears to be the most difficult way to follow because many people are caught up in their egos, preconceived ideas and teachings based on ignorance.

 

[psychoslice]

With so may cultures there will never be any religion beyond doubt. The only thread through all religions and non-religions to make them compatible is the Golden Rule. It already appears in something like 17 ways of life. On the about.com, Atheist Forum a woman, she was an atheist, told me that its precepts were taught to her by her mother. But wow it appears to be the most difficult way to follow because many people are caught up in in their egos, preconceived ideas and teachings based on ignorance.

Yes religion is nothing more than an ego trip, no matter how beautiful it sounds to the one who believes in it, but why does one need a religion if one is intelligent and knows right from wrong ?.

 

[Theunis]

Yes religion is nothing more than an ego trip, no matter how beautiful it sounds to the one who believes in it, but why does one need a religion if one is intelligent and knows right from wrong ?.

People have many needs and anchor points in life. It is a psychological need caused by their life experiences. In the past I walked far too many minds and some of their pain became unbearable until one day I learned that the sudden pain I felt was not my pain but my mother's and I then learned who they are and who am I.

 

[Theunis]

LOL

You had better throw that ancient aliens garbage in a can where it belongs. It factually is not credible.

So here is the Russian Documentary I spoke of. Enjoy

 

[1AOA1]

Agreed, they are the benefits of science that vastly outweigh the benefits of religion.


I hear the sound of goalpost moving. The fact that many of these things were invented by religious people is utterly and completely irrelevant - they were not a RESULT of their religious beliefs, they were a result of scientific inquiry.

There are things not presented by materialism but yet is a part of its work. To use an analogy, materialism will say,

"We gave you five dollars yesterday."

But will not say,

"We stole 1000 dollars from you yesterday."
"We gave you five dollars today."

Those things taken from humanity by materialism through the fall are also included. Also, theists can perform agricultural tasks provided that the purpose for doing so is theistic. So its not a matter of simply listing agriculture in materialism but also listing the purpose for which it is done, which is also left out.

More moving of goalposts. I was asked to give examples of tangible benefits of science, and that's what I did. I never said electricity "provides a basis for values, meaning, identity, community or purpose in life". Those things can handily be divided up between any number of the other things I listed in science including psychology, sociology and biology.

A group of bank robbers could be united and show kindness to each other by helping to carry the loot. Their common venture provides meaning and purpose in their life and the values they hold may help them work together. It just so happens that those things can usually be extracted from any group but when materialism presents theism they may present only those things. Even in the mainstream "scientific community" you can list the values, meaning, identity, community, tolerance and loyalty within it, and leave out everything else. The same for a group of architects.

But that belief system needn't require a belief in outright falsehoods or unfalsifiable or supernatural claims.


I agree, though I don't see why science couldn't provide a meaning for your life. For many people (including obviously the many millions of the earth's scientists) it clearly does provide meaning.


To what extent? Does that mean we HAVE to rely on myth? Does that mean we have to interpret myth as fact?

What's true in one practice or trade becomes mythical when applied in another another trade, provided that they are divergent enough. A mechanic applying the texts of a dog handler will find those texts mythical. Then, he may say that the texts are only relied upon to provide meaning and tolerance in people's lives.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religious thought provided the groundwork for all those things to exist.

Without European Christian alchemists trying to get closer to God, modern chemistry might not exist. Islam refined ALgebra, invented trigonometry to make it easier for Muslims abroad to know where to face in daily prayers, and made significant advancements in astronomy such that we still use many of their names for certain stars. The number "zero" has its roots in Buddhism with "nirvana", which translates to "blowing out", as in a candle, and basically means "nothingness"; a concept that didn't seem to exist beforehand.

But can you honestly state that these were necessarily the result of the religious belief, or that these were simply developments that were made by religious communities. You can say that chemistry was created in an attempt to "get closer to God", but that doesn't change the method actually used to develop chemistry, and it certainly doesn't mean religion was absolutely required for that process to have occurred. The fact is that none of these things came from religious teachings, but were developed independently of religion - perhaps for religious motivations, sure, but not as a direct result of the religion itself.

I have no doubt that countless scientific breakthroughs throughout history were made by religious people, but you must remember that they were living in a period in which religious beliefs were so prevalent that not to accept them could well mean being socially outcast or even killed. It was merely taken as read that some form of God (or power) was in control, and all efforts to understand the world were consequently an attempt to understand "their work". But that's irrelevant when you actually look at the methods used to reach these conclusions and make these breakthroughs, and the method is precisely what science is.

That's just the three major world religions. What more goes unrecorded from what the thousands of regional folk traditions contributed to the modern world, for better or worse, or is not remembered from our own broken and fragmented traditions?

We have them to thank for many national holidays in a variety of countries, for example.

For the record, by the way, agriculture was invented several thousand years ago, presumably in cultures heavily steeped in their own religious traditions, and they certainly did not have the modern scientific method, so what they created cannot be called a benefit "from science". Medicine is far older than that, and likewise applies. Modern technology and sensibility has certainly refined these technologies, but that's different.

They were examples of things that science has benefited and given us that could not have been improved upon by other means. Science most certainly benefited and improved agriculture and medicine, such that modern agriculture and medicine simply would not exist without the intervention of science.

As for whether any of the listed things are "benefits", that depends on how one chooses to look at matters. Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I do fully believe that the modern world is overall "better", at least as far as my own standard of living could probably allow, compared to times before. I certainly don't want to live in a world where video games don't exist.

Agreed!

Those things you listed certainly able to make overpopulation easier,

It also provides ways in which we can more easily cope with or prevent overpopulation.

(Incidentally, I suggest you - and anyone else reading this - go and watch the brilliant lecture "Don't Panic - the Facts About Population" by Hans Rosling. It's not entirely relevant, but it's damn interesting and damn entertaining to boot: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/ )

which in turn produces more waste that piles up,

As well as better ways of disposing of or even re-using that waste.

and allows for rapid evolution of bacterias and viruses that makes it harder for our own immune systems to fight disease off.

And compensates for this by providing modern medicine, which has more than doubled the average life expectancy and drastically reduced infant mortality rates worldwide.

Not to mention the lack of adequate resources and energy to sustain the world due to the current world's dependence on a previously non-existent beaurocracy.

But, again, where does the solution to these problems lie?

Even in the question of whether they've "improved happiness", that also depends on how happiness is defined. Near as I can tell, anxiety and depression are EPIDEMIC in the US right now, partially thanks to all the cyberbullying that inevitably comes with social media. Hardly what I'd call a "happy" society.

Can you demonstrate that social media causes more unhappiness than happiness? Can you demonstrate that anxiety and depression rates are higher than they were before social media existed?

These were all caused by solutions to "unhappiness" problems, so what assurance do I have that any new solutions to these problems won't just cause more unforseen problems and make us all coddled and unhappy again?

My point to this devil-advocacy is to point out that you're argument is very biased as well: it's a bias of familiarity. It's impossible for an individual or small group to be even decently unbiased in opinion, judgement, and worldview. THAT is probably the MOST IMPORTANT benefic that the scientific method has given us which nothing else can: the ability for our collective knowledge to be as unbiased as possible. All those toys you mentioned are just happy side-effects of that.

I'm fairly certain I am being as objective as I can about this, and unless you can demonstrate some bias that I am showing, I'm not sure you can accuse me of such. I am fully aware of the religious contributions to science, and I am also fully aware of the negative consequences of scientific development - I just don't think these things in any way detract from my main argument, being that science has done far more good in a multitude of areas than religion ever has (or arguably ever could).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. My own. And pretty much every polytheist religion and indigenous tradition I can think of.

So you make no claims about the existence of any kind of Gods? Are you distinguishing "indigenous tradition" from religion?

Though there are exceptions, we generally don't even deal much in the way of "truth claims" about our own Gods, let alone the physical world.

But surely you claim your Gods existence, don't you?

Are Woden and Oðinn the same God or different Gods? What of the matter of Frigg and Freyja? Is the Nerthus spoken of in Tacitus the unnamed spouse of Njorð, father of Freyr and Freyja? Are Gods, or wights in general, literal beings or archetypal metaphors? Who knows, who cares. Just don't drop the Meade.

So your religion simply examines labels?

Otherwise, going by your definition, there's only four religions, and there have only ever been four in recorded history: Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism (and even that last one is a bit iffy, since the Buddha actively encouraged his students to question his teachings and discard anything that didn't hold up).

Are you claiming Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, Rastafarianism and Paganism don't make any objective claims?

Also, for the record, many religions tell their followers to exercise rationality (or at least do not consider themselves exempt from it) - but that doesn't change the fact that they still make claims.

 

[jonathan180iq]

In Christianity the majority are Catholics, But I'm a Protestant. And not only that but Non-Denominational. The majority argument means less than nothing, honestly. And anecdotes are not the basis of Theism mate, I don't even know where you got that idea from but yeah, no.

Did you quote the wrong person here? I didn't say any of the stuff you seem to be implying or rebutting...