Replacing/Removing God/Religion

[cottage]

Maybe you can't believe it, because he didn't actually say that.

Er, excuse me! I was responding to the supposed 'void' that the hypothetical absence of religion would create.

"I don't know what or who would fill that void. The fact that there would even be a void says something."

My response was that good-intentioned people are good intentioned, notwithstanding any religious beliefs.

 

[Storm]

cottage, see post #116.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Knowing how it happens (the mechanism) is not the same as knowing why it happens naturally, which is where the question of God comes in.

I agree that inducing some effect one way in the lab doesn't necessarily mean that the effect can't be induced some other way, but I'm not sure why "the question of God" necessarily comes into it.

I mean, say that the "God helmet" people are right and the sorts of effects you're describing can be literally induced with magnetic fields. Obviously, someone who isn't wearing a "God helmet" when they have their experience couldn't point to it as a cause, but I really don't see how this points to "God" unless your "God" is just a magnetic field of strength ___ gauss at a frequency of ____ kHz (or whatever).

Maybe we're acheiving communion with a divine being, and maybe that being is a neurological phantom. I don't see science answering that question in the near future. I DO see them figuring out the physical reality and learning to induce it.

But my point is that any experience that is induced by humans would be, by definition, not "acheiving communion with a divine being", no?

No, not at ALL! I'm saying I think it will overcome the hurdle of incommunicability (if that's even a word, lol).

The ineffable nature of these experiences is, imo, HUGELY detrimental to both sides of the argument. The vast majority of the faithful have to rely on countless generations of interpretation of vague poetry, and the irreligious are so far removed from mysticism that they mistake it for delusion.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I think assuming that it isn't delusion puts the cart before the horse. Mystical experiences are either representations of something real (i.e. not something just in a person's own head) or not. If they are real, they're not delusions; if they're not real, they are.

The only other possibility I can think of would be that they're fraudulent, but I think this is contradicted by the fact that most of the people who experience them seem sincere.

I'm hopeful that such a technological breakthrough will spark new theologies, assist established religions in finding common ground, and let even the unbelievers understand WHY people like myself believe as we do. Finding a physical mechanism (as previously distinguished from cause) is essential to that.

Enh. I can only see it "sparking new theologies" in the same sense that ritual use of hallucinogens does. And I think it would be approached in roughly the same way: the majority of society would consider the "physical mechanism" to be the actual cause, and only a small number of religious adherents would consider the thing to have divine significance.

You have a point, and yet, that depends on how one defines "community." It doesn't have to be the whole world, it can just be a nuclear family. ETA Depends on the ritual in question.

Even then, I disagree. For instance, it certainly doesn't help my sense of teogetherness at dinners with my in-laws when everyone else crosses themselves and bows their head for grace.

As I thought, very different definitions. Now that we've made ourselves clear, do you still object to my point?

Your point that tribalism is negative? In general, yes, though I think there can be isolated instances when it's positive.

By transforming them.

But religions already "transform" all the time. The thing is, though, that there's always a remnant (or more often a majority) that stays behind without being "transformed".

 

[cottage]

I can't speak for Quag, of course, but I see his point.

Of course it's not that good people would be stripped of their good intentions. However, many of them would be stripped of the means to put those intentions into action. For instance, my church recently opened a day shelter for the homeless, something *I* could probably never do.

If there was no religions then there would be no churches to open day centres; in fact there would be no churches!

Many kind hearted people direct their civil responsibilities and their care for their fellows through the church organisations, but were there no churches it would take a very cynical person to say there would exist no other charitable organisations.

 

[Storm]

I agree that inducing some effect one way in the lab doesn't necessarily mean that the effect can't be induced some other way, but I'm not sure why "the question of God" necessarily comes into it.

With respect Penguin, that's because you've never had one. Which is kinda my whole point.

But my point is that any experience that is induced by humans would be, by definition, not "acheiving communion with a divine being", no?

No, not at all. Your assumption only works in conjunction with the assumption that such experiences are initiated by God rather than ourselves. That's not necessary.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I think assuming that it isn't delusion puts the cart before the horse. Mystical experiences are either representations of something real (i.e. not something just in a person's own head) or not. If they are real, they're not delusions; if they're not real, they are.

No, if they're not real, they're mistakes. It's not the same thing. I really don't want to go over this ground again, though.

Enh. I can only see it "sparking new theologies" in the same sense that ritual use of hallucinogens does. And I think it would be approached in roughly the same way: the majority of society would consider the "physical mechanism" to be the actual cause, and only a small number of religious adherents would consider the thing to have divine significance.

Again, you haven't had one.

Even then, I disagree. For instance, it certainly doesn't help my sense of teogetherness at dinners with my in-laws when everyone else crosses themselves and bows their head for grace.

I think you're missing my point. Ritual fulfills psychological needs that have little to do with communal bonds. For instance graduation is a (poor, imo) attempt to replace various rituals for inducting children into adult society.

Your point that tribalism is negative? In general, yes, though I think there can be isolated instances when it's positive.

No, my point that tribalism - by my understanding - needs to be overcome.

 

[lockyfan]

The bible refers to religions end. in Revelation. You cant replace God but religion is something Jehovah wants gone.

 

[Storm]

Penguin, I hope I haven't offended you. :sorry1:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin, I hope I haven't offended you. :sorry1:

Don't worry - you haven't. I realize that we have different perspectives on this issue.

 

[Storm]

Glad to hear it.

 

[Thief]

The bible refers to religions end. in Revelation. You cant replace God but religion is something Jehovah wants gone.

I'm not so sure about that.
Some people are waiting for a Jewish king upon a Jewish throne.
Some people are sure the kingdom of God will descend from heaven, and it will all be Jewish.

Of course, every religion anticipates the same scenario.

 

[lockyfan]

I'm not so sure about that.
Some people are waiting for a Jewish king upon a Jewish throne.
Some people are sure the kingdom of God will descend from heaven, and it will all be Jewish.

Of course, every religion anticipates the same scenario.

The King is upon his throne now. He is waiting patiently to rid the world of satan and the unrighteous.

Revelation also talks at the end of Gods Kingdom being upon the earth, but the destruction of religion is first.

Revelation 18:5-8
For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind. Render to her even as she herself rendered, and do to her twice as much, yes, twice the number of the things she did; in the cup in which she put a mixture put twice as much of the mixture for her. To the extent that she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury, to that extent give her torment and mourning. For in her heart she keeps saying, ‘I sit a queen, and I am no widow, and I shall never see mourning.’ That is why in one day her plagues will come, death and mourning and famine, and she will be completely burned with fire, because Jehovah God, who judged her, is strong.

 

[Thief]

The King is upon his throne now. He is waiting patiently to rid the world of satan and the unrighteous.

Revelation also talks at the end of Gods Kingdom being upon the earth, but the destruction of religion is first.

Revelation 18:5-8
For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind. Render to her even as she herself rendered, and do to her twice as much, yes, twice the number of the things she did; in the cup in which she put a mixture put twice as much of the mixture for her. To the extent that she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury, to that extent give her torment and mourning. For in her heart she keeps saying, ‘I sit a queen, and I am no widow, and I shall never see mourning.’ That is why in one day her plagues will come, death and mourning and famine, and she will be completely burned with fire, because Jehovah God, who judged her, is strong.

Are you not attempting to remove religion with a religious quote?

How about....
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

With this one cornerstone...all prophets are the same.
No prophet stands well without it.

This one doctrine could take down all religion...unite all men.
There is only one God.
There should be only one faith.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Is religion and/or god something that could be removed from human society? If so, could they simply be removed, or would they need to be replaced with something else? If so, what thing(s) could serve as adequate replacement(s) for religion and/or god? Essentially, if there are components of god/religion which fill a necessary role for people in general, what are these components, and what else shares them?

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to look at the societies that have removed gods and other superstitions for their societies.

The most secular of societies are, as you may know, also the most advanced and less inclined to have problems like violence, crime, stds and so on. A perfect example of this is of course the Scandinavian nations, whom with good education become advanced societies without any real poverty or crime, any of it ironically come from, generally, religious folks like muslims (in this case) or Christians in American societies.

So, lets take Scandinavia as the prime, what do they have instead? Well, nothing. They keep any tradition they like, such as Christmas, a ancient pagan tradition taken and converted by the early Christians, they also go to Church during specific holidays, such as end of schools, yet they are the most atheistic people on the planet.

Basically, they live a good life working on making the world a better place for everyone with good education, healthcare and safety, whiles keeping any unharmful tradition of religions or old supersition and enjoy life.

 

[Thief]

Apparently an age old discussion is not known to the current participants.

There are four basic means by which to motivate your fellowman.

Placing God first...religion.
Stand behind a pulpit and say to your fellowman....'God wants you to...'

Second...politics.
Standing behind a podium, say to your fellowman...'I have the plan...it's good for me...it's good for you.'

Third...the military. Become the leader of a militia, install martial law.
If there is resistance...remove it.

Last.... but not least....money. Say to your fellowman...
'There's money in it for me...there's a paycheck in it for you...
the time clock is over there...'


Decades ago, first one man, and years later another...did express this notion, as we digressed in casual discourse.
Neither one spoke the source, but the manner of speech, and the similarity indicated a common source....perhaps a book, or a teacher.

With this in mind...removing religion leaves you with which preference?

 

[Gabethewiking]

Apparently an age old discussion is not known to the current participants.

There are four basic means by which to motivate your fellowman.

Placing God first...religion.
Stand behind a pulpit and say to your fellowman....'God wants you to...'

Second...politics.
Standing behind a podium, say to your fellowman...'I have the plan...it's good for me...it's good for you.'

Third...the military. Become the leader of a militia, install martial law.
If there is resistance...remove it.

Last.... but not least....money. Say to your fellowman...
'There's money in it for me...there's a paycheck in it for you...
the time clock is over there...'


Decades ago, first one man, and years later another...did express this notion, as we digressed in casual discourse.
Neither one spoke the source, but the manner of speech, and the similarity indicated a common source....perhaps a book, or a teacher.

With this in mind...removing religion leaves you with which preference?

You just decided that these are the "only" options? Interesting, especially for us as it says alot about You.

What about doing what is best for the society as good as you can with the knowledge you have?

 

[Thief]

You just decided that these are the "only" options? Interesting, especially for us as it says alot about You.

What about doing what is best for the society as good as you can with the knowledge you have?

The list I posted has been around for a long time.
Care to add to it?

 

[Gabethewiking]

The list I posted has been around for a long time.
Care to add to it?

I thought I just did, and a about a hundred million other people most likely pointed this out earlier, but alas, sure.

You do realize you got some basic alternatives, such as Doing what is Good for your Fellow man, this is not related to money, gods, military or politics, so I must have missed something, but I will not ignore and pretend I am not ignorant, so please enlighten me about what I missed.

 

[Thief]

I thought I just did, and a about a hundred million other people most likely pointed this out earlier, but alas, sure.

You do realize you got some basic alternatives, such as Doing what is Good for your Fellow man, this is not related to money, gods, military or politics, so I must have missed something, but I will not ignore and pretend I am not ignorant, so please enlighten me about what I missed.

The motivation you mention falls to the category of politics.
You have the 'plan'...it's good for you...it's good for me...

 

[Gabethewiking]

The motivation you mention falls to the category of politics.
You have the 'plan'...it's good for you...it's good for me...

I help people without any plan, I just think its "right" to do so, a subjective choice based on nothing more then that I feel its good.

Could you explain why this choice is not "valid" to you?

 

[Thief]

I help people without any plan, I just think its "right" to do so, a subjective choice based on nothing more then that I feel its good.

Could you explain why this choice is not "valid" to you?

People often do things because they feel like it.
But of course you also thought about it.
And because you 'chose' to do the 'right', and the recipients did benefit....
You would be deemed...'rational', 'social', 'morally upright', a 'philanthropist'.

Planning doesn't mean you had to write it done first.

But if you had done so...the scheme of things might have gone better,
and even more people would have benefited from your benevolence.

Now if you were driven purely by your feelings....would you not be more an animal?
Or do you prefer Dr.Jekyll / Mr. Hyde?