I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but I guess it is since it is free thoughts? I have posted this topic on a few boards and it has been a very hot topic. I thought that you guys might enjoy this one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In this thread I am going to point out how I feel about religion. I point out that these are my views and I am not personally attacking anyone else for their beliefs. We are all entitled to our own beliefs and I truley respect everyones religion. Now, my religion is none. I don't believe in God or the devil. I believe in what I can see. I don't feel like I should be labled an athiest for this either, because I think that that is too stong of a word and that it leads to its own religion. I prefer to be simply viewed as a realist. But anyway, this is my view on everything. In the begining of semi intelligent man, just fresh out of the cave man stage of chaos, we became able to communicate through speaking actual words. We then needed a source of law *-poof-* we made religion. It made people somewhat honest and it controlled their animal instincts, somewhat. Throughout time religion changed from a rock being God, to the stars being Gods, and then to a man(Jesus), that really lived, being a God or a son of God depending on your religion. Now, we have no proof that God exist and we have no proof that he doesn't, but being the realist that I am and believing in only what I can see, it makes me tend to think that a man thats up in sky, well he better have a parachute. Alright now to my point. I believe that the Laws of the land have became so much more complex and reliable than religion that the laws are taking, actually taking over religious beliefs and that is why we have the problems in the world we have today. This is not religion vs. religion. This is Democracy vs. the Old Testiment. There will not be a WWIII that ends the world. WWIII will however, be the end religion. You see we have used religion to control people and now law is the stronger of the two, so we don't need religion anymore. from Religion- to Law- to ? I wish I could be around to see whats next. I doubt I will though since religion has only riened for about 10,000 years now. And even after it loses credibility from WWIII it will still have some followers. Not many, but a few will follow it.
coltallen, For the most part, I would have to say that I agree with you. To be quite honest, I am, philosophically speaking, a Materialist. Therefore, I applaud your 'realist' approach. Nevertheless, some comments: The concept of God de facto requires that it cannot be understood through 'proof'. You are making a Category mistake here; proof is a requirement of inductive logic. Any conception of a deity lies 'outside' of the realm of logic, science, et. al., by definition. 'Law vs. Religion': here, you are confusing the intentional methodology behind these two institutions. Religion, in any form, grew out of a need to explain the world that we live in. The idea here is to provide a behavioral example, to promote positive behavior. Law is exactly the opposite. It grew out of the need to organize behavior. As such, it is intrinsically a restrictive methodology. Laws tell us what we cannot do, not what we should do, or what we should try to do. In any case, it's good to know that you are thinking seriously about this topic. Keep it up.
I do not believe what I see. I am a cognitive psychologist and I know how easy it is to deceive the senses. Besides I have experienced several times that my senses were fooled. Mostly "believing is seeing" is more appropriete than "seeing is believing"! Glaucon, i think you are nearly right. Religion is not so much to explain the world, it is to make sense of (or add sense to) it all. Science is to explain. this is why there can be no real religion vs science debate. But I think I do not have to tell you that.. you seem to be well informed. I think it would be much fun to have a bit of (s)wordplay with you. Merlijn
Explain What? Hello all. I would just like to add that science has described much, but explained nothing.
Quaid, welcome to Sciforums. I would like to think otherwise. I think when a scientific theory not only describes, but also correctly predicts, it can be thought of explanatory. What are your views on this? Merlijn
Merlijn: I agree with you completely. There's nothing quite like a good discussion. By the way, based on your comments here and elsewhere, if I had to guess, I would say that you agree with the Phenomenological school of thought. Yes?
Hello Merlijn, and thank you for welcoming me. I realize my statement was short and not 'explained' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What I mean by 'describe' perhaps can be said in the following way: Imagine that you have been transported to an alternate reality totally foreign to you in every way, and the only thing you have are your senses and your mind (of course). You may be able to describe planetary motion, or the way different masses interact with each other, or how electricity works, but you won't be able to explain why any of it occurs that way. Why does gravity work the way it does? Or why do like charges repel or opposite charges attract? I admit that my statement is ambiguous if you don't understand what is the meaning.
I have strayed off from the subject, I am afraid Glaucon, Quaid, You may think of me as a phenomenologist, but there are some 'subtileties'. But a major point is that our ratios do not have 'direct access' to the 'outside world'. Also, information, intentionality and representations are important concepts in my philosophy. However, I am NOT a dualist. I assume the material world exists. And I believe that information is a material phenomenon, in the sense that it stands for patterns existing in matter or energergy. There are some pretty tricky problems that come with this view, but I strongly believe they can be overcome. Still, the basis of all science, to my opinion, is the structuring of perceptions (experimental findings) in a logical way so as to formulate an underlying (explanatory) system. The elements of the system are interdependent and the system must be (ideally, and eventally it will be) 'ubiquous' (I can't finds a better word at the moment). It is the task of logic to make it all coherent and consistent. This all implies that, eventually, misperceptions will be exposed, because they will not fit into the system. Theoretical science, to my opinion, has the goal to explore, not to 'make up'. It sets out to describes the true nature of our comos. Science without believe in absolute truths is a meaningless enterprise. In a related vein - Glaucon, you are completely right: religion lies outside the field of logic and science. And all of logic and science ultimately cannot be proven right. Think about Goedel's Theorem. But let us use Occam's Razor and applaude our enterprise called (theoretical) science, so that we can hope "to know God's Thoughts" (after A. Einstein). Quaid, I hope you will find the answers to your questions. They are there, maybe not all explicit. Quote of the week: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! May 'thy foot never slide' Merlijn P.S. Apologies: this seems to have nothing to do (directly) with the original topic. Should we start a new thread in "general Philosophy" or "religion"?
<i>"It is the task of logic to make it all coherent and consistent."</i> That reads like a religious endeavor. I think I see some faith in your convictions, too.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I've had a difficult time with my religeous beliefs. When I was a kid, I became very involved in church on my own (my parents believed in God, but didn't go to church or talk about religeon very much). I developed a passion and learned everything I could. I feel I became a better person and I loved doing whatever I could for other people because it made them happy, which in turn made me happy. I got baptized when I was in 7th grade. I had a very strong belief in God and I was probably the happiest I've ever been in my life. The sense of peace and contentment I felt was extremely strong. Once I got into high school I got busy with sports, working, dating, etc and didn't go to church quite as much. We also got a new pastor and the tone of the church changed. It used to be a place where everyone was truly interested in helping each other, learning about God, and not judging others. With the change, the church started feeling like a gossip ground, and people seemed to shift from being understanding and caring, to judgmental and selfish. I remember overhearing one lady talking about me one day. My family didn't have much money and I only had one dress, that was a little on the formal side, so I wore pants to church pretty much all of the time. This lady was saying how I was disrespectful and should be more presentable when attending church. I always thought that it was the inside that counted and not what you wore. I was very hurt and I stopped going to church after that. I felt guilty, because I learned that you should turn the other cheek, and not let people influence you negatively with their words, but I just gave up at that point. I kept up with reading the bible on my own, but even that faded after a while. I never did get back into going to church again, and as I've grown older, I've questioned the beliefs that I used to have. I used to believe without question that there was a God, but then I began challenging myself by asking how I can believe in something wholeheartedly, that I can't prove. I also wondered if one affiliation was the right one over the others, and if so...which one was right? I love science and facts, and I just haven't been able to "prove" to myself that God is real. Since I haven't been able to convince myself, I've grown more skeptical over the years. I've thought about going back to church, but I think my fear of not being good enough (that's how I felt when the lady at the church made her comments, and the general tone of the church changed) and my confusion as to my belief in God, have kept me from going back. Kids can be influenced easier than adults and I wonder if I was just more willing to believe in God at that age, or if I'm really missing out on a part of my life that used to make me very happy, that I should get back to. Has anyone else become skeptical like me, after believing with all of your heart at one point in their lives?
Hi Bowser, You're not too far off! Since I am a sceptic but also a hopeless romantic, I have to both feed my hope for and believe in absolute truths, but also base them on sound rational lines of thought. "What has romanticism got to do with it?" You may wonder. Well, IF there is no such thing as an absolute truth and no absolute values, than our existence is utterly meaningless. The love I feel and (used to) receive will be reduced to trivialities; men like Ghandi will turn out to be John Doe's. Why then should I ever worry again if I see unjustice, and why should I ever be in financial need? There are simple ways to overcome these "minor inconveniences", well of course I would be going to prison... but hey, even that wouldn't matter very much. I will not accept such a worldview. And in that sense, it has become a matter of faith. Of course I have my doubts sometimes. My 'faith' sometimes falters. But that is not an issue here, I hope. ===inserted later on... === After reading kcollings' mail, I am afraid it has become an issue. Kcollings, I have been raised as an atheist. Hower, I have grown to doubt atheism, because it ultimately will imply relativism. I am a strongly defy relativistic views, for the reasons metioned above. But it is true: knowledge has the tendency to make one doubt the ideas most precious to us. Peace be with you. Merlijn
Merlijn Well, I don't like to label myself a 'relativist', or any other label for that matter, but I am far from an 'absolutist', and that almost makes you my antithesis (except that we are relatively far apart in our thinking but not absolute opposites Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Precisely. I do think our existence is utterly meaningless. I don't adhere to an absolute right or wrong, so I won't say that how I think is right, but my challenge is creating my own set of values and guidelines and being able to go on creating, living, and overcoming in the face of meaninglessness. I think Nietzsche said it well in the following quote: I am sure that it is more of a paraphrase than a quote, but the general idea is to understand there is no apparant meaning to mankind or the universe and not become hopeless and shattered. Some have proposed that religion is a necessary error for man in order to cope with desiring to know and not being able to know. For the lover of wisdom and truth, what is error or unfounded must be questioned and/or overturned and the search must continue. Does this passion for knowledge simply become another religion (I believe there are answers to all my questions, there must be!)? Perhaps. I don't know how much theoretical discussion we can engage in since it appears you intelligently recognize that there is some level of belief or faith in your worldview and absolute truth, and that you cannot 'prove' it or even 'know' it to be the case. And I will admit that even though I don't believe in an absolute truth or have faith in anything beyond my senses or understanding, I will not claim to know there is not something beyond me (such as a God or Absolute system), simply that everything I have seen and experienced lead me to a more relativistic view of the universe. P.S. I find it interesting to see you quote A. Einstein when one of his more famous theorys is the Theory of Relativity. This theory overturned the common view of Newtonian physics and shed serious doubts on the idea of an absolute frame of reference. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi Quaid, Don't worry. I think I will not hate you for disagreeing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but it does hurt I have sevreal remarks. Albert Einstein himself strongly believed in an absolute truth. Relativity in the sense of his theory of relativity is about space-time, not about truth. In fact he was in conflict with the defenders of Quantum Mechanics. that theory postulated an absolute uncertainty about the state of a system in the future. Albert just could accept this indeterminacy. I do not like Nietsche. I think it is nietsch (for non-dutch readers: niets = nothing, void). Especially that quote gives me the creeps: I have a strange fear of nothingness ('nihifobia' I believe it is called) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! well that is exactly what i meant by: however, I cannot accept the consequences. Also I think the idea of the inexistence of an absolute truth is anti-scientific: how does one seek something that does not exist? Science's goal is to find the truth about howthe universe functions. ut if you believe there is no such truth... "why bother?" is the mildest thing that pops into my mind. besides: "if there is no absolute truth, than that must be an absolute truth." hehe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! may the stars shine on you path. Merlijn
Merlijn, Good point about Einstein. It is true that he did not want to accept the Quantum theories of the times. He said 'I do not believe God would play dice with the universe.' That is the one point of Einstein I don't like. I believe he was too inflexible to the proposition of indeterminancy. I don't think science should shy away from results because they don't fit a predetermined belief system. Although overall I do admire Einstein a great deal. Nietzsche is by far my favorite philosopher. It is true there is much nihilism in his writing, but there is also much spirit and creativity in it. He does attack christianity and other realms of thought to knock them down, but simply to clear the way for fresh thoughts and perspectives. Titles such as 'Twilight of the Idols (Nietzsche's word for Ideals)' is followed by 'Daybreak'. Also his book 'Human, all too Human' is subtitled 'A Book for Free Spirits'. Here is where I disagree. I do not believe that science has a goal. To me science is the idea of exploring, discovering, experimenting, and understanding without judgement or preconceived notions, and regardless of the results. I agree that I am trying to understand how the universe functions and how life functions in the universe, and that if what you mean by 'absolute truth' is simply understanding how existence operates, without expecting it to lack chaos or randomness because they don't fit the model you might like to see, or rejecting irrationality simply because rationality is preferred, then I might be willing to accept the 'absolute truth' label. But I don't think that is what you mean. Please do correct me on anything I am mistaken about as far as your view goes. I do not mean to put words in your mouth. I think we both have enough words in our mouths already Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! By the way, perhaps you could answer a few simply questions I have. Please excuse my ignorance, but could you enlighten me as to where the Netherlands are exactly? (I truly am curious. I have thought about moving to the Norway/Sweden/Finland area, and looked at Denmark also.) Secondly, if there is a philosopher that you feel closest to, who would it be? I mean to say, based on your views, either who had the most influence on you, or who would you recommend I read to learn more about your perspective? Mine undoubtedly is Nietzsche (incase you haven't guessed Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
the Netherlands... well there is this very small county (just a bit smaller than the state of South carolina) in western Europe. It is not too far awy from Denmark. Neighbouring countries: germany to the East, Belgium to the South, and (with a sea in between) England to the west. Philosophers... well there is one who has influenced my thinking a lot: C.W. Rietdijk. But he is Dutch. He had most of his work (1969-1994) translated to Enlish in a book called "The Scientifization of Culture". Needless to say I do not agree with what all he has to say. Especially his new works, I am not all too fond of. But here is a hyperlink to his website, with quite some work translated:http://www.xs4all.nl/~bcb/rietdijk1.html Just pick out the English links from the main page. Heee, maybe I can check if I have translated my "Evil is as objective...." the same way he did. no can't find. Still I wonder. what do you think science is doing: exploring or defining? I cannot haelp being baffled by intelligent people, like you, who do not believe in absolute truth. maybe I am too narrowminded. But here's why: imagine science is a mapmaker. Does the continent of which she is making a map exist? I believe it does. I cannot imagine that it does not. I cannot imagine how it would be possible that the constants in physics are not actually there, but we made them up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is the same with consciousness. Some believ that it doesn't exist. That the experience of self-awareness is only a delusion... WHAT THEN IS HAVING THE DELUSION??? Merlijn
Modern law vs religion (reply to coltallen) You make a very good point. I have never really looked at this issue from that perspective before. Religion, in a sense, is really a type of government in itself. It merely uses a different method to govern human behavior than does fair, non-oppressive methods of goverment. Most religions that I am aware of teach, as a principle, love and peace. That, I think, stands as a sharp contrast from the intolerance that almost always to some extent arises from the fact that the vehicle for such teachings is revealed, infallible "truths". The natural assumption then must be that everyone outside ones faith is wrong. One can not really successfully divorce hatred from intolerance. Therefore religion, in most cases, represents an innate contridiction that leaves an ambigious gap into how one tranlates ones faith(alone or as a group). It in effect transforms religion in a mirror which reflects ones own rationalization to act either with violance or love. It can empower one to commit evil with divine impunity or it can empower one to love and forgive. And by the way, if you are not familiar with the "MEME" theory of how religion is spread, you may want to research it. Any search engine will quickly direct you to relevant sites concerning this.http://www.mwillett.dabsol.co.uk/atheism/atheism.htm
Hi Machaon, Well, even though I am opinionated and quite confident about my ideas, I can only hope to have 'access' to the world of absolute truths, to have perect knowledge. Realising this, I have to be tolerant. I am still learning. And I guess I will always remain a student. One of my great teachers is Ghandi. He was a religious person, but hatred and intolerance are not words associated with his teachings. Given the basic principles of most religions (as stated above), I think one should only trust religious persons who live by those principles. On Memes Religion is a strong meme. Paranoia is a strong meme. Atheism and relativism are also very strong memes. I already knew mister Dawkins has a tendency to jump to conclusions.. but now I am really disappointed. Another proof that intelligence does not guarentee insight. I could very easily state: "I am against relativism bacause it teaches usto be satisfied with not thinking about the world." I say relativism, because that meme holds that eventually there is no truth. If that is the case one has nothing to worry about any more. In extremes: A religious person will ignore his critics becasue demons speak through them only to distract him from the devine Word of God (or something like that). A relativist will ignore his critics, because everybody is right and nobody is right: "Critics have no authority over my truths, and I have none over theirs." (or something like that) Merlijn
