Is religion a contrivance?

[yellowsubmarine]

ever since i had turned agnostic i felt that religion was a method in which mankind sought to meet the areas of their needs which could not be satisfied; is religion the ultimate result of metaphysical contemplations? A human invention trying to explain away the unknown? or is it a genuine doctrine, monitored by silent God (s)? I am interested in hearing why you guys have faith in your respective religions...

[sHaRp12]

Are you asking us? Or do you just want our opinions on religion?

I suggest you click this link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1573920673/ref=sib_dp_top_ex/102-8019168-8596121?ie=UTF8&p=S00L#reader-link) and read the first page of the book. What the author has to say is very enlightening on the subject of which youre looking for opinions.

[Lilac Cotton]

Well....I imagine that you are agnostic because you just don't have enough proof yet because obviously, if you had proof, you'd believe. Obviously.

That is sp? Pasqual's Wager in a nutshell....or at least, a take on it. And you're a gambler it seems who doesn't mind the odds. :(

But maybe this might help your discussion a bit...it is mine but copied from another site I used to participate on here:

http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showthread.php?t=2328

There are many ways of framing an argument semantically and this one is difficult. I can only offer that religion can comment on science but science has a hard time commenting on religion. You state a strong point that certainty cannot be based on uncertainty but more importantly you state that science is learned as opposed to religion (which I imagine you are identifying as inspired or received).

I personally believe that religion as a belief system is a kind of theory. Just like all theories it must be continually reinforced with proofs and any one signifcant failure will result in the extinction of that theory. Take the Big Bang Theory. The great thing about the Big Bang is that it will likely never be disproved. Doesn't mean it is true and conversely, the existence of a creator and the created does not negate it any more than those two things negate something like evolution. The theory of a creator (if you will and I don't personally regard it as 'theory' but some might prefer to reckon with it as such) is the same as a theory of creation or the Big Bang. No witnesses except for the creator itself and the creator's admission of such via revelation.

In a sense, science is a kind of language associated with specific technologies which have developed in response to human desire, need and sometimes by plain accident. If you were approaching this as someone who had studied Kant and the philosophies of those times you might argue about the 'revealed will of God' i.e. the proof in the pudding. If you are however in possession of this thing called 'faith' you might decide to identify something as existing a priori via the creator and hence, mankind simply discovering a way of making use of something, creating a language (or mathematics) for it to be disseminated but would in the end assign human knowledge as based on natural phenomenon of secondary or even as deficient in terms of it reflecting the actual nature of things (which are created in perfection but humans can only approximate their description or existence). This branch of affairs relates to what is called modern linguistics and the use of "signs" to represent tautologies or realities above human expression and communication. My favorite reflection of a divine order is the periodic table and to understand that it is necessary to understand a bit of its history. The actual arrangement of elements exists prior to human description and if this wasn't the case, the table itself would not have been developed or related. The beauty of it exists, in other words, before description and the description of it is the best reflection of its reality. The reason the periodic table is an ideal subject to relate is because it does not deal with language so much as it deals with order and number...two things which traverse language barriers as opposed to things that don't like adjectives, nouns and verbs.

Religion is not a science although it can be studied and learned like a science.

Science can mimic religion in that people can rely on it for predictions, relief of fears and explanation of the past.

Linguistics plays an important role as do miracles, as does personal experience in which the two (sic language and the identification of 'extremely' profound occurrences in nature) act as an intermediary for acceptance.

For instance, if I am a scientist who holds no belief in a creator, whatever I bring to the table will obviously influence what I find in the literature be it scientific or religious. If I am a believer then that in turn will influence what I find there. This is called a "reading" and for every human being there is a variant reading of events which Wittgenstein would call "a world". My world isn't your world any more than my world is the world of a cat or a dog. Many scientists necessarily avoid discussion of a creator because society has a history of increasing negativity towards religion in proportion to technology, a direct ratio if you will. As a poet, I bank on the fact that we have a mutual experience of the world based mostly on the written word and in particular, the sacred written or "uttered" word. As a nurse I had to rely on scientific data in order to make life and death decisions (a place in which one might require something a bit more i.e. a philosophy or an ethics). Science completely (usually and is the matter for debates ranging from Right to Life to Right to Death) fails to offer an ethics and in fact is often used to justify various inhumane acts i.e. Darwinism which in my opinion justifies the ignoring of vast numbers of humans who are "the weakest links" and entirely expendable. Darwinism is simply an expression of the divine order whereas its utility as a philosophy has been less than satisfactory. Darwinism itself has a history as one of the primary reasons religion is 'negated' or considered 'disproved' (the Scopes trial). I'm not all that up to date with current trends in evolutionary science but I did see a show on Discovery in which they were suggesting that the search for human origins may have been directed in the wrong way (against the divine order of it which would naturally be called, 'the truth' of it). How? It was initially accepted that humans descended from apes. This show suggests that it is entirely possible that apes descended from humans and that the whole of evolutionary science has been looking in the wrong direction. Most likely this was based on the need to extend what Malthus was saying in the popular literature predating Darwin which has in fact been proven wrong long ago i.e. that technology itself would provide a means for increasing population centers (be fruitful and multiply, don't worry about the future). It is worth noting here that the Koran mentions turning disobedient ones into apes. And worth noting that looking in the other direction (human to ape) makes the creation of Adam and Eve much more likely again!

I don't know where I am going with this anymore hahahahaha. In a nutshell though, the kernels of truth in this post are most likely in terms of suggesting that linguistics and mathematics are inter-related, science and religion are a hierarchy of beliefs depending on the experience of the believer (scientist, poet or theologian). For me, religion first, science second and neither one negates the other but one supercedes the second and poetry a dangerous vehicle for expression (Koran discusses this and I take it very seriously as a poet). Without the creation itself there would be no science or a need for a linguistics/mathematics to relate it.

That is what makes miracles important. Without personal proofs of creation (i.e. 'nutfa'), revelatory experiences and inspiration, there would be no religion or it would be wholly different, perhaps even, scientific in nature. It is based in a faith that there is a higher language, experiential plane and separate continuum (the unseen) which finds ways into our conscience as humans depending upon every individuals willingness to look in that particular direction and study it as closely as one might study the DNA of a flea (the Koran comments thusly that no parable is too small to be looked at).

[alshadai]

I like the idea of the "all supreme being" serving as a transcendental signifier (postdeconstructuralism). We are all so scared of change and in this case "God" is the only thing that remains constant.
I personally have no need for a religion at this moment and I refuse to believe in anything for the sake of believing in something. I still have a transcendental signifier in mind but I haven't associated it with anything at all.

I'd go on a lengthy explanation but I just noticed the clock, my apologies.

[RobinHood3000]

Science can mimic religion in that people can rely on it for predictions, relief of fears and explanation of the past.Who mimics whom? Science was here first.

I should point out that any scientist who claims that humans descended from apes is ignorant of at least one very important note. The theory is not that humans descended from apes -- apes are our contemporary. The theory goes that humans and apes are descended from the same apelike ancestor. They're our cousins, not our forefathers. Who descended from whom, in this case, is not even part of the debate.

I have a couple of pictures I think bear well on this debate -- I'll try and get them in.

[water lily]

Is religion the ultimate result of metaphysical contemplations? A human invention trying to explain away the unknown? or is it a genuine doctrine, monitored by silent God (s)? I am interested in hearing why you guys have faith in your respective religions...

Interesting subject, yellow.
To start with, I am a Christian.
Let me first touch on the subject of Science and religion. Some believe that they are mutually exclusive, completely different and irreconcilable. Evolution and Creation are often two subjects seen in such a light. And that question used to be a minor obsession of mine. I am well acquainted with the thoery of Evolution and Robin is right, neither humans nor apes descended from each other, rather from an ape-like acestor that predates them both. Chimps are our closest "cousin" having 98% of the same DNA as us. Now, I don't really have a problem with that. That 2% makes an inconestably enormous difference. And I don't see why God would have a problem with reusing some of the DNA. Heading towards an archaeology/physical antrhopology major, I've had to pretty much accept evolution and use it to frame arguments. and that's ok with me. I mean I know nothing. I've only been around for 19 years, and all this happened eons ago, with no witnesses to see how it all played, we just have these bits and pieces left over--now we can try to fit them together in a logical manner, assuming that the most likely simplest path was the one that happened, but I mean we can't really know. I just accept that God knows and that he created the world, whether he used evolution or not as a tool in that creation process I cannot say. I just accept and believe. For me, that's what religion is about. Proofs and Critical thinking have their place in the world of science, but religion is a different matter.

All I know is that when I pray and draw close to God, I live better, I'm less tired, less irritable, more emotionally and phsycally healthy. Perhaps it is a contrivance to "explain away the unknown" to "comfort me", but that is what it's doing and it's working. Now I do believe that there is a God behind it, but why do others feel the obligation to convert me to an atheist. I've looked down that road and for me it is an abyss. Whether you believe that my god is a real god, or that my faith is an emotional crutch--a contrivence, it shouldn't matter. You should just accept that it is helping me to live.

-lily

(by the way, throughout this whole text, the "you" is the general you, addressing the world at large, lol)

[RobinHood3000]

I don't see why atheists feel the need to convert others, either. It seems contradictory to choose one's own path and then force others to choose the same.

[grace86]

Robin, I find you interesting. It seems as though you discuss many sides of the argument without actually declaring a personal position. Well done.

Having studied physical anthropology, you are absolutely correct in the fact that humans DID NOT descend from apes - would I be right to guess you have studied hominids and descent before?

As for atheists attempting to convert...I think it is all a part of human nature and the want to have people see things in a certain light. Double standard.

**By the way, where are those pictures**

[RobinHood3000]

Well, before I forget, I should point out for those who don't know that I am an atheist.


Robin, I find you interesting. It seems as though you discuss many sides of the argument without actually declaring a personal position. Well done.Er...that's not sarcastic, right?

[Lilac Cotton]

:) An athiest, really? :)

Anyway, I didn't say we descended from the zoo. Although this is an endearing belief and one that has guided practically ALL of the research, it is apparently untrue. Just as they discovered the universe is expanding at an accelerated pace just a few hours ago 'earth time'. Seems however that this bias allowed most of the money to be poured into what they KNEW to be correct and FOUND to be incorrect. So it is pretty much all starting over again regarding The Descent Of Man, the Fall or whatever euphemism one might like to apply to our current state of 'civilization' or lack of same.

There is the nagging question though.....in all religious texts it is noted that since the time of Noah, entire societies were destroyed. How can any evolutionary biologist eliminate this information from the study? Talk about a bias eh!

In any event, this prophet, a mere bedouin was told to relate in the Quran a certain question and it is one I assure you, bedouins of that era had no clue about i.e. carbon dating and the actual 'timeline' of this planet. The Sura states:

YUSUFALI: Has there not been over Man a long period of Time, when he was nothing - (not even) mentioned?
PICKTHAL: Hath there come upon man (ever) any period of time in which he was a thing unremembered?
SHAKIR: There surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not worth mentioning.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/076.qmt.html

By all means, tell me how a contemporary of the 7th century C.E. knew about all of this....at least try anyway. I'll take any reasonable explanation if it is backed up with raw data. :)

[Lilac Cotton]

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/Catastrophism.htm

And AIDS came from yes, the monkeys. Polio vaccines given in the fifties on the African continent. See how the Darwinian contagion however helps to mystify rather ordinary events so that pharmaceutical companies can cover up their malfeasance! Rolling Stone published that article many moons ago but I doubt you'll find it easily unless you are a pack rat and keep all your RS in a safe place :)

Yes Robin Hood....new ideas. There aren't enough of them but I doubt you will find much that will contradict the men from apes debunkery because not enough time or money has been spent to destroy the most dearly held beliefs of science. Like heart attacks and the FACT that the lion's share of the research money studied MALE patients as opposed to female. And even then, money was rather scanty studying the all too boring female concerns like breast cancer. What we have now, as we always do in our scientific meanderings, are the earliest compromises in the "faith" called Empiricism.



The Flood

How is it one waits
in the womb sublime
for birth, a mere
forty weeks time,
and so long to die?
Is it really so?
Or is it that the earth
waits with me and you
for either one, of the two
through falls and springs,
past temples and kings,
the atoms and strings.
Such strong forces
and weak forces,
the catastrophes of horses,
treaties and divorces?

These upswept mountains
and overswept seas,
we slept also through these.
The sands that were rocks,
eggs became flocks
and the dust in the clocks,
among these, our sweetest talks

and our boldest lies
take measure of those kinds of cries.
The poet earns a living
from such conscientious giving,
as if to say
we were waiting just for that
one to come,
the last poem,
the final diagram.
Or, the steady beat of the oldest drum.

What happens at the door
between its opening and closing,
a particular history
full of dystrophy,
that thing called decadence,
a bit of tungsten evidence,
rising shining and parting,
forever moments starting.
Without a past or prediction
or any map in this local jurisdiction.
How can anyone go on!
Who decides which blip
charts this lonesome trip
called life, this one,
this only one and you're gone?

A shadow never stays long,
its death never wrong
nor its life very strong,
the short, the long,
the phantom song.
At noon, under the feet,
or near night and so fleet.

Poor wise old shadow,
mark this grave, this body.
You are a wise old shadow,
a terrible reflection
escaping detection
changing direction,
a slight thin projection.

Do you see me too?

Can you write a memory,
weather a storm?
Will you wake up
when I do not?
Or are you just a dream
of a thing designed
a breath of time?
Were you an afterthought?
Which apparition do you look like?
Could you be just the sketch?
An anomaly of light?

A shadow only proves
one thing as it moves,
I am here and tremendously small,
as thin as a ghost
full of vapoury boasts,
the arrogant din
of land-locked men
made of red-brown clay
who are born and die
day to day.
Our shadows explain in words
as they force us to exhume
joy and doom,
the perpetual flux,
skies filled with ducks
and freeways with trucks,
does and bucks,
all of the crux
of an abacas,
the tractatus mathematicus.

The Bull of Heaven dies too.
His shadow leaves.
His parable lives on.
The children in Ceylon
want pencils to draw
everything they saw.
They know as well as us.

[grace86]

I am very sorry Robin if you thought I was being sarcastic. No offense or sarcasm intended, I was being sincere.

[RobinHood3000]

I am very sorry Robin if you thought I was being sarcastic. No offense or sarcasm intended, I was being sincere.Oh, good, that's a relief. :)

The pictures: the first one is the title page of a certain scientific work. The second is one of the many places in which those of the Inquisition made a few "modifications." Keep in mind, this is how those sympathetic to the author edited it. Other copies had the phrase blacked out or were simply burned altogether.

Essentially, everywhere the "triple motion of the earth" is mentioned, it is altered to "the theory of the triple motion of the earth."

This was done in the days of the INQUISITION. Essentially the same thing is being proposed in the United States, or at least one of them.

[yellowsubmarine]

my word. To be perfectly frank, i didn't expect such in-depth responses (Cotton); i of course appreciate them, they were rather enlightening in the areas i could comprehend (i won't be pretentious, Cotton lost me a couple times as i was reading through his text). I suppose atheism itself is a faith as much as Christianity is, and i appreciate Lily's input in why he/she chooses to believe in her religion. And i agree wholly with Lily's saying that we can't know for sure, we're only human and i myself am only seventeen.

However, i find it interesting when lily says: "All I know is that when I pray and draw close to God, I live better, I'm less tired, less irritable, more emotionally and phsycally healthy. Perhaps it is a contrivance to "explain away the unknown" to "comfort me", but that is what it's doing and it's working. Now I do believe that there is a God behind it, but why do others feel the obligation to convert me to an atheist. I've looked down that road and for me it is an abyss. Whether you believe that my god is a real god, or that my faith is an emotional crutch--a contrivence, it shouldn't matter. You should just accept that it is helping me to live."
then i suppose religion itself is ultimately a question of truth versus utilitarianism, no? Then again, what is truth? Why does it matter?

[RobinHood3000]

There's nothing wrong with crutches. Oftentimes, you can't heal otherwise.

I'm not sure if this would qualify as ironic, but I'll mention it, anyway. One time, I was going down a flight of stairs with a heavy load on my back. I overstepped about the last four stairs and fell awkwardly on my ankle with all my weight, twisting it horribly to one side. In retrospect, it was probably sprained, but I walked on it for about 5 days after that until it got better, because I figured it was just a bad twist.

Some people prefer to use crutches, some don't. My girlfriend was on crutches once for nearly 7 months straight because she broke her leg twice. I've had nothing worse than a sprain in my life, and hence have had no occasion to use crutches. She's had considerably worse health, and thus is no stranger to them. Take that metaphorically or literally as you will.

[mtpspur]

I never quite know what to make of the religious forums here. I do not consider myself religious at all. I consider myself a believer in the God of the Bible (King James version preferred though New American standard is an excellent translation.) SO I have no real meaningful logic/argument to make. I have no religion I pracrice because I believe in a personal God (who's a little too personal because trust me I am not a nice person when you get to know me except for the grace of God.) If I were to take the religion as contrivance it would be to express that my particular doctrines are generally as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (prepared from 1643-47). I walk by faith that at the end of the day it's what the Lord Christ has done FOR me rather then what I attempt to do or not to do for him.

By the by Robin Hood--I just can't dislike you for being an atehest because you at least try to make some sense of it. But Hawkeye stills rules.

[Lilac Cotton]

...if life was only a twisted ankle! Sometimes, I wish it were :)

Factoid:

You've been told that religion is the 'anesthetic' of the masses and you chose to believe in that too. :) Unless of course Robin, you invented Atheism?

:)

Someone else did or rather, one situation always conditions its exact opposite...Wittgenstein will tell you that all LOGICAL arguments do. If they don't, they fail the logic test. And truth has a horrible bias unto itself. That much is for sure.

Where are these 'religious' forums. I'd like to take a look at them if you don't mind :)

I rather enjoy the conversations. :)


Question: Robin, do you have a soul? I mean, athiests don't really need them do they?

[ShoutGrace]

then i suppose religion itself is ultimately a question of truth versus utilitarianism, no?

I believe that religion is a manifestation of man's desire to apprehend truth. I am a Christian theist because I believe that it is true; that is the reason I am so devoted.

I wouldn't want to be a Christian if it merely served my purposes, or made me feel better (and I don't think that was entirely what Lily was saying, either). I want to seek out and understand Truth, in any form. Regardless of the implications, I want to identify and acquaint myself with Truth, and Knowledge. If I ultimately believed that God didn't exist then I wouldn't have any trouble being an atheist.


There's nothing wrong with crutches. Oftentimes, you can't heal otherwise.

You may be quite assured that I interpreted your illustration metaphorically.

I agree with the idea that people sometimes need certain things to help make sense of their lives and the world around them. What I disagree with is the idea that the 'need' for a 'crutch' is the impetus behind mankind's belief in God(s).


I've had nothing worse than a sprain in my life, and hence have had no occasion to use crutches.

Neither have I. My life has been superb (by any realistic standard). I am a middle class American citizen. I have always had running water, plenty of food and clothing, and a certain number of niceties to assuage my everday life struggle. I have had an eminently average life.

I didn't have a guilt complex before I chose to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I didn't see any reason why I should believe rather than not. I had no needs or insecurities; no sprained, broken, shattered, or otherwise fragmentary 'body parts'.

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting your idea here, Robin.


The principle point that I wish to make here is that belief in God may be a crutch (in fact, I think that it is.) That cause is not necessarily a dependent of the result.

What happens after one chooses to believe in God needs to be distinguished from the desire and conviction to believe in said God. The fact that God is a crutch for me (and you had better believe that he is!) is an aspect of that belief which is distinct from my antecedent agnostic ponderings.

[RobinHood3000]

You've been told that religion is the 'anesthetic' of the masses and you chose to believe in that too. Unless of course Robin, you invented Atheism?Ahem...as a matter of fact, I did. At the very least, my version of it. Atheism is no more specific than theism as a descriptor.


Question: Robin, do you have a soul? I mean, athiests don't really need them do they?First off, that's two questions. The answers: possibly, and no, not really.

[Orionsbelt]

Ok here is my take on this subject. Interesting.

Science uses observation and testing to determine the mechanisms that nature uses to accomplish certain ends. While this kind of investigation has been fruitful for us, It fails to address the question of why any of this in the first place. The best example I can think of right now is a car. If you knew nothing about a car, you would play with wheels and switches to see what happened as each was pushed or pulled or turned. Soon you would observe the results and create a theory. However, it needs be confined to the mechanics. Having no knowledge of the original intent, everything else must be speculation even down to the seats. For example, you could speculate that leather was used for durability but in fact style was the issue. So I am saying people use science study the mechanics of the natural world. Stepping back and facing the natural world at another level, other questions occur. Religion in all of it’s forms is speculation intent on addressing those questions. As it happens others things get pulled along (ethics for example). In this relm, there is no pass fail test of logic or proof. So acceptance without proof or faith is the operating principal. I believe most religions are based on myths or inventions of our imagination. The most fundamental are simply poems that establish sentiments and address some of the most profound observations and speculation at the deepest level of the soul. So I believe yes they are contrivances in the sense that the myths are analogies used to talk about those things that we regard as most profound and have no language to express. An example is the titan god Cronus who consumed his Olympian children. Taken literally this is gross at best. Taken figuratively in the sense that time is the father who consumes all of his children, there is expressed a significant thought that has no answer but appreciation. So I also believe that these contrivances are tools for understandings that have been developed by people over long periods of time. Therefore they merit study and contemplation. I accept this as fact but not everyone can. For some people these beliefs fill other needs. They offer comfort and give hope. For others, they provide moral guidance. I believe that the stories were really never meant to be taken literally but some people cannot do otherwise. So a crutch is OK if you have a broken leg. Another man's interpretation is OK if I can devise none of my own. The only harm is done when there is a complete disregard for a contivence that is not your own.

Rock on! The next passenger stop is several light years away.

[Lilac Cotton]

"Ahem...as a matter of fact, I did."

Now that's pretty good. ;) If of course you did. Now if you didn't, then yer not only an athiest but a liar :) and you know, I'm just kidding of course...

Now....all fine and good Orion. Of course, the stories that are more 'recent' in time and documented....what about those 'parables'? The Xtian standards (Noah, Abraham, Isaiah..etc) are all quite obliterated now although we have a few of the details in the Quran but only ones that are particulary meaningful to given situations. Thing is, the prophet Mohamed has his own entry into the annals of this 'allegorism' of yours and strangely enough, it is true. But maybe in ten thousand years, you and me will be...you guessed it...parables.

How do you feel about being a parable? What will they say about your parable, ours in general, the Holy Wars and whatnots of now? Gujarat to the Intifadah to this, that and the other thing?

My parable right now is going rat a tat tat. :) Tracer fire over Sidon down the road and machine gun fire down by KFC. The Colonel isn't very happy it seems. Most of the bridges connecting me to my family in south Leb right now have turned into rubble. The bridge in front of my window is hopefully not a target but I think it might be toast by early a.m.

But that is certainly too political. And most parables are.

[Orionsbelt]

Well keep yourself safe and I wish for you God's blessing that he protect you and your family.

If I am to be a parable then so be it. I have long ago faced the wrath of God in my own mind. If I must face it again, I may say I was truthful with myself and others, how would you hold me accountable? I prefer to be toast than stuffed with cotton. Can I ask what parable? I am curious to see how I am cast in the play.

Parables.. Once you have accepted a given belief life's lessons will be cast in the shadow of those beliefs. So stories of virtue, faithfulness etc. would be the norm. My favorite in the xtain tradition is the prodigal son. Any wonder? I think however the lesson taken is typically the wrong one. The key in that story is compassion. What had the wandering son gained that the faithful one had not?

[Union Jack]

That is sp? Pasqual's Wager in a nutshell....or at least, a take on it. And you're a gambler it seems who doesn't mind the odds. :(


Pascal's Wager is inherently flawed, and should not be relied upon as a logical support for divine belief.

Briefly Summarized for those in the dark.

Live a good life,
God Exists= You go to Heaven.
God Does not Exist= You lose Nothing.

Live an "evil" Life,
God Exists= You go to Hell.
God does not exist= You gain nothing.

Now the first, and most common, aurgument against this wager is a psychological one.

People aurgue that we cannot induce belief just because we realize that to believe is in our best advantage.

This is a false aurgument. Belief can be induced by a system which promotes benefits for this belief. Example, a modern, totalitarien dictatorship. People are forced to believe certain things, if they do not, they will be killed. Psychologically, people start of pretending to belive, in order to survive. However, as time passes, this "make-believe" turns into true belief.

In fact, most religious belief starts as "make-believe." Many people inherit their beliefs from their parents, and overtime these "pretend" beliefs become their own true beliefs. Why do I belive in God? My parents belive in God, and I was raised in a family which believed.

That asside, it is obvious that Pascal's flaw is not in his psychology. Where then should we search?
His logic. Pascal's logic is flawed. I know, hard to believe, the logic seems so simple and foolproof.

His logic fails because Pascal fails to take into account the nature of God, or the possibility of multiple Gods. He does not account for the possibility that there are many Gods and they may overpower the God which Pascal belives in.

Nor does he manage to prepare for the possibility that God does not care. You live a good life, it turns out that God exists, you go to heaven? Not necessarily. What if God is the classic "watchmaker" who after creating the world, merely sits back and watches his constructs struggle out their existance. Pascal, illogically, assumes that God's existance denotes God's compassion.

An aurgument can be brought against this critique, that is, the God which Pascal belives in is not a "watchmaker" he is the God of the Bible, of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The Biblical God DOES care for his creations, and heaven does exist for his chosen.

But, the Biblical God of Abraham would not appreciate belief based upon a win-win wager. No, the very essence of the Old Testament God is one which demands unquestioning belief and loyalty, no matter the odds. Abraham did not embark on his quest to populate the world knowing before-hand that win or lose he would be eternally rewarded. The Biblical God demands risk, to belive in God is to risk everything. One cannot truly belive in such a God with a win-win mindset.

Thus we have proven it, the simplest, seemingly most logical wager on God's behalf has fallen to folly.

My interpretation of, "Critique of Religion and Philosophy"- Kaufmann

I am not aurguing for God's existance either way. The only point to my post is to display the folly of Pascal's wager. This holds no power over your, or my own, opinions.

If you wish to believe, then go ahead. But, make sure you believe for the right reasons, or you may end up like Pascal, whom upon dying, ascended a glittering staircase, finding, at the top, the Gates to Paradise barred, and a sign reading
"No Gamblers Allowed."

:D Cheers

[RDraconis]

ever since i had turned agnostic i felt that religion was a method in which mankind sought to meet the areas of their needs which could not be satisfied; is religion the ultimate result of metaphysical contemplations? A human invention trying to explain away the unknown? or is it a genuine doctrine, monitored by silent God (s)? I am interested in hearing why you guys have faith in your respective religions...

Yeah, it is. People need a God. Like when they say "God works in mysterious ways"- it's their way of feeling that even though life is effing them over, it'll still turn out alright because it's for a reason.
God can be likened to imaginary friends children have. It's someone there to talk to, who's always on your side, it's just a sort of touch stone you'll never lose. Organized religion is also something to bring people together. People like that.

However, I in no way say that this means there is no such thing as a God-type being. I think they exist, all of them, every one mankind has ever imagined. Some more powerful than others, some mere whisps of a memory.
Which, by the way, is a difficult thing to explain in normal conversation. People can't seem to grasp that I'm a theist who doesn't follow an organized religion or, at my school, who's also polytheistic.

[subterranean]

Who mimics whom? Science was here first..


What do you mean? I think religion, or at least the root of religion, came before science (even the root of science).

[kilted exile]

What do you mean? I think religion, or at least the root of religion, came before science (even the root of science).

I suppose it would depend on what level of understanding you term "scientific"

I would suggest the animalistic religions predate science, but I dont know enough about them to discuss them fully.

The point at which we call something scientific sounds like it could evolve into an interesting debate: Was the creation of fire or the wheel "scientific" or just progression? Does there need to be an inherent understanding of what you are trying to achieve for it to be scientific?

The answer to the second question taken alone has to be a resounding no; so many of our scientific discoveries came from mistakes (see pennicilin)

However, the reasoning involved after the discovery is probablywhat is missing from the work of early man that denies it the scientific moniker.

I would hazard a guess that neanderthals didnt sit around the fire contemplating the Heat/Fuel/Oxygen triangle, however after a while they probably realised that the wet stuff wouldnt burn so easily - especially not if you covered it.

[RobinHood3000]

I consider the birth of science the first time a human ancestor wondered, "How?", and the birth of religion to be the first time a human ancestor wondered, "Why?"

Between the two, my strong suspicion is that "How?" came first.

[kilted exile]

Ok, I am probably dragging this further off topic, but......

Whilst I understand what you're saying Rob, surely you'd agree that that is really oversimplifying the issue: Religions are born out of a desire to explain "How", and so much of science is about attempting to explain "Why"

[RobinHood3000]

Perhaps an oversimplification, but I think a justified one. From what I've seen, religion never explains "how" -- only attributes it to a source, never explaining the mechanism. Nor does science seek to explain "why" beyond cause and effect, some of the social sciences excepted.

[kilted exile]

This is probably more a discussion of semantics than anything else (however it interests me)

I suppose how far religions go with reagrds to explaining "how" depends on to what degree you subscribe to their specific ideas. For example for some people religions describe perfectly adequately the workings of the universe (but lets not get bogged down by yet another evolution vs creationism discussion). For others such as your good self and me however the explanation does not go far enough & we have questions we could possibly term as being of a scientific nature (strangely enough a lot of them seem to always start with the phrase "why")

With regards to science and the "why" yeah, I agree it is mostly dealing with cause and effect but that is because cause and effect is so much of what science is. However so much of science starts with someone asking "why?" (perfect example being Mendl) and then trying to explain it with the "how"

So, apart from rambling, what is it I am trying to say here. Basically that for science imho everything relates back to someone asking "why?" its just that unlike philosophers who constantly wonder why and never end up getting to the how, we arrive there at some point :p

[RobinHood3000]

I should point out that Gregor Mendel was a monk. :p



I also think that the distinction between the "why"s is that science asks, "For what purpose?" whereas religion asks, "For what reason?"

[kilted exile]

I should point out that Gregor Mendel was a monk. :p


Yep, somehow its hard to visualise someone like Pat "Scotland is a dark country run by homosexuals" Robertson engaging in any genetic/scientific ponderings. :lol:


Its back to the semantics though purpose & reason mean basically the same thing (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=reason) (I'm beginning to think this discussion would probably be more suited for the philosophical section - as so many members avoid this area of the forum & this is something I'd like some other viewpoints on)

[RobinHood3000]

Yep, somehow its hard to visualise someone like Pat "Scotland is a dark country run by homosexuals" Robertson engaging in any genetic/scientific ponderings. :lol: :lol: Hear, hear!!! :lol: :lol:

Oh, the sweet irony if someone like him were to stumble on proof refuting the existence of God (as if it exists).

I agree, let's get someone else in here. Casting call!!

This is a bit unwieldy: "basically the same thing" and "the same thing" are not the same thing. "The same thing" is basically the same thing as "basically the same thing," but "the same thing" is not the same thing.

That was a fun sentence.

By "for what purpose?", I mean that scientists ask to what practical end things aim, while "for what reason?" seems to me to lean towards asking for the original intent of existence.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that this has become something of a philosophical discussion.

[kilted exile]

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that this has become something of a philosophical discussion.

Which is kinda wierd, cos as someone who has only studied scientific/technical subjects I have an inherent distrust of philosophy & philosophers in general.

Q. What is usually the first question a philosopher is asked?

A. What beer do you have on tap? ;)

(The good thing about philosophers however is they have a reasonable sense of humour and will fully understand this joke)

[2HousePlague]

This is a good subject. I do find it funny that the same persistence of distinction that I find expressed on other types of BBSes is in evidence here on a literature board. By persistence of distinction I mean a desire to see the aims of philosophy as counter to those of science. Philosophy is freer than science, I would say... and not because it ventures into the territory of faith. It has been suggested in this thread that philosophy and religion are bedfellows, and equal and interchangeable in their incompatibility with the aims and methods of science. Pah! In fact, philosophy is more rigorous than science. Philosopers do not theorize, as the scientist must when there is no data with which to approach the question. I would say it is science that is in serious jeopardy of having a fling with religion. But, it should lighten the tone of my accusation to know that I am guilty, too -- lol. Consider String Theory:
"String Theory contains some of the most speculative, inferential science that has ever achieved popular recognition.

It is, I believe, sufficiently different from any quantum theory before it to qualify for re-categorization as MetaPhysics... @ (http://everything.2houseplague.com/about/)

[kilted exile]

HA! We have our third maybe now this discussion will begin to take off.

I'll start off by correcting a percieved misconception that 2HousePlague (I'm gonna shorten that to 2HP by the way) may have; I think science owes a lot to philosophers, (after all they did give us the scientific method) without them wondering things scientists might not get around to looking at the causes behind it. I just like ragging on them at times cos its usually enjoyable.

[RobinHood3000]

Ah, a third, indeed!

I disagree that philosophy as being more rigorous than science. The philosopher has no burden of proof, only the need to justify. George Berkeley is an excellent example -- his explanation of existence was that it was the contrivance of an omniscient being, and did not genuinely exist. A lack of damning evidence against his theory makes it valid. By contrast, the same lack of refutation (Samuel Johnson's stubbed toe notwithstanding) does not equate to proof in the scientific world.

[kilted exile]

I disagree that philosophy as being freer than science. The philosopher has no burden of proof, only the need to justify. George Berkeley is an excellent example -- his explanation of existence was that it was the contrivance of an omniscient being, and did not genuinely exist. A lack of damning evidence against his theory makes it valid. By contrast, the same lack of refutation (Samuel Johnson's stubbed toe notwithstanding) does not equate to proof in the scientific world.

Quite true, and with the rigorous peer review and testing no scientist worth his salt would espouse any theory without having solid back-up for the reasoning

[PeterL]

This is a good subject. I do find it funny that the same persistence of distinction that I find expressed on other types of BBSes is in evidence here on a literature board. By persistence of distinction I mean a desire to see the aims of philosophy as counter to those of science. Philosophy is freer than science, I would say... and not because it ventures into the territory of faith. It has been suggested in this thread that philosophy and religion are bedfellows, and equal and interchangeable in their incompatibility with the aims and methods of science. Pah! In fact, philosophy is more rigorous than science. Philosopers do not theorize, as the scientist must when there is no data with which to approach the question. I would say it is science that is in serious jeopardy of having a fling with religion. But, it should lighten the tone of my accusation to know that I am guilty, too -- lol. Consider String Theory:

I generally agree with you. There is a great deal of dogmatic thinking in science. In Special Relativity Einstein assumed that the speed of light is a constant. Somehow that became a scientific truth, even though it has been shown not to be true. Perhaps I should have mentioned aether instead. Einstein stated as a condition of Special Relativity that it could not be used as an inertial frame of reference, then he borrowed the best work from aether theory and incorporated it. It became part of the scientific belief system that aether did not exist, even though time-space is identical to aether. The string theory reference is right on.

More generally, I agree that philosophy is the parent of both religion and science, and philosophy has become more objective than either. Both science and religion have assumptions that may not be based in reality, while philosophy does not.

[PeterL]

ever since i had turned agnostic i felt that religion was a method in which mankind sought to meet the areas of their needs which could not be satisfied; is religion the ultimate result of metaphysical contemplations? A human invention trying to explain away the unknown? or is it a genuine doctrine, monitored by silent God (s)? I am interested in hearing why you guys have faith in your respective religions...

Religion serves different purposes to different people. For some people it is a cushion against the pleasantness of the world. For some people it is a reason to do good. for others it a compilation of what actually is. When one considers only major organized religions, religion is principally a way for some people to live an easy life at the expense of others, while keeping those others in their places.

I think that a distinction should be made between spiritual thought and organized religion. Spiritual thought is something that most people engage in from time to time. I think that it is fundamental to being human, and it may be biological in origin, a connection between the individual and the world at large.

Because I am not part of an organized religion, your agnosticism is of no concern to me. Questioning is part of what I regard as more important than believing any dogma.

[RobinHood3000]

In Special Relativity Einstein assumed that the speed of light is a constant. Somehow that became a scientific truth, even though it has been shown not to be true.Beg pardon? When did this happen?

[PeterL]

Beg pardon? When did this happen?

Here's one piece about it. If you search, you will find a great deal more material about it.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1991/split/pnu027-4.htm

Then there's the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest that anything can go. The nature of light makes that assumption false from the start. Think of wavecrests.

[RobinHood3000]

Ahh, I see now. I would like to point out that the postulate about the speed of light explicitly states that c is a constant in a vacuum. Physicists have understood for ages that light slows down in a medium, just like everything else.

How does the nature of light apply? Could you explain it, please?

[PeterL]

Ahh, I see now. I would like to point out that the postulate about the speed of light explicitly states that c is a constant in a vacuum. Physicists have understood for ages that light slows down in a medium, just like everything else.

Yes, that is true, but it remains an assumption, and it is thought that it may be different in different regions of space and at different times. Space-time is a vacuum, but it may act differently, as a medium of transmission, from place to place. I don't believe that anyone has demonstrated that, but there have been anomalous observations that may have been results of a variable speed of light.



How does the nature of light apply? Could you explain it, please?

Light is transmitted in waves. The front of the wave moves at the speed of light, but energy moves up and down from crest to trough and so on. Clearly the speed of the impulse from crest to trough has to be greater than the speed of the wave front, because it has a greater distance to travel in the same amount of time. Because this is a truism, this isn't a useful agrument, but it shows that the "speed of light in a vacuum" is not the absolute speed limit.

[kilted exile]

Ok, you are all forcing me to try and remember my physics and quantum mechanics lectures (God I hate physics - always more into chemistry) from what I do remember (and truthfully that aint much) light behaves as both a wave and a particle depending on the experiment you carry out.
However, I will need to look back to my notes before continuing any further.

[PeterL]

Ok, you are all forcing me to try and remember my physics and quantum mechanics lectures (God I hate physics - always more into chemistry) from what I do remember (and truthfully that aint much) light behaves as both a wave and a particle depending on the experiment you carry out.


True, light has the nature of both, but for what I mentioned you should look at wave mechanics. If you look at it from the quantum mechanical perspective, light could be said to have an infinite speed at some times, and the same can be true of particles.

[RobinHood3000]

Yes, that is true, but it remains an assumption, and it is thought that it may be different in different regions of space and at different times. Space-time is a vacuum, but it may act differently, as a medium of transmission, from place to place. I don't believe that anyone has demonstrated that, but there have been anomalous observations that may have been results of a variable speed of light. There are vast other explanations for anomalous observations, and the phrase "it is thought" contrasts directly with the statement that the postulate was "shown not to be true."



Light is transmitted in waves. The front of the wave moves at the speed of light, but energy moves up and down from crest to trough and so on. Clearly the speed of the impulse from crest to trough has to be greater than the speed of the wave front, because it has a greater distance to travel in the same amount of time. Because this is a truism, this isn't a useful agrument, but it shows that the "speed of light in a vacuum" is not the absolute speed limit.Ah, but light has also been show to exhibit behavior of energy in the form of particles (photons).

You also have to keep in mind that a wave is not particles moving as the wave -- it's a back-and-forth oscillation. The seemingly-intuitive perception of a wave as being like a snake moving back-and-forth-but-ever-forward is actually incorrect. In a transverse wave such as light, when it's behaving as a wave, the "particles" making it up (if you were to visualize it) are only moving back and forth in place, and the amplitude of a light wave is a far sight less than the distance the light travels in half a cycle. Consequently, there IS no moving front of the wave, or at least no particles in a vacuum to constitute the front of the wave. Think in terms of a Slinky -- when you brace both ends and shake one end, the Slinky doesn't go anywhere, but the wave travels up and down its length.

One of the things you have to remember is that, in relativity, intuition almost ALWAYS leads one the wrong way.

[penelopea]

Yep!
Every time.
Its just another country club ,where some are
in and others out .
Depends on whose in charge
or who wears the crown .
Kings and acolytes.
Deacons and deckhands.
Another way of keeping you in your place ,
as if your parents have not done enough.

Belief
,ah thats another story.
I believe in apple pie ,even if its
in the sky.

[RobinHood3000]

...eh? :confused:

[PeterL]

There are vast other explanations for anomalous observations, and the phrase "it is thought" contrasts directly with the statement that the postulate was "shown not to be true."

There are always doubts, but there is no proof that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, and there are good reasons for doubting that assumption.



Ah, but light has also been show to exhibit behavior of energy in the form of particles (photons).

You also have to keep in mind that a wave is not particles moving as the wave -- it's a back-and-forth oscillation. The seemingly-intuitive perception of a wave as being like a snake moving back-and-forth-but-ever-forward is actually incorrect. In a transverse wave such as light, when it's behaving as a wave, the "particles" making it up (if you were to visualize it) are only moving back and forth in place, and the amplitude of a light wave is a far sight less than the distance the light travels in half a cycle. Consequently, there IS no moving front of the wave, or at least no particles in a vacuum to constitute the front of the wave. Think in terms of a Slinky -- when you brace both ends and shake one end, the Slinky doesn't go anywhere, but the wave travels up and down its length.

One of the things you have to remember is that, in relativity, intuition almost ALWAYS leads one the wrong way.

I believe that you have it wrong. The wavefront of light is what we see. While the back and forth movement is much less fast than the spped of the wavefront, it means that the "particles are moving significantly faster than the speed of the wavefront itself.

"In a transverse wave such as light, when it's behaving as a wave, the "particles" making it up (if you were to visualize it) are only moving back and forth in place, and the amplitude of a light wave is a far sight less than the distance the light travels in half a cycle." There are only two problems with that. The particles are not "only moving back and forth in place" The particles are moving along with the wave and moving back and forth. The speed of the photons is greater that the speed of the wavefront, because they are moving back forth as they move along.

[RobinHood3000]

I was under the impression that either the photons move at the speed of light (when the light is behaving as particles), in which case there is no back and forth motion, or light moves through space-time (when the light is behaving as a wave). Do you have any sources I could look at?

Imagine radiant heat: the air through which the heat travels doesn't move with the heat wave. The heat is only energy passed on from particle to particle. For visualization purposes: http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html. The transverse wave is what you're thinking of. If you observe, the medium through which the wave travels does not move with the wave. When light behaves as a wave, there are no particles to constitute it, and hence nothing actually moving along with it.

[PeterL]

The way I put it the first time. I tried to restate it, bu8t the restatement was incorrect.

[RobinHood3000]

Is there a physicist in the house??

[PeterL]

Is there a physicist in the house??

Me, I have studied physics in great detail.

[RobinHood3000]

Not according to your résumé, and so far, what you've said doesn't quite jive with what I've read. No offense meant, but what you're saying contrasts directly with both my high school physics textbook and mainstream physics as a whole. If you could produce a reputable source that supports you, though, I'd be more than happy to take a look.

[Orionsbelt]

Wow,

lots of turns here since last I was poking around.

Two things to add but not much time to think about either. The whole wave thing in light is based on the strength of electic and magnetic fields. These are mathematical constructs used to predict (calcualte) how hard (and in what direction) a charge particle gets tugged at a given point in space or time. Like water if you have floated as waves go by. You get tugged up and down. You may or may not move based on other forces acting on you at the time. Point being you feel the pull. The wave travels forward at a speed based on wind velocity, water density etc. So if you could set up the same force front in a vacum how fast would it move forward. Presumably there is a maximum. Even still we only know that the force exists because it has an effect that we can observe and use math to predict and describe this effect on objects. We don't really know why or even how. Why do two charged particals attract really? Not just another mathematical description of how other little widgets act that expalin why the bigger widgets do what they do. We have devised a tricky way to descibe the effect. So now we have observed things that don't fit the mold. Speculation ... begins to attempt to fill in the gap by a) adding to the existing language in a new way. (formulas etc.) b) developing a new language. I need to think about this some more but this is very philisophical in nature isn't it. Only restricted in some sense to those things we can also descibe with the language tools tha we have. So point number two.. Religion may in fact be just an even bigger leap linking those ideas to the whole.