It appears that the more we reply to each other the more off-topic we're going. If it's fine with you, can we just drop the off-topic stuff and stick to the life purpose? We can throw in a few more posts but I'd rather not derail the thread despite clear opposition from OP (though his later posts are leading me to assume he doesn't really have much of a problem with it).
-I'm not
-The world is the way it is. It simply exists. That is my only stance, while you seem to be the one attributing causation to a number of things(some necessary, i'll concede but some completely unwarranted).
I'm sorry but I don't see how saying "it's simply how it is" isn't a sign of simplification and ignorance to certain issues. I'll get to that though, as that is the point of discussing.
What boggles me a bit though is that you say that some are necessary but write some as unwarranted (a word I don't find appropriate in this context) so I'd like you to specify what exactly you're reffering to. It's fine if you don't though, just a question that would kinda get me closer to the point you're making.
Anyone who has studied history wouldn't argue with that, and neither will i. However, what religion promotes and what it actually does are two completely different things. America may claim it invades iraq for freedom and liberation of that country's citizens, however that statement isn't true simply because its stated.
I'm glad we have agreed on another thing, but I don't really get the rest of the paragraph.
What religion are you reffering to? What event? Indeed, religions have been used to do things which are in contradiction with their teachings, but this is not really the fault of religion, but the ones who commited the act that is deemed contradictive. Religion isn't a being, but a belief-system. It can't do things that would contradict itself.
Besides, the majority of religious officials have in fact been acting in synch with the theaching of religion they promote (though, once again what religion are we talking about?), so I don't see how this actually has something to do with what I have posted.
Also, religion promoting it is not the same as religion causing it. There's altruistic behavior in a number of species across the animal kingdom, are you aware of this fact? How do you explain their behavior if religion is the cause of selfless actions?
Umm, that's what I said... Religion didn't invent altruism, however certain specific values have largely blossomed under a certain religion's influence.
And yes I am aware of this behaviour in the animal kingdom, however I wouldn't really call it altruistic. What we're witnessing there is simply a strife to remain alive regardless of what it takes. The very same animals who form packs to defend themselves from a collective threat will undoubtably kill each other off as soon as they become a threat for each other.
Not to mention, this doesn't really imply moral behaviour that is considered to be altruistic. Many altruistic values do in fact bring disadvantage to one doing it but are moral non-the-less. An example of that would be giving food to another starving person despite the fact that you're starving yourself.
The wildlife that you'd call altruistic is down to its core selfish, as no animal would let a stranger take something from it as it would hurt the very ones its trying to protect.
This brings me to the point that you're limiting altruism solely to that wich benefits one's survival.
Now, why did I say you're limiting altruism to beneficial behaviour? Well, the very thing you propossed as altruistic (having a better chance to succed in society etc) are in their core centered around either the success of an individual in the long run (at the price of current disadvantage) or the success of the society to wich that individual belongs to (at the price of that one individual).
The very "love your enemies" deal is different in nature as it actually means to forgive the wrongs done even if there is nothing beneficial in that. This type of ideas are what is proposed in Christianity and were a fresh thing back when it first appeared. Such ideas, if present before, didn't enjoy any special treatment.
I've already answered this in my reply above, but its well to remember that all of europe and the current christian world once believed in pantheism, thor, appollo or a number of other gods and those civilizations laid the foundations for the so called 'christian' world and its values(both ancient rome and greece, unless you believe that people were all hideous savages incapable of morals prior to the arrival of christianity,)
Umm, yes the currently christian world has once been of pagan culture. That is a well-known fact. I don't see how this actually goes against my stance as the point I'm making is that religion was responsible for shaping the world and man's understanding of it and himself.
It doesn't really matter wich religion came first in this case, because I'm simply arguing the above cause. I will disagree though with those older cultures setting the foundations for beliefs present in Christianity. The beliefs present there were of drastic theological difference. I'd rather not get into explaining why exactly as it would take time to analyze each and every one of them here, but the fact is, the religions of yesterday are a lot different from religions of today.
And no I don't believe they were immoral savages (in the context of time they lived in), though I do find their morals and practices greatly inferior to those of Christianity, but that is a different topic alltogether.
Fyi: the learning of hellenistic greece pre dated christianity,(and is widely accepted by scholars as being the predecessor to western civilization) and was so potent that its resumption caused both the islamic golden age, and the later day enlightenment in europe. While orthodox christianity gave europe the dark ages for close to a thousand years.
Indeed, the hellenistic period contributed much to the world as a whole, along with many other ancient civilizations, wich is exactly what I'm reffering to when I say that this world would be robbed of it's cultural identity. The very ancient civilizations such as Greece had religion deeply rooted in their practices. Every civilization had some sort of religion that was a key factor in people's lifes. That's what I meant when I said the world would be robbed of its identity both on a global and personal level.
I don't see what Dark Age of Europe has anything to do with this though. Regardless, what does Orthodox Christianity have to do with the Dark Age?
Not only do we know little about the Dark Age due to the lack of sources, but different historians called it Dark for different reasons.
Also, one of the key sources is Petrarch who was actually a Christian. Besides, the Dark Ages weren't necessarry of religious nature, as they simply described the world from the fall of Roman Empire to High middle ages (though there are variations in what exactly is to be considered a part of Dark Ages) and even if they were they had virtually nothing to do with Orthodoxy (wich had at that point already centered itself to the east) but with the relationship between Catholicism and Protestantism.
This too, though, is a sign of how much religion has influenced various historical events, wich strengthens my point of religion playing a key role in history of humanity.
And this gives credit to religion how? So if a man is inspired to do a great deed does it validate or reinforce the tenets of his belief system?Or the ideal of belief?
lets all celebrate zeus and the greek gods for inspiring pythogoras and ptlomey for their achievements in mathematics and astronomy, then.
Sorry, what? What I was saying is that religion influenced people's understanding of the world and themselves (regardless in what way) and as such was responsible for triggering many great events as people would act upon it. I'm not talking about scientific breakthroughs or creating art or what not, but causing great things (not great in a sense of being necessarily positive, but leaving a mark on history's course).
It seems my wording is to blame for this.
This argument is invalid. Rome existed prior to the advent of christianity for 500 years, and managed to exist as an empire after its acceptance as well.
Again, I don't see how this disproves my point. Actually, one could argue that there is no better example of how drastically a society's identity could change upon accepting something different.
Rome's culture has been drastically changed upon accepting Christianity. The worship of pagan gods was outlawed, Christians (who have been a subject to harsh treatment) have now become priviledged, art started shifting to a more christian nature etc.
Ofcourse, different reigns, treated these things differently (for instance Julian was dedicated to returning the Roman Empire to a state before Christianity wich speaks a lot about the significance of the changes it brought), but everything lead to christianization of Roman Empire, turning it from pagan society to a christian rule.
This is directly analoguous to the Butter-fly effect example I have presented as it leads to a drastic change. Now, ofcourse, the example was dealing with insignificant things leading to great changes and dealth with change of identity on a personal level but it illustrates how identity is a subject to change. In no way does change in identity require non-existence. That's why I said "atleast not in the form we know them today".
What I layed out is about reformation of identity, not its abolishment. I hope I have made my stance a bit more clear.
Philosophical ideas such as Aesop's fables, or Aristotle's rhetoric, or plato's republic? None of those had anything to do with the judeo christian faith or its ideals, and they were the real force that guided and shaped western civilization as we know it today, not contemporary religious ideology. And if you mean religion in general, it can be demonstrated historically that no single religious ideology was the reason for progress, rather there were completely secular causes that went into forming a successful civilization/culture.
While the works you listed have indeed been influential in the fields such as philosophy, politics and literature, I don't see where you got the idea that they were of equal importance (or higher) to the impact Christianity had on the ancient world.
I ask you to elaborate the bolded as the majority of great historical figures have in fact been religious, with secular thought becoming relevant quite late in history. Not to mention, it seems to be in contradiction with the earlier statement you made about agreeing that religion has shaped the world as we know it.
And for the umpteenth time, why is religion needed to define identity? The persians have thier identity, the romans had theirs, the egyptians their own. We all have a shared ancestry stretching back 250 thousand years as homo sapiens and more than a billion years prior to that. Millions died, and were unable to ever come into this world, we, the lucky few are born into this world against odds of better than a million to one of ever existing, so lets stop whining about not having an identity.
Didn't we agree that it is? I didn't say that religion must be there to have an identity. I said that without religion we would lose the identity we hold now, wich has been rooted in religion as is evident from its impact on our history. We would ofcourse form another identity, but it would be a different one.
Our heritage is much greater, far more grand than the limited vision of modern religion.It is a magnificent tale of our ancestors overcoming incredible odds in order to survive and flourish to bring us to our present state. Religion has nothing to do with any of it. And limitations of recorded history doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive to look into our past
Reffer to what has been said before. Religion has been deeply rooted into our heritage and is thus a crucial part without wich our heritage (as we currently hold it) would be non-existent, and we are uncertain of what the new one would be like.
And ofcourse limitations of recorded history shouldn't stop us from trying to break the boundaries. That's a given.
But to say that religion should form one's identity seems like a legitimate proposition to you? That by a mere accident of birth, your'e ideology and religion and world view should be pre decided for you? (Almost every religious person inherits the beliefs of his/her parents).
Please don't tell me you're bringing the "you believe because you were thaught to believe" argument. Not only does it completely ignore the fact that people aren't mindless drones who simply accept whatever they're thaught but it also implies that atheists are atheists simply because they were born in the circunstances that would allow them to get to the point of embracing atheistic worldviews. As such it is self-defeating.
For the sake of it, I'll assume you meant something else.
And this argument is again ignorant of history.
People, individuals, nations all had identity long before any of the current widely accepted world religions existed, and they will continue to have them long after these ones are gone.
This argument cannot be accepted.
People have to act morally, its a necessity for a viable human society and from the perspective of the individual, who is a component of that society, he/she must either conform to that society's norms or be censored and excluded from the accruing benefits of societal acceptance. Its a phenomenon that pre dates any one specific religion, and there are changes to the 'accepted' moral fabric as human learning and conditions advance(something your argument ignores).
This has nothing to do with what I presented. The purpose of the scenario was to illustrate how people change upon slightest alteration of influnces. For one to be completely rid of something he values on a level far greater that that he considers irrelevant, his behaviour and outlook of the world would be drastically different.
To the religious, religion has been a crucial thing in determining their identity and should they lose it their identity would be drastically different.
Also, what you're saying is "obey or die" method of imposing morals as one could still hold different values that are in opposition to the law presented and with a big enough amount of people holding such a position, the law would be abolished.
Not to mention, society's norms are themselves product of beliefs and worldviews of the ones emposing them so they themselves are a subject of one's identity rather than being a self-sustaining universal rule as you present them.
In the largely agrarian 16th-17th century european society, slavery was actively practiced by almost everyone. But, with the advent of the industrial revolution and the reduced need for slave labor, people were in a position to speak out against it. The first few voices raised in opposition were by a minority of people, and then it eventually transformed into a full blown and outright rejection of its practice.
What changed? Did christianity not exist when the first ships full of slaves from africa were loaded to be shipped into the Americas? Clearly, the judeo christian belief system was unable to act as a deterrent in the case of slavery, or in a later age as a deterrent to the rise of fascism in europe.
This is the very same thing like Gallieo affair. As I said, religion is a belief system and has been used for different (even opposing) things. Just as it was used by some to justify slavery it has also been used by others to condemn it. Historically, Christian view on slavery has varied greatly.
Religion on its own, however, speaks clearly against slavery through the teachings of its foundation. The Bible openly condemns all abuse against your fellow brothers wich clearly speaks against the traditions of said time and thus proves that it did in fact bring new views on things.
Know Marthing Luther King Jr? Christian right there. ^_^
As for the fascism deal, this is one big negative. Not only did the Church not remain silent to the Nazi regime, it was one of the most open opponets of it. This is a historical fact wich is sadly not talked about much. Einstein himself (yes the same Einstein who constantly criticized it) openly complimented it for its efforts. (Regardless of wether the comment was exagarated by the media or not.)
In both cases, morality evolved as the collective human consciousness referred to reasoning, historical review and introspection and people decided to abandon their abhorrent and immoral past. Not as a result of religion acting as a deterrent to immoral human behavior.
First you say that morality evolved, but then you deem previous morality as immoral. This is a contradiction especially coming from an atheist but I don't want to go into this territory as it is completely off-topic, as is the entire Church's stance on certain issues.
That would run the risk of a negative advantage, as criminals who are 'let free', as you claim, and not reformed, would further damage the societal fabric. Also, you keep assuming that i'm touting some sort of alternative history, i'm merely pointing out that religion isn't a major component or contributing factor to most of the things valued by 21st century man.
Not at all. I'm pointing out why religion has influenced the formation of our identity greatly.
And what exactly is valued by 21st century man?
Well, altruism is not because of religion, or any specific religion to be exact.
Altruism in broad sense, no. Certain altruistic values? Yes.
It robs this life of inherent meaning, i.e valuing life for the sake of life. Not for the sake of an entity that may or may not even exist.
Inherent meaning? You seem really bent on giving life some higher purpose despite your worldview going against any such idea. ^_o
Valuing life for the sake of life is a very subjective statement. What is it to value in a life that one would do anything to end? No pain no gain?
You're constantly speaking about life as something to be enjoyed forgetting that many people in the world are leading terrible lives. Lives wich are composed of solely suffering without even a trace of joy anywhere to be seen. What is there to value?
The very reason why many people believe in afterlife isn't because of fear of death/not liking this life/whatever but because of the complete and utmost unfairness of life had it to be its own purpose. I myself would gladly give up my own afterlife if that were to enable a sad soul to finally get the hapiness it deserves.
Even if we're to exclude people like these, you're talking as if religious don't value life and simply pray all the time without doing anything. Believeing in afterlife makes you no less able to enjoy the wonders of this life. In fact, it makes them all the more wonderful as you know there is an even higher beauty ahead.
If you need a constant shadow of demise looming over your head in order to enjoy life then there is something very wrong with you.
False. There are multiple theories on the origin of religion and religious behavior, none of them are a 100% certain, i'll admit, but that doesn't mean we dont know anything about it either. Here:
You must be registered for see links
I dont agree with all the findings, neither do i require you to. However, to say that we know nothing about the origin of religion is false.
What exactly is false about that? I know there are theories, I even said it myself. The fact that there are multiple theories actually go to show that we do not
know wich one is true. We simply choose one that seems more probable than the others.
I myself am well aware of many theories and not just about the origin of religion, but each individual religion and specific beliefs in represented in each of those religions. It is something that sparkles my interest greatly, so forgive me if I end up responding harshly to statements that present these uncertain matters as certain facts.
Many researchers think that it is a by product of something else(a formerly useful trait of our ancestors), i however dont agree with them. Organized religion is at least as old as civilization and settled living, its a reasonable inference to link it to civizational necessities such as law and order. This is a very long debate, if you wish to continue it kindly vm/pm me as we've already gotten largely off topic.
Well, most of the stuff we're talking about here is off-topic. xD
Nah, let's I don't like having long discussions through VM. Let's just leave it for another time and get back to the focus of this thread. Ok?
Who says we have to have meaning on a universal scale? Who is going to be your 'unknown observer' through who's eyes you'd like to judge the meaning of our existence, exactly?
As I said, if we were to pop into existence without a purpose and are to disappear again without a purpose then that existence has been without a purpose. It wasn't really for any greater event. Just a random occurance wich randomly killed itself off.
One's personal goals do not conform for the existence in general as there are many people whose lives were utterly meaningless even on a personal level.
"What is the meaning of all this?"
Philosophers have been busting their head for a long time for a reason.
Karl Marx once said:
'Religion is opium for the masses'.
Everything you stated above is proof of how right he was in regards to that statement. The inevitability of death, suffering and unfairness in this world, is in no way proof for religion.(quite the opposite, in fact). Human suffering is also caused by earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases and the like. But i like how you chose to avoid mentioning all the natural disasters that increase human suffering.
A drug addict doesn't have to face the problem of facing an unpleasant reality either. Doesn't mean his addiction should be encouraged. Reality is what it is, whether you choose to assign a purpose to it all is still a human decision.
'You find yourself on this planet, there is much unfairness and suffering upon it,we're all going to die one day and our bodies will rot , so stop crying about it and do something with the time you've got.
I believe history has thaugth us that Marxism didn't end well. Regardless, I've already mentioned why belief in afterlife isn't because of one's fear and unsatisfaction but a sign of concern for others who have been way more unfortunate then himself.
As for natural disasters, I didn't mention it because there was no need to. I didn't mention all the crimes commited by humanity either. What are you getting at though?
Also, you're talking once again, as if religion requires blind faith, something wich has been proven wrong back on Hawker's thread. There is absolutely no reason to choose a morbid worldview (as you described it) in favour of a enriching one, in the case that both worldviews have evidence going for them.
If we're going to be specific though, evidence points to a much bigger chance of there being something rather than nothing but some other time perhaps.
And ofcourse, this argument doesn't prove any specific belief to be right. I have actually said this in the original post in wich I had presented it (whose context also wasn't to prove any specific belief to be right).
I don't actually disagree, minus the edit that i've bolded on purpose. Religion is not an explanation, it never has been. Its an assumption made on faith.
Btw, there are definitely religious scientists, however the cream of scientists(the national academy of science members in the US, for instance) are in the majority atheists.
It is an explanation. Maybe not a correct or a good one, but it is an explanation.
"a statement or account that makes something clear."
"a reason or justification given for an action or belief."
Just because someone has given you an explanation it doesn't mean that explanation is true. This is evident from the very definition of explanation. Wikipedia agrees too:
An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.
I never said it doesn't have a cause, i said it doesn't have a non physical cause, i.e a reason/cause in the sense of purpose. The earth rotates, and it revolves in an elliptical orbit around the sun due to the forces of gravity at work. There's no ultimate goal this planet is trying to achieve, neither is the sun through its motion in the galaxy, or the universe in its expansion.
I've heard this argument before.
It only works if you can give me an example of ANYTHING that hasn't 'begun to exist' ? What, in all of reality, has not 'begun to exist'? What your'e really saying in the first point is:
Everything other than god has a cause.
That's not an argument at all, as it assumes that god does, in fact exist.
Why would it only work if there were things that haven't begun to exist? I don't see where you got that.
Umm, what? That's not the first premise. The first premise is
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause". A logical statement as for something to begin to exist something must have caused its existence.
What do you not understand there?
But what really does exist, in reality? Moving on:
Let's see, Exist=cause
I'm assuming here, unless you can provide me an example of anything in the observable universe or in nature that exists and has not had a beginning?:
began=exist
so, began=cause
But if God never began, then God has no cause.
Therefore, using your premise, God does not exist.
You're asking me to point to something in the universe that hasn't begun to exist. This is a fallacy because this universe itself begun to exist as it could not have been eternal, and as such things that are in the universe (that compose it) have begun to exist as well. Why do you limit yourself to this universe.
And why are you saying began and exist are same things. This is literally ignoring the meaning of these words in favour of making a wordplay. Exist means to be real. Begin means for something to start. Cause means to by some action force something to happen. In this case you're forcing something to begin existing.
Exist - have objective reality or being.
Begin - perform or undergo the first part of (an action or activity)
Cause - make (something) happen.
Also, you're putting the universe and God (two completely different things) in the same margins, but I'll get to that soon.
The funny thing is though, this argument doesn't even mention God. God is absolutely not of importance here. What it concludes is that something higher than this reality that binds our universe is necessarry to be a cause. What that cause is we do not know.
God, as presented in this or that religion, may be the cause but in no way is he known to be the cause.
The crucial part of laying out the argument is the context in wich it is presented and what it is to achieve. Thus, you could run into a same argument a few times and end up at different conclusions because the argument is presented in a different context and is as such to be considered a separate argument from others. ^^
I already have. And the problem, i'll reiterate is that there's nothing in the observable universe, in nature that has not bugun to exist. Thus, to re word, everything that is known to exist has had a beginning.
Yes, everything that is known. Still don't see how this is a problem.
The essence of this argument, and what your'e really trying to say, is that an actual infinity cannot exist(as distinct from a mathematical infinity). Therefore the universe could not have existed forever, it had to have a start and by extension a cause. And any appeals to solve this regress, such as the multiverse theory would also be subject to this regress. But guess what? So would an explanation invoking god.
If an actual infinity cannot exist, (which is your argument in a nutshell), then neither can God, who is by definition subject to the same problems as infinity.
'infinity cant be matched by infinity itself'!
Philosophically, God can't be matched by god himself, either. For instance, can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
Ah, but there is a philosophical answer to why infinite regression doesn't affect God, and this answer lies in the very theological interpretation of who God is. This is where another argument comes into play - the Transcendency argument.
- Transcendency argument
God, by his definition in Judeo-Christian religions, is a transcendent being. This means that He is beyond our comprehension. Only things we know about God are the things He chose to reveal to us. He cannot be studied or subjected to research. On our own, we can't find out anything about Him, but only draw conclusions from that wich He has revealed. This is the basic concept of God in Judeo-Christian religions and is a primary attribute tied to God as seen there.
Universe is a different story. It is obviously not impossible to understand as it is in the process of being understood as we speak. Also, it is not a personal figure like the concept of Judeo-Christian God, so it can't reveal anything to us.
Thus same rules don't apply to both God and the universe, as for it to be valid the concept of God would have to be different, thus the concept of Judeo-Christian God isn't a subject to the supposed paradoxes that bind an infinite universe.
If it wasn't transcendent than that would no longer be the God in question here. That's the very reason why God is god in Judeo-Christian religions.
The big bang model showcases that the universe has had a start,but there is scientific research that implies an eternal universe:
You must be registered for see links
Wich is a lot less probable and logically impossible. Big Bang is accepted by the majority of scientists, but regardless, both are basically just assumptions based on what we know so far. Same goes for pretty much all other theories because we simply aren't advanced enough to know how something like this happened. Not yet atleast.
Except that the concept of 'time' is relative, and not absolute. You don't just keep going backwards ad infinitum, time itself has an origin with the big bang(assuming big bang cosmology is correct). It makes about as much sense to speak of infinite time as it does to speak of infinite space.
And what exactly do you propose as an alternative? I myself see time as somewhat an abstract thing. Something that doesn't exist in a full sense of the word, much like a number or similar properties. Why numbers? Well numbers can be understood simply as measurements for how many things there are.
Suppose nothing exists except a cube. Just a plain random cube floating in nothingness. A hypothetical scenario. There is no space, there is no vacuum there is just this plain cube. Now, just from observing this scenario we can conclude that if there is nothing else but this cube in existence then there is only this one cube. But here we already see that besides cube there is a number. A number wich you use to determine how many cubes are there.
This means that in reality abstract things will always exist on an abstract level. This is a matter wich is covered in the Contingency argument, but better not go into it now as it isn't really necessarry. Just because material things such as space, universe, planets etc. don't exist that doesn't mean abstract objects do not exist.
Why compare time to a number and from where do I get the idea that time is abstract? Why, the very definition of time ofcourse:
"Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them"
Time isn't necessarilly related to space, as it is simply a measure for that wich is. If there is nothing to be measured that doesn't mean time doesn't exist.
Assumptions are made AFTER examining the data from observations and experiments, not before them.
But what drives the scientist to commint an experiment. Surely he's not doing it on a whim. (That would be unpleasant.) No. He's convicned that something may come out of it.
They are corrupt when they are assumed with the sole purpose of clinging onto a pre conceived belief.
If that pre-conceived belief is based on prior knowledge, logic and reasoning there is nothing wrong with assuming. Afterall if we were to discard everything we assume, we wouldn't really be allowed to even discuss our existence, as there is no proof of our existence as complex beings that we are in favor of simply being a momentary illusion in a dying brain.
