Religion A world without religion

[Mars Man]

I understand your point, Revenant, and I especially agree with those mid and latter points about going to the root of a matter.

I would also use that most logical and realistic plan of action as being the reason why a paradigm shift towards a new unified religiosity would naturally mean a leaving off of much of the present belief-systems that hold sway over so much of humankind. This is true in that, to quote the title from Pope John Paul II's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth."

The most basic tenents of Islam, for example, absolutely rule out the most basic tenets of Christianity. The original most basic tenets of Christianity rule out the original most basic tenents of Judaism. The original most basic tenents of Buddhism rule out those of Hinduism, and so on and so forth.

Religion, however, is an innate state of mind, that even our close cousins, the primates, may have some degree of. Since that is the root, that is where we should work our way back to firstly, I would argue. To that degree, I would agree that 'religion' will always be with us humans. (and please note I do not mean 'belief-systems' [but I guess all know that by now. . . ])

 

[No-name]

Someone could rant on about the evils of science. There are millions slaughtered in the name of science-- of scientifically applied governemental theory using scientific methods. This does not even count the millions slaughtered using pseudo racial sciences like eugenics. There is also the use of science to create weapons to kill the millions, to track, plan and execute the millions. The big bombs and chemical and biological weapons... the better bullets and planes and missles...the poisons and the degredation of water and food sources...the application of psychology and social theory. Someone could rant on about the evils of science and how the world would be better off without the murderous influences of science. They could rant on, but they probably would look crazy.

 

[Revenant]

Someone does look a bit crazy in their rants against religion....

Religion fulfils some need, otherwise it wouldn't be there. I'm just saying that rants against religions aren't terribly effective. More effective than rants would be offering an alternative that fulfils the same needs, if that can actually be done.

As I said before, I don't find any of the religions core doctrines to be in any way evil (even if I find some parts of religions confusing). All major religions promote something akin to the golden rule, and also powerful paradigms that work well for some people. I see religion like art. While some art is moving to one person, it does nothing for another..

The literal readings need to be replaced with readings that better fit science and for readings that promote oneness with the 'golden rule' of the particular religion (i.e. terrorism doesn't go with the Islamic rule of love). Also religious history needs to be studied to do away with customs that are a hindrance, but were never originally not a part of that religion. Traditions I feel can get in the way of the spirit of the religion.

Dunno, still sorting my thoughts out on religion and stuff.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that instructs him to be bad.

Anyway,

The literal readings need to be replaced with readings that better fit science and for readings that promote oneness with the 'golden rule' of the particular religion (i.e. terrorism doesn't go with the Islamic rule of love). Also religious history needs to be studied to do away with customs that are a hindrance, but were never originally not a part of that religion. Traditions I feel can get in the way of the spirit of the religion.

I completely agree with that - my point above was that this happens naturally, no coercion is necessary. As scientific facts become blatantly obvious, religions have to accept them at the expense of certain doctrines. That doesn't take away anything at all from the positive aspects of these religions - which, as you say Revenant, is supposed to be to promote love. The religions that survive will be the ones that are willing to adapt.

The essentials of Christianity, in spite of what many Christians may assert, has been summed up in several rather simple straightforward creeds, the most common being "The Apostle's Creed." There is nothing in these essentials that would conflict necessarily with anything science is likely to find or to even be looking for. Any doctrines which disagree with science are simply non-essential.

I guess that's true. I think in the (perhaps distant) future, Christianity will survive as a religion that uses the teachings of Jesus as a moral standard, and the miracles etc will slowly become less important - as Thomas Jefferson envisaged.

 

[No-name]

Since it has been over 200 years since Jefferson took his scissors to the family bible, I doubt it has little chance of catching on. It is not a bad idea, but it is bad theology. And why believe and devote your life to someone when it just turns out that he was a good guy. That's not Christianity... it sounds more like Bobism...(if bob represents the average guy.)

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Since it has been over 200 years since Jefferson took his scissors to the family bible, I doubt it has little chance of catching on. It is not a bad idea, but it is bad theology.

I think it is a long way off, and if it does happen it won't be anything to do with Jefferson - just coincidentally similar.

And why believe and devote your life to someone when it just turns out that he was a good guy.

He wouldn't be just any old good guy though - to my imaginary futuristic Christians he would be the best kind of guy that a human can be - which sounds like a pretty good ideal to devote your life to. I think there are already some Christians who believe this - they worship Jesus, but they don't take the miracles literally.

 

[No-name]

Eh, sounds kinda like bland mexican food to me. What would the point be? If Jesus is not God incarnate as proven by those miracles than you might as well worship Bill Gates or Gandhi or your local athletic hero. Without a redeeming sacrifice and resurrection miracle there is no point to Christianity.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Eh, sounds kinda like bland mexican food to me. What would the point be? If Jesus is not God incarnate as proven by those miracles than you might as well worship Bill Gates or Gandhi or your local athletic hero. Without a redeeming sacrifice and resurrection miracle there is no point to Christianity.

I agree with Sabro, but I don't see why religion must "worship" some entity or person. They don't really have to, you know.

 

[Mars Man]

Eh, sounds kinda like bland mexican food to me. What would the point be? If Jesus is not God incarnate as proven by those miracles than you might as well worship Bill Gates or Gandhi or your local athletic hero. Without a redeeming sacrifice and resurrection miracle there is no point to Christianity.

Hey folks, these past few days, I've been tied up, and may be for just a few more, but just had time for one quick post today, so here it is.

I will have to think over the ideas presented here more carefully before going on and joining in, however, I would like to emphasize, that the second sentence in the above quote should be looked at from a distance, sabro san.

By doing so, I would strongly argue that overtones of absoluteness should be avoided in the claim. Also, you may recall that Paul had used the same argument in one of his letters--the 'all or nothing'.

However, I would say that there is more to Christianity than just those concepts, so that if those concepts were totally dropped, Christianity would survive--would recieve absolutely no admonition from an angry god.

At the same time, statements (which are basic tenents; one being post 150) of this nature uphold an earlier point I had made (somewhere) that the basic tenents of Isalm, for example, outrule those of Christianity--they both cannot be true. One of the basic platforms has to be false. Now, which one?

So...take the religion out of the belief-systems, and we have no problems. And in that same way, we can put religion and science together.

Sabro san, please do not see this as an attack, but simple to urge reflection and thoughtfulness.

 

[No-name]

I can't speak for Islam, but what rule of logic deems that if one is correct, all must be correct? I'm not sure I am following you on this.

 

[Mars Man]

Oh...well, first I'd like to say that my post before this one was not so well laid out. Sorry 'bout that. AND, secondly, it's nice to see you posting here Mikawa san !!

Then, if it's ok sabro san, I think it may be better to take this explanation to 'Christianity: Conceptions and Misconceptions'. I hope you don't mind.:bow: :relief:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I agree with Sabro, but I don't see why religion must "worship" some entity or person. They don't really have to, you know.

I agree - this goes along with my point, in a way. I think Christianity could work like Buddhism. Buddha is followed and revered without being worshipped. I don't mean we should try to make Christianity like Buddhism. I mean that if the trend of scientific discoveries disproving religious beliefs continues, Christianity could survive to become more like Buddhism. Does that make sense?

 

[No-name]

I don't know that a religion "has" to worship some entity. But they certainly do. In the absence of religion, it seems that people will worship something anyway. I believe it is an inate part of human nature.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think you're right Sabro. Although I might not call it 'worship', there are some things I class as 'superior' to my own opinions, needs etc. Probably for me (and for other non-religious people maybe), those things occupy my 'god module'. What do you think? I guess for some people, their own egos occupy their god module - I've had a couple of bosses like that

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I don't know that a religion "has" to worship some entity. But they certainly do. In the absence of religion, it seems that people will worship something anyway. I believe it is an inate part of human nature.

I don't know about that. Perhaps you're right, but I don't feel any desire to "worship" anything. I don't see what it accomplishes.

Even if, say, Christianity is correct and God created man to worship him, what does that do for him? Why does he feel the need to be worshipped? I can't make any sense of it.

 

[No-name]

From the Christian perspective it is a bit circular: God created man to worship Him. Man has an inherent need to worship something. I'm not sure the God "feels the need" or gets anything out if it, simply suffice it to say that He is worthy to be worshiped. (Obviously God has both the Messiah complex and the God complex, go figure.)

If people don't worship God, they just go off and find some other idol to worship- a car, a woman, a man, celebrities, money, work, family, sports, sports teams. Worship is a sense of dedication- praise, declaring the value of it, promoting it, celebrating it... Dedicating altars, icons, statues, pictures, music...naming babies after something, sacrificing, singing the song, adapting your behavior, giving your time, money and devoting your attention to something...it is all "worship." You can worship anything, anybody or even an abstract idea. (Does that make sense?)

I have kids at the high school that worship a plant. They smoke the plant. Plan their day and finances around the plant. Wear clothing dedicated to the plant. Put pictures of the plant wherever they go. They sacrifice their family, friends, education and future to the plant. They tatoo the plant on their bodies. That is worship.

 

[Mars Man]

I don't know that a religion "has" to worship some entity. But they certainly do. In the absence of religion, it seems that people will worship something anyway. I believe it is an inate part of human nature.

I can see this, in that enough has evidenced such an innate aspect in the average human (and very possibly primate) mind. At the same time, I can see the point the Mikawa san has made and that Tsuyoiko has put out.

I would like to see that object of 'expression of admiration emotionally and physically' (worship) be directed towards what I call life essence, and the sphere in which it is found. Each individual life form being a 'miracle' in itself is important for sure as an element of that large ever shifting, adjusting, ameba-like essence called life, yet it should not be overlooked that life essence itself is the means and the ends.

That's one of the ideas I'm working on, at least.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

MM - I think that's similar to what I 'worship', although I would probably rather say 'respect and awe' - i.e. Nature, the Universe and the explanations and speculations for how it came to be.

 

[No-name]

What is "worship?" I believe that "repspect and awe" are defenitely an inborn human compulsion. Dedication and devotion to ideas and concepts, identification with greater purposes... I am not sure I can find a good definition for the parameters of this thought... let me think a bit and get back to it.

What would be the scientific purpose for the evolutionary development of a sense of awe?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

What would be the scientific purpose for the evolutionary development of a sense of awe?

That's a good question! I don't know the answer ...