Is religion obsolete?

CDfm · 27-12-2008 08:23PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

It would be like a blank sheet of paper on which we could invent our own story.

Someone is looking for a gig then:D

DublinWriter · 27-12-2008 08:26PM

CDfm wrote: »

Someone is looking for a gig then:D

I'm cheap!

PDN · 27-12-2008 08:32PM

Helix wrote: »

surely intolerance is an imperfection?

No, not at all.

I wouldn't tolerate my daughter using racist language. Is that a flaw on my part?

CDfm · 27-12-2008 08:34PM

Wicknight wrote: »

But you see that is the point. Ultimately the things you do or don't do don't decide if you are happy or not.

You can stop doing the things that upset you, but that isn't the same as being happy. You still have all the emotional and mental baggage that was drawing you to those things in the first place.

If a person is miserable and then starts leading a Christian life and finds their life improves that certain is an improvement in their lives. But it doesn't deal with the issue of why they were miserable in the first place. All those reasons are still present.

A very well argued point - and I dont disagree with you.

Take your ex-GF - even a little bit of thinking of others and rather than being nasty to you would have lightened the mood. you put it very well that she neeeded an external resourse. For many a belief provides that.

And I dont really believe some needs to over analyse the past.

smcgiff · 27-12-2008 08:34PM

Abraham wrote: »

Why ? What's that all about ?

God has an inferiority complex. I think it's because the Devil gets all the good roles in the movies.

DublinWriter · 27-12-2008 08:41PM

smcgiff wrote: »

God has an inferiority complex. I think it's because the Devil gets all the good roles in the movies.

Maybe there ain't no Devil, maybe it's God when he's drunk.

CDfm · 27-12-2008 08:45PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

Maybe there ain't no Devil, maybe it's God when he's drunk.

Tom Waits - you postin on boards?

Abraham · 27-12-2008 10:17PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No it's not.

Abraham, I assume you are looking for a Christian response? Well, praise of God is seen as a natural consequence of his perfection. That perfection, in turn, has no tolerance for imperfection. If you mix black and white you are left with neither colour.

Although a poor analogy, a relationship with God can be compared to being in love with another person. If, for instance, you started going out with someone, you wouldn't find it odd to think often about them and want to be close to them. Generosity and a type of sacrifice are natural consequence of being in love. However, neither are considered to be something lost on your part, they are things you freely give and benefit from. Christians don't believe that God is on some massive ego trip, nor do we believe that people are separated from him (damnation) for not spending every waking hour worshipping him. Such a line of thought is to misunderstand the core principals of Christian belief.

Fanny C - I only wish I could make sense of that. I've read it several times and find it very waffly. It's a philosophical explanation through and through.

In simple terms, in the Christian scheme of things there is no salvation without a declared love of God....Right or Wrong ? A simple answer without the philosophy will suffice.

So what becomes of those poor souls who have no understanding of these philosophical peregrinations ?

robindch · 27-12-2008 11:36PM

PDN wrote: »

Helix wrote:

Fanny wrote:

Well, praise of God is seen as a natural consequence of his perfection. That perfection, in turn, has no tolerance for imperfection

surely intolerance is an imperfection?

No, not at all. I wouldn't tolerate my daughter using racist language. Is that a flaw on my part?

Looking at the way that you replied to this -- and many other similar posts -- I must ask if you've ever read Plato's Gorgias, and if you did, what did you think of it?

jill_valentine · 27-12-2008 11:42PM

It's been addressed since, but I'd just like to clarify what I meant here, because I'm pretty sure I sounded like a twat. Uh... I suspect I'm going to do nothing to dispel that, but it's sincerely not my intention to troll or to attack a particular poster. It's just that I've been thinking about this lately and then the example presented itself...

CDfm wrote: »

But as God exists there is no problem with that -unless you get some uncaring atheist unfairly picking on someone.

Whats wrong if someone finds reason and gets assistance and hope from their religion.

Incorporating religion into your life, or indeed, restructuring your life around it is one thing - confidently making a statement as absolute as "Without belief in God, there is no point in living" is something entirely different, and, to me, quite an alarming sentiment for somebody to express. I'm aware that my own particular standpoint might colour my thinking on this, but surely being solely dependant on any given thing - be it religion, Counterstrike or citrus fruit- is not a healthy outlook?

I might make a separate thread about this particular point, because I really would like a few Christian perspectives on it. Is it a representative attitude?

bus77 · 28-12-2008 01:00AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

Incorporating religion into your life, or indeed, restructuring your life around it is one thing - confidently making a statement as absolute as "Without belief in God, there is no point in living" is something entirely different, and, to me, quite an alarming sentiment for somebody to express. I'm aware that my own particular standpoint might colour my thinking on this, but surely being solely dependant on any given thing - be it religion, Counterstrike or citrus fruit- is not a healthy outlook?

I might make a separate thread about this particular point, because I really would like a few Christian perspectives on it. Is it a representative attitude?

Well, It would be like a partner disapearing on you.

MatthewVII · 28-12-2008 11:42AM

Without your partner you still have friends, family, a calling etc, things that give your life meaning apart from just a partner or religion. There are so many ways in which we can define ourselves besides our faith that it's kind of frightening when someone claims that their life can have no meaning outside of religion

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2008 02:49PM

robindch wrote: »

Looking at the way that you replied to this -- and many other similar posts -- I must ask if you've ever read Plato's Gorgias, and if you did, what did you think of it?

Sorry, are you addressing PDN or myself?

moe_sizlak · 28-12-2008 03:40PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

Without your partner you still have friends, family, a calling etc, things that give your life meaning apart from just a partner or religion. There are so many ways in which we can define ourselves besides our faith that it's kind of frightening when someone claims that their life can have no meaning outside of religion

in my experience , it is the weak and hopeless who make comments like , without god , one,s life is meaningless , in my experience , it is the weak who are the most religous

PDN · 28-12-2008 03:41PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, are you addressing PDN or myself?

It's probably directed at me. Plato's Gorgias is a rather dull discussion about rhetoric and sophistry - two terms that a particular poster likes to throw around when he doesn't like a statement but is unwilling to say why. Maybe the virus, or meme, is spreading among our little cabal of atheists.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2008 04:14PM

PDN wrote: »

It's probably directed at me. Plato's Gorgias is a rather dull discussion about rhetoric and sophistry - two terms that a particular poster likes to throw around when he doesn't like a statement but is unwilling to say why. Maybe the virus, or meme, is spreading among our little cabal of atheists.

Who could you possibly be referring to? :pac:

Ah, I though it may have been a back-handed complement from Robin (with a 'but' in there, of course)

robindch · 28-12-2008 05:20PM

PDN wrote: »

It's probably directed at me.

Well, since you were the immediate quotee, yes, the question was indeed directed towards you

PDN wrote: »

Plato's Gorgias is a rather dull discussion about rhetoric and sophistry

As somebody -- was it Michael Sugrue? -- once said if you find Plato dull, then you probably don't understand what you're reading.

On the contrary, Gorgias is an interesting dialog which contrasts two approaches to the search for truth -- that of the philosopher who questions beliefs, and that of the sophist or rhetorician who implants them, frequently by bending language and the uses of words. The Euthydemus covers similar territory, and sophists don't come out of either dialog looking all that well.

Anyhow, as above, I was simply wondering if you'd read it and what you made of it.

PDN · 28-12-2008 10:28PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Who could you possibly be referring to? :pac:

Ah, I though it may have been a back-handed complement from Robin (with a 'but' in there, of course)

Implying that you think someone may have read Plato is indeed a sort of compliment in today's semi-literate world. Alas it was more back-handed than compliment, but we can grateful for small mercies

.

CDfm · 29-12-2008 02:50AM

PDN wrote: »

Implying that you think someone may have read Plato is indeed a sort of compliment in today's semi-literate world. Alas it was more back-handed than compliment, but we can grateful for small mercies .

I dont think so- its very existentialist and quite manneredly for him to yap away on this model.

While I am not up on it -you do have theistic and atheistic existentialism.

But Sartre -would have held the view (i Think) that you are still responsible for your actions having free will.Would theistic atheists bring God into the equation as the source of morality?

Is its approach like Aristotle who asked loads of questions and provided few answers.

I am very rusty on the philosophical side but the exististentialists do recognise the dilemma of being without God.

no.1 · 29-12-2008 11:22PM

I'm not really going to read through all these pages, but the answer to the original question is "Yes" I think.

CDfm · 29-12-2008 11:33PM

no.1 wrote: »

I'm not really going to read through all these pages, but the answer to the original question is "Yes" I think.

Surely you have a reason-for your well thought out answer?

no.1 · 30-12-2008 12:36AM

As the human species becomes more educated about the world around them them, the need for religion decreases. It's a very simple, undeniable trend and is happening right now and to be honest I actually can't wait till the trend tops out and religion is finally winnowed out. Of course we'll keep the churces as historical artifacts and showcases of amazing architecture.

Religion wil have no place in society at large in 50 to 100 years, except for some crazy muslim countries if they still exist then and haven't been nuked to smithereens by other religious folk.

CDfm · 30-12-2008 12:40AM

no.1 wrote: »

As the human species becomes more educated about the world around them them, the need for religion decreases. It's a very simple, undeniable trend and is happening right now and to be honest I actually can't wait till the trend tops out and religion is finally winnowed out. Of course we'll keep the churces as historical artifacts and showcases of amazing architecture.

Religion wil have no place in society at large in 50 to 100 years, except for some crazy muslim countries if they still exist then and haven't been nuked to smithereens by other religious folk.

No1 - define for me what you mean by the religous need which is disappearing and what new things or theories are makeing religion obsolete.

I have not heard anything to convince me?

philologos · 30-12-2008 01:01AM

no.1 wrote: »

As the human species becomes more educated about the world around them them, the need for religion decreases. It's a very simple, undeniable trend and is happening right now and to be honest I actually can't wait till the trend tops out and religion is finally winnowed out. Of course we'll keep the churces as historical artifacts and showcases of amazing architecture.

Religion wil have no place in society at large in 50 to 100 years, except for some crazy muslim countries if they still exist then and haven't been nuked to smithereens by other religious folk.

People like Friedrich Nietzsche thought that too, but alas religion's still alive and kicking. I must say though, his Parable of the Madman is a very well written piece of writing even if I disagree with it.

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers.

Of course like you he was wishfully thinking. Infact if you look around yourself in the world, although there may be slightly less people exerting it in Europe, people have never been so faithful compared to the likes we have today.

Again whether or not this is positive or negative is another thing, it's just to argue that religion might just be more active in peoples lives than you may think.

Húrin · 30-12-2008 01:49AM

no.1 wrote: »

As the human species becomes more educated about the world around them them, the need for religion decreases. It's a very simple, undeniable trend and is happening right now and to be honest I actually can't wait till the trend tops out and religion is finally winnowed out. Of course we'll keep the churces as historical artifacts and showcases of amazing architecture.

Religion wil have no place in society at large in 50 to 100 years, except for some crazy muslim countries if they still exist then and haven't been nuked to smithereens by other religious folk.

I go to a church which has a large number of doctors and other professionals in its congregation. I would even say that most members over the age of 25 have a degree. I am studying for a degree. If your hypothesis is true, then it would be the least educated members of the community flocking to the churches. In reality, religion is still attracting a broad cross-section of the community, both highly educated and less educated.

Your pop-sociology explanation does not stand up.

Jakkass wrote: »

People like Friedrich Nietzsche thought that too, but alas religion's still alive and kicking. I must say though, his Parable of the Madman is a very well written piece of writing even if I disagree with it.

Neitzsche was not using the madman parable to say that education is causing the decline of religion. He used it to show that belief in God had become unbelievable in late 19th century middle-class European society. It just seemed ridiculous and unappealing to most people - not for solid philosophical reasons, but just that the realities of God as explained by the Christian church no longer appealed to their tastes. He didn't say this was good or bad. He just offered this observation, and I think he was absolutely right. It's even more true in contemporary Europe today than it was back then.

no.1 · 30-12-2008 02:14PM

No1 - define for me what you mean by the religous need which is disappearing

We are an inquisitive species, we ask many questions about the world around us. The educated use science to answer questions and come up with plausible answers.

We can be quite stupid at times too. The "need" I refer to is the need to turn to Religion, Christianity in particular, for guidance and answers. As more and more people are "woken" from ignorance in the 21st century the need to turn to a 2000 year old book for guidance becomes no more for many people.

Húrin wrote: »

I go to a church which has a large number of doctors and other professionals in its congregation. I would even say that most members over the age of 25 have a degree. I am studying for a degree. If your hypothesis is true, then it would be the least educated members of the community flocking to the churches. In reality, religion is still attracting a broad cross-section of the community, both highly educated and less educated.

Just because they go to church it doesn't mean they believe in the supernatural aspect of it. I was in church on christmas day, I was also in church for a months mind not too long ago. It's has more to do with tradition than hard-core belief. Those doctors and other professionals are not really attending church to praise a God in the sky but merely to honour a tradition that they have known all their life.

When my foreign friends ask why the Irish worship drink so much without really realising how nuts it all is (look at any main street at 2:30am on a Sat night) I just say "meh, tradition". Every culture has their own traditions and Gods. Every country can't all be right about their Gods though can they? It's actually more likely that everybody is wrong.

Education is a huge enemy of religion, and I'm sure the educated church goers have some very intersting questions to ask about their religion, but they're probably afraid to "come out of the closet" if you know what I mean.

Your pop-sociology explanation does not stand up.

And by the way, don't tell me that religion is not on the decline here in Ireland because it 100% definitely is. People are realising that this faerytale is just a bit too crazy to be believing in as we move into the future. The bible is from a time when the general consensus was that the world was flat, rested on a turtles back and you could fall off the edge into space. Somehow these thickos could read the mind of God and write a book about it?

Húrin · 30-12-2008 02:48PM

no.1 wrote: »

We are an inquisitive species, we ask many questions about the world around us. The educated use science to answer questions and come up with plausible answers.

Genuinely educated people don't peddle false dichotomies like science vs religion.

Just because they go to church it doesn't mean they believe in the supernatural aspect of it. I was in church on christmas day, I was also in church for a months mind not too long ago. It's has more to do with tradition than hard-core belief. Those doctors and other professionals are not really attending church to praise a God in the sky but merely to honour a tradition that they have known all their life.

I know these people, and many of them are my friends. I know from talking to them that they are serious about Christianity. Given that many are from abroad, the "tradition" argument makes even less sense. They attend church regularly, not just at Christmas and Easter. (This is not a Catholic church btw) One of them leads a weekly Bible study at which we discuss the miracles of Jesus, and theology.

Every culture has their own traditions and Gods. Every country can't all be right about their Gods though can they? It's actually more likely that everybody is wrong.

So you admit to being wrong when you elevate your obviously vague notions of "education" and "science" to the status of metaphysical perfection?

Education is a huge enemy of religion, and I'm sure the educated church goers have some very intersting questions to ask about their religion, but they're probably afraid to "come out of the closet" if you know what I mean.

Probably this, maybe that. As long as you produce no evidence for your claims you are the one who appears uneducated.

And by the way, don't tell me that religion is not on the decline here in Ireland because it 100% definitely is. People are realising that this faerytale is just a bit too crazy to be believing in as we move into the future.

I agree, religion has declined since the boom started. According to the Examiner's survey on religion in the middle of 2008, most Irish people still believed in God, and even prayed often. Church attendance and belief in a lot of Catholic teaching had fallen though.

The bible is from a time when the general consensus was that the world was flat, rested on a turtles back and you could fall off the edge into space. Somehow these thickos could read the mind of God and write a book about it?

Sounds like you're not too educated about what the Bible says.

If you think nothing in Ireland has changed over the past twenty years other than levels of education, you should get out more. I maintain, your pop-sociology explanation does not stand up.

no.1 · 30-12-2008 03:58PM

Húrin wrote: »

Genuinely educated people don't peddle false dichotomies like science vs religion.

How is it false?

Every culture has their own traditions and Gods. Every country can't all be right about their Gods though can they? It's actually more likely that everybody is wrong.

So you admit to being wrong when you elevate your obviously vague notions of "education" and "science" to the status of metaphysical perfection?

I'm not sure if you got my point. Most religious followers believe that their religion is the truth and that their god is the only one. What makes your religion more truthful than that of the African Zulu? Here is a list of the known African Gods. Do you believe in any of them? Or do you think that your God is the one and only?

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/african-mythology.php?_gods-list

Húrin · 30-12-2008 06:25PM

no.1 wrote: »

How is it false?

Religion and science exist to answer different types of questions. Religion is for metaphysical questions. Science depends on observation of physical objects. Both tend to perform poorly when trying to answer questions that falls within the other's remit.

I'm not sure if you got my point. Most religious followers believe that their religion is the truth and that their god is the only one.

Of course I got your point.

By elevating science to replace religion (I use religion in the expanded sense here, not just Christianity) you are asking of it more than it is capable of. You are seeing it as not just a tool to learn about the universe we live in but also the method by which we can answer all the ultimate questions of existence. Thus you are putting a vague notion of science in the same "one and only" place that religions put their Gods in.

no.1 · 30-12-2008 09:28PM

Húrin wrote: »

Religion and science exist to answer different types of questions. Religion is for metaphysical questions.

Then why is the "history" of the creation of the universe in every religion?

By elevating science to replace religion (I use religion in the expanded sense here, not just Christianity) you are asking of it more than it is capable of. You are seeing it as not just a tool to learn about the universe we live in but also the method by which we can answer all the ultimate questions of existence.

Asking a 2000 year old book to answer the ultimate questions of existence in this day and age seems a tad silly to me. That's why religion is obsolete.

How can you find answers by worshiping a god or "celestial dictator" of any kind; muslim, christian, zulu, mayan or otherwise. Where do you get your answers? Why aren't prayers answered? My aunt was struck down with cancer, and she was the most religious person I've ever known. She sang in the church choir since the 70s. Why did that happen? Do I turn to science for the answer, or a 2000 year old chinese whisper?

Since the dawn of reason, science has been providing a lot of important answers, where as religion has been suppressing them. The burning of Copernicus at the stake is one of the many hundreds of reasons not to ever ever give the time of day to a religious cult. I wouldn't even donate a cent.

Just recently the pope condemned homosexuality. I'm sure a lot of gay christians will be very happy about that. I bet he wishes they could be burned on at the stake too. Ain't religion neat?

Is religion obsolete?

Comments