Religion

[llauma 0]

The obvious question is then: if we can't feel it, touch it, taste it, measure it in any way, is it relevant?

If it can't be measured in any way, then it can hardly affect us or anything within our physical reality. And if we can't measure it, then we can't ever prove or disprove its existance. We can't be aware of it in any way. So is it relevant?

The problem with religions is that they often make claims that wander into the "measurable domain" - i.e they tell of gods interfereing with our very measurable physical reality. And that's easily disproved. The Bible claims that there was a great flood covering all of earth, but geological evidence says otherwise. The Bible also says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, which is obviously refuted by measurements.

Now of course, reasonable Christians have let their faith evolve in light of scientific discoveries - and brought it to a more abstract level. One should not read the bible literally and so on.. But that brings us right back to my first point - once it becomes completely abstract and not measurable in any way - is it really relevant? And I'm not talking about religion as a psychological motivation tool, but as a universal way of explaining the universe.

Yes It's not an easy question.. Propably one of the hardest there is.

All I can do is to give my own oppinion. Do I think that God has to be relevant? Not really, but we can just as well consider him relevant. It's all about believing and the second we believe that God is relevant he'll be that.

I agree with you about religion claiming God interfaring with everything on earth. There are christians who still believe that the world is just 6000 years old because that's what the bible says. People letting their children die because the treatment would be against their religion etc.

What's so wrong with religions adapting to the discoveries of science? The scientists thought that the earth was flat but then they discovered that it's a sphere. Einstein once believed that it was unlikely that we would ever be able to use the energy in atoms. You have to consider that the Bible is written by some men and it's their way to interprete God and what he wants of us. The problem with Religion vs. Science is that religion adapts really slow, but even the scientists often have some problems with accepting new discoveries.

Using religion to explain the universe is pretty outdated but faith in God has never been about explaining the universe. If it's all abstract to the science doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people. I could say the same about many sciences like the string theory. We'll never be able to prove it with a test so is it relevant? Maybe not but according to science it's everything so how can't it be relevant? After all it's the scientific way to explain the universe.

[Bernadotte 0]

Do you believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe even though there is no undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence?

That's not really the same as believing in a God. It's more like a logical conclusion based of science. It's like if I would decide to close my eyes while driving from Stockholm to Gothenburg. Will I crash? That can't possibly be proven without me doing the test but I certainly believe I will.

Pehaps an act of God will save you from crashing.

In any case, most believers in God don't need the undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence that denoir is looking for. Most are quite content with what they consider undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence of acts of God. Even though others will consider most of those same events as explainable acts of nature.

[Bernadotte 0]

It's all about believing and the second we believe that God is relevant he'll be that.

I totally agree that God is like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  They do not need to exist to be relevant.  

[denoir 0]

If it can't be measured in any way, then it can hardly affect us or anything within our physical reality. And if we can't measure it, then we can't ever prove or disprove its existance. We can't be aware of it in any way. So is it relevant?

Sorry for going slightly off-topic here.  But one of the things I've wondered was kind of sparked by this.  We have five senses, we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell.  Is there a sixth, seventh, or more definable senses we simply o not have?  Such as, can a person who's been blind since birth comprehend what sight really is?  What about something that simply does not have eyes or any way to see.  Is there something we're missing and because so we cannot even comprehend, effecting how we may measure our physical reality?

There are quite many things we can't sens directly, but that's where instruments come in.

For instance, your example with a blind person - there are systems that transform video signals into audio representations, allowing blind people to "see" though sound. We extend our senses through instrumentation, and then we transform the information from the instruments to something that we can sense. You can't sense voltage, but using a voltmeter, you can read off the voltage from a display.

Kegetys:

Quote[/b] ] How could we ever observe a world using scientific means with no concepts such as matter, time, energy, etc.? Wouldn't it also make some sense to think that our universe, which has this thing we call "time", would originate from a world where time doesn't exist because time requires some sort of starting point. I think many religions say their gods are "infinite", so they might exist in such alternative dimension.

It's quite simple, if those alternative universes somehow interact with ours, it is measurable. If not while they may very well exist, they would be completely irrelevant for our universe. What use do you have of a god locked up in another universe, unable to reach you in any way?

As for the terminology various religions use, I would not put too much stock into them in a scientific meaning. For instance in the Christian Heaven, time is not supposed to exist. Time is defined through motion - no time, no motion. What a dull paradise! Not quite what most Christians imagine, I'd think.

Not to mention that such things bring quite a few absurdities with them. An omnipotent god? So, tell me, why do you need to pray? Don't you think God, omnipotent as he is, knows everything already? Does it really help if more people pray together?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The obvious question is then: if we can't feel it, touch it, taste it, measure it in any way, is it relevant?

It seems to be as otherwise we propably would not be having this discussion here

It is of course relevant in a social, cultural and historical context. The question is if it is relevant to the explanation of how the world works or ultimately how we work.

Bernadotte:

Quote[/b] ]They work in anticipation of man being able to create something with greater intelligence than man. Theoretically, whatever they create would then be able to create something more intelligent than itself and so on... and so on... It is the unknowable product of such an endless cycle that they fear and hope to control. Unlike the creators of the atom bomb, the singularity theorists have no idea where this could lead.

I don't see intelligence as something supernatural. Self awareness? Let me do a few cuts in your brain, or give you some funky drugs and it will go away.

Intelligence? You'll have to define that. Is it performing some mental task? Hell, my calculator can do lots of things faster and better than I can with my poor wetware.

I don't see anything in practice more special to make a machine smarter than man than making a machine faster than man. While it is more complex, and our knowledge of how this stuff works is far from solid, it's still just technology.

[denoir 0]

Do I think that God has to be relevant? Not really, but we can just as well consider him relevant. It's all about believing and the second we believe that God is relevant he'll be that.

That's very new age of you.

No but seriously, I'm talking about something that is universally relevant. Not the type where I think I'm Mickey Mouse, and that's very relevant to me.

If we remove psychology from the whole equation, and leave the individual out of it. Is there any value to a diety that we can't sense in any way or that doesn't interact with us?

Quote[/b] ]What's so wrong with religions adapting to the discoveries of science? The scientists thought that the earth was flat but then they discovered that it's a sphere. Einstein once believed that it was unlikely that we would ever be able to use the energy in atoms. You have to consider that the Bible is written by some men and it's their way to interprete God and what he wants of us. The problem with Religion vs. Science is that religion adapts really slow, but even the scientists often have some problems with accepting new discoveries.

The problem is that religions tend to claim that their thing is the absolute truth. If you don't believe it 100%, then you are not a believer. And they have organizations to tell you exactly what the current acceptable beliefs are.

Now the problem is that in century A you burn people because they say the Earth is round and claim that your religion is 100% correct. In century B you accept that it's round, but still claim that your religion is 100% accurate.

Unlike science where a theory is only valid until the next better one comes along, in religion there are no methods for correcting the dogma. It's always the absolute truth.

Quote[/b] ]If it's all abstract to the science doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people.

If it does affect people, then it is can be measured. Your thoughts are just a bunch of bio-electrical impulses. I can feed an atheist LSD and various funny mushrooms, and he'll have a religious expereince. I can snip a few parts of the brain of a religious person, sever a few connections here and there - and that person will not have one ounce of faith in him.

Quote[/b] ]

I could say the same about many sciences like the string theory. We'll never be able to prove it with a test so is it relevant? Maybe not but according to science it's everything so how can't it be relevant? After all it's the scientific way to explain the universe.

String theory is very much detectable in principle. That's in part why they are building those bigass particle accelerators. If it can't be tested, it ain't science.

[ozanzac 0]

I’m agnostic.

I abandoned attending church in favour of playing sport at a young age, and somewhere along the lines, worked out that religion, in the grand scheme of things, has brought about and spawned more trouble than its worth.

Also, living in the laid back society of Australia has also influenced my thoughts on religion. I can't see the point of devoting myself to a religion if one has an established moral base to thrive off.

Would devoting myself to religion be for better or worse? As long as I have an objective view on life, I really couldn't care less, and thus, prefer my status quo...at least until religion can prove itself to be meaningful. (Right here, right now, and too me.)

[AustralianSpecialForces 0]

I believe in a God, but not the Christian god. I do not believe that such a powerful being that can create time and life is going to really send you to Heaven or Hell whether you pray to him and whether you kill another. Our bodys are too complex, too smart, too great to be a mistake. And why are we here? Couldnt of just happened because of some gases colliding. How God happened is another mystery. If you think that we have come from a monkey and just get this one chance at life believe that, but I believe that we are just one stage of an infinite timescale. God is a creator that magically exists and helps us explain the unexplainable. All the proof of a big bang and all that, i just dont see how all these things can just *Happen* and we get to live and do whatever we want and that little organisms have made this body make you cold when your sick so that it can divert all its energy to helping you get better. Its all just to magical to be a mistake. And if it is, well i wont know if theres a Heaven or not. Only one way to find out and I'm gonna wait a long time till that comes along.

Although my freind believes in his own Religion called "Mattism". It is a group of gods from the Greeks and Egyptians and Norse and some guy called some weird name who leads them all. Its kinda just a joke. lol

[llauma 0]

If it does affect people, then it is can be measured. Your thoughts are just a bunch of bio-electrical impulses. I can feed an atheist LSD and various funny mushrooms, and he'll have a religious expereince. I can snip a few parts of the brain of a religious person, sever a few connections here and there - and that person will not have one ounce of faith in him.

That only means that we can't measure it. Radiation has always existed and it has definitly affected people but we didn't know of that until not long ago. How are someone supposed to create a instrument to measure things we aren't aware of? You need to know what to look for to be able to measure it. All we can understand is what we can see or measure within our three dimentional reality. Sure we can make visual things appear as sounds but that is because we know what we need to convert. We can measure radiation just as well because we know what to convert.

Cut out a mans eyes and he wont be able to see but does that mean that the world disappeared? Sure the world still exist just as God can exist even when the person is no longer aware of it.

[kegetys 2]

It's quite simple, if those alternative universes somehow interact with ours, it is measurable. If not while they may very well exist, they would be completely irrelevant for our universe.

What if a being or whatever from the other universe could change anything from our universe, for example make me completely disappear so that I have never even existed (There would be no "time" in that universe so "they" would not be limited into only changing the present time here). You couldn't measure that with an instument located in our universe, yet it would be relevant (at least for me :P).

We are locked into this universe, and the laws of this universe and we can only use and do whatever is possible here... Yet there could be some sort of "observer" that watches what we do and changes things without we having any clue that something has changed. It would be a similar situation as when I would run a computer simulation of something; I could pause the simulation, see whats going on there, change anything from the simulation as I wish and the simulation itself would not be aware of any changes, and could not in any way "see" or "measure" me or the changes, yet I would be very relevant to it, and I would be interacting with it (things happening there would influence by decisions to change the simulation)

[theavonlady 2]

What if a being or whatever from the other universe could change anything from our universe, for example make me completely disappear so that I have never even existed

You don't need God for this. Just incorporate it in the next DXDLL release.

[Milkman 1]

Atheist, I abandoned all hope of eternal salvation long ago.

[denoir 0]

Cut out a mans eyes and he wont be able to see but does that mean that the world disappeared? Sure the world still exist just as God can exist even when the person is no longer aware of it.

If a diety interacted with our brain, we would be able to detect it as we know what principles it operates on. It would have to be through an EM field of some sort, and those are very detectable.

The point is, while we may not know everything about the brain, we know quite a bit about the fundamentals of how it works. Measurable, verifiable and repeatable.

You can through chemical and even electrical stimuli induce what people refer to as "religious experiences".

Bottom line, it's a question of the wetware in the end. What we don't know now, we will over time. Anything that interacts with with our physical world can be measured. It's as simple as that and not too strange if you think about it. That interaction can be used for the detection and measurement.

[llauma 0]

Cut out a mans eyes and he wont be able to see but does that mean that the world disappeared? Sure the world still exist just as God can exist even when the person is no longer aware of it.

If a diety interacted with our brain, we would be able to detect it as we know what principles it operates on. It would have to be through an EM field of some sort, and those are very detectable.

The point is, while we may not know everything about the brain, we know quite a bit about the fundamentals of how it works. Measurable, verifiable and repeatable.

You can through chemical and even electrical stimuli induce what people refer to as "religious experiences".

Bottom line, it's a question of the wetware in the end. What we don't know now, we will over time. Anything that interacts with with our physical world can be measured. It's as simple as that and not too strange if you think about it. That interaction can be used for the detection and measurement.

You need to think out of the world we can touch and feel. What if a 'religious experience' can be simulated. That doesn't mean anything at all. Plug a dead frog into 220V and it will appear as living.

There can be things we'll never be able to detect even if they interfare with our reality.

[denoir 0]

We are locked into this universe, and the laws of this universe and we can only use and do whatever is possible here... Yet there could be some sort of "observer" that watches what we do and changes things without we having any clue that something has changed. It would be a similar situation as when I would run a computer simulation of something; I could pause the simulation, see whats going on there, change anything from the simulation as I wish and the simulation itself would not be aware of any changes, and could not in any way "see" or "measure" me or the changes, yet I would be very relevant to it, and I would be interacting with it (things happening there would influence by decisions to change the simulation)

Well, you can always introduce a meta-level to anything. But it falls back to relevance again. If changes are undetectable, then we really have no basis of forming any opinion about it, or proving it in any way. And from a religious point of view, no way of correlating our actions to the reactions we have no way of detecting.

So it gets down to being random, and utterly unusable for anything.

There is however a catch - and that's the internal consistency of the system. Gravity works like gravity everywhere and always. And so on. The laws of nature are there and they are consistent through time and space. So if any manipulation was done from another realm, that manipulation had to be made to be consistent with all our previous records. And then again we're back to square one with our laws of nature that dictate how our universe works.

[denoir 0]

There can be things we'll never be able to detect even if they interfare with our reality.

That's a contradiction by itself. If it interferes then that very interference can be used for detection.

I can understand your point of view, in context of romantic mysticism, but in terms of science it doesn't hold up.

[kegetys 2]

If changes are undetectable, then we really have no basis of forming any opinion about it, or proving it in any way.

You wouldn't be able to see the change, only the result. If such a "god" would exist, then say for example that a religious person that worships the correct "god" does a "good thing": The possible "god" could change something from our world so that things are better for him/her. The change would not be visible, measurable, nor could it in any way be proven from this universe. Yet the person's life would be better because he did the "good thing" as told by the religion, the result of his doings would be part of his/her and everyone else's life.

The very "problem" with science is that its stuck inside the world it examines, and restricted by the same rules as everything else here.

[llauma 0]

There can be things we'll never be able to detect even if they interfare with our reality.

That's a contradiction by itself. If it interferes then that very interference can be used for detection.

I can understand your point of view, in context of romantic mysticism, but in terms of science it doesn't hold up.

It doesn't have to hold up in terms of science because we can never detect it so our science can never accept it. What if someone could alter our history so if something has been changed it appears as it's what has always been. So everything we know might constantly be changed by something. How could we possibly be able to say that something has been changed when it is just the same as it has always been to us?

But the point with religion is not the prove things but to just believe. It doesn't even have to be the truth. It's something of a placebo effect. If a dying man wants to believe that he'll end up in heaven he will. At least he won't become aware of him being wrong when once he die. He simply can't be wrong unless heaven and hell actually exists and he'll end up in hell.

I guess I've said what I have to say.. by the way I don't believe in a God but I wouldn't mind doing it. Wouldn't even you rather have total faith in that something wonderful awaits you when you die?

[denoir 0]

If changes are undetectable, then we really have no basis of forming any opinion about it, or proving it in any way.

You wouldn't be able to see the change, only the result. If such a "god" would exist, then say for example that a religious person that worships the correct "god" does a "good thing": The possible "god" could change something from our world so that things are better for him/her. The change would not be visible, measurable, nor could it in any way be proven from this universe. Yet the person's life would be better because he did the "good thing" as told by the religion, the result of his doings would be part of his/her and everyone else's life.

The very "problem" with science is that its stuck inside the world it examines, and restricted by the same rules as everything else here.

Ah, but if it was a consistent type of changing, then we would detect it. Then we could see for instance that people who pray to the "right God" have longer, better lives etc

There would be a direct correlation and therefar a part of the system.

[Thunderbird 0]

The religon was always a source of problems, it has always to create conflicts and to divide people, and that always continues, I am Moslem, I don't practise, but I respect the other religions, but it's unhappy to see the Arab world in conflict with Israel mainly for the relgion, when the religion and the policy mix as in Israel, and

elsewhere, the problems are born, it is a very significant subject.

Our ancestors created the largest human error by creating the

religions, because that destroyed generations, the religion killed out

of the thousands of innocent lives, like in Iran, and elsewhere...

[kegetys 2]

Ah, but if it was a consistent type of changing, then we would detect it. Then we could see for instance that people who pray to the "right God" have longer, better lives etc

Why would it be a consistent type of changing? Surely if such a "god" would want to keep himself/herself/itself hidden he/she/it would avoid leaving any "statistics" of changes made. And how do you measure "better life" anyway? Alot of the religious people seem happy with their lives.

[denoir 0]

Ah, but if it was a consistent type of changing, then we would detect it. Then we could see for instance that people who pray to the "right God" have longer, better lives etc

Why would it be a consistent type of changing? Surely if such a "god" would want to keep himself/herself/itself hidden he/she/it would avoid leaving any "statistics" of changes made.

Well, either there's a pattern to it or it's random. If there's a pattern, we can map it - thus it would become a natural law. If it's random then it's really undetectable and therefor irrelevant.

Quote[/b] ]And how do you measure "better life" anyway? Alot of the religious people seem happy with their lives.

Quality of life - lifespan, food, education etc And no, the trend is exactly the other way around. The western countries are the ones where people enjoy higher standards of living and the western countries are the ones that have a largest percentage atheists. (Of course, you could claim that there's a god who hates religious people, but there are far more simple and down-to-earth explanations to why the third world is the way it is)

[Baphomet 0]

Personally I'm agnostic. However I believe anyone should be allowed to believe what they wish. As long as I'm not forced to live by their self imposed rules.

I believe only a secular government can be truly fair and even handed when it comes to the equality of other religions.

[shinRaiden 0]

Ah, but if it was a consistent type of changing, then we would detect it. Then we could see for instance that people who pray to the "right God" have longer, better lives etc

Why would it be a consistent type of changing? Surely if such a "god" would want to keep himself/herself/itself hidden he/she/it would avoid leaving any "statistics" of changes made.

Well, either there's a pattern to it or it's random. If there's a pattern, we can map it - thus it would become a natural law. If it's random then it's really undetectable and therefor irrelevant.

Quote[/b] ]And how do you measure "better life" anyway? Alot of the religious people seem happy with their lives.

Quality of life - lifespan, food, education etc And no, the trend is exactly the other way around. The western countries are the ones where people enjoy higher standards of living and the western countries are the ones that have a largest percentage atheists. (Of course, you could claim that there's a god who hates religious people, but there are far more simple and down-to-earth explanations to why the third world is the way it is)

Conversely though, if from a spiritual standpoint the scientifically detectable cause and effect in our current externally verifible sensory is deemed irrelevant, then you're not likely to have any direct measurable 'proofs'. Since nobody has figured out how to take their toys with them, it stands to reason that the only thing relevant in the afterlife is 'you' - the presence or absence thereof.

From a human scientific standpoint, you could be an abject failure - most religions have strong traditions of ignominious martyrs - yet be the spiritual king of the hill. This runs through eastern and western thought. This sets the stage though for "are efforts or intentions sufficent, or are works and results required?"

You make the point that the wealthy western nations - which have the higher ratios and populations of religiously apathetic or antagonistic - could be construed as dubious quantification of the 'blessings from Heaven'. But if we can't take our toys with us, then who are those 'blessings' really for? Environmentalists, especially the elected ecoterrorists here in Seattle, will tell you not for humans, and we ought not to have them at all. Your indoor plumbing is depriving an amoeba somewhere.

Perhaps instead it is actually our stewardship, opportunity, and moral test to see if we will use that which has been given us to assist others. You have disasters for example. Unlike some apocolyptics, it's not for me to decide if God is smacking people around, just a natural shifting of the Earth, or if God is putting us in the West on the spot - to see what we're going to do - and hold us acountable for the results in humanitarian relief.

If the only quantifiable measure then is the happiness of the heart, then that's not really a practical observable parameter for a disinterested third-party. It also puts much more weight on self-determination and personal responsibility. It's your responsibility, and opportunity, to seek out God and decide if you want God in your life or not.

[denoir 0]

Conversely though, if from a spiritual standpoint the scientifically detectable cause and effect in our current externally verifible sensory is deemed irrelevant, then you're not likely to have any direct measurable 'proofs'. Since nobody has figured out how to take their toys with them, it stands to reason that the only thing relevant in the afterlife is 'you' - the presence or absence thereof.

Assuming that there is an afterlife. And if there is some form of transition, wouldn't it require some form of transformation between the two forms? At one end, such a transformation would require some form of interaction with the 'regular' world, and would be detectable. (Thank Heisenberg for that).

Even if we assume that through some gross violations of the laws of quantum mechanics, a form of scan could be made, what relevance would it have if it couldn't be detected. How do you know that something exist that is not detectable?

Your faith - i.e unfounded belief are a construction of your brain. Snip, snip and they're gone. Seems very wordly to me.

Quote[/b] ]From a human scientific standpoint, you could be an abject failure - most religions have strong traditions of ignominious martyrs - yet be the spiritual king of the hill. This runs through eastern and western thought. This sets the stage though for "are efforts or intentions sufficent, or are works and results required?"

That's not unique for religion. It's a social phenomenon. The captain going down with the ship and all that.. The sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of the group.

Quote[/b] ]You make the point that the wealthy western nations - which have the higher ratios and populations of religiously apathetic or antagonistic - could be construed as dubious quantification of the 'blessings from Heaven'. But if we can't take our toys with us, then who are those 'blessings' really for?

That's a fair point, but not all religions aim for the afterlife. As a matter of fact, the situation should have ideally been reversed. The poor Hindu bastards that get re-born into the same shitty conditions all over, while the Christian poor bastards live a comfortable life to spend an eternity in hell. Certainly not very optimised.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps instead it is actually our stewardship, opportunity, and moral test to see if we will use that which has been given us to assist others. You have disasters for example. Unlike some apocolyptics, it's not for me to decide if God is smacking people around, just a natural shifting of the Earth, or if God is putting us in the West on the spot - to see what we're going to do - and hold us acountable for the results in humanitarian relief.

Omnipotence anybody? Why on Earth would he have to test us if he already knows the answer?

Quote[/b] ]If the only quantifiable measure then is the happiness of the heart, then that's not really a practical observable parameter for a disinterested third-party. It also puts much more weight on self-determination and personal responsibility. It's your responsibility, and opportunity, to seek out God and decide if you want God in your life or not.

"Happiness of the heart"? Please, your heart has nothing to do with it. It's your brain. If I shoot you up with heroin, you'll be so happy that you will be willing to kill yourself with it faster than any religious martyr. Your brain defines who you are, what you believe in and what you feel. And the brain, while we still havn't fully decoded it, is quite an ordinary worldy organ. Through external artificial stimuli or operations you can completely change a person. Nothing deeply spiritual there.

Point being, that your beliefs run off some very physically real wetware. And such things obey the laws of physics in this universe - we can measure it and we can manipulate it.

This of course doesn't exclude the possibility of we sometime in the future actually detecting external interference some day. Or that there is a god, but which doesn't interact with us in any way. So far however there's not a shred of evidence to support that.

As for the mainstream religions, they generally be falsifed through logic. For instance answer me this:

Is god ominpotent?

Does man have free will?

[Bernadotte 0]

Since nobody has figured out how to take their toys with them, it stands to reason that the only thing relevant in the afterlife is 'you' - the presence or absence thereof.

Presence or absence of what?

You?  The afterlife?  Both?

And what would be the relevance of 'you' being absent from an 'afterlife' that does not even exist?