this site is now closed to new membership and exists for archival purposes only
Are there logical problems (inconsistencies) in religion?
...and they're off
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Lincoln Cannon on
-
Daniel: "The outlandish statement that we were created (and continue to exist) by the will of a 'perfect' being called god is not backed up by any reliable evidence or proof."
It is difficult to respond to this statement because it implies a theological understanding that I do not advocate. In any case, I'll say that it seems no more outlandish to me to claim that we were created by a neohuman God than to claim that we were not. Moreover, it seems that there are practical reasons why we should have faith (hypothesize) that we were created by a neohuman God. If we were not then we almost certainly will never exercise the kind of power that created our world (our time and space) -- instead, we will almost certainly fall short of such power to some extent or another.
Daniel: "The Bible is not a reliable piece of evidence . . ."
That depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for evidence that humanity's relationship with the divine has advanced then it seems to be useful.
Daniel: ". . . it is historically inaccurate, and has been tampered with for centuries."
I agree. I don't look for history in the Bible. I look for an emergent understanding of God.
Daniel: "Besides, the fact that I write down on a piece of paper that "zebedoo is a magical flying panda who rules the world" - it doesn't make that a valid piece of evidence that zebedoo actually exists."
If an understanding of that paper moves nations then there are more important questions to ask about it than whether its cosmological claims were absolutely accurate.
Daniel: "'Miracles' are not reliable pieces of evidence . . ."
Again, that depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for evidence that our understanding of the world is far from exhaustive then they appear to be useful.
Daniel: ". . . many so called miracles have been explained to be natural occurrences through science. Those that have not yet been shown to be natural phenomena will be in the future."
I fully agree, although I wonder whether, no matter how magnificent we become as neohumans, there may always be another miracle to explain.
-
-
Daniel: "Are there logical problems in religion? Does a bear sh*t in the woods?"
Transhumanists regularly get this sort of reaction from non-Transhumanists. Of course, you and I are not persuaded by that.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on -
Having read your response, it seems to me that on the whole you agree with me, but you feel that the points I make are unimportant and don't detract from your faith.
Perhaps you appreciate that this fact makes absolutely no sense to me (as the very same points abolished my own faith and made me into an atheist).
I really don't understand your point of view.
However, I must admit that you are rather more amiable that many religious advocates that I have met - the fact that someone who believes in god would embrace transhumanism is something I never expected to see.
-
-
Thanks for that response, Daniel. I do appreciate that it can be difficult to make sense of perspectives to which one has not been exposed previously -- I experience that, too.
I hope, over time, that more Transhumanists will realize that religion is not necessarily their enemy. What matters is how religion is used, whether to promote or detract from human knowledge, power and (most importantly) compassion. By the way, you might be interested in knowing that the Mormon Transhumanist Association is now approaching 60 members, most of whom are theists. Not only have you seen one theistic Transhumanist, you are now aware many more.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeremy H. on
-
This question is very interesting because in my mind, there are two religions. One is that of organized religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc, etc) and the other is what I would like to call (Some form of Agnostic) The problem with organized religion is that they follow a book that tells them how to worship. In my mind, that in of itself is illogical. We know that humans have been on the earth for quite some time, so why would organized religion and their religious books be created at such a late stage in human history? I am more of a agnostic myself, I believe that there is something else, but what, I don't know. Science can explain practically everything, but can't explain life. Sure, we know how things live and function and even how they came to be, but the idea of life itself is simply mind boggling. I think that the native Americans and Buddhists are probably the ones who are closer to the truth than anyone else. Islam/Judaism and Christianity are all man made religions. There is no (faith) to them other than the fact that you must believe what someone else wrote 2000 years ago. If anyone has read any of the works by Zacharia Stichin regarding human beginnings, you will see where religion may have originated. I'll believe in UFO's and the theory that humans were genetically engineered before I will a 2000 year old book.
-
Permalink Reply by buraianto on
-
Why is following a book that tells one how to worship illogical?
Lincoln's opinion, and one that I agree with, is that the moment you assume that something is not true you are capping your progress, at least in some way, because you will cease to examine and research that thing. If it is, in fact, true -- even if it's not in the exact way you were originally thinking -- you will not see it.
As an example, Einsteinian physics tells us that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. We currently find benefits to working with this assumption. But if we believe this will always be the case, but it happens that this is not true then we might never achieve it, because we have ceased looking for that possibility.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher on
-
Are you sure Lincoln wants you to speak on his behalf? Your argument makes no sense...you assume the bible is true...how does that not 'cap your progress'? Science is not about assumptions, it is about testable hypotheses. Assumptions either way limit our understanding because they inhibit the questions. Also you forget that atheists do not posit that there is no god...they just don't posit that there is one. I don't think you will find a lot of dogma in intellectual atheists. If you support an open mind, as your post suggests, open it to the possibility that there is no god and your revered holy book may not actually be worth following to the letter. The logic of your own argument, if you look at it, absolutely negates any reason for your belief in the bible.
-
-
Christopher, I think you may make more sense of Buraianto's post if you change one word in his first sentence:
". . . the moment you assume that something is not [possible] you are capping your progress . . ."
So far as I (and most Mormons) are concerned, the Bible is not infallible. Just about anyone who has read at length in the Old Testament will find more than one thing to disagree with. That said, I (and again, most Mormons) do consider the Bible to be an inspired work. For me, it reveals the ancient aspirations of humanity to interact with the divine, and portions of it (particularly the writings of Paul in the New Testament) have deeply influenced the way I interact with others -- for the better, in my estimation. If you have never seen more than foolishness or oppression in the Bible, you have not seen it as so many others have.
Science certainly is about assumptions. All hypotheses are assumptions, and (as you pointed out) the best assumptions are those that can be verified or falsified. However, even the best of our verification and falsification happens within a greater framework of assumptions. Uniformity itself is perhaps the greatest of scientific assumptions, but it seems to work for here and now, so we go with it. There is nothing wrong with that, particularly when we recognize it for what it is: an assumption.
Assumptions do not limit understanding unless we dogmatically refuse to question them. To the contrary, there is absolutely NO understanding without a context of assumptions. The heights of our scientific knowledge are ultimately founded in assumptions. Of course, the right thing to do, as practicality permits, is to seek deeper into those assumptions, pushing them back and expanding our knowledge -- our confidence. Again, however, the assumptions are useful, even essential, to the scientific project. We always have to start somewhere, otherwise we never begin. Only a dogmatic absolutist can rationally argue to the contrary. ;-)
The reason why some of us care for the Bible is not because we think it worth following to the letter, but rather because it has proven in our experience to provide valuable direction. I'm a programmer, not a physicist, but my understanding is that Newtonian physics continues to be used for many practical applications, despite its inaccuracy relative to Einsteinian physics. Like physics, religion continues to advance, but the old religion still has its uses.
Regarding God, I can't, of course, speak for all theists, but I'll speak at least for myself in this: God is posited, not proven, except within the context of a position. Opening my mind to the possibility that there is no God is like opening my mind to the possibility that there is no meaning. I see no value in the proposition -- indeed, it is a meaningless proposition. On the other hand, I am interested in exploring the nature of God and the nature of meaning, because I'm quite confident that my understanding of both can improve (and, I hope, always will).
-
Permalink Reply by Rick Fenczik on
-
While I personally don't care for organized religon, I have had "spiritual" experiences in my life which I cannot deny. Not to get to deep into it but to give you an example, I had an experience with my grandmother's spirit, disembodied consciousness etc. I woke up at 4:30am, I felt the urge to get up and walk down the hall. As I did so I felt my grandmother's spirit go through me. She was trying to tell me a great amount of information which I could not comprehend. I got the impression that on whatever level of existence they are on, that they vibrate at a faster rate then we do here in the 3rd dimension, and are able to process vast amounts of data at a faster rate then our meat brains can. Unable to process this vast amount of information, I did get one thing, "Don't fear death". I then felt her pass through me and she was gone.
Now you can easily write this off as a dream etc, but for the fact that when this happened, as far as I knew she was alive and well. The next day however I was surprised to find that she had passed away and was pronounced dead at exactly 4:30am. The exact time I awoke and had this experience. This is something I simply cannot deny happened. It defies logic and science, yet it was more real to me then any provable experience I have had.
Ok, that having been said, while I don't agree with mormonism, I respect Lincoln's intelligent discourse on the matter. I do not respect Roko's obvious condescending remarks to him. It's sad when some cannot treat others with respect regardless of their views.
I thought this quote might fit the discussion:
"Our science is but a drop, our ignorance a sea."
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
About
© 2010 Created by Christopher on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
