Well, I don't know if I would call it a "religion".

The main point that I would make in the whole presentation is that science most certainly does not point to atheism, and if anything, it certainly allows for the 'supernatural' (i.e. things that go far beyond our standard laws of physics. And finally, our most current theories do indeed begin with a premise that something pre-existed this physical universe, and whatever that something is, it is not physical itself. At least not in terms of the physics of this spacetime universe.

So in a very real sense, the best scientific theories to date are actually pointing at a supernatural foundation for this reality.

So where do people get off attempting to use science to support atheism?

Especially things like evolution. That's so trivial that it doesn't even mean a thing in terms of whether or not our true essence is spiritual.

Yes, it does conflict with the Biblical notions, not only of creation, but also it conflicts with the main foundational theme of the Bible: That mankind's fall from grace is what caused "sin" and death to come into the world.

So evolution does show that the biblical mythology is clearly a manmade farce. But just because the Bible is mythology doesn't mean that we can't still be ultimately spiritual (i.e. supernatural) beings.

It seems to me that quantum physics basically demands it. It demands that our true essence must necessarily be non-physical (i.e. supernatural), because it shows that physicality is merely a quantum illusion to begin with.

There are many individuals who have never received any more education about a religion than what has transpired through conversation. Many choose to believe in a higher power because, as you say, it helps them. People will always develop such beliefs it is the sharing of these beliefs to the point of creating rules (doctrine)and a whole story line to support those rules that make it dangerous.

I don't have any specifice reservation about individual beleifs, it is when those beliefs consolidate to form religious groups that I become concerned.



Yes you are correct, which is why I have ALWAYS supported more education in phyilosophy which extents to social psychology. Learning how to cover our vulnerabilities would increase our ability to be better citizens (in our our country and in a globally connected society - we would be less likely to settle for the kind propaganda and outright secretive activities of the government which is suppose to be serve its poeple, not some personal agenda. Nationalism, in my opinion, is the second most dangerous belief system in the world.

Well, what's the ulternative? To just teach people to reject all religions?

I was attempting to address Sky's original point that if there's no offer at a solution then what's the point?

And moreover, based on the quotes that Sky posted (which he said came directly from the video), the conlusion that was being offered is that religions are dangers (in general).

I don't think we could 'outlaw' any religions directly. Any progress would need to be made via free choice education.

But it seems to me that what's being suggested is to just educate people that religion is dangerous in general.

All I'm saying is that I feel this goes way overboard. People should be educated to highly question any religion, especially those that claim to be the 'word of a God'. That's all I'm suggesting.

You said in a previous post that "there is no benign faith in the supernatural".

From my point of view that's extremism right there.

So what you are saying is that we don't know everyting but we know a lot more than we did before Copernicus and a great deal that had once been attributed to a supernature mysticism.

What we've learned makes me think we will learn more and I see no reason to attribute the unknown to a man-made concept designed to relieve the burden of finding knowledge for ourselves.

This really is the core of my disagreement and I thank you for stating it so succinctly.

Specifcally this quote “belief in the mysticism and superpowers is an error we make because of our inability to understand our own nature..”

And that is the thing I absolutely disagree with.

Now although I wouldn’t choose to express it quite this way, it nonetheless provides a very good venue for comparing the foundations of our respective beliefs. I would say this: “disbelief in the mysticism and superpowers is an error we make because of our inability to understand our own nature. ”

And yes, I am quite aware that in Dr Andy’s view, I would be classed as one of those who is making that “error” he talks about. But by the same token, in my view he is making the exact same error in reverse.

So where do we go from there?

To put it another way, Dr Andy is taking the authoritative stance that he understands my nature but I don’t, so I should listen to him and discard all those foolish notions I have because they’re wrong. This is the classic stance of the psychiapriests. “We understand the nature of mankind and anything that doesn’t agree with our understanding is falsehood”.

Well I’m sorry but just plain don’t agree.

As far as I’m concerned, that type of viewpoint is no different from that of any other priest.

--------------------------------

Now since that addresses the entire rest of your post, in one way or another, I’ll stop here.

You're misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting that the person needs to feel desperate on the level of an individual. If they feel that their culture, their homeland, and their way of life is being threatened, they may be very well-off as an individual and still feel quite 'desperate' on a larger scale of things.

I'm looking at the big picture here, not the individual.

Oh, I see. I would not advocate for legal precedent over religion, other than to allow freedom of expression as long as 'national' law is complied with.

My solution is to let other countries battle through their religious wars on their own (except in the case of genocide) which I think all countries should oppose and intercede.

If we get some education going on and other countries follow suit, and the religious wars consolidate/consume weaker religions, eventually we will have more enlightened societies and fewer fanatical religions and religously governed countries.

As the fanatical religious wars give rise to consolidated power (and fewer religions, they may eventually seek war against a 'free' country and finally meet their match.

So let them all war it through, become one religious power and when they are defeated and a new government put in place, the NEW EDUCATION can commense there as well.

Like message said we are not looking at 50 years, we are looking at generations. So I say do what we can do - education.

GOOD NIGHT - very intersting conversation and I appreciate all the input, it's been kinda like old times, with old friends, THANKS.
Redy

Abracadabra wrote:



If the idea that there is nothing more than life as we know it is proven, it will not necessarily cause these things. That idea reminds me of the unsupported fear-mongering using a 'false domino effect' that got the US into Vietnam, the unsupported belief that all of southeast Asia 'would eventually become communist' aif we allowed communism in Vietnam. Vietnam itself has a mixed market.



People harm others... with or without a religion or criminal/civil law. In fact, a strong case is easily made that religion could increase violence just as much as decreasing or controlling it. One does not exclusively bear upon the other, and to think otherwise is wrongful thinking. We have laws for these things, we do not need religions for them.



Horrible in the name of 'God', horrible without a belief in 'God'... belief in ultimate divine judgement does not necessarily make one do 'good'. That is easily shown. Therefore, why would no belief necesarily make one do 'bad'?

There is no exclusive contingency.



Based on the above support you have given, I can see why you would feel that way, but based upon my own view, I say it makes no sense to equate a belief in supernatural with a peaceful existence, and vice-versa.

If I understand correctly what you mean there, yes that is exactly what I am doing.

But I think we attribute different significances to that statement. I consider the “innate characteristics” to be only applicable to the material, and the "cognitive preferential" to be only applicable to the spiritual.

Whereas I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) you consider there to be no such thing as the spiritual. (Or at least the position from which you are arguing excludes the concept.)

So again it eventually boils down to a fundamental difference of opinion regarding our “true nature”.

Now to be fair, I will admit that, if one starts with the premise that all things, including all cognitive abilities and survival goals, are material in nature, then the whole thing makes perfect sense. No argument there at all.

But because I don’t start with that premise, I can’t agree with the conclusions.

And just so you know, I’m not ignoring the rest of your post out of any disrespect for your argument. It’s just that all the rest of it is founded on that conflicting premise, so I would only be rephrasing or expanding on what I’ve already said.

It is disturbing that this thread is disturbing and those who post in it are disturbed with the debates set forth with each other.

So just pass the cauliflower please

It's okay no need to get upset or anything....

I mean have you ever felt like the whole world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes...

Oh nevermind!

I will get up and get the cauliflower myself

Well I don't see how one can conlude that is not an attack on religion, considering what he said in his conclusions: "And most importantly, we have to face the fact that religion is a man-made phenomenon. A dangerous man-made phenomenon."

And I don't see why anyone who holds spiritualist views should not be allowed to show just as little tolerance for other views as those other views show for spiritualism. Anything short of that would constitute a double standard.

If I have to "listen to a materialist speak frankly from their own materialist perspective without mis-interpreting it as an attack on spiritualism" then I think a materialist should have to "listen to me speak frankly from my own spiritualist perspective without mis-interpreting it as an attack on materialism".

* * * I HAVE A STRANGE SUSPICION * * *
.........________________________
- How is it possible explaining the Quantum Physics to the masses???
(especially to the encient people...)

Apparently, those who could explain anything must have parished in a tragic accident (together with the recorded knowledge)...

Some of the remaining falks could not restore the lost knowledge completely, but only partially -- Seven Wonders of the Encient World are the only remnants of the lost knowledge . Thus, in response to the need of keeping the masses under control, they simply invented explanations which barely rezembled the lost knowledge.
In time, as the sources of knowledge were getting fewer and fewer, some authoritative figures have taken upon themselves the task of passing whatever knowledge they could salvage into a manuscript -- adding their own wisdom in the process...

Fast forward a couple of millenia... and those manuscripts have become the sacred scrolls of wisdom! Incapable of comprehending those scrolls -- puzzled with feeling of Awe -- the encients promoted them to the knowledge of GODS!!! (or something to that extend...)

And that, folks, is how the religion occurred!

*** No wonder, some (or maybe even all) of the scientific discoveries seem to confirm what the encients have known all along...

P.S. Our current manifestation is the most solid of all previous ones, i.e. spirits, angels, humans...
Unfortunately, we might never discover our true essence -- just like a bacteria is incapable of comprehending itself as a part of a greater organizm... (although Humanity is a highly advanced "bacteria"...

However, there's nothing stopping us from trying to comprehend the inconprehensible...
Maybe, in time, we'll grasp the mystery of Quantum Physics!!!

No thread in Science/Philosophy is complete with a few pages of discussion of QM.

Smiles, here is some spiced olive oil, if you like such on your cauliflower.

Figures! Quantum Mechanics!

No wonder I can never keep up with you guys. Oh bothers! Just give me the olive oil will ya

* * * I HAVE A STRANGE SUSPICION * * *
.........__________________________
- How is it possible explaining the Quantum Physics to the masses???
(especially to the encient people...)

Apparently, those who could explain anything must have parished in a tragic accident (together with the recorded knowledge)...

Some of the remaining falks could not restore the lost knowledge completely, but only partially -- Seven Wonders of the Encient World are the only remnants of the lost knowledge . Thus, in response to the need of keeping the masses under control, they simply invented explanations which barely rezembled the lost knowledge.
In time, as the sources of knowledge were getting fewer and fewer, some authoritative figures have taken upon themselves the task of passing the whatever knowledge they could salvage into a manuscript -- adding their own wisdom in the process...

Fast forward a couple of millenia... and those manuscripts have become the sacred scrolls of wisdom! Incapable of comprehending those scrolls -- puzzled with the feeling of Awe -- the encients have promoted them to the knowledge of GODS!!! (or something to that extend...)

And that, folks, is how the religion occurred!

*** No wonder, some (or maybe even all) of the scientific discoveries seem to confirm what the encients have known all along... * * *

P.S. Our current manifestation is the most solid of all previous ones, i.e. spirits, angels, humans...
Unfortunately, we might never discover our true essence -- just like a bacteria is incapable of comprehending itself as a part of a greater organizm... (although Humanity is a highly advanced "bacteria"...

However, there's nothing stopping us from trying to comprehend the inconprehensible...
Maybe, in time, we'll grasp the mystery of Quantum Physics!

First off, this phenomenon is not exclusive to religion. It is essentially the same process that results in any kind of group bigotry - The Nazis’ view of the Jews, the Crips’ view of the Bloods, the Sharks’ view of the Jets, the Hatfields’ view of the McCoys, the view of any country at war with any other country, and on and on.

There is no significant religious aspect to any of those.

But the exact same processes are/were at work in all of those other examples. The only difference is that in all those other examples, the ideologies are not labeled “religious”. But they are nonetheless the exact same processes.

Now I appreciate Dr Andy’s attempts at discerning the reasons and motivations behind suicide bombings. And although I disagree with the philosophical perspective regarding evolution, I’m not really even debating those factors here because they are mostly irrelevant to my point.

My point is that assigning religion as a major factor, to a phenomenon that is very plainly obvious in virtually all secular areas of life (even including other species for gosh sake), is just plain stupid. (And I’m not even going to say “that’s my opinion”. It is just too obvious.)

So hanging any of it on “religion” is nothing short of a red-herring. The only reason religion is targeted in this specific instance (suicide bombings) is because the whole foundation of the particular conflict being addressed is a religious one. (Although even that could be debated. But there’s hardly any point in doing so.)

Now on to another tack…

The beliefs had to have originated from somewhere. That is, someone somewhere had to come up with the idea without being told about it by someone else. In other words, beliefs do not necessarily always come about through conversation. (Now that’s not to say that most don’t come about through conversation. Only that there is that factor of beliefs originating from and individual evaluation of experience, which must be considered if the problem is to be truly resolved.)

And it is entirely possible for such a self-originated belief to be extremely dangerous to the extent of costing the lives of many people, even when there is only one person who believes it. Just look at the many solo serial killers throughout history. For some reason, they came up with a personal belief that their survival would be better served by killing others. There was no “hijacking” of their beliefs. Their beliefs may have been “twisted” by some external factor(s). But no one ever went about convincing them that they should go out and murder a bunch of people.

-------------------------------------

So this is why I still maintain that the fundamental problem is aberrant cognitive processes. It is only too obvious that the eradication of aberrant cognitive processes would resolve all problems of violence.

Nice post Sky. I agree. I don't know what the big fuss is about anyway. I found the lecture rather unremarkable and dull.

No, actually it is not incorrect. (Or at least, it’s only incorrect if you exclude spiritual survival from the category of “survival goals”, which exclusion would be incorrect in itself.) The divine reward after death most certainly IS a survival goal, albeit a spiritual one.

But I covered all that later on in the same post you excerpted from, which makes me wonder if you actually read all of it.

Truly.

Pointing to religion and saying that it's dangerous is like pointing to a knife and saying that it's dangerous. Either can be used for constructive or destructive purposes.

However, having said that, I think it is crystal clear that some religious doctines that claim to be the "word of God" have their Gods jealously demanding to be the only God worshipped. Those God's even denouncing anyone who doesn't worship them and pronounce them to be 'heathens' or 'infidels' unworthy of living and often times the gods actually command their followers to murder the heathens.

I do feel that there is a serious problem with such doctrines. After all, they claiming to have the 'word of God' and they're having that God condemn non-believers as unworthy heathens or infidels.

It seems to me that those religions could indeed be legally challenged to either prove that the words they have genuinely came from God (which they could never do), or to quit preaching it as such simply because the truth is even they can't possibly know where the words originated from!

This idea of just claiming that religion in general is a bad thing is hogwash.

And like Sky pointed out, in the case of suicide bombers we're definitely talking about a religious-based conflict where all the religions involved have jealous Gods who denounced non-believers as heathens or infidels.

It's only those kinds of religions that can even be used in such a way.

The idea of using religions that view everyone as a manifestation of God for the purpose of inciting people to kill other people just makes no sense at all.

So like I say, this whole thing reeks to me of the following:

"Religions are dangerous, we must teach everyone to become an atheist untill we can have some proof of any gods"

But that's a fallacy when applied to religion in general.

It's only those religions that claim to have jealous Gods who hate heathens and infidels that are dangerous. Those are the only religions that can even be used to incite such violence.

These religions with jealous heathen-hating Gods are a nemesis even to the good religions. A person doesn't need to be an atheist to see that.