Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

I do not think jar is side-stepping any of your questions.
I just don't think you're getting the answers you want... simple, easy answers that are simple and easy to dismiss.What you're getting are answers you didn't consider before asking your questions.This doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong.
This doesn't mean jar is side-stepping.
What this means is that you have a chance to learn something you didn't know before.Are you honest enough to allow others to introduce information you were not aware of before?Your line of questioning with jar came down to this:

quote:

---

Are there any teachings that are part of your religion which you hold to be true no matter what?

---

Although jar didn't use the word "no" in his response, he did explain to you why his answer is "no."Which leads back to an explanation for your original idea:

quote:

---

Let's take Christianity and look at the different extremes represented. Let's say that 1 is very mild and 10 is the most radically fundamental. Even if you choose 1, you're still clinging on to a firm and unwavering belief in SOME aspect of that religion and believe it to be absolutely "the truth" regardless of what science may reveal in the future. You can point to extremes to make yourself look immune from the same fate but the reality belies your position.

---

And here, you are absolutely correct.
"If 1 is very mild and still clings to a firm and unwavering belief in SOME aspect of that religion..."The issue is that your "if" statement does not conform to reality.jar (and possibly others as well) are in the position that they are religious, they are Christian... but they do not hold anything as an "absolute unwavering truth."
They simply do not fit on your scale. They would be a 0 or maybe even a negative number. But they're still Christian.This doesn't tell us that jar is side-stepping your question.
This tells us that your question does not frame the issue correctly... your original idea of "how Christians really are" is incorrect.Are you honest enough to accept this as a possibility?When a scientist is presented with information he didn't have before... he incorporates the new information and adjusts his theories (thinking) accordingly.Can you honestly acknowledge this new information and adjust your ideas and future questions accordingly?
Or will you dogmatically cling to your old ideas and ignore this new information?

Thank-you, that's usually the best plan. Sometimes I have a hard time following all the big schooled people. Your conclusion does indeed follow from your premise.But this isn't what you're being told in this thread.You're being informed that your premise is incorrect.
You're being informed that people can believe in a certain religion without accepting "a certain set of doctrinal beliefs to be an absolute truth."So, now what? This statement is not valid.Such a position doesn't mean it's "not really religion"... what it means is that your idea of what "really is religion" is incorrect.The issue is your pre-conceived idea of what religion must be.Can you show me that your idea of what a religion is must be true? That it cannot possibly be any other way?I can show you that jar is, really, "in a religion."

quote:

---

Religion

​

• the belief in a god or in a group of gods
• an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
• an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

---

jar is, obviously, all 3 of these things (in being Episcopalian).
They don't say anything about "absolute truth."Therefore... jar is in a religion.
He may not be in a religion as you think of the term. But I am unaware of any force that makes your thoughts the only way things can actually be. Exactly.
And, you can see (hopefully) that if someone does not have any "absolute" core religious tenants in their religion... then they would not have such a problem.

Yes, you have said that "it ceases to become a religion" already.
But that's wrong.Again, you do not get to decide when something is a religion and when it is not.
And "absolute adherence to dogmatic rules" is not necessarily a defining aspect of religion. This statement is valid.
Yes, that's what a religion is.Note that the presumption does not have to be absolutely 100% dogmatic.Some religions make it that way, yes.
But not all.You're discounting the "not all" just because they don't have this aspect you're clinging to.
Again, you don't get to decide what's a religion and what is not. Okay. It can.
But it doesn't have to... which is why "one must assume that these god(s) really do exist" isn't part of the definition. People embrace such a thing for all sorts of reasons.
The point is... you do not get to state those reasons for other people.Just because some people embrace organized religion on the assumption of absolute dogma doesn't mean that all do.It's the embracing of the organized system that makes it a religion... not the assumption of absolute dogma.
Again... this is why "the assumption of absolute dogma" does not exist in the definition, because it's not a required element. Yes, actually, that is how it is usually meant.
That may not be the way you think of it because in your experiences it's not usually meant that way.But, again... "you" and "your experiences" don't get to decide how things are for everyone. You are only 1 person in billions.You can experience only chocolate ice cream for your entire life... it doesn't mean that other flavours do not exist.
The religion you experience all your life isn't necessarily how everyone else experiences religion.It's still religion, just not the way you say it has to be. I'm the one that's good using the dictionary definition... and the definition being shown to you by the reality of the people in this thread.
You're the one who's making up another definition and insisting that everyone must adhere to it. You're the one denying the reality of the information being presented to you here.Not only are you playing semantics... you're insisting that your semantics are the only possible definition, without supporting why that must be the case.

In certain circles... sure.
In other circles... this is just plain wrong.
In all circles... laughably wrong.That's the problem with generalizations. They're correct every now and then to give you confirmation bias, but just plain wrong when you try to apply them to everyone. Didn't you just ask a bunch of people in this thread? ...who all told you that you were wrong. Right. Lets start using correct terminology.What you're describing isn't being "religious." It's being a "zealot" or "fundamentalist."
These are the terms people understand to relate to the kind of adherence to absolute dogma you're speaking about.Only the biased refer to all of religion in this way, which is neither scientific, or honest.

Ugh.
When religious people try to explain atheism... it's like a male doctor explaining the pains of childbirth. You just don't get it.I'm going to have a go at correcting all the problems with this, it might take a while. No, this is not what atheism means. Strictly speaking:
Atheism means the individual does not believe in God.
It's possible to have an "ultimate purpose" without believing in God.
The sun will burn out one day regardless if anyone does not believe in God.
Maybe life will get finished off, maybe it won't... that result has nothing to do with anyone not believing in God.
Therefore, this is not what atheism means. Personally speaking:
My thoughts (nothing to do with atheism) are that regardless of their being an "ultimate purpose" (whatever that is...), we all choose what purpose is important to each of us. "Ultimate purpose" means nothing until it is explained... then, after it is explained, it's up to the individual to decide if that ultimate purpose is worth following.
Anyone who follow's God's "ultimate purpose" just because God is God is lazy and irresponsible.For example:
Ultimate purpose = "be excellent to each other"
I would agree with this ultimate purpose, and I would try to follow it.Another example:
Ultimate purpose = "build houses out of wood"
I would disagree that this is an ultimate purpose. Although I may build a house from wood if I find myself in need of a house and have a lot of wood around... this isn't a very meaningful purpose and therefore, even though it is "the ultimate purpose", it's meaningless anyway. Again, this is not what atheism means. Strictly speaking:
Atheism means the individual does not believe in God.
It's possible for there to be an afterlife and final justice without believing in God.
Everyone will die one day.
Maybe there's an afterlife, maybe there isn't...
Maybe all people will be judged (maybe even by a God)... but that result has nothing to do with anyone not believing in God.
Therefore, this is not what atheism means, again. Personally speaking:
My thoughts (nothing to do with atheism) are that we don't know what will happen after we die, so it's not worth fretting about.
We do know what happens in this life.
I, personally, would rather have a beneficial impact than a negative one.
Therefore, I'm going to try and have a beneficial impact and not a negative one.
Maybe I'll be judged for it, maybe not... maybe we'll learn more in the future. Once again, this is not what atheism means. It's starting to sound like this is what you want atheism to mean... but that doesn't change what it actually means. Strictly speaking:
Atheism means the individual does not believe in God.
It's possible to have hope in an afterlife and final justice for all without believing in any God.
Therefore, an atheist can have just as much hope (or more) in an afterlife and final judgement than a Christian.
Maybe God doesn't exist... but some other mechanism exists and judges us after we die.
Therefore, this is not what atheism means, once again. Personally speaking:
My thoughts (nothing to do with atheism) is that hoping for a final judgement after we're dead is irrelevant and kind of worthless.
It would be more productive to put that hope into a hope for a real judgement while we're still alive. Then, maybe you could actually bring such a thing about. For some, yes. But not for all people. Certainly not for most atheists (it's at a distinct disadvantage here... being that Christianity involves a God... the answers will be, at a minimum, "unsatisfying.")
There are plenty of other philosophies that provides answers for these (and other) yearnings for atheists. Equally or better than Christianity. That doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.
It just seems desirable for you.Some people will not desire such an answer.
Some people won't desire an answer for these questions at all.
Some people will desire an answer that does not involve a God that might not exist.Not everyone is like you. Sounds like an excellent point.Of course, it's quite simple for an atheist to take the exact same point and simply remove God:"We should have our hearts that love unselfishly. It isn't a matter of giving intellectual assent to a specific doctrine nor is it a matter of going out and doing good deeds in order to please anyone. It is a matter of having hearts that genuinely find joy in the joy of others which isn't a conscious decision, but something that hopefully becomes a part of our nature as we bumble along through life."Some people (mostly Christians) will desire a motivation for such a thing to come from a God. So they believe in God.
Other people (mostly atheists) will desire a motivation for such a thing to exist without a God. Because they don't believe in God.
Other people still may or may not desire a motivation at all or for some other reason entirely.The point can be universal.
People, however, are not. Again, this is something that will work for some and not for others.
The point can be made including a God, or not.Fundamentalists can't deal without having "absolutes." So they say you're wrong.
Neither of you are able to prove the other incorrect because currently the issue is very subjective.
Maybe we don't have absolute answers.
Maybe absolute answers exist, but only some (or none) of us are aware of them.Right now, we don't know.We do know that people are different.
We do know that we have to live with each other somehow.
Do we kill those who disagree with us?
Do we find some civilized way to let each of us find their own path regarding such subjective issues?My thoughts are that we should be honest (even when claiming what atheists are...), admit to the questions we do not fully understand, admit our "best guesses" in how to deal with them, and allow others to honestly choose what works best for them.Edited by Stile, : A spelling mistake was bugging me.

I apologize for that remark, I regret making it.
I think I was trying to be funny, but in retrospect, it seems more mean. I understand it can be more difficult to see the differences within atheism than it is to see the differences within theism. But I like how Diomedes explained it in Message 93.In this context... "their belief in oblivion after death" as a part of their atheism would be similar to, say "your belief in the resurrection of Christ" in your theism. Many other religious people are also theists... but do not believe in Jesus Christ. Many other people are also atheists... but do not believe in oblivion after death. What was going through my mind would be a creator of this universe that set an ultimate form of justice as well... but this creator simply isn't God.I suppose it would depend on your definition of "ultimate" form of justice... if you mean "one from God"... then, well, yeah... obviously something "from God" cannot exist if God does not exist. But, if you mean something more along the lines of "from the intelligence that created the universe with purpose..." then "God" isn't necessary. For all we know it could be a school-science project for some other being's to create universes like ours and give them "purpose" and "ultimate forms of justice" and see what happens... Good guess I have yet to die, and neither have I found any trustworthy sources for such a thing, either. Maybe nothing. Maybe something. I don't know... again, I don't have much experiences with "the human race being wiped out."
Personally, though... I think that if your "sense of meaning" depends on it being remembered forever in any fashion... then I think it's a bit shallow and... "impure."But, that's just me and my subjective idea of "meaning" ...if you can offer any objective scale for "meaning," I would be more willing to accept the idea that an absolute one could possibly exist at all.I really don't have a problem with a sense of meaning that is temporary.
In fact, in some circumstances, I can see how a temporary meaning that is remembered by no one is more honourable than one that is saved forever and ever for all to see... Here's another way for me to put it:If you can think of a being that has certain powers and abilities and also think of this being as "God"...
Then I can think of a being that has the same certain powers and abilities, but is just lacking the "God" factor.You can think of a "God" that does x, y and z.
I can think of a "non-God" that does x, y and z and is just one of many...
I can think of a "non-God" that does x, y and z and is just a pupil doing a throw-away assignment in some advanced education we are not capable of fathoming...
...etc...
...would you consider such "non-Gods" to still be "God?"

That, I suppose, would depend on how you think of "God."I don't think it's a stretch to say that the popular definition of God does not see Him as an inferior being in the ways I mentioned. Fair enough.
Like I said, if your definition of God breaks down to "the one who gives us our existence and our sense of ultimate justice..." Then, it is impossible to get such a thing from anywhere else by definition, and I wouldn't try to do so.This just then opens the possibility of "God" being many inferior things such as immature, uneducated, unintelligent, evil... all sorts of qualities that could be part of "the one who gives us our existence and our sense of ultimate justice..."If you then want to say that "God" must also be good and a paragon for us to look up to... then my point is that these virtues are not required for a being to be responsible for the creation of our universe and our sense of ultimate justice... if you think "a being" is even able to ever do such a thing. I would like to be clear that I don't have an issue with any of your beliefs.
In fact, I think a lot of your beliefs are rather healthy, even.
My point is really only valid against those who want to claim their beliefs as "the way things definitely are" and not allow for any other possibility. I wouldn't say I "believe" in anything after death, no. But I would say that I do "hope" for certain things.
I am, however, very content with simply saying I don't know and waiting to see what happens. It just doesn't bother me at all. I've been very lucky in my life to have many excellent experiences and no exceedingly detrimental ones. If I died tomorrow and that was the end... well, I had a wonderful life. If I died tomorrow and another adventure started... well, let's see what that's all about. If I died tomorrow and eternal torment started... well, at least I had a wonderful life while I could. Any way it goes... I don't have an issue, so yes, I am very content in just waiting to see what happens.As for my personal hopes for what would happen:

• sometimes I hope for eternal life in the sense that I can watch and learn all the things I am not able to experience in this life due to my limitations (time, money, responsibilities...)
• sometimes the thought of "eternal life" scares me... what if I get bored? What if it's shitty? Is there any way to end it? Then I hope for "an afterlife as long as I wish it to continue..."
• sometimes I hope it's all just done and I return to "non-existence"
• sometimes I hope for a calm, warm, satisfying existence for all of those who didn't have such a thing in this life
• sometimes I hope for "something else" and I like the sense of unknown newness to look forward too (kind of like shopping around for a new car...) something that is so different from this life that we cannot comprehend it right now. Such an idea is very exciting to me.
• sometimes I hope to be a sort of ghost or phantom and I could go around correcting wrongs in the world that are otherwise difficult for the living to correct themselves
• sometimes I hope to be a piece of a larger intelligence, and when I die I will return to it, feel at home, add my experiences to the whole and remember all the other experiences that have been logged since time began
• sometimes I hope to be reincarnated as a raven or other cool bird
• sometimes I hope to able to travel through time and see what dinosaurs really looked like and how they acted

...I don't really have one hope I always go back to. When I don't have anything to work off of for information, I like to keep my mind jumping around, imagining and thinking up possibilities. Then I think I missed the point of this question: If you don't care if the ultimate purpose is remembered for all time or not... what difference does it make if the sun were to go supernova tomorrow and none of it mattered anymore?I took that question to mean you think the sun going supernova tomorrow is an issue for "ultimate purpose" in some way (that is, if the "ultimate purpose" was temporary... then it is worth less or something like that).
The only way I can see an all-ending supernova being a problem for ultimate purpose is if you care whether or not things are remembered/counted for all time...

Of course.It can even have mega-ultimate-uber-super-saiyan purpose, too.
Which is, obviously, over 9000 times greater than regular old ultimate purpose.Trying to debate whether or not a subjective idea is better or worse in different scenarios is like saying your dad is better than my dad...
What makes you feel that the added attribute of "ultimate purpose" is a good idea in the first place?It seems to me that such an attribute would only appeal to those unfortunate souls who do not already have a purpose and desperately want one they can be assured is "better than anything else"... (which, sadly, is a very large portion of the general population).What's that? You have "every-day purpose?"... pshaw... I have "ultimate-purpose!!!!"
How many pecs do you have? My ultimate-purpose has 13!!But... "purpose" just doesn't work that way.
There will never be a single, unique purpose that is "better than anything else for GDR" and also "better than anything else for Stile."Our personalities are simply too different.Maybe there's a single, unique purpose that is the best for you, and your wife, and maybe your friends and fellow church-goers... and maybe even a few others around the world.But to imply that such a personal, subjective idea could ever come down to one unique specific concept that "is best for everyone" just shows a lack of understanding about how different people can be and what "purpose" actually means.If we take the purpose of something really broad as "that we will all live happily ever after."
Then it can become an impossible task.Wanting to be the fastest living man (100m dash) is a happy and good goal.
But... there can only be one "fastest."
So, of all the track-stars after this piece of happiness... there will only be one that gets to live "happily ever after" so therefore such an ultimate purpose is unachievable by definition.So... does that mean your ultimate purpose doesn't exist?
Or does it just mean that "ultimate purpose" is a subjective concept that is indistinguishable from "regular purpose" anyway? And it can be different for different people?

Sounds like it fits, for you.Unfortunately, this ultimate purpose, even if it did exist... would be worthless to someone like me.
I find no peace from a purpose that comes from somewhere other than my own decisions.
It's a bit too close to giving up my sense of free will.
And I'm unable to understand why any "good" force or being would want such a thing to happen.An ultimate purpose for the universe would be an interesting idea. I would like to know what it was, specifically, and then decide if I would like to partake with it or not.I would see it as the same thing as an ultimate purpose for any tool. Something to learn about what such a tool was made for, and then see if it's something beneficial, or maybe just something "for those who think that's a cool thing to do."It could never be an ultimate purpose for me, though.
My brain just doesn't work that way, if I'm being honest with myself. To me, it sounds like letting someone else decide what it is I'm supposed to do. That, to me, sounds like a waste of the intelligence I've been granted in this life.I have no issues with letting go and trusting a higher power... I release many of my decisions onto experts I know understand certain things better than myself.
But... I do my research and due diligence, first. Otherwise, there's too much to risk (lives and health of those who depend on me).Something external may very well have a plan and purpose for me... but unless I understand it and decide to agree with it... it's not an ultimate purpose for me. I would have to make sure it doesn't conflict with the other priorities I've already built for my life... loving my wife, spending time with friends and family... that sort of thing.If it happens to agree with all of that, well, I have no issue with someone else's purpose for me just randomly aligning with the purpose I already sorted out for myself.

As I said in that same post:

quote:

---

I have no issues with letting go and trusting a higher power... I release many of my decisions onto experts I know understand certain things better than myself.

---

I have no issue surrendering my free will (even forever) if Jesus actually wanted it and could help me understand that He knows better. Um... yes. Lots and lots of ways.
For starters, Jesus and I could have a conversation.

I think we're reaching that point we tend to reach when we post...
Where you're saying something, and I'm saying the same thing... you're just saying it while including God and I'm just saying it while excluding God. Maybe one day we'll be able to settle that... but not today. An interesting point. Sort of a "we don't get to decide what sort of person we're setup to be..." kind of thing.
I would say it as: Some people are just unlucky and didn't get born with the brain chemical balances required to have a sense of empathy in order to understand "being a good person" and moving forward from there.Of course... many people are born with this balance just fine, and simply decide to not be a good person... but that doesn't eliminate the above group.I think I agree with it. This world (whether it's due to evolution or God) has people that are able to make decisions... some choose to do good, some do not. It also has people that are unable to make the same level of decisions... some of these people are physically prone to evil actions... some are physically prone to good actions.Regardless of where we begin, though... it is possible to create an objective system for being a good person (for simplicity's sake... God's 10 commandments or an atheist's personal manifesto or something like that...). From there, we should all be able to decide (if we're honest with ourselves) if we want to be a good person or not, and then follow the system in the direction of our desired goal. I was more thinking along the lines of a silly scenario like thisGod: I created the universe! And I gave you the ultimate purpose of causing suffering on this planet! That's why there's things like germs and disease and birth defects... so that you could learn from them and create your own chaos!!!
Me: Uh... okay. That sounds stupid. I'm going to decide to do something else for my ultimate purpose...vs:God: I created the universe! And I gave you the ultimate purpose of being a good person! That's why there's things like happiness and love and charity... so that you could learn from them and create your own paradise!!!
Me: Uh... okay. That sounds pretty good. I'm going to decide to go along with it as my ultimate purpose...As shown above, my point is more along the lines of "regardless of God giving us an ultimate purpose... we still personally decide whether or not to agree with it. Therefore... the "ultimate purpose" isn't ever God's... but what we decide to go along with. I agree with your sentiment here.
Basically... you think (believe...) Christianity is the path to being a good person.I don't have an issue with that. As far as I can tell, there's as much absolute evidence for that as anything else.Personally, I think (believe...) that choosing to let other people decide if you're hurting them or helping them is the path to being a good person. (Regardless of whether or not Christianity agrees with this...).I have no absolute evidence for that either. But it feels right to me, as I suspect "following Christianity" feels right to you. I certainly don't see a problem with that idea.

I don't think God exists.So, yeah... I don't think God's necessary on a day to day basis, or any basis. I don't think this is true... in the "ultimate/absolute" sense, anyway.
I think we have to make our best decisions with the information available to us.I don't think we have some sort of "inner awareness" that tells us what to do and not to do... not in any sense that's "correct" anyway.
I think we develop a sense of right/wrong as our experiences increase in life.
From there, I think we're able to use our intelligence to decide if we want to be a good person or a bad person.
From there, I think we have the ability to try our best to be a good person.
(As a quick summary, anyway.) You need better friends
It's not your fault.. the people around you isn't always something you get to choose. I agree that this would be nice. But what if it simply isn't possible... because God doesn't exist? Yes... close, but not quite correct. And the distinction is rather significant.I wouldn't say our conscience and wisdom is all we need.
I would say our conscience and wisdom is all we have.Therefore, we better try to make the best of it...

I can tell you for certain that there definitely is "a genetic component to our behaviour." For everyone.
The debate is only about how much that genetic component influences us vs. how much our environtment (experiences) influence us.
I think it's different for different people. Well, that's just it, isn't it?
Maybe there isn't "any justice" in the end.We may both hope for it... and you may very well believe in it. But that doesn't make it exist.The fact that it may not exist means there doesn't have to be some way to explain it that makes sense.
(Also, just because we can't explain it in a sensible way doesn't have any bearing on it actually existing, either...) I do not understand this point.
If it's not making a decision... then it's some sort of automatic response we don't have control over?
If we don't have control over it... how can you possibly call it "justice" if we're judged on whether or not we have it?

Ah... I think I see now.You don't have an issues with it "being a decision"... by "something much deeper" and "all about our hearts" you mean something along the lines of honestly-believing-in-your-decision and not just some "fake-decision" type thing.Sorry, took me a minute to click on that. Yeah, I basically just assume that all this sort of stuff depends on an honest evaluation of our own wants/desires/decisions. So when you said it was "much deeper" I thought you meant it was no longer a decision at all.I agree with your point. I don't agree with your wording... but that's really just semantics.