Is christianity, or religion in general, a belief of convinience?

quote:

---

They worshiped the crocodile as their ancestors had for millenia. The first time she and the tribal leader were able to communicate effectively, he explained to her the laws that the people go by. The laws were almost the same as the ten commandments and the golden rule. From this common moral ground, she was able to witness to the whole tribe and they accepted Christ with complete faith.

---

What I want to know is why she didn't ackowledge their witnessing to her. I mean, you said she saw the demonic activity, and that they shared a similar moral structure... so how come Marilyn didn;t realise that the crocodile god was the true god and convert to the tribes religion?

quote:

---

Anyways to answer your question... yes, if a person hears and understands the gospel, but rejects it the blame is on him.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

Surely you've heard of Karl Marx's description of religion as the "opium of the people".

---

Actually thats not quite true. The actual quote, from memory, is "the opiate of the people, the sigh of the oppressed creature". That is, Marx argues that construction of a mystic happy afterworld is an escape from the unpleasantness of alienation and oppression in the real world. Quite a lot of positive things can come out of this, although its still fundamentally flawed by based on Essentialist, utopian ideals, ratehr than an analysis of material reality.--I had a friend who was a very committed theist, and who died recently and suddenly. I had not seen him for several years; however I have since heard that shortly before he died he started to question his religion... even hinted perhaps that he didn;t really believe it after all. Which presents the possibility that the whole time he was just covering for being unwilling to break with his parents.You see quite apart from whether or not religion is an opiate or similar, it provides an easy excuse for nearly anything because god is untestable. Its not necessarily the case that it has NEGATIVE impact; but due to the concepts lack of rigour is very easy to use it for self-rationalisation.

quote:

---

The flaw in this comparison (religion vs. opiates) is that consumption of opiates almost always lead to a worse outcome, thus it fails to acknowledge the positives that could emerge out of religion. Is this the point you are making?

---

Do opiates really always ore nearly always lead to a negative outcome? Most of these problems are associated with poverty, not the effect of the drug.So that was not precisely the point that I was making; the point is that resort to religion, like resort to drugs, can be seen as a "cry for help" to use the pop-psyche cliche. Sometimes people respond to this in real and practically useful ways, sometimes they just sing more hymns as the ship sinks.

quote:

---

Yet I am suggesting that in reality, some people live more happily (though perhaps NOT more meaningfully) when they can indulge in the "security" that religion provides. I am not saying that it is a "good" way of living life, but if they enjoy it and their behaviours don't bother me, who am I to argue?

---

Well, some views might be that my social responsibility extends to my fellow humans leading real and sane lives rather than just shoveling sustenance down their throats till it all goes black. One might also have cogently argued in defence of the happy house slave.

quote:

---

It is the physical effects (last point in bold) and not the social effects that I am using to draw the parallel between the topic we are discussing (religion inhibiting critical reasoning/thinking) and opiates.

---

Thats fine. But its an inapropriate usage of Marx' quote, then. He was specifically referring to sociological phenomenon.

quote:

---

Can you please elaborate on this point. I don't follow.

---

I submit that religion is a distress signal; its an expression that the real world is so dire all we can do is hope (in vain) for a better afterlife.

quote:

---

Question: What makes you so sure that you're the "real" and "sane" one here?

---

The scientific method.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-20-2004 07:07 AM

quote:

---

Some people use religion to augment their lifestyle in the hope of pursuing meaning from a spiritual perspective. This process can take place with or without the assumption of an afterlife.

---

Hmm, I'll give you that. it can indeed be a "search for meaning", rather than a dream of an afterlife; but the afterlife is not strictly nevcessary for my claim. Dreaming that all problems will be solved by some mighty hero who descends from the clouds is just as much an expression of helplessness; any resort to supernaturalism counts, IMO.

quote:

---

Well, I would have to disagree strongly with this one. For one thing, science does not deal with truth (the "true" face of reality) because it neglects anything that cannot be physically measured or identified.

---

Thats exactly what gives the method its power. Your intangible "truth" is not mine. But it most certainly does describe reality. It is precisley because it restricts itself to the demonstrable and the physical that it is so powerful a tool.

quote:

---

This restriction means that we cannot define "real" with the scientific method.

---

Thats special pleading; it requires I agree with your prejudice toward mythical entities. I don't; its up to you to demonstrate that to me. Thats why the method is so useful - if you can DEMONSTRATE your argument to me, then I have to accept it whether I want to or not.

quote:

---

However, your point seem to suggest that the scientific method can DEFINE sanity, and this is simply not true.)

---

Well, what does DEFINE mean in this context? Define where, in a dictionary? In the akashic record? We use the method to IDENTIFY and DESCRIBE sanity, not to define it.

quote:

---

Any one of the questions mentioned is legitimate if asked with the sincere desire to understand the other person's viewpoint.

---

Well that is eaxactly how those questions weher offere, Hangdawqg: as samples that the respectful and curious Chriostian could take to their pastor.And what we fuilly expect they will be patronised, and told NOT to ask these questions, all justified with some psychobabble about faith or the ineffebaleness of god. That is exactly what happend in my experience; and that is why I agree with the others that religion is anti-knoweldge, anti-understanding, and in these respects actually antithetical to a realised human existance. Religion is the mass marketing of ignorance.

quote:

---

Agreed. Yet you should remember that not all religions require a supernatural being to come and save the world. Buddhism requires enlightenment through efforts exerted by the self, for example.

---

Buddhism still accomodates supernatural personalities and entities.

quote:

---

What you have said is correct for a physical reality, though many people would argue that "physical reality" only constitutes part of the larger "reality".
...
Thus to say that physical reality is all that comprises of reality (implying that the metaphysical cannot exist)would NOT be a scientific statement.

---

I have no reason to even suspect the existance of the metaphysical. Given that any act on my part carries with it the opportunity cost associated with all the other things I could have done instead. Practically speaking then, we must necessarily limit our enquireis to those fields which appear to be the most fruitfuil, the most likley to increase our understanding.Not a single claim about the supernatural carries with it any reason to think that this line of enquiry would be fruitful. Indeed, even the suggestion that there might be something like the supernatural is unfruitful. There is no question here to answer; and if people are going to maintain that the supernatural is reasonable, is possible, then I call on them to demonstrate how they know this to be the case as per the scientific method. They cannot.

quote:

---

...you stated "the scientific method". Well, given the accepted measures for sanity, you can probably measure it. But the derivation of such measures is not so much the role of the scientific method as it is of the society at large. At the end of the day, the society determines what is considered "insane" behaviour and what is not. Science merely identify and analyse the relationships between such factors.

---

Actually, its not that hard at all. We had a gorilla in the London zoo a little while ago who was vomiting her food, eating it again, vomitting, ad nauseum. We share no social standards with gorillas, but we share a lot of "mammal-ness" and "ape-ness", and its immediately apparent to us that this is an extremely distressed creature.The reason I have confidence in my assesment of the world is precisely becuase I was compelled to come to that assesment by the evidence, regardless of whether I found them aesthetically or morally pleasing. If someone makes a claim contrary to these, I am and can be confident they are mistaken - UNLESS they can rise to the standard of proof I demand.The practice of basing claims about the world on things OTHER THAN the world the claimant actually inhabits is not sane.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-22-2004 09:08 AM

So then what DOES define a Christian?If believing in god "taking christ into your heart", having a personal relationship wioth god - if none of that makes any difference, or makes you a christian, what does?Your deeds?Your organisational membership?

quote:

---

Here is part of the definition; "One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

---

Mike the Wiz, do you live by all the teachings of Jesus, every one, every day, without fail? No hiuman weaknesses, no failings? You;d better, because otherwise you're not a christian.