This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think that reason is essential to trying to understand any of the questions underlying religion. I think that it important to be able to step into the perspectives of the people who wrote the religious texts. We are in such a different position of information than certain other eras, but I definitely don't think that the ideas were just made up. I do think that people were searching for answers and, even now, I don't think that science provides all of them. It provides basic models but they should not be taken too concretely, just as literal interpretations of sacred texts often leads to misunderstandings.

I am willing to come up with my own working definitions. They are based on a mixture of my own reading and thinking.I would say that religion involves a certain set of beliefs about life, which is based on some belief in an underlying source or higher power, which human beings believe have been known through some kind of revelation. I would say that the philosophy of religion involves the exploration of the basic questions which are relevant for the rational exploration of the ideas which are the basis for individual and cultural religious ideas. This can be done through examination of religious texts. It can also involve drawing upon various other disciplines, such as the physical and social sciences to aid the critical discussion of the recurrent themes which occur in religion and it can include looking at comparative religion too.

The question of what does the Bible have to do with atheism involves that of whether one chooses to accept or reject the belief that the texts involve some divine revelation. The Judaeo- Christian worldview is a religious system which suggests that God revealed himself to mankind. However, this incorporates the ideas of the Old Testament, Jahweh, and the teachings of Jesus and the ideas of the other New Testament writers.

I would say either according to their reasoning religion is rational. Or they feel science is not qualified to deal with the human experience and its aspirations. — Zenny

Religion can at times be internally consistent which creates the illusion of rationality, but outside the strict, self serving parameters of religious dogma the reasoning does not hold up.
Also, just because you feel science doesn’t deal with the “human experience” doesn’t mean you should just make up an answer which is what religion does.

Ultimately I think whether a person is religious or not or science based depends on emotional belief factors.
I think rationality in terms of cold logic is a myth.
But that's not to say emotional belief is irrational per se or untruthful. But it can be. There are true beliefs and false beliefs. Deciding which is which is again a personal emotional decision. — Zenny

I just couldn’t disagree more. First, you yourself just submitted that some scientists are religious so obviously it’s not an either/or situation. I’m not sure what you mean by “emotional belief factors” but it sounds like you are trying to draw a classic false equivalence between the basis for believing in religion and the basis for believing in science.
It’s obviously not true that “rationality in terms of cold logic” is a myth. This, if you will forgive me for saying, is an attempt to ignore rationality in order to create legitimacy for religion by taking it away from rationality and by extension science. This is the false equivalence. Religious ideas have no real comparison with science, you know this, admit this and practice this every day in everything except religious ideas. You would never fix your car, plan a route to work, follow a recipe to make a meal, figure something out or any number of things on the basis of personal emotional decisions. You might have some emotions but the tool you rely on is rationality, logic. It’s only for religion this tool is suspended. If you didn’t suspend it, you would come to the conclusion that religion is false.

@DingoJones There is no false equivalence. I said both sets of people ultimately determine this on their beliefs and emotions. Feelings if you will.
Everything you mentioned you do with feelings. You fix your car according to to the beliefs you have. Either do it yourself or if you don't feel able you ask a mechanic.
What you claim as logic is really memory of a task,plus some creative tinkering and pushed by your desire to fix your car.
Tell me,in meeting a partner do you get a tape measure and engage in dialectics and a DNA test to assess their suitability? In everyday life,very few use scientific logic or philosophy.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think that reason is essential to trying to understand any of the questions underlying religion. I think that it important to be able to step into the perspectives of the people who wrote the religious texts. We are in such a different position of information than certain other eras, but I definitely don't think that the ideas were just made up. I do think that people were searching for answers and, even now, I don't think that science provides all of them. It provides basic models but they should not be taken too concretely, just as literal interpretations of sacred texts often leads to misunderstandings. — Jack Cummins

Of course it was made up...the bible is a man made text. Why would it be any different than other mythology? Zeus, Odin, Ra...these aren’t made up?
Yes religion was a first attempt at finding answers when we didn’t know anything but it wasn’t about the spiritual questions you imply religion is able to answer today...it was answers to many questions science came to answer. What’s going on with that volcano? What’s that big glowing ball of fire and how does it move across the sky? Why has this persons face broken out is sores and growing up blood? Gods, demons, Apollo were the answers religion had...and science gave us better, not made up answers.
You only shift the answers religion is for now because religion has had to give so much ground to science already. All that’s left is the gaps of science, the answers it doesn’t have, for the believer to insert their made up stuff.

The use of the phrase "made up" implies science isn't made up?? Really,I seem to recall several theories overturned or even considered ludicrous now. And what of string theory,cosmology,racial IQ,etc,etc?

I think that your point about the Bible being written by humans is important. It does involve considering how it was written is essential. We have to consider what got included and what was excluded. This involves the history of the Church, especially the climate of tension and what were considered to be Gnostic and, thereby cast outside, especially under the authority of Origen.The Gospel of John and his Book of Revelation, somehow made it into the canon of accepted teachings, whereas many other ended up in the collection which was discovered in Nag Hammadi.

But, apart from this we have to consider the migration of ideas, and the way in which ideas in the Old Testament, were drawn from diverse sources, probably including Egyptian ones. It is interesting to see how certain themes and symbolic ideas are similar in Christianity and other religious traditions.

However, I do believe that ideas cannot be dismissed simply because they are symbolic, because that is the language of the human psyche. In that way, I don't think that they should be seen as made up. It makes a big difference whether we see the ideas in the Bible, or in the sacred texts of other religions as literal or symbolic, but I think that we could still see the realisation of symbolism as being from a divine source, even if this involves some kind of juxtaposition of these ideas within the human mind. Also, we could ask how much is based on historical facts and how much on the symbolic interpretation of certain facts?That is where I think it gets rather difficult.

There is no false equivalence. I said both sets of people ultimately determine this on their beliefs and emotions. Feelings if you will.
Everything you mentioned you do with feelings. You fix your car according to to the beliefs you have. Either do it yourself or if you don't feel able you ask a mechanic. — Zenny

It’s not either or, it’s both. As I said, you experience emotions of course but your emotions are not what you are relying on when you fix your car. Really strong feelings don’t fix a car engine...to fix the car requires logic and rationality. That occurs simultaneous with emotions that a person feels. The reason you have for fixing the car might be emotional, but you aren’t relying on them to actually do it.
The emotions might be present, as they always are with humans, but they are not the means.

What you claim as logic is really memory of a task,plus some creative tinkering and pushed by your desire to fix your car. — Zenny

No, there is memory of the task, “creative tinkering”, a desire to fix the car AND logic. Again, you are trying hard to ignore the presence of logic/rationality so that you can make a false equivalence, to try and take away the very solid ground science has so it can be considered the on the same (sorry, not trying to be rude) feeble basis upon which religion is based. Religion doesn’t give you answers, it gives you place holders for questions to which you have no answers. The correct answer to any questions you think religion answers is “I don’t know”.

Tell me,in meeting a partner do you get a tape measure and engage in dialectics and a DNA test to assess their suitability? In everyday life,very few use scientific logic or philosophy. — Zenny

Yes, feeling emotions towards someone is an emotional thing. Obviously.
It comes off as pretty disingenuous to use an example like that. It should be obvious that I wasn’t claiming logic motivates people in situations which are explicitly not logical like falling in love.

@DingoJones A series of defensive assertions.
The last point exposes your "rationality" . The most important thing that a human does is finding a partner and having a Family. And your claiming logic doesn't apply here. So when its something ultra important we turn to irrationality? Or is it that emotions are primary? Why abandon your number one tool,logic,when the going gets tough?

@DingoJones Have you ever questioned that your attachment to logic and science is emotional as well?

I think that your point about the Bible being written by humans is important. It does involve considering how it was written is essential. We have to consider what got included and what was excluded. This involves the history of the Church, especially the climate of tension and what were considered to be Gnostic and, thereby cast outside, especially under the authority of Origen.The Gospel of John and his Book of Revelation, somehow made it into the canon of accepted teachings, whereas many other ended up in the collection which was discovered in Nag Hammadi. — Jack Cummins

Sure, there is history and the churches cherry picking to consider but none of that makes the stories any less man made.

But, apart from this we have to consider the migration of ideas, and the way in which ideas in the Old Testament, were drawn from diverse sources, probably including Egyptian ones. It is interesting to see how certain themes and symbolic ideas are similar in Christianity and other religious traditions. — Jack Cummins

Why do we have to consider it? For what purpose?
I mean this is even worse, the made up stories were stolen Friday m other made up stories.
You didn’t answer my question. Zeus, Odin, Ra...are these made up? What’s the difference between them and any other god concept?

However, I do believe that ideas cannot be dismissed simply because they are symbolic, because that is the language of the human psyche. In that way, I don't think that they should be seen as made up. It makes a big difference whether we see the ideas in the Bible, or in the sacred texts of other religions as literal or symbolic, but I think that we could still see the realisation of symbolism as being from a divine source, even if this involves some kind of juxtaposition of these ideas within the human mind. Also, we could ask how much is based on historical facts and how much on the symbolic interpretation of certain facts. Thst is where I think it gets rather difficult. — Jack Cummins

Sure...made up stories that have meaning, even deep meaning. Like most fairy tales. Symbolism...ya, like so many stories do.
It doesn’t seem difficult to me at all. None of that speaks to the truth of religion. Nothing you’ve said indicates to me a divine source.
Why do you think Christianity (for example) has a divine source but not Zeus or Odin?

A series of defensive assertions. — Zenny

Lol
Ya, and?
Do you mean a baseless assertion? I provided argument with my assertions, none of which you addressed.

The last point exposes your "rationality" — Zenny

I don’t‘ think so, I think you failed to grasp the point I was making.

The most important thing that a human does is finding a partner and having a Family. And your claiming logic doesn't apply here. So when its something ultra important we turn to irrationality? Or is it that emotions are primary? Why abandon your number one tool,logic,when the going gets tough? — Zenny

It’s only your opinion that the most important thing is partner and family...speaking of baseless assertions. I said logic doesn’t apply when falling in love...you expanded/redefined that to finding a partner and having a family, then you used this thing I did not say to make an argument. That’s called a straw man argument, when you pretend I said something I did not and then argue against that pretend position instead of my actual one. No one said we should turn to irrationality either. Just stop, I’m not your enemy, I’m trying to have an honest discussion on which we disagree. There is no need for you to play “gotcha”.
When it comes to finding a partner and starting a family of course logic is involved. As I said before, logic and emotions are not mutually exclusive. An emotional desire to fix the car at the same time as logic is being applied to actually do it. Having a family requires planning and forethought (well, it should) and most of the time some sort of emotional connection like love.
Lastly, I was talking about falling in love and that isn’t something you have a tool for. Therefore it isn’t something in which I would be abandoning a tool like logic.

Now, I’m not sure why you ignored my actual arguments and instead focused on trying to conjure irrationality on my part but before we get lost in the weeds you should do so. I believe the points you ignored refuted your arguments. Show me where my counterpoints fail.

Have you ever questioned that your attachment to logic and science is emotional as well? — Zenny

Yes, I have. I consider it due diligence to question all my positions and attachments that way.

Thanks for the link, as it was extremely relevant to the question which I raised. I think that the statement by Einstein is especially helpful. It does make me think of the progression of ideas which Frazer points to in 'The Golden Bough': myth, magic and science. My own feeling is that in some ways there are conflicts and in other ways there are potential unities. I don't really see the theory of evolution as being in conflict with religion because it is fairly easy to view the Book of Genesis as a mythic account and still hold onto other ideas, especially those in the Old Testament. One potential area which is not so easy to resolve is that of life after death.

It is interesting to think how Buddhism allows for more flexibility than Christianity or other theistic religions. But, in my own view, I think that if I really consider a belief in God, my own way of embracing such an idea would be very different from most orthodox ones. I definitely would not be thinking of God as some kind of father. Really, I am into wishing to hold onto certain elements of religious thinking, underlying all religions, more in the way Aldous Huxley spoke in, 'The Perennial Wisdom.' I am more inclined to think of Jesus and Buddha as more advanced in their thinking, like many others described by Richard Bucke. While I am not certain about reincarnation, I do wonder if it would be really possible for a person to achieve that kind of level of awareness within one lifetime.

Generally, I see dogmatiism of any kind as problematic insofar as it seems to be about the need to assert one viewpoint so strongly, as if one was writing in capital letters. I have friends who are atheists and ones who are religious, but they don't seem entrenched in dogmatiism. I have been a bit startled by many various threads which are being started with an emphasis on the extremes of being for or against religion. It is one of the aspects of this forum which I really dislike, and I believe that my real intention behind this particular thread is about trying to think beyond the extremes and rigidity.

I am glad that you can appreciate the numinous, especially the arts. I think that I know people who claim to be Christians or of other religious persuasion, but don't seem to have much appreciated for anything beyond the mundane. I also think a lot of people adopt religious beliefs but don't really reflect on them that much at all. I used to have really complex discussions with my parents, mainly as teenager, so I think that it was inevitable that I would question religion at some point. However, even though they engaged in discussion with me, as far as I am aware, they never really questioned in the way I have done. At the point where I really was questioning I stopped discussing religion with them at all, because I thought it would be too difficult for them and for me.

I am still thinking about your last reply. I will write a response tomorrow because I have written a lot of posts and my eyes are so tired that I am not planning to write any further ones today.

:up:

@DingoJones You know,its the height of irony that you come across as overemotional and defensive in your effusion and praise of logic. I'm a person who gets to the heart of the matter. I'm not gonna address every point you make when I feel.they are not valid. The salient pint is the scope of logic. You admit logic and emotion are not mutt exclusive. So at what point or what is irrational according to you? Do you think religious folk can't use logic?
And very importantly,why doesn't logic include "falling in love"? A sign that logic is not primary???

Alright well if you will not respond to points against you then you have opted out of having a discussion and I won’t waste my time.

@DingoJones It was never a discussion. Your attached to dialectics and science and cannot think of symbolism,metaphor and the primacy of Intuition.
Problem is that people so invested in their ideology cannot dicuss the actual meaning of religion and spirituality. I appreciate many religious folks are exactly the same. So your both on the same level of dogma.

. First of all ... What is Science ?

. Science is the form of Knowledge which looks for the inner ... hidden power in matter ...

. Second of all ... What is Religion ?

. Religion is the form of Knowledge which looks for the inner ... hidden power in consciousness ...

. There is no conflict between religion and science ... in fact ... they are complementary to each other ...

. I'm all for Science ... I'm all for Religion ... I'm all for the whole ... I condemn the parts ...

. Science is the periphery ... and Religion is the core ... Together ... form an unity ...

. The periphery cannot exist without the core ... as ... science cannot exist without religion ... Both try to seek truth ... to know truth ...

. Any scientist who is not religious ... who is not in the pilgrimage of seeking oneself ... who is not in the inner journey ... in the discovery of oneself ... who is just in the outer journey ... know well ... he is not a scientist at all ... he cannot be ... by the very nature of reality ... I'm not talking about these stupid so-called religions ... in fact ... they're not religions ... they're just huge economical movements ... like Christianity ... and so on so forth ... they're just lies ... so you can be comfortably sleepy ... they're just opiums for the mass ... for the mediocres ... for the stupid mind ... I'm talking about self-fulfillment ... that's the true and the only religion possible ... my friend ...

. Religion means ... by it's very roots ... Metanoia ... Metanoia means ... to return to oneself ... to return to the very nature of oneself ...

. That's what Jesus ... in the new testament ... meant with Metanoia ... The inner alchemy of returning to oneself ... By Metanoia ... Jesus meant: " God is within oneself ... ", but you must know yourself ... you must return to yourself ... return to your very roots ... to your innocence ... you must become as innocent as a child is ... so you can become a God ... or according to Jesus ... enter to the kingdom of God ... Which is within you ... not in an outer Heaven ... but in your Heart ... but in your inner Heaven - "I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

. And unless you do it in a scientific approach ... self-realization ... won't happen. So ... Yes ... religion and science are complementary ...

. Religion can exist without science ... but science cannot exist without religion ... without a religious spirit ... the core can exist without the periphery ... but the periphery cannot exist without the center ...

. One must complement the Inner with the Outer ... one must complement Mind with Heart ... one must complement God with Devil ... one must complement the extremes ... because they are extremes of the same coin ... of the same reality ... of the same energy ...

. Religion and Science ... together ... they're a Whole ... they form reality ... and everything Whole ... is Holy ...

When I was a teen I never discussed my questioning of religion, or my apostasy, with family or even my closest friends. And not long after, bringing up my (weak) atheism was out of the question. Till this day I don't know why. My younger brother, though a lifelong believer, is brilliant and gifted with a lucid, critical mind. Likewise, my mother too, trauma and psychiatric nurse by profession, now retired – quite devout without being fundamentalist or holier-than-thou – a woman of quiet, simple faith, as they used to say, but unshakable.

In the last decade or so, after respective lives filled with hardships and achievements, I've casually engaged them both separately on religious, or biblical, topics, always from my end emphasizing moral lessons that can be derived from scripture, etc. My brother has grown more speculative, maybe influenced by his third wife (a wonderful, thoughtful, and "empathic", former-Christian turned pantheist(?)), and thereby he's more willing to engage my 'irreligion and antitheism' somewhat charitably. I don't ever trouble my mom with my questions though; the prayerful life works for her and I see no benefit in disturbing such a (positive, active) peace of mind.

With my brother's children and stepchildren, all in their mid-to-late twenties, I've engaged them only when they've come to me with questions. Only two out of seven; the others accept the "beliefs" with which they were raised with varying degrees of complacency? conformity? (which might just be immaturity-related.) Nephew and niece who are "searching", however, try to pin me down as this or that type of "nonbeliever" and I encourage them to comparatively study religions and ethics while they are seeking. They seem to grapple better with the more affirmative position of 'pandeist' than the more critical 'antitheist' so I deemphasize the latter side of the coin with them.

It's mostly a lonely life to think for oneself, especially to think against oneself and all one has been raised, or taught, to think. Freethought, it turns out, while free of walls isn't free of abysses.

To live alone one must be either a beast or a god, says Aristotle. Leaving out the third case: one must be both – a philosopher. — Twilight of the Idols

I think that I know people who claim to be Christians or of other religious persuasion, but don't seem to have much appreciated for anything beyond the mundane. I also think a lot of people adopt religious beliefs but don't really reflect on them that much at all. — Jack Cummins

Totally agree. As I have said elsewhere, much religion functions as social club membership, belonging/social contact - and in my view many theists don't really take the idea of God seriously or even believe in a God.

In my experience, it is quite common for atheists to have a reverence for life and an intense relationship with the numinous (the arts, nature, reflection) and the 'spiritual' (however that looks for folk), while the religious folk are often deeply committed to acquisitive materialism and superficial ideas.

I've often posited to myself that theists may make better atheists and atheists may make better theists.

I agree that thinking can be a lonely life. For many, religious communities are the cement of their lives.The idea of thinking 'against oneself' also makes sense to me as I have as heated rows with myself, over ideas, as many taking place on this forum.

I still have not outrightly discussed my own kinds of questioning of religion with my mum, and my father died without me ever following through the discussions we had as a teenager. My dad used to speak of 'buying a ticket into heaven.'

I find it interesting that your mother was a psychiatric nurse, because that is my own work background. I worked with so many staff in nursing who were fundamentalist in psychiatric nursing. If I was on night shifts I used to frequently be next to staff reading their Bibles. I remember one time I was reading Marilyn Manson's autobiography how a member of staff was so bothered, and for a long time afterwards kept on and on about it. I can also imagine that you have experienced a difficult time as an atheist, in the black community, because a vast proportion of the nursing staff were from Africa and the West Indies. However, the evangelical people do seem to have a sense of enjoyment of life, and most of them love dancing.

After thinking it through, I don't really see the ideas of religion coming from a distinctly different place to those of ones such as Zeus. I believe that it could be called the divine, or that is the way many people view it, or it could be the collective unconscious. But, I think that it is a matter of people entering into a certain kind of dream consciousness, or 'tuning in ' differently to the way people do in everyday awareness. I know that some people find the idea of 'hidden' as a bit too much, and I am not sure that it is actually about hidden aspects of reality, but about just perceiving a bit differently.

Why do we think of believing in Zeus to be somewhat silly but not so for Christianity if they are both legitimate beliefs from the same source?

I am not aware of actually having said that I think belief in Zeus is silly at all. I do have some appreciation for accounts of the Egyptians and many early systems of ideas. One account which I think is extremely important for understanding ancient knowledge is Julian Jaynes, ' Origins of the Bicameral Mind", in which the author suggests that at some distant past times, human beings did not see the clear distinction between inner and outer experience that we do and thought that the gods, or symbols of the gods, were literal. I am not completely convinced of Jaynes' line of thinking, but it points to a possible way of understanding ancient thoughts and beliefs.

If you meet someone who believes Apollo pulls the sun across the sky you don’t think of that belief as foolish?
Have you ever heard the expression to keep an open mind but not so open your brain falls out?
Do you really think of belief in Zeus as on the same footing as Christianity? You take them both to be more or less equally justified/legitimate?
I understand the desire to be open to everyone’s way of looking at things but there must be limits or you will end up talking nonsense. Some beliefs are just ignorant and erroneous.