Want to believe in God but can't

[BC1980]

We don't know, we may very well never find out. One approach could be: It just is. 'Why' isn't always the best question to ask. Asking 'how' eventually answers more 'why' questions than all the direct 'why' asking. That's my take. I'm as curious as the next person, but unanswered questions should never be an excuse to go for 'comfortable' or 'beautiful' or 'heartwarming' or 'moral' answers of faith (that usually claim to end the conversation).

 

I don't think that religion should provide a substitute for science, but I do think that religion can offer important answers. I just think those answers operate on a different plane than scientific answers. I think that religion can offer answers (or at least a framework for discussion) for big philosophical questions like: why do bad things happen? why is there pain? Also, questions about morality. Religion and science provide different kinds of answers to those questions, and I think both answers are useful. To me at least.

[umirano]

I'm actually reading a book right now called "God's Crime Scene" that talks about the physics behind the creation of the universe. Apologetics is not my cup of tea, but I have to admit that this booki is interesting. Besides, I got it free, so I decided to give it a try.

 

I haven't heard of that one. Is it a physics book with a catchy title or is it trying to claim scientific successes for christianity? I know of a book whose title would translate to The Criminal History of Christianity. I don't suspect it's an easy read.

 

Getting rid of religion would not make humans love one another. For instance, communism has killed millions of people.

True, communism has a high death toll. I find it has a lot of similarities to religions. A holy book (Mao's red booklet), untouchable leaders (Stalin, Mao, the Kim dynasty) with very similar rituals (clothes, parades, monuments, shrines, holy sites).

 

Religion is really just a vehicle by which people have wielded power and destruction, but religion is not necessary for these things.

No it isn't, but ideologies are and my position is that religions are just that: Ideologies purposely less concrete than, say, fascism or communism, but they are that by design. It makes them more palpable to the general public. The 20th century totalitarians didn't create a nice enough story to withstand opposition. Bronze age totalitarianism has much better PR.

And totalitarian they are. God watches every step of every person and will sit judgement over everybody eventually. They are more totalitarian than, say, North Korea. Kim at least is not able to read his subjects thoughts. God can, and he will punish you for the ones he doesn't like.

 

As far as violence, yes, the OT is violent. That is not in dispute, but the NT is the complete opposite. I don't agree that the majority of the Bible is empty either. There is some really good literature tucked away in the OT. Ecclesiastes, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, ect. Exodus is also a pretty good adventure story.

 

Jesus said many things, but not once did he back down on the OT. Quite the opposite:

 

Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished

Excerpt from Matthew 5:18

 

Also the NT is violent. Jesus said he came to part mother from daughter and that he came 'to bring the sword'. This doesn't sound non-violent or humane. It sounds divisive and aggressive.

 

I don't enjoy arguing against the bible, but I feel people are very selective when quoting from it. And my point isn't that this or that part of the bible is questionable. My point is that the base assumption (a god made everything, including us as sinners from the get go) is arrogant and nihilistic, and objectively not testable. You might as well say we live in a matrix. It doesn't further our understanding of the universe to presuppose a god.

 

If we look at the actual world we live in we easily find it is much more rich, more complex and more hopeful than anything written in the bible. In my view it was a very early, clumsy attempt to make sense of the world. It got some things not completely wrong, and it was probably a good thing to try and systematize the world. But we should acknowledge that it is now about 5000 years old and that we have much better and more current information on how things work around us. It's time to shelve bronze age, palestinian philosophy and time to take advantage of 5000 years of scientific, technological and ethical progress.

[umirano]

[...]but I do think that religion can offer important answers.[...] I think that religion can offer answers (or at least a framework for discussion) for big philosophical questions like: why do bad things happen? why is there pain? Also, questions about morality. Religion and science provide different kinds of answers to those questions, and I think both answers are useful. To me at least.

 

Anybody or anything can offer answers to questions they are aware of. It's just that ordinarily we would reject bad answers. For some reason religion gets away all the time with really bad answers. Religion's answer to moral questions for instance has led to countless show trials of people who didn't conform to the religious doctrine at the time. Today we use something called the democratic process and constitutional government to have independent justice. Wouldn't you say that's better than old men drawing cryptic conclusions from old books, without having to answer to anyone other than a supposed god?

 

Scientific answers to these questions are at least true (in a pragmatic sense of the word). They can always be challenged and will change with the evidence. Something that religion is exempt of. With a scientific answer I don't have to worry that the person bringing it forward is only doing so for personal gain by abusing the credulity of people.

 

I just think those answers operate on a different plane than scientific answers.

What do you mean by that? You talked about moral questions. Would you say whether or not embryos can be aborted without having to go to prison' is a moral question? A religious answer and a scientific answer to that question would be different ofc. But how would they 'operate on a different plane', they are dealing with the exact same question, aren't they?

 

Science would need you to provide a definition of morality and what moral outcome you want to achieve. Then it could tell you whether you should imprison someone who aborted to reach that outcome. It could talk about the suffering that getting an abortion has on different subjects in that situation. Objectively. It would have to back up it's claims by evidence that can be reproduced independently. A religious answer, despite all the fancy wording, would boil down to 'because it says so in this old book and that interpretation of so and so'. I definitely prefer the scientific approach. It takes me seriously as a thinking individual and doesn't talk down to me from a self erected throne.

 

On another note and in relation to my post with the links to the problem of nothing versus something: I found that the BBC article gave a very good non-technical introduction to how a universe can jump into existence (and that this process must take place in a way all the time, just not necessarily where we can observe it).

[umirano]

Getting rid of religion would not make humans love one another.

You're not wrong, although it isn't exactly what I said either. I said it needs to go (and some other things need to happen too). Would you not agree that religions (who are all mutually exclusive) needlessly divide humanity into separate moral communities? On top of the race, class and political divisions? Some people have understood that the race division is completely bogus. Yes 'races', which btw is a very unscientific term, differ. But the differences within races are bigger than the differences between them. And why would differences warrant any negative social or physical consequences? Most societies, in the west at least are overcoming class divisions which were normal and accepted for thousands of years. Most people understand that a person's class doesn't determine their value.

 

I am really curious, why do we need the artificial religious division of humanity? Do we not have enough other problems we should be working on to eventually 'love one another'? I'd already be very happy if we could stop massacring each other over intellectual constructs, who are completely irrelevant to anything in the real world, i.e. religions.

 

I know it's never going to happen, but I still think it would be better if it did.

 

Not trying to spam, but I really wanted to talk about that particular quote. Good night BC

[BC1980]

I know you're not trying to spam. You've given me some good things to think about. I very much appreciate the thoughtful and detailed responses. I want to reply to them, but I need time to digest it all.

[Justanaverageguy]

You're not wrong, although it isn't exactly what I said either. I said it needs to go (and some other things need to happen too). Would you not agree that religions (who are all mutually exclusive) needlessly divide humanity into separate moral communities? On top of the race, class and political divisions? Some people have understood that the race division is completely bogus. Yes 'races', which btw is a very unscientific term, differ. But the differences within races are bigger than the differences between them. And why would differences warrant any negative social or physical consequences? Most societies, in the west at least are overcoming class divisions which were normal and accepted for thousands of years. Most people understand that a person's class doesn't determine their value.

 

I am really curious, why do we need the artificial religious division of humanity? Do we not have enough other problems we should be working on to eventually 'love one another'? I'd already be very happy if we could stop massacring each other over intellectual constructs, who are completely irrelevant to anything in the real world, i.e. religions.

 

I know it's never going to happen, but I still think it would be better if it did.

 

Not trying to spam, but I really wanted to talk about that particular quote. Good night BC

 

Just a personal opinion but religion itself will never "go". It's what's called a human universal - anthropological studies have shown that pretty much every historical race able to be studied, regardless of what time period they lived or whether they had contact with outside cultures has formed a notion of religion and gods. It spontaneously arises again and again.

 

As such removing religion doesn't really seem like a beneficial or suitable solution. It will simply arise again. People have transcendent personal experiences and then seek a framework in which to classify these and also a framework in which to understand how to behave and act. That is how the spiritual and religious framework arises and is updated and evolves.

 

Whilst traditional religions may not be perfect there are thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and wisdom held within them if you know where to look. You don't want to underestimate how important that is. The way forward is not to tear them down - but to reform and evolve them. To modernize them for today's generation - updated with a rational understanding of science and a rational understanding of the parable teaching formats and the messages they hold within them. I think many spiritual teachings have already began sewing the threads that will draw the different religious beliefs back into a more unified and compatible model.

 

Human's fight when the disagree on a concept - doesn't really matter if its religious, political, economic - wars have been waged over all of them. We don't say lets remove politics because it caused a war. We say lets improve the way its functions and improve the way people within that structure act. The way forward is to moderate the teachings - and most importantly to moderate the minds and hearts of those who follow them.

 

 

Earlier on this thread TheFinalWord added a video from Jordan Peterson- I think a lot of what he explained in that video is really relevant here. I'm a big fan of the Joe Rogan podcast and so came across Jordan a year or so back on that show and hes now become a regular guest. His post brought this back to my mind and I think a statement Jordan makes about "belief in god" is really telling about how people underestimate the effect christian values had on modern western culture. He says's even if you don't believe in God - you should recognize that most people act (or at least try to act) as if the Christian god exists. You don't want to underestimate why that actually is - its not by accident. Human's didn't always behave that way - it took a long time to progress to where we are. That religious structure served as the moral code on which Western civilization based itself for a very long time. If your going to pull it down ..... you better make damn sure we have something better to replace it with. If you leave a void .... which I feel is what many people in modern society have been left with there is no longer a structure or code on which people can turn to to guide them.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8

Edited September 19, 2017 by Justanaverageguy

[umirano]

Earlier on this thread TheFinalWord added a video from Jordan Peterson. I'm a big fan of the Joe Rogan podcast and so came across Jordan a year or so back on that show and hes now become a regular guest. His post brought this back to my mind and I think a statement Jordan makes about belief in god is really telling about how people underestimate the effect christian values had on modern western culture. Even if you don't believe in God - most people act (or at least try to act) as if the Christian god exists. You don't want to underestimate why that actually is - its not by accident. It served as the moral structure on which Western civilization based itself for a very long time. If your going to pull it down ..... you better make damn sure we have something better to replace it with

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8

 

Jordan Peterson is interesting and I like listening to him on a number of subjects. I became a bit wary of his claims when I learned how he defines truth. Jordan Peterson, in his talk with Sam Harris earlier this year, claimed to believe that

Something is true if it is useful

. That is not a position that is generally accepted in science or philosophy. By that token you might want to reexamine the genuineness of Peterson's belief. He doesn't really believe god exists. He tries to live as if it were true in order to achieve a certain purpose. That is equivalent to arguing religion is useful. I guess it can be, on a personal level under very specific circumstances. On a societal level it is not. We have better tools today. And the real beef is with the claim that religion is true which some people use to further inhumane legal and political positions and to hinder scientific research and the application of its findings.

 

As per your claim that most people act as if the christian god exists: Most people act decent as long as they are being watched. I say this from my experience in law enforcement. The main driver of crime is the likelihood of getting caught. As long as people believe they can get away with bad behavior they will do it. Intelligence, gender, socio-economic status and age have almost no impact. In that sense it may help that some people actually believe they're being watched around the clock by a god, you may have a point there.

[Justanaverageguy]

Jordan Peterson is interesting and I like listening to him on a number of subjects. I became a bit wary of his claims when I learned how he defines truth. Jordan Peterson, in his talk with Sam Harris earlier this year, claimed to believe that. "Something is true if it is useful" That is not a position that is generally accepted in science or philosophy.

 

 

That's not really what he said with Sam. I listened to both their discussions and what he was trying to explain was essentially covered at the start of the link TheFinalWord provided. What he said was essentially that there are two different types of truth.

 

Factual truth: Which is the standard quantitatively measurable truths. They tell you what things are and these are what we use in science. EG: The earth is a sphere, The moon is 384,400 km from the earth etc etc.

 

Meta Truths: These are what are explored in archetypes, mythological stories and parables. Essentially behavioral truths about life. An example of of a Meta-truth is something as simple as the statement: With great power comes great responsibility.

 

Here is an shortened version where he covers this specific topic ->

 

Jordan's view is that the Stories are not meant to be viewed as factually true (even if they are factually true that's not really important). They instead hold these very important MetaTruths some of them much more complex and difficult to explain and understand then the very basic one I provided above. Story form is really the only way to explore these and convey the knowledge in a meaningful way. Also because they are presented in a "metaphorical way" it future proofs the lessons they hold.

 

What do I mean by future proof ? Well when Jordan his last appearance on JRE podcast he was on with a evolutionary biologist Brett Weinstein. One of the points Brett made was that though the bible and religion served a purpose for a time to provide a moral structure and code it clearly needed to be updated because the laws handed down to Moses in the old testament didn't match with modern times. They were too narrow in their scope and didn't cover the modern challenges and dangers of today. He told Jordan that if written today the first law handed down to Moses should be: Do not enrich Uranium.

 

But here is lies the power of the parable and the metaphor. Spiritual teachings and even secular laws can never predict the specifics of what will happen in the future - they can't predict Uranium and its dangers - but they can predict the patterns of behavior. Here we clearly see how the metatruth I raised earlier is applicable. With great power comes great responsibility. The 10 laws handed to Moses in the the old testament were meant to only contain the very basic laws about how to interact with people directly. Don't kill people, don't rob, don't cheat etc etc. For more complex truths about how to behave and deal with events and discoveries they used narrative stories - parables which held these meta truths that can be applied across different situations and even time periods. Truths to specifically address the dangers of dealing with something like Uranium and nuclear power are actually captured in the bible - you can argue the story of Bable covers this in a much more meaningful way then any arbitrary rule ever could. The stories in the bible were thus essentially a specifically selected distillation of the stories with the highest acquired meta wisdom over the course of 5000+ years. They hold these important behavioral truths - not scientific facts.

 

If we want to wipe these out - we need to understand what lessons they held and replace them or hopefully improve on them. Essentially put together an updated version of all the most important Meta truths into a single collection. Then your at the same position you started with a dare I say it a new "Holy book".

 

 

By that token you might want to reexamine the genuineness of Peterson's belief. He doesn't really believe god exists. He tries to live as if it were true in order to achieve a certain purpose. That is equivalent to arguing religion is useful. I guess it can be, on a personal level under very specific circumstances. On a societal level it is not. We have better tools today. And the real beef is with the claim that religion is true which some people use to further inhumane legal and political positions and to hinder scientific research and the application of its findings.

 

As per your claim that most people act as if the christian god exists: Most people act decent as long as they are being watched. I say this from my experience in law enforcement. The main driver of crime is the likelihood of getting caught. As long as people believe they can get away with bad behavior they will do it. Intelligence, gender, socio-economic status and age have almost no impact. In that sense it may help that some people actually believe they're being watched around the clock by a god, you may have a point there.

 

So I would say yes and no. Jordan sees the stories as I have explained above. Very Jungian view of archetype exploration to explain complex truths.

 

But this doesn't automatically mean he doesn't believe in god - if you really listen to the video I added where he gets to discussions about Jesus and Buddha he talks about what happens to the individual who is able to follow the "divine" laws passed down fully. The person who is able to embody these truths and lives them he believes has the ability to actually become like these ascended masters and perform the things they did. His conception of god is essentially as a "pattern of energy" or a "Pattern of behaviours" which create the perfect individual to its fullest potential. A divine figure.

 

Also I've heard him state a hypothesis that as we have kind of universally developed this belief in a moral code -> humanity ascended upwards. It was the most beneficial of any moral structure we had employed before and by basing the civilization on this it allowed for continual development of society in an upward trajectory for a very long period of time (ascent into heaven) Essentially it was what allowed for the enlightenment and scientific explosion in the West to happen because society had matured to such a point that it was possible. He said that this model (when actually followed) appeared to derive the greatest benefit both for the society but also the individuals with in it.

 

He says it follows that it actually infer's that "God's law" really does exist. Even if its not a "Sentient" "conscious" being the laws of nature follow the moral code set forth in the bible. This is how people should live - otherwise they and there future generations will be "punished" by that law to live in a lesser state. So it kind of reaches the point of hey man ..... even if we can't prove outright there is a sentient being controlling it all ..... follow the laws because they are true even if your personal conception of what god is can't be proven to be true. To use another Meta truth: Judge a tree by the fruit it bears

Edited September 19, 2017 by Justanaverageguy

[umirano]

That's not really what he said with Sam.

It's verbatim what he said. Anyone can check it out either on Peterson's or Harris' podcasts. I don't think a conversation with people who want to redefine straightforward terms like 'truth' is productive. One of the YT comments sums it up nicely:

 

Sam Harris: 1+1=2

Jordan Peterson: Depends

 

In another recent video he equated creating the computer graphics for a Hollywood super-hero movie with simulating a universe where superpowers are possible (I think it was on JRE). The two things have almost nothing in common, other than the fact that a computer is used. Unfortunately it seems that also Peterson is guilty of intellectual hearsay and reproducing it half digested. I take a different view when he talks about human psychology and intelligence. There his remarks seem to be in agreement with the most recent research by his peers.

 

Sentences like "Stop lying, then start telling the truth" are good wisdoms, and Peterson deserves respect like any other thinker promoting similar insights. None of these can argue the veracity of religion though, so I fail to see where Peterson changes the conversation about it. Not subscribing to the idea of a creator/god does not prevent you from arguing any of Peterson's insights. To convince me of the claim that the creator/god let's us glimpse at these moral laws embedded in all of nature he would have to disprove that the creator/god wasn't superimposed on the laws that are there naturally by us humans. That seems much more likely to me, as we humans always have the need to see some acting agent behind everything. Yet, this acting agent is not warranted by anything we can observe. Even if these laws really exist and can be tied to nature they do not require a creator/god.

 

We can not know ofc to what degree he believes, or convinces himself that he believes, in god. But someone who declares that he works with such an exotic definition of the word 'truth' automatically must have all of his claims examined with that re-definition in mind.

[Justanaverageguy]

I don't think a conversation with people who want to redefine straightforward terms like 'truth' is productive.

 

 

So I think we are merely arguing semantics here. I provided the link where Petersen explicitly outlines what he means. If you don't like the term meta truth then you can substitute it for something you prefer.

 

In another recent video he equated creating the computer graphics for a Hollywood super-hero movie with simulating a universe where superpowers are possible (I think it was on JRE). The two things have almost nothing in common, other than the fact that a computer is used.

 

 

So I've watched that podcast 6-7 times and what Petersen was talking about was that in the absence of religion the super heroes genre had taken over as the practice domain for exploring these meta truths in narritive form. He said their popularity and the money we spent on them showed how much we craved this type of structure to explore modes of being. The heroes tale is one of the oldest teaching tools to show people "preferred patterns of behaviour".

 

As an example the tale of Moses and the tale of Superman follow almost identical underlying narratives. Both parents people were under attack and about to die - the parents sacrifice themselves to save their child. Moses parents place him in a basket that floats down the river and is found by foreigners Egyptians who raise him as their own. Superman is placed in a spaceship which lands on Earth and he is found by foreigners a human family who raise him as their own. Both men go on to fight injustice in their communities and developed super powers. Moses parting the red Sea and performing other miracles. Superman super powers like flying, super strength etc.

 

The underlying meta truth is: Parents who sacrifice themselves for the betterment of their children produce the greatest offspring. Offspring capable of much greater things then others. Capable of achieving things that seem miraculous.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Justanaverageguy

[Redhead14]

I think that wanting to believe in God is not necessarily a "decision" thing. There has to be more. You need to actually be open to the concept and willing to educate yourself/immerse yourself in it. I think that a good way to start to believe is to really observe our natural surroundings and the construct provided that allows humans to exist and to reflect on just how well synchronized it is to support the complex human body. The complexity of which is astounding and well-synchronized in itself. I struggle to believe that all that is an accident. It's just too well designed, IMO.

 

Lots of people have become hardened to the concept of God because they have/are observing all the terrible things that have and are going on in the world. They can't believe that a God would allow all these terrible things to happen. If there is a God, they blame, him for all that and so they choose not to believe that there could be a being that would allow it.

 

The fact is that the world/environment that God purportedly gave us in the beginning was pristine and free of war, crime, cancer, industry, technology, etc. Those things are a result of "man's" imprint on the planet/environment. God doesn't intervene and protect humans from all that. It's kind of a parent-child thing. He lets the kids suffer the consequences of their actions, more or less. There's a lot of the "why do bad things happen to good people" too. Harold Kushner wrote a good book with that exact title.

 

To believe or not to believe, that is the question. Opening your heart and mind is the answer. And, remember, that all that is required for salvation is Belief -- not works. You cannot run around correcting every "bad" thing you've done. No one can do that. And, everyone has done something "bad" -- thought, word, deed. I don't care who you are. God hasn't created some impossible script or series of hurdles to jump for salvation. Just believing is enough. He's given some pretty compelling signs of his existence just by wonderful design, IMO. No harm is caused to you by believing. But, there is a pretty big risk for turning away from the opportunity to believe or by being on the fence. Which side of the fence do you want to be on if the things that are predicted come to be?

[BC1980]

I struggle to believe that all that is an accident. It's just too well designed, IMO.

 

This is what I always come back to. It's either created by God or the most absurd joke ever played on the human race. I feel that some of the best "evidence" for God is found right in front of our faces. Nature and human consciousness are both evidence of God to me. Just the fact that a seed or a bulb grows into a flower is beyond my comprehension. Human consciousness too. I know the neuroscience arguments, but those don't cut it for me. I can't swallow the idea that we are just robots that are here on this planet for no higher purpose. That we're just born to die one day. Maybe I'm deluding and self-soothing myself, but I just can't accept that idea.

[BC1980]

I haven't heard of that one. Is it a physics book with a catchy title or is it trying to claim scientific successes for christianity? I know of a book whose title would translate to The Criminal History of Christianity. I don't suspect it's an easy read.

 

It's basically Physics for Dummies. It's on my level because I have minimal background in science. It's Christian apologetics, so I doubt you would like it. I'm not a big fan of apologetics, but I got this book free. I find the arguments interesting, but I'm more or less neutral about claims that we can prove God exists or prove that Jesus was resurrected, ect. Faith is a completely unreasonable path to walk down. Any attempts to inject logic and reason into the mix don't work for me. It just doesn't feel quite right to me.

[BC1980]

Factual truth: Which is the standard quantitatively measurable truths. They tell you what things are and these are what we use in science. EG: The earth is a sphere, The moon is 384,400 km from the earth etc etc.

 

Meta Truths: These are what are explored in archetypes, mythological stories and parables. Essentially behavioral truths about life. An example of of a Meta-truth is something as simple as the statement: With great power comes great responsibility.

 

This is kind of what I meant when I said that some things (answers I believe I said) operate on different planes. I think that religion has grappled with a lot of questions over thousands of years, and there is a lot of usefulness in those answers.

 

For instance, death is a topic that religion addresses. We can say that there are biological reasons we all die one day. Science can give us those answers. But science can't tell us how to cope with death or how to give purpose to death.

[Redhead14]

This is what I always come back to. It's either created by God or the most absurd joke ever played on the human race. I feel that some of the best "evidence" for God is found right in front of our faces. Nature and human consciousness are both evidence of God to me. Just the fact that a seed or a bulb grows into a flower is beyond my comprehension. Human consciousness too. I know the neuroscience arguments, but those don't cut it for me. I can't swallow the idea that we are just robots that are here on this planet for no higher purpose. That we're just born to die one day. Maybe I'm deluding and self-soothing myself, but I just can't accept that idea.

 

In the end, if having faith helps us get through this world, it's a win/win. If we are taken away by Rapture and all the questions we have about the world and our purpose are answered, great. If not, there isn't anything we can do about it. I'd just rather live with faith and hope and with a positive attitude than to live out our days with such a dismal view to the "other side". We have nothing to lose by having and keeping faith at least. If it helps us live our lives with a more positive outlook and attitude and keeps us walking a "righter" path that gives a nice life, great.

 

But, to the science/theology debate -- scientists have proven that the earth/world is a lot older than the Bible indicates. I don't dispute that the earth is older. The science is correct. But the theories of evolution and "creationism" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I have kinda reconciled that argument for myself with the thinking that God did create the earth. He used it as a petri dish, more or less. He created the organisms that eventually became a human. He allowed those organisms to develop/evolve to the point where they were what he envisioned and planned for. When it got to the point of perfection and having the ability to comprehend, etc., he chose two prime members of the specie, at which time he enlightened them to his presence. This is when the world as we know it came to be. It wasn't that two people were just dropped on the planet. They just became aware and could carry that enlightenment forward from that point. Science isn't wrong, theology isn't wrong.

 

And, I kinda poked fun in another thread about September 23 and Planet X. I'm taking it with a grain of salt. Scientists say that a planet that big being close enough to destroy the earth would be visible by now. Ok. That's logical. But, if this is a divine edict/plan, etc. It's going to happen outside of our logic and science. It's going to be sudden and a surprise. That's basically what Revelations says will happen when the Rapture begins.

 

I'm kinda looking at all this as if my Dad told to do something and I ask "why?". He says "because I said so". I have to do it because while I don't understand it, I have faith that he has my best interests at heart -- "Ok, Lord, I believe YOU

Edited September 19, 2017 by Redhead14

[BC1980]

In the end, if having faith helps us get through this world, it's a win/win. If we are taken away by Rapture and all the questions we have about the world and our purpose are answered, great. If not, there isn't anything we can do about it. I'd just rather live with faith and hope and with a positive attitude than to live out our days with such a dismal view to the "other side". We have nothing to lose by having and keeping faith at least. If it helps us live our lives with a more positive outlook and attitude and keeps us walking a "righter" path that gives a nice life, great.

 

This is the approach I have begun to get comfortable with. If there is a God, I'm glad. If there isn't a God, I can't help that. Maybe all of this is just one big joke, and, when the Earth is finally destroyed one day, that's it. I hope that isn't the case though. I'm happier living my life hoping that there is a God and there is some kind of conscious existence after this. I fully concede that I could be using that to cope with my anxiety about death, but, if that hopes helps me have a happier existence, so be it.

 

Save

[Redhead14]

This is the approach I have begun to get comfortable with. If there is a God, I'm glad. If there isn't a God, I can't help that. Maybe all of this is just one big joke, and, when the Earth is finally destroyed one day, that's it. I hope that isn't the case though. I'm happier living my life hoping that there is a God and there is some kind of conscious existence after this. I fully concede that I could be using that to cope with my anxiety about death, but, if that hopes helps me have a happier existence, so be it.

 

Save

 

I don't think it would have been some big joke. If there's no God, all this was just an accident of nature . . . so be it. Although, I find even that saying that doesn't really flow naturally from my mouth/fingers. There's something about saying it that just doesn't "feel" correct . . .

 

And, since we really don't know what goes on after death, why assume on the side of negativity. I'd say it's a 50/50 thing -- like, what ifs. You can ask "What if it's (something bad)? or you can ask "What if it's (something good)? That's how I deal with the lesser "what if's" in life.

 

But, seriously, it doesn't sound to me like you are at a point where death is imminent and worrying about and fretting serves no purpose but to mute the joys of living. Don't waste what you have right now by clouding it. And, I'd say, by the time you do get to the point where death is near, you aren't going to be so afraid of it, and maybe welcome it. Kinda like when a summer is so hot and miserable that you welcome fall and winter And, you can also fall to your faith when that time is near like going to your "happy place" in times of stress. Don't worry about it or try to see beyond. Life your life well.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Redhead14

[TheFinalWord]

But, to the science/theology debate -- scientists have proven that the earth/world is a lot older than the Bible indicates. I don't dispute that the earth is older.

 

I don't want to detract from the conversation, other than to say that what many people are critical of in popular culture is something called Young Earth creationism. Young earth creationism mostly has roots in Seventh Day Advent-ism and is not accepted among most biblical scholars. Heck, Gleason Archer speaks like 10 ancient languages, translated all of the original biblical manuscripts, took his college notes in Hittite, and said there is no way day in Genesis 1 is referring to an actual 24 hour duration. It's easy to disprove from just the text. You don't even need to understand scientific methods of dating the earth. According to the "literal" interpretation, the sun was not created until day 4, so how can the previous days be referring to solar days. In a lot of ways young earth creationism has hijacked the conversation. But if you look back at the early church fathers, they did not conclude the earth is young. Most of them left it open to interpretation, not based on science (this was prior to scientific understanding), but because of the text. Augustine actually wrote several volumes about what "day" means in Genesis (the work is called the A literal interpretation of Genesis), and this was way before there was any scientific argument.

 

One reason they thought the earth was ancient, is just the descriptions of creation in the scripture itself. There are many texts about the ancientness of the earth. One document, the Book of Enoch (which is probably the only apocryphal book that a lot of scholars would argue should be in the bible), describes a scene in which an angel is speaking to the prophet Enoch. In the text, Enoch asks how old the universe is...the angel shows him a great fire with smoke ascending up to heaven. He then conveys to Enoch that the age of the universe is as great as the range of the smoke relative to fire. In other words, a lot older than the earliest recorded stories we have from humans. They didn't really have the idea of millions and billions of years back then, but the idea of great ancientness of the universe was described in other ways.

Edited September 20, 2017 by TheFinalWord

[TheFinalWord]

This is the approach I have begun to get comfortable with. If there is a God, I'm glad. If there isn't a God, I can't help that. Maybe all of this is just one big joke, and, when the Earth is finally destroyed one day, that's it. I hope that isn't the case though. I'm happier living my life hoping that there is a God and there is some kind of conscious existence after this. I fully concede that I could be using that to cope with my anxiety about death, but, if that hopes helps me have a happier existence, so be it.

 

Save

 

What you're essentially describing is Pascal's wager...which, if you prefer to only think in rational terms, is loaded with logical fallacies.

 

Speaking of talking snakes, I'm not a big fan of Christopher Hitches. He uses rather unsophisticated arguments, but there's a kernel of truth in his puns. Sort of like Trump. Not really the definition of a policy wonk, but there is a kernel of truth (normally humor) in the way he reduces political positions to 140 characters. With that being said:

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by TheFinalWord

[TheFinalWord]

His post brought this back to my mind and I think a statement Jordan makes about "belief in god" is really telling about how people underestimate the effect christian values had on modern western culture.

 

Excellent post! Thanks for sharing the link too.

 

I wanted to share a link to one of my earliest influences on the application of religious belief to science...Dr. Bakker. An odd example, perhaps, but I think he was pretty much on the cutting edge (at least in popular culture) regarding the role of religion in science.

 

Bakker was a pretty famous paleontologist (he appeared on a lot of dinosaur specials in the 80s and pretty much convinced me I wanted to become an archeologist lol never happened), who also happens to be a Pentecostal minister

 

[BC1980]

What you're essentially describing is Pascal's wager...which, if you prefer to only think in rational terms, is loaded with logical fallacies.

 

Speaking of talking snakes, I'm not a big fan of Christopher Hitches. He uses rather unsophisticated arguments, but there's a kernel of truth in his puns. Sort of like Trump. Not really the definition of a policy wonk, but there is a kernel of truth (normally humor) in the way he reduces political positions to 140 characters. With that being said:

 

 

You know, I wasn't even aware of what Pascal's wager really was, so I looked it up yesterday. Either that, or I read about it at some point and then forgot about. It basically sums up what I feel, but Hitchens has a very good point too.

 

Throughout all of this, I've been thinking about predestination and wondering if the Calvinists had it right all along.

[TheFinalWord]

You know, I wasn't even aware of what Pascal's wager really was, so I looked it up yesterday. Either that, or I read about it at some point and then forgot about. It basically sums up what I feel, but Hitchens has a very good point too.

 

Throughout all of this, I've been thinking about predestination and wondering if the Calvinists had it right all along.

 

Paschal gets sort of compartmentalized for the wager argument, but he wrote a lot of interesting stuff.

 

As far as predestination or free will, well that's a massive can of worms. haha Wars have been started for less...

 

The conundrum with predestination and free will, Biblically, is that both ideas are attempts by the apostles to convey both sides of God's nature; his grace and his holiness. Trying to put these concepts into human terms is pretty difficult, if not impossible. I get a migraine listening to theologians in debates arguing dogmatically for either position. Yet, the bible clearly states both are true. Paul discusses both concepts in the same letter in Romans, so we know that he intentionally tried to convey both ideas to the churches. However, its pretty easy to run into a whole host of paradoxes when you try to contemplate how both concepts can be true. It quickly turns into a mental paradox akin to: what happens when the immovable object meets the irresistible force.

[Redhead14]

Predestination is not a blanket edict. Predestination refers to the Chosen Ones . . . the rest are saved by Grace if they believe and accept Jesus as their savior, which is a matter of Free Will.

[Justanaverageguy]

What you're essentially describing is Pascal's wager...which, if you prefer to only think in rational terms, is loaded with logical fallacies.[/b][/url]

 

So I think the issue with Pascals wager and thus also Christopher Hitches rebuttal of it - is that it is usually framed in terms of "belief" in god rather then simply the idea of following right moral action that was derived from that transcendent ideal. It tries to posit to atheists that even though you don't rationally believe in God - you should basically "pretend to believe" just in case. Kind of a ridiculous ask.

 

If you look at the religious teachings as a "value system" rather then a "belief system" I think you can frame it in a much more logical and easier way which most Atheists are fine with. Simply if you live by this value system - regardless of whether you do or don't believe there is a god - if there is an afterlife you will go to heaven.

 

I think most would be fine with that proposition. If you are working from the Christian value system then you will get quibbles on certain things like sex before marriage and also the approach to homosexuality but on the whole I think the value system would be accepted because it is fundamentally the value system that western culture was built on and aimed at so even if your weren't religious you were still taught this was the right way to live.

 

The bible states explicitly that the only thing God actually cares about is your actions - its why Jesus had such disdain for the Pharisees who said they believed in God but acted in the opposite way. Belief, understanding and indeed even true knowing about God really gets you absolutely no where - if you don't actually follow through on following the value system. In fact if your a catholic\christian there are many passages in the bible that say it would make the consequences for wrong action much much worse for you by knowing and still not acting correctly. Thus in a way being a moral personal and an atheist is in some ways an easier path.

 

Being a good person - regardless of what you believe you will get the rewards. That's the fundamental truth.

[umirano]

So I've watched that podcast 6-7 times and what Petersen was talking about was that in the absence of religion the super heroes genre had taken over as the practice domain for exploring these meta truths in narritive form. He said their popularity and the money we spent on them showed how much we craved this type of structure to explore modes of being. The heroes tale is one of the oldest teaching tools to show people "preferred patterns of behaviour".

That's possible, but it has nothing to do with actually simulating a universe, objectively and measurably so. Our daily weather forecasts consume the computing power of several fully animated hollywood movies 3 times a day. Peterson is a bit careless in his wording in this particular instance and it bothers me.

 

I have also rewatched his interviews. At one point he's being interviewed by David Rubin, and Rubin asks Peterson comment on the conversation with Sam Harris. Peterson talks for about 20 minutes arguing why christianity (specifically) benefits a society (and thus we should regard it as true). But at no time does he actually make the claim that god can interact with the world physically (which would necessitate and imply that he exists). He actually specifically describes the development of religiosity in early societies as an act of the human mind. I am paraphrasing here, but this is the gist of what he said: "It probably took us about 150'000 years to separate the leader from an actual individual and put into an abstract person (god).'

 

Peterson, in my view doesn't believe in a personal god, but, and he may well be right here, he strongly believes it improves peoples day-to-day experience to believe in a personal god.

 

If Peterson's claims are true I suggest the following: We identify precisely which psychological mechanism provides the benefits that Peterson claims we get from believing. We divorce it from bronze age ethics and all the magical thinking, combine it with the tenets of humanism and the values of the enlightenment and boom, we have a powerful tool to shape a fair, true and loving society for the next few hundred years until something even better comes along.

 

The underlying meta truth is: Parents who sacrifice themselves for the betterment of their children produce the greatest offspring. Offspring capable of much greater things then others. Capable of achieving things that seem miraculous.

I can get that from modern biology and evolutionary psychology. No genocide and magic needed for any of this.

Edited October 13, 2017 by umirano