[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[humber]

Yes Einstein is dead but I was using him as an example of someone of an awesome interlect.
Do you see what I meant with that example?

But Einstein was an atheist (his references to god where metaphorical).
Anyway, if he were alive today, don't you think he might learn something?
Give the man a chance to change his mind.

 

[AkuManiMani]

But Einstein was an atheist (his references to god where metaphorical).
Anyway, if he were alive today, don't you think he might learn something?
Give the man a chance to change his mind.

He did not believe a personal god. I think most in the western tradition have a very crude and primitive concept of "God" as some kind of anthropomorphic authority figure. Einstein viewed god more as the workings of nature itself.

 

[PBTree]

Well I believe in God because to me I just don't see how all of the universe could come to be from the big bang without some sort of intelligent design, but I am the first to admit I very well could be wrong in my beliefs.

Great to see an answer. With knowledge, comes realisation.

Keep searching.

 

[PBTree]

I'm not a religious person, but to satisfy DD's request, I can think of a couple of reasons why someone might believe in such things.

1. He/she is looking for the answers to philosophical, rather than scientific questions. The archetypal "why are we here?" sorts of queries can't really be answered by science... at least, not in a way that satisfies the believer.

2. He/she is seeking solace from the fears and doubts that many of us experience. It's comforting to believe that a kinder, gentler existence awaits us after we shuffle off our mortal coils, or that a powerful and loving being created everything and is looking after us.

Undoubtedly, there are others one might articulate. IMO, neither of these is an "idiotic" reason to believe, despite the fact that these positions aren't supported by concrete evidence. From a psychological point of view, it makes some sense that people would come to these conclusions, I think.
Besides, nothing about being smart keeps you from being mistaken in your beliefs; if religion doesn't provide any valid insights into the nature of the universe, it just means the believers are wrong, not necessarily stupid.

Maybe so but people can't help themselves. Once they think they have found religious nirvana, they have to express their {insert insulting word here} opinion to others and then the situation usually turns to mush.

All of a sudden they are walking around with a small box or cap on their head, or praying to the east every ten minutes, or not allowing women an education or children to fly a kite. Then insisting that they and everyone else should only eat fish on Friday and that god wanted us to play and dance with rattlesnakes. Maybe he even wanted us to do what the Jonestown people did. How about we don't allow blood transfusions or medicine and we let our children die. Even better, how about we have children and then tell them they are going straight to hell because of their sins. sheesh!

I could go on and on, as there are lot more {insert insulting word here} things being done in the name of religion than anything else.

I for one am amazed that anyone could believe any of this tripe. Lets be serious, there are hundreds (guess) of deities being believed in on this planet, yet no-one has ever seen one. Not one, not even a peep. No-one has ever got as much as an,

"Hi how's it going, I'm god, what do you think of my robes, I got them at Godmart"?

Are they all shy, is there an eleventh commandment we don't know about; "thou shalt never see or hear me".

Couple of sandwiches short of a picnic if you ask me.

 

[humber]

He did not believe a personal god. I think most in the western tradition have a very crude and primitive concept of "God" as some kind of anthropomorphic authority figure. Einstein viewed god more as the workings of nature itself.

As you say, Einstein used god a metaphor for the workings of the universe, but he did not attribute any supernatural or spiritual meaning to it.
The point is moot. Newton wrote more on alchemy - trying to turn base metals to gold - than he did on any other topic. Therefore alchemy is good science?

 

[AkuManiMani]

As you say, Einstein used god a metaphor for the workings of the universe, but he did not attribute any supernatural or spiritual meaning to it.

It wasn't so much a metaphor as a different definition of god. As for Einstein being "non-spiritual" I think you are gravely mistaken:

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.

When the solution is simple, God is answering.

God does not play dice with the universe.

God is subtle but he is not malicious.

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.

The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.

The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.

Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.

As you can see, by any definition, Einstein was very spiritual.

The point is moot. Newton wrote more on alchemy - trying to turn base metals to gold - than he did on any other topic. Therefore alchemy is good science?

LORD XENU's original reference to Einstein was to illustrate that religious belief has nothing to do with intelligence. The fact that Newton was an avid alchemist is, itself, a moot point.

 

[Egg]

But Einstein was an atheist (his references to god where metaphorical).

Just in case we hadn't had enough Einstein quotes in this thread, when asked directly if he believed in the God of Spinoza:

I can't answer with a simple yes or no," he replied. "I am not an atheist (and) I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I can think of many situations where I may have "reasons to suspect" magic gym socks. But they're not at all similar to "reasons to suspect" there is a God or even whether there is the supernatural.

Just like your "reasons" to suspect a god, I doubt you can come up with any intelligent reasons to suspect magic gym socks.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Does that make Einstein into an apantheist?

I really don’t understand the fuss about Spinoza’s “god” anyway, devoid of free will and completely subjugated to determinism. What’s god-like in that?

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

Great to see an answer. With knowledge, comes realisation.

Keep searching.

Thats great just because I admit that I COULD be wrong doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing ok mate!

If you do not like that for an answer to bad!

 

[Egg]

How are they knowledge to the contrary?

If every phenomena around us can eventually explained by the scientific method, then where is the room for a magic sky-daddy?

Can you show by the scientific method that every phenomena around us can eventually be explained by the scientific method?

Obviously not. But as I said, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.

So, to summarise your argument, you're saying that because of your belief which you can't prove by the scientific method, religious people are idiots for having beliefs which they can't prove by the scientific method.

No.

Well, you say "no", but your posts don't support that. Perhaps there's been a misunderstanding somewhere, so I'll go with your change of tack.

The scientific method has demonstrated that it is the most reliable way of obtaining knowledge about how our Universe
works. The fact that we are discussing the current topic on our computers, worlds apart, is evidence enough.

I'd question that that was evidence enough, but I don't have any issue with this premise as such. Certainly for physical things in nature I'd agree that the scientific method has been shown to be the most reliable method we have of discovery, at least for the things that it can test.

So, the scientific method shows what is true and what is not in our world. It shows, for example, that the age of the Earth is at least 4 billion years and not 4000 years as some inane religion proclaims. It shows that our very species evolved from previous lifeforms, lifeforms which by the way have existed since almost the beginning of the Earth. It shows why stars are not "lights on glass spheres" and that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and that things do fall at the same rate, no matter their mass, despite what the Pope says. It shows, once again, how to reliably obtain information about the workings of our Universe.

OK, so a certain group from a certain religion hold some beliefs which disagree with the findings of science. If your argument was purely about Young Earth Creationists or those who hold beliefs contrary to scientific evidence, then that's what you would have said instead of "all religions are idiocy".

I agree with you you here. On the face of it, YEC does appear to be a pretty idiotic position to hold. If you genuinely want some insight into this position, I would recommend you put some serious consideration to the following question.

Assuming you're not a geologist, and have not examined all the evidence for yourself, why is it that you believe that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old?

If you are a geologist, substitute Evolution or Big Bang Theory. Personally, I believe in Evolution Theory, for example. I was taught it at school, I've read some books on the matter and have been convinced of this theory from the what has been presented as evidence and from the theory making sense to me. I've seen a few fossils, but nothing like enough to have drawn such a conclusion for myself. The DNA evidence is quite possibly the most convincing evidence for me, but I've never examined this evidence for myself. When it comes down to it, I believe Evolution Theory because I trust those who have taught me, I trust the scientists' honesty and best intentions, I trust the scientific peer review system, I trust that if I were to look into these things I too would find the same evidence and I believe this evidence exists and that this evidence is substantial enough to lead overwhelmingly to the conclusion of Evolution Theory. Essentially, it is anecdotal evidence, but if I didn't trust such things, I would go through life learning very little about the world around me.

Now in the case for someone who believes in Young Earth Creationism, they trust the church leaders who teach them, they trust that the scriptures are the inerrant word of God and trust that God wouldn't lie to them. They hang around with others who firmly believe these things. They may not be disbelievers in the scientific method, but skeptical of the claims of evidence and the conclusions drawn from that evidence. They even have some scientists who present evidence to support that viewpoint.

I disagree with the YEC position, but I don't think I could call them more idiotic than myself just for having trust in different places from me. If I grew up surrounded by that kind of thinking, it wouldn't be unlikely that I would share their position.

Religion has not provided a reliable answer regarding anything since it was invented. And every answer it has suggested has been shown to be wrong. By science.

Hence, anyone thinking that any religion anywhere can provide answers to anything at all, is an idiot.

How do you know religion has not provided any reliable answers? Every answer has been shown to be wrong by science? Many of the religious answers aren't even things science can easily test for. If you're going to use such premises to reach your conclusion, perhaps you should first show these premises have any merit whatsoever and are not just wild speculations on your part.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If you are a geologist, substitute Evolution or Big Bang Theory. Personally, I believe in Evolution Theory, for example. I was taught it at school, I've read some books on the matter and have been convinced of this theory from the what has been presented as evidence and from the theory making sense to me. I've seen a few fossils, but nothing like enough to have drawn such a conclusion for myself. The DNA evidence is quite possibly the most convincing evidence for me, but I've never examined this evidence for myself. When it comes down to it, I believe Evolution Theory because I trust those who have taught me, I trust the scientists' honesty and best intentions, I trust the scientific peer review system, I trust that if I were to look into these things I too would find the same evidence and I believe this evidence exists and that this evidence is substantial enough to lead overwhelmingly to the conclusion of Evolution Theory. Essentially, it is anecdotal evidence, but if I didn't trust such things, I would go through life learning very little about the world around me.

Mr.Thesaurus says:

trust

Part of Speech: noun
Definition: belief

Synonyms:
assurance, certainty, certitude, confidence, conviction, credence, credit, dependence, entrustment, expectation, >>faith<<, gospel truth*, hope, positiveness, reliance, stock, store, sureness

Antonyms:
disbelief, distrust, mistrust

Since trust and faith are synonymous, and DD considers all faith "idiotic", we can only assume that DD considers trust "idiotic" as well.

We are also left to assume that if DD trusts the scientific method and the peer-review process he would also be "idiotic"...


All I can say is: don't be so hard on yourself, Danish

 

[Macoy]

Mr.Thesaurus says:



Since trust and faith are synonymous, and DD considers all faith "idiotic", we can only assume that DD considers trust "idiotic" as well.

We are also left to assume that if DD trusts the scientific method and the peer-review process he would also be "idiotic"...

While "faith" and "trust" may share some similarities, to say "synonymous" is perhaps an exaggeration.

 

[neltana]

I've seen it asserted a few times here that religious beliefs are irrational by nature. That's not true. As long as a system of belief is internally consistent, it is rational. It can be 100% wrong, but if it doesn't contradict itself, it is rational.

Similarly, is religion reasonable? It depends. As long as the conclusions in a system of beliefs follow logically from its precepts, then it is reasonable. The beliefs can be wrong (ref. Aristotle) and still be reasonable.

In my opinion, most religions drift into irrationality and unreasonableness. In my experience, that's why people with religious beliefs tend to pick and choose from what their religion offers--in order to build a rational system of belief.

In my experience (and I've had occasion to interview a fair number of people about their beliefs over the years), religious people are sane and rational and use sound reasoning. Most the people I encounter are not fundamentalists and they tend to see no disconnect between their system of beliefs and science.

DD criticizes religion as idiocy because it does not use scientific method. I find this curious, because most religious people report that the role of religion in their lives is to provide answers for questions that science cannot answer--things that are, from a scientific standpoint, unknowable.

By the standard DD seems to be proposing, most branches of philosophy are idiocy, since many (most?) attempt to provide answers for questions that are unknowable through empirical methods. In fact, there is one branch of philosophy that questions whether anything can ever be truly known. The name of this branch of philosophy is skepticism. Does that make skepticism idiocy?

Sorry this post is so long....

To finish off, DD asks why believers believe what they do. Well, I have religious beliefs, though I am not a part of any religion. The reason I have my beliefs is that they provide a reasonable and rational explanation of the world I see around me.

When you get right down to it, isn't that the only reason anyone believes anything?

 

[bethanythemartian]

While "faith" and "trust" may share some similarities, to say "synonymous" is perhaps an exaggeration.

As with many words, the key rule is CONTEXT. I have faith in my boyfriend is the same as having trust in him. I am using those words in the same context. So it would be more accurate to say that they can be synonymous.

I believe that's why semantics keep coming up in this thread: what do you define as religion? Belief in a god? Many people consider themselves religious without belief in God. Many people who HAVE a belief in God don't make any claims on any specific religion. The English language is a tricky thing, some days.



on subject:

Isn't this the same kind of attitude that makes people not want to admit to being atheists? The whole elitist, snot-nosed crap.

Ignorance is different from naivety is different from idiocy. Elitism of this branch is practiced by the ignorant, who can't understand that other human beings think differently from them. Or the naive, who assume that everyone should be able to see so 'clearly', whatever that means.

Many religious are naive, and many religious are ignorant. And yes, I'm sure there are many idiots. It's like calling a child who believes in Santa Claus an idiot. Almost every child in America believes in Santa Claus, and many of them are ignorant and naive, but not all of them are idiots. (I'm not a religious person, but yes, I believed in Santa Clause )

 

[AkuManiMani]

While "faith" and "trust" may share some similarities, to say "synonymous" is perhaps an exaggeration.

I think the thing that most responders on this forum have a problem with is unconditional faith. This is when trust stops being a matter of confidence and slips into the realm of delusion.

(I'm not a religious person, but yes, I believed in Santa Clause )

Beware.

The baby seal clubbers on these forums would have a field day with statements like that >_>

 

[chris epic]

I know I'm WAY behind, here, but I just wanted to chip-in.

Religion, as the DanishDude assumes, is not synonymous with a god or gods.

Religion, very generically, is a practical way to preserve values and beliefs (whether spiritual or secular or cultural) through tradition.

 

[bethanythemartian]

The baby seal clubbers on these forums would have a field day with statements like that >_>

It's alright. I have a baby-seal-clubber club. Plus, if they want to give me a hard time about believing in Santa Clause (or God, for that matter) at the age of 12, I'll let them quack in the dark all they wish.

 

[Macoy]

As with many words, the key rule is CONTEXT. I have faith in my boyfriend is the same as having trust in him. I am using those words in the same context. So it would be more accurate to say that they can be synonymous.

I believe that's why semantics keep coming up in this thread: what do you define as religion? Belief in a god? Many people consider themselves religious without belief in God. Many people who HAVE a belief in God don't make any claims on any specific religion. The English language is a tricky thing, some days.

Religion is an acceptance of powerlessness.

 

[PBTree]

Thats great just because I admit that I COULD be wrong doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing ok mate!

If you do not like that for an answer to bad!

Keep your shirt on, I was being nice. eg. Great to see an answer (very few respond to the dreaded "WHY" question).


If you want to believe then bully for you.