Religion as a drug

[Hypocolius]

An interesting article in today's Grauniad

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/...1043481,00.html

I particularly like the following quotes:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity in Europe is now the marijuana of the marginalised: supposedly harmless, mildly confusing, but not addictive and therefore nothing to get worked up about.

In the US, where Jesus worship takes a more muscular form, religion is a good deal more pumped up and ready for action. So let's say it's the steroid of the suburbanites.

And what of the fundamentalist strain of Islam, the doctrine that overnight turns previously docile communities into breeding grounds of nihilistic violence and resentment? Oh, that's easy: crack cocaine.

We could go on, but before anyone puts pen to fatwa, let me strike a note of egalitarian universalism. All religions are at root as stupid as each other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I love the Guardian!

Question for Americans; Are there any US papers which would dare to publish an article like this?

 

[RCNelson]

Here's a working link to the article.

Marx was half right - religion is a class A drug

 

[Samus]

Question for Americans; Are there any US papers which would dare to publish an article like this?

Probably The Onion, but that's about it.

I remember a few years ago, when Jesse Ventura was running for governor in Minnesota, he said that "organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people" (that might not be a direct quote, but it's pretty close). He had to backpedal and "clarify his remarks" for weeks after that. Shame, too, because that man was spot on.

Here in the U.S., we take our religion very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that there are people who genuinely believe society will crumble if people "turn away from god". I don't know how they rationalize all the successful, secular nations in this world, but it must be interesting.

 

[Franko]

Just out of curiousity ... how do you guys define the term Religion?

 

[Upchurch]

I usually define religion with Webster, myself.

re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

 

[Samus]

Just out of curiousity ... how do you guys define the term Religion?

Dictionary.com has a couple nice ones:

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
---
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

I'd say those definitions work for me. I'm using religion in the strictest terms possible, as in the organized effort to worship a spiritual leader. I realize there are some more liberal applications of the word, such as "Metallica fans are religiously loyal to their band"

 

[Upchurch]

Found another.

religion

SYLLABICATION: re·li·gion
PRONUNCIATION: r-ljn
NOUN: 1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
IDIOM: get religion Informal 1. To become religious or devout. 2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.

 

[Franko]

C.C.:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

You have to rely on the dictionary for your definition of the term “Religion”? You don’t know what that word means without looking it up? Why not just describe what religion means to you … in your own words?

But I see a problem with this definition. It really doesn’t make any sense without a definition of the term “Supernatural”.

And I am guessing that your definition of “Supernatural” is going to involve “Magic”, and so I wonder if that means that all of the “Religions” that don’t believe in the Magical creation and governance of the universe would still be considered Religions then under your definition?

By the way, isn’t the Big Bang Creation Myth a Supernatural account of the formation of the universe? Something magically appearing out of nothing without cause, reason, or explanation? What about The Laws of Physics (TLOP)? Don’t they “supernaturally” control and govern the universe?

 

[Upchurch]

supernatural

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Nope. No magic needed to define "supernatural".

And actually, the "Big Bang Creation Myth" is more of a theory based on observation of physical phenomenon.

 

[Franko]

So what is the non-invisible agent (process) responsible for the Big Bang?

Also, are you now claiming that God = Supernatural? By what logic do you come to that (self-serving) conclusion?

I thought:

God = a more evolved (superior) consciousness capable of generating a reality (universe).

In your opinion are humans figuratively or literally "supernatural" from the point of view of monkeys?

 

[Samus]

You have to rely on the dictionary for your definition of the term “Religion”? You don’t know what that word means without looking it up? Why not just describe what religion means to you … in your own words?

Why, so you can pick it apart? Yes, actually, sometimes the dictionary is the best place to go to get a good description of a word.

And I am guessing that your definition of “Supernatural” is going to involve “Magic”, and so I wonder if that means that all of the “Religions” that don’t believe in the Magical creation and governance of the universe would still be considered Religions then under your definition?

Creation and governance of the universe are not matters solely restricted to religion. Philosophers and scientists ponder what created, and study what governs, the universe. Various religions may have their own theories (i.e. creationism), but that is not their only function. At its roots, a religion's primary function is to worship a spiritual being -- that's one thing they all have in common. Some religions purport to know the answer to creation, others don't.

By the way, isn’t the Big Bang Creation Myth a Supernatural account of the formation of the universe? Something magically appearing out of nothing without cause, reason, or explanation? What about The Laws of Physics (TLOP)? Don’t they “supernaturally” control and govern the universe?

Not really. The big bang is simply an attempt to say what happened at the beginning of the universe as we know it. It makes no attempt to postulate what triggered the initial explosion of the primeval atom. In my opinion, I don't think one can ever know, to any degree of certainty, what happened just before the beginning of time (it simply wouldn't make sense to discuss "before time", since time had no meaning before the beginning).

 

[Samus]

So what is the non-invisible agent (process) responsible for the Big Bang?

See my reply above. Regardless of what agent that was, the big bang makes no attempt to explain it.

God = a more evolved (superior) consciousness capable of generating a reality (universe).

In your opinion are humans figuratively or literally "supernatural" from the point of view of monkeys?

We're not gods to them, if that's what you are suggesting. Has there been any research done so as to whether monkeys have enough brain power to conceptualize "supernatural"? Bees, for example, don't see us as supernatural beings, because that word and the concept it describes are beyond the brainpower of bees (to my knowledge).

Carrying that argument along, one might claim that there are things beyond the capability of humans to understand. That there might be another, more conscious being than us, that can create an environment for us without us being aware (or only being slightly aware) of their existence. The problem with that is that there is currently no way to prove that this is the case. We can observe bees, we can't observe a god observing us. Regardless, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence (or increase or decrease the likeliood of existence) of some higher-level conscious being.

Clear as mud?

 

[Upchurch]

So what is the non-invisible agent (process) responsible for the Big Bang?

Current theory is quantum fluctuation.

Also, are you now claiming that God = Supernatural? By what logic do you come to that (self-serving) conclusion?

No, I'm claiming that Big Bang is based on natural phenomina and observations of such.

 

[Franko]

C.C.:
Creation and governance of the universe are not matters solely restricted to religion.

I am just going by what You, yourself said:


1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

C.C.:
Philosophers and scientists ponder what created, and study what governs, the universe.

That sounds like you definition still …

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

What’s the difference between a “Scientist” and a “spiritual leader”? A “spiritual leader” is what you call the other guys priest, and a “scientist” is what you call your own … right?

Various religions may have their own theories (i.e. creationism), but that is not their only function.

Are you talking about Atheists and Materialists or Christians?

At its roots, a religion's primary function is to worship a spiritual being -- that's one thing they all have in common. Some religions purport to know the answer to creation, others don't.

Is Buddhism a Religion? Who is the “spiritual being” that is worshipped in Buddhism?

Some Atheists seem to worship Hawking and Sagan. Many Atheists seem to worship the Big Bang Theory as a “spiritual being”. Just like all the Discordians you seem to be vague on the definitions when it suits your subjective whim.

Franko:
By the way, isn’t the Big Bang Creation Myth a Supernatural account of the formation of the universe? Something magically appearing out of nothing without cause, reason, or explanation? What about The Laws of Physics (TLOP)? Don’t they “supernaturally” control and govern the universe?

C.C.:
Not really. The big bang is simply an attempt to say what happened at the beginning of the universe as we know it. It makes no attempt to postulate what triggered the initial explosion of the primeval atom. In my opinion, I don't think one can ever know, to any degree of certainty, what happened just before the beginning of time (it simply wouldn't make sense to discuss "before time", since time had no meaning before the beginning).

Whoa nelly! You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions here, and I can’t see how you arrived at those conclusions?

First of all, regardless of whether you attempt to explain what triggered the Big Bang you are definitely asserting that something triggered it. Your best explanation seems to be this is what we know happened – now take my word for it.

What makes you assume that no one can ever know with any degree of certainty? Isn’t that the same as a statement of belief in the Supernatural? How exactly is it different? You are claiming that there is a fundamental piece of knowledge about existence that is forever beyond human comprehension. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

And finally, what makes you assume that Time had a beginning, or that Time began with the Big Bang?

How long did the “Timeless period” last before the Big Bang started? Did it last for a long, long Time (on the scale of eternity), or did it last for zero Time?

 

[Franko]

Current theory is quantum fluctuation.

yeah, but if there was no Time and no matter before the B.B. than what triggered the quantum fluctuations?

Also You seem to be implying that TLOP pre-existed the B.B.

How do you account for the existence of TLOP?

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, Franko. I'm not going to re-hash the entire conversation we've already had about how spacetime is undefined "prior" to beginning of the universe. The short answer is: There is no "before" the Universe existed.

I'll try to find the thread where this was discussed so you can re-read it.

 

[Upchurch]

Whoops. My bad.

I'm sorry, Franko. It wasn't you I had this conversation with, but EvilYeti. My appologies.

However, it does address the same issue if you care to read it.

 

[Samus]

What’s the difference between a “Scientist” and a “spiritual leader”? A “spiritual leader” is what you call the other guys priest, and a “scientist” is what you call your own … right?

Scientists are not necessarily leaders. Nor are they necessarily spiritual. Nor does science necessarily have anything to do with the "spirit", so I'm not sure how you could draw this conclusion.

Are you talking about Atheists and Materialists or Christians?

Atheists, by the very definition of the word, do not participate in religion because they lack a belief in a god that the religion might worship.

Is Buddhism a Religion? Who is the “spiritual being” that is worshipped in Buddhism?

I thought of Buddhism after I posted, and indeed, you have a point there. The universalist unitarians are another organization I can think of that falls under the category of religion that doesn't worship a specific spiritual being, so my previous statement was indeed incorrect.

Some Atheists seem to worship Hawking and Sagan. Many Atheists seem to worship the Big Bang Theory as a “spiritual being”. Just like all the Discordians you seem to be vague on the definitions when it suits your subjective whim.

Worshiping in the sense of having great admiration for is a different use of the word. Some people worship their cars, it doesn't mean carism is a religion. You're using the word in two different contexts.

First of all, regardless of whether you attempt to explain what triggered the Big Bang you are definitely asserting that something triggered it. Your best explanation seems to be this is what we know happened – now take my word for it.

I didn't assert that at all. First off, the big bang is a potential explanation, I never said a better theory would never come along. Second, we only know what happened slightly after the "beginning", we don't know what the beginning was or what triggered it. No one does at this point. Do you?

What makes you assume that no one can ever know with any degree of certainty? Isn’t that the same as a statement of belief in the Supernatural? How exactly is it different? You are claiming that there is a fundamental piece of knowledge about existence that is forever beyond human comprehension. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Which is why I very carefully prefaced my statement with the words "in my opinion". I have no scientific evidence to back that up, it was merely an editorial comment, that I don't think we'll ever be able to accurately describe what caused the universe.

And finally, what makes you assume that Time had a beginning, or that Time began with the Big Bang?

How long did the “Timeless period” last before the Big Bang started? Did it last for a long, long Time (on the scale of eternity), or did it last for zero Time?

I reiterate my earlier statement, that we can't talk about what happened before time, because we have no frame of reference in which to discuss it. If time wasn't always, then what was there before it? If time always was, then at what point did the universe come in to being?

It is difficult to articulate the answers to those questions because all we know is our universe, trying to ponder what might be outside of it, or what happened before it, is arduous at best.

 

[Upchurch]

I reiterate my earlier statement, that we can't talk about what happened before time, because we have no frame of reference in which to discuss it. If time wasn't always, then what was there before it? If time always was, then at what point did the universe come in to being?

According to current theory (which certainly seems to be the case based on observed phenomena), there is no time "prior" to the beginning of the universe, just as there "was" no space. (Which is redundent to say, since they are one in the same thing.)

 

[Franko]

T.L.O.P. = The Laws of Physics

Franko:
What’s the difference between a “Scientist” and a “spiritual leader”? A “spiritual leader” is what you call the other guys priest, and a “scientist” is what you call your own … right?

C.C:
Scientists are not necessarily leaders.

Priests or Philosophers aren’t necessarily leaders either.

It’s only when they develop a cult-like following.

… like Hawking or Sagan for example.

[Scientists …] Nor are they necessarily spiritual.

Define “Spiritual”.

I’ll give you extra credit if you can do it in your own words.

Nor does science necessarily have anything to do with the "spirit", so I'm not sure how you could draw this conclusion.

You are the one who is trying to make a distinction between “Scientism” and other philosophical belief systems. But if you want to establish a real distinction you are going to have to do more than play semantic games.

Instead you give all the appearances of a person trying to rationalize the irrational.

Atheists, by the very definition of the word, do not participate in religion because they lack a belief in a god that the religion might worship.

An Atheists is a person who believes there is no “God”, but there is nothing in the definition of Atheism that implies an Atheists can’t be Religious, or cannot Worship.

For Atheism to mean anything one would have to have a precise and consistent definition of both “God” and “Religion”.

Are the laws of Physics a “God”? Explain why or why not?

TLOP created the universe, and TLOP governs the universe. Are you claiming that (in general) Atheists don’t believe this?

Does a “God” have to be conscious to be considered a “God”? A lot of materialists say that consciousness is just an illusion. If that is truly the case wouldn’t it imply that “God” would not be conscious (just like you imagine TLOP)?

Maybe people who believe that they are not really conscious believe in a God that is not really conscious?

First off, the big bang is a potential explanation, I never said a better theory would never come along.

Okay, but a Christian might say that:

Obviously the Bible is a “potential explanation”. I may die and get to the heaven and then God will explain what really happened and what’s really going on.

Second, we only know what happened slightly after the "beginning", we don't know what the beginning was or what triggered it. No one does at this point. Do you?

It’s a moot point though – isn’t it?

Because what no one seems to dispute is that at the moment of the Big Bang there were two parameters – the laws of physics (TLOP) and the initial state. From these two parameters, everything that has transpired, and everything that will transpire (including all of your actions, thoughts, and beliefs) were preordained.