The Afterlife... (And a little bit about human nature, too)

[Andail]

If you read a brief history of scientific research, you'll find that the majority of scientists have very personal goals and a multitude of faiths in this or that which affect the outcome of their scientific work.
Most researchers only present results that go hand in hand with their personal desires (or their sponsors'); if they cannot produce such results they either shut up or tweak the results until they're at least ambigous or impossible to identify.
The romantic idea of absolute, blind science only applies to very few.
Still, scientific labour as a joint universal effort has in my opinion shedded more light on the mysteries of our existence than any religion has - the latter having obscured things instead.

But the individual, general scientist is not a faithless truth-seeking robot.

[Nostradamus]

True.

Doesn't take anything away from my points though.

[biothlebop]

Yes, science are based on many axioms. Which do not come out of the blue, but are there to fill the gaps between facts and are the result of research.

Are you implying that religious axioms come out of the blue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[Nostradamus]

When religious axioms are stuff like turning sticks to snakes, walking on water, turning a loaf of bread to many, afterlife and all sorts of that stuff, then yes they are based on nothing real.
Unless similiar events happened where the people seeing it were deceived by trickery like modern day magic.
And ok you brought one small religion\sect that rejects the supernatural stuff in the bible. OK, but that's small, an insignificant part of the society. I'm talking about the major religions here.

[lo_res_man]

But what are the major religions? 2000 years ago, give or take a few decades, Christianity was nothing more then a small sect of Judaism that thought the long promised messiah was a carpenter who had gotten himself executed. Weird huh? Or Islam, rich merchant who saw things then decides there is only one god, I mean, everyone knows there is more. Crazy.  Or the prince who left home and wealth, loony enough, but then thought that even that even being an ascetic wasn't holy enough for him. Idiot. Who knows what the next great religion will be. It may be some cult some weirdo starts in his back yard, based on old computer games. Ave Chrisi Jonsi sic 

[Helm]

When religious axioms are stuff like turning sticks to snakes, walking on water, turning a loaf of bread to many, afterlife and all sorts of that stuff, then yes they are based on nothing real.

I feel bad about replying to you as I do because I don't believe in gods so presumably we're more alike than different, but your way of simplifying stuff irks. Those miracles aren't axioms of faith (sic), they are manifestations of divine power. What's so logic-breaking about an effect that be attributed to a lot of different things anyway? It's where the power to conjure this effects comes from with which you should have a problem, as an atheist. That power comes from an all-powerful, omnipresent, omniescent God. That's your target. Not sticks to snakes and walking on water.

"Based on nothing real" buh that you think you can call upon authority because you like science on this matter is absurd. You have no idea what real is, as you are a subject in a whole, only able to see outside, not gaze inwards, not understand anything. You know nothing.

[lo_res_man]

We know nothing, but I find illusions comforting. The modern scientific theory of a importent part of the universe, with the most physical proof is quantem physics. And it says the universe dosn't exist when we don't look at it. Isay the if reality is an illusion, then illusions are reallity. I don't care if I live in a world of mist and abstracts, the importen thing is to LIVE. Life is a great adventure, So live it. Help those around you, make a splash, and live life well.  and the afterlife? Well, to quote peter pan "Death will be a great adventure"

[biothlebop]

Helm already took this to the direction I was pursuing, but here is my version.

Seeing that you are concerned with limiting this to the major theistic religions, I'll try to limit this to only miracle-believing branches of Christianity and Islam.

Here is a four step reasoning (stolen from here: http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp)
that traces back miracles to an omnipotent christian god which should coincide with the religious groups we are targeting
(don't know if the muslims think alike):
   1.  The Bible asserts that an omnipotent God created the universe ex nihilo and governs natural laws.
   2.  If God governs natural laws, God can suspend natural laws
   3.  A suspension of natural laws is a definition of a miracle.
   4.  Therefore if the God of Christianity exists, He can perform miracles.

So, the actual axiom regarding miracles is not if/how/why they happened or not, but if the bible is true. If the bible is true, then there is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent etc. god which explains everything else inside the bible, no matter how unintuitive those concepts may seem on their own. The weapons we have against disproving the bible (or any of it's individual contents like a specific miracle) must be directed toward the concept of god, the way that the bible presents him/her/it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_nature_of_God_in_Western_theology

The link to deism was not because they reject supernatural events, but because of this: "deists hold that correct religious beliefs must be founded on human reason". Reasoning, deductions and logic can be applied to any axioms to build and explain more constructions (like miracles), and are not luxuries that religion never heard of.

The question I was actually asking was: Are you implying that the concept of an all-knowing, infinite, benevolent, all-powerful judge came out of the blue?
With additional questions to see where I am aiming at:
What was mankind's motivation to create such a concept? What purposes did it serve? Has this concept become obsolete?

[Nostradamus]

The question I was actually asking was: Are you implying that the concept of an all-knowing, infinite, benevolent, all-powerful judge came out of the blue?
With additional questions to see where I am aiming at:
What was mankind's motivation to create such a concept? What purposes did it serve? Has this concept become obsolete?

As I already said in my original post, man has created religion because he had no ways or tools to explain things in nature to him, like death, the light of the sun, how rain happens etc. Later when it was organized it was a made a system to try to make sure people will  act well with others. And of course in more recent history religion is abused for profits and power.
The earliest "gods" of men where the sun, the moon, mother earth and such. The purpose it served is explaining howcome things in the nature are what they are. It then developed to multigods systems of beliefs. Getting more detailed because more types of nature's things, and parts of life (including life and death) were assigned gods, and therefore it was more simple to explain how the world worked (again for people who hadn't the tools to research it), and already back in that type of religious world,thousands of years ago, avanve was taken on it for profits - collect taxes and gifs and sacrificies that the leaders of worshipping took and profited on (not everywhere, but a lot). Judaism was the first religion that believed in one god and out of which came Christianity & Islam. These religions made much more rules desgined to ensure people will act descent and be good with each other, which is the good aspect I see in faith, but with that came again the the taxes, the gifts and the profits.

To sum it up again man created religion 1) to explain things he couldn't explain otherwise. 2) Then to ensure pepole being good to each other 3) and it developed to make profit and get power with it.

What I'm saying is now that you have the tools to explain things that happens in the nature that those ancients couldn't, you should listen to it. Whatever is still unexplainable if it sits well with faith, go ahead and believe in it. But don't disregard facts.
I'm saying we shouldn't live in the world of beliefs of thousands of years ago without questioning it and tkaing  out what's irrelevant, our world has changed, our technology and intelligence has progressed, let's progress with it.

[Raggit]

There are actually times when I worry that religion ISN'T serving just as a system to make money and profit. 

I actually find it more disturbing to think that the most radical of radical fundamentalists AREN'T just sitting around a table behind closed doors asking themselves how they can make a little more cash of ignorant people. 

I worry more that they ACTUALLY believe everything they say.  That they really are as blind and fanatical as they appear, and they believe in their heart of hearts that it is their duty to take as many people with them to Heaven as possible. 

A moneymaking conspiracy you can break... one where the leaders actually have faith in what they're saying you can't.

[lo_res_man]

If man is as rational as people like to say, how come opinions are harder to change?
This is just throwing this out there, for one must try to look at oneself honestly and try to gain an outside perspective.

[biothlebop]

I'm saying we shouldn't live in the world of beliefs of thousands of years ago without questioning it and tkaing  out what's irrelevant, our world has changed, our technology and intelligence has progressed, let's progress with it.

This I agree with, if the instances of the word "progress" are exchanged for "change" (or other words without clearly positive/negative values assigned to them).

I think it is important to realise the possibility that many western moral values are based on god and that belief in the all-seeing judge has kept people working toward common goals. The concept of god supports the idea of moral absolutes.

This next part is stolen from here (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/decline.html):
-----
"False ideas are bringing about the decline of western culture. Carl F. H. Henry, in his book Twilight of a Great Civilization, says:

    There is a new barbarism. This barbarism has embraced a new pagan mentality . . . not simply rejecting the legacy of the West, but embracing a new pagan mentality where there is no fixed truth.

Today we live in a world where biblical absolutes are ignored, and unless we return to these biblical truths, our nation will continue to decline."
----

I am of the opinion that moral values are creations, and that we all define good and bad to suit our personal goals.
I see it as a realistic possibility that societies are torn apart by internal conflicts when people begin to pursue their individual goals.

I also believe that christianity is failing (because people do not have faith in it anymore), and if we cling to it, our society that bases it's morals in it might go under unless we see a resurgence of faith. Unlike the above quote, I can see a society function without biblical truths.

I see faith (not neccesarily theistic) as essential for any society to function, and we may be able to restructure this society to function without moral realism. However, absolute values that cannot be questioned will probably be a stronger incentive for acting in a certain way than a questionable agreement between men.

[evenwolf]

As I already said in my original post, man has created religion because he had no ways or tools to explain things in nature to him, like death, the light of the sun, how rain happens etc. Later when it was organized it was a made a system to try to make sure people will  act well with others. And of course in more recent history religion is abused for profits and power.
The earliest "gods" of men where the sun, the moon, mother earth and such. The purpose it served is explaining howcome things in the nature are what they are. It then developed to multigods systems of beliefs. Getting more detailed because more types of nature's things, and parts of life (including life and death) were assigned gods, and therefore it was more simple to explain how the world worked (again for people who hadn't the tools to research it), and already back in that type of religious world,thousands of years ago, avanve was taken on it for profits - collect taxes and gifs and sacrificies that the leaders of worshipping took and profited on (not everywhere, but a lot). Judaism was the first religion that believed in one god and out of which came Christianity & Islam. These religions made much more rules desgined to ensure people will act descent and be good with each other, which is the good aspect I see in faith, but with that came again the the taxes, the gifts and the profits.

To sum it up again man created religion 1) to explain things he couldn't explain otherwise. 2) Then to ensure pepole being good to each other 3) and it developed to make profit and get power with it.

What I'm saying is now that you have the tools to explain things that happens in the nature that those ancients couldn't, you should listen to it. Whatever is still unexplainable if it sits well with faith, go ahead and believe in it. But don't disregard facts.
I'm saying we shouldn't live in the world of beliefs of thousands of years ago without questioning it and tkaing  out what's irrelevant, our world has changed, our technology and intelligence has progressed, let's progress with it.

That's a wonderful post, Nost.     

In a few hundred years mankind will treat each other with common decency without religion.    I feel this way because science does have most of the answers now, geology is a wonderful example: an asteroid lands on the earth and geologists can use carbon dating to better understand the history of the solar system (the planets formed at roughly the same time and those distant from the sun contain more gases because of an explosion that blew the majority of those gases away from the nearby planets, like Earth!   From the leftover gases that existed on Earth and energy from volcanic activity or lightning etc, an atmosphere began to develop.  It was dark and uninhabitable but water began to accumulate!   Organisms began to grow in this water, as the atmosphere continued to develop into one which could be breathed in, and eventually a fish grew fins which were little stubby legs and his descendents volved into amphibians, and one of them took the first step onto land! Or more like sludge.... )

Nobody even guessed that before Darwin! Even Darwin had shitty evidence like finches and turtles and crap.   So unless we had a time machine how are we to know the writers of the Bible wouldn't take the facts we have and consider them?   How can tradition even COMPETE with scientific evidence?

Of course, evidence can come along and prove any theory wrong.   But most religions REFUTE evidence due to conflicts with words in a book.  But look how far we've come.    Science knows few questions that have no reasonable guess or theory.    In the future, I'm confident the one book way will pass and people will grow faith in multiple books.

[Raggit]

What Evenwolf said.

What I find amusing is how religions are friendly towards to science when its in their favor, but when it turns up some evidence AGAINST their belief, all of a sudden its just finite human logic, and its the deceptions of Satan, and all that crap.

Many religions will probably be laughed out of existence if they continue to reject scientific evidence against them as it becomes law.

[EagerMind]

So, the actual axiom regarding miracles is not if/how/why they happened or not, but if the bible is true.

I think you got this turned around. The basic axiom of religion is "God exists." For science, it's "the world that we perceive through the senses is real."

In the case of science, we usually can all usually agree on what we're seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. If we assume that this is real, then it opens the whole world up for discovery. Of course, if it turns out that we're all hooked up to the matrix or that I'm actually hallucinating all of this, then science begins to break down.

In the case of religion, as you yourself pointed out in the Wikipedia articles you linked to earlier, when we say "God exists," we can't even agree on a common definition of God, hence all the multitude of religions. Furthermore, asserting the existence of a god doesn't necessarily give us a useful starting point for exploring and experiencing our reality. And does it really make a difference whether or not God actually exists? After all, athiests don't seem to have any more problems getting through life and dealing with reality than those who believe in a god.

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God here. I'm just trying to point out that the axiom underlying religion and the implications that follow seem to bring a lot more problems to the table than the axiom underlying science.

I think it is important to realise the possibility that many western moral values are based on god and that belief in the all-seeing judge has kept people working toward common goals. The concept of god supports the idea of moral absolutes.

I find the concept of moral absolutes very disturbing. In fact, I think most of the problems we see in the world today aren't because of some breakdown of morals, but because too many people adhere to moral absolutes without actually thinking for themselves. Fundamentalism; discrimination against gays, minorities, and woman; religious and racial tensions ... pretty much the world over; ideologically-driven wars (World War II anyone?) .... The list doesn't end.

Absolutism of any form is bad. It doesn't allow for exceptions and it makes a distinction between those who feel the same way and those who don't. Life is fine and dandy as long as you buy into the party line. Perhaps if people didn't cling so blindly to moral absolutes and on who's right or wrong, and instead focused on all the pain, suffering and death that such black-and-white viewpoints bring on other human beings, we could instead work towards living with our differences and making the short, fleeting lives that we have a little bit better for everyone.

[lo_res_man]

If we can have any kind absolute definition of evil, it is when people act selfish. When they consider there lives worth more, or what what they want is more importent, and that they the deserve it. But I am sure there is even exceptions to that.

[big brother]

I don't think even that can be agreed upon. Humanism (generally that of the cosmic variety) considers selfishness as a virtue. The tip of this iceberg being that the need for self-actualization exists on a personal basis, and thinking/acting for the good of a group dilutes it.

[Erenan]

Of course, evidence can come along and prove any theory wrong.   But most religions REFUTE evidence due to conflicts with words in a book.  But look how far we've come.    Science knows few questions that have no reasonable guess or theory.    In the future, I'm confident the one book way will pass and people will grow faith in multiple books.

I'd like to point out that there is a distinction between a religious system of belief and stances/arguments championed by individuals or groups of people. Christianity as a system of beliefs outlined in a series of old documents, for example, should not be viewed as an enemy of science, because it doesn't address science. Subsets of the Christian population might be enemies of science, but certainly not all of Christiandom rejects scientific evidence. My point is that it's not the whole of religion or faith or theism that tries to get in the way of science and rationale. These are cultural phenomenons, and it's much more complicated than, "Religion refutes scientific evidence that contradicts it."

Also, science knows many questions that we have little to go on. Gravity, for example. We may observe lots about how gravity works, but why does it operate the way it does? This is a mystery to this day. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this.

[evenwolf]

Didn't Newton give you all you need to know?


Well, Eranan I like your point about cultural phenomenons but the real truth about Christianity is that its like politics.  When a person hears the word "politics" they associate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  All the politicians of the daily news.  Same with Christianity as to where ... if I hear about South Carolina schools placing labels in textbooks calling out evolution as only a "theory" and therefore nothing more than a guess or hunch... well I'm going to think of those Christian fundamentalists when we talk about religion vs. science.  They are the forerunners of the Christian faith where science is concerned. They are setting precedents.   And retarded ones at that.  Same with the Kansas school boards  etc.   

Christians want to cockblock science from kids.  They are further causing ignorance, they surely don't think of their practices this way.  But that is precisely what these Christians are doing.   Save some face and stop your fellow Christian folk.

[big brother]

That's a pretty broad statement.

Keep in mind that scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, and Faraday professed the Christian faith. Bacon, known as the "father of inductive reasoning", also practiced Christianity. Much of our modern science is built on the foundations these men laid. To say that Christians want to spread ignorance would seem a hasty generalization.