quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

You know, there are times when a dude diety doesn't do it for me.  That's when I turn to Tara the female Buddha.

quote:

What if the human race is just some kind of "space virus" infecting the earth?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

We human beings create the world we live in on a daily basis, we are creators, are we not? The universe is an energy field, and energy never dies. That alone makes us immortal, we truly are all connected to each other. That is a very humbling thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

How about the one I am partial to, that we are genetically predisposed to have a belief in a god , after life, or  the sacred... like we are hardwired to have language and symbolic thought. We have archetypes (which fascinate me) for a reason, God is an archetype too... what purpose do archetypes serve?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


Stella,
I'm more inclined to accept the Karl Marx stance; "Religion is the opium of the masses." Like any drug decisions made under its influence have no basis in logic. Associating this to your question, the mere belief in a religious associated afterlife impacts action in this life. Yes I believe that was a positive influence of religious faith, exploited for years by governments throughout the ages. I'd reference the fact that most European "Royalty" and in fact most all "Royal" governments in human history, declared their authority as a direct result of their lineage being traced back to a deity. The Pope is "infallible" in matters of dogma because he is "God's representative on earth".
But that seems like a contradiction to me. Values via religion doesn't seem at all positive when religion can be exploited so easily. As long as humanity as a whole uses faith to build a moral system, the very nature of religion (unprovable) makes it likely to be interpreted in a variey of ways. Too many variables to make it practical, we need more options.
If you want to take the opposite approach and look at it as a direct cause for action versus deterrent, look no further to last words and anticipated reward expected by those killing themselves in the name of Allah and there religion. It may have a negative impact on this plane of existence for both the victims and the perpetrator. The cause was the expectation of a positive result in the afterlife.
So, apparently, faith based ethics aren't as good at keeping human behavior in check as people think. My point, which probably got lost along the way, is that faith may not be the best way to instill ethics and values. At least not on a large scale.
It doesn't matter if anyone else believes the same way or not. The deed is done. You don't need faith in the afterlife - you only need it as a basis of what you do in this life in the pursuit of the goal of that faith.
Except that not only are the goals of faith rather different from culture to culture... people themselves and how they interpret are also from one extreme to the other. Since the afterlife and god is untestable, then ethics are, indeed, a free for all with a zillion definitions. So, with that in mind.. we might as well not take any action at all. I'll stand by my original premise that we do not need faith to determine what is ethical, or to lead ethical lives. In fact, I'd venture to to say that we're in desperate need of an alternative.
Bringing us to the point of Karma. Karma is a religious belief that says your destiny is determined by your actions. It extends beyond this life. Karma is not in the hands of the perpetrator. Its in the hands of the person being perpetrated upon. Wishing that someone does no harm to you doesn't preclude it from happening to you. But if everyone was similarly passive then by definition no harm can come to you. It is circuitous logic at its finest. All living things possess Karma. There is no loss. A body becomes food for other organisms. A Karmic belief is that their status in this life was dictated by behavior in a past life.
I'm familiar with karma. =) But as a reliable way to keep our violent nature in check? I don't think so. As a teaching tool, it's even less workable. If my brother did die because of something I did in a past life, then I'd have no way of knowing what horrible mistake that was. How does that help anybody, and how does that instruct people to live ethical lives?
Both a Karmic person and a religious person would have the same response to your personal situation. There is the "better place" argument, the "God's will" argument, the "he's at peace" argument, a "he's moved on" argument.
Oh, don't I know it. People can say the shittiest things when you're grieving. At one point, my response was " Well, let's see how comforted you would be if it were your brother in a better place"
Does a person break or lose his arm at 25 because he pushed another kid off a bike at 3? Who can say. Add to it any belief in previous lives or planes of existence and you can always rationalize a reason for things to happen, negatively or positively.
Yes. =) We need other options presented to us, lol.
As I stated originally. Religion or any kind of belief in consequence makes me safer. I don't believe in the inherent good of people. How much more would you attempt if you knew you would not get caught. MOST of the time authoritative people aren't observing. Having a all knowing and seeing "God" or the belief in a Karmic consequence; becomes the police man when none are around. The belief that all Banks have video cameras hinders more from stealing, than the moral belief that stealing is wrong. If there is no "god" observing and keeping track - more people will attempt things. That, in my opinion, is the only legitimate purpose for religion. Without it we would need many more cameras, locks, guns, and cops to protect us.
I believe that people are both good and bad, at different times, in different quanities. Would ethics based on scientific worldview and provisional fuzzy logic actually work, as far as deterring the bad? I don't honestly know. It may be that we're just violent, greedy critters by nature. But looking at our history, and the role faith has played in our nasty past, leads me to think that it's just not working very well.

quote:

Very mean spirited. Somehow, I didn't think I rated this type of response.

Caitlyn,
Help me with this. First of all, her response was addressing Catholic dogma not you. However, more to the point; how can reality be "mean spirited"? beth's representation of the position of the Catholic Church wasn't hers. It comes directly from Catholic "dogma" concerning the Masons. The Catholics have a long history of murder and torture conducted for the "good" of the victim. Not alone in that practice, but somewhat of a 'poster boy' for it. Denying history, and as it stands current dogma, does not change reality. Nor is pointing it out "mean spirited".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

A belief in some form of religion is the majority, under any statistical analysis. The point is basic. It is fortunate that the majority hold that position because it gives a large pool of people who do believe there is some after-life consequence for actions taken in this life. Of course it doesn't mean they all do; results indicate otherwise. But the fact that most or even some do, and use their religious law and consequence as a moral guide for living has a positive impact on society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I am not going to go point by point to argue with you. Atheism is a belief, science is a belief, trusting in your senses is a belief. All of it is nothing but belief. BTW, the Tyler and Evans-Pritchard were "objective" scientists who were also agnostic or Atheist, and that is partially why I mentioned their explanatory models of why people have religion.

I will say Buddhism is a religion, they believe in an afterlife and that the human soul is eternal.

It really depends on what flavor you are of atheism. A strong atheist would claim " There is absolutely no way there is a god, period", and that would be a belief. But how about the default atheists? The ones who simply have no belief or faith in god/gods because of the lack of evidence? Or how about the apathetic variety, who don't even think about the subject, and more importantly, just don't give a shit?


We know so little about how the brain really functions, we do not even know where "we" meaning the "observer" is really located within the brain. Where is this scientist that observes all that happens in this world to deduce there is no god? I think you missed my point entirely btw. I can show all sorts of functions that religion has biochemically, psychologically, sociologically, which explanation is the right one? Yours, some other researcher's?
It's reasonable to assume that there are scientists who maintain some religious belief for any number of reasons. The two can co-exist, and they deal with different areas of our psyche. What I have the issue with is how atheism is percieved by the general public. I'm not the keeper of anybody's concience, but it would be nice to see atheism presented in a more positive light. A more secular, scientific worldview in my opinion should be given a chance, but with all the misinformation about it floating around, how can it?
 One can feel awe and mystery without faith, one can feel humbled, and one can have hope for our future as a species. We don't need faith to experience such things.

We really do not know all the reasons why religion exists. How about the one I am partial to, that we are genetically predisposed to have a belief in a god , after life, or  the sacred... like we are hardwired to have language and symbolic thought. We have archetypes (which fascinate me) for a reason, God is an archetype too... what purpose do archetypes serve? Science cannot answer these questions yet, maybe we are designed intentionally to ask these big questions, maybe not. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I do not have the answers. I find it incredibly arrogant for a theologian or an athiest to say that they can answer these questions beyond any doubt... no one can. It is why I do not adhere to any religion. It is hubris to think that we are just a collection of cells and that is all there is. How do you know? You don't know. In fact I would suggest you read up on quantum theory and the impact of observation on what is being observed. It is crucial in my discipline to understand these concepts, because the anthropologist always impacts what s/he is observing.
We might very well be pre-disposed to have faith, like you, I'm not entirely sure. Just like I'm not sure why faith, which apparently does so much for so many, does absolutely nothing for me. But I have a different take... the idea that we are just a collection of cells isn't hubris, it's very humbling. We are just one branch on the evolutionary tree, and subject to random chance and natural law, but.. with the ability to make our biology work for us. I guess the findings of science, and how it generally works, inspires more "spirituality" in me then faith ever could.
 Again, not all atheists say they can "answer any question beyond every doubt". Some of us are just waiting for evidence.
We human beings create the world we live in on a daily basis, we are creators, are we not? The universe is an energy field, and energy never dies. That alone makes us immortal, we truly

are all connected to each other. That is a very humbling thing.
I'd be more inclined to say that the world created us. We shape parts of our world, and make the terrain adapt to us, but it was evolution that made us that way. The fine details are still in discussion, to be sure, but yeah, we were designed from the ground up.
It just goes to show that there is mystery in science, and spirituality of the very best sort.

quote:

This implies that morals and ethics are in our genes...

quote:

It is the height of human conceit to believe we are central or even important in the great universal scheme of things. The universe will go merrily on its way, with or without us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Again your points address the exceptions. Take it universal, if there was no belief, no religion, absolutely no expectation by anyone of any afterlife or karmic reincarnation, and society relied on the inherent nature of man. Would the world be more or less "civilized"? I doubt many would survive their morning commute. 

quote:

Studies have shown that an individual's morals and ethics are universal regardless of culture, ethnic group or religion, that an amazonian tribesman in the rain forest when given a moral dilemma (modified to his experience) that is the equivalent of a 21st century urbanite, the same answer will be given. This uniformity appears to go across all ethnic groups in all cultures. This implies that morals and ethics are in our genes which explains why the majority of people who believe in a wratful, vengeful god, don't apply the morals and ethics of their god to their daily lives.

Yes, I know there is not a total uniformity but there is a general uniformity and before people come in with the fundementalist muslims, they are a minority of muslims and we are not talking absolutes and anyway, group dynamics is another ingredient thrown into the pot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Stella,
Your missing my general point, but it is my fault. I've been trying to make a point by addressing the minority position, the exceptions. You are correctly arguing that those exceptions point to a conclusion that religion serves no good purpose. But it should be looked at from the opposite perspective.

A belief in some form of religion is the majority, under any statistical analysis. The point is basic. It is fortunate that the majority hold that position because it gives a large pool of people who do believe there is some after-life consequence for actions taken in this life. Of course it doesn't mean they all do; results indicate otherwise. But the fact that most or even some do, and use their religious law and consequence as a moral guide for living has a positive impact on society.
Some positive impact, yes. But what if we can do better? That's my point. =) Just because faith-based morality has worked for some people some of the time doesn't mean it's the best option. It's simply the only one experimented with in detail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Studies have shown that an individual's morals and ethics are universal regardless of culture, ethnic group or religion, that an amazonian tribesman in the rain forest when given a moral dilemma (modified to his experience) that is the equivalent of a 21st century urbanite, the same answer will be given. This uniformity appears to go across all ethnic groups in all cultures. This implies that morals and ethics are in our genes which explains why the majority of people who believe in a wratful, vengeful god, don't apply the morals and ethics of their god to their daily lives.

Yes, I know there is not a total uniformity but there is a general uniformity and before people come in with the fundementalist muslims, they are a minority of muslims and we are not talking absolutes and anyway, group dynamics is another ingredient thrown into the pot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

MC,
I stipulate to that fact as a foundation for the acceptance that 'nature' plays a role. However, my point is that 'religion' also takes a role as the 'nurture' aspect. A 'god' does not have to be defined as a divinity. A tribe collectively can be considered 'god'; so could a gang, a political party, a social engineering program, or any belief that implies a consequence to actions.

Again your points address the exceptions. Take it universal, if there was no belief, no religion, absolutely no expectation by anyone of any afterlife or karmic reincarnation, and society relied on the inherent nature of man. Would the world be more or less "civilized"? I doubt many would survive their morning commute. 

Much to beth's sadness, I don't believe. However, I glad that most do.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

That is not what I learned in college, would you please direct me to the study. I mean that sincerely, because from what I learned we can find many things that seem to be common among humanity, but there are no cultural universals.