Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

I understand what you are saying, but actually see it as the same thing.

Science has certain assumptions that are called hypotheses that theories are built on. And science does frequently revise theories, but rarely, if ever, revises their basic assumptions or hypotheses. And the reason is that they don’t have any measurable data, or means to measure their assumptions. Which I see as the same thing for religion.

For example; Science has the assumption that all life evolved. So they have theories of how this occurred that they continue to revise as they find better ways to measure. But they have never revised the assumption that life evolved. And they haven’t done this because there is no way to test that.

Religion also has basic beliefs in God and all the doctrine (theories) that are built on that assumption (hypotheses). They also cannot validate, in a repeatable way, that God exists. So they to do not change that fundamental assumption. Like science, but to a lesser extent, religion does revise its doctrine, the Catholic church is a great example of this as the Pope does change the core doctrinal beliefs of the church at times.

So I see science and religion at the core have a fundamental assumption that cannot be proved / disproved that they never revise.

[/quote]

good post

[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

So I see science and religion at the core have a fundamental assumption that cannot be proved / disproved that they never revise.

good post
[/quote]

That is indeed an excellent post Lorisco.

[quote]pat wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Exactly right. The idea of God does not fit into the scientific model so they have no way of addressing the question. But again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. All that means is that if God visited us directly science would be the last to know about it!

If god did exist, and he did pay us a visit, the Christians would say Jesus came back, while the Muslims would be saying it was clearly Allah, ect ect.

Scientists might be the only group that wouldn’t pretend to already have all the answers.

No, it would take science years to come to the realization that their previous assumptions were wrong and revise them. Just like it took science some time to realize the world was not flat. Science does not give up it’s longstanding beliefs very easily just like religion.

You and others seem to think that religion is just a bunch of biased humans but science is a bunch of moral unbiased humans. And that is not the case. I know from personal experience that there is a lot of bias and manipulation in science, just as much as religion.

Lorisco…Your first paragraph i agree with. But i see science changing, how ever long it may take to admit to itself that it was wrong. The power of the dollar is a big influence in science and probably slows the process of change.

What i dont see is the change in religious belief. I see change in attitudes towards, and use of religion, but the fundamental philosophies and the use of the philosophies don’t change.

Would you agree?

I understand what you are saying, but actually see it as the same thing.

Science has certain assumptions that are called hypotheses that theories are built on. And science does frequently revise theories, but rarely, if ever, revises their basic assumptions or hypotheses. And the reason is that they don’t have any measurable data, or means to measure their assumptions. Which I see as the same thing for religion.

For example; Science has the assumption that all life evolved. So they have theories of how this occurred that they continue to revise as they find better ways to measure. But they have never revised the assumption that life evolved. And they haven’t done this because there is no way to test that.

Religion also has basic beliefs in God and all the doctrine (theories) that are built on that assumption (hypotheses). They also cannot validate, in a repeatable way, that God exists. So they to do not change that fundamental assumption. Like science, but to a lesser extent, religion does revise its doctrine, the Catholic church is a great example of this as the Pope does change the core doctrinal beliefs of the church at times.

So I see science and religion at the core have a fundamental assumption that cannot be proved / disproved that they never revise.

Good post! Well said.

Though we cannot complete the chain of premises that leads to the existance of God, there is enough reasonable deduction that the existance of God is at worst plausible, and at best probable, but neither certain. Now whether or not we understand God is a whole new issue. Everybody is sure they have it right, but in the end everybody could be wrong.
The best supported stance is agnosticism. You can neither deny nor support the existance of God.[/quote]

I agree, but would say that it is a worthless position. Man must live by faith whether we agree or not. We just do not have enough understanding and knowledge of everything to live any other way.

So IMO, after reviewing the available evidence that we can understand, not choosing a position (i.e. agnosticism) does not allow us to go down any path to potential future enlightenment or understanding. So we learn nothing, gain nothing, and lose nothing. That, IMO, is not living.

I believe that the evidence is the same for everyone and some feel science explains it better and some through a higher power. IMO, both are correct as there is no definitive way to accurately measure and answer their core assumptions. But refusing to take a position because the question cannot be answered empirically, is a cop out. Because after all, all experiences do not have to be shared or repeatable to be valid. They are still valid to the individual who experienced them.

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Lorisco wrote:

True. We have no comparison. And comparing random occurrence within and ordered system would not be a reasonable comparison. However, it doesn’t preclude the theory that order requires external action to achieve. And until that can be disproved it is valid.

No. That’s absolutely wrong. A theory is invalid until there is sufficient evidence for it to be deemed useful. At that point, it gets used until we have better information. Saying everything is true until proven otherwise is absolutely horrible reasoning.

The notion that order is descended from some more ordered being is a non-starter in and of itself. Where did the more ordered being get all of its order?

Lastly, the notions of order and chaos are entirely man-made. They are labels we apply to segments of the reality we experience. They aren’t proof of anything at all.

Dude, you haven’t been paying attention. EVERYTHING is man made. Science is mad made, religion is man made. There is nothing we can validate that is not man made because it all can only be validated in terms of the human experience. So unless you can test or validate outside the human experience, which you can’t, you point is irrelevant.

Well now you’re arguing my point for me. If everything is man-made, then nothing is god-made… wait, that’s ridiculous too. I didn’t create any planets today. Did you?

No, nobody can test or validate things that are outside of our experience. Since you seem to quick to place god outside our experience, I have to wonder what possible reason you have for believing in one. If you can’t tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without one, why believe in one?

I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Skeletor have kidnapped Baby Jesus and tied him to the rail road track. Only Superman can save him now.

Now lets apply your logic to this situation. All of that happened outside of your experience, so you can’t disprove it. Since you can’t disprove it, it must be true.

You have misinterpreted my statements. God is outside of our understanding, but not our experience. We can only understand God in terms of our own experience or the human experience, and that understanding may or may not be accurate. But since we cannot validate anything outside the human experience anyway, it doesn’t matter.

And as for the valid until prove false idea, that is not my personal view, that is just how modern science works. I never stated I agreed with it, and in fact, I believe it is a very closed minded system to be sure.

You did say “However, it doesn’t preclude the theory that order requires external action to achieve. And until that can be disproved it is valid.” Seriously, it’s at the top of this post. So clearly you subscribe to the idea at least when it is convenient for you.

Science absolutely does not operate on this premise because it is ridiculous and nonsensical.

Human understanding grows every day. If you are going to place god within our experience, then on what basis are you arbitrarily deciding that god will forever be outside our understanding? Also, if you’re going to place god within our experience, I’d like to know where he is. I have never experienced god and I don’t know anyone who has. Give me some evidence that there is a god out there. [/quote]

If you can tell me how science can measure the assumption that all living things evolved you will have a point, but I suspect you have more faith in science than an actual understanding of its methodology.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html[/quote]

Interesting.

I guess they are implying that what started evolution was a bunch of guys in a lab playing with bacteria giving it the correct conditions to mutate?

Obviously not the same as the conditions actually were when bacteria evolved. No, because that would be impossible to measure, and that would be my point.

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

Word games? Since most of the matter in the universe does not have the property of mass and some of it does, I fail to see how that is not a completely legitimate question. It actually is and somebody spent 6 billion dollars on a giant 17 mile collider to study that very question.

OK, it’s a legitimate question that a bunch of scientists are about to answer. I’d say this one is pretty firmly in the realm of science now. If this keeps up, you’re going to have to come up with some new questions that are outside the “limited” realm of science.
[/quote]

Well, they don’t know what they are going to find on the other end of that collider. They are hoping to create mini black holes. In any event, you as one who works with science ought to know that every scientific answer that is discovered will server to create a bunch more questions. The process is infinite really.

Evidences do exist in the form of miricles and supernatural events that are present in the current modern world. You can go see and put your fingers on them right now if you wanted to. That is evidences that not only God exists, but that He does interact with this world.

However, I would have assumed that you already knew about that stuff and dismissed it as bullshit. I could present these things to you, but if you have already dismissed them as bullshit, with out going, on location to those areas with you there is no point in bringing them up. We have words, my most convincing arguments are going to be philosophical.

Uh, no. That doesn’t mean the Big Bang is God. We interested way beyond the Big Bang (if there indeed was such an event). We are interested in what was prior to the big bang. What caused the big bang. What existed before the big bang, etc.

Why is the argument from the point of causation a bad argument. What makes it bad, or what is wrong with it?

The burden lies on anyone willing to answer the question. Because there are arguments for both existance and non existance , the questioner must take a stance.
Ignoring evidence or well constructed arguments isn’t a case where there is no evidence, it’s that you won’t consider the evidence that is available. That’s your problem and weakens your position. All one has to do is present one argument or evidence of any sort and you are then under burden of proving it wrong. Until you do, it is your burden to prove it wrong. Saying something is “awful” is a cop out, not an argument.

I presented from the perspective of contingency with in the context of the cosmological argument. Tell me why it is false.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

I believe that the evidence is the same for everyone and some feel science explains it better and some through a higher power. IMO, both are correct as there is no definitive way to accurately measure and answer their core assumptions. But refusing to take a position because the question cannot be answered empirically, is a cop out. Because after all, all experiences do not have to be shared or repeatable to be valid. They are still valid to the individual who experienced them.

[/quote]

Double word up!

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Give me some evidence that there is a god out there. [/quote]

Why do we have to give it to you? Many of us have presented good arguments for existance, rather than ignore them why don’t you counter them with good arguments? Second, if it is empirical evidence you desire, look up those miricles and other things you automatically dismiss as bullshit…Go to where some of the better known ones are, study it’s history and then physically go experience it. Then come back and explain why it is a bunch of hooey or what is wrong with it.

Otherwise, I can sell you a miracle on ebay if you’d like.

[quote]pat wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

I believe that the evidence is the same for everyone and some feel science explains it better and some through a higher power. IMO, both are correct as there is no definitive way to accurately measure and answer their core assumptions. But refusing to take a position because the question cannot be answered empirically, is a cop out. Because after all, all experiences do not have to be shared or repeatable to be valid. They are still valid to the individual who experienced them.

Double word up![/quote]

Thanks Bro.

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

pat wrote:

I don’t care if you are an engineer or not. I am not having a scientific knowledge pissing contest. Science is limited in scope and hence will never have all the answers. It is limited to the stuff of science. You can discuss the metallurgic properties of a particular steel, but you cannot tell me ultimately where it came from, or why it exists. You can tell me how and why an organism evolved a particular way, but you cannot tell me how or why it is alive or what ‘living’ actually is.

Religion cant tell you why something exists either. Religion cant tell you what ‘living’ is either. “god did it” isn’t an answer to these questions either. The difference is that science might someday have an answer where-as religion never will.

For instance, what gives matter, mass? Why, if any given object is mostly space, is it solid? That’s a plain scientific question, but very elusive.

Asking what gives matter mass is like asking what gives you height. It is word games at best. Matter exists (minor assumption here), mass is one of its characteristics.

Solid just means an object has a rigid molecular structure. I think you’re confusing the vernacular definition of solid with the scientific definition.

Word games? Since most of the matter in the universe does not have the property of mass and some of it does, I fail to see how that is not a completely legitimate question. It actually is and somebody spent 6 billion dollars on a giant 17 mile collider to study that very question.

OK, it’s a legitimate question that a bunch of scientists are about to answer. I’d say this one is pretty firmly in the realm of science now. If this keeps up, you’re going to have to come up with some new questions that are outside the “limited” realm of science.

Just because God’s existence isn’t obvious, doesn’t mean “it’s” is not there. Just because it’s not spelled out for you doesn’t discount it’s existence. Some times you have search to find the truth.

I’m not saying god absolutely 100% does not exist. I can’t prove the negative. I’m saying there is NO evidence at all for any god to exist. If you’ve got any I’m listening. If you don’t, and you choose to believe anyway, for no reason, please see my previous comment about sky fairies.

I have submitted arguments for the existence of God here and backed them up. I am not going to rehash it again, if your interested you can flip through what I have already discussed in this thread.
I cannot prove it conclusively, but I believe the arguments are strong enough for the affirmative.

First, I wasn’t asking for arguments for the existence of god, I was saying there is no evidence. If you’ve got any, I’m still listening.

Second, you presented the teleological argument for the existence of god. That argument is awful. It actually works a lot better if you substitute the words “Big Bang” for “God”. Then at least you don’t have to theorize an all powerful, omnipotent, creator that exists outside of our universe.

At the end of the day, you’ve either got a universe that happens to exist, or a god that’s capable of creating a universe who happens to exist. There is lots of evidence that the universe exists, but absolutely none for god.

I understand from reading your previous posts that you think the burden of proving god’s non-existence is on non-theists. If that’s the case, then prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t god. Prove to me that there isnt an 11th dimension where everything is red. Prove that unicorns don’t exist. Prove that I’m not god. I’m being sarcastic, but I hope you get my point. If you look at the world that way, then anything you, or anyone else can imagine is true until proven otherwise. The reason I’m not scared of monsters under my bed anymore is because there is no evidence for them. The fact that I can’t prove they aren’t there just isn’t persuasive when applied to monsters under the bed, and it should not be persuasive when applied to god.
[/quote]

Nice…

My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
You haven’t come out and explained why you believe in the teachings that you have had. Why it is so deeply important in your life. These are the questions i was asking at the beginning. That is what i am looking to understand.
Instead of trying to pick holes in another’s thought process explain your own so i can understand why you think like you do.

Okay, but most of what I have to say to you is not going to be of much use to you. Words & logical argument & hearsay & exhortations only take one so far. As has already been said about a million times, there is no proof for God - and, it’s highly likely there never will be. Then again, as has been said a million times, this is a meaningless criticism, since you yourself believe in many things you cannot prove.

Now, please, PerfectCircle, what I am about to say to is not meant to be pejorative, but it’s the best example I can use, so please bear with me: explaining one’s religious experience to someone else is a little like trying to describe a color to someone who is blind. I can try to tell you what “purple” looks like; I can try to tell you how “purple” makes me feel; or how “purple” pervades virtually everything I see and do; or how “purple” has inspired by far and away the best minds in history, scientists included. But to a blind person, the color “purple” simply would have no resonance.

And I understand why it has no resonance, because for many years, in high school and college, I was the most virulent “atheist” I’ve ever known. (I am not saying you are - but I was.) Everywhere I went I said to my professors, to my clergy, to my parents, to my friends, to everyone who would listen to me: “God? God? Where’s the proof for God? WHERE? WHAT? THERE IS NO GOD! GOD IS A DELUSION IN YOUR MIND, A FABRICATION, Etc.” I railed against God and religion and the people who practiced it. Religion, I thought, was against sex, against thought and intellect, against freedom, against love, against progress.

In many ways this posture was what defined me intellectually. But it was wrong - so wrong that I can barely say those things without laughing now.

One might say I had a visceral anger and suspicion of religion, that I even felt downright righteous in denouncing it, as if I were working for the forces of good against the dragon of ignorance and superstition. Some reading this thread might recognize this in their selves.

However, what I was really doing was acting fanatically towards something I really didn’t understand. In other words, I was acting precisely like the very religious fanatics I thought I was fighting against; and I was embodying the very qualities I pretended to dislike in religion.

So how did I come to a different viewpoint? Again, there is no way to explain this. There have been so many forking paths. Let me try to provide one of those paths to you:

I had a near drowning experience off the coast of Guatemala, and spent more than 3 hours drifting without the sight of land anywhere around me. During that time I went through more emotions, and more “time,” than I can possibly explain or describe. It was as if I lived through centuries.

However, during that time I became aware of something - in the universe and in myself - so indestructible, something within that I knew could not be destroyed, like a candle that no wind, no matter how fierce, could extinguish. I KNEW this like I had never known anything before in my life. And that knowing is still echoing within me to this very moment as I tap here on the keyboard.

And yet, I cannot prove it to you; I cannot show it to you; and yet it’s all around me. Indeed, it’s more “REAL” to me than the iron I take upon my shoulders when I squat.

Since then, I’ve had many such moments. I won’t bore you with them unless you ask. They still come to me, even recently. Usually they have to do with death, or coming near death. Or being in an extraordinarily difficult, usually life-threatening, situation. But, increasingly, less so. Increasingly, I find those certainties everywhere I look and think and feel and touch.

And one way or another, they will come to you. I can’t say how. I can’t say when. But they will. Mark my words they will. You might choose to ignore them. You might turn your back. That’s your choice. But come to you they will.

Now, I’ve known an awful lot of people, both religious and secular, from heads of state to garbage collectors, from the desperate poor in developing countries to investment bankers and hedge fund managers in London/New York/Boston, from cardinals and professors to journalists. I come from an enormous family and - given my career - have a truly massive network.

And what I have gleaned from these people of diverse background - what “religious” people are like, what religion is, combined with my own personal experience - does not comport at all with the observations against religion on this thread. To tell the truth, from my perspective, what has been said against religion in this thread reads as rather silly and small-minded.

And that is why - for readers and for you - I have been trying the best I can to provide an alternative viewpoint. To my way of thinking, that alternative viewpoint is rarely, if ever, afforded to people, at least here in the US. Either they face ridicule about God from “atheists” or skeptics or secularists, or they are faced with fundamentalist wackos and whatnot.

Moreover, it seems to me that the charge of brainwashing goes both ways. Surely there are and always have been brainwashed “religious” folk. But the irony falls thick and fast on those who repeat the mantra that “only what has been shown to be scientifically true can possibly be real” - and on those who fume against something they have little experience or knowledge of. They too are evidencing brainwashing.

But, you see, this is a brainwashing so pervasive & so insidious that it just seems like common sense. And so that is why it seems that “religion” needs justification and explanation and “proof” but secularists do not.

What you might consider about this “common sense,” however, is that it is merely a couple hundred years old. We have 100,000 years of religious history behind us.

You might wonder (as I do) at the arrogance of asserting that all those great people - all those great artists, philosophers, thinkers, writers, playwrights, sculptors, painters, musicians, composers, poets - were deluded by, and inspired by, and dedicated their lives to something that we in our narrow little laboratories cannot prove to be true.

How parochial we broad-minded moderns are, aren’t we?

[/quote]

Thank you katzenjammer…that is the most inspired and rational response i have ever heard explained about the subject, and in such a short passage.
That is exactly what i have been waiting to hear. I agree fully with your statements.
I do however have something to throw into it.Don’t take this as an arrogant attempt to keep trying to justify the opposite point of view, as it is merely another branch of thinking.

You mention that you have these candle moments at near death or life threatening moments in you life and that the feeling just gets stronger every time and is entrenched so to speak within you now.

Could this not be that wonderful organ called your brain and the misunderstood workings of the mind taking charge and putting itself into a kind of self preservation state?
Almost like an overload switch that has been flipped and all the emergency systems kick into life to stop the eminent ending of the “vessel”.

Unfortunately i have only been able to answer this thread at work so forgive my unimaginative examples…time (and the boss) are always looking over my shoulder.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.[/quote]

Haha, I love that.

Faith is all it is about.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.[/quote]

Oh, I think if you really think about it your faith in God is based on some form of evidence. No one just gets up one day and say; “today I now believe in God”, without some basic fundamental reason. So I think your belief is based on some form of evidence, be it internal or external.

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Well, they don’t know what they are going to find on the other end of that collider. They are hoping to create mini black holes. In any event, you as one who works with science ought to know that every scientific answer that is discovered will server to create a bunch more questions. The process is infinite really.


Evidences do exist in the form of miricles and supernatural events that are present in the current modern world. You can go see and put your fingers on them right now if you wanted to. That is evidences that not only God exists, but that He does interact with this world.

However, I would have assumed that you already knew about that stuff and dismissed it as bullshit. I could present these things to you, but if you have already dismissed them as bullshit, with out going, on location to those areas with you there is no point in bringing them up. We have words, my most convincing arguments are going to be philosophical.


Uh, no. That doesn’t mean the Big Bang is God. We interested way beyond the Big Bang (if there indeed was such an event). We are interested in what was prior to the big bang. What caused the big bang. What existed before the big bang, etc.

Why is the argument from the point of causation a bad argument. What makes it bad, or what is wrong with it?


The burden lies on anyone willing to answer the question. Because there are arguments for both existance and non existance , the questioner must take a stance.
Ignoring evidence or well constructed arguments isn’t a case where there is no evidence, it’s that you won’t consider the evidence that is available. That’s your problem and weakens your position. All one has to do is present one argument or evidence of any sort and you are then under burden of proving it wrong. Until you do, it is your burden to prove it wrong. Saying something is “awful” is a cop out, not an argument.

[/quote]

It’s true that every discovery does lead to more questions. I still don’t understand why you think ‘god did it’ is such a satisfactory answer.


You can make up miracles far faster than I can discount them. Most of them are total bullshit. There may be some that aren’t, that are legitimately unexplained, but that’s not evidence of god, that’s evidence of something we haven’t built a particle accelerator to figure out yet.

Which miracles have you seen in person that made such an impression on you?

I already explained why an argument from causation is a colossal FAIL. Read my explanation and respond to the argument.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Interesting.

I guess they are implying that what started evolution was a bunch of guys in a lab playing with bacteria giving it the correct conditions to mutate?

Obviously not the same as the conditions actually were when bacteria evolved. No, because that would be impossible to measure, and that would be my point.
[/quote]

You can’t prove the conditions in that lab weren’t exactly the conditions the first evolution. You stuck your neck out on this one and got owned. Live with it.

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

You can’t prove the conditions in that lab weren’t exactly the conditions the first evolution. You stuck your neck out on this one and got owned. Live with it. [/quote]

It would be a miracle if they were the same, exact conditions. And obviously the burden of proof is on the researchers to show they were. Ditto on the neck thing.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.

Haha, I love that.

Faith is all it is about.[/quote]

Well, yes…That’s why we call it our Christian FAITH…

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.

Oh, I think if you really think about it your faith in God is based on some form of evidence. No one just gets up one day and say; “today I now believe in God”, without some basic fundamental reason. So I think your belief is based on some form of evidence, be it internal or external. [/quote]

I mean evidence in the sense of being able to examine it under a microscope or apply an equation to it. I don’t have that kind of evidence. But, yes, my own personal experiences and thoughts have lead me to a faith. Those can’t be observed by others, so I have no evidence to present to them.