Obviously, it's all based on faith on some being, concept, etc etc. So where did it all originate? What was the cause for it?
I was just reading John Dewey's passage in "Living Philosophies" (Einstein) and I kind of liked this...
Why have men in the past resorted to philosophies of that which is above and beyond experience?... The answer, undoubtedly, is that the experience which men had, as well as any that they could reasonably anticipate, gave no signs of ability to furnish the means of it's own regulation. It offered promises it refused to fufill; it awakened desires only to frustrate them; it created hopes and blasted them; and it evoked ideals and was indifferent and hostile to their realization. ...Since experience did not contain the arts by which its own course could be directed, philosophies and religions of escape and consolatory compensation naturally ensued
Ideas? Thoughts? As a side note, if all you have to say is "l0l god isnt real", dont waste your time.
Quote: from Wilder at 5:43 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 I'm a fan of Peter Berger's theories on religion, namely his idea that religion exists to legitimate a society's nomos (ethics, values, practices, ect.) by asserting that it is in alignment with the cosmos, the natural order of the world. Of course, this appeals to me specifically because of my own biases (namely the only universal principal it implies of religion is that religion attempts to relate mankind's existence to the order of the universe, which is true of all religions I have encountered, including atheist/ faithless ones), so one should probably take that into account, too. I like Dawkin's ideas too. As far as Berger goes...I agree with it to an extent. I think that people use (and I would even go so far as to say sometimes exploit) religion as a way for getting people to legitimize law and cultural practices. However, I don't think that religion was created for that sole purpose. I believe the two are more intertwined, rather than the simple "cause and effect" explanation he is offering. I think that people search for deeper meaning beyond their own action and perception, and as a result, religion and philosophy emerge to explain and justify some of it. A piece of that is a drive to justify our morals and ideals, which is where Berger comes in.
I'm a fan of Peter Berger's theories on religion, namely his idea that religion exists to legitimate a society's nomos (ethics, values, practices, ect.) by asserting that it is in alignment with the cosmos, the natural order of the world. Of course, this appeals to me specifically because of my own biases (namely the only universal principal it implies of religion is that religion attempts to relate mankind's existence to the order of the universe, which is true of all religions I have encountered, including atheist/ faithless ones), so one should probably take that into account, too.
I like Dawkin's ideas too. As far as Berger goes...I agree with it to an extent. I think that people use (and I would even go so far as to say sometimes exploit) religion as a way for getting people to legitimize law and cultural practices.
However, I don't think that religion was created for that sole purpose. I believe the two are more intertwined, rather than the simple "cause and effect" explanation he is offering. I think that people search for deeper meaning beyond their own action and perception, and as a result, religion and philosophy emerge to explain and justify some of it. A piece of that is a drive to justify our morals and ideals, which is where Berger comes in.
I definitely agree with your second paragraph; I was speaking more to why religion is such a common social institution than the individual, but both are critical to understand its prevalence throughout history. As to the first, I'd agree but strongly emphasize that those kinds of legitimation generally come from lay people, not those with power over religion/ government.
Control of mind and billfold
You know, you've yet to provide any evidence of this statement, despite saying it close to a billion times.
Quote: from Lihiro at 4:03 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 Quote: from negative0 at 2:01 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 safety blanket. Basically, yeah. Those who aren't strong enough to stand on their own two feet, and those who are raised to be that religion. Don't care if you bitch about me all you religions fags, I won't reply as I'm expressing my opinion and you should appreciate it. So only you are allowed to express your opinion now? And all the "religious fags" are not? Hmmm.
Quote: from negative0 at 2:01 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 safety blanket. Basically, yeah. Those who aren't strong enough to stand on their own two feet, and those who are raised to be that religion. Don't care if you bitch about me all you religions fags, I won't reply as I'm expressing my opinion and you should appreciate it.
safety blanket.
Basically, yeah. Those who aren't strong enough to stand on their own two feet, and those who are raised to be that religion.
Don't care if you bitch about me all you religions fags, I won't reply as I'm expressing my opinion and you should appreciate it.
So only you are allowed to express your opinion now? And all the "religious fags" are not?
Hmmm.
Oh they can, but I won't bitch about it.
While it's less of an underlying "why" and more of a "how", I'm also a fan of Richard Dawkins' theory that religion is able to replicate itself so successfully as a byproduct of our instinctual tendencies to listen to our elders and take their words as The Truth when we're young. To survive kids need to listen to what their parents say (imagine if a child questioned and tested you every time you said "crossing the street is dangerous", "drinking that will kill you" or "stay away from fires"), but as a result of that it becomes easy for people to grow up unquestioningly accepting that lead-based paint is bad, eating healthy food is important, and vaccinations cause physical and spiritual illness.
People only believed the Earth was flat until 500 BC in Asia and 200 BC in the West. It really never carried over.
I think you missed the point.
I think that if you get down to it, mankind really NEEDS both. It shouldn't be a question of which one is right and which one is wrong. Each has it's own strengths and weakness, and each has limits. What if we actually started using them together instead of constantly fighting over which one holds more truth?
Maybe I'm getting off (my own) topic here. Still.....
Quote: from Fo Sho at 4:23 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:16 pm on Science isn't the feel good story that religion is sometimes. Science just states facts. Science can scare people because it can be interpreted to say that everything is chaos and that we are nothing more than the molecules that make us. It can come off as kind of cold and depressing. I'm fine with it, but some people aren't. Be careful how you definite "fact". Science once stated as a fact that the earth was flat, that atoms looked like marbles, and that there were 5 elements. Science has constantly changed and we cannot definitively say that anything we know is absolute fact. Aside from that, science is based on perception of what we see with the senses. Faith is a perception of something beyond that. As far as I can see, you can argue that you would rahter put your trust in one over the other....but you can't say one is "more right"
Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:16 pm on Science isn't the feel good story that religion is sometimes. Science just states facts. Science can scare people because it can be interpreted to say that everything is chaos and that we are nothing more than the molecules that make us. It can come off as kind of cold and depressing. I'm fine with it, but some people aren't.
Be careful how you definite "fact". Science once stated as a fact that the earth was flat, that atoms looked like marbles, and that there were 5 elements. Science has constantly changed and we cannot definitively say that anything we know is absolute fact.
Aside from that, science is based on perception of what we see with the senses. Faith is a perception of something beyond that. As far as I can see, you can argue that you would rahter put your trust in one over the other....but you can't say one is "more right"
I'm not arguing that one is right or not, I'm just saying why some people cling to religion. I'm not religious at all, but I can see why some people do not want to examine their lives, and instead, have some mystical philosophy do it for them. And as far as the Earth is flat theory, I don't think the scientific theory supported it. But yes, science does change, but for the most part, it can be viewed as producing facts. That seems like the entire goal of science.
Science isn't the feel good story that religion is sometimes. Science just states facts. Science can scare people because it can be interpreted to say that everything is chaos and that we are nothing more than the molecules that make us. It can come off as kind of cold and depressing. I'm fine with it, but some people aren't.
Quote: from Fo Sho at 4:15 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 that gives order and meaning to their lives. Does science not do this?
that gives order and meaning to their lives.
Does science not do this?
Man is so afraid of their own mortality and smallness, that they are willing to fabricate the existence of some "higher being" that gives order and meaning to their lives. Plus, an afterlife is just the kind of fantasy that some people need in order to go on with their lives. So basically, people are afraid and religion is a warm blanket.
Not all religion has an after life, not all religion has reincarnation.
LOL @ People only using Abrahamic religions.
337 users online 
223067 members 289 active today Advertise Here
337 users online 223067 members 289 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
