Some thoughts on religion/christianity

Food for thought...

I've always been opposed to religion, but it has always been something that has absolutely fascinated me. It's really quite an amazing thing, something that has permeated all known human cultures, and something that has held the power to drive people towards such convictions that they model and contort their lives around concepts that are beyond the ability of ever being proven. I mean, the basis of religion, that focal point that truly captivates its followers and binds them is always a metaphysical concept (Heaven, Jesus, God, Nirvana, ressurrection, etc.) and, therefore, by nature is impossible of ever being proven or disproven. As it is impossible of ever being proven and disproven, it is quite simply an unknown. You can never know one way or another for sure, all you can do is lay the cards out on the table and choose where you lie... well this is where I lie...

I've always been a very logical analytical person, and I used to get frustrated and annoyed at the fact that others consciously choose to believe in an unknown that disagrees with probability, based on strict logical, objective reasoning. Well, I'm over and done with that crap because I've grown up enough to realize that that is oxymoronic behaviour. What I mean is, everything can be boiled down to logical probability and the most rational possibility can be found, so expecting everybody to act in strict accordance to logical probability is expecting everybody in this world to be the exact same, to agree on everything for the same reasons, and that would just be really really gay and naive... I wouldn't want to live for that crap. So sometimes you have to stick with your gut and find your character - it's almost always better to just feel something and go with what you feel than to overly analytically reason it out and decide on that basis. What makes you you, what gives you character, what makes you interesting is the individual feel you have for life. I find that in many situations my intuition, my gut feeling is smarter than I am. For example, sometimes somebody will ask me a question, and instantly my gut, my instincts will grab a feel for the answer and I just feel like I know it is right, and my feelings understand the answer completely but, yet, I can't explain it. I can't use my head to put it into words. Eventually I can figure it out and put my finger on it but that sometimes takes months, years, and, hell, my gut had it figured out as much as I needed instantly... it's almost like your head slows you down sometimes. Your instincts don't lie to you about who you are or what you believe, but your conscious thinking process sure as hell can and does. So it seems to me the way it should go is to believe in my intuition, my gut, and then if something comes down the road to show that it was wrong, then think otherwise. But if you choose to suppress your gut feeling until you can be absolutely sure that it is validated, then your head is just holding you back.

So anyways, where I was at one point going with this, at least I think, is that that is religion and Christianity's major downfall for me. I've put a lot of research into ancient history and the bible and Christianity and basically found that Christianity follows pretty much the exact same storyline as all the ancient worships that came before it, the only difference was that the ancient worships before it saw it metaphorically and Christianity turned it into a literalized doctrine and turned the mythological saviour ,who served as a moral and metaphorical example of how to lead a good life, into Jesus Christ the flesh and blood man who you must devote yourself to. I just really think that the more you literalize anything, the more rigid you make it, the less spiritual it is. I think that's what happened to Christianity to kill its appeal to me. It took a bunch of metaphorical stories that were just giving fictional allegories of why it is better to lead a good, moral life, and realized that it could be a much more successful and powerful system if it threatened people into believing. Rather than just laying the stories out there and letting people find their feel for them and themselves within them, it said that all the stories were literally true and that if you didn't accept that they are literally true and devote yourself to everything it had to say then you were going to burn for all eternity while everybody else who did fully believe would get what every person in this life wants, a happy ending... better yet, no ending... just happiness without any strings attached, no worries... heaven.

Everybody wants the fairtale story out of life, the story template that every happy tale always follows, the one we enjoy... the story that builds towards a climax near the end then concludes with a short recess from the climax and ends with the knowledge that the story continues past the ending and things will be okay from then on. Think about any happy story, movie, fairy tale or whatever you have ever read or heard, and they will follow that template. Life doesn't work that way however, it is actually the exact opposite. You can't remember back to your earliest years, but it gives you pleasure and warmth to think of that unkown time as a young child, then you are in your physical, chemical peaks at an early age, around 18 - 25 and then from then on you recede and your physical and mental computing abilities recede for the next 75% of your life until you eventually wither away and disappear from this world. So how does one get the fairy tale out of life? Many find that through religion. It's what everybody wants to believe, that life isn't actually getting worse, it's just getting closer to being perfect, heavenly. I just think that some jerk realized that he could play upon that innate desire in all people to coerce them into believing and essentially placing their lives in his hands. It is the ultimate form of power. But that's not what I think it's supposed to be about, it's not supposed to be about telling people they have to be the exact same person essentially, they must hold these same exact beliefs, they must not only act in accordance to these exact beliefs, they must also think in accordance to these exact beliefs, brainwash themselves no matter what other direction their gut feeling is pulling them in or else they will burn forever. And when I think of that I just feel like, screw off, if a God does exist and he did create us, he made us all incredibly diverse for a reason and that reason wasn't some stupid test to see if we could all bend ourselves exactly into who he/she thought we should be. That wouldn't even make sense because then the people who were already naturally closer to that mold would have a huge advantage over others (i.e. mentally handicapped people, people with physchological disorders). I don't believe religion should ever be literal, what's important isn't that you believe in the exact details of the stories, but that you believe in the meanings behind them. Maybe the most amazing part about them is finding your own feel for them. You should find your own feel for everything, religion, spirituality and the bible included, nobody should tell you how it is and exactly how it was when dealing with metaphysical ideas. That doesn't make sense to me. Ironically, it just seems like hardcore religious people just really have no soul to their beliefs. They're like a bunch of nazi youths raising their arm and screaming "hail hitler" if you get what I mean. Those aren't truly your beliefs, those are somebody elses pre-packaged set of beliefs and you're just happy to jump in line and let them do the thinking for you. In my books, that makes you a fool.

Do I believe in God? I'm not so sure that I don't anymore... I think to myself that the most fundamental law of this universe is that nothing can come from nothing. Things can't just randomly start existing when there was nothing before it, for anything to exist something has to be eternal. Do I believe God is some human form judging all of us, condemning us, rewarding the few (because no religion encompasses at least half of the world's population)... No, I don't, I just feel and I believe that something in this universe has to be eternal for anything to exist, and God is just a name we've given to that unknown eternal element. Eternal, what a messed up concept eh? but it's real, it must be. That's mind boggling, that's religious. Maybe religion was just humans having the intelligence level to realize the absolutely screwed up nature of this existence and the miraculousness that they might have been given the incalculably rare chance of choosing their way through it, and their place within it. Maybe it was just us thinking about this fundamental spiritual element of life and realizing that this life is best if everybody does the best they can to facilitate the well being of everyone around them... do not lie, do not steal, do not kill, etc. Do I think all the messages of the bible are moral? No. Do I believe that the vast majority of them are? Absolutely, and I'll follow my gut before I follow what other people/systems tell me to follow in the process of feeling which to hang on to and what to discard.

Maybe the bible is just food for thought.

 

Good post.
I've always been open to a bit of mysticism.
The thing that miffed me was when some Christians had mystical beliefs and then talked about "knowing them" in the same way we can know scientific facts.
It seems to me that it only makes sense to talk about mystic beliefs in a metaphoric way. "It feels like this" or "to meet God is like meeting a long lost father"

I think Homer and the Infidel Guy board have convinced me that something supernatural cannot be defined in the language we use for science. Some theology has gotten round this by claiming that God isn't supernatural, but that definition of God is usually watered down in power...

 

Right on dude, that really clicked what you just said. You can't hold metaphysical beliefs and call them facts. That's a great way to sum up a lot of my feelings on the issue. If you start saying that you're spiritual beliefs are concrete facts then your beliefs aren't spiritual. If you say that you know God exists and you know that Christianity is right and everything it teaches is correct, then you're missing the point of religion.

It really seems to me that religious people ironically just have no soul to their beliefs. They're like robotic nazi youth following hitler blindly and getting caught up in all the propaganda. They're happy to not do the thinking, but let somebody else do the thinking for them. I think I'll add that to my original post.

That's not me, that never will be.

 

I agree that many people tend to mix the words they use carelessly, when discussing religion, science, belief, and Christianity. I agree that any metaphysical event cannot be proved scientifically (it uses a different standard of proof, and different set of vocabularly for discussion). More importantly in the case of Christianity, I don't believe you can use scientific vocabulary and proof to address any historic event. And, as Thai Boxer pointed out, what makes Christianity unique is the claim that God actually stepped into time/space and interacted in it in a series of actual, literal historical events (like the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ).

History cannot be proven through science, for the very basic fact that the scientific method is built on the idea of repeatability - a given set of events and circumstances can be constructed in a laboratory to get a repeatably achievable predicted result. Physical entitites (forces, matter, energy, time, space) seem to follow such rules and may be observed in the laboratory, to derive a body of 'proof' for the way they act. Anyone or anything with a will won't follow such repeatable, predictable conditions. That is one reason why historical research doesn't rely on the scientific method to draw its conclusions. If God were a 'force' of some kind, then the scientific method would provide a very real way to describe him/it. However, the discussions that have been on these boards show that the scientific method cannot be applied to discussion of God (which to me, just shows that God cannot be an impersonal force, but if He exists, must exhibit the chartacteristics of personality and will).

The lack of scientific proof does not mean that Christianity is without proof or basis in fact, nor does it imply that Christians are 'blind followers' who just reiterate what they've been told (if this is your experience with Christianity, then please find some other people to discuss their faith, or try the writings of Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, R. C. Sproul, and several others I can name, if you'd like). If you are looking for 'proof' of Christianity, the appropriate type of proof will be similar to what is used in a court of law. Are there witnesses? What have they personally seen, heard, and experienced? Is there any supporting or circumstantial evidence? What other explanations might exist? Christianity claims to make people a 'new creation' - have you seen people whose life, hope, attitude towards others, etc. reflect anything like this kind of change?

On another note, the lack of scientific proof does not mean that Christianity is illogical. Logic cannot really prove what you should believe, but only identify those things you should not believe because they are inconsistent or irrational. All belief systems must start with some a priori assumptions. Logic is then used to evaluate if/where there are contradictions in those assumptions. Even science itself starts with some a priori assumptions, such as the existence and meanignfulness of time, the existence of matter/energy, and the concept of causation.

Just more food for thought.

 

You completely missed the point captain anne. The initial post wasn't arguing against religion because of a lack of proof. It was just a lead in saying that you can't prove a metaphysical idea to be wrong, nor correct... in other words, people who say there is definitely no God are just as naive as the people who say that there definitely is a God. That wasn't even the main point of the post anyways, that just set it up.

It's like you refuse to agree with the idea because it disagrees with religion, and from your post it's pretty obvious that you're a very religious person, so you're trying to find a way to refute it in some way some how and that's the loophole that you think you can poke through. Kind of like the hitler youth blindly standing by what they've been told over and over, looking not to consider, but only to disagree with anybody who challenges their beliefs.

The fact that you can't prove or disprove a metaphysical concept is beyond debate btw.

 

I think you completely missed my point(s). Please re-read the post.

The original poster 1. admitted that things can be believed on a 'gut level' without scientific proof, and 2. was observing that metaphysical belief could not be addressed by scientific proof. I started my post by completely agreeing with both premises, and then continued by describing the types of 'proof' and rational assessment that would be appropriate for metaphysical and religious discussion (e.g., historical, 'eye-witness', courtroom-type evidence, circumstantial evidence, logical analysis for inconsistencies).

I also addressed the apparent anti-religious prejudice that seems to assume that anyone who holds a religious (or particularly Christian) belief system does so from a point of view of blindly accepting whatever has been told them without critical analysis or thought. This seems to be an anti-religious prejudice that you share.

Finally, I noted that all logical belief systems start with assumptions, then use logic to assess the validity of those assumptions based on any inconsistencies identified in the initial assumptions (or conclusions necessarily drawn from them). I felt it went without saying that this was clearly the case for mathematical proofs (the most obvious example of the application of logic to the development of a set of consistent conclusions based on a set of initial assumptions), so I used science as an example, and gave some of the initial assumptions in science.

You see, I think we can have a rational discussion of religion, philosophy, and/or metaphysics. The original poster seems to agree, and even seems to think that 'gut-level' feelings (i.e., intuition) may provide one means of doing so.

 

wow, :bang:
ok, lets look at this. you bolded HISTORICAL, then you quoted the (life, death and ressurection) of jesus. as if it was a historical fact. which it is far from. then in the very next paragraph you say that history cannot be proven through science because it isn't repeatable. therefore its impossible to prove that the ressurection actually happened. then you say that lack of scientific proof does NOT mean something is illogical? ok.....so given the fact that we know ressurection is impossible, and that zombies don't exist, because there is valid concrete proof to the contrary it would be illogical to think that it can, illogical to hold that belief despite the proof, therefore irrational to hold that belief as fact, as you just stated. so yes, christianity is irrational given the paramiters you just set.

 

No, TG, please look one more time......

I think we can both agree (from the hundreds of discussions on this forum) that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux (no pun intended) of Christianity. If the resurrection genuinely occurred, then you have concrete historical proof of the reality of Christianity and the absolute deity ('God-ness') of Jesus. If the resurrection can be proved a historical farse, then you would have concrete historical proof that all of Christianity is a sham, and those who believe it are most to be pittied in the world.

The resurrection (like all historical events) cannot be proved or disproved via scientific methods, just like the date of Augustus Caesar's birth, the writings of Plato, the results of the battle of Thermopolae, or the first recorded use of spurs in combat cannot be proved scientifically. That is because scientific evidence requires repeatability and reproducibility, two ingredients strikingly absent from any historical discussion. If you want to debate, discuss, or even rationally consider the truthfullness (or falsehood) of Christianity, you must look at historical evidence. Historical evidence was missing from the current discussion, and is a key ingredient to any understanding of a religion or philosophy that makes historical claims; hence, it's bolding in my quote.

About 'we know that couldn't have happened because people don't just get up' argument, please remember that all of history is the study of unique events. (Certainly before 9/11/01, people 'didn't just fly planes into buildings'.) The claim of Jesus Christ was that He was uniquely able to save us from sin because He and He alone was and is God, and that He would prove this by a once-for-all miraculous event of rising from the dead.

I never said that historical facts were unprovable, just that they were unproveable through the scientific method. There are tons of websites out there - if you are interested, please go Google a few sites with evidences for the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Based on available evidence, I find more rational evidence to believe in the resurrection of Jesus than that Socrates was an actual historical figure.

I don't want to drag this thread any more off topic - I appreciated and enjoyed the comments by the original poster. In looking at ways to discuss metaphysics, historical evidences become much more important to historically-based belief systems (which would include Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). Historical evidences would not provide as much insight into non-historically-based religions and philosophies (belief systems whose truth, falsehood, or suitability for use in life doesn't depend on certain historical events having literally occurred), such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Janism, Confucianism, Taoism. In both sets of cases, however, courtroom-type evidences (eye-witness accounts, circumstantial evidence), annecdotal evidence, logical analysis (to find inconsistencies in the first postulates and any necessary conclusions drawn from them), and 'gut feel'/intuition may all provide valid methods for discussing the topics. These, and not the scientific method, are the appropriate tools for meaningful dialogue on metaphysical issues.

 

You're still completely missing the point of the post captain anne and you don't even realize it either. The original poster didn't care about all your logical rational crap, he was saying that is stupid and parochial and yet you seem to be focusing on it as if it were his points. You're thinking rigidly and his point was about letting loose.

The main point of this thread was that any system that tells people what to believe is wrong. One incredible thing in this life is the diversity within it and amongst us, that is to be celebrated, that gut feeling that you're talking about now in logical terms, he was saying is your own inner voice, that's who you are. The initial post was saying that nobody can tell you what thoughts you can and can't have or any of that crap. The more rigid any system is like that the less one is able to find themselves within it. The post was saying that the people who are obsessed with logic and reason and refuse to let their thoughts wander outside the boundaries of probability within those fields are following a rigid system and aren't letting themselves out. Also the people who are obsessed with the rules of religion telling you how you must act, how you must think etc. and refuse to let their thoughts wander outside those narrow-minded boundaries aren't letting themselves out either. The most amazing thing you can do is find yourself and who you truly are and the answer to that can't be found in some uptight system like strict logical probability or Christianity.

 

Where is the evidence?

I’ll give you a hint: There is none. You won’t find any.

There is no comparison. The claim that Socrates existed is a natural claim and in support of it we have the claims, in writing, of his student, Plato. There is no magic; hence it is not a stretch to believe it.

The claim of Jesus’ existence however is a supernatural, extraordinary claim. Yet we have no evidence of it… none. At all! Only claims and assertions of people decades later, who didn’t even know ‘him.’

The supernatural element of Jesus/Christianity makes it complex beyond necessity. It becomes necessarily irrational.

And also, before you discuss the resurrection, discuss and prove the existence of Jesus.

 

Can you cite some of this evidence please?

Remember: your the one making the claim, so the onus is on you to prove it.

 

no, i can prove to you under any known possible feesable circumstance as many times as you need, ressurection is impossible, full blown, 2nd life cycle ressurection is impossible, plain, and simple.
And the BOLDED part, really honestly scares me, and leads me to question your mental stability. really.

 

Capt Ann

The resurrection (like all historical events) cannot be proved or disproved via scientific methods

I may be wrong, but I believe you're a tad confused on the nature of science and the importance of repeatability in the scientific method. Science does not require that the event(s) in question can be repeated for investigation. What needs to be repeatable are the experiments that test hypotheses and predictions made.

If science can't touch historical events, archaeology, 90% of astronomy, a huge chunk of evolution, nearly all forensic sciences, most of geology, and numerous other scientific fields of inquiry are, apparently, a farse.

Even if you strictly are referring to human history, I still don't see how you believe this. There are plenty of historical human events that can be probed with the scientific theory. As long as hypotheses can be proposed, predictions made, and experiments conducted, it's open to scientific inquiry.

A great example is the historical question of: could Jesus have been crucified by the palms and feet without any extra support? (ropes, foot rest, more nails, etc.)

A hypothesis can be formed thusly: The palms are capable of supporting the weight of the human body without extra support.

This hypothesis is testable, and it has been tested. It is also falsifiable, and it has been falsified by numerous tests on cadavers. These tests are repeatable. Anyone can get a fresh cadaver or 10, nail their hands and feet to a big cross, and watch as the flesh of their palms give and they collapse to the floor. Over and over again.

Science thus answers the above question with a resounding no.

I fail to see how this is not an example of applying the scientific method to historical questions.

If you had said that not every historical question could be investigated scientifically (yet), that would have been fair. But you specifically said that no historical questions whatsoever could possibly be investigated scientifically, and that was wrong.

 

It's called 'conversation'. One person says something, usually expressing a thought, opinion, feeling, comment, and another person responds, usually by agreeing or disagreeing, and/or providing additional thoughts, feelings, ideas, comments, etc. Why must you assume that everything is an argument or a debate?

All that we know about Socrates we know from the writings of one (and only one) student of his. Knowledge of the existence of a historical man named Jesus who lived in first-century Palestine comes from the writings of 5 of his immediate personal followers, a biographer of another of his immediate follwoers, one contemporary historian, 2 historians who chronicled the same century, antagonistic sources (including secular and religious writings hostile to his claims), a large body of oral and written tradition from the same century, and thousands of quotes and excerpts from the next two centuries.

Portions of the New Testament were written from about 50 AD to 100 AD (liberal dating; more conservative dating puts the entire NT completed by 70 AD), and we have have manuscript fragments dated to this time frame. Plato wrote about 400 BC, but the earliest copy of any manuscript of his Philosophy is from about 900 AD, or 1300 years after Plato wrote it. In addition, the total number of manuscripts and manuscript fragments of Plato's work is 7, while more than 5000 manuscripts and fragments exist for the NT.

Yes, the case for the historicity of Jesus Christ is much stronger than the case for the historicity of Socrates.

As far as providing proof for the resurrection and other supernatural claims, as a matter ofr respect for the original poster, please start a new thread, or revive one of the dozens already in existence on the same topic.

You are correct. Certain aspects of historical questions may be addressed via the scientific method, and the example you gave provides a good case-in-point. Going back to the original post, though, my whole interest in the topic was the OP's premise that you can't establish metaphysical concepts, events, or ideas using scientific language (which I agree with). Overall, the scientific method is not the right tool to assess the validity or falsehood of historical claims. I am suggesting that the right tools are logic, historical evidences, courtroom (witness and/or circumstantial) evidences, and 'gut-feel' (intuition). In short, the language for discussing metaphysics (including religion, philosophy, morality, questions of being, etc.) are more experiential.

BTW, the Greek words describing Jesus' crucifixion does not say that the nails were driven through the webbing of the palm of the hand. The Greek word translated 'palm' includes the upper third of the forearm. Historical evidence indicates the nail was driven below the hand into the nerve region between the radius and the ulna, which would support the full weight of a suspended body.

 

capt ann how is this even up for debate? zombies don't exist, i can prove that to you, 2nd life cycle ressurection is impossible, i can prove THAT to you, so why and by what fallacy of logic can you sit there and tell me otherwise on anything other than a matter of irrationality?

 

Disproving the resurrection of a dead corpse back to life would not disprove Christianity, as again, it would be natural phenomena.

It is historically feasible, and indeed very likely, that a Jewish reformer from Nazareth existed and preached a message much like the Gospels that we have today.

What the debate hinges upon though is whether or not this man was truly God, and thus raised from the dead via a supernatural phenomena. The resurrection is not the key, but rather a by-product of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I would love to see you disprove that.

Of course, I'd also love to see Christians prove it.

 

Capt Ann I have a problem with the method for assesing historical events you are suggesting... if we know that something is impossible under natural laws then no matter how many sources cite this happening we cannot simply assume they are telling the turth.

If historians followed that method it would mean that human history would be full of tales of thousands of people with various super powers but yet I very rarely find such tales recounted as facts in historical books. To provide an example of why allowing supernatural events is perhaps not a great idea (I apologise the details are sketchy as the lecture I heard it in was a few months back)... In around 500 CE in China there was a certain man who claimed to have seen an apparation of Lord Lao appear over a bridge in the central area of the capitol city. This experience was found attested to in various sources including non-Taoist ones which cited the sighting as a FACT including official royal court documents. Since this event was also reported to have occured over a busy district in the capital it was also hard to deny its veracity as surely if such a sighting had not occured many people would have disagreed but no such criticisms existed in contemporary sources and instead it seemed this event was widely regarded as an actual event. However, because a supernatural event was not an acceptable answer to the researcher he went and looked for further information sifting through vast amounts of documents from the same time hoping to find something relevant. Eventually he came across the fact that on the same day as the sighting there was also a yearly festival that took place in the southern part of the capitol which he knew from other accounts of the festival tended to leave the part of the capital were the sighting had occured practically deserted for a few hours. These 2 facts were never linked in any of the sources from the time and it was only due to the researchers diligence and unwillingness to accept a supernatural explanation that lead to the real fact being discovered- namely that it was only one person who had made that claim and through some further research I believe he also found out how such an announcement was beneficial for the person concerned. Making it much more likely that the story was made up rather than a real occurence.

Wouldn't using 'logic' lead us to the conclusion that the resurrection could not occur since it contradicts every natural law we know? and therefore even if attested to must be false?

I mean if we follow your method it means that claims of flying men in history if attested to by enough sources must be true...

 

OK, go ahead and prove it. I contend that the most rational explanation for the observed historical data is that a physical resurrection of one individual (i.e., Jesus Christ) has occurred.

1. Capt Ann posts about religion.
2. Tekkengod doubts Capt Ann's mental stability.

WOW!! A consistent, repeatable, predictable result!! Maybe we really are using the scientific method more than I thought :love:

 

Seriously! The authors of the gospels were not eye witnesses. Can you prove the apostles even existed?

No one alive when 'Jesus' was 'alive' ever wrote about him. Well, the only person alive was Paul, but he only 'knew of' Jesus through visions and dreams. So he can be counted out.

As for the other’s, well, there is none! The only non-biblical writing of Jesus are accepted forgeries.

Perhaps you can provide some sources/evidence for that you believe prove this man existed.

 

You’re the positive claimant, so you prove it happened!