Thread: What's religion for?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

That can't be right. While we can't be entirely certain about the nature of existence, using the possibility of this universe being illusory as some form of argument is quite pointless as the concepts of "real" and "unreal" (at least within the scope of this discussion) are very arbitrary and loosely defined.

Furthermore, from not being able to be 100% sure of anything but our own existence it does not follow that every and any conjecture on reality stands on equal footing. As our history and experience will show us (as much as it can be shown), there is consistency to the world and sets of principles which can be used to describe and predict events within it, regardless of the underlying reality (or "unreality", whatever that means) of it.

To me, it's much more satisfying to be knowingly ignorant than to adopt random assumptions and conjectures. Makes me wonder.

I agree with you. I have yet to find a good definition of what "real" means or what "true" means (in an absolute sense). That's why I stick with cogito ergo sum for claims about absolute truth and reality.

I did not say that all claims rest on equal footing. I certainly think creationism and to a lesser extent, monotheism is wrong. Although, I don't know what criteria you are using to judge metaphysical claims of truth other than pragmatic uses. I don't claim to know anything about the "real" nature of the "reality" partly because we can't define it. The knowledge we have about reality serves practical purposes. I can turn the knob on my shower and the water turns on (practical), but I have no idea how the water is pressurized or where it comes (fundamental nature). Of course, my analogy breaks down because we (collectively) do know how to pressurize water. So for the sake of analogy, let's just say that we are little kids and we don't have the ability to know about water pressurization. But who knows? Maybe in time we will grow older and develop the tools to understand "reality" (pressurization). I doubt it though.

So in the end, I am an open-minded skeptic. I just favor some hypotheses over others. Other favor them (for psychological comfort or sheer ignorance) to the point that they close their minds. Nobody's right. The only certainty is uncertainty and i'm not even certain of that.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

Although, I don't know what criteria you are using to judge metaphysical claims of truth other than pragmatic uses.

Is there any other? If an hypothesis includes investigation and experimentation and is able to accurately predict events, it means it might be true, and we know that at the very least part of it is true. If an hypothesis is based solely on imagination and predicts nothing, then it's just another arbitrary conjecture and we know nothing.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Is there any other? If an hypothesis includes investigation and experimentation and is able to accurately predict events, it means it might be true, and we know that at the very least part of it is true. If an hypothesis is based solely on imagination and predicts nothing, then it's just another arbitrary conjecture and we know nothing.

I suppose you're right. Prediction is the only test for the truth of a theory. However, we will never be able to predict everything. Does that mean we will never have absolute truth? This does not diminish the fantastic range of possibilities for pragmatic truth. Artificial intelligence, cold fusion, time travel, are all possible, but they still fall short of "absolute" truth. I'm not even sure what that means any more. I suppose it's questions like "is reality idealistic, materialistic, or dualistic?" "Is there a heaven or God?" "How does perception arise from physical matter?" "What happens after I die?" I don't think any of those questions can be answered except with conjecture and rationalization.

I suppose the only other sort of truth is pragmatic truth which is still fantastically intriguing. Cold fusion, time travel, artificial intelligence = WOW!

Originally Posted by kidjordan

I don't think any of those questions can be answered except with conjecture and rationalization.

The problem is those by themselves can't count as answering. Not to me at least.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

The problem is those by themselves can't count as answering. Not to me at least.

What do you mean "by themselves"? What would need to go with them? What do you mean by "count"?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Religion was designed to explain things that primitive people couldn't understand, as well as controlling vast amounts of people. If a king declared that he was chosen by a higher power and that they should obey a set of rules, he would need less body guards and less police.

You see, controlling people has been the function of religion only the past 5,000 years, in other words, recent history up to and including now. Before that, this was not the case. So calling it primitive could be saying that we were more advanced before this. In fact, it seems to only by monotheism that fulfills this. It seems that Monotheism introduced politics to religion.

Democracy advocates the separation of church and state for the sake of the state. I also think that it is for the benefit of religion.

As for a way to explain things that people don't understand: to a degree, but like I said earlier that is more what mythology is for. People always ask for explanations, that is what any enquiry into truth is for.

I will have to agree with the original post quoting the Dalia Lama:

Originally Posted by Taosaur

When we contemplate the diversity of spiritual traditions on this planet we can understand that each addresses the specific needs of different human beings, because there is so much diversity in human mentality and spiritual inclination. Yet, fundamentally, all spiritual traditions perform the same function, which is to help us tame our mental state, overcome our negativities and perfect our inner potential.

-Dalai Lama

I think that kidjordan said that the role of religion is to give comfort and quiet the mind and to stop thinking critically. kidjordan said it might be a tautology of the quote by the dalai lama. Of course scientific minded people think that is exactly what is wrong with religion. Allow me to clarify: it is an aid to stop thinking "conceptually", to perceive phenomena directly not passing through the time-lag filter of the mind interpreting and labeling every perception. It is fine to think conceptually when the situation calls for it, like when in the laboratory. But almost every single person has no control over their mind. Furthermore, they confuse their mind with reality. We inherited a monkey-mind and what the dalai Lama might be saying is that religion is for taming the monkey mind, so that we can be the master instead of us being the slave to the monkey mind. In this way, religion works if it makes you More reasonable, more kind, more forgiving, more human, and less monkey. It is about actualizing as a human, it is about evolving from monkey to human. That may be its evolutionary role. I don't think that there is anything imaginary about this.

As Caprisun said, consciousness is a double edged sword. With consciousness great joy and knowledge is possible, and with it great existential anguish. Animals don't wonder what the truth is. Animals ARE the truth. Humans wonder what the truth is and if god exists and if there is an afterlife because we have consciousness to a greater degree than other animals, yet our consciousness is caught up in this conceptual mind that had just evolved from apes'.

Science is an evolution of religion. Just like we are an evolution of apes. Science and religion are one if you look at that they are both the search for truth. Science is just a very sophisticated religion that is very much akin to ancient Buddhism and Greek thought. It is interesting to look at where science came from. The roots of science. But I digress.

This is a good link!!!: History of Religion

Check it out!

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Is there any other? If an hypothesis includes investigation and experimentation and is able to accurately predict events, it means it might be true, and we know that at the very least part of it is true. If an hypothesis is based solely on imagination and predicts nothing, then it's just another arbitrary conjecture and we know nothing.

Approaching science and religion as competing hypotheses or truth claims about the physical world is not at all useful if your goals are to investigate religion, to investigate the human condition, or as the OP said, to "tame our mental state, overcome our negativities and perfect our inner potential." As a critic of religion, it will stop your understanding of religion's inner workings and impact on humanity from progressing beyond the kind of just-so stories that have been put forward in this thread. Do you prefer to be a 'critic' in the pejorative sense of a reflexive pessimist, or in the original sense: one who takes a detailed and rational approach to his or her subject?

Originally Posted by kidjordan

I suppose you're right. Prediction is the only test for the truth of a theory. However, we will never be able to predict everything. Does that mean we will never have absolute truth? This does not diminish the fantastic range of possibilities for pragmatic truth. Artificial intelligence, cold fusion, time travel, are all possible, but they still fall short of "absolute" truth. I'm not even sure what that means any more. I suppose it's questions like "is reality idealistic, materialistic, or dualistic?" "Is there a heaven or God?" "How does perception arise from physical matter?" "What happens after I die?" I don't think any of those questions can be answered except with conjecture and rationalization.

These 'big questions' get people in the door, so to speak, but the purpose of religion is not to answer them so much as to convince you to set those questions aside and move on to inquiries and practices that will actually advance your engagement with reality and your own experience.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

You see, controlling people has been the function of religion only the past 5,000 years, in other words, recent history up to and including now. Before that, this was not the case. So calling it primitive could be saying that we were more advanced before this. In fact, it seems to only by monotheism that fulfills this. It seems that Monotheism introduced politics to religion.

This view to me errs equally and opposite to the position ninja put forward, and arises less from the specific qualities of monotheism vs. other religions than from our perspective as natives of a monotheistic culture and outsiders or converts of other belief systems. A Christian convert in a Buddhist nation will almost certainly be just as likely to see the institutions of his native faith as 'all politics' and Christianity as 'cutting through the bullshit.' No religion--and really, no activity involving two or more humans--has ever been immune to politics. It was the Dalai Lama's steadfast Universalism, as demonstrated in the OP, which finally taught me that idealizing contemplative and earth-based religions while demonizing monotheism is not in service to truth, peace or liberation.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

What do you mean "by themselves"? What would need to go with them? What do you mean by "count"?

I meant that imagination alone isn't enough to get answers, you also need reason. A random imagined answer is no different from saying 'I don't know'.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Approaching science and religion as competing hypotheses or truth claims about the physical world is not at all useful if your goals are to investigate religion, to investigate the human condition, or as the OP said, to "tame our mental state, overcome our negativities and perfect our inner potential." As a critic of religion, it will stop your understanding of religion's inner workings and impact on humanity from progressing beyond the kind of just-so stories that have been put forward in this thread. Do you prefer to be a 'critic' in the pejorative sense of a reflexive pessimist, or in the original sense: one who takes a detailed and rational approach to his or her subject?

I did not state any religion's purpose is to compete with science, although that competition is inevitable whenever a religion makes truth claims which contradict science's, and that happens often. You seem to be assuming a lot about myself and my position, all I did was disagree with the idea that it's acceptable or reasonable to take random conjecturing as truth. Don't imply bias when there's none.

And it's true a religion has functions beyond covering the unknowns, but it's a fallacy to assume it is the only way of fulfilling those functions.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I did not state any religion's purpose is to compete with science, although that competition is inevitable whenever a religion makes truth claims which contradict science's, and that happens often. You seem to be assuming a lot about myself and my position, all I did was disagree with the idea that it's acceptable or reasonable to take random conjecturing as truth. Don't imply bias when there's none.

And you just reasserted the position you claim I'm projecting upon you :/

Individual religious people sometimes take the teachings of their faith as rigid truth claims about the physical world. Individual non-religious people sometimes take the teachings of various faiths as rigid truth claims about the physical world. Both sets of people, regardless of being for or against the rigid truth claims they imagine the religion demands, are limiting their capacity to understand both the specific religion in question and religion in general as it operates in human history, society and consciousness. When you argue the factuality of, for instance, a young-earth creationist's position, or the events of The Celestine Prophecy, you only participate in that person's delusion, generate noise, and prevent discussion from proceeding in any fruitful direction.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

And it's true a religion has functions beyond covering the unknowns, but it's a fallacy to assume it is the only way of fulfilling those functions.

It's also a fallacy, and a failure to comprehend the OP, to assume any religion's exclusivity or lack thereof in fulfilling its functions is relevant to the discussion. Yes, kidjordan shares your failure of comprehension, though he's upfront about the fact that his ideas on the subject are at best half-formed. If you like, the two of you can chase these red herring as far down the beach as they'll flop. I'm just pointing out that they are distractions which will kick out no end of bad data and thereby obstruct your understanding of the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

That can't be right. While we can't be entirely certain about the nature of existence, using the possibility of this universe being illusory as some form of argument is quite pointless as the concepts of "real" and "unreal" (at least within the scope of this discussion) are very arbitrary and loosely defined.

Furthermore, from not being able to be 100% sure of anything but our own existence it does not follow that every and any conjecture on reality stands on equal footing. As our history and experience will show us (as much as it can be shown), there is consistency to the world and sets of principles which can be used to describe and predict events within it, regardless of the underlying reality (or "unreality", whatever that means) of it.

You should make your atheist colleague Heavy Sleeper aware of this, apparently he thinks this mode of thinking is absurd. :p

"Atheist colleague"? What, are we a club now? Not all atheists hold the same views, so using Scatterbrain's opinions to try and make me look stupid is quite pointless. I'd really prefer not to resurrect this argument, because as we've seen, it doesn't go anywhere.

@Scatterbrain, he's referring to this thread: http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/argue-...19/index5.html

It's funny, we were talking about something quite similar in that thread. It's all on page 5, if you want to read it. But if you don't, I wouldn't blame you. The posts were getting really long and repetitive.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

And you just reasserted the position you claim I'm projecting upon you :/

Individual religious people sometimes take the teachings of their faith as rigid truth claims about the physical world. Individual non-religious people sometimes take the teachings of various faiths as rigid truth claims about the physical world. Both sets of people, regardless of being for or against the rigid truth claims they imagine the religion demands, are limiting their capacity to understand both the specific religion in question and religion in general as it operates in human history, society and consciousness. When you argue the factuality of, for instance, a young-earth creationist's position, or the events of The Celestine Prophecy, you only participate in that person's delusion, generate noise, and prevent discussion from proceeding in any fruitful direction.



It's also a fallacy, and a failure to comprehend the OP, to assume any religion's exclusivity or lack thereof in fulfilling its functions is relevant to the discussion. Yes, kidjordan shares your failure of comprehension, though he's upfront about the fact that his ideas on the subject are at best half-formed. If you like, the two of you can chase these red herring as far down the beach as they'll flop. I'm just pointing out that they are distractions which will kick out no end of bad data and thereby obstruct your understanding of the subject at hand.

I don't know what you're on about. I did not re-assert your projection in any way, I merely stated that as religions competing with science for truth is something that happens, it is not absurd address those conflicts.

I don't even remember exactly what the OP says, my posting started and remained as a reply to something kidjordan wrote. You're going off on tangents which have nothing to do with anything I was arguing.

The question is in the particular, however, the answer should be in the universal. All social organizations are for the standardization of human behavior. How that is done, is in the particular--for the simple reason that all minds do not have the same ability.

To what ends it is done, alone, determines its goodness, or not, its correctness or not.

The fact that these organizations are often at the mercy of simple minds produces a very mixed, and often deterimental effect.

Science and religion have not competed for truth until recently when the Roman church made a deal. And that was only the Roman church, not ALL religion. In essence they don't compete for truth. to believe so is to misunderstand religion and/or science. Many scientists misunderstand religion as do many religious people. Many people have no understanding of either, though they believe in one, the other, or both. Some very rare people believe in neither. And they may be the most open to truth. But science and spirituality should unite to understand the whole truth. Just like when my friend got double pneumonia when she was a child, she spent a month and a half in the hospital, and the doctors couldn't cure her because they were giving her antibiotics, which couldn't affect the virus, and she was dying. Don't worry, she pulled through. But what they should have done when they realized that they didn't know what to do was to get someone in there that DID know what to do, specifically a Chinese Doctor of traditional chinese medicine. But NO, that is called alternative therapy. That is what needs to happen with the medical industry also needs to happen with science and spirituality. Science is good for technology, spirituality is good for happiness. Science explains things with "just so" stories as far as the common non-scientist is concerned just as much or even more that religion does. But that is not the real function of either. The real function is truth, and there is no competition, neither side holds a monopoly. The Truth is too big for one approach, be it through material or mind. But both together is a whole new ballgame. Imagine the growth of the medical industry for example, or psycho-therapy.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

And you just reasserted the position you claim I'm projecting upon you :/

Individual religious people sometimes take the teachings of their faith as rigid truth claims about the physical world. Individual non-religious people sometimes take the teachings of various faiths as rigid truth claims about the physical world. Both sets of people, regardless of being for or against the rigid truth claims they imagine the religion demands, are limiting their capacity to understand both the specific religion in question and religion in general as it operates in human history, society and consciousness. When you argue the factuality of, for instance, a young-earth creationist's position, or the events of The Celestine Prophecy, you only participate in that person's delusion, generate noise, and prevent discussion from proceeding in any fruitful direction.



It's also a fallacy, and a failure to comprehend the OP, to assume any religion's exclusivity or lack thereof in fulfilling its functions is relevant to the discussion. Yes, kidjordan shares your failure of comprehension, though he's upfront about the fact that his ideas on the subject are at best half-formed. If you like, the two of you can chase these red herring as far down the beach as they'll flop. I'm just pointing out that they are distractions which will kick out no end of bad data and thereby obstruct your understanding of the subject at hand.

What is it that I fail to understand? And yes, I agree that my ideas are half-formed. Youngsters are often the most open-minded

Also, how does arguing with a creationist solve nothing? They're (probably) going to be delusional either way, but if you argue (patiently) with them, there's the chance they could reform their views (if they're young enough).

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Science and religion have not competed for truth until recently when the Roman church made a deal. And that was only the Roman church, not ALL religion. In essence they don't compete for truth. to believe so is to misunderstand religion and/or science. Many scientists misunderstand religion as do many religious people. Many people have no understanding of either, though they believe in one, the other, or both. Some very rare people believe in neither. And they may be the most open to truth. But science and spirituality should unite to understand the whole truth. Just like when my friend got double pneumonia when she was a child, she spent a month and a half in the hospital, and the doctors couldn't cure her because they were giving her antibiotics, which couldn't affect the virus, and she was dying. Don't worry, she pulled through. But what they should have done when they realized that they didn't know what to do was to get someone in there that DID know what to do, specifically a Chinese Doctor of traditional chinese medicine. But NO, that is called alternative therapy. That is what needs to happen with the medical industry also needs to happen with science and spirituality. Science is good for technology, spirituality is good for happiness. Science explains things with "just so" stories as far as the common non-scientist is concerned just as much or even more that religion does. But that is not the real function of either. The real function is truth, and there is no competition, neither side holds a monopoly. The Truth is too big for one approach, be it through material or mind. But both together is a whole new ballgame. Imagine the growth of the medical industry for example, or psycho-therapy.

Aren't (Buddhist) religion and science essentially the same in their methodology for discovering the truth? Science simply limits itself with a physicalist philosophy (which should go out the window in the light of quantum physics).

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I meant that imagination alone isn't enough to get answers, you also need reason. A random imagined answer is no different from saying 'I don't know'.



I did not state any religion's purpose is to compete with science, although that competition is inevitable whenever a religion makes truth claims which contradict science's, and that happens often. You seem to be assuming a lot about myself and my position, all I did was disagree with the idea that it's acceptable or reasonable to take random conjecturing as truth. Don't imply bias when there's none.

And it's true a religion has functions beyond covering the unknowns, but it's a fallacy to assume it is the only way of fulfilling those functions.

I'm assuming that you mean the other functions are mainly social/political ones.

It's my assertion that all assertions about the afterlife (and similar metaphysical questions) are unprovable. Thus, all metaphysical claims stand on equal footing in terms of being provable. They are equivalent to saying "I don't know, BUT this is what I think sounds plausible". Some simply sound better (are rationalized more easily). I am not claiming they are true. We Obviously, I disagree with creationist theory because it's trying to make a claim about the physical world. Also, I would agree with the notion of reincarnation if I could see direct proof of it with my own eyes. But as far as Heaven, Hell, Flying Spaghetti monsters, etc are concerned, I agree with Taosaur when he said:

"These 'big questions' get people in the door, so to speak, but the purpose of religion is not to answer them so much as to convince you to set those questions aside and move on to inquiries and practices that will actually advance your engagement with reality and your own experience. "

Originally Posted by kidjordan

Aren't (Buddhist) religion and science essentially the same in their methodology for discovering the truth? Science simply limits itself with a physicalist philosophy (which should go out the window in the light of quantum physics).

I dont think so. Science obtains knowledge from empirically observing the physical world. Buddhism believes the physical world to be an illusion. Buddhism obtains knowledge from the internal world.

Science and religion dont always have to conflict but religious doctrines usually are static and fixed, disallowing improvement and revision. Science on the other hand encourages and is maintained by the revision of old ideas. Religion "knows" the truth. Science is constantly looking for it. That is where science and religion usually conflict not the other way around.

I agree that most metaphysical questions are unprovable and I somewhat agree with the logical positivists that metaphysical questions are not wrong, but simply meaningless.
I dont think there is anything wrong with being skeptical of things you cannot empirically observe nor do I think it is close-minded, in fact quite the opposite.