Religion, True or False?

amdala · Senior Member

Religion, True or False?

Lady B · Senior Member

Amdala when i was growing up , i use to hear my father's friends call him amdala , and i grew up thinking that actaully that was his name funny aint it ? i like the name though i must say

anyway back to the topic ,Fiirt, define religion. Look through the oxford books, webster, get perspectives from other individuals and of different faiths what they find religion to be. Then look to its etymology.

On that, i have learnt that religion is not the noun we catagorize it as but is the action, the three verbs to re-read, re-choose, and re-bind. Granted I have heard arguments "this isn't a certain definition" but has been highly accepted, at least two of the three have as being the roots of the word, but I believe it was either augusta or aquanas and I think also ciscero who really brought these three verbs together again as the basic understanding of what religion is.

Understanding that perspective I would say is a very hard task because it means throwing away your occidental perspective of it being objectified into our connotative "label" of what religion is (which was the first task of the class to truely understand the oriental perspective).

am cooking got to go , will be right back

*kiss*

abre les ojos · Guru

French Sociologist Émile Durkheim observed that religion was the root of science. Religion, he said, was the first human attempt to systematically explain the world. Durkheim thought that religious rationality would wither away in modern times (for him, the early twentieth century) because scientific rationality would replace it, by virtue of its superior explanatory power. Alas, he seems to have gotten this one wrong.

But Durkheim was right about the genealogy of thought. Modern religion is an elaboration of a belief in magic. In the absence of a scientific explanation of events and institutions, faith in magical powers, fetishization of nature, and overinterpretation of random variation are inevitable. Durkheim expected religion to fall out of fashion as the outright belief in magic had, for the same reason. For anyone with the least education, the superior power of scientific thinking is obvious. Only a willful ignorance could lead to any other conclusion.

This is where we find ourselves. We live in a world that wants the fruits of scientific labor, but refuses the mental discipline of scientific rationality. Just like children, we want to have our cake and to eat it too.

Religions have persisted, despite their inability to explain the modern world. Here, in fact, we have a stunning reversal: religions play up the "essential mystery" of modern life. Since the world is too complex to understand all at once, in its entirety—even for the scientist—all of us will sometimes shake our heads in wonder at the turn of events in which we find ourselves. Many will find this uncertainty anxiety-provoking, and will look around for a convenient escape.

Lady B · Senior Member

Abre , so is it wrong to say that Religion can be argued, brings most of the morals to the world. many say this moral code is in built in humans but I beleive this proves God exists as he is showing us the diffference between right and wrong. Anyhow I digress. With the destruction of religion, most of the morals of the world would disappear or not be followed and thus an apparent apathetic society without any positive influences could be created.

Is that not right?

*kiss*

abre les ojos · Guru

RELIGIONS ALWAYS ARGUE; PERHAPS AS A WAY OF SOLIDIFYING THEIR DOCTRINE, THAT WITHOUT THEM MORALITY WOULD CRUMBLE. THEY ARGUE THAT THEY HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON HUMAN POSITIVE INTERACTION.

I THINK THAT IS WRONG SIMPLY BY VIRTUE THAT RELIGION IS CREATED BY MAN HIMSELF. THE NOTION OF MORAL VIRTUE, LAW AND ORDER IS IN ALL RESPECTS AN EVOLUTIONARY OCCURANCE. LOOK AT ANTS FOR INSTANCE. OR TERMITES. THEY HAVE THE MOST COMPLEX AND YET STRUCTURED SOCIETIES. CLEARLY DEFINED ROLES AND ORGANISATION THAT WOULD MAKE ANY POLITICAL IDEOLOGUE BLUSH. THEY DO IT WITHOUT RELIGION OR GOD, BUT OUT OF INSTINCT. IF THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS INSTINCT IS WHAT YOU TERM "GOD" THEN WE ARE ON THE LEVEL.

I ARGUE SIMPLY THAT WE ARE YET TO GET INTO ALL ASPECTS OF BEHAVIOR, SO WE SIMPLY JUST SAY IT'S GOD'S WILL.

SOMEONE ONCE SAID THAT IF GOD DIDN'T EXIST IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO INVENT HIM... WELL, YES AND NO... THE VERY INVENTION OF GOD CREATES DOCTRINE THAT IS MONOPOLISED BY A GROUP OR GROUPS OF PEOPLE - RESULTING IN RELIGION.

THE MORE ON DELVES INTO CRITIQUE OF RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY AND BELIEF, THE MORE ONE WOULD REALISE THAT IT IS ONLY A MODE OF CONTROL. BASED ON IGNORANCE OR FEAR OR SCEPTICISM OR ALL OF THEM. PUT THEM CONSTRUCTIVELY, IN A GREAT NARRATIVE FORM, WITH VAGUE HISTORICAL REPRESENTAION AND EMOTIONAL APPEAL AND YOU GET RELIGION...

ABOUT GOD? WELL WHAT ABOUT GOD? IS IT A FORCE THAT MAKES THINGS HAPPEN; THE EARTH REVOLVING, GRAVITY, LIFE AND DEATH. OR A CHARACTER ON A THRONE SOMEWHERE; PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO DO WRONG, CAUSING FLOODS AND LIGHTNING AND COMEUPPANCE FOR EVILDOERS ETC?

BOTH TO ME STAND OUT AS SUPERSTITION....

Lady B · Senior Member

ABOUT GOD? WELL WHAT ABOUT GOD? IS IT A FORCE THAT MAKES THINGS HAPPEN; THE EARTH REVOLVING, GRAVITY, LIFE AND DEATH. OR A CHARACTER ON A THRONE SOMEWHERE; PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO DO WRONG, CAUSING FLOODS AND LIGHTNING AND COMEUPPANCE FOR EVILDOERS ETC?

Abre , am sorry that you feel that way about God and Religion , a Christian I believe in one God.The main danger here is that people will confuse the scripture of a religion with the teaching of those people who claim to agree with it, which may be the cause of confusion and conflict . Certainly the Christian Bible tells of a God who is a loving father, who will punish us if we mistreat him, but who created his rules for our own eventual benefit, is forgiving and will always welcome us back if we wish to return

Lord, i beleive ,help my un belief'' Mark 9:24

*Kiss*

amdala · Senior Member

this one is for you boss. Gods existence vs science. (e.g. as far as our origin is concerned). the bible says God made heavens and the earth...blah blah blah, ok. science tells me of gases fussing and exploding, an ape aging to humanity, now which is superstitious (fiction)? stories in the bible are slowly 'proving' to be true. if you try to follow archeology, i understand there are quite a few things discovered pointing to earth's 'age', biblically the earth is appr. 6-7000 yrs old( ie with life on it), science tells me lots of millions of yrs, dig around you to prove this info. then come back and tell us 'God does exist...'

intuitive idea? before your missionaries visited the warm heart your parents used to worship 'God'... wait 4 more is on the menu.

Talk of animal instict- thats the only way of their survival, instict. we are made in Gods image, ie - the power of choice, being able to control other animals...! no boss, we are more arganised than animals, than ants even mathful bees. imagine kupanga zinthu ngati cars, planes, space shuttles, submarines, GUNS, which other animal beside H.sapien-sapien is so 'gifted'? instict is like a program, do this- dont do that- run-eat-dont eat...... we have the power of choice... i want to have this (always at will), we are not guided by a program 'instict'.

game · Guru

just to add to what amdala said it looks like your arguement on the whole issue is based on a small amount of knowledge that convinced you to put science over religion and its around this kind of little knowledge that you let your life revolve.

so here is a small chunk of spiritual philosophy you need to absorb,after analysing your postings on this issue i have concluded that you dont know anything else apart from scientific philosophy so for now try to go and study on ACTA ANALYTICA its the international periodical for spiritual philosophy like LOGIC,METAPHYSICS,and EPISTEMOLOGY this will help you in your quest for answers to whether God exists or not although the answer is YES but i think if you try to digest every single word you come across your peception towards your belief will change.

all the best abre.

GWAN · Member

Game

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Logic being placed in the genus of spiritual philosophy [whatever that means]?

game · Guru

Gwan

you want to tell me you dont know there is spiritual logic or you are just trying to question my intelligency.anyway your question should have come with the definition of logic in relation to my statements and application.cant wait to hear from you again.

and by the way ACTA ANALYTICA covers logic as well so consult your books and come back with a constructive arguement am a genius and will take you on step by step.

Lady B · Senior Member

Gwan , personal advise dont argue to what what you dont know for the sake of arguing , its stupid .... i agree with wat game has said and just to add. Game and Amdala Science cannot explain the existence of God because God creates science. If people believe in the Big Bang Theory, then there would have to be a reason why the physical and chemical laws that were operative in nature, were operative. What was the reason or mind behind it? This reason or mind I believe is God who I think is self-created, self-sustained and has the power of self-dissolution, but I don't know. We cannot know because to know that we would need God's reasoning or thinking. But we don't have that, therefore, a revelation from God becomes a must. God will reveal His own existence some day, it cannot be brainstormed, researched or rationalized. Right? Who disagrees?

*Kiss*

GWAN · Member

Game

I have take note of the fact that you are a GENIUS.And thanks for letting me know of this field of philosophy called 'Spiritual Philosophy'.How would I have known; I aint a genius.

Lady B

I have take note of your advice as well.It is indeed stupid to argue for the sake of arguing [arguendo as some would say?]I ought to have known that Logic is in the same genus as Metaphysics and Epistemology within a field of philosophy called 'Spiritual Philosophy'.

Meanwhile I will stick to learning from your analysis of religion:Big Bang Theory, Darwinism etc.And I will also be reading Acta Analytica, the international periodical [or is it Journal?]

abre les ojos · Guru

WHAT A LOT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ALWAYS STUBBORNLY DISAGREE IS THAT THEIR BELIEF IS REALLY NOTHING BUT IDEOLOGY. IT IS NOT "TRUTH" BUT FAITH. DOCTRINE THAT IS CONCIEVED, NOT FROM ANALYSIS BUT FROM BELIEF.

WHEN I SAY THAT RELIGION IS MISLEADING I SAY IT FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW. THE BIBLE FOR INSTANCE IS NOWHERE BASED ON HISTORY ACCURACY.AND EVEN 'THOUGH ONE CAN PUNCH HOLES IN DARWIN'S THEORY, IT HAS A BASIS ON FACTUAL ANALYSIS, EXPERIMENTS, OBSERVATION, CRITICISM ETC. AND EVOLUTION IS ALMOST UNDISPUTABLE (ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED FRUITFLIES OR MICOROBES WOULD TELL YOU THAT GENETIC MUTATION IS FACT. SIMPLE FACT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE PARTING OF THE RED SEA, RAISING THE DEAD ETC REQUIRE BELIEF. FAITH. SINCE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. IRRATIONAL, IF YOU MAY.

RELIGION IS CONTRADICTORY TO SCIENCE. IN SCIENCE THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS EVIL SPIRITS AND DEMONS AND DEVILS. THERE ARE BACTERIA AND VIRUSES. EVEN 'THOUGH PRAYER MIGHT CREATE A SENSE OF WELL-BEING POSITIVITY, WHICH MIGHT HAVE A MARGINAL EFFECT IN HELPING THE HEALING PROCESS ONE STILL NEEDS MEDICINE OR SURGERY OR CHEMOTHERAPY.

AND GOD IS RELIGION. THE MORE WE DELVE INTO THE DISCOVERIES OF SCIENTIFC KNOWLEDGE, THE LESS GOD EXISTS. I MEAN LOOK AROUND YOU THE LESS EDUCATED AND SCIENTIFICALLY AWARE A SOCIETY IS (EXCEPT PROBABLY AMERICA) THE MORE RELIGIOSITY AND SUPERSTITION EXISTS. IT IS A SYMPTON OF A LARGER PROBLEM.

HOW MANY YOUNG WESTERN FOLK ACTUALLY GO TO CHURCH? THE VERY FOLK THAT GAVE US THE BIBLE DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN IT. BUT WE WOULD RATHER SPEND OUR TIME PRAYING FOR SALVATION TO A NON-AFRICAN RELIGION (DENYING OUR HERITAGE) WHILE THE WORLD SLIPS RIGHT BY US INTO MODERNITY.

GWAN · Member

Now Abre don't you delve into the murky waters that is called 'modernity' ! You have made some interesting points above.

abre les ojos · Guru

WELL I DON'T SEE HOW MODERNITY CAN BE DESCRIBED AS "MURKY WATERS". MODERNITY IS THE REALITY THAT WE ALL FACE, ISN'T IT?

GWAN · Member

it is 'murky waters' . modernity under whose terms? often discourse here will tell you what is 'modern' but fails to characterise the 'non-modern' and indeed why the 'non-modern' is 'non-modern' at all.Or indeed why should the so-called 'traditional' be 'traditional'. The process becomes deductive and often prescriptive especially when located in development discourse. When you link the development policies of international financial institutions to modernity, you are sure in murky waters. No?

Having read your views on Live8, Debt Relief and 'development' in Africa, I am 'mystified' that you bought into modernity? Or are you using 'modernity' not as an ideology but merely as common parlance? If you are referring to 'modernity' as ideology I find your views on the stated issues irreconcilable.

abre les ojos · Guru

MODERNITY AS AN IDEOLOGY IS NOT MONOPOLISED BY THE WEST EVEN IF THEY LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT. IT ISN'T EVEN AN INVENTION OF THE WEST. CONSIDER THE FACT THAT CIVILISATION STARTED IN THE MID-EAST AND AFRICA, CHINA & INDIA WHEN WHITE FOLK WERE STILL LIVING IN MOUNTAINS AND CAVES.

BY MODERNITY I DON'T MEAN OF THE INDUSTRIAL SORT. I MEAN SIMPLY PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT. REJECTION OF SUPERSTITION AND A COLLECTIVE, RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD BASED ON FACT AND EVIDENCE.

IN NIGERIA FOR INSTANCE, ALL THIS SUPERSTITION IS SO RIFE THAT THERE IS A CHURCH ON EVERY STREET CORNER. THEY HAVE LOST ALL HOPE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS AND GRASP ON REALITY THAT THE CHURCH HAS REPLACED EVERY ORDER. MORAL, FINANCIAL... THAT TO ME IS GOING BACKWARDS BY ANY STANDARD WHATSOEVER.

WE REALLY SHOULD NOT BE REJECTING PROGRESS BECAUSE WE CAN'T CATCH UP WITH IT. WE SHOULD SHOULD STRIVE TO CHALLENGE IT AT OUR OWN WAYS. THAT TO ME IS MODERNITY. ITS NOT ABOUT WHO'S TERMS. OUR OWN TERMS; FEEDING OUR POPULATIONS, PROVIDING ADEQUATE EDUCATION AND HEALTH. THESE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WESTERN TERMS, WE SHOULD BE DOING THEM ANYWAY....

amdala · Senior Member

OH LORD HAVE MERCY!!

GWAN · Member

abre les ojos wrote:

MODERNITY IS THE REALITY THAT WE ALL FACE, ISN'T IT?

Abre I took my cue from the quote here.And the reality is the 'Masters of the Universe' construct what 'modernity', 'development' is.

abre les ojos · Guru

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS 'MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE'. NO ONE HAS THE MONOPOLY ON MODERNITY. NO ONE DICTATES IT EITHER. DEVELOPMENT YES (IN TERMS OF ECONOMICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL) BUT MODERNITY IS A DIFFERENT THING.

THERE IS HEGEMONY; WITHOUT A DOUBT. BUT EVEN THE DOMINANT HEGEMONY CANNOT DICTATE WITH CERTAINTY WHERE THE CHIPS WILL FALL IN TERMS OF PROGRESS. WE ARE LIVING THROUGH A SPECK IN THE HISTORY OF OUR WORLD. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IS ONLY 200+ ODD YEARS OLD. AND WHAT MIGHT SEEM AS BREAKNECK SPEED IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND PROGRESS MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENT AND LIFE ON EARTH IS CONCERNED.

IT DOESN'T AND SHOULDN'T STOP CHANGE THOUGH...

GWAN · Member

Sir

That's why I had humbly asked earlier on: whether you are using modernity as an ideology or in common parlance. Your response above vouches one of the two:either you are not aware what modernity as an ideology [an ism] entails or you are simply ignoring what discourse on modernity says.

You cannot deny the inherent imperialism [monopoly by the 'Masters'] in modernity. I will refer you to the works of Hayek then Fukuyama, Friedman and the like.Constrast that with Peter Fitzpatrick, Arturo Escobar, Furtado, Trubek and the like.

Then may be we can talk.

abre les ojos · Guru

FUKUYAMA IS WRONG. WRONG ABOUT PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING. A THING HE IS A SHORT-SIGHTED, IGNORANT NARROW-MINDED LOUSE; AND I MEAN THAT WITH NO DISRESPECT TO HIS CHARACTER.

AS FOR FRIEDMAN. HE TOO SEES THE WORLD FROM A THOROUGLY WESTERN HEGEMONIC FOCUS. I WON'T DEFINE WHAT HE WRITES AS "WORK". HE IS A FICTION WRITER. THE WEST MIGHT BELIEVE THAT IT IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF MODERNITY BUT IT DOESN'T OWN IT. IT MIGHT HAVE COINED THE SEMANTICS. BUT IT DOES NOT OWN IT. AS MODERN "PROGRESS" POPS UP IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN HISTORY, SOMETIMES SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND IS ADAPTABLE WHERE IT IS NEEDED, IT IS NOT A MERE IDEOLOGY THAT IS OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY A GROUP OF PEOPLE. CHINA AND INDIA PROVE THAT.

I AM MORE ON THE SIDE OF FITZPATRICK. BUT LET'S NOT BE TOO ESOTERIC SINCE THE OTHER READERS MIGHT FIND US A TAD PRETENTIOUS.

THE TOPIC WAS RELIGION. AND I STATED THAT IT WAS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. AND THAT IT DOES NOT FULLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF TODAY'S SCIENTIFICALLY LED WORLD. AND YES IF THAT IS MODERNITY THEN YES. MOST TECHNOLOGICAL INVENTIONS HAPPENDEN CONTRARY TO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. IN FACT RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE AS USUAL ALWAYS MORE THAN OFTEN HAMPERS INNOVATION.

THAT WAS MY ARGUMENT. SORRY IF I'M BEING A TAD ELUSIVE. IT'S A HOT "MONDAY".

GWAN · Member

I note traces of convergence in our views. I call them the 'Masters'.You call it [or them] 'hegemony'. In both scenarios there is dominance of 'idea'; in this case 'modernity'. You fanatically deny ownership by any body or any interest. Let it be.

If you 'despise' Fukuyama et al and tend to agree with Fitzpatrick et al [critiques of modernity] the more reason I said your views elsewhere are irreconcilable.

But one thing out of these exchanges: we are now talking. I was almost getting disappointed.

Continue your 'chat' about religion. But I will say this: If any body thinks religion is Fact [re-visit the thread on Truth/Fact] and not Faith, Abre I'll say to you that let them sleeping dogs lie then !

Ciao.