3 ms·

Even as a Christian, I am still open to the possibility that religion may be an artificial construct. One important purpose it may serve is to motivate individu

by mizzao 10y ago

Even as a Christian, I am still open to the possibility that religion may be an artificial construct. One important purpose it may serve is to motivate individuals to advance social welfare (and be happy while doing so) when we would otherwise only have reason to be selfish. (Never mind for now that this presupposes that there is an objective "social good" that exists in the first place). However, for religion to work, we can't be aware that it is artificial -- otherwise we'd stop following it. So we do have to believe wholeheartedly, aside from occasional philosophizing of existential questions. Yet, the existence of an unmoved mover is still an alternative explanation. At this point, the line between artificial and supernatural is indeed blurred.

strgrd 10y ago
How can you believe the story and the purpose of something wholeheartedly when its premise is scientifically untrue? Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite. There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. The universe is ambivalent to the karmic relations we see from our perspective. Karma can be common sense (you do good, good will follow), but in speaking to the spirit, karma has placated humanity into believing that mother nature or god is at the controls. It is time to abandon the belief in the soul, the spirit, and eternity, and unless evidence presents itself otherwise, embrace the temporal reality before us.
- mizzao 10y ago
  I'm a scientist (coincidentally, an empirical one) but I still don't believe that all truth can be discovered scientifically -- that is, through repeatable data collection and experimentation. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God by doing experiments. Your worldview seems to be pretty close to Scientism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), which I think some would consider a religion in itself. Sure, the problem of evil is an objection to religion, but follow your premise to its logical conclusion and good/evil doesn't exist at all. There is really no reason to want the world to be a better place, preserve the planet, and so on. Is that really a world you want to live in? > Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite. Do you think so? At least in the United States, religion is generally seen as the domain of the less educated and impoverished, not the elite. Today, you and I are free to determine our own definitions of morality. > There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. Sure there is evidence. It's just historical and relational. It's not something that can be tested through the scientific method.
  - strgrd 10y ago
    > I still don't believe that all truth can be discovered scientifically -- that is, through repeatable data collection and experimentation. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God by doing experiments. You can't disprove or prove god because it is a non-falsifiable concept. There are an infinite number of things that will never be able to be proven by Science because by nature of concept, they are immune to experiment. What are we to believe of something that cannot be disproved? I think groups of people have leveraged this inability to know the truth as a cure for the universal anxiety of permanent death, and as a vector of population-scale control. When you take into account the bias humanity has over its own death, you have to scrutinize worldviews that aggrandize consciousness as a permanent, if not ethereal entity. The evidence before us shows consciousness being entirely contained in the life and death of the body. When evidence presents itself otherwise... then can we start to muse about an afterlife.

by mizzao 10y ago

strgrd 10y ago

How can you believe the story and the purpose of something wholeheartedly when its premise is scientifically untrue? Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite. There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. The universe is ambivalent to the karmic relations we see from our perspective. Karma can be common sense (you do good, good will follow), but in speaking to the spirit, karma has placated humanity into believing that mother nature or god is at the controls. It is time to abandon the belief in the soul, the spirit, and eternity, and unless evidence presents itself otherwise, embrace the temporal reality before us.

mizzao 10y ago
I'm a scientist (coincidentally, an empirical one) but I still don't believe that all truth can be discovered scientifically -- that is, through repeatable data collection and experimentation. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God by doing experiments. Your worldview seems to be pretty close to Scientism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), which I think some would consider a religion in itself. Sure, the problem of evil is an objection to religion, but follow your premise to its logical conclusion and good/evil doesn't exist at all. There is really no reason to want the world to be a better place, preserve the planet, and so on. Is that really a world you want to live in? > Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite. Do you think so? At least in the United States, religion is generally seen as the domain of the less educated and impoverished, not the elite. Today, you and I are free to determine our own definitions of morality. > There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. Sure there is evidence. It's just historical and relational. It's not something that can be tested through the scientific method.
- strgrd 10y ago
  > I still don't believe that all truth can be discovered scientifically -- that is, through repeatable data collection and experimentation. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God by doing experiments. You can't disprove or prove god because it is a non-falsifiable concept. There are an infinite number of things that will never be able to be proven by Science because by nature of concept, they are immune to experiment. What are we to believe of something that cannot be disproved? I think groups of people have leveraged this inability to know the truth as a cure for the universal anxiety of permanent death, and as a vector of population-scale control. When you take into account the bias humanity has over its own death, you have to scrutinize worldviews that aggrandize consciousness as a permanent, if not ethereal entity. The evidence before us shows consciousness being entirely contained in the life and death of the body. When evidence presents itself otherwise... then can we start to muse about an afterlife.