God's law or private law?

[The Grand Nudger]

1) I think I know what you mean. But we are not robots right? I think there is a great amount of irrationality in the human being itself. I personally see reason or “The mind” as a tool rather than a goal in itself. And that’s my objection to the positivist approach. The mind solves one solution and create 2000 other problems with this one solution. SO maybe there is something that is even greater than the mind.

  But still. The general rule is to question your own beliefs if you see a contradiction with science or with reason in general. That’s why I see creationism a pure madness. In fact, many mystics will tell you that evolution itself is a wake-up sign to the intelligence that created the universe in the first place. Yet these are all debatable issues.

There's a great amount of irrationality in the comments that followed your noting as much, so...a wonderful demonstration of the claim.  That a thing solving one problem creates others does not suggest, imply, or prove that there's anything greater, and if creationism is lunacy then intelligent design....which is a form of creationism.... is lunacy.  Neither of these two things is debatable.  One is a description of a non sequitur, and the other is an immediate self-contradiction.

2) I use religion in its original sense. That means “reestablishing a connection with the supreme being”. So when I see this kind of nonsense, I ask the same question that Renée Descartes has asked: “If reason in inherent to all of us, Would God (Descartes’s God is Reason itself) want us to be irrational”. So no. This is the kind of stuff that goes to trash in the very instant. It’s the same as believing the earth is 5600 years old while evidence says the age of the planet is 4,5 Billion year. This is the opposite of reason. So if Reason is inherent to us, we are supposed to use this reason. (The Quran says “don’t become a flock of animals” + it reminds us in many places by saying “Don’t you ever use your reason/intellect?”)

That sounds more like a thematic interpretation meant to suite your personal beliefs than any original sense of religion.  Meanwhile, one wonders why we would assume reason wanted anything.  Magic books, for their part, do have a tendency to invoke something like reason while saying unreasonable things.  Old magic book, for example, in seeking to describe it's god as an obvious conclusion, asks "who but god could make a dragon?".

3) There are religious sects who combine a cocktail of religious beliefs with some scientific facts to create UFO cults or use mass hypnosis to make all their followers commit suicide at one point. Religious sects like Scientology are said to be exploiting people’s money and energy + the bodies of young female devotees for the personal good of the ruler of these sects. (And the Quran is against religious sects / I think religious sects should be completely banned). So the holder of any faith should always ask questions. I am thinking of the rising Hindu nationalism in India for instance. The Hindus I met were the most tolerant people of the world. So it is their duty to ask: - “Yes but, my religion is a religion of tolerance. India is the state of Ghandi. Why is this jerk telling me to hate Muslims (Who live in India since perhaps 1000 years. There is Christianity in India since more or less the time of Jesus). So I always say: Think, think and think

I think that the abrahamic faiths are another good example of the set that you're asking us to consider.  I wonder why people who can so easily see this dynamic in other faiths completely fail to see it in their own?    

4) a) That’s the biggest problem of all believers. We are basically “trying” to make things happen within ourselves. I am a modern believer right? In my first day in this forum I met a more traditional believer (who believed in the Hijab etc.). The thing is: There is nothing I can say to him because it may turn out that in his life he is much more spiritual than I am with far more spiritual knowledge that I have. So we don’t really mess with these things

There's plenty you could say to any given nut, though much of it would likely implicate your own beliefs- as we've seen.  What does that mean?  Think, think, think.

b) That’s a huge debate also. I’ve had my time of atheism also. And the reason was exactly what you said. I opened a translation of the Quran, Decided it was all nonsense and put it back in the bookshelf. Than decades passed, I became more spiritual and I began to seen some “stuff” not only in the Quran but in other books as well (including Greek mythology for instance, or in the Baghavad Gita as another example). So I decided to give it a chance. But the answer to your question is “Absolutely not.” I think if that happened. It would be just another mythology for me. But knowing that similar wisdom is present in the old and New Testament also I sort of decided to look at these teachings from a different angle.

Why, why would seeing magic books which say many silly things say another silly thing then turn those magic books into a mythology for you..and if so..why hasn't that already happened with your favorite magic book?  

And The Quran is telling us to have a sense of respect toward people who have great scientific and philosophical knowledge. If there is a part of “true religion” that can be irrational, well these are the mystics. And I am not there yet. But, (If I understanding correctly) mystics believe in a divine intelligence that is even greater than reason itself (or something like that) So reason is obsolete for them. And they would probably laugh at everything I am writing here. But that’s the world of Lao-Tse, Rumi, or St-Francis etc. You and me, we are not there yet

I like that I can always find at least one thing in your posts where you seem to have it exactly right. If true religion is irrational, then reason isn't applicable to religious ideations. We could still study it rationally, we could still study people who hold them rationally, but there would be nothing rational about the religions themselves or the reasons for peoples beliefs in them. A revealed faith tries to fit that that bill.

What would that make religions that are rational, though? Or a rational religion made entirely of true statements? False religion? What do you think of your own, does it fall in the true religion or false religion category? Takes us right back to the opq, doesn't it?

[Leonardo17]

There's a great amount of irrationality in the comments that followed your noting as much, so...a wonderful demonstration of the claim.  That a thing solving one problem creates others does not suggest, imply, or prove that there's anything greater, and if creationism is lunacy then intelligent design....which is a form of creationism.... is lunacy.  Neither of these two things is debatable.  One is a description of a non sequitur, and the other is an immediate self-contradiction.

   I am not a believer in intelligent design either. Carl Sagan says that whatever force created the universe it left the universe alone after the Big Bang. So I will stick with him on this one.


   What I am talking about is more like poetry. When I look at the entire process of evolution or of the creation of stars, galaxies etc. For instance, the formation of the earth: there was a mars sized planet that hit our planet some 5 billion years ago. Thank to this we have a moon, and the polarity of the world is oscillating and that’s why we have seasons.
   Or take the place you live for instance. If everyone just left today, animals will be reclaiming the place in a matter of days. Vegetation in a matter of months. After a few decades no one will even know the place was once inhabited. And no one needs to organize any of this. That’s the intelligence of nature. Nature is intelligent.

   So those bigots talking about creationism don’t know anything. All you have to do is stop talking and look. So that’s what I am talking about.

   Near-Eastern cultures value gardens a lot. Or think of Andre Le Notre who created the gardens of Versailles for instance. Think of all the effort it took to build it and all the effort that is being done to maintain these gardens in good shape. Now think of the woods you are hiking in. No gardener, no maintenance in a million year and how wonderful and well-ordered everything is!

   So that’s the way we like to see it. The Indian Guru Jadadish Vasudev is also a great admirer of your Native American societies. He describes them as a society that somehow managed to maintain its links with nature and its connection with the intelligence of the world itself.

   So that’s my answer to those zealous I.cils: Just look at the process evolution itself. I think this (as an observable fact) is pointing to the intelligence of the process itself. At least that’s how I see it.

That sounds more like a thematic interpretation meant to suite your personal beliefs than any original sense of religion.  Meanwhile, one wonders why we would assume reason wanted anything.  Magic books, for their part, do have a tendency to invoke something like reason while saying unreasonable things.  Old magic book, for example, in seeking to describe it's god as an obvious conclusion, asks "who but god could make a dragon?".

I’m talking about “A discourse on the Method” by René Descartes. He is the one who says that “reason is the signature of God (which is also reason according to him)” and that reason is inherent to all of us. My philosophy teacher once asked us: “Could you imagine alien species in the universe that thinks, but that doesn’t think by reason?” or could it be that there people in alpha-centauri who do not accepts the rules of Pythagoras or Thales?

 
- No. The rules of reason are universal. So if Archangel Gabriel came to me and said something that goes against reason itself… The next thing I would do would be to make an appointment with my psychiatrist. That would be how I would see it

I think that the abrahamic faiths are another good example of the set that you're asking us to consider.  I wonder why people who can so easily see this dynamic in other faiths completely fail to see it in their own?    

You’re still seeing faith a set of rules and dogmas that everyone has to follow no matter what. That’s not how I see it. As I told you, I see it as a dynamic process of personal growth and evolution.

There's plenty you could say to any given nut, though much of it would likely implicate your own beliefs- as we've seen.  What does that mean?  Think, think, think.

It means that the process is individual and that the road can be bumpy at some places. So when I do my research in those areas I will work on different ideas, see which ones are suitable for me, see if there are ideas that are too hard for me to understand. And I always ask myself “is that really true?” / “maybe this guy is just a nut or I am not really getting what he means by that” etc. etc.

 
In science you have a clear methodology and you have the ability to work in teams. In spirituality there is no clear cut method and you have to go on your own. So it’s your duty to find the illogical if you have decided to walk on this path. But do you really need to know these things?

Why, why would seeing magic books which say many silly things say another silly thing then turn those magic books into a mythology for you..and if so..why hasn't that already happened with your favorite magic book? 

 
I don’t believe in mythologies. I seek some deeper meaning in these stories.

I like that I can always find at least one thing in your posts where you seem to have it exactly right. If true religion is irrational, then reason isn't applicable to religious ideations. We could still study it rationally, we could still study people who hold them rationally, but there would be nothing rational about the religions themselves or the reasons for peoples beliefs in them. A revealed faith tries to fit that that bill.

What would that make religions that are rational, though? Or a rational religion made entirely of true statements? False religion? What do you think of your own, does it fall in the true religion or false religion category? Takes us right back to the opq, doesn't it?

I am not saying that religion is a science. It is not. And being some sort of scientist myself I hate the idea of mixing these two things. There is this guy called Erich von Daniken who claim that ancient pyramids were built by aliens etc. and he claims to have scientific evidence to prove it. There is also this Joseph Selbie who has much more logical archaeological theories and some Quatum physics theories that are much more acceptable in nature but I don’t like that either. You must have heard of Deephak Chopra. He is a MD. Who likes to mix his Hindu Beliefs with modern medical theories. Although some of these guys may be right at some places, I don’t like the idea as a whole. I think science should be left to scientists and mysticism should be left to the mystics. Personally I see no coming together of these two approaches to life in the foreseeable future.

 

My idea of being reasonable while believing is about keeping your eyes open when you believe. Believing means thinking that something that is not proven can still be true. It doesn’t mean unconditionally following whoever it is that told you whatever nonsense about God and Religion as a whole. You have to be careful and you have to invest some energy in to it if you want visible results (like an increase in spiritual understanding for instance).

 

An I will repeat myself on this one: Being an atheist is the best way if you want to keep it simple.

 
Because just look at world: I don’t want anyone to join the “pro-life” movement because of anything I said either. You must have understood by now that my vision is deeper than some superficial dogmas that people are still referring to as “religion”.   

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think it is, though I'm sure you've convinced yourself as much. Case in point, if you believe that being an atheist is the best way to do things, to keep them simple..as an abrahamist, you've misunderstood one or both of those things in their entirety.

[HappySkeptic]

I don’t believe in mythologies. I seek some deeper meaning in these stories.

I like that I can always find at least one thing in your posts where you seem to have it exactly right. If true religion is irrational, then reason isn't applicable to religious ideations. We could still study it rationally, we could still study people who hold them rationally, but there would be nothing rational about the religions themselves or the reasons for peoples beliefs in them. A revealed faith tries to fit that that bill.

What would that make religions that are rational, though? Or a rational religion made entirely of true statements? False religion? What do you think of your own, does it fall in the true religion or false religion category? Takes us right back to the opq, doesn't it?

I am not saying that religion is a science. It is not. And being some sort of scientist myself I hate the idea of mixing these two things. There is this guy called Erich von Daniken who claim that ancient pyramids were built by aliens etc. and he claims to have scientific evidence to prove it. There is also this Joseph Selbie who has much more logical archaeological theories and some Quatum physics theories that are much more acceptable in nature but I don’t like that either. You must have heard of Deephak Chopra. He is a MD. Who likes to mix his Hindu Beliefs with modern medical theories. Although some of these guys may be right at some places, I don’t like the idea as a whole. I think science should be left to scientists and mysticism should be left to the mystics. Personally I see no coming together of these two approaches to life in the foreseeable future.

 

My idea of being reasonable while believing is about keeping your eyes open when you believe. Believing means thinking that something that is not proven can still be true. It doesn’t mean unconditionally following whoever it is that told you whatever nonsense about God and Religion as a whole. You have to be careful and you have to invest some energy in to it if you want visible results (like an increase in spiritual understanding for instance).

 

An I will repeat myself on this one: Being an atheist is the best way if you want to keep it simple.

 
Because just look at world: I don’t want anyone to join the “pro-life” movement because of anything I said either. You must have understood by now that my vision is deeper than some superficial dogmas that people are still referring to as “religion”.   

(quote reduced for size)

It seems you believe in a poetic mysticism.  You don't care whether your beliefs are true - just that they "may" be true, and they add some sort of beauty or positive feeling to your life.

Is this a fair summary?

I also find poetry, meaning and beauty in the patterns and complexity of nature and the universe.  The problem with religion is that the poetry is lost amidst false dogma, political and cultural coercion, harmful ideas, and admonitions to place faith over reason.

I am starting to write down the bits of poetry I see in nature - what inspires me, and what "value" I see in life, each individual and each moment.  Eventually, I'll have some sort of writing that will show my family what I believe.

I just can't find any of that in any Abrahamic religion (and I'm done with "trying" to believe what reason tells me isn't true). I would be interested in knowing how you can.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seeing beauty in life, true beauty or false beauty...if the categorization even makes sense, is not a religion. It's a belief, but not all beliefs are religious. Religious beliefs are, by definition, normative and (at least perceptually) authoritative. I believe that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream. I truly believe this. If I insisted that because this was true, there are no gods, a believer might notice that I've engaged in a particularly silly type of non sequitur. As it wouldn't matter whether I believed it, or it was truly true™..that vanilla is better than chocolate, with respect to the alleged outcome of my "logical" thoughts.

Similarly, a person could see beauty in abrahamism that you or I or the housecat do not, and it could even be there..truly...and it would matter precisely as much to the underlying claim of any god existing, for it to have laws in contrast to mans laws. Which is to say not at all. To be blunt, truth is as irrelevant as perceived beauty to the question of whether or not there is such a thing as a gods law. A gods law, assuming both existed, could be utterly and exclusively filled with bold faced lies - and it would still be a gods law.

This was the matter I'd hoped our friend would consider, but true to type, when confronted with the notion of a god saying false and/or fucked up shit, he immediately came to the conclusion that something must be wrong with him..rather than the issuer of such decrees. It's a massive dogmatic blindspot that touches every corner of the afflicted's god beliefs, and effects the lives of other people. Gods...apparently... can't be wrong, and so, no matter how horrible an idea may be a person deep into a gods asshole has to decide that they are sick, or the sick god is right. Which is exactly how these people our friend rejects genuinely..and truly come to their notions. The type of thing required to make a good man do evil. That's the consequence of submission to these gods wills.

The problem, here, is not that one set is from men and the other from gods - frankly, all the sets are from men...the problem is that there's no fundamental difference between following one set or the other. They're both an abrogation, both are derived from the same place, and the argument between them is itself a main driver of the problems it creates. From an outsiders pov, the whole thing is ridiculous..and it would be purely hilarious if it weren't for the tendency of the faithful to kill their co-conspirators for a psuedo-disagreement about what they're both doing together and in equal measure....a pursuit that only stops when they decide to turn their knives outward long enough to beat down some other guy..before inevitably returning to their ceaseless internecine madness.

[Leonardo17]

I am sort of reclaiming the areas that were left to some outdated belief systems. The reason why I don’t debate such issues with deists and atheists is that “religion” seems to have done and seems to be doing everything it could to make every reasonable person take his/her distance from religion. And this works for non-Abrahamic religion too.

The problem is that, in the coming years dogmatic people may even get more frustrated and even more fanatical as a response to a more enlightened and more reasonable world. So we can’t really let them do whatever they want in this seemingly untouchable world of “religious freedom”. I say that there must be people (like me) to challenge them whenever they speak nonsense. And Atheists should be doing that too. I am not talking of attacking them. This will not be productive. But whenever you see someone doing something “In the name of God?” you can also challenge them by asking “When or where did God say that?” or “İs this what God said or is this what you said?”

I am not trying to get into a theological debate trying to prove the existence of God. There is no tangible evidence about the existence of God. In fact the very definition of “God” is something that I have witnessed to changing and evolving as started to progress on my spiritual path. All I can say on that is that mind based won’t lead us anywhere. There are theologians who can do that much better than me.

All I want to say is that I don’t like this no man’s land that some religions of the world (in fact most of them) seem to have turned into. It seems to me that when you call it “religion” this becomes some area of pure ignorance and dogmatism in which people are simply allowed to do whatever nonsense it is they are willing to do because this is “God’s Law”. So I think we have to be their destroyer and start calling what is pure stupidity as pure stupidity.

But you guys seem to be very convinced that faith or belief cannot be anything but pure stupidity. Really? I mean didn’t you ever meet people who believe in God and still managed to be completely rational, tolerant and loving persons who respect science and respect all of our established institutions? I think maybe you are being a little fanatical on that. Yes that are religious people who are complete M.s (from every religion). And I think it is time for us to kick them out of the house if you know what I mean. That’s all I am saying

[The Grand Nudger]

Reclaiming them how? What challenge do you even imagine yourself to be offering? No debate about gods needs be had or would matter. Whether or not a god or a magic book says something is itself irrelevant, as it's no reason whatsoever to do or not do that thing. Have I ever met a completely rational theist? No. Then again, I've never met a completely rational person of any kind, and a person doesn't have to be a theist, or engage in any of the silly shit that theists do..opq included....in order to be religious.

[Leonardo17]

Still, I believe that religion has never been as irrational as it has become in our days. I was just watching a documentary on Afghan girls fleeing their own country in order to be able to play soccer in the U.K. Whether you are religious or not, don’t you think there is something wrong with the fact that medieval Afghan women had more rights than Afghan women today? Or that India which has always been a culture in which many, many different faiths have always coexisted together (with each village having its own deity for instance) has become a land of confrontation between Hinduism and other faiths? There are many examples.

What I am trying to do is to direct your attention to the other aspects of spirituality which is, for most of us, much above these superficial subjects. I say that it doesn’t matter what you wear as long you are well established in your own way of believing or not believing. They say that it’s ok to rape and murder, as long as your headscarf is on. So these are two opposite views. And all intelligent scholars say that I am right and they are wrong. So I say it’s time to kick them out. Because the more you let them do whatever they want, the more they will keep using this label called “religion” or “freedom of choice” to serve their own Ego and mind based ways of doing things.

So if people don’t like the idea of faith, that’s fine with me. What I am saying that it is mostly common sense to keep asking question when the guy says “God says no”, I mean how does he know that? If he is speaking the truth, he has to provide evidence. I have come to see that most things that are repulsive and ugly in the realm of spirituality are misinterpretations, lies, distortions, manipulations and / or misunderstandings.

Whether you agree or not to the final result is another issue. But if you are someone who likes these issues I think you should look deeper into religion itself. Usually the meanings are highly spiritual and philosophical. Not superficial and material. One example is that it really doesn’t matter what a man or woman wears in his/her daily life at all. True spirituality focuses on inner work with an emphasis on your understanding of what is spiritual. And people have to know that.

Again, the French saying goes “L’habit ne fait pas le Moine” (Looking like a monk will not make you a monk”. So you have the right to be critical about everything that is superficial and mindless repetition of some outdated rituals and religious practice. As I said, Ottoman women had more rights than Iranian women today. Even medieval societies were not as repressive as today’s religious authoritarianism. SO I adopted the method of being critical. – Did God say that? Good. Show me where. Then I will check it, re-check it, compare it with other sources. One think I can tell you: If it’s ugly, it is man-made. You can even go Freudian on it and decipher the type or brain that first created this nonsense.

Whiter you like this “new approach” is a totally different issue. Some people are pure classical Newtonian physics style materialists. And that’s a matter of choice. I am talking about the irrational type of dogmatism. One of their distinguishing characteristics is that older and truly religious generations hate them. In fact, the more old-school religious a person is, the more he/she is opposed to these seemingly “religious” interpretations. These are clear distortions of the original message. So we have to challenge them. In most cases they will have no answer at all or they will come with an answer that works only on people who have no idea at all on the subject. I think they should not be allowed to dwell so easily in these areas

[HappySkeptic]

...
Whether you agree or not to the final result is another issue. But if you are someone who likes these issues I think you should look deeper into religion itself. Usually the meanings are highly spiritual and philosophical. Not superficial and material. One example is that it really doesn’t matter what a man or woman wears in his/her daily life at all. True spirituality focuses on inner work with an emphasis on your understanding of what is spiritual. And people have to know that.
...

Taking a religious writing out of context (or even in-context) to justify doing bad things is a problem.

What you haven't addressed is the alleged deeper, highly spiritual and philosophical meanings.  Please share some with us, so that our minds can be purified, expanded and enlightened.

Poetic meaning can be found in any place.  Ancient religions is one of the worst places, though I don't mind the Tao Te Ching.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I were religious, I might very well think that afghan girls playing soccer was deeply wrong…..as some religious people do. I might think that afghan girls having fewer, rather than more rights was an improvement….as some religious people do. I might think that the eradication of any other religion was a good thing, as some religious people do.

All intelligent scholars is just another excuse and admission rolled into one….and another irrelevant one, at that. You ask us how someone knows god said something without an ounce of self awareness, it seems. You’re -all- doing the same thing with your competing claims as to what god has or hasn’t said. You think theirs are ugly, but so what, maybe gods are ugly? Maybe gods are ugly because ugly people made them? As you say….there are many examples.

-but no, you prefer to imagine some distortion of a wholly unevidenced “original message”. I don’t think that -any- of you have any business in any of these subjects. As I already mentioned, what a god does or doesn’t say is completely irrelevant to any of it, and all of these attempts to rehabilitate your shitty gods reputation are transparently irrational, and pointless.