"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"

by boatlady Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

The above is a quote from HL Mencken, taken completely out of context purely as a starting point for this thread.

I've been watching the 'religion' themed threads for a while now, and my conclusion is that religion seems to bring out some very nasty traits in many people - the main activity on these threads has been squabbling, sniping, argument by assertion, and puerile point scoring.

This seems par for the course whenever religion is discussed, whether within small groups like this one, or on the wider world stage (I'm thinking Crusades, I'm thinking Jihad, I'm thinking abuse of women in some Muslim cultures, I'm thinking brutalisation of Muslim prisoners in Iraq and in Abu Graib)

Religion so often seems to be the excuse we use for hating, torturing and killing people who are 'different', and it seems that, even in a friendly discussion where little is at stake, religion continues its role as a fomenter of conflict.

Yet, when you look at religious texts, the rhetoric is about God's love, duties to one's neighbours, humane treatment of animals, children and all weaker individuals, sharing wealth and resources, giving to the poor and needy etc etc. I can't see anything wrong with any of that - in fact, I'm completely behind all of it.

Religion is at the core of all civilisation - it seems to have evolved within all cultures as a means of drawing the community together, collecting and preserving knowledge, teaching children, providing 'theatre' in the form of communal ritual observances, providing a sense of safety, through knowledge of the seasons, history of the community etc. In early times, heads of state would often have a priestly role, and might be sacrificed if the harvest was unsatisfactory to placate the gods.

It's clear, at least to me, that we would not be able to live within the social groups we do, and could not have made the material advances we have made, as a race, without the influence of religion in providing the ethical framework within which we can live close to each other without raw self interest undermining any attempt to create a community.
Without communities, we are only ourselves - within communities, we have access to the talents and gifts of others - the whole is definitely much greater than the sum of its parts. Mankind (and womankind) needs to live in communities - no man, as John Donne famously wrote, is an island.

So far then, religion is to be seen as a completely positive thing - religion=communities, communities=people getting access to knowledge and resources they would otherwise lack, and thereby achieving outcomes they could not even dream of alone. Looked at in this way, religion is a completely practical and very desirable thing.

Looking around the wibbly wobbly world for inspiration, I found this series of essays - i'm only posting the link to the first - you can easily find the others if you're interested.
http://theology.co.kr/whitehead/religion/1.html

This is interesting to me because it divides the concept of religion into 4 phases:
Ritual
Emotion
Belief
Rationalism
Seems to me, so far I have talked about the first two phases, and the conclusion here is that there is no problem at all with these two.
Ritual observance brings a community together, channels the emotional energy of community members, provides entertainment, access to knowledge, the foundation for a set of rules about behaviour - in short, a police presence.
I do it all the time with my dogs - 'look over here, here's a biscuit, behave in a certain way and you will have the biscuit'.
Dogs are happy, furniture remains unchewed, the household is a happy one.

When we move on to what the author of the piece would term the 'individual' aspects of religion, I think we start to get into problems, and this may be where the negative aspects of religion arise. Belief and rationalism (forming a personal code of practice based on belief, and attempting to convince others of the validity of this) are where the subjective, 'numinous' elements arise, and where the mischief can also begin.

Some religious figures have evolved what I might want to call benign beliefs - Elizabeth Fry for example, who believed that her God loved everyone, even convicted criminals, and who expressed that belief by working within the prisons of the time to provide the benefits of civilisation to those prisoners so far as she could.

Some religious figures have evolved much less benign beliefs - I might want to cite the priests of the Spanish Inqisition, whose revelation and belief was that God loved only Catholic Christians and that the use of torture and painful death would save the souls of those that fell below this high standard.(Sorry, this is VERY oversimplified, but I hope people get the gist)

In my own journey, I have found it preferable to avoid close connection to any religious movement, because I think once you get into those 'personal' aspects of religious belief and action, you do run the risk of getting involved in beliefs and attitudes that I would find morally repugnant (the belief, for example, that Baptists, Catholics, Muslims - fill in your own denomination - have the direct line to heaven the real gen, the absolute knowledge of right and wrong; and that everyone else is going straight to Hell)

I like having the concept of god - I don't care whether anyone can prove or disprove her/his/its existence. To me the truth is that we are all god's children - we all belong to the same family, we all have the right to live, to grow and to find our own truth.

Between the world's religions and belief systems, there are many more points of similarity than there are differences - we all have a moral compass, we all believe in something - what I would like to see is a proper discussion of our different beliefs, a friendly and sympathetic consideration of the points of view expressed, and a sincere attempt to reach a common understanding.
But, hey, that's just me - carry on squabbling if you like

by polyglide Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:44 am

As I said, you have never experienced it, nor sought it but dismissed it before having attempted to find it.

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:49 am

polyglide wrote:As I said, you have never experienced it, nor sought it but dismissed it before having attempted to find it.

No, I didn't say that. As a child I was taught the Bible was true. This was at a state school, which was non-denominational, by the way. My mother sent me to Sunday school too. This was basically to get me out the house and I took to not going in the end and keeping the collection money to buy the Beano and sweets but that's a different matter. As a small child, because I didn't know any better, I believed the stories about Jesus etc. and believed in God. As I got older, I formed a different set of opinions. I would say that you are correct that I haven't experienced the love of God. Do you think there's a reason why a small child who believed in God didn't experience this? I can think of a good one.

by Bellatori Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:07 am

polyglide wrote:As I said, you have never experienced it, nor sought it but dismissed it before having attempted to find it.

For the same reason I don't go looking for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Sometimes it is advisable to think about something carefully before expending a large amount of time and energy (and therefore in the end, money) on something. How do you feel about 'the philosopher's stone'? Alchemy?

by polyglide Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:18 am

Like you I was taken to church as achild, my mother was a staunch believer in the Bible, the church I attended had pasters one of whom, Pastor Hughes, used to stay at our house when going on his rounds of the churches.

I had many New Testaments and bibles for good attendance, I attended because I was frightened of going to hell and being burned alive.

Pastor Hughes and the others like him put the fear of hell into me and at times I was terrified.

When I got a little older I began to question what I had been tought.

I started to condider the Bible and it's contens myself.

I also considered the theory of evolution.

I came to the conclusion that the latter was an impossibility, taking everything into consideration.

So there must be an alternative answer to how everything was cereated.

The only logical answer I could come to was there must be a creator.

After consideration of everything and with a little praying I came to the firm conclution that God is the creator.
.

by polyglide Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:20 am

Sorry for the spelling mistakes.

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:24 am

polyglide wrote:Like you I was taken to church as achild, my mother was a staunch believer in the Bible, the church I attended had pasters one of whom, Pastor Hughes, used to stay at our house when going on his rounds of the churches.

I had many New Testaments and bibles for good attendance, I attended because I was frightened of going to hell and being burned alive.

Pastor Hughes and the others like him put the fear of hell into me and at times I was terrified.

When I got a little older I began to question what I had been tought.

I started to condider the Bible and it's contens myself.

I also considered the theory of evolution.

I came to the conclusion that the latter was an impossibility, taking everything into consideration.

So there must be an alternative answer to how everything was cereated.

The only logical answer I could come to was there must be a creator.

After consideration of everything and with a little praying I came to the firm conclution that God is the creator.
.

Why is evolution impossible?

by polyglide Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:38 am

There are too may examples in nature, the odds of which of them comming about by chance are treble the odds of that which are acceptable as impossible.

Now if you start doubting the odds then you open a very large kettle of fish regarding other matters.

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:44 am

polyglide wrote:There are too may examples in nature, the odds of which of them comming about by chance are treble the odds of that which are acceptable as impossible.

Now if you start doubting the odds then you open a very large kettle of fish regarding other matters.

How are there too many examples? That makes no sense. Surely you could just use one example to illustrate your point. Incidentally, if there was a creator, i.e. God, who designed things, what do you think he had in mind when he came up with the symbiosis between Ophiocordyceps unilateralis and Camponotus leonardi? Seems like a nasty trick if you ask me.

by Bellatori Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:57 am

polyglide wrote:There are too may examples in nature, the odds of which of them comming about by chance are treble the odds of that which are acceptable as impossible.

Now if you start doubting the odds then you open a very large kettle of fish regarding other matters.

As a statistician by trade I would beg leave to differ. What it appears to me is that you do not understand/agree with current estimates of evolution (fair enough, possibly) but have jumped from there to invoking magic as the alternative.

by Tosh Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:04 pm

I also considered the theory of evolution. I came to the conclusion that the latter was an impossibility, taking everything into consideration.

May I ask you to resume your studies of evolution, it is obvious from these two comments you do not understand it.

So there must be an alternative answer to how everything was cereated.

Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life not its origin.

There are too may examples in nature, the odds of which of them comming about by chance are treble the odds of that which are acceptable as impossible.

Natural selection has nothing to do with chance, it is a deterministic filtering process, the fittest genes survive and are passed onto the next generation, the only random aspect of evolution is genetic variation.

The evidence for evolution is available, care to explain why the fossil sequence of simplicity to complexity matches the DNA record, and care to explain why everything has a common DNA structure?

God must have made mankind from a chimp template according to your theory.

by Norm Deplume Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:14 pm

polyglide wrote:There are too may examples in nature, the odds of which of them comming about by chance are treble the odds of that which are acceptable as impossible.

Now if you start doubting the odds then you open a very large kettle of fish regarding other matters.

If you use this line of reasoning to decide that something is too complex, then a god would be more complex still and so cannot exist.

And you do not evolution if you think things come about by chance. Mutation is random but natural selection is not - it favours traits that have an advantage. If you were to drop some sand and pebbles on the floor it would be massively unlikely that the result would be sorted uniformly by size, but if you use a sieve separating the larger pieces from the smaller is trivially unremarkable.

How do you decide what odds are "acceptable"? Is it just personal preference?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:31 pm

polyglide wrote:As I said, you have never experienced it, nor sought it but dismissed it before having attempted to find it.

That's an assumption. Besides if a being that is both omniscient and omnipotent wanted something from me I'm sure it'll let me know. The idea it would expect me to seek it out is absurd.

by stuart torr Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:56 pm

Do not worry Sheldon, the current odds if someone can prove they have been to heaven and come back are 9,trillion,quadrillion,billion/1 I DO NOT THINK THE PLACE EXISTS SOMEHOW.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:59 pm

stu wrote:Do not worry Sheldon, the current odds if someone can prove they have been to heaven and come back are 9,trillion,quadrillion,billion/1 I DO NOT THINK THE PLACE EXISTS SOMEHOW.

If it turns out I've wrong, I think it's fair to say I can claim not to be culpable. I'm not the one with omniscience and omnipotence after all. Wink

by stuart torr Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:15 pm

we sound just like those two geezers orf the tele?

by Bellatori Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:45 am

stu wrote:we sound just like those two geezers orf the tele?

Statler and Waldorf?

by Dan Fante Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:49 am

Bellatori wrote:
stu wrote:we sound just like those two geezers orf the tele?
Statler and Waldorf?

by stuart torr Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:24 pm

Mornin lads had a lurvely lie in tday and missed the rain Very Happy

by polyglide Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:28 pm

Perhaps I have mislead regarding evolution.

Of course things evolve, of that there is no doubt, however, the things that evolve must have been created.

The eye to have come about by chance is beyond the odds of probability never mind possibility.

The complex nature of many animals along with the interdependancies involved throughout nature clearly indicates that intelligence is involved in creation.

I know, I know all about the theories but that is just what they are.

I could give a theory for the impossible in any event you care to mention.

by stuart torr Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:37 pm

polyglide you just do not know what the hell you are talking about , so shut up or come up with summat useful. Laughing

by Dan Fante Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:48 pm

polyglide wrote:Perhaps I have mislead regarding evolution.

Of course things evolve, of that there is no doubt, however, the things that evolve must have been created.

The eye to have come about by chance is beyond the odds of probability never mind possibility.

The complex nature of many animals along with the interdependancies involved throughout nature clearly indicates that intelligence is involved in creation.

I know, I know all about the theories but that is just what they are.

I could give a theory for the impossible in any event you care to mention.

If you could show this to actually be the case there would be a Nobel Prize in it for you.

by polyglide Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:02 pm

Then try me.

by Dan Fante Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:37 pm

polyglide wrote:Then try me.

Ok then, I'll repeat an earlier question you avoided or missed worded slightly differently: do you think God deliberately created the fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis in order to have a symbiotic relationship with ants like Camponotus leonardi. Only you did claim that "The complex nature of many animals along with the interdependancies involved throughout nature clearly indicates that intelligence is involved in creation." I wonder what sort of God would come up with something like this.

by stuart torr Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:00 pm

Nice one Dan, he is now busy checking both the books he has to come up with a decent answer. deadhorse

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:02 pm

polyglide wrote:Perhaps I have mislead regarding evolution.

Of course things evolve, of that there is no doubt, however, the things that evolve must have been created.

The eye to have come about by chance is beyond the odds of probability never mind possibility.

The complex nature of many animals along with the interdependancies involved throughout nature clearly indicates that intelligence is involved in creation.

I know, I know all about the theories but that is just what they are.

I could give a theory for the impossible in any event you care to mention.

You have got to be kidding. Every stage of the evolution of an eye is evident in living species right now, from a single light sensitive cell to the complete eye, and each stage offering a palpable advantage over the previous one. Remarks like this just show a level of ignorance that most people would keep to themselves, why comment on something you clearly haven't the first idea about, except for the creationist bullshit you've been spoon-fed?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:05 pm

polyglide wrote:Perhaps I have mislead regarding evolution.

Of course things evolve, of that there is no doubt, however, the things that evolve must have been created.

The eye to have come about by chance is beyond the odds of probability never mind possibility.

The complex nature of many animals along with the interdependancies involved throughout nature clearly indicates that intelligence is involved in creation.

I know, I know all about the theories but that is just what they are.

I could give a theory for the impossible in any event you care to mention.

Try this one, and then still claim creation and benevolence.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/parasitic-insects-and-evolution.html

by stuart torr Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:36 pm

He hasn't replied to Dan yet Sheldon c'mon, I mean give him chance to read BOTH of his books. headbang

by Tosh Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:39 pm

Creationists have given up on irreducible complexity since they got humiliated in the Dover trial, now they just say it is impossible for the eye to evolve because it is so complex,and claim it cannot be proven the eye evolved.

Basically they want to observe 2 billion years of evolution in a lab test before its true, its just non science, by their reasoning we only proved the earth was round after we landed on the moon and saw it was round.

These people are either mentally ill or charlatans, either way they are on my list.

by stuart torr Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:07 pm

THEY ARE ON QUITE A FEW PEOPLES LISTS TOSH.

by polyglide Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:46 am

Darwin is as wrong as anyone believing in evolution as the origin of life.
I cannot recall the actual place in his book but I believe it is in paragraph two, that he himself doubts his theory.

For every theory brought about by scientists there are just as many equaly qualified who dispute their theories.

A theory is just that and anyone can come up with a theory for anything.

It may not be plausible, as is evolution but nevertheless a theory just as dubious as that of evolution.

by Dan Fante Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:06 am

Your MO seems to be dodging questions and posting the same thing over and over again (worded slightly differently) whilst supplying absolutely nothing to back up what you claim, Polly. It's as transparent as it is tedious to be honest.

by polyglide Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:33 am

I say the same things over again because they are true and no one has the ability to explain how and why they are wrong other than to quote scientist opinions which are just as much disputed by other scientists.

Everything at present discussed is based on theories all of which are disputed so I base my opinions on the probability taking into account the possibility and the odds.

by Dan Fante Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:40 am

polyglide wrote:I say the same things over again because they are true and no one has the ability to explain how and why they are wrong other than to quote scientist opinions which are just as much disputed by other scientists.

Everything at present discussed is based on theories all of which are disputed so I base my opinions on the probability taking into account the possibility and the odds.

You said "try me" so I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. Why is that? Laughing

by stuart torr Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:52 am

c'mon folks place your bets, on the shoulders 1/1 even money top o the head 9/4 nine to four tips13/8 thirteen to eight.

by stuart torr Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:55 am

I asked him that DAN, Last night,didn't answer Sheldons either. only got 2 books to read aswell.

by Shirina Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:46 pm

polyglide wrote:Darwin is as wrong as anyone believing in evolution as the origin of life.

And I agree ... in fact, nearly everyone who accepts evolution would also agree. Neither Darwin nor evolution in general addresses the ORIGIN of life. It only addresses the diversity of life. And yes, we keep saying this over and over again because a) it's true and b) we hope that you'll eventually understand what evolution says before pretending to know enough about it to reject it.

polyglide wrote:I cannot recall the actual place in his book but I believe it is in paragraph two, that he himself doubts his theory.

And this proves what, exactly? That he wasn't a fanatic and was humble enough to wonder if he was right? That makes him a human being and a good scientist. It doesn't make him universally wrong. Darwin's theory wasn't perfect, but it's a far better explanation than some ridiculous myth like "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

But myths are great for the simple-minded, those who enjoy quick and easy explanations that do not require thought and knowledge to understand.

polyglide wrote:For every theory brought about by scientists there are just as many equaly qualified who dispute their theories.

Bzzzzt, wrong!

"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police" - Page 9 48520d1309559885-family-feud-blowoutcards-edition-testwater-thread-strike

"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police" - Page 9 48520d1309559885-family-feud-blowoutcards-edition-testwater-thread-strike

polyglide wrote:A theory is just that and anyone can come up with a theory for anything.

Bzzzt! Wrong again!

"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police" - Page 9 041013_FamilyFeud_JS_060_04_t_w600_h475

The correct answer you're looking for is "hypothesis" not "theory."

polyglide wrote:It may not be plausible, as is evolution but nevertheless a theory just as dubious as that of evolution.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong yet again.

"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police" - Page 9 Family_feud_three_strikes

Evolution is no longer a dubious theory as it is backed up with plenty of empirical data discovered through the scientific method. In fact, a "theory" in science is the highest attainable title for a concept.

However, that was three incorrect answers in a row, so we'll have to say goodbye. We do have some nice consolation prizes for you, such as a trip for two to the Westboro Baptist Church where you and a guest will enjoy the famous hospitality of the Westboro family. Enjoy luxurious living at their religious compound and spend your day holding hateful signs along the highway. Fine dining will not include pork and shellfish but there will be plenty of kool-aid for you to drink. This prize package is worth ... well ... nothing. But enjoy it anyway!

by Bellatori Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:35 pm

Tosh wrote:...Basically they want to observe 2 billion years of evolution in a lab test...

Actually Tosh I think it fair to say that absolutely the last thing they wish to observe is 2Bn years of evolution in a lab test Very Happy

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:49 pm

polyglide wrote:Darwin is as wrong as anyone believing in evolution as the origin of life.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Evolution makes no assertions about the origins of life.
I cannot recall the actual place in his book but I believe it is in paragraph two, that he himself doubts his theory.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Scientific scrutiny, it's greatest strength, is based on scepticism, the fact is that after 200 years of this kind of peer review all he evidence validates evolution.
For every theory brought about by scientists there are just as many equaly qualified who dispute their theories.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea what a scientific consensus is, do you?
A theory is just that and anyone can come up with a theory for anything.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:A theory is not even remotely comparable to a scientific theory, and can now be added to the growing list of scientific terms and methods you are clearly ignorant of. I'd suggest you stop reading bullshit creationist propaganda, and start with some basics about how science peer reviews a scientific theory, and what it means. You might premise a theory that a superhuman carpenter was placed in the womb of a virgin, by a god in the form of a ghost, now try getting it published in a scientific journal, let alone peer reviewed by other scientists. This is the difference between mere theory, and a scientific theory that has a massive amount of research and evidence to support it.
It may not be plausible, as is evolution but nevertheless a theory just as dubious as that of evolution.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Complete nonsense, why do you do this to yourself?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:52 pm

polyglide wrote:I say the same things over again because they are true and no one has the ability to explain how and why they are wrong other than to quote scientist opinions which are just as much disputed by other scientists.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Utterly wrong, the entire world of science is as one in it's support for the veracity of evolution.
Everything at present discussed is based on theories all of which are disputed so I base my opinions on the probability taking into account the possibility and the odds.

You presuppose the existence of god, and what's more you presuppose it's your version of your god, probability doesn't come into it, your god is no more probable based on gaps in our knowledge than Baal or Apollo.

by stuart torr Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:13 pm

BOOK review brill Sheldon,he has had a go at me all afternoon cos me and siobhans mum split up, but i've had my goes back.

by Bellatori Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:44 pm

stu wrote:BOOK review brill Sheldon,he has had a go at me all afternoon cos me and siobhans mum split up, but i've had my goes back.

He did apologise, stu. I would let it drop. I have to say I thought it pretty crass but we all drop ourselves in it sometimes. He may have been thoughtless but I don't think he was intentionally spiteful.

How is the non-smoking going?

Hope you are good...

Jo

by Sponsored content