What's the point of organised religion?

[eriador]

I was defusing a potentially dangerous situation with cute puppies, even though it did kinda backfire on me.

AB, I concur with your views on tolerance.

[jotabe]

So A_B, if you remember Leto, would you grace us by telling us what was your nick in the previous versions of pweb?

[AnthonyByakko]

Satyagraha
Volpex
Gohan
Guest (though only at olde Pweb - more than one person uses Guest at the current time)
Un Fantasma
Technocore (for a short time)
Phantasmagoria
annihilate
The Silencer
RahIl 22
Leto 11
" "

And probably one or two that I've forgotten.

[jotabe]

oh volpex... and yes i remember saty... the one with Sanzo avatar

[lovesonia]

I realize this is a touchy subject but I'd really like to see it have a second chance, with everyone knowing where everyone else stands in regard to respect, etc. So, I'm going to start with my beliefs and an, unfortunately, rather complicated and verbose history. (What can I say, talking is one of the things I don't have a problem with, except in regards to execution, I suppose.)

I am currently bordering between: belief and desire to re-enter the Catholic church vs. Naturalism . I grew up Catholic, from about the age of 5 to about 13.

I stopped attending mass when I was 13 & because it was too much of a hassle to find a way there & back, being that my mom worked a 9-5 6 days a week, about 20 minutes away. As well as having to make sure to go at the right times for the English version (I know *some* Spanish, but not enough to follow mass) and fitting it into my schedule, I was having to go on my own, since my brother has pretty much always been uninterested in religion. I had soccer three times a week and every night I had a good half hour to forty five minutes of homework for each 6 of my 7 classes.

I casually studied the bible. I went to a Lutheran church with friends from school, had a good time and learned things about the bible that I hadn't known before. Soon after, we moved and reading the bible stopped because of an increase in homework.

By the time I was 14, I was pretty unstable and I wanted to put in the least effort but have the most inner peace. I invested myself in Naturalism. It was so much easier to believe in what I could see. To not have to think about God and what He might think of me. What was left was to do what I knew to be right for me, to treat others as I'd want to be treated, to get out and live life, seeing and learning all that I could. Life was simple. I saw beauty in places and in things that I'd never thought it could exist. I had moments of clarity where I thought I'd had it all figured out. We moved again.

15, I was interested in Paganism with a focus, again, on nature. I thought that maybe if I prayed to the gods and goddesses for guidance that I would figure out what it was I needed but didn't have. Things went a bit out of control and I quit thinking about what, if any, Higher Powers I believed in. We moved again.

16 was a particularly rough year and my religion consisted of books and coffee or sitting in a movie theatre watching old movies. After the move, I took steps to address my issues in hopes that I could feel like I had something to look forward to other than being constantly uprooted and forced to be an entirely different person.

17, things were settling down and I started thinking about religion and what I thought about it again. Paganism, nature, magick, finding inner peace and stability... We moved again.

18 to a few months ago... I constantly passed the Catholic church in travels around town and one day decided to venture into the church simply to prove to myself that I could do it without dying on the spot. I lit a candle, said a prayer and reflected on why I was having difficulties with believing. I didn't end up with an answer, only resolved to worry less and do what came naturally. Whether that was pray to God once a month or every day for a week; whether it was to pray to Mother Nature for weather that wasn't so harsh or simply worship the beach by embracing the inner peace it creates for me and being carefree.

There have been times where there were so many bad things happening all around me that I couldn't accept that the God I was willing to believe in would do such things, or allow such things to happen.

End of Sept. to end of Oct. and beginning of December to the present... I drive by a Lutheran church going to or leaving my house. The Catholic church is a couple miles away, on one of the highways. Considering I haven't attended a church gathering of any sort in 7 years and a Catholic mass in nearly 9, I'm interested at how I would receive and react to going at this point. I haven't seriously attempted to get myself up and to mass yet, though I'm working on it. I pick up and read a bit of the bible once or twice of every couple weeks, trying to get a better grasp on the memories I have in regard to the teachings. Why I felt a strong connection to the Church a couple years ago and don't now is beyond me. The teachings haven't changed. I just realized I don't have a lot of beliefs that the Church does. Fundamental beliefs, that are always going to be part of it.

I'm a person that, generally, thinks "live and let live" is an appropriate mentality. I still hold some of the Wiccan beliefs such as "And ye harm none, do as ye will." and "What ye send out, comes back to thee." I find the beach just as tranquil as ever, and gardening, instead of movies in movie theatres, is part of my religion. As far as God... the jury is definitely out. There's the desire, because it's what I grew up with, and believed in for so many years... but the conviction isn't there right now. It will probably change many more times before I come to an actual conclusion, but I think I'm okay with that.

Apologies for the long rant. Hopefully, even if my post is disregarded for the most part, this thread will come back to life.

[eriador]

Wow. That was a good read. So can I ask a question?

Are you saying that you believe in the church more as a social thing than as a spiritual one? You clearly don't subscribe to a wholesale philosophy, yet you have a definite attachment to the church.

Your story seems to suggest that the church is more of an emotional thing to you than a spiritual one.

I think that that is what most people's attraction to the church comes from. The religious rhetoric aside, the church is a powerful social force, which attracts many people to it.

[Eaquae Legit]

But you still can't explain adult converts with that. Or people who hate the community but go anyway.

Why do the clear, rational explanations for personal belief get dismissed so casually? Are you really that clairvoyant that you know exactly the motivations for every religious person who's ever lived?

[lovesonia]

Are you saying that you believe in the church more as a social thing than as a spiritual one? You clearly don't subscribe to a wholesale philosophy, yet you have a definite attachment to the church.

Your story seems to suggest that the church is more of an emotional thing to you than a spiritual one.

I think that that is what most people's attraction to the church comes from. The religious rhetoric aside, the church is a powerful social force, which attracts many people to it.

For me, yeah, it's more of a social thing, for sure.

I adored it as a kid, both because of the large support system/family unit that existed and the Sunday festivities - Sunday school for the youngest ones, mass for the rest and potluck dinners in the hall where everyone got together for an evening of socializing and games. The adults usually talked, catching up on all the latest goings-on, swapping stories, etc. The kids played on the playground out back, in the back classroom playing games, or visiting Lucy & Lucy 2-11, Father Charles' boas.

These days, not only are Father Charles and most of the old friends long gone, even if they were still at my church, that's 2,000 miles away. My current attachment is (other than the fond memories; heirloom crosses, rosaries and bibles) mostly to the peace and quiet that seems to exist there and in very few other places.

I think the social connections brought about in the church setting made up the majority of my friends when I was young. My youngest brother, in Arkansas with my Dad, is known to attend church mostly in order to see friends that he otherwise wouldn't get to see. Granted, the majority goes because they honestly believe/want to, not for social reasons. There's no doubt, though, that social connections are going to be a driving force for some.

[eriador]

that is what most people's attraction to the church comes from

My emphasis.

I think that, at least initially, many people are drawn to the church for social reasons. That could include children brought into the church by their parents, or any other social force that does a similar things. Of course there are exceptions, but I allowed for that, so please don't go screaming about how I know exactly how every religious person in history thought.

Besides, this thread is about organized religion specifically, which is an extremely social undertaking, as opposed to people's internal spirituality.

[Guest]

I was under the impression that "And ye harm none, do what thou will" was a Satanist rather than a Wiccan tenet - not that I have a problem with it, as LeVey was paraphrasing that precept from one of my personal heroes, Ayn Rand; but I was pretty sure that in a religious sense, that concept belonged to the Satanist church and in the Satanist bible. Perhaps it has been adopted more widely by the pagan community-at-large, but I was not aware of it. Incidentally, quite a bit of LeVay's idealogy can be traced back to paraphrases from Rand's novels and essays, particularly her works regarding Faith & Force.

[Rei]

I've heard it associated with the Wiccans before. I don't recall hearing a Satanist using that one.

[Guest]

I was mistaken. The statement in question first appears in any format as a phrase, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, and it appears in ritual magician Aleister Crowley's work in 1904, in "The Book of the Law".

The combination of Wicca with "no harm to others" and "do what thou wilt" made its first known appearance in "The Old Laws" by Gerald Gardner in 1953. However, the tenet is also associated with Satanism and with LeVay, who took inspiration and ideals from Rand as well as Crowley, the originator of the phrase.

[London]

The point of organised religion is so several people of similar faith and belief can together grow stronger in faith and acheive ends more easily and effeectively.

What is stronger? Community or individual?

[Analytic Mind]

Religion to me is a way for us to find some sort of deep meaning for our lives, and help us be able to sleep well at night. If everyone knew/believed that there was nothing after life, then who truthfully would be "moral". Following such a catastrophic event would be chaos, and no amount of talking would be able to solve it. As humans we are naturally no different then animals fighting for food, but through society we are made into a (mostly) coherent species (think of preschoolers being taught to share and be nice).

I'm not saying there is some kind of conspiracy or plan set up by governments or anyone else, but don't you find it weird that most religions believe that there is only an afterlife/start over for humans, but for no other life-form? No other thing on the earth needs religion or morals, because no other species is as good at spontaneously self-destructing as we are.

[starfox]

If everyone knew/believed that there was nothing after life, then who truthfully would be "moral"...

What does it say about your "morals" if the only thing making you follow them is the threat of eternal punishment? There are plenty of people who do good solely because of their ethical code and not because of the promise of reward or threat of punishment.

No other thing on the earth needs religion or morals, because no other species is as good at spontaneously self-destructing as we are.

What do you mean by "needs religion?" How do you know dogs don't have doggy religion? Alternatively, one could argue humans are the only animals with sufficiently sophisticated brains to come up with the tools to invent religion.

[zeroguy]

but don't you find it weird that most religions believe that there is only an afterlife/start over for humans, but for no other life-form?

This is the first I've heard of this. I assume this is true of most/all Abrahamic religions, but as far as I know this is not true of Indian and East Asian religions in general (certainly not Hinduism or Buddhism at least; and those are pretty big religious areas themselves).

[UnnDunn]

Religion to me is a way for us to find some sort of deep meaning for our lives, and help us be able to sleep well at night. If everyone knew/believed that there was nothing after life, then who truthfully would be "moral". Following such a catastrophic event would be chaos, and no amount of talking would be able to solve it. As humans we are naturally no different then animals fighting for food, but through society we are made into a (mostly) coherent species (think of preschoolers being taught to share and be nice).

There is one key difference between humans and "lesser" animals, IMHO: Human Empathy, the ability for us to imagine how our actions will affect other humans on an emotional level by examining how those actions would affect our own emotions were they directed at us.

I think that is the root of all so-called "morality", not religion and its threat of afterlife judgment and eternal penance.

[Analytic Mind]

Starfox: Where did those people get their moral code from? Was that somehow part of them when they were born? If that is what you are saying think of feral children, they are conditioned to act in a certain way.

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/nature.php
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/moviesfc.html

I don't have any more time so i will respond to the other two people later.

[starfox]

Starfox: Where did those people get their moral code from? Was that somehow part of them when they were born?

I never said this. Maybe they ask themselves what they think is truly right, instead of blindly following what the church tells them?

[Jebus]

Monkeys Feel Empathy

And somehow they do it without religion!

[Analytic Mind]

There are plenty of people who do good solely because of their ethical code and not because of the promise of reward or threat of punishment.

Analytic Mind wrote:
Starfox: Where did those people get their moral code from? Was that somehow part of them when they were born?

I never said this. Maybe they ask themselves what they think is truly right, instead of blindly following what the church tells them?

Could you please explain to me where exactly you seem to think everyone's ethical code (which they consult to make a decision) came from? Once again, people aren't just born knowing sharing with others and being friendly is good, those are learned traits. Think of a toddler who learns that if he is friendly to his mother he can obtain one of his wants, such as a candy or toy. Also think of a child living in a poor area. He is brought up with hardly any food and needs to steal to get food. Wasn't his moral upbringing slightly different from the child who knows being good will get him what he wants? There is nothing morally wrong about what the second child does according to him, as he has different morals.

[starfox]

Could you please explain to me where exactly you seem to think everyone's ethical code (which they consult to make a decision) came from? Once again, people aren't just born knowing sharing with others and being friendly is good, those are learned traits.

You're missing the point here. I don't think everyone's moral code comes from the same place. Some people get their code of ethics from religion. Maybe they pick some things they like out of the bible and toss out the rest (though that's not really getting it from religion, is it?). Maybe they're a philosopher. Maybe they flip a coin. IT DOESN'T MATTER. You said "who would truthfully be 'moral'..." I argued there are some people who believe there is nothing after life, and they ARE moral.

I don't think it speaks very highly of you or your ethics if the only reason you adhere to them is to avoid punishment, and not because it's the right thing to do.

[wigginboy]

Alternatively, one could argue humans are the only animals with sufficiently sophisticated brains to come up with the tools to invent religion.

Humans only came up with religious theories to explain our existence. We cannot know how or why this world was created so we came up with a system of beliefs and a set doctrine indicating how the adherents should believe. This is the core of a religion, a set structure of beliefs and traditions. The only reason we have them is because no one can explain how life came to be here and who or what put us here is a concrete and logical manner. We have invented god figures throughout history whose purpose is to be a sort of scapegoat, on whom we place all our burdens and blessings and have for millennia. Of course we are the only beings with enough depth of thought to be able to come up with religion. Dogs can not have religion because their thought process does not allow for categorization of thoughts and memories. There are limits to how much one can teach a dog, just as there are limits to how much one can teach a human. Dogs' limits govern out at less than our because they do not have the capacity for complex tasks.

Sorry to derail this, I just had to clarify that religion is entirely man made and it came about as a way to explain our existence. That and dogs don't go to church.

[Jebus]

There are plenty of people who do good solely because of their ethical code and not because of the promise of reward or threat of punishment.

Analytic Mind wrote:
Starfox: Where did those people get their moral code from? Was that somehow part of them when they were born?

I never said this. Maybe they ask themselves what they think is truly right, instead of blindly following what the church tells them?

Could you please explain to me where exactly you seem to think everyone's ethical code (which they consult to make a decision) came from? Once again, people aren't just born knowing sharing with others and being friendly is good, those are learned traits. Think of a toddler who learns that if he is friendly to his mother he can obtain one of his wants, such as a candy or toy. Also think of a child living in a poor area. He is brought up with hardly any food and needs to steal to get food. Wasn't his moral upbringing slightly different from the child who knows being good will get him what he wants? There is nothing morally wrong about what the second child does according to him, as he has different morals.

The monkeys, Not-So Analytical Mind, the monkeys!

[starfox]

We cannot know how or why this world was created so we came up with a system of beliefs and a set doctrine indicating how the adherents should believe... The only reason we have them is because no one can explain how life came to be here and who or what put us here is a concrete and logical manner.

Last I checked, we have a pretty good handle on why the Earth is the way it is. The same goes for life.

[wigginboy]

No, we just think we do. We think we can explain things but in all honesty, neither science nor religion can CONCRETELY explain our existence. All we have are guesses.

[starfox]

No, we just think we do. We think we can explain things but in all honesty, neither science nor religion can CONCRETELY explain our existence. All we have are guesses.

Oh, sorry. You're right. I forgot 99.999% certain wasn't good enough to qualify for "a pretty good handle on it." Furthermore, the "guesses" made by science are backed up by a preponderance of experimental evidence.

[wigginboy]

Alright, let me be a little more clear here. What I am trying to say is that neither science nor religion can fully explain HOW we came to be on this planet. Don't give me any theories like the Big Bang because that is all they are is theories. We can't go back in time to the creation of the universe and watch it happen, right? So how can we say that theories like the Big Bang are 99.999% certain. It is just speculation. If you can bring me proof that the Big Bang actually happened, or proof that God actually created the world in 7 days, then I will believe one or the other. Until then, all they are is speculation. In the case of science, it is an educated guess, but it is in no way certain. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression with what I was getting across. What I was trying to explain is that religion is a cover for what cannot be explained. Science can explain certain things but religion has long had it out for science. Sorry to confuse you.

[starfox]

What I am trying to say is that neither science nor religion can fully explain HOW we came to be on this planet.

Of course neither does. However, science acknowledges this, and is continually improving its explanation. Religion makes claims that aren't disprovable about hypotheses that aren't testable. It also has its explanation set in stone. Thanks to science, our present state of understanding is VERY good. All of our knowledge of chemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, and many more sciences point to our world having come about in a certain way. If you propose a different way, you are essentially saying the foundations of all of those are incorrect.

Don't give me any theories like the Big Bang because that is all they are is theories.

There is a difference between the colloquial use of the word "theory" and the way it is used in science. This video is about evolution, but it applies to any scientific theory.

We can't go back in time to the creation of the universe and watch it happen, right? So how can we say that theories like the Big Bang are 99.999% certain. It is just speculation.

We can observe, we can experiment, we can suggest ideas we later refine or throw out entirely, until we hit on one that explains what we see the best. We have A TON of evidence for the big bang. Evidence that independently confirms our "speculation."

If you can bring me proof that the Big Bang actually happened, or proof that God actually created the world in 7 days, then I will believe one or the other. Until then, all they are is speculation. In the case of science, it is an educated guess, but it is in no way certain.

We have evidence that the big bang happened. We have no evidence the world was created in seven days, and actually quite a bit that it was formed over billions of years instead. It is speculation until you start gathering evidence. Then you have some backing to your claims.

I apologize if I gave the wrong impression with what I was getting across. What I was trying to explain is that religion is a cover for what cannot be explained. Science can explain certain things but religion has long had it out for science. Sorry to confuse you.

And I don't mean to offend you. What I'm telling you is that there is not much we can't explain any more. Science can consistently explain nearly everything about our world. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "religion has long had it out for science," but science has proven a lot more than people think.

[wigginboy]

Religion has long had it out for science

, as in religion, namely Christianity, has discounted the findings of science for countless years. The Church was famous for burning heretics and they regarded scientists as such. Why do you think Copernicus received so much scorn for his assertion that the world was round and not flat? Why do you think Galileo was put under house arrest for his support of Copernicus's theory? The Church and other religions are scared that science will undermine their authority as spiritual leaders. If science suddenly explains that the Big Bang created the world beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Church loses its authority to say that the Creation was true. I do not argue one way or another. I am the kind of person who believes science and religion feed off of each other. I beleive that Creation and Evolution co-exist. God created the world, but he created us with the ability to adapt to our surroundings and changes in environment. That is certainly not a stretch, it is just getting hardliners from each party to realize this is possible.

[lyons24000]

The idea that the earth was created in seven literal days has no basis in physical science. Jehovah's Witnesses, when reading chapter one of Genesis, realize that the word used for day had more then one meaning. Look at this explanation in our Bible encyclopedia, Insight on the Scriptures.

"This flexible use of the word 'day' to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days (Italics theirs) followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of the creative week. (Exodus 20:8-11) In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: 'And there came to be evening and there came to be morning' a first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth day. (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Herbews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God's rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more then 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia observes: 'The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.'

"The entire period of the six time units or creative 'days' dedicated to the preparation of the planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing 'day' at Genesis 2:4: 'This si the history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day (Italics theirs) that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."

The Bible makes it evident that each day was more of a period of time, day being used to contain all that happened during that time. That also goes with the original text where the word used for "day" can also mean "era". Each day was possibly millions or billions of years old which would coincide with the physical evidence.

[Eaquae Legit]

Religion has long had it out for science

, as in religion, namely Christianity, has discounted the findings of science for countless years. The Church was famous for burning heretics and they regarded scientists as such. Why do you think Copernicus received so much scorn for his assertion that the world was round and not flat? Why do you think Galileo was put under house arrest for his support of Copernicus's theory?

"The Church," by which you evidently mean the Roman Catholic Church, did not regard science as heretical. ("Science," as a concept and a discipline, is an Englightenment thing, by the way, by which time "the Church" had long since ceased with the stake-burnings.) Anyone with a half-decent education in the Middle Ages knew the world was round. That's been known since Classical Greek times. Copernicus didn't get in trouble for saying the Earth was round, he got in trouble for heliocentrism. Galileo, meanwhile, would have probably stayed under the radar except he managed to personally piss off a high-ranking cardinal. Your history is seriously flawed and spouting off half-truths and untruths really makes your arguments ring hollow.

The Church and other religions are scared that science will undermine their authority as spiritual leaders. If science suddenly explains that the Big Bang created the world beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Church loses its authority to say that the Creation was true. I do not argue one way or another.

It's only certain denominations, and most of them that uniquely American brand, that have any trouble with the Big Bang or evolution. Christianity in most of the rest of the world thinks you'll are pretty weird about it all.

[Rei]

You can blame Washington Irving in his "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus" for the legend that the medievals believed the world to be flat. Up until then, everyone knew that the medievals and ancients knew the world was flat. But he just had to go and write a popular book wherein Chris Columbus looks out over the water, sees a ship coming in with the mast getting taller and taller and he realises what everyone else around him had known for centuries, Good God! The world is round!

The big deal with Columbus wasn't that the world was round. It was that the world wasn't so large that you would die on a voyage before hitting India. And he was wrong. It really was too large. He just lucked out that there was a massive land mass in between Spain and India.

[wigginboy]

I appreciate the correction, EL. You I'm always ready to take correction from because you have the education to back it up.