Try the test with a placebo.
Replace God with the Dollar. America controls the dollar, so we more or less control the world. After all what is the world without the dollar? It is for most part a system that is controlled by a few people in power. Russia, China, and just about the rest of the world would like to get rid of the dollar. The problem is all the other systems are either more appalling or to small to replace the dollar. The dollar is the leader by default. If America was to collapse then there would be another currency controlled by another country replacing the dollar. It’s about the same with god. And both operate on faith. If the dollar works in the test them some parts of religion will most likely work too.
Let me present a variation on the thought experiment.
I wonder what would happen to religion if we erased only the memories of religion and mythology from all theists and deists in all parts of the world, but kept our current knowledge of the sciences.
Would we reinvent a God?
Let me present a variation on the thought experiment. I wonder what would happen to religion if we erased only the memories of religion and mythology from all theists and deists in all parts of the world, but kept our current knowledge of the sciences. Would we reinvent a God?I'm saying we wouldn't. But my saying it doesn't mean much. That's why I'm demonstrating things that have invented more than once in history without knowledge of the earlier inventor or invented (identically) in two places at once by two people who didn't know each other.
I wouldn't call the Trinity merely a claim of discovery from Theodosius. The Bible alludes to the concept itself in having Jesus be God, sending a Holy Spirit, and being separate from the Father who also sends the Spirit. If a person believes in God then believes in God becoming man (a common theme) and God imbuing a person with power or to perform as God, I can see the Trinity being re-"discovered" by combining those three items. Seeing as the Trinity was once created before, I wouldn't call it unlikely to be created a second time. Especially if it's true. If it's true, it would quite probably be re-"discovered". So are we simply talking about religious dogma? Man might "discover" many coincidences of prayer affecting his life. He might "discover" that the rains came when he killed goats three times in a row. He might "discover" that good things happen to him when he's good and bad things happen when he's bad. He might "discover" that God punishes with sickness and death when he touches roadkill. I'm not sure what parts of religion you think are not re-creatable or re-"discoverable" via lack of understanding seeing as everything we have today was indeed created or "discovered" to be what it is now. And I can't stress enough that, if God exists, he could certainly make anything come back if all things were destroyed. Assuming he couldn't is already assuming God doesn't exist. I'm not sure if we're understanding each other any better. I feel like we're just repeating ourselves and spinning in circles. Often, that happens due to definition issues or talking about two different things but not realizing it. Or just plain not paying attention I guess :-P. I don't know which is the culprit here.Taking these one at a time If you think you understand the Trinity and the Bible backs you up, more power to ya' man. I'm unconvinced. The "especially if it's true" is the whole point of the exercise, so there's no point in the hypothetical. Coincidences of prayer working sometimes is not a discovery of anything except coincidence. Same for goat killing. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa all the time. I'm not assuming God doesn't exist. I'm assuming that we know our past well enough to know that knowledge of God was not wiped out then rediscovered. Unlike knowledge of Calculus that was (see Archimedes Palimpsest). Obviously I could be wrong, but given our vast knowledge of many past civilization, is it likely? We have found 30,000 year old cave paintings and they don't have diagrams of three figures with arrows, they're just horses and hand prints. " seeing as everything we have today was indeed created or "discovered" to be what it is now" You're removing our ability to discern truth from fiction. "Created" and "discovered" are very different words. We have discovered an existing world and created ways to survive in it. That distinction is critical to this discussion.
I thought this dove-tailed well with this old thread, so I’m putting it here instead of a new one.
[urlhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearwithoutgod/2015/01/19/a-conversation-with-michael-shermer-the-moral-arc-video/]It’s an interview by Ryan Bell (the Year Without God ex-pastor) of Michael Shermer, who just came out with a book about morality]
At about 16 minutes, Bell poses a two part question. He bases it on the theology of Miroslav Volf, from his recent book “A Public Faith" where he argues that faith should play a public role, although not the traditional one, not a controlling one that creates a certain outcome based on scripture or prophecy. Rather, people of faith, when expressing it publicly should create something Volf calls human flourishing. The result of acts of faith should be tangible and measurable according that human standard of how well off we are.
He makes it a two part question by referring to what Shermer has said about religion being an in-group that creates a positive feedback for being loyal, trustworthy and good. So the questions are, is that a role religion can play, that of promoting human flourishing and are the secularist, who has no church structure, on their own to develop moral sensibilities?
It’s good to know that a major theologian is promoting this idea of judging religion by its results. I see Ryan’s role as one who will continue to bring these thoughts to the atheist community.
You are obviously following this guy’s thinking very closely. Do you feel that any of these ideas are brought forth by trying to live as an atheist for a year? I thought he might be after fame and money but you are making it sound like he might be a deep thinker.
It's good to know that a major theologian is promoting this idea of judging religion by its results.Yeah, I seem to remember somebody else doing that... "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." ( Matthew 7:20 AV)
It's good to know that a major theologian is promoting this idea of judging religion by its results.Yeah, I seem to remember somebody else doing that... "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." ( Matthew 7:20 AV) Hard to avoid thinking about that. John Wesley has a detailed analysis of that, about how to tell is someone is a Christian. He digs a little deeper into recognizing how some people do good things, but they are arrogant about it, and if you question them on specifics, they get angry instead of answering your question. I've noticed this in debates, if both people are just yelling at each other, I rarely glean anything, but if one is angry and the other calm, it's usually the calm guy that is presenting facts that I can verify. The trick is to remain calm without appearing arrogant. Matthew doesn't really do that analysis. He pretty much uses what Shermer talked about, if you are going to church and reading your Bible, you're probably a good Christian. I haven't read Volf, but I hope he does better.
You are obviously following this guy’s thinking very closely. Do you feel that any of these ideas are brought forth by trying to live as an atheist for a year? I thought he might be after fame and money but you are making it sound like he might be a deep thinker.I read pretty much all of his blog last year, and listened to many of his interviews. Many leaders in the atheist community have acknowledged his sincerity.
It's good to know that a major theologian is promoting this idea of judging religion by its results.Yeah, I seem to remember somebody else doing that... "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." ( Matthew 7:20 AV) Yes, and if the fruits are of questionable value, it is the orchard that needs tending, not the pickers. Burning down an abortion clinic and killing a doctor for the exalted reason that "thou shalt not kill" is tortured logic, IMO. Bottom line, any religion which assumes the authority of forcing you to eat of this rotten fruit needs to check the soil of their orchard and rid themselves of the trees that produce the bad fruit. As long as the farmer neglects to nourish and prune the trees, the product will always be questionable as to its benefits. Seems many get poisoned by eating those fruits. There is even a legal term which recognizes this fundamental ethical tenet, "Fruit of a poisoned tree". Eating the fruits of the tree of knowledge is a good thing, but eating from the fruits of an evil infected tree of knowledge is a bad thing. The logic is inescapable. Ignoring the writings and implied (expressed) permission to commit violence will not make them more peaceful, it makes them more FEARFUL! Many people do ignore those bad trees, but the fact remains, as long as the orchard produces low quality product, it will always produce some bad apples. Does a shepherd suffer a deseased sheep to remain in the flock? Does a farmer weed his crops? Should the shepherds of souls not be held responsible to correct that scripture which is open to "misinterpretation" merely by following the the text to the letter? The dichotomy is stunning and frightening. In my experience, when religion flexes its muscles, bad things happen. If scripture is supposed to sow peace and tranquility, then excise the portions where scripture advocates violence in the name of good...
If scripture is supposed to sow peace and tranquility, then excise the portions where scripture advocates violence in the name of good...I used to say that, but I'm pretty sure if you keep whittling away, you'll end up with a toothpick at best. And that toothpick will look just like any set of reasonable thoughts on ethics that any successful society has ever seen. I started a list of things that churches should declare anathema. Instead of going through and looking for specific passages I just listed things like "God never said to kill anyone. If that's in the Bible, it was written by a man trying to justify violence."
If scripture is supposed to sow peace and tranquility, then excise the portions where scripture advocates violence in the name of good...I used to say that, but I'm pretty sure if you keep whittling away, you'll end up with a toothpick at best. And that toothpick will look just like any set of reasonable thoughts on ethics that any successful society has ever seen. I started a list of things that churches should declare anathema. Instead of going through and looking for specific passages I just listed things like "God never said to kill anyone. If that's in the Bible, it was written by a man trying to justify violence." I agree and it seems we are not alone. Someone has written a "secular bible", see review and link to the entire work below.
The Good Book is a book written by A. C. Grayling. It was published in March 2011 by Walker & Company (a US imprint of Bloomsbury) with the subtitle A Humanist Bible, and in April 2011 by Bloomsbury with the subtitle A Secular Bible.
According to the author, Humanists (for whom the book is an intended audience) rely on reason to find meaning and purpose in life. Additionally, individuals have to follow the rational self-interest inherent in being good and having good relationships with people. The controversy of the Secular Bible is that many people believe it is designed to supplant the original. In fact, the layout of the Secular Bible would be familiar to any churchgoer or peruser of hotel room nightstands, since the book is set in two columns and uses a form of English designed to sound more timeless. The book has a revised form of the ten commandments and includes maxims like respecting nature, being informed, taking responsibility, and being courageous......http://www.secularbible.org/ and
Structure[edit] The Good Book's organizational system is similar to that of the Bible. It is divided into fourteen books (Genesis, Wisdom, Parables, Concord, Lamentations, Consolations, Sages, Songs, Histories, Proverbs, The Lawgiver, Acts, Epistles, and The Good). Each book is divided into short chapters, and each chapter is divided into numbered verses, so that chapter and verse can be referenced numerically. The volume's final book features a version of the Ten Commandments (The Good 8:11): 1.Love well 2.Seek the good in all things 3.Harm no others 4.Think for yourself 5.Take responsibility 6.Respect nature 7.Do your utmost 8.Be informed 9.Be kind 10.Be courageous These come with the post-thought that the reader "at least, sincerely try" and an addendum in (The Good 8:12), "Add to these ten injunctions, this: O friends, let us always be true to ourselves and to the best in things, so that we can always be true to one another."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Book_(book) Anyone familiar with this book?
In the scope of the broad picture, the Good Book sounds to me like a fairy tale. My understanding is that religious books are more of curse. Always have been going back in time. Live a good life and be faithful to me and be rewarded, don’t follow my will and bad things will happen and there will be hell to pay.
The Good Book is a book written by A. C. Grayling. It was published in March 2011 by Walker & Company (a US imprint of Bloomsbury) with the subtitle A Humanist Bible, and in April 2011 by Bloomsbury with the subtitle A Secular Bible.I do have this, and I'm afraid I am guilty of what most Christians do, I put it on my shelf and don't look at it much. What I have read is rich and poetic. The "Genesis" chapter is an account of the Big Bang and tectonic plates and there are thoughts on love and caring for each other and the planet. He uses the words of philosophers and poets, but he doesn't reference them. So, if you are well read, you will recognize much of it. Apparently I'm not that well read. Mike, you completely missed the gist of the post. ]
In the scope of the broad picture, the Good Book sounds to me like a fairy tale. My understanding is that religious books are more of curse. Always have been going back in time. Live a good life and be faithful to me and be rewarded, don’t follow my will and bad things will happen and there will be hell to pay.Is it not sufficient to live a good life and have respect for life itself? Surely one will be rewarded for living in symbiosis to one's environent. This is one of the reasons why I appreciate the teachings of Buddha.
Every living being has the same basic wish – to be happy and to avoid suffering. Even newborn babies, animals, and insects have this wish. It has been our main wish since beginningless time and it is with us all the time, even during our sleep. We spend our whole life working hard to fulfil this wish.http://www.aboutbuddha.org/english/index.htm/ Buddha laid out a way of living in balance. This did not involve worship of a deity, but the practical application of reason and self control. No hocus spocus, just contemplation and self knowledge is required to achieve inner peace. Sounds benign and doable to me. Without some form of communication and learned instruction, man would still dwell in caves. The problem started when we invented a supernatural entity which ruled the universe, without any proof that this has led to enlightenment or improved moral behavior. On the contrary, God's Commandments (in all mono theistic religions) have become a convenient tool to commit violence in the name of Holy War. Such violence could never be started and waged in the name of Humanity.
I got to agree with Write4U about Buddha, it is a different thinking and I wish I had time to learn more about Buddha.
To call the Good Book a bible is where I am having trouble. That’s because most people I think connect bibles to religions. And yes I do know there are different types of bibles. But, is it not structured in the same manner as a religious bible?
. And I can't stress enough that, if God exists, he could certainly make anything come back if all things were destroyed. Assuming he couldn't is already assuming God doesn't exist. I'm not sure if we're understanding each other any better. I feel like we're just repeating ourselves and spinning in circles. Often, that happens due to definition issues or talking about two different things but not realizing it. Or just plain not paying attention I guess :-P. I don't know which is the culprit here.Haven’t seen Code Monkey in a while, but something got me thinking about this thread. He’s essentially correct. There is a flaw to this test in its required assumption. But that flaw is inherent in disproving God, so we have to move on and think in terms of probabilities and alternative explanations. Otherwise, the door is open to any supernatural explanation of anything. Applying this test, for God to be real, given everything we know, the narrative, the apologetics, that say Jesus is still thinking about returning, that there will be an apocalypse of some kind, that truth is slowly being revealed, that we are somehow part of making any of that happen, some or all of that has to be true for God to be true. Even without any specific thing being recreated independently by two people who don’t share the same history, there’s this, from the gospel of John, chapter 17: 20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. This is Jesus talking, and he’s praying that everyone gets his message. If they do, then “the world will know". So Christianity has to explain why the world is not yet “brought to complete unity". It appears this prayer was not answered. It appears this idea of Jesus and sacrifice and letting your light shine but not praying quietly at home], couldn’t be passed on, just wasn’t clear enough. If it were indeed universal, like the idea of feeding our children, it should have. The requirement for a God test to be independent of other rational thoughts or not have any Munchausen’s trilemma type assumptions built into it is too high of a requirement. Proves FOR God certainly don’t bother with such restrictions.
“Memes” is just another name for ideas.
Thus the implication of the OP is that there is no value in ideas.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The purpose of the term “memes” is point out the similarities which ideas have with genes. It is an idea which I think has more validity that many of its users realize. They only use it in a negative way to compare ideas to a virus. But genes are the building blocks of all life on this planet. Viruses wouldn’t even exist unless there were other living organisms to take advantage of. Therefore, it is most natural question in the world to ask what corresponds to the rest of living organisms in this idea of memes? Why only look at ideas in this negative manner and yet ignore everything else. It is the typical tactic of rhetoric for a dishonest ideology.
Genes are the repository of an inheritance of what has been learned to the next generation of living things. Memes/ideas do the same thing in a different communication media. What then do they build? All the structures of human civilization and not only that but I think they are the building blocks of the human mind itself. Living organisms are self-organizing structures in the medium of chemical interactions and material transport. I would suggest the the mind is also a living organism in the same manner but in the medium of the ideas of human communication – a self-organizing structure of concepts and ideas by which we perceive, understand and react to the world around us. I think some of those ideas are what make us human.
Thus the “meme test” may not only sacrifice things like history as another contributor suggested but also quite likely our very humanity as well.
"Memes" is just another name for ideas. Thus the implication of the OP is that there is no value in ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the term "memes" is point out the similarities which ideas have with genes. It is an idea which I think has more validity that many of its users realize. They only use it in a negative way to compare ideas to a virus. But genes are the building blocks of all life on this planet. Viruses wouldn't even exist unless there were other living organisms to take advantage of. Therefore, it is most natural question in the world to ask what corresponds to the rest of living organisms in this idea of memes? Why only look at ideas in this negative manner and yet ignore everything else. It is the typical tactic of rhetoric for a dishonest ideology. Genes are the repository of an inheritance of what has been learned to the next generation of living things. Memes/ideas do the same thing in a different communication media. What then do they build? All the structures of human civilization and not only that but I think they are the building blocks of the human mind itself. Living organisms are self-organizing structures in the medium of chemical interactions and material transport. I would suggest the the mind is also a living organism in the same manner but in the medium of the ideas of human communication -- a self-organizing structure of concepts and ideas by which we perceive, understand and react to the world around us. It think some of those ideas are what make us human. Thus the "meme test" may not only sacrifice things like history as another contributor suggested but also quite likely our very humanity as well.IMO, memes reside in our *mirror neural network" which compares an existing condition to our own stored experiences, and which creates the memes to begin with.