God and religion

[Gromit]

We already know a very great deal, and with every passing year we know more. We are also good at inventing tools to help us, like computers and telescopes. It's quite conceivable that further evolution of our brains coupled with incredibly powerful quantum computers will enable us to understand the rest.

What the f*** we do after that would be a problem, though.....

The more we know the more we learn that there is even more that we don't know. Knowledge merely increases awareness of the scope of our ignorance.

 

[CNT36]

once you've achieved singularity you build vast dyson spheres, tap the power of your local stars thusly to build hyper dense bose-einstein condensates about the size of a skyscraper. You put them in orbit around convenient brown dwarf stars and run the human iterations in them virtually, only observable time for the user experience is slowed down drastically so a single actual day stretches for a year of observed experience. That way we can outlive the final heat death of the universe.

Its one of Corbyns policies so I hear

But how will we pay for it?

 

[BandWagon]

The more we know the more we learn that there is even more that we don't know. Knowledge merely increases awareness of the scope of our ignorance.

Hmm, I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one.

 

[Gromit]

Here is a charming heart warming church news story:

http://wkrn.com/2015/08/15/92-year-old-georgia-woman-kicked-out-of-church-for-not-tithing/

Perhaps like in football instead of a long term contract she could be Pay as you Pray.

 

[mk12]

frogwoman. I don't fully understand as I've never had faith, but surely you're mixing up faith and religion? Fair enough, you reject organised religion. Many religious people have (look into deists like Tom Paine). The question you need to ask yourself is: do I believe in a supreme being/God/creator? Ignore the stuff Daesh, the Israeli govt, the westboro baptist church are doing, it's irrelevant. Do you reject Marx's (or Bakunin, not sure how far you've gone since leaving th SP) main ideas because he said/did some things you didn't like?

ETA: if you do have faith, just follow Thomas Jefferson's example and edit the Bible/Torah/Quran so it fits in with your view of religion!

 

[gentlegreen]

The more we know the more we learn that there is even more that we don't know. Knowledge merely increases awareness of the scope of our ignorance.

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

 

[frogwoman]

frogwoman. I don't fully understand as I've never had faith, but surely you're mixing up faith and religion? Fair enough, you reject organised religion. Many religious people have (look into deists like Tom Paine). The question you need to ask yourself is: do I believe in a supreme being/God/creator? Ignore the stuff Daesh, the Israeli govt, the westboro baptist church are doing, it's irrelevant. Do you reject Marx's (or Bakunin, not sure how far you've gone since leaving th SP) main ideas because he said/did some things you didn't like?

ETA: if you do have faith, just follow Thomas Jefferson's example and edit the Bible/Torah/Quran so it fits in with your view of religion!

Tbh the idea that god does exist seems like its getting harder and harder to believe and seems more and more illogical. It feels a lot more like i can live without religion if that makes sense whereas i couldnt before.

 

[mk12]

What was that quote, any sufficiently advanced civilisation appearing to an unadvanced one will seem like a deity.

Not sure, but I love this quote from Kubrick talking about 2001:

KUBRICK: I will say that the god concept is at the heart of 2001, but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of god. I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of god. [Extraterrestrials] may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans. These beings would be gods to the billions of less advanced races in the universe, just as man would appear a god to an ant. They would be incomprehensible to us except as gods; and if the tendrils of their consciousness ever brushed men's minds, it is only the hand of god we could grasp as an explanation. Mere speculation on the possibility of their existence is sufficiently overwhelming, without trying to decipher their motives. The important point is that all the standard attributes assigned to god in our history could equally well be the characteristics of biological entities who, billions of years ago, were at a stage of development similar to man's own and evolved into something as remote from man as man is remote from the primordial ooze from which he first emerged. (Agel, The Making of Kubrick's 2001, 1970, excerpted from the Playboy interview, pp. 330-32)

 

[BandWagon]

Not sure, but I love this quote from Kubrick talking about 2001:

KUBRICK: I will say that the god concept is at the heart of 2001, but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of god. I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of god. [Extraterrestrials] may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans. These beings would be gods to the billions of less advanced races in the universe, just as man would appear a god to an ant. They would be incomprehensible to us except as gods; and if the tendrils of their consciousness ever brushed men's minds, it is only the hand of god we could grasp as an explanation. Mere speculation on the possibility of their existence is sufficiently overwhelming, without trying to decipher their motives. The important point is that all the standard attributes assigned to god in our history could equally well be the characteristics of biological entities who, billions of years ago, were at a stage of development similar to man's own and evolved into something as remote from man as man is remote from the primordial ooze from which he first emerged. (Agel, The Making of Kubrick's 2001, 1970, excerpted from the Playboy interview, pp. 330-32)

But isn't that a different definition of god to the one we normally understand? A distant, unknowable god rather than the personal god we're used to, judging us on such things as getting circumcised and not shaving, abusing women and gay people, and all the other stuff?

 

[Gromit]

Hmm, I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one.

Here's someone else to disagree with:

“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
― Albert Einstein

 

[BandWagon]

Here's someone else to disagree with:

“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
― Albert Einstein

There's a lot to disagree with, actually. He never accepted quantum mechanics, despite laying the foundations for it, and then there was the cosmological constant....

 

[DotCommunist]

Here's someone else to disagree with:

“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
― Albert Einstein

an intensley clever phyicist who told us more about the universe and the nature of objective reality than anyone since newton. Disdained socks and had the social skills of a gnat. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[BandWagon]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

Nice link.

 

[brixtonscot]

I haven't read all of this thread , but this might be of interest -

"Throughout world history, the exoteric (exterior) religion(s) of state(s) have repeatedly sought to destroy its esoteric ( interior ) counterpart; in extreme cases, the texts and adherents of esoteric religion have literally been consigned to flames. Exoteric religion’s attempts to eliminate its subversive counterpart have entailed a combined process of threat, intimidation, censure, imprisonment and execution.

Esoteric forms of religion allude to the God within; or the Christ within; or Krishna within; or Buddha within; or Allah closer to you than your jugular vein; or, as Sikhism would have it, The One God [who] is all pervading and alone dwells in the mind’.

These statements, although diverse in origin, represent a single idea; namely, that we and God are somehow equivalent. This startling and counter-intuitive assertion, which lies at the heart of esoteric religion, has historically played a crucial role in the formation of effective revolutionary movements. "

Apocalypticism, Esoteric Religions and Revolutionary Movements - Wai H. Tsang
http://www.iawwai.com/RevolutionaryMovementsApocalypticismEsoteric.html

 

[JimW]

Without looking at the linked article, there's surely an extent to which historically revolutionary movements have been associated with heterodox religion because they arose in a context of a religious orthodoxy deployed in the service of the dominant power, i.e. not that the esoteric religion inspired the rebellion but that to rebel in a religious age you often felt the need to substitute something for the state creed.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Without looking at the linked article, there's surely an extent to which historically revolutionary movements have been associated with heterodox religion because they arose in a context of a religious orthodoxy deployed in the service of the dominant power, i.e. not that the esoteric religion inspired the rebellion but that to rebel in a religious age you often felt the need to substitute something for the state creed.

Indeed in many societies religion and politics where the same thing - all politics had to be faith based as the alternative was simply unimaginable

 

[brixtonscot]

"Politics and religion are both collective modes of consciousness and change. The difference between them has been that, until now, politics has been concerned with social change, and religion has (ostensibly) been concerned with individual values. With post-industrialism, politics must become concerned with human development, and so it must become more like religion, using deeper symbols and rituals."

Transformative Learning & the Tao of History: Spirituality in the Post-industrial Revolution, Part 1 - Brian Milani

http://imos-journal.net/transformat...lity-in-the-postindustrial-revolution-part-1/

 

[DotCommunist]

Indeed in many societies religion and politics where the same thing - all politics had to be faith based as the alternative was simply unimaginable

hence our levellers and diggers and even the methodists and chartists maybe

 

[brixtonscot]

Anybody know much about Spinoza ? I just recently heard about him....

"However (and maybe in a less orthodoxic reading), one can get involved in processes of liberation by participating in a power (potentia) that is ‘bigger’ than us. This power is called God (i.e. nature or the world, to put it maybe too simply) in Spinoza’s philosophy. "
http://thefunambulist.net/2013/03/2...-capitalism-through-a-spinozist-conceptology/

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was watching a satire show last night where this guy was taking the piss out of tele-evanglists and their seed faith methods of extracting money from vulnerable people.

Some of them are telling people with cancer don't go to doctors, no send your seeds (money) to us and God will heal you.
Others are saying Credit card debt? Send your money to us and God will miracle your debt away.

You give a little seed of faith (in the form of money) to God and he grows it and you get back more in return. The more seeds you plant the more you get.

The people doing this are living in mansions and buying jets for cash. They even brag about it as they hold themselves up as proof of success for Seed Faith.

So this really got me wondering. Why oh why is Faith seen as a virtue? The believing of something without evidence is what Faith is. The people wanting you to believe tell you what a wonderous and valuable thing Faith is. There is a bluring line between faith and trust.

Trust for me acknoweldges that there is a negative. Trust is a risk but without it we wouldn't have society. People co-operating for mutual benefit.

Faith requires you to ignore the negative. You must truly believe with all your heart. Push aside your doubts.
If you throw yourself off a cliff truly believing that you can fly does it make it so or will you go splat? Faith doesn't change the truth that you'll go splat.
Faith is ridiculous.

You're ignoring the difference between faith as contingent trust, and blind faith, where people will accept any old bollocks uncritically. Religious fundamentalists tend to have blind faith, ordinary worshippers are more likely to have a contingent faith that's based around pragmatism - how many Catholics do you know who used or use contraception, for example? IME most of my Catholic acquaintances and friends, male and female did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Civilisation, democracy and education would help.

I agree with the latter two points, but "civilisation" is always going to be relative - measured against the most "uncivilised" behaviour. I'd settle for "tolerance of difference" over civilisation.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Its not only because of that tho.

I do value the cultural aspects of it, the holidays, enjoy going to services etc, i dont eat pork or most meat, but its also the idea that i tried to believe in god but a lot of it no longer makes much sense, the idea of god also seems fairly unlikely too. but these rules are all cultural isnt it? Its 'ok' to practice the odd ritual just for old times sake and not actually believe isnt it?

I don't eat pork because it tastes like shit tbf. Most former/lapsed muslims are revolted by it but for me it is just bland and utterly tasteless.

RE: the rituals thing, but isn't that kind of a method of control when you think about it? Not that i'm saying that people shouldn't participate in rituals, but I remember the augean democratic philistines over at New Humanist talking about atheist spirituality. If spirituality is natural then there's no hope of overcoming capitalism.

 

[frogwoman]

I agree. I am actually fairly relaxed about all this, when i had a crisis of faith some years avo it was a massive traumatic event but as ive got older ive come to see it as more and more illogical and i dont 'need' it as the same way as before. The rituals are a control thing definitely.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I think that a lot of people who are brought up in a particular religion, and belong to a church and a community, really don't care a jot about evolution or the age of the Earth. They just care about how they feel and how they fit into their community. If it makes them happy, then I have no issue with that. The problem comes when it spills over into the public domain and they persecute women and gay people, and kill apostates. Religion should be like sex, done in private between consenting adults.

You can't have your cake and eat it though. Either you uphold the sanctity of the individual or the higher mode of production will dispense with this traitorous usufructuary idiocy.

Like, this argument that as long as religion makes people happy - but the thing is secularism is a bourgeois construct. You can't expect religious people to acknowledge it. So what is it going to be? communist despotism or liberalism?

EDIT: Ok, not entirely serious with the 'despotism' comment, but the point stands. Either you want to overcome capitalism, which requires the overcoming of all kinds of religious mystifications, or you live and let live and are stuck with this shitty crises bound system.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I think the live and let live attitude of some people on this thread is more pernicious than da'esh and other fundamentalisms.

It's like defending the sanctity of bourgeois democracy and going uh, oops, when its logical endpoint is fascism.

 

[Patteran]

I think the live and let live attitude of some people on this thread is more pernicious than da'esh and other fundamentalisms.

It's like defending the sanctity of bourgeois democracy and going uh, oops, when its logical endpoint is fascism.

'Open fire on the dancing bears of Social Democracy!'

 

[BandWagon]

You can't have your cake and eat it though. Either you uphold the sanctity of the individual or the higher mode of production will dispense with this traitorous usufructuary idiocy.

Like, this argument that as long as religion makes people happy - but the thing is secularism is a bourgeois construct. You can't expect religious people to acknowledge it. So what is it going to be? communist despotism or liberalism?

EDIT: Ok, not entirely serious with the 'despotism' comment, but the point stands. Either you want to overcome capitalism, which requires the overcoming of all kinds of religious mystifications, or you live and let live and are stuck with this shitty crises bound system.

What a strange comment. I was talking about religion not capitalism. I'm quite happy to ignore religious people who keep it to themselves while allowing any amount of political debate. The two are separate for me.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

What a strange comment. I was talking about religion not capitalism. I'm quite happy to ignore religious people who keep it to themselves while allowing any amount of political debate. The two are separate for me.

Not strange at all. For religious people the personal is political. Even for moderates.

So I repeat again. Do you want to uphold the sanctity of the individual or do you want to move to a society based on communistic collectivism?

 

[BandWagon]

I'm an atheist so I don't believe in the sanctity of anything.

I'm very far away from embracing a society based on communistic collectivism.

You're welcome to spend some part of the only life you'll ever have proving that this stance is impossible, and good luck with that; you could have got laid or got pissed instead.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I'm an atheist so I don't believe in the sanctity of anything.

I'm very far away from embracing a society based on communistic collectivism.

You're welcome to spend some part of the only life you'll ever have proving that this stance is impossible, and good luck with that; you could have got laid or got pissed instead.

You're not an atheist. this post proves that.

If anything you're more protestant than protestants themselves.