Culture War - Religious cannot win a debate so they start a war.

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Let try to clear what I wrote about murder. I don’t remember exactly what I wrote but I am not making an argument that murder actually objectively wrong just that we don’t like it (in most cases). Since individuals do not like murder we have contructed law and other social conventions against it. An individual does not need to make any claims about objective reality of the morality to oppose murder. This opposition to murder

A religious view on murder is not justified. It makes claims about objective reality - God exists, God is opposed to murder - but the religious view cannot back up these claims with any evidence.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=aclubs]
Voyager, I think we might be arguing at cross purposes here.

My argument is a response to what I perceive to be the argument of Ammonius Saccus. That is to say, I argue that a belief should not be dismissed out of hand simply because it’s not based on science, and that people who hold beliefs not based on science should not be dismissed as loony. To argue this, I refer to many widely-held beliefs not based on science (mostly, questions of right and wrong) and claim that, because these beliefs should not be dismissed out of hand, and because many people who hold these beliefs aren’t loony, then therefore Ammonius Saccus’s claim is mistaken.

[/QUOTE]

I went back and read the OP, and I think you’re reading something in there which doesn’t exist. He doesn’t mention science one in the OP. He does mention evidence and rational thought. Now, jury verdicts, for instance, should be based on evidence and rational thought, but they are certainly not scientific. Ethical arguments, as you agree, are also based on evidence and rational thought.

The OP seems to be saying that religious thought is fundamentally different from secular thought by not being based on evidence. This is not to say there is nothing that might count as evidence. Seeing a mirage of a lake in the desert is evidence, but it’s probably not a good idea to build a resort there. Even worse if you go to where the lake seemed to be and found nothing.

Religions have this characteristic of being built on what looks like evidence, and from possibly rational deductions about the natural world, reasonable at the time. When this evidence gets cut away, religions kind of hang in the middle of the air, supported by faith alone and adherents, who like the coyote, refuse to look down to see that they ran past the edge of the cliff.

I guess miracles do happen.

[Ammonius_Saccus]

[QUOTE=aclubs]
That is to say, I argue that a belief should not be dismissed out of hand simply because it’s not based on science, and that people who hold beliefs not based on science should not be dismissed as loony.
[/quote]

I never said every belief had to be based on science. But beliefs that are about the objective nature of reality do need to subjected to the scientific method to see they are justified. However, you do not need the scientific method to justify your belief that you love your mother.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
So what you’re saying is that as long as a person has some reason for a belief, no matter what that reason is or how they came to it, it prevents them from being insane because of it? Why? That doesnt make any sense. Is your definition of insanity someone who does things for no reason at all? All people who do things we would consider insane have reasons for doing them, be it voices or twisted logic or whatever.

What exactly do you mean by ‘justified’? I dont think youre using it correctly. Simply having a reason for something doesnt justify it. Oh, you might be able to say that it justifies it for the person with the belief, but that doenst prevent them from being insane because of it. A person can do whatever they want in thier own head, as long as it doesnt effect the rest of us. If they want to think thier beliefs are justified in their own heads, fine. But they cant expect the rest of us to agree that their beliefs are justified if close examination reveals that they are not. Having the reason does not justify the belief, its the quality and reality of the reason establishes justification.
[/QUOTE]
If a person has a reasonable reason for a belief, then it’s not insane for them to hold the belief, correct? I would say that “I was told it by someone I consider trustworthy” to be a reasonable reason to hold a belief, and since I think that pretty much all religious people got into their religion by being told it by somebody, I don’t see how the mere act of believing your parents or somebody very convincing makes you insane. Comparing it to persons who do things for no reason or due to irrationally connected thought processes is not a fair comparison; accepting things because you are taught them by your parents or parentally-approved instructors is normal. It’s how most of us learn most of what we know. (Tout the reproducabilty of science all you like; most people don’t do much of it though. We simply accept what we’re taught, as often as not.)

If you can come up with a reason that people believe in god that isn’t directly analogous to the reason people buy into science, I might believe that belief in religion has some shred of a chance of implying mental instability. Personally, I don’t think you can. This “Religious people are stupid and insane” garbage is just elitist claptrap from militant atheists trying to pretend they’re better than everybody else, nothing more. It’s no different that how some pious people declare that atheists are evil or immoral; or how the Bushites were declaring everyone else anti-american: it’s all crap, pure and simple.

As for my use of the word ‘justification’, keep in mind that the word does not imply a correct set of supporting reasons; any reason may apply. When you ask someone what their justification was for their grevious error, you’re not expecting something correct in reply. It of course also has the strong implication of meaing a correct and srtongly defensible justification when used in formations such as “This action was justified.” I have been getting the feeling that our friendly OP has been conflating the two uses of the word to make the argument:

A) Pious people lack (correct) justification for their beliefs.
B) Persons who lack (any) justification for their beliefs are insane.
.: Pious people are insane.

Which is of course a fallacious argument. If I’ve been stretching the ‘any’ use of the word into uses where that’s not common, it’s because I’m trying to maintain a consistent meaning for it in spite of the various formations it’s appearing in.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus]
But beliefs that are about the objective nature of reality do need to subjected to the scientific method to see they are justified.
[/QUOTE]
Two questions: why? And, how?

Expanding on the ‘how?’ question, how would you test (for example) creationism with the scientific method? You can’t run tests; it’s supposed to have been a one-time event that can’t be reproduced by man. Most or all of religious belief about “the objective nature of reality” is similarly untestable.

I’m sure it’ll hurt you feelings, but science doesn’t disprove creationism. It ignores it, because it has a model that seems both consistent and more predictively useful. However, this does not prove that creationism is wrong. The main reason to believe evolution over creationism is Occam’s Razor, which, incidentally, is not part of the scientific method.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Religion responds to changes, it does not discover new things on its own. When something new comes along that isnt already expressly addressed by religion, like the stem cells issue, it looks at what it already has and tried to find a best match, in this case ‘all life is sacred’, and uses that. No change has been made, nothing new is added, its just the same stuff, maybe in different words. The interface may look a little different, but the OS is still the same.
[/QUOTE]

What new “things” are you refering to? The history of religion is filled with people who brought new insight and interpretations. Entire movements and churches established. It’s still going on. You’re using one example to make a blanket statement about religion in general. Not very logical. FTR not all believers respond the same to new scientific and medical breakthroughs.

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Expanding on the ‘how?’ question, how would you test (for example) creationism with the scientific method? You can’t run tests; it’s supposed to have been a one-time event that can’t be reproduced by man. Most or all of religious belief about “the objective nature of reality” is similarly untestable.

I’m sure it’ll hurt you feelings, but science doesn’t disprove creationism. It ignores it, because it has a model that seems both consistent and more predictively useful. However, this does not prove that creationism is wrong.

Why would you want to test creationism? It cannot be falsified. The tests would establish nothing. You don’t have to disprove a belief (such as creationism) to say it is unjustified. Beliefs start off unjustified and need to become justified. It is only but subjecting the theory to testing that it can become justified.

Just think about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is as justified as anything in religion.

he main reason to believe evolution over creationism is Occam’s Razor, which, incidentally, is not part of the scientific method.

Popper and Sober might disagree with you about Occam’s Razor. Well, Popper won’t. He is dead.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Two questions: why? And, how?

Expanding on the ‘how?’ question, how would you test (for example) creationism with the scientific method? You can’t run tests; it’s supposed to have been a one-time event that can’t be reproduced by man. Most or all of religious belief about “the objective nature of reality” is similarly untestable.

I’m sure it’ll hurt you feelings, but science doesn’t disprove creationism. It ignores it, because it has a model that seems both consistent and more predictively useful. However, this does not prove that creationism is wrong. The main reason to believe evolution over creationism is Occam’s Razor, which, incidentally, is not part of the scientific method.
[/QUOTE]

250 years ago creationism was a valid hypothesis. It in fact did get falsifed (not quite the same thing as proving incorrect) given the discoveries about the age of the earth.

When modern day, dishonest, creationists start adding special cases to explain away the evidence, or just ignore evidence that is inconvenient, we can call upon the Razor to explain why these new and complex hypotheses don’t need to be taken seriously - but their lack of predictive ability is much better evidence that they’re bogus.

Saying that one time events are not subject to the scientific method kind of rules out all of cosmology, doesnit it? I don’t know why people keep saying things like this when it is so obviously wrong.

If your religious claim is that god loves us, then I agree it is hard to test, having no relationship with the world. If the claim is refined to god loves us, and won’t allow us to be harmed by natural disasters, it can be easily falsified. Biblical documents can be similarly tested - just look for evidence of the flood, for instance.

[johnny_M]

I have read this forum from the outset. I want to also put my two cents in the debate. The bible written more than 1600 years ago is one of the oldest books in history. In the bible the word " dinosaur or dragon" appears more than twenty times. It is derived from the greek word drakon. Translation sometimes simplifies words and we do not comprehend the exact meaning. Scientists have never found fossils of dragons but have found fossils of dinosaurs. Do the findings of scientists now mean that the bible is actually true, or part of it?
Man has a very simple mind say compared with that of lets say and orca. They have a brain three times the size of man. Do you then beleive that our simple mind can understand the mind of something greater than our own? Also just because we say it is true is it true certainty? The answer is no, everything else is true speculation. If a person is named Jane Doe and it is on her birth certificate does this prove or disprove that Jane Doe is for certain Jane Doe? If we can but don!t have the knowledge to backtrack her ancestors to the begginnig then she for certain is not Jane Doe. When did her name change? Sorry if i am losing some of you here.
Also I have read that religion causes wars. In christianity Jesus never preached violence yet men have twisted truth into lies to further their own gains. The right wing nuts of today prove that statement. They are speaking their own words and not that of the teacher.
So my observation is that God can or cannot be proved, thats what faith is.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Would you mind clearly defining the God he is supposed to disprove? Does he have a son, or is he the Jewish variety? Did he create the world 6,000 years ago of 14 billion years ago? Is he a cosmic muffin or a hairy thunderer? How many arms does he have? Has he ever communicated to mankind or not?

I’m not asking for a full definition, since that is impossible for most gods. But a start would be helpful.

Thanks.
[/QUOTE]

No problem. Let’s see, how about the one that is believed to be the father of Jesus.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=johnny M]
I have read this forum from the outset. I want to also put my two cents in the debate. The bible written more than 1600 years ago is one of the oldest books in history. In the bible the word " dinosaur or dragon" appears more than twenty times. It is derived from the greek word drakon. Translation sometimes simplifies words and we do not comprehend the exact meaning. Scientists have never found fossils of dragons but have found fossils of dinosaurs. Do the findings of scientists now mean that the bible is actually true, or part of it?

[/quote]

Dinosaur - a word coined 200 years ago, does not appear in the Bible. Let me rephrase your argument. The Bible mentions dragons. (Actually, where are they mentioned?) I claim that dinosaurs equal dragons. Science has found dinosaurs. Ergo, science has proved the Bible. :rolleyes: Since ancient Chinese legends mention dragons far more than the Bible does, they must be more accurate, by your reasoning.

Man has a very simple mind say compared with that of lets say and orca.  They have a brain three times the size of man.  

Brain weight relative to body weight is the true measure. Try that metric and get back to us.

 So my observation is that God can or cannot be proved, thats what faith is.

So, your observation is that God either can or cannot be proved? I guess that covers all the possiblities.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No problem. Let’s see, how about the one that is believed to be the father of Jesus.
[/QUOTE]

That helps, but it’s not quite enough to go on. Did he create the world as in Genesis? Is he both omnipotent and omniscient? Did he part the Red Sea for Moses? Did he cause the dead saints to climb out of their graves and walk the streets of Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixtion? Does he answer our prayers? Which accounts of his words in the Bible are accurate, and which are invented? (I’ll accept that some being invented does not disprove god, but I need to know which ones I should address and which I should ignore.)

I suspect those who used to be Christians would have better questions.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
That helps, but it’s not quite enough to go on. Did he create the world as in Genesis? Is he both omnipotent and omniscient? Did he part the Red Sea for Moses? Did he cause the dead saints to climb out of their graves and walk the streets of Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixtion? Does he answer our prayers? Which accounts of his words in the Bible are accurate, and which are invented? (I’ll accept that some being invented does not disprove god, but I need to know which ones I should address and which I should ignore.)

I suspect those who used to be Christians would have better questions.
[/QUOTE]

He created the heavens and the earth. He is omniscient and omnipotent. So, go ahead and disprove his existence. Or have your buddy do it. Otherwise you’re asking ME to prove his existence by you attacking one specific at a time. Something I have not claimed to be able to do. Nor do I think is possible. Although the first cause argument is convincing to me. No, my offer still stands. Let the OP disprove the existence of God and let’s see how many believers cling on to their “superstitions”. It should be easy. He appears to be certain there is no God. So let him prove it and set the believers free. Win-win. Times about 6 billion.

[Ammonius_Saccus]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Let the OP disprove the existence of God and let’s see how many believers cling on to their “superstitions”. It should be easy. He appears to be certain there is no God. So let him prove it and set the believers free. Win-win. Times about 6 billion.
[/QUOTE]

Why should I have to disprove? Lots of things cannot be disproven. The fact that God’s existence cannot be disproven is not evidence for the existence of God.

You know God cannot be disproven, but you also know that the existence Thor cannot be disproven. Or fairies. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the idea that the a table can become bacon.

But we do know there is no evidence to justify the idea that God exists (or that any of the things listed above exist or are true).

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus]
Why should I have to disprove? Lots of things cannot be disproven. The fact that God’s existence cannot be disproven is not evidence for the existence of God.

You know God cannot be disproven, but you also know that the existence Thor cannot be disproven. Or fairies. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the idea that the a table can become bacon.

But we do know there is no evidence to justify the idea that God exists (or that any of the things listed above exist or are true).
[/QUOTE]

Okay, prove to me that God did not create the universe.

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Its more than just review by peers. The reason youre allowing your peers to review isnt just so they can ohh and ahh over it and congratulate you for writing down something everyone knows for the jillionth time.
[/quote]

I, as of yet, have not submitted much to the peer review process, though I hope to see several papers published in the near future. However, in general your statement is wrong. A lot of scientific publications contain only material that’s been known for decades.

The difference between scientific review and religious review is that in scientific review there is no such thing as dogma, nothing that is unquestionable.

Scientists have no dogma? Try telling that to a physicist who refuses to believe in string theory. T. H. Kuhn and David Bloor have amply demonstrated that science is entirely about dogma in their books The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Knowledge and Social Imagery.
(Incidentally, consider string theory. Thousands of scientists believe in it whole-heartedly, yet not one bit of evidence supports it. Why don’t you and Ammonius take some of that fury at people who believe things without supporting evidence and direct it at the string theorists?)

If someone publishes X, and someone else can show that X is wrong, X is discarded. Scientists dont keep on thinking X cuz it makes them feel better, or they have a book that clearly says X, its gone.

You already asserted that. I pointed out that it was flat wrong. Now you repeat the assertion. It’s still flat wrong. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it a truth.

Now let me give you some examples. Take this paper. Much of it is wrong. There are at least ten major mistakes visible in it. Yet it’s peer reviewed, refereed, the whole nine yards. So since the mistakes are there and they’ve been noticed, according to your theory they should have been corrected. Yet the author still has the error-riddled paper right there on her website. How do you explain that?
Or, jumping to the field of computer science, consider ISAKMPD . I had lots of fun with this product a few years back. My coworkers and I discovered numerous flaws in the code and errors in the man pages and white papers. All of the flaws are documented and published on the internet, yet they don’t get fixed. How does that square with your claim that “If someone publishes X, and someone else can show that X is wrong, X is discarded”?

So what youre saying is that you dont trust scientists as a group to govern themselves and their work? Well, theres a simple way to check this. Lets check the scientific journals we can look at and see if theres any complete bullplop that is accepted as true. We can even go a step further and see if any of the complete bullplop has been used unsuccesfully to do or make something. Find any?

Yup. Sure did. See above.

See if a scientist publishes something, all the other scientists that review it arent reading it to see if they agree, theyre reading it to see if they can prove it wrong. It has to fit into existing knowledge frameworks. It has to use proper methodology.

Wait a minute. A few minutes ago, weren’t you telling me that scientists didn’t have dogmas. “Existing knowledge framework” is just a politically correct euphanism for dogma.

Scientific findings are expected to work, if they dont, back to the lab.

So labs hire people who produce stuff that’s known not to work? Doesn’t sound too rational to me.

Besides, if you had the absolute latest published findings in quantuum physics, how much of it could you follow? I think we should let the people who understand quantuum physics to review the quantuum physics journals, and those people tend to be quantuum physics scientists.

If someone published something in quantuum physics I wouldn’t have much hope. In quantum physics, on the other hand, I can understand a decent amount. I’m all for quantum physicists reading and reviewing quantum physics papers. I just don’t see any reason why the papers should be concealed from all non-physicists. And yet they mostly are. Certainly there’d be no harm in publishing all journal articles on the net. Yet it hasn’t happened for most journals, and when it does the cost for accessing the papers is often absurdly high.

What latest results? People arent discovering new things about god, theyre just rewriting old things. Nothing written about religion can contradict established dogma, and until you find more established dogma, nothing new can be written about it. Everything else is just a big circle jerk with everyone agreeing with everyone else that what they wrote has to be true, it agrees with what everyone else wrote.

If, as you’ve claimed, you’ve actually read the five authors mentioned in my post (yeah right, I wasn’t born yesterday) then you’ve already seen numerous examples which contradict this description. Augustine’s theology flew in the face of what was believed at the time, as did Teresa’s. And Luther agreeing with everyone else!?! You’re demonstrating a classic problem. When you pretend to have expertise about some field where you’re actually totally ignorant, you end up making a fool of yourself.

If you cant get people to see errors in methodology or conclusion or whatever, and I am assuming you mean scientific journals, then maybe youre doing something wrong. What journals are you trying to correct, and what organizations are you going to?

I am not actively trying to correct journals. Sometimes when I meet the author in person I ask them to clarify mistakes in their papers. But come now. Do you suppose that if I e-mailed the publisher of the Journal of Topology and pointed out an incorrect equation on page 556 of volume 73, I’d get any response at all?

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus]
But we do know there is no evidence to justify the idea that God exists (or that any of the things listed above exist or are true).
[/QUOTE]

Millions of people have seen or heard God. Perhaps billions. Millions have also seen the Virgin Mary, angels, and various saints. That is evidence that these divine beings must exist.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus]
I never said every belief had to be based on science. But beliefs that are about the objective nature of reality do need to subjected to the scientific method to see they are justified. However, you do not need the scientific method to justify your belief that you love your mother.
[/QUOTE]

There ya go. It’s good to be specific. General sweeping statements draw a lot of criticisms and often detract from the real meat of the argument.

Plenty of beliefs can be examined with objective evidence and I’m all for that. It’s still a hard battle sometimes because within religion there is cycle of bad information being circulated as facts. Christianity and the history of this country is one good example. Creationism is another. What the Bible is and isn’t is another. I’ve seen the concept of the Bible being the literal word of God go through some changes in my lifetime. I’m all for getting the truth out there. Make it as accessible as possible. Encourage believers to examine it. My own technique of choice is to remind people to put the truth before religious tradition. It’s still an up hill battle. Even then , unless something is directly affecting you , you cannot demand that someone justify their beliefs or abandon them. It just won’t happen. Your suggestion that we not take believers seriously is quite frankly just goofy. I asked before, what about folks like Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and many other believers who made incredible contributions to this world. Do we dismiss them because they believe God is?

Concerning belief in God in general, you just won’t get anywhere requiring people to present objective evidence to justify their belief in God. A lack of objective evidence to support God’s existence isn’t enough to sway most believers. Too much of the belief that God is, remains internal and subjective.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
You trust in science because you have seen your evidence and think it rational to do so. They have done the same thing. Their life experiences have led them to entertain their crazy beliefs in God or love or fate or whatever, and if they’re rejecting your science, it’s because it’s rational for them to do so, based on their perceptions and understanding of the world. This does not make them lunatics; it means that they are working with a different set of axioms than the ones you work under.
[/QUOTE]
I diagree. Many religious people simply don’t believe in logic or rationality; they don’t have axioms, just faith. They just use logic and evidence as a weapon to convince people; if logic and evidence goes against them, they abandon it.

[QUOTE=Lilairen]
The idiots who are out there trying to build skyscrapers out of wildflowers – who take their religion as a system describing objective reality – are a small, vocal minority. They confuse their perceptions and filter-sets with objective reality; this is irrational.
[/QUOTE]
“Vocal minority” ? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of religious people look upon their beliefs as objective reality.

[QUOTE=aclubs]
My friend Ammonius Saccus, is it your view that any view that is not (or cannot be) scientifically proven is therefore irrational? Tell me, how would you go about designing an experiment to prove that murder is wrong?
[/QUOTE]
Step 1 : Take various people from societies where murder is allowed and/or common.

Step 2 : Drop them in various societies where murder is rare.

Step 3 : Ask them which is preferable. Compare their death rate with their estimated death rate in their old culture.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Religious belief is not the sort of belief that can be justified by evidence. It is outside the purview of science.
[/quote]
Hardly. Religious beliefs just tend to last longer when they are outside of science, because when science can examine them, they are nearly always wrong.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
If a person tells you he has had a religious experience, and that he has gained information based on a revelation, such a claim is neither logical nor illogical.
[/QUOTE]
It’s simply insane, that’s what it is.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Ammonius asserted that no one had ever presented evidence for any religious belief. I replied that Catholics had presented huge amounds of evidence.
[/quote]
No, they provided lies, assertions and threats.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
If you believe that certain statements are wrong, you’re welcome to join a Bible study group and argue the case. As long as you don’t act like a jackass, they’d be happy to have you.
[/quote]
< snicker > Or they’d scream at him/her until he/she left, or assault Ammonius Saccus. An atheist in a Bible Study group would be as popular as a convicted child molester running a day care center, and likely given the same treatment.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
No, people who believe in God are in no way obligated to bring forth evidence to satisify you or anyone else as long as they hold their beliefs as their own beliefs
[/QUOTE]
They are obligated to do so, if they want to be anything other than fools and lunatics.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You seem to thiink that religious people are unreasonable, that they have this infatuation with rejecting logic when it comes to the existence of God. I have an idea: why don’t you prove that there is no God and then see how many of those who hold those itrrational beliefs still insist on clinging to the illogic of their belief?
[/quote]
Because it’s not the logical obligation of unbelievers to prove their disbelief right; it’s the logical obligation for the believers to produce evidence that they are right.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
If a person has a reasonable reason for a belief, then it’s not insane for them to hold the belief, correct? I would say that “I was told it by someone I consider trustworthy” to be a reasonable reason to hold a belief, and since I think that pretty much all religious people got into their religion by being told it by somebody, I don’t see how the mere act of believing your parents or somebody very convincing makes you insane.
[/quote]
It does if what they tell you to believe is insane.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
If you can come up with a reason that people believe in god that isn’t directly analogous to the reason people buy into science, I might believe that belief in religion has some shred of a chance of implying mental instability.
Personally, I don’t think you can.
[/quote]
I can, without effort. Science works. It makes sense to believe in science because we are surrounded by it’s products. That’s why religious people like the IDers are always trying to turn their religion into a pseudoscience; they are trying to latch onto the coattails of sciences’ superior credibility.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Millions of people have seen or heard God. Perhaps billions. Millions have also seen the Virgin Mary, angels, and various saints. That is evidence that these divine beings must exist.
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s evidence of widespread delusions and/or lying.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Long time, no see.

You are right in this, and it is quite curious, really. If religion and belief systems stem from contact with god, as commonly recognized, I have a hard time understanding why they would be changing. Our understanding of the world changes, and I’d suspect as our scientiic and ethical maturity grew, it would converge on what God told us. If, on the other hand, religion and ethics are our fumbing attempts to make sense of the world and how to act in it, then I’d expect religion and dogma to change just as you say.
[/QUOTE]

You surprise me with this. Just as the individuals journey leads them to clearer understanding about their own spirituality that principle is also reflected in the growth of a group, or even a race. I feel fairly certain that Jesus did not expect his teachings to revolutionize mankind’s behavior within a few generations. I think he understood how the human psyche works well enough to understand that the process has to unfold in it’s own time.

As you said. Certain beliefs are given too much weight. IMHO stressing belief in the resurrection as the act that saved us, rather than Jesus teaching about love and personnel transformation is something that needs to be overcome.

Now, I’ve seen people respond that God was making it easy for us. However, there are plenty of instances in the Bible where God did not make it easy. He did not understand that the golden calf gave comfort, after all, and he didn’t give Adam and Eve a second chance. I’m sure he could have figured out a way to command a society to have no slaves at all. So, I don’t buy it.

Well, I’m not sure how this relates but do you remember the old movie “Oh God” with John Denver and George Burns. Denver asks God “Don’t you care what happens to us, and all the suffering that goes on in the human race?”
Burns as God replies “Of course I care”
“Then why do you allow it?” continues Denver
God responds, “Why do you allow it?”

Of course I don’t see God as a separate distant being we have to please. I see us more as equal co creators of our lives.