Here’s the problem with these explanations: if they are true, then whatever the universal truth is, it is indistinguishable from non-truth for the large majority of the population (since no religion claims more than 20-25% of the world’s people). If having more people dilutes the search for truth, if charismatic con men can fool people away from it, if it’s only glimpsed by a handful of prophets over the centuries…then how can we say that the universal truth is universal, or true?
The links is not to religious understanding, but to material changes in human society. The morality that best serves a band of hunter-gatherers is markedly different from the morality that best serves settled farmers, which is different again from what best serves an industrial population. The progress you see is the result of technological advancement altering human society, and with it its morality. We won’t return to slavery in the West because slavery doesn’t benefit our society anymore; our economy isn’t based on cotton being picked, but rather services and technology. We won’t strip rights from women because it doesn’t benefit us anymore, women are able to be productive citizens and not solely mothers and housewifes.
That’s exactly it; only you know what will make you happy and fulfilled, and you are in the best position to achieve whatever that is. The complete opposite of a universal truth; a personal truth.
Nitpick: you can’t go from agnostic to believer, because agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.
Otherwise, right on, but the journey has no common destination. We’re all on our own.
Certainly there’s plenty left to discover, but that doesn’t justify proclaiming things to be true without evidence.
This idea of a “journey” is just another word for living your life. It’s normal and expected to treat life as a journey of discovery; Discovery of self and the world we live in. I understand the desire by many (most) to want it to mean more than just our finite lifespan. It’s natural for humans to want to “go on” in some way after their life is spent. It’s equally natural to want our lives to have meant something, particularly when (I paraphrase) life is brutish and short and in the end it kills you.
It seems unlikely that we’ll ever find the answers to, “what’s going on here and why?” to everyone’s satisfaction. But it’s evident that “because god” is the most popular answer in place of having that knowledge. To me, “dumb fucking luck” is a much more satisfying answer. That way, I don’t have to spend my life trying to figure out what god could possibly want from me and what’s the right way to gain his approval.
Ok, there’s some overlap between this post and the last one I responded to, so in areas where my previous post, #181, covered these topics, I will be brief or just move to the next point.
Sure, people come up short. Others, though, feel that they know God exists, but don’t understand that there is a command to love one another. That is not some universal aspect of religion that’s merely going unfulfilled, it’s a specific religious idea that not all share, in spite of their sincere efforts.
We’re talking about progress toward a universally-understood religious message, and the implementation thereof, correct? Unless people exposed to that message are incapable of recognizing it as the True Message of God, (and if they are not, I question the validity of the message, God-backed or not), then once they heard it (or better still, prayed and heard it from God), they would adopt it.
Receiving the message is the key point, though, surely, since it’s the necessary first step. And at present, the only way to receive a religious message is to hear it from someone else, or to think it up yourself. Thus, how are we to know what God’s true message is?
They believe, but they don’t know. Here’s another analogy. Say I work at two convenience stores.
At store A, my co-worker tells me that he heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, that the owner installed thousands of tiny hidden cameras all over the store. One guy, ten years ago, supposedly found one of the cameras, but no one working there now ever has, they are hidden that well. No one’s ever seen the video feeds, and no one’s ever been disciplined for what was seen on the cameras. Even still, my co-worker tells me, better stay busy and not steal, or I’ll get busted by the cameras.
At store B, my co-worker shows me the cameras the owner visibly installed in each corner, and the back room where the feeds are recorded. He tells me to stay busy and not steal, or I’ll get busted by the cameras.
Which store am I more likely to steal from? Which owner sincerely seems to want to prevent misbehavior?
That doesn’t mean that people are incapable of following simple rules, it means people respond to incentives. It’s that simple.
That’s a deeper issue, whether morality is judged by acts or thoughts. One reason, as I stated in the thread that inspired this one, that if there were a God I’d want it to stay completely out of human affairs is that morality cannot be imposed at the point of a sword or the edge of a lake of fire. Human morals are for humans alone to determine; neither animal nor God has anything to say on the matter.
By humans. I’ve never heard it from God. How do I know it’s true?
I argue that God has not given us the basics. Again, no matter how sincere I am, I have to take the word of other humans for what God’s message is, or create one myself. And which humans do I listen to? They aren’t all correct, how am I to know which ones are?
If choice is the purpose, that seems to contradict the idea of one fixed, universal truth or message. A “choice” with one correct answer isn’t really a choice.
How do we know that that’s what God wants from us?
It seems abundently clear that mankind likes to create a good myth and embelish their heros both historical and fictional. Kinda funny that certain modern relions want to deny that it happened to theirs.
We can’t say that with certainty. However, because we can see mankind’s continual striving and progress being made in the ntangible areas of justice and equality etc. we ought to find the belief understandable.
I see your point but I think the timeline points to something else. We didn’t abolish slavery after the plantations went away. Women fought for their rights long before WWII put them in the factories. The quest to define human rights, justice, and equality, exists outside of our technilogical advances. It may be influenced by, but I wouldn’t say it’s determined by.
There’s no contradiction. Our individual search and path followed may be different, but we may ultimtely be finding the same truth. It apepars to me we are.
So a person can’t go from, I’m not sure if God exists or not, to "I’m now sure God exists?
Not quite what I said. We may be on individual journies to the same destination.
I agree. That’s why I think the mentally and emotionally healthiest thing for believers is to follow their path or traditon while mentally and emotionally acknowledging that they don’t really know. Respect others journies in the same way you eish them to respect yours. Obviously mankind has a little more maturing to do in that area.
I don’t deny that it all may be evolution and chemical reactions. Is it emotion that triggers a chemical reaction, or a chemical reaction that triggers emotion? What causes whichever comes first?
Can’t recall if I mentioned it in this thread, but years ago I had a pretty powerful experience. At a time of high anxiety and stress I had a dream that explained things to me and brought me to a place of profound peace and understanding. So I went to bed in a terrible state and woke up clear headed , and competely at peace. Since that time I’ve read about certain reactions the brain has to stress , but what still mystifies me is the insight and understanding I had from that dream. I understand that certain chemicals might account for the calming effect, but where did the profound understanding come from?
I get that. I don’t see any real benefit or need in seeing God as some other out there somewhere ruler who appraoves or disapproves. I suppose that belief can sometimes bring some introspection that has a side benefit of personal growth but you don’t need that belief for introspection. IMO, if there is some creator sustainer we are all already a part of that.
More importantly I think we need to take personal responsibility for our attitudes and beliefs and the actions that spring from them. It irritates the crap out of me when people pretend to know what God thinks and feels and try to hide behind that. Religious belief amounts to a personal opinion period. it has no extra divine weight. In fact I’d say the need to be right, and not waver is a denial of the history of relgion, and damed unhealthy.
What I came away with in studying and gradually leaving Christianity and cetain beliefs behind is that what seems to matter is love and truth. We learn to become better people to ourselves and others by trying to understand love, sifting the crap we mistakenly call love from actual love and learning how to apply it in every day mundane life. If we value truth we value honesty and evidence and factor them in our judgements.
The good news is that these things can matter just as much to a believer or non believer. Belief in something more isn’t nessecary, but doesn’t have to hinder either.
Sure, it’s understandable. Most beliefs are, otherwise they don’t persist.
We abolished slavery after it stopped being needed (and was abolished) in the Northern states. I’m not saying personal convictions played no role in it, but do you assert that the people of the South were just morally inferior to those of the North, and that’s why the South sought to retain slavery?
What “human rights, justice, and equality” means to the people of any given historical moment depends on the society they are in, not some absolute value. That society is tremendously influenced by technology. Liberal democracy wouldn’t have worked for medieval Europe, and fuedalism wouldn’t work for us now. The differences between their society now and ours are primarily the result of technological advancement.
Again, though, assuming you mean human rights and such, it’s a “truth” that works best for our particular society at our particular moment. As our society changes, so will our conception of human rights, justice, and equality. There’s no mysticism or spirituality to this.
The difference is between knowledge and belief.
“I’m not sure if God exists or not” = “I don’t know if God exists” = agnostic.
“I’m now sure God exists” = “I know God exists” = gnostic.
“I don’t believe in God” = atheist.
“I believe in God” = theist.
Addressed above.
The problem with that is that professing such doubts removes much of the psychic benefit of religious belief, and since that’s the bulk of the benefit religious belief provides (aside from practical benefits like access to a tight community that helps members in need), it serves to undermine the belief. People don’t follow God for uncertainty, quite the opposite.
That’s a whole other, complex, issue, I just brought up fMRIs in response to your question: How do we measure the qualities of love, compassion, charity, mercy, and their opposites?
One approach is through neurobiology.
Could have been a supernatural experience; could have been from your own mind. Up to you to decide which it was, and which was more likely.
We don’t know, but we can put things in practice and see. By doing we discover if it’s true, or not.
I get it. That’s why I’m suggesting the actual point is not to prevent misbehavior, but the experience of percieved choice. Rather than being intimidated into good behaviour , you choose it.
My suggestion is that if God is, and the purpose is the experience of choice, then it could easily appear as if God is not involved. And yet, if we are created in such a way that certain choices will lead us to a shared conclusion, through Karma, reaping what you sow, or whatever it’s called by different people.
That is what seeking and chosing is about. MAny people do accept the word of some “authorinty” but ultimately we must take personal responsibility for our belief system and the actions it prompts. I think there’s a moral an ethical obligation to question belief systems
In that case I need to have another look at my Jr High grades. I think that teacher who like multiple choice was lying to me.
Honestly, this doesn’t make sense. One correct answer in no way conflicts choice. Many religions talk of the many paths to same answer, like the spokes of a wheel all meeting at the hub.
The economics of it is interesting. I see your point, but the fact is that efforts to abolish slavery on moral grounds had been going on for generations. At the very least it seems it was some combination of the two.
Again, interesting but I see it as some combination of the two. It seems to me that men have always been striving toward, not only knowledge of our physical world but in philosophical ways as well to better define human rights and how those are reflected in real life. That can be seen in the Enlightenment that influenced our own founding fathers. Certainly education and wider access to information , better communication and sharing of ideas plays a role.
I see it more as growing into the principles we espouse as people seek and push.
OK. It still seems to me that someone can go from “I don’t know” to " I Believe" but no point in splitting hairs.
Personally I see the emotional need for certainty when there really can’t be any as a human weakness we need to overcome. We are capable of understanding that we don’t really know, but we follow a certain path because it works for us.
But what really exists is ultimately not supernatural, only things we haven’t discovered and can’t explain at the moment.
How do we discover if it’s true? What feedback or outcome determines this?
Then why have revelation as part of the process at all? The people receiving proof of God and a message aren’t getting the same perceived choice as the people who do not. What’s the point of revelation, if we’re supposed to figure it out on our own?
To the extent there is a shared conclusion, which is minimal, it’s much more closely tied to the conditions a society finds itself in than anything else. Are Western democracies more spiritually evolved than feudal societies, or have each adopted a system that suits their conditions?
The seeking and choosing is a purely personal decision, though. You can judge the effects of your beliefs and choices for how well they are in accord with your moral code, but there’s no way to objectively compare them to God’s plan or message.
Aztecs sacrificing tens of thousands of people at once were just as convinced that what they were doing was right and holy as any Christian or Buddhist practicing today.
You got the point just fine: your teacher never said that the point of school was to choose, the point was the learn the correct answers. So he taught you the correct answers, rather than telling you you’d have to figure it out yourself, and that this seeking was the point, because that’s a foolish and ineffective practice, whether you’re a junior high teacher or a God.
The problem is that what you’re doing is observing changes in human society over time, and declaring, “Ah, this must have been the plan!” You see striving toward human rights as a divine goal, rather than the rational result of material changes to society. If technology hadn’t developed in the course that it did, the same analysis would lead you to declare that God’s message is for the serfs to know their place, and toil in the fields for the protection of their divinely-chosen lord. Asserting that the way things are is because that’s what God’s steering us toward isn’t falsifiable, and you cannot demonstrate that this steering is even happening. Thus, how can your conclusions have any meaning?
There’s always a gap between ideals and reality, no matter what the principles at hand are. I’m sure some Aztecs let a few captives escape, even though the principles they espoused demanded those sacrifices be made so that the Aztecs would have rain.
I’m fine with letting that matter drop.
I’m with you there, but people aren’t in a hurry to abandon their false certainty.
Ok, “could have been a external experience, could have been from your own mind”, then.
of course there is a God. You see things bigger than us in the universe, the sun, the stars, planet etc… It is a force and spirit in us humans also. and its up to humans to create heaven on earth with the gifts they possess.
you see, that is our purpose… to bring heaven to earth by having the right mind and spirit. and isn’t about picking a religion. wake up people.
I believe right now there are angels on the planet doing work to help humans, such as the current technology that seemed to come out of wherever? oh come on, don’t tell me your arrogant to think that an actual human invented technology. oh sure you may have seen videos of people, but how do you know they aren’t angels in disquise! just like the ancient pyramids, do you really think people built these in perfect alignment with the stars. so you see, there is something powerful out there. people don’t want to admit it because it freaks you out. technology is here to help, because now those bad forces are being exposed, and that some try to use it for evil purposes. the only ones going around talking about aliens and all these crazy things, they should be more focused on CELESTIALS, not TERRESTRIALS. know the difference people!