The Future of Religion

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Know, not believe. I have evidence, you see.

Yes, yes, at heart, even using an evidence-based system rather than any other is a matter of “belief”, if you must so torture the word, but once that framework is accepted, nothing that takes place within it can be said to be a matter of “belief”.

As to the OP: I would hope, and I think it will be the case, as long as currents of fundamentalism are overcome, that eventually the world would settle into a pattern like parts of Europe, where religion is relegated to just a quaint folkway, not the lifestance that some others take it for. A cultural relic, a thin skin painted over a much more permanent underlying substrate of Humanism. Kind of like the Tea Ceremony or something, you know.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen arguments , but no evidence. Did I miss something?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’ve seen arguments , but no evidence. Did I miss something?
[/QUOTE]
Um. He said “I hope” and “I think”, expressions of personal beliefs and desires. So in this case, yes, his post IS his cite, and all he needs.

[Pleonast]

[QUOTE=Leaffan]
Inspired by this thread on persons confronting atheism, I wondered: could organized religion become a thing of the past? I’m not talking about 10 years, or 100 years, but what are the hopes for organized religion say, 1000 years from now? I’m basing my (atheist-slanted) question upon the fact that we still have no proof to-date. So after an unbelievably increasing number of years, in a growing technological global society, when will the paradigm shift?)
[/QUOTE]
Whether or not religion or other spiritual beliefs continue to exist in the far future can be answered simply: is religion adaptive? That is, do religious beliefs increase, decrease, or have no effect on an individual’s reproductive success?

I think it’s clear that in the past, religion was adaptive. Religious beliefs were universal to the human species. Conditions change, though, so maybe religious beliefs are less adaptive now? Maybe in some regions. Europe certainly seems like a good candidate, but their growth rates are far below world averages. That could indicate that lack of religion is maladaptive. This is where we’d need to find numbers of growth rates vs religiosity.

Discussing the proof/lack-there-of God is off-topic.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’ve seen arguments , but no evidence. Did I miss something?
[/QUOTE]

No evidence of natural evil, or what?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No evidence of natural evil, or what?
[/QUOTE]

It appeared to me that in post 66 you said you had offered evidence that God does not and cannot exist. I don’t believe you have. Was I mistaken in your intent in that post?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The only logical contradiction I see is between omnibenevolence and natural evil. The other two omnis have to be thrown in to avoid excusing God from not being able to improve things. I think the argument is only emotional in the sense that it is the emotions of the victims which we are considering.

As for eternity - I don’t think it excuses anything. First, the temporary nature of pain does not make our inflicting it okay.
[/QUOTE]

If that’s the case then no amount of suffering no matter how minor is acceptable. Is that the argument? A benevolent God would not allow any suffering at all?

That is the Bush Administration torture argument - if it doesn’t kill the detainee, it is not really torture. I’m pretty sure you’re with me on the immorality of that position.

yep

The second thing is that I don’t see any religion saying that a person gets eternal life because of this kind of suffering. If you’ll live forever no matter whether you die peacefully in bed or drown, why consider drowning acceptable?

I wasn’t referring to religion specific doctrine. The question to me seems to be, would a benevolent God actually allow suffering? We know that as parents we sometimes have to allow our children to learn something the hard way. We have to allow them to run risks to grow from helpless dependent beings into our peers. If we know that to be true about our mortal children and it follows logically from our experience and our observation of life, why is it that the limited risks in a fleeting mortal life seem so contradictory to a benevolent God?
Is it that any suffering at all seems contradictory to benevolence, or is it actually some degree of suffering seems to be too much? Is it an act of love when we as parents allow our children to be at risk?

Christians have a further problem, in that at least some of the victims are not saved, and might have been had they lived longer. So, not only does God allow them to die painfully, he allows them to be sentenced to hell for eternity.

Again, I’m not discussing religion specific doctrine.

I agree that suffering can teach us - but only if that suffering is the result of something we did, like touch the hot stove. If a safe falls on me and leaves me paralyzed, I’m at a loss to know what I’ve learned from the experience. People do say that they learn from adversity, and no doubt they do, but I wonder how many wouldn’t have undone the thing that put them in the wheelchair.

Here it does seem that you’re discussing a degree of suffering. You acknowledge that suffering can teach us. btw I don’t agree that it only teaches me is a result of something I did. We do learn from adversity.

Finally, to consider god omnibenevolent you have to claim that each and every bit of suffering from natural evil is required, and that the world would be a worse place somehow if even one of those drowned children survived. I think that’s a tall order.

I don’t agree. I wouldn’t have to claim that at all. I acknowledge that there is likely to be a big difference between my limited human perspective and the perspective of an eternal God. When I was little what seemed like great suffering was much different than what I perceive as suffering now. The suffering of others often puts my more mundane suffering in a different perspective. I can imagine a perspective beyond that in which all the suffering we perceive now is a bad dream from which we have awakened.
Regardless of that, my point is that the problem of evil, natural or otherwise doesn’t seem all that logical to me.
If non believers find the problem of evil to be something insurmountable for them personally I get that, but that also seems like something that is as much emotion as it is reason.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I wasn’t referring to religion specific doctrine. The question to me seems to be, would a benevolent God actually allow suffering? We know that as parents we sometimes have to allow our children to learn something the hard way. We have to allow them to run risks to grow from helpless dependent beings into our peers. If we know that to be true about our mortal children and it follows logically from our experience and our observation of life, why is it that the limited risks in a fleeting mortal life seem so contradictory to a benevolent God?
Is it that any suffering at all seems contradictory to benevolence, or is it actually some degree of suffering seems to be too much? Is it an act of love when we as parents allow our children to be at risk?
[/QUOTE]
I suspect that, were you to ask 100 parents if they could choose either to allow their kids to find out heroin is bad (for example) by themselves or simply implant that knowledge into their mind, all 100 would go for the latter option. An omnipotent deity has options we don’t. By the very nature of it, it can simply impart any knowledge it thinks we need - and also by its very nature, that knowledge need not be lacking in any way from that gained from actual experience.

If we say that a benevolent god values something above just not-suffering, then it allowing suffering to happen is certainly a reasonable position. But not if it’s omnipotent.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It appeared to me that in post 66 you said you had offered evidence that God does not and cannot exist. I don’t believe you have. Was I mistaken in your intent in that post?
[/QUOTE]

No, not mistaken - it was an argument (omnibenevolence is logically incompatible with natural evil) backed by evidence (natural evil exists, in the form of hurricanes, tsunamis, malaria etc.). Providing the evidence proves the argument.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If that’s the case then no amount of suffering no matter how minor is acceptable. Is that the argument? A benevolent God would not allow any suffering at all?
[/QUOTE]

An omnibenevolent god wouldn’t want to, no. And an omnipotent one wouldn’t have to.

[jackdavinci]

I’d like to think that dogmatic supernatural religion will fall by the wayside. But I think there’s still a value to something secular with a similar structure - where people get together to talk about different issues, do good works for the community, hear lectures about moral issues, etc. I think the Unitarians are evolving into something like this.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, not mistaken - it was an argument (omnibenevolence is logically incompatible with natural evil) backed by evidence (natural evil exists, in the form of hurricanes, tsunamis, malaria etc.). Providing the evidence proves the argument.
[/QUOTE]

I see. Then yes , if I understand natural evil correctly, {natural events which results in suffering among humanity} then it does exist. It’s the argument and it’s conclusion that I reject.

It seems to me that in order to claim it is logically incompatible we’d have to know things that are currently beyond our scope of knowledge, such as the purpose of creation. We’d have to have the ability to see from God’s perspective and encompass the vast puzzle of all creation and how it all fits together. We can’t.

OTOH we can see that experiences , even unpleasant ones, can move us to grow. We can see as parents or even friends it can be an act of love to let someone deal with bad experiences rather than intervene. I say again, that it’s the scope of suffering that seems to be the real objection and I do understand the emotional response. I think it’s an error to call it logical.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
An omnibenevolent god wouldn’t want to, no. And an omnipotent one wouldn’t have to.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t agree. If the temporary experience of mortal life and the scope of experience available is a key part of the purpose of creation then those fleeting experiences are not incompatible with benevolence.
IMHO the logical argument observes that the scope of suffering that humanity endures doesn’t have a purpose we can grasp from our perspective.

The omnipotent factor also disregards the overall purpose of creation. The idea that God could do things differently just asks the question, “why are things the way they are?” The answer being, “we don’t know yet”

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I suspect that, were you to ask 100 parents if they could choose either to allow their kids to find out heroin is bad (for example) by themselves or simply implant that knowledge into their mind, all 100 would go for the latter option. An omnipotent deity has options we don’t. By the very nature of it, it can simply impart any knowledge it thinks we need - and also by its very nature, that knowledge need not be lacking in any way from that gained from actual experience.
[/QUOTE]
Can you think of examples of parents who are overly protective or intervene to “protect” their children from the harsh realities of life? What kind of people do those children become? Yes God has options we don’t but also knowledge that we don’t.

If we say that a benevolent god values something above just not-suffering, then it allowing suffering to happen is certainly a reasonable position. But not if it’s omnipotent.

and omniscient right? I repeat, if the brief human experience and the scope of that experience is part of the purpose then it is not illogical.
For the moment , we do not have the proper information to judge correctly. We can honestly say it seems illogical from our limited human perspective but logic also demands that we acknowledge that we lack the larger perspective that God would have. Lacking that we are incapable of claiming within the rules of logic that God cannot exist, just as we lack the ability to make that claim from a scientific standpoint.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Organized religion will be with us for as long as it continues to stay profitable.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Patty O’Furniture]
Organized religion will be with us for as long as it continues to stay profitable.
[/QUOTE]

Ahhhhh you may be the wisest of us all.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t agree. If the temporary experience of mortal life and the scope of experience available is a key part of the purpose of creation then those fleeting experiences are not incompatible with benevolence.
IMHO the logical argument observes that the scope of suffering that humanity endures doesn’t have a purpose we can grasp from our perspective.

The omnipotent factor also disregards the overall purpose of creation. The idea that God could do things differently just asks the question, “why are things the way they are?” The answer being, “we don’t know yet”
[/QUOTE]
Nonsense, you miss the point completely. It doesn’t MATTER what if any purpose God may have, what matters is the suffering. Nothing can justify it. Not to mention that God having a purpose for us is evil in itself.

Your argument basically amounts to an unspoken acknowledgement that if God exists, he’s evil, so you just redefine evil as good. Because you’d rather believe in an evil God and follow evil than admit that there isn’t a God.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I see. Then yes , if I understand natural evil correctly, {natural events which results in suffering among humanity} then it does exist. It’s the argument and it’s conclusion that I reject.

It seems to me that in order to claim it is logically incompatible we’d have to know things that are currently beyond our scope of knowledge, such as the purpose of creation. We’d have to have the ability to see from God’s perspective and encompass the vast puzzle of all creation and how it all fits together. We can’t.

OTOH we can see that experiences , even unpleasant ones, can move us to grow. We can see as parents or even friends it can be an act of love to let someone deal with bad experiences rather than intervene. I say again, that it’s the scope of suffering that seems to be the real objection and I do understand the emotional response. I think it’s an error to call it logical.
[/QUOTE]

It’s perfectly logical, and doesn’t require knowledge of god’s mind, only his (claimed) attributes - that he is All Good and All Powerful. If god is omnibenevolent, then he should want no suffering at all, ever. Not even to make us “grow” (which is a philosophy, BTW, I utterly reject). If he is truly omnipotent, he can have us do all the growing he desires, by willing it so. No suffering necessary.

And this counterargument doesn’t address suffering that is quite terminal, such as dying in a tsunami. Where’s the “growth” there?

I don’t agree. If the temporary experience of mortal life and the scope of experience available is a key part of the purpose of creation then those fleeting experiences are not incompatible with benevolence.

Suffering being fleeting doesn’t diminish its status as suffering.

IMHO the logical argument observes that the scope of suffering that humanity endures doesn’t have a purpose we can grasp from our perspective.

It is no defence that the suffering is only temporary from the eternal view. It is the existence of any suffering at all that destroys omnibenevolence/omnipotence as shared attributes. It is no counter to say that god sees the “bigger picture”. If he does, and that means you have to suffer now, then he is either not omnibenevolent (he could as easily do things without you suffering, being omnipotent, and chooses not to) or not omnipotent (he would like you not to suffer, being omnibenevolent, but can’t prevent it), or neither. Take your pick.

[gonzomax]

If god appeared in a thundering cloud .called your name ,put g on forehead etc.
If that happened we would not be having this discussion at all. However so far the evidence is zero. If god existed he could do one big show and be done with it. So far ,not once has he done a thing to end the debate. Is it too hard for him to do ?
So because we see no evidence ,it is our disbelieving nature. Not the total lack of proof.
Baloney. God must be too busy with picking winners in football games and boxing matches to do such a simple thing.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
It’s perfectly logical, and doesn’t require knowledge of god’s mind, only his (claimed) attributes - that he is All Good and All Powerful. If god is omnibenevolent, then he should want no suffering at all, ever.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what the difference is between benevolent {disposed to doing good}
and omnibenevolent. Creating your own definitions doesn’t make it more logical.
Since my life experience as a parent tells me my love for my children never stops even though I have to let them experience some unpleasant things I can extrapolate that to the God as father metaphor. Would I save them from all pain and suffering if I could. Not if I wanted them to grow into responsible useful adults. They sometimes saw me as mean or cruel or unfair because from their perspective I was not being loving. Now as adults with children of their own they understand a lot more.
IMHO the purpose of creation is critical to any logical discussion. If the overall purpose of creation is positive then God remains benevolent no matter how hard it is for our human perspective to understand.

Not even to make us “grow” (which is a philosophy, BTW, I utterly reject). If he is truly omnipotent, he can have us do all the growing he desires, by willing it so. No suffering necessary.

So you reject the idea that adversity can be a tool for personal growth?
God’s omnipotence also doesn’t change the overall purpose. As I just said, even if I could prevent any suffering from my own kids it wouldn’t necessarily be an act of love to do so.

And this counterargument doesn’t address suffering that is quite terminal, such as dying in a tsunami. Where’s the “growth” there?

I have addressed it above. If we are spiritual beings and only temporarily physical then physical death holds no negative aspect. We must also factor in that each moment and the events within it affect more than one individual. The vast web of creation, cause and effect is too much for us to comprehend for now.

Suffering being fleeting doesn’t diminish its status as suffering. It is no defence that the suffering is only temporary from the eternal view. It is the existence of any suffering at all that destroys omnibenevolence/omnipotence as shared attributes. It is no counter to say that god sees the “bigger picture”. If he does, and that means you have to suffer now, then he is either not omnibenevolent (he could as easily do things without you suffering, being omnipotent, and chooses not to) or not omnipotent (he would like you not to suffer, being omnibenevolent, but can’t prevent it), or neither. Take your pick.

I simply don’t agree and don’t find this to be logical. If the overall purpose of creation is positive then there is no conflict with benevolence and omnipotence as qualities of God.
The parent analogy isn’t perfect but useful. There were times in my children’s lives when I did have the power to intervene and spare them some discomfort but I didn’t because my purpose was to have them grow up to be responsible adults. They are now my peers even though they are remain my children. In those times there was no contradiction between my ability to intervene and my love. My purpose and my love for them , my experience about life in general, that they couldn’t understand at that point, told me to let them have the experience.

Extrapolate that to God with complete knowledge of all creation and exactly how all the billions of physical events fit into a reflection of spiritual reality and how those events turn the wheel of growth. A person may say “it doesn’t make any sense to me.” but we cannot use logic to draw conclusions about things we can’t comprehend. It isn’t logical to do so.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So you reject the idea that adversity can be a tool for personal growth?
[/QUOTE]
Adversity quite often ruins people. If God defines suffering that drives someone insane as “growth”, why should I CARE about his reasons ?

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If we are spiritual beings and only temporarily physical then physical death holds no negative aspect. We must also factor in that each moment and the events within it affect more than one individual
[/QUOTE]
Suffering is good, death doesn’t matter, the individual is expendable - the god you follow has every symptom of being utterly evil. You are simply asserting that God is good, despite him, according to you, acting exactly like an evil God would.

And, your attitude exemplifies exactly why I say we will give up religion or be destroyed, and why I consider religion to largely incompatible with personal growth and morality. That attitude of what is good, that contempt for the real world and the lives and suffering of others is both malignant and self destructive. Your attitude is exactly the sort that leads to people murdering or torturing or oppressing entire populations, all the while patting themselves on the back about how they are doing it for their victim’s own good.