# When did religion jump the shark for great thinkers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2010, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373 "2010-05-31T11:07:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/181 "2010-06-02T23:00:33Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The bahai god is omnipotent and omniscient, thus it is logically certain that everything is **already** exactly as the god wishes. This fact escapes a lot of people, but it means that if a peaceful society with unity and education and quality and whatever were the god’s wish, it would already be happening. It isn’t, thus any omnipotent and omniscient god that wishes it does not exist. QED. > > Yes, this nixes the Christian God too and no, free will doesn’t help. you’re missing a piece or two of the puzzle to get to your logical certainty. That is, the purpose of creation , and exactly how the wheel turns. If there is a god we interact with how does that interaction work? According to most major religions it has something to do with faith and the true intent of our own hearts {consciousness, whatever} but even those concepts are somewhat vague and mystical because true intent is so hard to pin down. So, I reject your logical certainty as woefully incomplete Care to try again? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/182 "2010-06-02T23:08:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > you’re missing a piece or two of the puzzle to get to your logical certainty. That is, the purpose of creation , and exactly how the wheel turns. If there is a god we interact with how does that interaction work? According to most major religions it has something to do with faith and the true intent of our own hearts {consciousness, whatever} but even those concepts are somewhat vague and mystical because true intent is so hard to pin down. > So, I reject your logical certainty as woefully incomplete > > Care to try again? We simulposted _again_. 😃 I missed nothing. Omnipotence **means something** , and what it means is that if you’re doing something as a means to an end, then you’re not omnipotent, because being omniptent means you don’t _have_ to jump through hoops. This means, with logical inevitability, that I am an asshole because god **wants** me to be an asshole. He _specifically_ wants it, since he’s omniscient and my assholishness can’t have slipped under the radar. It can’t be to teach me or anyone else things, because he doesn’t need to allow assholery to teach things. I honestly don’t even have to get _into_ things that are vague and confusing because the facts here are so direct and the consequences are so clear. Consider this sentence: “I am a cheeseball.” I had complete control over its content - so there is no other possible explanation for the second word being “am” than because I wanted it that way. If I wanted it to be different, it would be. Such it is with god - if any god exists with complete control over the world. Proven. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/183 "2010-06-02T23:09:34Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > you’re missing a piece or two of the puzzle to get to your logical certainty. That is, the purpose of creation , and exactly how the wheel turns. If there is a god we interact with how does that interaction work? According to most major religions it has something to do with faith and the true intent of our own hearts {consciousness, whatever} but even those concepts are somewhat vague and mystical because true intent is so hard to pin down. > So, I reject your logical certainty as woefully incomplete > > Care to try again? Which of you is the religious one again? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/184 "2010-06-02T23:10:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > True for most things, but if our understanding of God came from God, how could he have steered us wrong? He didn’t. We grasp what we are able to grasp and try to grow from there. That’s why holding beliefs provisionally is better, and clinging to tradition as truth is a bad idea. > [@](#): > > As I mentioned, unfalsifiable god as the universe gods can’t be disproven - but they don’t really interact with us either. I don’t think I’d assume that positively. It depends on the nature of that interaction doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/185 "2010-06-02T23:17:50Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Which of you is the religious one again? Him. Obviously. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/186 "2010-06-02T23:19:30Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > I’m sorry but I don’t believe anyone believes in that god. And I’m not interested in dead people who did. They’re dead. Like the followers of Jupiter. well that’s one way of avoiding the challenge you accepted. Honest, those are basic concepts of God shared by lots of Chriatians as well as other religions. > [@](#): > > I don’t really want to be pedantic, but what did Jesus know about gods? according to him, just about everything, but I can’t say for sure. > [@](#): > > Do you mean the global floods are impossible to disprove (since they’re obviously not) or what? No. I mean that details of doctrine and relgious tradition can be disproven to a very reasonble scientific certainty. The claim that one can disprove god concepts with reasonable certainty surprised me and I’m interested if anyone can actually do it. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/187 "2010-06-02T23:28:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Easily; your definition is logically inconsistent. If God is “wholly Other - ineffable and beyond human comprehension”, then that’s all you can say about it. The rest of your definition contradmicts your first part by laying out definitions for the supposedly undefinable. We talk about God in metaphorical language for the most part. God is not unknowable; we know God through by what has been revealed to us, primarily through scripture and an indwelling of his spirit in us. > [@](#): > > And the other problem is that it’s something of a cheat. Very few people, probably not even you actually follow an undefinable god; the undefinable god is little more than a rhetorical prop that gets trotted out in conversations like this to defend religion. As soon as the critics go away, back out comes the actual version of God that people follow, which has all sorts of definitions, desires, commandments and so forth and resembles the undefinable god not at all. He’s not undefinable; it’s that our language is awkward to use to describe him. He is a personally knowable God, not an inanimate force. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/188 "2010-06-02T23:29:58Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The bahai god is omnipotent and omniscient, thus it is logically certain that everything is **already** exactly as the god wishes. This fact escapes a lot of people, but it means that if a peaceful society with unity and education and quality and whatever were the god’s wish, it would already be happening. It isn’t, thus any omnipotent and omniscient god that wishes it does not exist. QED… The final two sentences do not necessarily follow from the first. God may wish things to change over time for whatever incomprehensible reasons God has. This is Gad as dramatic playwright. We mere earthlings percives these changes as progress, or as deterioration, depending on how God has written us to perceive things. But I do agree the the omniscience thing eliminates free will. Maybe cause and effect too, I’m a little fuzzier on that. I suppose we can consider cause and effect still exist, so long as God is the cause in all cases. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/189 "2010-06-02T23:37:20Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > A god’s commandments are not the same as the god’s characteristics. What are god’s properties? As we’ve already seen, if one of them is “ineffability”, anything else ascribed is bunk. And omnimax gods are logically inconsistent. If I don’t have the IQ for advanced calculus should I abandon basic math? The acknowledgement that we can never grasp God fully in this mortal life doesn’t mean we can’t experience God in some way and strive to fathom the meaning of that experience. Also , I reject that omnimax gods are logically inconsistant because of the reasons I mentioned above. We don’t have the proper knowledge to declare logical inconsistantcy. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/190 "2010-06-02T23:41:49Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > The final two sentences do not necessarily follow from the first. God may wish things to change over time for whatever incomprehensible reasons God has. This is Gad as dramatic playwright. We mere earthlings percives these changes as progress, or as deterioration, depending on how God has written us to perceive things. > > But I do agree the the omniscience thing eliminates free will. Maybe cause and effect too, I’m a little fuzzier on that. I suppose we can consider cause and effect still exist, so long as God is the cause in all cases. If a peaceful society with unity and education and quality and whatever were the god’s wish, then that’s the way it would be. If the god wants the world to be currently mired in injustice and giving the _appearance_ of gradually working its way to perfection, that will happen. But the god has to actively want the current injustice for it to be currently happening. This isn’t a disproof of all gods, but it wasn’t meant to be; it was opposing the bahai and christian gods, both of whom are defined to want people to act other than how they do. All such gods are handily disproven; as are any other omnipotent gods who supposedly wish the world to be even slightly different than it is. I will note that I didn’t come up with this - it’s just the Problem Of Evil unwound one step. The POE also presumes that the god is omnibenevolent - that is, that it doesn’t want unnecessary suffering (which is to say, any suffering), and thus the existence of suffering disproves the god. This is merely a specialized case of the (irrefutable) argument that _whatever_ an omnipotent/-scient god wants, that and exactly that will be happening, and if anything else is happening the god is disproven. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/191 "2010-06-02T23:42:57Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Also , I reject that omnimax gods are logically inconsistant because of the reasons I mentioned above. We don’t have the proper knowledge to declare logical inconsistantcy. Of course we do - unless you declare the word “omnimax” to have no meaning. If it has meaning, then we have the knowledge of what that meaning, um, means. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/192 "2010-06-02T23:44:04Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Not to piss you off, but “good riddance” is my view. Not pissed. I agree. I meant sadly because it’s unfortunate so many relgions and religious people are so rigid they impede thier own growth and the growth of our society. > [@](#): > > Most of those sound quite nice. I’d sign up. > As a philosophical view, I quite like the points you brought up. But they are “just” philosophical points. Not “absolute/religious” ones. I don’t care where they came from, as long as they’re good ideas. My point being that if we concentrate on the principles we believe in and the goals we don’t have to worry about god belief or atheism. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/193 "2010-06-02T23:45:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > We simulposted. 🙂 > > Am I the only one who’s starting to think this is ranging pretty far off-topic? right. I don’t want to highjack but your statement surprised me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/194 "2010-06-02T23:53:57Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > He didn’t. We grasp what we are able to grasp and try to grow from there. That’s why holding beliefs provisionally is better, and clinging to tradition as truth is a bad idea. To get almost back to the topic, are you saying that people 3,000 years ago were incapable of holding sophisticated moral ideas, even when inspired by some kind of deity? I think they were, just as they would be capable of understanding scientific ideas - they just didn’t have the foundation. The foundation was built by the great thinkers of the OP, and I’d also contend that the reason religion is supported by fewer and fewer of the great thinkers is that the combined foundations of ethics and science have grown beyond it. Paine said he believed in a god, a deistic one, because of the structure of the solar system. Today I’m almost sure he’d be an atheist. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’d assume that positively. It depends on the nature of that interaction doesn’t it? Almost every interaction is measurable and testable, not just physical ones. My daughter is doing all sorts of interesting studies for her Psych PhD research. For instance, does the interaction tell someone something he didn’t know and couldn’t find out from watching Oprah? Are the many people who claim to be talking to God having some sort of consistent message? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/195 "2010-06-03T00:14:28Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > Easily; your definition is logically inconsistent. If God is “wholly Other - ineffable and beyond human comprehension”, then that’s all you can say about it. The rest of your definition contradicts your first part by laying out definitions for the supposedly undefinable. We talk about God in metaphorical language for the most part. God is not unknowable; we know God through by what has been revealed to us, primarily through scripture and an indwelling of his spirit in us. [/quote] :rolleyes: You are basically admitting that you just make all this nonsense up, contradicting yourself further, and you are using a useless source. The Bible has internal contradictions and numerous factual errors, and therefore can’t be taken seriously as evidence. And besides that, the God of the Bible isn’t remotely like your carefully-vague God; if the bible is evidence, it’s evidence against your claims not for it. And this line of argument is further demonstration that neither you nor probably anyone else actually believes in VagueGod. > [@Skammer](#): > > He’s not undefinable; it’s that our language is awkward to use to describe him. He is a personally knowable God, not an inanimate force. You are simply being incoherent. He can’t simultaneously be “wholly Other - ineffable and beyond human comprehension” and personally knowable and describable. Which is it? You obviously want your god to be beyond the human ability to describe or understand when someone critical come along, but then want to be able to say all sorts of specific things about what it’s like. Either he’s understandable and definable, or not. You aren’t just moving the goalposts; you’ve mounted them on a flywheel. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/196 "2010-06-03T00:17:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > We simulposted _again_. 😃 > > I missed nothing. Omnipotence **means something** , and what it means is that if you’re doing something as a means to an end, then you’re not omnipotent, because being omniptent means you don’t _have_ to jump through hoops. Of course. Omnipotence means god can do anything. That doesn’t answer the question of purpose. If the journey itself, the experience itself is part of the purpose then it is not logically inconsntant. iow, If I take the long way instead of the most direct way because that’s my intent, then it makes sense. > [@](#): > > This means, with logical inevitability, that I am an asshole because god **wants** me to be an asshole. He _specifically_ wants it, since he’s omniscient and my assholishness can’t have slipped under the radar. It can’t be to teach me or anyone else things, because he doesn’t need to allow assholery to teach things. I reject this as a logical inevitability. Again, without considering purpose and intent the logic is incomplete. Yes God knows you’re an asshole , who doesn’t? 😃 and yes an omnipotent god doesn’t have to allow it, unless the experience itself is the purpose. Even if that experience is the illusion of free will, so that you exist with certain potential and choose what to do with that potential. If the experience is the purpose then there is no logical inconsistancy. > [@](#): > > I honestly don’t even have to get _into_ things that are vague and confusing because the facts here are so direct and the consequences are so clear. not that I see. > [@](#): > > Consider this sentence: “I am a cheeseball.” I had complete control over its content - so there is no other possible explanation for the second word being “am” than because I wanted it that way. If I wanted it to be different, it would be. Such it is with god - if any god exists with complete control over the world. Proven. QED. If an all powerful god created the world as it is then why is certainly a legitimate and troubling question. Still, I maintain you cannot proclaim logical inevitability without considering the purpose of that creation. If; God created us. God wants us to love each other rather than hurt each other God is omnipotent he could have created us already loving each other. IMO that logically indicates that the experience of choice and the journey to loving each other through choice, consequences and experience, must be part of the point of creation. Is that logically inconsistant? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/197 "2010-06-03T00:30:31Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Of course. Omnipotence means god can do anything. That doesn’t answer the question of purpose. If the journey itself, the experience itself is part of the purpose then it is not logically inconsntant. iow, If I take the long way instead of the most direct way because that’s my intent, then it makes sense. And it would also mean that you don’t want to be there - not now, not soon. And arguably not **ever** - or at least not for the sake of being there. You’d get there eventually as a side effect of that being where the journey was pointed at, but clearly actually _being_ there wasn’t a serious goal, or you wouldn’t have dawdled. I understand this, because I write fiction and thus play god. The point is the journey/story. My characters are assholes becoming nicer - but I don’t _want_ them to be nice now; it would ruin the story. I want them to be assholes now and nice on page 284. And not a minute before. You can’t say that god wants both the journey and the destination - one would trump the other inevitably and utterly. Unless you want to get into debates about logical impossibilities and the like. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I reject this as a logical inevitability. Again, without considering purpose and intent the logic is incomplete. Yes God knows you’re an asshole , who doesn’t? 😃 and yes an omnipotent god doesn’t have to allow it, unless the experience itself is the purpose. Even if that experience is the illusion of free will, so that you exist with certain potential and choose what to do with that potential. If the experience is the purpose then there is no logical inconsistancy. If the experience is the goal, the supposed goal is a complete and total lie - it _can’t_ be the goal, because the trip is the goal. If I go on a round trip vacation, it wasn’t because being at home was my goal. If being at home _was_ my goal, then I wouldn’t have gone on the trip. I’ll note that this gets considerably worse if your god is unchanging, but even a malleable god has to choose only one of the journey or the goal to be of overriding importance. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > not that I see. Look again. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > If an all powerful god created the world as it is then why is certainly a legitimate and troubling question. Still, I maintain you cannot proclaim logical inevitability without considering the purpose of that creation. > If; > God created us. > God wants us to love each other rather than hurt each other > God is omnipotent > he could have created us already loving each other. > IMO that logically indicates that the experience of choice and the journey to loving each other through choice, consequences and experience, must be part of the point of creation. > Is that logically inconsistant? Yes, because “God wants us to love each other rather than hurt each other” and “the journey to loving each other through choice, consequences and experience, must be part of the point of creation” are utterly inconsistent; he can’t want to have eaten his cake and be eating it too. He can’t simultaneously want his goal and want not to have it (wanting to be 116 pages away from it instead). The two positions are completely logically incompatible. If you wanted to posit a god that was pleased to torture people and thrust them through trials for the enjoyment of watching the drama, then that could work. But the bahai and christian gods, who shake their heads sorrowfully at the misdeeds of humanity, don’t. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/198 "2010-06-03T00:49:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If a peaceful society with unity and education and quality and whatever were the god’s wish, then that’s the way it would be. If the god wants the world to be currently mired in injustice and giving the _appearance_ of gradually working its way to perfection, that will happen. But the god has to actively want the current injustice for it to be currently happening. > > This isn’t a disproof of all gods, but it wasn’t meant to be; it was opposing the bahai and christian gods, both of whom are defined to want people to act other than how they do. All such gods are handily disproven; as are any other omnipotent gods who supposedly wish the world to be even slightly different than it is. > > I will note that I didn’t come up with this - it’s just the Problem Of Evil unwound one step. The POE also presumes that the god is omnibenevolent - that is, that it doesn’t want unnecessary suffering (which is to say, any suffering), and thus the existence of suffering disproves the god. This is merely a specialized case of the (irrefutable) argument that _whatever_ an omnipotent/-scient god wants, that and exactly that will be happening, and if anything else is happening the god is disproven. It’s a good argument, but it’s not a logically inevitable one. If the experience of making the journey through freewill and choices to a society of peace and unity is what that god wants, then that’s what’s happeneing. It’s true that with an omnipotent god that isn’t neccessary but that’s where purpose of creation comes in. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/199 "2010-06-03T01:29:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > To get almost back to the topic, are you saying that people 3,000 years ago were incapable of holding sophisticated moral ideas, even when inspired by some kind of deity? I think they were, just as they would be capable of understanding scientific ideas - they just didn’t have the foundation. The foundation was built by the great thinkers of the OP, and I’d also contend that the reason religion is supported by fewer and fewer of the great thinkers is that the combined foundations of ethics and science have grown beyond it. Paine said he believed in a god, a deistic one, because of the structure of the solar system. Today I’m almost sure he’d be an atheist. right. The foundation is built upon over time and generations. There’s the question of how many are able and willing to understand, education, etc. I think spiritually , like science, we as a people and a growing society, build on the understanding of previous generations. I’m glad to see a rejection of myth as generations pass and people become more knowledgeable. I think the great teachers didn’t want us to cling to those things but it was somewhat inevitable because of the nature of man at the time. I was searching for something else and came upon this from > [@](#): > > J.Spong > Transcending a cultural faith tradition in the name of > a vision of a world religion is not easy. It demands that all religious systems sacrifice their claims to possess exclusive truth or to be the sole pathway to God. It invites people to live in the insecurity of uncertainty and to embrace the fact that we are creatures bound by time and space talking about a God who is not.. True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers. Mankind has to recognize and become comfortable with what we don’t know. We have to understand that we are still, with all our advances, still struggling and learning with much more to understand. We have to lose our inclination and emtioal attachment to thinking we actually know, when in many cases, we don’t. > [@](#): > > Almost every interaction is measurable and testable, not just physical ones. My daughter is doing all sorts of interesting studies for her Psych PhD research. For instance, does the interaction tell someone something he didn’t know and couldn’t find out from watching Oprah? Are the many people who claim to be talking to God having some sort of consistent message? I wouldn’t expect consitancy. Years ago I likened man’s communion with God to the purest water coming through an impure filter. You might also say it’s the truest brightest light coming through an imperfect lamp. There are simlarities, but we also get some of the filters and the lamps which vary and are imperfect. One of my own experiences was concerning a profound insight that led to peace of mind. It’s that question of where that understanding comes from that keeps me entertaining the possibility. I don’t think we’re at a place yet where we can test or measure to determine the source of certain experiences. We’re getting closer and we may yet discover that it’s just fireing nuerons or endorphines . Or we may remain open to the possibility that we are connected in a way we never imagined before and that connection has something to do with certain experiences. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/200 "2010-06-03T02:18:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > And it would also mean that you don’t want to be there - not now, not soon. And arguably not **ever** - or at least not for the sake of being there. You’d get there eventually as a side effect of that being where the journey was pointed at, but clearly actually _being_ there wasn’t a serious goal, or you wouldn’t have dawdled. No. It would mean the route and the journey itself were equally important as the final desitnation. > [@](#): > > I understand this, because I write fiction and thus play god. The point is the journey/story. My characters are assholes becoming nicer - but I don’t _want_ them to be nice now; it would ruin the story. I want them to be assholes now and nice on page 284. And not a minute before. > > You can’t say that god wants both the journey and the destination - one would trump the other inevitably and utterly. Unless you want to get into debates about logical impossibilities and the like. I don’t see why one has to trump the other. In fact I might even say that God being omnipotent and omniscient knows the destination is inevitable, being part of initial creation, and the journey itself is an equal part of that inevitable whole. > [@](#): > > If the experience is the goal, the supposed goal is a complete and total lie - it _can’t_ be the goal, because the trip is the goal. Not so. Both can be equal components. > [@](#): > > If I go on a round trip vacation, it wasn’t because being at home was my goal. If being at home _was_ my goal, then I wouldn’t have gone on the trip. Interesting analogy since many religions speak of us returning to God. Ultiamtely your desire is the experience **and** to be home again after the experience right? That fits what I’m suggesting quite well. > [@](#): > > I’ll note that this gets considerably worse if your god is unchanging, but even a malleable god has to choose only one of the journey or the goal to be of overriding importance. you haven’t demonstrated this is true. > [@](#): > > Look again. okey dokey, whacha got? > [@](#): > > Yes, because “God wants us to love each other rather than hurt each other” and “the journey to loving each other through choice, consequences and experience, must be part of the point of creation” are utterly inconsistent; he can’t want to have eaten his cake and be eating it too. He can’t simultaneously want his goal and want not to have it (wanting to be 116 pages away from it instead). The two positions are completely logically incompatible. I don’t see that they are. I honestly do get your point, that an ominipotent god can’t want the goal and the experience at the same time. I don’t agree. I can see them as equal parts of a larger whole. > [@](#): > > If you wanted to posit a god that was pleased to torture people and thrust them through trials for the enjoyment of watching the drama, then that could work. But the bahai and christian gods, who shake their heads sorrowfully at the misdeeds of humanity, don’t. because under the concept of free will , illusion or not, we could choose differently. We do not have to choose greed, resentment, power over others, selfishness. we’re getting into an area that can go on forever and I don’t want to highjack. I was interested in the assertion you made earlier and now I’ve seen the argument and I’m satisfied I understand it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373.md?page=11)