# 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:** 9
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/161 "2010-06-02T21:49:18Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I’ll just stick to the classic Christian God of Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant faith. Not all the details, upon which there is disagrement, but what is generally common to their understandings of God. > > First God is wholly Other - ineffable and beyond human comprehension. Right there that gives us problems with defining God, let alone proving/disproving. > > God is the First Cause (in the words of the Creed, “Creator of Heaven and Earth; through Him all things were made.”) > > Let’s see - God is eternal and omnipresent. Those, I think, are important parts of the definition. > > Anything you can disprove yet? So your god is unknowable, started the “universe” and _is_ the “universe”. I’m sure you don’t “believe” in it because of that. Your god seems to be “the laws of physics” - except that we at least know some parts of the laws of physics. You know that once this discussion has settled down, you’ll end up with either an impotent god or something that wouldn’t be called a “god” anyway, right? ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/162 "2010-06-02T21:53:00Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Voyager](#): > > No, he’s right, though he is assuming that a particular god hypothesis stands still. which they don’t. > [@](#): > > What actually happens, and the Catholics are an excellent example of this, is that many of the details of a god change as the old details get disproven - details like God created the world in 6 days. That indicates a change in our understanding doesn’t it, rather than a god that doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I’d agree on most, since so many religions have found that keeping the dogma a bit fuzzy cuts down on dogma rewrites. But I’ll echo **Superfluous Parentheses** - give us details of a god, what he has done, how he has interacted with the world, and we can falsify him. Are we talking about details like God flooded the world and saved Noah. God made the whole world dark after Jesus died, things like that? How can you disprove more general concepts of God? ---
**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, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/163 "2010-06-02T21:56:08Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > So your god is unknowable, started the “universe” and _is_ the “universe”. Not unknowable; indescribable. And no, God is outside the universe. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you don’t “believe” in it because of that. Your god seems to be “the laws of physics” - except that we at least know some parts of the laws of physics. No, I don’t believe because of that. I believe because of my personal experience with God – but that’s not part of the definition of God nor evidence to anyone else that God exists. > [@](#): > > You know that once this discussion has settled down, you’ll end up with either an impotent god or something that wouldn’t be called a “god” anyway, right? No; I expect that you’ll end up accusing me of waffling or cheating in my definition. ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/164 "2010-06-02T21:58:02Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Are we talking about details like God flooded the world and saved Noah. God made the whole world dark after Jesus died, things like that? > How can you disprove more general concepts of God? I’m making my strategy quite clear here: most of the stuff in the bible is either hear-say and/or has no evidence at all (while it should, like the flood). And more general concepts of gods make those gods less interesting to worship. Personally, I’m fine with thousands of impersonal gods that can’t be reasoned with. No way to disprove them, I don’t care. The plain reality is that those are not the kinds of gods people actually believe in. Gods are useful/people pray to gods because we can get something from them. Show me what they can _do_ and I’ll at least believe they exist - even if I might not call them gods. ---
**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 2, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/165 "2010-06-02T21:58:23Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I’ll just stick to the classic Christian God of Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant faith. Not all the details, upon which there is disagrement, but what is generally common to their understandings of God. > > First God is wholly Other - ineffable and beyond human comprehension. Right there that gives us problems with defining God, let alone proving/disproving. > > God is the First Cause (in the words of the Creed, “Creator of Heaven and Earth; through Him all things were made.”) > > Let’s see - God is eternal and omnipresent. Those, I think, are important parts of the definition. > > Anything you can disprove yet? 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. 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. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/166 "2010-06-02T22:03:45Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Not unknowable; indescribable. And no, God is outside the universe. That means you can’t say anything at all about that god, right? Like, say, that it exists… > [@](#): > > No, I don’t believe because of that. I believe because of my personal experience with God – but that’s not part of the definition of God nor evidence to anyone else that God exists. That’s fine. It’s just not useful evidence. > [@](#): > > No; I expect that you’ll end up accusing me of waffling or cheating in my definition. I expect a bit more from fairly sane posters on this board 🙂 But I still haven’t heard a definition that’s not tailor made to be untestable. Untestable gods _don’t do anything_. ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/167 "2010-06-02T22:08:53Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > So your god is unknowable, started the “universe” and _is_ the “universe”. > > I’m sure you don’t “believe” in it because of that. Your god seems to be “the laws of physics” - except that we at least know some parts of the laws of physics. > > You know that once this discussion has settled down, you’ll end up with either an impotent god or something that wouldn’t be called a “god” anyway, right? What discussion? You’ve been given a God hypothesis that you said you could disprove. Get at it. ---
**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 2, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/168 "2010-06-02T22:10:57Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > What discussion? You’ve been given a God hypothesis that you said you could disprove. Get at it. We already did; it’s an internally inconsistent definition which is disproof. ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/169 "2010-06-02T22:15:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > What discussion? You’ve been given a God hypothesis that you said you could disprove. Get at it. Give me a definition that people actually believe in. Geez. Do I have to spell it out?! ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/170 "2010-06-02T22:25:18Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I’ll just stick to the classic Christian God of Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant faith. Not all the details, upon which there is disagrement, but what is generally common to their understandings of God. > > First God is wholly Other - ineffable and beyond human comprehension. Right there that gives us problems with defining God, let alone proving/disproving. Since we can’t understand God in any way, we also can’t possibly know what he wants for us. So we can drop all this moral business now. We have no idea whether God thinks of abortion as a sin or a sacrament. If you disagree, please help us distinguish what is true or false about God’s supposed actions throughout history and what is true or false with God’s moral direction. > [@](#): > > God is the First Cause (in the words of the Creed, “Creator of Heaven and Earth; through Him all things were made.”) So does every other God ever invented. The only evidence we have that this god was the actual First Cause (assuming there is one) is some very incorrect information in Genesis. Given that, I think we can correct this claim. If we assume that some deity was the First Cause, and has communicated with us, is it too much to ask that the communication be different from what any clever priest living 4,000 years ago or so can come up with? Asian religions have the beginning a long time ago - it is a concept even people living back then can get. > [@](#): > > Let’s see - God is eternal and omnipresent. Those, I think, are important parts of the definition. Eternal? Unfalsifiable, but please explain why he didn’t bother to make himself known back in the days of the early Egyptian or Chinese kingdoms? Omnipresent? Again, pure assertion. By any test we can do, he isn’t everywhere, he is nowhere. He also didn’t seem to be around when Adam and Eve were getting into trouble. Your average mother does a better job of keeping a kid from sticking his finger in the light fixture than God did in keeping them from Falling. > [@](#): > > Anything you can disprove yet? So far we have a God who is so mysterious we have no idea of what he wants or is like, one that created the Universe but told a story nothing like the history of a universe, and one who is everywhere, but whose presence seems equivalent to his absence. The only thing here remotely falsifiable is first cause, and he falls down badly there. Got anything else? ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/171 "2010-06-02T22:27:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But this enviable goal gets rid of huge chunks of religions - the ones who feel they have a direct line to god, and this god instructs them on how people should behave. Going your own way in this model is going against god, which seems to offend many of these people. Especially if you are having fun doing it. Sadly you’re to right. It gets rid of or seriously alters huge chunks of religion who assume they know what god wants of them and everybody else. Every organizaion will have some structure and guidelines, it’s own traditions. That’s okay if you don’t confuse those things with God’s will. In reading on the Bahai page again I found these > [@](#): > > Humanity is now coming of age. It is this that makes possible the unification of the human family and the building of a peaceful, global society. Among the principles which the Bahá’í Faith promotes as vital to the achievement of this goal are > > •the abandonment of all forms of prejudice > •assurance to women of full equality of opportunity with men > •recognition of the unity and relativity of religious truth > •the elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth > •the realization of universal education > •the responsibility of each person to independently search for truth > •the establishment of a global commonwealth of nations > •recognition that true religion is in harmony with reason and the pursuit of scientific knowledge anything here a good atheist or agnostic couldn’t get behind regardless of a lack of god belief? I agree with Spong that Chriatianity has to evolve and change and gradually abandon rogid dogma, especially those bits science has disproven, and focus on the principles that Christ taught and there application in our daily lives. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/172 "2010-06-02T22:32:26Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Also I notice that the OP refers to “great thinkers” as “scholars, philosophers and general thinkers” but we seem to have focused on the hard sciences. I mentioned the philosopher [Daniel Dennett](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett), who is most definitely not religious. There’s lots more - Onfray, Singer, etc. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/173 "2010-06-02T22:36:33Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Not unknowable; indescribable. And no, God is outside the universe. If God is fully outside the universe, then he doesn’t interact with any of us inside the universe, does he? If he does, then he spends some time inside the universe, and his interactions with us can be verified. I’ll give you points for not claiming that your supposed interaction with God constitutes some kind of evidence, though. ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/174 "2010-06-02T22:37:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Sadly you’re to right. Not to piss you off, but “good riddance” is my view. > [@](#): > > anything here a good atheist or agnostic couldn’t get behind regardless of a lack of god belief? Most of those sound quite nice. I’d sign up. > [@](#): > > I agree with Spong that Chriatianity has to evolve and change and gradually abandon rogid dogma, especially those bits science has disproven, and focus on the principles that Christ taught and there application in our daily lives. 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. ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/175 "2010-06-02T22:39:40Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Really? That’s a nifty trick. > > Just as an expiriment and demonstration [try this one](http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-2.html) > > Well, if that exploration is entertaining the possibility , as in an ongoing work of discovery, subject to revsion as new information is gathered, then I wouldn’t say it’s fallaciously drawing conclusions. Not only that, I’m pretty skeptical about that first statement you just made and until you can demonstrate it’s accurate this 2nd one is just your own erroneous conclusion. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Sadly you’re to right. > It gets rid of or seriously alters huge chunks of religion who assume they know what god wants of them and everybody else. > > Every organizaion will have some structure and guidelines, it’s own traditions. That’s okay if you don’t confuse those things with God’s will. In reading on the Bahai page again I found these > > > [@](#): > > > > Humanity is now coming of age. It is this that makes possible the unification of the human family and the building of a peaceful, global society. Among the principles which the Bahá’í Faith promotes as vital to the achievement of this goal are > > > > •the abandonment of all forms of prejudice > > •assurance to women of full equality of opportunity with men > > •recognition of the unity and relativity of religious truth > > •the elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth > > •the realization of universal education > > •the responsibility of each person to independently search for truth > > •the establishment of a global commonwealth of nations > > •recognition that true religion is in harmony with reason and the pursuit of scientific knowledge > > anything here a good atheist or agnostic couldn’t get behind regardless of a lack of god belief? > > I agree with Spong that Chriatianity has to evolve and change and gradually abandon rogid dogma, especially those bits science has disproven, and focus on the principles that Christ taught and there application in our daily lives. 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. ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/176 "2010-06-02T22:40:41Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Give me a definition that people actually believe in. Geez. Do I have to spell it out?! I think you were given one. It contains the traditional concept of the Christian God. If you like , I gave a link to the Bahai concept of God which is pretty similar although longer. Try that one. If it helps remember Jesus said the most important commandments were Love the Lord thy God with all your herart might mind and strength and, Love your neighbor as yourself. According to Jesus if you strived for those two things everything else would follow. I include that only to show that we can throw out more specific details such as the flood and other myths and stick just with very general basic and common god concepts which IMO are pretty impossible to disprove. But I’d be glad to be corrected by those who claim they can. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/177 "2010-06-02T22:47:48Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I include that only to show that we can throw out more specific details such as the flood and other myths and stick just with very general basic and common god concepts which IMO are pretty impossible to disprove. 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. ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/178 "2010-06-02T22:48:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > which they don’t. > > That indicates a change in our understanding doesn’t it, rather than a god that doesn’t exist. True for most things, but if our understanding of God came from God, how could he have steered us wrong? > [@](#): > > Are we talking about details like God flooded the world and saved Noah. God made the whole world dark after Jesus died, things like that? > How can you disprove more general concepts of God? As I mentioned, unfalsifiable god as the universe gods can’t be disproven - but they don’t really interact with us either. ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/179 "2010-06-02T22:53:57Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I think you were given one. It contains the traditional concept of the Christian God. 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. > [@](#): > > If it helps remember Jesus said the most important commandments were Love the Lord thy God with all your herart might mind and strength and, Love your neighbor as yourself. According to Jesus if you strived for those two things everything else would follow. I don’t really want to be pedantic, but what did Jesus know about gods? > [@](#): > > I include that only to show that we can throw out more specific details such as the flood and other myths and stick just with very general basic and common god concepts which IMO are pretty impossible to disprove. Do you mean the global floods are impossible to disprove (since they’re obviously not) or what? ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/180 "2010-06-02T23:00:29Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I think you were given one. It contains the traditional concept of the Christian God. > > If you like , I gave a link to the Bahai concept of God which is pretty similar although longer. Try that one. > > If it helps remember Jesus said the most important commandments were Love the Lord thy God with all your herart might mind and strength and, Love your neighbor as yourself. According to Jesus if you strived for those two things everything else would follow. > > I include that only to show that we can throw out more specific details such as the flood and other myths and stick just with very general basic and common god concepts which IMO are pretty impossible to disprove. > > But I’d be glad to be corrected by those who claim they can. We simulposted. 🙂 Am I the only one who’s starting to think this is ranging pretty far off-topic? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373.md?page=10)