Reality, Theory, God

[tar]

I have noticed in discussions of theories and God, that there is a reluctance to give the holder of the theory, if it is not "us" holding the theory, the benefit of the doubt.

 

The tendency to put the same idea in a good light when described concerning the first person, a neutral light concerning the second person, and a negative light with the third person, seems evident, and probably has some basis, in terms of how we are "set up" as humans.

 

I am thinking it may have to do with what rules "we" go by.

 

The topic title was written by TAR2 (me), who is an Atheist.

 

The order of Reality,Theory,God might be God, Reality, Theory to a Theist, or Theory, Reality, God to a scientist.

 

The people "we" identify with, are the people whose mind we already know, who go by "our" rules.

 

On the other hand "you" don't know what you are talking about.

 

And "they" are obviously in error.

 

What is interesting to me is that everybody exists in, and has the same access to, the same world.

But each individual goes by their "own" rules, consistent with the combination of "we" camps, that they belong to.

 

So, the question is, in your own first person, what is it that you understand, that I don't see, that they are getting wrong?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

I think the biggest disconnect is that "they" worship a book, while "others" look to understand reality either with a belief in God but still using the data of reality as a guide or with no belief in a god but just a need to understand how reality works with no beliefs.

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

While I have a desire to see other people's answers, without any interference from me, I am interested in what you mean by "no beliefs". It seems to me, for instance, that one has to believe in a theory, to hold it.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Marat]

Your question can be generalized to: Why do all people think differently, even when they operate with a mental apparatus in large part constructed by languages that are either the same or can easily be translated into each other, with cultural conditionings that are commensurable, and with a similar picture of objectivity, at least for most of their experience? To some extent the mysteries of miscommunication and our inability to convince each other of the truth or value of our personal beliefs stems from the parts of our experiences which are unique: Our differing personal biographies, immediate family contexts, schooling, books read, people met, experiences endured or enjoyed, are all different and this is bound to induce us all to construct very different general theories about what everything means. Building bridges between these different theories by reason and argument is bound to be difficult without our audiences sharing our same background.

 

I can trace my own atheism to certain moments of insight that affected me deeply, even though the thoughts were not that significant in themselves. When I was about 12 it occurred to me that what mainly determined who was saved or who was damned was where the paths of trade, exploration, and conquest had contingently emanated from Ancient Judea, and so this made people's chances at salvation unfair and arbitrary.

 

Then I was visiting an Austrian religious institution after I had read a psychological theory that people express their sexual desire for others at close range by turning toward them. I then saw a monk and a nun squeeze past each other in a narrow corridor, and they both turned toward each other rather than away, which would have been just as effective for getting past, so I thought: What is the point of pious behavior if the actual state of our feelings just exposes it as a lie?

 

Then I read an account of an ancient African tribal myth that was nearly identical in every detail to the Christ story, so I started wondering what ethical difference it could make to salvation for someone to believe in the entire Christ story but just in the wrong historical and geographical setting, with Nke Madzimbamuto as Christ? And if this belief would not suffice, why would God stake salvation on getting contingent historical details right?

 

Each of these thoughts stunned me when I had it. They might have had no impact at all and have been explained away by others. Perhaps I was intellectually ready by what I had thought previously for these ideas to have a major effect on me. But I think if I had grown up without these epiphanies, I would today have trouble convincing my own alternate self of the atheistic views I now have.

[tar]

Marat,

 

While I agree with what you say, I am exploring a couple of theories of my own that have not completely gelled yet, that are leading me in the direction of accepting God as "nature" or the universe when the term is used by another.

 

My rationale is similar to yours, concerning "how do you get saved if you are not a Christian?"

 

I have generalized Christ's line "no one enters the kingdom of heaven, but by me" into meaning "if you don't go by "our" rules, then you are not seeing the world right". Along the we vs. they lines we have been discussing.

 

This "fault" in Christianity, is also strong in the Koran, where there is a mighty distinction between believers, and those who disbelieve. It seems that all religions consider themselves right, and everybody else wrong, unless they convert, and become "we"s.

 

But theorywise, it doesn't stop with religions. This "we vs. they" can be associated with nations, philosophies, even scientific theories.

 

To a physicist, I am an outsider, perhaps a "wanna be", but one lacking the math skills, and theoretical knowledge to really understand how the world works. They (physicists) have their leaders (priests), texts, founding fathers, rules, and special languages, that "they" understand, and the rest of us don't.

 

But it isn't like physicists invented gravity, they just discovered its nature, for the rest of us.

 

They do not "hold the key" to gravity. It already was, before they wrote the formulae. And it is accessable to all, persons or things. I can drop a hammer on my foot without knowing the formula. (would have a little trouble getting a rocket to Saturn though)

 

But if I WAS a physicist, I would see the value of it, and know it was true, and feel right and proper about it and my relationship to the world. Both the physical world, and the metaphysical human world.

 

So the theory is, we have a "religious" tendency. Probably has a "tribal" basis, and it's all bound up in identity, and the need to belong to "something" greater than ourselves. But it is easy to realize that we actually do belong to reality.

 

And as you say, we understand other people better, if they have a common background to ourselves.

 

(So much for "not interfering")

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 27, 2011 by tar

[Marat]

If you are interested in the theory that God is best understood as equivalent to nature under a certain interpretation of or perspective on nature, then you would find Baruch Spinoza's works, or secondary sources on him, useful, since he developed this same view. Your views may also have some connection with the so-called 'natural religion' movement.

 

All areas of knowledge can be classified into esoteric and exoteric systems, with religious theories being mainly esoteric, and science being mainly exoteric. Although only a narrow 'priesthood' of scientists actually understand fully the insights of the advancing research front at any time, in principle everything they know is both empirically testable, ultimately exhibitable, and rationally comprehensible by anyone who wants to take the time and get the training to understand it.

 

But the distinctive feature of most religions is that they rely on knowledge which is to some degree anti-democratic and anti-empirical, since it is restricted to a few priests or not discoverable at all. In the Ancient World, there were many religions whose doctrines were so secret that today historians have still not been able to reconstruct them. Among these are the so-called 'mystery' religions, which had many connections to Christianity, such as Mithraism, the cult of Cybele, the cult of Magna Mater, and the brief state religion of sun-worshipping introduced in Rome by Heliogabelus. But even the major religions usually contain some mysterious core even today, such as Judaism's 'holy of holies,' the Arc of the Covenant that no one can see, the inner temple of Jerusalem which banned women and those who were not priests; Christianity's 'God who surpatheth all understanding'; or Mormonism's sacred text communicated by the Angel, Moroni, and now lost so that no one can check it.

 

I think that the reliance of religions on sacred secrets should reinforce our suspicion that they are really just systems to create an artificial source of power for their priests who declare themselves in possession of, or as being closer to, something we can't all inspect and judge for ourselves.

[tar]

Marat,

 

I may have gotten the idea from Spinoza, I am sure I read some of his thoughts in college (was a philosophy major for a couple years.)

 

Just took me thity years to understand it.

 

But although your argument is persuasive, I am not ready to abandon my theory that scientific thought is religious.

 

There is a reality that humans are a part of, that is much greater in size and age than any human will ever be. Science strives to model this reality, and hence "own" it, possess it, have it, in the metaphoric, ratiowise, analog representational, pattern filling synapses of our brains, and of course our collective libraries of discoveries. We can use nature to our own advantage, we can predict her next move. But an earthquake, a tidal wave, a ruptured containment vessel, some unintended consquences, and the universe is back in the driver's seat.

 

As a preist usurps the power of the universe and calls it his/her own, so do scientists. So much so, that scientists think they can make a determination as to whether the universe IS expanding or contracting, or has enough mass to do one or the other.

 

How do you suppose I can check on that determination myself? Where and when am I to stand and look at the whole universe, doing one thing? (sounds like a Godlike view, only)

 

Personally, I don't think the universe is finished doing what it does, and what it does next, locally, now, may or may not be particulary related to what it is doing elsewhere. And in anycase, the universe has not done the things its going to do next, before. So far, the universe has proven to be quite surprising. I doubt that we will ever hold her still. In fact, I know from history that such a thing is impossible.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. Where in the quark does it read "TAR2 just went upstairs put some peanut butter in a bowl, sprinkled some nestles bits on it, and is about to stir it up and take a spoonful?."

 

P.P.S.

 

There's a million stories in the naked universe and the Earth's is just one of them. We have no way to view the latest chapter in any of the others. We just see earlier chapters of other stories, years after they were written, with none of the detail available here.

Edited June 28, 2011 by tar

[Kturbo]

Tar,

 

I think you want to believe in God,but you don't know how to.When Jesus said no one comes to the father but by me,he meant he himself is the door or the key that you must accept in order to see the other side.Everybody has to believe in something even if they say they believe in nothing that's actually something.You have to believe in God by faith,that he exist and that he is supreme.I am not trying to lead you to any particular sect of christianity but just to God himself.Forget about the individual rituals of each christian denomination and just think of yourself and God.It's like flying on a plane,you accept by faith that the pilot knows how to fly,you sit in the seat by faith that it will support you.We humans do almost everything by faith yet we don't realize it.We go to the zoo and stand right next to the tiger because we have faith that the fence will keep him away from us.It's that same faith that will lead us to God.God said he will never let you seek him in vain.Whoever seek him will find him.Just have the faith to step out of the physical world into the spiritual and your eyes will be opened to it.

[tar]

Kturbo,

 

I was raised Christian, I said my prayers, I had long talks with God, I have no problem with anybody having a "personal" relationship with the universe/reality/nature/God, or whatever or however you want to call it.

 

I cannot have "your" relationship with the world. You cannot have mine.

 

It is not appropriate in my way of thinking, that anyone should think that "their" way is the only way it should be done.

 

That simply is not correct, or logically possible.

 

It is much more sensible to figure that EVERYBODY is doing it correctly. There is no doubt in my mind, that we are all of, and in reality, with approximately the same "access" to it. I don't have to use your key to open any lock. The door is standing wide open already.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Kturbo]

Life would be much easier if we had just one door to walk up to and enter.However,we are faced with many doors be it religion,philosophy ect.Some of these doors lead to no where and there is one that leads to the truth.We must individually chose which door to open,enter and follow that path to the end.I don't know if something occurred that changed your view point from christianity,but one day we will all find out if our paths lead to truth or a dead end. While I can't choose your path for you,I do hope you choose the door that is Jesus and walk through it by faith that you have chosen correctly.

[mississippichem]

I've felt for some time now (I was a devout Christian at one time) that life simply makes much more sense without any supernatural or spiritual processes at work.

 

It seems very fishy to me that everything in life would follow the rules of physics and be predictable, quantifiable etc...except for one thing. Everything in my personal experience has been explainable at least in theory. When one evokes a God or a higher power to explain the "meaning" of things, life becomes incredibly complicated with questions about the motives of the higher power. This logic is invalid in my opinion. When people claim that God did something and are asked why by someone else, they either evoke a guess or admit that "God works in mysterious ways". That just makes certain that any speculation about God will always have a backdoor escape route.

 

Most theists admit that we can know nothing about the intentions or motives of God. I ask then, how can anyone speculate about what God did or didn't do? Can't have it both ways.

 

The only religious belief I see as remotely rational would be deism. Personally, I don't prescribe to it. However, those who are not okay with the "I don't know" answer to big questions should be deists. I'm alright with not knowing why I exist. I enjoy the pursuit of knowledge. If we knew it all life would suck, I promise.

[jimmyrodrics]

God is in everyone's heart so just believe in yourself and movie on..You will definitely be successful and happy in future!

[edwardreed]

God is as real as you and me, for we were created in his image and we are his children. Yes it is very important to choose good over evil in this life. For hell is a real place that god put the wicked into. Hell is a place were those that hurt others. the torment that one will feel when they are cast into hell will be the sufferings that they cause to another, and there families and this torment is for all eternity. So remember to do good to others always.

[tar]

edwardreed,

 

I don't disagree with what you say.

 

Do have a slightly different angle on it though.

 

If we are in and of reality, we both belong to it and are in possesion of it.

 

You think of God as a person that contains it all.

 

This is not "wrong" in my estimation, because if you look at a human, take you or me, we each ARE people, that contain it all. We are representative of the universe, made of it's atoms and able to sense and remember, and manipulate it, internally and externally. What we say goes. That is we have the responsiblility and the authority to live, to be. We are, in this sense God, and if collectively have determined what is good and what is bad, we should most definitely listen to ourselves.

 

Regards, TAR2

[kitkat]

The concept of reality puzzles me in that if an alien (hypothetically) came down to earth and asked every creature on the planet how they would describe in detail of how they define our planet, I think the alien would be totally confused because the reports would indicate that no two species or even individuals with the group sees the world exactly the same way. The interpretation of the data would seem to indicate that none of us are capable of seeing reality to define it based on so many different variations of our sensory abilities that is different in the entire food chain of biodiversity.

[PeterJ]

I think that the reliance of religions on sacred secrets should reinforce our suspicion that they are really just systems to create an artificial source of power for their priests who declare themselves in possession of, or as being closer to, something we can't all inspect and judge for ourselves.

Yes, this would be true at times. Very obviously so for the Church of Rome. In general though there are said to be no secrets. The knowledge at issue is not secret. It is just a question of whether we want to learn it or not. There is also, or course, the fact that some knowledge is dangerous if one acquires it before one has a certain degree of self-control. We don't teach teenagers how to make bombs, but the knowledge is not a secret. I have yet to find a prophet or sage who says that their knowledge is secret. Usually they appear to be trying desperately to pass it on to other people, or show them how to acquire it, on the basis that it is not at all secret.

 

When Jesus says that the way to Heaven is through him, this is not the partisan claim that everyone must become a believer in the Bible. It is the claim that to reach Heaven we must become like him. Gnostic Christians aim to become Jesus, Buddhist try to become Buddha, Muslim's try to become Mohammed etc. The idea is that we must walk the walk, and that talking the talk is not a substitute. Then we acquire the knowledge we used to think was secret. Jesus would be a 'true man', and becoming one would be the way to attain Heaven, Nirvana etc. We should not interpret the idea that the only way is 'through Jesus' as meaning that we need to become Christians to succeed. Thaty would mean nobodt succeeded before he was born, assuming he was an historical and not mythological figure.

 

As for the priests, I think they are often best ignored. Jesus criticises the pharisees for the way they prevent people from gaining the knowledge which is their birthright, and I rather unhistorically tend to equate the pharisees with the priests.

 

I wish all these discussions of religion did not take mainstream Roman Christianity and its allied offshoots as their target. It is largely discredited in philosophy and science, and here, where we are allowed to be heretical since all religion is assumed to be nonsense, we might do better to focus on more plausible interpretations of the NT.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

While I have a desire to see other people's answers, without any interference from me, I am interested in what you mean by "no beliefs". It seems to me, for instance, that one has to believe in a theory, to hold it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

You seem to be equating belief with faith, I do not need faith to believe a theory that is supported by verifiable facts. To believe in something that is verifiable by observable and repeatable evidence is not the same as faith. Like the word theory, which hold different meanings in different contexts, in the context of belief with no evidence i hold no such beliefs. I do not believe anything that cannot be verified, if how ever you are talking about things i believe in do to faith then I hold no beliefs...

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

I guess I was talking about things that our outside our ability to experiment with and interact with, that we just "imagine" are there, with no way of ever verifying.

 

For instance, many in the scientific community speak of the entire universe as being as evolved as things are around here. They "imagine" such a universe, because it is not the one we experience. The background cosmic radiation is evidence of a universe just becoming transparent to photons. Which do you "believe" exists now? The one we see, or the one that is imagined? How are we to ever experience what is "happening" now on a planet on a star on the other side of the Milky Way? We just have to take it on faith, that there is such a thing occuring. What we can study and know as fact, is what that planet was doing several hundred thousand years ago. That is provided we have a really powerful device to see something the size of a planet at that distance, through the gas and stars of the center of our galaxy. To imagine that there is a particular thing going on now, on such a planet is a wild leap of faith, with no way to verify the guess.

 

That is the kind of "belief" I am talking about. A reasonable guess as to what possibly exists, with no way to verify the truth of the matter.

 

I cannot speak for you. But I have a tendency to think that if I do something, it is possible that others like me, can do it to. There are many things that I believe exist, that I take on faith exist, without ever checking for myself.

 

The picture of me in my profile is cropped from a picture where my daughter and I are standing next to a 10 foot tall donkey wearing sunglasses. You will just have to take it on faith. Its the truth.

 

Regards TAR2

Edited November 29, 2011 by tar

[Sorcerer]

While I beleive in alot of science, I do not hold it it be absolute. Darwin gave a spark to evolutionary theory, but since then the theory itself has evolved, (for example punctuated equilibrium and group selection) and it should continue to do so as we advance. It is the same for almost every theory science holds to be "true".

 

God was theorised a long time ago, perhaps before any written records. It seems that science as of now has not touched this topic, probably because there is not a solid definition of god. Without a solid definition, hypotheses cannot be made.

 

However this does not mean that in the future we may find within our knowledge that some peices can be put together to explain our existence in a way that seems to be like "God". Perhaps when our understanding of the nature of existence is nearing completion, then we will be able to define God.

 

Finally I'd like to say, if all the religions prophets lined up at the gates of heaven and all said no, I am sure there would be one on the end rational enough to say : " It doesn't matter what u believed in, did u do good or did u do bad?" Not that I even care if there's an afterlife, I'm just glad to exist and glad I can share it with you all.

[Phi for All]

It seems to me, for instance, that one has to believe in a theory, to hold it.

To the skeptical mind, there are no absolutes, no firmly fixed truths, no proofs, no beliefs. Scientific theory simply offers the best current explanation for observable phenomena, as free from bias and interpretation as we can possibly get. This keeps us questing for the refinement of our knowledge, always seeking ways to test what we think we know.

 

Belief requires absolute adherence to a certain answer. There's usually no way to test a belief so we have to suspend skepticism even further. Religious belief adds a "sacred" factor, threatening eternal punishment if the belief is questioned, making any kind of progress all but impossible. Scriptures written for bronze age primitives have to be interpreted with maddening vagueness to derive meaning for modern people. People stop thinking about the question when they "believe" they know the answer.

 

I don't "believe" in scientific theory; I trust it to be the most likely, comprehensible statement. It's probably not perfect, but at least it stands a chance of being so in the future because we'll keep testing and questioning it. We won't put it under a sacred shroud and protect it from all scrutiny.

[PeterJ]

To the skeptical mind, there are no absolutes, no firmly fixed truths, no proofs, no beliefs.

Doesn't seem like scepticism to me. More like dogmatic epistemilogical nihilism. A sceptical mind would accept the possibility of fixed truths.

 

Scientific theory simply offers the best current explanation for observable phenomena, as free from bias and interpretation as we can possibly get.

Nor does this seem like scepticism. Especially when the claim is unsupported. I do not share your view, being more sceptical.

 

 

This keeps us questing for the refinement of our knowledge, always seeking ways to test what we think we know.

 

What knowledge? I thought there were no absolutes. Are you referring to knowledge that you are not sceptical about?

 

Belief requires absolute adherence to a certain answer.

You mean like the belief that there is no certain knowledge?

 

There's usually no way to test a belief so we have to suspend skepticism even further.

I think you're only considering a particular type of belief.

 

Religious belief adds a "sacred" factor, threatening eternal punishment if the belief is questioned, making any kind of progress all but impossible.

Yes, some religious institutions go in for this. But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many would see this approach as profoundly daft.

 

Scriptures written for bronze age primitives have to be interpreted with maddening vagueness to derive meaning for modern people. People stop thinking about the question when they "believe" they know the answer.

Again, you are generalising from a religion you know to religions you don't know. If you're talking about Protestantism in the US then okay.

 

I don't "believe" in scientific theory; I trust it to be the most likely, comprehensible statement. It's probably not perfect, but at least it stands a chance of being so in the future because we'll keep testing and questioning it. We won't put it under a sacred shroud and protect it from all scrutiny.

Hmm. I feel that many areas of science have their own version of the sacred shroud, or confort blanket, and so suffer from a lack of sceptical enquiry. Funny that you're a sceptic and yet perfectly certain that religion is a load of nionsense. This is a contradiction. I'd say prove it or keep an open mind, for the only alternative is to abandon scepticism for dogma.

.

[Phi for All]

Doesn't seem like scepticism to me. More like dogmatic epistemilogical nihilism. A sceptical mind would accept the possibility of fixed truths.

I doubt this is true.

 

Nor does this seem like scepticism. Especially when the claim is unsupported. I do not share your view, being more sceptical.

Which claim are you assuming is unsupported? A scientific theory will always have much to support it.

 

What knowledge? I thought there were no absolutes. Are you referring to knowledge that you are not sceptical about?

Your definition of knowledge seems overly rigid.

 

You mean like the belief that there is no certain knowledge?

Like the beliefs of most religions.

 

I think you're only considering a particular type of belief.

Good observation. I think I made it quite clear I was talking about religious beliefs.

 

Yes, some religious institutions go in for this. But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many would see this approach as profoundly daft.

Where's the "baby" in this approach to understanding?

 

Again, you are generalising from a religion you know to religions you don't know. If you're talking about Protestantism in the US then okay.

If I inadvertently included too many religions when I referred to "scriptures", I apologize. Are there some religious scriptures that were written during the Bronze Age that aren't interpreted for modern worshipers?

 

Hmm. I feel that many areas of science have their own version of the sacred shroud, or confort blanket, and so suffer from a lack of sceptical enquiry. Funny that you're a sceptic and yet perfectly certain that religion is a load of nionsense. This is a contradiction. I'd say prove it or keep an open mind, for the only alternative is to abandon scepticism for dogma.

It's interesting that my preferences for scientific methodology automatically, in your mind, relegated all religion to "a load of nonsense". I thought I was being quite careful to describe the difference between keeping an open mind with a skeptical approach and risking error by accepting religious explanations as incontrovertibly true.

[PeterJ]

Phi - This is interesting but I can't keep track. I'll cut it down.

 

Are there some religious scriptures that were written during the Bronze Age that aren't interpreted for modern worshipers?

Not all religious people are worshippers. Mohammed tells us 'An hour's contemplation is worth an year's worship'. And not all religions rely on interpretations of books, Bronze Age or otherwise. Some practices depend on burning them. I understand that you're a sceptic, I'm just trying to keep things fair.

 

It's interesting that my preferences for scientific methodology automatically, in your mind, relegated all religion to "a load of nonsense". I thought I was being quite careful to describe the difference between keeping an open mind with a skeptical approach and risking error by accepting religious explanations as incontrovertibly true.

It seemed to me that you went way beyond this. Obviously there is this difference between these things, and I would certainly agree that it would not be rational to to accept a religious doctrine as intontrovertibly true. Either you know it is true or you don't. Faith is not the same as self-delusion, or should not be. But here's the thing. There is no reason why a person should not study religion using a scientific methodology. For a sceptic there may be no other way to do it. It's your casual assumption that this would be impossible that I'm objecting to, not your methodology. You're highlighting a choice we don't have to make.

 

I agree that the claims of religion to certain knowledge (as opposed to dogma, which is more understandable) seem contrary to a healthy scepticism. How could such knowledge be possible? Many people believe that such knowledge is impossible, and you seem to be among them. But it would be impossible to know it is impossible, and so scepticism must allow for the possibility of certain knowledge. This would not entail that such knowledge actually is possible, of course, but it does mean that you cannot believe it is and remain a sceptic. The belief can only ever be a conjecture.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

While I have a desire to see other people's answers, without any interference from me, I am interested in what you mean by "no beliefs". It seems to me, for instance, that one has to believe in a theory, to hold it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

I believe in things that have evidence to support them, by evidence i mean actual repeatable observations, facts. If the evidence changes or for some reason new evidence comes to light I am prepared to change my belief to fit the new information. So far Religious beliefs have no supporting evidence... none... on top of that they still not only believe they refuse to change their beliefs when new evidence comes to light. The new evidence must be ignored and if possible covered up so the belief remains the same even though it is a false belief.

 

Of course there are religious people who embrace new evidence and do not allow it to impact their basic beliefs about God or Gods and see no reason to support obviously incorrect dogma while at the same time maintaining a belief in a higher power. It is only when belief is asserted as fact does religion and science have problems.

 

I think religion in a real way started out as mans first attempts at explaining how the real world works, powerful beings controlled things like lightning and volcanoes and weather, moved the sun across the sky and brought about night. I think the real disconnect came when religion began to be written down, before that religion changed as human society changed but suddenly all the oral traditions of the group could be written down and since the stories were supposedly told by God or about God they could not change anymore, because that would be saying god had lied, so religion dogma became written in stone instead of the changing world view that adapted to the circumstances of the people as the stories were told. The more wide spread the idea of the written word and it's value in saying what had happened in the past as opposed to just telling a story that could slowly change over time the more important it became to understand that once something was written down it was carved in stone, or mud, it did not change. Laws could be written down, what some one did or said last year or last week could be preserved for all time. Religion ceased to serve the people and began to be served by the people and on to what we have now. Science is an improved way to find out about the natural world that doesn't include Thor raining lightning bolts down on bad people, or storms and waves being the wrath of Neptune... Religion as away to explain the natural world has died, it should remain dead....

Edited December 6, 2011 by Moontanman

[PeterJ]

.........I think the real disconnect came when religion began to be written down, before that religion changed as human society changed but suddenly all the oral traditions of the group could be written down and since the stories were supposedly told by God or about God they could not change anymore, because that would be saying god had lied, so religion dogma became written in stone instead of the changing world view that adapted to the circumstances of the people as the stories were told. The more wide spread the idea of the written word and it's value in saying what had happened in the past as opposed to just telling a story that could slowly change over time the more important it became to understand that once something was written down it was carved in stone, or mud, it did not change. Laws could be written down, what some one did or said last year or last week could be preserved for all time. Religion ceased to serve the people and began to be served by the people and on to what we have now. Science is an improved way to find out about the natural world that doesn't include Thor raining lightning bolts down on bad people, or storms and waves being the wrath of Neptune... Religion as away to explain the natural world has died, it should remain dead....

That seems to be partly true. The Gnostics were declared heretical to some extent due to their idea that religion is a living, evolving thing. But the Gnostics were also religious, and this criticism is not telling for all religion, just those that are 'religions of the book', and only then when we insist on a rigid historical interpretation. Sorry to be pedantic, but I hate seeing 'Religion' as a whole criticized for a fault that affects only a minority of its examples.