Religious arguments

[Lysimachus]

I thought so we could have a clear discussion, could theists put forward their main arguments in favour of religion and explain each of them individually? Well-thought out and structured posts would be good for this purpose.

Then after the main ones have been stated, perhaps us on the atheist side could have a go at arguing against them.

[Helm]

The main purpose of religion is to make people happy and happy people make the world a better place and they generally tend to get more good works done than a world full of people who are perpetually miserable. That's my main argument favour of it.

[xcorps]

The main purpose of religion is to make people happy and happy people make the world a better place and they generally tend to get more good works done than a world full of people who are perpetually miserable. That's my main argument favour of it.

This view actually explains quite a lot of posts I've read.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

I want to preface this by saying that I'm not a full-time philosopher, a philosophy major, or even a particularly advanced thelogian, nor am I a biologist. So I might be wording some things wrong or unintentionally slipping into falacies. WYSIWYG.

What I want to do with this post, is put forth my belief that:
1) There is an objective morality.
2) That the objective morality doesn't exist in our physical world.

C.S. Lewis did a very beautiful job of leading Objective Morality into Christianity, but in this post I'm merely aiming to establish that there is an objective moral law that exists outside the physical universe, because I like to start small.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that the world is objective. That there is a standard reality that we all take part in. For example, if we're all at the zoo and I say "This isn't a zoo; this is a panda prison," the objective reality is that we're at a zoo, I just changed the wording of it. Even if I said "This is an airport," it would still objectively be a panda prison, unless we're at some sort of crazy panda prison that also has an attahed airport for ease of transporting in new panda prisoners. There's a standard that exists, even if personal interpriation is wrong, misworded or overly colorful. Or riddled with spelling mistakes like a post by the Million Dollar Prons.

I also believe that morality is objective, as is the panda prison. If I said "I raped a woman, good job me." I would still have done a wrong by the objective standard, even if I myself thought I did something commendable.

The trouble is, there's no way for that moral standard to exist. It doesn't exist in any sort of atom structure, we can't see it with a microscope, and we can't run tests on it. But it sure seems to exist, that's why rape can not be considered a good thing, even though it's a very valid form of continuing your biological lineage; from what I gather, there's a race of primate that reproduces primarily by rape.

But yet if I raped a woman in America, I'd be considered in the wrong, if I went to China and raped a woman, I'd be considered wrong there too, even though the cultures are very different. In fact even in hedonistic Rome, rape was considered such a bad thing women were expected to kill themselves. In islamic law, raping is punishcalbe by death. Five very different cultures, none of them view rape as a good thing.

So there's an objective moral standard, and we all have some way of comprehending it. I find this very curious, because as far as I know there's not like an organ we have that "breathes in" moral atoms. It exists outside the physical universe, independently of it.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The purpose of religion, according to Dostoyevsky, is to make people avoid killing themselves.

To a large extent, according to Voegelin, this is well nigh done. According to a certain Dostoyevsky character, if people denied the existence of a Transcendent God while at the same time denying they were Gods, they would not fail to kill themselves instantly. Thus Modern Faith, understood here as Liberalism, Materialism, Marxism, Libertarianism, etc... has replaced the Transcedent Christian view with an utopian and immanent form of Gnosticism devoid of metaphysical elements, except for the one that places Man as the center of Himself.

Thus, the main argument FOR the existence of God does not come from the lack of sense-based evidence on the metaphysical, but for the fact that the distorted theories of Modernity are so insane, that even the ancient Gnostics, who were very insane according to all standards, would consider the children of secular materialism and "Science" to be extremely insane. Like the bottom of hell or the loon house.

The goal of God belief and its strictly sociological role, is to take away the tendency of modern doctrines to immanentize the eschaton, recognize the limitations of our ape-like masses and the low capacity of the majority to govern itself and to dictate morality to itself, and place it back on a Supreme Archetype of an abstract character dictating laws that are above mere human bickering, thus cutting away man from the delusion that he will ever be able to change his own condition or dictate his own law to himself.

When I get drunk, my intellectual capacity soars. Lol.

[humvee2800]

The purpose of religion, according to Dostoyevsky, is to make people avoid killing themselves.

To a large extent, according to Voegelin, this is well nigh done. According to a certain Dostoyevsky character, if people denied the existence of a Transcendent God while at the same time denying they were Gods, they would not fail to kill themselves instantly. Thus Modern Faith, understood here as Liberalism, Materialism, Marxism, Libertarianism, etc... has replaced the Transcedent Christian view with an utopian and immanent form of Gnosticism devoid of metaphysical elements, except for the one that places Man as the center of Himself.

Thus, the main argument FOR the existence of God does not come from the lack of sense-based evidence on the metaphysical, but for the fact that the distorted theories of Modernity are so insane, that even the ancient Gnostics, who were very insane according to all standards, would consider the children of secular materialism and "Science" to be extremely insane. Like the bottom of hell or the loon house.

The goal of God belief and its strictly sociological role, is to take away the tendency of modern doctrines to immanentize the eschaton, recognize the limitations of our ape-like masses and the low capacity of the majority to govern itself and to dictate morality to itself, and place it back on a Supreme Archetype of an abstract character dictating laws that are above mere human bickering, thus cutting away man from the delusion that he will ever be able to change his own condition or dictate his own law to himself.

When I get drunk, my intellectual capacity soars. Lol.

So Religion makes a belief system resistant to change and in direct opposition to any other opposing belief system. sure is helpful aint it

[CamilleBonparte]

So Religion makes a belief system resistant to change and in direct opposition to any other opposing belief system. sure is helpful aint it

What a nonsensical statement.

In direct opposition to any other opposing belief system? Of course two opposing belief systems would be in direct opposition to one another. They believe different things, and they can't both be true.

Please, next time you try and say something profound, make sure it makes a lick of sense first.

[Bolkonsky]

Religion exists for this reason, imo:

A guide to conquering one's self, and controlling one's self, to the end of peace and love.

There's religion because human nature is weak, and we need to control ourselves and not ever harm others.

[Lord Rahl]

Although I don't consider myself specifically a theist, I think I can add some thought to this thread. I won't say anything, I think, that will be in favor of religion so much. I think religion is a good thing overall as an idea and purpose but giving just favorable arguments restricts objective discussion.

We all know religion exists, but why does it exist? Religion exists, in my opinion, because we will always want to know what life means. We want to know whatever the "truth" is of our lives. Humans have the ability to have higher thinking where it's possible to consider things philosophical. Because of this we're always striving to understand who we are and what our purpose is. These are incredibly difficult questions to answer, if there is an answer, so, it seems, there will be an ever present or perpetual question or questions regarding the "ultimate question". Because there is no easily understood answer that all humanity accepts, religion is one answer to the question, although it is in many forms. Some people accept religion because the thought of some sort of spiritual reality gives them a reason of existence and a purpose to live. Religion can be an answer to "why?"

So why have arguments against religion inherently? Are some against people's search for an answer to their lives?

[basics]

" So why have arguments against religion inherently? Are some against people's search for an answer to their lives? "

Lord Rahl,

An interesting point you make there but not quite as I would put it. Men die and the Gospel of faith and its counter, religion, is about what happens after death. So when people become religious the only connection to this life as of now is what their beliefs are concerning the next.

[Lord Rahl]

Lord Rahl,

An interesting point you make there but not quite as I would put it. Men die and the Gospel of faith and its counter, religion, is about what happens after death. So when people become religious the only connection to this life as of now is what their beliefs are concerning the next.

I understand that. I was referring to why someone would be inherently against the idea of others trying to find their purpose or meaning that involves spirituality. So say there was a brief conversation,

"I believe there is a God and an afterlife."

"I'm against that idea."

I don't understand why someone would be against the concept of a supreme being and/or afterlife. I can understand people not believing it those things but not simply being against those ideas. For example, I understand, accept and in some ways appreciate the ideas of communism but I simply don't agree with the concept. That doesn't mean I'm inherently against anything that's not capitalist.

[The Dude]

I don't understand why someone would be against the concept of a supreme being and/or afterlife. I can understand people not believing it those things but not simply being against those ideas. For example, I understand, accept and in some ways appreciate the ideas of communism but I simply don't agree with the concept. That doesn't mean I'm inherently against anything that's not capitalist.

Here's the thing however.

Consider the possibility that this theistic position is not true. That is, the way reality works is not in the way that theists propose. Then how can we be anything other than against it? Because if we accept it, then we accept that people act after it. And then they would be acting after something that is not true. How is that, in the broadest possible sense, even permissible? We should be acting after things that are true because those actions produce superior results than those which come from things that aren't true.

Seems clear to me.

With that said I am not against theism currently simply because there's no conclusive evidence that it's not true. We'll have to wait and see what future philosophical and scientific inquiry brings us on this topic.

[Meneth]

Modify that a little, and it becomes entirely sensible:
"I believe there is a God and an afterlife."
"I'm against that idea due to it having no empirical evidence in its favor."

I'm completely fine with people trying to find purpose in their lives, as long as they don't try to impose that purpose on others if it does not have evidence in its favor.

[Lord Rahl]

Modify that a little, and it becomes entirely sensible:
"I believe there is a God and an afterlife."
"I'm against that idea due to it having no empirical evidence in its favor."

That debate has been going on since 2003. It's the Existence of God thread.