1) Let's assume a hypothetical scenario in which there is a God who created the universe, is aware of the universe, cares about the universe and about everything in it, and has a purpose for the same.
2) Let's assume that this is objectively true, and not dependent on anyone's beliefs on the matter.
3) Lets also assume that human spirituality is real: that the core of what makes a person a person is invisible and imperceptible to any modern means of human investigation.
4) Assume that this spirit existed and will exist beyond the lifespan of any given human body, or in fact the lifetime of the species, and that God's primary interest in humanity is in developing those spirits, with the experience of mortality being nothing more than an interlude.
5) Assume that these spirits are fully sentient, as opposed to merely being a power source for moving matter.
6) Assume that God's purpose in putting these spirits into bodies is intended to cause the spirits to develop and grow in meaningful ways through their experiences. Assume that, pursuant to this goal, God leaves humanity to its own devices in most situations, so that humanity must learn by personal experience and trial and error the consequences of good and bad behavior without suffering the consequences of consciously and deliberately disobeying God (which consequence you may assume is instantaneous and total destruction). Assume that also, pursuant to the same goals, God communicates his idea of good behavior to a select few people who won't disobey (thus avoiding obliteration) who can then communicate these ideas to everyone else, thus enabling humanity to experiment with them and figure out for themselves that they are good ideas while still avoiding destruction by direct disobedience.
7) Lastly, assume that God arranges for obedience to what we shall call, for lack of a better word, commandments, to develop in people something that we're going to call a "strong personal conviction" which is purely supernatural in nature and is a result of God acting directly on the person's spirit, but which, to the lay person, appears from the outside remarkably like baseless opinion, or in extreme cases, like insanity.
The question is, given these assumptions, does the idea of religion, as a theoretical concept, work? By which I mean, 1) are these assumptions consistent with what we observe about our state of being now, and 2) is it reasonable to assume that God could design the "system" this way and expect it to be successful? What percentage of the human race does it seem likely to be able to "convert", assuming a religion which claims all of the above to be true (which, as I understand it, is a pretty large number of them)?
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
First this does not describe all religion, just a subset of them.
Second, in a scenario like this one, it is unlikely that the individuals involved in the "lesson" would likely understand the purpose of all things, or be put on a position to understand everything.
First this does not describe all religion, just a subset of them.
Of course not. Did I imply otherwise somewhere?
Second, in a scenario like this one, it is unlikely that the individuals involved in the "lesson" would likely understand the purpose of all things, or be put on a position to understand everything.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
Actually, no religion claims all of those things to be true (that I know of, at least). So what you have done is create a list of assumptions that lead to the conclusion that religion is dumb.
I think the spirit of the question was basically "If we assume that everything most religions claim to be true is objectively true, does it still make sense to follow religion?", in other words, can we, humanity, be trusted to build a religion based on God's guidance. (feel free to correct me if I"m wrong)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
Actually, no religion claims all of those things to be true (that I know of, at least). So what you have done is create a list of assumptions that lead to the conclusion that religion is dumb.
What, then, is the purpose of this exercise?
Its a ham handed, inarticulate, unoriginal, & extremely long winded, attempt to show that the OP's Personal perceptions of some specific religion or religions can be used to demonstrate that said religions are "illogical".
Maybe he just played the "battleground god!" Game, learned some extremely basic 19th century philosophy 101, and decided to convert all the questions he answered into a giant post.
Would have been far easier to ask "if God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-good, why would he create a world like ours to test or develop the goodness of eternal souls by putting them in bodies that suffer in arbitrary ways in a process that is entirely unfair in my view? Don't you agree that it's illogical to go to all the trouble?"
And the thread title is misleading... If you're going to argue that Christianity is illogical, just sack up and put it in the title.
Its a ham handed, inarticulate, unoriginal, & extremely long winded, attempt to show that the OP's Personal perceptions of some specific religion or religions can be used to demonstrate that said religions are "illogical".
No, that isn't what it is at all. The assumptions I listed are just to prevent the discussion from straying into a random thread for people to explain what they think about metaphysical reality, which I'm not interested in discussing. I'm sorry if they gave the impression that I'm trying to argue that religion is stupid, because I'm not.
The question isn't about whether or not religions are illogical (I don't think they are, at all). Let me try to explain another way: let's say you have a religious person with beliefs based on the above assumptions. Clearly, in this case he believes that he has knowledge of the objectively true existence of God (and, I want to make clear, perhaps he does; I am not one to judge). So if he believes that this is the way that God wants people to learn about him, then he has got to believe that it's reasonable for some percentage of the people he tries to convince of this truth can be made to know it objectively in the same way he does. So the question is, based on an understanding of human nature and history, and assuming that everything this religious person believes is in fact true, about what percentage of people could come to know it, and is that percentage high enough to call it, overall, a successful tactic for making this knowledge known?
Also I'm interested in knowing, if it isn't high enough, what elements could be added to the plan that would make it more successful without undermining the original goal?
And the thread title is misleading... If you're going to argue that Christianity is illogical, just sack up and put it in the title.
This really isn't about Christianity. I think my assumptions pretty well describe any religion which believes in benevolent monotheism and any kind of an afterlife. And in any case, it's more about understanding how religion takes human nature into account.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
I don't think the listed assumptions are consistent with observation, but most people don't perform much real observation, or study the observations of others -- so sometimes a faulty premise slips through that way.
As for the success of the system, it appears that god(s) of various kinds have got their hands on the majority of the population of the planet, so I would say that yes, it would be reasonable to say that the current system for transmitting religions from person to person does in fact work, and if it was designed, it was designed effectively.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm no philosophy expert), but if there is an objectively true set of facts about metaphysical reality, then a maximum of only one religion can be actually correct, right? So if we use the history of the world as we know it as an example of how this plan would play out, then we're looking at the success of no more than one distinct religion at any given time in the history of the world, not the success of religion in general.
Which is not to say that our own history is typical for how it would play out on average. But maybe it is?
There are plenty of religions around the world, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, practically any pagan beliefs, Unitarianism, etc. that don't accept my assumptions at all. But Islam does, and Christianity does, and Judaism does. I think I'm being pretty fair, unless you want to point out a specific example where I'm wrong. I'll be happy to adapt my assumptions based on anything you find.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm no philosophy expert), but if there is an objectively true set of facts about metaphysical reality, then a maximum of only one religion can be actually correct, right? So if we use the history of the world as we know it as an example of how this plan would play out, then we're looking at the success of no more than one distinct religion at any given time in the history of the world, not the success of religion in general.
Which is not to say that our own history is typical for how it would play out on average. But maybe it is?
Yes, and the fact that at most one of them can be true is a very old argument against religion.
However, although there may be a maximum of one religion that's metaphysically true, there are many religions which are congruent with your assumptions (although they would assign different meanings to God) and since we're discussing your assumptions, which are already not metaphysically true, I figured I'd roll with it.
We also have to allow for the possibility that meta-religion, i.e. the search for God, is what we were programmed with, and we were left to work out the rest of the details for ourselves. You even specified something of that kind in your assumptions.
So while a single religion may not have propagated to a majority, meta-religion is embraced by a frighteningly large fraction of the populace, and so the efficacy of propagation of "God memes" cannot be denied.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2) Let's assume that this is objectively true, and not dependent on anyone's beliefs on the matter.
3) Lets also assume that human spirituality is real: that the core of what makes a person a person is invisible and imperceptible to any modern means of human investigation.
4) Assume that this spirit existed and will exist beyond the lifespan of any given human body, or in fact the lifetime of the species, and that God's primary interest in humanity is in developing those spirits, with the experience of mortality being nothing more than an interlude.
5) Assume that these spirits are fully sentient, as opposed to merely being a power source for moving matter.
6) Assume that God's purpose in putting these spirits into bodies is intended to cause the spirits to develop and grow in meaningful ways through their experiences. Assume that, pursuant to this goal, God leaves humanity to its own devices in most situations, so that humanity must learn by personal experience and trial and error the consequences of good and bad behavior without suffering the consequences of consciously and deliberately disobeying God (which consequence you may assume is instantaneous and total destruction). Assume that also, pursuant to the same goals, God communicates his idea of good behavior to a select few people who won't disobey (thus avoiding obliteration) who can then communicate these ideas to everyone else, thus enabling humanity to experiment with them and figure out for themselves that they are good ideas while still avoiding destruction by direct disobedience.
7) Lastly, assume that God arranges for obedience to what we shall call, for lack of a better word, commandments, to develop in people something that we're going to call a "strong personal conviction" which is purely supernatural in nature and is a result of God acting directly on the person's spirit, but which, to the lay person, appears from the outside remarkably like baseless opinion, or in extreme cases, like insanity.
The question is, given these assumptions, does the idea of religion, as a theoretical concept, work? By which I mean, 1) are these assumptions consistent with what we observe about our state of being now, and 2) is it reasonable to assume that God could design the "system" this way and expect it to be successful? What percentage of the human race does it seem likely to be able to "convert", assuming a religion which claims all of the above to be true (which, as I understand it, is a pretty large number of them)?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Second, in a scenario like this one, it is unlikely that the individuals involved in the "lesson" would likely understand the purpose of all things, or be put on a position to understand everything.
Of course not. Did I imply otherwise somewhere?
I don't understand what you mean. What lesson?
What, then, is the purpose of this exercise?
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
Maybe he just played the "battleground god!" Game, learned some extremely basic 19th century philosophy 101, and decided to convert all the questions he answered into a giant post.
Would have been far easier to ask "if God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-good, why would he create a world like ours to test or develop the goodness of eternal souls by putting them in bodies that suffer in arbitrary ways in a process that is entirely unfair in my view? Don't you agree that it's illogical to go to all the trouble?"
And the thread title is misleading... If you're going to argue that Christianity is illogical, just sack up and put it in the title.
No, that isn't what it is at all. The assumptions I listed are just to prevent the discussion from straying into a random thread for people to explain what they think about metaphysical reality, which I'm not interested in discussing. I'm sorry if they gave the impression that I'm trying to argue that religion is stupid, because I'm not.
The question isn't about whether or not religions are illogical (I don't think they are, at all). Let me try to explain another way: let's say you have a religious person with beliefs based on the above assumptions. Clearly, in this case he believes that he has knowledge of the objectively true existence of God (and, I want to make clear, perhaps he does; I am not one to judge). So if he believes that this is the way that God wants people to learn about him, then he has got to believe that it's reasonable for some percentage of the people he tries to convince of this truth can be made to know it objectively in the same way he does. So the question is, based on an understanding of human nature and history, and assuming that everything this religious person believes is in fact true, about what percentage of people could come to know it, and is that percentage high enough to call it, overall, a successful tactic for making this knowledge known?
Also I'm interested in knowing, if it isn't high enough, what elements could be added to the plan that would make it more successful without undermining the original goal?
EDIT:
This really isn't about Christianity. I think my assumptions pretty well describe any religion which believes in benevolent monotheism and any kind of an afterlife. And in any case, it's more about understanding how religion takes human nature into account.
As for the success of the system, it appears that god(s) of various kinds have got their hands on the majority of the population of the planet, so I would say that yes, it would be reasonable to say that the current system for transmitting religions from person to person does in fact work, and if it was designed, it was designed effectively.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Yeah, you did.
Sure, you didn't mean to describe, say, scientology, but that's taking dcartist's statement extremely literally.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Which is not to say that our own history is typical for how it would play out on average. But maybe it is?
EDIT:
There are plenty of religions around the world, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, practically any pagan beliefs, Unitarianism, etc. that don't accept my assumptions at all. But Islam does, and Christianity does, and Judaism does. I think I'm being pretty fair, unless you want to point out a specific example where I'm wrong. I'll be happy to adapt my assumptions based on anything you find.
Yes, and the fact that at most one of them can be true is a very old argument against religion.
However, although there may be a maximum of one religion that's metaphysically true, there are many religions which are congruent with your assumptions (although they would assign different meanings to God) and since we're discussing your assumptions, which are already not metaphysically true, I figured I'd roll with it.
We also have to allow for the possibility that meta-religion, i.e. the search for God, is what we were programmed with, and we were left to work out the rest of the details for ourselves. You even specified something of that kind in your assumptions.
So while a single religion may not have propagated to a majority, meta-religion is embraced by a frighteningly large fraction of the populace, and so the efficacy of propagation of "God memes" cannot be denied.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.