Is Religion Incompatible with the Modern World?

[Socialist Nordia]

That's still pretty circular. The church validates the bible, the bible validates God, God validates the church, etc. If not, what validates the church?

People's belief that the Church is right.

The Bible doesn't validate God, though, which is what you seem to still not get.

Protestants can claim that it does, but the Church compiled the Bible as a tool for instruction, they didn't compile the Bible as the authoritative source of Christianity.

If the church is validated merely by people believing it is right, what kind of concrete validation is that? People believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true.

[Socialist Nordia]

Berkeley would disagree.

That statement neither demonstrates that I am wrong, nor is it informative - there are many things with the name "Berkeley", so I can't even look up what or who you're referring to given that you've completely neglected to explain why "Berkeley would disagree".

Congratulations on making post #666. Anyway, I assume they mean this guy, George Berkeley.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

[Soldati Senza Confini]

People's belief that the Church is right.

The Bible doesn't validate God, though, which is what you seem to still not get.

Protestants can claim that it does, but the Church compiled the Bible as a tool for instruction, they didn't compile the Bible as the authoritative source of Christianity.

If the church is validated merely by people believing it is right, what kind of concrete validation is that? People believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true.

We all believe we're right even when other people think we're wrong. It might not be true, but it is what people think is the right thing, regardless of how true it is.

[United Marxist Nations]

That statement neither demonstrates that I am wrong, nor is it informative - there are many things with the name "Berkeley", so I can't even look up what or who you're referring to given that you've completely neglected to explain why "Berkeley would disagree".

Congratulations on making post #666. Anyway, I assume they mean this guy, George Berkeley.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

Yes.

Bishop Berkeley was well-known enough that I assumed he had just slipped Conscientia's mind (he or she (I don't know which) is generally pretty knowledgeable in this area, so I felt safe in the assumption).

[Socialist Nordia]

If the church is validated merely by people believing it is right, what kind of concrete validation is that? People believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true.

We all believe we're right even when other people think we're wrong. It might not be true, but it is what people think is the right thing, regardless of how true it is.

This is why I don't believe in Christianity or other faiths. If it can't be verified, or at least be proven highly likely, I won't believe it. This is also why I blatantly reject this OP's opinion that religion should be imposed on people. In my view, religion is a right, but governments should run on the assumption that no religion is very likely to be true, so secular laws should be passed.

[Gisnegamesh]

Religious fundamentalism is incompatible with the modern world.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We all believe we're right even when other people think we're wrong. It might not be true, but it is what people think is the right thing, regardless of how true it is.

This is why I don't believe in Christianity or other faiths. If it can't be verified, or at least be proven highly likely, I won't believe it. This is also why I blatantly reject this OP's opinion that religion should be imposed on people. In my view, religion is a right, but governments should run on the assumption that no religion is very likely to be true, so secular laws should be passed.

And that is your right as a person.

I also disagree with OP, and you won't see me agreeing with him, even though I am a Christian myself.

[Conscentia]

That statement neither demonstrates that I am wrong, nor is it informative - there are many things with the name "Berkeley", so I can't even look up what or who you're referring to given that you've completely neglected to explain why "Berkeley would disagree".

Congratulations on making post #666. Anyway, I assume they mean this guy, George Berkeley.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

How do you know mine was post 666?
I changed the URL from:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=380976&start=650
to:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=380976&start=666
And your post is at the top - so I think you have post #666.

[Maurepas]

The OP isn't the first to come up with the concept that Christian Religion isn't exactly compatible with Democracy. A good part of Paradise Lost is essentially about that fact, though the guy writing it was actually in favor of autocracy and writing against the idea of democracy.

I would, even as an atheist, disagree with religion in general being incompatible with the modern world. I know too many believers that are perfectly capable of squaring their beliefs with it, especially if you take more of the Greek translations and less of the King James. But that said, I do think there are some tenets that need to go, especially concerning sexuality, that Christianity could do without. You don't hear the slavery bits quoted favorably too often anymore, I think we can get rid of the sexual bits too.

[Socialist Nordia]

The OP isn't the first to come up with the concept that Christian Religion isn't exactly compatible with Democracy. A good part of Paradise Lost is essentially about that fact, though the guy writing it was actually in favor of autocracy and writing against the idea of democracy.

I would, even as an atheist, disagree with religion in general being incompatible with the modern world. I know too many believers that are perfectly capable of squaring their beliefs with it, especially if you take more of the Greek translations and less of the King James. But that said, I do think there are some tenets that need to go, especially concerning sexuality, that Christianity could do without. You don't hear the slavery bits quoted favorably too often anymore, I think we can get rid of the sexual bits too.

Surely religion itself can be spared, but not the entire, pure form. It needs some revision. Either way, I think(or at least hope) that belief systems like atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism will be vastly more popular in the future.

[Lady Scylla]

You've an odd curiosity with this subject that has a consistent pattern across several threads; as if you're trying to justify some sort of belief to yourself. Outside of personal experience with the subject, and my own research, I cannot completely convey an answer to you that you'd find satisfying. Largely because of whatever belief this is will most likely, and largely, not agree with what I will tell you. What we consider to be our 'fabric of reality' is dependent on our brain's ability to correctly translate sensory information that it gets bombarded with on a daily basis. Our bodies are like antennae for this information, and an extension of our brain to conduct this task. The brain then determines which information is important, and which is not, and tosses out the latter. It translates this information into something readable and then applies specific associations with this information, and stores it.

From this information, the brain is capable of forming a mental picture of who, what, when, where, how, and especially why through a process of reasoning (of which there are many types). We draw conclusions from this information rationally through this reason, and that typically means that the world we perceive around us is congruent with Reality. What is. Everyone perceives the world slightly different, notably through things such as emotions, which affects the world our brain tries to understand, and gives us a reality that, while still congruent with (the) Reality, is also slightly subjective. However, given a group of individuals, these slightly different pictures are close enough to be collectively consistent. From that, it would be a logical conclusion to believe that this consistency is, therefore, Reality.

The problem, beyond this, are those suffering from mental illness or conditions that effect the sensory information your brain is receiving. This can be anything from the sensory tool itself, such as the eyes, or even the translator -- the brain. It's why one person with good eyesight will see a plastic bag as a plastic bag, and another, with bad eyesight, may see it as a bunny. The brain fills in the gap, making use of what information it has (Cross-referencing memory with sensory information). Upon closer inspection, the latter individual would obviously adjust their original observation and acknowledge that it is, in fact, a plastic bag. However, conditions that affect the brain's ability to translate makes this much more difficult; it becomes hard for the brain to discern and translate information correctly, and thus extremely distressing on the person when things don't match up.

Psychotic episodes, where one disassociates with Reality are very distressing. Largely because the episode is causing irrational and incoherent translations of information that is being perceived. The mind basically battles itself over what it is trying to see. Psychotic episodes are divided between two main symptoms: hallucinations and delusions;





Anything that has an impact on the brain's ability to gather and translate information is going to affect it's mental picture of the world. This is why putting someone in a dark room, and depriving them of their senses will drive them to psychosis within a matter of days or weeks. The brain tries to fill in gaps, and starts to fight itself over this picture because it cannot make sense of it. It's also why things such as the power of suggestion can have an affect on a person. Until full blown psychosis occurs, people suffering psychotic episodes in the early stages may be aware they are having a psychotic break from reality, but largely feel helpless and incapable of stopping it. This is distressing because the rational mind is trying to rationalise information that is irrational. Later stages or more severe forms of psychosis may leave the person unaware they've even lost touch with reality.

Generally, and more to the original topic -- assumptions are only assumptions until they have solid evidence that agrees with the assumption. Of course, just because everyone believes it doesn't make it true -- which is why solid evidence is necessary to form a conclusion. What makes that evidence real? Collective consistency that it does, in fact, exist. The sheer fact, that said evidence, can be physically perceived and discerned as such. The same also answers your latter question over people.

Now that we can hopefully move on from the topic of mental being -- in the case of religion, what makes it problematic is the fact that we lack this solid evidence that says, without a doubt, that God or Gods or whatever else exists. This is the problem with faith, and in essence, is what faith is. We have the bible, sure, but we do not have any conclusive evidence that proves Jesus even existed, or that he did what the scripture says.

Much of religion derived from early humans trying to make sense of a world that, at the time, lacked the sufficient tools and knowledge to observe things for what they were. A meteor strike on a city, such as the Chelyabinsk Incident, could be perceived by early peoples that God is pretty pissed. A man in a chariot riding across the sky explained the giant light thing that rose in the east, and set in the west. Stars have always been fascinating to early humans, and still are today. But what were they? They had no way, at the time, to discern that they were billions of balls of flaming monstrosities over unimaginable distances.

As religion evolved, it became more complex as humans evolved, and became more complex themselves. In some cases, it served a very practical purpose such as incorporating early astrology and observations made about the seasons to determine the best times to plant and harvest. It was also a comfort for humanity in the face of a supposedly meaningless existence, compounded by a struggle to survive, and grim realities that we face even to this day. We evolved beyond animals with the ability to reason, and with this supposed gift, we also obtained the curse of wandering around consciously aimless about our purpose, and while capable of understanding what death physically is, still baffled and dismayed by it.

However, religion of today still contains much of its archaic personality that has become nothing more than superfluous fluff. In the face of an increasingly growing world of technology and human advancement, religion has stopped being the gentle hand that cradled us when we were afraid, and instead, the chains holding us back from achieving the goals we need in order to continue down the path we've laid. Society must adapt if we wish to avoid stagnation, and that means abandoning religion. So yes, religion is incompatible with the modern world. People don't want to abandon it because they're afraid, that is the only root cause for why groups cling to it. Fear. The driving force behind our survival, has also become our hindrance. However, instead of blindly putting faith into possibly false beliefs, we have the potential to create the tools we need to confirm whether they are false or not. The problem is getting there.

I read through this entire post, and I still didn't see anything that didn't already assume that you can trust your observations.

There is not some magic way around it: without assumptions, you cannot know anything, which is why we must make the assumption of the material universe.

And, even with modern technology, science cannot investigate claims of the supernatural, so your last paragraph is outright false.

Moreover, if life is meaningless as you say, in your nihilism, then why should we seek knowledge at all?

And, you're pretty much wrong, and I don't see how you could say that religion has "held us back" without making a great stretch in how you are defining religion or holding us back.

I've explained it quite plainly. At this point, there's nothing left to discuss with you, my assumption over the reason behind the subject-matter was correct, apparently. As far as the nihilism bit, I never made such a claim, I am not a nihilist. I don't believe in the supernatural, though it seems you may, and perhaps put a bit too much into it. Have a nice day.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The OP isn't the first to come up with the concept that Christian Religion isn't exactly compatible with Democracy. A good part of Paradise Lost is essentially about that fact, though the guy writing it was actually in favor of autocracy and writing against the idea of democracy.

I would, even as an atheist, disagree with religion in general being incompatible with the modern world. I know too many believers that are perfectly capable of squaring their beliefs with it, especially if you take more of the Greek translations and less of the King James. But that said, I do think there are some tenets that need to go, especially concerning sexuality, that Christianity could do without. You don't hear the slavery bits quoted favorably too often anymore, I think we can get rid of the sexual bits too.

Surely religion itself can be spared, but not the entire, pure form. It needs some revision. Either way, I think(or at least hope) that belief systems like atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism will be vastly more popular in the future.

You're not the first one who has been saying that, nor will you be the last one.

[Conscentia]

Congratulations on making post #666. Anyway, I assume they mean this guy, George Berkeley.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

Yes.
Bishop Berkeley was well-known enough that I assumed he had just slipped Conscientia's mind (he or she (I don't know which) is generally pretty knowledgeable in this area, so I felt safe in the assumption).

My mind does not immediately go to Bishop Berkeley when I hear the name "Berkeley".

Bishop Berkeley probably isn't the guy you want to hold up given that he posited the existence of "spirits" he admitted were imperceptible, and could only be known "by their operations" - essentially you can only deduce their existence from sense-perceptions. Additionally, because he believed all "ideas" - perceptions, essentially - were produced by "spirits", Berkeley posited that an imperceptible "God" was responsible for willing into existence all those perceptions which are independent of your own will. He just substitutes physical reality for "spirits" and "God".

Not only is that no better than physicalism because it does not resolve the matter of not being able to trust one's senses, but Berkeley's explanation for the form of the sense-perceived world is worse than that of scientific physicalism because unlike scientific explanations Berkeley's philosophy cannot make predictions about future observations. Berkeley believed in free will, so the will of "God" and the "spirits" which willed the sensed world into being is not predictable. Positing the existing of Berkeley's "God" or "spirits" offers no deterministic mechanism - unless "God" willing things to appear deterministic for unknowable reasons counts (it doesn't, that doesn't explain anything). Physicalism, however, can provide a deterministic mechanism as physical things interact in physical ways to yield a outcome determined by their interaction.

[PaNTuXIa]

Wait, did Trad get banned?

[Esternial]

Wait, did Trad get banned?

DEAT. Trolling/gloating about the recent Orlando shooting. If he wants he can make a new account and pick up where he left off, so no worries.

[PaNTuXIa]

Wait, did Trad get banned?

DEAT. Trolling/gloating about the recent Orlando shooting. If he wants he can make a new account and pick up where he left off, so no worries.

Oh believe me, I in no way want him back.

[Tierra Prime]

As much as I disagree with it, I think organised religion could serve as an important mechanism of control. For example, only allowing state-sanctioned imams to preach and monitoring their behaviour would surely curtail radicalisation.

[Alvecia]

I read through this entire post, and I still didn't see anything that didn't already assume that you can trust your observations.

There is not some magic way around it: without assumptions, you cannot know anything, which is why we must make the assumption of the material universe.

And, even with modern technology, science cannot investigate claims of the supernatural, so your last paragraph is outright false.

Moreover, if life is meaningless as you say, in your nihilism, then why should we seek knowledge at all?

And, you're pretty much wrong, and I don't see how you could say that religion has "held us back" without making a great stretch in how you are defining religion or holding us back.

I've explained it quite plainly. At this point, there's nothing left to discuss with you, my assumption over the reason behind the subject-matter was correct, apparently. As far as the nihilism bit, I never made such a claim, I am not a nihilist. I don't believe in the supernatural, though it seems you may, and perhaps put a bit too much into it. Have a nice day.

If it makes a difference I thought it was a beautiful post. Definitely saving it next time I'm at my computer.

[Jochizyd Republic]

No matter what some say, religion can evolve to fit modernity. With that comes the question of whether it's possible to be a legitimately devout religious modernist?.

My stance is that it depends on how far it goes. But if you value free thought of any sort, yes it is.

[Calimera II]

Is religion incompatible with the Modern World? No. It works fine in many countries around the globe.

[Arcipelago]

From a logical standpoint it contradicts with the modern world, then again us humans aren't always logical. But, in a larger sense I and many others believe in religion not because it is logical or good, but because it will make our lives and those around us better.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

As much as I disagree with it, I think organised religion could serve as an important mechanism of control. For example, only allowing state-sanctioned imams to preach and monitoring their behaviour would surely curtail radicalisation.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, or if you've actually never heard of... well, almost every muslim theocracy. Saudi arabia CREATED al-qaeda, the taliban, and its descendents(including daesh) through state religious institutions.

[Internationalist Bastard]

No. So long as people can separate personal belief from law, and they don't get to hostile on the conversion, it's fine. People who try to find Atlantis don't harm anyone, and they may be right. It's a personal pursuit, nothing more.

[Imperial Domain of Persia]

I read through this entire post, and I still didn't see anything that didn't already assume that you can trust your observations.

There is not some magic way around it: without assumptions, you cannot know anything, which is why we must make the assumption of the material universe.

And, even with modern technology, science cannot investigate claims of the supernatural, so your last paragraph is outright false.

Moreover, if life is meaningless as you say, in your nihilism, then why should we seek knowledge at all?

And, you're pretty much wrong, and I don't see how you could say that religion has "held us back" without making a great stretch in how you are defining religion or holding us back.

I've explained it quite plainly. At this point, there's nothing left to discuss with you, my assumption over the reason behind the subject-matter was correct, apparently. As far as the nihilism bit, I never made such a claim, I am not a nihilist. I don't believe in the supernatural, though it seems you may, and perhaps put a bit too much into it. Have a nice day.

To the person who wrote that paragraph (I didn't include here because space),

Either you hold a Doctorate, or if not, you should apply for one. Well said.

Religion is still around because, quite frankly, most people aren't educated enough to question what they are told. They drink the bile that apologists offer as "logical defenses" of their faith, they accept the supposed "divisions" in science as equal to those of faith (this propaganda put forth by clergy is disgusting), and allow their own personal experiences to be explained strictly though a religious lens that they are given from a young age.

My question is twofold; one, how does religion die? It seemingly evolves constantly, especially Christianity, and will square the circle with contradictions in order to remain relevant in people's lives. It accepts science (or not, depending on how well educated its audience is), and bends over backwards to fit it. Religion is a concept, and concepts can only be killed on the individual level. The recent shooting has had many Christians throwing out whatever their Bible says about gays and simply saying something akin to "We are all human (humanism), and Jesus loves all (reducing Christianity to a personality cult)". They'll dismiss those who do take their Bibles literally (the ones who denounce the gays like the Pastor in California) in order to promote some type of love message. How does something like that, a web of logical contradictions that people do not challenge (lest it fall to pieces), die out?

That is the first part of my question.

The second part is, what do we give people in place of religion? When someone deconverts, they suddenly have a gaping hole in themselves as to why they are here, and what their purpose is. Most people find this frightening, and thus cling to religion. Without religion, there appears to be nothing aside from an empty version Charlie Chaplain's Great Dictator speech as to the meaning of life. Without a church, many little communities have nothing to tie them together. I'm coming from an American perspective where religion is absolutely everywhere. Religion has helped people find solace when they lose children to illness, when loved ones die, or when bad things in general happen. Religion has given people a kind of mental parent to keep them in check. Take religion away, and you've ripped out a large safety net for most people. What is given in place of this?

[The New Sea Territory]

Structures, hierarchies, organizations and laws based on spiritual beliefs have overstayed their welcome in human history. They need to be swiftly smashed.

The actual beliefs themselves are fine and usually harmless. The religion surrounding it and its leadership, who push conservative interpretations to further their grip on society, are the problem.