Why do people believe in religion?

[arildno]

I can respect anybody who's on a long road with something else. It's the lay back and sneer types that give me the pip.

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

 

[Canute]

Yes, to some extent, but it simply can't compete with religion on that score. Religion offers answers to such important questions as, 1) What is the origin of the universe? 2) What is the purpose of life? 3) How should I live? 4) What is the source of our morality? 5) Why is there suffering? Science does not. So for anyone who is uncomfortable with unanswered questions, religion provides a lot more comfort than science.

Do religions offer anwers to these questions? No theistic religion does. They offer dogmatic and formulaic answers which cannot be verified or falsified. Those practices and traditions that do offer proper answers to them I wouldn't call religions.

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

Anyone who claims that they have mystical insights denied to others deserves your sneering imo. 'Mystical insights' into the nature of reality are there for anybody to have, assuming they want them, and regardless of what they think about religion. All mystics say this, and I can't think of one who claims any special privilege. Equivalently, conscious experiences are there for anybody to have regardless of what they think about consciousness.

 

[loseyourname]

I think the idea that there is a genetic basis for the differentiation of people into those who have religious experiences and those that do not should be looked into more. Whether it be temporal lobe epilepsy or some other kind of alternate brain architecture, I get the feeling that these people - the Jesuses and Buddhas that Les is talking about - really do experience something that the rest of us don't. I don't get this from all of the religious people I talk to (many are just dogmatic), but I do with some. There seem to be people - my own girlfriend included - that are not being the least bit disingenuous when they say that they just feel the presence of an unquantifiable something greater than them, whatever they may label it. I've tried many of the techniques in the recent past and have to say I have never felt anything similar, either through the use of those techniques or in my everyday life. It really makes me wonder if there might be a tangible difference between my physical makeup and their's that results in their ability and my inability to feel this supposed presence.

 

[Microburst]

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

I concur, I think while a religion might offer some solution for a group of people within its margin, it also pits them against anyone outside it. “Either your with us or your with the enemy” (of GOD that is) type of ideology.


... and according to the big 3 only one can be right, which makes them all wrong.

Now I am not saying that without religions we’ll have a perfect human society, there are always other factors such as geopolitics, race and other biases. But religion doesn’t necessarily solve these problems rather adds to them...

 

[loseyourname]

... and according to the big 3 only one can be right, which makes them all wrong.

Actually, JP II recently declared that non-Catholics can still make it to heaven, provided they live a life free from mortal sin. I suppose he isn't necessarily conceding that their alternate beliefs are correct, but he no longer looks at them as a transgression.

 

[arildno]

Now I am not saying that without religions we’ll have a perfect human society, there are always other factors such as geopolitics, race and other biases. But religion doesn’t necessarily solve these problems rather adds to them...

I agree with this!
Without religion, we would stumble along, trying to establish some personal meaning in our lives, often fail at that, i.e, basically facing the same problems as we do today.
There are enough real problems to concern ourselves with; there's no reason to mess up our brains with idle fancies of gods and devils; that won't help us at all.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

Not everybody religious is like that, not even the majority. As much as I dislike religion, nothing justifies a blanket "sneering" attitude which, btw, you'll be holding toward billions of people.

I could quote some of the science types around here (a few of them prominent) who are exactly the same way you claim "all" the religious are. They behave like the new high priests of Truth. Pathetic little egos trying to act important by treating everybody who isn't up on their particular expertise like idiots. It's no different whether the religious do it or the scientifically trained do it or a manager at MacDonalds does it to his workers.

If you think stupidity is limited to the religious, and it will be avoided by science training, think again. People find ways to be stupid no matter how educated they are. Just because one has the right understanding about the way the physical universe works doesn't make one psychologically healthy, prevent one from being utterly incompentent in other areas of life (like communication, child rearing, or relationships, for example), or from being one of the self-absorbed jerks who are always finding ways to make this planet less comfortable for others to live on.

The problem isn't religion, the biggest problems of humanity are selfishness, being a victim of one's own psychological conditioning, and lack of heart. As far as I can tell, science training hasn't helped those problems one tiny bit. It is just makes the selfish, conditioned, heartless mind better educated and more clever at it.

It's too bad the know-it-all geniuses around here don't do a more thorough study of what is buried in history of the major religions. Who knows about Meister Eckhart here? What about John of the Cross? Joshu? Brother Lawrence? Nanak? The Baal Shem Tov? Shah Nimatullah Wali? Kabir? Namdev? Dogen? Rabia? Julian of Norwich? Benard? Nansen? Ruysbroeck? Sheikh Farid? Cassian? Who comprehends the enlightenment of the Buddha, or of Jesus?

You guys don't understand anything about what's really gone on among the most devoted to the inner way. You are just talking through your backside, absolutely no different than the rest of the world's ignorant except you are doing it in a public forum and pretending to be "scientific" about it.

 

[arildno]

A religious person makes an ontological claim: There exists a god out there.
In addition, he has the effrontery of demanding respect for this personal delusion, that it is a valid view ON PAR WITH scientific investigation of the actual world.


That is totally different from a typical "mystical" experience, subjective feelings of harmony&meaning or whatever you'd like to call it.

 

[arildno]

If you think stupidity is limited to the religious, and it will be avoided by science training, think again. People find ways to be stupid no matter how educated they are. Just because one has the right understanding about the way the physical universe works doesn't make one psychologically healthy, prevent one from being utterly incompentent in other areas of life (like communication, child rearing, or relationships, for example), or from being one of the self-absorbed jerks who are always finding ways to make this planet less comfortable for others to live on.

Agreed, I don't see where I've made a claim tha science produces happiness or well-adjusted individuals.

The problem isn't religion, the biggest problems of humanity are selfishness, being a victim of one's own psychological conditioning, and lack of heart. As far as I can tell, science training hasn't helped those problems one tiny bit. It is just makes the selfish, conditioned, heartless mind better educated and more clever at it.

Again, agreed.

But, what does this have to do with the insinuating, straight-jacketing influence of religion upon peoples' minds?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Agreed, I don't see where I've made a claim tha science produces happiness or well-adjusted individuals.

No, you said, "just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief." I am saying that has nothing to do with being religious; it has to do with someone who already was complacent, condescending and arrogant adopting a religious stance to justify it. Look aroiund Arildno, the same thing goes on in science circles.

But, what does this have to do with the insinuating, straight-jacketing influence of religion upon peoples' minds?

The problem is, you think scientism isn't straight jacketing anyone, yet speaking as one who loves both science and the inner thing, I see absolutely no difference between religious and scientific blind faith.

The people I debate here who are already convinced that physicalism is true are just as narrow-minded and narrowly educated as dogmatic religious believers. The only difference I can see is the science-minded have a better understanding of how the physical universe works. That's it! Not superior in any way shape or form intellectually overall (besides, plenty of formidable intellectuals are religious). If scientism becomes the new world religion in a hundred years or two, I would expect it to have all the dogmatic trappings of organized religion.

A religious person makes an ontological claim: There exists a god out there. In addition, he has the effrontery of demanding respect for this personal delusion, that it is a valid view ON PAR WITH scientific investigation of the actual world. That is totally different from a typical "mystical" experience, subjective feelings of harmony&meaning or whatever you'd like to call it.

The physicalist makes an ontological claim: there exists only physical principles and processes. In addition, he has the effrontery of demanding a thoroughly unproven theory, abiogenesis for example, be put in children's textbooks as the "likely" origin of life. In addition, scientism believers demand respect for their unproven theory that the universe is solely physical, and even preach abandoning the venerated inner path for pure science training.

Ignorance, arrogance, and condescension call no belief system home. Don't you see? It isn't religion that's doing it. It is dogmatic belief combined with human psychological problems. It really floors me that you think scientism/physicalism isn't dogmatic and becoming more so every day.

But I still say, everybody ridiculing religion around here doesn't know a damn thing about what is really behind it. You have to study it in depth. Of course, the history of the major religions is huge, and most of it offers little or no insight into anything worthwhile (IMO). So what one really needs is a clue of where to look.

If we were to take all the claims of this world (in any human endeavor), where do you think we would find the highest percentage of credible reports? It is where the most consistantly reported and powerful experiences are. It is disheartening to me to hear all the so-called scholars (even most religious scholars) look everywhere except where those experiences have been in the history of religion.

 

[arildno]

I know quite well where to look in order to judge religion:
Those times and places where a given religion was a dominant world-view.
What I've seen, is uniformly ugly (with the possible exception of buddhism).

As for the abiogenesis case (and other so-called "dogmatic" views in science):
I think it is most rational to search for observable causation patterns prior to postulating unobservable ones.
I don't see any dogmatism in this, rather the opposite.
If, for example, it becomes proven beyond possible doubt, that "consciousness", for example, cannot be explained (or even worse, contradicts) "physical" principles, then the duty of science is to search for other principles in order to understand the phenomenon.
However, we are a long way from such a situation today; neurologists have just begun their work; to demand instant answers (answers which, IMO, won't come at least for a couple of centuries) is not productive.

However, I fully recognize that one shouldn't over-emphasize, or blow out of all proportion the few insights one has gained through a scientific approach.
Nor should we engage in evasion maneuvres (i.e, sweeping problems under the carpet, pretending they don't exist).

Honesty&humility are personal qualities any scientist should aspire to develop, I do agree that, at least on the humility issue, many fail.

 

[Enos]

I read this quote but forget the source. was somthing like As long as there is no proof for or against the existence of God. A wise man will choose to believe in God due to probability. For if he is correct he will die with the reward, if he is wrong there is nothing to lose.

I think that quote pretty much makes a lot of sense.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I know quite well where to look in order to judge religion:
Those times and places where a given religion was a dominant world-view.
What I've seen, is uniformly ugly (with the possible exception of buddhism).

Nope, you like most other religion haters just look at what came later. The originating experience of consciousness that attracted people to the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Nanak, etc. is completely not understood by most people because they don't take time to look strictly at the experience.

A big part of religion the world sees is people hoping to get a taste of what the original experience offered, and trying all sorts of crazy stuff to get it. They also develop theories about why they aren't getting it (like they've sinned too much, or they have to get to Heaven first).

Instead of an inner experience, people come to believe someone like Jesus was giving a philosophy of love or goodness or religious reform , and so they go on in the centuries that follow to construct elaborate cosmologies, moral prescriptions, and so on; local pagan beliefs also get mixed in with what has stemmed from that original experience. But none of that has the slightest thing to do with the conscious experience of Jesus.

Conscious experience is what started the whole thing, so that is what people should be curious about rather than how stupid some people in later centuries became. However, even in later centuries not everyone went the way of most religious. There were a small few who pursued the experience instead of religious behavior and belief. That is what nobody around here seems to know much about.

As for the abiogenesis case (and other so-called "dogmatic" views in science): I think it is most rational to search for observable causation patterns prior to postulating unobservable ones. If, for example, it becomes proven beyond possible doubt, that "consciousness", for example, cannot be explained (or even worse, contradicts) "physical" principles, then the duty of science is to search for other principles in order to understand the phenomenon.

Of course. But what if those people experiencing "something more" found it by developing another aspect of their consciousness? If scientists haven't developed that, then no matter how hard they look they will not find evidence of the "something more." That, in fact, is exactly what every single inner practitioner worth his/her beans has claimed.

And guess how many scientists you hear admitting there just might be an ever so slightest, teeny weeny, itsy bitsy chance they haven't the consciousness skills to grasp something? No way! As a group they think they got it all figured out, that they and they alone are on the path to Truth, and that they KNOW all the past inner stuff is just a bunch of superstition, myth, etc. They are so sure in fact, they don't even need to study the history and nature of the inner experience to speak authoritatively in public forums. Now that's what I'd call true genuis.

 

[loseyourname]

Nope, you like most other religion haters just look at what came later. The originating experience of consciousness that attracted people to the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Nanak, etc. is completely not understood by most people because they don't take time to look strictly at the experience.

A big part of religion the world sees is people hoping to get a taste of what the original experience offered, and trying all sorts of crazy stuff to get it. They also develop theories about why they aren't getting it (like they've sinned too much, or they have to get to Heaven first).

Instead of an inner experience, people come to believe someone like Jesus was giving a philosophy of love or goodness or religious reform , and so they go on in the centuries that follow to construct elaborate cosmologies, moral prescriptions, and so on; local pagan beliefs also get mixed in with what has stemmed from that original experience. But none of that has the slightest thing to do with the conscious experience of Jesus.

Conscious experience is what started the whole thing, so that is what people should be curious about rather than how stupid some people in later centuries became. However, even in later centuries not everyone went the way of most religious. There were a small few who pursued the experience instead of religious behavior and belief. That is what nobody around here seems to know much about.

You guys realize you are talking about two different things, right? Les is talking about inner experiences and Arildno is talking about actual religions. Not the originating spiritual leaders around whom mythologies formed that resulted in religions - the actual religions. The big three presumably, which at this point and for the last thousand years at least have little to do with the teachings of any legitimate spiritual leader. Arildno is correct to say that these dogmatic doctrines that have dominated the western world for millenia have been very destructive. Dogmatic belief of any kind almost always will be, because it is virtually inevitable that just about every belief a human being holds will turn out to be wrong to some extent. Dogma does not recognize this. Dogma would prefer to kill dissenters after dehumanizing and labelling them evil than consider alternative points of view. Neither science nor spiritualism is its purest form is dogmatic. They are both meant to be approached with an open mind and they are both empirical in nature. Religion - at least the big three that people in the west generally mean when they use the word - are not like this. They demand a certain belief in what they deem to be eternal truth, truth that cannot be discovered but only revealed. It is these belief systems that infect and corrode the human spirit.

 

[arildno]

Les Sleeth, please read the previous comment I made:

A religious person makes an ontological claim: There exists a god out there.

That is totally different from a typical "mystical" experience, subjective feelings of harmony&meaning or whatever you'd like to call it.

There is a complete and utter difference between the searching for an inner peace, or focusing your endeavours to develop the best of your humanity, and throwing insupportable claims of gods about, and demanding respect for this type of silliness.
These claims are nothing but the rejection of rational investigation of the world AND of staking out paths of self-enlightenment.
They express the wish to stagnate intellectually and morally, and has nothing whatsoever with either science or the search for a sound philosophy of living, which we will ALWAYS need, regardless of our level of factual knowledge.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You guys realize you are talking about two different things, right? Les is talking about inner experiences and Arildno is talking about actual religions. Not the originating spiritual leaders around whom mythologies formed that resulted in religions - the actual religions. The big three presumably, which at this point and for the last thousand years at least have little to do with the teachings of any legitimate spiritual leader. Arildno is correct to say that these dogmatic doctrines that have dominated the western world for millenia have been very destructive. Dogmatic belief of any kind almost always will be, because it is virtually inevitable that just about every belief a human being holds will turn out to be wrong to some extent. Dogma does not recognize this. Dogma would prefer to kill dissenters after dehumanizing and labelling them evil than consider alternative points of view. Neither science nor spiritualism is its purest form is dogmatic. They are both meant to be approached with an open mind and they are both empirical in nature. Religion - at least the big three that people in the west generally mean when they use the word - are not like this. They demand a certain belief in what they deem to be eternal truth, truth that cannot be discovered but only revealed. It is these belief systems that infect and corrode the human spirit.

You are right about some of that, but I don't like characterizing "religion" with one set of related terms. Would there be any religion without people to participate? NO. So a huge part of what you are calling "religion" is the people who practice it. It isn't just the official dogma of any given system.

A lot of sincere people are involved in religion. Not everybody is in it from ignorance. Also, in the past have been some (monastics mostly) who've achieved something quite extraordinary in terms of conscious development.

I don't like these religion bashing threads (there used to be a lot more of them in the past and I fought them too). Due to my my own bad experiences with religion, I almost despise religion. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to stick up for them when I hear gross generalizations by people who don't know much about what they are bashing. There is a lot more to religion than the stupidity.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is a complete and utter difference by searching for an inner peace, or focusing your endeavours to develop the best of your humanity, than throwing insupportable claims of gods about, and demanding respect for this type of silliness.
These claims are nothing but the rejection of rational investigation of the world AND of staking out paths of self-enlightenment.
They express the wish to stagnate intellectually and morally, and has nothing whatsoever with either science or the search for a sound philosophy of living, which we will ALWAYS need, regardless of our level of factual knowledge.

I realize you are most comfortable with sticking to inner peace and such. But the truth is, you don't really know about someone, for instance, like Joshu (a 9th century Chinese Ch'an monk) spending forty years (that's 40!) in a monastery meditating 2 or 3 hours a day just to develop a single consciousness skill.

And you really don't know what someone experiences when their mind becomes perfectly still, and as they sit there enjoying that, suddenly they feel their consciousness being lifted out of their body into some great expanse of light.

And you don't know what you'd come to say about reality, or the possibility of some universal consciousness/God, if that happened to you over many years.

Or do you?

Your words like "silliness' and "stagnate intellectually and morally" are hurtful and disrespectful. You cannot take an inner discipline and subject it to an outer method and expect to find anything.

If you don't want to look inside, fine. But don't be talking about unsupportable claims of God until you have done the inner work necessary to look for yourself and confidently claim nothing is there.

 

[arildno]

You're right:
I'm not intimately familiar with the weird tricks of the imagination you might become fooled by in self-induced trances.
If you want to chase down phantasms and chimaeras, by all means do so.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

arildno, when you talk about "religious" people you've met, do you mean simply people who have a religious belief, or are you referring strictly to proselytizing zealots?

There are quite a few theists on this board, and I doubt the majority of them have shown you any of this "arrogance" which you complain about. There are probably many religious people in your life whom you interact with on a daily basis, whose opinions you respect, whose company you enjoy - but it just never occurs to you that they even have religious beliefs because they aren't trying to force their beliefs on you. Not all people who practice a religion are out to convert you. Not all people who practice a religion believe that their religion makes them a better person than you.

Don't take this the wrong way. I think very highly of you, arildno, and I respect your views, but when you say "just about every religious person I've met", I think this claim is highly exaggerated.

 

[reasonmclucus]

What is religion? We need to understand how religion differs from other ways of dealing with information before making an evaluation.

A common misconception is that religion is something that has to do with godlike beings or the so-called "supernatural". As a mathematician, I believe a more accurate definition would look at how information is dealt with.

The common view of mathematicians is that they deal with numbers and shapes. A more accurate view is that mathematicians develop and utilize tools that classify, evaluate and manipulate information. This information might involve numbers and shapes but doesn't have to.

Religion looks at information within a relatively rigid set of beliefs. Concepts are "truths" which should be accepted with little or no question. These concepts may involve some type of diety, but aren't limited to the "supernatural". Concepts may relate to actual observations of the physical world. For example, the old belief that the sun and stars went around the Earth was based on watching them from Earth's surface. Information that contradicts beliefs must be modified to fit those beliefs.

Real science differs from religion in that scientific concepts are open to question and revision. Concepts must be verified through repeated experimentation and observation. Science is pragmatic and adjusts concepts to reflect new information.

How does this relate to the question of whether religion is needed? Many of those who call themselves scientists are treating "science" like it's their religion. They want science to provide concepts that aren't subject to question particularly those dealing with subjects that religion has often dealt with such as the origin of universe/life and whether bad things in the environment are "humans' fault".

The lack of information limits the ability to develop definitive statements about physical events in the distant past. Yet, those "scientists" who speculate about the distant past insist that they can determine exactly what happened and anyone who questions their beliefs is a "heretic" although they don't use that word.

From this it would appear that there is a human need for some set of beliefs that cannot be questioned and thus offer some degree of certainty. Beliefs that are subject to question force people to think and deal with diffferent, particularly new, ideas. For those with established positions, like college professors, new ideas create the possibility that others will know more and threaten their positions.

 

[Janitor]

...Who knows about Meister Eckhart here? What about John of the Cross? Joshu? Brother Lawrence? Nanak? The Baal Shem Tov? Shah Nimatullah Wali? Kabir? Namdev? Dogen? Rabia? Julian of Norwich? Benard? Nansen? Ruysbroeck? Sheikh Farid? Cassian? Who comprehends the enlightenment of the Buddha, or of Jesus? ...

I surely don't know much about them.

If you in fact do know a great deal about their claims and thoughts, have you looked into whether they contradict one another? If in fact contradictions are there, doesn't that imply that at least one of them is in error regarding some particular issue? And if they can be wrong about one thing, isn't it plausible to think they got a whole bunch of things wrong?

 

[Les Sleeth]

...Who knows about Meister Eckhart here? What about John of the Cross? Joshu? Brother Lawrence? Nanak? The Baal Shem Tov? Shah Nimatullah Wali? Kabir? Namdev? Dogen? Rabia? Julian of Norwich? Benard? Nansen? Ruysbroeck? Sheikh Farid? Cassian? Who comprehends the enlightenment of the Buddha, or of Jesus? ...

If you in fact do know a great deal about their claims and thoughts, have you looked into whether they contradict one another? If in fact contradictions are there, doesn't that imply that at least one of them is in error regarding some particular issue? And if they can be wrong about one thing, isn't it plausible to think they got a whole bunch of things wrong?

I do indeed know much about them, so I can confidently state that they are known for one particular claim. The claim is, that one can turn one's attention inward and realize a conscious potential that is impossible to realize any other way. I can also tell you (and this is well known among the scholars of this field) that despite living in different cultures and times, they do not contradict each other in their reports of what this "inner experience" was like. The reports are remarkably similar, as you’ll see from the small sampling of quotes I provided below.

Now you tell me, isn't it plausible to think they got that one thing right?

What isn't understood by all the religion haters is that spirituality has derived from expertise at the practice of turning the attention inward. Those who get good at it claim there is a light inside, that they can join with it, and sometimes that joining pulls them out of their bodies into an "ocean" of light. Most of the people who achieved anything along these lines practiced the inner methods for decades (usually in monastic settings). This is traditionally called the experience of union in religions studies. It is well known and well documented, yet neither many of the religious or any religion haters know about it.

Some came to refer to that inner light they experienced as "soul," and the greater continuum as "God" (or the “heart” and “spirit”). Others called the pair "enlightenment" and "Nirvana." Still others called them "atman" and "Brahman." Some related to the whole thing devotionally and personalized the greater thing as God or the Father; others preferred a more impersonal yogic approach as practiced in Buddhism. All of it, however, was aimed at experiencing something inside, and getting a taste of that greater thing.

You have to study religion thoroughly to see how things get from that deep inner practice to the superstitions, dogma, moralities, beliefs, etc. that characterizes modern “religion.” You will never understand the origin of religion until you grasp this poorly-understood consciousness potential.

So I am not saying religion isn't full of nonsense. But I am saying it has nothing to do with spiritual experience. Religion is what happens when people translate spiritual experience into concepts and beliefs which have been shaped to fit into and/or assist social, political, psychological circumstances by those in power. To understand what spirituality was/is really about, one has to isolate and study the experiential inner aspects apart from all the outer stuff experience-less people did/do.


Here are the quotes I promised:

Julian of Norwich, 14th century A.D., England: “And then the Lord opened my ghostly eye and shewed my soul in the midst of my heart. I saw the Soul as it were an endless world, and as it were a blissful kingdom.”

Sheikh Farid, 1173–1265, Pakistan: “Farid, why wander from jungle to jungle, breaking the thorny branches in search of the Lord? In my heart and not in the jungle does my Lord reside.”

Richard Rolle, 14th century, England: “I wish that you might win to the highest [degree of devotion] . . . which is called singular.”

Lalleswari, 14th century A.D., India: “Self of my Self, for Thou are but I, Self of my Self, for I am Thou . . . What do they matter—the why and how?”

Jesus, 1st century A.D., Palestine: “You cannot tell by observation when the Kingdom of God comes . . . for in fact it is within you. . . . God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit. . . . When you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is there in the secret place. . . . I and my Father are One.”

Nanak, 1469–1539, India: “The Eternal Light indwells in the human mind, and the human mind is the emanation of that Light, and our five senses are the Light’s disciples.”

Ruysbroeck, 1293–1381, Flanders: “. . . between us and God this unity forever ceaselessly renews itself . . .”

Muktananda, 1908–1983, India: "A person, blind since birth, is unable to see the sun, the moon and the stars. That does not mean that they are not shining in the sky. Similarly, whether one believes or not, I say it with firm conviction that there is a Divine Light dwelling in the center of our heart . . . That very light is the soul—pure, changeless and eternal.”

Meister Eckhart, 1260-1328, Germany: “The heavenly Father utters a Word . . . That Word lies hidden in the soul, so that man neither knows nor hears it . . . To hear it, all voices and sounds must die away and there must be pure quiet—perfect stillness.”

Ramananda, 1340-1430, India: “Whither need I go to seek holiness? I am happy here within myself at home. My heart is no longer a pilgrim; it has become tied down to itself.”

Catherine of Genoa, 1447–1510, Italy: “My me is God, nor do I know my selfhood, save in Him!”

Kabir, 1488–1512, India: “Student, tell me, what is God? He is the breath inside the breath.”

Socrates, 469–399 B.C., Greece: “And he attains to the purest knowledge who . . . has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body . . . . [so that] he is in a manner purified . . . and what is purification but the . . . habit of the soul gathering and collecting herself into herself from all sides out of the body; then dwelling in her own place alone, as in another life . . .”

Bonaventura, 1221–1274, Italy: “See purest Being itself, if you can . . . for it is no way composite, but is most simple . . . it has no diversity, for it is One in the highest degree.”

Sarmad, 17th century A.D., India: “. . . only in the meditations of my heart was the Path revealed.”

Brother Lawrence, 1611–1691, France: “The [practice of] the presence of God is a remembrance of God present . . . in the depth and center of the soul . . .and always in a great and profound peace that the soul enjoys in God.”

Patanjali, 1st Century A.D., India: “Concentration [in inner experience] is holding the mind within a center of spiritual consciousness . . . one achieves samadhi [union]. . . Perfection is attained when the mind becomes as pure as the [soul] itself.”

Seraphim, 1759–1833, Russia: “When a man contemplates inwardly the eternal light, the mind is pure, and has in it no sensuous images, but, being wholly immersed in the contemplation of uncreated beauty, forgets everything sensuous and does not wish to see even itself.”

Shah Nimatullah Wali, 731–834, Persia: “In the prison of form we still rejoice—watch what we do then in the world of essence . . . Our Friend resides in the cloister of our heart . . . we are drowned in the universal ocean, we do not seek water now.”

Jacopone Da Todi, 13th century A.D., Italy: “[union is] when the mind’s very being is gone . . . in a rapture divine and deep, itself in the Godhead lost . . . knowing not how it was crossed . . . drawn from its former state, to another [that is] measureless . . .”

Dionysius the Areopagite, 5th century A.D., Syria: “[the soul achieves] union with Him who is above all knowledge . . . . Our speech is restrained in proportion to the height of our ascent; but when our ascent is accomplished, speech will cease altogether and be absorbed into the ineffable.”

Kakuan, 12th century A.D., China: “ . . . all merge in No-Thing. This heaven is so vast no message can stain it. How may a snowflake exist in a raging fire?”

George Fox, 1624–1691, England: “. . . in the Light wait where the unity is, where the peace is, where the Oneness with the Father and son is, where there is not rent nor division.”

Mira Bai, 1498–1550, India: “When other women’s sweethearts live in foreign lands, they write letter after letter. But my Beloved lives in my heart, so I sing day and night.”

Jerome, 331–420, Dalmatia: “Plato located the soul of man in the head; Christ located it in the heart.”

Muhammad, 570–632, Arabia: "But only he (will prosper) that brings to Allah a sound heart.”

Karaikkal Ammaiyar, 6th A.D., India: “Some may say that God is high up in the heavens . . . but I will say that He who is the Lord of wisdom . . . is the dweller in my heart.”

Rabia, 717–801, Iraq: “O my God, the best of Thy gifts within my heart is the hope of Thee . . . the hours which I love best are those in which I meet with Thee.”

John of the Cross, 1542–1591, Spain: “Oh, then, soul . . . you yourself are His dwelling and His secret chamber and hiding place . . . Since you know that your desired Beloved lives hidden within your heart, strive to be really hidden with Him, and you will embrace Him within you and experience Him . . .”

Plotinus, 204-270, Egypt: “Because what the soul seeks is the One . . . It must rise to the principle within itself; from the multiplicity that it was it must again become one. Only thus can it contemplate the supreme principle, the One.”

 

[arildno]

but when you say "just about every religious person I've met", I think this claim is highly exaggerated.

Possibly, however:
Theism and mystical traditions which focus upon inner/subjective experiences, and actively reject myth/dogma-development and the evolution of prescriptive/exemplary moralities have always represented a minuscule minority within the religuous community at large.
To point to the existence of such sub-dominant trends and assert that these are, indeed, the essence of religion, is a very tenuous (and, IMO, dubious) claim.

Rather than wishing to experience the cathartic/cleansing effects of the "inner way", religion, as I see it, has two entwined motivations (both of which, in my view, are extremely dangerous):

1.Epistemological:
By posing the existence of a God (or gods), one is basically making a bi-partition of reality a priori.
Why do I think this is dangerous?
By extricating consciousness from nature, and magnifying it into an independently existing god, one relieves oneself from the burden of trying to explain consciousness in terms of verifiably working physical princples.

Secondly, by infusing this god-figure by mental (and, presumably, moral) attributes, this god-figure will invariably seem a lot more interesting than "mere things" (and often, "mere humans") as well.
That is, this bi-partition into the spiritual/material worlds will often engender a contempt/lack of interest for nature (and other humans, possibly).

Thirdly, there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of this type of being.

That is, this type of facile bi-partition of reality is readily combined with intellectual slackness/stagnation.
(Note: Keeping a basic idea of a reality based on physical principles must not lead us into truncationism, i.e, where we dismiss one side of a dichotomy of phenomena and try to say it doesn't exist/matter. An example of such worthless truncationism is to believe that conscious experience is irrelevant in a scientific study of humans. Consciousness exists, and it won't go away even if that had been easier to deal with for behaviorists.)

2. Moral:
Prescriptive/exemplary moralities which say that only a priorly defined set of human persinalities/behaviour patterns is acceptable (and justifies this as "commands of the Lord") have the flip-side in saying that what an individual might feel about it, is irrelevant.
That is, individuals are not seen as arbiters of morality, in particular in regards to those situations which concern them directly.
In so far as you regard (as I do) every individual as an arbiter of morality, then it necessarily follows that you cannot a priori know what a "correct" behaviour of/towards a particular individual is.
Experience will teach us general rules about what typically make people happy, but we can never relieve ourselves of the burden of actually listening to what a particular individual might want (since each one of us is a "particular" individual, we should certainly not have to consent to actions which goes against our deepest interest; self-destructive altruism has no place here).

In short, prescriptive moralities dismiss individuality as a relevant moral dimension, they wish easy answers/rules; i.e, these moralities represent in my view a particularly insiduous form of moral stagnation masquerading as moral rectitude.

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . the cathartic/cleansing effects of the "inner way",

I don't know anything about it being cathartic/cleansing. It is more like peace, and experiencing a unity with something greater than oneself.

religion, as I see it, has two entwined motivations (both of which, in my view, are extremely dangerous).

I'm going to offer you my opinion about your "dangerous" concerns. I think they are exaggerated by your hatred. For example:

. . . . extricating consciousness from nature, and magnifying it into an independently existing god, one relieves oneself from the burden of trying to explain consciousness in terms of verifiably working physical princples.

It's been my experience that most religious people are religious on Sundays and secular the rest of the time. Most people are also not in a position to study consciousness, and have little interest in understanding it whether they are religious or not. Instead, people are just trying to survive and raise families while a few of us intellectuals get to contemplate things. I don't see religion stopping anybody with strong intellectual skills from using them. Even here at PF members have admitted to being Christian and to also working/believing in science.

Secondly, by infusing this god-figure by mental (and, presumably, moral) attributes, this god-figure will invariably seem a lot more interesting than "mere things" (and often, "mere humans") as well.
That is, this bi-partition into the spiritual/material worlds will often engender a contempt/lack of interest for nature (and other humans, possibly).

The same argument as above (i.e., a curious mind isn't going to be stopped by religion). Plus, people today are more and more willing to listen to the discoveries science. Except for fanatical elements of religions, the average intelligent person sees his religion as a matter of faith, and the world as requiring different skills to be successful in. All the attempts I've seen to mix religion and practical issues have been dismal failures.

Thirdly, there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of this type of being.

There is a huge amount of evidence, you just don't like it because it is internal. Why do you get to decide what is defined as worthwhile evidence? Who made empiricists God? They insist only sense data is "evidence," yet a LOT of people (the vast majority in fact) believe that one's inner sensitivity has epistiomological value.

Just because a group of people obsessed with studying physicalness decide that the feeling aspect of consciousness isn't to be trusted doesn't make it so. And as I've pointed out, some people actually developed that inner feeling capability by spending decades sitting quietly taking the feeling deeper and deeper. But because externalists know nothing about this consciousness potential, or because they personally aren't interested in it, they've decided it must be nonsense. That my friend is arrogance.

That is, this type of facile bi-partition of reality is readily combined with intellectual slackness/stagnation.

Seems like you are blaming religion for all the world's problems.

In short, prescriptive moralities dismiss individuality as a relevant moral dimension, they wish easy answers/rules; i.e, these moralities represent in my view a particularly insiduous form of moral stagnation masquerading as moral rectitude.

I don't see any of that. I think most people accept religion because they have a desire to be a better person. That desire precedes their choice of joining religion. In general, the moral recommendations of religion seem to serve humanity well. I can't see your point on this issue at all.

It seems to me you've met a few religious jerks who've really turned you off and made you generalize maliciously about the whole thing. I have ran into plenty of religious turn-offs myself. It made me an atheist at age 12. I used to hate all religion, but then as I got older I realized a lot of people (most IMO) participate sincerely and exhibit good intentions toward humanity from being encouraged by their faith. So rather than let the minority decide my view, I've allowed myself to look at both good and bad.

My biggest complaint about religion is that it has replaced the genuine practices of the inner way with beliefs, dogma, and blind faith. I don't think any of those things reveal a God if there is one. I think you are right that beliefs, dogma, and blind faith make a person less intelligent; the thing is, people do those things even when they aren't religious . . . it's just the general state of intelligence of the human race right now if you ask me. Religion simply offers another way to do what an undeveloped mind is going to do one way or another.

Rather than waste time hating religion, I think we should respect the sincere ways people participate, see the good instead of the bad, and then work our tails off to educate people. It doesn't help the cause of consciousness development to be narrowminded ourselves, to act like we and we alone know the "truth," or to preach hatred.

 

[arildno]

Well, I'll stop preaching hatred (as you called it), but I've never assumed that I alone know the truth behind everything.
Just because we attach the label "belief" on an assertion about reality (say, about the existence of god), does not make it less of an assertion.
As for "inner experiences", that's what they are, we cannot verify (as yet) whatever claims are made from them through inter-subjective/objective methods.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, I'll stop preaching hatred (as you called it), but I've never assumed that I alone know the truth behind everything.

As for "inner experiences", that's what they are, we cannot verify (as yet) whatever claims are made from them through inter-subjective/objective methods.

That's correct. They are verified by each individual alone, in privacy, just like the subjective aspect of consciousness which cannot be made objective and so is only recognized by each individual. The inner path has always been a deeply personal thing, which is another way I think religion is often extremely far off the mark (i.e., telling people what to believe about inner stuff).

 

[Janitor]

... All of it, however, was aimed at experiencing something inside, and getting a taste of that greater thing...

First off, let me say I appreciate the large effort you made in collecting that many quotes.

To the degree that the quotes are in collective harmony (the "average" of them being something along the lines of: "There is a nonphysical thing called a soul that is somehow a part of my life, and it is at one with the deity"), I wonder how much of it is attributable to cross-pollination of ideas across a good bit of the continents of Asian and Europe as the centuries rolled by.

Another possibility is that the same basic idea can arise independently in different places and times in the same way that the idea of solipsism seems to occur to just about anybody who begins to work out a philosophical stance on their own. If that is what is happening, it doesn't mean the idea of soul is any more trustworthy than the idea of solipsism is.

 

[Les Sleeth]

To the degree that the quotes are in collective harmony (the "average" of them being something along the lines of: "There is a nonphysical thing called a soul that is somehow a part of my life, and it is at one with the deity"), I wonder how much of it is attributable to cross-pollination of ideas across a good bit of the continents of Asian and Europe as the centuries rolled by.

Another possibility is that the same basic idea can arise independently in different places and times in the same way that the idea of solipsism seems to occur to just about anybody who begins to work out a philosophical stance on their own.

You've made intelligent but uninformed guesses. The reason for the "collective harmony" is not due to the cross-pollination of ideas, but rather is because most of the people quoted were involved in the same practice. I can tell this is something you aren't familiar with (like most people). Those who use their consciousness to analyze, synthesize, imagine, create and take in information from the senses usually believe that's pretty much it in terms of conscious potential.

You know that consciousness can be trained, for instance, to think more logically. To learn that, one studies and practices logic, right? I know people who barely pay attention to their environment, and they can learn to be more attentive. I've coached people on how to listen to music more deeply or, see color more vividly, or be more into taste while eating for example. There are courses for developing creativity, such as learning to envision, etc. My point is, consciousness can be developed (which is why we start early with children).

Okay, so here's what you don't know about. It is possible to develop another consciousness skill, and with it learn to experience "sounds" and "light" and "tastes" in a way unavailable to the person who does not develop consciousness in this particular way. This practice requires one to turn one's attention 180 degrees back on itself to a very specific place in the "heart" of consciousness; one must learn to quiet the mind; one withdraws from the senses to more fully stay "inside" one's consciousness; at last something called "union" can occur where all one's energies sort of integrate. If one gets good at that aspect, at some point another level of union is known to happen where it feels like one is lifted out of the body a bit and joined into some larger "ocean" of light.

Here is a famous a 16th century monastic,Teresa of Avila, writing about union practice as three stages of contemplative or inner prayer: recollection, quiet, and then finally union. In the recollection phase of union prayer Teresa says, “the soul collects its faculties together and enters within itself . . .” In other words, an individual withdraws his or her attention from the senses and mind and allows that light to return to, or be “recollected” by, the innermost soul. The next stage of union prayer is the “quiet” which Teresa says is, “something we cannot procure through our own efforts. In it the soul enters into peace . . . The soul understands in another way, very foreign to the way it understands through the exterior senses . . . that not much more would be required for it to become one . . . in union.” Now Teresa says the inner practitioner is ready for the final stage of prayer she calls union where awareness, “this prayer is the union of all the faculties, the soul is unable to communicate its joy even though it may desire to do so—I mean while being in the prayer. And if it were able, then this wouldn’t be union. How this prayer they call union comes about and what it is . . . . we already know since it means that two separate things become one. . . . While the soul is seeking God in this way, it feels with the most marvelous and gentlest delight that everything is almost fading away through a kind of swoon in which breathing and all the bodily energies gradually fail.”

In India this practice was taught by the Buddha (and later by others), and practiced by the most devout monastics for many centuries notably in India, Tibet, China and Japan. Union is called "samadhi" there. So it is because people were practicing the same inner method that their quotes are in "collective harmony" and not because they were sharing ideas. Once you know that, their reports take on more significance, which I'll explain below.

If that is what is happening, it doesn't mean the idea of soul is any more trustworthy than the idea of solipsism is.

See, you are hung up on words and concepts. That is why it is difficult to talk about this consciousness potential intelligently. It is nearly impossible to get past everyone's preconceptions and talk about what is actually happening in union. The thing is, why would someone like the Buddha or Joshu or Teresa spend their entire lives living as monastics just to keep them from distractions that might interfere with union/samadhi practice? There is something to this practice, it isn't just fluff, or trance or self-hypnosis. It leads to something called "enlightenment" or "self realization," and the people committed to it cherish it above all else.

In ignorance skeptics write it off as delusion, but they've not studied the phenomenon. The people involved in this are hardly delusional (read Meister Eckhart if you want to see a brilliant interpretation of the experience). Similarly, you talk about the idea of a soul being untrustworthy, but you miss the point. Those I quoted were talking about something they'd experienced! What was it they found when they turned inward? You can call it "slewy" or "pomtic" or whatever and it doesn't change they are reporting they find a light inside. They report the lifting from the body into some continuum of light. Okay, don't call it God, call it "something more." But still, what is it? Something is going on because the reports are consistant across cultures and over a 3000 year period.

For this thread, I've claimed that the most influential reports about "something more" have come from individuals deeply absorbed into the union experience (that includes Jesus). And that religion is something which comes later as people try to understand what was so powerful about that, but (like you) failing mostly to understand it at all. When religion haters say all reports of "something more" are silly or delusional, they are just as ignorant as the blindly religious because they are evaluting the wrong group! Religion isn't what produced the actual reports about "something more."

 

[Janitor]

... people try to understand what was so powerful about that, but (like you) failing mostly to understand it at all...

True, I have not had any such an experience in my considerable number of revolutions around the Sun.

Some scattered thoughts that may have no relevance to your last post...

I have read that lack of food and sleep for an extended period of time can lead to hallucinations. I wonder if that basic feature of brain chemistry (if that is what it is) is what lies behind the urging of some religious traditions that the devout should fast and pray unceasingly.

I knew a man who got into a religion that mixed Christianity with New Age ideas and Eastern religious ideas ("third eye" and such). Not long after he joined that church, he reported seeing auras over people's heads. I never could see them, I'm afraid. I remain skeptical that there really was any actual optic nerve pulses inside his head corresponding to patterns of colors above the person he was looking at. I attribute it to the power of suggestion. But I could be wrong, I suppose.

Glossolalia is practiced by certain denominations of Christianity. I have noticed that certain practitioners of this "talking in tongues" have their own style. An African-American preacher that I saw on TBN, Juanita Bynum, vocalizes something like this: "Luh mumba mumba mumba," which I would think is influenced by her, sometime in her life, hearing the speech of equatorial Africans. A local radio preacher, Ron Dubrul, has a wife who speaks Spanish. His glossolalia often sounds like this: "Ah pora batanda, y todo ulu." The "y todo" part in particular has a Spanish flavor, to my ears at least. My own interpretation is that the tongue-talkers' own minds are dredging up ordinary human speech that they have heard, and spouting it back out, with a bit of reverse-English on it, so to speak.

This is meant in no way to mock the experiences you speak of, but I wonder if an orangutan that has just helped itself to a heap of berries and is now draped over a stout tree branch feels something almost like what you are describing? Endorphins (or whatever the chemical substance might be) are flowing freely, the orangutan feels satiated, peaceful, at ease, and all is truly well with its world. It feels at one with its natural surroundings. Maybe the state some humans are capable of getting themselves into is something remotely akin to the same thing, which would make it a matter of biochemistry rather than of spiritual union. Please don't take offense at that; I offer it only as a humble suggestion--a remote possibility, let's say.

 

[guevaramartyr]

Before I say anything, I'd just like to throw out that I come from a jewish family, athough I am atheistic. This probably gives my views something of a bias. IMO, as homo sapiens arose to consciousness, he felt the need to explain the world around him. Because early man's knowledge of the laws of the universe was extremely limited, he invented a system that would allow him some measure of control over his surroundings. In a primal environment where you were likely to die before thirty, the idea that a higher power has 'got your back' is highly comforting and gave life a purpose. As sentient creatures, we naturally feel a sense of insecurity, which, when coupled with curiosity, easily leads to a system of religion. A couple other thoughts... As Tsiolkovsky (i think that's how you spell it) said 'Earth is the cradle of the mind...But you cannot live in the cradle forever'. Similarly, i think that a shift away from religion as a center of culture would be healthy for society. Now that science is beginning its journey to uncover the mechanics of the universe, we no longer need religion as an explanation for all that surrounds us. Unfortunately, Christianity in particular is so ingrained in our society that it will prove difficult, if not impossible to uproot. This will eventually prove a problem, as 2000 years of stagnation never have had a beneficial effect on anything. And while I'm not opposed to the morals codes set forth in many religions, I do think that it is slightly ridiculous that some people claim that without religion, morals would disappear. The new generation of the '90s (of which I am part) is massively atheistic. And at the same time my friends, many of whom smoke marijuana or drink or engage in other "questionable" behaviors, are more moral and deep thinking than many adults I have met. Religion is not essential to our survival any more. You want morals, set an example your kids want to follow.

__________
Earth is the cradle of the mind...But you cannot live in the cradle forever

 

[Mr.Clue]

God's place in our world will always exist i think. I am pretty sure there never was a god and never will a god. God gives people hope when they have none, and morals to live by. I see nothing wrong with that. But what i also believe is that most ppl that believe in god don't truly believe. The more i try to become religious the more i see that there is no god. Anyone can write a book and have it be found in a few thousand years, and somebody will say i found the book of god. I think any people that are in touch with there humanity realize there is no god. But there will always be a place in this world for god. If there was god there would be no need for technology or anything else we have created. Because you should be able to live as an animal as humans were intended to do. We are no better than the snails that get stepped on sidewalks we are just more advance creatures. And I've never seen a snail walking around with his bible praying. He knows not of it because he can't create a thought in his head and put it on paper such as we do. I can't grasp what I am really trying to say right now so somebody post something maybe it will get my juices flowing.

 

[MrMorden]

well, being a(ill try to refrain from using the word 'religious') person who believes in God, i have to say that i don't think that humans are as much like animals as people try to say. sure, we have instincts, sure we produce offspring mammalian-like, but the similarties don't go much farther than that. the most intelligent animal in the world is, at least from our observation, not even approaching the intelligence of an average human being. we perceive things through our five sense like other primates or mammals, but we have the ability to believe in things we can't sense, and that ability alone, i believe, makes us different than the animals. call it faith if you will, it doesn't really matter, but nonetheless, it obviously exists within us. and since we can't use our sense to perceive God or prove his existence, we use faith.

another example, take nature for existence. i have seen parts of this Earth so beautiful that it actually becomes hard to breathe while observing them. an almost natural state of being high. however, since it should be nothing more than various forms of matter and chemical reactions that make photons more or less energetic, "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder. mathematical equations cannot predict beauty, nor can they predict God. and, imo, its this sense alone that makes us different from the animals, and ability to put a property on certain things that can't be derived from mere chemical and physical reactions. everyone with functional eyes can tell a blue sky from a grey sky, but regardless of one's eyes, one person may find a particular sky beautiful while another sees it as ordinary, or sees nothing special about it at all, or vice versa. in the same sense, we are capable of believing in a God that can't be proven scientifically or mathematically, becuase such a being is beyond the jurisdiction of those respective fields.

some would claim that myself and many others use analogies like this to justify an irrational belief in an irrational being, but regardless of a person's opinion, everyone, to a certain extent, believes or "sees" things that shouldn't necessarily be seen. beauty isn't a wavelenght of light or sound, its a product of something deeper, something that i believe can't be explained by science, and therefore if a statement were to be made about it, it would fall into the realm of faith.

Now, with that being said, i agree and have agreed, that God cannot be proven or disproven-ever-by any experiment a human being can conjure. a belief in him must be one based on faith, and this characteristic which is faith, is a property that animals do not possess. a unique characteristic that is to be embraced, not shunned. I am not going to live a less-fulfilled or dumbed-down existence because of my faith, on the contrary, i believe i will live a much fuller and satisfied existence, and, like i said, i believe that God rewards the exercise of faith, as long as its not misused. after all, he endowed us with this ability from the start.

critique my statement please, but there is no point in flaming

 

[Janitor]

...God cannot be proven or disproven-ever-by any experiment a human being can conjure...

In the most general sense, your statement is very likely true. Yet specific types of Gods can pretty well be ruled out by experiment, can't they? For instance, if a Holy Book claims that "Whatsoever you pray to Him for, it shall be done," that is something that is amenable to test. In practice, probably the major Holy books have escape clauses which overrule that "whatsoever" with something like: "But thou shall not test His existence; for if thou wilt, He shall surely turn His face from you."

 

[MrMorden]

In the most general sense, your statement is very likely true. Yet specific types of Gods can pretty well be ruled out by experiment, can't they? For instance, if a Holy Book claims that "Whatsoever you pray to Him for, it shall be done," that is something that is amenable to test. In practice, probably the major Holy books have escape clauses which overrule that "whatsoever" with something like: "But thou shall not test His existence; for if thou wilt, He shall surely turn His face from you."

you raise a very good point, and one i struggle with daily. its probably the biggest obstacle i have tried to overcome. has God ever answered any of my preyers? the honest answer is that i don't know. if he hasn't does that mean he doesn't exist? well, of course it doesn't prove that he doesn't exists, but what it does prove is that he doesn't exist in the way we think. i personally haven't prayed in quite some time, but not because I've lost faith in God, but because I've come to realize that i never had much faith in God to begin with, and still don't.

of course there will always be doubt in my mind, but the closest i can come to being sure of God's existence is 99%, and I'm pretty close to that mark for reasons not akin to any religious leaders, teachers, scripts or lessons I've ever had. i instead believe in God for other reasons, things that I've have been fortunate enough to have been revealed through by all sorts of means. am i reading too much into them? it is, of course, very possible that I am, but i don't have the luxury of second guessing myself and my only option is to go with my gut instinct, which tells me that God must exist.

now, i have pretty much determined that God, or some form of creator exists. now the question is, which God? which supernatural being(s) actually exists, and which one(s) do not. this is the tough question. i grew up Christian, and for a long time I was "brainwashed" so to speak, by propaganda by people who really didn't know what they were talking about, but wanted you to think that they did. Their intentions were noble, but their logic was flawed and they knew only what had been programmed unto them by their predecessors. as I grew up, I realized that the Christian religion is no different than many other world religions. a majority of the members of a particular religion only belong to their respective religions because they, well, grew up in them! just like me, and just like millions of others. this made me sick to my stomach for some time as doubts raised in my mind about being biased for Christianity and automatically shunning any other form of any other religion. the ideas that had been presented to me by my teachers, people that i took for granted were speaking the truth, were in actuality only serving to further confuse me. they were programming a computer and didn't even know it, and neither did I.

I came to realize that this isn't what God intended. Undoubtedly, that if a God exists, he/she/it would want the nature of their existence to be made clear, no? Different things prompted me to lean towards specific ides, and eventually i came to the conclusion that no religion in this world has it all right, and all of them pick apart pieces of the whole truth that they want to adhere to, and ignore everything else.

I ruled out many religions as nonsense because of their far-fetched, totally unbelieveable and almost entirely unprovable ideas about humanity and so forth. I came down to three religions that seemed to intertwine each other, and all-in-all make the most sense. These were, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. all three religions seemed to stem from a central point in time, and have many correlations, as well as having a founding forefather (father Abraham ring a bell?). now, in no way did this mean that any of these three were correct or incorrect, but curious. As i delved into which of these three was most believable, i concluded that, in actuality, they all had obscured the truth. They all, at some point in time or space, had been corrupt. some longer than other, and some more-so than others. so i put myself into the posistion of analyzing each one of them objectively and tried to, without bias, examine them for purity and truth, for what they were meant to be.

now, I've pretty much written a novel here, so i'll try to wrap this thing up. I realized that, without a corrupt church to intefere with God's message, Christianity seemed to make the most sense logically and spiritually. the idea that one's good deeds and traditional rituals meant little more than nothing was appealing and believable, becuase I've often wondered why an omnipotent God would bother with such foolishness that didn't achieve any desired goal whatsoever. the main idea of Christianity stemmed around the fact that, above all, one needes to strive to be as much like God(in this case Jesus, the human form of God) as much as possible. The idea is that God will take care of a person and that God strives to communicate with a person. there is verse, and I am sorry that i cannot quote it perfectly accurately or where it is found, but it goes something like this: "Behold the fowls of the air, they sew not, and neither do they reap, yet your heavenly father feedeth them. Are ye no better than they?" This verse made sense, and as i examined it for its purity, i was able to avoid all of the cliches that had been presented in watered down forms over the years. i realized that no matter how hard you worked or how much money you had, it all boiled down to survival, and there was little, if any correlation between the two. i realized that one could live a fulfilled life without having to worry about where his next meal was coming from, or when his next bill would get paid. i realized that no matter what i do, i will not starve to death or die from mal-nutrition of any kind. but, there are people who do, and will continue to do so. And i realized that it was my job and all of humanity's job to strive to eliminate these age-old adversaries of humanity called poverty, starvation, famie, warfare, etc. now, aside from being a visionary(is that even the right word?) I am also a realist, and i know that its impossible to cure all of these, but what better goal could one have? and not only that, but while i would be doing these things, i would also be coming closer and closer to what Jesus would be. this is a noble goal, becuase humility, selflessness, integrity, and all of these other very core-human traits are often tooken for granted and rarely practiced. a truly good person is hard to come by, if not almost impossible. so what better person to be? often people will take the easy way out, but unbeknownst to them, they have actually tooken the hard a out.

now this "profound truth" that i had discovered was actually a personal truth, and one that i couldn't prove existed for everyone else. so since i don't know anyone else's mind, i can assume that i have no idea what they will perceive as truth, and must find it on their own. however, and i will finish with two notes, if their is one God, and one God alone, then i believe that the goals he set before humanity are similar if not perfectly equal, and so i am forced into believing that if my philosophy of life is correct, then it must be the same philosophy for everyone else, and that they simply have not discovered it yet, and that many unfortuante souls never do. but, i realize that this is a seemingly very arrogant and invasive outlook on things, and that i can't expect someone else to take me seriously with a such strong opinion as the one i have. nevertheless, one, including myself, must accept the possiblity that one person's truth is not necessarily one person's truth. and that there very well may be a central truth that all of humanity chases after in his/her on way, which may not be exactly the correct way, and they unwittingly may be heading towards dead-ends and other non-trruths. a scary thought even for myself, but i must go with my instinct, and i encourage everyone else to do nothing else. after all, doesn't mathematics and physics seek to define one truth as well? one central theory to explain everything? a noble goal as well, but its followers(including myself) must contend with the possiblity that all of physics may very well lead to one singularity, one point that cannot logically or mathematically be explained, and that this point is God itself. scary? of course, but it doesn't have to be.

wow, if you read this in its entirety i am both surprised and thankful for your time.

 

[Qyamat]

I have not seen anything in any holly book including (Bible & Quran) that bears any evidence of a super being’s writing , secretes of the universe or even a plausible reason for creation, other then things like worship me for I am your lord (medieval kings like attitudes) … I am not saying that there is no creator or GOD of laws, but religion what’s up with religion/s? And why would GOD even create religions when he can just give us a self judging ever evolving brain?

In Quran it is said about universe 'Do unbelievers not see that the heavens and Earth were sewn together and then we unstiched them' : Heavens for heavenly bodies.. This is what Big bang theory discusses.
It is also said' It is we who have built the universe with our(creative power )and verily it is we who is steadily expanding it.. There are many other such verses in which secretes of the universe have been exposed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In Quran it is said about universe 'Do unbelievers not see that the heavens and Earth were sewn together and then we unstiched them' : Heavens for heavenly bodies.. This is what Big bang theory discusses.
It is also said' It is we who have built the universe with our(creative power )and verily it is we who is steadily expanding it.. There are many other such verses in which secretes of the universe have been exposed.

This is typical of taking some vague prescientific statement and giving it a strained interpretation to make it look more scientific. Christians do this a lot too. You can use this method to make almost anything mean anything.

 

[Qyamat]

We cannot add or delete any thing from the Quran. It is presented as is. This is the exact translation of the verses which were revealed more than 1400years ago and since then no interpretation has been done in it.

 

[Icebreaker]

I foresee that if one day a better scientific theory replaces the Big Bang theory and the expansion theory, there are people who will find ways to "argue" the Qurant, or the Bible, etc. into fitting that new theory.

This is the problem with religion: it is assumed true; everything can be thus interpreted into fitting what it says. It's doing things backwards.

 

[Qyamat]

But this is not argument it is word to word translation. And i think the formation of universe ,the extent to which the human brain can think is best explaind by THE BIG BANG THEORY.

 

[Icebreaker]

Even if the Quran happens to be "right" for the moment, if the Quran does not evolve with new knowledge, then it will one day be wrong. You underestimate the human mind if you say that the Big Bang theory is the peak of the extent of human understanding of the universe.

 

[selfAdjoint]

We cannot add or delete any thing from the Quran. It is presented as is. This is the exact translation of the verses which were revealed more than 1400years ago and since then no interpretation has been done in it.

Nobody said you were modifying the text. What you were doing was offering a strained and implausable interpretation of what the text means.

 

[Flexor]

While observation of past societies can explain the creation of religions and/or belief systems as an answer to fear, need of control, or other factors, the reason for a specific individual to turn to, or to turn away from faith, may be explained through incident of birth.

Children of Christian parents will almost inevitably be Christians, while children of Muslim parents will almost inevitably be Muslim. Americans love america, and Canadians love Canada. You won't often find an American who prefers Canada over America, or vice-versa.

Young children are very easily impressed, and having parents who adhere to certain beliefs and practice certain traditions changes the atmosphere in which the child learns and grows, creating a sort of involontary brainwash. In a way, it's no different than Santa Claus. Children will believe in Santa Claus, until they reach a certain age, where they will either be told by their parents that Santa Claus is nonexistant, or will realize it for themselves. However, their parents won't tell them that God is nonexistant. In fact, society, being generally religious, has thought them to accept that it's ok to believe in God, and everybody else around them already does so.

If you could isolate a few hundred children from their birth to the age of maturity, and then reintroduce them into a religious society, each and every one of them would almost certainly be atheist.

 

[Icebreaker]

Assuming the children themselves don't develop their own system of deity or deities.

 

[Qyamat]

Then how did this man (who evolved from a monkey as darwin claimed) started even thinking of a deity or God and started worshipping it. The monkeys don't do this.

 

[Qyamat]

I think religion is like a mirror. Some get the pic and some don't. And the right religion will be the one with the most satisfied followers. We should think why Islam has the least deviators.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then how did this man (who evolved from a monkey as darwin claimed) started even thinking of a deity or God and started worshipping it. The monkeys don't do this.

Once and for all time:

To those who, for a century, have insisted on living in ignorance - knocking Darwin when they have no idea what they're talking about:

DARWIN DID NOT CLAIM WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS.

His ignorant detractors, and all those ignorant enough to follow, have mangled Darwinism. By not bothering to understand it, they shot themselves - and their fundamentalist credibility - in the foot, a crippling blow that lames them to this day.


(*No personal offense, Qyamat, I'm sure you're intelligent and well-educated. It's your teachers that are ignorant.)

 

[Icebreaker]

And the right religion will be the one with the most satisfied followers. We should think why Islam has the least deviators.

I hope you realize that there is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" religion. And the religion with the most satisfied followers is meaningless. A few hundre years ago, everyone thought the Earth was flat.

The monkeys don't do this.

Says who? Monkeys have an advanced culture that is passed down from generation to generation.

On the contrary, if monkeys aren't bound by religion, it makes them superior.

 

[PIT2]

Religions may be useful for showing people how to live, but they do not answer anything(which probably isn't the point of religions).

It gives u words that make u think u have answers to life, but they are just words with no meaning.

These words cause people to stop thinking.

How did the universe start?

"Allah"

What is the purpose of life?

"to test the soul"

For what?

"Allah knows"

But how do heaven and hell work?

"Allah knows"

So i think religion gives people the illusion that they have answers to philosophical questions, therefor satisfying their natural curiousity.

Basicly its philosophy for people who do not want to think about things.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's pretty arrogant to think that considering oneself a scientist means you think for yourself.

What is the origin of the universe?
"The Big Bang."

I'll bet you're satisfied enough with that answer that you don't go out and do the experiments yourself. You trust those you look up to.

Really. Any of those questions you quoted. Do you really think your answer is automatically superior?

Why is religion always singled out as the source of those who don't think for themselves? Religion certainly hasn't cornered the market on that!

 

[loseyourname]

It's pretty arrogant to think that considering oneself a scientist means you think for yourself.

What is the origin of the universe?
"The Big Bang."

Does the delusion of scientists who think they have all the answers excuse the delusion of the religious who think they have all the answers?