Printable View
Spawnend from other thread, kinda curious how you feel about it. Fact, religion has been a factor in every organiseded society, other fact, the themes are similar everywhere. When civilizations became increasingly more complex so became the role of religion.
Too much censorship on these boards.
Religion fullfils 2 objectives.
- It offers answers to questions that cannot be answered at a time there was no other way to obtain knowledge, like science.
-It was a form to codify rules of society in a time when there was no police force or army to ensure that the rules where followed....how can you make everyone fly straight? make up a mistical boogey man that will kick your ass and punish you if you break these rules.
i´d say it was the possible codification given the societal conditions back then.....I don´t know if I´d call it "natural" law though.
How does religion codify survival of the fittest?
Same issue here, what does "natural law" means?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Religion is also capable of answering the kinds of questions that science will never be able to answer. Questions like "why are we here" and "what is the meaning of life".
I can answer those questions too....I can make stuff up with the best of them...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
there will always be things we can´t know.....why can´t we have the balls to say "I don´t know"?
You think you can, have you given it a serious try? Theologians and philosophers try to answer these questions in a very logical and thoughtful manner, they most certainly do not luck the answers out of thin air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I edited my post before you answered...sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Like I said....when we don´t know something....we should just say we don´t know...I see no reason to make up answers....
but If I want to...I could make up answers with no problem....specially if I can have the special dispensation of logic rules religion enjoys......will phylosophers disagree with me?...sure...but I can just say they are :daisy: heads that don´t know the real truth of the Lord! (me)
see?...easy.
Too much censorship on these boards.
If it means survival of the group that don't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
YA RLY...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
COsmological Argument is a fairly well-known one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
:laugh4: true... people are taught not to question their religions and that makes it easy to use religion as "get out of jail" card in these situations....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Science and religion both seek truth. Generally people say that the difference between the two is that religion relies on beliefs. In my view though, science relies on belief (as it should) and goes to great lengths to test and retest those beliefs. The ability to conceptualize is key to scientific understanding. Religion also relies on belief, but shouldn't. Knowing truth doesn't require belief. But people like beliefs so they are an important part of most current religions, even if the founders of those religions wouldn't approve.
"There is a first cause of the universe" never seemed like an argument that came close to answering "why are we here?" to me...Quote:
COsmological Argument is a fairly well-known one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
I wonder if it's not a cultural thing. In modern society, people tend to split culture and religion apart; but I wonder how correct that is. That religions are found everywhere doesn't necessarily mean that it's coded genetically; why is not just a part of the local culture? In earlier times, say 3000 years back in time and further, there were no such things as world religions; every religion was local and went along with local cultures and norms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well much much earlier, but when was it ever not there. That is new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
hmm... all the so called "pagan" religions seem culturally inclined... meaning based on local customs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
i know from experience Hinduism is based on customs than anything else...
At some point, they came into existence; and I think it went along with the culture and the norms; who have not always been here either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes, but I think you will find that all religions are based upon where they originated. Christianity; having judaism as a precursor, a religion with promised land and a chosen people; cannot escape this either. But indeed some religions are more local than others. The "pagan" religions typically originated in a much more "closed" world than today's world religion; a world where the mere notion "world" would be meaningless. Religions necessarily (you can go and have a look for yourself if the thunder god Thor actually is up there with his hammer) always reflect the society they exist in; take scientology for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by atheotes
Well yes and neither has religion, but what would you consider to be the area of greatest consistancy. The rise of culture or the rise of religion within culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Religion sort of requires a cultural sense, so one would guess that religions would develop inside cultures and become an integrated parts of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The concept of natural law originated with the (polytheistic) Romans, and they didn't have a religious codification like the bible. Also, when something gets codified it wouldn't strictly be "natural" law anymore- do unto others as you'd have others do unto you gets its moral authority from revelation and not from reason as such. Natural law in catholic philosophy was divine law not enshrined in biblical texts.
This sounds like something out of a certain US based faith who threw these lines at you in the nineties. It's been a while since I have seen this particular combination. Not many denominations have answers to these questions which were regarded by Clement of Rome as part of the terrible questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yeah... this old thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
A linky to something that ended too short. :mean:
Besides, that is old - a better one would be something about The Transcendental Proof of God's Existence.
If I ever get to debate the theist side again I am going to use this concept in my argument.
There are tons of similar examples, but prostate cancer being known for much of western history as "priest's disease" due to its much higher chances of appearing in men who abstain from all sexual activity (including masturbation) is one instance of how religion does not codify so-called natural law, and in fact, many times mandates people to go against natural law. To the detriment of their health, sometimes.
Not at all Fraggony
Something we call "law of nature" is not the same for everyone. Every society has his own "law of nature". Some of there "laws" are similar, some "not".
For example according to Christians every people are equal in face of God and all of them have same opportunity for Heaven. Thats why attacking other people is bad (attack happen but are generally bad).
According to muslims - God love some people more than other. Thats why allah must conquer the world.
According to Jews - God love Jews much more than other. Like previous.
Religion generally sums up most important things for nation or for faithful's. For some cultures life is most important, for other not (like Samurai).
Exactly. Dont want people to get Trichinosis... Tell them God says: Don't Eat Pork, it's Dirty.Quote:
-It was a form to codify rules of society in a time when there was no police force or army to ensure that the rules where followed....how can you make everyone fly straight? make up a mistical boogey man that will kick your ass and punish you if you break these rules.
Don't want people to get STD's or get Pregnant in their teens... God says: Dont have sex before marriage and dont have sex with anyone other than your wife. Oh, and dont have anal sex either.
Dont want people to get Cirrhosis? Tell them God says: Dont drink Alcohol...
Get the picture now???
See the problem with these things is that we dont need them anymore. We have condoms and Birth control to help stop pregnancy and STDs
We know how to cook pork correctly in order to kill the trichinea parasite, and we know alcohol can damage you in excess.
God exists, in my opinion, but Religion is Archaic, and there is no way to prove that what they say is the "word of god" is truly the "word of god"
Krook, Maybe I have made a poor choice of words, I should have said social law, the tie that binds, the most basic laws that allows us to live together without cracking eachothers skull. Every civilization has them, but it's interesting how these basic rules are basicaly outsourced to something higher. It seems like human being understand they need rules that are 'above' them, and that religion covers the most basic ones until the system evolves into the actual codification of law of day to day reality, that is what I meant with 'natural'.
edit, codification is really way of as well, that would mean putting it down. Should have been 'Is religion the most basic understanding of social law'
in that wording I would agree....like I said back in ancient times with no police force and no military it would be the only way rules could be enforced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Or rather how to enforce your rules without needing to use military (hinduism caste system, I'm looking at you).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I mean if I go around and say that I should be on top because I say so, the lowly peasants might get some wierd ideas that if they ursup the power they can be on top. But if a god say so then those weaklings cannot ursup me without getting punished!
Admittable this has more to do with how religion ends up in a power position and later on as the basics for laws.
I tend to think that unwritten social laws were the foundation of religious laws. As religions came about as away for people to explain there world they injected these unwritten laws into the religions.
The Romans relied on interpreters of divine will, rather than specified and well-defined rules which were accessible to everyone. They also relied on interpreters of Roman law, rather than specified and well-defined rules which were accessible to everyone. Both sets of interpreters were restricted to the patricians, who were loathe to share their exclusive access to divine and earthly law with the plebs. Understandably, the plebs didn't like this much, and pushed for the codification of earthly law, which were set and able to be read by everyone. Once they had access to the earthly laws, the plebs were content to leave divine law to the patricians, since after all they weren't that important to everyday life. The priests did come in handy though, at stressful times when the common folk needed some reassurance from an authority figure. A suitable sacrifice or two and a few rituals, and people's confidence would be up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Of course, that was in Roman times, and things are very different now.
Thanks for remark Fraggony.
Just to add something to my previous post.
I don't know if into ancient civilisations before religion were that basic law* or invention of law was part of religion development. I think that it was rather first option.
Why?
Laws at the beginning had problem - how to find strenght to enforce law? How to force people to respect law? Union law with God demand was natural choice - in the first civilisations people were most afraid of Gods. And would do much to provide God's support. Gods are everywhere and knows everything. Thats why they believed if they broke law (which mean rising against God), they can't hide themselves anywhere.
On the other hand law supports social structure. And since the beginning of civilisation every church has best benefits into safe social structure. Thats why supporting given law supported religions too.
* By basic law or law of nature I don't mean "basics of law same or very similar for every country".
I mean something that has social function of law, don't have to be same or even similar into different countries but .... is understood as "basics of social structure organisation". - Theory of changeable law of nature. If I remember it well Petrazycki/Stammler theory.