Is Religion a Scam?

[tonyrey]

I you don’t want me to repeat saying that you refused to narrow the possible interpretations of the vague phrase “rational existence” down to one, than just do it!

You have even refused to say either “yes” or “no” when I asked you “by ‘rational existence’ do you mean ‘X’?”

False!

Anyways, I should probably stop encouraging your troll-like behavior by responding to you posts here.

I shall certainly stop responding to your false accusations here and now.

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting definition. I had to look up “isomorphism”. Of course the materialists are desperate for any determinist explanation. One insists that a neuroscientist has “got to be a determinist . . . there is no ghost in the machine.” He says that we only have the sensation of choosing freely, but it is an illusion. There are many other examples of the statements of the materialist crowd in Edward Feser’s book.

True that “deification of matter” is the basis of the materialism/naturalism line of thought. The secularist philosophers, in their desire to rationalize their atheistic beliefs, like to pretend they are above giving religion a thought. Some call it "demystification. However, it seems they are obsessesed with religion. I’ve come across a few of them on CAF.

Here’s what Archbishop Chaput spoke about to a pro-life group at Notre Dame University regarding our present situation. In his discussion about the reality of evil, he said the devil “works in the present to capture our hearts and steal our future. But he also attacks our memory; the narrative of our own identity.” Memories condition our thinking and choices. He then cites the Jewish bioethicist, Leon Kass, who said the present day is an age of “salvific science” in which a “scientific savior” supposedly takes away the “sin of suffering.”

I’m interested to know whether I am right in my guess that The Last Superstition is materialism.

 

[Betterave]

“someone else” is hardly a rational argument! Especially when that person has a vested interest…

The good old “exception that proves the rule” fallacy. My only vested interest, tony, is in encouraging a brother not to be such a tool.

 

[marica_mandic]

Last night on The Factor a noted atheist argued that religion is a scam, and many Christians know it in their hearts. They just haven’t got the courage to admit it. He invited Christians to join the atheist cause since atheism is a fact, whereas religion is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking.

Your thoughts?

Religion is benefit for Humanity. Really religious person is health person.We have rules and who respect rules , can go sure in future.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7778678:

You have even refused to say either “yes” or “no” when I asked you “by ‘rational existence’ do you mean ‘X’?”

False!

I asked a “yes” or “no” answer question in the beginning of post 601. Instead of saying “yes” or “no”, you took it as an opportunity to insult and misrepresent me in post 605. Although you finally did something to attempt to explain what you meant, this attempt to explain did little to narrow the down the list of possible explanations.

The evidence is there.

 

[StAnastasia]

The movie “Expelled” is a great resource on this subject.

The movie “Expelled” is itself a scam.

 

[Betterave]

I am just a Theologian in Training and am still working on my MA in Theology. In fact, I just finished reading Rahner in my very first Systematics course on the Theological Method. I may have misrepresented Rahner in the way I phrased my earlier statement. So, if you will allow me, I would like to clarify my statement using Rahner’s words:

In Rahner’s book, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, Rahner says in Chapter 2, Man in the Presence of Absolute Mystery, that we can only know words and language to describe things which we have experienced. Therefore, “we can say that what is most simple and most inescapable for man with regard to the question of God is the fact that the word “God” exists in his intellectual and spiritual existence” (p. 45).

He goes on to say that the Atheist who says that there is no God, prolongs the existence of the word God. If he truly wanted the word ‘God’ to be dead, he would have to keep “dead silent” and not declare himself to be an atheist.

Then he comments, on page 47, what a world would be like if the word God did not exist, “Man would no longer be brought face to face with the single whole of reality, nor with the single whole of his own existence.” Without the word ‘God,’ man would no longer be able to question the existence of God, he would no longer be able to question himself or his own questions. “He would have ceased being a man. He would have regressed to the level of a clever animal” (p. 48).

“Man really exists as a man only when he uses the word ‘God,’” now Rahner does acknowledge that in using this word, we use it as a question to which we either accept or reject. However, if the word ‘God’ ceased to exist, it would indicate that “man himself has died” (p. 49).

But an important distinction Rahner makes is that the word ‘God’ is not based on the phonetic sound of the word or the language in which you speak it. The way that we pronouce and speak the word is a human creation, however the concept of ‘God’ is not. “Rather it creates us because it makes us men” (p. 50).

Finally, Rahner tells us that we cannot fully comprehend the transcendental meaning of this word. If we did, we would be hearing it as a word “obvious and comprehensible” as the other words we use and, therefore, “we would have heard something that has nothing in common with the true word ‘God’ except for its phonetic sound” (p. 51).

Rahner developed his theological method based on Thomas Aquinas’ theology and Immanual kant’s philosophy. His method is called Transcendental Thomism.

julia,
just to let you know, I’ve quoted this post in another thread where I thought it was relevant (“What would you do if it were proven…?”). I hope that doesn’t break any rules… ?

 

[tonyrey]

Last night on The Factor a noted atheist argued that religion is a scam, and many Christians know it in their hearts. They just haven’t got the courage to admit it. He invited Christians to join the atheist cause since atheism is a fact, whereas religion is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking.

Your thoughts?

1. Religion is a scam **only **if belief in God is false and due to wishful thinking.
2. Yet it is impossible to prove belief in God is false and due to wishful thinking.
3. Those who disbelieve are committed to the belief that some beliefs are true!
4. If some beliefs are true they correspond to facts.
5. Since correspondence cannot be observed by the senses it is both real and intangible.
6. It is reasonable to believe intangible reality is grasped by a intangible mind rather than a tangible brain.
7. It is also reasonable to believe intangible minds owe their existence to one intangible Mind rather than a multitude of tangible particles.
8. Therefore it is reasonable to believe atheism is a scam!

 

[4Horsemen]

I wasn’t being sarcastic actually. I guess if you were the person I was originally refuting then I was also busy watching hockey at the time (just kidding, I’m not canadian)

Just to refresh, what in the world were you refuting that I said? Wasn’t it something about fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, Easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc . . . , that you were actually in agreement that these imposters were not God? If I’m wrong, please correct me.

Not busy watching hockey? You don’t have to be Canadian, eh?

 

[4Horsemen]

I’m interested to know whether I am right in my guess that The Last Superstition is materialism.

What it seems to boil down to is that the conflict between two differing world views: the materialistic, mechanical type of thing that can be ascribed to Descartes (even though he believed in the soul, which doesn’t figure IMO), Hobbes, Locke and Hume and the classical “teleological” way of thinking of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas that is purposeful and inherent. Of course, the new atheists think that religion lost the debate and materialism has won. Rather than using the word “materialism”, these secularists prefer to merely say science, yet it isn’t true science when every thing that happens in the universe, in nature, in human beings (including our minds) is defined by particles floating around. Even without a great science background, I can see that the materialists don’t make a lot of sense. I agree wholeheartedly that “the last superstition is materialism.”

 

[julia07734]

julia,
just to let you know, I’ve quoted this post in another thread where I thought it was relevant (“What would you do if it were proven…?”). I hope that doesn’t break any rules… ?

Well, I have read the rules and I didn’t see anything other not to quote copywrited material (though for my post, I hope I satisfied that rule by quoting and properly citing it). Nevertheless, I am both honored and humbled that you used my post! Thanks

 

[tonyrey]

What it seems to boil down to is that the conflict between two differing world views: the materialistic, mechanical type of thing that can be ascribed to Descartes (even though he believed in the soul, which doesn’t figure IMO), Hobbes, Locke and Hume and the classical “teleological” way of thinking of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas that is purposeful and inherent. Of course, the new atheists think that religion lost the debate and materialism has won. Rather than using the word “materialism”, these secularists prefer to merely say science, yet it isn’t true science when every thing that happens in the universe, in nature, in human beings (including our minds) is defined by particles floating around. Even without a great science background, I can see that the materialists don’t make a lot of sense. I agree wholeheartedly that “the last superstition is materialism.”

(With apologies for my emphasis) On another thread I have recently pointed out hhat scientific explanation is widely assumed to be **physical **explanation, i.e. in terms of that which is in principle observable by the senses. Yet the truth of scientific laws and mathematical equations cannot be perceived by the senses. For this and other reasons most scientists are not physicalists although they tend to restrict science to physical reality.The problem is that physical and non-physical reality have never been clearly demarcated. As a result scientists have often had to shift the boundaries of science to accommodate new discoveries.

Psychology is the clearest example of the confusion caused by the unsolved demarcation problem. Jung’s collective unconscious is at one extreme and Skinner’s behaviourism is at the other. One thing is certain. It is unscientific to label any explanation as unscientific simply because it fails to satisfy the dogmas of empiricism. Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality.** Any explanation that clarifies the nature and origin of rationality is valuable and significant**.

 

[ElizabethCorbel]

I’m a little weak on the philosophy side. But I have a degree in biology and another one in mathematics. And I would just like to point out that the deepest scientific and mathematical truths are very intangible. And especially once you get into physics, it gets VERY strange very quickly. Ever hear of Schrodinger’s cat? It is both alive and dead at the same time until you look at it, which determines which one it is. And at the very deepest levels of physics, all of the universe is that way. It takes a bit of faith to be a scientist.

 

[ElizabethCorbel]

I apologize for going off topic. But I have tried several times to paragraph and yet when I post it gets all jumbled together into one long paragraph. Can someone tell me how to paragraph correctly so it stays that way?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m a little weak on the philosophy side. But I have a degree in biology and another one in mathematics. And I would just like to point out that the deepest scientific and mathematical truths are very intangible. .

Thank you, Elizabeth, for stressing that fact. It disposes of the notion that only material objects exist for once and for all.

And especially once you get into physics, it gets VERY strange very quickly. Ever hear of Schrodinger’s cat? It is both alive and dead at the same time until you look at it, which determines which one it is. And at the very deepest levels of physics, all of the universe is that way. It takes a bit of faith to be a scientist.

Yes, faith in the power of reason, the intelligibility of the universe and the constancy of physical laws.

 

[tonyrey]

I apologize for going off topic. But I have tried several times to paragraph and yet when I post it gets all jumbled together into one long paragraph. Can someone tell me how to paragraph correctly so it stays that way?

Click on Profile - Control Panel. Then scroll down to Edit Options, then down to Miscellaneous Options where you can select Enhanced Interface- Full WYSWYG Editing.
That’s it!

 

[4Horsemen]

(With apologies for my emphasis) On another thread I have recently pointed out hhat scientific explanation is widely assumed to be **physical **explanation, i.e. in terms of that which is in principle observable by the senses. Yet the truth of scientific laws and mathematical equations cannot be perceived by the senses. For this and other reasons most scientists are not physicalists although they tend to restrict science to physical reality.The problem is that physical and non-physical reality have never been clearly demarcated. As a result scientists have often had to shift the boundaries of science to accommodate new discoveries.

Determinism doesn’t account for the order in the universe. It assumes molecules and atoms can just suddenly become a something or a someone. You’ve probably heard of th monkey and typewriter hypothesis, which doesn’t explain how order came about but presumes it. An English actor Ian Hart quipped: “There’s a statistical theory that, if you gave a milllion monkeys typewriters and set them to work, they’d eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. Thanks to the internet we now know this isn’t true.” This is “begging the question,” in which the conclusion is assumed.

The evidence is from chaos to order. Life didn’t come from chaos. It came about from the order in the universe. I see your point in that “scientist have often had to shift the boundaries of science to accomodate new discoveries.” Yet, the secularists forget this and hold as absolute the prevalent line of thought in physics and science in general

Psychology is the clearest example of the confusion caused by the unsolved demarcation problem. Jung’s collective unconscious is at one extreme and Skinner’s behaviourism is at the other. One thing is certain. It is unscientific to label any explanation as unscientific simply because it fails to satisfy the dogmas of empiricism. Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality.** Any explanation that clarifies the nature and origin of rationality is valuable and significant**.

Psychology was one of my minors in college and I recall the garden-variety theories. At the time, I didn’t know what to believe since I had left Catholicism. I decided psychology was mostly junk science. Empiricism doesn’t always work, especially in the social sciences.

Interesting observations.
P.S. **No apologies needed! **

 

[tonyrey]

Yet, the secularists forget this and hold as absolute the prevalent line of thought in physics and science in general.

“Thus, at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version.** A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, construction, production, education and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit.**”
s8int.com/bigbang.html
I quote this not because I doubt the Big Bang theory but because the scientific Establishment is undoubtedly a closed shop which has scandalously opposed ideas and explanations which threaten physicalist orthodoxy…

Psychology was one of my minors in college and I recall the garden-variety theories. At the time, I didn’t know what to believe since I had left Catholicism. I decided psychology was mostly junk science. Empiricism doesn’t always work, especially in the social sciences.

Carl Jung, Erich Fromm, Alfred Adler and Martin Buber - amongst others - have all made valuable contributions to our understanding of the spiritual aspect of psychology.

 

[cecilia97]

Last night on The Factor a noted atheist argued that religion is a scam, and many Christians know it in their hearts. They just haven’t got the courage to admit it. He invited Christians to join the atheist cause since atheism is a fact, whereas religion is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking.

Your thoughts?

Oh yes…a grand scheme where I give the Church and God nothing and, in exchange, I get:

• a community of like-minded friends
• a place I can go for charity if I’m hungry or sad or alone
• a feeling of peace about my life, even in times of suffering
• meaning for my work
• free access to art, music, and doughnuts
• an overworked priest who patiently listens to my troubles
• people who will take me in if a hurricane blows down my home

Yep. Really smart scam they’ve got going there.

 

[tonyrey]

Oh yes…a grand scheme where I give the Church and God nothing and, in exchange, I get:

• a community of like-minded friends
• a place I can go for charity if I’m hungry or sad or alone
• a feeling of peace about my life, even in times of suffering
• meaning for my work
• free access to art, music, and doughnuts
• an overworked priest who patiently listens to my troubles
• people who will take me in if a hurricane blows down my home

Yep. Really smart scam they’ve got going there.

Bravo, Cecilia! It takes a member of the fair sex to grasp all the practical and humorous implications of a philosophical question…