Is Religion a Scam?

[cecilia97]

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

I think that’s what the Good Lord put us here for, tonyrey. Somebody’s got to make sure the meat gets cooked.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that’s what the Good Lord put us here for, tonyrey. Somebody’s got to make sure the meat gets cooked.

I discovered that as a student when I attempted to grill a steak. It was charred outside, raw inside and completely inedible!

 

[ElizabethCorbel]

Wonderful observation, Caecilia97. I agree wholeheartedly!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Some say religion is a scam. It is materialism that is the scam. Who can seriously believe that my desire to love God or the girl down the street is located in a certain molecule in my brain and nowhere else? Indeed, how does that molecule stay alive and unchanged for a lifetime of loving?

 

[tonyrey]

Some say religion is a scam. It is materialism that is the scam. Who can seriously believe that my desire to love God or the girl down the street is located in a certain molecule in my brain and nowhere else? Indeed, how does that molecule stay alive and unchanged for a lifetime of loving?

I take it that “a lifetime of loving” isn’t restricted to this life…

 

[4Horsemen]

“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

Thanks for the link to the article. I first had a chance to read most of it. It seems there is corruption every where you go. I was surprised that the Big Bang is questionable in that it is adjusted to fit new data rather than scientists using the data to formulate hypotheses and new theories. This paragraph describes the essence of the article for those who haven’t read it:

Two of the three vaunted “predictions” of big bang theory - the light element abundances and the temperature of the microwave background are actually retrodictions meaning that big bang theory failed to predict them quantitatively correctly and was then adjusted after the data came in to fit the observational evidence[67].

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.

True. I just can’t remember all the different theories. Alas!

The workings of soul with body is a complexity I find, well . . . complex! Regardless, we will come to understand the mysteries of the universe, the union of soul and body, the great mysteries of Our Lord’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection. And, incredibly the mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Religion has so much more going for it than atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for the link to the article. I first had a chance to read most of it. It seems there is corruption every where you go. I was surprised that the Big Bang is questionable in that it is adjusted to fit new data rather than scientists using the data to formulate hypotheses and new theories. This paragraph describes the essence of the article for those who haven’t read it:

True. I just can’t remember all the different theories. Alas!

The workings of soul with body is a complexity I find, well . . . complex! Regardless, we will come to understand the mysteries of the universe, the union of soul and body, the great mysteries of Our Lord’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection. And, incredibly the mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Religion has so much more going for it than atheism.

Understatement! Materialism has nothing going for it! It is literally soul-destroying, sterile and destructive of everything we consider most precious.

 

[4Horsemen]

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.

And most of all, we have the promise of complete forgiveness for our sins and even the temporal punishment due to our sins by accepting Our Lord’s Divine Mercy, which we celebrate the Sunday after Easter.

Following is a quote from St. Faustina’s Diary.

My great delight is to unite Myself with souls. . . When I come to a human heart in Holy Communion, My hands are full of all kinds of graces which I want to give to the soul. . . On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fountain of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment. On that day all the Divine floodgates through which graces flow are opened.

 

[cecilia97]

And most of all, we have the promise of complete forgiveness for our sins and even the temporal punishment due to our sins by accepting Our Lord’s Divine Mercy, which we celebrate the Sunday after Easter.

Following is a quote from St. Faustina’s Diary.

My great delight is to unite Myself with souls. . . When I come to a human heart in Holy Communion, My hands are full of all kinds of graces which I want to give to the soul. . . On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fountain of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment. On that day all the Divine floodgates through which graces flow are opened.

Of course, my list above was written with our atheist friends in mind. Those are some tangible benefits offered by religion that resonate with believers and non-believers alike. In fact, I know a couple of atheists who go to churches around town (not Catholic parishes!) who attend for exactly some of these reasons. I’d doubt they feel that they’re being scammed, even though they don’t know they are missing out on something more wonderful.

 

[ElizabethCorbel]

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*It seems there is corruption every where you go. I was surprised that the Big Bang is questionable in that it is adjusted to fit new data rather than scientists using the data to formulate hypotheses and new theories. *

*Actually, that’s the way science works. You don’t throw out the whole theory that works so well, you adjust the theory to fit the facts. So the fact that the Big Bang theory as originally posited did not absolutely, correctly predict all the observations is not a major stumbling block. And it doesn’t mean the scientists are corrupt. (They may be, but not for that reason.) *

*You pose a hypothesis then everyone tries to either prove or disprove your hypothesis. Once a lot of people around the world have had a chance to examine the hypothesis and agree that you have a good idea, then it’s elevated to the status of a theory. But people are still free to put forward new data that either proves or disproves your theory. *

*If someone points out a discrepancy, then one of two things happens. If it just completely disproves the theory, then it’s over and your theory is thrown away. That doesn’t happen too often because by the time it’s made it to theory status, it’s had lots of people examine it. So most often what happens is the theory is modified to explain the new data. Note, the data is not ignored. The theory has to explain the data, not the other way around. *

And I’d like to point out that just because someone is trained as a scientist (like me) does not mean we’re spiritually defunct. I consider myself a very spiritual person and my faith is very important to me.

 

[4Horsemen]

Of course, my list above was written with our atheist friends in mind. Those are some tangible benefits offered by religion that resonate with believers and non-believers alike. In fact, I know a couple of atheists who go to churches around town (not Catholic parishes!) who attend for exactly some of these reasons. I’d doubt they feel that they’re being scammed, even though they don’t know they are missing out on something more wonderful.

You’re right of course. Christians have both pragmatic and spiritual benefits. Speaking of atheists who go to churches for the cozy experience, I have some relatives who left the Catholic Church for Protestant churches due to their “fellowship” experiences. Not that we don’t have “fellowship” in the Catholic Church! I wonder if there is an underlying reason, like the rules against artificial contraception. I may be wrong, but that particular rule is disobeyed by a high percentage of Catholics as well as Protestants.

 

[4Horsemen]

Understatement! Materialism has nothing going for it! It is literally soul-destroying, sterile and destructive of everything we consider most precious.

I agree 100%!

 

[4Horsemen]

*Actually, that’s the way science works. You don’t throw out the whole theory that works so well, you adjust the theory to fit the facts. So the fact that the Big Bang theory as originally posited did not absolutely, correctly predict all the observations is not a major stumbling block. And it doesn’t mean the scientists are corrupt. (They may be, but not for that reason.) *

*You pose a hypothesis then everyone tries to either prove or disprove your hypothesis. Once a lot of people around the world have had a chance to examine the hypothesis and agree that you have a good idea, then it’s elevated to the status of a theory. But people are still free to put forward new data that either proves or disproves your theory. *

*If someone points out a discrepancy, then one of two things happens. If it just completely disproves the theory, then it’s over and your theory is thrown away. That doesn’t happen too often because by the time it’s made it to theory status, it’s had lots of people examine it. So most often what happens is the theory is modified to explain the new data. Note, the data is not ignored. The theory has to explain the data, not the other way around. *

And I’d like to point out that just because someone is trained as a scientist (like me) does not mean we’re spiritually defunct. I consider myself a very spiritual person and my faith is very important to me.

Although I’m not a scientist, I know something of the scientific method and have done some reading since I find particular areas of science fascinating, like cosmology for instance. You explained the scientific method very well.

Theories are often tweaked or even tossed if new evidence gives rise that explains the complexities of properties better or more succinctly. Although I’m veering from the topic of this thread, I’ll just give one example of the broadening of thought in physics (which everybody knows about already anyhow, even me ). Newton’s theories did not reflect the universe’s intrinsic parameters since he believed that the universe existed for an infinie amount of time with an infinite amount of space. Therefore, there would have to be an infinite amount of attempts to bring anything about, at least anything complex. However, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity changed that idea. Big Bang cosmology reduced the total number of “tries” to a finite number: 13.7 billion years.

I think studying science is like a spiritual quest. And that’s no scam! (to go back to the OP!)

Anyway, it’s fun to read and think about the “big questions.” (Beats housework!)

 

[Tomb54]

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?

If he can convince me that the universe is not governed by laws then I might look at his claim there is not God. Usually atheist do not think out the whole picture but restrict their thinking to earth only and never tackle questions about physical laws and how they came to be.

 

[mkinson]

I personally love the challenge of answering that particular posture. Simply put I could describe why atoms react in the various situations they are in, and why there’s gravity, and why you cant push your hand through a lead wall even though if you were to view it at an atomic scale you would see that even lead is 99.9% space (that extra space being the electron cloud that surround the nuclei of the atom)… but in the end it will come down to you asking “Where did atoms [or quarks, or energy, or any number of quantitatively measured “things”] come from?”

This is an question that tends to spawn the “proof” that there MUST be a God to have created it.

But I pose back to you, who created God? Where did “God” come from? If God has always been and always will be, why is it hard to believe that atoms have always been and always will be?

Hawking recently hypothesized that matter could very well have spawned from nothingness, not that I particularly believe he is correct, and there are other theories created every day to try and answer this divine quandary in terms we non-believers can understand. Likely it wont happen in our lifetimes, but then again a few thousand years ago everyone believed that the sun was a god. We know better now, so who’s to say what may come in another few thousand years?

 

[Pieman333272]

But I pose back to you, who created God? Where did “God” come from? If God has always been and always will be, why is it hard to believe that atoms have always been and always will be?

God is uncaused because in order to create the universe, he had to exist outside it “before” it. There was no time then. God couldn’t have just come up, he was and is timeless. The atoms had to come into existence because of the big bang and entropy, and that is the only way they can work (if they have only existed for some time, not forever).

Do you know what all of those “theories” do? They all define “nothing” wrong. Nothing is nothing. Not “nothing except gravity” or “Nothing except time” or “nothing except preons”. Nothing is nothing.

[/QUOTE]

 

[mkinson]

mkinson;7827596:

God is uncaused because in order to create the universe, he had to exist outside it “before” it. There was no time then. God couldn’t have just come up, he was and is timeless. The atoms had to come into existence because of the big bang and entropy, and that is the only way they can work (if they have only existed for some time, not forever).

No offense, but that is an entirely weak hypothesis with no evidence to support it. The concept of God is that of a highly complex and unfathomably powerful entity, which seems more like an awfully convenient excuse instead of empirical evidence or even logical conjecture.

In addition, you propose that atoms had to “come into existence because of the big bang and entropy”. Where did you come up with this? I have studied physics and chemistry for a long time as they are my favorite subjects and no where does it state that without the big bang there wouldn’t be atoms. Where do you think the “bang” came from? You can’t have an explosion without something to explode .

Also, don’t forget that energy and matter have conversion rates (E=mc^2) which means that theoretically the universe could have been, at one point, all energy without substance.

Lastly, the big bang “Theory” is only that. There are MANY -scientific- theories on how the universe “began”. Currently the big bang appears the most logical, but with all science as soon as we have more evidence we will improve upon our theory.

I envy you and all religious people for their ability to simply -trust- something despite having no evidence to support them, and despite the multitude of evidence indicating otherwise.

 

[ElizabethCorbel]

But I pose back to you, who created God? Where did “God” come from?

No one created God, so he didn’t “come” from anywhere. He is eternal in the truest sense of the word, i.e., always existed, does exist, will always exist. We see this when Moses asked who was speaking to him and God replied I AM.

And you’re right, from a scientific standpoint of proof, there is no proof that God exists. (At least, there wasn’t for me.) There’s also no proof that he doesn’t exist, either. As far as I’m concerned, the existence of God is an unanswerable question. And after 20 years of searching, I’m comfortable with that. I have come to understand that belief in God is a CHOICE. That’s the difference between belief and knowledge. You’re looking for knowledge that God exists, when the real test is not about knowledge, but about choosing what to believe without proof either way.

If God has always been and always will be, why is it hard to believe that atoms have always been and always will be?

Actually, it wouldn’t be difficult (at least for me) to believe that atoms have always been and always will be except that the current accepted scientific model is the Big Bang Theory, which says spacetime had a beginning. But if the Big Bang Theory is ever disproved, I would be perfectly happy with eternal matter as well as an eternal God.

 

[Pieman333272]

No offense, but that is an entirely weak hypothesis with no evidence to support it. The concept of God is that of a highly complex and unfathomably powerful entity, which seems more like an awfully convenient excuse instead of empirical evidence or even logical conjecture.

Actually, it’s not. I can tell you actually think Dawkins’ arguments are sound. Hilarious!

In addition, you propose that atoms had to “come into existence because of the big bang and entropy”. Where did you come up with this? I have studied physics and chemistry for a long time as they are my favorite subjects and no where does it state that without the big bang there wouldn’t be atoms. Where do you think the “bang” came from? You can’t have an explosion without something to explode .

Well, what made the explosion happen? And there is debate as to whether the singularity is eternal.

I envy you and all religious people for their ability to simply -trust- something despite having no evidence to support them, and despite the multitude of evidence indicating otherwise.

Except that there is evidence for our beliefs and there is no evidence indicating otherwise.

 

[shoe]

No one created God, so he didn’t “come” from anywhere. He is eternal in the truest sense of the word, i.e., always existed, does exist, will always exist. We see this when Moses asked who was speaking to him and God replied I AM.

Agreed. And I think most people acknowledge that something has had to always exist, whether it be something like God, gravity, or gas. Science has shown that every material thing ever observed under the sun will in the course of time decay or run down and calls this process the second law of thermodynamics. And so whatever has always existed must be something totally different from any one thing that anyone has ever observed - for example, God, who by definition is eternal and uncreated. If God were not an eternal and uncreated being, he neither would nor could be God.