Was religion invented by man?

[Bradski]

In regards to your issue with natural/supernatural, seen/unseen verifiable/unverifiable, how do you handle love?

Let’s not cloud the waters with seen/unseen or verifiable/unverifiable. Let’s just stick to natural v supernatural.

And as regards love, I treat it as an entirely natural emotion.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What doesn’t work is the atheist proposition that God definitively does not exist. You can coherently claim God is not proven, and that is a fair conclusion. But it is pointless to make the definitive claim that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the best logical answer against God, which simply states “I don’t know. The case for God does not add up for me, or my faith does not lean towards God”. That is a sensible proposition.

That would be fine, if we were talking about atheism. But we aren’t, we are asking “Was religion invented by man?” It can be the case that God exists AND all religions have been invented by man. I can understand why you would want to attack atheism, though, since it would draw attention away from your inability to actually address the actual question.

And there is a difference between the aliens/NT theory which no one has held, ever, and the 2000 year old teaching of Christianity. You may choose not to accept Christianity but the case for Christianity is more solid than the case for aliens.

“Because religious people believe their religion is based on real events, religion was not invented by man.” Well I guess we can wrap up this thread and head home.

But seriously. An appeal to popularity is very weak. 2000 years ago, people barely understood the concept of technology, and thought the sky was filled with water. Of course they weren’t going to offer “space aliens” as an explanation of events.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I agree I could and should have been more nuanced. Yet I maintain that only extraordinary evidence is sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim,

I don’t think you really believe this.

Here’s an extraordinary claim: a human person has walked on the moon.

And here’s some rather unexceptional evidence for this:

The Soviet Union didn’t dispute it.

I’ll just say that God, if He exists, probably knows what would convince me of the truth of Christianity.

Of course. I don’t think anyone has been presenting an argument that God doesn’t know what would convince you.

 

[PRmerger]

I already did, in this post:

Now, will you claim that the NT events I appeal to are a-historical?

No. I want data. Empirical data. Pictures of aliens. A conversation someone had with an alien. A text from an alien.

And, of course, all the evidence must be peer-reviewed and reproducible in a lab.

 

[goout]

That would be fine, if we were talking about atheism. But we aren’t, we are asking “Was religion invented by man?” It can be the case that God exists AND all religions have been invented by man. I can understand why you would want to attack atheism, though, since it would draw attention away from your inability to actually address the actual question.“Because religious people believe their religion is based on real events, religion was not invented by man.” Well I guess we can wrap up this thread and head home.

But seriously. An appeal to popularity is very weak. 2000 years ago, people barely understood the concept of technology, and thought the sky was filled with water. Of course they weren’t going to offer “space aliens” as an explanation of events.

I’m sorry if you thought you were being attacked. The subject matter has been on the table and I was trying to participate.

The appeal is not to popularity. It is to common sense.
You equated the aliens hypothesis with the Gospel. The Gospel has historical substance. The aliens hypothesis does not. That’s not popularity, it’s taking what is common to a lot of people over two millenia (and more) and recognizing it’s value, and the relative lack of value of the aliens hypothesis, which has no root in history, let alone common sense.

You choose not to respect the historical substance of the Gospel. That’s your choice.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No. I want data. Empirical data. Pictures of aliens. A conversation someone had with an alien. A text from an alien.

And, of course, all the evidence must be peer-reviewed and reproducible in a lab.

So you have equivalent evidence for the “God did it” hypothesis, or are you holding the “aliens did it” hypothesis to a different standard?

 

[goout]

Let’s not cloud the waters with seen/unseen or verifiable/unverifiable. Let’s just stick to natural v supernatural.

And as regards love, I treat it as an entirely natural emotion.

I have no idea how you want to use the terms natural and supernatural then, as it seems they are shifting all over the place. Not necessarily your shifting, but people are talking right past one another.

Natural vs supernatural then, which is a false dichotomy. There is no vs.

You regard love as an emotion.
What proofs are there for emotions being the substance of love?

What about a person who feels an emotion for a doll, or a dog. Their emotion is verifiable by observation of their actions and demonstrable feelings. So then you see love and have exhausted it’s substance with emotions?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Besides that, the supposed martyrdom of early Christians is questionable: [

Persecution by Christians - Bad News About Christianity]()

And Abraham Lincoln was never assassinated?

If you cannot defeat history, you rewrite it.

 

[goout]

So you have equivalent evidence for the “God did it” hypothesis, or are you holding the “aliens did it” hypothesis to a different standard?

Looking at the proposition, anything would be welcome. Anything supporting aliens.
Christianity points to a tradition among human beings, observed, spoken of, written down, experienced.
Aliens has nothing.
One proposition has substance, the other has nothing.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m sorry if you thought you were being attacked. The subject matter has been on the table and I was trying to participate.

The appeal is not to popularity. It is to common sense.
You equated the aliens hypothesis with the Gospel. The Gospel has historical substance. The aliens hypothesis does not. That’s not popularity, it’s taking what is common to a lot of people over two millenia (and more) and recognizing it’s value, and the relative lack of value of the aliens hypothesis, which has no root in history, let alone common sense.

You choose not to respect the historical substance of the Gospel. That’s your choice.

My earlier reply to PRMerger regarding “common sense”

So your argument is that “The religious hypothesis is superior because common sense says that it is.” Now that is an outline of an argument, but to actually complete the argument, you have some extra work to do.

For example, suppose I said “No, the alien account is the common sense explanation.” How would we resolve this disagreement? From what I’ve seen so far, you would probably just call the alien case unfriendly names. But that sort of bluster is not an argument.

If we wanted to properly make your “common sense” argument, you will need to explain exactly which sense you are appealing to, and how it invalidates one or more of the alien argument’s claims.

Indeed, common sense is shaped by culture, and vast majority of the people who have championed the “God did it” hypothesis have been raised in a culture where faithfulness to a religion is “common sense.” People who were even perceived to question this narrative got Galileo style treatments by the religious powers-that-be. Is it really a surprise that people would avoid antagonizing the church-sponsored philosophical elite with an “aliens did it” style objection?

Notice that the very simplest and most direct way to end the “aliens” objection is to present some historical fact or evidence that decisively proves divine intervention was involved. The fact that no one has done this serves to bolster my point: there is exactly as much evidence for “alien intervention” as there is for “divine intervention.”

The reason people prefer the “divine intervention” explanation is not because the evidence is stronger, but because they have biases which cause them to hold the accounts to different standards. Unless you can actually explain your common sense argument, all you are doing is referring to biases as “common sense.”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Looking at the proposition, anything would be welcome. Anything supporting aliens.
Christianity points to a tradition among human beings, observed, spoken of, written down, experienced.
Aliens has nothing.
One proposition has substance, the other has nothing.

But that’s exactly my point. “A long tradition” is nothing, too. There was a long tradition of ascribing earthquakes to Poseidon, but there is no length of time that suddenly makes mythology a valid explanation. In order for Poseidon’s tradition to mean something, the people involved needed to be able to differentiate between natural, tectonic forces, and the actions of gods. Clearly they were unable to do that. In this case, no one has presented any evidence to suggest the NT authors were able to do that.

As I said very early on, merely having a popular religious account proves nothing. You need to do extra work:

One way you might do this would be to establish the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity,” as well as their honesty. In other words, you shouldn’t join a pyramid scheme just because someone honest tells you to; if that person has been hoodwinked, they might honestly be convinced the scheme is a good investment. That is why we need both “capability to assess” alongside “honesty.”

A second way you might do this is independently argue that the religious explanation of the historical events in the NT is the best of all possible explanations. This would essentially replace point #2 with a new proposition: “the religious claims in the NT are objectively the best explanation for the historical events in #1.”

 

[PRmerger]

So you have equivalent evidence for the “God did it” hypothesis, or are you holding the “aliens did it” hypothesis to a different standard?

First you have to prove the existence of aliens.

We have established that God exists (for the sake of this discussion). Now we are proving that Jesus is God.

So what evidence do you have for the existence of aliens?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

PRmerger;14101534:

No. I want data. Empirical data. Pictures of aliens. A conversation someone had with an alien. A text from an alien.

And, of course, all the evidence must be peer-reviewed and reproducible in a lab.

So you have equivalent evidence for the “God did it” hypothesis, or are you holding the “aliens did it” hypothesis to a different standard?

To sweeten the pot, if you can provide that much evidence for the “God did it” scenario, I will concede my entire argument was wrong, apologize, and convert to Catholicism.

However, I also expect you to honestly admit that if you cannot provide such evidence, you are holding the “god did it” scenario to a much more lax standard of evidence than the “aliens did it” scenario.

 

[PRmerger]

My earlier reply to PRMerger regarding “common sense”

Yes.

I am amused to see what nonsensical ideas must be embraced in order to reject Christianity.

Aliens.

Okey dokey then.

 

[goout]

My earlier reply to PRMerger regarding "common sense"Indeed, common sense is shaped by culture, and vast majority of the people who have championed the “God did it” hypothesis have been raised in a culture where faithfulness to a religion is “common sense.” People who were even perceived to question this narrative got Galileo style treatments by the religious powers-that-be. Is it really a surprise that people would avoid antagonizing the church-sponsored philosophical elite with an “aliens did it” style objection?

Notice that the very simplest and most direct way to end the “aliens” objection is to present some historical fact or evidence that decisively proves divine intervention was involved. The fact that no one has done this serves to bolster my point: there is exactly as much evidence for “alien intervention” as there is for “divine intervention.”

The reason people prefer the “divine intervention” explanation is not because the evidence is stronger, but because they have biases which cause them to hold the accounts to different standards. Unless you can actually explain your common sense argument, all you are doing is referring to biases as “common sense.”

You’re not understanding what I am saying.

To believe in God is faith united to reason. It is not merely evidence.

As I said to the Bardski poster, Christianity does not address merely the what or the how, it is first all about the who. Christianity addresses questions of being, meaning, identity, purpose. These are questions that all people seek answers for and form beliefs for.

The common sense I am referring to is in recognizing something of substance for what it is, and not trying to equate it with any fancy one dreams up, such as aliens.
I am not even making a proposition for ultimate truth here, just pointing out the silliness of holding up aliens vs a religion with many adherents.
To paraphrase you above, the reason I do not believe in aliens is that nothing of substance has ever been proposed along those lines. Aliens has no philosophical, historical, evidential substance of any kind. You might find yourself quite alone in the quest for the aliens proposition, and it seems to be common among human beings that we seek community, or common purpose, truth, etc…I think we as human beings have an innate sense that if you are proposing something that no one else shares or has even thought of, something is amiss. Now, if you trust no one else but yourself, then none of this matters. That makes your self the ultimate other, which seems to be a contradiction.

Christianity has substance. You might reject it, that’s fine. But it seems that the exhaustive attempt to equate it with “the aliens did it” doesn’t work.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

First you have to prove the existence of aliens.

We have established that God exists (for the sake of this discussion). Now we are proving that Jesus is God.

So what evidence do you have for the existence of aliens?

Ah! I’ve been waiting for someone to point this out. Of course if you get to assume God exists, then I get to assume aliens exist, and if you challenge this point then the existence of God will also fall under scrutiny.

However, since you are so much more skeptical when aliens are involved than when God is involved, I suggest that you review my earlier post where I provided a small justification for belief in aliens. Specifically, I provided a link to a wikipedia page laying out arguments that the existence of aliens is more likely than not, and most astronomers who think about the issue are more concerned with the question of “why aren’t we in contact with any aliens” than “is intelligent alien life even a possibility.”

Naturally, there is no logical contradiction involved in assuming the existence of aliens, nor am I begging the question. If you recall at the outset, we had two broadly defined goals:

One way you might do this would be to establish the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity,” as well as their honesty. In other words, you shouldn’t join a pyramid scheme just because someone honest tells you to; if that person has been hoodwinked, they might honestly be convinced the scheme is a good investment. That is why we need both “capability to assess” alongside “honesty.”

A second way you might do this is independently argue that the religious explanation of the historical events in the NT is the best of all possible explanations. This would essentially replace point #2 with a new proposition: “the religious claims in the NT are objectively the best explanation for the historical events in #1.”

In the first case, “capability to assess,” the actual existence of both aliens and God is irrelevant. The question doesn’t care whether one or the other exists, only if the authors would be able to distinguish between them.

Only in the second case does the actual existence matter. Obviously, aliens can’t be the best explanation if aliens don’t exist. And since I have provided some argumentation in favor of aliens, and you have provided no arguments against aliens, we will assume that their existence is assured.

For those reading this with a slightly more level head, consider the mathematics of what we are doing in the second way. We essentially have two accounts, and each account will have some probability of being the correct account.

For the alien account, this probability will be proportional to:

(probability of existence of aliens)*(probability of aliens interfering with us)

For the god account, the probability will be proportional to:

(probability of existence of god)*(probability of god interfering with us)

Therefore, even if we give the existence of god a 100% chance, and the aliens a 50% chance, the god account does not win by default. It is possible that a god is less likely to interfere with us than aliens are.

 

[goout]

Ah! I’ve been waiting for someone to point this out. Of course if you get to assume God exists, then I get to assume aliens exist, and if you challenge this point then the existence of God will also fall under scrutiny.

However, since you are so much more skeptical when aliens are involved than when God is involved, I suggest that you review my earlier post where I provided a small justification for belief in aliens. Specifically, I provided a link to a wikipedia page laying out arguments that the existence of aliens is more likely than not, and most astronomers who think about the issue are more concerned with the question of “why aren’t we in contact with any aliens” than “is intelligent alien life even a possibility.”

Naturally, there is no logical contradiction involved in assuming the existence of aliens, nor am I begging the question. If you recall at the outset, we had two broadly defined goals:
In the first case, “capability to assess,” the actual existence of both aliens and God is irrelevant. The question doesn’t care whether one or the other exists, only if the authors would be able to distinguish between them.

Only in the second case does the actual existence matter. Obviously, aliens can’t be the best explanation if aliens don’t exist. And since I have provided some argumentation in favor of aliens, and you have provided no arguments against aliens, we will assume that their existence is assured.

For those reading this with a slightly more level head, consider the mathematics of what we are doing in the second way. We essentially have two accounts, and each account will have some probability of being the correct account.

For the alien account, this probability will be proportional to:

(probability of existence of aliens)*(probability of aliens interfering with us)

For the god account, the probability will be proportional to:

(probability of existence of god)*(probability of god interfering with us)

Therefore, even if we give the existence of god a 100% chance, and the aliens a 50% chance, the god account does not win by default. It is possible that a god is less likely to interfere with us than aliens are.

You have constructed yourself a medieval geocentric philosophic circle with no exit. Step back from it.

In good humor we can accept your aliens argument, and very quickly ask the obvious question that is begged, to which question you will answer with the same argument: the aliens did it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You’re not understanding what I am saying.

To believe in God is faith united to reason. It is not merely evidence.

As I said to the Bardski poster, Christianity does not address merely the what or the how, it is first all about the who. Christianity addresses questions of being, meaning, identity, purpose. These are questions that all people seek answers for and form beliefs for.

The common sense I am referring to is in recognizing something of substance for what it is, and not trying to equate it with any fancy one dreams up, such as aliens.
I am not even making a proposition for ultimate truth here, just pointing out the silliness of holding up aliens vs a religion with many adherents.
To paraphrase you above, the reason I do not believe in aliens is that nothing of substance has ever been proposed along those lines. Aliens has no philosophical, historical, evidential substance of any kind. You might find yourself quite alone in the quest for the aliens proposition, and it seems to be common among human beings that we seek community, or common purpose, truth, etc…I think we as human beings have an innate sense that if you are proposing something that no one else shares or has even thought of, something is amiss. Now, if you trust no one else but yourself, then none of this matters. That makes your self the ultimate other, which seems to be a contradiction.

Christianity has substance. You might reject it, that’s fine. But it seems that the exhaustive attempt to equate it with “the aliens did it” doesn’t work.

Yours is a dangerous line of reasoning, and one I am sure terrified the Galileos of history. Being alone with a new idea is scary, but it is made scarier when people propose that your idea must be somehow in opposition to the “substance” of the human community by virtue of their youth and uniqueness.

Of course the aliens account is weak. People who really care about the strength of evidence are much more likely to argue that the NT account is comprised mostly of myth and legend. I believe the “merely myths and legends” account to be far superior to the “aliens” account. But what is happening here is that you have no concrete evidence to offer in defense of your position against the very weak “aliens did it” case. All you can do is make appeals to popularity, express skepticism about aliens, and say that the religious account “feels right.”

I will assert that if you were arguing the God case to a group of alien fans, and someone told you

“C’mon man, no one believes in God anymore, aliens are popular these days. They just make so much sense when you believe”

you would not only find their argument unconvincing, you would wonder if they were taking the question seriously at all.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You have constructed yourself a medieval geocentric philosophic circle with no exit. Step back from it.

In good humor we can accept your aliens argument, and very quickly ask the obvious question that is begged, to which question you will answer with the same argument: the aliens did it.

Please ask it explicitly.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

To believe in God is faith united to reason. It is not merely evidence.

Ah, maybe this is the source of the problem. We’re not talking about belief in God. We are talking about belief in religion.