Was religion invented by man?

[Cheiron]

Almost all ideas are human.
Then some ideas are non-human.

That’s the agnostic in me: I don’t want to exclude the possibility of non-human ideas. Alex, the parrot of dr. Irene Pepperberg, apparantly had some concept of numbers and colour. There are some ideas that non-humans can grasp too.

• If there are no more humans, there is no atheism.*
  Then all atheists ideas are always and everywhere human inventions.
  Therefore, you agree. Thank you.

Yes, we agree. I hope it hasn’t escaped your mind that the same goes for theism. Without humans, theism ceases to exist. Unless we convert a parrot to Christianity.

But an idea being an invention doesn’t mean that it’s therefore wrong. It could still mean a god, several gods or gods exist. I’ll make an analogy: atoms are discovered. The atomic theory is a human construct and can be revised if new evidence presents itself.

 

[o_mlly]

…
Secondly, not all atheists (#notallatheists) say we can’t know our Creator. The evidence points to the Subject That Cannot Be Named and doesn’t point towards a Creator. If humans appeared suddenly in Mesopotamia, then that would be a mark in Christianity’s favor. …

I don’t follow your line of thought.
What do “atheists who claim we can know our Creator” call themselves?
What does the “Subject That Cannot Be Named” point to?
Why does the accident of where humans first appeared matter?

 

[PRmerger]

No. I just don’t accept PRmerger’s request that I limit myself to dogma’s. Catholicism is much more than a set of dogma’s.

But Catholicism consists of its dogmas.

If you are asserting that the essence of our religion–its religious dogmas, is local and cultural, then you’ll need to offer some examples of this.

If you’re asserting that some of Catholicism’s practices are local and cultural, there’s not too many people who would disagree with you on that.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s the agnostic in me: I don’t want to exclude the possibility of non-human ideas. Alex, the parrot of dr. Irene Pepperberg, apparantly had some concept of numbers and colour. There are some ideas that non-humans can grasp too.

Really? Did the parrot tell the good doctor that it grasped some concepts or did it merely parrot?

Yes, we agree. I hope it hasn’t escaped your mind that the same goes for theism. Without humans, theism ceases to exist. …

Not exactly. The subject of theism does not depend on the existence of a human mind. The non-subject of atheism does.

 

[Cheiron]

LOL.

Emmm…He did reveal germ theory and E= mc2.

Can you please show me the verses?

But Catholicism consists of its dogmas.

If you are asserting that the essence of our religion–its religious dogmas, is local and cultural, then you’ll need to offer some examples of this.

If you’re asserting that some of Catholicism’s practices are local and cultural, there’s not too many people who would disagree with you on that.

Can you give me a list of Catholic dogma’s? I know some beliefs that are central to Catholicism, but I’m not sure if it qualifies as a dogma™. For example, the Christian idea of a Messiah from the house of David is typically Judaistic. It isn’t found in Norse or Greek mythology. All the prophets that Christianity recognizes as actual prophets™ are all Judaistic prophets. Christian eschatology is practically the same as Jewish eschatology, with Messiah and resurrection. You won’t find this in Aztec, Norse or Greek eschatology.

I don’t follow your line of thought.
…]
What does the “Subject That Cannot Be Named” point to?
Why does the accident of where humans first appeared matter?

The banned subject is evolution, but I can’t avoid it now with these questions.

The idea that God created humans is a scientific hypothesis. If Genesis is true, then the first humans should suddenly turn up in Mesopotamia. The DNA evidence should show a bottleneck. However, the fossil evidence shows that humans evolved gradually in Africa and DNA evidence shows the group of humans was never smaller than a few thousand people, well above the two that Genesis points to.

So the God that created humans simply can’t exist. It doesn’t jibe with the facts. Now, you can already see problems arising, for if Genesis is false, then there was no original sin and the rest of Christianity logically collapses. No wonder discussion of this subject is banned.

What do “atheists who claim we can know our Creator” call themselves?

Those are atheists, like Victor Stenger, who consider God a scientific hypothesis. I don’t think there is a word for these atheists, but I do agree with them.

Really? Did the parrot tell the good doctor that it grasped some concepts or did it merely parrot?

Prepare to have your mind blown: youtube.com/watch?v=cO6XuVlcEO4 Alex shows his abilities from 6:50 to 7:10.

Not exactly. The subject of theism does not depend on the existence of a human mind. The non-subject of atheism does.

I’m not talking about the subject of theism. I’m well aware that God’s existence does not depend on our affirmation or denial; in the same way that the existence of atoms doesn’t depend on whether humans have devoloped an atomic theory or not. The difference between the atomic theory and theism is that the former depends on evidence and the latter does not.

 

[tonyrey]

…The difference between the atomic theory and theism is that the former depends on evidence and the latter does not.

The evidence for theism is more powerful because we have direct experience of our thoughts, feelings and decisions whereas we infer the existence of the physical world from our sense data. Our primary datum and sole certainty is the activity of our mind for which the most cogent explanation is the Supreme Mind, the Source of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love without Whom existence would be valueless, meaningless and purposeless, i.e. absurd…

 

[o_mlly]

The banned subject is evolution, but I can’t avoid it now with these questions.
The idea that God created humans is a scientific hypothesis. If Genesis is true, then the first humans should suddenly turn up in Mesopotamia. The DNA evidence should show a bottleneck. However, the fossil evidence shows that humans evolved gradually in Africa and DNA evidence shows the group of humans was never smaller than a few thousand people, well above the two that Genesis points to.
So the God that created humans simply can’t exist. It doesn’t jibe with the facts. Now, you can already see problems arising, for if Genesis is false, then there was no original sin and the rest of Christianity logically collapses. No wonder discussion of this subject is banned.

Genesis is not a science book. Nor are the issues of sacred scripture historical fact but theological truth that can be extracted from the substance, not the form, of the text. Genesis presents not the religious vision of the patriarchs (whose deeds it recounts) but the religious visions of the era of its final composition – ca. 450 BC…

Taking the accidents of time and place away, the creation story in Genesis tells us about the nature of time, reaching its climax in the Sabbath. The text tells us about the nature of the world, reaching its perfection in God’s pleasure with what God had created, God’s blessing and sanctifying creation. It also tells us about the character of humankind, man and women, perfect in God’s image, like God, but tragically flawed. Remembering that the substance of the text tells us about a timeless God, we may treat as peripheral incidentals that are peculiar to the time of composition if doing so unveils the central themes: the enduring attributes of God and His plan for humanity.

Those are atheists, like Victor Stenger, who consider God a scientific hypothesis. I don’t think there is a word for these atheists, but I do agree with them.

Isn’t it strange that Stenger, an atheist, considers God a scientific hypothesis without first proving or disproving its null hypothesis? As long as the question is scientifically unresolved, is he not an agnostic?

Prepare to have your mind blown: youtube.com/watch?v=cO6XuVlcEO4 Alex shows his abilities from 6:50 to 7:10.

An atheist in this or another thread was asking for evidence of a miracle. Is this it?

I’m not talking about the subject of theism. I’m well aware that God’s existence does not depend on our affirmation or denial; in the same way that the existence of atoms doesn’t depend on whether humans have devoloped an atomic theory or not. The difference between the atomic theory and theism is that the former depends on evidence and the latter does not.

Stretch your analogy to quarks. Has anyone seen a quark? The evidence for God is as strong as the evidence for quarks IMHO.

 

[Cheiron]

Genesis is not a science book. Nor are the issues of sacred scripture historical fact but theological truth that can be extracted from the substance, not the form, of the text. Genesis presents not the religious vision of the patriarchs (whose deeds it recounts) but the religious visions of the era of its final composition – ca. 450 BC…

Taking the accidents of time and place away, the creation story in Genesis tells us about the nature of time, reaching its climax in the Sabbath. The text tells us about the nature of the world, reaching its perfection in God’s pleasure with what God had created, God’s blessing and sanctifying creation. It also tells us about the character of humankind, man and women, perfect in God’s image, like God, but tragically flawed. Remembering that the substance of the text tells us about a timeless God, we may treat as peripheral incidentals that are peculiar to the time of composition if doing so unveils the central themes: the enduring attributes of God and His plan for humanity.

It’s however claimed that the Bible does contain statements about how things really are or were. I think the Catholic Catechism says that the Fall really did take place, but it’s a bit iffy about when or where that happened.

Isn’t it strange that Stenger, an atheist, considers God a scientific hypothesis without first proving or disproving its null hypothesis? As long as the question is scientifically unresolved, is he not an agnostic?

His approach is pretty convincing to me. However the God that Stenger disproves is ofcourse a God-concept that perhaps not everyone will agree with in the first place. But there are some god-concepts that just don’t agree with the facts.

An atheist in this or another thread was asking for evidence of a miracle. Is this it?

It doesn’t break any natural law that I know of.

Stretch your analogy to quarks. Has anyone seen a quark? The evidence for God is as strong as the evidence for quarks IMHO.

No, but neither have I seen my own skeleton, yet I’m convinced it’s there. Physicists can observe the effects of quarks (and I can observe the effects of my skeleton on the shape of my body). If God was as detectable as quarks, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

Can you please show me the verses?

Germ theory: google.com/search?q=germ+theory+textbook&oq=germ+theory+textbook&aqs=chrome…69i57j0.7435j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=germ+theory+textbook&tbm=shop

E=mc2: google.com/search?q=physics+textbooks&espvd=2&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=shop&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_6_boycTOAhUI6WMKHXAGD6UQ_AUICCgB&dpr=1

 

[PRmerger]

Can you give me a list of Catholic dogma’s?

Here’s some dogmas of the CC:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

EDIT: The website, in general, has some “iffy” stuff–but the list of dogmas is spot on, although not exhaustive.

 

[tonyrey]

The evidence for theism is more powerful because we have direct experience of our thoughts, feelings and decisions whereas we infer the existence of the physical world from our sense data. Our primary datum and sole certainty is the activity of our mind for which the most cogent explanation is the Supreme Mind, the Source of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love without Whom existence would be valueless, meaningless and purposeless, i.e. absurd…

In plain English we know we exist and don’t have to prove it. The most economical, intelligible, adequate and fertile explanation of our existence is one Being who is infinitely superior to us in every respect.

 

[Cheiron]

Here’s some dogmas of the CC:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

EDIT: The website, in general, has some “iffy” stuff–but the list of dogmas is spot on, although not exhaustive.

I have quickly skimmed the list and I do recognize things that are local. The story of the Fall of mankind is peculiar to the part of the Middle-East. I can also see a few dogma’s that are flatout false or contradictory. The first list says that God can be known with certainty, that God’s nature is incomprehensible to men and then the list gives us tens of statements about God. Can God be known or not? By the way, I wouldn’t expect to see much of Christianity’s Judaistic origins in its dogma’s. Those dogma’s were invented after Christianity had already spread across the Roman Empire and established itself as the dominant religion.

But my main problem is not with the dogma’s that are derived from revelation, but it’s with revelation itself. If I were a universal God, I would have revealed the same stuff to as many people as possible and also in their languages - in much the same way that writers publish their books in many languages in many countries to make sure as many people as possible read their work.

Secondly, I would have revealed some knowledge that was useful to everybody on earth and not only to Middle-Eastern societies. The Bible teaches that you can’t wear clothing of mixed fabrics. (Leviticus 19:19) That’s tough luck for the Yu’pik people who need to wear a mixture of hides, fur, moose tendons and walrus guts in order not to die from cold weather.

Thirdly, I would have revealed some new stuff that could help people. Like the germ theory of disease (you still haven’t given me Bible verses about that). Or a map of the world. Or some complicated mathematics. Or the lightning rod.

Fourthly, I would have included stories from all over the globe. I certainly wouldn’t bore Scandinavians, Native Americans or the Chinese with tedious stories about some skirmishes in the Middle-East, genealogies of Jewish clans or detailed instructions about how to properly make nice curtains for the ark of the tabernacle - something those Native Americans probably will never even see.

In plain English we know we exist and don’t have to prove it. The most economical, intelligible, adequate and fertile explanation of our existence is one Being who is infinitely superior to us in every respect.

Thank you, this is a lot clearer. I feared for a moment that you were arguing for Descartes’ solipsism. My response is that the best explanation for our existence are our parents. I exist because two people, who would become my parents, slept with each other.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s however claimed that the Bible does contain statements about how things really are or were. I think the Catholic Catechism says that the Fall really did take place, but it’s a bit iffy about when or where that happened.

“When” or “where” are accidentals.

Alfred North Whitehead in Religion in the Making argues that “religion is world-loyalty." The Genesis scribes put God’s inspiration into the stories known to them. Not to do so would make understanding God a completely otherworldly affair. Making God immanent as well as transcendent, the scribes wrote for a people at a time in which the scriptures explained Yahweh working in the world. The scribes’ message, though, was primarily theology and secondarily history. This important distinction separates the work of the sacred scribes from that of secular historians.

His approach is pretty convincing to me. However the God that Stenger disproves is ofcourse a God-concept that perhaps not everyone will agree with in the first place. But there are some god-concepts that just don’t agree with the facts.

And there is only one concept of God that completely agrees with facts and honest philosophical reasoning.

It doesn’t break any natural law that I know of.

An intelligent discussion between a parrot and a human being is natural?

No, but neither have I seen my own skeleton, yet I’m convinced it’s there. Physicists can observe the effects of quarks (and I can observe the effects of my skeleton on the shape of my body). If God was as detectable as quarks, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Seeing is but one of the senses. Feeling is another. Because you feel your skeleton you know it exists. Not so with quarks or God. We know God in part by His effects but we only know quarks by their effects. Unless you claim to have felt a quark.

 

[goout]

But my main problem is not with the dogma’s that are derived from revelation, but it’s with revelation itself. If I were a universal God, I would have revealed the same stuff to as many people as possible and also in their languages - in much the same way that writers publish their books in many languages in many countries to make sure as many people as possible read their work.

Secondly, I would have revealed some knowledge that was useful to everybody on earth and not only to Middle-Eastern societies. The Bible teaches that you can’t wear clothing of mixed fabrics. (Leviticus 19:19) That’s tough luck for the Yu’pik people who need to wear a mixture of hides, fur, moose tendons and walrus guts in order not to die from cold weather.

You expect God to reveal himself to everyone in their local cultural context, and at the same time you object to religion because local cultural contexts have peculiar expressions of religion.

You contradict yourself.

 

[Cheiron]

“When” or “where” are accidentals.

Alfred North Whitehead in Religion in the Making argues that “religion is world-loyalty." The Genesis scribes put God’s inspiration into the stories known to them. Not to do so would make understanding God a completely otherworldly affair. Making God immanent as well as transcendent, the scribes wrote for a people at a time in which the scriptures explained Yahweh working in the world. The scribes’ message, though, was primarily theology and secondarily history. This important distinction separates the work of the sacred scribes from that of secular historians.

That’s a distinction I often agree with, but not in this case. Because if the fall of man is historically false, then surely it’s also theologically false or at least problematic? I thought the Church teaches that the fall was a real event that took place somewhere at the beginning of mankind.

And there is only one concept of God that completely agrees with facts and honest philosophical reasoning.

I don’t have to be Sherlock to know you’re referring to the Catholic one.

An intelligent discussion between a parrot and a human being is natural

It’s uncommon, but it doesn’t require anything supernatural.

Seeing is but one of the senses. Feeling is another. Because you feel your skeleton you know it exists. Not so with quarks or God. We know God in part by His effects but we only know quarks by their effects. Unless you claim to have felt a quark.

I admit my skeleton analogy was a bit silly. However, if God, like quarks, affects reality, then science should be able to detect Him. So far, I haven’t encountered evidence of divine intervention yet.

You expect God to reveal himself to everyone in their local cultural context, and at the same time you object to religion because local cultural contexts have peculiar expressions of religion.

You contradict yourself.

No, I’m saying that if I were God, I would hand everyone a copy of the same book, preferably in the vernacular so everyone understands it. That doesn’t mean I would only put local stuff in the book. In fact, I clearlysaid that I would include stories from other continents.

So I do not expect God to stick to the local culture. A universal God should transcend that local cultural context and include all cultures. When He prohibited wearing mixed fabrics, He should have made exceptions for people whose lives depend on wearing mixed fabrics. That the Abrahamic God didn’t do this, proves to me that He isn’t a God for the Yu’pik.

 

[meltzerboy]

That’s a distinction I often agree with, but not in this case. Because if the fall of man is historically false, then surely it’s also theologically false or at least problematic? I thought the Church teaches that the fall was a real event that took place somewhere at the beginning of mankind.

I don’t have to be Sherlock to know you’re referring to the Catholic one.

It’s uncommon, but it doesn’t require anything supernatural.

I admit my skeleton analogy was a bit silly. However, if God, like quarks, affects reality, then science should be able to detect Him. So far, I haven’t encountered evidence of divine intervention yet.

No, I’m saying that if I were God, I would hand everyone a copy of the same book, preferably in the vernacular so everyone understands it. That doesn’t mean I would only put local stuff in the book. In fact, I clearlysaid that I would include stories from other continents.

So I do not expect God to stick to the local culture. A universal God should transcend that local cultural context and include all cultures. When He prohibited wearing mixed fabrics, He should have made exceptions for people whose lives depend on wearing mixed fabrics. That the Abrahamic God didn’t do this, proves to me that He isn’t a God for the Yu’pik.

FYI, the mixed-fabric prohibition in the Hebrew Bible applies ONLY to mixing linen with another fabric. There is NO prohibition against mixing any other fabrics.

 

[goout]

No, I’m saying that if I were God, I would hand everyone a copy of the same book, preferably in the vernacular so everyone understands it. That doesn’t mean I would only put local stuff in the book. In fact, I clearlysaid that I would include stories from other continents.

Why would he hand everyone a copy of the same book? That is a fundamentalist idea, that God is definitive information rather than a living person who asks for a response. People respond differently and in unique ways. Right? That is easily observable in human beings. Uniqueness.

In responding to God through religion, how would two mutually ignorant cultures know each other? Remember, this is before mass communication is available.
Human beings are unique, we are diverse. We have different modes of expression and different cultures. You envision a God who micromanages human beings and must violate human dignity by dictation of the word, or dictatorship.
AKA fundamentalism.

So I do not expect God to stick to the local culture. A universal God should transcend that local cultural context and include all cultures.

But he does. And you are observing it.
You contradict yourself.

When He prohibited wearing mixed fabrics, He should have made exceptions for people whose lives depend on wearing mixed fabrics. That the Abrahamic God didn’t do this, proves to me that He isn’t a God for the Yu’pik.

Because God is a god of the fabrics, as written in the OT?
Fundamentalism.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you, this is a lot clearer. I feared for a moment that you were arguing for Descartes’ solipsism. My response is that the best explanation for our existence are our parents. I exist because two people, who would become my parents, slept with each other.

“our” refers to the entire human race and “the best explanation” is not restricted to physical causes but includes the reason for, and the purpose of, our existence - unless you believe life is absurd.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would he hand everyone a copy of the same book? That is a fundamentalist idea, that God is definitive information rather than a living person who asks for a response. People respond differently and in unique ways. Right? That is easily observable in human beings. Uniqueness.

In responding to God through religion, how would two mutually ignorant cultures know each other? Remember, this is before mass communication is available.
Human beings are unique, we are diverse. We have different modes of expression and different cultures. You envision a God who micromanages human beings and must violate human dignity by dictation of the word, or dictatorship.
AKA fundamentalism.

But he does. And you are observing it.
You contradict yourself.

Because God is a god of the fabrics, as written in the OT?
Fundamentalism.

Good points.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14108743:

Religion DID come into existence independently in more than one place.

I was talking about a religion.

You don’t get to drill down and down and down to a single religion/denomination.
Look at the thread topic.

You are artificially setting the bar unreasonably high then claiming victory because the Roman Catholic Church didn’t independently come into existence in Sydney and Tokyo as well as Rome.

If religion arises in two cultures independently and both religions hold that a First Cause, Higher Being, Creator, Deity, Law Giver, Moral Arbiter exists, then (in my opinion) that qualifies as a defeater of your claim.

And your demand for them to both be one single homogeneous, orthodox religion[sup]TM[/sup] that agrees on every doctrine and dogma is a quibbling.

…Atheism is invented in the sense that some guy thought of it when he was confronted with claims about God.

No, atheism is just another competing claim with respect to the nature of God.
You are effectively arguing that there would be no atheists if nobody had ever first asserted the existence of God. That’s a tautology because if nobody thought God was real then we would all be atheists. And then Lion IRC would be saying…"I’m only a theist because I was confronted with all those unsubstantiated claims by atheism"

…I think all worldviews are invented.

That harkens back to my earlier point about the difference between the ‘invention’ of penicillin and the discovery of penicillin.

All evidence is derived from the senses and if you think the sensory evidence leading to the God Conclusion is invented rather than discovered, then epistemology breaks down - your epistemology breaks down.

Furthermore, your own position becomes metaphysically untenable because your imagined/invented worldview can’t objectively refute any other worldview. #brain_in_a_vat

…The analogy of the elephant says that all the blind men are right about different parts and wrong about the whole thing.

No. They all unanimously (and correctly) agree there IS something which can be felt - sensory evidence for the existence of a thing that really is there. They aren’t INVENTING it.