Was religion invented by man?

[Charlemagne_III]

Well lets think about what the alternatives are. If man didn’t invent religion, then how did religion come to be? The only two possibilities I can think of are:

1. Religion represents a simple fact of the world that humanity discovered.
2. Religion was invented by someone else, then told/sold to humanity.

Of course, this lumps a few things into the “invent” classification. In other words, I would count things like accidental creation (e.g. innocently making a fairy tale that other people misunderstand as literal) into “invent.”

I suspect that most people here would have the gut reaction that their particular religion falls into #1. But #1 needs two things: the religious beliefs need to be true, and there needs to be a process of discovery. But if we look at the language people use to talk about the foundations of Christianity (i.e. biblical history), people do not use words like “discovered truths,” they use the words “revealed truths.” Now, supposing that whoever did the revealing was not human, then religion falls squarely into category #2.

Religion is the experience of the human struggling to make contact with the divine.

As such “invention” is not the appropriate word to describe it.

“Discovery” yes. Man from his first creation discovered God, then lost contact.

Later God revealed himself, so that the discovery could resume.

To this day discovery is an on-again off-again business between God, man, and the devil.

This not to say that some “mythologies” were not invented from whole cloth.

 

[Lion_IRC]

fisherman carl;14065296:

That’s a false slogan. What does worrying have anything to do with whether God exists or not? God exists regardless of what we believe about him. It sounds like the slogan is advocating hedonism. Like one can not enjoy one’s life if there is a God?

I suppose Dawkins is advocating not so much hedonism as a full blooded guiltless hedonism, not that anybody with a brain would be attracted to such a witless ethic.

I agree with fisherman carl.

It’s false for the person who is undecided to take a gamble about what’s “probable”.

It’s definitely false for the person who rejoices that a loving, forgiving God exists.

And it’s obviously false and irrational for the unbeliever to think that one can put their head in the sand and live like there’s no tomorrow. How does that help the poor and the homeless?

 

[PRmerger]

Plus, I just saw on my FB feed, apparently there is some catholic bishop being interviewed by Chris Hanson/ NBC, and him admitting the church made up hell to keep more people under control, he said its about putting fear into people. I can put the link in to anyone who wants to see it, I cant believe he can say this when being interviewed for tv!

LOL!

He will have to offer proof of this first.

 

[PRmerger]

And religion is nothing more than organised belief. All one has to do is ask who organised it.

Well, not exactly. Yes, it is organized belief. But not “nothing more than”.

Religion includes a creed, a code and a cult.

That is, a belief system, behavioral requirements, and acts of worship.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Religion is the experience of the human struggling to make contact with the divine.

As such “invention” is not the appropriate word to describe it.

“Discovery” yes. Man from his first creation discovered God, then lost contact.

Later God revealed himself, so that the discovery could resume.

To this day discovery is an on-again off-again business between God, man, and the devil.

This not to say that some “mythologies” were not invented from whole cloth.

The term for what you’re doing here is “begging the question.”

 

[Lion_IRC]

What question would that be JapaneseKappa?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What question would that be JapaneseKappa?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Perhaps you misunderstood.
What question would that be JapaneseKappa?

I understand the general fallacy. But I’m asking you to specifically state what question in particular is being begged by Charlemagne III.

I often hear that claim…oh, thats ‘begging the question’ but when I ask - what question is begging suddenly folks lose interest in justifying their accusation.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you misunderstood.
What question would that be JapaneseKappa?

I understand the general fallacy. But I’m asking you to specifically state what question in particular is being begged by Charlemagne III.

I often hear that claim…oh, thats ‘begging the question’ but when I ask - what question is begging suddenly folks lose interest in justifying their accusation.

There is no question, Lion.

When folks say that someone has been begging the question, pretend that the word “question” isn’t even in the comment.

Look at it as saying: your argument is circular.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The term for what you’re doing here is “begging the question.”

Do explain what you mean by “begging the question.”

Newton and Einstein, for examples, discovered a Supreme Intelligence behind the world…

Were they begging the question?

Then, if you insist that man discovering God rather than inventing him is still “begging the question,” explain why man **inventing **God is not also begging the question.

 

[Lion_IRC]

There is no question, Lion.

When folks say that someone has been begging the question, pretend that the word “question” isn’t even in the comment.

Look at it as saying: your argument is circular.

I know perfectly well what the alleged fallacy involves.

I’m asking JappaneseKappa to demonstrate how Charlemagne III allegedly did so. Can either of you show this?

The accusation of a logical fallacy is easy to make but when doing so you ought to at least be able to back up the claim - not just repeat the accusation over again.

And no, I won’t “pretend” the word question isn’t in the term begging the question

The best way you can demonstrate a question-begging fallacy is by showing what the obvious question is that remains begged.

Rational Rat Pack ? ?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Perhaps you misunderstood.
What question would that be JapaneseKappa?

I understand the general fallacy. But I’m asking you to specifically state what question in particular is being begged by Charlemagne III.

I often hear that claim…oh, thats ‘begging the question’ but when I ask - what question is begging suddenly folks lose interest in justifying their accusation.

You can probably get photographers to lose interest in talking to you by asking them how to put film into your digital camera, but it wouldn’t be because they feel intimidated by your knowledge of cameras.

The phrase “begging the question” is an idiom whose meaning is not necessarily related to the literal meaning.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I know perfectly well what the alleged fallacy involves.

I’m asking JappaneseKappa to demonstrate how Charlemagne III allegedly did so. Can either of you show this?

Ah, I thought this was obvious. The issue being discussed is “Was religion invented by man?” Therefore, if any premises require that a purely religious teaching be valid, we have “begged the question” by requiring that religion not be a fabrication.

Charlemagne did this when he said:

Man from his first creation discovered God, then lost contact. Later God revealed himself, so that the discovery could resume. To this day discovery is an on-again off-again business between God, man, and the devil.

Because he is assuming the validity of a particular religious account of the origin of religion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because he is assuming the validity of a particular religious account of the origin of religion.

I assume it because it come in a historical context … how religion began.

What historical account do you have from thousands of years ago that asserts religion was not lost and found again, but rather invented.

If you assert that religion was invented, how is that not begging the question?

 

[PRmerger]

I know perfectly well what the alleged fallacy involves.

I don’t think you actually did when you posed the question.

But now I think you understand that there really is no “question” involved in begging the question.

Thus, it’s a rather otiose request to ask “what question is being begged”.

Just think of the phrase “begging the question” as the equivalent of saying, “You are assuming that which you are trying to prove”. IOW: it’s a circular assertion.

And perhaps, if you don’t understand what is being asserted as being circular, it’s better to ask, “What is it that I’ve asserted that I’ve assumed to be true already?”

 

[Lion_IRC]

You can probably get photographers to lose interest in talking to you by asking them how to put film into your digital camera, but it wouldn’t be because they feel intimidated by your knowledge of cameras.

The phrase “begging the question” is an idiom whose meaning is not necessarily related to the literal meaning.

I’m not asking you to explain idioms or cameras or literal meanings.
I’m asking you for the third and last time, what question (idiomatic or literal) was being begged.
Frankly, you seem to be having lots of difficulty answering and very little difficulty avoiding your intellectual obligation to substantiate the allegation you made.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not asking you to explain idioms or cameras or literal meanings.
I’m asking you for the third and last time, what question (idiomatic or literal) was being begged.
Frankly, you seem to be having lots of difficulty answering and very little difficulty avoiding your intellectual obligation to substantiate the allegation you made.

Er…This was answered in post #56.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I assume it because it come in a historical context … how religion began.

What historical account do you have from thousands of years ago that asserts religion was not lost and found again, but rather invented.

If you assert that religion was invented, how is that not begging the question?

Assertions are different from arguments. You were attempting to argue that religion fell into the second category I had laid out (and therefore not invented) by arguing that your religion gives an account of God revealing himself to man and so forth. But doing that begs the question because it assumes your religion’s account is not made up, which was the issue at hand.

Its true, I could simply assert that religion was invented. It wouldn’t be begging the question because it’s not an argument, just a bald assertion. Such a thing would not and should not be convincing to anyone.

It may be possible for you to take the “but its historical, not religious!” approach. However, this fails because I’m not aware of any non-religious history which includes “Man from his first creation discovered God” because the “creation of man” is itself a religious concept.

 

[PRmerger]

It may be possible for you to take the “but its historical, not religious!” approach. However, this fails because I’m not aware of any non-religious history which includes “Man from his first creation discovered God” because the “creation of man” is itself a religious concept.

I’m not following your argument here, JK.

We do take the “it’s historical not religious” approach first.

And what is it that you’re saying proves that the NT documents aren’t historically reliable?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m not following your argument here, JK.

We do take the “it’s historical not religious” approach first.

And what is it that you’re saying proves that the NT documents aren’t historically reliable?

Does the NT contain an account of the creation of man in which mankind encounters God?