Was religion invented by man?

[PRmerger]

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

No.

We believe in the Christian God because of the good news as proclaimed in the NT.

Why do you believe we cannot use the NT as the source for proclaiming the divinity of Christ?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No.

We believe in the Christian God because of the good news as proclaimed in the NT.

Why do you believe we cannot use the NT as the source for proclaiming the divinity of Christ?

Irrelevant. We were specifically talking about Charlemagne III’s argument regarding the origin of religion which involved the statement:

Man from his first creation discovered God, then lost contact.

I claimed that this begged the question since it presumed the accuracy of a religious belief, which was the topic being argued.

If you wanted to argue that the NT contained such an account, that the NT was historically accurate, and that therefore Charlemagne’s statement did not presume the correctness of a religious account we could have that discussion and be on topic. But since you allege that the NT does not contain such an account, then it is a red herring.

 

[Bradski]

Rational Rat Pack ? ?

A group of like minded thinkers. You need an introduction by a member of the RRP and be accepted by a 2/3 majority of the committee. There is also a pledge.

 

[PRmerger]

Irrelevant. We were specifically talking about Charlemagne III’s argument regarding the origin of religion which involved the statement:

I claimed that this begged the question since it presumed the accuracy of a religious belief, which was the topic being argued.

If you wanted to argue that the NT contained such an account, that the NT was historically accurate, and that therefore Charlemagne’s statement did not presume the correctness of a religious account we could have that discussion and be on topic. But since you allege that the NT does not contain such an account, then it is a red herring.

Nope.

I am saying, as per the topic question: religion was NOT invented by man. At least, not our religion. Not the Christian religion. Specifically, the Catholic religion.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Nope.

I am saying, as per the topic question: religion was NOT invented by man. At least, not our religion. Not the Christian religion. Specifically, the Catholic religion.

That is fine as far as arguments go, but I would say that you could have made that argument much clearer if you hadn’t made it by awkwardly butting into the detailed and specific discussion Charlemagne and I were having.

That being said, lets get started.

It seems to me that your argument so far has included (or is likely to include) the following points:

1. The NT is historically accurate.
2. The NT claims that Jesus is divine.
3. The religious claims in the NT were not invented by men.

But you will need to do some extra work to actually tie those together. For example, consider the old native american tale about a magic thunderbird and whale. Because of a variety of other info, we know that this tale is likely “historically accurate” in the sense that there was an actual earthquake along the Cascadia fault that dramatically affected the native Americans in the vicinity. However, just because the main event was real does not mean that their creative interpretation of that event was correct (e.g. that the villages in the area had been displeasing to the gods, or that the earthquake was caused by religious entities.)

In order to actually make an argument of the form point #1 and point # 2, therefore point #3, you need to do some additional leg work beyond simply establishing that the “main events” of the NT probably happened.

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.”

So: which way will you proceed?

 

[PRmerger]

That is fine as far as arguments go, but I would say that you could have made that argument much clearer if you hadn’t made it by awkwardly butting into the detailed and specific discussion Charlemagne and I were having.

Firstly, you should know that in a forum there is no such thing as “butting into” (awkwardly or otherwise) into someone’s discussion. That’s just the nature of forum discussions. All members and invited to post and contribute.

I would think that after being here since 2014 you would know that…but, whatevs. Now you know.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Firstly, you should know that in a forum there is no such thing as “butting into” (awkwardly or otherwise) into someone’s discussion. That’s just the nature of forum discussions. All members and invited to post and contribute.

I would think that after being here since 2014 you would know that…but, whatevs. Now you know.

The issue is your use of the “quote” mechanic, which on this forum is used to indicate a response to someone. Since you quoted my post that was a part of a conversation with someone else, most people here would assume that your response was a contribution to that conversation, not the initiation of a completely separate line of reasoning.

 

[PRmerger]

The issue is your use of the “quote” mechanic, which on this forum is used to indicate a response to someone. Since you quoted my post that was a part of a conversation with someone else, most people here would assume that your response was a contribution to that conversation, not the initiation of a completely separate line of reasoning.

It segued quite nicely, JK.

You proposed that C3 was begging the question (which, incidentally, he was not, but I did not wish to pursue that tributary.)

I simply added another way to look at the Christian paradigm which you may not have considered.

I will address your refutation of my arguments vis a vis the NT later. Off to work soon.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It segued quite nicely, JK.

You proposed that C3 was begging the question (which, incidentally, he was not, but I did not wish to pursue that tributary.)

I simply added another way to look at the Christian paradigm which you may not have considered.

So let me get this straight. Your version of events is literally:

I arbitrarily declared that “no questions were begged” without presenting an argument because I didn’t care. I then added a completely different argument to the table. This transition was not awkward at all.

I will address your refutation of my arguments vis a vis the NT later. Off to work soon.

I think that upon reading my post you will find that there was no “refutation” going on. I was merely inviting you to actually finish making the argument you felt was so much more interesting than the discussion C3 and I were having.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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.”

So: which way will you proceed?

Here is the way I anticipate the arguments will go. PRmerger will attempt to tackle both approaches simultaneously, and argue for one half of each one. He will then attempt to claim that the two half-arguments add up to a complete argument for the validity of the NT. This is not a valid approach; since the arguments are independent of each other, the partial success of one is not an endorsement of the other.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

I’ll ask again, in case you forgot to answer.

How is it that the claim religion was invented is not begging the question?

What evidence do you have that it was invented?

You certainly can’t cite any authority other than those who argue by way of begging the question (guessing) since there is no positive evidence that it was invented rather than discovered as a condition of our human nature.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

How is it that the claim religion was invented is not begging the question?

I can’t tell what you’re asking. As I said before, an assertion all by itself is not an argument, and so “begging the question” doesn’t apply.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I can’t tell what you’re asking. As I said before, an assertion all by itself is not an argument, and so “begging the question” doesn’t apply.

It is certainly a statement of fact that religion was invented. It is an argument offered by many atheists through history, including Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. So I don’t see how it does not amount to an argument unless you are willing to concede that the statement is begging the question, in which case it truly does not qualify as an argument since no proof is offered.

However, to say that religion was lost, found, and recovered by many nations through the millennia is not based on pure theory. It is a fact of history. The Old Testament informs us of this. You don’t have to believe the Old Testament is a valid authority, but you can’t say the religious person who offers it as evidence has not offered evidence. You can only say he has not offered convincing evidence as far as you are concerned.

The person who says religion was invented offers no evidence at all, and that is begging the question big time.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It is certainly a statement of fact that religion was invented. It is an argument offered by many atheists through history, including Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. So I don’t see how it does not amount to an argument unless you are willing to concede that the statement is begging the question, in which case it truly does not qualify as an argument since no proof is offered.

However, to say that religion was lost, found, and recovered by many nations through the millennia is not based on pure theory. It is a fact of history. The Old Testament informs us of this. You don’t have to believe the Old Testament is a valid authority, but you can’t say the religious person who offers it as evidence has not offered evidence. You can only say he has not offered convincing evidence as far as you are concerned.

The person who says religion was invented offers no evidence at all, and that is begging the question big time.

An argument looks like this:

Because of (points 1, 2, and 3), we reach the (conclusion.)

Begging the question happens when an argument contains a point which assumes that the conclusion is true.

You are asking me:

How is it that the -]claim religion was invented/-] conclusion is not begging the question?

It is not begging the question because the conclusion you’re talking about is not an argument. It is not an argument because it does not have any points attached to it. The conclusion all by itself can’t contain any points that assume the conclusion is true, because there aren’t any points.

If you want to ask me about a specific argument used to reach that conclusion, (e.g. Marx’s) then you will have to actually lay out the points he made and explain which one you think is begging the question.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Er…This was answered in post #56.

No it wasn’t. Go back and read post #44

Anyway it looks like JappaneseKappa and you arent too fussed about how the
expression “begging the question” came to be called by those three words.

John - you’re begging the question
Charlie - what question is that?
John - I don’t have to tell you
Charlie - well why not?
John - because there is no actual question
Charlie - well why do you call it question begging?
John - because you’re using circular reasoning
Charlie - how do you know it’s circular reasoning
John - because it begs the question
Charlie - what question?

Lion IRC;14073563:

…Rational Rat Pack ? ?

A group of like minded thinkers. You need an introduction by a member of the RRP and be accepted by a 2/3 majority of the committee. There is also a pledge.

Cats like rats.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

An argument looks like this:

Because of (points 1, 2, and 3), we reach the (conclusion.)

Begging the question happens when an argument contains a point which assumes that the conclusion is true.

You are asking me:

It is not begging the question because the conclusion you’re talking about is not an argument. It is not an argument because it does not have any points attached to it. The conclusion all by itself can’t contain any points that assume the conclusion is true, because there aren’t any points.

If you want to ask me about a specific argument used to reach that conclusion, (e.g. Marx’s) then you will have to actually lay out the points he made and explain which one you think is begging the question.

Whatever!

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I think the experience of thirstiness is evidence for the existence of water.
And I think the sensation of hunger is evidence for the existence of food.

Now, is there any circular reasoning or question begging going on here JappaneseKappa?
Have I ‘invented’ hunger? Is my thirst imaginary like the imaginary water in my head?

This is where I think the atheist proselytizers get it all wrong when they refer to religion as a human ‘invention’.

Surely the rational, clear thinking, ‘brites’ wouldnt want to fall for the old trick one of my Salesian teachers used play on us in biology by asking about…

Who invented penicillin Alexander Fleming or Howard Florey?

Of course none of our guesses were right because penicillin wasn’t invented - it was discovered.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Question begging is circular reasoning because it begs the question. QED

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Anyway it looks like JappaneseKappa and you arent too fussed about how the expression “begging the question” came to be called by those three words.

I addressed that here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

The wikipedia link explains, in its third sentence, that:

The term ‘begging the question’, as this is usually phrased, originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates as ‘assuming the initial point’.

I went on to explain, that the actual meaning has been divorced from the literal meaning:

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

And I directly addressed what constituted begging the question here:

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:

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

Now, you can continue to demand some form of question, despite the fact that word “question” arose from a mistranslation, but you would sound like the man who continues to demand that his neighbor explain how to put gasoline in an electric car.

 

[HelenRose]

Hi everyone. That’s not exactly the best title to describe my question but there’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. I’ve been experiencing some doubts the past few weeks. How do we know religion isn’t something that was made up by primitive man to explain the world around him, or for comfort to escape the fear of death as many atheists claim? I guess this is similar to the old Karl Marx line, “Religion is the opiate of the people.” Can anyone help me with this? Prayers would be appreciated as well. Thank you!

If religion had ever been the opiate of the people, drugs and sex has certainly taken its place.