Was religion invented by man?

[JapaneseKappa]

JapaneseKappa’s position is basically that the evidence for both aliens and Christianity is about the same. So if you don’t accept the stories about aliens, you shouldn’t accept Christianity and if you accept Christianity, you’ll have to accept the alien stories as well. The fact that Christians accept one story but not the other proves their bias and inability to apply the same standards of scepticism and evidence to their religion as they do to the alien-theory.

Yes, I brought up the aliens here because I think it drives a number of useful wedges. Specifically:

1. It demonstrates that “Well religion was invented by either man or God” is a false dilemma.

Well lets think about what the alternatives are. If man didn’t invent religion, then how did religion come to be?

1. It introduces the need for “capability to assess” into the discussion of the credibility of any ancient religious accounts. I know that a lot of people have put a lot of effort into creating apologetic defenses of the honesty of the NT authors, but I have seen practically no defenses of competence.

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.

1. It questions whether or not people are setting the correct evidenciary bar for supernatural claims. BEFORE we consider the evidence for a claim, we decide how skeptical we will be. I believe the correct skepticism level for supernatural claims is essentially the same as the skepticism level for extraterrestrial claims, but that Christians hold the NT claims to a much more lax standard.

I actually believe the “aliens” argument is rather weak, but that it is not weaker than the religious argument.

In other words, what is going on in this discussion is that you are failing to give evidence to show that your religious explanation is superior to one of the weakest alternatives that I could think of.

 

[goout]

Yes, I brought up the aliens here because I think it drives a number of useful wedges. Specifically:

1. It demonstrates that “Well religion was invented by either man or God” is a false dilemma.
2. It introduces the need for “capability to assess” into the discussion of the credibility of any ancient religious accounts. I know that a lot of people have put a lot of effort into creating apologetic defenses of the honesty of the NT authors, but I have seen practically no defenses of competence.
3. It questions whether or not people are setting the correct evidenciary bar for supernatural claims. BEFORE we consider the evidence for a claim, we decide how skeptical we will be. I believe the correct skepticism level for supernatural claims is essentially the same as the skepticism level for extraterrestrial claims, but that Christians hold the NT claims to a much more lax standard.

Are you in a relationship with anyone? I’m not trying to get personal, I’m trying to demonstrate how religion comes to be.

If you have a loved one, think about the point you discovered this person. Let’s say this person introduces (reveals) himself. You have a limited knowledge of this person at that point.

This person revealing himself to you calls for a response on your part. As you respond, you begin to discover (know) this person. Responding is part of knowing, right? The person does not infuse intimate knowledge of himself into you by force. We are not talking about mere acquired head knowledge, although reason is very involved. The knowing comes from the interpersonal relationship, the give and take, the mutual calling and responding.

In your response, there is devotion. You become committed, and your devotion reveals back to your loved one that you are committed.
Your commitment entails real signs that you are responding to this person (religion if you will). You buy him coffee or tickets to the theater, whatever. There is a way of life that evolves, changes, and develops for you, centered around this other being. Your own being changes in response to this other being. This expression of the relationship is a real thing with substance. It looks like something, sounds like something, feels like something.

Here’s the point:
Did you invent this? Yes and no.
You freely responded and practiced devotion towards this person, but you did not originate or invent this relationship, in the sense that Edison invented the electric light bulb out of inanimate materials. Rather than an invention, the visible and invisible aspects of this relationship are almost a third entity, a mystery that has no adequate explanation.

You don’t strictly invent it. You respond, and cooperate, and express this relationship with your behavior.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Radical mistrust of humanity (everyone included) is the foundation of philosophy, in my opinion.

I trust you are wrong, sir.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I assume the reasons people believe in Christianity today are similar to the reasons people believe in Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, or any other tradition: they think it is true and it resonates with them. No shame in that.

Though narrow in scope, you could say that atheism has its own traditions, and that they are accumulating at a fairly rapid pace.

 

[Cheiron]

Though narrow in scope, you could say that atheism has its own traditions, and that they are accumulating at a fairly rapid pace.

I agree with you. One excellent example of an overview of the ‘atheist’ tradition is the book “Battling the Gods: atheism in the ancient world” written by Tim Whitmarsh. It’s not always about atheism in the modern sense of the word but it is a good compendium of scepticism of the gods in the Greco-Roman world. Whitmarsh is also very balanced and doesn’t pick sides.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with you. One excellent example of an overview of the ‘atheist’ tradition is the book “Battling the Gods: atheism in the ancient world” written by Tim Whitmarsh. It’s not always about atheism in the modern sense of the word but it is a good compendium of scepticism of the gods in the Greco-Roman world. Whitmarsh is also very balanced and doesn’t pick sides.

He doesn’t pick sides?

What do you mean?

 

[Cheiron]

He doesn’t pick sides?

What do you mean?

Whitmarsh is very balanced. Socrates, for example, was accused of atheism. Whitmarsh points out that Socrates’ philosophy was essentially secular (according to contemporary standards), but Socrates didn’t see himself as an atheist. He also points out regularly that religion in classical antiquity was different from what we call religion in this day and age.

While reading his book, I wondered if I could discover whether the professor was an atheist or not. I couldn’t.

 

[PRmerger]

Whitmarsh is very balanced. Socrates, for example, was accused of atheism. Whitmarsh points out that Socrates’ philosophy was essentially secular (according to contemporary standards), but Socrates didn’t see himself as an atheist. He also points out regularly that religion in classical antiquity was different from what we call religion in this day and age.

While reading his book, I wondered if I could discover whether the professor was an atheist or not. I couldn’t.

Ah, I see. Very good, then.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

While reading his book, I wondered if I could discover whether the professor was an atheist or not. I couldn’t.

One may try for an obscure reason conceal one’s honest opinion, but didn’t he give a hint or two?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14105221:

Here is the case for invented

belief/theism.
…People inherit their religion from the society in which they grew up. (Except for atheists and agnostics and people who convert/deconvert and people who live in pluralistic societies and people who invent their own religions and…)

This is so undeniably correct that I am surprised that anyone would even attempt an argument against it.

A man named Abraham/Abram lived in Ur of the Chaldees Southern Mesopotamia/Sumeria many thousands of years ago.

He and I worship the exact same specific God.

How can that be since we grew up in such different societies? (Although when I look at Genesis 18 it occurs to me that maybe there are some similarities.)

Moses grew up in Egypt yet strangely he didn’t worship Osiris or Thoth or Ra.
…and neither do I.

Prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have declared that they used to be Christians. Many famous Christian apologists like CS Lewis and Lee Strobel used to be atheists. So I don’t see why you cling to the fallacy that what people believe is based on geography rather than persuasive evidence.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…If a religion came into existence independently in more than two places, then that would be a strong mark in the favor of revelation or religious experience as a reliable way of obtaining truth…

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

…I don’t disbelieve everything, because not all claims are the same. If you tell me you have pet dog, I’ll believe you without ever hearing, seeing or smelling the animal.

So you will believe some things based on hearsay and others not. What happens when someone tells you that I’m lying about having a dog. Who do you believe then?

…the grave consequences of the idea that all religious experiences are in some way true. That argument is possibly a fatal blow to missionary work and evangelization everywhere.

No. If a diverse range of religious experiences each had some partial basis in truth (elephant/blind men etc.) that wouldn’t pose a problem. The elephant doesn’t cease to exist.

Christianity isn’t falsified by doctrinal/denominational differences any more than science is falsified by test data which is open to various interpretations.

… How could a missionary say that Catholicism is the right way to Heaven instead of dying on the battlefield while raiding a monastery in Northumberland?

I think you’re conflating ontology with epistemology.
Ontology - is there a “right way” to attain salvation?
Epistemology - how can we ascertain what the “right way” is?
Both religions absolutely agree that there IS a right way despite their divergent epistemology.
Your case seems to rest on the dubious claim that humans debating what the right way is implies that there is nothing there to debate. (No elephant tail, no elephant trunk, no elephant ear…)

The irony is that atheism - the invented idea that there’s no such thing as God and that all theistic experience is imaginary - is itself just another one of the competing claims.

The atheist is just another one of the “blind men” who happens to have not ever touched the “elephant” or who has touched something but still doubts or disbelieves their own sensory experience.

…So, if you go with the argument that all religious experiences originate from the same Divine source, then you can’t claim that your religion is the only correct one.

Of course I can.
…for the same reason that hitting somewhere near the bullseye or the landing a golf ball on the green is not the same as actually hitting the target or the hole-in-one.

…Nor can you claim that salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

I actually can. And do.
But mostly in discussions like this I firstly defend theism. Then I defend monotheism. Then I defend biblical monotheism. And from there, Christian Particularism. (Nicene) And if we make it that far, then I will defend my own personal religion - a unique relationship with Jesus. (And that last line of apologetic defense is one that no person on earth can refute or gainsay and its one that no amount of atheist proselytising will ever change.)

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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

But “a religion” didn’t.

The thought experiment is this:

Imagine sending a space ship full of babies to some faraway planet with the resources they need, but no earth-literature or science. In 10,000 years, we go and visit them to see what their descendants are up to. Assuming they didn’t all die, would we expect them to be Catholic?

 

[PRmerger]

But “a religion” didn’t.

The thought experiment is this:

Imagine sending a space ship full of babies to some faraway planet with the resources they need, but no earth-literature or science. In 10,000 years, we go and visit them to see what their descendants are up to. Assuming they didn’t all die, would we expect them to be Catholic?

No. We wouldn’t expect them to be Catholic. But they would be religious.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No. We wouldn’t expect them to be Catholic. But they would be religious.

 

[Cheiron]

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

I was talking about a religion.

So you will believe some things based on hearsay and others not. What happens when someone tells you that I’m lying about having a dog. Who do you believe then?

I don’t see why anyone would lie about such a mundane thing as having a pet. So I believe you.

No. If a diverse range of religious experiences each had some partial basis in truth (elephant/blind men etc.) that wouldn’t pose a problem. The elephant doesn’t cease to exist.

Your case seems to rest on the dubious claim that humans debating what the right way is implies that there is nothing there to debate. (No elephant tail, no elephant trunk, no elephant ear…)

No. I clearly stated in post 108 that I don’t believe religious experiences or revelation because they have so often proved to be false. I don’t care how many people have had religious experiences or discuss their personal testimony. I need evidence with which I can check religious experiences or revelation.

The irony is that atheism - the invented idea that there’s no such thing as God and that all theistic experience is imaginary - is itself just another one of the competing claims.

Atheism is invented in the sense that some guy thought of it when he was confronted with claims about God. I think all worldviews are invented.

The atheist is just another one of the “blind men” who happens to have not ever touched the “elephant” or who has touched something but still doubts or disbelieves their own sensory experience.

Which to me sounds like a completely rational thing to do. No evidence → dismiss the claim. I don’t believe in aliens either. Given the vastness of the universe it’s probable that life on other planets exist, but untill I see evidence I don’t believe it.

Of course I can.
…for the same reason that hitting somewhere near the bullseye or the landing a golf ball on the green is not the same as actually hitting the target or the hole-in-one.

The analogy of the elephant says that all the blind men are right about different parts and wrong about the whole thing. If you want to stick to that analogy, then you’ll have to admit that praying (Christianity), ripping a heart out (Aztecs), dying on the battlefield (Norse paganism) and sacrificing animals (Greeks) are all parts of the divine. But that is incompatible with the exclusivity of Christianity.

It seems you claim that believers of other religions have genuinely experienced the Divine and that they are completely wrong about what they experienced. That seems to me very, very opportunistic. You simultaneously accept and deny other people’s religious experiences. On what basis do you decide what to accept and what to dismiss?

I actually can. And do.

But, again, how does that jibe with the analogy about the elephant (that you introduced) in which you are equal in your blindness? I thought this analogy was about acknowledging intellectual humility. If you say that other religions are wrong, then you claim to know more about the elephant than they do.

But mostly in discussions like this I firstly defend theism. Then I defend monotheism. Then I defend biblical monotheism. And from there, Christian Particularism. (Nicene) And if we make it that far, then I will defend my own personal religion - a unique relationship with Jesus. (And that last line of apologetic defense is one that no person on earth can refute or gainsay and its one that no amount of atheist proselytising will ever change.)

The issue is whether religion has been invented or came from revelation. And I need evidence of revelation.

 

[Cheiron]

No. We wouldn’t expect them to be Catholic. But they would be religious.

But that would not provide evidence. It just adds another blind man to the previously mentioned elephant analogy. The chance that the space-babies become Catholic is so incredibly small, that if they did become Catholic, then there is a serious possibility that a revelation from the Roman Catholic Deity took place.

It also is a strong counter argument against my claim that religion is local and reflects local culture. If a civilization in space or the Americas (before the conquistadores arrived) had a religion that was based on the Old Testament and even having a holy book containing the same stories, that would disprove my argument. It would prove the universality of Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

But that would not provide evidence

Would not provide evidence of what?

 

[PRmerger]

It also is a strong counter argument against my claim that religion is local and reflects local culture.

Can you give an example of a Catholic dogma that is local and reflects culture?

 

[Cheiron]

Can you give an example of a Catholic dogma that is local and reflects culture?

I don’t know many Catholic dogma’s, but the Bible is full of God’s interventions in only a small part of the Middle-East.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know many Catholic dogma’s, but the Bible is full of God’s interventions in only a small part of the Middle-East.

Do you think interventions are dogmas?