Marijuana.com

4mer_smoker

The concept of "God" is just an easy approach to the unsolved mysteries and theories of the universe. There is too much unknown about this universe and existence in general for one to rationally hold that God has made humans in His image and differentiates us from all other forms of life. In reality, humans simply have a greater ability to make complex associations, and many people confuse this for some sort of divine consciousness or soul.

Because it is not rational to believe that we have a "soul," it should not be anymore logical to believe in an afterlife. Sure, we may think we are quite important here on earth, but this is due to our relative ignorance of the rest of the universe. Really, humans are social creatures with a great capacity for association and enhanced intelligence due to evolutions in communication such as written language. We don't even know what is at the depths of our oceans, so it is irrational to make any assumptions as to the true nature of our existence.

As a philosophy and psychology major, these are my educated deductions. Humans are associative creatures, so people have the tendency to attach associations to things, even if they do not have all the information. This is ignorance, but it is also necessary since it is impossible and quite inefficient to try to gather ALL information before making a simple association. Without assumptions, we would go nowhere. Thusly, it should be apparent that the concept of God or a supreme entity is a fabrication to fill a void of understanding. We WANT and NEED to have a reason for existing to satisfy our natural tendencies. "God" and the "afterlife" are relatively acceptable justifications for this tendency. Most cannot accept that we don't and probably will never have all the necessary information to make an ultimately correct association between ourselves and the outside world.

As Marx once said, "religion is the opiate of the masses." From a psychological and philosophical standpoint, I find this is very true. The concept of religion and "God" are soothing on the human mind. Humans are not content to simply accept that something occurs. They want to explore as to the reasons of its existence. If they are told that God exists, they want to find out why and where. They are not satisfied with the answer that the world came to existence by certain scientific reasons that are not fully explained. Humans are happier with a religious explanation because it rests in the idea of a Supreme Being that people are afraid of, and feel secure in, like a child is to a parent.

It is important to understand that religious ideas are given out as teachings. They are not precipitates of experience or end results of thinking, rather they are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of humanity.

 

wittgenstotle

hey dude...you make some great points and i agree with just about everything you said...but don't forget even your own worldview is a sort of security blanket. Every world view whether it places faith in intangible gods or the most direct and evident phenomena still serves as a means of security for the person who holds it, making his life seemingly more manageable. don't forget that secular enterprises, science, philosophy and so on are also in some ways superstitions...no absolute, objective truth is found in any of them. however, the advantage of these enterprises is that they set requirements which fuel a more rigorous and careful means of making sense of the world, and probably most importantly, they are subject to revision. religion is dogmatic, the religious claim to have all the absolute answers in a few hundred pages. this is really unfortunate cuz that belief suggests the surrender of intellect and forward thinking. one of the greatest problems i have with religion is that it decelerates the evolution of ideas.

anyway, thanks for the ideas. i dig. by the way, you're studying some awesome subjects. i;m also a phil and pscyh major. later

Cassius

It is true that science and religion both try to describe objective reality, when in fact, the only evidence we have of what objective reality actually is has been distorted through our own perceptions, and this has been true since the first human thought about the subject.

However, one of them claims to have an objective view of reality, the other acknowledges its own subjectiveness.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

4mer_smoker

That's what I am saying, though. Humans naturally need to make associations to cope with our existance. Instinctually, there must be something to fill our void of understanding. We're not very different than any other species on this planet in that respect, since learning is essentially the development of associations. Religion isn't about learning, though. It's about assuming. Like you said, Science is logical and progressive, always accepting that there is more information. Religion is more of a security blanket in that way, because it relies on that miscreant of rationality called faith, which is truly just a flowery word for ignorance.

Socrates said, "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." This proves quite ironic in the case of religion...

Cassius

Faith is not necessarily the same thing as ignorance, although it is for most people of the world.

Any rational thinking about the secrets of the universe would reveal that the answers aren't available. It is true that most people never truly consider what they believe, and so they live in ignorance. However it is possible to consider the secrets of the universe, and come to the determination that it isn't possible to find the answers. This eliminates ignorance, and yet some people at this point choose to have "faith" that there is a God, despite knowing that it is impossible to determine his existence or lack thereof.

Of course, most people with half a brain who actually consider what they're thinking will at this point realize they're agnostic, but some people persist in their faith despite knowing that they don't have the answers.

 

JTP

I don't see much difference between the "faith" of a person committed to the scientific process and the faith of a person committed to Hinduism, Christianity, etc. They all tend to put their "faith" in something intrinsically un-provable.

Believing in God, or not believing in God are two sides of the very same coin.

wittgenstotle

actually there are huge differences between faith in religion and faith in science. yes, both involve a subscription to conceptions of the world which are in ways disprovable, but assumptions of science are constructed more carefully, they rely on logic and are rooted in the observation of empirical data. religion places faith in intangible figures, supernatural occurences, and the suspect testimony of a few individuals. Religion is also dogmatic and claims to be objective, therefore, it is not open to reinterpretation. On the other hand, proponents of science and philosophy, admit the uncertainties in the world, they understand that science and philosophy is itself in some ways imperfect, but they utilize the methods and interpretations of science and philosophy right now because it is by far our best means of making sense of the world and applying what we know to our actions. the great advantage of these systems is that they are always challenging the very assumptions they are founded on making them subject to change. this will allow an even better method of understanding and interpreting the world to replace science and philosophy if or when a better system is discovered.

anyway, there are several others ways in which philosophy i think is preferable to religion...one really important one is philosophy encourages free thought. it incites critical consciousness and experiments in lifestyle which allows the individual to create a life of meaning for himself in the best way he knows how through a soveriegn process of self-examination. religion encourages the simple adoption of a lifestyle which only perpetuates the passive acceptance of the outmoded and nonsensical ideas of our ancestors. i'm not saying that everything in the bible or everything in the Koran is junk. i think religion the creation of religious doctrines and such was an inevitable product of man's evolution of ideas. many people adopted it 2000 years ago or so because it was revolutionary during its time. however, since the enlightenment, religion has met a lot of scrutiny and has been found to no longer be the paramount means of determining "what is " and "what we should do about it." unfortunately, over the many years religion was adopted people became very adamant in their religious beliefs and wished to pass them down to their children, so people throughout the world are still very emotionally attached to and deeply invested in these belief systems. however, i don't find these systems to be ideal and i don't think many people would had they understood fully the advantages of secular humanism. i don't think there is much cause to doubt that philosophy and science are what i call "the most advanced technologies of the mind."

FMR WEEDSMOKER- i knew what you were saying in the first post i was just elaborating and reiterating in different terms

later

JTP

wittgenstotle-

I disagree, as soon as science is 100% accurate and without fault, then I will concede your point. Untill then, those that put their faith in science will have to deal with the same uncertainty as the practitioner of any religion. Science hasn't answered my "meaning of life" question or my "why are we here" question or even my "ultimately, where did life come from" question.

wittgenstotle

JTP-

i think you've missed my point. i'm not saying science is flawless, i mean i just conceded that science is fallible and full of uncertainties. maybe you'll concede my point when you read it more carefully.

anyway, science will never answer your "what is the meaning of life" or "why are we here" questions because it doesn't attempt to. science is only involved with describing and classifying the empirical observations of phenomena. it serves as a means to organize and clarify "what is" and "what causes what" and also helps us make predictions. the greater questions of interpretation, which deal with the questions of value and meaning, for instance, "what does it all this scientific data mean?" are dealt with in the disciplines of philosophy and religion. But, as i said before i think philosophy is preferable because it admits we are still in the process of discovering the answers to these questions. while religion already claims to have them. for instance, the answer to the meaning of life question for christians is really simple: the meaning of life is to someway fit into "God's plan." i don't hold that point of view and i don't know if you do or not.

by the way, what system do you think IS the best means of answering your larger questions?

LeXtasy420

Science is more like the hip version of religion.