Perchance

...would its religion actually change?

Obviously, with perfect knowledge there would be no need for faith, so talk of this would cease. There wouldn't be theological debates about proof, since everyone would have proof in their own heads (from birth, let's say) and wouldn't have to rely on the perhaps sketchy testimonies of others, or doubt that what they felt was a different or lesser conviction from some other worshipper's. There wouldn't be arguments about what one ought to do to please the deity, since everyone would know what the deity wanted as far as prayers, obedience, and rituals.

How would the society react to the others around it, the ones without perfect knowledge of their deity? Would they try to convert them? Would they ignore them and leave them alone? (I suppose it might depend on whether the other societies were atheistic, had deities of their own, or perhaps were hostile to or skeptical of the 'perfect-knowledge' society).

Does anyone have any other ideas? I think it's an interesting hypothetical scenario.

And also, does anyone have any opinions on whether such a society would be better than one possessing a religion that rests on faith? I personally think it would depend on whether or not the deity had an objective existence. If it did, then of course it would be better for the deity to reveal itself and stop all possible infighting. On the other hand, the society convinced they had perfect knowledge could all be under a massive delusion.

Would it be workable?

(So many questions- sorry. But I find myself really curious about this, since the weakness or strength of faith comes up a lot in discussions on religion I've read, especially atheist vs. theist).

-Perchance.

Luiseach

Good question. At first glance, I would argue that if a group of people had a 'perfect knowledge of a deity' (by this I take it that you mean verifiable evidence of the deity's existence), there would still be those who would attempt to ignore the evidence. Indeed, as things stand in the real world, we have verifiable evidence that the earth is not flat, and yet there are some people who will ignore the proof for its roundness. Or, more to the point, there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of the supernatural in any form, and yet there are millions upon millions of people in the world who disregard this lack of proof; indeed, many believers in supernatural beings/events might argue that hard evidence is not required for faith or religion.

In your hypothetical world, though, things would be different. Religion as we know it - that is, based on faith not evidence - would cease to exist. The deity would be part of the natural order of things, as verifiable as any other physical phenomenon. No need for a leap of faith required at all.

Religion would be unnecessary in your hypothetical society, because the deity to which the belief system is dedicated in our world would already be an incontrovertible fact, and therefore not dependant for its 'existence' upon the faith and/or testimony of interested adherents. He/She/It would be observable, measurable, quantifiable; a matter for what we know in our universe as scientific study.

No verifiable evidence has ever been produced for the existence of a deity, a state of affairs that has - ironically, perhaps - nourished religious belief for thousands of years. On one level of interpretation, religion depends for its continued existence on faith, not fact.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

There have been many such societies.

In ancient times, both in the West and the East, the King (or Emperor) was believed to be the embodied 'God'.

There were still problems, wars, coups, bloodshed, etc, as various people fought each other (and sometimes the 'god') over who would influence or win favour with the 'god'.

So, having your 'God' right in front of you, solid as flesh, is no guarantee of either peace or happiness.

Keith.

Amos

Such a society is absolutly impossible because man as God is a non social animal. Such a man is a solitary individual and is psychologically neutered -- or there would be marriages in heaven.

The purpose of religion is to first increase the division between the sexes for the purpose of creation (including procreation) and later redeem these creators along with its creations in heaven.

Theological debates are always a waste of time and a hindrance to perfect knowledge and understanding because perfection of understanding lies in the understanding of our own mind and so the more data we add from the external world the more we will need to tie down with reality so as to make it understood (it is the baggage loaded on Nietzsche's camel and the ego that later must be crucified). This excess of bagage requires increased courage when humans must become like a lion to reach the oasis (indulgences are useful here). The net effect here is that scholars never reach the oasis.

Catholicism is a relgion that has perfect knowledge of God and is therefore called the bride of Christ (the woman of Rev.21:9), infallible and in charge of its own destiny. The proof of this is that despite its continual opposition throughout the ages it has managed to built the greatest civilization that ever existed.

The Church must be above and below the state but never in charge of the active governing body in the same way as the subconscious mind is above and below the conscious mind but never the final decision maker of our will (or the state) -- until the two have become one after which time both will resign from politics in the conclusion that "all is well with my soul" and things are the way they are because they cannot be any other way (peace on earth is regained).

If, as Keith suggested, such societies existed they will never exist for long and will remain flat until they die because opposition is needed for creation to occur.

Perchance

I'll try to answer everyone at once here.

True- at least outside the society. My example (or at least the example I was thinking of) would rely on everyone in it not only having physical proof of the existence of the deity, but actually having mental contact with it, and having the deity pass whatever challenges they would set to determine its existence/powers/divinity. I think anything less couldn't really be called 'perfect knowledge.'

Would other parts of faith-based religion still exist, though? I think this would depend on the character of the deity. A verifiable Deist god who didn't care about humans any more than a waterfall obviously wouldn't require ceremonies, but if, say, a god as Zeus is described to be in Greek myth existed and demanded sacrifices, then these parts of religion would still carry on.

This brings up another interesting point, though. If a deity were to be natural, would it cease to be a deity? Does a god have to be supernatural to be accounted a god?

Certainly capable of being scientifically studied. However, unless the deity really was an It, or didn't care at all about humans, then he/she would have a personality, and that, I think, would add an extra dimension to the way that people reacted to him/her. One couldn't relate to the deity in the same way that one relates to unintelligent natural phenomena, or even the way that one relates to a sentient but non-sapient animal.

On this I'm willing to agree, with reservations. The faith-based parts depend on faith (just thought I'd demonstrate that I have a firm grasp of the obvious ). But if people could interact with and verify a deity who demanded love and sacrifice in return for (insert benefit here), then I think there are some parts of religion that would remain the same. There are parts that might even intensify.

**************

I was imagining a society in mental contact with a deity as well: knowing what the deity wants them to do in certain situations, knowing what things the deity doesn't like, getting prayers answered, and so on.

Certainly a flesh-and-blood god doesn't satisfy every human need, or perhaps there never would have been any other religion beyond worship of natural objects like the sun.

*************

I must admit I don't really know what this means. Of course, as I've noted in the past when replying to you, this is not an uncommon state of affairs . Could you clarify this a bit more? Is it knowledge of God that is impossible, or a society having it that is impossible, or perfect knowledge that is impossible?

One could also argue that reaching the oasis is not necessarily the point, or even necessarily a good thing, and that uncertainty and freedom are exactly the kinds of things a scholar needs.

Given that, I can understand the point you make below about the society's stagnation.

According to Catholics. However, I have met few Catholics who claim to have been in personal contact with God, and read few Catholic writings describing prayer and other such 'reaching out to God' that sounded different in tone from Protestant writings.

Several candidates for civilizations heavily influenced by Catholicism pop to mind- medieval Europe, Spain in the 1400's, France during the persecution of the Huguenots, England during the reign of Bloody Mary- but no candidates for the second. Which civilization do you mean?

As noted above, I think that the stagnation perfect knowledge all by itself implies is inevitable (should the theists be grateful to skeptics for keeping up the debate? ). However, if we're talking about one society in a world of societies, there could very well be opposition from outside, if not within, the society itself. This is, in fact, what I was envisioning, and part of the reason I asked what I did in the original question: How would the 'perfect-knowledge' society react to the others? Would they convert them? Ignore them? Try to convert them?

-Perchance.

Seraphim

by Perchance

...would its religion actually change?
Obviously, with perfect knowledge there would be no need for faith, so talk of this would cease. There wouldn't be theological debates about proof, since everyone would have proof in their own heads (from birth, let's say) and wouldn't have to rely on the perhaps sketchy testimonies of others, or doubt that what they felt was a different or lesser conviction from some other worshipper's. There wouldn't be arguments about what one ought to do to please the deity, since everyone would know what the deity wanted as far as prayers, obedience, and rituals.

How would the society react to the others around it, the ones without perfect knowledge of their deity? Would they try to convert them? Would they ignore them and leave them alone? (I suppose it might depend on whether the other societies were atheistic, had deities of their own, or perhaps were hostile to or skeptical of the 'perfect-knowledge' society).

Does anyone have any other ideas? I think it's an interesting hypothetical scenario.

My reply : Such society will be worse than what we have now. They will be dull because no one could ask any questions. They will be mute since no one could offer any answers. They will be stupid since no one could think other than what they know.

And also, does anyone have any opinions on whether such a society would be better than one possessing a religion that rests on faith? I personally think it would depend on whether or not the deity had an objective existence. If it did, then of course it would be better for the deity to reveal itself and stop all possible infighting. On the other hand, the society convinced they had perfect knowledge could all be under a massive delusion.

My reply : People in such society will need to cease calling themselves "Humans" and should cease considering themselves "Faithful" since they are either of such two.

To be a Human is to ask, seek answers and learn, only to ask more question.
To have Faith is to have answers which suits YOU because you are the one who is the one living on this world now, not Dieties or God.

Would it be workable?

My reply : Try and imagine a world that populated by machines and you will get what you ask, then tell us if such society is workable OR such world is worth living in.

(So many questions- sorry. But I find myself really curious about this, since the weakness or strength of faith comes up a lot in discussions on religion I've read, especially atheist vs. theist).

My reply : To ask is a Human nature, so is seeking such answers. What answer suits you depends on yourselves. Nothing to be sorry for.

Amos

</strong>

Perfect knowledge is possible but that would psychologically neuter the individual through the union of the left and right brain. This state of mind is called heaven and is why there is peace in heaven (and no marriage). It makes individuals non-social because of the internal peace (Paul was singing in prison). </strong>

The only reason why we are motivated to do anything at all is because of our dual identity (division in our mind), and have no freedom because of it. But I agree that it is not always a "good thing" and also agree that we must journey 'far and wide' before we reach the oasis because to get their 'empty handed' would mean that we have accomplished nothing in life. The problem for sholars is that they must surrender everything wherein they thought they had salvation. </strong>

Well of course, protestants would never agree with that. </strong>

I actually mean the Western civilization to this very day (with or without the protestant sects).
There cannot be a scociety wherein all the members have full knowledge. It would be sterile and impotent.

In a sense the Catholic Church is/was omniscient and in charge of a society that prospered and bloomed until the reformation started its demise. They preached and converted others for the betterment of mankind and for society as a whole in accordance with the "members and body" parable of the bible (which cannot be achieved any other way).

Hail

Catholicism is a relgion that has perfect knowledge of God and is therefore called the bride of Christ (the woman of Rev.21:9), infallible and in charge of its own destiny. The proof of this is that despite its continual opposition throughout the ages it has managed to built the greatest civilization that ever existed.

I don't know if any of you remember the time on the TV show Dallas that they came back the next season and said the entire preceding season's episode was a dream. Well the Catholic Church a few decades ago had it as a mortal sin to eat meat on a certain day. Then they changed that, maybe God sent them a fax or e-mail saying its ok now.
It was only recently that they said ok Copernicus ( I think it was ) or the guy who said Earth is not the center of the universe after thoroughly destroying his life they issue a 20th century pardon when the guy is long gone, smooth.
The civilization we have now and the beliefs we have now are ripping a huge hole in the ozone and there are those who would have us continue even further on this path/thinking. Einstein once said the problems of the 20th century cannot be solved by the same thinking that has produced the problems in the first place.
I think that the discovery process would not be if we had full outward knowledge of ALL THAT IS. I think that the realization of ALL THAT IS already in us and as we need its light to make our way we make discoveries that makes it possible. The research we do point to this knowing. We researched if the Earth was flat because contrary to what our eyes tell us we knew different and so on. I believe all this knowledge is already in us at the cellular level and that's why the earliest concepts of education and even to this day define it as bringing out knowledge not putting in. With regard to the concept of proof I think that you can't even prove that your house is still there whenever you leave it and go out of eyeshot of it. Yet the morality that the Religious and Secular observe is based on belief systems that were figured out ( though sketchy as another poster put it )using the sixth sense which is not provable at all but the morality structure is cherished by the religious and secular alike. I think many of the mysteries of the ages haw been unraveled using the sixth sense but their viability can always be verified scientifically after. The proof is in the pudding and there is a big hole siphoning off the atmosphere I think that proves a lot.

Perchance

Hello everyone.

Interesting! So no one could think anything new because a deity is everything? Or are you applying these criteria to religion alone- there would still be new thinking going on outside the field, but not in the field of religion?

If this is the only criteria for being human, then I've met a lot of nonhumans. There are people who are satisfied with the answers they get, but this doesn't mean that they're wrong (for example, if a new phenomenon that defied gravity were found, of course it would have to be accounted for, but I don't think everyone goes around doubting the laws of gravity just for the hell of it). And there may be emotional traumas that someone can't bear to question.

That said, while I get frustrated with people who don't and won't ask questions, I don't think everyone can be divided into two neat groups. The people who really get on my nerves are the ones who ask questions of everything except their faith, but get angry when their faith is questioned. And then there are those who question faith but aren't really interested in the questions science asks...

Of course, all of this again assumes that knowing the deity in questions is equivalent to knowing the universe. I would be interested in why you think this.

I still think this reasoning only applies if we're talking about an omnimax deity, and knowing everything that it knows is equivalent to knowing the universe. If we're talking about a deity like Zeus, then just because I am in mental contact with him doesn't mean that I know everything about the oceans, for example (Poseidon's domain).

Well, thank you. I think I might have questions forever, though...
********

Assuming it's the Christian God, perhaps. (Though some of the descriptions of, for example, God's intense emotions in the Bible make me wonder if it really would be all that peaceful). With other deities, would this happen?

What if they are convinced there is no need for salvation, and more than one oasis? Or no oasis at all?

I think there are a whole lot of other people who would disagree with the picture of Catholicism as infallible: Wiccans, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahai'i, atheists like me, and on and on. The division between Catholicism and Protestantism is not the whole of religious debate.

Do you have specific Catholic contributions in mind? If no standards are applied, I could claim that atheists built Western civilization and be as correct.

Besides, it seems to me that if the Catholic church does have perfect knowledge of God, there are an awful lot of people they haven't managed to convince.

I thought you were saying the Catholic Church is such a society.

We could argue for a long time about how good conversion really is, and whether the Middle Ages were really "prospering and blooming"...but that would drift away from the topic of the thread.

I do think that there is no need for conversions, even for a society that has or claims perfect knowledge of God. After all, the people would know exactly what God wanted, and perhaps God wants these people left alone.
*****

Hi Hail,

I couldn't make much sense of what you said (but then, it mostly seemed to be directed to Amos). For what it's worth, I accept the existence of lucky guesses and unconscious drawing of conclusions, but I don't accept the existence of a sixth sense on a par with one of the physical five. People who make claims like this always seem to think it should be measured supernaturally, and for it to be on a par with the others, it would have to be natural.

-Perchance.

Amos

</strong>

"Over fishing" may have had something to do with that, don't you think? Besides if sins are needed for the conviction of sin only we can sure think of another one to replace that one. </strong>

They knew long before Copernicus that the planet earth was round but the world in which we live upon it as humans is flat--or heaven could not be round. The problems of the 20th century are a direct result of a return to flatness in our thinking and the apology made by the Church should be seen as a slap in the face of mordern 'flat earthers.' I don't object to science and understand that it is able to prove that which must first be extrapolated from omniscience. That is how advanced are made and they can work for our benefit if we can harnass the outcome and tie it back into the whole from where the inspiration befell the scientist.