Mughal

With respect I request all my brothers and sisters here to participate and explore but please no inappropriate language towards each other nor getting personal. The purpose of this thread is to examine religion for its claims and evidences to see whether they stand the test or not and therefore we should follow religion or not. So please show good sense and act with civility. This is an educational thread and not confrontational. So please do keep this in mind.


Before we start examining religion we need to know why we need to do so and how we may do so.

We need to examine religion because in one sense or another it is a major and fundamental cause of conflict in the world. The conflict is not between countries, cities and villages only but even between the members of the very same family eg if some members of family hold one religion or sect true the others hold a different religion or sect true and battles are fought over it. All this because we have not understood religion as to what it really is and what it stands for and how it came about. I hope together we are going to help each other clarify this situation for the good of our own very selves.

Before we actually talk about religion, we need to understand what the truth is? What a theory is, what a hypothesis is, what is meant by logic, axiom, fact, proof, the way of proving and actual proving. We will explain things as we go along because they are far too many to be talked about in one place.

Theory means an assumed best explanation of a given set of facts or assumptions. If the explanation is based upon facts and works, it proves the theory otherwise it remains an unproven assumed explanation or mere hypothetical explanation of a set of hypothesis. This is the reason the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is the pudding is cooked for the purpose of eating but unless all its necessary ingredients are used and are used properly and the cooking is also done properly, it would not be enjoyed by those who are supposed to eat it. Instead it would be thrown out and so it would prove it was not a good pudding. On the other hand, if it all turns out alright then it would end up something that people would enjoy eating and thus it would have served its purpose and proven its worth.

Before the pudding is actually cooked one needs to know the theory and the related facts ie one needs to know how the pudding is made and what things are involved in it. The theory is merely an assumption till it is used to produce the result in practice. Thus the theory would now be known as a fact because it has passed the practical=logical test. Let us explain it in another way, if a person claims to be a good cook, how can he prove that he really is a good cook or how can we know that he is really what he says? The answer is, either he or we come up with a testing method and if the claimant passes that test, we accept the claim. For example, in this case we devise a cooking test and allow the person to show his cooking skills. If he cooks things as he claims, he proves himself to us. If he messes up things instead, he disproves his claim.

Hypothesis also means an assumption or guess but this time we are not guessing an explanation of facts but merely guessing a new fact for verification in addition to already known facts. For example, I want to meet my next door neighbour but I do not know whether he is in or away out. I see that lights are on in his house and music is playing etc etc, so I assume=guess, he is at home. In order to verify my this assumption I may go and knock at his door to see if he is really inside the house. So I knock his door and he comes and opens the door thus my assumption proves true or correct. Had he not been at home, my guess would have proven wrong.

Many a time we suggest each other, let us be logical but the question is, what is logic? Logic simply put is a statement, a thought, a fact, a step or a link with a definite place in sequence or combination of things that work as a set or unit that has a purpose to fulfil. In other words, logic is a mechanism whereby objects, thoughts or actions are interconnected so that they function properly in order to achieve a set out purpose or end product. If the end product is achieved the logic is sound otherwise not.

Mechanism eg leavers, links, wheels, gears, pulleys, belts, chains, shafts etc etc are interconnected in such a way as to serve a purpose. Take a bike as an example. The mechanism is designed for a set purpose eg for a person to travel from one place to another a bit faster and easier than walking. However, force that is used by a person to move it needs to be transferred from the rider of the bike to the bike wheels in a desired way. So the person must be linked to the bike wheel by a set of mechanical links. If all links are properly connected to each other for this purpose ie for transfer of force the bike will work otherwise it would not. This is logic at work in two respects a) in the sense that things are connected together ie they are combined to work as one unit or a single mechanism b) they are connected in a proper order or sequence. If any two things in this chain of mechanism were not linked together at all or properly, the force that rider applies will not find its way to turn the wheels and the bike would not work thereby proving inconsistency or fault in this mechanism.

Our thoughts and actions also need to be interconnected in a similar manner to show that there is no flaw in our reasoning of things. Just as any mechanical part of the bike connected wrongly, missing or damaged would not allow the bike to function nor would any flaw in our reasoning prove our point. So logic is merely the linkage which could be linking things or their thoughts and actions for a set purpose eg to prove a claim or to make a point. Logic is only and only combinational or sequential ie it is about putting things together as a single functioning unit and about putting things in their proper order that works. If some things are left out or put in wrong order of sequence then they will not work and so the purpose that was set out for the exercise will not be achieved.

Another important term often used by us is, proof. We ask each other, what is your proof for your claim or prove this or that etc etc but we do not give a thought to, what the proof actually is, so the question is what is proof? The answer, a proof is called a proof because it is evident and is complete, perfect or consistent with the allegedly claimed purpose ie it has no holes, imperfections, faults or missing bits in it and is obvious therefore it fulfils the claimed or stated purpose. For example, when we say something is fireproof, what do we mean by it? We mean, it does not catch fire. It is perfect for the purpose of not burning when exposed to fire or that fire cannot find any holes in it to get to it or through it. Word waterproof likewise means that water cannot penetrate the thing that is said to be waterproof, if it does then the thing is not waterproof, for it is damaged or flawed. A claim is only a word and proof is the deed that if it is found according to the claim then proves the claim otherwise disproves it. For example, if one claims to be a plumber then that is only his word but if he could show his claimed plumbing skills in practice then that would prove his claim. However, if he fails then that would prove his claim false.

A proof is a reliable testimony of a witness=certified or approved evidence after thorough examination. It is a testimony that has been found free of all faults and flaws, having no contradictions within and with respect to self evident facts and is perfect for the purpose of the claim ie it backs the claim. A qualified plumber will be given a certificate by a qualified teacher or authority stating that this person fulfils the requirements of being a competent plumber because this fact has been witnessed by the attester. However, the plumber will be tested for his plumbing skills again and again where-ever he goes for a job, just to make sure he has not forged the certificate himself or that he has not forgotten the skill etc etc. He will be given and kept on a job only and only if he keeps on proving himself to the employer and the customer or consumer he is serving or as soon as employer or customer sees him lacking in what is required of him, he will be told to go home.

The question now is, how do we use logic to prove a claim? Let us take for an example a witness, who claims that he saw a man who took out his gun from his pocket and shot another man twice in the head killing him instantly. The question is, is this witness telling us the truth? Well we need to test his sequential logic against itself as well against his own combinational logic. What do I mean by that? By that I mean that we will see whether the sequence of events in the incident as told by this witness are possible or not? If the sequence of events is correct, the claim passes the first hurdle or else not. If the sequence did not make sense to begin with, we will know straightaway that the witness is a liar, for he has failed the very first hurdle. What I mean by sequence is that suppose one has to go from a place called A to a place called B but this involves ten breaks in the journey. Some part of journey is may be by air, some by train, some by bus and some by ship etc etc. Now one needs to make sure that one is on time for each part of one's journey or missing any linked journey will result the person not being able to reach the destination that one set out to reach on time. Earlier I explained how force must get from one point to the other by means of mechanical linkages in case of a bike. The whole idea is to ensure the chain of events is complete or the story would not make the sense the way it is supposed to according to its claimed purpose.

Next we look for things involved in the incident eg the killer, the victim, the murder weapon etc etc etc. If we find all these things then we check them out eg examine the dead body for bullet holes, take out bullets and match them with the gun (the murder weapon) and check out the gun for the fingerprints of the user for example. Once we have all these things, we lay them out together in an orderly manner to show the connection between them eg the killer will be connected to the gun by way of clues like fingerprints. The gun will be connected to the bullets (we recovered from the victim's body) by way of ballistics tests and so one will be able to see clearly that the witness is telling the truth and thus case will be proven against the accused. On the other hand, if our evidence was patchy with a bit missing from here and a bit missing from there, we will not be able to prove the reliability of the witness ie the logic sequence or combination would have in it some steps or bits missing, making little or no sense at all. Evidence is called evidence because it is obvious, hence one cannot call just anything an evidence, it truly has to be evident.

It is also important to realise at this stage that if there exists no way to prove a claim, then claim will not be treated as proven even if the claim may be true as a possibility. It is because as far as we are concerned, if there is no way of doing something then it cannot be done. If something can be done then there has to be a way to do it. However, the burden of proof, the way of proving and actual proving rests with the claimant. It is for others to examine whether the way of proving put forth works or not and whether the evidence put forth as a proof is reliable or not and so the claim has been proven or not. One thing is important though that judgement must be impartial or fair ie according to the presented evidence. It is impossible to twist the reliable evidence hence those who would decide against the presented reliable evidence will be providing evidence against themselves for being partial and unfair. Moreover, today it may be somebody else who you are judging but tomorrow it could be you who is being judged, so better have a system that you would feel comfortable with when things go wrong for you.

I had to explain all this because most of the time it seems that we have problems with the definition of terms like absolute truth, proven truth, probable truth, possible truth, theory, hypothesis, axiom, philosophy, assumption, logic, fact and proof etc etc as well as with the interrelation between them. This is exactly what leads us to confusion about things when it comes to judging the issues for their truth. For example, the truth is categorised into four different categories a) absolute truth, b) proven truth, c) probable truth and d) possible truth. The absolute truth is called an axiom, which is self evident and therefore is common experience or if you like universal. In other words that is how far we can be sure of something or event or phenomenon etc etc. For example, it is absolutely true that there is such a thing called the sun. It is also absolutely true that the sun is a globe and that it is hot and that it is at a distance from the earth. It is not possible for anyone to deny these facts because all this is a universal experience and universally accepted fact. One person therefore cannot accuse another of any wrong doing eg that you must be imagining things or biased etc etc. This is why an axiom is the foundation against which all the rest has to be tested and proved or approved or even disproved. Things that cannot be called universal experience or universally accepted cannot be called axioms or absolute truth.

The next category of truth is that which is weaker than axiom but is stronger than any other form of knowledge and that is called the proven truth. The problem here is that just as axiom is a universal experience the proven truth is not. The proven truth is experience of some people that others only accept because it is proven to them to their satisfaction by way of a proof. The absolute proof is that which is witnessed by the testifier and the testimony proves to be true under test or cross examination. Again such a truth cannot be explained any other way nor denied, because the person who was absent from the event under question cannot contradict the person who was present there. The only thing that can prove the present person wrong is his own self conflicting statement or if it contradicts the self evident facts or axioms or things that are considered absolutely true beyond question. This is why we must and we do look for faults in the statements of a person who claims to be the first hand witness to a fact or an event or a phenomenon.

The next category of truth is, probable truth. This form of truth is not self evident nor there is any reliable witness to it. What one does in this case is, gathers as much as is possible the related clues as evidences and assumes as best explanation as possible for them that one can come up with and accepts this truth on that basis. However, in this case, the best explanation is that which is not self contradictory not contradicts proven or absolute facts and is well detailed but simple or easier to understand. This is the weakest form of proof hence it does not stand against proven truth nor against absolute truth.

The next category of truth is, possible truth ie we cannot be sure about the truth of a matter one way or the other. Hence there is nothing to compel us to go one way or the other. In other words we could come across situations where the clues and explanations are equally valid or for that matter invalid hence we are free to believe or not to believe in the truth of the matter under consideration. So anything that does not fit the categorised truth is absolutely false and there is no doubt about it.

Word theory means an explanation and an explanation is about things or situations or events and phenomena, which is only needed where things could be misunderstood or may not even be understood at all in the absence of the absolute truth or the proven truth. Things that are clear to us do not need any explanation whatsoever. Since explanation is given in the absence of an actual experience or reliable first hand witness therefore it is bound to be an assumption ie it is circumstantial based rather than experience based or reliable first hand witness based. For example, if I saw a murder taking place right in front of myself, I need no proof or explanation as to how it happened, because I know it. However, if I found a dead body and clues around it but no witness then I need to think out what might have happened here all by myself. I could be right as well as wrong, for this will be my assumption or if you like my guess , not an actual or proven fact.

So why a theory may end up as an acceptable or even accepted probable fact is, because it is the best possible explanation around for explaining the situation. Whatever I assume about the dead body, I put it in front of everyone else along with evidences I gathered and they cross examine it. If they find nothing wrong with it nor anything against it, they approve it, perhaps with further supporting evidence. Hence to treat an accepted theory as mere an assumption is incorrect and a serious mistake. Science is all about finding out about things or their aspects that are unknown to us. Maths is best example of that eg a=lb ie area of a rectangle equals length of its longer side multiplied by the length of its shorter side. So those who dismiss science are far from being called knowledgeable people. Anyway this is what makes the accepted theory different from a mere hypothesis or just a guess. It is because just a guess is not as good as a guess that is based upon circumstantial evidence.

Most of the time word theory is used in sense of an explanation but at times it is used in its proper sense ie the best explanation. It is best because it cannot be rivalled or refuted. If it could be rivalled or refuted then it would not be the best, would it? Thus a theory even though a hypothesis differs from hypothesis because hypothesis is merely a guess that may or may not be true whereas an accepted theory is held true and it remains true for as long as we do not have anything to refute or replace it with. Many a time people use terms like absolute, proven and probable interchangeably when it comes to expressing truth about something but that is a serious mistake, because probable truth is not as true as the absolute truth or proven truth. Likewise the weaker evidence is not good enough to refute the stronger evidence.

In rationality rules are necessary to understand things. They are called axioms because they are derived from real situations that face us. We make rules because we need them to solve problems or to reach solutions or conclusions. Philosophy is all about reasoning or rationality. Once we have real problematic situations, we analyse them and by so doing try to figure out their solutions. Once we have solved the problems, the ways we have solved them become the rules. For example, what do you think happened when somebody long ago faced the problem of finding the area of a rectangle? Did he get the revelation from god via an angel telling him how to measure or quantify things or create measuring units? No. The way we did things then that is the way we are still doing them ie the same way eg whenever need arises we devise a system or method and thus solve a problem. When people invented wheel they saw the need for laying down the paths on which the wheel could role or run. Roads were not build because god told people to do so, it was their own need that forced them into inventive thinking ie one step led them to another. Just think about how you yourself figured out things as you grew up. When you decide to do something because your need dictates it to you, then you start thinking and so you start gathering things as and when you realise them.

Maths is full of such inventions eg a=lb. This is the rule but it was invented by using real situation eg one can take a real piece of paper that is measured by using a real ruler and cut 4cm long and 3cm wide. To know the surface area of it, one can cut it into 1cm squares and count them, one will have 12 of them and that is the proof. By realising that if length is timed by breadth of any rectangle of any size we get the same result as by doing the practical exercise, people found a pattern emerging whereby they found a way of solving this problem hence it became a rule, for it worked every time. It was not there till we invented it by trial and error, hence the saying that need is mother of invention.

One must remember that a rule is only a way of doing things, it is not a proof on its own but is deduced from the real situation and that situation many a time can be recreated ie the experiment can be repeated to prove that the rule is correct. So proof is based on deductive reasoning ie it can be shown that it is based on reality. It is such rules that help us know the past as well as help predict the future to a degree. For example, a plant grows 1cm daily. When we measure it one day we find, it is 20cm tall, we therefore know with reasonable certainty that ten days ago it was only 10cm tall. Likewise we can predict that if we measured it after another couple of days, it will be 22cm.

This is what we call knowledge=science. It does not mean some totally baseless assumption that is impossible to verify in any sense whatsoever. Science is all about hypothesis for verification not assumptions that are impossible to verify. Science is study of natural world not supernatural, so calling baseless assumptions, knowledge, is wrong and against such principles. To look at it in another way, knowledge is about knowing something about something. When one says: I know something; think, what one is saying. When you know something then you know it ie you are not ignorant of it in the respect that you are aware of it.


Regards and all the best.

Mughal

Many people take religion to mean just one fixed thing but in my view religion is defined differently by different people. For example, religion at times is defined as culture or if you like a way of life. Since there are different cultures in the world hence there are different religions ie people on the earth have evolved in different directions hence became diverse.

Now word religion is interpreted differently by various human groups. For example, some take religion to be divine in the sense that it is a way of life that came about naturally. Here word divine signifies the comprehensiveness of religion and how widely it is adhered to and not insense of its origin from any god.

Some also take it to mean a god appointed system of life that cannot be transgressed or deviated from or god will become angry and punish etc etc.

Some take religion to mean a way of life that is organised or regulated by human beings themselves so that there is some order in life for sake of ease and betterment of humanity.

Some take it to mean a controlling system invented by dominant members of human societies to secure their status and economic advantage over others.

All these trends of humanity can be explained quite easily if we look at human development or evolution itself. For example, what did the original human being think? How capable was that human being or his children and grand-children and so on.

First of all humans were like animals ie not much capable of thinking. Take the example of a new born baby, what does a baby think about? Now allow him to grow bit by bit and observe how the baby starts learning from within the environment wherein he exists and interacts. Likewise the earliest humans grew into humans of today.

Their first priority was not god, not even where the hell this world come from but survival eg food and shelter from danger as well as reproduction. A baby does not ask questions about world or god, he cries when he is hungry. It were peoples' natural needs that brought them together in form of groups just like other animals. As they became organised into family gangs or clans or even tribes to meet thgere needs, they gradually became more and more aware of their own needs and environment, they began to solve their problems. Only when basic needs of people were met that some began to have spare time to think more and more about their environment and how it might have come about. We are talking here about thousands of human generations before they bagan to reach this stage. It was not an instant thing. The little Knowledge the first generation gained, it passed it to the next generation and the next generation added to that body of knowledge and passed it to their next generation. Thus after hundreds of thousands of generations of people we know what we know today. The daily learning of a person from birth till adulthood accumulates and becomes something significant. This insignificant little steps turn into a giant leap after a certain time. By one step at a time we travel the distance of thousands of miles.

If we keep this in mind then the rest of explanation would begin to make sense.

So original people who thought big posed themselves a question ie where did this world come from? In order to answer this they began to assume various possibilities. For example, they may have thought, somebody may have created it, may be nobody created it because may have been there always or may be it created itself ie it just happened etc etc etc... By thinking and questioning things and ideas people develop bigger and better imaginations or ideas breed ideas. Thus in minds of early human beings there were many things they could not explain because they seemed grand to them eg rain, sunlight, darkness, lightening and thunder etc etc. Looking at such huge things with a tiny mind which hasn't developed yet nor has accumulated much knowledge, they could not think big explanations could they? They were like babies, you see ie babies cannot think big either.

To think big both the biological development of brain must happen as well as the increase in volume of knowledge must occur. The same baby who cannot even talk when born does not let you say a thing when he starts talking. The baby born in our time develops in knowledge faster because we have already banks of knowledge that he has access to, to which babies of earlier humans did not. This gap of knowledge can be imagined between the baby of a rich household and poor household. It is not the difference between biological make up of brain but availability of information to each person. Rich household have access to ways and means to gain more knowledge but poor households do not. This is going to affect then all their lives. For example, people with better know how are likely to get jobs and yes the better ones. So merit is, what you make of it.

Now coming back to various concepts of religion, they came into play along with human development. Natural order of things came about naturally. For example, there is an order emerging on this forum as more and more people are joining in and talking about different things. Slowly some people will become dominant over others in various respects. Nobody is intending this order of things but it emerges all by itself as we interact in this environment. Besides natural emergence of order, when people see need for organising differently, they try and change things the way they see them better for themselves so they reorganise and that brings in new order of things. Likewise, when people saw that the way of life being a very important thing for them and deserved preservation, they gave it social significance and some brought in divine sanction as well because they thought they were doing this in service of humanity. This is how divisions came about between people ie some liked one idea for reason that appealed to them and the other, the other.

There also occurred another problem, just as some people try to dominant other and use things to their advantage so these people began to use the divine aspect of religion to their advantage ie they got the idea of exploiting weaker people in the society to their advantage in the name of god. Thus religion became more and more confusing thing by today because over a very, very long period of time, many different groups of people played many different parts in there (ie some positive and some negative) hence the original purpose of religion is lost into insignificance as far as most people in the world are concerned. It is therefore necessary that we retrace our steps and see religion what it meant to be. In order to do that, it is necessary to examine religion for its truth. For example, which is true origin of religion, the natural way of life or god�s appointed way of life?

If religion is taken as a natural way of life ie the way people decide themselves to live their lives then religion does not cause any problems but helps us learn from what we have gathered so far as knowledge and plain our future with confidence. There is no need for religion in this sense to prove its divine origin and none can use it for exploitation either, for it is basically a rule by people, for the people themselves. However, if we take religion has a god appointed way of life then there arise some serious problems. For example, how do we know for sure that god really exists and that he himself has appoint for us a religion to live by? Do nature of god and the nature of this world work out together or are there inconsistencies between the two? How do we know that this concept of religion is not invented by some clever people to whom it may be giving advantage over others to fool them? This is where a thorough examination of such claims becomes absolutely necessary and that is what is intended in this thread.

Having explained the basic principles involved in learning the truth and having stated the fact that religion as god appointed way of life is the problem hence I will now concentrate only and only on such religions as claimed to be based upon god's word. I will therefore cite the absolute fact that there exist conflicting religions in the world in which we live with conflicting sects within them. This being the case the possibilities are only two a) none of the religions is true and b) only one may be true. It is because if we have more than one claimant or witness to the same thing yet each claimant or witness contradicts the other than they all cannot be telling the truth. Either all of them must be assumed lying or only one of them may be assumed telling the truth.

The question now is, how can we find out who is lying and who is telling the truth? The only possible answer is that we must examine testimonies individually one by one, looking for clues which help us prove them false. If we succeed in proving all of them false, that is fine but if we fail to prove one of them false that too is fine, because that is logical conclusion of such sitautions as an established absolute truth that cannot be denied. What one must remember is that each testimony must be examined exactly the same way. For example, if we are looking for contradictions in one scripture to prove it false, we must do this for everyone of them.

Another point that is worth noting is that we are looking for two things here a) verifiable connection between the allegedly revealed word of god and god himself and b) perfection in the allegedly revealed word of god. For example, if a person says, this is my book and that it is perfect. There are two claims a) about belonging ie to whom belongs the book and b) about perfection ie the book is perfect. Just to establish the book is perfect would not automatically establish to whom it belongs and likewise to establish to whom it belongs would not establish the perfection of the book. These are two separate things that need to be verified individually. For example, the quran is word of god, it is sent by god are two claims and that the quran is perfect is yet another claim. So the question is, is it possible to prove the link between god and the quran being his word and being sent? Also is it possible to prove that the quran is perfect book ie without any kind of fault? We know for a fact that the claims about the quran cannot be categorised as absolute truth otherwise we would not need to raise questions like this.

Such questions as we are asking, only arise because the claims about quran are not the absolute truth. However, if that is not the case then can the claims about the quran be proven truths? That we can only answer yes if the claims about the quran could be proven true. One must also realise that we only need to prove one single fault in any allegation or claim or evidence etc etc to prove it false, however we can prove it true only and only by showing that each and every bit or part of the of the claim or evidence is perfect. In other words proving is much more difficult or harder than disproving. Muslims do claim that the quran is word of god because it is unique and therefore who else could be the author of the quran but the unique being? This idea seems fine till we have a closer look at it, that is Allah is allegedly perfect in every possible respect hence he is unique but is the quran unique in the same way? The answer is, no.

There in lies the problem in the attributive method of linkage. Because if we only and only have attributive basis to establish that something originates from something then either we must be familiar with the signature, the author and the authored or we will fail to establish the connection between the two. For example, suppose that I am a farmer who has grown water melons in his farm. Normally I keep a watch over the farm that things do not damage my crop in the farm but suppose one day I find some water melons damaged by some animal. To establish which animal may be responsible for doing this, I would have to be familiar with the bite marks of various likely suspects, would I not? If I am not familiar then just bite marks on damage melons would not help me establish which animal has done the damage. Looking at it in another way, I can only attribute a piece of writing to you, if I know how you write eg by knowing your handwriting or writing style. This is how the police establish if a letter is written by the person it is attributed to eg by comparing it with his hand writing in other writings he is known to have written.

Note here the point that probability and possibility factors do not apply here because the quran is either the testimony of god or it is not. If it is, it must prove itself as such but if not then that is it ie that is the end of the road. By using the attributive method of proof for establishing the quran as word of god, one is lowering the strength and quality of the evidence ie it is then no longer an absolute truth nor even a proven truth, so all that remains is the fact that the quran may be a probable truth or possible truth or just a false claim. To establish that the quran is a probable truth I have explained what tests it would have to pass. Since the quran cannot be proven as unique as its alleged author mere by attributive method, it loses its credibility even as a probable truth. This brings the quran down to a level where you believe in it as a word of god or not is all your own choice because there no way whatsoever to prove it the word of god. I have used the quran as example to help understand the ideas but the ideas can be applied equally to any alleged divine scripture.

Now this being the case, does it really make any sense at all for anyone to live by what the quran says, or for that matter what any allegedly divine scripture says, when it cannot prove what it says and nor can any of its followers? This is the reason we must keep religion out of politics or be condemned for being unreasonable. If god was as obvious to us as the sun, we would not have any need for any proof or explanation. If god had testified to some people to prove it to others, his testimony should have been provable as such anywhere and everywhere but it is not. Moreover, it would be unfair of god to reveal himself to some and not the others yet expect from each and every person exactly the same response. So god either has to reveal himself to all or none otherwise things do not make sense because they do not work out. That is what the argument is between followers of religions and intellectual thinkers or if you like free thinkers. Since I have laid the foundation here as to how to look at this matter, it should be easier for anyone to familiarise with arguments for and against religion from various religious and anti-religious sites or books etc. For example, regarding examination of the quran, we can read the quran ourselves as well as consult muslims and nonmuslims about it to see what each has to say about it and that would help us to make our own minds up ourselves about it.

seebs

I see a couple of issues here.

First off, I'm pretty sure that the conflicts are caused by innate human xenophobia; in the absence of religion, people will fight over other things.

Secondly, I'm not sure your simple policy of "no religious influence on government" makes any sense at all. At the very best, this is precisely the sort of dogmatic exclusion that we would mostly agree is inappropriate when undertaken by religious people.

However, I think it's worse than that.

For people who have any religion to be involved in government will necessarily create a religious influence on government; it is unreasonable to demand that legislators not consider their own personal moral code, for instance, when asking them to evaluate proposed laws. Furthermore, this violates every principle of representative democracy.

But consider; what would you have them use instead? Morality ends up coming down to value judgments. All value judgments are, in the end, going to come down to personal preferences. Is "I feel like this should be illegal" any better than "I believe God wants this to be illegal"? I don't see why I should prefer one to the other.

Yahzi

Because you can argue with a person, but you can't argue with God.

If you think eating bananas should be illegal, then you have to present an argument. Evidence. Reasons. You have to try and convince me that the benefit outwieghs the cost. We all get together and listen to the arguments and then we vote.

If God thinks eating bananas should be illegal, then you have to make it illegal, or God will send you to Hell. You can't reason with or argue with God: he'll just tell you that your finite mind can't understand, and do what he says or burn.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between these two positions implies that you don't think God's opinion is any more significant than your own. That seems like a strange position for an allegedly religous person to take.

Is conflation a way of life for you? You think that a metaphysical difficulty with science is the same as a complete abscence of evidence for theology, and now you are saying that burning Jews and choosing decaf are simply personal preferences, of no particular distinguishability.

And in any case, you are wrong. The Golden Rule is not personal preference, it is a biological and mathematical fact. If you smack people on the back of the head, you're going to increase your chances of getting smacked on the back of the head, because that's how people work.

Yes, I know, you're going to tell me that not wanting to get smacked on the back of the head is itself a value judgement. And yet, I strongly suspect that were I to smack you on the back of the head, you wouldn't hesitate to object in the strongest possible terms.

Yahzi

I'm surprised he didn't point this out, but seebs strongly disagrees with this statement.

I suspect seebs merely skimmed your epic posts. God knows I did. I pretty much agree, I think, but mostly I think you should inculculate the art of tersness.

seebs

In my experience, arguments with people about what God wants, and arguments with people about what they should want, are identically futile.

Yes, but the underlying principles we use may be incompatible. In the end, as you say, we vote; the majority position wins.

This is an interesting strawman, totally irrelevant to the actual case of what most religious people do when evaluating proposed laws.

Consider a practical example; let's pick a nice and uncontroversial one, like the death penalty.

Have you seen anyone's mind changed on that issue? I haven't. We vote, and the people who lose the vote are very, very, very, upset. If we change the vote, the other people are very upset.

This isn't fundamentally a religion/non-religion issue. This is a question of how we sort our fundamental values, and we cannot easily agree to disagree.

I see no practical difference, in my life, between a law I hate based on someone else's religion, and a law I hate based on someone else's non-religious philosophy.

No. Is lying about me a way of life for you? You sure do it a lot.

No, I don't, and I've pointed that out probably a dozen times.

I said nothing of the sort.

How about, instead of lying whenever what I said doesn't look stupid enough, you just accept that sometimes what I say will be only sorta weird, not totally incoherent.

The reason I don't care whether it's religion or not is that I don't see much difference between, say, Hitler and Stalin. I wouldn't want to live under either. I don't care whether someone forms his position on the death penalty based on Rand's Objectivism, the teachings of Islam, or on simple personal conviction. They're all simple personal convictions. One is one step more direct than the others, perhaps, but they're still personal convictions.

If this meant anything, I think it'd be wrong.

Uh-huh. But you still haven't shown this to be a Good thing or a Bad thing, you've just invited me to consider the possibility that my actions may have consequences. That's not a moral rule.

Ahh, but Bill the Big Tough Guy would be quite happy to accept a rule that, whenever you meet someone, you try to beat them up, winner gets $100. He's happy to be treated that way; the rare times when he loses are more than made up for by his winnings.

There's a good thread over in MF&P on the problems with the Golden Rule.

Suffice it to say that, by the time you nip and tuck and fold and spindle and mutilate it into working all the time, you've invented a moral system that would do the Pharisees credit, and it still doesn't work quite all the time.

seebs

No I don't. I agree entirely. If a claim can't be proven, it can't be proven, so it shouldn't be treated as proven. It may, however, be useful to treat it as true. But true and proven are not the same thing...