Evoken

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. --David Hume

--------

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all? --Richard Dawkins

--------

These quotes outline the subject I would like to discuss in this thread. They also express, even tho I do not agree entirely with Dawkins, one of the main reasons that lead me to give to stop bothering with religion. That is, religion seems to be non-practical and non-sensical or in other words...irrelevant.

What practical use do religious statements have? What do they mean and what relevance do their meaning have over what we do everyday in our lives? In what way do they provide us with useful knowledge about the world?

Consider the following claims.

-Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven.
-Souls that depart this life in a state of original sin are expluded from the beatific vision of God.
-In God there are two internal divine processions.
-The son proceeds from the intellect of the father by way of generation.
-Santifying grace is a supernatural state of being which is infused by God.
-God is a trinity
-Man is born in a state of original sin
-etc...

I could list more similar statements. The question now is, what relevance or use do any of these statements have? Like Hume I am tempted to ask. Do they provide us with any practical knowledge about the world? No. Do they provide us with any knowledge which helps us in anyway in a working enviroment? No. Do they provide any sort of scientific insight? No. Do they help us relate better with other people? Get a job? Build a house(for example)?, etc? No. Like Dawkins, I also think that these statements don't do anything, don't affect anything and don't mean anything. So as Hume says in the quote, then shall they be cast into the flames as nothing but sophistry and illusion? I think so, yes.

Not even God is useful as an explanation for anything, it yields as much knowledge and as much results as the above statements, that is..none. These sort of religious expression lacks any sort of concrete evidence, it also lacks any sort of practical utility and meaning which would make them relevant over anything that we do in our lives. They do not have anything, they are just empty statements about nothing. Theology itself seems to be the study of nothing.

Even in areas that you think they are practical, like "don't steal", "don't kill", "love your neighbor as yourself", etc. The statements by themselves are enought and the religious layer added to them is superfluos.

Now, I understand and respect that some people find meaning and purpose in their lives with religion and belief in God. I know how it feels to believe in God, so I respect that. So, this is not really and attack of any sort against religion but it is simply how things appear to me and it is also part what lead me to step outside of it and aim for a more practical and relevant view.

That said, anybody has any additional comments?


Have a good one,
Valz

Stumpjumper

Valz I gotta admit I'm really confused.

I thought you were a Christian, and one that had some sort of beef with liberals and homosexuals among others. In regards to your argument tho, those answers tell us nothing unless we ask the right questions. Aspects of the trinity do not tell me anything about my everyday life nor should anyone expect such answers to tell them anything if they don't ask the questions.

general_koffi

You could be describing philosophy in general.

The purpose these statement serve is to reinforce and generally add "meat" to religious (Catholic, in this case) dogma.

For instance:

This helps add to the explanation of how Jesus was born without original sin.

The fear-based element of Catholic dogma. This is to help ensure that Catholics conform to their faith.

Complex and intelligent-sounding explanations of how Jesus, His father and the Holy Spirit are all different yet equal parts of one entity. It helps avoid problems where someone might challenge Jesus' authority on the grounds of something His father allegedly did or said. The Holy Spirit is raised to Godliness primarily, IMO, to explain why God sent it to the apostles with the tongues of flame instead of going Himself.

This tries (rather badly, IMO) to explain why we aren't already in a state of heaven.

---

They have a purpose for those that believe they're true. I guess their most practical purpose is to keep the machinery of the Catholic Church together in the face of intellectual challenge.

southernhybrid

I agree that religion has lost most of its relevancy in the modern world. Religion originally served a purpose in codifying morality, where there was little, and to some extent it still facilitates groups that do charity work, provides for community and social connection, but these things do not require religion, and can be provided by secular means. Morality is certainly not something dependent on religion, and in fact religious morality is sometimes far from ethical as history demonstrates.

Religion is more about awe, wonder and hope than about anything practical. Having said that, nature provides plenty of opportunity for one to be filled with awe and wonder, while hope is something that each individual must find on his own, whether through religion or some other means. Religion could be seen as poetry, metaphor, and inspiration but it has little or nothing to offer when it comes to substance. Religion only makes sense when it's not taken literally. The value of religion lies hidden in the eyes of those who embrace it.

I think this is a very good OP and I regret that I will miss it since I'm leaving town to enjoy the beauty and splendor of nature and symbollically bring in the new year without the shackles or benefits, depending on your perspective, of religion.

Evoken

Well, I was but I am not one anymore. The topic of the OP and other reasons are what lead me to step out of it.

As far as having a "beef" with liberals, homosexuals and others. I really have no position for or against it at the moment. But one thing I'll add tho, being a Naturalist does not entails being a liberal. I think that the liberal and conservative label is somewhat limited because I stand between both.

Well, what are the right questions then? Do you think that if we ask the right questions these statements will turn practical and give tangible results? I doubt it but feel free to convince me.


Valz

Evoken

Maybe, perhaps some philosophical statements/positions but not all.

Oh I agree, they only make sense within the context of Catholic dogma(in this case). The issue is that the whole context suffers from the same problems as the individual statements, it is non-practical and non-sensical.

Even the statement "God created the universe" is meaningless. What useful knowledge does it provides? Does it offers any insight about the world? What practical use does it serves?

I understand what they are and why they were made. The thing is that they are meaningless statements used to counter other meaningless statements. Wether Jesus is both God and Man or only man, wether Jesus is equal to the father and the Holy Spirit equal to both or Jesus being created by the father, wether Mary was assumed into heaven or not, etc. All of those statements are vacuous and simply do not yield any useful and relevant knowledge about the world and what we do everyday in our lives.

The thing is general_koffi, that this very statements are the ones that are supposed to be infallible revelation from an omnimax god. But what good do a bunch of infallible and divinely revealed statements with no meaning or utility do? Their existence or nonexistence is indistinguishable.

Then they are useless.


Valz

general_koffi

Well, the people who believe they're true think they're important for the health and integerity of their eternal soul.

It doesn't help with life because Christianity places more emphasis on death.

Evoken

Which is another meaningless statement

Well Christianity(Catholicism in this case) does makes many claims about things that are supposed to happen during our life. Miracles, being born with original sin that is washed at baptism, being absolved of mortal and venial sins, the real presence, etc. Miracles are a different case but the other claims are also vacuous and intangible. You do not feel that you are in a state of original sin, venial or mortal sin nor do you feel anything when you are baptized or absolved from sins. The state of being in a state of sin or in a state of grace is the same thing. One is supposed to believe in the real presence, that is, that the bread and wine actually(not symbolically) turn into the body and blood of Jesus, but they still remain bread and wine, so they don't turn into anything really.

As far as miracles go, have you seen any miracle or appearance which has yield any useful knowledge or utility about anything? A statue of the virgin crying, a guy with stigmatas, an image in a wall, etc. It is useless and irrelevant.


Valz

Plognark

And here you've unlocked one of the biggest keys to my (weak) atheism.

As far as I can tell, these concepts are just parts of the memetic complex that is religion. In the same way that a genetic mutation can improve the fitness of a creature and thus be more likely to spread through the population, these concepts are like meme mutations that add fitness to the memetic complex.

Of course, memes are considerably harder to quantify than genes, I think. They can transfer laterally and they can be lost if an individual rejects them, and there's no physical unit, like a gene, that can really be detected. Even breaking them down to simple linguistic elements and concepts isn't easy, as different people will interpret the same phrase or basic concept differently.

Unfortunately that's the only tangible point I can find to the concepts you've outlined; to perpetuate the memetic complex. A meme doesn't even have to be beneficial to the 'host', it just has to be really good at spreading really fast.

That's why ideas like original sin, armagedon, and eternal damnation are so pernicious. They are, by and large, rather detrimental to the well being of the host, but they have the effect of scaring the crap out of people and triggering the risk/reward analysis part of our brain.

fatpie42

We don't sound too different. Not being American myself I have no idea what "liberal" is meant to mean. In Britain I would support conservative, but there really isn't much difference between Conservative and Labour here.

In America conservative seems to mean pro-Christianity, pro-guns and anti-homosexual (which to me means 'pro-bigotry'). I have converted (or 'deconverted' as they say here) to atheism so I don't like the first position. Guns freak me out so I don't like the second. I have gay friends and I don't think there is anything wrong with them accepting and partaking in their sexuality, so I don't like the third.

I can't see how you can have an non-religious reason to dislike homosexuality. But perhaps someone can tell me in brief what a 'liberal' is meant to be?