Wyrdsmyth

Indoctrinated. What a choice of a word. It conjures up images of group hypnosis and teaching people to respond to certain stimuli... Maybe that is indeed what religion is all about, but generally most mainstream religions like to differentiate themselves from cults. It's a PR thing... are their methods all really that different? I don't know. I think the level of "indoctrination" is relative to several different factors, how much the subject is removed from outside influences, how much the subject is free to think and act, and the level of reinforcement from others in the same belief system. But I don't think most religious people are under a "mass hypnosis" or something like that, but because they genuinely want to believe. Most religions speak to the deepest human hope and fears. They give answers to the "important" questions we ask, and are unable to answer on our own.

Of course, that doesn't mean they're true. It just begins to explain their immense appeal. You don't "indoctrinate" children to eat lots of candy; if you present it to them, they will. The same is true with religion. If you give people a god to worship, a creed to believe in and say together, and an afterlife to look forward to, many are going to naturally gravitate towards it. Like children to a chocolate bar, so are the masses drawn to religion, mysticism and belief in the supernatural.

Some will argue that this indeed attests to the "truth" of their religion, the fact that it speaks to deep human needs, and that so many have found it satisfying, is evidence in favor of it's being true. But then again, big colorful ads from retailers speak to our hopes and desires as well, and so do movie trailers. People have learned how to use mass appeal in a number of ways. Are we all indoctrinated by Hollywood and New York ad agencies?

Again, you're going to have to figure this out for yourself. When you ask a lot of questions, and really try to pin down the particulars of the religious experience... well, you'll see.

I call Pascal's Wager "Horsetrack Theology." It's the seediest and shadiest of all theologies. I don't think any God is going to be too impressed if he asks you why you believed on Judgment Day, and you say, "Hey, I had nothing to lose!" Like some kind of sleazy, horsetrack gambler. He looks in your heart of hearts, and that is what he sees.

Wyrdsmyth

I've always had this exact same reaction. Like, "Come off of it, Aquinas!" I imagine the ancient Hebrew people, huddled around a fire in the desert, and coming up with a god to trump all other gods. Not just "really powerful" but "all powerful."

Wyrdsmyth

At dinnertime, I scoop out a big pile of steaming horsepoop and dump it on your plate.
How's that?

phlebas

Just out of curiosity, Tercel, would you happen to have any references to any of these events handy? I confess I haven't heard of spontaneous bone healing before, but suddenly over the last couple of weeks I'm hearing it a lot.

I don't believe it, of course But I'd like to know where these stories are coming from and what "scientific" research is done on them.

WWSD

The exact cause of MS is unknown, therefore I'd like to ascribe responsibility for its occurence to god. What a nice guy. What an even nicer guy to cure it for some people who pray and not for others who pray. Is MS a punishment from god or a result of "the fall?" And why does god choose only to heal some of his followers while letting the others slowly degenerate until they finally suffer from respritory failure or the like and die?
Also, what happens to the prayer theory if I or someone else can produce a case study showing that an atheist who did not pray spontaneously recovered from a terminal illness or other malady?

Jayhawker Soule

OK

• Personal FeelingsTherefore, you would no doubt accept past life experiences as substantiating karma and reincarnation?
• Personal Testimony
  What of personal testimonies regarding ghosts and UFOs?
• Scientific Testimony
  For example?
• Argument from the Resurrection
  Never happened. By the way, what "good arguments for rational belief" do you derive from the resurrection of Osiris?
• The Cosmological Argument - What is the First Cause?
  Assuming there was one, I don't know, and neither do you.
• Big Bang Cosmology - What is the First Cause?
  See above.
• The Fine Tuning Argument
  Anthropocentric conceit. By the way, as Quinten Smith notes, the "fine tuning" argument is no less supportive of a malevolent creator.
• The Moral Argument
  You've got to be kidding.
• Consciousness
  This appeal to the "god of the gaps" becomes less and less satisfying with each advance in neuroscience.
• The Teleological Argument
  This creationist argument substitutes "purpose" for "result" and, when confronted with evil and 'design anomalies', can only mumble inane platitudes about god operating in mysterious ways.

It is interesting to note that, of the 10 "good arguments for rational belief", 9 have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. The one exception has no credibility.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

ecco

I would change…

…a little to read: A person is told about god and religion from their earliest remembrances. This is fortified by ongoing reinforcement throughout their formative years.

How else can one explain that in the West, Christianity is the dominant religious belief and in the Near East, the dominant religious belief is Islam. The only difference between belief in Santa Clause and Jesus is that, as a child gets older, his family and peers come around and explain that Santa is not really real.

From Tercel:

Tercel, this statement is pure and utter bullsh!t. If you truly believe it, I suggest the following:
1-Get in touch with James Randi.
2-Accept his $1,000,000 challenge.
3-In front of his panel, have someone break your leg.
4-Pray that the break gets miraculously healed.

You will leave with either a broken leg or One Million Dollars. Tercel, please let us know how you make out. If indeed your leg were healed, a lot of us would probably be interested in converting.

HRG

While I agree that the rock example is silly, here is a tougher nut to chew on:

Let S be the set of actions that God can do (S is of course infinite and R-E-A-L-L-Y B-I-G).

For any subset T of S, let's call A(T) the action that God thinks simultaneously about all actions x which are members of T. A(T) is an action, thus a member of S. If T&lt;&gt;T', A(T) will also be &lt;&gt;A(T').

Since every A(T) is an action which God can do, the set B of all A(T) is a subset of S. Contradiction to Cantor's theorem that the set of all subsets of S cannot be mapped into S (Proof upon request).

Regards,
HRG.

Draygomb

Huh,

If Y=(all self referencing sets) then Y can be either in or out of the set.

Olorin

But going back to that rock thing:

The Christian God (and maybe others) is claimed to be omnipotent. By definition omnipotent means to have unlimited power. So we are looking at a divine being with the ability to do anything.

God creates a rock that is too heavy to be lifted by God. Is this an action that can be included in the set of actions defined as "anything"? Now we must make the distinction between any logical action, and any action (all those being logical or logically impossible).

If you are omnipotent there is nothing that you can not do. Thus you are able to perform logically impossible actions.

If you can not perform these, then you are not omnipotent, because there is something that you can not do.

If you are to remain classified as omnipotent, then these logically impossible actions must not apply to you.

What does all this mean? Well, to me it looks like Christians are worshiping a God that has its actions limited by human logic. What!! Actions limited!!?? Well then it's not omnipotent after all...