Who cares? I certainly don't, because as far as I'm concerned religious beliefs are either bullshit or blasphemy. Either God doesn't exist, or God exists, has better things to do than worry about...
Who cares? I certainly don't, because as far as I'm concerned religious beliefs are either bullshit or blasphemy. Either God doesn't exist, or God exists, has better things to do than worry about us, and all of our religions are just people putting words in God's mouth. All I ask of religious people keep their beliefs to themselves, or at least have the decency to refrain from trying to legislate them into laws that everybody else must obey regardless of whether they share your beliefs.
Let me play devil's advocate. Say you believed so completely in the teachings, that to not even attempt to spread the world would be just incongruous, cannot compute. You know of a large imminent...
Let me play devil's advocate. Say you believed so completely in the teachings, that to not even attempt to spread the world would be just incongruous, cannot compute. You know of a large imminent catastrophe and are doing nothing about it, and you know how to help them, everyone - if only they would listen.
How do you even begine to argue, I don't think you can really. Reform needs to come from the religios side.
Actions speak louder than words. Don't tell me about Jesus. Show me. Do as Jesus did. Stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Make me curious before you give me your spiel.
You know of a large imminent catastrophe and are doing nothing about it, and you know how to help them, everyone - if only they would listen.
Actions speak louder than words. Don't tell me about Jesus. Show me. Do as Jesus did. Stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Make me curious before you give me your spiel.
I would say most Christians I know are pleasant enough people on a personal level; they tend to be charitable and are the kind of people it's enjoyable to have a cookout or go to the beach with,...
I would say most Christians I know are pleasant enough people on a personal level; they tend to be charitable and are the kind of people it's enjoyable to have a cookout or go to the beach with, and engage in light conversation. But on a societal level, these same people use their religion as justification to strip and curtail my rights and those of millions more, and support some truly awful politics that perpetuate human suffering, and endanger democracy and even life on Earth. In light of this, it's a little difficult to take their personal behavior at face value.
I do agree, it's one thing to be "nice" and another to force your believes on someone else. There should a strong divide in religion and state. However, I think if we're talking about politics and...
But on a societal level, these same people use their religion as justification to strip and curtail my rights and those of millions more, and support some truly awful politics that perpetuate human suffering, and endanger democracy and even life on Earth. In light of this, it's a little difficult to take their personal behavior at face value.
I do agree, it's one thing to be "nice" and another to force your believes on someone else. There should a strong divide in religion and state. However, I think if we're talking about politics and harm, I have a bigger issue with Nestle than I do with Christians.
The two aren't unrelated. Outside of black churches, the Christian left is dead in the US. Politically organized religion by and large operates as a wing of the Republican party due to their...
However, I think if we're talking about politics and harm, I have a bigger issue with Nestle than I do with Christians.
The two aren't unrelated. Outside of black churches, the Christian left is dead in the US. Politically organized religion by and large operates as a wing of the Republican party due to their shared social conservativism, and through ideas like the prosperity gospel, it allies Christianity with corporate interests.
This is just my two-cents, because honestly I can't prove this, it's more what I feel. However, this is sort of chicken and the egg for me. The corporate interests are there, but I don't believe...
This is just my two-cents, because honestly I can't prove this, it's more what I feel. However, this is sort of chicken and the egg for me. The corporate interests are there, but I don't believe they are driven by Christians (and their beliefs). It's that people looking to profit are driving it in the name of religion. And I'm using "in the name of" loosely. I think their tactics is more than that.
Whether religion is rational or not doesn't matter because profit is real.
Edit to add: I realize I'm being a bit pedantic. I definitely do see the religious right trying to limit the rights and freedoms of a lot of peoples.
I just read the Wikipedia article on Barabbas, and I still don't quite understand what you're saying. Do you mean that most Christians would condemn Jesus to crucifixion for the benefit of a...
I just read the Wikipedia article on Barabbas, and I still don't quite understand what you're saying. Do you mean that most Christians would condemn Jesus to crucifixion for the benefit of a demagogue?
I think most USian Christians would condemn Jesus to crucifixion. Furthermore, I think many of them would vie for the privilege of hammering in the nails themselves.
Do you mean that most Christians would condemn Jesus to crucifixion for the benefit of a demagogue?
I think most USian Christians would condemn Jesus to crucifixion. Furthermore, I think many of them would vie for the privilege of hammering in the nails themselves.
Ask them to look at the past two thousand years and understand that that message has been delivered enough times and also a million times that. Who didn't listen and don't listen won't listen. I...
How do you even begine to argue, I don't think you can really.
Ask them to look at the past two thousand years and understand that that message has been delivered enough times and also a million times that. Who didn't listen and don't listen won't listen.
I generally troll religious people (because reason doesn't work and they troll you first) as such: they learn that I'm irreligious, get a shock, and talk about the usual stuff, then I ask "How do you know about God's word?". The answer is usually the book (generally Quran in my case). Then I ask "How can you be sure of the authority of the book?" Answer: "Because it's God's word!" Q: "How do you know that it's God's word?" A: no real A. From that point on you can enjoy a monologue that ranges from theology to cosmology, biology to physics, and philosophy to history. Usually they are bored or confused at the end, and change the subject.
In my experience, the religious person's brain just doesn't work like that of an irreligious person. What's completely logical to one side is just nonsense to the other (and yes, I realize logic...
In my experience, the religious person's brain just doesn't work like that of an irreligious person. What's completely logical to one side is just nonsense to the other (and yes, I realize logic doesn't work that way, but it's hard to make them see that).
They have to defend superstition, to which they are tied with great fear: I don't know of a major religion where leaving the religion and blasphemy is not a big sin. And an irreligious people is...
They have to defend superstition, to which they are tied with great fear: I don't know of a major religion where leaving the religion and blasphemy is not a big sin. And an irreligious people is doing that by definition, and possibly inviting them to do so too. At that point, the religious person find themselves between apparently reasonable arguments but also invaded with the fear of hell or similar. I think it's understandable when they resort to every possible way to defend their point.
I personally avoid talking about these matters w/ very religious people (religious in that faithful, not fully adhering to a certain religion; because fairly secular people with little ties to religion can be very hard to talk to too, those little ties may end up being very strong). Never is it productive. But when it's a religious person with some amount of scepticism that you're talking to, it has the chance of being productive and enjoyable discussion.
Religion is nonsequitur: God exists. Thus, religion exists. This is what we have in all Abrahamitic religions. (1) is not proven. And even if it is, (2) is not a direct result of it. So even if we...
Religion is nonsequitur:
God exists.
Thus, religion exists.
This is what we have in all Abrahamitic religions. (1) is not proven. And even if it is, (2) is not a direct result of it. So even if we accept (1), (2) is not proven on its basis. The general argument about that begins and ends like this:
God exists. How do we know? There are holy books. How do we know that they are holy? They are God's word. How do we know they are God's word? The only feasible answer is: the books say so. Where does the authority of these books come from? God. How do we know? The books say so. [...] How do we know that there is a god? Because [teleological argument]. That can be true, but why would that God communicate us, via a book or not, and if so, why these books in particular? How do we know these books are the ones? Because these texts are so perfect that they could only be written under divine inspiration. How do you know? Because I know.
Frankly, I can't consider that fair. That is certainly not how the theology is approached within either Judaism or Christianity. Holy books are approached by those that study them as historical...
Frankly, I can't consider that fair. That is certainly not how the theology is approached within either Judaism or Christianity.
Holy books are approached by those that study them as historical documents, not as some divine object that has to believed at all costs. (Apart from the Qu'ran, which is believed to be direct word-of-mouth from Allah, and as such is above examination.)
All your questions are indeed answered, and have been answered repeatedly throughout history.
Let me try and break down the argument, because it isn't correct. I don't know of anyone with theological training at any level who would agree to it. Its the sound of someone trying desperately to hold onto a belief they simply haven't understood.
Are these documents perfect in nature?
No. Very much no.
a) Corrections to translations are frequently issued.
b) There is a vast swathe of documents excluded from usage in translation because they do not match the rigor required for authentication and verification. Some translations may include some parts of these contested documents, but highlight them by telling any reader that are contested.
And as we continue to understand, examine, test and discover both new and old documents alike, we will continue to update our translations of the corpus.
How do we know these documents are the ones we should focus on?
Authentication and verification.
Any document that could not be verified as an accurate historical document, through several points in history, have been excluded from the canon that makes up the series of documents you know as a special book. Even if the various authorities at those times wished to continue to include a certain document, is was removed if it was not credible enough.
Other semi-authentic documents have surfaced over time, but none is within an order of magnitude of the authentication of the documents that have been verified.
How do we know that they are God's word?
You probably need to redefine what you think of as God's word. It conjures up imagery where God says it, and so it becomes so.
But that isn't correct here. This is not God's autobiography. It is a history of a people, that contains the narrative of their God.
It's God's message, told throughout history. That is clear enough from the content. The writer's wrote with intent, in quite a varied number of genres, which seems to be to explain their history, and their God.
How do we know that they are holy?
They're only holy if you believe in the narrative they present. Flat.
Does God exist?
The documents, by themselves, are not able to answer that question.
They can provide significant documentation that he may have, depending on how much of the corpus your belief structure leans on...
But there is a reason is called 'faith'.
The question of God's existence, is an unproveable one.
Addendum: There are a significant number of people who don't know the answers to these questions. They simply believe on 'blind faith'. That kind of faith, is derided by the Abrahamic God. It is not derided by the several thousand years of authority figures who took advantage of it, and used it to manipulate the masses. But those actions cannot be reconciled with any deep understanding of the figure presented within the corpus as God, and his will.
You approach Christianity as if it is a uniform group. What you describe is almost exactly opposite every christian I have ever seen, most of whom believe that the Bible is either the direct word...
You approach Christianity as if it is a uniform group. What you describe is almost exactly opposite every christian I have ever seen, most of whom believe that the Bible is either the direct word of God (they are usually the types who say the King James version is the only true Bible), is divinely inspired, or otherwise is taken as 100% true on faith.
I know the basics of what I've outlined are taught to those wanting to preach (priest, pastor, etc) in Catholicism, the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church, the Baptist church, the Lutheran...
I know the basics of what I've outlined are taught to those wanting to preach (priest, pastor, etc) in Catholicism, the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church, the Baptist church, the Lutheran church, Churches of Christ, and others.
If they've failed to pass it on, that's on the teacher (priest, pastor, etc).
However, I did say a large number of people do 'take it on faith' - which isn't acceptable to the Abrahamic God, who demands thought and consideration before belief. It's simple hypocracy that irritates both believers and unbelievers alike.
Sidenote: the King James translation, though useful in it's time for enabling more people to read, is an abomination. I'm not aware of any church who hasn't rejected it as the Frankenstein's monster of a translation it is.
I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church, so most of where I heard the KJV loyalty to is from there. But you will get that out of most fundamentalist sects.
I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church, so most of where I heard the KJV loyalty to is from there. But you will get that out of most fundamentalist sects.
Just want to clarify that this was particularly your southern baptist church, as the SBC allows for the autonomy of the local church. However, the SBC doesn't specify KJV-only, especially as ESV...
Just want to clarify that this was particularly your southern baptist church, as the SBC allows for the autonomy of the local church. However, the SBC doesn't specify KJV-only, especially as ESV has become the most popular translation. Previously, the NSB was quite popular. Generalizations like this don't help the conversation as they're generally untrue.
My personal anecdote may not be "helpful", but I would appreciate it if you didn't try to rewrite my personal experiences. It's very insulting. When I was younger I went to multiple churches...
My personal anecdote may not be "helpful", but I would appreciate it if you didn't try to rewrite my personal experiences. It's very insulting.
When I was younger I went to multiple churches because my family moved a lot. I also spent many summers in christian camps, twice in one owned by the SBC, where I came across other people who advocated the KJV as the best translation (as well as others who advocated other versions).
Yeah but arguing religion based on logic is never going to work - your arguing on your home territory not theirs. They are the ones who made the jump and are trying to explain it to you on your...
Yeah but arguing religion based on logic is never going to work - your arguing on your home territory not theirs. They are the ones who made the jump and are trying to explain it to you on your terms (using logic) so refuting that will just lead them to back down or give up trying to convince you.
I think you will have more success if you argue in the terms they set out, belief, miracles, gods love, what ever it may be. Very few people are truly religion for logical reasons so trying to argue someone on those terms is never going to work.
Arguing religion in any way will not easily work be cause religion is a refutation of nature, even when it looks like it's quite in line with it. We basically say what we think and maybe put it...
Arguing religion in any way will not easily work be cause religion is a refutation of nature, even when it looks like it's quite in line with it. We basically say what we think and maybe put it out there, and wait for the religious to understand what they are doing wrong.
Apatheism. I don't care concern myself with the question of religion because the answer doesn't make any real impact upon my life. Well, I guess I care a little bit enough to make comments about...
Apatheism. I don't care concern myself with the question of religion because the answer doesn't make any real impact upon my life.
Well, I guess I care a little bit enough to make comments about apatheism in discussions about religion on the Internet.
I just don't buy the notion that a God capable of creating the entire universe (and possibly a multiverse) would be particular about one species of primates on one particular planet orbiting one...
I just don't buy the notion that a God capable of creating the entire universe (and possibly a multiverse) would be particular about one species of primates on one particular planet orbiting one particular main-sequence star situated in one of the arms of one particular galaxy. Nor do I buy the notion that such a God needs our love, needs us to pray to it/them, or cares about what we do with our genitals, when, where, and with whom. Such a God seems too vast to have such concerns.
I just find the Abrahamic notion of a personal God who makes a covenant with humanity and expects certain behavior from us as nonsensical as that of a God needing to borrow the USS Enterprise. It's easier to dismiss religion as mere humans trying to make sense of something they not only don't understand, but can't ever understand because they don't have the right tools.
I'm personally of the opinion that the realm of God/s is only unknowable until it isn't. Why the sun rose each day and fell each night was once the realm of the Gods until we learned of...
I'm personally of the opinion that the realm of God/s is only unknowable until it isn't. Why the sun rose each day and fell each night was once the realm of the Gods until we learned of heliocentrism. The weather was once the realm of Gods until we learned of the water cycle. etc.. etc... etc... Similarly, life and death is currently the realm of the Gods, but even that may soon change with genetic engineering, telomere regenerative gene therapy using CRISPR and various other related scientific discoveries. God of the gaps, and those gaps get smaller with each passing generation.
And I'm also more of a Bertrand Russell fan than that of your namesake. ;)
We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups substitute different emotions.
"God of the gaps" fails because it presupposes that you can't have a scientific understanding of how something works while also having a religious connection to it. The sun is a great example, the...
"God of the gaps" fails because it presupposes that you can't have a scientific understanding of how something works while also having a religious connection to it. The sun is a great example, the knowledge of the sun's physical nature does not diminish the grandeur and majesty of it, its sense of power, the beauty of its cycle, it's daily rise and fall, etc. If anything physical science has amplified these, by making it clear just how essential the sun is to life.
This modern (mostly online) atheistic tendency to elevate "rationality" above all else is the height of foolishness imo, especially when our experience of the world is fundamentally subjective. To me rejecting religion and spirituality out of hand like many people in this thread are doing is as absurd as rejecting logic or reason. True humanity lies in the synthesis of the two, to do otherwise is to try to walk with one leg.
From a purely pragmatic, scientific standpoint, religious beliefs are irrational. You're placing every ounce of your faith in the existence of an all-powerful, divine being that no one could ever...
From a purely pragmatic, scientific standpoint, religious beliefs are irrational. You're placing every ounce of your faith in the existence of an all-powerful, divine being that no one could ever possibly provide evidence of existing. There's nothing rational about that.
From a more empathetic and humanist standpoint, religious beliefs are perfectly rational. The universe seems to have appeared out of nothing, with no satisfiable, intuitive explanation for how it came to exist. Pointing to the theorized "Big Bang" isn't helpful because intuitively it still make no sense, e.g. "if the Big Bang was basically an explosion of condensed matter and energy, then where did all of that matter and energy come from in the first place?". Furthermore, consciousness is a strange, abstract concept and it can be terrifying to think that it would just suddenly cease to exist in an instant. On top of all of that, the idea of being brought into the world, living out decades of your life, then dying with nothing left of you remaining, all without there being an actual, inherent purpose to it all just seems weird. Naturally these abstract concepts of the beginning of the universe and consciousness, the fear of death and non-existence, and the confusion from lack of inherent purpose lead people to seek out explanations that give them a sense of peace and resolution, and religion happens to solve all of those problems for them. An all-powerful being who created the universe gives you life and purpose and then welcomes you to paradise afterward--beginning, middle, and end of your life and the universe's, explained all in one book. That's very appealing to many, many people.
I'll clarify that there was an implied "traditional" preceding "religious beliefs". Speaking more generally, I'm referring to religious beliefs which provide an emphasis on the origin of the...
I'll clarify that there was an implied "traditional" preceding "religious beliefs". Speaking more generally, I'm referring to religious beliefs which provide an emphasis on the origin of the universe, meaning, and the afterlife, including those which believe in reincarnation, and evidence pertaining to whether or not these metaphysical processes exist. I just went with the most well-known religions that typically center around one or more divine beings for brevity's sake :)
Although Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all middle-Eastern in origin, and Hinduism is Indian in origin ;) I get what you mean, of course, but I'm definitely considering non-Christian...
Although Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all middle-Eastern in origin, and Hinduism is Indian in origin ;)
I get what you mean, of course, but I'm definitely considering non-Christian religions as well. Perhaps "traditional" was the wrong word, and "popular" a better one. You'll have to forgive my poor wording, as I've been typing up my replies while at work between tasks.
Totally off-topic but I was waiting for the day when you and Emerald_Knight might finally lock horns (in a productive discussion sort of way) over some meaty topic. You both (along with...
Totally off-topic but I was waiting for the day when you and Emerald_Knight might finally lock horns (in a productive discussion sort of way) over some meaty topic. You both (along with @BuckeyeSundae) are probably the most philosophically minded of all the users I have seen so far on the site. ;)
I'm not sure how accurate that is, and I'm finding it weird to think that I have any sort of reputation, but I'm glad to know that I've left a positive impression for at least some people rather...
I'm not sure how accurate that is, and I'm finding it weird to think that I have any sort of reputation, but I'm glad to know that I've left a positive impression for at least some people rather than just flat-out annoying everyone with my long, drawn-out opinion pieces :)
I will say, though, that I was far more philosophically minded back in high school when I was at the peak of my depression and teenage angst, grappling with religious and general identity, and struggling with defining a sense of purpose. That was an interesting period.
Not a reputation so much as simply an observation. You, Kant and Buckeye seem to be willing and able, more than most, to engage in esoteric discussion. And LOL, I think we all went through that...
Not a reputation so much as simply an observation. You, Kant and Buckeye seem to be willing and able, more than most, to engage in esoteric discussion. And LOL, I think we all went through that phase. I was raised Catholic, rejected it when I found Zen Buddhism, now subscribe to neither but consider myself a secular humanist (but still practice zazen meditation). Depression, anxiety and angst were the driving forces behind my personal exploration in beliefs during high school as well. ;)
Haha, fair enough! I was raised Christian myself, realized that I didn't really believe in it for the right reasons or feel any of the things pretty much any other Christian felt, eventually...
Haha, fair enough!
I was raised Christian myself, realized that I didn't really believe in it for the right reasons or feel any of the things pretty much any other Christian felt, eventually decided "I don't know", determined that it's impossible to find an actual answer with satisfactory evidence, and ultimately settled on being an atheist with the mindset of "if a god does exist and they're worth worshiping, then I'm sure I'll be judged by my actions and not by my worship while I'm on this Earth".
It's fairly non-committal, but it's the kind of flexible go-with-the-flow mindset that works for me.
Also, I'd be interested in seeing what happens if Kant, Buckeye and I were all put in the same room. "Kant, BuckeyeSundae, and Emerald_Knight walk into a bar..."
That's very similar to my mindset as well, but perhaps with a more solid lean towards "...but they very likely don't exist so it's not worth worrying about", rather than the totally non-committal...
That's very similar to my mindset as well, but perhaps with a more solid lean towards "...but they very likely don't exist so it's not worth worrying about", rather than the totally non-committal or flexible "I don't know" stance. At the same time I don't look down on anyone who does believe, in fact I somewhat envy those who can, just that I don't and probably never will.
Sometimes it seems as if everyone who has a problem with religion actually has a problem with religions who have anthropomorphized god(s). Gods who have human-like characteristics, both physical...
An all-powerful being who created the universe gives you life and purpose and then welcomes you to paradise afterward--beginning, middle, and end of your life and the universe's, explained all in one book. That's very appealing to many, many people.
Sometimes it seems as if everyone who has a problem with religion actually has a problem with religions who have anthropomorphized god(s). Gods who have human-like characteristics, both physical and mental. Gods who transmitted books to humans.
Not all religions are like that. Abrahamic religions all ascribe divine creation of their books, but Hindus believe their books were recorded by a man, albeit an immortal man. Taoists credit a mortal man for writing theirs.
The reason I mention Hinduism and Taoism is because they have a different view of "god"; not a human-like being but an unrelenting flow. The ideas in these religions are similar to Aristotle's concept of a "first-mover".
Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive - I think many people try to paint them as opposites, but they aren't.
I have the feeling that nobody who's responded so far is religious themselves, so I feel compelled to answer even though I don't think I have anything satisfactory to say. I am religious, and I'd...
I have the feeling that nobody who's responded so far is religious themselves, so I feel compelled to answer even though I don't think I have anything satisfactory to say. I am religious, and I'd say (disagreeing with many religious people) that such beliefs are not typically rational. Rationality, though occurring within the human mind, is imagined, at least, as a lattice-work of connected truths outside of subjective human experience. Religious belief, on the other hand, is inextricably linked to personal experience. It may grow on that lattice of rational thought; I think it relies on it to be communicable at all, in fact, but it is rooted in subjective human living. It's a way of tracing our personal connection to truth, a sort of bridge between inchoate subjectivity and accepted objectivity. The value of religion, then, is that it provides a secure mooring of self to the rational world.
The rationality of religious beliefs depend in large part on your understanding of either purpose or the term "rationality" itself. If we're going to go ahead and say that there is no evolutionary...
The rationality of religious beliefs depend in large part on your understanding of either purpose or the term "rationality" itself.
If we're going to go ahead and say that there is no evolutionary purpose to humans gravitating toward some form of religious belief, that's a pretty huge statement to be making considering the rather murky evidence available on the question. It would seem to me that there is a substantial communal (i.e., societal) benefit from shared beliefs of any kind, beliefs that act not only as a way to define who "your people" are but also as a way to identify everyone else too. To that extent, the social benefit of religious beliefs seem rational, in that there is a clear reason it lends itself to benefiting the species, even if there may not be the most clearly objective reasons for holding one particular belief over another.
If, however, we're talking more limitedly about "rationality" to be exclusively about facts supporting a view, there will almost always come a point when you run into "faith" as the explanation for why the world/universe is being explained to be the way it is. Another way of putting it is a level of implicit trust in the stories being told. It might not be scientifically rational to believe in many things that look and act like religions (and I would call most economists religious in their belief in the market as I would any atheist who affirmatively believes in the absence of a deity in the universe), but there are a fair number of good reasons to hold some form of religious belief.
For starters, religious beliefs are an extension of teaching cultural values, morals, and proper conduct within a society. It matters a lot less about what the core stories are that are being shared, and matters much more what lessons they're teaching people. Religious beliefs, as part of a broader institution of reinforcing and teaching moral reasoning, are a vital part of a society's shared moral language. Without some religious help, we would struggle a great deal more to teach people what sorts of conduct creates a healthy society, and what sorts of conduct is harmful to the society. It would not be impossible, but many more people than currently struggle with moral reasoning would struggle without religious teaching.
Another reason it can make quite a bit of sense to hold a religious belief of some form is that we humans seem to need a feeling of certainty in our lives. We gravitate toward it. And a guided, "vetted" set of ideas that people can be certain about seems a hell of a lot safer than the free-ranged, whatever-comes-to-the-mind type of thought might create. If a great number of people are absolutely certain that some other core societal institution (let's say, I don't know, education) is an enemy to the public interest, we're setting ourselves up for a large cultural fight that is just going to make it harder to resolve important disputes, and paralyze us more as a society. Perhaps this has echoes for you in our modern times. Perhaps not. But it would be much worse without any religious institutions because the fragmentation of society in this sense would be greater, not less, without religious beliefs to center them.
I should say that I grew up reading Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel and developed a sort of broken heart when I started studying the topics he covers and realizing just how sloppy and glib...
I should say that I grew up reading Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel and developed a sort of broken heart when I started studying the topics he covers and realizing just how sloppy and glib he was in a lot of his coverage of grand historical trends. I learned rather hard that his writing is geared more to be popular than to be right, so I take just about everything I hear people say about something he's written with a heavy grain of salt.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that of Jared Diamond? I got the distinct impression he was trying to be interesting and accessible, that is to say he covers as many topics as he can using as...
Out of curiosity, why do you think that of Jared Diamond? I got the distinct impression he was trying to be interesting and accessible, that is to say he covers as many topics as he can using as wide a brush as possible (which admittedly leaves a lot of room for inaccuracy), but that isn't really the same as some purely cynical attempt just to be popular.
I view Jared Diamond in much the same way as I view Dan Carlin of the Hardcore History podcast. They aren't the most knowledgeable, thorough or accurate but they really aren't trying to be nor proclaiming themselves as such (at least that I am aware of). They are more incredibly entertaining advocates than experts and as such are a great starting point, especially for introducing people to the topics they discuss who would not normally necessarily be interested in them.
I don't anyone but actual assholes mean to sell horseshit. Most people talk themselves into believing what they have is gold, and they go from there. So one of the core theories Diamond talks...
I don't anyone but actual assholes mean to sell horseshit. Most people talk themselves into believing what they have is gold, and they go from there.
So one of the core theories Diamond talks about in Guns, Germs and Steel is this notion of advantage of access to agricultural grains as the main difference that creates the sorts of populations in one part of the world, and not in other parts of the world, that can advantage technological improvement at a higher rate than other areas. The only problem with that? Technology didn't advance at a higher rate in the area he's talking about than other areas.
So much of human history until the last century, really, has been a story of "two steps forward, one-to-three steps back." With the advent of modern warfare, i.e., the ability to both mobilize and massacre huge numbers of people in short order and still keep fighting, industrialization, i.e., the ability to maintain those large armies in terms of both tools and food stuffs, as well as other modern near-instant long-distance communication, a lot of the potential for societal collapse has shifted from the traditional stressors that took down a lot of societies. It was this innovation that happened in Europe first that set it a leg higher above other areas of the world temporarily, their ability to command and mobilize people alongside their ability to actually kill them. But it did not have to be Europe that had it and used it first. For example, China was in a position to leverage the same technology a decent bit before the Europeans and due to the quirks of Chinese society they decided largely against taking an outward approach to the lands around them.
Even when it comes to the specific topic he's trying to explore, the European colonization project that took place from the 16th century to the 18th century, it's a little fast to sing European praises. In the United States, they would be fighting native peoples tooth and nail the entire time, with the end of the vital threat to the colonists being usually attributed to around the early 1760s, in the French and Indian war. Shortly after that? The beginning of the revolutionary era, which would see virtually all the European powers with colonial holdings separated from those holdings under the strains of their own difficult-to-scale economic systems and regular geopolitical jostling through war. Native people were very active (and often clever) in playing European powers off of one another, and it was only through the near hegemonic status earned by the United States against the European powers who could not sustain their colonial holdings that Native people's fortunes really turned decisively for the worse in North America.
In other words, it's crazy complicated to talk about anything on this topic as a trend-line, particularly to try to tie it to something so specious as the number of grains or domesticated animals available on a continent. It's easy to confuse what actually happened with a sense of inevitability, and I think Diamond's theories get way too close to that for my comfort.
I think it's possible for the beliefs to be rational, but that the three main sources of religious "knowledge" (revelation, tradition, religious experience) are the weakest sources from an...
I think it's possible for the beliefs to be rational, but that the three main sources of religious "knowledge" (revelation, tradition, religious experience) are the weakest sources from an epistemological perspective.
I know the discussion here is based primarily on the Judaism 'God' but I find myself more and more with the Eastern philosophy that God is everyone and everything. That God is not some monarch...
I know the discussion here is based primarily on the Judaism 'God' but I find myself more and more with the Eastern philosophy that God is everyone and everything. That God is not some monarch with a white beard in the clouds but rather just the basic, underlying energy of the universe.
In this sense, God is omnipotent because God manifests as flowers, stars, animals, humans, the living, the inanimate, etc etc. I think Alan Watts had it right when he said "Omnipotence is not knowing how everything is done, it’s just doing it. You don’t have to translate it into language."
So I think that you can't really understand or know God in the ways that Christianity or Islam try to explain it, but rather understanding God is as basic as understanding that we are an extension of God as the universe. Much like the fruit of an apple tree.
That probably doesn't all make sense and maybe comes off as non-sensical to the more hardened rational thinkers but spirituality isn't rational. It's 100% feelings. But that feeling of connectedness with the people around me, the environment, and everything that I encounter, helps me be compassionate to others needs and to think more about my actions and how they can impact others.
Who cares? I certainly don't, because as far as I'm concerned religious beliefs are either bullshit or blasphemy. Either God doesn't exist, or God exists, has better things to do than worry about us, and all of our religions are just people putting words in God's mouth. All I ask of religious people keep their beliefs to themselves, or at least have the decency to refrain from trying to legislate them into laws that everybody else must obey regardless of whether they share your beliefs.
Let me play devil's advocate. Say you believed so completely in the teachings, that to not even attempt to spread the world would be just incongruous, cannot compute. You know of a large imminent catastrophe and are doing nothing about it, and you know how to help them, everyone - if only they would listen.
How do you even begine to argue, I don't think you can really. Reform needs to come from the religios side.
Actions speak louder than words. Don't tell me about Jesus. Show me. Do as Jesus did. Stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Make me curious before you give me your spiel.
To be fair, almost every Christian I've met follows this, and I'm guessing those are the ones no one ever hears about.
I would say most Christians I know are pleasant enough people on a personal level; they tend to be charitable and are the kind of people it's enjoyable to have a cookout or go to the beach with, and engage in light conversation. But on a societal level, these same people use their religion as justification to strip and curtail my rights and those of millions more, and support some truly awful politics that perpetuate human suffering, and endanger democracy and even life on Earth. In light of this, it's a little difficult to take their personal behavior at face value.
I do agree, it's one thing to be "nice" and another to force your believes on someone else. There should a strong divide in religion and state. However, I think if we're talking about politics and harm, I have a bigger issue with Nestle than I do with Christians.
The two aren't unrelated. Outside of black churches, the Christian left is dead in the US. Politically organized religion by and large operates as a wing of the Republican party due to their shared social conservativism, and through ideas like the prosperity gospel, it allies Christianity with corporate interests.
This is just my two-cents, because honestly I can't prove this, it's more what I feel. However, this is sort of chicken and the egg for me. The corporate interests are there, but I don't believe they are driven by Christians (and their beliefs). It's that people looking to profit are driving it in the name of religion. And I'm using "in the name of" loosely. I think their tactics is more than that.
Whether religion is rational or not doesn't matter because profit is real.
Edit to add: I realize I'm being a bit pedantic. I definitely do see the religious right trying to limit the rights and freedoms of a lot of peoples.
To be unfair, most of the Christians I've met more closely resemble the people who demanded of Pilate that he, "Give us Barabbas".
I just read the Wikipedia article on Barabbas, and I still don't quite understand what you're saying. Do you mean that most Christians would condemn Jesus to crucifixion for the benefit of a demagogue?
I think most USian Christians would condemn Jesus to crucifixion. Furthermore, I think many of them would vie for the privilege of hammering in the nails themselves.
Ask them to look at the past two thousand years and understand that that message has been delivered enough times and also a million times that. Who didn't listen and don't listen won't listen.
I generally troll religious people (because reason doesn't work and they troll you first) as such: they learn that I'm irreligious, get a shock, and talk about the usual stuff, then I ask "How do you know about God's word?". The answer is usually the book (generally Quran in my case). Then I ask "How can you be sure of the authority of the book?" Answer: "Because it's God's word!" Q: "How do you know that it's God's word?" A: no real A. From that point on you can enjoy a monologue that ranges from theology to cosmology, biology to physics, and philosophy to history. Usually they are bored or confused at the end, and change the subject.
In my experience, the religious person's brain just doesn't work like that of an irreligious person. What's completely logical to one side is just nonsense to the other (and yes, I realize logic doesn't work that way, but it's hard to make them see that).
They have to defend superstition, to which they are tied with great fear: I don't know of a major religion where leaving the religion and blasphemy is not a big sin. And an irreligious people is doing that by definition, and possibly inviting them to do so too. At that point, the religious person find themselves between apparently reasonable arguments but also invaded with the fear of hell or similar. I think it's understandable when they resort to every possible way to defend their point.
I personally avoid talking about these matters w/ very religious people (religious in that faithful, not fully adhering to a certain religion; because fairly secular people with little ties to religion can be very hard to talk to too, those little ties may end up being very strong). Never is it productive. But when it's a religious person with some amount of scepticism that you're talking to, it has the chance of being productive and enjoyable discussion.
Religion is nonsequitur:
God exists.
Thus, religion exists.
This is what we have in all Abrahamitic religions. (1) is not proven. And even if it is, (2) is not a direct result of it. So even if we accept (1), (2) is not proven on its basis. The general argument about that begins and ends like this:
Frankly, I can't consider that fair. That is certainly not how the theology is approached within either Judaism or Christianity.
Holy books are approached by those that study them as historical documents, not as some divine object that has to believed at all costs. (Apart from the Qu'ran, which is believed to be direct word-of-mouth from Allah, and as such is above examination.)
All your questions are indeed answered, and have been answered repeatedly throughout history.
Let me try and break down the argument, because it isn't correct. I don't know of anyone with theological training at any level who would agree to it. Its the sound of someone trying desperately to hold onto a belief they simply haven't understood.
No. Very much no.
a) Corrections to translations are frequently issued.
b) There is a vast swathe of documents excluded from usage in translation because they do not match the rigor required for authentication and verification. Some translations may include some parts of these contested documents, but highlight them by telling any reader that are contested.
And as we continue to understand, examine, test and discover both new and old documents alike, we will continue to update our translations of the corpus.
Authentication and verification.
Any document that could not be verified as an accurate historical document, through several points in history, have been excluded from the canon that makes up the series of documents you know as a special book. Even if the various authorities at those times wished to continue to include a certain document, is was removed if it was not credible enough.
Other semi-authentic documents have surfaced over time, but none is within an order of magnitude of the authentication of the documents that have been verified.
You probably need to redefine what you think of as God's word. It conjures up imagery where God says it, and so it becomes so.
But that isn't correct here. This is not God's autobiography. It is a history of a people, that contains the narrative of their God.
It's God's message, told throughout history. That is clear enough from the content. The writer's wrote with intent, in quite a varied number of genres, which seems to be to explain their history, and their God.
They're only holy if you believe in the narrative they present. Flat.
The documents, by themselves, are not able to answer that question.
They can provide significant documentation that he may have, depending on how much of the corpus your belief structure leans on...
But there is a reason is called 'faith'.
The question of God's existence, is an unproveable one.
Addendum: There are a significant number of people who don't know the answers to these questions. They simply believe on 'blind faith'. That kind of faith, is derided by the Abrahamic God. It is not derided by the several thousand years of authority figures who took advantage of it, and used it to manipulate the masses. But those actions cannot be reconciled with any deep understanding of the figure presented within the corpus as God, and his will.
You approach Christianity as if it is a uniform group. What you describe is almost exactly opposite every christian I have ever seen, most of whom believe that the Bible is either the direct word of God (they are usually the types who say the King James version is the only true Bible), is divinely inspired, or otherwise is taken as 100% true on faith.
I know the basics of what I've outlined are taught to those wanting to preach (priest, pastor, etc) in Catholicism, the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church, the Baptist church, the Lutheran church, Churches of Christ, and others.
If they've failed to pass it on, that's on the teacher (priest, pastor, etc).
However, I did say a large number of people do 'take it on faith' - which isn't acceptable to the Abrahamic God, who demands thought and consideration before belief. It's simple hypocracy that irritates both believers and unbelievers alike.
Sidenote: the King James translation, though useful in it's time for enabling more people to read, is an abomination. I'm not aware of any church who hasn't rejected it as the Frankenstein's monster of a translation it is.
I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church, so most of where I heard the KJV loyalty to is from there. But you will get that out of most fundamentalist sects.
Just want to clarify that this was particularly your southern baptist church, as the SBC allows for the autonomy of the local church. However, the SBC doesn't specify KJV-only, especially as ESV has become the most popular translation. Previously, the NSB was quite popular. Generalizations like this don't help the conversation as they're generally untrue.
My personal anecdote may not be "helpful", but I would appreciate it if you didn't try to rewrite my personal experiences. It's very insulting.
When I was younger I went to multiple churches because my family moved a lot. I also spent many summers in christian camps, twice in one owned by the SBC, where I came across other people who advocated the KJV as the best translation (as well as others who advocated other versions).
Yeah but arguing religion based on logic is never going to work - your arguing on your home territory not theirs. They are the ones who made the jump and are trying to explain it to you on your terms (using logic) so refuting that will just lead them to back down or give up trying to convince you.
I think you will have more success if you argue in the terms they set out, belief, miracles, gods love, what ever it may be. Very few people are truly religion for logical reasons so trying to argue someone on those terms is never going to work.
Arguing religion in any way will not easily work be cause religion is a refutation of nature, even when it looks like it's quite in line with it. We basically say what we think and maybe put it out there, and wait for the religious to understand what they are doing wrong.
I get what you're going for here, but that's pretty much Deism in a nutshell.
I was aware of that, but thanks for saving me the trouble of explaining it to others.
Apatheism. I don't care concern myself with the question of religion because the answer doesn't make any real impact upon my life.
Well, I guess I care a little bit enough to make comments about apatheism in discussions about religion on the Internet.
I just don't buy the notion that a God capable of creating the entire universe (and possibly a multiverse) would be particular about one species of primates on one particular planet orbiting one particular main-sequence star situated in one of the arms of one particular galaxy. Nor do I buy the notion that such a God needs our love, needs us to pray to it/them, or cares about what we do with our genitals, when, where, and with whom. Such a God seems too vast to have such concerns.
I just find the Abrahamic notion of a personal God who makes a covenant with humanity and expects certain behavior from us as nonsensical as that of a God needing to borrow the USS Enterprise. It's easier to dismiss religion as mere humans trying to make sense of something they not only don't understand, but can't ever understand because they don't have the right tools.
I'm personally of the opinion that the realm of God/s is only unknowable until it isn't. Why the sun rose each day and fell each night was once the realm of the Gods until we learned of heliocentrism. The weather was once the realm of Gods until we learned of the water cycle. etc.. etc... etc... Similarly, life and death is currently the realm of the Gods, but even that may soon change with genetic engineering, telomere regenerative gene therapy using CRISPR and various other related scientific discoveries. God of the gaps, and those gaps get smaller with each passing generation.
And I'm also more of a Bertrand Russell fan than that of your namesake. ;)
"God of the gaps" fails because it presupposes that you can't have a scientific understanding of how something works while also having a religious connection to it. The sun is a great example, the knowledge of the sun's physical nature does not diminish the grandeur and majesty of it, its sense of power, the beauty of its cycle, it's daily rise and fall, etc. If anything physical science has amplified these, by making it clear just how essential the sun is to life.
This modern (mostly online) atheistic tendency to elevate "rationality" above all else is the height of foolishness imo, especially when our experience of the world is fundamentally subjective. To me rejecting religion and spirituality out of hand like many people in this thread are doing is as absurd as rejecting logic or reason. True humanity lies in the synthesis of the two, to do otherwise is to try to walk with one leg.
Who's your favorite philosopher after Kant and why?
Is he your namesake?
From a purely pragmatic, scientific standpoint, religious beliefs are irrational. You're placing every ounce of your faith in the existence of an all-powerful, divine being that no one could ever possibly provide evidence of existing. There's nothing rational about that.
From a more empathetic and humanist standpoint, religious beliefs are perfectly rational. The universe seems to have appeared out of nothing, with no satisfiable, intuitive explanation for how it came to exist. Pointing to the theorized "Big Bang" isn't helpful because intuitively it still make no sense, e.g. "if the Big Bang was basically an explosion of condensed matter and energy, then where did all of that matter and energy come from in the first place?". Furthermore, consciousness is a strange, abstract concept and it can be terrifying to think that it would just suddenly cease to exist in an instant. On top of all of that, the idea of being brought into the world, living out decades of your life, then dying with nothing left of you remaining, all without there being an actual, inherent purpose to it all just seems weird. Naturally these abstract concepts of the beginning of the universe and consciousness, the fear of death and non-existence, and the confusion from lack of inherent purpose lead people to seek out explanations that give them a sense of peace and resolution, and religion happens to solve all of those problems for them. An all-powerful being who created the universe gives you life and purpose and then welcomes you to paradise afterward--beginning, middle, and end of your life and the universe's, explained all in one book. That's very appealing to many, many people.
In short: it's both.
I'll clarify that there was an implied "traditional" preceding "religious beliefs". Speaking more generally, I'm referring to religious beliefs which provide an emphasis on the origin of the universe, meaning, and the afterlife, including those which believe in reincarnation, and evidence pertaining to whether or not these metaphysical processes exist. I just went with the most well-known religions that typically center around one or more divine beings for brevity's sake :)
Although Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all middle-Eastern in origin, and Hinduism is Indian in origin ;)
I get what you mean, of course, but I'm definitely considering non-Christian religions as well. Perhaps "traditional" was the wrong word, and "popular" a better one. You'll have to forgive my poor wording, as I've been typing up my replies while at work between tasks.
Would you mind expanding on that?
Totally off-topic but I was waiting for the day when you and Emerald_Knight might finally lock horns (in a productive discussion sort of way) over some meaty topic. You both (along with @BuckeyeSundae) are probably the most philosophically minded of all the users I have seen so far on the site. ;)
I'm not sure how accurate that is, and I'm finding it weird to think that I have any sort of reputation, but I'm glad to know that I've left a positive impression for at least some people rather than just flat-out annoying everyone with my long, drawn-out opinion pieces :)
I will say, though, that I was far more philosophically minded back in high school when I was at the peak of my depression and teenage angst, grappling with religious and general identity, and struggling with defining a sense of purpose. That was an interesting period.
Not a reputation so much as simply an observation. You, Kant and Buckeye seem to be willing and able, more than most, to engage in esoteric discussion. And LOL, I think we all went through that phase. I was raised Catholic, rejected it when I found Zen Buddhism, now subscribe to neither but consider myself a secular humanist (but still practice zazen meditation). Depression, anxiety and angst were the driving forces behind my personal exploration in beliefs during high school as well. ;)
Haha, fair enough!
I was raised Christian myself, realized that I didn't really believe in it for the right reasons or feel any of the things pretty much any other Christian felt, eventually decided "I don't know", determined that it's impossible to find an actual answer with satisfactory evidence, and ultimately settled on being an atheist with the mindset of "if a god does exist and they're worth worshiping, then I'm sure I'll be judged by my actions and not by my worship while I'm on this Earth".
It's fairly non-committal, but it's the kind of flexible go-with-the-flow mindset that works for me.
Also, I'd be interested in seeing what happens if Kant, Buckeye and I were all put in the same room. "Kant, BuckeyeSundae, and Emerald_Knight walk into a bar..."
That's very similar to my mindset as well, but perhaps with a more solid lean towards "...but they very likely don't exist so it's not worth worrying about", rather than the totally non-committal or flexible "I don't know" stance. At the same time I don't look down on anyone who does believe, in fact I somewhat envy those who can, just that I don't and probably never will.
Am I to take this as my summons? ;)
If you like. I just figured you might enjoy partaking in this topic, is all. :P
Sometimes it seems as if everyone who has a problem with religion actually has a problem with religions who have anthropomorphized god(s). Gods who have human-like characteristics, both physical and mental. Gods who transmitted books to humans.
Not all religions are like that. Abrahamic religions all ascribe divine creation of their books, but Hindus believe their books were recorded by a man, albeit an immortal man. Taoists credit a mortal man for writing theirs.
The reason I mention Hinduism and Taoism is because they have a different view of "god"; not a human-like being but an unrelenting flow. The ideas in these religions are similar to Aristotle's concept of a "first-mover".
Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive - I think many people try to paint them as opposites, but they aren't.
I have the feeling that nobody who's responded so far is religious themselves, so I feel compelled to answer even though I don't think I have anything satisfactory to say. I am religious, and I'd say (disagreeing with many religious people) that such beliefs are not typically rational. Rationality, though occurring within the human mind, is imagined, at least, as a lattice-work of connected truths outside of subjective human experience. Religious belief, on the other hand, is inextricably linked to personal experience. It may grow on that lattice of rational thought; I think it relies on it to be communicable at all, in fact, but it is rooted in subjective human living. It's a way of tracing our personal connection to truth, a sort of bridge between inchoate subjectivity and accepted objectivity. The value of religion, then, is that it provides a secure mooring of self to the rational world.
The rationality of religious beliefs depend in large part on your understanding of either purpose or the term "rationality" itself.
If we're going to go ahead and say that there is no evolutionary purpose to humans gravitating toward some form of religious belief, that's a pretty huge statement to be making considering the rather murky evidence available on the question. It would seem to me that there is a substantial communal (i.e., societal) benefit from shared beliefs of any kind, beliefs that act not only as a way to define who "your people" are but also as a way to identify everyone else too. To that extent, the social benefit of religious beliefs seem rational, in that there is a clear reason it lends itself to benefiting the species, even if there may not be the most clearly objective reasons for holding one particular belief over another.
If, however, we're talking more limitedly about "rationality" to be exclusively about facts supporting a view, there will almost always come a point when you run into "faith" as the explanation for why the world/universe is being explained to be the way it is. Another way of putting it is a level of implicit trust in the stories being told. It might not be scientifically rational to believe in many things that look and act like religions (and I would call most economists religious in their belief in the market as I would any atheist who affirmatively believes in the absence of a deity in the universe), but there are a fair number of good reasons to hold some form of religious belief.
For starters, religious beliefs are an extension of teaching cultural values, morals, and proper conduct within a society. It matters a lot less about what the core stories are that are being shared, and matters much more what lessons they're teaching people. Religious beliefs, as part of a broader institution of reinforcing and teaching moral reasoning, are a vital part of a society's shared moral language. Without some religious help, we would struggle a great deal more to teach people what sorts of conduct creates a healthy society, and what sorts of conduct is harmful to the society. It would not be impossible, but many more people than currently struggle with moral reasoning would struggle without religious teaching.
Another reason it can make quite a bit of sense to hold a religious belief of some form is that we humans seem to need a feeling of certainty in our lives. We gravitate toward it. And a guided, "vetted" set of ideas that people can be certain about seems a hell of a lot safer than the free-ranged, whatever-comes-to-the-mind type of thought might create. If a great number of people are absolutely certain that some other core societal institution (let's say, I don't know, education) is an enemy to the public interest, we're setting ourselves up for a large cultural fight that is just going to make it harder to resolve important disputes, and paralyze us more as a society. Perhaps this has echoes for you in our modern times. Perhaps not. But it would be much worse without any religious institutions because the fragmentation of society in this sense would be greater, not less, without religious beliefs to center them.
I should say that I grew up reading Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel and developed a sort of broken heart when I started studying the topics he covers and realizing just how sloppy and glib he was in a lot of his coverage of grand historical trends. I learned rather hard that his writing is geared more to be popular than to be right, so I take just about everything I hear people say about something he's written with a heavy grain of salt.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that of Jared Diamond? I got the distinct impression he was trying to be interesting and accessible, that is to say he covers as many topics as he can using as wide a brush as possible (which admittedly leaves a lot of room for inaccuracy), but that isn't really the same as some purely cynical attempt just to be popular.
I view Jared Diamond in much the same way as I view Dan Carlin of the Hardcore History podcast. They aren't the most knowledgeable, thorough or accurate but they really aren't trying to be nor proclaiming themselves as such (at least that I am aware of). They are more incredibly entertaining advocates than experts and as such are a great starting point, especially for introducing people to the topics they discuss who would not normally necessarily be interested in them.
I don't anyone but actual assholes mean to sell horseshit. Most people talk themselves into believing what they have is gold, and they go from there.
So one of the core theories Diamond talks about in Guns, Germs and Steel is this notion of advantage of access to agricultural grains as the main difference that creates the sorts of populations in one part of the world, and not in other parts of the world, that can advantage technological improvement at a higher rate than other areas. The only problem with that? Technology didn't advance at a higher rate in the area he's talking about than other areas.
So much of human history until the last century, really, has been a story of "two steps forward, one-to-three steps back." With the advent of modern warfare, i.e., the ability to both mobilize and massacre huge numbers of people in short order and still keep fighting, industrialization, i.e., the ability to maintain those large armies in terms of both tools and food stuffs, as well as other modern near-instant long-distance communication, a lot of the potential for societal collapse has shifted from the traditional stressors that took down a lot of societies. It was this innovation that happened in Europe first that set it a leg higher above other areas of the world temporarily, their ability to command and mobilize people alongside their ability to actually kill them. But it did not have to be Europe that had it and used it first. For example, China was in a position to leverage the same technology a decent bit before the Europeans and due to the quirks of Chinese society they decided largely against taking an outward approach to the lands around them.
Even when it comes to the specific topic he's trying to explore, the European colonization project that took place from the 16th century to the 18th century, it's a little fast to sing European praises. In the United States, they would be fighting native peoples tooth and nail the entire time, with the end of the vital threat to the colonists being usually attributed to around the early 1760s, in the French and Indian war. Shortly after that? The beginning of the revolutionary era, which would see virtually all the European powers with colonial holdings separated from those holdings under the strains of their own difficult-to-scale economic systems and regular geopolitical jostling through war. Native people were very active (and often clever) in playing European powers off of one another, and it was only through the near hegemonic status earned by the United States against the European powers who could not sustain their colonial holdings that Native people's fortunes really turned decisively for the worse in North America.
In other words, it's crazy complicated to talk about anything on this topic as a trend-line, particularly to try to tie it to something so specious as the number of grains or domesticated animals available on a continent. It's easy to confuse what actually happened with a sense of inevitability, and I think Diamond's theories get way too close to that for my comfort.
I think it's possible for the beliefs to be rational, but that the three main sources of religious "knowledge" (revelation, tradition, religious experience) are the weakest sources from an epistemological perspective.
I know the discussion here is based primarily on the Judaism 'God' but I find myself more and more with the Eastern philosophy that God is everyone and everything. That God is not some monarch with a white beard in the clouds but rather just the basic, underlying energy of the universe.
In this sense, God is omnipotent because God manifests as flowers, stars, animals, humans, the living, the inanimate, etc etc. I think Alan Watts had it right when he said "Omnipotence is not knowing how everything is done, it’s just doing it. You don’t have to translate it into language."
So I think that you can't really understand or know God in the ways that Christianity or Islam try to explain it, but rather understanding God is as basic as understanding that we are an extension of God as the universe. Much like the fruit of an apple tree.
That probably doesn't all make sense and maybe comes off as non-sensical to the more hardened rational thinkers but spirituality isn't rational. It's 100% feelings. But that feeling of connectedness with the people around me, the environment, and everything that I encounter, helps me be compassionate to others needs and to think more about my actions and how they can impact others.