Religion, relevant and rational?

[Fishteacher73]

...But to suggest that it is irrational to believe in Him because a theist uses a different evidenciary analysis technique is, I think, a little stong. It would be quite fair to claim that the existence of God has not yet been proven by the scientific method.

 

The biggest argument that I see is that we have repeatedly dethroned gods of the past. We all find it a folly to have a god of fertility or harvest. Yet these things were important to early civivlizations and the science behind each of these was not fully understood. Superstition and religion offered a "solution". We have continually shown the naive nature of attributing the unknown to a deity. Why should we not see the current state as just another step along the path and accept that religion is a human construct to help them cope? (To each their own IMO, but god/s cannot be a valid support when we have consistantly debunked them).

[Biochemist]

The biggest argument that I see is that we have repeatedly dethroned gods of the past. ...

I think this is a really good point. However, the theistic perspectives that have not been dethroned gain incremental credibility specifically because they have not. In particular, the three main religions that have branched off from Abraham comprise the majority (all?) of the personal God worldviews on the planet. Some folks argue (and I think with some credibility) that the longevity and the interrelated nature of these three religions (i.e., Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) makes them pretty unique. Abraham is thought to have been born in about 2000 BC, which gives us 4000 years of religious adherents, and the numbers still seem to be climbing.

 

If the tendency for mankind to "create" a personal god worldview is so prevalent, why are there not more "starting points" for this category of theology?

 

Even more interesting, the growth and magnitude of Islam (rooted in Abraham's first child, Ishmael) is suggested in Genesis 21, long before the rise of Mohammed (birth circa 600 AD). The interrelationships of the three Abrahamic religions are really intriguing. I suspect that these three will not be dethroned.

 

Until, that is, they are finally reconciled to each other. That would be another forum.

[lindagarrette]

The biggest argument that I see is that we have repeatedly dethroned gods of the past. We all find it a folly to have a god of fertility or harvest. Yet these things were important to early civivlizations and the science behind each of these was not fully understood. Superstition and religion offered a "solution". We have continually shown the naive nature of attributing the unknown to a deity. Why should we not see the current state as just another step along the path and accept that religion is a human construct to help them cope? (To each their own IMO, but god/s cannot be a valid support when we have consistantly debunked them).

Polytheistsm wwould seem to be most relevent from the standpoint of religious sects at any given time. Each god had a function related to a specific element or an inexplicable event and usually led to a good story. The gods could do good stuff or bad stuff and still be appeased and worshiped. Now, wetry to reconcile myths and superstitions with science and reality which is not possible and leads to all this silly discussion.

[Fishteacher73]

If the tendency for mankind to "create" a personal god worldview is so prevalent, why are there not more "starting points" for this category of theology?

 

Even more interesting, the growth and magnitude of Islam (rooted in Abraham's first child, Ishmael) is suggested in Genesis 21, long before the rise of Mohammed (birth circa 600 AD). The interrelationships of the three Abrahamic religions are really intriguing. I suspect that these three will not be dethroned.

 

All three of these religions formed in the fertile crescent. This is the home western views. It has changed, but you also have the eastern religions, buddism, hinduism, shintoim, etc. that all have large followings. The early cultures and religions of the far east were segregated from the religions of the middle east and about the same age (aprox. 2000 BCE - 500 CE). The dominance of Christianity in South America, North America, Austrailia, and Africa stems from the European colonial era. This did not really extend into Asia (esp. the far east) and the religions were not diluted or eclipsed by colonial power. Islam has grown but has not spread as quickly as Chistianity.

 

There are thousands of indiginous religions and many that died out with their respective cultures as well.

[Biochemist]

There are thousands of indiginous religions and many that died out with their respective cultures as well.

True. I was making a specific point about belief in a personal God, versus any god. By "personal" God in this context, I mean a diety that has knowledge of and preferences for individual behaviors. He is also able and willing to actively intercede in the specific believer's life based on individual curcumstances.

 

I confess that I am only lightly exposed to eastern religions, but I don't think that Hinduism (or the subsect, Buddhism) or Shintoism meet these criteria. I only bring this up because many on this site have argued that man created God in his own image (not the reverse). I think this is a diffcult argument to posit, since the number of incidents of "creation" of a personal God is so low. It looks like there is really only one example of it - Abraham.

[Queso]

how is abraham a decent example?

[Biochemist]

how is abraham a decent example?

Sorry, Orb. I'm not sure if I understand your question. My suggestion above was that Abraham is the only example of a source for a religion that is structured around a personal God. His faith became (over time) the basis for three significantly different religions, but they still have common roots.

 

Did I answer your question?

[lindagarrette]

Sorry, Orb. I'm not sure if I understand your question. My suggestion above was that Abraham is the only example of a source for a religion that is structured around a personal God. His faith became (over time) the basis for three significantly different religions, but they still have common roots.

 

Did I answer your question?

All religions have some form of relationship with the supernatural, by definition, and it is always personal, otherwise it would just be naturalism, or deism which borders on agnosticism. The Hebrew based religions have a single meddling or interfering god but there are many others especially in the polytheistic religions where gods actually ran mens lives for them. The Greeks as described in the Illiad are a good example.

[BEAKER]

...a single meddling or interfering god...

"...Nobody want's Him, they just turn their heads..." - Black Sabbath; ironman

[paultrr]

Sorry, Orb. I'm not sure if I understand your question. My suggestion above was that Abraham is the only example of a source for a religion that is structured around a personal God. His faith became (over time) the basis for three significantly different religions, but they still have common roots.

 

Did I answer your question?

 

Historically, the roots of Abraham's beliefs stem from his origin in UR in anchient Babylon. One might remember that Ur's central religion had one main set of characters. Their main God, had fifty different names. There was also a goddess, who's name was Innana, who by the story had her own version of dieing on a stake or tree, decending into the underworld, and rising again. Logically, I might ask not only how much of that colors the religion of Abraham and his followers? But also why several thousand years later one finds the story retold only this time it's the male Son of God(One with many names and titles) playing the part of Inanna?

 

Ur's central religion also had its own somewhat equal to angels and demons(Watcher's & dark powers including chaos).

[paultrr]

"...Nobody want's Him, they just turn their heads..." - Black Sabbath; ironman

 

Its not that some of us don't want "Him". We just question his existance in the first place and how important something that cannot be proven really is outside of on a personal level to some.

[Biochemist]

All religions have some form of relationship with the supernatural, by definition, and it is always personal...

This is not true, by definition.

....The Greeks as described in the Illiad are a good example.

Actually, the Greeks are probably the best example of impersonal gods. The Greeks gods heavily emphasized fate (i.e., that things are going to happen irrespective of individual's actions or preferences) and not that personal behavior and/or personal belief connects the individual to the divine.

[Biochemist]

Historically, the roots of Abraham's beliefs stem from his origin in UR in anchient Babylon. One might remember that Ur's central religion had one main set of characters. Their main God, had fifty different names.

I believe that our depth of understanding of Ur specifically, or Chaldean culture generally, is pretty thin. What we do know is that the Chaldean culture was polytheistic and that their gods were impersonal. This makes Abraham's personal monotheistic relationship even more dramatic. Ur itself was a reasonably sophisticated city (e.g., underground sewers, flushing toilets) so Abraham's departure from Ur with his father and brother to "camp" in Canaan is unusual as well.

There was also a goddess, who's name was Innana, who by the story had her own version of dieing on a stake or tree, decending into the underworld, and rising again. Logically, I might ask not only how much of that colors the religion of Abraham and his followers? But also why several thousand years later one finds the story retold only this time it's the male Son of God(One with many names and titles) playing the part of Inanna?

It is a bit of a discontinuity to connect the Christian salvation story (circa 30 AD) to a Chaldean goddess (circa 2000 BC). The Christian salvation model is based on completion of the jewish atonement model as described in Leviticus (circa 1300 BC). The Levitical model was based on ongoing blood sacrifice as atonement for ongoing misbehavior (i.e., sin). The "replacement" of the ongoing blood sacrifice by the single sacrifice of Jesus is rooted in jewish history, metaphor, and prophecy. The connections to Ur, a culture that had sunset centures earlier, are pretty thin.

[Fishteacher73]

Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic; the curious plural form of the name of God, Elohim rather than El (Lords as opposed to lord), leads one to believe that the original Hebrew religion involved several gods.

[Biochemist]

Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic; the curious plural form of the name of God, Elohim rather than El (Lords as opposed to lord), leads one to believe that the original Hebrew religion involved several gods.

It is indeed true that plural forms of those words are used in the text. However, few hold to the notion that the early Hebrews were polytheistic. Christians (generally) regard those texts as references to the trinity, although there are some other views as well. I believe that Jewish scholars regard those plural words as references to elements of the heavenly host, although I could be corrected on this. I don't think any theistic theologians (and yes, there are lots of atheistic theologians) contend that the early Hebrews were polytheistic.

[Biochemist]

Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic; the curious plural form of the name of God, Elohim rather than El (Lords as opposed to lord), leads one to believe that the original Hebrew religion involved several gods.

And as a follow-up point, the plural references are all (I think) before Abraham shows up in Genesis 12. His relationship with God (as described in Genesis chapters 12-25) is clearly monothsistic, and clearly very personal. Most folks do not consider pre-Abrahamic history "Hebrew" by definition. But your point about interpretation of those early Genesis chapters still has weight.

[BEAKER]

Its not that some of us don't want "Him". We just question his existance in the first place and how important something that cannot be proven really is outside of on a personal level to some.

I know that In spite of my interest in science, I am far from being able to wage a very convincing argument on a scientific level, not to mention my lack of detailed historical knowledge to the nth degree. But I know a few things.

 

I think our ability as humans to question these things is itself a gift from God. Of course that is my oppinion. I personaly believe the scriptures that say things like "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and our chilren"; And, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of kings to seek it out"; And, "The natural man cannot recieve the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them for they are spiritually decerned".

 

Of course the argument is (among other things) "That's just a cop-out so they don't have to explain themselves - I want proof!" and so on.

 

Consider how long mankind has existed (6,000 - half a million years, depending on your evolutionary view), and how short a time we have had what we consider to be "true understanding" about the nature of our universe - or so we believe.

 

Are the things we value as having "importance" (now that we can "prove" them), really more valuable than the things others have esteemed in the past without being able to prove them?

 

I believe that the "importance" of even the most "proveable" and scientifically viable of things, is determined on a personal level, no less than the unproveabe things.