Religulous

[Boricua]

Boricua: It is true that experience teaches wisdom, but scrutiny and education can accomplish a lot as well. How exactly is one supposed to experience relgion aside from practicing, question, exploring, studying, and concluding from it?

I completely agree - scrutiny, introspection, and education do accomplish a lot. My comment was more in regards to the "formal education". For example, my father loves reading about religions - he has tons of books and DVDs on Religions and I think he knows quite a lot. My point was really more to say that I don't think anyone should say their comments are more authoritative on Religion than someone else because they have formal education on it.

[mitchard]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4555365073003895154

Here you go. Sit down and watch this when you have time.

[judgeposer]

Anyway, like you said I don't want to get deep into this, we could talk for days. Anyways, good news, I leave Iraq today. :-D

-Evo©

Congratulations on coming home - have a safe journey - and thanks!

FSU:

You said not 100% of it should be considered true but then what? 93% (as according to you that's the percent of things in the bible based on 'science')

Also, you might have formal education in Religion but ... so what? I'm in grad school too (not for Religion) and I recognize that most people who have a whole bunch of education and not much experience really know diddly squat, while people with real experience often have tons of more knowledge than grad school could ever give them. Particularly in a field as subjective as Religion, (again IMO) formal education doesn't really give you that much more insight - especially compared to other things like lets say engineering.

I have grown up Catholic and having traveled to many countries and learned about many religions my opinion is that most of these things are based on ancient rituals, traditions, and superstitions and a whole lot of faith. I can sit here and listen to you talk to what you believe based on faith all day, but when you try to start arguing that the Bible is based on science and historical facts - well then that's when I start losing all respect for the arguments.

My two cents

While there's some appeal to an incremental argument like you posed, I think serious scripture scholars will tell you that interpretation should center or in the least consider context. For one, the Catholic Church, in response to the question of whether to interpret the Bible literally, developed the Bellarmine Standard, named after Cardinal Bellarmine, who first expressed this method in his writings, which said that the literal interpretation of a Biblical narrative takes precedence over a scientific probability, but that in the case of a scientific certainty, the Biblical narrative could be reinterpreted accordingly. This is why Catholics, though it may shock those unacquainted with the Church's ways, are open to accepting the first Biblical story of creation as symbolic, or simply not literal, since we have now ample evidence for the evolution of humans. Don't interpret this for a Church endorsement of evolution, rather, that the Church will adjust its interpretation and teachings to account for new, quite established new evidence. To be sure though, prior Catholic interpretations of the Bible, such as those done by Church Fathers, like Ambrose and Augustine, were not literal readings of the Bible anyway. If we recall, St. Augustine's very conversion relied on a non-literal reading of Scripture.

Engineering vs. everything else...well, that's a thread we should start: Which course of study produces the most analytical mind? I, for one, will champion the virtues of philosophy and law above all else...but I'm biased--as I am sure we all are about our respective studies.

I watched it... it's entertaining but pretty disgusting at the same time. I mean what he basically does is construct a strawman argument by presenting ridiculous cults and other extreme cases and tries to apply this argument to religion as a whole. People who're not smart to realize this shouldn't be touching the subject of religion. Neither should they be practicing any religion.

Although I don't agree about your last bit about religion, I do agree with your assessment of the documentary.

I want to add that we shouldn't forget that documentaries most often are op/ed pieces in film form. The nature of documentaries I find often exclude countervailing perspectives, especially sober ones. I can imagine the reels of footage left on the editing room floor that might've lent some sympathy and balance to the agenda of the documentarian, especially such as Bill Maher, whose made his prior disdain for religion known. I can also imagine the the footage not even shot of those "experts," scholars, or otherwise serious and knowledgeable people who might have something constructive to say on the given topic. I, for one, keep this in mind when watching something like what we're talking about here.

I completely agree - scrutiny, introspection, and education do accomplish a lot. My comment was more in regards to the "formal education". For example, my father loves reading about religions - he has tons of books and DVDs on Religions and I think he knows quite a lot. My point was really more to say that I don't think anyone should say their comments are more authoritative on Religion than someone else because they have formal education on it.

I think anyone with formal education in an area of current discussion can most appropriately advertise their credentials in an effort to curry deference to their perspective. After all, the person has assumedly gone through the rigors of learning the discipline. That's why we call experts...experts (though I'm not calling anyone here an expert). Whether we take the educated (hopefully!) opinion of such people to carry more weight than another's opinion remains our privilege, I believe.

[Will_Evo]

And for error, the bible in translation would have errors, but in its original version, it would have contained no errors...it would have contained exactly what "God" wanted it to say.

Anyway, like you said I don't want to get deep into this, we could talk for days. Anyways, good news, I leave Iraq today. :-D

-Evo©

If you right an essay with a faulty (incompetent) pen, errors are bound to surface despite the essay being the first material iteration of your ideals. Humans are not capable of exactly reiterating the ambitions of G-D because we are flawed. Does my extended metaphor make sense now?

I'm making the obervation in a constructive manner I assure you: You're contradicting yourself by imploring Christians to "believe the Bible 100%" while also expecting a mortal to translate G-D's form into words flawlessly. The Bible makes it quite apparent that we are made in G-D's likeness, but we are not perfect. How can a flawed scribe, utilizing a flawed medium, make a flawless copy?

On your side note: 'Gratz on comin home, I genuinely appreciate your service.

Boricua: It is true that experience teaches wisdom, but scrutiny and education can accomplish a lot as well. How exactly is one supposed to experience relgion aside from practicing, question, exploring, studying, and concluding from it?

Let me clarify.

Christians believe, that the bible is gods words. They believe that god told a scribe of those days exactly what to write down. Now back then, not only for the bible, bu any document, scribes did not have pencils, ball point pens none of that. If you ever look into it, you will find that old documents were almost perfect every time, because a scribe of that time, if he even messed up once, would have the throw the whole parchment away and start the page over. The bible, in its first form, when it was written in Hebrew, would have been for lack of a better word, perfect in Christians eyes, it would have contained zero errors, and said exactly what "God" intened for it to. Now, you come into errors the closer you get to this day and age because of translation, but not errors such as the stories themselves. Adjectives and units especially, using the example from earlier, you said the bible said something about cubics...well what is a cubic to us? So yes, the bible you read today, is not exactly what it was meant to be, but it says generally the topic, especially the stories, they maintain their meaning.

-Evo

[Dr. B]

I still don't think you get it. The translation error you speak of over time is the same error made immediately as the words of the Bible were written. G-D speaks a language we cannot comprehend. His words must have been translated from perfect form to imperfect iteration in order for us to even begin to understand them. Despite what His intentions were, He knew that he would be communicating to us (humans) through an imperfect medium - our language rather than His own.

Then yes, translation errors occur over time.

If I had to speculate, I'd be inclined to say that G-D commands a complex system of relations and proportions in order to "think". We call it Math.

[judgeposer]

If I had to speculate, I'd be inclined to say that G-D commands a complex system of relations and proportions in order to "think". We call it Math.

Or we can call it...rationality?

[Sonthert]

FSU: Whether or not the bible has some historical accuracy doesn't affect the truth value of the other statements. The date of the flood, as reckoned by bible scholars, corresponds to the height of the Egyptian Empire...they don't seem to have been wiped off the face of the planet. Catastrophic floods are nothing out of the ordinary on the Earth, on the other hand, so evidence of a flood doesn't necessarily add credulity to the bible. There is zero scientific evidence to show the bible is correct. Boricua is quite correct in his assertion. Science didn't exist for 1000 years after the bible was completed. There is no science in it. There may be some historical observations that are true but history is not science. Thats like saying the bible talks about modern robotics. Its anathema.

I am aware of the other books of the bible, my father made a long and involved study of the Book of Enoch, multiple translations. (I think that was it).

Zinite: Thats not really science, dude, thats geometry. Geometry dates back to the Greeks, at least 2300 years ago.

Will Evo: Nobody's ever heard of an extremist christian terrorist...oh yeah thats right abortion clinic bombing. Sorry.

FSU: Thats what great about science. Anybody can understand the basics of it. The process is identical, so its easy to understand. Anything that has any value to humans has to be able to be easy to be understood or it loses saliency. I would disagree with your statement about the bible. It can only be complicated by people trying to justify/interpret it. A literalist has zero problems understanding the bible. Science doesn't involve interpretation on the same level as religion does. Science interprets observed data into scientific statements, religion interprets inherently false statements into becoming possibly true.

Will Evo:Actually, if you want a purer translation of the bible, just read the "Book of the Dead" the cornerstone of Egyptian belief. The bible is more or less an amplification of the Book of the Dead with other mythology of other peoples thrown in to get them to tithe too. Of course The Book of the Dead grew over time since it was more a set of mystic "teachings" than religious tenet.

FSU:Red Sea getting shallow...trying to justify impossible feats? Tsk, tsk, tsk. What was I just saying? Religion interpreting inherently false (or impossible) statements into becoming possibly true.

Erufiku:Cult is a subjective term. Established religions call new religions cults. Compare the people in each and the similarity will be obvious. People operating on faith, not reason. Maher is really saying that religion is ridiculous and dangerous, doesn't matter what religion or cult it is. What is the difference between someone who believes that Jesus turned water into wine and someone who believes that Allah wants them to set off a suicide bomb? They are operating on unfounded faith in both cases. Each will have his justification as to why the impossible or improbable must be true lacking any real evidence at all. ..is it that big a step between a guy who may or may not have been real (Jesus) rising from the dead and somebody blowing up a bomb in a market? Both believe that their faith is true, justified and real...

Dr. B regarding your response to Boricua: Wisdom does not by necessity come from experience. Experience is one component of wisdom. You then equivocate on the word experience. Your first use of the word experience pertains to the accumulation of proficiency at life. Your second use of the word experience refers to perception. Thats a very sloppy line of reasoning. If your second statement is true, then it would follow that a child can't understand getting burned without burning their hand. That may be true to some degree, but it would mean that parents are wasting their time teaching their children not to put their hand on the stove. You equate religion with something good, I would argue it is detrimental to the upward march of humanity. Humanity's progress is based on wisdom, human experience, utilitarianism, rationality, practicality, optimism, human artistic endeavors and science. Religion and mysticism are unnecessary for any of these components of human progress. Some of them discourage one or more of these components of human progress. I don't ever need to burn my hand to know I don't want to experience it (in both senses of experience) nor do I need to go to church to know the difference between right and wrong despite the fact that never act in what I consider to be a "wrong" fashion. I might actually be the most morally correct person you've ever met...

Judge Poser: We meet again! I don't know if I ever took an opportunity to compliment you sufficiently. I have always found your reasoning to be particularly sharp and clear. I find the context of your general arguments to be quite compelling. I sincerely and selfishly hope you do get your job in San Diego so we can sharpen each other's intellects.

It does seem that you are trying to justify impossible feats or events (or shove them under the rug) from the bible as true or possibly true if we disregard what it says. What can that say about the ultimate utility of the bible? I would argue that the process of interpretation must make the bible no more valuable than Shakespeare, i.e. fictional literature with practical observations about humanity. It makes the accurate parts of the bible less valuable.

I don't believe in "experts"...its a mystic construct; an oracle of arcane knowledge. I learn things on a weekly basis from reasonably inexperienced or uneducated people...whether in regards to hookahs or anything else...so whats an expert? Otherwise, I agree with your point. Perhaps the word scholarly or learned might be a better frame for the argument.

Will Evo: I think that most reasonable biblical scholars would argue that men wrote the bible with divine inspiration. God wasn't transcribing. It was written by dozens and dozens of authors over centuries. I don't think the stories have, by any necessity any meaning at all. They are all stories after all...how could Noah have fit a pair of every land animal into a floating craft? Its impossible to fit a pair of every land animal into any boat that anybody could build. The animals would number in the millions. The construct of the story is impossible, so the story must be impossible. Therefore, if god was transcribing, he transcribed a story that must surely be false...where's the accuracy in that? If the story was written by men it would at least explain why it was a made-up story.

Dr. B: Do you have anything to back up what your saying regarding god speaking a language we can't understand? Something outside of a church or the bible? It certainly doesn't explain the story of Noah and the Ark being impossible on the face of it.

Whats this GD stuff? God is the name we may call him so we don't have to use his true name, Yahweh, Jehovah or whatnot. Go ahead...god is what he wants us to call him.

Judge Poser: If it was rationality, there wouldn't be any inconsistencies in the bible unless god wasn't all knowing or he was inclined to spinning tall tales.


A set of questions to each one of you in the course of this discussion. Assume the bible isn't absolutely true for a minute, outside of the accurate contemporaneous historical chronicles, would you believe anything in the bible? All of the astounding and impossible claims and stories?

If you have to suspend the human reason, that god ostensibly gave you, to believe in him...how can you believe in him?

I'm reminded of a dirty joke. I'll abbreviate it for community standards. A man catches a leprechaun and says "you're a leprechaun". The leprechaun says "That I am and I'm going to grant you three wishes". To each of the man's three wishes (like $1,000,000) , the leprechaun says "when you wake up tomorrow morning, it'll be by your bed." The leprechaun then asks for an indecent accommodation from the man. Which the man grants. During which the leprechaun says "Don't you think you're a wee bit old to be believin' in leprechauns?" All your faith is pivoted on the assumption that your belief is correct and when you are asked for an accommodation with a promise of good tidings later on (after you die), you faithfully move forward. If death is the ultimate end and there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or alternately, god isn't the only path to salvation, there are a multitude of them...can you justify religion in some part?

Terrorists blow up innocent people operating on their faith, the same as you religious people are, which both you and they believe to be absolutely correct. How can you justify faith in the face of the horrors that it creates?

I would argue that compassion, understanding, tolerance, integrity, rationale and humanity are the cures for terrorism, religion is the air stoking its fire all terrorists are to one degree or another operating on faith. Again assuming, the bible, the Koran, etc. are largely false, how can you justify the human cost of religion in terms of the crusades, the inquisition, the dark ages, the terrorism?

If all the necessities for humanity lie outside religion and religion has the terrible price tag...what would you say to religious people regarding their faith in things that are impossible and false? What would you say to them?

Do you believe all the necessities for human progress and achievement are found outside religion?

I feel like I can empathize with people, understand their point of view "walk a mile in their shoes" as it were and I don't believe in god. I see people's religions and mystic faiths as having equal (negative) truth values and I don't think one set of faith-based beliefs is better than any other one. Assuming you were me, walking in my shoes for a minute, how would you justify in your mind the value of religion when countless losses of human lives have resulted and are currently resulting from religious conflicts exist?

Would extremism exist without faith? Give appropriate examples.

[Dr. B]

Good post Sonthert. I'll touch on the "experience" issue briefly by letting you know I didn't anticipate the need to be so thorough in this debate. You're absolutely right that I erred, but in the scheme of things I maintain it was trivial. My particular opinion of religion is substantially less reliant upon the church than what is typical. I respect religion, and observe it, as the conference of many opinions rooted in logic and understanding withstanding the scrutiny of society and fluctuations in knowledge throughout its history, expressed with a particular set of tools - stories, language, services, etc...

The imperfection I speak of is a conclusion based on the presumption that G-D is the only perfect entity - I have no doubt that this is in the Bible but I admit I would have to revisit it in order to cite the presumption. Utilizing Plato's regard for the form in conjunction with the deduction that we are not perfect (if G-D is the only perfect entity) I conclude that we are incapable of perfection in any feat which the Lord may himself perform. We may be able to witness protection, but it we cannot replicate nor fully comprehend. I maintain the Bible was written by man as an interpretation of G-D's wisdom and is consequently imperfect - flawed with regard to the glory of G-D's ability.

The "G-D" practice is just an extension of the respect for the Lord's name. I'll speak his name, but I decline to write it or evoke it on the internet. To each his own. Edited March 13, 2009 by Dr. B

[judgeposer]

For everyone, but most especially Sonthert:
Sonthert: We DO meet again! I haven't started working on the San Diego job-front yet, unbelievably, but only because I am following up a potentially sweet opportunity here, in New York. I'll be due for a visit sometime soon though. I will attempt to tackle all of your questions, which were really good, in the order of their increasing difficulty.

On "experts" – Sold! "Scholarly," or some such world might perhaps convey better what we, especially I, meant to convey: when someone, by means of formal education in an area, contributes intellectually to that area.

On rationality – I meant for my post to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I thought the sub-topic about God + mathematics a bit intellectually awkward. You do bring up grounds for potential conflict for a theist, particularly a Christian one, in your point about rationality and an "inerrant" Bible. I intend to address it in my answers to the questions you posed at the end of your reply.

1. Assume the bible isn't absolutely true for a minute, outside of the accurate contemporaneous historical chronicles, would you believe anything in the bible? All of the astounding and impossible claims and stories?

This question provides an opportunity to clarify what we mean by "truth" as it relates to the Bible. I'm not sure we've all been working with the same, but probably at least overlapping, definitions of the Bible's supposed truth value.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read this about the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture (footnotes omitted):

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

I'm sorry to share such an extended quotation, but I thought it pertinent to show how Catholics (obviously not all Christians) construe Scripture. Noticeably, we don't read anything about inerrancy or literalism as often meant by other Christians, namely fundamentalists (not necessarily the best descriptor) or Evangelicals. For Catholics, at least, Scripture teaches truth, namely truths pertaining to the Christian faith. Scripture was, after all, directed at (those already) Jews (the Old Testament) and Christians (the New Testament). It's uncontroversial for a Catholic to say that God didn't intend the Bible as an instructional tool for converts. I will leave a discussion of the Old Testament's pertinence to the Jews for someone else, but say that the New Testament, it seems to Catholics, was written for those already Christian.

After all, Christians predate the New Testament—as we can read that much of it is directed at them. Of the 27 books of the New Testament, one cannot find a discernable "catechism," a set of easily distilled rules, or a comprehensive theological work, as much of the theological understanding of Biblical concepts have come from scholarly work about the Bible, which could happen only after the Bible was compiled. The Epistles, as an example, for the most part, were written to local church communities that at the time experienced moral and/or doctrinal problems. The Epistle writers, again, for the most part, directed short, non-comprehensive instruction on discreet problems, not some comprehensive instruction to non-believers. Of course, the presence of Christians predated the compendium we call the Bible, and not for decades after Christ's death did Christians of the time have the cleanly compiled work that we know have in the Bible. So, we Catholics do not say that the Bible serves as the basis for the Christian faith. What does? – that's another discussion. I am attempting now only to point out that the inerrancy and truth value of the Bible Catholics do not take to mean that it is without error. I'm not either saying that the Bible has error, but rather that those concepts of understanding ("categories" as philosophers say) are not correct. The categories of "inerrancy," for instance, only obscure the Bible's purpose, as we Catholics see it. To more directly answer your question, it is those "accurate contemporaneous historical chronicles" that gives us reason to believe those stories of the Bible, such as that of Christ's existence and biography. While I understand that this, and what I am about to say might not have persuasive effect on non-believers, it does, I hope, put straight the Catholic approach to the Bible. Catholics read the Bible "reasonably," as opposed to literally (whatever that means).

2. If you have to suspend the human reason, that god ostensibly gave you, to believe in him...how can you believe in him?


I definitely remember you telling me that joke the first time we met and had one of our great discussions. It still bothers me—and not for its crudeness or anything like that since I can, like most others, enjoy a good joke. It bothers me because I cannot address the argument it puts forth adequately, I don't believe.

The little I can put towards an answer to your limerick, which I think describes it well, is to say that I think it begs the question, in part, and also fails the account for our gambling nature. I think the central question in all of this is: Why believe—in God? Pascal's answer, that it's a reasonable bargain, produces a whole set of new problems for those who think it is a reasonable gamble to believe, also highlights how some believes have, even if unconsciously, come to have faith and belief in God.

For its begging the question, I see it assuming the very thing it intends to prove—that God, or belief in God, isn't the only path to salvation.

For my justification of religion, my forum-ready and forum-I-believe-adequate answer is that it makes some of us happy. It fulfills us. Also, given the recent work in the cognitive science area of philosophy, it is reasonable to attribute actor-based explanations to otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Terrorists claim righteous motivation from God for their evil, but I'm not a terrorist. Secularists, in the form of Mao or Stalin, too wreaked great evil, motivated by a pursuit of ideological purity, but I don't think all secularists (given their secularism) are equally inclined to do the same. Faith might create horror, as you say, but so does the absence of faith. I see it all as a metaphysical wash.

I would argue the same thing: "compassion, understanding, tolerance, integrity, rational[ity] and humanity are the cures for terrorism." I would only add that rightly construed belief in God can midwife all of those things too. I have many a friend in the Peace Corps and the Jesuit and Franciscan Volunteer Corps, some of whom sit on the front lines of the world-wide peace movement. Out of their Christian faith they get the courage, but noticeably the incentive to do God's work by teaching us to love our enemies. Hopelessly ideal, perhaps…but still evidence that religion can motivate us to do good and refrain from doing evil.

3. If all the necessities for humanity lie outside religion and religion has the terrible price tag...what would you say to religious people regarding their faith in things that are impossible and false? What would you say to them?

Though it's a dangerous debate tactic to accept our opponent's question when you have serious reservations about the question's premises, I know I'm among sound company with you. For my most straightforward answer then, I'd say: See the error of your religious ways! You're wrong!

I do, however, have to reject the premise of your question that "all the necessities for humanity lie outside religion and religion has the terrible price tag." With some charity, however, I think you're asking that given our ability to explain and live life without religious belief, adding that some religious believers commit evil acts, why be religious?

Terrorists who claim religious motivation can be distinguished from me, also a religiously motivated person, in that I adhere to and prioritize Aquinas's call of us to do good and avoid evil. Of course those terrorist don't think they're doing anything evil, but they are: morals are absolute, objective, and discernable.

4. Do you believe all the necessities for human progress and achievement are found outside religion?

I don't. I think religions have much to contribute, and indeed have. The Western idea of the rule of law gained ones of its first expressions from Canon Law. Communitarianism was an idea brought about by monastics, as was capitalism and beer! Though, I don't know if I can claim a religious impulse for beer. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was authored in large part by Jacques Maritan, a Catholic philosopher motivated a great deal by his faith and subsequent belief in the universal notion of human rights. Some attribute the initial retreat of communism to Pope John Paul II's work in Poland and his lobbying and writings. We can recall countless examples of religiously motivated people adding to the splendor of our modern world, hopefully not often as we can count those who've used religion as reason for doing evil things. While I don't know what the true tally of that would be, it doesn't diminish the reason of those religious do-gooders that did what they did out of a sense of religious duty and obligation. Also, while we can distinguish religion from ideology in numerous ways, we can say, at least, that in their similarities, subscribers of either can do good because of their ideological or religious beliefs—perhaps just as some decide to do bad things. In that sense I mean that it's a wash. Where religion motivates some to do good, it might well motivate others to do the opposite, but we can say the same thing of whatever motivates us, I think.

5. Would extremism exist without faith? Give appropriate examples.

The University of California at Berkley and Santa Cruz. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Rupert Murdoch, and George Soros.


For an excuse now...I wrote this at work, amid a messy desk of awaiting responsibilities. I have the feeling I might have to clarify much of what I said here, but for now, let's run with it.

Lastly...Sonthert, my sister said to say HI! FROM NEW JERSEY! She's been using what she learned from your chess tutorial and is beating her kindergarteners within minutes-jk. No, really, she said she's whoppin some serious butt in chess lately.

[Sonthert]

Dr. B: Interesting perspective. Would it not be reasonable to say that religious extremists also view the bible/Koran in terms of of what they believe, not by necessity what the book also says? Is it reasonable that a literal reading of religious text would reduce. extremism/terrorism?

Jason: Well said. I can always say your perspectives are well thought out, despite your workload!

1. That might be the most comprehensively rational explanation of the bible I've ever read. It clearly distinguishes the educated religious people, like yourself, from the "blind faith" variety.

2. Would you agree with the logic "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?" If so, wouldn't your self-determination to live your life without religion beat the prospect of reward for being religious? It may be a gamble, but is it reasonable? To gamble with the one thing that you absolutely have, probably only once, for the prospect of some vaporous promise of after-life?

I'm happy too. I have no religious beliefs, I believe myself to be a pious man, I have faith in particular things, I have an ideology, I have a iron-clad sense of propriety, ethics and morality. I believe in all the things that are rational and reasonable. Why then does the world need religion? (Which is the point of religulous).

I believe I have the qualities of compassion, understanding, tolerance, integrity and rationality. I'm not religious. These are human qualities, not by necessity ascribed by religious faith. I'm sure we can name numerous religious people who lack one, many or all of those qualities. So, I think your assertion must be false. Religion doesn't birth those qualities, or non-religious people would lack them universally or alternately, all religious people would universally have them. I don't understand the phrase "Love thy enemies." I have no enemies, I have no hatred of other people, just disdain for some people's actions, for I believe them to be wrong. I would argue that from my rejection of mysticism, religion and superstition, I lack fear, remorse, regret. I need no courage, for I lack fear. The courage that you assert religion confers is in necessary because of the fear religion instills. So, again, why dos the world need religion?

3. It only bespeaks your honesty. I would say, that errorists believe they are doing right or the reward for their faith will be great.

4. The first Code of Law was Hammurabi. All law comes from him. The idea of a code of laws separate the non-religious from religious code. Code of laws is a relief or replacement for mystical or religious rule. Saying religion gave birth to law would be equivalent to saying hunger gives birth to eating. I think you're barking up the wrong philosophical tree here.

Yes, but they were people, nonetheless, is religion responsible? It couldn't universally be true or all religious people would be pious. So, how could you backtrack and say that religion causes these people's good deeds? Atheists and people of other religions also commit pious acts.

Your final point is the most persuasive of the points.

5. Mmm. You took the bait. All of those examples require faith. Not religious faith, but faith. Faith that a person's actions are righteous...same as religion. Not all faith is religious..although you seem to assume it is. I hear the same asinine criticism of atheists...they have no faith. We have faith, perhaps, just not in god.

Tell your sister hello!

FSU...your name and association with lime is being burned into my head! Maybe I will let you know!

[judgeposer]

Eric... The numbers here correspond to the numbers in your post.
2. I suppose my explanation or offering on this point didn't explain, at least with any adequacy, why the world needs religion. I don't believe I have an answer to that question, really. I can easily envision a world that gets along just fine without religion. Despite the appeal of Pascal's argument that the gamble of believing seems reasonable, it doesn't explain the need to believe—aside from appealing to our possible fear that not believing in God might be wrong, which is a prospect I know most non-believers don't care much about, perhaps since most are convinced that they're not, in fact, wrong.

I also do not believe the religious of the world, for the most part, believe simply because they believe in doing so, they complete or fulfill some sense of obligation to the world, or the rest of the world's inhabitants. Of course I can't speak for all God-fearing people, but of those I know, can say that they root their belief in an obligation to God, himself. Without elaborating, I can say most simply that religious most probably do not believe, again, in order to satisfy some obligation to fellow humans or out of some duty they see imposed by our world.

Now, if I have characterized the perspectives of the two camps, believers and non-believers, adequately, then I can't see why the question of "Why does the world need religion?" remains of interest or pertinence. You have, to your own great credit, said that despite not believing in God, you possess all of the qualities we would constitute as a good, upstanding person—which I know first-hand to be true. The world doesn't need religion, as I see it. Perhaps a more interesting question, though of psychological or sociological interest, is why some people believe in God when others don't. This topic might've been already exhausted though.

4. I do accept your point. I meant really, if I can amend my post on this point, that Canon Law was the first systematic treatment of law we have in the Western world, to the extent that nearly every subsequent incarnation of law has something beyond mere likeness to Canon Law's explicitness, comprehensiveness, promulgation, and methodology—such as the type of analysis performed by legal practitioners, the trial and appeals process, or the idea of a right to face one's accuser. So, definitively, saying something like "religion gave birth to law" is an overstatement that I cannot (now, if I did before) agree with.

5. Perhaps…but I thought you meant religious faith, given the conversation/context. Notwithstanding, your point shows that faith of any sort can lead to extremism, which I can definitely accept.

[Sonthert]

Not straddling both threads too far, we can agree that modern, objective human laws are preferable to antiquated, subjective religious rules (Which lead to inquisitions and witch trials). Religious rules are either static or being interpreted/augmented by a governing body of some kind (the Vatican, a Cardinal, etc.). In the case of the fundamentalists, they believe in a static religious structure, the Catholic church a more progressive structure being augmented by Vatican decree. Alternately, there are some wackos that believe in whatever they believe in whether its in the religious book or not. In any case, there is no absolutism to our rights. This is why the founding fathers presumably, although believing in god, wanted a Free State that was independent of religion. There can't be a Free State when the government has religion text as its basis (otherwise would they have put that nasty little clause in the 1st Amendment??) Laws grow and evolve over time, and as I'm sure most people can agree, humanity is in a state of constant flux and change. A static system isn't appropriate and an absolutist, arbitrary religious panel can't mete out justice. Justice only comes from the law; religious justice is an oxymoron. I think its reasonable to believe that society is responsible for law and the justice, and by extension, the growth of the law and justice, our rights, not just government. So, I'll for the sake of my line of reasoning, concede that you personally (on a microscale) derive some personal value from religion, although I still content you would be more or less the same person without it. When enough people get together they form a macroscale of religion. That macroscale of religion, if allowed to prevail (if desired to) is a destructive force.

Is there something specific you believe that a group of religious people gain on a macro scale (rather than a bunch of people's, personal micro-scale benefits)? There must be something reasonably compelling to offset the costs of religious society's despicable acts on a macro scale.

[LJ04]

wow, there's a book-worth of posts here... i watched it last weekend. while i found it entertaining, i didn't think it was a real powerful message.

i'm not religious, but i thought the high priest (forgive me if i'm calling him the wrong title - no disrespect) at the vatican was actually pretty reasonable in his defense. he was likable, and secure with his beliefs. he didn't try to throw it back in bill's face. just shrugged, smiled, and said hey, people are gonna believe what they believe and you can't change that. and he also made the point that stories in the bible are not necessarily literal.

the part that made me laugh the most was the zinger ending the interview with the guy in the nice suit.

[ilikemyusername]

movies rot your brains.