Is Jesus Lord?

[Lorizael]

Bah. Whatever. This isn't even really what I believe. I'm playing devil's advocate simply because I'm generally opposed to religion. I really wish Sarxis would reply to me with more than just standard dogma; I like discussing these things.

[Elok]

I don't exactly agree with JM (antibiotics and flight have done a great deal for us, to name two obvious examples), but I do think that scientific progress will never end all suffering because of what's pretty much the basic tenet of the vast majority of religions: Human beings are fundamentally flawed in the way they approach life and each other. There's no way we can objectively and scientifically fix problems with our own psyches.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think that it is rediculous that people take hope from science.

Having more things, solving more medical problems, understanding more about nature hasn't made people happier, more fulfilled, etc.. for the last 200 years. Why would it in the future?

JM

That's ridiculous. So you're saying that things like vaccinations, refrigeration, air conditioning, anti-biotics, rail and air travel, etc. haven't made people happier or more fufilled? More people have more time and more resources to do whatever they desire than at any point in human history. Yeah, I'd rather live in the 18th century, where the life expectancy was 45 years and 99% spent every day from sunup to sun down in toil and misery.

EDIT: I posted this before I read Lorizael's post. However, I disagree with him. I think that science and scientific advancement has directly given more happiness to people over the past 200 years than has religion.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I really wish Sarxis would reply to me with more than just standard dogma; I like discussing these things.

I like to discuss these things too. But I'm not sure what things I can say so you see my point. Our discussion at this time seems like two parallel lines that are running in the same direction, but never intersect.

I am not trying to ignore the points you make, but I am trying to make a point myself so I may not have responded to everything you've said.

Science can give hope, but only for a little while, because eventually any 'good' that science can do directly for a person is temporary. This is because everything in life is temporary in view of death.

But there are eternal questions that can not be answered with science, or 'man's knowledge', as it were. "What will happen to me after I die?" "What is my purpose in life while on Earth?" "Why am I not at peace with myself and others?"

But if someone says in response, "There's no real point to any of it, and death is the end of everthing for me", then go on eating, drinking, having a good time, for some day in the future you will be gone. And maybe a few people in a future generation will remember you in a textbook somewhere, or more likely, you will be forgotten even by your own descendants who will also come to the same fate. What hope can science then give that ultimately vanquishes this end?

Bah. Whatever. This isn't even really what I believe. I'm playing devil's advocate simply because I'm generally opposed to religion.

So what is it you really believe? And I mean, do you really believe it? Is it something that you know is certainly the truth? Truth is wonderful, as you know, and can allow for so much benefit to those who recieve it. But I give this warning to everyone: make sure the truths you cling to are not lies.

In regards to 'true' religion, the bible puts it best by saying true religion is visiting orphans, widows, prisoners who are in distress, and preserving oneself from the wicked things in the world. This is what I believe, and also that Jesus truly is Lord.

I have a feeling you have judged me already and made conclusions about what things I believe, basing it on what you've seen and heard in others, and not in what you actually know about me (which is little to nothing, as you pointed out in a previous post). Am I lying to you? Am I decieved? Or am I speaking true things to you so that you will understand that there is truth in the world still?

[As a side note to the discussion, and in response to the thread title: Did you know that God has sworn by Himself (because there is nothing greater for Him to make an oath by) that every creature will one day bow before and confess that Jesus is Lord?]

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Sarxis
But if someone says in response, "There's no real point to any of it, and death is the end of everthing for me", then go on eating, drinking, having a good time, for some day in the future you will be gone. And maybe a few people in a future generation will remember you in a textbook somewhere, or more likely, you will be forgotten even by your own descendants who will also come to the same fate. What hope can science then give that ultimately vanquishes this end?

So is religion a crutch, then? Are people so afraid of the inevitable end that they have to cling on to something mystical and magical to console themselves? I know that I'll be forgotten in the end. We all will. I don't care about that. That fact cannot force me to believe in some magical protector. I'm just not spiritual. When I was younger, I desperately tried to believe in that. I grew up in a religous family in a religious area, and I wanted to feel what I thought I was supposed to feel. The fact is that I don't, and I can't.

I think that you're correct when you talk about the whole "parallel lines" concept. Some people are spiritual. Some just aren't. You're one of the former, I'm one of the latter. Who's right? I guess we'll find out.

So what is it you really believe? And I mean, do you really believe it? Is it something that you know is certainly the truth? Truth is wonderful, as you know, and can allow for so much benefit to those who recieve it.

I don't think that there's any basis to believe that what you're preaching is the truth.

[As a side note to the discussion, and in response to the thread title: Did you know that God has sworn by Himself (because there is nothing greater for Him to make an oath by) that every creature will one day bow before and confess that Jesus is Lord?

If that's so, then that's the day that I'll believe in him. I'm not saying that I'm absolutely convinced that there isn't some sort of creator out there behind it all, I'm just saying that I'm certain that Christianity is a man-made construct, one that isn't even followed by the vast majority of its so called "followers."

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Wycoff


That's ridiculous. So you're saying that things like vaccinations, refrigeration, air conditioning, anti-biotics, rail and air travel, etc. haven't made people happier or more fufilled? More people have more time and more resources to do whatever they desire than at any point in human history. Yeah, I'd rather live in the 18th century, where the life expectancy was 45 years and 99% spent every day from sunup to sun down in toil and misery.

EDIT: I posted this before I read Lorizael's post. However, I disagree with him. I think that science and scientific advancement has directly given more happiness to people over the past 200 years than has religion.

That's not what poll say.

JM

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
That's not what poll say.

JM

Do we have opinion polls from the 18th century?

I'm also curious what would happen if we took these modern "unfulfilled" people and magically teleported them to backwoods South Carolina circa 1750. Let them live back then for a few years and see how good they had it in the 21st century. I suspect that they'd realize that they were pretty happy afterall.

[Jon Miller]

How does that make sense at all?

There is different cultures and expectations. The response would be the same as taking 18th century unfulfilled people and moving them to today.

The point isn't that things were better in the past. The point is that technology and material wealth (beyond that needed for survival) aren't the only factors.

The people who were made happy by having things in the 18th century, were made happy by having 18th century things.. just like the people who are made happy by having things today, are made happy by 21st century things.

Jon Miller

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How does that make sense at all?

There is different cultures and expectations. The response would be the same as taking 18th century unfulfilled people and moving them to today.

The point isn't that things were better in the past. The point is that technology and material wealth (beyond that needed for survival) aren't the only factors.

The people who were made happy by having things in the 18th century, were made happy by having 18th century things.. just like the people who are made happy by having things today, are made happy by 21st century things.

Jon Miller

I don't see how any of that supports a contention that religion makes people happier. People in the 18th century had lower expectations from their standard of living. Much lower. That doesn't mean that what we have wouldn't make them happy; in fact, I think that it clearly shows that the contrary is true. Are you saying that people from the 18th century wouldn't like the air conditioning, refrigeration, medicine and vaccinations, farm machinery, cheap and widely available literature on topics of all sorts, indoor plumbing and heated water, electric light, easy transportation, low infant-mortality rate and comparatively very safe child birth, abundance of cheap food, etc. that are the hallmarks of modern "Western" civilization? This isn't about mere materialism. It's about not having to live a short, miserable life of back breaking toil. Our leisure and creature comforts make our lives better and make people happier than they would be without them.


Would modern people be happier if everyone embraced religion? I doubt it, and I don't think that that would be possible, anyway. From what I've experienced, religion causes more fear and anxiety in people than joy. IMO, Sarxis pointed out the main comfort that religion gives to most people, and that is that religion helps religious people cope with dieing.

[Jon Miller]

Note I am not currently arguing in favor of religion, I am arguing against Scientism...

Plastics are cool, but cause cancer.
Nuclear Energy is cool, but causes radioactive waste and possibilities of Armageddon.

Pretty much every scientific advancement has negatives and positives. Science is amoral, and isn't concerned with happiness. Sure it can be used to make people happier.. it can also be used to cause people pain.

That is my point.

Religion and Philosophy are in the businses of making people happier, of regarding morals. Not science. To apply those things to science is to make science nonscientific.. which is a misuse of science.

Jon Miller

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Note I am not currently arguing in favor of religion, I am arguing against Scientism...

Pretty much every scientific advancement has negatives and positives. Science is amoral, and isn't concerned with happiness. Sure it can be used to make people happier.. it can also be used to cause people pain.

That is my point.

And religion can't be used to cause people pain? Which is worse: amoral science or a "moral" religion that teaches hating and killing as a doctrine? Wahhabists teach morals; I don't think that their morals are helping this world.

Religion and Philosophy are in the businses of making people happier, of regarding morals.

I contend that they fail miserably at that, especially dogmatic organized religions.

I'm not against Philosophy insofar as it is tied to rationality, reason, and debate. Religion is a different story. I think that when you have people proclaiming that their magical protector orders them to do such and such and to hate so and so because his magical book says so, you have a situation in which the religion is doing more harm than good. I also find a situation in which everyone prepares for the afterlife or spiritual world at the expense of helping themselves and others in the here-and-now to be undesireable.

Not science. To apply those things to science is to make science nonscientific.. which is a misuse of science.

Jon Miller

I don't value the intrinsic "moral" worth of empiricism. I value the scientific method because it has shown that it works. I think that it's much better for society to rely on empiricism backed with a rational moral code than it is to be believing in miracles and waiting for the return / intervention of a magical personal creator.

[Jon Miller]

Science is a good method, for what it does. Which is the study of nature which can be experimented on and have mathematical models made about.

Trying to make it more just weakens it.. it makes it less sure and less dependable.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

In true science there is nothing to beleive in (in the way one would beleive in a philosophy or a religion)..

You comparing, or saying that science is similiar to religion.. is a misapplication of science.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

You are using your disagreement with certain aspects of certain religions as an attack on religion as a whole.

There is differences in religion just like there are differences in philosophy.. just like there is differences in scientific opinion.

Jon Miller

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Science is a good method, for what it does. Which is the study of nature which can be experimented on and have mathematical models made about.

Trying to make it more just weakens it.. it makes it less sure and less dependable.

Jon Miller

I don't really see how people are trying to make it any more than what it is. It is a method, not a belief system.

Faith in scientific progress is different than faith in divine guidance/intervention. If you have the aptitude to do so, you can help make scientific progress. It's not a faith, it's an action. Religious faith, however, is passive. No matter how much you believe, there is nothing that you can do to change anything about your deity.