My Final Word On Religion For A While

[David Sklansky]

Too many tournaments and big cash games coming up. So here's my bottom line:

There is nothing close to a good scientific explanation for the two endpoints of this universe. The Big Bang or whatever started it, and the fact that the most advanced animal we know that exists, has a self awareness, and realization of impending death, that no other animal has. Thus an intelligent person can speculate that the explanation may involve some sort of powerful entity outside of our known universe or laws.

Most people, of course, are more concerned about the second question. Their own consciousness. Where does that come from? That's the question that draws them to religion and makes them think there is some sort of God out there. The other stuff is just corroberating evidence. Or it least it once was. Nowadays science has shown that most of the stuff between the two endpoints, would occur naturally, once the Big Bang started a universe with subatomic particles and laws of physics. Not everything is explained. But enough is so that it is is reasonable to assume that it all, in theory, could be. Except of course for the Big Bang.

As to consciousness, scientists could put a big dent into the idea that it is evidence for God by making a computer that could somehow convince us it was really conscious. But even that wouldn't be the nail in the coffin. Unless of course that computer could turn into YOU.

Thus it makes sense to think a godlike entity MIGHT exist. But this is way too vague to make a lot of people feel comfortable. Deep down they know that the more specific they get in their beliefs, the more likely they are to be wrong, but their yearning for clarity makes them ignore that fact. Which makes them susceptible to others who claim to know the exact answer and back their assertion up with books and "evidence" that has been carefully constructed. So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't. Usually their lack of doubt comes from an inability to do critical thinking or a strong psychological need to be sure of their beliefs. Their are other possible reasons as well.

The question now becomes whether persuading people that a less dogmatic approach to the question of God is a worthy endeavor. Would it be a good thing if people who want God in their life to realize that they are simply hoping or assuming he exists and that they really have no good reason to think they know what form he has if he exists at all?

My answer is that it would depend on whether it made them or us happier. (Except in the case of scientifically brilliant people who are being held back by their religion.) Unfortunately the average person, I think, would be less happy if he didn't have specific religious beliefs to cling to. I'm not sure about that but my observations over many years tell me it is so.

What about our happiness? Would we be happier if others had no religion or a more vague one. It all comes down to the precepts of that religion. There is little doubt in my mind that we would all be better off if most people subscribed to liberal Christianity or liberal Judaism (or the more vague religion if the Golden Rule was part of it). I'm sure other religions fit the bill as well. More conservative religions are a bit more iffy. The ones that want to tell you what to do. I do want to point out however that it is wrong to think that people would necessarily change their minds if they weren't religious. There are plenty of atheists who are against abortions or gay marriage My opinion is that even moderately conservative religions help the world more than they hurt. In spite of the fact that they have some rules that we might not like and in spite of the fact that their members, with their lack of doubt, are not thinking straight.

There are however two types of religions that are bad for the world. Besides the fact that they believe in supernatural things for sure that they have no right to. One type is a religion who has monstrous rules. Worse yet if they are willing to back that up with violence. Forget the Golden Rule. The other type is one where in spite of lip service to the Golden Rule, the main criteria is belief rather than behavior. Better for us, and probably them as well, that people wou would otherwise believe that, be atheists instead.

[PairTheBoard]

Good luck with the games and hurry back David.

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
There are however two types of religions that are bad for the world.
...
The other type is one where in spite of lip service to the Golden Rule, the main criteria is belief rather than behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was one of Jesus's main points, that the top religious leaders of his day did exactly this.

I

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The question now becomes whether persuading people that a less dogmatic approach to the question of God is a worthy endeavor. Would it be a good thing if people who want God in their life to realize that they are simply hoping or assuming he exists and that they really have no good reason to think they know what form he has if he exists at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

Does Heaven speak? [Confucius uttered this phrase more than a few times]

"Wereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" -Wittgenstein.




[ QUOTE ]
My answer is that it would depend on whether it made them or us happier. (Except in the case of scientifically brilliant people who are being held back by their religion.) Unfortunately the average person, I think, would be less happy if he didn't have specific religious beliefs to cling to. I'm not sure about that but my observations over many years tell me it is so.


[/ QUOTE ]


I would probably concur. Beyond that, the rest is silence.

-Zeno

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but your last sentence here should probably have been prefaced with the phrase "all things being equal", and all things are definitely not equal. There are major differences between religions that help us in determining their validity.

Moreover, though, let's assume for a minute that the Bible is true, and Satan is real. The influence of a deceiver could account for the existence of many separate religions as well. It's not so cut and dry that the mere fact that opposing religions are out there means that everyone of them is false.

Good luck in your upcoming tournaments!

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]

There is nothing close to a good scientific explanation for the two endpoints of this universe...and the fact that the most advanced animal we know that exists, has a self awareness, and realization of impending death, that no other animal has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does human consciousness need explaining any more than animal consciousness? Human consciousness is merely an advanced form of the latter that can be directly traced to it via evolution. Unless you think there is evidence of some kind of discontinuity in human evolution, I see nothing particularly troubling about human consciousness.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of atheists who are against abortions or gay marriage

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Especially the latter? I've never heard anyone give a reason against gay marriage that wasn't somehow related to religion.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of atheists who are against abortions or gay marriage

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Especially the latter? I've never heard anyone give a reason against gay marriage that wasn't somehow related to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are arguments relating to what the objective of the state is in allowing legal marriages (with benefits) at all..

for instance, if it is to promote an environment where two people are more likely to decide to have a child..the state may consider that to be worthwhile for the good of the state..

since homosexuals wouldn't be having children..granting them the right to legally marry would not serve the state's expressed purpose.

then we can get into details about the fact that a man and woman would then be allowed to marry even if one or both are sterile..while a two men can't..and that's not fair..or the fact that homosexual couples may be more inclined to adopt under legal marriage...and that may serve the state..

my point is only that there are indeed secular arguments to be made against gay marriage specifically...it just depends on what your thoughts on what the objectives of the state should be.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Human consciousness is merely an advanced form of (animal consciousness) that can be directly traced to it via evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is most certainly untrue. What science currently knows about how human consciousness could have developed is theoretical. Your use of the words "directly" and "traced" suggest that some type of detailed step by step process has been observed, and this is simply not the case.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of atheists who are against abortions or gay marriage

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Especially the latter? I've never heard anyone give a reason against gay marriage that wasn't somehow related to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are arguments relating to what the objective of the state is in allowing legal marriages (with benefits) at all..

for instance, if it is to promote an environment where two people are more likely to decide to have a child..the state may consider that to be worthwhile for the good of the state..

since homosexuals wouldn't be having children..granting them the right to legally marry would not serve the state's expressed purpose.

then we can get into details about the fact that a man and woman would then be allowed to marry even if one or both are sterile..while a two men can't..and that's not fair..or the fact that homosexual couples may be more inclined to adopt under legal marriage...and that may serve the state..

my point is only that there are indeed secular arguments to be made against gay marriage specifically...it just depends on what your thoughts on what the objectives of the state should be.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to claim that there isn't a possible secular stance against gay marriage. I'm just disputing that a lot of people feel that way, mostly because of how easily you just dismantled your own argument. When you take the "sanctity of marriage," a fundamentally religious idea, out of consideration, it doesn't seem like there's much to stand on.