Do We Need Faith?

[Dao Hao Now]

Original sin is connected to human conscious evolution and not just biological evolution based on bones and DNA; a software instead of hardware change.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil, is a metaphor for a conscious way of thinking; moral value judgment, that comes from the mind and the brain. Genesis is speaking of human conscious evolution. The formation of civilization required a new type of mind with more neural sophistication than was needed for the old hunting and migratory gathering ways. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was reduced to 10 commandments; seedling. This trees has grown into millions of laws, world wide; giant redwood.

A good analogy for this evolution of human consciousness is a domestic dog; poodle, versus a wild dog, like the wolf. Both have canine DNA. Biology may lump them that way. However, a domestic dog has a different operating system in their brains compared to a wild dog. Wild dogs are millions of years old while domestic dogs are about 30,000 year old. These two types of dogs can mate, but their brains are wired very differently. If they do mate their offspring will become feral which has an operating system closer to the wild dog.

The same was true of Adam and Eve. They were a new type of human with the same DNA, as the caveman. We ma not be able to tell by bones. But Adam and Eve had a more advanced brain and consciousness. They were the first true modern humans; new type of domesticated human. When Cain was sent away he could still breed with the pre-humans since both shared human DNA, but their offspring would be more instinctive until they were domesticated by Cain; teach them things.

Religion is the observational science behind conscious evolution. For example, in Greek mythology, the Titans came first and then the Olympians. The Titans were larger than life; mutants, strong but were also like monsters; metaphor for early modern human behavior after the polarization; children of Cain. This was superseded by a more civilized disposition; Olympians. The Olympians were still polarized into good and evil characters and tendencies. Original sin still clouded the mind making hard to see. This has now degenerated to all aspects of modern culture.

Religion helped cause this evolution of human consciousness. Say, for the sake of argument, we assume religion is all imaginary. Say as we go through life, we add this imagination stream, to our natural instinctive approach to reality. The brain will drift away from our pure instinct and will start to add some of the imaginary to our way of life. This is where civilization begins. Every innovation in science is not DNA based, since it is new or of the then future. These idea come from the imagination, synthesized at an unconscious level. These visions interact with the reality of science, until an innovative change appears. Religion was a way to organize and harness this inner power for change; main frame processing.

This topic is about original sin and that human tendency to judge some things as good and other things as evil. Atheism is a case study, via a class of humans, who can only see in black and white, with their own belief assigned white and anything that is opposite, black. This conscious tendency, that atheism cannot control is called original sin. By their own judgement, religion is a sin toward atheism and needs to be purged, as though this will heal them of their internal neural polarization. If you got rid of religion a new energy will appear to fill in the polarization. Religion by teaching original sin causes one to be self aware and try to control this neural subroutine and remain faithful and objective. Atheism cannot use this trick since anything religion is evil and needs to repressed.

The bible claims this modern tendency in the human mind was not always the case. Before that there was paradise where people were not split minded by the polarization of good and evil. That earlier time was a time of natural human instinct which was more spatial or 3-D. It could bridge the gap between each other and with nature so these were not opposed to each other, within the human mind.

From the POV of neural science, Genesis is connected to the evolution of the human ego, or the secondary center of consciousness; conscious mind. It evolved from the inner self, which was and still is the original center of the unconscious mind; connected to DNA and natural instinct. These two centers can unite or they oppose each other, with original sin connected to a path of opposition to God and nature. The Satan subroutine may now be genetically engrained, due to its self serving natural selection, based on thousands of years of this tendency. Division in modern society is from the original sin neural subroutine.

Atheism and science cannot admit the possibility of Genesis being about human conscious evolution instead of bones and DNA; shell evolution. This possibility does not feed into their inner need to polarize religion via the symbolic neural subroutine. But this is how you start to deprogram it. Religion teaches us, not always by human language, but also by the raw symbolic language of the inner self, which knows the way back to paradise.

Hmmm,
That’s an, what might be called, “interesting” opinion you pulled right out of your ***.

 

[sun rise]

Not falsifiable, and that's its called faith

Can you falsify your love of chocolate being more than just a physiological response to the chemicals? Can you falsify a mother's love for her children beyond the chemicals involved? Can you falsify consciousness outside of the changes in the brain during sleep?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Original sin is connected to human conscious evolution and not just biological evolution based on bones and DNA; a software instead of hardware change.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil, is a metaphor for a conscious way of thinking; moral value judgment, that comes from the mind and the brain. Genesis is speaking of human conscious evolution. The formation of civilization required a new type of mind with more neural sophistication than was needed for the old hunting and migratory gathering ways. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was reduced to 10 commandments; seedling. This trees has grown into millions of laws, world wide; giant redwood.

A good analogy for this evolution of human consciousness is a domestic dog; poodle, versus a wild dog, like the wolf. Both have canine DNA. Biology may lump them that way. However, a domestic dog has a different operating system in their brains compared to a wild dog. Wild dogs are millions of years old while domestic dogs are about 30,000 year old. These two types of dogs can mate, but their brains are wired very differently. If they do mate their offspring will become feral which has an operating system closer to the wild dog.

The same was true of Adam and Eve. They were a new type of human with the same DNA, as the caveman. We ma not be able to tell by bones. But Adam and Eve had a more advanced brain and consciousness. They were the first true modern humans; new type of domesticated human. When Cain was sent away he could still breed with the pre-humans since both shared human DNA, but their offspring would be more instinctive until they were domesticated by Cain; teach them things.

Religion is the observational science behind conscious evolution. For example, in Greek mythology, the Titans came first and then the Olympians. The Titans were larger than life; mutants, strong but were also like monsters; metaphor for early modern human behavior after the polarization; children of Cain. This was superseded by a more civilized disposition; Olympians. The Olympians were still polarized into good and evil characters and tendencies. Original sin still clouded the mind making hard to see. This has now degenerated to all aspects of modern culture.

Religion helped cause this evolution of human consciousness. Say, for the sake of argument, we assume religion is all imaginary. Say as we go through life, we add this imagination stream, to our natural instinctive approach to reality. The brain will drift away from our pure instinct and will start to add some of the imaginary to our way of life. This is where civilization begins. Every innovation in science is not DNA based, since it is new or of the then future. These idea come from the imagination, synthesized at an unconscious level. These visions interact with the reality of science, until an innovative change appears. Religion was a way to organize and harness this inner power for change; main frame processing.

This topic is about original sin and that human tendency to judge some things as good and other things as evil. Atheism is a case study, via a class of humans, who can only see in black and white, with their own belief assigned white and anything that is opposite, black. This conscious tendency, that atheism cannot control is called original sin. By their own judgement, religion is a sin toward atheism and needs to be purged, as though this will heal them of their internal neural polarization. If you got rid of religion a new energy will appear to fill in the polarization. Religion by teaching original sin causes one to be self aware and try to control this neural subroutine and remain faithful and objective. Atheism cannot use this trick since anything religion is evil and needs to repressed.

The bible claims this modern tendency in the human mind was not always the case. Before that there was paradise where people were not split minded by the polarization of good and evil. That earlier time was a time of natural human instinct which was more spatial or 3-D. It could bridge the gap between each other and with nature so these were not opposed to each other, within the human mind.

From the POV of neural science, Genesis is connected to the evolution of the human ego, or the secondary center of consciousness; conscious mind. It evolved from the inner self, which was and still is the original center of the unconscious mind; connected to DNA and natural instinct. These two centers can unite or they oppose each other, with original sin connected to a path of opposition to God and nature. The Satan subroutine may now be genetically engrained, due to its self serving natural selection, based on thousands of years of this tendency. Division in modern society is from the original sin neural subroutine.

Atheism and science cannot admit the possibility of Genesis being about human conscious evolution instead of bones and DNA; shell evolution. This possibility does not feed into their inner need to polarize religion via the symbolic neural subroutine. But this is how you start to deprogram it. Religion teaches us, not always by human language, but also by the raw symbolic language of the inner self, which knows the way back to paradise.

Just as there is no such thing as original sin imo, you post is simply enlarging the ancient mythologies as to embrace pseudoscience .

Science is neither interested in supporting or attacking region.
Religion is a social constuct that is still inextricably linked to the fables of primitive man.
However its most extreme followers position them selves on the side of those fables, whenever their veracity is threatened by more recent knowledge or disproved by scientific study.

Science is not in any way at war with religion. It only seems that way to some of their followers because they can not accept that their scripture could possibly need correcting in any way.

There is no such problem for followers who are able to keep an open mind. And who can understand that the ancient writers did not have a perfect understanding of their world and knew nothing at all of science. They must let science fill those gaps, and correct those errors. If that changes our understandings and religious beliefs, then sobeit.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You'll never find a believer who doesn't believe his every belief is wholly justified.

Unfortunately “belief” is not justification.
Justification requires supporting evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Can you falsify your love of chocolate being more than just a physiological response to the chemicals? Can you falsify a mother's love for her children beyond the chemicals involved? Can you falsify consciousness outside of the changes in the brain during sleep?

So you are saying god is a box of chocolates? I can work with that...

Actually the source of chocolate pleasure is well documented.

You mean falsify by taking away the evidence? Not sure thats a fair way of doing it

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The concept that there is no God because the planet rotates revealing the sun every morning is far less supportable than the concept that God makes the sun come up in the morning.

I’m not aware of anyone claiming that “because the planet rotates” is a proof of no god.

You could claim that the planet rotating does not require a god and show numerous examples of independently verifiable, unambiguous, repeatable, predictably, and therefore objective evidence to support that claim.

You honestly believe the same is true for a claim that God “makes” the sun come up every morning? Really!?

Perhaps reality is unfolding in ways we can't predict because we lack both the equations and the ability to quantify most of the variables.

A quick example of where your wrong here;
On August 21, 2017 I was in Grand Tetons National Park to witness a total eclipse of the sun.
I had become aware of this event several years before and had downloaded an app that showed where and when the eclipse would occur, locate my position where I was, and count down to the moment of totality,-
Second contact (C2): The instant when the total phase of an eclipse begins. For a total eclipse, this is synonymous with the disappearance of the first diamond ring, when the umbra covers the sun.
Umbra: The darkest part of the Moon’s shadow, within which the entirety of the Sun's bright face is blocked. Within the umbra, the Moon appears larger than the Sun. An observer standing in the umbra sees a total solar eclipse.
That countdown from that app that was downloaded long before the event happened was accurate down to the second!

A total eclipse is an amazing experience.
If you would like to experience one yourself, there will be another within a couple years here in the US.

You could pray to your God to reveal to you when and where to witness such an event…

Or, you could avail yourself of one of the many sites which freely disseminate the verifiable, unambiguous, predictable, objective scientific information of when are where to be and be confident in the knowledge that you’ll be able to count it down to within a second.

Which of these two methods do you honestly believe would be more reliable?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are we talking about faith or are we talking about religion? The OP title question mentions faith, but the OP makes no mention of it.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There will always be a need for 'some' faith, since God can never be seen or heard from directly.

Apparently that's why I'll always be an atheist and why I'm baffled that everyone isn't one.

 

[sun rise]

So you are saying god is a box of chocolates? I can work with that...

You mean falsify by taking away the evidence? Not sure thats a fair way of doing it

I mean there are things that can't be put in a lab and subject to a controlled and repeated experiment. These are personal experiences not scientific ones. That's why I brought up experiences and asked you if a mother's love for her child was solely due to oxytocin or if there was a meaning beyond treating the parent-child bond as mere biology.

 

[cladking]

You honestly believe the same is true for a claim that God “makes” the sun come up every morning? Really!?

Both are a belief. Some people believe in natural law and some in god's law. Obviously nothing is so simple it can be divided into such neat categories but the point remains very very true; we each see reality in terms of our models and beliefs. We can never directly experience reality or even our own senses but must process everything in terms of belief. Those who believe in science do see knowledge such as the rotation of the planet as prima facie evidence that there is no God and those who believe in God take the spinning of the planet as proof of God's magnificence and omniscience. A beautiful sunrise looks different to every observer and some can not even see the beauty or judge that specific sunset as wanting.

Of course some people understand how we know the planet spins and have experience with most of the relevant factors. Such people don't "believe" in the science they understand the science just as some people have understanding that allows them to see the sunset from the perspective of faith. Neither is wrong but those who blindly accept "science" or religion are not thinking for themselves and not understanding any part of reality (at least as it applies to spinning earths).

The "law of rotational inertia" is no more true than the law that "thou shalt not kill". Neither is a law at all and they are merely observations from a specific perspective of reality. The former is imparted by experiment and has no meaning outside its metaphysics and the latter is probably derived from 40,000 years of observational science. All knowledge other than visceral knowledge is dependent on definitions and axioms.


What people on both sides forget is that the objective is to see reality. This is largely for the purpose of making predictions and understanding. It's to attempt to live a fulfilling life and leave the world a better place.

Manty people simply reject the anchor of religion because they believe all the answers can be found in science even though we don't even know what the questions are yet. And nobody can tell you how to lead the perfect life or what beliefs you'll need to carry for that life. Still you will become your beliefs.

 

[cladking]

That countdown from that app that was downloaded long before the event happened was accurate down to the second!

Did your app also tell you it wouldn't be cloudy that day or that a rogue comet wouldn't wipe out the planet years earlier?

You could pray to your God to reveal to you when and where to witness such an event…

Which computer program do you download to tell you whether to marry Nicole or Sharon?

Who's going to win next years superbowl.

Anyone can predict where the train that left Omaha and is traveling 65 miles per hour will be but how does a breakdown or derailment affect this calculation. Man didn't invent mathematics. We merely observed that quantifying logic was a useful tool.

Which of these two methods do you honestly believe would be more reliable?

I might suggest doing the calculations (looking them up) and praying I can be somewhere with no clouds. This would be the old definition of "praying" which is "studying" and "attending to" available evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Apparently that's why I'll always be an atheist and why I'm baffled that everyone isn't one.

I guess it is all a matter of individual perspective.....
I am not baffled that we will never see or hear from God directly, because it would be impossible to see God or hear from God directly, given the nature of God and the limitations of humans.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Both are a belief. Some people believe in natural law and some in god's law. Obviously nothing is so simple it can be divided into such neat categories but the point remains very very true; we each see reality in terms of our models and beliefs. We can never directly experience reality or even our own senses but must process everything in terms of belief. Those who believe in science do see knowledge such as the rotation of the planet as prima facie evidence that there is no God and those who believe in God take the spinning of the planet as proof of God's magnificence and omniscience. A beautiful sunrise looks different to every observer and some can not even see the beauty or judge that specific sunset as wanting.

Of course some people understand how we know the planet spins and have experience with most of the relevant factors. Such people don't "believe" in the science they understand the science just as some people have understanding that allows them to see the sunset from the perspective of faith. Neither is wrong but those who blindly accept "science" or religion are not thinking for themselves and not understanding any part of reality (at least as it applies to spinning earths).

The "law of rotational inertia" is no more true than the law that "thou shalt not kill". Neither is a law at all and they are merely observations from a specific perspective of reality. The former is imparted by experiment and has no meaning outside its metaphysics and the latter is probably derived from 40,000 years of observational science. All knowledge other than visceral knowledge is dependent on definitions and axioms.


What people on both sides forget is that the objective is to see reality. This is largely for the purpose of making predictions and understanding. It's to attempt to live a fulfilling life and leave the world a better place.

Manty people simply reject the anchor of religion because they believe all the answers can be found in science even though we don't even know what the questions are yet. And nobody can tell you how to lead the perfect life or what beliefs you'll need to carry for that life. Still you will become your beliefs.

True, strictly speaking both are beliefs.
What is the difference between them?

One qualifies as knowledge;
Knowledge is defined as the small fraction of our beliefs that actually meet the scientific standard of evidence. As such, knowledge represents the small fraction of our beliefs that are actually True. Therefore knowledge is by definition “True belief(s)”.

The other is believed “on faith” (as the OP questioned);

Definition of faith
(Entry 1 of 2)

1. a. allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY

b. (1): fidelity to one's promises

(2): sincerity of intentions
// acted in good faith

2. a. (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God

(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a
religion

b. (1): firm belief in something for which there
is no proof

(2): complete trust

3. :something that is believed especially with
strong conviction

Especially: system of religious beliefs
// the Protestant faith

On faith
:without question
// he took everything he said on faith

Here #s 2 and 3 apply.

So in the sense of reliably interpreting reality,
these two “beliefs” are far from equivalent.

The "law of rotational inertia" is no more true than the law that "thou shalt not kill".

Another false equivalency.

The “law of rotational inertia” is what’s known as a “descriptive law”:
A statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
In other words, it truly describes the way things happen reliably.

“Thou shalt not kill” is what’s known as a
“prescriptive law”:
A rule or principle of proper conduct sanctioned by conscience, concepts of natural justice, or the will of a deity: a moral law.
In other words it isn’t concerned with “truth”, it is a dictate from on high.

One is an “is”, the other is an “ought”.

This is yet another example of the use of semantics as obfuscation that people hide behind in order to misrepresent or hedge a point of view.
Whether done with intention and sometimes through ignorance.

I notice you neglected to answer my question from the previous post.
Allow me to try again….

Concerning where and when to view the upcoming total eclipse in the US….

Which of these two methods do you honestly believe would be more reliable for anyone of any (or no) religious belief?
A or B?

A. You could pray to a God to reveal to you when and where to witness such an event…

OR

B. Or, you could avail yourself of one of the many sites which freely disseminate the verifiable, unambiguous, predictable, objective scientific information of when are where to be and be confident in the knowledge that you’ll be able to count it down to within a second.

 

[cladking]

b. (1): firm belief in something for which there
is no proof

Nothing in science is proven.

 

[blü 2]

First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.

Here's where reason intrudes.

What is your definition of a 'false religion'?

What, specifically, is the objective test it fails that falsifies it?

Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

Atheism has no other tenet than "I do not believe any real god exists".

And it follows, does it not, that since there are many more nominal believers in the world than nominal nonbelievers, the religions you regard as false are promoting far more flawed thinking than 'atheists' as such, simply as a matter of headcount?

Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?

Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."

I'd argue, let's apply science to religion.

What do we find when we approach religion with reasoned skeptical enquiry and empiricism and induction and repeatable experiment?

It would be to note that religions are something humans do, and supernatural explanations are something humans produce as a result of their evolved instant-narrative-fitting instinct to explain what can't be explained; and as part of tribal identity and solidarity (along with language, customs, stories &c); and that the history of priestcraft is the history of making a living by claiming special knowledge and special powers about these things ─ would it not?

And it would find no examinable evidence for the supernatural in any of its forms ─ would it not?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I guess it is all a matter of individual perspective.....
I am not baffled that we will never see or hear from God directly, because it would be impossible to see God or hear from God directly, given the nature of God and the limitations of humans.

I'm sure that all makes perfect sense... if you take it on faith. Personally I'm more interested in what can be shown to be demonstrably true. And since faith is not a reliable path to truth, it has no use to me.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

I’m just wondering, what would you call a “good” religion?
And, if religion were a force for good, then, so sorry, but I seem to be missing the “good” part.
I must be living in the wrong country. Where do you live?
I would love to go somewhere to see some real, true, “good”.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure that all makes perfect sense... if you take it on faith. Personally I'm more interested in what can be shown to be demonstrably true. And since faith is not a reliable path to truth, it has no use to me.

Faith and evidence is the only path to truth about God. God can never be demonstrated to exist.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Did your app also tell you it wouldn't be cloudy that day or that a rogue comet wouldn't wipe out the planet years earlier?

No, at least not the same one;
it was an astronomy app concerned with the eclipse, which is not a weather event.
I have another app for weather.
After looking up the path of totality, I researched the meteorological history of the places where I might wish to go and determined the statistical probability of clear skies on the given date at each location to determine which would have better odds of clear skies…. which helped guide me to where I would travel to.
I also had backup locations in case the weather within a few days of the event was anomalous for the time of year at the primary chosen location.

As for the “rough comet” nonsense….
There is actually a program at NASA that scans our solar system (particularly the asteroid belt) and identifies and tracks all discernible asteroids and other bodies that could do sizable damage to earth as an early warning system.

Do you believe a religion could do a better and more reliable job at any of these tasks?

 

[Truthseeker]

If you have genuinely good evidence there's no need for faith.

The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his life.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 156)

This is a different concept of faith than you are used to, I'm sure.