Does this explain religion?

[PureX]

Funny view of the world if you think that knowledge isn't a huge part of wisdom.

I think you make far more of it than it is. Knowledge is great at increasing our functionality, but it does very little to improve our morality (moral responsibility). We're already so 'smart' that we're in danger of destroying ourselves and the entire planet, because with all that intelligence, we don't seem to have advanced much at all in terms of wisdom. We can't control our own numbers. We can't regulate and share resources. We can't even institute our own proclaimed moral imperatives, like equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for all humans. For all our "knowledge" we still behave like dumb animals; squabbling over everything, and wasting enormous amounts of energy and resources on establishing and maintaining a social 'pecking order'.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think you make far more of it than it is. Knowledge is great at increasing our functionality, but it does very little to improve our morality (moral responsibility). We're already so 'smart' that we're in danger of destroying ourselves and the entire planet, because with all that intelligence, we don't seem to have advanced much at all in terms of wisdom.

It seems to me that knowledge - via all the various sciences - has contributed a great deal to our understanding, and hence to our collective wisdom. Whether we have the wherewithal to act on this is another matter. I'm not that optimistic either as it happens - especially when dimwits get voted into office.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't think there's any such thing as a single moral code of conduct to be found in scripture, just as there isn't a single Christology or a single biography of Jesus. The individual has to do his or her own edit if a single understanding is the goal. (Indeed, there's no clincher that there was an historical Jesus at all.)..............

Thank you again for your reply. To me Scripture is a clincher that there is an historical Jesus.
I find in Scripture the 'single moral code of conduct' has roots in the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18.
Jesus expounded upon that Mosaic Law Code by giving a 'New' commandment at John 13:34-35.
Instead of just loving neighbor as self, Now to love neighbor ' more ' than self.
As far as morality throughout Scripture sexual moral conduct is only for married couples.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It seems to me that knowledge - via all the various sciences - has contributed a great deal to our understanding, and hence to our collective wisdom. Whether we have the wherewithal to act on this is another matter. I'm not that optimistic either as it happens - especially when dimwits get voted into office.

To me ' collective wisdom ' aka technology has led to progress: horse and buggy to cars ( even to the moon ).
Progress in transportation, health care, even artificial intelligence when your fridge processes info for you.
Cell phones, 3-D printers, GPS over the use of maps can all be beneficial.
However, beneficial atomic energy also led to the atomic bomb.
So, does just beneficial necessarily mean enlightened.
The self-serving greedy people in these last days of badness on Earth are Not beneficial - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13
Such self-serving people create fear of flying / high-jack planes/ terrorism. Fierce driving on the highways.
Sure, they may talk about being spiritual but spirituality does Not show in their life, or life style.
Hence, the line is now very blurred between right and wrong. Priority is: Is it fun ?
People choosing to Not apply Bible principles in their lives is why we hear of perverse things in the news.
There are more mass shootings then there are days in the year. This is called the 'new normal' !
Thus, if we observe the worlds current trends then we see No good end in sight.
Whereas, if we observe and obey what we find in Scripture there is good in sight.- Revelation 22:2

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Scriptures explain nothing...they only make unsubstantiated claims than are utterly unfalsifiable , so essentially useless.

Wow, are you going to be in for a BIG surprise. ( 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 )
When the ' powers that be ' will be saying, "Peace and Security.." that substantiates the claim that such 'saying' will only prove to be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9

 

[blü 2]

Only if you believe it.

Certainly the question is how it works as a generalization.

Historically, stories have filled particular kinds of gaps in our knowledge in all cultures around the world.

But we live in the First World in the 21st century, and science knows about reality in a way religion does not (and often enough appears not to wish to).

Clearly a lot of religion is stories. Is it that for many people, for many believers, stories still have more appeal than explanations do, that magic and miracles have a headier buzz than science and medicine?

 

[blü 2]

Thank you again for your reply. To me Scripture is a clincher that there is an historical Jesus.
I find in Scripture the 'single moral code of conduct' has roots in the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18.
Jesus expounded upon that Mosaic Law Code by giving a 'New' commandment at John 13:34-35.
Instead of just loving neighbor as self, Now to love neighbor ' more ' than self.
As far as morality throughout Scripture sexual moral conduct is only for married couples.

Unless you're the king, of course. The bible boasts of Solomon's harem, implicitly as a sign of the power God has given him.

The Golden Rule is found in cultures earlier than Judaism. That's not surprising. H sap has evolved as a gregarious primate with various instincts that support cooperation; one of these is a natural approval, even in very young infants, of fairness and reciprocity, and a disapproval of the person who harms, which is why various versions of the Golden Rule exist in virtually all cultures.

So I have no argument with the Golden Rule principle, only with the idea that we need the bible to inform us of it.

And in the end, whether with believer or nonbeliever, the important moral question is whether we treat our fellow-humans with respect and decency and inclusion.

(But that's not exactly what the OP is about.)

 

[blü 2]

Doesn't seem like it to me. At least some of the time, religions were largely filling the role of 'explanatory' over history.

I think that's likely to be true in nomadic tribes, where the roles of religion, history and storytelling are often hard to disentangle, though shamans or equivalent are much the norm. By the time the bible gets to history, the role of the professional priest is established and jealously guarded, history and story are still much the one concept, and both are well understood as political tools. And over all, in the absence of science, story fills the vacuums that (human) nature abhors.

Through a modern lens, we might prefer science to act in this role, but it doesn't change the fact that religion hasn't traditionally been about increasing mystery. At least, I should clarify, not universally. This might be an aspect of SOME religions, I would suppose.

The question in the OP is really about modern First Worlds believers ─ from the believer's point of view, does mystery give religion an emotional caché, a greater power to satisfy, that scientific explanations don't have?

 

[blü 2]

Sure, but that's the result of consciousness, not material physics. Physically, there is no "me" vs "not me". That's the difference between physics, and metaphysics: matter vs. consciousness. "Objectivity" is a manifestation of consciousness, not a property of matter.

But consciousness arises from matter, the working brain, as is easily shown ─ without the working brain and its remarkably complex biochemical / bioelectrical patterns and processes, there's no consciousness. But once our individual awareness has arisen, how does it relate to the world external to it? That's subjectivity meeting objectivity.

Certainly they are not. They are the transcendent result of physical processes.

What does 'transcendent' mean here? What test will tell us whether something is 'transcendent' or not?

What does it mean to "know" something? Isn't knowledge just supposition based on experience and imagination? How are these ever "objective"?

That's covered by the assumption that you and I share that our senses are capable of informing us about the world external to the self.

The point is that science adds nothing to humanity in terms of wisdom, because it cannot address the real question that we humans need answered.

Could you provide a couple of leading examples of such 'real questions'?

'how'. Science says 'here's how through sharing and mutual cooperation we can improve the lives of every human on Earth', but humanity says 'why would we do that?'

Then we're in the realm of cultures, politics, advertising and the arts of persuasion. It's often hoped that better education will help us address these problems, and there's some evidence that's true. I don't suggest there's one single solution, though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think that's likely to be true in nomadic tribes, where the roles of religion, history and storytelling are often hard to disentangle, though shamans or equivalent are much the norm. By the time the bible gets to history, the role of the professional priest is established and jealously guarded, history and story are still much the one concept, and both are well understood as political tools. And over all, in the absence of science, story fills the vacuums that (human) nature abhors.

I would suggest that's a little monotheistically flavoured. But, perhaps it's more the Abrahamaic religions you are referring to. In that case, I think our friend Constantine played a monumental role in formalising belief, establishing 'true' dogma, and ensuring the priesthood effectively controlled 'religion'.

The question in the OP is really about modern First Worlds believers ─ from the believer's point of view, does mystery give religion an emotional caché, a greater power to satisfy, that scientific explanations don't have?

Hard for me to fathom the believers point if view. But still, people I know at least find it hard to understand how I...as an atheist...simply say 'I don't know' for some things. As if having an answer is somehow important.

It's a small sample size, and just my opinion, but there it is.

 

[Mock Turtle]

To me ' collective wisdom ' aka technology has led to progress: horse and buggy to cars ( even to the moon ).
Progress in transportation, health care, even artificial intelligence when your fridge processes info for you.
Cell phones, 3-D printers, GPS over the use of maps can all be beneficial.
However, beneficial atomic energy also led to the atomic bomb.
So, does just beneficial necessarily mean enlightened.
The self-serving greedy people in these last days of badness on Earth are Not beneficial - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13
Such self-serving people create fear of flying / high-jack planes/ terrorism. Fierce driving on the highways.
Sure, they may talk about being spiritual but spirituality does Not show in their life, or life style.
Hence, the line is now very blurred between right and wrong. Priority is: Is it fun ?
People choosing to Not apply Bible principles in their lives is why we hear of perverse things in the news.
There are more mass shootings then there are days in the year. This is called the 'new normal' !
Thus, if we observe the worlds current trends then we see No good end in sight.
Whereas, if we observe and obey what we find in Scripture there is good in sight.- Revelation 22:2

I think our knowledge and wisdom in the broader sense are improving - where such things as racial discrimination, views and laws regarding homosexuality, equality for females, etc. have changed rather dramatically just in my lifetime. There will always be something in our world to cite as being worse than before - like mass shootings in the USA, for example, and our apparent devotion to various forms of technology - but the general trend seems for us to be progressing in many areas. Our unfortunate inability to look far into the future to recognise future problems also seems to be a human trait, or the fact that we really do need to cooperate better, and nation states (and religions) are often hindering this. And as individuals we don't exactly have a great deal of power. Hence why we need to vote in the right people. I don't know what will mobilise people to act when most of us seemingly want to live a life as they see fit or better than their predecessors.

We'll just have to disagree on moral behaviour, since I don't believe that is the issue, and the evidence seems to me to show that religious beliefs are as much the problem as they are supposed to provide moral frameworks.

 

[PureX]

But consciousness arises from matter, the working brain, as is easily shown ─ without the working brain and its remarkably complex biochemical / bioelectrical patterns and processes, there's no consciousness. But once our individual awareness has arisen, how does it relate to the world external to it? That's subjectivity meeting objectivity.

That's physics/metaphysics. In the physical realm, there is no subjective OR objective reality. There is no "me/not me", or "this/not that". There are no 'parts of the whole'. It's all one unaware phenomena. But there IS another realm of being manifesting within the physical realm. That is the metaphysical realm; which generates all these new possibilities. Possibilities that occur because of self/other awareness.

What does 'transcendent' mean here? What test will tell us whether something is 'transcendent' or not?

It means the emergence and manifestation of new possibilities that were not otherwise extant.

Could you provide a couple of leading examples of such 'real questions'?

Why do we exist? What are we to do with this existence now that we are aware of it? What is it's source, and what are it's limits?

Then we're in the realm of cultures, politics, advertising and the arts of persuasion. It's often hoped that better education will help us address these problems, and there's some evidence that's true. I don't suggest there's one single solution, though.

These behavioral memes occur because we have these questions, and they matter greatly to us, but we don't have the answers. And science cannot provide them, because science cannot investigate the metaphysical realm of being.

 

[blü 2]

That's physics/metaphysics. In the physical realm, there is no subjective OR objective reality. There is no "me/not me", or "this/not that". There are no 'parts of the whole'. It's all one unaware phenomena. But there IS another realm of being manifesting within the physical realm. That is the metaphysical realm; which generates all these new possibilities. Possibilities that occur because of self/other awareness.

Our awareness is the product of the working brain, as I said, and the brain is dependent on the senses to ken the outside world, to survive and breed in it, and to understand it. As I also said, in this way, subjectivity encounters objectivity and we have the history of people and within it the history of science.

One of our evolved brain functions is picturing the future; the marksman knows his spear or arrow must anticipate movement, the hunter knows where the game were this time last year and goes there, you can get on the right side of the leader if you make certain classes of joke so you intend to do this ... and so on. Foreseeing possibilities, imagining future outcomes and how to bring them about, anticipating problems, are a kit from the same stable, an evolved compound brain function.

It means the emergence and manifestation of new possibilities that were not otherwise extant.

That is, the thinking up by a brain of such possibilities.

Why do we exist?

Because every one of our ancestors, back across three and a half billion years, lived long enough to breed ─ and here we are. So is there any objective purpose to the existence of humans? No. But if you're a human, chances are that you'll get your greatest satisfactions from your place in society, your mate and offspring, the skilful and successful exercise of your talents and the camaraderie of your group. One's place in the peck order can be the difference between surviving or not, finding a desirable mate or not; and nearly all primates do this by forming one-to-one relationships with other members of the group, the higher up the order the better. The larger the primate brain, the greater the number of those relations, which makes being a human a complex business; and 'networking' is only one of various manifestations of this instinctive tendency.

What are we to do with this existence now that we are aware of it? What is it's source, and what are it's limits?

We can be our version of a Musk or a Liz Warren or Postman Pete or Jenny da Vinci or whatever; we can do that as our day job or as our hobby. We can, with the usual lapses, lead lives that fit with the instinctive part of our morality and with the acquired part, as good children, friends, partners, parents, neighbors, employees, employers, citizens. The question is there because the range of possibilities is so large.

we don't have the answers. And science cannot provide them, because science cannot investigate the metaphysical realm of being.

Science can tell and has already told us a great deal about ourselves, and how our brains work; and while the mechanics of awareness are still a work in progress, the smart betting says the answer will come from there. As you say, it hasn't come from anywhere else. But at the end of the day only we can make our own choices, so the more we know about ourselves both as humans and as individuals, the better placed we are (it seems to me) to make those choices.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think our knowledge and wisdom in the broader sense are improving - where such things as racial discrimination, views and laws regarding homosexuality, equality for females, etc. have changed rather dramatically just in my lifetime. There will always be something in our world to cite as being worse than before - like mass shootings in the USA, for example, and our apparent devotion to various forms of technology - but the general trend seems for us to be progressing in many areas. Our unfortunate inability to look far into the future to recognise future problems also seems to be a human trait, or the fact that we really do need to cooperate better, and nation states (and religions) are often hindering this. And as individuals we don't exactly have a great deal of power. Hence why we need to vote in the right people. I don't know what will mobilise people to act when most of us seemingly want to live a life as they see fit or better than their predecessors.
We'll just have to disagree on moral behaviour, since I don't believe that is the issue, and the evidence seems to me to show that religious beliefs are as much the problem as they are supposed to provide moral frameworks.

I can agree that religious beliefs can be as much of the problem...........
This is because just as Jesus said that MANY would come 'in his name' but prove false as per Matthew 7:21-23
Of course Christians ' vote in ' Jesus as rightful king (president) by following his model example, and living by it.
But, we do have the ability to look into the future to recognize future problems.....
The future's recognizable problems will climax with backing the United Nations which will prove to be God's arm of the law to carry out His justice against corrupted religions.
The U.N. recognizes a hauntingly dangerous religious climate brewing, so with enough backing it can surprisingly turn on the corrupted religious world. Starting with corrupted 'Christendom' (because she claims to follow the God of the Bible).
So, when the 'powers that be ' will be saying, " Peace and Security...." this is the ' final signal ', so to speak, which will prove to be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.
Then, Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..............But, perhaps it's more the Abrahamaic religions you are referring to. In that case, I think our friend Constantine played a monumental role in formalising belief, establishing 'true' dogma, and ensuring the priesthood effectively controlled 'religion'...............

Yipes, I never heard that 'friend' Constantine established ' true dogma '....etc.
To convert the non-Christians, 'enemy' Constantine established ' Christendom ' over 1st-century Christianity.
In other words, there was a fusion, a mixing of pagan thought and ideas with Scripture.
This way it could look, or have the facade of being Christian while still retaining non-biblical ideas as biblical.
Thus, Constantine 'controlled ' Christendom, and Not Christianity as recorded in Scripture.

 

[tayla]

Many things can explain religion, though I have discovered via objective studies that the most reasonable explanation for religion is comprehended in accordance with the imagination manifesting a deep desire for comfort.

For ancient cults and religions; the source is perhaps needing to explain weird or scary unknown things such as: the sun and stars, lightening and thunder, animals having personalities, hypnagogic hallucinations, effects of severe mental disorders. We should know better today.