philthemn
2006-09-26, 20:07
To believe what we desire leaves all belief devoid of meaning. Religions throughout the world do just that; they escape logic and science, and embrace the natural desire to live in a death-free and just universe. But this is a doctrine based around desires, and not observation.
The truth is that when we allow ourselves to believe in religion, we accept a world-view based thousands of years ago when most of the main religions formed, before the advancement of science. Why believe The Bible when we reject the scientific ideas of this time? Nobody today is preaching that the world is flat, but yet we continue to argue that we will be sent to Hell if we sin.
We may say that our religious beliefs are based in modern day experience; from paranormal experiences. This, however, is only through a lack of scientific knowledge, as most of the so-called ‘paranormal’ can be explained with current science, i.e. lucid dreams, hallucinations, hypnosis, neuroscience, all these things can explain supernatural experiences that have fooled many into following religion.
Near death experiences are an example of this; many people believe that they see themselves entering heaven or seeing light at the end of a tunnel, but what we fail to see is that chemicals released in the brain at these times are typically pain killing opaites, and these chemicals also cause hallucinations at high doses. Also, it is culture that predicts the vision you see, not divine intervention; what is conditioned in media and folklore to happen as we die is what will be visualised in such states.
In essence, when you accept religion, you must reject many of strongest scientific theories. Evolution entirely contradicts the foundations of Christianity – how can God have created man, as in Genesis, if in fact we have evolved over millions of years from basic sea creatures? Religion also contradicts any archaeological finds before 5000 years ago; a time in which creationism dictates was before the universe even began. Along with these, religion generally reputes the Big Bang theory and most of frontier physics, and neuroscience, claiming we exist as a soul, and not a collection of physical neurons.
The soul is essential for what is the most widely held religious fact,in one way or another; the idea of life after death. This argument is hard to knock down because of our inability to experience such events, but I will try. To say that we will exist after death means that you must believe in a soul – some sort of disassociation from our body. This soul must contain our consciousness and personality, to take us as people to the afterlife. To say that these human aspects are within the soul means that they cannot be a part of the physical human brain, as this is subject to decay and entropy, and its cessation to function would mean death in its truest form. So it follows that personality and consciousness exist in a non-physical, non-chemical form then chemical substances such as that of alcohol would have no effect on them. Of course, we know to the contrary, alcohol has a definite effect on our physical brain chemistry, which alters our consciousness, perception, and personality. Therefore we must conclude that our consciousness exists solely in physical form and is subject to the entropy that, as mentioned before, will cause a true death.
One of the most frustrating things about religion is that its members will change the nature of their religion to fit with current science. They will argue that Genesis was metaphorical if evolutionary theory is thrown at them, and that God didn’t create the world in seven days, that too was a metaphor; God existed to create the Big Bang. This constant avoidance of debunking is an insult to logic – religion must stand to be criticised and stick to its original terms just as a scientific paper does, otherwise it loses any respectability it has.
I believe that religion has come about for a reason. Survival. As we evolved consciousness, the awareness of our own death, and other scientific questions, answerable at the time, caused a strong distraction and had a negative effect on survival and reproduction. As so, those who created ideological systems of a ‘greater being’ survived better, and passed on their genes, and their beliefs. Now, religion has become redundant as a tool to explain, and science has taken its place.
[This message has been edited by philthemn (edited 09-26-2006).]
The truth is that when we allow ourselves to believe in religion, we accept a world-view based thousands of years ago when most of the main religions formed, before the advancement of science. Why believe The Bible when we reject the scientific ideas of this time? Nobody today is preaching that the world is flat, but yet we continue to argue that we will be sent to Hell if we sin.
We may say that our religious beliefs are based in modern day experience; from paranormal experiences. This, however, is only through a lack of scientific knowledge, as most of the so-called ‘paranormal’ can be explained with current science, i.e. lucid dreams, hallucinations, hypnosis, neuroscience, all these things can explain supernatural experiences that have fooled many into following religion.
Near death experiences are an example of this; many people believe that they see themselves entering heaven or seeing light at the end of a tunnel, but what we fail to see is that chemicals released in the brain at these times are typically pain killing opaites, and these chemicals also cause hallucinations at high doses. Also, it is culture that predicts the vision you see, not divine intervention; what is conditioned in media and folklore to happen as we die is what will be visualised in such states.
In essence, when you accept religion, you must reject many of strongest scientific theories. Evolution entirely contradicts the foundations of Christianity – how can God have created man, as in Genesis, if in fact we have evolved over millions of years from basic sea creatures? Religion also contradicts any archaeological finds before 5000 years ago; a time in which creationism dictates was before the universe even began. Along with these, religion generally reputes the Big Bang theory and most of frontier physics, and neuroscience, claiming we exist as a soul, and not a collection of physical neurons.
The soul is essential for what is the most widely held religious fact,in one way or another; the idea of life after death. This argument is hard to knock down because of our inability to experience such events, but I will try. To say that we will exist after death means that you must believe in a soul – some sort of disassociation from our body. This soul must contain our consciousness and personality, to take us as people to the afterlife. To say that these human aspects are within the soul means that they cannot be a part of the physical human brain, as this is subject to decay and entropy, and its cessation to function would mean death in its truest form. So it follows that personality and consciousness exist in a non-physical, non-chemical form then chemical substances such as that of alcohol would have no effect on them. Of course, we know to the contrary, alcohol has a definite effect on our physical brain chemistry, which alters our consciousness, perception, and personality. Therefore we must conclude that our consciousness exists solely in physical form and is subject to the entropy that, as mentioned before, will cause a true death.
One of the most frustrating things about religion is that its members will change the nature of their religion to fit with current science. They will argue that Genesis was metaphorical if evolutionary theory is thrown at them, and that God didn’t create the world in seven days, that too was a metaphor; God existed to create the Big Bang. This constant avoidance of debunking is an insult to logic – religion must stand to be criticised and stick to its original terms just as a scientific paper does, otherwise it loses any respectability it has.
I believe that religion has come about for a reason. Survival. As we evolved consciousness, the awareness of our own death, and other scientific questions, answerable at the time, caused a strong distraction and had a negative effect on survival and reproduction. As so, those who created ideological systems of a ‘greater being’ survived better, and passed on their genes, and their beliefs. Now, religion has become redundant as a tool to explain, and science has taken its place.
[This message has been edited by philthemn (edited 09-26-2006).]