Why do discussions about religion always lump God and afterlife together?

[RCA]

"Facts are facts" is one of the most uninformed and irrational things that one can say. It displays a total unfamiliarity with what we are talking. Facts are NEVER just facts. There are no brute facts. There are no facts that are unrelated to your governing presuppositions.

Your worldview defines what you even think "facts" are. No offense, but you really need to read some Kuhn or some Clark to be able to intelligently engage in this discussion.

I don't need to "read" anything to tell tell me that 2+2=4 for and that the sky is blue. I just need to stopping wasting my time with people who think otherwise.

 

[Theocrat]

We Are All Religious

This sentence is a religious dogma that lumps together God and the afterlife.

Again, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

RCA, the reason why you aren't able to make sense of erowe1's excellent point is because you're assuming that you are in a position of religious neutrality. Religious neutrality doesn't exist, for we all have religious beliefs about ourselves, what the nature of God is (or "should be"), the universe, and things that are contained therein.

We also all have religious beliefs about what the nature of reality is, how knowledge is obtained, and how we ought to live in this world. None of the answers to those questions can be answered by empirical (or scientific) means because the methods of empiricism do not operate in that fashion, thus, dealing with tangible entities based on sensory perceptions. Yet, the questions about reality, knowledge, and ethics are extremely meaningful and important questions that all human beings try to figure out, and they are questions that the natural sciences cannot deal with.

So, your original question, "Why do discussions about religion always lump God and afterlife together," is, itself, a religious question. It is not science-based at all.

 

[RCA]

RCA, the reason why you aren't able to make sense of erowe1's excellent point is because you're assuming that you are in a position of religious neutrality. Religious neutrality doesn't exist, for we all have religious beliefs about ourselves, what the nature of God is (or "should be"), the universe, and things that are contained therein.

We also all have religious beliefs about what the nature of reality is, how knowledge is obtained, and how we ought to live in this world. None of the answers to those questions can be answered by empirical (or scientific) means because the methods of empiricism do not operate in that fashion, thus, dealing with tangible entities based on sensory perceptions. Yet, the questions about reality, knowledge, and ethics are extremely meaningful and important questions that all human beings try to figure out, and they are questions that the natural sciences cannot deal with.

So, your original question, "Why do discussions about religion always lump God and afterlife together," is, itself, a religious question. It is not science-based at all.

No, those things are just called beliefs. Religious belief requires being tied to a formal religion and being subjected to it's rules and doctrines. That's like saying I believe society is generally good. This is not a religious belief, it's just a belief. The whole point of adding the "religious" adjective in front of belief is because just saying "belief" isn't good enough when referring to organization institutions of the supernatural. And saying 2+2=4 is not only not a religious belief, it's not a plain belief either, it's a proven fact. And no my original question was not a "religious belief". That's like saying why do discussions about football usually lead to discussions about beer (made up example) is a religious question. No, it's just plain conversation.

 

[Theocrat]

You Have a Belief About "Belief"

No, those things are just called beliefs. Religious belief requires being tied to a formal religion and being subjected to it's rules and doctrines. That's like saying I believe society is generally good. This is not a religious belief, it's just a belief. The whole point of adding the "religious" adjective in front of belief is because just saying "belief" isn't good enough when referring to organization institutions of the supernatural. And saying 2+2=4 is not only not a religious belief, it's not a plain belief either, it's a proven fact. And no my original question was not a "religious belief". That's like saying why do discussions about football usually lead to discussions about beer (made up example) is a religious question. No, it's just plain conversation.

RCA, you've missed my point. You are assuming that beliefs can be neutral, and that is not philosophically cogent. There are several problems with your response, first of all. When you said that "Religious belief requires being tied to a formal religion and being subjected to its rules and doctrines," I need to know what you mean by "formal religion," because I'm pretty sure that your definition of "formal religion" will be different from mine.

Beliefs are inherently religious, RCA, because beliefs are based on faith in someone or about something. More importantly, beliefs reveal the nature of your worldview, insofar as telling us what you found your knowledge, reality, and ethics upon to understand the universe. If you believe that 2+2=4, that reveals a number of faith-commitments you have about the existence of immaterial concepts (like numbers and arithmetic), the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the idea that memory is reliable, the belief that mathematics is objective, the belief that numerical values maintain their identity throughout time and space, and a host of other faith-commitments that are assumed without the aid of natural science. Beliefs are not held in isolation; they are connected to other beliefs, depending on one's worldview. That is why a belief can never be neutral.

Going back to your original question, when you asked it, did you bother to consider what you meant by "God" or "afterlife"? You have to understand that those terms can mean different things to a multitude of people. Yet, your question, itself, assumes that there is a particular understanding of "God" and the "afterlife," which you have made up in your mind. You should have been more specific about the question by asking a better one, perhaps, "What religion makes it necessary that God and the afterlife should be discussed together?" That pins it down to a particular worldview analysis, and not just some "neutral," open-ended inquiry that treats all religions the same, especially when dealing with infinitely deep subjects like God and the afterlife.

 

[RCA]

RCA, you've missed my point. You are assuming that beliefs can be neutral, and that is not philosophically cogent. There are several problems with your response, first of all. When you said that "Religious belief requires being tied to a formal religion and being subjected to its rules and doctrines," I need to know what you mean by "formal religion," because I'm pretty sure that your definition of "formal religion" will be different from mine.

Beliefs are inherently religious, RCA, because beliefs are based on faith in someone or about something. More importantly, beliefs reveal the nature of your worldview, insofar as telling us what you found your knowledge, reality, and ethics upon to understand the universe. If you believe that 2+2=4, that reveals a number of faith-commitments you have about the existence of immaterial concepts (like numbers and arithmetic), the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the idea that memory is reliable, the belief that mathematics is objective, the belief that numerical values maintain their identity throughout time and space, and a host of other faith-commitments that are assumed without the aid of natural science. Beliefs are not held in isolation; they are connected to other beliefs, depending on one's worldview. That is why a belief can never be neutral.

Going back to your original question, when you asked it, did you bother to consider what you meant by "God" or "afterlife"? You have to understand that those terms can mean different things to a multitude of people. Yet, your question, itself, assumes that there is a particular understanding of "God" and the "afterlife," which you have made up in your mind. You should have been more specific about the question by asking a better one, perhaps, "What religion makes it necessary that God and the afterlife should be discussed together?" That pins it down to a particular worldview analysis, and not just some "neutral," open-ended inquiry that treats all religions the same, especially when dealing with infinitely deep subjects like God and the afterlife.

Good thing you don't believe in electricity or the internet because otherwise you wouldn't be able to show me this circular, end-over-end, logical rubbish.

 

[Theocrat]

Around the Block and Back

Good thing you don't believe in electricity or the internet because otherwise you wouldn't be able to show me this circular, end-over-end, logical rubbish.

I can assure you that I believe in electricity and the Internet because I have faith that my memory and senses are reliable and that this world is real (in accordance with the Biblical testimony that God exists and created all things for His glory and for the benefit of His people). So, when I encounter electricity or use the Internet, I can have confidence that those things exist, and I act accordingly with them.

Having established that, I would like to go back to my previous post, and ask that you answer the questions that I posed to you in that post, please.

 

[erowe1]

No, those things are just called beliefs. Religious belief requires being tied to a formal religion and being subjected to it's rules and doctrines. That's like saying I believe society is generally good. This is not a religious belief, it's just a belief. The whole point of adding the "religious" adjective in front of belief is because just saying "belief" isn't good enough when referring to organization institutions of the supernatural. And saying 2+2=4 is not only not a religious belief, it's not a plain belief either, it's a proven fact. And no my original question was not a "religious belief". That's like saying why do discussions about football usually lead to discussions about beer (made up example) is a religious question. No, it's just plain conversation.

You aren't consistent in your definition for religious beliefs. First you say they require being tied to a formal religion and its doctrines. Then you say that 2+2=4 can't be one. But that would mean that no formal religion can have 2+2=4 as one of its doctrines. Since when can't they?

This is made worse by the vagueness of the term "formal religion." What is a formal religion?

Let's say that Christianity, as I understand it, is a formal religion. I have no idea if it would qualify for whatever definition you're using for that or not. But for the sake of argument, I'll posit that it does. Well, 2+2=4 is one of the religious beliefs of Christianity, as I understand it. This does not depend on whether or not it is a proven fact.

Furthermore, when you say 2+2=4 is a proven fact, by what means is it proven? I would argue that whatever method you have of proving that 2+2=4 is inherently religious.

Finally, even working with your interesting definitions for "religious," my earlier point still stands. Let us posit the existence of a religion called "Radically Credulous Atheism" (or RCA). This religion has some doctrines and rules and members and some structure of some kind. Even if it has only one member, it still qualifies. One of this religion's dogmas is the following: "All religious dogmas could be false."

At this point, all we need to do is go back through the same syllogism without all this quibbling about whether or not that sentence is a religious dogma, since the requirements for it to be one have been posited here.

 

[Theocrat]

My Sentiments Exactly

You aren't consistent in your definition for religious beliefs. First you say they require being tied to a formal religion and its doctrines. Then you say that 2+2=4 can't be one. But that would mean that no formal religion can have 2+2=4 as one of its doctrines. Since when can't they?

This is made worse by the vagueness of the term "formal religion." What is a formal religion?

Let's say that Christianity, as I understand it, is a formal religion. I have no idea if it would qualify for whatever definition you're using for that or not. But for the sake of argument, I'll posit that it does. Well, 2+2=4 is one of the religious beliefs of Christianity, as I understand it. This does not depend on whether or not it is a proven fact.

Furthermore, when you say 2+2=4 is a proven fact, by what means is it proven? I would argue that whatever method you have of proving that 2+2=4 is inherently religious.

Finally, even working with your interesting definitions for "religious," my earlier point still stands. Let us posit the existence of a religion called "Radically Credulous Atheism" (or RCA). This religion has some doctrines and rules and members and some structure of some kind. Even if it has only one member, it still qualifies. One of this religion's dogmas is the following: "All religious dogmas could be false."

At this point, all we need to do is go back through the same syllogism without all this quibbling about whether or not that sentence is a religious dogma, since the requirements for it to be one have been posited here.

Thanks for the response, my brother. It seems to me that RCA has not reflected deeply on this subject. He uses terms like "God" and "afterlife" as well as concepts like "2=2+4" without a philosophical (or religious) justification for how he is able to appeal to them or define them, given the demands of his atheistic beliefs. He pretends that he is arguing against us on neutral footing, but his very posing of the questions and his attempts to argue assume things which go beyond the tenets of atheism (at least their empirical means of knowledge). RCA just takes it for granted that his position is the correct one to start with in answering the questions in which he poses about God, the afterlife, and math. He still doesn't see that we are asking him for a rational, objective basis for his assertions, which continue to expose the inconsistencies of his own worldview.

 

[robert68]

I can assure you that I believe in electricity and the Internet because I have faith that my memory and senses are reliable and that this world is real (in accordance with the Biblical testimony that God exists and created all things for His glory and for the benefit of His people). So, when I encounter electricity or use the Internet, I can have confidence that those things exist, and I act accordingly with them.

Having established that, I would like to go back to my previous post, and ask that you answer the questions that I posed to you in that post, please.

If you burn your hand on something, and feel pain, do you rely on faith to feel the pain?

 

[erowe1]

If you burn your hand on something, and feel pain, do you rely on faith to feel the pain?

You definitely rely on faith if you treat that feeling of pain as though it corresponds to something real outside your mind.

 

[robert68]

You definitely rely on faith if you treat that feeling of pain as though it corresponds to something real outside your mind.

That’s not a yes answer.

And I’ll add that one knows that the things they interact with, such as a hot stove they touched, are outside of their mind.

 

[erowe1]

That’s not a yes answer.

I agree.

And I’ll add that one knows that the things they interact with, such as a hot stove they touched, are outside of their mind.

Yes we do, and we prove it by our behavior all the time. Of course we can't reason our way into this knowledge from a blank slate, like the people I sometimes encounter who imagine they never accept anything by faith. But we know it because our creator designed us to know it. We accept certain things axiomatically, and are absolutely warranted in doing so, because at the end of the day, we're all theists.

 

[Theocrat]

Faith By God's Implementation of Induction

If you burn your hand on something, and feel pain, do you rely on faith to feel the pain?

Yes, I do rely on faith to feel the pain of burning my hand on something. I have faith that pain is a real feeling that corresponds to another real entity, like a flame. As a matter of fact, I have faith that by the use of induction, any future cases of flames in my experience will also cause me pain if I touch them. So, then, I can warrant the conclusion that all flames will cause me pain if I touch them because this universe is constant (which is a statement of faith), and, therefore, the physical properties of matter do not change because God holds the universe steadfast by the laws of nature in which He has set in order.

 

[RCA]

Yes, I do rely on faith to feel the pain of burning my hand on something. I have faith that pain is a real feeling that corresponds to another real entity, like a flame. As a matter of fact, I have faith that by the use of induction, any future cases of flames in my experience will also cause me pain if I touch them. So, then, I can warrant the conclusion that all flames will cause me pain if I touch them because this universe is constant (which is a statement of faith), and, therefore, the physical properties of matter do not change because God holds the universe steadfast by the laws of nature in which He has set in order.

This is not having faith about fire, this is having knowledge about fire. Faith implies the belief in the unseen or unprovable. I have faith in society. Society can't be seen, but you can say you have faith in society. I have faith that we're going to win. This can't be proven, but you can have the inner feeling of faith. Knowledge is different from faith in that it can be seen and verified. I don't have to have faith that I'm eating an apple, I have knowledge that it is an apple. That's why faith is so closely tied to religious definitions, because it has to do with the unseen and not the verifiable. Saying 2+2=4 or that the sky is blue is a knowledge based statement because it is verifiable. If you are going to tell me that 2+2 is not 4 then you are saying there is no such thing as knowledge, in which case there's no point in debating you because anything you say as knowledge is immediately voided because you can't claim knowledge.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If you burn your hand on something, and feel pain, do you rely on faith to feel the pain?

Do you have a hand? How do you know? What if you burn it and don't feel anything? Is there no fire or no hand? What is pain and how do you know you sensed it? Do you know you are sensing something? Can you sense the sense that you are sensing something? Can you sense the sense of the sense that you sense something? How can you make a statement of truth based on your individual and fallible sense observations?

 

[Theocrat]

Inductive Inference is Based on Faith

This is not having faith about fire, this is having knowledge about fire. Faith implies the belief in the unseen or unprovable. I have faith in society. Society can't be seen, but you can say you have faith in society. I have faith that we're going to win. This can't be proven, but you can have the inner feeling of faith. Knowledge is different from faith in that it can be seen and verified. I don't have to have faith that I'm eating an apple, I have knowledge that it is an apple. That's why faith is so closely tied to religious definitions, because it has to do with the unseen and not the verifiable.

RCA, when you encounter a flame, you have faith that you are actually looking at a flame. You have faith that your senses are reliable. For all you know, the flame could just be an illusion because you're living in the Matrix. You just take it for granted that the flame is real. Now, you'll go on to say that you know the flame is real because if you touch it, it will burn you. The only way you can justify that is because, in the past, when you've touched a flame it burned you. But you can't reason that in the future, before you touch another flame, that it will burn you without a belief that the future will be like the past. So, you do have faith in the unseen and the unprovable because you have not yet experienced all instances of flames in the future. You just believe that a flame will burn and hurt you when you touch it again, based on past occurrences (which, of course, is an assumption).

 

[RCA]

RCA, when you encounter a flame, you have faith that you are actually looking at a flame. You have faith that your senses are reliable. For all you know, the flame could just be an illusion because you're living in the Matrix. You just take it for granted that the flame is real. Now, you'll go on to say that you know the flame is real because if you touch it, it will burn you. The only way you can justify that is because, in the past, when you've touched a flame it burned you. But you can't reason that in the future, before you touch another flame, that it will burn you without a belief that the future will be like the past. So, you do have faith in the unseen and the unprovable because you have not yet experienced all instances of flames in the future. You just believe that a flame will burn and hurt you when you touch it again, based on past occurrences (which, of course, is an assumption).

I'll state it again, this is all knowledge and not faith.

 

[erowe1]

I'll state it again, this is all knowledge and not faith.

What makes something knowledge and not faith?

 

[RCA]

Do you have a hand? How do you know? What if you burn it and don't feel anything? Is there no fire or no hand? What is pain and how do you know you sensed it? Do you know you are sensing something? Can you sense the sense that you are sensing something? Can you sense the sense of the sense that you sense something? How can you make a statement of truth based on your individual and fallible sense observations?

So how do we know you really exist or your arguments are valid? You want us to rely on the validity that you are a real person and that you're arguments exist, but for everything else you say nothing is knowable. If nothing is knowable, then we can't verify you are a person or a human or that what you are typing is even English. In that case, there's no point even looking at your words since vision is unknowable and your whole premises of nothing can be proven falls apart including everything you say. I'll say this one last time, you can't use truth, to espouse non-truth. You can't have us take you seriously as a real human and then turn around and say nothing is real. This makes you instantly a non-verifiable human and we just move on to the next response that we can verify the person and their argument. In fact since nothing is verifiable there's no way for you to know we're reading your arguments and you are wasting your time according to your philosophy. That's like saying apples don't exist while eating an apple and giving your body nourishment. You can say that, but then that makes you verifiably insane and any future communications null and void.

 

[RCA]

What makes something knowledge and not faith?

I've already said that one is unseen and unproven and the other is verifiable. You learn this when you were 2 years old or maybe not.