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

[robert68]

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.

That would just make everyone puppets of that “creator”. You may well be a puppet or automaton of some being, and it makes you say and do what you do. But I know I’m no one’s puppet and have good reason to believe I’ve far from the only one.

 

[Sola_Fide]

That would just make everyone puppets of that “creator”. You may well be a puppet or automaton of some being, and it makes you say and do what you do. But I know I’m no one’s puppet and have good reason to believe I’ve far from the only one.

How would you know that you weren't doing what God has predestined? Seriously, how? How would you know if God is not blinding you right now?

Anyway, the "puppet" description is not analogous because puppets don't have wills. Men have wills (not free wills, but wills none the less). Men will and act with their own volition, while carrying out the eternal decrees of the Sovereign Lord, whether they know it or not. There is nothing so clear in Scripture but that God works everything after the counsel of His will.

 

[erowe1]

That would just make everyone puppets of that “creator”. You may well be a puppet or automaton of some being, and it makes you say and do what you do. But I know I’m no one’s puppet and have good reason to believe I’ve far from the only one.

How would it make you a puppet?

And at what point in what I said do you disagree? Do you deny having axioms?

 

[robert68]

How would you know that you weren't doing what God has predestined? Seriously, how? How would you know if God is not blinding you right now?

If “God” created me, why would I 'know' anything at all? Does the chair you’re sitting on 'know' anything, it was created?

Anyway, the "puppet" description is not analogous because puppets don't have wills. Men have wills (not free wills, but wills none the less). Men will and act with their own volition, while carrying out the eternal decrees of the Sovereign Lord, whether they know it or not. There is nothing so clear in Scripture but that God works everything after the counsel of His will.

That’s contradictory: you say they have a ‘will’, but not really, because their 'will' is really just "God's" will.

 

[robert68]

How would it make you a puppet?

What’s the difference between a puppet and what you described?

And at what point in what I said do you disagree? Do you deny having axioms?

Give an example of an “axiom” you have in mind.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If “God” created me, why would I 'know' anything at all? Does the chair you’re sitting on 'know' anything, it was created?




That’s contradictory, they have of ‘will’, but not really.

The analogy is false. Men have wills and act, puppets don't.

 

[RCA]

I'm a finite being (physically I will die). Yet the faith I am blessed with is infinite -always room for improvement even to the point of reaching perfection -but not to be realized by myself in this life. Have you seen this world? Yikes!

I really can't separate the different topics that you've mentioned.

To understand my point of view or my faith, try substituting "PERFECT Love" for "God/supreme being". If you're lacking perfection you might understand where I'm coming from. If you're perfect don't worry about it.

Great topic RCA. I don't agree with your reasoning in your OP but I sure do appreciate the different facets of what you've mentioned. Again, in my case they're inseparable and if they didn't all tie together for me I'd have doubts. They tie together for me.

I must add that Perfect Love (a supreme being) has been sacrificed for me and my imperfections. Debt paid. Free market principle satisfied.

Thanks, but I didn't have any reasoning in my original topic. I just asked a simple question, why do mutually exclusive topics always get lumped together. Nothing more than that.

 

[erowe1]

What’s the difference between a puppet and what you described?

A puppet is a toy you put on our hand or hang on strings, and nothing I described resembled anything like that.

Or was there some way that something I said seemed like a description of a puppet that you can actually explain?

Give an example of an “axiom” you have in mind.

Like in this discussion, the axiom that your sense experiences correspond to something real outside yourself.

If I were to take what you said before seriously, I would think that you consider that idea ridiculous, and that people who actually trust their senses are puppets. But I know you don't really think that.

 

[erowe1]

I didn't have any reasoning in my original topic

+ rep

 

[RCA]

+ rep

Good to see you finally understanding Engrish...

 

[robert68]

A puppet is a toy you put on our hand or hang on strings, and nothing I described resembled anything like that.

Or was there some way that something I said seemed like a description of a puppet that you can actually explain?

The part in bold:

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.

A puppet has no mind or will of its own. If one only knows what a creator wants them to know, they have no mind either.

Like in this discussion, the axiom that your sense experiences correspond to something real outside yourself.

If I were to take what you said before seriously, I would think that you consider that idea ridiculous, and that people who actually trust their senses are puppets. But I know you don't really think that.

I said the things one “interacts with”, one knows are outside of their mind. One’s own will is used to interact with things; puppets don’t have a will or mind. One also uses their will (if they have one) to think, when in a conscious state.

because at the end of the day, we're all theists

Do you think all non-theists are lying when they say they aren’t theists?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ontologies are like assholes - everybody has one, and voicing them tends to annoy other people.

What the believers are referring to in this thread as religion or worldview, is actually the ontological construct from which one frames the universe, and thus their perceptions of it. I have a slightly different understanding of what religion is. To me, a religion is anything you do religiously. For many of us here, that would include posting on RPFs. I get my understanding from James, who describes pure religion as visiting (helping) orphans and widows, and keeping oneself from being corrupted.

Someone who looks at pornography every day has a religious habit of viewing porn. People can religiously feed their dogs and cats.

To go to (one of the) OP's questions, the reason religion is inseparable from an ontological construct that includes an eternal realm (afterlife) or God, is because belief in such things necessitates the devotion of some regular attention to that issue, whether that be in quiet contemplation, scriptural study, or regular gatherings at a Church or a Synagogue. If regularity is the condition of religiosity, ie regimentation, which I believe it to be, then the mere fact that one regularly contemplates the afterlife makes that in and of itself a religious practice.

See, that is what I believe James calls religion, and I believe James was inspired of God to say such a thing. So my definition of religion is different than everyone in this thread, different even than Merriam Webster. What the dictionary, and my believing colleagues in this thread are calling 'religion,' I call 'ontology.' And literally, every human being that draws breath has an ontology.

In short, one's ontology is their theory of existence.

"I think, therefore I am" is an ontology. "I annoy others, therefore I am" is another (classical!!) ontology. "God created the heavens and the Earth, and on the sixth day God created man, therefore I exist" is another ontology.

One of the problems in this thread is not rules for debate, but the fact that the different parties are coming into it with radically different premises. In order to have a rational discussion of anything you first have to agree on some premises or at least one premise. Without that agreement, we are working from radically different languages. Or, to put it another way, you have a map of Ontario and I have a map of England, and we are arguing over how to get to London.

 

[RCA]

I regularly eat, and regularly think about eating but I'm not religious about food nor do I subscribe to any food religion. I would call regularly doing something a habit. I have an eating habit. Here's the definition of religion and habit from the free dictionary, the majority of meanings clearly describe formal religions (Christianity, Buddhism, etc.)

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

hab·it (hbt)
n.
1.
a. A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired through frequent repetition.
b. An established disposition of the mind or character.
2. Customary manner or practice: a person of ascetic habits.
3. An addiction, especially to a narcotic drug.
4. Physical constitution.
5. Characteristic appearance, form, or manner of growth, especially of a plant or crystal.
6.
a. A distinctive dress or costume, especially of a religious order.
b. A riding habit.

Ontologies are like assholes - everybody has one, and voicing them tends to annoy other people.

What the believers are referring to in this thread as religion or worldview, is actually the ontological construct from which one frames the universe, and thus their perceptions of it. I have a slightly different understanding of what religion is. To me, a religion is anything you do religiously. For many of us here, that would include posting on RPFs. I get my understanding from James, who describes pure religion as visiting (helping) orphans and widows, and keeping oneself from being corrupted.

Someone who looks at pornography every day has a religious habit of viewing porn. People can religiously feed their dogs and cats.

To go to (one of the) OP's questions, the reason religion is inseparable from an ontological construct that includes an eternal realm (afterlife) or God, is because belief in such things necessitates the devotion of some regular attention to that issue, whether that be in quiet contemplation, scriptural study, or regular gatherings at a Church or a Synagogue. If regularity is the condition of religiosity, ie regimentation, which I believe it to be, then the mere fact that one regularly contemplates the afterlife makes that in and of itself a religious practice.

See, that is what I believe James calls religion, and I believe James was inspired of God to say such a thing. So my definition of religion is different than everyone in this thread, different even than Merriam Webster. What the dictionary, and my believing colleagues in this thread are calling 'religion,' I call 'ontology.' And literally, every human being that draws breath has an ontology.

In short, one's ontology is their theory of existence.

"I think, therefore I am" is an ontology. "I annoy others, therefore I am" is another (classical!!) ontology. "God created the heavens and the Earth, and on the sixth day God created man, therefore I exist" is another ontology.

One of the problems in this thread is not rules for debate, but the fact that the different parties are coming into it with radically different premises. In order to have a rational discussion of anything you first have to agree on some premises or at least one premise. Without that agreement, we are working from radically different languages. Or, to put it another way, you have a map of Ontario and I have a map of England, and we are arguing over how to get to London.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I regularly eat, and regularly think about eating but I'm not religious about food nor do I subscribe to any food religion. I would call regularly doing something a habit. I have an eating habit. Here's the definition of religion and habit from the free dictionary, the majority of meanings clearly describe formal religions (Christianity, Buddhism, etc.)

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

hab·it (hbt)
n.
1.
a. A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired through frequent repetition.
b. An established disposition of the mind or character.
2. Customary manner or practice: a person of ascetic habits.
3. An addiction, especially to a narcotic drug.
4. Physical constitution.
5. Characteristic appearance, form, or manner of growth, especially of a plant or crystal.
6.
a. A distinctive dress or costume, especially of a religious order.
b. A riding habit.

Ontologies are like assholes - everybody has one, and voicing them tends to annoy other people.

What the believers are referring to in this thread as religion or worldview, is actually the ontological construct from which one frames the universe, and thus their perceptions of it. I have a slightly different understanding of what religion is. To me, a religion is anything you do religiously. For many of us here, that would include posting on RPFs. I get my understanding from James, who describes pure religion as visiting (helping) orphans and widows, and keeping oneself from being corrupted.

Someone who looks at pornography every day has a religious habit of viewing porn. People can religiously feed their dogs and cats.

To go to (one of the) OP's questions, the reason religion is inseparable from an ontological construct that includes an eternal realm (afterlife) or God, is because belief in such things necessitates the devotion of some regular attention to that issue, whether that be in quiet contemplation, scriptural study, or regular gatherings at a Church or a Synagogue. If regularity is the condition of religiosity, ie regimentation, which I believe it to be, then the mere fact that one regularly contemplates the afterlife makes that in and of itself a religious practice.

See, that is what I believe James calls religion, and I believe James was inspired of God to say such a thing. So my definition of religion is different than everyone in this thread, different even than Merriam Webster. What the dictionary, and my believing colleagues in this thread are calling 'religion,' I call 'ontology.' And literally, every human being that draws breath has an ontology.

In short, one's ontology is their theory of existence.

"I think, therefore I am" is an ontology. "I annoy others, therefore I am" is another (classical!!) ontology. "God created the heavens and the Earth, and on the sixth day God created man, therefore I exist" is another ontology.

One of the problems in this thread is not rules for debate, but the fact that the different parties are coming into it with radically different premises. In order to have a rational discussion of anything you first have to agree on some premises or at least one premise. Without that agreement, we are working from radically different languages. Or, to put it another way, you have a map of Ontario and I have a map of England, and we are arguing over how to get to London.

I'm sorry, I place James the Apostle's definition of 'religion' above that of Merriam Webster. I thought I had made that clear. I hope it is clearer now.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The next part is usually an objection that Merriam Webster defines words according to how they are used and not how people want them to be. Unfortunately for the sake of clarity that is just not true. The sense that I use the word 'religion' is pretty common even if Websters doesn't carry it. People talk about folks who drink religiously all the time. Or who visit their chiropractor religiously. Or who watch some TV show religiously. Or who donate to charity religiously.

In fact, I would argue that one of the reasons we don't find shared premises in debates like this is that Christians more often than not work from James's definition of religion even if they don't know that they do, so when they try to have discussions like this with people who do not hold scripture in authority, we are necessarily working from different premises described by the same word, and mostly we don't even realize it, and don't understand that this is the source of our frustrating inability to communicate effectively.


ETA - The definition you posted does kind of address it in #4, which fits my use of the word far more appropriately than 'habit' in any case, though I do think it is more - and more encompassing - than what is described in #4.

 

[RCA]

I'm sorry, I place James the Apostle's definition of 'religion' above that of Merriam Webster. I thought I had made that clear. I hope it is clearer now.

This wasn't from Merriam Webster, it was the Free Online Dictionary: "The world's most comprehensive dictionary: English, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch, Norwegian, Greek, Arabic, Polish, Turkish, Russian, Medical, Legal, and Financial Dictionaries, Thesaurus, Acronyms and Abbreviations, Idioms, Encyclopedia, a Literature Reference Library, and a Search Engine all in one!"

Also, most words have changed meaning over time. Some one words have morphed into completely new meanings. Some words branch out into separate meanings. I would say that at least 95% of the time when the world "religion" is used, it means a formalized system of beliefs w/scriptures and requirements for its membership. The would "religiously" on the other has a separate meaning that you are referring to: to do something with repetition and conviction. But in the latter case the idea behind the word is that you are doing something "that appears to be of a religious nature" not that you are doing it all the time. If someone is so incessantly concerned with something, to the point it appears to be OCD or just plain fanatical, then the habit then takes on special characteristics that make it appear to outsiders that it has religious qualities (as one does similar things in a congregation). The mere act of repeating something (ala taking a shit) doesn't make it "religious", you have to go above and beyond the regular habit of doing this thing for one to apply the more appropriate adjective of "religiously". If one watches a given TV show on Tuesday night that doesn't mean that person is doing it religiously. If that same person watches that TV show on Tuesday night at all costs, then that can be said to be done religiously, because they are placing the value of a tv show higher than the average person in their daily life. The adjective and the noun have two different (though similar) meanings.

 

[1stAmendguy]

Ontology is the study of being and is centered around addressing questions like what does it mean to exist, what is existence. I guess you can say that it is also within the scope of philosophy of religion too.

 

[robert68]

How is something verifiable?

When others independently observe it. You'd flunk elementary science lab trying to sustain your worldview.

 

[Sola_Fide]

When others independently observe it. You'd flunk elementary science lab trying to sustain your worldview.

No number of independent observations can bring down the conclusion that something is true. This is the fallacy of induction. You obviously are not aware of this fundamental rule of thought.

I'd flunk "science lab"? You'd flunk logic, which is the ruling discipline. Science is based on a tissue of logical fallacies.

 

[Sola_Fide]

More about the logical fallacies of science:

One of the insoluble problems of the scientific method is the fallacy of induction; induction, in fact, is a problem for all forms of empiricism (learning by experience). The problem is simply this: induction, arguing from the particular to the general, is always a logical fallacy. No matter how many crows, for example, you observe to be black, the conclusion that all crows are black is never warranted. The reason is quite simple: Even assuming you have good eyesight, are not colorblind, and are actually looking at crows, you have not, and cannot, see all crows. Millions have already died. Millions more are on the opposite side of the planet. Millions more will hatch after you die. Induction is always a fallacy.

There is another fatal fallacy in science as well: the fallacy of asserting the consequent. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell put the matter this way:

"All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true. This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."

Recognizing that induction is always fallacious, philosophers of science in the twentieth century, in an effort to defend science, developed the notion that science does not rely on induction at all. Instead, it consists of conjectures, experiments to test those conjectures, and refutations of conjectures. But in their attempts to save science from logical disgrace, the philosophers of science had to abandon any claim to knowledge: Science is only conjectures and refutations of conjectures. Karl Popper, one of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers of science, wrote:

"First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it.... We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses....In science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement:...our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;...it consist of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths.

Observation and science cannot furnish us with truth about the universe, let alone truth about God. The secular worldview, which begins by denying God and divine revelation, cannot furnish us with knowledge at all.