Readers’ Responses to Our Question (70)

Well-intentioned religious believers cannot cure the world’s biggest social problems.
God’s Kingdom is the only solution to mankind’s problems. God’s Kingdom is a real government and unlike human governments, it is a government that will last forever.

The Bible’s first prophecy revealed that God would send a rescuer to faithful mankind. Called the “seed”, this One would undo the terrible ills that were set in motion by the rebellion of Adam, Eve and Satan. (Genesis 3:15) Much later, faithful King David was told something thrilling about this “seed”, or Messiah. He would rule over a Kingdom. This government would differ from all others. It would endure forever. (Samuel 7:12-14)

God’s Government will accomplish what no human agencies have ever done or could ever do. Bible prophecy reveals that God’s Kingdom will end wars. It will destroy all weapons of war. Psalms 46:9:”He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth.”

There will be no more doctors, hospitals, or disease of any kind. According to Isaiah 33:24, “No resident will say: ‘I am sick’.”

There will be no more famines, food shortages, malnutrition, or starvation. The Bible promises at Psalm 72:16: “There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth.”

No more funerals, wakes, cemeteries, morgues, or the misery that accompanies them. Death, our relentless enemy, will be vanquished at last. God “will actually swallow up death forever and the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will certainly wipe the tears from all faces.” (Isaiah 25:8)

Now, God’s appointed King is ruling in the midst of his enemies.(Psalm 110:2) In this corrupt world alienated from God, the Messiah is fulfilling his Father’s desire to search out all who want to come to know God as he really is and to worship him “with spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)

The hope of living forever under the rule f God’s Kingdom is available to people of all races, ages and social backgrounds. (Acts 10:34, 35)

John 17:3 says, “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”

Shameless evil faces western white racist hypocrites all of them including Washington post too:

Keeping there

**bloooooody mouth shut**

And eyes away from there bloody hands filled with millions of innocent Muslims blood

spilled every day by there hand born “Occupying Israeli Jews” and there devil parent father USA.

"After constant slapping and mouth breaking replies from Muslims here "on faith" bolgs at Washington post the shameless perverts are

"Beating about the bush" and not discussing any

"Real problems and there causes" of the world!!!!!
(SHAMELESS PERVERTS SOLD IN THE HANDS OF DEVIL AND ITS MATERIAL)

Shame...shame...shame.............

Belated response to Victoria

Victoria,

Yes, I would make the same critique for any ideology, religous or otherwise. Like other ideologies, Theistic religions - certainly Monotheistic ones - are, in their original and pure forms, ideological and absolutist in nature.

While ideologies may have origins in reasoning of one sort or another, they end up becoming both irrational and unethical because necessarily the End or Ends justifies any means, with persons being expendable means. All ideologies, religious ideology included, function to close off questions and questioning, and thus the mind.

Reason cannot mean different things to different people and still remain a coherent concept. This is also true of other concepts. Concepts that are so elastic they can mean whatever anyone thinks they mean or wants them to mean lose their ontological justification as meaningful distinctions (all concepts being the expression of a meaningful distinction). If Reason can mean different things to people, then there would be no basis to distinguish it from religion or astrology or other things.

Not sure what your point is about creative vs. analytical personalities, but creative and analytic tendencies or abilities are not in opposition or necessarily even fundamentally different modes of thinking anyway, so, like so many distinctions we make or accept without much thought or question, I reject this one.

Was Einstein, for instance, a creative or an analytical thinker? When he said that “imagination is everything, it is the preview of life’s coming attractions” and that imagination and intuition were the basis for all his creative work, what does this tell you about whether he was a great analytical thinker or a great creative thinker?

I’m not sure what point you are making or addressing in your comment about a Muslim giving us the scientific method. Deeply religious scientists of any religion can, as on Physicist I know put it, “compartmentalize” their scientific and religious thinking, but this doesn’t mean that religion and science or, more generally, reason, are fundamentally compatible epistemologically. They clearly and demonstrably are not. See my other recent post on this if you’d like a further explanation of this. If they were fundamentally compatible then so, too, would astrology or numerology and reason (or science) be compatible, but they are demonstrably not.

Religion, astrology, numerology and other modes of knowing that are more Mythos than Logos have repeatedly give different and wrong answers to countless questions to which reason and particularly science has given us different, correct answers. Two modes of knowing that give different, incompatible answers to important questions (like why the sun seems to disappear and then reappear) are not fundamentally compatible, by definition. Otherwise, the very concept of Epistemology would have no meaning – any and all claimed ways of knowing would be valid and equally so.

That a person can believe and act epistemologically in one instance or circumstance as a scientist or social scientist, yet in other circumstances epistemologically believe and act as a religious believer or astrologer doesn’t mean they are being intellectually and epistemologically consistent; it means, in fact, that they are acting as contradictions-in-terms, even if they don’t quite realize or accept it.

Moreover, the basis for the scientific method – its underlying epistemological foundations – is the epistemological stance first articulated, to my knowledge, by the ancient Greeks. But if someone living, say, 30,000 years ago, raised questions about the basis of the claims accepted by their clan or tribe, that would have been the beginning of critical thinking and thus on the epistemological path towards science.

Science and religion differ quite fundamentally on what basis truth-claims will be accepted on, and just stop and think about all the countless claims that religion has proffered to humanity and how many of them we now know were preposterously wrong.

Son of Socrates

(belated) reply to Daniel -

Daniel,

I hope things improve for you; I know something of going through hard times. I agree that we can do so much more to eliminate poverty and suffering, though my approach might be somewhat different than yours. Surely compassion is important, but I see no real serious disjunction between critical thinking on one hand and empathy, compassion or morally-based concern and action on the other. All involve taking into consideration consequences and implications.

To really get a handle on poverty, diease, etc., like any other problem, usually the first, critical step is understanding the nature of the problem and what its causes are. This is to get to the roots and deal with the problems more fundamentally, rather than ending up, as so often happens, as doing stop-gap, temporary or largely ineffective measures, despite a lot of good intentions and a lot of money being spent (trillions have already been spent to eradicate poverty, yet we probably have more poor people than we did 10 or 20 years ago, thanks to unrestrained population growth).

Understanding the nature and causes of a problem requires reason and critical thinking. Religion can supply motivation to some, but it cannot do this very essential step of understanding the causality or nature of the problem and evaluate proposed solutions. As you suggest, head and heart, reason and religion, can work together, depending on other factors. If, for instance, religion (a religion) pushes people who are simply incapable of supporting children to have them anyway, then it becomes part of the problem, not the solution.

Sorry for the repeat posts; didn't seem to be posting , so tried a few times. Apparently it did post each time, just took a very long time.

Belated response to John Thaikattil

Thank you, though your objections would seem to indicate significant disagreement or maybe misunderstanding of what I said. To briefly, if incompletely respond to your points: 1) I’m not sure how we would know that religion is hard-wired and thus be with us forever. It is a very powerful force, meeting any number of emotional needs, so it will certainly not go quietly into the night anytime soon.

Up until the past few centuries religion was the principal, indeed only, means we had for apprehending much of reality, as it turns out, mistakenly. Today, of course, Reason and what reason led to has supplanted religion as the way we know reality. We are communicating via computers across thousands of miles based on the truths that Reason, via science and applied by technology, uncovered. Religion has no comparable track record of success and, in fact, has a long track-record of being wrong as far as claims about reality.

2) Related to the above, Religion and Reason are intrinsically and fundamentally incompatible epistemologies. Most fundamentally, reason is based on THE QUESTION, and the process of asking questions in pursuit of valid answers (to those questions), while religion, like other claimed means of apprehending reality outside of the sphere of Reason (generally lumped in the category of Mythos, as opposed to Logos) is not fundamentally based on the question and on asking questions to find answers and evaluate answers. Religion arrives at truth-claims fundamentally by assertion, definition, answers as self-evident.

In Reason, the question is the dominant concept; in religion, like other claimed modes of knowing, the question is secondary to the answer, with the answers religion provides (and it has provided tens of thousands of wrong answers to the most important, persistent questions humanity has had) being primary and not arising out of the process of asking questions.

Religions have no mechanism for evaluating truth-claims as Reason does, nor for arriving at truth-claims. It cannot arrive at new truth-claims, only assert fixed claims from the past, arrived at almost entirely by supposed revelation to one or a few persons in the distant past. It has nothing like the capacity of science to constantly be evaluating existing truth-claims and to be arriving at new truths.

Science, like law, logic, mathematics, medicine and other intellectual disciplines, are, of course, grounded on the same underlying epistemology that is Reason; based on the question in pursuit of answers.

3) If you got the impression that I’m idealizing non-monotheistic religions, I’m not sure why, since I said nothing in praise of them. I chose to focus on Monotheistic religions since a) they are the ones most familiar to most on a list like this b) they seem to be the most problematic on a world-wide basis and c) because in these sort of discussions, people so often evade or derail the main points made by others by counter-claims that the person is overgeneralizing; that essentially you can’t make any meaningful statements about religions because there is some exception or exceptions. So someone might say, well this isn’t true of Quakers or Unitarians or this or that sect of Buddhism, for example.

But sure, I would include all Theistic religions in my previous critique. Ideas like Karma or reincarnation are truth-claims arrived at just like those of the Monotheistic religions, so are on no more a sound basis epistemologically. I would say that Monotheistic religion has special problems, since the central claims of Monotheism are more absolutist than those of Polytheism, by definition. In fact, the basic claims or premises of Monotheism are, by definition, as absolutist a belief system as there could be. That is, they are the most extraordinary claims made or even imaginable, being claims of ultimate and absolute reality. As I think Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet the claims of Monotheism are infinitely more extraordinary than, say, the claims of astrology or numerology or a claim like the belief in UFOs or the presence of extraterrestrials on earth.

As far as your comments about Atheism, I don’t like the term Atheism, as it is so often misunderstood or misused. I prefer the clearer term “non-believer.” Atheism isn’t a positive belief like religion; it makes no claims. We don’t have a term for the non-belief in extraterrestrials or a term for not believing in pink, one-eyed unicorns. Hence the term itself is superfluous and is defined in terms of Theism or belief. Atheism per se can offer nothing in terms of morality or anything else because it is not a positive belief system, not one or more truth-claims.

However, as far as morality goes, it is rather easy to see and demonstrate how moral codes or systems could exist in the absence of being given by some deity. Indeed, it is not hard to demonstrate that they would have to exist in order for humans to survive, evolve and live together, just like traffic regulations would have to have been created once cars and roads became widespread in a given political entity. There needn’t be a God or gods for humans to be capable of evolving rules to regulate the conduct of those living in groups, tribes, communities, etc.

For example, it would be hard to imagine a complex social grouping surviving or thriving without any notion that truth matters and therefore lying is wrong. The same for stealing or killing. To think that humans would not have been capable of arriving at these notions on their own is actually rather demeaning of our capabilities. It is essentially saying we, as a species, would simply be incapable of arriving at ethical rules of conduct. But it can be shown that moral reasoning and other reasoning are really the same basic mental process. Both are principally about considering implications and consequences of actions or non-actions. I won’t elaborate further on this, as this is already getting too long, but this can be shown, and rather easily. So the notion that Morality and Reason are entirely distinct realms is itself a questionable one; a false distinction.

Even if I am only concerned about my own self-interests, if I am going to live with others and depend on others in significant ways, then I would need moral principles that would keep others from doing things that would be injurious to me or my self-interest. That is, if I value my own life and its continuation, then I already have an implicit moral principle.

To secure this value and principle, I need a universal, reciprocal principle - I need for all those in my vicinity to also value my life. But the only way I can get others to voluntarily (in the absence of brute force) also value my life and thus not take it if it served some need of theirs is for me to value their lives, in reciprocal fashion, and for each person who values their own life to embrace a general valuing of all the lives, at least in the relevant social group (it may be different when it comes to out-group persons, such as those in another tribe, etc.) So the only real way I can ensure that my life or possessions would likely be valued by others is to have a general moral principal in which I agree to value all other lives, and each agrees to do the same.

Here, in this simple example, it should be easy to see how moral principles, elaborated into ethical codes and systems, could have been, even must have been, developed and evolved. There is no inherent necessity for some outside deity to give us this moral sense, as if we are like very young children, incapable of deriving moral principles on our own.

The ultimate “salvation” of humanity is in realizing we do have tremendous, mostly still untapped capabilities - for critical thinking, moral reasoning, imaginative, inventive, creative thinking, scientific thinking, etc. If we could use our capacities for problem solving and change we could, probably within the next century or less, create “heaven on earth.” The more we realize our own power and use it, the less dependent we will need to be on religion or other external sources of answers to our needs and problems. We are perfectly capable of coming up with our own answers, if we only realize it!

May 2008 be a, the, Year of Reason!

Son of Socrates

Belated response to John Thaikattil

Thank you, though your objections would seem to indicate significant disagreement or maybe misunderstanding of what I said. To briefly, if incompletely respond to your points: 1) I’m not sure how we would know that religion is hard-wired and thus be with us forever. It is a very powerful force, meeting any number of emotional needs, so it will certainly not go quietly into the night anytime soon.

Up until the past few centuries religion was the principal, indeed only, means we had for apprehending much of reality, as it turns out, mistakenly. Today, of course, Reason and what reason led to has supplanted religion as the way we know reality. We are communicating via computers across thousands of miles based on the truths that Reason, via science and applied by technology, uncovered. Religion has no comparable track record of success and, in fact, has a long track-record of being wrong as far as claims about reality.

2) Related to the above, Religion and Reason are intrinsically and fundamentally incompatible epistemologies. Most fundamentally, reason is based on THE QUESTION, and the process of asking questions in pursuit of valid answers (to those questions), while religion, like other claimed means of apprehending reality outside of the sphere of Reason (generally lumped in the category of Mythos, as opposed to Logos) is not fundamentally based on the question and on asking questions to find answers and evaluate answers. Religion arrives at truth-claims fundamentally by assertion, definition, answers as self-evident.

In Reason, the question is the dominant concept; in religion, like other claimed modes of knowing, the question is secondary to the answer, with the answers religion provides (and it has provided tens of thousands of wrong answers to the most important, persistent questions humanity has had) being primary and not arising out of the process of asking questions.

Religions have no mechanism for evaluating truth-claims as Reason does, nor for arriving at truth-claims. It cannot arrive at new truth-claims, only assert fixed claims from the past, arrived at almost entirely by supposed revelation to one or a few persons in the distant past. It has nothing like the capacity of science to constantly be evaluating existing truth-claims and to be arriving at new truths.

Science, like law, logic, mathematics, medicine and other intellectual disciplines, are, of course, grounded on the same underlying epistemology that is Reason; based on the question in pursuit of answers.

3) If you got the impression that I’m idealizing non-monotheistic religions, I’m not sure why, since I said nothing in praise of them. I chose to focus on Monotheistic religions since a) they are the ones most familiar to most on a list like this b) they seem to be the most problematic on a world-wide basis and c) because in these sort of discussions, people so often evade or derail the main points made by others by counter-claims that the person is overgeneralizing; that essentially you can’t make any meaningful statements about religions because there is some exception or exceptions. So someone might say, well this isn’t true of Quakers or Unitarians or this or that sect of Buddhism, for example.

But sure, I would include all Theistic religions in my previous critique. Ideas like Karma or reincarnation are truth-claims arrived at just like those of the Monotheistic religions, so are on no more a sound basis epistemologically. I would say that Monotheistic religion has special problems, since the central claims of Monotheism are more absolutist than those of Polytheism, by definition. In fact, the basic claims or premises of Monotheism are, by definition, as absolutist a belief system as there could be. That is, they are the most extraordinary claims made or even imaginable, being claims of ultimate and absolute reality. As I think Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet the claims of Monotheism are infinitely more extraordinary than, say, the claims of astrology or numerology or a claim like the belief in UFOs or the presence of extraterrestrials on earth.

As far as your comments about Atheism, I don’t like the term Atheism, as it is so often misunderstood or misused. I prefer the clearer term “non-believer.” Atheism isn’t a positive belief like religion; it makes no claims. We don’t have a term for the non-belief in extraterrestrials or a term for not believing in pink, one-eyed unicorns. Hence the term itself is superfluous and is defined in terms of Theism or belief. Atheism per se can offer nothing in terms of morality or anything else because it is not a positive belief system, not one or more truth-claims.

However, as far as morality goes, it is rather easy to see and demonstrate how moral codes or systems could exist in the absence of being given by some deity. Indeed, it is not hard to demonstrate that they would have to exist in order for humans to survive, evolve and live together, just like traffic regulations would have to have been created once cars and roads became widespread in a given political entity. There needn’t be a God or gods for humans to be capable of evolving rules to regulate the conduct of those living in groups, tribes, communities, etc.

For example, it would be hard to imagine a complex social grouping surviving or thriving without any notion that truth matters and therefore lying is wrong. The same for stealing or killing. To think that humans would not have been capable of arriving at these notions on their own is actually rather demeaning of our capabilities. It is essentially saying we, as a species, would simply be incapable of arriving at ethical rules of conduct. But it can be shown that moral reasoning and other reasoning are really the same basic mental process. Both are principally about considering implications and consequences of actions or non-actions. I won’t elaborate further on this, as this is already getting too long, but this can be shown, and rather easily. So the notion that Morality and Reason are entirely distinct realms is itself a questionable one; a false distinction.

Even if I am only concerned about my own self-interests, if I am going to live with others and depend on others in significant ways, then I would need moral principles that would keep others from doing things that would be injurious to me or my self-interest. That is, if I value my own life and its continuation, then I already have an implicit moral principle.

To secure this value and principle, I need a universal, reciprocal principle - I need for all those in my vicinity to also value my life. But the only way I can get others to voluntarily (in the absence of brute force) also value my life and thus not take it if it served some need of theirs is for me to value their lives, in reciprocal fashion, and for each person who values their own life to embrace a general valuing of all the lives, at least in the relevant social group (it may be different when it comes to out-group persons, such as those in another tribe, etc.) So the only real way I can ensure that my life or possessions would likely be valued by others is to have a general moral principal in which I agree to value all other lives, and each agrees to do the same.

Here, in this simple example, it should be easy to see how moral principles, elaborated into ethical codes and systems, could have been, even must have been, developed and evolved. There is no inherent necessity for some outside deity to give us this moral sense, as if we are like very young children, incapable of deriving moral principles on our own.

The ultimate “salvation” of humanity is in realizing we do have tremendous, mostly still untapped capabilities - for critical thinking, moral reasoning, imaginative, inventive, creative thinking, scientific thinking, etc. If we could use our capacities for problem solving and change we could, probably within the next century or less, create “heaven on earth.” The more we realize our own power and use it, the less dependent we will need to be on religion or other external sources of answers to our needs and problems. We are perfectly capable of coming up with our own answers, if we only realize it!

May 2008 be a, the, Year of Reason!

Son of Socrates

Belated response to Soja John Thaikattil

Thank you, though your objections would seem to indicate significant disagreement or maybe misunderstanding of what I said. To briefly, if incompletely respond to your points:

1) I’m not sure how we would know that religion is hard-wired and thus be with us forever. It is a very powerful force, meeting any number of emotional needs, so it will certainly not go quietly into the night anytime soon. Up until the past few centuries religion was the principal, indeed only, means we had for apprehending much of reality, as it turns out, mistakenly. Today, of course, Reason and what reason led to has supplanted religion as the way we know reality. We are communicating via computers across thousands of miles based on the truths that Reason, via science and applied by technology, uncovered. Religion has no comparable track record of success and, in fact, has a long track-record of being wrong as far as claims about reality.

2) Related to the above, Religion and Reason are intrinsically and fundamentally incompatible epistemologies. Most fundamentally, reason is based on THE QUESTION, and the process of asking questions in pursuit of valid answers (to those questions), while religion, like other claimed means of apprehending reality outside of the sphere of Reason (generally lumped in the category of Mythos, as opposed to Logos) is not fundamentally based on the question and on asking questions to find answers and evaluate answers. Religion arrives at truth-claims fundamentally by assertion, definition, answers as self-evident.

In Reason, the question is the dominant concept; in religion, like other claimed modes of knowing, the question is secondary to the answer, with the answers religion provides (and it has provided tens of thousands of wrong answers to the most important, persistent questions humanity has had) being primary and not arising out of the process of asking questions.

Religions have no mechanism for evaluating truth-claims as Reason does, nor for arriving at truth-claims. It cannot arrive at new truth-claims, only assert fixed claims from the past, arrived at almost entirely by supposed revelation to one or a few persons in the distant past. It has nothing like the capacity of science to constantly be evaluating existing truth-claims and to be arriving at new truths.

Science, like law, logic, mathematics, medicine and other intellectual disciplines, are, of course, grounded on the same underlying epistemology that is Reason; based on the question in pursuit of answers.

3) If you got the impression that I’m idealizing non-monotheistic religions, I’m not sure why, since I said nothing in praise of them. I chose to focus on Monotheistic religions since a) they are the ones most familiar to most on a list like this b) they seem to be the most problematic on a world-wide basis and c) because in these sort of discussions, people so often evade or derail the main points made by others by counter-claims that the person is overgeneralizing; that essentially you can’t make any meaningful statements about religions because there is some exception or exceptions. So someone might say, well this isn’t true of Quakers or Unitarians or this or that sect of Buddhism, for example.

But sure, I would include all Theistic religions in my previous critique. Ideas like Karma or reincarnation are truth-claims arrived at just like those of the Monotheistic religions, so are on no more a sound basis epistemologically. I would say that Monotheistic religion has special problems, since the central claims of Monotheism are more absolutist than those of Polytheism, by definition. In fact, the basic claims or premises of Monotheism are, by definition, as absolutist a belief system as there could be. That is, they are the most extraordinary claims made or even imaginable, being claims of ultimate and absolute reality. As I think Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet the claims of Monotheism are infinitely more extraordinary than, say, the claims of astrology or numerology or a claim like the belief in UFOs or the presence of extraterrestrials on earth.

As far as your comments about Atheism, I don’t like the term Atheism, as it is so often misunderstood or misused. I prefer the clearer term “non-believer.” Atheism isn’t a positive belief like religion; it makes no claims. We don’t have a term for the non-belief in extraterrestrials or a term for not believing in pink, one-eyed unicorns. Hence the term itself is superfluous and is defined in terms of Theism or belief. Atheism per se can offer nothing in terms of morality or anything else because it is not a positive belief system, not one or more truth-claims.

However, as far as morality goes, it is rather easy to see and demonstrate how moral codes or systems could exist in the absence of being given by some deity. Indeed, it is not hard to demonstrate that they would have to exist in order for humans to survive, evolve and live together, just like traffic regulations would have to have been created once cars and roads became widespread in a given political entity. There needn’t be a God or gods for humans to be capable of evolving rules to regulate the conduct of those living in groups, tribes, communities, etc.

For example, it would be hard to imagine a complex social grouping surviving or thriving without any notion that truth matters and therefore lying is wrong. The same for stealing or killing. To think that humans would not have been capable of arriving at these notions on their own is actually rather demeaning of our capabilities. It is essentially saying we, as a species, would simply be incapable of arriving at ethical rules of conduct. But it can be shown that moral reasoning and other reasoning are really the same basic mental process. Both are principally about considering implications and consequences of actions or non-actions. I won’t elaborate further on this, as this is already getting too long, but this can be shown, and rather easily. So the notion that Morality and Reason are entirely distinct realms is itself a questionable one; a false distinction.

Even if I am only concerned about my own self-interests, if I am going to live with others and depend on others in significant ways, then I would need moral principles that would keep others from doing things that would be injurious to me or my self-interest. That is, if I value my own life and its continuation, then I already have an implicit moral principle.

To secure this value and principle, I need a universal, reciprocal principle - I need for all those in my vicinity to also value my life. But the only way I can get others to voluntarily (in the absence of brute force) also value my life and thus not take it if it served some need of theirs is for me to value their lives, in reciprocal fashion, and for each person who values their own life to embrace a general valuing of all the lives, at least in the relevant social group (it may be different when it comes to out-group persons, such as those in another tribe, etc.) So the only real way I can ensure that my life or possessions would likely be valued by others is to have a general moral principal in which I agree to value all other lives, and each agrees to do the same.

Here, in this simple example, it should be easy to see how moral principles, elaborated into ethical codes and systems, could have been, even must have been, developed and evolved. There is no inherent necessity for some outside deity to give us this moral sense, as if we are like very young children, incapable of deriving moral principles on our own.

The ultimate “salvation” of humanity is in realizing we do have tremendous, mostly still untapped capabilities - for critical thinking, moral reasoning, imaginative, inventive, creative thinking, scientific thinking, etc. If we could use our capacities for problem solving and change we could, probably within the next century or less, create “heaven on earth.” The more we realize our own power and use it, the less dependent we will need to be on religion or other external sources of answers to our needs and problems. We are perfectly capable of coming up with our own answers, if we only realize it!

Son of Socrates

Belated response to Soja John Thaikattil

Thank you, though your objections would seem to indicate significant disagreement or maybe misunderstanding of what I said. To briefly, if incompletely respond to your points:

1) I’m not sure how we would know that religion is hard-wired and thus be with us forever. It is a very powerful force, meeting any number of emotional needs, so it will certainly not go quietly into the night anytime soon. Up until the past few centuries religion was the principal, indeed only, means we had for apprehending much of reality, as it turns out, mistakenly. Today, of course, Reason and what reason led to has supplanted religion as the way we know reality. We are communicating via computers across thousands of miles based on the truths that Reason, via science and applied by technology, uncovered. Religion has no comparable track record of success and, in fact, has a long track-record of being wrong as far as claims about reality. Hence its epistemological soundness has never been established and has repeatedly been shown to be unreliable as a means of apprehending reality.

2) Related to the above, Religion and Reason are intrinsically and fundamentally incompatible epistemologies. Most fundamentally, reason is based on THE QUESTION, and the process of asking questions in pursuit of valid answers (to those questions), while religion, like other claimed means of apprehending reality outside of the sphere of Reason (generally lumped in the category of Mythos, as opposed to Logos) is not fundamentally based on the question and on asking questions to find answers and evaluate answers. Religion arrives at truth-claims fundamentally by assertion, definition, answers as self-evident.

In Reason, the question is the dominant concept; in religion, like other claimed modes of knowing, the question is secondary to the answer, with the answers religion provides (and it has provided tens of thousands of wrong answers to the most important, persistent questions humanity has had) being primary and not arising out of the process of asking questions.

Religions have no mechanism for evaluating truth-claims as Reason does, nor for arriving at truth-claims. It cannot arrive at new truth-claims, only assert fixed claims from the past, arrived at almost entirely by supposed revelation to one or a few persons in the distant past. It has nothing like the capacity of science to constantly be evaluating existing truth-claims and to be arriving at new truths.

Science, like law, logic, mathematics, medicine and other intellectual disciplines, are, of course, grounded on the same underlying epistemology that is Reason; based on the question in pursuit of answers.

3) If you got the impression that I’m idealizing non-monotheistic religions, I’m not sure why, since I said nothing in praise of them. I chose to focus on Monotheistic religions since a) they are the ones most familiar to most on a list like this b) they seem to be the most problematic on a world-wide basis and c) because in these sort of discussions, people so often evade or derail the main points made by others by counter-claims that the person is overgeneralizing; that essentially you can’t make any meaningful statements about religions because there is some exception or exceptions. So someone might say, well this isn’t true of Quakers or Unitarians or this or that sect of Buddhism, for example.

But sure, I would include all Theistic religions in my previous critique. Ideas like Karma or reincarnation are truth-claims arrived at just like those of the Monotheistic religions, so are on no more a sound basis epistemologically. I would say that Monotheistic religion has special problems, since the central claims of Monotheism are more absolutist than those of Polytheism, by definition. In fact, the basic claims or premises of Monotheism are, by definition, as absolutist a belief system as there could be. That is, they are the most extraordinary claims made or even imaginable, being claims of ultimate and absolute reality. As I think Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet the claims of Monotheism are infinitely more extraordinary than, say, the claims of astrology or numerology or a claim like the belief in UFOs or the presence of extraterrestrials on earth.

As far as your comments about Atheism, I don’t like the term Atheism, as it is so often misunderstood or misused. I prefer the clearer term “non-believer.” Atheism isn’t a positive belief like religion; it makes no claims. We don’t have a term for the non-belief in extraterrestrials or a term for not believing in pink, one-eyed unicorns. Hence the term itself is superfluous and is defined in terms of Theism or belief. Atheism per se can offer nothing in terms of morality or anything else because it is not a positive belief system, not one or more truth-claims.

However, as far as morality goes, it is rather easy to see and demonstrate how moral codes or systems could exist in the absence of being given by some deity. Indeed, it is not hard to demonstrate that they would have to exist in order for humans to survive, evolve and live together, just like traffic regulations would have to have been created once cars and roads became widespread in a given political entity. There needn’t be a God or gods for humans to be capable of evolving rules to regulate the conduct of those living in groups, tribes, communities, etc.

For example, it would be hard to imagine a complex social grouping surviving or thriving without any notion that truth matters and therefore lying is wrong. The same for stealing or killing. To think that humans would not have been capable of arriving at these notions on their own is actually rather demeaning of our capabilities. It is essentially saying we, as a species, would simply be incapable of arriving at ethical rules of conduct. But it can be shown that moral reasoning and other reasoning are really the same basic mental process. Both are principally about considering implications and consequences of actions or non-actions. I won’t elaborate further on this, as this is already getting too long, but this can be shown, and rather easily. So the notion that Morality and Reason are entirely distinct realms is itself a questionable one; a false distinction.

Even if I am only concerned about my own self-interests, if I am going to live with others and depend on others in significant ways, then I would need moral principles that would keep others from doing things that would be injurious to me or my self-interest. That is, if I value my own life and its continuation, then I already have an implicit moral principle.

To secure this value and principle, I need a universal, reciprocal principle - I need for all those in my vicinity to also value my life. But the only way I can get others to voluntarily (in the absence of brute force) also value my life and thus not take it if it served some need of theirs is for me to value their lives, in reciprocal fashion, and for each person who values their own life to embrace a general valuing of all the lives, at least in the relevant social group (it may be different when it comes to out-group persons, such as those in another tribe, etc.) So the only real way I can ensure that my life or possessions would likely be valued by others is to have a general moral principal in which I agree to value all other lives, and each agrees to do the same.

Here, in this simple example, it should be easy to see how moral principles, elaborated into ethical codes and systems, could have been, even must have been, developed and evolved. There is no inherent necessity for some outside deity to give us this moral sense, as if we are like very young children, incapable of deriving moral principles on our own.

The ultimate “salvation” of humanity is in realizing we do have tremendous, mostly still untapped capabilities - for critical thinking, moral reasoning, imaginative, inventive, creative thinking, scientific thinking, etc. If we could use our capacities for problem solving and change we could, probably within the next century or less, create “heaven on earth.” The more we realize our own power and use it, the less dependent we will need to be on religion or other external sources of answers to our needs and problems. We are perfectly capable of coming up with our own answers, if we only realize it!

Son of Socrates

There time that religious order it's appalling forms of brainwashing, could not be challanged, power of the church then supreme, which backed by political powers of the day, with those claiming divine right to rule, such having supported each other, leading to hundreds of years (as thousands of years) of great injustice. Ability to read as write being witheld, feared with knowledge, those in power challanged, brought to account....It be thanks to many whom sacrificed all that humanity having made progress, atheist, included in such numbers, having earned praise.Yet, as it must we continue progress in development of understanding experience....It a great wrong that the ability of reading as write still witheld from millions, wrong they still being ruled by religious mumbo jumbo, causing them great hardship as suffering. Western nations reduced powers of christianity, improved the situation allowing true development that based on reality rather than illusion,it by far nota perfect situation yet gives some hope. We have the ISLAMIC world where brothers sisters must come to terms,with changes, where the need of religious brainwashing being greatly reduced, that an more democratic outlook established. It not an easy task for humanity, changes one going through in raising the brains capability through understanding, be an awesome task. The Present in chapter our spiritual development, the stage now humananity being at, a very intense period, which having shown the worst as best of human qualties. We must try to engage the brain more rather than reliance on force, a must for democratic nations that they putting, giving balance to justice,as the law, being on paper helpful, being more the approval if such put in practice, as representing all nations, all it's people's... .. .

Yes, I believe religions can make a large and very positive difference in the world. Something as simple and pleasant as going caroling can bring relief and gratitude to people.

I personally would like to get more involved with religious volunteer groups--any volunteer group really which has as its essence not being so selfish and just putting forth a bit of time to help other people.

I see no reason why poverty, disease and homelessness cannot be reduced much more than they are now by believers. If we just marry intelligence with just a simple concern for people--if we at least just be courteous--we can make a tremendous difference in the world.

Personally I am going through a difficult time and I have never been more aware how fundamental it is just to be nice to people, to be of some sort of help. We really do tend to forget that.

But really nothing else counts for much of anything unless grounded on actually caring for people. Yes, I believe believers can make a great difference, and merry Christmas to all.

Socrates

You have written a very impressive essay, however you miss three important points: 1. Religion in one form or other is as old as mankind; mankind is destined to believe in the supernatural simply because it is wired into human nature, 2. Religion and reason are not incompatible, 3. You seem to idealise non-monotheistic religions to such an extent that exposes your ignorance of them. Take off your rose-tinted glasses and you will realise, non-monotheistic religions have their limitations too. Ever considered that reincarnation is very integral to the non-monotheistic religions and salvation takes very hard work for several lifetimes? That this world is considered an illusion? There is "Karma" to work off over several lifetimes and "Karma" is incurred with every imperfect action? Hard ascetic discipline and total detachment from wordly things is required for attainment of purification?

All religions are practised imperfectly by imperfect human beings.

Even the human being who knows what is right and noble, may still choose what is evil. That is the curse of the free will (the blessing is that we are free to choose good instead of evil), not the limitation of religion.

Imperfect as religions are, it is still a better substitute to atheism. It is possible for religions to integrate more and more reason into them (religions go beyond human reason but does not exclude it), weed out the superstitions etc. But what tenets do atheism offer except the fact that God doesn't exist? Atheism merely expresses itself based on what it does not believe in, not on the basis of what it does. On what basis should anyone who chooses his own morality to serve his ego alone be prevented from acting in his own selfish interests?

NONE COME TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH (ME) *Jesus. WHAT HE MEAN BY( (ME) )THAT UNLOCKING ALL DOORS.

I believe that in the words of Benjamin Franklin when he pronounced, "God helps those who help themselves." Meaning, that we can pray all we want and wish for great things to happen. However, without action on our part, what will be done? We are given skills and strengths to act and accomplish. Just as James remarks in James 2:16-17, "And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?"
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead being alone."
Let us use our religion and our assets, time and talents to fight our world's biggest social problems.

"lucifer's" little parable lost something in his version; here's what really happened;

A christian, a Muslim and a Atheist were travlling through the desert when their four wheel drive broke down. 'I'll face East and pray for Allah to preserve us' said the Muslim. 'I'll fast for three days and pray for salvation 'said the Christian. 'I'll call the Auto Club on my cell phone' said the Atheist...

to David T,

Thanks for sharing. I do not "hate religions," but I cannot "commend religions for doing." A religion, as a social system or institution, doesn't do anything on its own. People act, and do good or do ill. I will commend people (including many whom I know who are Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Reform Jewish, Unitarian) who unselfishly do terrific volunteer and charitable work, helping people who are cold, hungry, homeless, battered, depressed, etc. Their particular theological beliefs or the particular doctrines of their various religions don't get in the way of the good works they do, and as far as I'm concerned, there is no necessary causal connection between their ethical, humane acts and any particular religion.

David, either your reading comprehension is subpar or you are deliberately engaged in distortion. I wrote, "Trouble is, the specific religious doctrines that SOME of these believers hold to be absolutely true and inviolate MAY BE 180 degrees opposite what needs to be done to constructively and effectively deal with the problem." I wasn't tarring all religions or all religious people with one brush. Regarding abstinence education vs. condom distribution, I criticized "[r]eligious folks who want to combat the spread of HIV / AIDS PRIMARILY and EXCLUSIVELY with abstinence education' and who oppose the distribution of condoms." I was thinking of that terrific human being, the African Archbishop Chimoio, who publicly spread lies about European-manufactured condoms being pre-contaminated with the HIV virus. I see nothing wrong with both abstinence education, truthful education about STD risks, and condom distribution being parts of a well-designed program to combat the spread of HIV / AIDS.

David, you wrote that "atheists are so self-indoctrinated that all sense of reason and thought have been eliminated by the repeated effort to convince yourself that God cannot exist." I assure you that I don't make, and haven't made, repeated efforts to convince myself that supernatural beings CANNOT exist, or that they DO NOT exist. I just got well-informed, looked at the evidence (from lousy to non-existent) and the logical arguments (from facile tautological to fallacious) for the existence of a supernatural being that pays attention to beings on one tiny planet, and I drew a sensible conclusion. I have been and am convinced that the existence of such a god has such a vanishingly small probability, and is supported by no credible evidence. Full stop. I don't waste any more time on it. Everyone else is free to spend as much or as little time pondering and agonizing over the "god question" as much as they like.

Do you know that the top 3 richest people of the
world (westren JewChristian interest based secular capitalistic world)
have the wealth equalant to 48 poor and highly populated countries annual GDP.

BLOOD SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of preying and destroying if the fascist capitalistic ideologers, if just few hand full numbers out of them wants to ERADICTATE the poverty and hunger out of the billions of human population in todays world they can do it just like that BUT what they are doing???????

- Lotting the world, suppling weopon and dividing!
- Playing media (brain washing the victoms and abusers)
- And if having huge crop then throwing it into the sea to control the market price.

AND SHOUTING ALL OVER THE WORLD THROUGH MEDIA WE ARE THE SAVIORS, WE ARE CIVILIZED, WE ARE THE BEST AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE THAN DIE!!!

TO ALL THE

Christians, Jews, Atheists and Non Believers of the WORLD, and who ever are visiting these blogs:

Below link and all its attached links will
GIVE YOU THE ANSWSERS OF ALL
the mysteries, confusions, disbelieves, doubts and misconceptions about GOD AND TELL YOU ABOUT THE TRUTH WITH EVIDENCE USING THE TECHNIQUE OF

- RATIONAL APPORACH
- SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
- LOGICAL APPROOACH
- FALSIFICATION TEST (FOR WESTRENERES)

http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm

IF YOU FOUND THE TRUTH, PASS IT ON AND THESE LINKS TO AS MANY YOU CAN!!!!

PEACE & ASLAM-U-ALAKUM!

A christian, a Muslim and a Atheist were travlling through the desert when their four wheel drive broke down. They had to walk to the nearest settlement. 'I'll take some water so we won't die of thirst,' said the Muslim. 'I'll take some food so that we can restore our energy, 'said the Christian. 'I'll take the car door so we can wind down the window when it gets hot, 'said the Atheist... .. .

There is no better newspaper than the Washington Post. There are peer publications with alternate viewpoints, which is healthy for an informed citizenry, but no better publication.

The purpose of On Faith is noble.

The selected panel of contributing writers are all erudite and informed.

The questions posed are incisive.

Anyone can join in and welcome, but really, boys and girls, try reading before commenting. When I attended college I discovered that one of the best ways to learn is to read those with whom you disagree. One is thereby forced to reexamine one's values (which strengthens them), have a cogent reason to disagree (an informed opinion), and, most rewarding, one finds that one's antagonist has much knowledge of value.

So many posted comments are obviously blather because the commentator is too lazy to learn. Read the Bible before you trash Judaism or Christianity. Read the Koran before you jump Islam. Read the Rig Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads before you dismiss Hinduism. Try the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. In short, study religion before you denounce it out of hand. You'll be amazed how much you don't know, and how much you do.

Sally Quinn took that journey and thus this site.

Any lout can shout slogans. Fools all have opinions.

Point of order, I say.

There is no better newspaper than the Washington Post. There are peer publications with alternate viewpoints, which is healthy for an informed citizenry, but no better publication.

The purpose of On Faith is noble.

The selected panel of contributing writers are all erudite and informed.

The questions posed are incisive.

Anyone can join in and welcome, but really, boys and girls, try reading before commenting. When I attended college I discovered that one of the best ways to learn is to read those with whom you disagree. One is thereby forced to reexamine one's values (which strengthens them), have a cogent reason to disagree (an informed opinion), and, most rewarding, one finds that one's antagonist has much knowledge of value.

So many posted comments are obviously blather because the commentator is too lazy to learn. Read the Bible before you trash Judaism or Christianity. Read the Koran before you jump Islam. Read the Rig Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads before you dismiss Hinduism. Try the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. In short, study religion before you denounce it out of hand. You'll be amazed how much you don't know, and how much you do.

Sally Quinn took that journey and thus this site.

Any lout can shout slogans. Fools all have opinions.

Point of order, I say.

Well intentioned religious believers generally discover that their religious institutions are only interested in maintaining and enhancing their base of believers. Those who invoke their religions as either inspirational or authoritative risk the dilution of their own reputations when their agenda is found not to coincide with that of the institution itself: The church is not interested unless there is successful proselylization.

Well intentioned people who make use of religious affiliation for any reason are thus acting as agents of the religious institution, whether or not they're willing to admit the fact. Well intentioned religious believers who act on the basis of their own beliefs without such affiliation represent themselves, and so are more likely to succeed in promoting their agenda.

People are much more likely to respect other people than they are idiologies; people produce results, where idiologies can only produce promises.

William D. Tallman

It's too bad that Jeff D is so centered on his hate for religion that he cannot commend religions for doing instead of saying.

I would counter with the fact that atheists are so self-indoctrinated that all sense of reason and thought have been eliminated by the repeated effort to convince yourself that God cannot exist.

I see that teaching abstinence is not the way to go in atheistic circles, so how about handing out birth control to 12 year olds in Maine? Is that the way to go? It's like giving hypodermic needles to heroin addicts. Are you really helping them? The problem these days is that no one wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore. Why give up sex when I can be safe about it? Why give up heroin when I can be safe about it? Condoms and birth control are not 100% but sure it's worth the risk, huh? Is that not the stupidest way of prevention?

Thank God atheism is only a bite size fraction of human thought in this world. If not, then I'm afraid humankind would have been extinct long ago, killed by our own relative moralities. But it feels good to know that that's all it is, is a bite size militant ideaology.

Yep, here comes the hate responses! :)

Love you too! Mua!

The four hoursemen....having I watched the first part, it can only be recommended for all, it have a rich base in depth of understanding, not being intentionally anti religious. That said if adding an touch of salt to further, flavouring the meal. There being those Atheist in name as nature whom in present as past lives,having raised as raise their voices against religious brainwashing, all in truth with good intention, untowards humanity. In past lifes such open conflict with the churh bringing great the cost in suffering unto their lives, unto there death, hence, ATHESISM as the ATHEIST, earning respect as a place in the heart of humanity. However, always an H O W E V E R we must remind, ATHEIST as ATHEISM, they not follow in footsteps of religious organizations throwing baby out with bathwater. The purpose of creation supporting of the human form, that through heart, brain, comes understanding, experience, unto the very essence of creation. Through our spiritual development comes the continuation of Spiritual Enlightenment, hence, the freedom from religious brainwashing, not ending story, but rather only a chapter in humanities ongoing journey... .. .

Religious believers CAN be well-motivated and focused in ways that would allow them to be effective in working to alleviate social problems.

Trouble is, the specific religious doctrines that some of these believers hold to be absolutely true and inviolate may be 180 degrees opposite what needs to be done to constructively and effectively deal with the problem. Example: Religious folks who want to combat the spread of HIV / AIDS primarily and exclusively with "abstinence education" and who oppose the distribution of condoms.

Another problem is that the brains of some religious folk have been so "colonized" and distorted by religious indoctrination that their critical thinking skills have atrophied. Being able to think critically and to rationally evaluate new information is an important ability in a person who wants to work to address important social or public health problems.

SOMEONE: The four horsemen, the forthcoming whom most having replaced the wordly senses as within the Word of GOD. The horse representing, senses which being brought under control, they unto the ending of an chapter continue putting the case for humanity. There time one having choice doing right from wrong, in such balance, doing wrong, then one's actions being hard to defend. There then alternative circumstances, where being the Lacking of means, education, chemical imbalance in health, such the circumstances being outwith one's control, then an defence being made... .. .

The Four Horseman

Comments from you please!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890

Do you know that the top 3 richest people of the world(capital world) have the wealth equalant to 48 poor and highly populated countries annual GDP.

BLOOD SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you know that the top 3 richest people of the world(capital world) have the wealth equalant to 48 poor countries annual GDP.

BLOOD SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TO ALL THE

Christians, Jews, Atheists and Non Believers of the WORLD, and who ever are visiting these blogs:

Below link and all its attached links will
GIVE YOU THE ANSWSERS OF ALL
the mysteries, confusions, disbelieves, doubts and misconceptions about GOD AND TELL YOU ABOUT THE TRUTH WITH EVIDENCE USING THE TECHNIQUE OF

- RATIONAL APPORACH
- SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
- LOGICAL APPROOACH
- FALSIFICATION TEST (FOR WESTRENERES)

http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm

IF YOU FOUND THE TRUTH, PASS IT ON AND THESE LINKS TO AS MANY YOU CAN!!!!

PEACE & ASLAM-U-ALAKUM!

i think socrates argument could equally be made for any ideology- some of which arose therough the reasoning porcess-

reason means different things to different people.

there are creative vs. analytical personalities with their own equally valued held viewpoints-

however, it was a muslim, raised in that atmosphere- which gave us scientific method itself-
and also muslims who rescued greek thought from oblivion , and expanded upon it.

im just saying is allmping all science as having the same effectiveness ad deficiency

a very unscientific analysis overall

Two farm workers were discussing politics. Said one: 'I believe in the share and share alike policy. I think that we should all be equal.' 'Well, 'replied the other, 'I don't know about that. Do you mean to say if you had two houses you would give me one ?' 'Certainly I would, 'answered the first man. 'And, 'went on the other, 'if you had two cars, would you give me one ?' 'Of course,' came the reply. 'And, again said the other: 'if you had two pigs, would you give me one ?' 'Ah, now, wait a bit,' said the first man, 'you know that I've got two pigs!'

If we are speaking of the major Monotheistic religions, the answer is no. While individual believers can of course do some good, the overall effect of religion and religious belief on all of these problems is negative, for several reasons.

One reason is that most religions endorse and promote the irrational and immoral assumption that people have an absolute right to reproduce, regardless of the consequences of exercising that right. In fact, some religions see reproducing as a duty, as in "be fruitful and multiply," and imperative that once may have made sense in human history but no longer does so with over 6.5 billion people on the planet.

To embrace or promote having children by adults who are simply not in a position to adequately parent and support them is a recipe for producing untold amounts of suffering, hunger, disease and poverty; perhaps more than any single other factor. Population projections indicate that over approximately the next 20 years the world's population will increase by about 1.5 billion persons, with 96% (or 1.44 billion out of that 1.5 billion extra people) born in countries where the average income is $2/day or less. It is predictable that a high percentage of these children will grow up with hunger, poverty, illness, misery and little hope for something better.

It is simply immoral and irrational to deliberately or even knowingly bring children into the world when it is predictable that those children will live such lives, of great suffering. This, by the way, makes both sides of the abortion debate essentially unethical and irrational positions, for different reasons, since there are circumstances when the ethical choice, in order to prevent great suffering, is to abort a fetus likely to suffer such a fate should it make it to term.

There are other reasons why religion militates against addressing the problems raised in the question despite the efforts of individual believers, but perhaps the most important and fundamental one is this: Religion - at least the major Theistic religions in their pure and original form - is fundamentally incompatible with Reason, and thus science and all that flows from both, including medicine and technology. Religion and Reason each rest on different and incompatible epistemological grounds, so that the general promotion of Religion undermines the epistemology that led and leads to science, medicine, technology and progress in general. This also means that religious belief undermines critical thinking, as the two, again, are epistemologically incompatible - something rather easy to show.

The ultimate answer to solving the problems posed, and virtually all our most pressing societal, planetary problems, is engage in critical thinking about them, which also means moral reasoning, since the two are really rooted in the same underlying mental process (as is creative, legal, inventive and other productive modes of thinking).

Since the critical, creative, inventive, etc. modes of thinking that are the very basis of problem-solving and change itself are all really elaborations of the same basic, simple mental process (and thus really transformations of one another) what is needed to solve these and virtually all solvable problems is to encourage and foster these, most productive types of thinking, not religion and particularly religious belief, which is based on an entirely different and incompatible way of arriving at answers to important questions.

The only valid, proven, reliable way (epistemology) we have to arrive at good, valid answers to these and other such problems is through Reason, Creative thinking, etc.: but even more fundamentally, to the process of asking questions, which is the constituent element of critical, creative, innovative, inventive, legal, moral and even religious reasoning - yes, there is reasoning WITHIN religion, but this is quite different).

The question (and the process of asking questions in pursuit of truth or valid, good answers) is the single most powerful tool humanity has ever had at its disposal. The question is what enables possibility, drives imagination and is the difference between what is and what could be, i.e. change.

While the epistemology that is the grounding for Reason, Science and the other modes of thinking I mentioned (and probably more) is based on THE QUESTION, in search for an answer (the very purpose and function of a question being to arrive at an answer) Religion is grounded on an epistemology that flips this on its head, as its starting point is "the answer" or set of answers, not questions in search for answers.

The history of humanity has repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated that religion, like other purported means of arriving at valid answers or truth have proved to repeatedly yield answers (truth-claims) which turn out to be wrong or invalid. We know why we are living differently today than we did, say, 20,000 years ago, and surely religion wasn't the agent that brought about this change, Reason or Logos is what did.

If we desire change, as would be needed to solve the mentioned problems, this means we desire and need good, valid, new answers. There are basically only two ways to arrive at answers and only one of these has any record of producing good, valid answers - the Epistemology on which rests Reason. The other way lumps in all the repeatedly demonstrated epistemological failures, such as religion, Mythology, Astrology, etc. since they all take as their starting point the answer (or an answer or answers) and not the question. Answers, i.e. assertions of beliefs, do not lead to real, valid and good answers, only questions lead to them.

The fate of the world depends on more critical thinking, i.e. more critical questions, meaning, necessarily, less religion, dogma, ideology, assertion, propaganda, etc. It means valuing the truth fundamentally, as the society's or species guiding, organizing principle. And if truth is to be valued fundamentally and unconditionally, the means of arriving at truth and of evaluating truth-claims necessarily matter and are of the utmost importance. "The Question" and its offspring - Reason, Critical thinking, science, innovation, etc. - are the real answers, whereas religion, in this sense, is really part of the problem, however much some individual believers do, so long as they ultimately prop up and sustain the religion itself, and thus its ramifications in the world.

Per the Great Oz, problems, social and otherwise, are addressed by people with brains, heart, and courage. Some well-intentioned religious believers may certainly possess these qualities, but personal religious faith is no substitute. And proselytizing such faith while trying to help is almost certain to undo any goodwill gained by good works.

--fius

It takes a lot arousing the Lords anger, yet if one does, by far the best course taking, be to stay out of sight, say nothing. The Lords anger being limited to an few days at the most, after such time it cannot be maintained. If aware as in wisdom to that which brought such seperation then the learning from it a very,worthy lesson.

We should care for all people. Many a wealthy person is poor in some way. We also need to stop and think about how we give to make sure we aren't making a problem bigger. Americans sadly, have become very materialistic in so many ways, yet so many are so lonely.

Some of the same religious leaders who speak of altruistic issues, have themselves become wealthy and give little. I personally believe that people have a right to decent housing, simple healthy food and clean water, basic health care and human dignity. Someone else will agree and then the argument becomes what is decent housing, simple healthy food and clean water, basic health care?

Live as if you were fifty miles from the nearest house of worship and then tell me how you see God and what he wants of you. Live more simply and discover less is more. Stop looking down on those who live non materialistic lives and start learning from them.

I find it interesting that in the ten commandment from the Jewish texts and the seven deadly sins from the Christian texts, that envy and greed are mention in some way. Stop looking up to people who have power and wealth, most of which has been made from the works of those at the middle and lower rungs of the latter.

One can spend much time in preperation of a meal then mistake with oversalting, wherupon the meal becoming uneatable. Religious organizations, the same error ever adding their own brand of ideas, belief, ever adapt scripture, to pleasing self. The nonsense in misinterpretation,being endless. It resulting, all dieting on halfbaked, mad cow.

Athena:

I am also a Pagan. I do not, however, buy into the notion of the threefold law - at least in terms of my motivation to do good or not do bad. I have seen people who oppress others succeed while loving and giving people have suffered. I do good work because it is what I am supposed to do, what the Goddess calls me to do, not out of fear of retribution of hope of reward.

Yes, all people are interconnected. As a Pagan I believe that all things - people, animals, trees, rivers, mountains and the the environment as a whole - the planet itself - is interconnected. More importantly, all of these things are sacred. I view others (and by others I mean everything - from people to rocks) as a manifestation of divinity. Everything is part of the Goddess' holy form, her body.

I can not do everything. No one person, no one organization, can. We all need to pick and choose our fights. I am not so sure that a religious organization is the best choice for fighting a disease like AIDS. At least not AIDS as a whole. Perhaps it is appropriate for a church to try to address outreach, housing and feeding of a specific target population. Or they might organize to confront the unequal distribution of healthcare in our country, or the world.

Unfortunately I have seen religious organizations trying to intercede in areas where their approach has been mismatched. I do not feel that most religious organizations are equipped to deal with prevention of HIV transmission, for example. It is easy for some organizations to assume a particular moral stance and promote one solution in order to address the issue. However, as the Goddess teaches us through her examples of ecosystems, diversity is an essential quality for success.

Intention is an important component of the equasion. But if I am unwilling to accept a given situation as it really is without trying to force it into being what I would like it to be, my intentions will fail.

The consequences of that are likely to fall on others, not on myself. And those consequences are likely to be more that threefold the wrongly directed intent.

Is it just me, or is anyone else confused by the moderators' putting this question up a second time? Have they run out of things to talk about already?

Pastor Rick Warren is doing a fantastic job. His book, "The Purpose Driven Life" is astounding. Pastor Warren is proving his faith and his love for Jesus with his good works, yes, he is being a light for the world, and people ought to look at his good works and praise the Father in heaven. I praise God the Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ for Pastor Warren! May God bless him in every way and use him ever more to bring glory to Jesus!

All mega church pastors could learn from Pastor Warren, if they are not doing good works. There is a complaint that some pastors are eager to collect money and use it merely to live the high life without doing good works except for increasing membership to raise more money. Non-believers are quick to notice and point out that Christianity as a religion is a sham, it is about making mega money. They do not take the trouble to look to all the silent good work that gets done by Christians worldwide and was done in the course of two thousand years.

As a Christian I was surprised to read the take on Jesus' words to His Apostles when Judas (the apostle who betrayed Him)tried to stop the woman from anointing Jesus with expensive perfume, saying the perfume should be sold and the money used for the poor. In response to that Jesus said, "You will have the poor with you..." There was nothing in that particular instance to suggest that Jesus meant His disciples were to look the other way without helping the poor. All His teachings taken in their context prove that. In this context all Jesus meant was that a woman who was showing her love for Him by anointing Him with expensive perfume should be allowed to show her love in the way she chose. Grand cathedrals have been built to glorify God, but that does not mean no Church should be built until all the poor can live in palaces. That is the meaning of the words of Jesus. Jesus set an example of compassion and care in the way He lived.

When Jesus asked the rich man to sell all his belongings and follow Him, it was meant to free the rich man from what he was attached to. It is the same as saying that an alcoholic needs to give up alcohol and not smoking (if he is not a smoker) in order to be healthy. Jesus could read the heart of human beings, so he knew the place of wealth in the rich man's heart. King David was a rich man, and yet he was not expected to give up all his wealth in order to serve God.

To whom much is given, much is expected. Attachment to wealth is the problem. If wealth is not used to do good works on the grounds Jesus said, "You will have the poor with you always.." it is a distortion of Scripture. Jesus told Peter to feed and take care of His lambs and sheep as proof of Peter's love for Jesus. Peter reminded Paul about Jesus' command to take care of the poor when they met. Jesus' description of the Last Day, the parable of the Good Samaritan are all concrete examples that Jesus wanted His disciples to help the poor and needy. The Old Testament law asked for a tithe (ten percent) and Jesus praised the poor woman who had given her all. In other words Jesus was asking people to give in proportion to their love for God, not strictly in accordance with the Law (which is the minimum that is expected). One can say that the Law fulfils the minimum and love gives the maximum. Jesus came to talk of and live God's love in action, after the people had been instructed in the Law for many centuries through the Old Testament prophets.

As a Pagan, I look at things a different way. I don't have a Big Guy in the Sky telling me to help others. I do it because human beings are all interconnected. Everything we do impacts another person, whether good, bad, or indifferent. The Pagan "Law of Three" says that whatever you give, you get back three times over. So, if you are indifferent to the needs of others, your needs will not be met. We look at live as a web of interconnected nodes. When you do good, you strengthen the web. When it breaks, it starts to unravel.