Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Conodfam4]

How can any one religion be an absolute truth when there are so many? Can there be a religion of creation, since everything that exist falls under the umbrella of creation? This would include truth and untruth. Can creation be worshiped by the human race?

Regarding free will: I don’t feel like I have free will. Like everyone that exist and has existed, we are all forced to be born forced to live and forced to die. Even if I exist for five minutes and choose to die, death is still part of the equation that cannot be avoided. And I am forced to exist under conditions and the laws of nature that I did not place up on myself. The only free will that I have is to acknowledge that I do not have free will.

[Eduk]

The only free will that I have is to acknowledge that I do not have free will.

What conclusions do you draw from this? As in if I ask you if you would like a coffee are you unable to answer? Or if you stole something would you prefer not to go to jail? Also if someone stole something from you would you prefer they didn't go to jail? I'm just trying to work out the ramifications, in your opinion?

[chewybrian]

Regarding free will: I don’t feel like I have free will. Like everyone that exist and has existed, we are all forced to be born forced to live and forced to die. Even if I exist for five minutes and choose to die, death is still part of the equation that cannot be avoided. And I am forced to exist under conditions and the laws of nature that I did not place up on myself. The only free will that I have is to acknowledge that I do not have free will.

This is not a fair understanding of free will. Free will does not allow you to alter time and space to your liking, change the weather or force others to act as you wish. If you have it, then you can simply make decisions which are not fully forced by factors outside yourself, including genetics, experience, and the environment.

When I go to the race track today, I believe I will choose the horse I want to bet on. The weather, the condition of the track or the tack, the actions of the jockeys or the judgment of the stewards are all outside my control. But, if the choice of the wager was indeed mine, then I have free will. The easiest way to think of it is that I could have acted differently in the same circumstance. If I bet on number 6 and I could have just as easily put my money on number 3, without changing any other circumstance, then this is a demonstration that I have a free will.

If you think you could go to the races and pick your own wager, then you also believe in free will. You seem to be wishing for some super powers or immortality. Those are not part of free will. One free choice is sufficient to prove free will; proving it was free is difficult.

[Conodfam4]

You both are obviously correct when you argue that we have choices about foods we eat and choices regarding other human activities.
I am speaking from an eternal perspective and was attempting to rise above the human condition that we exist in. It is impossible for me to live with the idea that I do not possess an eternal soul and that my eternal soul possesses self awareness of the conditions it exists in. So speaking on behalf of my eternal soul, I do not feel like I have free will because I am currently trapped in the human condition which involves death, which is a permanent eternal condition.
This does not mean that I fully understand what it is to be eternal.

[Eduk]

I can't live with the idea that I'm wrong, therefore logically I'm not wrong. Awesome.

[Woodart]

@Woodart out of interest what does this mean to you? I mean what do you conclude from this belief?
Let us imagine you knew of ten theoretical physicists who categorically said X proved God.
Do you ask yourself which God?
Does it matter which God?
How many physicists need to believe something before it is reasonable to take it as true?
Is consensus important?
Is non controversial consensus important?
Is an expert physicist necessarily an expert philosopher?
Is it possible to prove expertise in philosophy?
Are there any non controversial consensuses amongst philosophers?

For me the argument that I keep taking from those articles you sent me is that every single one of them says quantum mechanics is not an argument for God.

I believe this is the consensus amongst physicists. But I also take this to be philosophy and I don't consider physicists to have a meaningful consensus regarding philosophy.


I also think calling materialism atheistic is just insane, but there we go.

Plus I think there is overwhelming evidence for free will. Which, I think, says nothing about materialism. And especially says nothing about specific versions of God.

My point or position in this thread – what is the real origin of religion – is that science is a "type" of religion. Why, because they talk about theological issues. Science does not prove or dis-prove God, free will and/or the big bang. Science talks philosophy and theological stuff – every day. It is the nature of the beast – the beast is the unknown.

One of my favorite scientists is Neil deGrasse Tyson – although he is a bit tarnished these days because of sexual allegations. He gave an analogy for the possibility of extra-terrestrial life in the universe by the following example: We are investigating the existence of whales in the ocean by experimentation. We take a cup and dip it in the ocean and examine it. After thoroughly looking at the cup of ocean water – we say there are no whales in the ocean. In relation to extra-terrestrial life; we take our cup (Hubble telescope) and dip it into the ocean of the universe. Our conclusion – there is no extra-terrestrial life in the universe.

Science is born and thrives in the debate of philosophy and theology. It has always been true that – philosophy is the first science – it is still true today; more than ever.

Another of my favorite scientists is Paul Davies who wrote the Cosmic Jackpot. He also wrote a paper with Sara Walker about The nature of information. In it they propose a theory that building blocks of life may not be chemicals but information. It is very controversial to say the least – and interesting.

[Eduk]

Why is it useful to call science a religion?
It is interesting that in the article you link ID is criticised for not providing a single piece of usable knowledge. A criticism you can level at all religions. But not one you can level at the scientific method.
I do believe the scientific method is a philosophy though. And that religions are philosophical positions also.
By the way would you say Islam is Christianity?

[h_k_s]

We all know our parents, our grandparents a little less so, possibly our great grandparents, but older generations only from black and white pictures on the wall. When asked “where are you from?” we might refer to the ancestors we know, a few generations back. We can’t say any more because we don’t know. Are we making the same mistake with religion? Are we looking back far enough?

Sigmund Freud was also a student of religion as well as psychoanalysis. In his last book, Moses and Monotheism, 1939, he discusses the origin of Christianity. I will give my summary of the main ideas when I read the book.

He suggests here that the first Moses was an Egyptian and lived around the 13 or 14 century B.C. The Egyptian pharaoh at the time was Amenhotep (IV) who rejected the polytheism of the previous pharaohs and adopted monotheism during his reign of 17 years. He changed his name to Ikhraton, left Thebes and built a new capital further down the Nile (p. 38–39) which he called Akhetaton. Nefertiti was his wife. It was during this period that Moses lived and he embraced this new religion with Aten his God. Not wanting to abandon this new religion and revert to polytheism upon the pharaoh’s death, Moses and his Egyptian followers (Levites) selected the repressed Semitic tribes of Egypt to leave with him and this departure became the Exodus (p. 47). These various tribes with their new Egyptian religion crossed the Sinai and settled in the Hejaz. Over some hundreds of years and under a new Moses they lost their Egyptian religion and gained the polytheistic religion of the Arabic Midianites (p. 55) of which one of the Gods, the volcano god, was called Jahve (origin of John, Jahweh, Jehovah and so on). Jahve recognised the existence of other Gods and was jealous of them. But over time the repressed monotheism of the lost Egyptian religion came to the fore and reasserted itself and so Jahve became the only God with all other Gods now false Gods. Thus the Jewish religion (and so later Christianity) has as its origin both Egyptian and Arab components.

But is this enough? What was in Ikhraton’s mind when he decided to move away from polytheism and choose monotheism. Was is a genuine inspiration or did he know of earlier religions that were monotheistic? Are most things lost in time, like our knowledge of our ancestors?

“Moses and Monotheism” can be downloaded from Archive.org as it is out of copyright (greater than 70 years old).

Moses according to his own writings (Deuteronomy) and the transcriptions of his subsequent scribes (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) was a shepherd who was keeping the sheep of his father-in-law when he received a visit from YHVH in the form of a burning shrub.

Had nothing to do with the Egyptian Pharaoh.

Freud's fantasies notwithstanding.

[Wmhoerr]

Exodus 2, 15. "When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to moses".

[Conodfam4]

can't live with the idea that I'm wrong, therefore logically I'm not wrong. Awesome.

Eduk you do not really mean that do you? Considering the span of our current life compared to the existence of infinite knowledge, logic dictates that we are ignorant fools.

I joined this form with the hope of sharing and receiving with the intent to grow as a human being, Not to stroke my intellectual ego. If I believed that I knew everything, there would have been no way for me to learn anything.

Let me pose this question: what does man know of, any man, that is not from God?

[chewybrian]

You both are obviously correct when you argue that we have choices about foods we eat and choices regarding other human activities.
I am speaking from an eternal perspective and was attempting to rise above the human condition that we exist in. It is impossible for me to live with the idea that I do not possess an eternal soul and that my eternal soul possesses self awareness of the conditions it exists in. So speaking on behalf of my eternal soul, I do not feel like I have free will because I am currently trapped in the human condition which involves death, which is a permanent eternal condition.
This does not mean that I fully understand what it is to be eternal.

I do understand the sentiment you are expressing, and it does make sense if you step outside the human condition and consider what ifs. You know what they say about wishing in one hand...

You are not free to change your situation in a big way, but you are free to determine your judgment of it. Your opinions, attitudes and actions are yours alone to guide. Why should you guide them to a dark place? You have a choice to be grateful for what you have or ungrateful for what you are lacking or what could have been better. You will have a better experience if you take the former approach instead of the latter. It is the best of all possible worlds if you choose that to be your perception, and there is not much benefit to seeing it otherwise.

[Conodfam4]

1 I chuckled with the “wish in one hand.....” remark. My Father introduced me to that philosophy when I was a kid.
2 Upon building on what has been discussed: how is it a what if? Assuming that we both believe in continual existence Beyond the human form; we do not know how we got here, where we came from, or where we are going. There is no free will in this logic.
3 Are our attitudes, judgments, opinions, and actions all that free? Consider these realities: we are forced to be born in an environment where notions, understandings, perceptions, and values have been pre-established before our arrival. Thus, are not our choices and motives and judgments based on our exposure to the environment in which we were forced to be born and exist in? Yes, I know there are variables and categories. But for the most part we do not sway too far from the environment in which we were developed from.
4 And personally, I feel better off and more in control when I considered the realities of my existence within the human condition. And I would add that my free will may have grown from realizing my limitations within existence.
5 And with an even deeper look into our control of our lives, consider this: our parents, their parents, and their parents, and their parents, were all forced to be born in a pre-conceived environment that formed the kind of persons or people they were. We are products of all of them. How much control does the human race really have?

[Felix]

Conodfam4: So speaking on behalf of my eternal soul, I do not feel like I have free will because I am currently trapped in the human condition which involves death, which is a permanent eternal condition.

Your logic is inconsistent: if you are/have an eternal soul, than you are not "trapped in the human condition," it's just a parenthesis in eternitym as one Christian mystic put it.

we are forced to be born in an environment where notions, understandings, perceptions, and values have been pre-established before our arrival.

But of course. By definition any environment has inherent conditions and limitations - short of a complete void.

How much control does the human race really have?

Compared to whom? Would you prefer to have the self control of, say, a butterfly?

[boywonderlord]

If you are asking for the history of christianity pertaining to its impact, Nietzsche very much has you covered.
Out of curiosity, one has to ask regarding the importance of the real origin of religion and why it even matters in the first place. Its not exactly a question we can answer, though you could certainly speculate endlessly.I wonder what the real origin of anything is. What is the real origin of the word cheese. What is the real origin of people screaming. What is the real origin of milking cows. Hey, that is curious isn't it! I wonder how we got the idea to do that. "Guess we should just get under this cow here and...hmmmm....yep just gunna.........squeeeeeeezeeeeeeee....Oh,didn't expect white stuff to come out, well, better try drinking it". Am I misinterpreting something here, or is this purely imaginative? And if so, why not be more...well imaginative? Surely we can find something less dry than religion to speculate about.

[Conodfam4]

Felix and all
I think the opening of the “free will” can of worms was a mistake and I think I may let this one go. I have done my best to explain my perception of free will and have learned that it is more of a personal concept. People in general do you not want to believe that they may not have control of their lives. And I can certainly understand that because I once felt the same way. But it puzzles me why the concept cannot be at least considered and explored without being offended.

I was being sincere and was not attempting to stir up an argument for shallow reasons. There are reasons why I feel this way but they are too detailed to get into at this time.

There is a verse in scripture: “man’s sin places him in a powerful illusion“. The human race is in an allusion. We have been inserted into a thing called existence with just enough intellect to wonder why. But the question can’t be answered. And because of that we grasp at anything that brings us security. Humanity is both disgusting and wonderful; there has to be a grand plan, a grand purpose and a grande control behind it all. I cannot accept anything less.

Felix
The mystic that says “it’s a parenthesis in eternitym”; is he suggesting that we are in eternity?