Religion is a good thing.

orestes

Jakkass wrote: »

I couldn't care what forum this is

I do.

I find your disregard for this forum and the nature of this thread in favour of pushing your own beliefs quite frankly insulting to this forum and its users.

This thread is for the discussion of religion in general, not your religion or anyone elses, end of. If you cannot seperate the abstract from the particular I fear you should not be taking place in this discussion. This is the philosophy forum, not a religious forum.

Anyone who tries to use this thread to push a particular belief system will find themselves removed from this discussion. Do not drag this thread off topic by doing so. Thank you.

philologos

orestes wrote: »

I do.

I find your disregard for this forum and the nature of this thread in favour of pushing your own beliefs quite frankly insulting to this forum and its users.

This thread is for the discussion of religion in general, not your religion or anyone elses, end of. If you cannot seperate the abstract from the particular I fear you should not be taking place in this discussion. This is the philosophy forum, not a religious forum.

Anyone who tries to use this thread to push a particular belief system will find themselves removed from this discussion. Do not drag this thread off topic by doing so. Thank you.

Luckily, I don't attempt to push any belief system. Rather I intend to defend my beliefs when challenged. Rather simply put I would have thought. People here, have referred to the God of the Bible several times. Hence I feel it appropriate to at least entertain the debate.

Look. If you want to ban me for defending my beliefs, I understand, but please do not engage in pretence with me as if I am "pushing my beliefs" on anyone.

I have said, and I always will say, I respect the choice of other people to decide in respect to faith. I have always said that, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

If someone makes the claim that "Religion is simple". Someone should at least put that to task. I don't think any religion is simple from Islam to Hinduism. I've even referred to Islam in this thread numerous times.

What about those people who push their atheism on this thread? Just curious?

thebouldwhacker wrote:

I realise you are used to peddling your beliefs over in the religion forum and fair enough thats what its for, philosophy is a different beast. You continually refer to christianity but that is one of thousands of religions man has made up since society evolved. If your going to argue that religion is good lets have your argument, if you have said your piece so be it but if your here to preach your fairy stories about your two thousand year super hero I for one have no interest and will be happy to leave.

I haven't "peddled" anything. I've merely held your claims to task. I personally think it is your free decision to decide what belief system you want to follow. I have no problem with criticism of religion, however, I expect that nobody would have a problem with my counter-argument to their claims. Apparently this is only a one-sided discussion.

thebouldwhacker wrote:

Religion is simple,they are rule and control systems that evolved, they adopted rituals, notions of sacred and profane and if this 'conversation' was held three thousand years ago and we were in South America you would be tattling on about some sun god that needed appeasement for something we did.

Look, you think that, alright. I utterly disagree with you given the scale of literature involved in Judeo-Christian tradition, Islamic tradition, and no doubt other forms of literature. I mean even Buddhism one should look at how many volumes are in the Pali Canon.

It seems that your argument is fine, but the moderation regards my counter-argument is "peddling", or "pushing" my beliefs.

Well, at the risk of a ban, I'd have to say, no it isn't. If you want a real discussion about why "Religion is a good thing" one should at least be able to entertain input from theists. Rather simple I would have thought?

thebouldwhacker wrote:

religion is, it exists because we made it up, the story changes time to time and place to place but since the dawn of man its been the same carp. Some great and powerful 'god' made everything and man comes along and messes up and though we are really good behind it all this god will punish us from time to time. Oh yeah there's probably some version of heaven and hell thrown in too. Its not special, the notion of religion is as old as we are its just some people buy into it and others realise what 'it' is...

Again, I utterly disagree with you because you cannot substantiate your claim. As for the story changing between time, we can claim a 99.5% authenticity rate for the New Testament based on how many manuscripts we have, and the time elapse involved.

Again, I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this one. But bear in mind, defending my beliefs from your criticism, does not constitute "peddling".

togster

I don't think any rigid belief system is good.

thebouldwhacker

Ok pedaling may have been a bit strong but if the qustion was put, is politics good and someone comes on saying politics is good, look at how great fianna fail is, I would have the same response.

Also you ask me to substantiate my claim... thats the point, religions evolve, the members come up with a complicated system and hierarchies are installed, suddenly they become self substantiation where as they are nothing more than echo chambers. Again this argument has been flogged to death but if I say...

'all we know was created by a pink elephant called fred.'

You can not disprove that.
There is no religion who has legitimacy outside its own bubble and that is one way to disprove their claims but there is no scientific test which is repeatable that can disprove a supernatural claim.

A lie is a lie, no matter how many people are involved in it, no matter how long it lasts so to claim that 99.5% accuracy is maintained I find that insulting to the intelligence of all involved. Sticking to your story isnt a defence. This is the perfect example of why religion is bad.

philologos

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Ok pedaling may have been a bit strong but if the qustion was put, is politics good and someone comes on saying politics is good, look at how great fianna fail is, I would have the same response.

I haven't even done that so far. What I have done is, I have quoted peoples claims and I have counter-argued them. If a counter-argument is not welcome that is fine.

As for people claiming FF is good all the time, think of the amount of people who are on boards claiming that atheism is great, and religion is a delusion, hence why you should lose your faith and be "rational" like us.

It seems to me that unfair attention is given to people who put forward views supportive of a religious outlook to life, in comparison to views supportive of a secular outlook to life.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Also you ask me to substantiate my claim... thats the point, religions evolve, the members come up with a complicated system and hierarchies are installed, suddenly they become self substantiation where as they are nothing more than echo chambers. Again this argument has been flogged to death but if I say...

I'm not entirely sure. Yes as times go on people might have different preconceived notions to a religion, but I think that a lot of my beliefs are very similar to the Christians of the first century.

As for heirarchies and the like. That's true, but at the same time I think it is possible for people to explore a religion by looking at it's core text and discerning for themselves in a reasonable manner. Worshipping with other people is certainly of value though.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

'all we know was created by a pink elephant called fred.'

Indeed we don't know that. Given the record of divine revelation that man has received, and the nature of humanity through the ages I am convinced enough to think that God is more likely than not.

Whether or not you believe that is your perogative. I'm here to discuss whether or not religion is a good or a bad thing.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

You can not disprove that.
There is no religion who has legitimacy outside its own bubble and that is one way to disprove their claims but there is no scientific test which is repeatable that can disprove a supernatural claim.

I really don't mind if people don't regard my faith as legitimate. I will continue to walk by it while it is reasonable for me to do so.

Of course there is no scientific test to disprove the supernatural. Science deals with what is frequently observable through tests, and through what knowledge has been attained on a smaller scale, many things can be applied to a bigger scale thus telling us a lot about our universe.

That's fine, I have no objection to science. However, science is limited. To discuss questions such as the existence or the non-existence of God, that's in the realm of philosophy. Hence why we are in the philosophy forum.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

A lie is a lie, no matter how many people are involved in it, no matter how long it lasts so to claim that 99.5% accuracy is maintained I find that insulting to the intelligence of all involved. Sticking to your story isnt a defence. This is the perfect example of why religion is bad.

I didn't say it was 99.5% accurate. I said it was 99.5% authentic. I.E the text is 99.5% as it was in the first century.

To claim the New Testament was changed isn't entirely being honest given the study that people have carried out on it.

We have 40,000 copies of the New Testament in manuscript form. This makes it the most widely spread manuscript text that we have in existence.

orestes

To answer the questions regarding this thread and my modreation of it, as I have already said this thread is for the discussion of religion as a general concept rather than the discussion of ay particular belief system. Since athiesm is the counter-point to all religious systems, not any particular belief system, I have no problem with athiestic positions being put forward in this thread as I feel they are pertinent to the subject matter. However, using the beliefs/scripture of one belief system to support the idea of religion in general is circular logic and unwelcoe in this discussion as it will side-track and derail the debate into the disussion of just that one belief system, which is already beginning to happen, hence me stepping in as the mod of this forum to put an end to it. Also, for what it's worth, I'm neither an athiest or a christian, my personal spiritual beliefs are of no relevance here however.

If anyone wishes to further discuss this please feel free to pm me or start a Help Desk thread, but I will not have this thread derailed any further by this discussion, by myself or anyone else, regardless of their point of view on the subject. Back on topic please folks

Joe1919

It could be the case that Religion has a greater value at certain historical times, such as in earlier historical periods (it may have helped 'glue' society together) and at such as at times of famine etc.

It may also be argued that there is a tendency to turn away from religion and towards hedonism at bountiful times or when plenty of material goods are available.

We cannot tell the future and it may be the case in the future that Ireland and the West could become the new poor of the world and suffer famine and strife and who knows how people will feel then. Perhaps many will turn back to religion or become more spiritual.

So to conclude and to answer the original posters question, perhaps there are times when Religion has a great value (is good) to some or perhaps even the majority of people and there may be times when this is not the case. The fact that Religion is still alive and has 'survived' till now makes at least a 'prima facia' case as to its value to people.

We will never really know the answer to this question until the end of time. 'The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.

philologos

There was an interesting article on the Guardian website today about the positives of religion. It's conclusion is that British society benefits from religious faith in their communities even if attitudes are overwhelmingly negative towards organised religion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/13/religion-christianity1

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

There was an interesting article on the Guardian website today about the positives of religion. It's conclusion is that British society benefits from religious faith in their communities even if attitudes are overwhelmingly negative towards organised religion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/13/religion-christianity1

The second last paragraph is interesting. To broaden this point, I suppose there is a general mistrust today of all institutions e.g. government, health services, banks etc as well as religion. Indeed, there is also a general mistrust of all thought systems e.g. politics, economic thought, capitalism etc. as well as religious thought.

Perhaps there is good reasons for this and in the end a certain amount of sceptism against everything ( including scepticism and atheism itself) is healty.Its a question of balance and keeping an open mind on everything.

An interesting question to ask yourself is if you ever have children(that presumely you love), would you prefer them to have religion or not? Interestingly, in my case, I think I would prefer them (I have children) to have some religion (even though I am not religious).
Perhaps this is because I think happiness is more important than truth and anyhow we will probably never know the mysteries of the Universe anyhow, so we will never know the complete truth.

Certainly, in my case, I have benefited enormously from the religious community, although I am not a regular supporter. My children enjoyed some very well run(Catholic & Presbyterian in one case) reasonably priced summer-camps over a number of years and some of my children attended a school that was run by nuns and it was ok.
Indeed, it has been remarked that the standard of nursing at some of the hospitals and nursing homes have declined since the 'nuns' left.

philologos

Can one be overly skeptical sometimes, lumping entire groups of believers into a preconceived notion?

It cannot be denied that believers contribute in great ways to their society. I found the figures to be quite amazing at first. I didn't realise that people of faith really did contribute that much to the local economies in Britain both financially and through volunteering. It would certainly be quite a loss if such help wasn't there.

People may choose to be skeptical of the people involved, but as the article suggests skeptics do seem to be having their cake and eating it too in respect to this question.

philologos

Joe1919 wrote: »

An interesting question to ask yourself is if you ever have children(that presumely you love), would you prefer them to have religion or not? Interestingly, in my case, I think I would prefer them (I have children) to have some religion (even though I am not religious).
Perhaps this is because I think happiness is more important than truth and anyhow we will probably never know the mysteries of the Universe anyhow, so we will never know the complete truth.

It is an interesting question, and I will answer it.

I would want my (hypothetical) children to have a faith in Christ, precisely because I would love them.

I've noticed a positive change in me as an individual from the point when I was an agnostic, to the point when I accepted Christianity for myself. I would want my child to have the same opportunity and the same chance as I have had to know their creator. I personally believe, that you are missing out if you don't seek out God, and ask for His guidance.

As for happiness being more important than truth. I'm not convinced of that myself. I would advocate faith as a personal guide certainly, but also because I am convinced that it is the truth and I feel that everyone should have this chance.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Certainly, in my case, I have benefited enormously from the religious community, although I am not a regular supporter. My children enjoyed some very well run(Catholic & Presbyterian in one case) reasonably priced summer-camps over a number of years and some of my children attended a school that was run by nuns and it was ok.
Indeed, it has been remarked that the standard of nursing at some of the hospitals and nursing homes have declined since the 'nuns' left.

I think people are going to realise one day "What have we done?" when they attempt to reduce the influence of faith in public life in Ireland. Again, just my opinion.

I went through Church of Ireland denominational based education for both primary and secondary level. I never really appreciated the ethos until my last years at my secondary school.

Ickle Magoo

I don't think religion is such a good thing.

Claiming to know the unknowable or offering unworldly prizes as a way of recruiting new members are not attractive qualities, imo. When people claim what they believe and cannot prove to be the truth & that puts them at odds with other people who also claim what they believe and cannot prove to be the truth, it's never going to have a happy ending.

Joe1919

Is Truth = Good ?

The title of this post is 'Religion is a good thing' but this is not the same as 'Religion is a true thing'

Interesting, it would appear that many followers of Science (and indeed Atheism) have taken a 'leap of faith' in making the 'truth' the same as the 'good', as there is no necessary connection between 'good' and 'true'. (value and fact).
We all tell lies at times because we think these lies are 'good'. (at least I have) We tell our children about Santa, we make excuses to our dying parents as to why certain people haven't visited, we always tell our loved one that their latest hair-do is terrific etc. We spend much time looking at TV (which is full of fiction and lies).
Can we say that knowing the 'truth' about nuclear energy is a good thing, as it may lead to the destruction of the Earth.
Perhaps ignorance and lies (at times) are better than the truth.

Plato, the pagan philosopher who greatly influenced Christianity advocated the use of Myths and 'Noble Lies' for the overall good.
Interestingly, most modern politicians would probably agree with him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

Aristotle had a similar opinion when he states in his politics
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment
from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious."

Hegel though that the individual minor details (such as whether Jesus was a historical fact or not !) or 'truth' of religion did not really matter as he had a coherent view of truth, 'The Truth is in the whole' and hence the 'Truth' of religion was in its overall 'coherence' and 'satisfaction' that it gave to the believer. This would tend to be the post-modern view. (Rorty was a fan of Hegel).

The modern problem of many religions is its ability to be 'coherent' with modern thought and its ability to 'satisfy' the spiritual wants of the believer.

Kierkegaard of course was well aware that religion had nothing to do with objective truth or even reason. Abraham's intention to offer (sacrifice)his son to God was not an act of reason but a pure act of faith. That God exists is not an objective fact but a 'subjective truth', a 'certainty' one feels in the heart. (Take note that certainty has two meanings) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty

The point I am making here is that one needs to be careful if one holds certain prejudices (such as whether religion is true or not) if one want to argue whether religion is good or not. Leave 'truth' out of the answer.

philologos

Joe1919: You've made a bit of a leap there. Atheism and science are not synonymous. Infact they are very much mutually exclusive. Science is science irrespective of atheism, and it certainly doesn't make atheism any more valid or invalid. It is more the case that atheists like to claim they have a monopoly on science when they clearly don't.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Joe1919: You've made a bit of a leap there. Atheism and science are not synonymous. Infact they are very much mutually exclusive. Science is science irrespective of atheism, and it certainly doesn't make atheism any more valid or invalid. It is more the case that atheists like to claim they have a monopoly on science when they clearly don't.

I used the word 'many' and am not making an absolute statement and indeed am agreeing with you.

But many Athiests (IMO) pre-suppose Science, Knowledge and the Truth as absolute values and use these to bash religion and say that religion is a bad thing. My argument is that this is not necessarly so.
Can science, using its scientific methods show that Truth is always good?

Can Science justify science as always having a good value?

Ickle Magoo

Joe1919 wrote: »

I used the word 'many' and am not making an absolute statement.

But many Athiests (IMO) pre-suppose Science, Knowledge and the Truth as absolute values and use these to bash religion and say that religion is a bad thing. My argument is that this is not necessarly so.
Can science, using its scientific methods show that Truth is always good?

I don't understand how acknowledging absolute truth isn't always good would equate to religion being good tho...there's a rather large leap from harmless auld Santa giving out gifts to religious extremism or the Magdalene laundries, etc...

philologos

Yes, but before I can consider your point, I would have to assume that no religion is true. Obviously as a Christian I'm not convinced of that. That is also a leap.

Truth or no truth doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it has a positive impact on society however. You are right in that much. Assuming it false isn't the right way to deal with this subject IMO.

Infact it's ridiculous because you believe it to be false, I believe it to be true. Neither of those positions are absolutely accepted. Hence one should leave those opinions aside and discuss the net benefit from it on society.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Truth or no truth doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it has a positive impact on society however. You are right in that much. Assuming it false isn't the right way to deal with this subject IMO.

My apoligies for this brief answer as I have to go.
I have not said religion is false. Indeed, my whole point is to question the whole idea of true/false when it comes to religion and suggest that this needs to be taken out of the equasion when judging the value of religion. i.e. fact and value may be two seperate things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-value_distinction

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but before I can consider your point, I would have to assume that no religion is true.

Have you ever read Kierkegaard ? He sort of states the same idea as yourself is thinking, that ' faith must be surrendered in order to be objective.'
However, he rejects the idea of doing this, and abandones the idea of 'objective truth' in favour of 'subjective truth' when it comes to faith. http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/kierkegaard.html
There is a certain logic and reason in this. The most important truths in a persons life, such as what to believe, who to love, what ought I do with my life, what ought I to value? are all subjective truths and have no objective answers. They are all matters of personal choice ( and faith). He was to some extent (IMO) in agreement with Luther in these matters.(reason is the Devil's w....).

Hence religion is more about value than (objective) truth and I have respect for people who stand up for their own values, provided these are reasonable and dont interfere unjustly with others.

philologos

Joe1919 wrote: »

Have you ever read Kierkegaard ? He sort of states the same idea as yourself is thinking, that ' faith must be surrendered in order to be objective.'
However, he rejects the idea of doing this, and abandones the idea of 'objective truth' in favour of 'subjective truth' when it comes to faith. http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/kierkegaard.html
There is a certain logic and reason in this. The most important truths in a persons life, such as what to believe, who to love, what ought I do with my life, what ought I to value? are all subjective truths and have no objective answers. They are all matters of personal choice ( and faith). He was to some extent (IMO) in agreement with Luther in these matters.(reason is the Devil's w....).

I disagree with Kierkegaard and the idea of fideism apart from looking at him briefly in the Philosophy of Religion module I did, I don't have much more experience with him. I believe that Christianity is either true or it isn't. Hence I would regard it as being objective truth rather than subjective.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Hence religion is more about value than (objective) truth and I have respect for people who stand up for their own values, provided these are reasonable and dont interfere unjustly with others.

I disagree with this hypothesis. We shouldn't assume outright that religion is false when we are discussing it.

Joe1919

My defence of (all) religions relies very heavily on the philosophical problem of 'truth'.

Many philosophers argue that absolute objective truth is not possible for humans. 'Truth' is always subjective, as Aquinas says, it resides in the intellect.
http://www.op-stjoseph.org/Students/study/thomas/QDdeVer1.htm
And since our intellect is limited, our truth is also limited. Absolute 'Truth' can only be found in an absolute intellect and as there is no 'absolute intellect', there is no 'absolute truth'.
Theists could argue that absolute truth is only possible in an absolute subjective being, such as God.

Nietzsche though that the most important sentence in the Bible was uttered by pilot when he asked 'What is Truth'. Pilots question was never answered and it was left to the 'mob' to decide the Truth.
It could be argued that objective and scientific truths are really only 'intersubjective truths', they are the collective fallible opinions, perhaps the equivalent of the mob who shouted 'release Barabbas'.

However, I accept that many would find this defence of religion deficient, as this argument can be used to defend any religion or system of thought. However, it is an argument that's popular among post-modernists and it was used in a different form by the transcendental idealists (often to defend pantheism). Indeed, even Rorty in his old age may have been sympathetic to this idea. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/09/how-richard-rorty-found-religion--45

philologos

I don't think you are being honest with Aquinas. In his writings he said that the ultimate goal for everyone to find is God. Until that point, the soul is restless.

I find it impossible for religion to be merely something subjective. It destroys the Christian idea of salvation through Jesus Christ. He didn't atone for the sins of the world at all if this wasn't a universal truth. Christian doctrine falls short. We are told that if the Resurrection had never taken place, Christianity would no longer be true and Christianity would no longer be of any use (1 Corinthians 15:4). This is the reason why objectivity is important to me.

orestes

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it impossible for religion to be merely something subjective. It destroys the Christian idea of salvation through Jesus Christ. He didn't atone for the sins of the world at all if this wasn't a universal truth. Christian doctrine falls short. We are told that if the Resurrection had never taken place, Christianity would no longer be true and Christianity would no longer be of any use (1 Corinthians 15:4). This is the reason why objectivity is important to me.

This thread is not for the discussion of christianity or your beliefs. This is your last warning on this matter.

philologos

orestes wrote: »

This thread is not for the discussion of christianity or your beliefs. This is your last warning on this matter.

If the post has references to Christianity in it, and if the poster is asking me about it, what am I meant to do? I think your attitude towards this thread is a bit restrictive. I'm trying to be as broad as possible, but I do think you're being a bit unfair here.

Aquinas was a Christian, it's unavoidable to refer to Christianity when discussing about his philosophy, it was a Christian philosophy.

orestes

Jakkass wrote: »

If the post has references to Christianity in it, and if the poster is asking me about it, what am I meant to do? I think your attitude towards this thread is a bit restrictive. I'm trying to be as broad as possible, but I do think you're being a bit unfair here.

Aquinas was a Christian, it's unavoidable to refer to Christianity when discussing about his philosophy, it was a Christian philosophy.

You have continually and deliberately directed this thread into the sole discussion of christianity in particular rather than religion in general, have ignored multiple mod warnings in thread and have debated mod actions in thread after being warned not to. I tried to be patient so as not to seem biased, but this is beyond a joke at this point. Banned for a week.

Everyone else, please get back to the topic and no more soap-boxing please.

Black Cross

^^^ Can you say 'power trip'?

AF wrote:

I believe religion has done a lot more good to humanity than it has done any evil.

But can you support this with strong evidence? I think not.

Leaving aside all the aspects of god, heaven and hell for the moment and just focusing on morals religion has given something for people to align by.

Uhhh, you can't just seperate god, heaven and hell from religion so casually since the book examples you gave were the bible, the torah, and the qu'ran. God, heaven and hell are intriquite parts of the moral standard of those religions. There's no two ways about it (especially considering the 'black and white' which you consider valuable to religion in general).

Now we could also speak about all the absurdities in religion and all but if we could look past those absurdities and pick out at least all the good things that make sense to us, then couldn't religion be a good thing after all??

No, because then you remove what makes it a religion, and all that's left is a personal (albeit fairly dogmatic) moral code.

The bottom line is that the thought of a conscious, supernatural being that gives meaning and life to our world is an affront to any human conception of goodness. That "god" (in whatever form s/he/it may take) would impart to us a free will to allow us all the painful and exploitative experiences subsequent to that will is truly absurd; not to mention it unravels the entire logic behind 'god'.

So i contend that religion is not good. At best, it serves a necessary, however comtemptible, purpose for those in need of escape.

orestes

Black Cross wrote: »

^^^ Can you say 'power trip'?

If you have a problem with a mod decision use PM or Help Desk, not the thread.

Back on topic folks or I'm locking this thread as a lost cause I'm afraid.

Joe1919

Black Cross wrote: »

So i contend that religion is not good. At best, it serves a necessary, however comtemptible, purpose for those in need of escape.

Perhaps, you hit the nail on the head here with the word 'escape'. Man, as a creature finds it difficult to live in his own space and time and must 'escape' from his own existence.
We see the many ways he does this. He spends much time thinking of the past and making plans for the future, often dreaming and fantasizing that he is away in a different place or with a different person than where he presently is. We go on holidays or get drunk often to escape. Why do we need to escape?

Man is both blessed and cursed with this intellectual facility we call imagination. With this 'imagination', he can 'transcend' himself in both space and time. He can imagine and live in the past, he can worry and anticipate the future, he can imagine what its like to live in a different place or time or indeed, what it would be like to be a different person.
With his imagination, he can attempt to move from the subjective limitations of his own being to the God like position of 'going beyond himself'; he can take an objective 'view from nowhere', he can imagine himself both dead and yet alive.

Yet, it is this imagination, this transcendence of man that makes him so great. Man can sympathise and empathise with others, because with our imagination, we can imagine ourselves in the other person position. Their pain can become our pain, their joy our joy. Once man has this great facility of imagination, he is not alone in the world.

Hence, it may be possible to try to live without religion, but it will never be possible to live without imagination and hence the human will always try to 'escape' from the cold reality of his own being in some shape or form.

Leonard_Cohen

Joe1919 wrote: »

Perhaps, you hit the nail on the head here with the word 'escape'. Man, as a creature finds it difficult to live in his own space and time and must 'escape' from his own existence.
We see the many ways he does this. He spends much time thinking of the past and making plans for the future, often dreaming and fantasizing that he is away in a different place or with a different person than where he presently is. We go on holidays or get drunk often to escape. Why do we need to escape?

Man is both blessed and cursed with this intellectual facility we call imagination. With this 'imagination', he can 'transcend' himself in both space and time. He can imagine and live in the past, he can worry and anticipate the future, he can imagine what its like to live in a different place or time or indeed, what it would be like to be a different person.
With his imagination, he can attempt to move from the subjective limitations of his own being to the God like position of 'going beyond himself'; he can take an objective 'view from nowhere', he can imagine himself both dead and yet alive.

Yet, it is this imagination, this transcendence of man that makes him so great. Man can sympathise and empathise with others, because with our imagination, we can imagine ourselves in the other person position. Their pain can become our pain, their joy our joy. Once man has this great facility of imagination, he is not alone in the world.

Hence, it may be possible to try to live without religion, but it will never be possible to live without imagination and hence the human will always try to 'escape' from the cold reality of his own being in some shape or form.

We have art so that we may not perish by the truth. -Friedrich Nietzsche