A Case Against Religion

Scotty
Hope you're well mate.
In case you don't remember I mailed you on the game site, re sarging in southampton. I'm not sure that i'm up for that anymore, i'm just looking for one really and would rather let it happen more 'naturally' whatever that means. I still think there's some good stuff to be learned from the game, but probably won't get too involved.

I had a look at your nunkey site. Looks like you're a pretty enterprising guy. Hats off to you for that.

Of course, as a follower of Jesus I don't necessarily follow your reasoning in every point. I’m responding to your ‘A Case Against Religion.’ Before I get to the meat of my argument, let me just say that actually you haven’t made a case against religion. All you’ve done is responded negatively against a case for religion.

And if you say that there is no God, your a priori assumption appears to be that the universe we live in is a closed system, with nothing 'beyond'. However, I think your assumption negates your ability to reach definite conclusions about anything which may or may not be beyond the system - I mean, how can the product of a closed system, limited in every way by the closed system, reach any certain conclusions about anything beyond the system? To legitimately do that, it would need information from beyond the system, even if it is the knowledge that there is nothing there.
Your mind, by your own definition, is the product of a closed system - and nothing else, as you say there is nothing else. Therefore your mind is entirely limited by the system it is a product of. Therefore your mind cannot know anything about what is outside the system, because, by your definition your mind has nothing from outside the system. No knowledge from outside the system, no inkling - nothing. Therefore, when you say categorically that there is no God I do not think you are being consistent with your own belief (or non belief if you'd rather call it that). You are making a statement that you are not qualified to make, if you abide by your own principles.

I don't think the statement holds together intellectually.
Seems to me that, as with others (i.e. stephen hawking), your conclusions are more wishful thinking than pure logic.
I reckon you should either,
a) Recognise that if you make statements about the beyond (which you are doing when you say there is no God) then you are implicitly claiming that you know something about the beyond. Where did that knowledge come from then? The only place it could have come from is beyond. Therefore your argument is self defeating.
b) Change from an atheist to an agnostic.

Anyway dude, you present yourself very well in my opinion and I got a lot of respect for that. Also, I'm not trying to rubbish your opinions or be disrespectful in any way - it's just that's what my honest response was to your site. I don't have any problem with disagreement as long as people intelligent about it. I guess one reason I'm writing to you is that even if you can't agree with me, I would at least like to know I have your respect as an intelligent person. I think my faith is quite mature and well thought out in many ways, allowing room for science, paradox, and people's differences, among other things.
Genuine respect
Andy

Hey Andy!

Yep, I do remember you, now - thanks for the memory jog

Thanks for the kudos, too. I've been setting-up a few projects recently, so I haven't been able to finish building the bulk of that site. But I'll finish it soon, and then I'll be posting to it regularly, since it forms part of my life purpose.

I'm basically a guy that's glad to be alive and have this chance, proud to be human, disheartened at those who so freely denounce us and the state of the world when there's so much good, and resolved to leave my race better than I found it.

I think I may have inadvertently put the wrong point across with what you've read about my views on religion. I guess I can explain it best by recounting a scale of religious belief levels, put forward by someone whom I can't remember…

Basically, he said there are 7 levels of belief:

1) God exists, and that is that;
2) I'm not completely sure, but I think he exists;
3) I don't really know either way, but I'll go for 'yes';
4) No idea (agnostic);
5) I don't really know either way, but I'll go for 'no';
6) Not enough evidence to prove either way, but logic says 'no';
7) God doesn't exist, and that is that.

I'm a 6. I'm a six in everything in life until enough conclusive proof emerges for or against its theory. I hope that explains it better, but thanks for your view. No doubt it won't end there

I appreciate your finding the time to write your long comment on the site - I really want to encourage contribution by others, be it for or against my philosophy.

Thanks again.

To freedom,

Scotty

Should not "A Case Against Religion" be retitled "A Case Against Christianity", or are we debating whether the Christian God exists, or whether any of the Gods of any religion exist. After all, doesn't the term religion refer to the worship of A God or belief, rather than just being confined to Christianity?

And almost by definition, although we cannot see or touch Them, doesn't the fact that all of the different Gods exist in the minds of the millions of their worshippers, that they provide comfort and inner well being, indicate that these Gods actually DO exist. They may not exist in your, or my, or our friends lives. But they sure as anything are a solid presence in the lives of the millions of their followers.

Thousands upon thousands of huge Cathedrals, Temples, tiny shrines, altars, mosques etc. have been built to worship respective deities, so for those millions who all worship the same God, He exists.

I guess it comes down to how the worshippers live their lives. If they lead good lives, and are happy, and loving towards their fellow man, and this love they pass on so freely is a product of their worship for their God, then their religion cannot be a bad thing.

Of course there are bad apples in any religion, who no matter how strongly they profess that they spread the love of their God, they still act disgracefully towards their fellow man. And this is also true of course of many non-believers, or self-believers.

But on the whole, would it not be likely, do you think, that because those millions who actively worship a God, and actively involve themselves in the Family of their Church, and try and live by the love of that Family, showing qualities such as forgiveness and tolerance, do you think that there is more chance that a higher percentage of decent people evolve from that belief, than from the thousands who don't believe?

Don't get me wrong, of course within the millions of non-belivers and self-believers are millions who love and care for their fellow man. But because they do not exhibit these tendencies as openly, or RELIGIOUSLY, as God worshippers, their word of Love is less likely to be spread and enjoyed by others. They are more likely to be more wrapped up in Self, rather than outwardly embracing others.

So I guess the point is, if millions of people enjoy worshipping and loving their God, and are Good people because of it, let's let them get on with it, and hope they can spread their words of Love better than the doubters.

Surely the debate should be A Case FOR Religion?