Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Evolving Religions
Message-ID: <238@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 16:57:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnet.238
Posted: Fri Jun  7 16:57:39 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 03:28:46 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 79

<>
	I am posting this to net.religion only,
since, as pointed out by others, it does not belong in net.origins.
My thanks to Tim Maroney, for posting an interesting, informed response.
he has obviously given the matter quite a bit of thought,
and has viewed religion from many different perspectives.

> Seriously, Karl, you've obviously bought the usual false choice between
> dogmatism or atheism that is so prevalent in this society.
> The point is that you should study a
> wider range of religions before you make this kind of generalization.
	Allow me to ask Tim (or anyone else) a couple questions.
Primarily, what constitutes a religion?  Without this common understanding,
it is difficult to discuss concepts clearly.
It is possible to define a religion as any belief system
(e.g. Christianity, the scientific method,
do unto others as you would have others do unto you,
eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, etc).
Let me restrict myself, for this discussion,
to theistic (not necessarily dogmatic) religions.
I should have made this clear in the original article.

Is there any evidence for a deity(s), as described in any religion?
> I hope I never reach a stage where I cannot see the deity and mystery of
> rocks, trees, and works of art ("idols").
I see amazing and complex natural processes, especially in trees,
but I don't see the deity.  Where is it?

Of course, another question, what is a deity?
> > As more people are exposed to biology,
> > biochemistry, astronomy, and especially history, a loving, omnipotent,
> > omniscient, omnipresent God becomes harder to swallow.  Indeed, Godel may
> > have dealt such a being a death blow already.
> Actually, I consider Godel's work the death knell for absolute rationalism,
> not religion.  Please explain.
I agree in part.  Not all religions are in jeopardy,
only those postulating an omniscient or omnipotent deity.
Let me consider a deity to be a sentient being, who can,
in some way, affect our lives.  Let me exclude existing biological creatures,
since my boss certainly affects my life.  Is there such a deity?

> The reason this is such a popular conception is because most atheists would
> prefer that science be considered to supercede religion.  To this end, they
> pretend that religions did nothing more than what science does today, and
> did it wrong.
I do recognize this, and I tried (unsuccessfully) to indicate this.
The primary need for religion seems to be psychological, not scientific.
That is why religions will always remain.  Reread my article.
I was only commenting on the mechanisms (specific religions)
employed to fill this enormous psychological need.
As long as you have to worship something, you better set up an invincible
system, especially since your mind will be questioning it on a daily basis.
Thus, religions relie on the unexplainable, but are not driven by it.

Clearly, all theistic religions have been (and still are) shaped by
social and technological forces.
Since you provided no refutation, I shall continue.
Since the various religions are shaped by these forces,
I cannot believe any religion actually contains a true deity.
Such a deity, if it exists, has not objectively affected anyone,
not even the loyal followers of any religion.  Doctrines, policies, and
beliefs evolve and  become extinct, driven solely by natural forces.
> My own feeling is that from certain perspectives large and complex systems
> such as ecosystems, galaxies, and universes can be considered sentient
Well, these systems certainly affect us.
Shall I call the deity some subset of the natural processes around us?
At this point, religion simply becomes science, which is all right with me.
This is not what I (and others) mean by deity.

If you feel theistic religions have any validity, excluding the psychological
benefits I have previously mentioned, can you explain why?
Do you think the term "religion" includes atheistic belief systems?
If so, perhaps we need a new term.  If your religion consists of
ethics, empathy, curiosity, etc, I sincerely hope it
remains untarnished in the face of scientific and technological progress.
I am an atheist; I don't know if I am religious or not.
-- 

Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad