Sacred vows, like the ones at a wedding or citizenship ceremony, are very subjective indeed. And of course they're open to revision, and breakage and cheating and dissolution. — Vera Mont

Yeah but are you really suggesting that there is never any price to pay if you break a 'sacred vow?'
There is power behind such labels as 'sacred vow.' Would you not agree?

Science offers an unbias search for truth imo. Religion offers comfort to help to sate primal human fear. — universeness

It depends upon the person and the religion. My religious views aren't in place as an anxiety medication that you happen not to need.

I personally don't use my religion to answer questions about how the world physically works. I've candidly not ever turned to my religious leaders to figure out how to start repair my car, build a house, to cure me of an illness, or of any other scientific inquiry.

If not for the fundamentalists that provide an easy target for atheists to ridicule for their insistence that world was created in 6 days only for it to be flooded and annihilated of all life but for those animals protected on the Ark, we'd not have to continuously have these conversations about how religion is in battle with science.

I don't think Noah and the flood (from the Sumerian Gilgamesh fable) is the main pivotal problem for Christianity. I think the 13+billion years of their gods non-involvement other than as the suggested prime mover, is a bigger problem. There are no religious scriptural references to events from the Proterozoic up until way past the time of the first Homenids. God is a very recent invention.

I would simply ask you for an honest answer to the following question:

When you are really scared, do you ask your religious beliefs to help you?

When you are really scared, do you ask your religious beliefs to help you? — universeness

That's the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes" thing. I don't know that I fall back on religion when things go bad as much as I try to figure out a way to make things better. But sure, I might resort to reliance upon religious views to sustain me should my world begin to collapse, but that hardly explains why I would hold religious views when my world is not under collapse.

There are no religious scriptural references to events from the Proterozoic up until way past the time of the first Homenids. God is a very recent invention. — universeness

And there is no literature indicating that people loved one another during those periods, so we must assume the lack of written documentation means love is a new invention. Or maybe writing was a new invention. That's option B. Or maybe there was writing to that effect, but those writings have been lost to time. That's option C. Or maybe primitive peoples didn't use writing to preserve the historical record. That's option D. Or maybe all of the above. That's option E.

Yeah but are you really suggesting that there is never any price to pay if you break a 'sacred vow?' — universeness

Of course not. Every decision has a price, as does every transaction - both in the physical realm and in the metaphysical or imaginary.

There is power behind such labels as 'sacred vow.' Would you not agree? — universeness

Yes. A psychological one, primarily. That's why people who have once had faith, were in love or felt patriotic have a harder time breaking away from their church, their marriage or their country than people who were only pretending when they took those vows.
Secondarily, there is a social burden: the vows are to a community of other people, too: the congregation, the family, fellow citizens, and when you break your vows, you're letting them all down. Their reactions can vary from mild reproach all the way to drawing and quartering.

but that hardly explains why I would hold religious views when my world is not under collapse. — Hanover

I think it does, under the wise suggestion of 'be prepared!'
It's your primal fear of the 'alpha male.' Your world is not under collapse only if you comply with what you perceive sustains it and part of that IS your faith that the 'alpha,' has your best interests at heart.

And there is no literature indicating that people loved one another during those periods — Hanover

Well ,there were no 'people for the vast majority of the lifetime of the Earth. Certainly none in the Proterozoic (The Proterozoic Eon extended from 2.5 billion to 541 million years ago). No dinos either but many many other species, most of which were wiped out in 'the great dying,' approximately 251.9 million years ago. No people during the Mesozoic either (It lasted from about 252 to 66 million years ago.) The first dinos are around 230 million years age (during the Triassic). The first hominids come on the scene around 4 million years ago and the first homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago.

And there is no literature indicating that people loved one another during those periods — Hanover

Only humans who's lifespan is currently so short can believe that love has some eternal element to it imo. Perhaps thats just a very pleasant illusion for us.

Or maybe primitive peoples didn't use writing to preserve the historical record. — Hanover

I think cave paintings are their best attempt at memorialising their lives, along with our interpretations of information that the fossil evidence provides. Why do you think god created the dinosaurs or the many many creatures that existed before homo sapiens?

I personally don't use my religion to answer questions about how the world physically works. I've candidly not ever turned to my religious leaders to figure out how to start repair my car, build a house, to cure me of an illness, or of any other scientific inquiry. — Hanover

My best experience of religion was the late 1960's, the reasonable, ecumenical moment of the 20thy century, when it was quite common for church-going people to visit the churches of other denominations, and the non-affiliated like myself to learn about my friends' churches, for people who didn't all hold the same view to discuss their doctrinal variances, to rationalize their own and their sect's position regarding evolution and technology and social changes, like women's liberation, racial integration, premarital sex, education, divorce and birth control, degrees of one's obligation to self, family, community, nation, humanity and God.

During that time, I met a number of Christians who did work, and took risks, for causes that I also supported. They said they were prompted to do so by their faith; I was prompted to do likewise by my convictions. What's the difference? Good people behave well; bad people behave badly, whatever they profess.

Politics squashed that atmosphere of tolerant openness: religion was seized, once again, as a vehicle for division and conquest. That was a great setback for North America. And it manifests, still, in these manufactured misunderstandings. The physical and the spiritual world are not in conflict with each other. Science and religion are not conflict with each other. Objective and the subjective perception are not in conflict with each other. But humans, humans engage in conflict with one another, and within themselves, on any and every pretext.

“The abject failure of Christianity to break into India, ... — Art48

Isn't it interesting that Alexander the Great's conquests ended at India? HydaspesRiver marked the limit of his conquests. He of course had died at that period and could not continue its conqueting "career", and I'm far from an historian, but I always believed that he was personally conquered by the great Indian civilization he was faced with.

So, I guess Christian missionaries faced the same problem. And, from what I know, they could not even survive long in Japan either. The Eastern civilization (as we call it today) was too strong to conquer.

So, I was just intrigued by the parallel cases ... I give way now to those who know much better than me.

I think it does, under the wise suggestion of 'be prepared!'
It's your primal fear of the 'alpha male.' Your world is not under collapse only if you comply with what you perceive sustains it and part of that IS your faith that the 'alpha,' has your best interests at heart. — universeness

I don't find this psychoanalysis at all useful. It's based upon knowing close to nothing about me, your having no expertise in the matter, confirmation bias, and projection. It's just your way of saying you don't think religious views are rational, so there must be an emotional component, and that emotion must be fear. All I can tell you is that you're wrong as it applies to me.

Why do you thin god created the dinosaurs of the many many creatures that existed before homo sapiens? — universeness

To believe there is a purpose for everything but to not know the ultimate purpose is no more fatal to that position than is it to believe that everything has a cause but to not know what that first cause was.

I don't deny there was a big bang that represents the first cause, but I do deny there is true coherence to the theory that there can be a first cause when the scientific method requires that all events have causes. This is simply to say that inability to offer fully coherent theories of cosmology from either a religious or scientific view are necessarily going to be lacking.

Yes. A psychological one, primarily. — Vera Mont

What about the legal ones? Marital vows have serious, life changing financial and social consequences.
What is a 'treaty' between countries if not a promise or vow. War is often the result of breaking such vows. I still think you are downplaying the possible 'consequentials,' in the human experience. Religious vows are much more powerful than you suggest imo.

You’re still stuck in the Kantian-Popperian tradition of science as objective falsification., knowledge opposing itself to power and facts opposing values.
— Joshs

Not even close. — Vera Mont

Second guess: You’re still stuck in in the Marxist-structuralist tradition of scientific realism. Better?
Give me a hint.

They said they were prompted to do so by their faith; I was prompted to do likewise by my convictions. What's the difference? Good people behave well; bad people behave badly, whatever they profess. — Vera Mont

Great question Vera! There maybe a very big difference and it's simply 'which group is correct?'
Is your humanist convictions the way forward for the human race or should we follow the theistic 'good' people? I think the consequences of that decision on a global scale may well be an existential one.
If this Earth is very expendable to many many theists because it does not represent the place that they truly belong then how safe is it, under their very significant influence?

The Eastern civilization (as we call it today) was too strong to conquer. — Alkis Piskas

Well, for one thing, they're older that the European,

The Indus Valley Civilization dates to c. 7000 BCE and grew steadily throughout the lower Gangetic Valley region southwards and northwards to Malwa. .

the Chinese 'Cradle of Civilization' is the Yellow River Valley which gave rise to villages sometime around 5000 BCE.

and for another, they are large, populous lands.
But they've been conquered and to some degree converted more than once. That Islam fared better in India than Christianity, well, that might just be down to a more complete conquest by the Umayyad caliphate than the British Empire. Of course, they also came along earlier, so maybe all the people inclined to monotheism were already committed.

All I can tell you is that you're wrong as it applies to me. — Hanover

I appreciate that but I reject it, as you have not convinced me that your faith is not fear based.
I fully accept that you have no imperative to convince me of your reasons for having a faith.
So, we are where we are. I hope I remain open minded enough to still listen to anyone's attempt to justify/rationalise any faith in the supernatural they hold. I also fully accept that I don't know the origin story of the universe and I cannot disprove god posits.
If you are right then maybe you will exist in some form after your death and I will inherit oblivion.
I find neither proposition more horrific that the other as I have no reliable information about either. Neither do I have any power to prevent either.

Religious vows are much more powerful than you suggest imo. — universeness

I never said psychological effects are less powerful than legal ones. Quite the opposite: they're the most powerful forces in humans - sometimes to the point of overpowering biological ones. For those who mean them sincerely, affirmations of faith are very powerful. But most people don't take any religious vows; they just go to church when they feel like it and identify as whatever religion they were born into. Children of 6 or 7 go through the motions they're taught and feel very solemn when doing it, but the next week, they're shooting spitball during mass, as usual. They're too young to be trusted with a house-key, never mind responsible for a life-long commitment. It doesn't prevent them breaking the rules, any more than marriage vows prevent infidelity or trade treaties prevent industrial espionage.

Second guess: You’re still stuck in in the Marxist-structuralist tradition of scientific realism. Better?
Give me a hint. — Joshs

Hint: When formulating an opinion on any subject, I do not start by consulting philosophers. I have never subscribed to a school of thought... though Epicureanism came close. I have done some reading in history, anthropology and mythology. I don't give a flying fig about theoretical traditions; I judge by what I see actual people actually doing.

It doesn't fail. It doesn't want to converge on a coherent picture picture of the physical universe. — Vera Mont

It fails to converge on a coherent picture of the spiritual universe.

The disagreements are multiple. A short list:
Is faith alone sufficient for salvation, or are works needed too?
Is Jesus God. Christianity says yes, Judaism and Islam say no.
Do we go to heaven or hell when we die, or are we reincarnated?

I appreciate that but I reject it, as you have not convinced me that your faith is not fear based. — universeness

Yeah, but this is where the conversation unfortunately gets stupid, with you positing a baseless theory and then awaiting disproof of it.

You're not asking for a justification for faith. You're asking for me to disprove your false assumption that I have a need to cure my anxiety that you don't, and then I'm supposed to take that seriously, and then I'm to convince you that your random speculation is false.

There are pragmatic bases for faith, and I have brought them up in prior posts. You can take a look at William James' "A Will to Believe" if you'd like. There is something there worthy of philosophical debate there, unlike here.

It fails to converge on a coherent picture of the spiritual universe. — Art48

Why would "it" even want to? Religion is not a single entity. It is legion. Why would you expect religions all to have the same world-view when political ideologies don't? The organized religious bodies are rivals, competing for hungry souls, each offering some version of what one man, or a committee, thinks the other people need.
Why confuse dogma with belief? Dogma, doctrine, scripture, canon - these are man-made documents, like a constitution or a philosophical treatise or a company's mission statement (mission... how pretentious is that?) These are administrative, legislative documents, not spiritual ones. People subscribe to them, partly because they find it ready-made when they enter the world; indeed, most enter the world through a religious rite of one particular brand and are expected to follow it. Besides, it's easier than inventing their own.
Belief is internal. Whether believers admit it, realize it, think about it or even care or not, each believer forms his or her own faith. When learning the rituals and tenets of an established religion, each individual congregant customizes the religion; adapts the picture of the supernatural they're given to fit their own imagination, their own emotional needs, their own knowledge of and attitude to the world. A spiritual universe may be shared by many people who believe roughly the same metaphysics, but each internal picture is different. Religious belief, like conscience or taste or sexual attraction, is subjective.

Yeah, but this is where the conversation unfortunately gets stupid, with you positing a baseless theory and then awaiting disproof of it.

You're not asking for a justification for faith. You're asking for me to disprove your false assumption that I have a need to cure my anxiety that you don't, and then I'm supposed to take that seriously, and then I'm to convince you that your random speculation is false. — Hanover

That just reads like sour grapes on your part. I know you cannot provide me with 'proof.' I only require more convincing/compelling claims than those you have attempted so far. My 'assumption,' is supported by your own words:

But sure, I might resort to reliance upon religious views to sustain me should my world begin to collapse — Hanover

You certainly don't need to take my request seriously and you are free to accuse me of random speculation but then perhaps you could expand on your quote above. In what way would your religious views sustain you if 'your world' began to collapse?
I only ask so that I might gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. I am not ridiculing your beliefs, I am just trying to follow your rationale.

There are pragmatic bases for faith, and I have brought them up in prior posts. You can take a look at William James' "A Will to Believe" if you'd like. There is something there worthy of philosophical debate there, unlike here. — Hanover

I would rather read your viewpoints than those of 'William James.'
I have watched many online debates between atheists such as, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris etc and theists such as William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Dinesh D'souza, Cardinal George Pell etc and I watch youtube recordings of Matt Dillahunty, Jimmy Snow, Aaron Ra, Shannon Q, Forrest Valkai etc and their phone in shows. So I am quite familiar with the positions and viewpoints of both sides. If you think the debate going on here is of no value to you then that's ok, as this is not a dictatorial website. Do you agree?

That just reads like sour grapes on your part. I know you cannot provide me with 'proof.' I only require more convincing/compelling claims than those you have attempted so far. My 'assumption,' is supported by your own words: — universeness

Sour grapes refers to the development of a negative attitude due to an inability to obtain something actually desired. You can feel free to read the parable.

My reference to the stupidity of the current line of discussion doesn't relate to my inability to obtain the delicious grapes you offer (whatever that inapt metaphor might mean here), but upon the idea that you throw out an amateurish, baseless, speculative, uninformed, and entirely unscientific theory and then you seek disproof, as if that's where the onus lies.

If you think the primary driver of religious belief is fear, then perhaps do some research on that subject and show me your studies. It would seem that if you advocate for a scientific perspective, you'd rely upon science for your claims. Here's a place you might want to get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

I would rather read your viewpoints rather than those of 'William James.' — universeness

What you'd rather do is drone on about some theory you arrived at while sitting in your recliner petting your cat and not be burdened by the extensive discussion that preceded your thinking about it. If we can't get beyond the question of whether you have randomly hit the nail on the head when you declared religiosity only arises as a byproduct of fear, it seems we're years away from advancing anywhere close to the current state of the debate to where something interesting might be revealed.

"Objective realities" to true believers (who do not require evidence other than their "faith"), no doubt.

I must have missed the lines in my bible "In the beginning was the unknowable" or "The unknowable alone is Holy", etc.

What you'd rather do is drone on about some theory you arrived at while sitting in your recliner petting your cat and not be burdened by the extensive discussion that preceded your thinking about it. — Hanover

:lol: Have you been watching James Bond movies again. Perhaps if you watched some of the debates I mentioned or the phone in shows I mentioned you would be able to listen to real theists phoning in and revealing there personal associations between their fears and their theism. Perhaps you could phone in yourself and discuss the issue.

If we can't get beyond the question of whether you have randomly hit the nail on the head when you declared religiosity only arises as a byproduct of fear, it seems we're years away from advancing anywhere close to the current state of the debate to where something interesting might be revealed. — Hanover

I cannot imagine that I am the first person who has introduced you to the idea that all theism is fear based. It's an ancient posit. 'The fear of god' cannot happen unless you are capable of experiencing fear.
God is presented as the one power that can save you against any threat, yes? Even the threat of death and oblivion. That's its main selling point and it also means that others can manipulate those fears for their own ends.

It fails to converge on a coherent picture of the spiritual universe. — Art48

Why would "it" even want to? Religion is not a single entity. It is legion. Why would you expect religions all to have the same world-view when political ideologies don't? The organized religious bodies are rivals, competing for hungry souls, each offering some version of what one man, or a committee, thinks the other people need. — Vera Mont

Science has found truth about the physical universe. There is no Christian chemistry, Islamic chemistry, and Buddhist chemistry. There is just chemistry

Religion has failed to find truth about the spiritual universe.That's why there is Christian dogma, Islamic dogma, and Buddhist dogma.

If religion doesn't want to find truth about the spiritual universe, then so much the worse for religion.

"Objective realities" to true believers (who do not require evidence other than their "faith"), no doubt. — 180 Proof

Watching some of the televised material on such like God TV, or even TBN in the UK.
The hysteria you sometime see within audience members is incredible.
Yes, 'true believers,' believe that god is an absolute objective fact.
We are not talking about a tiny number of people here with no political or social power.
Would you agree that manipulating human fear is the number one way to rise to power yourself and impose your personal viewpoints on others. Political, social, religious viewpoints can all be imposed on others via the route of human fear.
I think science succeeds because it is not fear based and religion is fear based.

:100: "Fear is the only God!" ~Zack de la Rocha (RatM) :fire:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541580

Great quotes from a great physicist, Steven Weinberg.
I have the book he wrote with Richard Feynman, called elementary particles and the laws of physics.
I have read it cover to cover twice, over the years. I wish I understood it better.
A great quote from Carl Sagan is:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

I must have missed the lines in my bible "In the beginning was the unknowable" or "The unknowable alone is Holy", etc. — 180 Proof

I've never come from a position of literalism, nor from a position that the Bible is the revealed word of God. Are we really again going to trot out the attacks on the fundamentalists?

If you're interested in specific biblical theologies regarding the unknowability of God, take a look at Rambam's 3rd Article of Faith as it relates to the inability to compare God to anything, therefore making him unknowable. https://web.oru.edu/current_students/class_pages/grtheo/mmankins/drbyhmpg_files/GBIB766RabbLit/Chapter9Maimonides13Princ/index.html and https://aish.com/48942416/.

This response is not to suggest any specific accuracy in the Bible, but to respond to your suggestion that the Bible has not been interpreted as you've indicated. The unknowability of God is part of the biblical tradition.

I am also aware of the first line of John which has always been cryptic to me which states that "In the beginning was the word," with "the word" being a translation of the Greek "logos" which references simply order or meaning, making it vague at best.

This is consistent with probably the best translation of the first lines of the Hebrew bible (coming from Professor Richard Friedman): "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth - when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said "let there be light,."

This again describes God as an organizing force of a pre-existent universe. Again, not a terribly clear notion, and I think consistent with the unknowable.

And of course the Trinity, which the Catholic Church declares an eternal mystery, some suggesting that expressing an understanding of it is heresy.

At any rate, I'm not sure what you want to discuss, the OP as it relates to the failure of Christianity to blossom in the East, whether religious people believe only to find refuge from their fear, to discuss how you've interpreted your Bible versus how others have, or to suggest that science has empirically provable cosmological claims and that's what separates it from religion.

To the extent it matters, I've noted that the use of religious texts to determine facts about the physical world is not a useful endeavor. Finding meaning in one's life, for me, is the proper use of religion. I don't know how you use science for that, but if you do, good for you. But, to the extent you want to argue literalism, that's not interesting.

I cannot imagine that I am the first person who has introduced you to the idea that all theism is fear based. It's an ancient posit. — universeness

And yet you offer no cite to this ancient doctrine and ignore all the cites set forth in the Wiki article specifically on the point of psychology of religion. Again, you're making a generalized empirical claim regarding the cause of religiosity and going so far as to say there is no nuance among individuals, but that each and every religious person is there from fear alone.

Everyone at the services I attend seem pretty chill, but maybe they're scared shitless and I don't know it.