Is there a God?

[Assume Nothing]

Question for atheists.... Do you use the terms jesus, god, goddammit, oh my god, or any other phrases of the sort?

I could only speak for myself here, but I would say that these terms are used in language despite my position on religion (anti-theistic/anti-religious unbeliever). I'll admit that I do make a conscious effort in limiting its usage to avoid confusion, especially in religious debate - but you have to note that our language has evolved with religious roots so it's unreasonable and practically impossible to completely boycott its usage in language.

 

I would say that the terms itself, despite having religious origins, have no religious association in its modern colloquial interpretation. An example could be the term 'good-bye', which originates from the term 'god be with ye'. In modern usage, it means the approximate of 'I shall wish you well, now that we must depart,' despite its origins.

 

 

"If it has a net effect of a negative - which it does to a significant degree"

 

Assume, give me a list of the negative effects, and state why they are negative and how religion (and religion alone) causes these effects.

I'll have to respond to this a little later, I'm a little too preoccupied to provide an extensive, well explained list at this moment.

[Randox]

A note that several posts have been removed from this page for driving the discussion away from the point of the thread, so the bottom half of this page is going to look a bit disjointed. Ideally, there needs to be some sort of balence between turing this into a debate on how to debate, and having people say whatever they want without any kind of reasoning to back it up. I would also remind everyone (even though most of you are old hat at this by now) to try to keep a cool head on this thread. If you start getting angry, please back out of this thread, go look at some pictures of fluffy kittens, and count to 10 slowly while taking deep breaths. Come back when your feeling a bit more mellowed out.

 

 

And if I may be allowed to indulge in some personal backtracking, why would the distinction between moderates and fundamentalists is irrelevant? To me, saying that they are all the same would be in the same vein as accusing all Islamists of being terrorists, or at least wanting to be terrorists. What your doing is taking the craziest radicals, saying 'look how crazy these people are', and then assuming that everyone from the parent religious designation is like that.

 

The Methodist and Presbyterian Churches (both quite moderate) have about as much in common with the westborrow Baptists than they do with Orthodox Judaisim (actually, much less). It's not about what people believe in the sense that I believe Jesus was the son of God and he doesn't. It's all about how what you believe steers your life.

 

My point being that assuming that all Christans (or people of any other parent faith) are the same, or even similar, is just a demonstration of ignorance in regards to understanding the actual religions.

 

What I am starting to see is an underlying assumption that if religion just didn't exist, that the crazy religious fanatics wouldn't be crazy people anymore. The assumption that someone only hates gay people because they believe that God wants them to hate gay people. While a lot of prejudice is probably a combination of learned behavior and fear (which aren't mutually exclusive), you don't need religion to foster intolerance. We are perfectly capable of being intolerant without religion.

 

In the same vein, you don't need religion to seek meaning in the universe anymore than religion would impede the search for meaning. Many researchers are religious. Some of them have faith that doesn't prohibit the idea of scientific exploration, and some of them are actually trying to do gods work by expanding their understanding of his creation.

 

Does religion do bad? Yes, sometimes it does, and I will happily conceded that religion has been a major part of many conflicts (and still is in many areas of the world), and it still is. But religion also does good, encouraging people to be generous and charitable, and even encouraging people to build a better understanding of how the world works will could mean research, or even just personal information and understanding gathering. Many religions preach tolerance of all fellow human beings regardless of ethnicity, gender, or racial orientation. You just never hear about it because the headline "x Church encourages followers to not beat up women" doesn't sell.

 

But at the end of the day, my observation is that humans like to group themselves. We identify with a flag, or with a religion (or lack therof), or whatever else, and then a portion of every group wants to beat up everyone from other groups. I truly believe that is human nature, and I truly believe that if religion were not a concept that existed at all, that we would have found something else to beat each other up over, and we would war over that instead.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Question for atheists.... Do you use the terms jesus, god, goddammit, oh my god, or any other phrases of the sort?

Yeah, I use those terms in everyday life. However, if a Christian asked me not to because it's blasphemy to them, then I wouldn't purposefully offend them by continuing. I'd just use those terms when not in their presence.

 

[Omar]

And we don't use them because of their religious connotation, in the exact same way we don't mean to talk about poop when we say "aw shit".

 

>Generalizing

 

No. Different branches of Christianity is still Christianity; different branches of Islam is still Islam; different branches of Judaism is still Judaism. It falls under sections and subsections, motivated by the same cause, because it's an encompassing world-view, or ideology. It cannot be said for atheism, because that's not a particular mindset or worldview. It's just a negative statement - its convictions is a single 'I don't believe in god/gods'.

You're telling me Al-Qaida's terrorists and my dad have the same ideology? We've already been through this--religious texts require interpretation, and as such there is no unifying characteristic to beliefs tied to these texts other than the fact that they are bound to them. Spinoza was a pantheist, and he got this idea out of Abrahamic texts (Christian or Jewish, I'm not sure).

 

 

Science is not supposed to give meaning to life; that's what philosophy and ethics is for. It's merely there to represent and describe reality as it is, so we can learn more from standing on the shoulder of giants. It's the best possible way we could observe things, so I don't follow your criticism of science.

We agree; all I'm saying is philosophy and ethics are not worthless. And what is religion if not metaphysics, epistemology and ethics?

The argument about imposing values and ethics upon others I won't deny; but the better question is, which values is better to impose, if at all?

This "if at all" allows you to ask a question you shouldn't be asking... let people do what they want. It's none of your business.

Religious values can often be twisted in a way that makes it dangerous, too - which I'd imagine you wouldn't need examples of.

So can values which are not based on religion (which I understand is not the same thing as values based on atheism). Kant's ethics are based on reason and Eichmann used them to defend himself after WW2. Atheism isn't to blame, of course; but if the people twisting religious ethics to fit their actions hadn't been disrespectful of others, then religion wouldn't have been an issue. Disrespect is the problem.

[Assume Nothing]

[Mods, please merge my posts, thanks!]

 

>Generalizing

 

No. Different branches of Christianity is still Christianity; different branches of Islam is still Islam; different branches of Judaism is still Judaism. It falls under sections and subsections, motivated by the same cause, because it's an encompassing world-view, or ideology. It cannot be said for atheism, because that's not a particular mindset or worldview. It's just a negative statement - its convictions is a single 'I don't believe in god/gods'.

You're telling me Al-Qaida's terrorists and my dad have the same ideology? We've already been through this--religious texts require interpretation, and as such there is no unifying characteristic to beliefs tied to these texts other than the fact that they are bound to them. Spinoza was a pantheist, and he got this idea out of Abrahamic texts (Christian or Jewish, I'm not sure).

In response to the Al-Qaida terrorists thing: the answer is 'yes and no'. I have no understanding that your father is practicing an Islamic faith, so I'll operate on the idea that he's in fact a Christian or a moderate Muslim (I don't know anything of your background). I'd answer yes because it's the fundamental difference between unbiased scrutiny of ideas and the acceptance of supernaturalism, where from inference your father falls under the second category. In other words - if your father was religious to any significant extent, he would follow the same pattern/school of thought as they, but not to the same degree whereby rationality is diminished. I'd answer no because as you've said, it's reliant on interpretation - but that's individual religious alignment as opposed to criticism on religion on the whole.

 

 

Science is not supposed to give meaning to life; that's what philosophy and ethics is for. It's merely there to represent and describe reality as it is, so we can learn more from standing on the shoulder of giants. It's the best possible way we could observe things, so I don't follow your criticism of science.

We agree; all I'm saying is philosophy and ethics are not worthless. And what is religion if not metaphysics, epistemology and ethics?

If that's the case, then religion ought not be taught as a literal truth - rather, as a philosophical idea. If that's what you're valuing, then we have no disagreement, because I value it as an idea - the point of contention is accepting it (the idea of the existence of a deity) as true.

 

 

The argument about imposing values and ethics upon others I won't deny; but the better question is, which values is better to impose, if at all?

This "if at all" allows you to ask a question you shouldn't be asking... let people do what they want. It's none of your business.

You've missed the point. You have first established that it's human nature to impose values/ethics/judgements upon others, so I'm suggesting that if its an intrinsic part of human nature that we cannot control with any ease, then the first step towards progression is determining which values is worthwhile to impose before imposing them.

 

One of the problems we have is the idea of religious freedom, but lack of irreligious freedom to critique - the idea that it's politically incorrect to scrutinize religion gives it a free pass to do whatever it likes, and that too often involves coercion, imposing values through social pressure, and other means of propagating itself to maintain the people who join >= people who leave status quo.

 

 

Religious values can often be twisted in a way that makes it dangerous, too - which I'd imagine you wouldn't need examples of.

So can values which are not based on religion (which I understand is not the same thing as values based on atheism). Kant's ethics are based on reason and Eichmann used them to defend himself after WW2. Atheism isn't to blame, of course; but if the people twisting religious ethics to fit their actions hadn't been disrespectful of others, then religion wouldn't have been an issue. Disrespect is the problem.

Of course it can be true on both sides. Religious values are just so much more prone to it, because morality by divine command is reliant on the word of scripture. It is not based on whether the actions/decisions of others affects others (which I'd argue is the objective of morality, to reap what society deems to be the most benefit, whatever that may entail), so in terms of whether they are of any use - I'd argue that religious values have none.

 

I anticipate the counter-argument that a lot of 'religious' values do have its merits, and has even been consistent with our laws and social convention. It's true, some commandments e.g. 'Do not murder', and the general principle of 'Do not lie' is accepted to be generally social principles - but that disregards the fact that morality predates scripture. I'd argue that it's most likely to be inherited as part of evolution, as murderous societies tend not to last very long (an unbalanced equation of rate of death > rate of birth) - and to lie persistently would make it very difficult to have any trust within communities thus again, causing social breakdown.

 

Meta-ethically speaking, religion is unnecessary and quite often harmful to morality - it's a shame that it receives so much credit as the religious have a tendency to falsely attribute these morals to a 'god' (which is not unlikely, since they have a strong emotional connection to what's perceived to be a 'god', thus they're predisposed to committing the special pleading fallacy.)

[Sinkhan]

Question for atheists.... Do you use the terms jesus, god, goddammit, oh my god, or any other phrases of the sort?

 

As Assume already noted, they have been integrated into modern Westernized English; it's very difficult to avoid them.

 

Good bye in fact comes from "god be with ye", said when a person leaves a village or whatever goes into the wilderness/desert/etc.

 

Neil DeGrasse Tyson touched on this himself. When people heard him say God Speed during a satellite or shuttle launch into space, they gave him funny looks and did a whole bunch of hand waving. "Hey, you're atheist aren't you? Why are you saying God Speed then?" His response is that it is merely a tradition and a sign of respect that is prominent throughout aerospace endeavours.

[Omar]

I'd answer no because as you've said, it's reliant on interpretation - but that's individual religious alignment as opposed to criticism on religion on the whole.

But that's the entire point--there is no characteristic of religion which applies to every religious person! Some Christians are very rational (again, Kant). Your misconception is that because a number of referents (an infinite amount of different beliefs and ethical systems) are tied to a single word (religion), then there must be a shared essence to all these referents. This is not necessarily true:

 

65. [...] Instead of producing something common to all that we call language [in our case, religion replaces "language"], I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all,-but that they are related to one another in many different ways. And it is because of this relationship, or these relationships, that we call them all "language". I will try to explain this.

66. Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? -- Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' "-but look and see whether there is anything common to all. -- For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look! --

 

(more here, including a refutation of possible essences of games one might think of)

Not all religions work the same way... There are plenty of people who believe in God and who don't use this belief as a foundation for their interactions with other people (legislation is one example of such interaction). I'm not talking about people who try to conciliate religion and science. I'm talking about people who don't make it necessary, because the truth-value of their belief is irrelevant.

 

 

 

This "if at all" allows you to ask a question you shouldn't be asking... let people do what they want. It's none of your business.

You've missed the point. You have first established that it's human nature to impose values/ethics/judgements upon others, so I'm suggesting that if its an intrinsic part of human nature that we cannot control with any ease, then the first step towards progression is determining which values is worthwhile to impose before imposing them.

I never said it was "human nature" to impose values upon others; calling upon human nature is something people do to justify actions they don't want to feel responsible for. In fact, if I thought it was impossible to stop, I wouldn't have told you to do so.

 

One of the problems we have is the idea of religious freedom, but lack of irreligious freedom to critique - the idea that it's politically incorrect to scrutinize religion gives it a free pass to do whatever it likes, and that too often involves coercion, imposing values through social pressure, and other means of propagating itself to maintain the people who join >= people who leave status quo.

All you need to do is say that religion and irreligion belong in the private sphere and that it cannot be used to justify imposition of something on another person; this is what I would say to someone who would want to impose or ban halal meat in any country. People are free to have whatever religious belief they may want (if at all), but if the question isn't private and individual, then it has nothing to do wih it.

Religious values can often be twisted in a way that makes it dangerous, too - which I'd imagine you wouldn't need examples of.

So can values which are not based on religion (which I understand is not the same thing as values based on atheism). Kant's ethics are based on reason and Eichmann used them to defend himself after WW2. Atheism isn't to blame, of course; but if the people twisting religious ethics to fit their actions hadn't been disrespectful of others, then religion wouldn't have been an issue. Disrespect is the problem.

Of course it can be true on both sides. Religious values are just so much more prone to it, because morality by divine command is reliant on the word of scripture. It is not based on whether the actions/decisions of others affects others (which I'd argue is the objective of morality, to reap what society deems to be the most benefit, whatever that may entail), so in terms of whether they are of any use - I'd argue that religious values have none.

Again, Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

This is an ethical imperative which:

a) isn't based on religion

b) is based on the effect of action on yourself and others

Kant is religious, but the Bible is not where he gets his morals; in fact, later in his reasoning, his morals justify his religion (I'm sure you've sensed the resemblance). It's a purely rational system. I was not going to argue Christian values are useful for ethics. Just because they are unnecessary in ethics and science doesn't mean religions are altogether useless, and it doesn't mean they are bad. Again, religion is fine in the private sphere.

[Randox]

And I still say that ignoring the differences between denominations is just gross ignorance. As a more specific example, inspired by your posts in the today thread...

 

My parents would be going against their christian faith if they did not accept me if I were to come out as a lesbian to them, because our faith does take official stances on certain issues, and one of them is that they accept everyone regardless of things like gender, ethnicity, social/financial standing, religion, or sexual orientation, and they do perform gay marriages in their churches (though this is actually optional by congregation). While they don't demand it (they don't demand anything), they do encourage acceptance of everyone regardless of who they are, what their life circumstances are, what they believe in, or who they are attracted too.

 

In the same vein, the church does not denounce abortions. It encourages its adherents to seek out alternatives, but if it comes to abortion, the church is still going to support and accept you. That's the way it rolls.

 

 

My point is, that there is no "christian faith" any more than there is an "islamic faith" or a "jewish faith" or anything else. Omar said it perfectly. All Christianity, Judaisim, Islam, or any other such label is, is really what scripture they use. Each and every denomination is a seperate religion in and of itself. Some of them are similar, and some of them are total oposities in their practical beliefs and practices. So while there are certainly going to be common themes among say Christians regarding the holy day (though seventh day Adventists use Saturday, not Sunday), or Jesus, many of the religions have nothing in common with each other beyond these points, and even on the hard set ones, the only point that is going to be exactly the same in every Christian denomination, is the belief that Jesus was the son of God. Even the interpretation of the 10 commandments differs among the denominations.

 

If I sit through a Catholic service, it has no more relation to what I believe, and how I practice my faith than a service in a mosque (I have no idea what they call their services). Even if I walk into a different United church, its not going to feel the same (though in this case, that is a quirk of the United denomination. Catholics for example are much more consistent between their churches than we are).

[Assume Nothing]

I'd answer no because as you've said, it's reliant on interpretation - but that's individual religious alignment as opposed to criticism on religion on the whole.

But that's the entire point--there is no characteristic of religion which applies to every religious person! Some Christians are very rational (again, Kant). Your misconception is that because a number of referents (an infinite amount of different beliefs and ethical systems) are tied to a single word (religion), then there must be a shared essence to all these referents. This is not necessarily true:

 

65. [...] Instead of producing something common to all that we call language [in our case, religion replaces "language"], I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all,-but that they are related to one another in many different ways. And it is because of this relationship, or these relationships, that we call them all "language". I will try to explain this.

66. Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? -- Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' "-but look and see whether there is anything common to all. -- For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look! --

I’m not sure if you really understand my point. Religion can be characterized by a universal belief that there exists a deity – its individual sects (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism) determines what they believe. It is an all-encompassing ideology which dictates what to believe, what to think, how to act, and how to behave. If they don’t meet these standards, which the three most popular religions do, then I’m not referencing those religions (e.g. Buddhism).

 

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but the assertion that they are representative of the group is simply misleading. I’m not too concerned with moderate faith, as long as it doesn’t lean towards fundamentalism – but why follow the religion if you’re going to cherry-pick in the first place? It would seem to be a poor move for maximizing the happiness in one’s life, unless they’re mislead by promises of eternal salvation.

 

 

(more here, including a refutation of possible essences of games one might think of)

Not all religions work the same way... There are plenty of people who believe in God and who don't use this belief as a foundation for their interactions with other people (legislation is one example of such interaction). I'm not talking about people who try to conciliate religion and science. I'm talking about people who don't make it necessary, because the truth-value of their belief is irrelevant.

‘Not all religions work the same way’ <- that’s a little meaningless until you clarify how religions do work, and I’m primarily unconcerned with the people you’re currently referencing. I think a lot of people do use their belief as a foundation – or at least a significant determinant of their actions or lack thereof, as reflected by their behaviour.

 

I maintain the belief that the truth value of beliefs – especially those pertaining to the existence/non-existence of ideas, is relevant and significant. If actions are influenced by belief – and that religious beliefs promise eternal salvation by adherence to its moral principles, then its followers must act in accordance to their religion to attain its promised benefits – thus establishing its relevance to human behaviour and therefore society.

 

It sounds fine until you realize that due to the structure of the hierarchies’ common in religious groups that it could and would be easily abused for unsavoury/questionable practices. It wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that even moderate religious groups may influence political decisions, as clearly illustrated by the recent gay-marriage vote where its opposition was largely comprised of religious adherents who believed that homosexuality is ‘wrong’ based on biblical scripture. Its typically uncritical nature is a major point of contention where I firmly hold that it causes damage to our societies in ways we may not even be aware of.

 

Religious ideals and its principles in its entirety is contingent on whether a deity exists, so if we believe that these religious principles (thou shall never lie/steal/whatever) are inconsistent with those that are morally good, then it should be argued that it’s our duty to show religious followers that their faith has mislead them.

 

 

This "if at all" allows you to ask a question you shouldn't be asking... let people do what they want. It's none of your business.

You've missed the point. You have first established that it's human nature to impose values/ethics/judgements upon others, so I'm suggesting that if its an intrinsic part of human nature that we cannot control with any ease, then the first step towards progression is determining which values is worthwhile to impose before imposing them.

I never said it was "human nature" to impose values upon others; calling upon human nature is something people do to justify actions they don't want to feel responsible for. In fact, if I thought it was impossible to stop, I wouldn't have told you to do so.

Oh, my bad. I’d say the point I was trying to convey was that if we are predisposed of imposing values upon others anyway, then it would be better if we had an impartial method of determining which values we may impose. I agree with you – imposing any values is unnecessary, but that’s not what I am really arguing.

 

 

One of the problems we have is the idea of religious freedom, but lack of irreligious freedom to critique - the idea that it's politically incorrect to scrutinize religion gives it a free pass to do whatever it likes, and that too often involves coercion, imposing values through social pressure, and other means of propagating itself to maintain the people who join >= people who leave status quo.

All you need to do is say that religion and irreligion belong in the private sphere and that it cannot be used to justify imposition of something on another person; this is what I would say to someone who would want to impose or ban halal meat in any country. People are free to have whatever religious belief they may want (if at all), but if the question isn't private and individual, then it has nothing to do wih it.

I won’t disagree that they can’t be used to justify imposition of something – just don’t expect religious freedoms to be equivalent to freedom from criticism. People may do immoral actions, but we are allowed to judge them.

 

 

Religious values can often be twisted in a way that makes it dangerous, too - which I'd imagine you wouldn't need examples of.

So can values which are not based on religion (which I understand is not the same thing as values based on atheism). Kant's ethics are based on reason and Eichmann used them to defend himself after WW2. Atheism isn't to blame, of course; but if the people twisting religious ethics to fit their actions hadn't been disrespectful of others, then religion wouldn't have been an issue. Disrespect is the problem.

Yes, values based on irreligious principles can also be twisted too. There are two problems with religious principles in particular – they’re predisposed to be destructive, because they’re too rigid and its principles are inconsistent with the objective of promoting social progression (or whichever social objective there should be for meta-ethics) as its contingent on what a deity says. In addition, the scrutiny of its ethical stance is also typically discouraged, so it’s difficult to determine from an adherent’s perspective whether these are truly principles that are good.

 

There’s been a lot of previous discussion about whether questioning the faith and its moral principles are acceptable within a religious body. I would maintain that whilst they encourage some questioning to promote the idea that they’re freethinking, critical analysis that involves the rejection of poor arguments is generally discouraged as they consider it ‘questioning God’.

 

 

Of course it can be true on both sides. Religious values are just so much more prone to it, because morality by divine command is reliant on the word of scripture. It is not based on whether the actions/decisions of others affects others (which I'd argue is the objective of morality, to reap what society deems to be the most benefit, whatever that may entail), so in terms of whether they are of any use - I'd argue that religious values have none.

Again, Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

This is an ethical imperative which:

a) isn't based on religion

b) is based on the effect of action on yourself and others

Kant is religious, but the Bible is not where he gets his morals; in fact, later in his reasoning, his morals justify his religion (I'm sure you've sensed the resemblance). It's a purely rational system. I was not going to argue Christian values are useful for ethics. Just because they are unnecessary in ethics and science doesn't mean religions are altogether useless, and it doesn't mean they are bad. Again, religion is fine in the private sphere.

Ah, that’s not religious principles at all. As I’ve previously explained, whilst there are exceptions to the rule. A lot of religious followers do act with some consistency to religious principles from biblical scripture. If we could establish that religious scripture is of no moral authority then we should argue that adherence to the religion itself is harmful, because it’s likely to encourage immoral behaviour. I’m glad that a lot of religious followers, including Kant, don't actually follow the moral principles of Christianity, and especially Islam – it’s just a shame that there are people who do where religion is to blame (remember that picture I’ve shown? It’s especially prevalent in the Bible belt of the USA)

 

I’m not actually certain if we’re disagreeing at all, since we seem to echo each other here – but you must realize that religion is not in a private sphere; we’re not living in a vacuum. As a society, we share space that we live in. It could be easily established that religious beliefs affects others – oftentimes in an adverse way, hence my apparent contempt for religion in itself.

 

I’ll close with a quote:

 

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg.

[Assume Nothing]

And I still say that ignoring the differences between denominations is just gross ignorance. As a more specific example, inspired by your posts in the today thread...

 

My parents would be going against their christian faith if they did not accept me if I were to come out as a lesbian to them, because our faith does take official stances on certain issues, and one of them is that they accept everyone regardless of things like gender, ethnicity, social/financial standing, religion, or sexual orientation, and they do perform gay marriages in their churches (though this is actually optional by congregation). While they don't demand it (they don't demand anything), they do encourage acceptance of everyone regardless of who they are, what their life circumstances are, what they believe in, or who they are attracted too.

 

In the same vein, the church does not denounce abortions. It encourages its adherents to seek out alternatives, but if it comes to abortion, the church is still going to support and accept you. That's the way it rolls.

 

 

My point is, that there is no "christian faith" any more than there is an "islamic faith" or a "jewish faith" or anything else. Omar said it perfectly. All Christianity, Judaisim, Islam, or any other such label is, is really what scripture they use. Each and every denomination is a seperate religion in and of itself. Some of them are similar, and some of them are total oposities in their practical beliefs and practices. So while there are certainly going to be common themes among say Christians regarding the holy day (though seventh day Adventists use Saturday, not Sunday), or Jesus, many of the religions have nothing in common with each other beyond these points, and even on the hard set ones, the only point that is going to be exactly the same in every Christian denomination, is the belief that Jesus was the son of God. Even the interpretation of the 10 commandments differs among the denominations.

 

If I sit through a Catholic service, it has no more relation to what I believe, and how I practice my faith than a service in a mosque (I have no idea what they call their services). Even if I walk into a different United church, its not going to feel the same (though in this case, that is a quirk of the United denomination. Catholics for example are much more consistent between their churches than we are).

If adherence to your religion is more about its values than its beliefs, then why call it religion?

[Omar]

religāre

 

present active infinitive of religō "to bind fast"

 

Could mean both being bound to God or being bound to others of the same creed. But you're just going into semantics; she calls it religion because everyone else does, and since language is meant to carry a message to others, it's not worth it to distinguish between the two (if there is a distinction to be made) because no one will understand. What you're trying to do is distinguish the two so that you can rant about religion (whatever it means).

[Assume Nothing]

I'll rephrase. If her Christianity has next to nothing to do with a God to worship, but more about accepting others (which is actually inconsistent with some of the other principles she mentions) - then what's the point of accepting the conviction that 'a god exists'? If it's to bring false hope, great - but it still has adverse effects of believing what's effectively a lie (which I'll argue outweighs the benefits of believing said comforting lie)

[Omar]

Im not sure if you really understand my point. Religion can be characterized by a universal belief that there exists a deity its individual sects (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism) determines what they believe. It is an all-encompassing ideology which dictates what to believe, what to think, how to act, and how to behave. If they dont meet these standards, which the three most popular religions do, then Im not referencing those religions (e.g. Buddhism).

 

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but the assertion that they are representative of the group is simply misleading. Im not too concerned with moderate faith, as long as it doesnt lean towards fundamentalism but why follow the religion if youre going to cherry-pick in the first place? It would seem to be a poor move for maximizing the happiness in ones life, unless theyre mislead by promises of eternal salvation.

 

First of all, "cherry-picking" is actually interpretation. Calling it that is like saying that if you don't understand a poem in its literal sense, you're being disingenuous. In fact, because of this freedom of interpretation, scripture is not rigid at all.

Second, the question is not whether they are representative of the group or not. The question is "how can religion be to blame if some religious people are not nutjobs". What is to blame is parents teaching their kinds to be close-minded; if it wasn't for that, religion and rationality could coexist.

 

Not all religions work the same way <- thats a little meaningless until you clarify how religions do work, and Im primarily unconcerned with the people youre currently referencing. I think a lot of people do use their belief as a foundation or at least a significant determinant of their actions or lack thereof, as reflected by their behaviour.

Not necessarily, look at Kant and Randox again.

 

I maintain the belief that the truth value of beliefs especially those pertaining to the existence/non-existence of ideas, is relevant and significant. If actions are influenced by belief and that religious beliefs promise eternal salvation by adherence to its moral principles, then its followers must act in accordance to their religion to attain its promised benefits thus establishing its relevance to human behaviour and therefore society.

 

They don't have to follow them to the letter (again, interpretation). For example, halal meat needs to be prepared by a qualified butcher, but during Eid al-Kbir, since so many sheeps are getting killed, a temporary license is distributed. Again, scripture is actually not rigid at all; you can make of it whatever you want to. As Ginger pointed out, a lot of Muslims place an emphasis on integration within cultures that aren't theirs. Of course, there are some who don't. But those people were taught to act in this way, and as such people are responsible for this, not ideologies.

 

It sounds fine until you realize that due to the structure of the hierarchies common in religious groups that it could and would be easily abused for unsavoury/questionable practices. It wouldnt be far-fetched to say that even moderate religious groups may influence political decisions, as clearly illustrated by the recent gay-marriage vote where its opposition was largely comprised of religious adherents who believed that homosexuality is wrong based on biblical scripture. Its typically uncritical nature is a major point of contention where I firmly hold that it causes damage to our societies in ways we may not even be aware of.

Again, not religion's fault. It's the fault of close-minded people who happen to be religious. Yes, there is a tendency to perpetuate the issue amongst these groups but eradicating religion won't solve the issue.

 

Religious ideals and its principles in its entirety is contingent on whether a deity exists, so if we believe that these religious principles (thou shall never lie/steal/whatever) are inconsistent with those that are morally good, then it should be argued that its our duty to show religious followers that their faith has mislead them.

The best we can do is say people are not allowed to impose principles upon others, encourage open-mindedness, etc. Anti-religious discourse goes against this very notion.

 

thats not what I am really arguing.

Confused, can't reply.

 

I wont disagree that they cant be used to justify imposition of something just dont expect religious freedoms to be equivalent to freedom from criticism. People may do immoral actions, but we are allowed to judge them.

Oh yeah, for sure. People can have whatever faith they want though, they just shouldn't use it to justify immorality.

 

Yes, values based on irreligious principles can also be twisted too. There are two problems with religious principles in particular theyre predisposed to be destructive, because theyre too rigid and its principles are inconsistent with the objective of promoting social progression (or whichever social objective there should be for meta-ethics) as its contingent on what a deity says. In addition, the scrutiny of its ethical stance is also typically discouraged, so its difficult to determine from an adherents perspective whether these are truly principles that are good.

Nope, they're very supple. Nope, that's a characteristic of certain people (and not just those who believe in a deity), not of religion. Historically it has been the case because it's been used to justify political action.

 

Theres been a lot of previous discussion about whether questioning the faith and its moral principles are acceptable within a religious body. I would maintain that whilst they encourage some questioning to promote the idea that theyre freethinking, critical analysis that involves the rejection of poor arguments is generally discouraged as they consider it questioning God.

In general this doesn't have to be the case.

Ah, thats not religious principles at all. As Ive previously explained, whilst there are exceptions to the rule. A lot of religious followers do act with some consistency to religious principles from biblical scripture. If we could establish that religious scripture is of no moral authority then we should argue that adherence to the religion itself is harmful, because its likely to encourage immoral behaviour.

Not necessarily. Again this has more to do with the way religion is taught than religion itself.

 

Im glad that a lot of religious followers, including Kant, don't actually follow the moral principles of Christianity, and especially Islam its just a shame that there are people who do where religion is to blame

Same thing...

 

Im not actually certain if were disagreeing at all, since we seem to echo each other here but you must realize that religion is not in a private sphere; were not living in a vacuum. As a society, we share space that we live in. It could be easily established that religious beliefs affects others oftentimes in an adverse way, hence my apparent contempt for religion in itself.

We're essentially disagreeing on this: you think religion is harmful because it changes the way you act according to irrelevant principles, whereas I think this modification is not a characteristic of religion, and that it is rather caused by the way it is taught.

[Assume Nothing]

I’m not sure if you really understand my point. Religion can be characterized by a universal belief that there exists a deity – its individual sects (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism) determines what they believe. It is an all-encompassing ideology which dictates what to believe, what to think, how to act, and how to behave. If they don’t meet these standards, which the three most popular religions do, then I’m not referencing those religions (e.g. Buddhism).

 

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but the assertion that they are representative of the group is simply misleading. I’m not too concerned with moderate faith, as long as it doesn’t lean towards fundamentalism – but why follow the religion if you’re going to cherry-pick in the first place? It would seem to be a poor move for maximizing the happiness in one’s life, unless they’re mislead by promises of eternal salvation.

 

First of all, "cherry-picking" is actually interpretation. Calling it that is like saying that if you don't understand a poem in its literal sense, you're being disingenuous. In fact, because of this freedom of interpretation, scripture is not rigid at all.

Second, the question is not whether they are representative of the group or not. The question is "how can religion be to blame if some religious people are not nutjobs". What is to blame is parents teaching their kinds to be close-minded; if it wasn't for that, religion and rationality could coexist.

This response will look a little disjointed, I’ve read through the entire response before composing this in a chronological order so I’ll make references to random bits of text. I call it cherry-picking because I have yet to be presented with sound reason as to why specific parts of religious scripture are omitted, whereas other parts are espoused. It would seem inconsistent to assert that some parts of the scripture should be taken as a literal truth, whereas others are parables. If there’s such apparent ambiguity, who’s to say which denomination is correct?

 

I don’t think it was written to be like a poem in the first place. It was quite evident that some of the immoral principles were written as literal instructions with no ambiguity at all (I don’t really want to pull up the bits about slavery and such, but I can if you insist. It’s pretty clear that there is no ‘interpretation’ as such that may justify such actions.)

 

If you’re asking why I blame religion for immoral actions, if some religious persons aren’t fanatical – the answer is simply because I believe that they only do it because they were instructed to, i.e. the belief in the religious scripture (or its interpretation) caused it. I believe a lot of genuinely pure-hearted people are misled by poor teachings, and I attribute responsibility to its scripture because I feel it’s the root cause. Religion is based on superstition and faith as it lacks the strong rational arguments it requires to be convincing (evidenced by arguing until ad-nauseum here).

 

 

‘Not all religions work the same way’ <- that’s a little meaningless until you clarify how religions do work, and I’m primarily unconcerned with the people you’re currently referencing. I think a lot of people do use their belief as a foundation – or at least a significant determinant of their actions or lack thereof, as reflected by their behaviour.

Not necessarily, look at Kant and Randox again.

I don’t follow. They may act as exceptions to the rule, but in principle – a lot still do. I’ve asked them before with affirmation, and they act as though there is a god.

 

 

I maintain the belief that the truth value of beliefs – especially those pertaining to the existence/non-existence of ideas, is relevant and significant. If actions are influenced by belief – and that religious beliefs promise eternal salvation by adherence to its moral principles, then its followers must act in accordance to their religion to attain its promised benefits – thus establishing its relevance to human behaviour and therefore society.

They don't have to follow them to the letter (again, interpretation). For example, halal meat needs to be prepared by a qualified butcher, but during Eid al-Kbir, since so many sheeps are getting killed, a temporary license is distributed. Again, scripture is actually not rigid at all; you can make of it whatever you want to. As Ginger pointed out, a lot of Muslims place an emphasis on integration within cultures that aren't theirs. Of course, there are some who don't. But those people were taught to act in this way, and as such people are responsible for this, not ideologies.

I don’t really believe that you can make scripture whatever you want, unless you’re being intentionally disingenuous or dishonest about whether the scriptural texts are true. If they’re not meant to be taken to the letter, why take them seriously at all? The people were only taught to act in the way because their religion dictates so – unless you can show me otherwise.

 

 

It sounds fine until you realize that due to the structure of the hierarchies’ common in religious groups that it could and would be easily abused for unsavoury/questionable practices. It wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that even moderate religious groups may influence political decisions, as clearly illustrated by the recent gay-marriage vote where its opposition was largely comprised of religious adherents who believed that homosexuality is ‘wrong’ based on biblical scripture. Its typically uncritical nature is a major point of contention where I firmly hold that it causes damage to our societies in ways we may not even be aware of.

Again, not religion's fault. It's the fault of close-minded people who happen to be religious. Yes, there is a tendency to perpetuate the issue amongst these groups but eradicating religion won't solve the issue.

I don’t think there’s much room to be open-minded in theistic worldviews. Let’s see, what’s the typical punishment for making the proposition that the god the religion believes in may not be true? It entails eternal damnation, loss of ‘god’, execution, social exclusion – depending on how fundamental the denomination is. I’m relatively certain that the lattermost applies to even moderate religions, though they’re unlikely to admit it.

 

 

Religious ideals and its principles in its entirety is contingent on whether a deity exists, so if we believe that these religious principles (thou shall never lie/steal/whatever) are inconsistent with those that are morally good, then it should be argued that it’s our duty to show religious followers that their faith has mislead them.

The best we can do is say people are not allowed to impose principles upon others, encourage open-mindedness, etc. Anti-religious discourse goes against this very notion.

I’d say that it depends how you’re defining anti-religion/anti-theism in the first place. I’m opposed to the ideas as a result of subjecting them to scrutiny and coming to an understanding that it is a cause of destruction throughout history. I am open minded enough to consider the ideas (not its principles, but the idea of the existence of deities), but I won’t accept them by simply considering them for that is not persuasion.

 

 

that’s not what I am really arguing.

Confused, can't reply.

Neither can I since you’ve pulled it out of its original context. I don’t think it’s much of a point to disagree over though.

 

 

I won’t disagree that they can’t be used to justify imposition of something – just don’t expect religious freedoms to be equivalent to freedom from criticism. People may do immoral actions, but we are allowed to judge them.

Oh yeah, for sure. People can have whatever faith they want though, they just shouldn't use it to justify immorality.

Here’s the problem: if we let them believe whatever faith they want, a lot of them would still try to use it to justify immoral behaviour as by their definition, it is moral behaviour. I could expand on this if you want, I don’t want to make this too exhaustive.

 

 

Yes, values based on irreligious principles can also be twisted too. There are two problems with religious principles in particular – they’re predisposed to be destructive, because they’re too rigid and its principles are inconsistent with the objective of promoting social progression (or whichever social objective there should be for meta-ethics) as its contingent on what a deity says. In addition, the scrutiny of its ethical stance is also typically discouraged, so it’s difficult to determine from an adherent’s perspective whether these are truly principles that are good.

Nope, they're very supple. Nope, that's a characteristic of certain people (and not just those who believe in a deity), not of religion. Historically it has been the case because it's been used to justify political action.

I’ve addressed the supple/rigid issue in the first quote of yours. There’s simply not enough room for disagreement where there’s an interpretation that allows for justification. Let’s take the slavery example again: is there an interpretation that could justify it? If it’s the parable excuse, why must it apply arbitrarily in scriptural texts rather than equally throughout?

 

 

There’s been a lot of previous discussion about whether questioning the faith and its moral principles are acceptable within a religious body. I would maintain that whilst they encourage some questioning to promote the idea that they’re freethinking, critical analysis that involves the rejection of poor arguments is generally discouraged as they consider it ‘questioning God’.

In general this doesn't have to be the case.

It doesn’t have to be, no. In the reality of it, it happens to be the case too much – and I’ll still argue that religion is its cause.

 

 

Ah, that’s not religious principles at all. As I’ve previously explained, whilst there are exceptions to the rule. A lot of religious followers do act with some consistency to religious principles from biblical scripture. If we could establish that religious scripture is of no moral authority then we should argue that adherence to the religion itself is harmful, because it’s likely to encourage immoral behaviour.

Not necessarily. Again this has more to do with the way religion is taught than religion itself.

If religion in itself is neither god nor evil, why has religion been taught so poorly?

 

 

I’m glad that a lot of religious followers, including Kant, don't actually follow the moral principles of Christianity, and especially Islam – it’s just a shame that there are people who do where religion is to blame

Same thing...

See above.

 

 

I’m not actually certain if we’re disagreeing at all, since we seem to echo each other here – but you must realize that religion is not in a private sphere; we’re not living in a vacuum. As a society, we share space that we live in. It could be easily established that religious beliefs affects others – oftentimes in an adverse way, hence my apparent contempt for religion in itself.

We're essentially disagreeing on this: you think religion is harmful because it changes the way you act according to irrelevant principles, whereas I think this modification is not a characteristic of religion, and that it is rather caused by the way it is taught.

Indeed – it seems that it’s our main point of contention. I think there’s a reason why it is taught in such a way – because it’s an effective way of keeping the religion sustainable (i.e. the more people joining than leaving equation). If it was taught in a way that had no adverse effects of religion to speak of, then there would be little point in believing that a god exists in the first place since its existence would hold no significance in one’s life anymore – which brings us back to the point of why believe in a god in the first place?

[Randox]

I don't think I said that beliefs were not important. For me, my faith would dictate that I am supposed to figure out what I believe on my own though, so yes, much of a United Church Service will not be about what you believe, at least, not telling you what to believe. The actual 'religious' part would be a few scripture readings, and a sermon. The point of the sermon is to talk about what meaning we can take from the scripture, and how it can apply to our lives.

 

Values are a critical part of any religion though, and values are going to have a much larger impact on the daily lives of most people, most of the time, so values are still very important, and the different denominations will differ on both of these.

 

I'm going to use Catholics because they are a perfect example of a difference between them (and the Orthodox churches) vs teh protestants. And please someone correct me if I get any of this wrong. One of the probably more famous parts of the Catholic Church is the confesional. As I understand it, Catholics believe that only their priests can talk to god, and so they confess their sins to the priest so that he may speak on their behalf. I think the Orthodox Christian Churches also all have this belief. The Catholics also believe in original sin, in that everyone is born already a sinner (I'm not sure on the specifics of this one).

 

I don't know of any protestant churches that have either of these things. To the best of my knowledge, they all believe that anyone can talk to god, and none of them have the original sin component, that we are all born free of sin.

 

Another example, the Mormon's vs I think everyone else, is that they don't have the same scripture that we do, because they have an extra book that no other Christian faith uses.

 

At best, you can group the denominations of say Christianity into little clusters that are fairly similar, with a few that are still going to stand out on their own. The notion that all Christian Churches are even vaguely similar though, just doesn't stand up. When I can walk into various christian churches and be presented with different beliefs and values, these are not all the same religion. Throughout history, religions, and then their denominations start to split up into almost splinter groups, because not everyone will believe the same thing, so a new church gets created that speaks to these people. Recombining however, is exceptionally rare, and so now you have these clusters of religions that are similar because they are in the same branch of splits. But the further up that branch you go, the more different they become, and once you go back down on a different branch, they really aren't the same religion anymore at all.

[Omar]

These posts are getting too long, so I'll just join all your quotes into one and address each paragraph. Paragraphs numbered with an X are not addressed.

[hide]

1+2+5+10. I call it cherry-picking because I have yet to be presented with sound reason as to why specific parts of religious scripture are omitted, whereas other parts are espoused. It would seem inconsistent to assert that some parts of the scripture should be taken as a literal truth, whereas others are parables. If theres such apparent ambiguity, whos to say which denomination is correct?

 

I dont think it was written to be like a poem in the first place. It was quite evident that some of the immoral principles were written as literal instructions with no ambiguity at all (I dont really want to pull up the bits about slavery and such, but I can if you insist. Its pretty clear that there is no interpretation as such that may justify such actions.)

[...]

I dont really believe that you can make scripture whatever you want, unless youre being intentionally disingenuous or dishonest about whether the scriptural texts are true. If theyre not meant to be taken to the letter, why take them seriously at all? The people were only taught to act in the way because their religion dictates so unless you can show me otherwise.

[...]

Ive addressed the supple/rigid issue in the first quote of yours. Theres simply not enough room for disagreement where theres an interpretation that allows for justification. Lets take the slavery example again: is there an interpretation that could justify it? If its the parable excuse, why must it apply arbitrarily in scriptural texts rather than equally throughout?

 

3. If youre asking why I blame religion for immoral actions, if some religious persons arent fanatical the answer is simply because I believe that they only do it because they were instructed to, i.e. the belief in the religious scripture (or its interpretation) caused it. I believe a lot of genuinely pure-hearted people are misled by poor teachings, and I attribute responsibility to its scripture because I feel its the root cause. Religion is based on superstition and faith as it lacks the strong rational arguments it requires to be convincing (evidenced by arguing until ad-nauseum here).

 

4X. You: Not all religions work the same way <- thats a little meaningless until you clarify how religions do work, and Im primarily unconcerned with the people youre currently referencing. I think a lot of people do use their belief as a foundation or at least a significant determinant of their actions or lack thereof, as reflected by their behaviour.

Me: Not necessarily, look at Kant and Randox again.

You: I dont follow. They may act as exceptions to the rule, but in principle a lot still do. Ive asked them before with affirmation, and they act as though there is a god.

 

6. I dont think theres much room to be open-minded in theistic worldviews. Lets see, whats the typical punishment for making the proposition that the god the religion believes in may not be true? It entails eternal damnation, loss of god, execution, social exclusion depending on how fundamental the denomination is. Im relatively certain that the lattermost applies to even moderate religions, though theyre unlikely to admit it.

 

7X. Id say that it depends how youre defining anti-religion/anti-theism in the first place. Im opposed to the ideas as a result of subjecting them to scrutiny and coming to an understanding that it is a cause of destruction throughout history. I am open minded enough to consider the ideas (not its principles, but the idea of the existence of deities), but I wont accept them by simply considering them for that is not persuasion.

 

8X. Neither can I since youve pulled it out of its original context. I dont think its much of a point to disagree over though.

 

9. Heres the problem: if we let them believe whatever faith they want, a lot of them would still try to use it to justify immoral behaviour as by their definition, it is moral behaviour. I could expand on this if you want, I dont want to make this too exhaustive.

 

11X. You: Theres been a lot of previous discussion about whether questioning the faith and its moral principles are acceptable within a religious body. I would maintain that whilst they encourage some questioning to promote the idea that theyre freethinking, critical analysis that involves the rejection of poor arguments is generally discouraged as they consider it questioning God.

Me: In general this doesn't have to be the case.

You: It doesnt have to be, no. In the reality of it, it happens to be the case too much and Ill still argue that religion is its cause.

 

12. If religion in itself is neither god nor evil, why has religion been taught so poorly?

 

13X. See above.

 

14. Me: We're essentially disagreeing on this: you think religion is harmful because it changes the way you act according to irrelevant principles, whereas I think this modification is not a characteristic of religion, and that it is rather caused by the way it is taught.

You: Indeed it seems that its our main point of contention. I think theres a reason why it is taught in such a way because its an effective way of keeping the religion sustainable (i.e. the more people joining than leaving equation) (a). If it was taught in a way that had no adverse effects of religion to speak of, then there would be little point in believing that a god exists in the first place since its existence would hold no significance in ones life anymore which brings us back to the point of why believe in a god in the first place? (b)

[/hide]

 

1,2,5,10: There is no best interpretation of a text; no one is ultimately justified in saying his interpretation is best. Interpretation can never be truly objective; this is why Spinoza's pantheism is as legitimate as literal interpretations than the Bible. There are Muslims who use Bergson's philosophy to interpret (and continuously reinterpret) the Qur'an. He wasn't even alive when it was written. Additionally, religious texts were written by men; over time they may have been corrupted or had odd parts added to them (Ecclesiastes is a good example).

 

3: Yes, they are misled by poor teaching; they are taught that their religion is justification enough for actions which have impacts on others; this is meta-religious more than it is religious. Parents and such have much more influence than direct exegesis does in this meta-religion domain; the reason why Kant and Randox are not fanatics is that they were taught to be faithful yet rational.

 

6: I've only been to one sermon (I went two years ago for a Christmas sermon with a friend and his family), and the preacher (my terminology is probably shit) said it was absolutely normal to doubt the existence of God... Not a great sample, but according to Randox this isn't an exception.

 

9: As you said yourself, this won't be the case with all of them. Something must be causing the nutjobs to become nutjobs and the rational ones to be rational. Don't you agree that if people were clever enough to refuse religion as an argument, religion would be a total non-issue?

 

12: Because people aren't particularly clever. Saying religion is harmful is like saying chainsaws are harmful. It is the use of it we make (cutting trees [ecological issues aside] or cutting up people) which matters.

 

14: (b) You don't choose to believe in God. You have faith taught to you. (a) That sounds super likely. Parents thinking being religious is a good way to live for their children has nothing to do with it.

[obfuscator]

People absolutely choose to believe in God without having it taught to them. There are hundreds of thousands of converts to various religions every year.

[Omar]

I don't think that's a choice either (but then again, I think everything is determined and I don't believe in free will; we can go back and forth forever on this issue). The abstract of this paper would seem to suggest the same thing. When it comes to converting, once you have lost faith and are weighing other beliefs, a priori you're not leaning towards anything. If you are, something has caused it.

[Sinkhan]

but then again, I think everything is determined

 

Hooray for quantum mechanics!

[Omar]

but then again, I think everything is determined

 

Hooray for quantum mechanics!

I know little about physics, so all I can say is that just because we don't know how something is determined, doesn't mean it isn't. I think a similar argument was made about the decay of radioactive particles in the "are we free" thread.

[Sinkhan]

but then again, I think everything is determined

 

Hooray for quantum mechanics!

I know little about physics, so all I can say is that just because we don't know how something is determined, doesn't mean it isn't. I think a similar argument was made about the decay of radioactive particles in the "are we free" thread.

 

Bell's theorem says it is mathematically impossible for a "hidden factor" to exist. Thus, radioactive decay, amongst other things in quantum mechanics, is truly random. The notion of there being some mysterious X factor that we couldn't understand or observe has been around for a long time and even supported by Einstein, but as Bell showed, this is not the case.

 

Of course from a epistemological viewpoint, you could say that our system of math is simply wrong or imperfect in that regard.

[Omar]

So some "X factor" could exist, but our mathematical system can't get to it because it isn't representative of reality? As I was saying earlier I don't think we're capable of answering this question.

[Sinkhan]

As it stands, our models of mathematics and physics makes it an impossibility. You could elevate your view of our understanding of the Universe and claim that our system is inadequate for whatever reason. However, this does step past the bounds of science and purely into philosophy. Personally I feel like as soon as you do that, all bets are off.

[Omar]

Could it not be that the aforementioned model of the world is false in the same way euclidean geometry is in certain cases (strong gravitational fields)?

[Randox]

No sense I really know what I am talking about, so on with a quote:

The most famous such theory (because it gives the same answers as quantum mechanics, thus providing a supposed counterexample to the famous proof by von Neumann that was generally believed to demonstrate that no hidden variable theory reproducing the statistical predictions of QM is possible) is that of David Bohm. It is most commonly known as the Bohm interpretation or the Causal Interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Bohm's interpretation, the (nonlocal) quantum potential constitutes an implicate (hidden) order, and may itself be the result of yet a further implicate order (superimplicate order).

 

And the listed source for that is "^ David Pratt: David Bohm and the Implicate Order. Appeared in: Sunrise magazine, February/March 1993, "

 

Just thought I would toss that out there.

 

EDIT: oh, and the whole page is here.

 

My understanding is that currently, Quantim Mechanics, String/M theory, and Hidden Varriable Theory are all valid theories.