Hypothetically what if someone was in a religion which believed that "God" was actually an alien from another universe. So technically he wasn't a "supernatural" being since he was governed by natural laws of his own universe.
Would this still make their beliefs a "religion" - or are supernatural beliefs required for religion?
Quote from: Ace101 on June 21, 2015, 07:58:30 PM
Hypothetically what if someone was in a religion which believed that "God" was actually an alien from another universe.
Isn't this scientology?
Quote from: Ace101 on June 21, 2015, 07:58:30 PM
Hypothetically what if someone was in a religion which believed that "God" was actually an alien from another universe. So technically he wasn't a "supernatural" being since he was governed by natural laws of his own universe.
Would this still make their beliefs a "religion" - or are supernatural beliefs required for religion?
If said alien's existence hasn't been demonstrated, but is assumed and adhered to and asserted as fact without regard to evidence, then yes, it's a religion.
If anyone believes in anything that is beyond science and it's laws it is a belief in the supernatural by definition. Is it required to be a religion, this depends on what definition of religion is used, even atheism is a religion by one definition, so no, being supernatural is not a requirement to be a religion, but the belief in a supreme being that defies the laws of physics is a supernatural belief. I would also say one that is beyond common sense from magical thinking that people take religiously.
Y'all are trapped in the Matrix of modernity. Where did the division between natural and supernatural come from? Thales and Pythagoras, 2500 years ago. Modernity is in part, a channeling of the long dead Greek geeks ... those guys were very much a minority view even among Greeks, in their own day. They were opposed by several Greek nerds ... Xenophanes and Heraclitus. And all four opposed the fathers of Greek literature, Homer and Hesiod. Aren't the Greeks still arguing today? A living person isn't an individual, but is a branch of a tree going into the distant past ... human ideas or memes ... are not new to our own time, but are recycled brain drain from past cultures. Did you invent the English language yourself, or did you learn it from others? Then almost none of your thoughts are original to you, because your thoughts and words are derivative works. But then, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ... and you don't have to pay residuals either ;-)
In olden times, there was no word for religion ... it simply was implied by how you lived, an unspoken and unanalyzed concept. So if you accept, uncritically, the division of natural into supernatural ... then you are already assuming that the Illuminati of 500 years ago, that inherited non-theistic parts of Greek philosophy, were correct. So I have to reject your definition ... it is too modern, too uncritical. I do not accept Greek philosophy, except as something interesting. I have returned to the Ur-definition of No-definition for natural/supernatural. I don't choose to recognize that they are different. I experience what I do, and you experience what you do, and sometimes we can talk about it and understand each other, but sometimes not. But I don't need to give it either label.
Now in that context, to answer the original question ... no, the supernatural is not required for religion ... but it is often found in association with it ... as moderns define the supernatural (hence my initial segue). And by definition of science ... there is nothing supernatural ... but then again, Euclid said that geometry was flat, because he assumed it was ... and his geometry is still taught ... but along with other less circumscribed former of geometry where the flatness is not assumed. This Euclidean meme was so strong it resisted new math for 2000 years. Was Euclid wrong or just incomplete? So I would say, that science while useful, it is incomplete just like Euclidean geometry. And I have no reason to be bound by word definitions defined by people 500 years ago, or even 2500 years ago.
Now as for alien gods. Von Daniken anyone? This is a modern meme for 50 years. But belief in other worlds is as old as religion itself, they just didn't have post-Galilean astronomy. A lot of people in GB identify as Jedi religion ... it is an official religion there. All because of C3PO being done by a British actor I suppose ;-) If SciFi isn't a religion, it is an ideology (and as valid as other folk beliefs of our ancestors, like fairies). Scientology I think goes farther, and would count as a religion, because it teaches reincarnation of dead aliens. I have a friend who believes that demons aren't supernatural, but are hostile trans-dimensional aliens.
Now the question of whether any deity is governed by natural laws ... is a theology question. Shall we just pass by in silence? An alien would be governed by natural laws ... but then we are just talking about superior life forms (we have plenty of aliens here already, they are called plants and animals).
I want to touch on just these two points.
Quote from: Baruch on June 21, 2015, 11:04:12 PM
Where did the division between natural and supernatural come from?
The natural is that which is amenable to study by the scientific method, or mathematical analysis, or any other means that does not require faith or belief but can in principle be studied and give consistent results to anyone who chooses to look into the matter.
The supernatural is that which is not.
If you ask fifty astronomers where Mars was relative to a particular place on the surface of the Earth on a particular date at a particular time, you will get fifty answers that are essentially the same.
If you ask fifty astrologers what it means that Mars was there, you will get up to fifty different answers, many of which will be mutually exclusive, and yet all fifty astrologers will claim that astrological effects are real.
This in a nutshell is the difference between the natural and the supernatural.
Quote from: Baruch on June 21, 2015, 11:04:12 PM
But belief in other worlds is as old as religion itself, they just didn't have post-Galilean astronomy.
The existence of other worlds is not a matter of belief. I know, I've co-discovered one (http://www.planethunters.org/) myself (well, okay, a planet candidate, it's not confirmed yet, but dayamn that was an amazing email to get).
Quote from: Baruch on June 21, 2015, 11:04:12 PMY'all are trapped in the Matrix of modernity.
3edgy5me
Supernatural entities aren't required in religion per se; what's required is dogmatic assertions, at which point supernatural or not it matters not, for such belief lacks evidence and is therefore null.
trdsf - you just proved my point ... but it is hard to see beyond one's own culture/language. Since I am multi-cultural, it is theoretically easier for me to see the many sides of any argument ... just like being multi-lingual (I wish, but I am still trying) ... helps me escape the idea/expression trap of monolingualism. But that doesn't mean I don't like you ... you are smart, and I like smart. That is why I like Mike CL too.
Hijiri - love your dynamic avatar. There are worse things than being trapped in the world of anime ;-) Say hi to Naruto for me.
Sylar - you get it. Dogmatism is necessary for any institution, including the Army. Sarge doesn't care what you think. Individual thinking, outside of a foxhole, is deleterious to the mission. It is in dogmatism that we can cross freely between theology and ideology and back again.
Individual Pantheists may or may not ascribe supernatural qualities to the universe. Those that don't, simply worship it and call it God.
No, you do not have to believe in the supernatural to be superstitious. There are new age wooers who view the universe as a giant living thing. There are also si fi woors who stupidly take QM to mean there is a cosmic Bill Gates making all this a computer program. Religion is when you take bad claims to an organized political level. It is quite possible in the future, for Star Wars fans or Star Trek fans to take a mere show or movie and turn it into a religion. Much like si fi writer L Ron Hubbard concocted a religion.
But even with the religions of Asia and the Orient commonly called "atheistic" is quite misleading. No, they don't have a central god figure, but they still have rituals, holy people, holy places, and their own superstitions including beliefs in spirits and demons.
None of the world's religions believed today, were around 200,000 years ago, much less 4 billion years ago, much less 14 billion years ago. And in the future every religion will either morph into something else or completely die out. And regardless, our species will go extinct and our planet and sun will die, and the universe will continue on with absolutely no record of our existence or the the religions humans concoct, god or not.
Quote from: Sylar on June 22, 2015, 01:19:22 AM
Supernatural entities aren't required in religion per se; what's required is dogmatic assertions, at which point supernatural or not it matters not, for such belief lacks evidence and is therefore null.
What about homeopathy? People dogmatically assert that it's true. I'd say an element of reverence is required, too. The believer should feel that he or she is privy to some kind of Great Truth, and feels a sense of reverence toward it. Homeopathy is considered by most believers to be just a form of medical treatment.
Quote from: Atheon on June 22, 2015, 12:50:49 PM
What about homeopathy? People dogmatically assert that it's true. I'd say an element of reverence is required, too. The believer should feel that he or she is privy to some kind of Great Truth, and feels a sense of reverence toward it. Homeopathy is considered by most believers to be just a form of medical treatment.
That's an interesting thought. I think of homeopathy as almost herbology of the ancients. It is treatments that were used in various cultures way back when--that's how I view it. Most of the treatments don't work, but some seem to. I can't name them, but I've know people who swear by these things and seem to have lived as long as most others. Medicine is not a pure science and it is one area where 'belief' seems to play a role. What I mean by that is that two people with the same disease treated by the same medications can have different outcomes. It seems that those who have and maintain a positive attitude do better. I don't have scientific facts to back this up, just personal observation. But there seems to be something that is very important about what we think will happen or not happen. This is kind of a disjointed post, but it does seem to me that in the area of our health, our attitudes greatly affect it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 22, 2015, 01:03:49 PMI think of homeopathy as almost herbology of the ancients. It is treatments that were used in various cultures way back when--that's how I view it. Most of the treatments don't work, but some seem to. I can't name them, but I've know people who swear by these things and seem to have lived as long as most others.
Hoemopathy is actually a fairly recent development (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676328/) - circa 18th century. It's literally a textbook case of pseudoscientific methodology and shouldn't be confused with traditional medicine (much older and somewhat based in experience/knowledge, though lacking rigor).
QuoteMedicine is not a pure science and it is one area where 'belief' seems to play a role. What I mean by that is that two people with the same disease treated by the same medications can have different outcomes. It seems that those who have and maintain a positive attitude do better.
That's true to some degree, but only to a degree. Disease is ultimately based in chemistry/biology. Medicines that are not based in the same simply do not work.
Quote from: Ace101 on June 21, 2015, 07:58:30 PM
are supernatural beliefs required for religion?
No, but arrogance is.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 22, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Hoemopathy is actually a fairly recent development (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676328/) - circa 18th century. It's literally a textbook case of pseudoscientific methodology and shouldn't be confused with traditional medicine (much older and somewhat based in experience/knowledge, though lacking rigor).
That's true to some degree, but only to a degree. Disease is ultimately based in chemistry/biology. Medicines that are not based in the same simply do not work.
Hydra, you are, of course, correct. I did get hoemopathy mixed up with traditional herbal treatments. I assure you, that when I go under a dr. care, I want chemistry/biology taken into account. I'll take care of the positive attitude. I'm going to believe with as much of my entire being as I can that I will weather whatever it is I need to. And I will probably do that until I die. :)
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2015, 06:15:27 AM
trdsf - you just proved my point ... but it is hard to see beyond one's own culture/language. Since I am multi-cultural, it is theoretically easier for me to see the many sides of any argument ... just like being multi-lingual (I wish, but I am still trying) ... helps me escape the idea/expression trap of monolingualism. But that doesn't mean I don't like you ... you are smart, and I like smart. That is why I like Mike CL too.
I'm really not sure what point you were trying to make in the first place, honestly... I just find that the easiest way to deal with the universe and its contents and denizens is to take them all at face value as best as possible.
I've been thinking about multiculturalism a bit this week because one of the questions in my interview last week was regarding learning about other cultures, and I just don't think that way about other people. The things that make us all alike are so much more numerous than the things that make us different. I genuinely don't look at a co-worker or a person on the street and see a white person, a black person, a Hispanic person... I see a human being, and everything else is just irrelevant details. I will take what a court calls 'judicial notice' of such things to avoid being rude or insensitive about certain things, but I really couldn't care less if someone's white, black, Asian, gay, straight, male, female, whatever. We're all something like 99.5% genetically similar -- the only biological difference between someone else and me are a few bits flipped here and there.
trdsf - face value depends on which culture you are from (in space and time). Your view, the common Western educated one ... isn't bad ... it is parochial. When the West says ... our common educated view is the most advance done, or the right one ... one is simply being Rudyard Kipling. You are correct of course, that there are aspects of people that we have in common, and other aspects that make us different. But I find the number of commonalities small (because of culture mostly) and the number of differences great (for the same reason). In truth, reality is just photons, electrons, protons and neutrons ... and a few short lived other particles. Plus space and time. But at that level of commonality, while interesting to Steven Hawking, is of no interest to the average person.
Mike CL ... the effectiveness of doctors is also due to the change in their reputation. People still think that to go to a hospital is a death sentence, and they are still partly right. But 100 years ago, most doctors were called quacks and saw-bones for good reasons. Their adoption of Dale Carnegie and high tech (which may or may not help you) has greatly improved patient relations, so that regardless of the reality, patients expect to be healed or cured when they see a doctor. This wasn't true 100 years ago. Psychology of the patient is critical, particularly in critical medical situations. I have worked with doctors for the last 18 years so see below ...
the_antithesis - everyone knows that arrogance aka hubris, brings down the curse of the Olympian gods ;-) Also it seems to be a common human trait.
Hydra009 - diagnosis today is based on chemistry/biology. But not treatment. A medicine is either a placebo or a poison. The placebo works because it encourages the patient to fight disease or heal injury. The poison works (and most drugs are poisons, both the legal and illegal kind) because it has side effects that ameliorate the symptoms without actually fixing anything ... a poison can't fix anything ... only your semi-sound body and semi-sound mind can do that. But ameliorating symptoms (say pain relief) isn't entirely bad ... and most medical poisons are less damaging that the disease. This is why mercury compounds were prescribed for treating syphilis. The syphilis is so bad, you will tolerate mercury poisoning to reduce the symptoms. But the abracadabra of modern medicine ... isn't bad either, it is also a placebo and encourages patients to see doctors. On the other hand, malpractice insurance is necessary, because doctors still kill a high percentage of their patients ... but like nuclear reactor operation ... are indemnified by the social and legal arrangements.
Mike CL - back in the day when there were almost no doctors or medicines available, the actions of herbologists, midwives and faith healers were the only alternatives available. Herbologists were mostly women, who were also poisoners and abortionists. Midwives were usually your experienced female relatives or neighbors. And faith healers did what counselors and placebo pushers do today. Pharmacology got rid of the herbologists, because they couldn't stand the competition. Similarly midwives were removed by obstetricians ... who mostly killed their patients with puerperal fever (from not disinfecting their hands). By the mid 19th century, someone like Florence Nightingale could seem like an innovation, because we had used licensing to shut down the mid wives and burning at the stake to get rid of the herbologists. The Catholic heresy manual clearly stated, one of the sure fire ways to identify a witch, was someone who was a herbologist ... who provided poisons to encourage miscarriage. This is the Catholic/Protestant reason why women must not control their bodies ... because if they do, they are witches, or will use witches. Of course midwives were suspected of infanticide as well. Without the history it is impossible to understand the abortion debate. Interestingly, the greatest innovation of Florence Nightingale and Clara Barton ... was not as nurses, but nurses on a battlefield. And it is the battlefield where the peak of ancient surgery happened ... the Romans actually had military hospitals designed by Galen. The military treatment facility and the VA hospital are very old indeed. Of course women weren't allowed then or in 19th century warfare ... because women aren't allowed to tend to potentially naked men. Dr Lister, who invented the disinfectant that saved Victorian surgery and eventually delivering mothers ... started life as the fastest saw-bones in England ... I think he could amputate a soldier's leg in about 30 seconds flat (this mattered, because the primary cause of death was shock). Doctors are still ... burying their mistakes ;-)
SGOS - pantheism does have several flavors. I am mostly pan-en-theist myself ... but I don't think any theological construct limits G-d.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2015, 08:29:08 PM
trdsf - face value depends on which culture you are from (in space and time). Your view, the common Western educated one ... isn't bad ... it is parochial. When the West says ... our common educated view is the most advance done, or the right one ... one is simply being Rudyard Kipling. You are correct of course, that there are aspects of people that we have in common, and other aspects that make us different. But I find the number of commonalities small (because of culture mostly) and the number of differences great (for the same reason). In truth, reality is just photons, electrons, protons and neutrons ... and a few short lived other particles. Plus space and time. But at that level of commonality, while interesting to Steven Hawking, is of no interest to the average person.
Nobody ever said I was average. :D
Quote from: Atheon on June 22, 2015, 12:50:49 PM
What about homeopathy? People dogmatically assert that it's true. I'd say an element of reverence is required, too. The believer should feel that he or she is privy to some kind of Great Truth, and feels a sense of reverence toward it. Homeopathy is considered by most believers to be just a form of medical treatment.
Dogma isn't the only element of what makes a religion be -- other elements such as central myths (e.g. Jesus, Noah's Ark in Christianity), morality, rituals, among others.
I do, however, consider homeopathy to be a baseless assertion, much like god. There is no sound evidence that supports the idea that homeopathy works as an alternative medical treatment.
I would tend to agree that homeopathy doesn't work scientifically. But then that ignores the elephant in the room in regards to what medicine actually is. It is possible that there are some molecules that act as chain-reaction catalysts ... so that only a tiny quantity is required. Or homeopathy is simply another placebo, that only "works" on believers.
Quote from: Baruch on June 23, 2015, 07:06:05 AM
I would tend to agree that homeopathy doesn't work scientifically. But then that ignores the elephant in the room in regards to what medicine actually is.
Homeopathy has not been elevated to the status of an elephant in the room, except maybe by its deluded followers. I don't see an elephant in the room.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2015, 08:29:08 PMHydra009 - diagnosis today is based on chemistry/biology. But not treatment. A medicine is either a placebo or a poison. The placebo works because it encourages the patient to fight disease or heal injury. The poison works (and most drugs are poisons, both the legal and illegal kind) because it has side effects that ameliorate the symptoms without actually fixing anything ... a poison can't fix anything ... only your semi-sound body and semi-sound mind can do that.
I've read this post a couple times and I've gotta say, I honestly can't tell if you're intelligent and know what you're talking about or if you're not intelligent and steeped in quackery.
If you accept the Matrix of modern medicine, then good for you. Their placebo will take better effect. If their pharmacology or surgery don't kill you ;-) And that doesn't even touch on how to pay for all this ... given people are sick and injured all the time, when they aren't hypochondriac. The greatest push for "free money for everyone" comes from the medical profession, the insurers, the ambulance chasers and that endless supply of desperate patients. One of my coworkers just went from bad to worse over the weekend, but it wasn't an act of G-d or of medicine ... just bad luck ... wherever the hell that comes from.
As far as intelligence goes ... either you get me or you don't. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me. My ego is far bigger than that ;-)
BTW - much of reality is fraudulent, but the doctors don't have that monopolized yet. I am pro-medicine ... but I know what I am getting into.
Quote from: Baruch on June 23, 2015, 10:05:48 PM
If you accept the Matrix of modern medicine, then good for you. Their placebo will take better effect. If their pharmacology or surgery don't kill you ;-) And that doesn't even touch on how to pay for all this ... given people are sick and injured all the time, when they aren't hypochondriac. The greatest push for "free money for everyone" comes from the medical profession, the insurers, the ambulance chasers and that endless supply of desperate patients. One of my coworkers just went from bad to worse over the weekend, but it wasn't an act of G-d or of medicine ... just bad luck ... wherever the hell that comes from.
No matter how flowery and difficult to understand your writing style, you can't turn bullshit into fact by being all pseudo mysterious sounding. The medical profession saves lives all the time. This isn't some placebo effect. People are bleeding to death, sewed up, and saved. Blood clots in lungs are dissolved, cancerous tumors are surgically removed, or shrunk with other therapies. You're trying to make medicine sound like it's something practiced by witch doctors and quacks so that you can put on the same level of homeopathy. Well, it's not. Not even in the same ball park. Your equivocating and conflating two different things in an attempt to make fake medicine seem like it deserves equal credibility, which it does not. It's like comparing a horse carriage with a jet plane and saying they're the same thing.
SGOS ... you misunderstand me ... my point isn't about homeopathy ... but I have commented on that above, and you missed it. I will repeat it ... it is unlikely that homeopathy works, OK? There are lots of alternative medicine that don't work ... but then that is true of modern medicine as well. I was also clear that modern medicine can help people ... only it isn't what laymen think it is, and why that is a good thing. Your body and mind heal you, if you are healed at all. The doctor can only assist or impede that. But that doesn't mean I am suggesting avoiding doctors, or attending a faith healer. In prior times, a faith healer was the best you could hope for, say prior to 1950. Before 1950 our medical knowledge was zilch ... quacks and sawbones. I am also not suggesting that individual doctors or nurses are malicious ... but if they know what they are doing, they will agree with my characterization of their profession ... I wouldn't go as far as Freud's view about medical doctors and nurses ... but he was part right. Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies ... less so ... because dollars. When I was little, medical practice was pro-bono unless you were a millionaire ... but the capitalists in their universal plan to crappify everything, got to the AMA and destroyed their profession (as an ethical activity). Capitalism is anti-ethics ... because in capitalism only money matters, and it really doesn't matter how you get it. Of course back then, doctors not only smoked, they did advertising for Big Tobacco ;-) Remember .. PhD means "piled higher and deeper" ... you don't want to know what MD means ;-) Medical personnel tell jokes behind the patient's back (but not about the patients themselves) ... just imagine a proctologist convention ... and you will know what I mean.
To the other folks, I write the way I write, because that is how I think ... a little like "automatic writing" but not. I apologize if it is too florid ... or if "florid" baffles you ... but then I am not trying to get anyone to buy anything ... and my personal integrity matters too much.