Saturday
Apr262008
Religion and God are mutually exclusive
Saturday, April 26, 2008 at 9:15PM
I have to admit that I didn't entirely come up with the idea I'm about to propose. It's based off something I came across while reading Snow Crash (which, incidentally, is awesome so far).
by sparktography
The idea is this. If faith is the belief in something for which there is no solid evidence, then proving the existance of God would negate the necessity for faith, and by extension, the existence of religion. This presents some interesting corollaries.
by .catina jane arts
This essentially means that the only reason a religion exists is because their God does not, or at least that His existence cannot be proven. If His presence and intentions did suddenly become obvious beyond any doubt, there would be no need for the many institutions whose authority comes from their claim to monopoly on the interpretation of his word. We'd have the original source to reference when necessary, which would also be much easier because of that whole omnipotence/omnipresence thing He's got going on.
by igorms
Also, one could then argue that the attempt by many to prove that God does not exist actually furthers the cause for faith. After all, there would be no higher form of faith than one in which the subject of that devotion has actually been proven to be intangible by all scientific means.
by kamoda
And so, much to my disappointment, this thought-experiment leads to the conclusion that atheism can never be a universally accepted philosophy. Either religion is eventually destroyed by proof of God's existence, which would ironically also destroy both theism and atheism. Or God's existence is eventually scientifically disproven, giving the faithful the ultimate support for their beliefs.
by caribb
To take it to the next level, it's theoretically possible that at least one of the many previous religions may not have failed because they didn't sufficiently prove their God's existence, but because they did.
by Stuck in Customs
Isn't that quite the theory? And I'll point out that I enthusiastically welcome you to poke holes in my theory. Because unlike a belief in God, my theories are subject to revision, verification, and refutation where applicable depending on the evidence available.
by _imax
by sparktography
The idea is this. If faith is the belief in something for which there is no solid evidence, then proving the existance of God would negate the necessity for faith, and by extension, the existence of religion. This presents some interesting corollaries.
by .catina jane arts
This essentially means that the only reason a religion exists is because their God does not, or at least that His existence cannot be proven. If His presence and intentions did suddenly become obvious beyond any doubt, there would be no need for the many institutions whose authority comes from their claim to monopoly on the interpretation of his word. We'd have the original source to reference when necessary, which would also be much easier because of that whole omnipotence/omnipresence thing He's got going on.
by igorms
Also, one could then argue that the attempt by many to prove that God does not exist actually furthers the cause for faith. After all, there would be no higher form of faith than one in which the subject of that devotion has actually been proven to be intangible by all scientific means.
by kamoda
And so, much to my disappointment, this thought-experiment leads to the conclusion that atheism can never be a universally accepted philosophy. Either religion is eventually destroyed by proof of God's existence, which would ironically also destroy both theism and atheism. Or God's existence is eventually scientifically disproven, giving the faithful the ultimate support for their beliefs.
by caribb
To take it to the next level, it's theoretically possible that at least one of the many previous religions may not have failed because they didn't sufficiently prove their God's existence, but because they did.
by Stuck in Customs
Isn't that quite the theory? And I'll point out that I enthusiastically welcome you to poke holes in my theory. Because unlike a belief in God, my theories are subject to revision, verification, and refutation where applicable depending on the evidence available.
by _imax
Reader Comments (6)
Hmm...I like your theory, I find it interesting especially this part:
"And so, much to my disappointment, this thought-experiment leads to the conclusion that atheism can never be a universally accepted philosophy. Either religion is eventually destroyed by proof of God’s existence, which would ironically also destroy both theism and atheism. Or God’s existence is eventually scientifically disproven, giving the faithful the ultimate support for their beliefs."
I kind of understand what you're talking about, but think I need you to explain it a bit more in order to fully understand:
To take it to the next level, it’s theoretically possible that at least one of the many previous religions may not have failed because they didn’t sufficiently prove their God’s existence, but because they did.
Thanks,
Dar
Sorry I mean I need you to explain the "to take it to the next level, its theoretically possible that at least one of the many previous religions...." part
Well, laconicreply try this on: religion wasn't initiated by God. Satan started it at The Tower of Babel and that pagan religion has come down through the centurys and exists in many main line religions today. These old pagan rituals and doctrines have been "christianized" but they're easily recognizable. As an example; calling the celebration of Christ's resurrection "Easter" after the old pagan "Feast of Istar". The insertion of man made doctrines and creeds have caused more confusion. Christianity is not a religion!! It is a relationship with God made available to us through Jesus' death on the Cross to redeem us from sin. We need only ask God to forgive our sin and surrender our lives to the Lordship of Jesus Christ to come into that relationship with Him and to yield ourselves to Him as clay yields to The Potters hands. If you'll do this you won't have to wonder about the existence of God. Of course if you find that this relationship with God doesn't satisfy you, you can always go back to debating Him intellectually. Mizpah31
What switch flipped that made you start to write consistent amazing blog entries?
Keep it up!
Ethan - Yeah I dunno, I just stopped worrying about what people would think about my rants, and just wrote them. Turned out well so far.
Hi Eric,
On the related subject of morality, I thought you might find this interesting:
http://paulbadgerstories.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/can-you-live-for-a-year-without-lying/
and in turn this:
http://thecompletekant.com/the-book/
Take care,
Paul