All Religions Are Bad

[jumnien]

I apologize for using the term "logic-lovers", but "obsessively and compulsively logical" seemed a bit overdone.

As for the OP, I think the Buddha would find better things to do with his time than argue with Richard Dawkins or other supermarket bestselling scribes. My best guess is that if the Buddha were alive today, he would divide his time between frequent appearances on the Larry King show and cultivating a personal relationship with Richard Gere.

[GuestHouse]

The twentieth century was an example of how secularism is capable of all the ills securlists lay at the feet of religion, not just the same ills, but depths of depravity never reached in the history of man kind.

[OxfordWill]

Logic is an interesting tool to use upon occasion, but a one-tool tool box is well, boring and often useless.

No.. some of the most intelligent and devout thinkers of all time have been utter "logic-lovers" and without them you can be pretty certain there would be very little reason to Christianity and most religions (but christianity in particular). The attempts to justify, prove and demonstrate the various parts to Christian faith have all been entirely reason-based, think only of Anselm and Kant (as if you would need to go beyond Kant for proof of how much religious thinkers rely on logic).

Do not think of things as logic vs. religion. Religious belief -requires- respect for logic, even if many people argue the two to be incompatible.

On a second note, you may not realise it but you even just used logic to make the very point that logic is often "boring and useless". Whether you like it or not you just formed an argument that can be demonstrated and explicited in formal logic.

Can I respectfully recommend a refresher on sentential/propositional logic to remind you of the innate need for logic in everything you say, regardless of your desire to make use of it or not.

[banchang]

"I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq's excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "

Richard Dawkins

from The Independent, 23.Decem

Mdeland the above was writen by one of todays best (logic-lovers) he writes with such passion and clarity and is almost poetic in his delivery. wow Far out man!

[garro]

Guest House said;

The twentieth century was an example of how secularism is capable of all the ills securlists lay at the feet of religion, not just the same ills, but depths of depravity never reached in the history of man kind.

I am not sure I agree as two of the most depraved individuals of the last century were Stalin, who trained as a priest, and Hitler, who frequently cited that he was doing God's work and blamed the Jews for killing Jesus.

[jumnien]

Blaming the various Christian denominations for Stalin and Hitler is a little like blaming Yale University for George W. Bush.

"But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine." - Dawkins

This is just a ridiculous quote by Dawkins for many reasons. Psychology, philosophy and theology have provided a long history of reasons for believing in the existence of the divine. Perhaps when he's not busy signing books at Borders he should read a bit of Carl Jung or William James. He may write prodigiously, but he's not particularly well read.

[OxfordWill]

philosophy [...] have provided a long history of reasons for believing in the existence of the divine.

Just for fun- I challenge you to provide me with one (yup...just one) philosophical proof for the existence of the divine. You can use any philosopher you want, dead or alive.

[Jimmyd]

Psychology, philosophy and theology have provided a long history of reasons for believing in the existence of the divine.

You are flat out wrong. There is no proof of the existence of the divine by any stretch of the imagination.

[jumnien]

I believe Mr. Dawkins was refering to: the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. There are obvious reasons for believing in the divine, many scientists believe it is hardwired into us. I agree that there is no logical proof of the existence of the divine. That's what makes religions so mysterious and marvelous to the faithful.

Long ago someone said to me that you could trancend reality and experience the divine by believing in Sex, Drugs and Rock N'Roll. For many decades I became a believer partied quite religiously. I'm not sure I ever saw proof of the existence of the divine (well maybe that night in Santa Cruz in 1978), but proof is for court of laws.

[OxfordWill]

If you could mention one of these obvious reasons for believing in the divine, it would greatly help proceedings.

[jumnien]

I suggest Carl Jung's book "Man's Search for Meaning" as an introduction.

One possible reason for believing in divine spirits is too provide meaning to life.

[Jimmyd]

I suggest Carl Jung's book "Man's Search for Meaning" as an introduction.

One possible reason for believing in divine spirits is too provide meaning to life.

I thank you for the suggestion.

In turn I would suggest a good place to learn about atheism is in Jonathan Miller's wonderful documentary 'A History of Disbelief.'

By the way, have you read Dawkin's book?

[Gary A]

I'm sure christians are proud of the ancient crusades. Fortunately they seem to have gotten over that and now it is the muslims turn. Those fairytale books were written by men and perhaps those men were a little unbalanced. Don't mistake a dislike of religion as atheism. Two entirely different subjects. I have no choice but to believe in God because I can see no other reason for the wonders of life.

[Jimmyd]

I have no choice but to believe in God because I can see no other reason for the wonders of life.

Your limited imagination does not mean God exists.

[sabaijai]

This thread is going around in circles and veering a bit far from the subforum's central topic, Buddhism. Closed.