WE ARE BORN BELIEVERS IN GOD!
-
Peace hicham9,
Of course I Agree with you.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604797.msg316631#msg316631
ONE GOD
peace
Recall that your Lord summoned all the descendants of Adam, and had them bear witness for themselves "Am I not your Lord?" They all said, "Yes. We bear witness." Thus, you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, "We were not aware of this."
ONE GOD INDEED ;D
Peace. -
One God!
God bless us 4-ever
-
Peace.
This is interesting, but it doesn't seem to add up. Even if we could reason that people have the natural propensity for believing in the 'supernatural', it doesn't actually mean that a supernatural world exists. It merely means that people naturally make the "god did it" assumption for things they don't understand or can't explain... If you ask a child what shape the Earth is, without introducing him to the ideas of physics, then he/she will most likely look at the ground and the landscape around him/her and say "flat". Does this mean that the Earth is actually flat? Of course not! It simply means that the child is making an assumption about the world, primarily due to not knowing the correct answer.
The article you quoted does nothing more than make a general argument for the "god of the gaps" ideology. It doesn't prove anything.
In addition, this article doesn't illustrate that children are born with a preconceived notion of "God" - it asserts that children are born with the propensity to believe in GODS and GODDESSES!
If people are born with a precognizant belief in divinity, and religion is not traditional or cultural, then why are children born to Hindu families more inclined to believe in traditional Hinduism? Why are children in Islamic countries more inclined to believe in the tenets of Islam? Why do Christian households generally produce Christian children, etc.?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
I don't think you can dismiss that believing in one God is natural. Believing in more than one God has several implications which include that the gods themselves will become more humanistic, can all of them be all powerful, all knowing, the Most Wise? When they become more humanistic and closer to what creation is, it would be exactly as the Quran describes it, each god would take what they created and there would be discord and so on. If we instinctively pray, I don't think we would naturally direct our prayer to more than one god, we would just direct it to either whatever can help us, whichever being created us, our Creator, whoever can help us. If we say there is more than one God and one God is the chief God - all knowing, all Wise and so on, doesn't that imply that the other gods are in fact creation, created by that God and what would necessarily make these lesser gods worthy of worship, are they more subservient and kept in line by the chief deity? These may just be implications, I'm not sure how far everyone will agree.
-
This is interesting, but it doesn't seem to add up. Even if we could reason that people have the natural propensity for believing in the 'supernatural', it doesn't actually mean that a supernatural world exists. It merely means that people naturally make the "god did it" assumption for things they don't understand or can't explain... If you ask a child what shape the Earth is, without introducing him to the ideas of physics, then he/she will most likely look at the ground and the landscape around him/her and say "flat". Does this mean that the Earth is actually flat? Of course not! It simply means that the child is making an assumption about the world, primarily due to not knowing the correct answer.
The article you quoted does nothing more than make a general argument for the "god of the gaps" ideology. It doesn't prove anything.
I guess denial ain't just a river in Egypt! ;D
First of all, the "god of the gaps argument" is a straw-man made to appeal to a half-truth. God isn?t just an explanation for the gaps, but for everything (known and unknown). What you fail to understand is that "Agency" is different than "mechanism." You can know who made something without knowing all the facets of what that person made. For example You don?t have to know everything about a book to know its author. Furthermore, we all make wholly true statements that aren?t totally comprehensive. You can have some idea of ?what? caused something without knowing exactly ?how? it?s caused. In fact there is nothing which we know in which we?ve first had to understand comprehensively. We know things abstractly first then learn more about them in a basic way. The fact that we refer to anything as a ?thing? is evidence of that. Example We can know toasters exist without knowledge of its engineering or the laws of thermodynamics. Moreover, we don?t even know what energy is, but we know that it is. Thus, your -god of the gaps- argument is invalid.
The study clearly answers one of life's BIG Questions, and that would be "WHY HUMANS BELIEVE IN GOD?" Turns out that humans are born with a natural inclination toward belief in God, spirits and the hereafter. We also know for certainty that it is futile to try to get people to abondon these religious beliefs because they are related to a particular regions of the brain. According to the study, people are "programmed" to receive a feeling of spirituality from electrical activity in these areas... This study does bring an exceptional piece of knowledge to the table. I'm not sure why you think "it doesn't prove anything"!!! Are you an atheist by any chance?
In addition, this article doesn't illustrate that children are born with a preconceived notion of "God" - it asserts that children are born with the propensity to believe in GODS and GODDESSES!
Dr Justin Barret, the director of the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project, clearly said that "children, across cultures, naturally develop a belief in a divine power of remarkably consistent traits??A GOD THAT IS A POWERFUL CREATOR, KNOWING, IMMORTAL, AND GOOD". This, of course, doesn't "prove" the existence of the One God, the study doesn't claim this, neither do I; see the 1st sentence in my 1st conclusion, I said (in BOLD) that "Theism" is a natural cognitive instinct, I didn't claim that "Monotheism" is a natural cognitive instinct! However, (as supportpeacenotwar@ said) we cannot dismiss the strong possibility that believing in one God is a natural instinct, after all, over 56% of the human population are MONOtheists.
If people are born with a precognizant belief in divinity, and religion is not traditional or cultural, then why are children born to Hindu families more inclined to believe in traditional Hinduism? Why are children in Islamic countries more inclined to believe in the tenets of Islam? Why do Christian households generally produce Christian children, etc.?
We are born believers in God. As we grow up, however, each individual gets exposed to different kinds of input and various levels of indoctrination, depending on his parents, friends, schools, society, media, gov, NWO, (... etc) we mix this natural cognitive instinct with whatever the corrupted world spoon-feed us. Thus, of course, those born to Hindu families will be more inclined to believe in traditional Hinduism, because they were indoctrinated by their parents/society... Atheism, for instance, is NOT the opposite of indoctrination as some people would like to believe, but an "unnatural position" acquired through "secular" indoctrination. That is, you were born a theist, not an atheist.
Peace.
-
Peace,
My study of psychology taught me that we have a part of the brain for spiritual thinking. Damages of this may cause certain delusions regarding God, and when people think about spiritual topics there is more activity here. I also think some elements of psychosis has its roots here, religious delusions are common in this state.
The brain is certainly constructed for belief in supernatural beings.
Even atheists seem to believe in something supernatural many times.
God bless you
-
Are you an atheist by any chance?
Peace.
Peace hicham9,
I think you ask the right question, because if the answer is yes then
No matter what kind of proof comes to them from their Lord, they turn away
from it, in aversion.and
Some of them listen to you, but we place veils on their hearts to prevent
them from understanding, and deafness in their ears. Thus, no matter what kind
of proof they see, they cannot believe. Thus, when they come to argue with you,
the disbelievers say, "These are tales from the past."and again
Most people, no matter what you do, will not believe.
and finally
No matter how hard you try to guide them, GOD does not guide the ones
He had committed to straying. Thus, no one can help them.peace
-
Peace,
I will mention something else to for those who think religious belief is because one grows up and adopt the belief of their parents.
I grew up in an utterly irreligious family, the family was very much atheists, my dad used to laugh about God or the people that believe in God and make some statements about believing in God is illogical and irrational. My mum was not this criticizing, but she clearly had an atheist approach.
Despite this I grew up believing in supernatural phenomena. I concluded relatively early that the world had to have a beginning of some kind and I was quite determined. During my childhood I had little exposure to people with religious faith, in fact non-existent, but I grew more and more certain that the world did not just create itself in its complexity. To me it was illogical and irrational that the world could come into existence from tiny cells which formed living entities. Where does the formula come from?
How can lifeless pieces of rock form planets or the stars knowing how they should merge the substances for a chemical reaction. How can the planets attain their round form by themselves. There were so many questions like this so I could never exclude the probability that there is a creator.
That was only space, when you go on planet level there begins a whole world of new questions. DNA-strings, did natural selection create this complex formula. I know it evolved over billions of years, but what initiated the motivation for these cells to start doing what they do and why having a pattern to come to. For example, the human's current physical shape. Why not just cells living as cells and forming irregular shaped beings as cells obviously do not have much intelligence on their own. To me you need more motivation than that, you need some external intelligence which has control over the atoms.
I believe that God has controlled everything from the start. The Quran only covers things about creation in a highly allegorical manner, for even ancient people and people with lower education should understand.
This above is one thing that makes me believe in God, because I find it illogical and irrational not to believe in a deity.
Also, my case proves that you can live in an entirely irreligious environment and still become a Believer, even in a pretty early age. I am glad I had this experience.
Parents can indoctrinate you into blindless faith without any true certainty about God, but it does not make you a Believer. The majority of people born in religious families are not truly believers. They may continue this because of the benefits their community gives them, such as gratification and social unity being a good "believer". If you believe that, for example, Muhammad is to be celebrated in your worship then you have not read Quran with an open mind. You are more concerned about your tradition and respect of parents and relatives than God.
These people believe Muhammad is a sort of God because they think he can benefit them in some way.
God bless you
-
Peace, hicham9.
First of all, the "god of the gaps argument" is a straw-man made to appeal to a half-truth. God isn?t just an explanation for the gaps, but for everything (known and unknown). What you fail to understand is that "Agency" is different than "mechanism." You can know who made something without knowing all the facets of what that person made. For example You don?t have to know everything about a book to know its author. Furthermore, we all make wholly true statements that aren?t totally comprehensive. You can have some idea of ?what? caused something without knowing exactly ?how? it?s caused. In fact there is nothing which we know in which we?ve first had to understand comprehensively. We know things abstractly first then learn more about them in a basic way. The fact that we refer to anything as a ?thing? is evidence of that. Example We can know toasters exist without knowledge of its engineering or the laws of thermodynamics. Moreover, we don?t even know what energy is, but we know that it is. Thus, your -god of the gaps- argument is invalid.
This is false on nearly every level! You stated that people "can know who made something without knowing all the facets of what that person made." That's completely irrational, especially on a Universal level, because, for starters, you can't verify the concept of there being a "who" at all. Again, it's an assumption. There's a very big difference between believing in something and knowing something. We know that toasters exist because we can see them, we can build them, and we can use them. We know that energy exists because we can scientifically test and authenticate it. The same can't be said of God, who is completely undetectable and unverifiable. You can believe that God exists, but you can't know it, primarily because you can't prove it.
The study clearly answers one of life's BIG Questions, and that would be "WHY HUMANS BELIEVE IN GOD?" Turns out that humans are born with a natural inclination toward belief in God, spirits and the hereafter. We also know for certainty that it is futile to try to get people to abondon these religious beliefs because they are related to a particular regions of the brain. According to the study, people are "programmed" to receive a feeling of spirituality from electrical activity in these areas... This study does bring an exceptional piece of knowledge to the table. I'm not sure why you think "it doesn't prove anything"!!! Are you an atheist by any chance?
Actually, "who do humans believe in god(s)?" is not really one of the big questions, because the answer to this question has been propagated for centuries. Even Sigmund Freud had his own hypothesis for this; this isn't something new. Again, it doesn't really matter why people believe in concepts of divinity. What matters is whether or not their beliefs are justified. I can believe in fairies, Santa Claus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster; but it doesn't make any of those things (or 'people' real.
Whether or not I consider myself to be an "atheist" is completely irrelevant, in my opinion. However, to answer your question, no, I'm not an atheist. I simply consider myself a rational thinker and, depending on the context, a naturalist.
Dr Justin Barret, the director of the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project, clearly said that "children, across cultures, naturally develop a belief in a divine power of remarkably consistent traitsA GOD THAT IS A POWERFUL CREATOR, KNOWING, IMMORTAL, AND GOOD". This, of course, doesn't "prove" the existence of the One God, the study doesn't claim this, neither do I; see the 1st sentence in my 1st conclusion, I said (in BOLD) that "Theism" is a natural cognitive instinct, I didn't claim that "Monotheism" is a natural cognitive instinct! However, (as supportpeacenotwar@ said) we cannot dismiss the strong possibility that believing in one God is a natural instinct, after all, over 56% of the human population are MONOtheists.
What "cultures" is Dr. Barrett referring to? Where are the statistics for this cited survey, where these children, allegedly being undisposed to religious beliefs, inherently believe in an "all-powerful", "all-knowing", "immortal" and "good" creator deity?
A large percentage of people believe in one god (depending, of course, on how you classify monotheism -- for example, would you classify Christians as monotheists, even though they worship God, Jesus and the 'Holy Ghost'?) due to the spreading of monotheism through violence and domination. The Bible is plagued with stories of the Israelites who sought to dominate and destroy all polytheistic nations. History is filled with bloody pages of Christians invading lands and torturing everyone who wouldn't convert to Christianity, and Islam has a similar history, which is why these religions have the reputation of spreading religion "by the sword".
Coincidentally, the indigenous cultures that these oppressive religious groups dominated had a pantheon of gods and goddesses, usually between 12 and 24 in number, who (1) weren't immortal, (2) weren't all-knowing, (3) weren't all-powerful, and (4) weren't completely good. The ancient Asian and African deities weren't even creators (ex nihilo) of the Universe; those cultures had ideologies concerning the Universe being eternal. According to them, the gods merely governed natural forces, periodically intervening in human affairs during wars by 'supporting the victors' (how convenient!) and causing disasters to befall their enemies.
Yet, you're asserting that monotheism is a product of 'natural instinct'? Hardly!
We are born believers in God. As we grow up, however, each individual gets exposed to different kinds of input and various levels of indoctrination, depending on his parents, friends, schools, society, media, gov, NWO, (... etc) we mix this natural cognitive instinct with whatever the corrupted world spoon-feed us. Thus, of course, those born to Hindu families will be more inclined to believe in traditional Hinduism, because they were indoctrinated by their parents/society... Atheism, for instance, is NOT the opposite of indoctrination as some people would like to believe, but an "unnatural position" acquired through "secular" indoctrination. That is, you were born a theist, not an atheist.
Again, how can you verify this? Where is the proof? I see plenty of assertions, but I haven't seen any evidence to support these claims... Where are the studies that have been conducted? Where are the statistics?
In addition, even if people were naturally predisposed to believe in God(s), does this prove that those beliefs are true?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Salaam,
This post is not directed to anyone in particular but thoughts arising from topics discussed here. If we take a look at some of the earliest societies that contain what we view as polytheism, when we notice that an ancient culture and regions decided that monotheism was important but not just that, that evidence was important on which to base belief. A question could be that the pattern of polytheism that we think we find across the globe, in these ancient cultures can have such commonality even though some of these did not interact, but no slightly similar traditions of monotheism/evidence based religion arose to give us the same pattern of different types of monotheism apparently. At least that's what some will assert. Some will argue that monotheism grew out of the historical and political factors at the time. So the question seems to be, why was religion used this way and only became popular now or in recent centuries? Why did people in other regions not figure ways to use, perhaps not monotheism, but a style of polytheism based upon messengership as well? If this purely arises from humans why was it that only one region apparently wanted it in the past, now most religion is focused on it? The Quran,however, doesn't assert that monotheism was predominant among people in the past. It states that they used to reject messengers, that in, for example one community only one monotheistic/Muslim household was found - that's my paraphrasing from what I can recall. I hope that made sense, I think I'm trying to deal with two complex points about polytheism and monotheism in one question.
Just as a side note if we talk about the earliest societies and native peoples today as untouched examples of early humans, then do we view everything they do as natural and instinctive among humans? There is an example of a tribe, it may be in Papua New guinea, in which women do not wear clothes on the upper part of their body. At least this is specific for certain events and rituals. So if these women are required and forced to, do we view this nature of oppressive control as natural to humans?
It's just something I find talked about a lot in terms of what people say is natural in terms of native groups of people. I don't think it really explains their behaviour if we assert what they do is simply evidence of early man/untouched humanity etc
-
Peace supportpeacenotwar,
I've reflected similarily and had these thoughts
There is no evidence that religions started out polytheistic, shed idols and became
monotheistic, the opposite appears to be true.http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604797.msg317215#msg317215
peace
-
Peace,
Usually, polytheistic religions have a god who is the mastermind and then "lesser" gods that control various elements of the Earth. Having good relations with the lesser gods will also satisfy the mastermind of gods.
Some of the old polytheistic religions use statues in their worship and were often used to bring them closer to God. It seems like they thought they could have the spirit of a god to enter a statue well done I suppose.
Zoroastranism is a pretty old religion and it is a monotheistic religion despite what people think. The fire and water are part of their worship, but it is not because their particularly worship the fire or water.
People had various degrees of intelligence back in ancient times too and some thought rationally, like Abraham who felt it was utterly illogical to worship a piece of rock.
Today it is not about idols or statues, now it is about the universe instead and this level of intelligence. I am not going to say people are unintelligent for not believing the world logically must have a creator, but they should perhaps open their minds and think.
It does not have to do with blind faith. God cannot be verified, but through logic that does not mean there exists no God. We know God intentionally keeps Himself hidden or otherwise it would be too easy, right?
I would not say I have blind faith in God. Let them call it whatever they like.
God bless you
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
Here are some factors that I think tie in with your post...
Usually, polytheistic religions have a god who is the mastermind and then "lesser" gods that control various elements of the Earth. Having good relations with the lesser gods will also satisfy the mastermind of gods.
This is not monotheism, it's henotheism. Many of the ancient cultures were either polytheistic or henotheistic. Even ancient Judaism began as a henotheistic religion, which is even evident in the Torah. They didn't merely believe in the existence of one god - they believed in the existence of many gods, perhaps a pantheon ("elohiym" they simply worshiped one of them, at least one at a time. Initially, it was El, then it was Yahweh, then it was El Elyon, etc.; after the Babylonian renaissance, they combined all of these separate gods into one deity, who they began to call "HaShem" (the Name) or "Adonai" (Lord or Master).
A good book on this subject is A History of God, by Karen Armstrong.
Zoroastranism is a pretty old religion and it is a monotheistic religion despite what people think. The fire and water are part of their worship, but it is not because their particularly worship the fire or water.
Actually, Zoroastrianism is henotheistic, not monotheistic. Their ancient prophet, Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) taught the existence of two divine beings, one good and the other evil. The good god (of light) was called Ahura-Mazda, and the evil god (of darkness) was called Ahriman. The religion was not monotheistic in any sense, particularly due to its concept of divine dualism.
Today it is not about idols or statues, now it is about the universe instead and this level of intelligence. I am not going to say people are unintelligent for not believing the world logically must have a creator, but they should perhaps open their minds and think.
What if your position was reversed? Let's look at it from this perspective
I am not going to say people are unintelligent for believing the world logically must have a creator, but they should perhaps open their minds and think.
Would you say this is a valid position?
It does not have to do with blind faith. God cannot be verified, but through logic that does not mean there exists no God. We know God intentionally keeps Himself hidden or otherwise it would be too easy, right?
In actuality, this is the definition of blind faith. It's defined as belief without understanding, perception or discrimination; firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The fact that God can't be verified, which you pointed out, illustrates that belief in him is blind. I'm not trying to be antagonistic about it, but those are the facts. According to the accepted definition, belief in God is, in fact, "blind faith".
Peace,
Ahmad
-
This is false on nearly every level! You stated that people "can know who made something without knowing all the facets of what that person made."That's completely irrational, especially on a Universal level, because, for starters, you can't verify the concept of there being a "who" at all. Again, it's an assumption. There's a very big difference between believing in something and knowing something. We know that toasters exist because we can see them, we can build them, and we can use them. We know that energy exists because we can scientifically test and authenticate it. The same can't be said of God, who is completely undetectable and unverifiable. You can believe that God exists, but you can't know it, primarily because you can't prove it.
Im afraid science cannot put the Almighty God in a tube and analyze Him! ???
We are but mortal creatures created by the Uncaused Causal Agent. which means, we cannot "fully" understand the nature of our Supreme Creator, ALLAH (SWT). He knows us more than we know our selves, after all, it is He who created us -- not the other way around! thus, it is rational to assume that we cannot "fully" understand His nature, except through His Glorious Verses, the Holy Quran. No matter how you look at it my brother, this is a matter of faith, a choice to believe or not. It's just that simple. Now, youre a Naturalist, and Im a Muslim, thus, of course our opinions and beliefs will differ significantly from each other. I believe in One Supreme Creator worthy of All worship and praise. I believe in His Angels, Revelations, Prophets, in the Final day of Judgment, the Hereafter, Paradise and Hell I believe the universe is well defined in a similar way the artist paints a picture, just in our case we live in a miraculously 'living' picture. In short, I believe there is more to the world than meets the naked eye. You on the other hand, youre more into the "seeing is believing" mindset, all you want is this finite life on planet earth (called Dunya), you believe nature is all there is and clearly reject all notions of anything existing apart from the physical world of matter in motion. Naturalism is very deterministic--meaning that human beings really have no free will, but are at the mercy of the random movements of atoms--no soul, no spirit, just biologicals and chemicals controlling our thoughts, words, and actions in response to external stimuli. So nothing ever happens for a reason and whatever will happen, just happens according to naturalism. Naturalists are of course atheists although some of you contradict your philosophy by claiming to be pantheists (the belief that the universe and the world represent God as some mysterious impersonal force)!!! Further, belief in spontaneous evolution is a necessary component of atheism, pantheism, and all other systems that reject the sovereign authority of an omnipotent personal God. So let's agree to disagree. Youre welcome to believe what you want my brother, and the same goes for me and every human being on earth (there is no compulsion in religion), still, your irrational assumption that this ?1.9 Million project doesnt prove ANYthing is really an absurd argument that clearly shows your close-mindedness. ( I guess, youre not a free mind after all! -\
Actually, "who do humans believe in god(s)?" is not really one of the big questions, because the answer to this question has been propagated for centuries. Even Sigmund Freud had his own hypothesis for this; this isn't something new. Again, it doesn't really matter why people believe in concepts of divinity. What matters is whether or not their beliefs are justified. I can believe in fairies, Santa Claus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster; but it doesn't make any of those things (or 'people' real. Whether or not I consider myself to be an "atheist" is completely irrelevant, in my opinion. However, to answer your question, no, I'm not an atheist. I simply consider myself a rational thinker and, depending on the context, a naturalist.
WHY humans believe in God(s) is one of the Main/Core Questions in the Cognitive Science of Religion. And I'm afraind, Freud has been dead since 1939. Fact is, these past years, 57 Psychologists have conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 different countries and have come to the conclusion that the preponderance of scientific evidence has shown that humans are actually born with an innate knowledge of God, preinstalled and difficult to shake. Religion is not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf. Researchers have gathered a strong body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies."
Glory be to ALLAH, the best of creators, the Ruler and Sustainter of the Worlds.
What "cultures" is Dr. Barrett referring to? Where are the statistics for this cited survey, where these children, allegedly being undisposed to religious beliefs, inherently believe in an "all-powerful", "all-knowing", "immortal" and "good" creator deity?
A large percentage of people believe in one god (depending, of course, on how you classify monotheism -- for example, would you classify Christians as monotheists, even though they worship God, Jesus and the 'Holy Ghost'?) due to the spreading of monotheism through violence and domination. The Bible is plagued with stories of the Israelites who sought to dominate and destroy all polytheistic nations. History is filled with bloody pages of Christians invading lands and torturing everyone who wouldn't convert to Christianity, and Islam has a similar history, which is why these religions have the reputation of spreading religion "by the sword".
Coincidentally, the indigenous cultures that these oppressive religious groups dominated had a pantheon of gods and goddesses, usually between 12 and 24 in number, who (1) weren't immortal, (2) weren't all-knowing, (3) weren't all-powerful, and (4) weren't completely good. The ancient Asian and African deities weren't even creators (ex nihilo) of the Universe; those cultures had ideologies concerning the Universe being eternal. According to them, the gods merely governed natural forces, periodically intervening in human affairs during wars by 'supporting the victors' (how convenient!) and causing disasters to befall their enemies.
Yet, you're asserting that monotheism is a product of 'natural instinct'? Hardly!
Again, how can you verify this? Where is the proof? I see plenty of assertions, but I haven't seen any evidence to support these claims... Where are the studies that have been conducted? Where are the statistics?
In addition, even if people were naturally predisposed to believe in God(s), does this prove that those beliefs are true?
The findings were published in two books by the Project Director, Justin L Barrett, in
Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology
http//www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Science-Religion-Theology-Templeton/dp/159947381XBorn Believers The Science of Childhood Religion
http//www.amazon.com/Born-Believers-Science-Childrens-Religious/dp/1439196540For more information, visit Oxford's website or go to the sites of specific researchers to find out more about their specific contributions to the CRT project.
http//www.icea.ox.ac.uk/lab/projects/cognition-religion-and-theology/project-summary/
http//www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110513.htmlHope this helps.
Peace
-
Peace Ahmad,
Ok. Thanks for your input. I accept your opinion like any other, even if yours is that of the opposite.
I did not claim they were monotheistic, sorry that I did not make it clearer.
If you say that about Zoroastrianism, then you can say that Satan is a little God of his own. I have studied Zoroastrianism here in Iran and the Zoroastrians are a pretty divided religious people today. You can say they divided into sects or different schools of thinking. Obviously, since their original scripture was lost you can imagine much falsehood entered their religion as has done among the Christians. I have been to one major Zoroastrian site in Yazd to check the story myself.
Islam also teaches that Satan is a powerful being with weak God-like powers to control, such as mind influence or perhaps possession. It does not say Satan is a god though.
I am not aiming at an endless discussion, brother Ahmad, but of course I am glad to accommodate your rational and logical thinking.
Your suggestion about the book is appreciated, if I ever have the opportunity I may take a look.
I understand your point with your reversed perspective, although it is not logical in my mind, but I accept if it your opinion. It is the common opinion of those who think about believers. My example was just what you did to me now, a demonstration of the reverse perspective.
Blind faith or not, it is the definition of the observer. Obviously, if I am certain about the fact there is a God then it is not blind faith "to me". Think about the thought that a person could verify God for himself, but sadly cannot share this verification with anyone due to the problem of proving he can see the divine marvels.
What is your faith exactly, brother, your religion is not theistic? You believe the universe is eternal and it had its own innate intelligence to evolve its organisms? And the pieces of rock and substances just "happen" to form planets and other physical bodies?
Hope you respect my opinion that this thinking is irrational and illogical according to my mindset. But I would be happy to hear your elaboration on what you believe is the truth.
Were you intrigued by my philosophies on the spirits more in Star Wars style? Or Buddhism and its focus on meditation? Or that I actually am impressed by the religious belief of native Americans?
Needless to say brother, I am a theist and I cannot go away from this standpoint. Of course, you should never say never, but it does seem unlikely.
I am not a narrow-minded theist despite this, as you know, as my mind is quite open and I am not locked to the teachings of Quran and I can philosophize beyond this. I was born into an atheist family and I developed my faith on my own and it was thus not an indoctrination. It might have helped me have a very liberal religious "career" however daring to think beyond one book.
I am not refuting anything which you can prove and have proved with science and I am actually relatively interested in science myself, especially technology and inventions which may have been pure science-fiction some time ago.
I just believe that a deity laid the foundation of this world and created things with a code like a programmer does in a data program. One that is invisible, for a certain purpose, and is subtly interfering with this world, thus letting the world run pretty much on its own. Instruments cannot detect the deity because it is not really part of this world or the energy it sends around the galaxies like the Force in Star Wars.
Please brother, try to fathom this; what if the creator deity works through another dimension with unlimited access to both? This dimension is in clear parallel with this which we live in, but you can move invisibly in it and interact with whatever needs to be done.
Well, what I wrote is highly philosophical and of course it reflects my way of thinking. I was using Star Wars as a parable because it is the best example I have as an analogy.
If you exclude a deity in creation of the world we live in you have more answers to seek. I find it fully rational to include a deity in my realm of thinking about the creation of the world. I was thinking for years about this issue and do not believe I quickly came to this conclusion. It does not mean I know what God is and I am still curious about the origin of it.
I am determined that the whole point in religion is to develop the soul into a good entity and that this soul is an energy which does not vanish when our physical body dies. This is one of my earliest philosophies predating my "adoption" of Islam. I was a sort of New age believer without the hocus pocus.
Only important thing is to gain a perfect Karma in this world and believe in a higher intelligence and eternal life, according to my faith. There is no religion but only a way of living.
God bless you
-
Peace supportpeacenotwar,
I've reflected similarily and had these thoughts
There is no evidence that religions started out polytheistic, shed idols and became
monotheistic, the opposite appears to be true.http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604797.msg317215#msg317215
peace
Salaam hawk99,
Thank you for the link. Your post summarises some of my thoughts on this matter. I also find it strange that some say that monotheism developed. I mean, its just the opposite of polytheism. Monotheism doesn't need to develop, its just the other side of the scale so to speak. Btw, great avatar - fluffy (kinda) and powerful at the same time. )
-
Salaam hawk99,
Thank you for the link. Your post summarises some of my thoughts on this matter. I also find it strange that some say that monotheism developed. I mean, its just the opposite of polytheism. Monotheism doesn't need to develop, its just the other side of the scale so to speak. Btw, great avatar - fluffy (kinda) and powerful at the same time.
Thank you dear believer for the compliment and your observation
-
Peace, hicham9.
The findings were published in two books by the Project Director, Justin L Barrett, in
Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology
http//www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Science-Religion-Theology-Templeton/dp/159947381XBorn Believers The Science of Childhood Religion
http//www.amazon.com/Born-Believers-Science-Childrens-Religious/dp/1439196540For more information, visit Oxford's website or go to the sites of specific researchers to find out more about their specific contributions to the CRT project.
http//www.icea.ox.ac.uk/lab/projects/cognition-religion-and-theology/project-summary/
http//www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110513.htmlHope this helps.
Thanks for the links. I'll be sure to check out the information.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
If you say that about Zoroastrianism, then you can say that Satan is a little God of his own. I have studied Zoroastrianism here in Iran and the Zoroastrians are a pretty divided religious people today. You can say they divided into sects or different schools of thinking. Obviously, since their original scripture was lost you can imagine much falsehood entered their religion as has done among the Christians. I have been to one major Zoroastrian site in Yazd to check the story myself.
Indeed, sir, ancient Zoroastrianism was henotheistic. I'm not sure what they teach now in certain places, but I've studied their ancient doctrines, and they believed in the existence of both gods (e.g. Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman), although they only sought to worship one.
Islam also teaches that Satan is a powerful being with weak God-like powers to control, such as mind influence or perhaps possession. It does not say Satan is a god though.
The Quran doesn't teach this at all, brother. The only Islamic cleric, that I'm aware of, who attempted to refer to "satan" as a god was Dr. Rashad Khalifa, who promoted the idea of the devil being a 'temporary god' in his translation of the Quran - which, of course, most Muslims consider completely absurd... According to the Quran, "satan" only has the power to tempt and entice people, which is why he is referred to as 'the whisperer'. He can't control or manipulate anyone.
I understand your point with your reversed perspective, although it is not logical in my mind, but I accept if it your opinion. It is the common opinion of those who think about believers. My example was just what you did to me now, a demonstration of the reverse perspective.
For the record, I wasn't saying that I agree with the reversed perspective; I was merely presenting it to illustrate how someone else, who may not believe in your theology, may interpret your statement. You said that people should 'open their minds and think' about the logical conclusion that a god exists. However, those who DON'T hold this worldview could say the same thing with regard to believers 'opening their minds and thinking' about the possibility of there being no god. From a philosophical perspective, it could go either way.
What is your faith exactly, brother, your religion is not theistic? You believe the universe is eternal and it had its own innate intelligence to evolve its organisms? And the pieces of rock and substances just "happen" to form planets and other physical bodies?
I like to look at my perspective as relaying the idea that the Universe is "divine" (depending on the interpretation of the word). I also think that we shouldn't completely rule out (or rule in) possibilities without evidence to support our conclusions. Sure, it's possible that a divine creator deity exists. However, it's also possible that no such person or entity exists. That's why science is necessary, in my opinion. Rather than believing whatever an 'ancient book' says, I prefer to go with what can be shown and proven, since that's the basis of factual and objective determination.
Were you intrigued by my philosophies on the spirits more in Star Wars style? Or Buddhism and its focus on meditation? Or that I actually am impressed by the religious belief of native Americans?
I'm actually very intrigued by Buddhist philosophy; I've studied it, along with other philosophical worldviews, for many years, and I find it to be very profound... Many Muslims actually claim that the Buddha preached a variation of Islam (which, from that perspective, generally refers to 'peace' with God and nature), and he's considered by some to be a prophet. That issue, however, is still up for debate by many groups.
If you exclude a deity in creation of the world we live in you have more answers to seek. I find it fully rational to include a deity in my realm of thinking about the creation of the world. I was thinking for years about this issue and do not believe I quickly came to this conclusion. It does not mean I know what God is and I am still curious about the origin of it.
To the contrary, I find the concept of using "God" to answer all of the questions we don't have answers to as being boring. Again, I don't rule out the possibility of there being a god who created everything. However, that leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions too, particularly about the (nature of the) creator himself. Who is he? Where did he come from? What did he use to make everything? Why did he choose to do this, and when did it happen, etc.? The list could go on and on. That's why I choose to inquire about everything and try to take the most reasonable (and verifiable) position on things like science and philosophy.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Ahmad,
Thanks for your explanation. Then I know what you believe.
Regarding Satan, I interpret Quran as that he can more than only whisper to people but also possess their souls, especially weak souls. I take certain historic madmen like Hitler as a good example.
I also embrace science, but that does not mean I rule out God and my belief. Science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.
I find the complexity of the world to be a sign of God in itself
I know what you mean when you say the opinion may be the reverse of those who choose not to believe.
I still did not understand if you are a theist or not. Sorry if I am missing something.
God bless