Questions of Truth and Quantum Theory (Religion)

by dhw, Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 10:20 (5531 days ago) @ Mark

There seem to be two different discussions going on at the same time on this thread. The first concerns the existence of something beyond the physical world. Mark writes: "There is a fundamental difference between what physical science talks about and, for example, my experience of listening to music, smelling flowers, thinking etc." - We have been discussing precisely this subject in threads dealing with The Arts, The Paranormal, Science and love, music, art etc. George kindly drew our attention to various articles on research into the areas of the brain that are affected by emotions, and the chemicals that are released. Science has come up with some interesting facts, but my favourite quote ... which I've repeated three times already, and am delighted to repeat again ... is from Susan Greenfield: "Just how the water turns into wine ... how the bump and grind of the neurons and the shrinking and expanding of assemblies actually translate into subjective experience ... is, of course, another story completely." I agree with Mark and David: there is a gulf between the physical body and the subjective experiences of the mind. It seems inexplicable, and it leaves open the possibility of something beyond the physical world as we know it. 
 
The second discussion centres on religion, and particularly monotheism. Mark's idea that the latter "is the basis from which we can trust creation to be ordered and comprehensible and go on to do science" is one that I find pretty bewildering. George has already given you some direct answers, with most of which I agree, but I will add my twopennyworth. Are you saying that the Ancient Greeks, the pre-Christian Romans and the Ancient Egyptians, with their detailed knowledge of engineering and astronomy, and even the builders of Stonehenge (one theory is that it may have been an observatory) had no ability to "do science"? And in what way does monotheism make creation ordered and comprehensible? When confronted with questions like the origin of evil, the need for God's creatures to kill one another in order to survive, the randomnness of natural disasters, diseases etc., the monotheist's general response seems to be: "God knows what He's doing, God is good, so trust Him." Monotheism relies on mystery, not comprehensibility. - Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on books of dubious origin and authenticity, written or transcribed by humans, selected by humans, translated and interpreted by humans and, let's face it, used by humans to justify acts of the utmost cruelty, exploitation and corruption. That is not to deny the good that has also been done and is being done by religious people of all faiths ... including polytheistic ... but I see no justification for the suggestion that monotheism is superior to other forms of religion or to other systems of thought like Buddhism or humanism. We've even had one monotheist on this forum claim that "Jehovah is much greater than Allah", which scarcely aids the cause. George says: "The concept of a God who belongs to one tribe or people has been one of the most ghastly developments ever." I would like to expand that slightly: while I accept that people need to belong to groups, and need the security of shared values, any concept that sets one group against another, encouraging exclusion and intolerance, is to be deplored. In this respect, I agree with George that the concept of monotheism has one of the worst records of all. - As for "zerotheism", and the suggestion that "each would be their own god", the functioning of society does not depend on religion, and love and altruism are not exclusive to theists. Given the choice between a secular democracy and a theocracy, I wouldn't hesitate to go for the former.