Let me preface these remarks by saying I have no problem with religion. Just have a few thoughts about it thats all.

In my opinon, relgion was started as a way to explain things that couldn't be explained any other way. Lets take for example the riseing and setting of the sun.

The Norse belived that the rising of the sun, and setting, and then the riseing of the moon, then setting, where explain thus; 2 children (names escape men) are what are actually the sun and the moon. There are huge dogs in the sky that chase them about. When the world ends, the dogs are said to have caught the children and devored them.

This was created (I belive) as an explanation for natural events such as the sunrise and sunset.

Another example languages. The Bible says something to this effect; Humans tried to make a building that would reach all the ways up to the sky. Before they could reach the sky however, God created and bestowed upon them different languages so that they could not complete the task.

Again, created to explain somthing that couldnt be explained.

One final one
An Native American legend attempts to explain stars: A young girl tribal chief's daughter i belive was lead away from their camp by an evil sprit. The Spirt carried here away over the horzien into the unknown. The young girl cries becuase she misses her family and all. Her tears are forever stuck in the sky as a beacon for those to find her.

What do you think about the idea of relgion merely being a way to explain the previously unexplain able? And if that is the case, why do we still have relgion?

One of the more common uses of religion is as a precursor to advanced scientific understanding of the universe.

But it's hardly the only use of religion, and as the knowledge of science has broadened, we see religion being used more and more to provide meaning and purpose to people's lives. Though even that can still be viewed as an attempt to explain that which we have yet to understand in more objective terms.

I would agree with Lorpius Prime. A major part of most religious belief certainly has something to do with the explanation of the natural world, but I would say that does not hold true of the major religions that are practiced today.

For example, although you could say that Judaism provides an explanation to the wonders of natural phenomena, you cannot say the same for Christianity. In other words, Christianity adds nothing "new" in terms of explaining the unexplainable. As far as explaining the origins of humanity, Christianity just piggy-backs off of Judiasm. So the founding of Christianity has very little to do with explaining the mystery of the physical world. Same goes for Islam. And that's 2 of the 3 major western world religions right there.

Then over to Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism. Now while it may be debateable as to whether these are religions, they are certainly the closest thing to religion that China ever saw prior to exposure to the West. None of these belief systems really have a "God" that "created" anything, so I don't think you can attribute the birth of these religious systems to explaining the un-explainable either.

I think that the fundamental questions for most religions lie in meaning, particularly the search for meaning in suffering and death. And why do religions persist? Because science still can't answer those questions...

So in other words, as our knowalge of the natural word continues to expand, the need for relgion to explain away those things decreases. However, it is steady as it's basis as a sort of philosophy for which people can use. Or for those things that science cannot accuratly enough explain.

More or less?

More or less, although I would still say that when Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, and Islam first came about, none of these religions had a primary focus of explaining the natural world.

There's an old axiom I've heard before:

Science provides answers; religion provides meaning.

And philosophy integrates both:)

What came first? Religion or Science.

Its religion that came first. As you can see Science was Developed and is still developing through time to explain events that take place in the world today. What would happen with no religion at all? Everything is based on religion, if you look at the laws, and anything else it involves religion. Thats my opinion on religion.

Relgion may have come first, but science overtook it's uses in many fields.

And I don't belive that Relgion is the basis of Morals. A long and still unresovled debate between Nevin and I was "Were morals begotten from God?"

Well let's be careful here. First of all, there was a time when there was no difference between science and religion. If you look at Aristotle for example, the pursuit of ethics, of metaphysics (including questions of the gods) and questions of science were all part of one thing--the search for truth. Etymologically "science" is merely rooted in the idea of "knowing" (scire--Latin "to know").

In other words, ancient belief systems were both scientific and religious. The idea of "science" and "religion" as being separate entities is a relatively new notion. As such, we should be careful not to label ancient belief systems as being "religion" but not "science," since those terms (as we know them) have developed rather recently.

But one certainly has devolped more profoundly (they both have, but science more so) over the years through understanding of the natural world. The words of God are absoultue, are they not?

Science came first. "When I bang rocks together, they break." "Water puts out fire."; etc. Not anything terribly advanced, but practical.

When did they "branch off" as we know them now?

Good question. I'd say the turning point was the scientific revolution (17th century).

I suppose it depends on the individual. Some people use religion as a means of getting through their day to day lives while others will use religion as a tool for political advancement.

Religion, at its base, is merely an instruction on how to live one's life in accordance with the will of the Divine in order to become closer to the Divine. Humans tend to pervert it to fit their own agendas, however, and I find that sad - even if it may be necessary.

Just curious, when do you belive it to be necessary?

Oh I don't personally find it necessary, but it is one of those "necessary evils" that must happen from time to time if only to teach people a lesson or, in some cases, to exact an updated Divine message. For instance, Torah was given to the world and it became corrupted over time by politicians and powermongers.

So, after enough was enough, the prophet Isa (Jesus) was given an updated message, which was given to the world through the Gospel. Not long afterwards, however, people like Paul of Tarsus began to pervert the message to their own agenda and placed Isa upon a cross and worshipped him as if he were the Divine. Later, people began using the letters of Paul and the Revelation of John as being equal to the message of Isa, so a new messenger came into the world with an updated message (Muhammed and Qur'an).

As the message becomes more and more corrupted by men, the Divine will always be right there to make sure things get cleared up once again. Besides, how boring would the world be if everybody had the same beliefs?

But wouldn't you say that that isn't human agendas, but rather a God's agenda? Sending prophets and the like to do his work.

Could be construed as such, but not really.

For example, Allah sends Isa with a message of peace and brotherhood. Contained in this message is the idea of equality, acceptance, and harmony among all people. Paul of Tarsus, 90 years later, writes a letter to a Greek church in Corinthia where he explains that if people are unwilling to convert to Christianity (at the time called "The Way"), then they are not to be accepted in the church. It is also written in that same letter that women are to be denegrated as property of their husbands and should not be allowed to teach in the church. (1 Cor. 11:5)

Paul's letter goes against the message that Allah gave to Isa, but you'll find Corinthians in the Bible placed as equal to the Divine message.

That's the corruption of which I speak.

I gather you don't much care for Paul huh?

I was thinking about making a topic concerning Paul and the conflicting views people have of him....

Heh ... no, not really a big fan of Paul. A bit too misogynistic for my tastes.

I agree ... he could be a topic all on his own.

I do not think that property is the correct term. Rather, Paul advocated for a relationship in which the man was the head and the woman was subservient. Women are no less objects by Paul's letter here than a worker who submits to his boss's authority is.

Furthermore, Paul goes onto say:

11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

In his letter to the Galatians (Chapter 3), Paul says:

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Hardly a misogynistic statement there. Now, certain teachings of Paul on women would appear to be contradictory to this verse -- what one must keep in mind, however, is the cultural context of Paul's letters. Let me begin by saying that I do not hold Paul as being on the same level as Jesus, and accept that Paul's teachings, while valuable, are not necessarily infallible. However, I have for the most part been able to reconcile all of his teachings with the teachings of Christ, merely by recognizing the cultural context of Paul's letters. In the culture of the Corinthians, for instance, men were not allowed to have long hair, nor women to have short hair. Also, men were not supposed to cover their heads in prayer, nor women to uncover their heads. Paul realized that, although these things may have had little absolute moral significance, they were important to the Corinthians, and it was necessary to allow them to keep some of their traditions to keep the peace. Observe 1st Corinthians, Chapter 8:

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are socalled gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Although Paul here is speaking specifically of eating meat, these are wise words and apply to many other aspects of life as well. In the culture of the Corinthians, men having long hair or covering their head in prayer would be seen as sinful, and they would likely feel guilty, as well as divide their church. Likewise, for women to have short hair or uncover their head in prayer, the same would be true. Even though covering or uncovering one's head in itself does nothing to separate us from God, just as eating or not eating meat in itself does nothing to separate us from God, if it divides the Church, makes us feel guilty, or causes others to fall into sin, then it can separate us from God.

To cite a modern day example: my father was pastor of a church in the United States about a decade ago. This church had a United States flag in it. My father saw this (rightly so, I think) as being quite innapropriate. But he knew fully well that to make an issue out of it would divide the church and would not in any way draw the church closer to God. It was better that the church remain united than it be divided over a trivial issue. Likewise, for women in Paul's time to, say, become pastors would have caused far too much division and hatred within the Church, even if there was nothing inherently wrong with women being leaders.

Well, if we're to talk about religious teachings being corrupted so as to become discriminatory towards women, I think Islam would qualify quite well. ;) From what I understand, very little is to be found in the Koran condoning the kind of treatment women get in Islam today.

Very true! In a lot of Islamic countries, women do seem to get the shaft based on Hadith. Once again, though, it's a great example and I'm glad you brought it up!

Hadith is the writings that concern the life of Muhammed and how he did things. The hadith was never to be canon and, as a matter of fact, Muhammed didn't even want it written down for fear that it would distract people from Qur'an.

Qur'an calls for the fair and equitable treatment of women and, in some ways, gives them more spiritual power than men - much like Torah does - but a lot of power mongering men have placed hadith on the same level as Qur'an and perverted the message.

One does not have to follow the Sunnah or the Hadith in order to be a good Muslim.

Does the Qu'ran (or any part of Islamic Theology) ever state that?

That's interesting -- I did not know that. So would Hadith be somewhat comparable to the Jewish Talmud? And what is Sunnah, then?

Well, of course. It's all throughout Qur'an in statements of authority over all other messages, however Qur'an doesn't specify anything concerning Hadith simply because Hadith was written after Muhammed's death and, thus, after the deliverance of Qur'an.

To answer the other, Sunnah is the compiled witnesses accounts of the life of Muhammed. It describes what he looked like, how he dressed, how he wore his hair, etc etc, and many of the world's Muslims strive to act and dress as he did, though this is not necessary.

Muslims do not need to ask themselves, "What Would Muhammed Do?" but rather must ask themselves "What Would Please Allah?"

And the fact that the Qu'ran states Allahs will rather than just a historical account (which is what the Sunnah seems to be, more or less)..........

Yea, see, that makes sense to me.

So, is there reasoning given by Islamic Leaders to follow the Sunnah so strictly?
(Just wondering as to the other side of the arugement)

Heh ... yeah, sadly, there are reasons stated and all of those reasons end up with nations like former Afghanistan, which is oppressive extremism. Not very good reasons, but people in power want to hold on to that power - even at the expense of their very souls.

Unfortunately, some of my under-educated and impoverished brothers and sisters buy in to their lies and strap a bomb to themselves in the belief that Allah will see their murdering the innocent as holy and just.

To get a bit more back on topic......

While I don't have a relgion really, I do have a form of faith, somthing that really doesn't have a label (I'll explain that later)

But I think that relgion and science can serve different purposes.

There are deffinatly some things that relgion should stay out of, and leave it to science to explain, thus taking away some fo relgions "power". They can work hand in hand on many, many things. And of course, faith should be left to relgion.
Science offers proof, while relgion does not, thus do they have differing purposes, but some that can be shared.

I agree that they serve various ends. I agree that science has done an effective job explaining the how of things, and the religion can often answer the question "for what end?"

I disagree with this statement. Science certainly offers a different kind of proof to its claims--one based on the consistency and reliability empirical data over time, corroborated by various sources. Religion, however, for those who are religious, offers its own set of "proofs," whether those proofs can be felt/seen tangibly (as those who believe in miracles may say), or whether those proofs are simply a deep understanding or sense of encounter with the transcendent that can't be captured with instruments and machines. But religion too can offer proof--it is just not proof that will be agreed upon by a majority of people.

You see, I would say what you seem to call "proof" I'd call self-reasurance.

Then define proof

Emprical Data.

Proof isn't just somthing that confirms what we want to belive, but rather confirms what we are indiferent to. You might see "X" event as proof that God exists, because you want to. I might just see it as an event, having no real reason to want it to be true, nor any reason for it not to be true.

Is science totally free from that? Aren't scientists as EAGER to believe that the "proof" of fossils confirms evolution, as the religious fanatic is eager to believe that the "proof" of a miracle confirms the existence of God?

What does objective "proof" have to do with subjective "indifference?"

Quite a bit actually. If you see a bais when looking at "proof" might you see it the way you want to, rather than the way it is presented?

It seems that you are saying that something is only proof if the person viewing the proof does not have some previous disposition to "reading" the proof a particular way.

Let's say a group of people look up and swear that they see and hear Jesus talking to them. In that crowd, is an agnostic, who subsequently converts to Christianity. Might we say that the agnostic entered the situation without necessarily "wanting" to believe, but decided that the miracle "proved" the existence of God? In that case, a "religious" matter is proved to someone who was otherwise indifferent.

Let's take the opposite side. A scientist comes up with the theory of human behavior, and desperately wants to prove it. He tests everything objectively, using sound research methods, and interprets the results in light of his theory. He enters the situation wanting to prove his theory right.

In the first example, is the atheist's use of proof "scientific" because he did not enter the situation with a bias? And in the second, is the scientist's use of proof "religious" because he enters the situation with bias?

These particular examples may seem strange, but I think the overall point is quite common. Namely, I think that there are plenty of people who hold their beliefs (or convert to various religions) not because they are LOOKING to hold those beliefs, but simply because they believe that the proof that they have seen/heard leads them to believe what they believe. Conversely, I think there are plenty of scientists who carry out fine scientific work with heavy personal bias. In fact, is not the scientific method SET UP in order to enter a situation with some sense of bias--looking to prove something? After all, we were all taught that a very important part of the scientific method is to produce a hypothesis--something that we are looking to prove right or wrong.

Compare this with a spiritual searcher. Take the character of "Siddhartha", in the novel with the same name by Herman Hesse. Siddhartha seeks tries on various religious practices not in order to prove which one is right, but simply in an effort to seek the truth.