Religious Teachings

You shouldn't trust organized religion of any kind because acceptance en masse always leads to the corruption of the original teachings. Here is how religion works. A belief, philosophy or subjective fact dependent upon faith is proposed and then propagated to the masses. If they are widely accepted, they become useful tools for social and political control. Typically, the original teachings of religion are transmogrified in the process - often for the political control itself - which, through a gradual and insidious process of cultural, social and traditional influence, becomes the paradigm. You see this in the emperor Constantine the Great's politicization of Christianity and the Nicaean creed. You see it with Emperor Wu Ti's promotion of Confucianism and interest in Taoism. Shintoism was named as such due to a need for a distinction between ancient Japanese cultural ritualistic festivals during the planting and harvesting seasons and the newly introduced Buddhism from India. It was then incorporated into the mythological instruction of Japanese youth through the legends of the Nihongi and Kojiki by the Royal family.

Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism and Taoism

Confucianism and Taoism were two different schools of thought developed around the same time in China during the Warring States period. A time when the citizens were exhausted with the constant battles between feudal states. Both believed in a heavenly way. That nature or the universe as a heavenly way rather than deities. They had two different approaches to their teachings of the heavenly way. Taoism was passive; allow nature to take its course, to interfere causes problems. Confucianism was active; nature must be harnessed. Buddhism, also originally without deities, was an attempt to find the middle way, something in between asceticism and indulgence. Its primary doctrine was the Four Noble Truths, which is to achieve enlightenment through the acknowledgement, understanding and dissolution of suffering through letting go. Shintoism was syncretistic cultural celebrations during the planting and harvesting seasons in Japan. It existed for centuries without a name, until Buddhism migrated there creating the need for a name to distinguish it from that. Though deities were incorporated into these celebrations they weren't Gods in the traditional occidental sense, resembling more what we would liken to spirits. These spirits were dead ancestors who would inhabit various objects like mirrors, swords, trees or mountains. Anything, really. The spirits were interchangeable. The importance in the Shinto festivals was community. Coming together to help one another.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism

Judaism is often thought of as Biblical and separate from Christianity. Actually though they both come from, at least in part, the Bible, Judaism as known today is the separation of Jewish tradition formed when the religious leaders of Jesus's day finally got the opportunity to exploit the sociopolitical power they had long coveted formerly possessed by the Aaronic priests. The catalyst for this was the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE and the subsequent dissolution of the Aaronic priesthood. Jewish thinking, as presented by the Bible had always been prone to pagan influence, especially after the infiltration of Greek philosophy through the influence of Alexander the Great in 332 B CE. Christianity wasn't the separation of Jewish or Biblical teachings many perceive it as today, it was actually a continuation of those teachings. After all, Jesus was the long awaited Jewish messiah. Christianity itself became corrupt in the same way with the influence of Constantine the Great in 325 CE.

Islam and Mormonism were, respectively, an aberration and addition to the Biblical teachings. With Islam the sociopolitical protestation of Muhammad, and with Mormonism the, well, sort of delusional cultural appropriation of Joseph Smith.

This (and the avatar) appear to be a verbatim copy of an opening post made on another forum, just over a year ago: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/religious-teachings.166517/

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

This (and the avatar) appear to be a verbatim copy of an opening post made on another forum, just over a year ago: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/religious-teachings.166517/

As well as other places. Did you notice, during your intrepid search, that at those other places they responded with thoughts?

13 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

As well as other places. Did you notice, during your intrepid search, that at those other places they responded with thoughts?

Yes, some did. What is it you wish to discuss here?

(By the way how nice to read text written by a real person for a change, rather than a chatbot.)

Edited October 23Oct 23 by exchemist

14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes, some did. What is it you wish to discuss here?

What I posted here. You can go to those other places and discuss it but I'm posting here and now. Assuming that, remarkably unlike those other places, those responses are well thought out.

14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

(By the way how nice to read text written by a real person for a change, rather than a chatbot.)

Yeah, that certainly seems to be controversial of late. Some people have nothing better to do. I can do it either way. Chatbots just mimic what people would say if they were a great deal better at it. So, I took some of my text I had generated and some that I had written with my own and and the Chat detector couldn't detect it. It said they were both AI generated.

34 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

What I posted here.

What you posted looks like a lecture rather than an attempt at conversation. It's all opinion. Discussing your opinion isn't as interesting as you might think. We're a science discussion forum with a Religion section, and we still like some evidential support for any claims or arguments.

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What you posted looks like a lecture rather than an attempt at conversation. It's all opinion. Discussing your opinion isn't as interesting as you might think. We're a science discussion forum with a Religion section, and we still like some evidential support for any claims or arguments.

Everything we say is opinion and none of that particularly original. The opinion of science or the opinion of religion indoctrinated, adopted and repeated. In science and theology. The evidential support you ask for, then, would only be someone else's opinion, no? You present a veiled attempt or contempt on the subject which is obviously nothing more than ideological fixation stemming from a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic society. You probably see a conflict with science and religion and want that justified without having to actually do anything. That is neither science or religion.

But let's put that to the test.

Can science determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the soul is real and exists? I know I can. But can science? I have no doubt that it can, but your typical attempt to address the issue by Googling it may not produce the results you would like. With that, though, I can help you.

Let's do this, huh?

Edited October 23Oct 23 by Pathway Machine

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

Let's do this, huh?

Why when it's off topic ?

Though I have to admit that after four posts I have been unable to divine (pun intended) what the topic is.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why when it's off topic ?

Though I have to admit that after four posts I have been unable to divine (pun intended) what the topic is.

Religion

Edited October 23Oct 23 by Pathway Machine

10 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Religion

Yup

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

Everything we say is opinion and none of that particularly original. The opinion of science or the opinion of religion indoctrinated, adopted and repeated. In science and theology. The evidential support you ask for, then, would only be someone else's opinion, no? You present a veiled attempt or contempt on the subject which is obviously nothing more than ideological fixation stemming from a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic society. You probably see a conflict with science and religion and want that justified without having to actually do anything. That is neither science or religion.

But let's put that to the test.

Can science determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the soul is real and exists? I know I can. But can science? I have no doubt that it can, but your typical attempt to address the issue by Googling it may not produce the results you would like. With that, though, I can help you.

Let's do this, huh?

The issue of whether there is evidence for the existence of the soul seems to be a quite different topic from that of your opening post, which seems to be about the social causes and effects of religions.

What are you trying to do? It looks as if you want to have a pop at science, by asserting some sort of equivalence between it and religion. Is that it?

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

Everything we say is opinion and none of that particularly original. The opinion of science or the opinion of religion indoctrinated, adopted and repeated. In science and theology. The evidential support you ask for, then, would only be someone else's opinion, no? You present a veiled attempt or contempt on the subject which is obviously nothing more than ideological fixation stemming from a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic society. You probably see a conflict with science and religion and want that justified without having to actually do anything. That is neither science or religion.

What I read here is frustration that you have no evidence to back up your arguments, so you seek to devalue the mountains of evidence that support every mainstream scientific theory.

I don't see a conflict with science and religion. Science can safely keep asking for supportive evidence before acknowledging religious beliefs. If it's supernatural, science isn't really the right tool to use.

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

But let's put that to the test.

Can science determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the soul is real and exists? I know I can. But can science? I have no doubt that it can, but your typical attempt to address the issue by Googling it may not produce the results you would like. With that, though, I can help you.

Let's do this, huh?

You'd have to define what you mean by soul, but it sounds supernatural, something we guess at but can't actually observe, measure, or quantify. For scientific purposes, I'd start with psychology. Physics and biology agree that what you call a "soul" doesn't seem to exist. Personality? Character? Psychology might have some answers.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Yup

Are you excited at the prospect of the task at hand, Studiot? C'mon, it's science and the soul . . . don't hold your breath, we have to hurry. Ideologues in the name of scientism are notoriously religious . . . I'll do it for you.

The English word soul means to bind. The ancient pagans would bind the hands and feet of the dead due to superstitious fear of the undead I suppose you could say harming the living. This would eventually change to the idea that souls were bound in bodies of water. When translating the Hebrew and Greek (Nephesh and psyche; I would leave links but they've made it so I can no longer do that, speaking of superstitious fear) was problematic because the exact meaning of those words were difficult to express in English. In a literal sense the Biblical soul is the life, blood, life experiences of any breathing creature. The Hebrew word literally means "breather." So, it could be and often is translated as life but in a broader sense.

The first thing, then, in determining the falsifiability of the soul is to determine what or more accurately which version of "soul" you mean.

OP seems to be advancing the thesis that religion tends to be appropriated and corrupted by secular power structures. I agree. Most here would agree. So what is there to constitute a chat topic? We already have threads debating on the existence of an incorporeal soul. And on the epistemic limits of science. And the OP offers the standard preemptive ad hommie against anyone who respects the scientific methods. So why should anyone bother with you, @Pathway Machine ? Your mind's made up.

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What I read here is frustration that you have no evidence to back up your arguments, so you seek to devalue the mountains of evidence that support every mainstream scientific theory.

Wow. Really? I thought I simply posted a brief informative article on the subject of religion on a forum devoted to that subject.

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I don't see a conflict with science and religion. Science can safely keep asking for supportive evidence before acknowledging religious beliefs. If it's supernatural, science isn't really the right tool to use.

I agree.

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You'd have to define what you mean by soul, but it sounds supernatural, something we guess at but can't actually observe, measure, or quantify. For scientific purposes, I'd start with psychology. Physics and biology agree that what you call a "soul" doesn't seem to exist. Personality? Character? Psychology might have some answers.

How is it that if they can't observe, measure or quantify it they can determine its nonexistence?

37 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The issue of whether there is evidence for the existence of the soul seems to be a quite different topic from that of your opening post, which seems to be about the social causes and effects of religions.

What are you trying to do? It looks as if you want to have a pop at science, by asserting some sort of equivalence between it and religion. Is that it?

No, you only think that I want to have a pop at science (God forbid). I have nothing against science or religion but the discussion of them both, especially in this context, is more often than not ideological. It isn't science and it isn't religion.

3 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Wow. Really? I thought I simply posted a brief informative article on the subject of religion on a forum devoted to that subject.

I agree.

How is it that if they can't observe, measure or quantify it they can determine its nonexistence?

No, you only think that I want to have a pop at science (God forbid). I have nothing against science or religion but the discussion of them both, especially in this context, is more often than not ideological. It isn't science and it isn't religion.

I’m delighted to hear it. But what is the context you refer to? Has one been established so far?

Edited October 23Oct 23 by exchemist

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

What context is that?

This one.

9 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Wow. Really? I thought I simply posted a brief informative article on the subject of religion on a forum devoted to that subject.

Definitely not the way it came off to me. Your mileage may vary.

9 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

How is it that if they can't observe, measure or quantify it they can determine its nonexistence?

You seem too reasonable to use an obvious strawman argument like this. Science hasn't determined the soul doesn't exist, it just classifies it as supernatural because they can't find one no matter how much people believe. Similarly, I don't have to claim pixies don't exist when I can simply ask you to show me one before I agree with you.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

This (and the avatar) appear to be a verbatim copy of an opening post made on another forum, just over a year ago: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/religious-teachings.166517/

Well spotted, I knew I recognised that avatar. He ended up on ignore very quickly on that forum.

39 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Wow. Really? I thought I simply posted a brief informative article on the subject of religion on a forum devoted to that subject.

The point is

This is not a blog site.

And this is not your blog.

Ask a specific question or state a proposal for discussion.

This is what everyone has been telling you.

And was perma banned quickly too

Just now, studiot said:

The point is

This is not a blog site.

And this is not your blog.

Ask a specific question or state a proposal for discussion.

This is what everyone has been telling you.

Revelation in space / Pathway machine, does not lend himself to available knowledge, history or read the room in anyway.

41 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

I simply posted a brief informative article

No you didn't, you posted a rambling screed. Make A point and posters will discuss it.

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

The point is

This is not a blog site.

And this is not your blog.

Ask a specific question or state a proposal for discussion.

This is what everyone has been telling you.

Thank you. Sorry for taking your time.

11 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Well spotted, I knew I recognised that avatar. He ended up on ignore very quickly on that forum.

Still idiots.

4 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Still idiots

On that forum? How would you know? They banned you remember?

Did you have a point btw? Why don't you outline your biggest hitter argument?

Let's hear it.

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

This one.

You mean this forum? Then there is no reason I can see to think ideology will be prevalent.

But your question about the soul, if that is what you want to discuss rather than your opening post, is indeed strange, as @Phi for All indicates. Surely you must be aware that science deals with the physical world, in terms of reproducible observations of nature. I am not aware anyone has put forward a physical, testable hypothesis for the soul, of the kind that science can get to grips with. If that is so, science will have nothing to say on the subject: it is not a scientific idea.

If however you have some different idea of the soul from the traditional one, an idea that predicts reproducibly observable phenomena, I’d be intrigued if you can explain it.

5 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Everything we say is opinion and none of that particularly original.

No, not so much. Opinions are subjective. That which is objective is not opinion.

The opinion of science or the opinion of religion indoctrinated, adopted and repeated. In science and theology. The evidential support you ask for, then, would only be someone else's opinion, no?

No, the e.g. results of an experiment are available for all to see, and (in principle) recreate. Even as far as religious discussions go, it would be in the form of documents everyone could read.

Can science determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the soul is real and exists?

Science asks for credible objective evidence and thus far nobody has been able to provide any.

I know I can. But can science? I have no doubt that it can, but your typical attempt to address the issue by Googling it may not produce the results you would like. With that, though, I can help you.

Well, then, let’s see it. Just claiming you have it means nothing. It starts with defining what the soul is.

How is it that if they can't observe, measure or quantify it they can determine its nonexistence?

Who, precisely is making this claim? AFAIK science is agnostic on the matter. Saying there’s no evidence of something is not a definitive statement of nonexistence. The burden of proof, however, is on those claiming that it exists. Other than a couple individuals who looked into it, I suspect that it’s a non-factor, not worthy of most scientists’ time, and theists overstate any kind of science interest in the question