Just like Imagination is the interim for understanding, Religion is an interim for understanding. We try to grasp something beyond our grasp using other people's conception of the truth. It is from there that we acquire knowledge.
So I agree that ignorance causes religion, but religion is the first step to understanding very difficult concepts.
What utter nonsense. Our imaginations and religions give us absolutely little if no understanding of the world around us and therefore cannot be a step towards understanding simple or complex concepts.
I need to just do something but I'll be back.
Nice question. I was following the conversation on the other thread.
My opinion. In an attempt to explain things around them, religious beliefs were born. So ignorance begat religion. But continued belief in religion after facts are known, is a continuance of or reverting back to ignorance. So religion relies on ignorance for its survival.
Hey Mark, I would say "chosen ignorance"(picking not to learn) is what causes "Religion".
As for which came first, the chicken or the egg? I'll go with the Egg. The Egg came in many different forms, long before Chicken ever existed.
No Mark. And I kind of take offense at the way your question is worded. I don't know about all religions, but where I come from it is simply a staple of life. You don't think about it. You just assume you are part of the religion, no matter what your philosophy is, whether you participate in it or not, or whether you agree with the crowd or not. It doesn't matter because that is what you were born into. You know that they say you have to accept the faith, but you also assume being born into the religion makes it an integral part of you.
People are not ignorant simply because they don't consider the need to take a clear look at what they profess to believe. OK, well maybe not knowing is the definition of ignorant. But I still don't like the word. It's offensive. You were not ignorant of that fact when you chose it.
Strange that you would personalize such a broad question.
I didn't find it pointed at you personally.
Additionally, it seems the connotations you have for the word "ignorance" are deeply personal as well.
If you were to drop all the personalization, I wonder if you would feel any differently?
I don't know Daniel. I identified with christianity for quite a few years. I don't particularly like to be be called ignorant and I tend to assume I should give others the courtesy of not calling them ignorant too. So, I can safely say, whether I took it personally or not, I would consider it offensive. I know this, because before I stepped away from christianity I was offended when christians insulted atheists. It is simply who I am.
But I did add the smiley face for a reason. I wasn't really mad, just pointing out that a better choice of word could have been used.
I was devout for almost 5 decades. So apparently I'm wearing the other shoe. I'm not pointing fingers, either, just observing. I tend to not stab in the dark as much as just observe and comment. However, I have hot buttons and I've been known to spew a bit. That's all I'm saying.
You're right. I was a bit of a twit. I had just come out of a thread where a christian was calling non christians heathens, Then here I find an atheist calling christians ignorant. I was in a mood. Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out.
Mark is picking on more than just the christians in this thread. His question covers all religions...
I am non denominational.
All the same to me..........
I do know this. But having been religious, I would assume that I would have fallen into the category he is talking about.
Anyway. It doesn't matter.
Yes, I agree. Mark may do his share of picking, but it is always amazing to me that so many around here are so busy taking offense to his wording that they can't even see the shear power of the evidence he brings with him. "I hated the trip to the woods because all the friggin' trees got in the way."
In actual fact, Mark has taken me to task a few times as well. After I got over myself, I sat back in my chair and laughed. Then I wrote some smart arse comment back. I think he has a great sense of humor and deadly tongue for accuracy. He's such a bitch that way.
Well, really, when did ignorance have anything to do with a religion? There are plenty of people I've met who haven't got a whit of Jesus in them, or any other god for that matter, and they are as smart as a pet rock. Ignorant of their own surroundings. The only point here is that ignorance wants to be satisfied, and therefore, religion seems to have been invented to satisfy it. Absolutely ironic that religion also seems to perpetuate ignorance as a way of control, domination and manipulation in order to keep the religion "pure." (Mysteries of god and the like).
NO I get what she means. Should we use ignorance. Obviously a child would be ignorant of what makes him think, he probably will be told that he thinks with his head but his understanding would be at best theta.
The beta level would come at 12, where logic is already being used.
IS it ignorance.
The thing is, imagination and symbolism is really a stage of the developement of awareness. A child grows through an imaginative stage before it develops knowledge through increased observation.
It is the same with the human race, the more "imaginative" a culture is, the less educated it is. SO the mind attempts to bridge the knowledge gap with imagination.
That said, the imagination is the bridge. Religion has many logic gaps, not that it does not speak some aspects of the whole picture. It does, but the logic gaps make it open for imagination to bridge that logic.
Doesn't that put the cart before the horse, so to speak?
How can a child use their imaginations unless they begin observing the world around them, first?
From where would you get that notion? If so, then imagination decreases with increased education. That's not true at all.
Sorry to say this, but a baby learns inside the womb and from the mother. The outside world doesn't even exist, except in their imaginative thoughts. The thoughts running through a infant's mind, like what exactly do they think about is only relevant to imagination, because there is no real observational knowledge gained. What a baby learns from it's mother has been studied and tested.
My proof would be my sister's daughter. She is exceptionally smart, only because my sister would sit and listen to music, and read books to her while in the womb. Being smart comes easy for her, unlike her sister who has to work at it(she didn't get the same treatment- my sister never did the same things). The sisters are 5 years apart.
Just my take on what she said.
Actually, I was stating that a baby/infant would use their imagination, even if it wasn't consciously doing so. The imagination is consciousness in action.
What level of that consciousness is unknown. You were saying that a baby/infant/child, either or, would have to use observation before it could use imagination. And, that would not be true. That's how I took your statement.
Therefore, I wasn't agreeing with you.
Normally we see thing pretty close. I am curious of one thing that you said, just to clarify, what do you consider observation?
Observation would be reality, outside of the womb world. If you're presenting a line of thinking that a baby/infant has eyes, so they can see, then let's just say that their sight isn't functional to make observations.
It's entire world is the womb and it's perception would be solely based on touch(hands and feet and skin). Until it's eyes are fully functional, which isn't until birth(I think, not exactly sure). I'm not a doctor. I'm just going by what I've learned.
I hope that helps clear up things.
So you consider touch and hearing observation if I am understanding correctly. OK. That is all I was curious about. Thanks.
Oh. And the doctor told me when my kids were born, that a baby's eyes takes about a month to fully focus correctly.
The brain doesn't even properly develop until at least week 25-28 and does not have the integral neural circuitry in place until the third trimester. How is that possible then?
you know, I wish I could educate you on the developmental stages of an infant and
history but I just don't have the time.
Yes, it must be a daunting task to skim over google searches to find crackpot sites.
it is hard to what you do yes. but there are books, beel. you could go to the library and read up of developmental psychology.
I can give you at least two reasons.
But they're based on the laws of nature plus that "ignorant" "religion" of Christianity (as you so ineloquently refer to it), so I doubts ye has the constitution to consider them. So I does, and will, refrain.
let me clarify.
First came the "primordial soup"
Then came a virus.
Amoeba came next.
It became an invertebrate.
Then came the vertebrate,
(Fish and the like, you know).
These eventually crawled out onto dry land and became reptiles,
(some of which adapted to bird like creatures.)
These became chickens, which laid the eggs,
And there you have it.
A brief history of a chicken.
I should get and honorary doctorate for this.
And they say I don't understand the concept. BAHHH, I say!
Chicken got evolved as did the human beings.
How about this one, Mark: "Do "anti-religious" statements carry any weight with people of a "religious" mind-set?
Another Good Question !
Good grief no. But there are plenty of "undecideds" that take note. I have converted a few though.
Oh - and Cecelia asked me if I would start this - I rarely start threads myself.
Well played...and honest, Mark....Kudos!
Hey Mark. I've been thinking about this. You told me when I first got here this was a giant game, vying for converts. Something like Risk. I figure my conversion wasn't a coup. Probably not like taking any big or strategic territories. Maybe more like Yakutsk. But I guess I lost my cards. Do I give them to you or the christians?
Ewe lot r smart.
Ignorance apparently is the mainstay of humanity. What we don't understand or unravel must have superstition and magic added to it, it seems. That kind of thinking, as we see by experience, is deadly.
Can't answer the original question, but I'll pray about it.
I always liked this one from Huckleberry Finn.
"There was a cross in the left boot-heel made with big nails, to keep off the devil." (his track)
That's a little like asking whether linguistics causes ignorance. Linguistics doesn't cause ignorance, but many linguists do.
"a planet so devastated by global warming that it’s no longer recognizable as the Earth we once inhabited." Science is doing a lot to prevent the problem?
Our ancestors resorted to mysticism to explain phenomenon, and as society progresses, religion became an organized world view with hierarchy embedded in institutions. The birth of religion is inevitable as society progresses. I won't call our ancestors ignorant, as science explain facts, many stay away from religion.
That assumes that religion and science actually occupy the same province, and that both are concerned with factually explaining phenomena in reality. However, a lot of religion addresses how we feel about things, and not so much what the world is made of.
They are intertwined. They were once inseparable. Philosophy, religion and science were one and the same. To the extent that they no longer are, religion got the emotional impact topics. For instance, awe and reverence, both of them feelings some people need to experience to feel whole, are more easily accomodated by religion.
Yeah - only religious people think this.
So religion is a sign of knowledge not ignorance.
Well, it is associated with a bigger brain. It was a sign that humans want to understand the forces that shaped them. Okay for you Paar...force even if Elohim means THE COLLECTIVE G-D.
I'm a Christian but I do agree with you that Religion breeds ignorance. It a sad thing because people say that they believe, but no one takes the time to even read about what they believe. People think that Jesus Christ is supposed to only be your best friend. That's for another time though
The WRONG religion undoubtedly leads to ignorance. The RIGHT religion will lead to enlightenment and eternal happiness.
To find out for yourself, send 10% of your pre-tax income to:
The Right Religion
c/o Ron Montgomery
P.O. Box 666
Act now and receive a special bonus gift - The Right Religion's guide to spousal abuse and pedophilia for dummies.
(just pay separate shipping and handling)
Heard that there was a guy that brought all animals that were said to be on the Ark, as is in the bible, to America. Now that is real ecological and would illustrate the divide between religion and natural reality.
Word of Revelation from the Creator-God is a source of knowledge for the human beings.
Many religions ensnare their "followers" at a young age, using the youth's ignorance to their advantage. However, ignorance doesn't cause religion. Religion hinders development, keeping you from achieving your full potential. So I'm going to have to say that religion causes ignorance.
The major difference between religion and science is this: one tends to a person's emotional life, the other to his intellect. Both science and religion tell a story. The question when listening to a scientific story is: is it falsifiable, and can it be proved false? If it is falsifiable but cannot be proved false, it might be a good story. The question when listening to a religious story is: does it move me? If it does, then it is a good story.
You don't actually know what atheism is do you Parra?
Atheism is confusion and doubts;one may add to it Agnosticism Skepticism; yet the sum total remains the same; they are certain of nothing.
I notice that this thread has turned into all the usual arguments.
To go back on topic, I have always considered that religions are based on the sum of some (usually) ancient knowledge, myth, philosphy, and the reasoning of its day - put into a form that the uninitiated can understand.
Kinda making some higher level of thinking into adult stories in the way that adults do the same for adult thinking for childen and make childrens stories.
The function is an issue - what is done with that 'higher' knowledge and the people who do it. To me it seems to always have had a double function of informing and providing some kind of moral leadership on the one hand hand and as a means of control on the other. Usually a means of state control.
Today - it would appear that the allegorical nature of religion is not understood by a high proportion of each religion's followers. I consider that this is directly the fault of dumbing down education and the low quality of educators in these fields, the blind leading hte blind.
So I do not consider that religion is caused by ignorance - but I do believe that taking figuratively the often good advice of the base religion that leads to all the division, death and destruction IS ignorance personified.
(in whatever original form it was before it was a chicken)
animals were formed first then they laid eggs.
a no brainer to a creatorist
bit of a stumper to atheists though.
Does Ignorance Cause Religion or Vice Versa?
Neither ! Birth into the physical realm causes ingnoranc.
If "YOU" (whoever you are) (anybody) are ignorant ?
Would you (WE) have enough inteligence to know that YOU (WE) are ignorant?
by Cecilia6 years ago
The hilarious pattern of people in the forums is not realizing they are in the wrong genre.There is a scientific discussion and then the churchgoers who know nothing about science pipes in.Then the churchgoers want to...
by kaloomba5 years ago
Too often I see that people want to blame religion alone for causing wars. However, I believe that ignorance and a lack of education or knowledge is behind everything from poverty and jealousy, to crime and all-out war....
by paarsurrey5 years ago
I think ignorance and atheism both go hand in hand.
by Jerad Maplethorpe3 years ago
I want to start a conversation with all faiths about belief. I'm particularly concerned with understanding how people from different faiths view each other.I'm not religious in the typical sense of the word, although I...
by paarsurrey5 years ago
Human ignorance in physical matters is removed when confirmed/verified by the Work of the Creator-God, commonly known as nature; it is useful in worldly matters. Human ignorance in ethical, moral and physical is removed...
by Julie Grimes6 years ago
As written by, and believed by- British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Who wrote the 1927 pamphlet, Why I Am Not A Christian."He writes;"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.