Black Dog

To answer the original questions:
You almost answered this question yourself: it is how we are brought up, our conditioning. Read anything about, for instance, the 17th century, and you'll see that their religious views, whilst extreme by Christian standards, were absolutely genuine: God was omnipresent, and the devil was everywhere. In youth, we tend to look for things bigger than ourselves: a gang, club, military organisation, cult of celebrity. We're impressionable but usually unscarred by life as yet. In middle age, we tend to realise how mad the world is, but by then we're more individualistic. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact to swallow to believe that this is all there is: we'd all like, deep down, something solid, never changing, steadfast and far bigger than ourselves or humanity. And something that makes sense- unlike humanity. Traditionally, God was that answer: some deny this and instead attempt to explain the universe by pretending to understand quantum physics, which may satisfy the logic of the mind, but does nothing whatsoever to satisfy the soul or to explain the ghost in the human machine. The answers quantum physics etc give us are about as satisfying as "Deep Thought's" "42" when asked the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

There is far more to it than that. It is about satisfying the deepest insecurities of mankind: most of all, the terrible awareness that life is brief and we are ephemeral. It is about explaining the unexplainable. Later, it became a source of social control: religion begat law, not the other way around. Once we used morality, which at least requires one to use and develop one's conscience: now we use law and no thought processes whatsoever: if it's legal, it is deemed OK. Legal and moral, though, are not the same thing.

All religions- every one I've studied, even satanism, spring from this desire to explain that which we do not (and cannot) know. Plus, even science cannot satisfy one vital question, one known as the "prime mover". If a sequence of events started the universe, which was first, and which started that off? If God created it all, who created God? Religion allows us to say "God was always there". Science tells us about the Big Bang, but cannot explain what triggered it and what was there before. Like a vast row of dominos, no matter how many, someone or something has to push over the first. To some, God is that person or thing.

See above, about how religion became a system of social control using hell and damnation or whatever as the big stick, and heaven as the carrot. However, whilst I'm an atheist myself (albeit a honorary Jew- Thanks Vera), I do not believe that personal involvement in religion can be corrupted: it is militant or conversionist religions that are deeply flawed. If non believers are in trouble when they meet God, then leave them be: they'll get theirs from God himself. I'm sure that the God Christ talked about saw it this way.

Law and secularist realities have corrupted the established religions as those who do not understand what they profess to believe in attempt to twist it for their own ends. Priests of all kinds are often just as guilty as their polar opposites, politicians.

vera

I do not know the answer to this, as I do not know who, when and how made the demonstration, on what cases etc. Perhaps the parameters were set wrong - I have no idea. And I cannot comment on something I do not know.

I do personally know of many cases where it does work. And again, I am certain we will know in the end.
I agree with the last statement, in part. For instance, for Reiki healers knowlege is not REQUIRED, because the person doesn't heal, Reiki does. Now, don't get me wrong, I think expanding knowlege is needed, when a person makes it his business to do healing; because rarely the healer uses only one technique all the time. So Reiki healer of 3rd level and higher - yes. But if you become Reiki healer for yourself and yours, there is no requirement for great learning, unless you want to.

As to understanding - here is another field where you and I think differently. I hold that the wider your information basis the better you may understand and make informed decision. It doesn't matter that some technique you don't understand the mechanism that makes it tick. There are more dots to connect within your perception, the wider your experience. Things connect that you never before noticed, and mey take you to a very diferent reasoning than without it.
Now where have I claimed he should? I am for NOT DENYING what you do not understand, not RECOMMENDING. Is it only I that can see the difference? Or perhaps I do not explain myself well?
Absolutely. But truth is only after it was established as one. Claiming something is true because you couldn't prove otherwise is... premature.

Black Dog

Truth often derives from unorthodoxy, heresy and going against the established thought at a given time. History is full of those who attempted to establish a truth but were shouted down. Truth is as much a matter of timing as anything else!

There are many things still not explained by science. Does this make science wrong? No: it merely establishes that our understanding is far from complete and (happily), there is still much to find out, much we may never know, and that science - as should be abundantly clear- is far from infallible. As are all arenas of human endeavour.

Celticguy

Keats stated in his famous poem " truth is beauty, and beauty truth", this I suppose is a reference to truth as being what looks good, meaning what works the best, and this can only be delivered by proof and evidence.

If there is such thing as "beauty" then it's science and (sometimes art and science together i.e. music).

vera

Absolutely. I was pointing out that claiming something is WRONG because you cannot explain it (yet, perhaps) is not truth.

Proving it's wrong makes it truth.

So conclusion such as in the first sentence shall not be made until proof is found. It good that many things are not yet clear, it allows space for growth and development.

gus

1. The most various ways. It exists only by faith.

2. Concept of religion ... "1 [U] belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp the belief that they created the universe and gave human beings a spiritual nature which continues to exist after the death of the body. 2 [C] a particular system of faith and worship based on religious belief: _the Christian/Jewish/Hindu religion_ o _practise one's religion_. 3 [sing] a controlling influence on one's life; a thing that one feels very strongly about: _Football is like a religion for Bill_ o _I approve of being punctual but she makes a religion of it._" Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, fifth edition (1995).

3. There's a lot of false religions based on the Christ.


You grew up into an environment. (As everyone else.) Even atheists have faith. I was an atheist (by birth), and my notion of nature came out of science, and my notion of right and wrong, out of philosophy.

To follow priests, imams, rabbis indeed don't make any sense (to me); but then, well, it's each one's faith.

However, don't let your up-bringing muddle your view of the things. According to the definition of "religion", in the Oxford dictionary, religion has to do with death, and thinking death before having anything to do with "political"* systems. As well as with the human being, and the fact that we, human beings, are very interesting things among other ones we know, because we look at the sky and we think "wow! ... it's huge!". The corrupted part of religion has to do with the second definition, not with the first.

There are a few important things for us all, that you will find in all society systems: one of them is priesthood. You'll find priests, xamans (Africa), pajeh (holy men among Brasilian native populations). Priesthood is very important in mankind in what concerns medicine and protection from plagues ... The good ones are scientists.

There are three (main) kinds of priesthood: engeneering, medicine and law. In times of peace, engeneer build things, and take care of agriculture and water distribution, transportation, in times of war, they build war machines./

[Duty calls, I'll have to finish this later.]

-----
*from Greek word polis, forget the current meaning of Politics

gus

There are three (main) kinds of priesthood: engeneering, medicine and law. In times of peace, engeneers build things, and take care of agriculture and water distribution, transportation, in times of war, they build war machines. Doctors cure people. Lawyers and judges lead people.

Primitive forms of priesthood usually concentrate more than one function in one man. So, a priest/xaman/pajeh might be a doctor and a lawyer, for example. In non-sedentary societies, the engeneer is mixed with the lawyer as a leader, once he is the warrior, the one who masters weapons, traps, and such.

As well, in primitive communities, there's the old man, who's usually the supreme judge.

If you watch _Dances-with-wolves_, you'll see a very simple kind of society, and a beautiful story. (Very stereotypical, but very illustrative as well of some things I proposed.)