Religion in the Honorverse and potential issues

dscott8 wrote:

cthia wrote:I might add that a very important and profound function of a chaplain is to pray for lost souls about to 'pass on' into the afterlife.

On their deathbed, many of even the most devout non-believers have a change of heart, if time permitting, to rethink either their disbelief in an afterlife/God or to at least reconsider "rolling the Deity dice."

Having a chaplain that can at least go thru the motions is comforting at "certain" times.

Oh, and it's a good idea to be safe, whereby Christianity allows one to become "saved" by the grace of God even at the last minute, if one has the benefit of a two minute warning.

This is a form of Pascal's Wager, a logical fallacy based on appeal to consequences. If you "roll the deity dice", would the deity not know that it was done only out of last-minute self interest, and reject it? What if you roll the wrong deity's dice? What if you grab for Jesus like a life preserver and then find yourself facing Allah or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? On the other hand, if you didn't get a "two minute warning", would a just deity then condemn you to perdition just because you didn't have time to completely reverse your stance on a major ethical dilemma?

I think not.

*Pascal's Wager simply states that all of humanity wages against the existence or nonexistence of a deity, independent and regardless of one's final decision or reasons.

The fact that many nonbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs while on their deathbed has absolutely nothing to do with Pascal's Wager and everything to do with the fact that "death has a way of sharpening one's mental focus." And quite possibly because the guiding light really becomes quite visible at the end of life. Do note that there has never been a case on a deathbed where a believer suddenly exclaimed "I was wrong, there is no God."

*In effect, Pascal's Wager really illuminates one very profound and quite unavoidable fact...

The most important answer to life is whether God Is or God isn't.

And it correctly intimates that every human is a part of that wager - even if he has never rolled the dice or given consent to play.

On their deathbed, people don't suddenly become saved because they decide to nonchalantly roll the dice and magically see the light. They become saved because they first see the light and then decide to become saved. Because they suddenly see clearly, while free from the emotional and mental bonds and clutter of the unimportant tangibles that we have always put stock into.

God saves those who sincerely repents first and then sincerely asks God to save them. Do you really think that nonchalantly rolling the dice will fool a being who has Treecat Empathy x Infinity?

While on one's deathbed, I have no doubt that one is very sincere - now free from chat rooms and forums and life's inconsequentials. Perhaps even more so, while approaching one's appointed time of death, than the average Christian.

cthia wrote:I think not.

*Pascal's Wager simply states that all of humanity wages against the existence or nonexistence of a deity, independent and regardless of one's final decision or reasons.

By that standard, we also "wager" on the existence/nonexistence of Santa Claus and King Arthur. But it's not really a wager, it's simply a decision. One that should be made after a review of the evidence for both sides, but is often driven by cultural indoctrination.

cthia wrote:The fact that many nonbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs while on their deathbed has absolutely nothing to do with Pascal's Wager and everything to do with the fact that "death has a way of sharpening one's mental focus." And quite possibly because the guiding light really becomes quite visible at the end of life. Do note that there has never been a case on a deathbed where a believer suddenly exclaimed "I was wrong, there is no God."

I'd like to see the sources for your "fact that many nonbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs while on their deathbed" and "there has never been a case on a deathbed where a believer suddenly exclaimed 'I was wrong, there is no God.' " Especially the second contention, because I am wary of "never" or "always" when used to describe something as variable as humans.

cthia wrote:*In effect, Pascal's Wager really illuminates one very profound and quite unavoidable fact...

The most important answer to life is whether God Is or God isn't.

And it correctly intimates that every human is a part of that wager - even if he has never rolled the dice or given consent to play.

What makes that the "most important answer"? To me, the most important answer is whether I have done my best by the world at large. Pascal's whole (erroneous) point is that, even if you don't believe, you should act like you do, in the hope that you'll catch religion as one would catch the common cold. It's a manufactured case of special pleading that ignores the difficulty of simply deciding to believe tomorrow something you don't believe today.

cthia wrote:On their deathbed, people don't suddenly become saved because they decide to nonchalantly roll the dice and magically see the light. They become saved because they first see the light and then decide to become saved. Because they suddenly see clearly, while free from the emotional and mental bonds and clutter of the unimportant tangibles that we have always put stock into.

God saves those who sincerely repents first and then sincerely asks God to save them. Do you really think that nonchalantly rolling the dice will fool a being who has Treecat Empathy x Infinity?

I have no doubt that deathbed conversions happen, though I suspect that some percentage of them are akin to the convicted criminals who "get religion" in prison for the benefit of the parole board. And as you've probably figured out by now, I don't see any point in rolling the dice because I do not believe that any supreme being exists. I think religions were invented by primitive peoples to explain the unknown and give them a comforting sense of influence over their environment through prayers and sacrifice. Once religion got organized and codified, ambitious leaders used it as a tool to control the masses, and they still do today.

In an increasingly secular age, ordinary Americans know less and less about Christianity and much of what they claim to “know” is wrong, sometimes hilariously so.

This comes from a discussion about a Dominican friar on a campus being mistaken for a KKK clansman, complete with whip.

For example: science is based on the assumption that the cosmos is reasonable, and can be comprehended at least in part by humans.

Technology is based on the assumption that the cosmos is not arbitrary, so we get similar results each time we do the same thing.

History is based on the assumption that the past doesn't go changing on us.


So secularists insist that there is a war between science and Christianity. This requires that they ignore, for example, the low information and energy entropy in the universe and continual entropy increase by randomness. They also ignore experimental and observational results that don't fit their worldview, instead of using them to test that worldview.

dscott8 Wrote
I think religions were invented by primitive peoples to explain the unknown and give them a comforting sense of influence over their environment through prayers and sacrifice.

The biblical view is that most religions are subject to entropy, and degraded. One definition of sin is purposeful choosing to increase entropy in your own life.

and

dscott8 Wrote
By that standard, we also "wager" on the existence/nonexistence of Santa Claus and King Arthur. But it's not really a wager, it's simply a decision. One that should be made after a review of the evidence for both sides, but is often driven by cultural indoctrination.

Too true! most of us don't think about the basics on any reasonable basis. We choose a worldview by adopting someone's without testing it against reality.

and

To me, the most important answer is whether I have done my best by the world at large.

Can you say you have ALWAYS done your best? If not, why not? If there is no true god, what basis do you have for wanting to improve? The greek word for sin translates as "missing the mark".

AFAIK, most worldviews assume the cosmos, and have everything else coming from that by time and chance. But could we have science, technology, and history, except on a primitive level, without the above assumptions? Can anyone point to a worldview that assumes: the cosmos had a start in the past; basics don't change arbitrarily; and reason fits the universe, that historically didn't start from the Bible?

An example: if the physical universe really came from a quantum fluctuation, 1) why can we expect laws of nature, and 2) what reason is there to expect it to continue at all?

How could you live in a cosmos where "godly" whims determined what occurred? Where you were in reality subject to odin, thor, zeus, etc. Note that all of these assume a universe from which they originally came. Do humans, no matter what their theory is, live in practice assuming a universe where time and chance govern? Why, if it is truly time and chance, should the universe be reasonable


Are we getting a bit too deep for what is a discussion of the Honorverse, rather than reality


Hey, to be comprehensible, any fiction must at least resonate a little with reality to some extent


DW doesn't have discussions about the details of Honorverse religion(s), but does use the above three primary assumptions

cthia wrote:I think not.

*Pascal's Wager simply states that all of humanity wages against the existence or nonexistence of a deity, independent and regardless of one's final decision or reasons.

dscott8 wrote:By that standard, we also "wager" on the existence/nonexistence of Santa Claus and King Arthur. But it's not really a wager, it's simply a decision. One that should be made after a review of the evidence for both sides, but is often driven by cultural indoctrination.

The fallacy in your logic, which is responsible for a gaping disconnect, is your failure to accept or realize the most important question to mankind. A truth that Pascal's Wager spotlights! Bracket for a moment your {disbelief}. Can you honestly think of any other question with an affirmative answer that would have as profound of an effect on you and mankind, short of an insane response?

cthia wrote:The fact that many nonbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs while on their deathbed has absolutely nothing to do with Pascal's Wager and everything to do with the fact that "death has a way of sharpening one's mental focus." And quite possibly because the guiding light really becomes quite visible at the end of life. Do note that there has never been a case on a deathbed where a believer suddenly exclaimed "I was wrong, there is no God."

dscott8 wrote:I'd like to see the sources for your "fact that many nonbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs while on their deathbed" and "there has never been a case on a deathbed where a believer suddenly exclaimed 'I was wrong, there is no God.' " Especially the second contention, because I am wary of "never" or "always" when used to describe something as variable as humans.

I'll leave the former research to you. The cases are too numerous for you to miss by Google search.

As far as the latter - inference. As in, if there had been or ever will be any such case, it would have been or will be headlining news!

cthia wrote:*In effect, Pascal's Wager really illuminates one very profound and quite unavoidable fact...

The most important answer to life is whether God Is or God isn't.

And it correctly intimates that every human is a part of that wager - even if he has never rolled the dice or given consent to play.

dscott8 wrote:What makes that the "most important answer"? To me, the most important answer is whether I have done my best by the world at large. Pascal's whole (erroneous) point is that, even if you don't believe, you should act like you do, in the hope that you'll catch religion as one would catch the common cold. It's a manufactured case of special pleading that ignores the difficulty of simply deciding to believe tomorrow something you don't believe today.

cthia wrote:On their deathbed, people don't suddenly become saved because they decide to nonchalantly roll the dice and magically see the light. They become saved because they first see the light and then decide to become saved. Because they suddenly see clearly, while free from the emotional and mental bonds and clutter of the unimportant tangibles that we have always put stock into.

God saves those who sincerely repents first and then sincerely asks God to save them. Do you really think that nonchalantly rolling the dice will fool a being who has Treecat Empathy x Infinity?

dscott8 wrote:I have no doubt that deathbed conversions happen, though I suspect that some percentage of them are akin to the convicted criminals who "get religion" in prison for the benefit of the parole board. And as you've probably figured out by now, I don't see any point in rolling the dice because I do not believe that any supreme being exists. I think religions were invented by primitive peoples to explain the unknown and give them a comforting sense of influence over their environment through prayers and sacrifice. Once religion got organized and codified, ambitious leaders used it as a tool to control the masses, and they still do today.

You are seriously missing the point of Pascal's Wager and totally putting words in his mouth. Pascal IS NOT giving any pointers or lessons or tips or recommendations on how to act or choose, or even that one should act or choose. He is simply saying IT IS UNAVOIDABLE! He is making a simple neutral observation that just IS!

Pascal's inference stems from the fact that he recognizes and acknowledges as any sane person that the question of God's existence is the most profound question in existence! No, it is the ONLY profound question in existence. You are totally missing the boat.

dscott8 wrote:I have no doubt that deathbed conversions happen, though I suspect that some percentage of them are akin to the convicted criminals who "get religion" in prison for the benefit of the parole board. And as you've probably figured out by now, I don't see any point in rolling the dice because I do not believe that any supreme being exists. I think religions were invented by primitive peoples to explain the unknown and give them a comforting sense of influence over their environment through prayers and sacrifice. Once religion got organized and codified, ambitious leaders used it as a tool to control the masses, and they still do today.

As most humans before their deathbed, you are totally out of sync with reality. Impending death would have a way of refocusing your mental attention as well. You wouldn't be so concerned about a parole board when you're about to die in minutes. Or your tons of cash in an offshore account.

Nor would prisoners be. Death is the end of the race. Either you consider yourself to have won, lived a good life or you don't. No need to consider anyone (on Earth) except yourself. All ambiguities are now clear. No need for any more pretense. Therefore, if one doesn't believe in God while on their deathbed, why would he feel a need to even care to roll the dice? It would be as far from his mind as can be. Why would anyone fear someone he doesn't believe exists?

Answer me this. Aren't you a nonbeliever? Do you feel any need to take out spiritual insurance should the doctor tell you you've got hours to live? You personally have been a nonbeliever all of your life? Do you personally think it possible that you'll be changing your mind should you get a two minute warning unless something acted to clear away your congested thinking?

dscott8 wrote:By that standard, we also "wager" on the existence/nonexistence of Santa Claus and King Arthur. But it's not really a wager, it's simply a decision. One that should be made after a review of the evidence for both sides, but is often driven by cultural indoctrination.

I'm wading way out there...

You call betting on Santa a profound wager or a profound decision? What'll you lose, your Red Ryder BB gun? What'll you gain, your Red Ryder BB gun? King Arthur?

Neither of them can give you eternal life or eternal damnation.


If you can't see that "Does God exist?" is the most important question to mankind then this conversation is futile.

I won't commit myself to an exercise in futility. That's insane.

DDHv wrote:So secularists insist that there is a war between science and Christianity. This requires that they ignore, for example, the low information and energy entropy in the universe and continual entropy increase by randomness. They also ignore experimental and observational results that don't fit their worldview, instead of using them to test that worldview.

Never mind that it usually isn't the secular side of the debate that insists on there being a war between science and religion, your second statement does not seem to be connected to that or other statements you made in your post. Could you please explain the point you were trying to make?

dscott8 Wrote
I think religions were invented by primitive peoples to explain the unknown and give them a comforting sense of influence over their environment through prayers and sacrifice.

The biblical view is that most religions are subject to entropy, and degraded. One definition of sin is purposeful choosing to increase entropy in your own life.

This statement also seems to bear little relation to the statement dscott8 made. That the Bible makes statements about the inferiority of other religions is expected as many religions feature similar clauses in their holy texts; it is not a statement that can be used to prove that the christian religion is not entirely man-made.

AFAIK, most worldviews assume the cosmos, and have everything else coming from that by time and chance. But could we have science, technology, and history, except on a primitive level, without the above assumptions? Can anyone point to a worldview that assumes: the cosmos had a start in the past; basics don't change arbitrarily; and reason fits the universe, that historically didn't start from the Bible?

Yes.

An example: if the physical universe really came from a quantum fluctuation, 1) why can we expect laws of nature, and 2) what reason is there to expect it to continue at all?

Regarding 1: We can expect some regularity to emerge once the universe cools sufficiently.
2: No reason whatsoever.

How could you live in a cosmos where "godly" whims determined what occurred? Where you were in reality subject to odin, thor, zeus, etc. Note that all of these assume a universe from which they originally came. Do humans, no matter what their theory is, live in practice assuming a universe where time and chance govern? Why, if it is truly time and chance, should the universe be reasonable

There is no appreciable difference between a universe governed by probability and chance and one governed by capricious godlike entities.

cthia wrote:I'll leave the former research to you. The cases are too numerous for you to miss by Google search.

As far as the latter - inference. As in, if there had been or ever will be any such case, it would have been headlining news!

Really. You do know, do you not, that there are thousands of deaths each day which happen without any observers present? That people die while not being lucid enough to make any statement, any communication at all?

Your claim that noone has ever denounced religion on the death bed has no merit whatsoever. It is bullshit; And it is not on us to prove your statements for you. That is your job. If you do not have evidence to back up your claim (and no, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; One would think that someone like you would know this), do not be surprised when you are not believed.

Pascal's inference stems from the fact that he recognizes and acknowledges as any sane person that the question of God's existence is the most profound question in existence! No, it is the ONLY profound question in existence. You are totally missing the boat.

Speaking of boats being missed.... The question of whether or not god exists is not as important as you believe it to be. It is certainly interesting, and if we could find positive proof of god's existence (and ways to communicate with it), that would be tremendous news, but without that? Without that, it's a question that does not matter in the slightest to anyone but those heavily invested in it.

Answer me this. Aren't you a nonbeliever?

Yes.

Do you feel any need to take out spiritual insurance should the doctor tell you you've got hours to live?

No. A god which requires penance and obedience is not a god I wish to follow.

You personally have been a nonbeliever all of your life?

For as long as I have been able to articulate an opinion on the subject, yes.

Do you personally think it possible that you'll be changing your mind should you get a two minute warning unless something acted to clear away your congested thinking?

Hey, an entrapment question! The answer depends on whether or not I believe my thinking to be "congested" right now. Which I do not. So no, I don't think I would change my mind.

You call betting on Santa a profound wager or a profound decision? What'll you lose, your Red Ryder BB gun? What'll you gain, your Red Ryder BB gun? King Arthur?

Neither of them can give you eternal life or eternal damnation.

The question of whether or not Santa exists is really about as profound as the question of whether or not god exists. There's not much difference between the two (well, some 3 or 4 millennia of fan fiction, really).

If you can't see that "Does God exist?" is the most important question to mankind then this conversation is futile.

I won't commit myself to an exercise in futility. That's insane.

Then why are you trying to prove that god exists? That project of yours is still a thing, right?

Why does so many people hold on to the notion that science conflicts with religious beliefs? It does not. Nothing can be further from the truth. It flabbergasts me.

The E wrote:The question of whether or not Santa exists is really about as profound as the question of whether or not god exists. There's not much difference between the two (well, some 3 or 4 millennia of fan fiction, really).

But there isn't a possibility of as profound of an answer. Does Santa exist? Does God exist? One is as profound as the other you say? Well, one is as short sighted as the other. I'll give you that. But it's a moot point. Because it's the answers that are important. An affirmative to the Santa question won't have the impact as an affirmative to the God question. Besides, everyone knows that Santa exists, he's usually the father in the family.

This is insane. A perfect opportunity to play the *HITLERCARD folks. You can't reason with insanity.

If you won't accept DOES GOD EXIST as the most important question to be known. And that an affirmative answer would be the most profound, then this conversation is insane.

I won't commit myself to insanity or intellectual suicide.

* viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7904

cthia wrote:Why does so many people hold on to the notion that science conflicts with religious beliefs? It does not. Nothing can be further from the truth. It flabbergasts me.

thank you thank you thank you, I agree completely.

I have seen evidence that there is something greater that science can't measure. Whether that is some being, (god or gods) or something more like the force in star wars I don's know.

Where most of the "war" between religion and science comes about is one trying to perform the actions of another.

In the case of Christianity, the bible is a translation of a translation of a translation. IIRC, some parts of it has been translated through more than 10 different languages. The original word of the original language that gennisis was translated in is more accurately directly translated as "a period of time" this substitution makes the bible creation explanation relatively close to reality.

When the universe was created it was without form, In the first period of time, light was created, then land and water.

another example is evolution. there is on the order of 200 different animals listed in the bible, and more than 200,000 known species are known to be living today. Among other things, with periods of time lasting millions or billions of years, god could have used evolution to create all the animals.

I've always thought of it as science answers "what?" and "how?" while religion answers "why?".

darrell wrote:

cthia wrote:Why does so many people hold on to the notion that science conflicts with religious beliefs? It does not. Nothing can be further from the truth. It flabbergasts me.

thank you thank you thank you, I agree completely.

I have seen evidence that there is something greater that science can't measure. Whether that is some being, (god or gods) or something more like the force in star wars I don's know.

Where most of the "war" between religion and science comes about is one trying to perform the actions of another.

In the case of Christianity, the bible is a translation of a translation of a translation. IIRC, some parts of it has been translated through more than 10 different languages. The original word of the original language that gennisis was translated in is more accurately directly translated as "a period of time" this substitution makes the bible creation explanation relatively close to reality.

When the universe was created it was without form, In the first period of time, light was created, then land and water.

another example is evolution. there is on the order of 200 different animals listed in the bible, and more than 200,000 known species are known to be living today. Among other things, with periods of time lasting millions or billions of years, god could have used evolution to create all the animals.

cthia wrote:Why does so many people hold on to the notion that science conflicts with religious beliefs? It does not. Nothing can be further from the truth. It flabbergasts me.

The problem, friend cthia, is not that science conflicts with religious beliefs; it is that when science makes it's findings known, religious beliefs can find themselves in conflict with those findings (see Evolution, Flood Geology, the Exile in Egypt and parting the Red Sea, Geocentrism, et. al.). Science is what science is; a human system designed to better understand the world and universe we are in using logic and tools that we have to hand. It is, I give you, neutral towards religion, it's conclusions neither designed to support or condemn faith; but that (some) religious folks find intolerable (see the examples above), which is where the conflict arises.

darrell wrote:thank you thank you thank you, I agree completely.

I have seen evidence that there is something greater that science can't measure. Whether that is some being, (god or gods) or something more like the force in star wars I don's know.

Umm, could you possibly share this 'evidence'?

Where most of the "war" between religion and science comes about is one trying to perform the actions of another.

In the case of Christianity, the bible is a translation of a translation of a translation. IIRC, some parts of it has been translated through more than 10 different languages. The original word of the original language that gennisis was translated in is more accurately directly translated as "a period of time" this substitution makes the bible creation explanation relatively close to reality.

Well said and I tend to concur.

When the universe was created it was without form, In the first period of time, light was created, then land and water.

IIRC, and I will gladly accept being corrected, the Bible version has the land and water created first, with light and night and day coming a bit later on the first day, No?

another example is evolution. there is on the order of 200 different animals listed in the bible, and more than 200,000 known species are known to be living today. Among other things, with periods of time lasting millions or billions of years, god could have used evolution to create all the animals.

Not impossible (I find it highly doubtful, myself), but since there is no way to prove "Godditit", it does not and cannot fall within the purview of science (now, if we could get that through of heads of some Alabama legislators...).

We are well off topic and I expect Duckk alogn shortly, but wanted to get my thoughts in while I could.