How the world began

[Liam Goody]

I've been doing Religious Education at school and we've been doing about the religions of the world. There are lots of different religions with different theories of how the world began and they all claim that their way is right but how can they?

[Sylday]

They can't all be right. And if you think about it a bit more, you may - like many others, including me - come to the conclusion that none of them is right.

[jenstar]

You've hit the nail on the head there, young Liam. We'll make a freethinker of you yet.

[BenDToy]

The worst thing about religion is that they are all fundamentally the same but different that each one believes it to be the only one and many of them take a very dim view of any other form of belief. This is the basic reason behind almost every war in history.

[RevShirls]

Liam, it is very confusing when any religion, any philosophy etc claims to hold the truth and to be the only way. None of them should have a monopoly on the truth especially when they are dealing with things that are based on faith (rather than hard facts). I am a minister but I do think that many problems are caused when people/churches/faiths claim that they have all the answers. It's always good to keep an open mind. World religions are different but they are also similar - they indicate that many people/cultures feel that there is something beyond their immediate reality and even to make sense of their reality. The different world religions show their quest to find it in their own ways.

[Drewhound]

I'm not religious myself RevShirls but I think your answer hits the nail right on the head. It's not about differences but tolerance to those differences, an acceptance that beliefs can be different without there being a right and wrong

[Jacx2]

We'd be much better off without religion. Look at Muslims. They think they're helping other people by blowing them up because their religion claims that everyone who dies goes to "paradise". Nobody's right. Turn to Science for the answer Liam, much more realistic ideas.

[RevShirls]

I would be very surprised if you were in science, jacx2. You say turn to science for the answer - the answer to what - and what type of science (biology, chemistry, quantum physics, string theory, sociology, political science, theology etc - bearing in mind that some of these sciences can have contradictions within themselves). More and more there is a growing humility within the scientific world with the realisation that single theories can not give full account of a complex world including human beings. It is also rather unscientific to say that we'd be better off without religion based on certain negative and destructive aspects of religion. One could also, by your criteria, say the same about science, that we'd be better off without it because of the destruction caused by nuclear, chemicals weapons etc. I incorporate religion, science, philosophy etc in formulating my own world view.

[tartanwiz]

RevShirls - you're the kind of minister who could get me back to church!

[el duerino]

could but wont :) but refreshing to come across a practitioner of religion not rabidly intent on spreading the word. However I would add that a little humility in the religious world about what science is proving against the religious grain would probably go a long way.

[RevShirls]

Thanks tartanwiz, 'though it's not my intention to try to get anyone to come to church. I always think people will come if they want to. I take it, with a name like "tartanwiz", that you're Scottish. I'm Scottish too - but married a Swedish guy (psychologist) and live and work in Sweden now. I agree with you, el duerino, that humility is also needed in the religious world too (or in many areas of the religious world). What I was trying to say is that scientists tend not to talk about proof, as such. Are you familiar with the late Karl Popper. What he stressed was the importance of falsification. One cannot say with certainty that something is the absolute truth. For example, someone could say that all swans are white. It would only take one black swan to disprove the theory (this example comes from David Hume). Karl Popper maintained that the task of scientists is to test their theories by asking if there is anything that could falsify their findings. Most scientists would agree that they are really working with probability theories. Apologies to Liam, I know I've strayed way off your original subject here. The reason all the creation stories are different is that they stem from a time when people were limited in their understanding of life, the universe etc - all the stories are legends and an attempt to understand more.

[el duerino]

no I have not come across popper but I have encountered the falsification/absolute truth model before. out of interest revshirls, how do you personally believe 'the world began'. I am surprised to find such a model in the mind of one of the religious. I don't think you can deny that if we are dealing with probabilities most of the premises of religion are remote to say the least. I certainly wouldn't bet on them ;)

[RevShirls]

I'm not so sure how the world began, el duerino. I tend towards evolution theories, even although there are still some unanswered questions. You say that most of the premises of religion are remote. What do you mean by that, or which premises do you mean? Religion, or rather, faith, is not something that one can use science to prove/disprove. That doesn't mean that it can be dismissed simply for that reason. There are many things/concepts that are based on faith/trust. A simple example is "love". We cannot prove that someone loves us, we can only analyse/weigh up the clues and make some kind of informed judgement. That doesn't mean that love doesn't exist, just that it doesn't enter into the field of things that we can apply science to. Having said that, it is important in matters such as faith, love etc not just to rely on the heart. We must use our heads and apply reason too. But our heads will only take us so far, and there is an element ultimately of taking a step in the dark. My own faith is extremely important to me. It is not a security blanket. In fact, I find it rather challenging and I often have more questions rather than answers. I like that! I do believe that independent thinking is extremely important. I am always saddened when people (often religious people) feel that they have to sing from the same hymn sheet (so to speak) - saying/believing exactly the same things. I prefer people to be more like jazz musicians, intoducing and interweaving new themes. Oops - I'm getting a bit carried away here. God forbid that this turns into a sermon!

[el duerino]

interesting. one of the few religion people I have met who do not claim to know all the answers. ask someone a difficult question regarding their faith - 99% will blurt out some babble that they heard but dont really understand. 1% will say I dont know, and its them who I believe are on the path to true understanding of their faith. in my opinion emotion and science make poor bedfellows. perhaps one day we will discover the exact combination of hormones and sensations that we can categorise as love. who knows. but i try not to bring emotion into my particular worldview where facts are concerned. the reason people feel they have to follow the pipers tune is because most likely fear they will go to hell otherwise, as this is one of the crudest messages sent out by the christian faith in particular. I personally believe that science, or an offshoot that we have yet to discover, will eventually make religion redundant, or at least reduced to those who prize hope above all reason. Most religious people I have talked to have used examples of what we don't know to highlight the current weakness in our scientific approach. One even admitted that if we ever manage to create an artifical human he would lose his faith, which i found particularly bizarre. Doh my own sermon now, anyway as said nice to meet someone not frothing at the mouth as regards science and religion. :)

[RevShirls]

I too get bugged by people who claim to have all the answers. There is something fundamentally lacking there. It's important to broaden people's minds rather than narrow them. I don't find science inconsistent with what I believe. Einstein was maybe a bit limited in the end by his own concept of God. He could not accept that there could be uncertainty in the universe as indicated by quantum physics. He said "God does not play dice". Scientific development fascinates me and I think it is vital. I have many interesting discussions with my husband (prof. of psychology)and some of his colleagues from different scientific departments in the university. My husband is not particularly religious but he totally respects me, and I him. Good discussion, el duerino, you argue/discuss things well.

[el duerino]

Likewise :) Similar to you I am fascinated by our understanding of 'things' and how we interpret and add meaning to them. I agree with you about Einstein, this is perhaps why I do not believe science and religion are compatible. Because as you say religion is not based on reason or facts, but rather faith, it will always conflict with empirical scientific methods. In my experience, religion alone has closed more minds than anything else. You are obviously an exception, but perhaps because your faith is stronger and more understanding of the 'nature of the beast' that you can incorporate new discoveries into your worldview. In my opinion, the stronger your personal faith, the more you challenge the accepted conventions. It is the people who are afraid to question for fear they may not like the answers that give religion a bad name.

[habiba]

well liam, the first phase of life on earth began not in sin or rebellion against the creator. The fall of adam and eve from the garden of Eden and what followed thereafter. it seemed to be designed to dicipline the first man to give him actual experience of fall and rise. moral deafeat and triumph straying from and reconciliation with the creator. in this way man would become better prepared for life. and more enlightened to face its uncertainties and trying moments. my question to jacx2 religions and revelation is like a manual if you follow it you,ll built a better structure for youreself. but if you dont follow well im sure you got the picture. blowing someone up is not the answer. or thinking theyll go to paradise for it. no one knows our fate after we die the reason they do this is they are so much hurting inside how would you feel when youre loved ones are taken away they grieve just like you and i they too are gods creations. turning to science youll find them that they too, will eventualy begin to believe the creation of god and how this world began.