Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on January 21, 2016, 05:25:13 AM
-
"Belief in supernatural reward and punishment promotes social co-operation in a way nothing else can match. The belief that we live under some kind of supernatural guidance is not a relic of superstition that might some day be left behind but an evolutionary adaptation that goes with being human. It’s a conclusion that is anathema to the current generation of atheists – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and others – for whom religion is a poisonous concoction of lies and delusion. These “new atheists” are simple souls"
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2016/01/why-humans-find-it-hard-do-away-religion
-
"Belief in supernatural reward and punishment promotes social co-operation in a way nothing else can match. The belief that we live under some kind of supernatural guidance is not a relic of superstition that might some day be left behind but an evolutionary adaptation that goes with being human. It’s a conclusion that is anathema to the current generation of atheists – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and others – for whom religion is a poisonous concoction of lies and delusion. These “new atheists” are simple souls"
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2016/01/why-humans-find-it-hard-do-away-religion
I agree religion goes with being human....largely because spirituality is a basic reality.
Science will never be able to understand and brings within its purview all aspects of spirituality.....but I think one day it will bring out the fact that the human mind and consciousness are not just a product of the brain and that spiritual experiences are not just a figment of human imagination.
That will be enough of a breakthrough.
After that, suitably evolved and modified religions or secular spirituality can take over and guide human life. That would be a more integrated and fulfilling way of life. I am sure it will happen one day.
-
After that, suitably evolved and modified religions or secular spirituality can take over and guide human life. That would be a more integrated and fulfilling way of life. I am sure it will happen one day.
It has already happened to some of us! Whether the rest will catch up is debatable. :)
-
I don't think it's so much about reward and punishment, but of feeling a part of something and for many people I think it gives their lives a sense of worth.
It also can give a sense of structure with the festivals and routines.
It can lift people out of their worldly concerns, which can be a good thing.
For me,( and I think my " religion " is unique to me) it gives me something to aim for, and a way of tying in with organised religion if I want to.
I might not share exactly the same beliefs, but I can share many values in Christianity or other religions. The Good Samaritan for example. Or the value of giving.
Somehow, not having religion at all ( and I mean inner religion as well as organised religion) makes life a bit flat and pointless.
It's not fear of God that makes us human, we are human anyway.
It's simple kindness.
Take that away and I won't say we behave like animals, because that's insulting animals, but I feel our ability for kindness is what makes us human.
Hence the phrase when someone behaves in a way that is inhuman.
🌹
-
It has already happened to some of us! Whether the rest will catch up is debatable. :)
I don't think so, because some people actually want to be religious/ have an order to their life.
It's important to some people.
The more you push atheism the more they hang into their religion/ philosophy of life.
🌹
-
I agree religion goes with being human....largely because spirituality is a basic reality.
Science will never be able to understand and brings within its purview all aspects of spirituality.....but I think one day it will bring out the fact that the human mind and consciousness are not just a product of the brain and that spiritual experiences are not just a figment of human imagination.
Any evidence for that ?
-
I agree with the the premise of the book but not much of the review. Gray allows his own hobby horse to lead him to ignore that this idea is quite often addressed in the writings of those he cites, and runs into a common issue with his approach, and some on here, of espousing a form of determinism that means there is no actual point to discussion.
I also think that a lot of ' new atheism', which I regard as a misnomer, is a reaction to specific circumstances, particularly in U.S. where its resemblance to a religion is because of the social issues there. Anyone who has listened to the struggles people have about 'coming out' as an atheist there can understand why there would develop a more supportive idea of an atheist community.
There is also a tendency to superiority, see the ridiculous idea of 'Brights', which needs to be as mercilessly mocked as the pomp and flummery of religions. Gray also , in attempting to put his case, does the usual cherry picking of looking at the good in religion. This undermines how we might evaluate it, even if we ignore the implications of his implied determinism. One of the things I struggle to understand is why, when both Christians and atheists are oppressed in places like Saudi Arabia, that more common cause cannot be found in a version of secularism. There are lots of posts on here, where people, in their rush to object to what they see as a too strong a form of secularism, leave little room for any form of it, and thus implicitly offer support to the sort of theocracy that oppresses their own religion.
-
Dear Keith,
:P :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Atheist,
Quote from the article.
“the problem of atheists”, arguing that, like the rest of humankind, they are “inclined to supernatural thinking”, which lives on in them in the form of “superstitious beliefs and behaviours”.
Would you hesitate if someone asked you to put on a freshly laundered shirt worn by Hitler.
Time for confession, come to Father Gonnagle and confess all your hidden secrets :o :o what trinket, little good luck piece do you carry in your wallet, pocket, handbag, which sock do you always put on first, what's your lucky number. :P
And remember, it won't make you any less atheist but it will make you more human. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Atheist,
Quote from the article.
Would you hesitate if someone asked you to put on a freshly laundered shirt worn by Hitler.
Time for confession, come to Father Gonnagle and confess all your hidden secrets :o :o what trinket, little good luck piece do you carry in your wallet, pocket, handbag, which sock do you always put on first, what's your lucky number. :P
And remember, it won't make you any less atheist but it will make you more human. ;)
Gonnagle.
The Hitler shirt not a problem but I have my own wrinkles in logical thinking. The problem with the quote as with much of Gray's position is its a straw man, not in that there are no subscribers to that sort of attitude but that it is a general one. Anyone that believes we are entirely or can be entirely rational is scary mad.
It's also an attitude that is apparent in those who suggest we can choose what to believe. We all seem much messier to me than that.
As to my own magical thinking, there is a mug in the house that I don't like being used because every time I remember it being used, bad stuff happened. I also feel I can't.get rid of it because that would be cheating. Still at least it means that I get the mugs washed so that it isn't chosen.
-
I don't think so, because some people actually want to be religious/ have an order to their life.
Why do you think non-religious people don't have an order to their lives?
-
Dear Atheist,
Quote from the article.
Would you hesitate if someone asked you to put on a freshly laundered shirt worn by Hitler.
Time for confession, come to Father Gonnagle and confess all your hidden secrets :o :o what trinket, little good luck piece do you carry in your wallet, pocket, handbag, which sock do you always put on first, what's your lucky number. :P
And remember, it won't make you any less atheist but it will make you more human. ;)
Gonnagle.
Dear Gonners,
I don't have any lucky numbers, colours, good luck charms, supernatural rituals. I can't see myself following any superstitions, touch wood. ::) ;)
-
As NS said, we are messy and not wholly rational. Oh, big news! I'm tired of sentences that end 'this makes us human', so simplistic.
Magical thinking? Well, I know that Man Utd will lose if I don't do the washing up, and dry it, and then clean out the fish tank, or is it the other way round? Damn, that's why they keep losing.
-
Dear Sane,
Anyone that believes we are entirely or can be entirely rational is scary mad.
That is A truth.
Dear enki,
I don't have any lucky numbers, colours, good luck charms, supernatural rituals. I can't see myself following any superstitions, touch wood.
Take a seat at the bar beside old Sane, he is buying, but for goodness sake do not use his mug.
Dear Wigs,
I'm tired of sentences that end 'this makes us human', so simplistic.
More human, what makes us more human, now go and rest yer Saintly arse beside enki.
Gonnagle.
-
It has already happened to some of us! Whether the rest will catch up is debatable. :)
I suppose it depends on a number of factors, Len. It also depends on who you refer to using the phrases '...some of us ...' and ' ... the rest ...' ;)
-
I don't think so, because some people actually want to be religious/ have an order to their life.
It's important to some people.🌹
I was wondering whether Len was referring to such folk when he said "It has already happened to some of us!" in a previous post ;)
-
I suppose it depends on a number of factors, Len. It also depends on who you refer to using the phrases '...some of us ...' and ' ... the rest ...' ;)
I was answering Sriram's post :-
"After that, suitably evolved and modified religions or secular spirituality can take over and guide human life. That would be a more integrated and fulfilling way of life. I am sure it will happen one day."
"Some of us" refers to those of us who have already found a more integrated and fulfilling way of life ... "the rest of us" refers to those who haven't.
-
None of us will live to see that day. Atheism is shrinking world wide. It was 4.5% of the world pop. in 1970, 2% in 2010 and atheism continues to shrink as more atheists die off. Now I recall some atheists crowing about how education and money will kill off faith. Question is what's killing off atheism? Better put some more atheist propaganda on the buses. Or we could just shoot that cow and go to bed early.
Too funny, "why humans find it hard to do away..." Find it hard? Good grief, why try to, do away, if you have no reason or desire to drop your faith for the nothingness of atheism? We have something and it's not going away, atheism, well, like I told ya, it is going away.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020
-
None of us will live to see that day. Atheism is shrinking world wide. It was 4.5% of the world pop. in 1970, 2% in 2010 and atheism continues to shrink as more atheists die off. Now I recall some atheists crowing about how education and money will kill off faith. Question is what's killing off atheism? Better put some more atheist propaganda on the buses. Or we could just shoot that cow and go to bed early.
Too funny, "why humans find it hard to do away..." Find it hard? Good grief, why try to, do away, if you have no reason or desire to drop your faith for the nothingness of atheism? We have something and it's not going away, atheism, well, like I told ya, it is going away.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020
Dream on, sweet prince! :)
-
"Belief in supernatural reward and punishment promotes social co-operation in a way nothing else can match.
Actually, any authoritarian system has the capacity to do that, until it turns on its populace...
The belief that we live under some kind of supernatural guidance is not a relic of superstition that might some day be left behind but an evolutionary adaptation that goes with being human.
Well, it's rather a byproduct of an evolutionary adaptation - the tendency to see and recognise patterns and presume agency in them, the same evolutionary adaptation that leads to the byproduct of science, too.
It’s a conclusion that is anathema to the current generation of atheists – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and others – for whom religion is a poisonous concoction of lies and delusion. These “new atheists” are simple souls".
I can't speak for Daniel Dennett on this, but both Professor Dawkins and Sam Harris have publicly spoken on this root-cause of religious thinking in humanity, so to say that it's 'anathema' is rather obviously not true. What they don't accept that is that the tendency to identify patterns and presume agency need necessarily lead to religious thinking - the mere existence of atheists shows that it need not be the case.
I agree religion goes with being human....largely because spirituality is a basic reality.
We can tell that by the manifest incapacity to demonstrate it in any way, shape or form... 'Spirituality' is not a 'basic reality', it's an unevidenced assertion that lacks any sort of solid definition in order to have a meaning, let alone be demonstrated.
Science will never be able to understand and brings within its purview all aspects of spirituality...
I'd agree that this is entirely possible, but I'd suggest it's for exactly the same reason that science will never be able to understand or bring within it's purview the pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.
I think one day it will bring out the fact that the human mind and consciousness are not just a product of the brain and that spiritual experiences are not just a figment of human imagination.
If you don't have any evidence to support that contention at the moment, it's a bit rich describing it as a 'fact'.
After that, suitably evolved and modified religions or secular spirituality can take over and guide human life.
How do religions 'evolve'? Surely that's just the abandonment of a previous religion and new excuses made up for the adoption of a new one with some similar outcomes?
Why not let reason guide human life?
I don't think it's so much about reward and punishment, but of feeling a part of something and for many people I think it gives their lives a sense of worth.
But it's perfectly possible to be part of something without falling back on superstition. From families to football supporters, that sense of community doesn't have any prerequisites on the nature of the community.
It also can give a sense of structure with the festivals and routines.
Again, no need for religious bases for those, either.
It can lift people out of their worldly concerns, which can be a good thing.
But it can equally cause worldly concerns, or distract people from worldly concerns, which can be a bad thing, and there are other methods to 'lift people out of their worldly concerns' which don't require belief in unevidenced assertions.
For me,( and I think my " religion " is unique to me) it gives me something to aim for, and a way of tying in with organised religion if I want to.
Whilst I think there are differences between a faith position and a religion - a religion is a group of people advocating a particular faith position - some of the points work equally well against either.
I might not share exactly the same beliefs, but I can share many values in Christianity or other religions. The Good Samaritan for example. Or the value of giving.
Because they are values, and have merits of their own independent of any particular set of tenets. They work in any community, and are part of the foundations of the behaviour that allow communities to work. You don't need to believe in 'spiritual' to see the virtue in ethical behaviour.
Somehow, not having religion at all ( and I mean inner religion as well as organised religion) makes life a bit flat and pointless.
I don't find my life to be 'flat' or 'pointless', I'm sad for you that you think you need superstition to feel good about life.
I don't think so, because some people actually want to be religious/ have an order to their life.
People who've grown up in societies which teach that religion has merit and is a (or sometimes 'the') way to have order in their lives. If that happened less often, people would find other places to get order for their lives.
The more you push atheism the more they hang into their religion/ philosophy of life.
Oh, indeed. Most of the religions that have survived have instilled a sense of oppression into their back-story somewhere in order to generate a sense of community and to motivate their adherents when they are under attack (or, indeed, when they aren't). The way to see the end of religion is not to ban them, it's to just ignore them until people realise they don't actually add anything that can't be found elsewhere without the baggage.
Quote from the article.
Would you hesitate if someone asked you to put on a freshly laundered shirt worn by Hitler.
Not for the shirt itself, but for the fact that I know how some people would react (and the distaste for 1940s fashion :) )
None of us will live to see that day.
That's almost certainly true, religion has been pernicious enough to last until now, it's not going to disappear quickly.
Atheism is shrinking world wide. It was 4.5% of the world pop. in 1970, 2% in 2010 and atheism continues to shrink as more atheists die off.
Atheism is growing in the developed world. Populations in the developing world are growing faster, and they are predominantly religious - if those developing nations fail to demonstrate cultural growth, the lack of atheism is going to be the least of our problems are primitive, barbaric cultures wield their fervent devotion to superstitions in wars.
Too funny, "why humans find it hard to do away..." Find it hard? Good grief, why try to, do away, if you have no reason or desire to drop your faith for the nothingness of atheism?
Why do you need the 'extra' of religions' made-up content when you have the majesty of reality to come to terms with?
O.
-
'Why humans find it hard to do away with religion'
Not this tired old line.. again.
For some it's fear of death (comfort blanket) for others it's that their life is so terrible/crap that they have to believe there is something else/better although the later tend to be more fundies given they are getting over some traumatic experience or addiction.
The stick and carrot side of things I would say were mainly there to control the populace who were to ignorant to combat it.
Take your pick :)
'religions' follow the same pattern as all the previous ones we've invented promises of immortality or promises of a better life if we put up with the crap one we have ;D
Seems childish nonsense to me but hey ho ;)
-
For some it's fear of death (comfort blanket) for others it's that their life is so terrible/crap that they have to believe there is something else/better although the later tend to be more fundies given they are getting over some traumatic experience or addiction.
The stick and carrot side of things I would say were mainly there to control the populace who were to ignorant to combat it.
And for some, possibly a majority, neither of these scenarios apply. Certainly I'd put these scenarios as very low, if even present, in the reasoning of many I know.
Interestingly, even amongst those from religions that are heavily based on fear and fatalism, such as Hinduism, many of the young people adhere to the faith of their forebears without even fully appreciating what it's all about.
-
Hope,
I wouldn't expect you to admit to or acknowledge any points I make the same way I wouldn't expect any theists to, to do so might burst your delusion.
Most born again brigade are there because of trauma in theirs lives, addictions, death of a loved one etc. if your not one of them then your the comfort blanket type...
Death doesn't scare me because there is no death only fluffy clouds and harps and JC with open arms.. nice to see childhood fantasies of no death and invisible protectors projecting themselves in religion.
Pity my common sense and of course all the evidence doesnt allow me to share your delusion, must be nice ::)
-
Most born again brigade are there because of trauma in theirs lives, addictions, death of a loved one etc.
I think I'd agree that there are some who believe on these grounds.
if your not one of them then your the comfort blanket type...
and I'd agree that there are some who beliueve on this ground.
However, of those I know, these two categories would probably amount to circa 15%
Death doesn't scare me because there is no death only fluffy clouds and harps and JC with open arms.. nice to see childhood fantasies of no death and invisible protectors projecting themselves in religion.
Death doesn't scare me and never has; even before I became a Christian.
-
Why do you think non-religious people don't have an order to their lives?
They probably do in some ways, but it doesn't satisfy everyone.
I think some people have a God shaped hole, which only by joining with others with a God shaped hole, can they fill.
A kind of shared experience.
😜🌹
-
Dear Gonners,
I don't have any lucky numbers, colours, good luck charms, supernatural rituals. I can't see myself following any superstitions, touch wood. ::) ;)
So, it sounds as if you're very similar to most people here, enki.
-
I was answering Sriram's post :-
"After that, suitably evolved and modified religions or secular spirituality can take over and guide human life. That would be a more integrated and fulfilling way of life. I am sure it will happen one day."
"Some of us" refers to those of us who have already found a more integrated and fulfilling way of life ... "the rest of us" refers to those who haven't.
And, as I said, it depends on whagt you mean by a more integrated and fulfilling way of life. I suspect that most of us would describe our life in this way.
-
And, as I said, it depends on whagt you mean by a more integrated and fulfilling way of life. I suspect that most of us would describe our life in this way.
Probably, so it's horses for courses! :)
-
Dear Outrider,
I can't speak for Daniel Dennett on this, but both Professor Dawkins and Sam Harris have publicly spoken on this root-cause of religious thinking in humanity, so to say that it's 'anathema' is rather obviously not true. What they don't accept that is that the tendency to identify patterns and presume agency need necessarily lead to religious thinking - the mere existence of atheists shows that it need not be the case.
Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.
We are not born atheist, we are not born believing in God but we are born believing, a tendency to see patterns, it is written into us, Sanity Clause, if we are born atheists we would tell our parents from day dot, there ain't no Sanity Clause.
Superstition, when I asked about Hitler's shirt, it was not a off the cuff remark, it was a genuine scientific study, we are all in some way superstitious, another study which was carried out, participants were asked to throw darts at pictures of their loved ones, they all turned out to be very poor shoots, why!! throwing darts at a picture does not harm a loved one.
For further reading, see contagion bias and magical thinking.
We are all, in some way, religious thinkers.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.
We are not born atheist, we are not born believing in God but we are born believing, a tendency to see patterns, it is written into us, Sanity Clause, if we are born atheists we would tell our parents from day dot, there ain't no Sanity Clause.
We are evolved beings, ergo we carry within us the legacy of our past; just as we still have a vestigial tail bone despite that we have long gotten past using a tail, our minds also carry vestigial tendencies that were essential to our ancestors in the past, such as the unwarranted attribution of agency; eg "God"
-
Dear Outrider,
Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.
We are not born atheist, we are not born believing in God but we are born believing, a tendency to see patterns, it is written into us, Sanity Clause, if we are born atheists we would tell our parents from day dot, there ain't no Sanity Clause.
Superstition, when I asked about Hitler's shirt, it was not a off the cuff remark, it was a genuine scientific study, we are all in some way superstitious, another study which was carried out, participants were asked to throw darts at pictures of their loved ones, they all turned out to be very poor shoots, why!! throwing darts at a picture does not harm a loved one.
For further reading, see contagion bias and magical thinking.
We are all, in some way, religious thinkers.
Gonnagle.
Problem is you've exactly undermined your claim. The evidence asked for is about the truth of the claims not that they are made. Given you state that throwing darts at pictures of loved ones doesn't actually have any effect despite any such beliefs, then that means that the evidence is that the belief is wrong, and so the existence of such belief is not evidence of its truth.
-
Dear Sane,
No, I am not saying the belief is right or wrong, all I am saying is the belief is there.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
No, I am not saying the belief is right or wrong, all I am saying is the belief is there.
Gonnagle.
And as I pointed out no one is denying that, so when you talk about being asked for evidence, though from me it would be asking for a methodology, then we are asking for evidence for the truth of the claim.
-
So, it sounds as if you're very similar to most people here, enki.
I would hope so. It was of course a tongue in cheek statement, with the 'touch wood' comment at the end. Gonners seems to have understood this with no problem at all.
-
Dear enki,
Of course I understood it, the point I was trying to make, we are all superstitious, a word that is used often on this forum.
And as I am trying to explain to our Sane, it is there in all of us, he has a mug with magical qualities, I am not decrying his mug, I am celebrating his very human way of thinking.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
No, I am not saying the belief is right or wrong, all I am saying is the belief is there.
Gonnagle.
I'm not disagreeing with you, Gonners. It seems to me that belief (and trust) is natural evolutionary instinctive behaviour, especially in our early years. The problems seem to arise later, when the objects of our beliefs can be rationalised and found wanting. Hence I would seek evidence for any religious claims, and if evidence isn't forthcoming, then my natural bent is to eschew them.
-
We are evolved beings, ergo we carry within us the legacy of our past; just as we still have a vestigial tail bone despite that we have long gotten past using a tail, our minds also carry vestigial tendencies that were essential to our ancestors in the past, such as the unwarranted attribution of agency; eg "God"
But these mechanisms are not really "vestigal" as they are used day in day out in other ways, eg in empathy, apprehending others actions, responses or trying to predict events from known data.
And, subliminally, without religion being dragged in, we use the same skills but substituting other imaginary entities for god - "society" or the "the nation", "the greater good", "wellbeing" and so on.
-
Yes, and if you subscribe to some of Jung's ideas, the psyche contains various 'objects' or 'sub-personalities' which interact with each other. For example, many people seem to harbour an internal critic, who mildly or maybe ferociously judges oneself. It's an easy step to argue that some of these 'internal objects' are projected outwards onto various things in life, e.g. the royal family.
One point here is that these interactions in the psyche are not particularly rational - for example, the inner critic can be neutralized by anger, but less so by cool argument, it just keeps on nagging at you.
Jung of course went so far as to posit a 'higher power' in the psyche, which sort of stabilizes things, has a central executive role, and so on. (Although with some people, this is deficient!). And this too can get projected, well, onto a higher power, what else.
I think this is similar to Freud's critique of religion ('The Future of an Illusion' being the famous book), but Jung was more sympathetic to religion; Freud hated it.
-
we are not born believing in God but we are born believing
I would say we are born questioning rather than believing gonners.
We want to know why and if we don't understand or can't know the answer then we fill in the gaps with our imagination whether that is with fairies, gods, trees, sun, moon or spirits etc.
When you know nothing to start with then outside entities controlling what you can't explain is probably (and was) a natural step until you find the 'real' answers and then you can move on, well some of us can.
Some people I guess still need to cling on to our primitive gods, fairy, spirits orientated past in order to deal with death or in some cases just make sense of their lives, others know that death is just that, death.
Nothing lasts forever no matter how we might child-likely wish it did. :)
-
Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.
I'm not sure how it is that we're dismissing this out of hand, to be honest. I accept the evidence that shows we have a tendency to presume agency, and I find the evolutionary psychological explanation to be convincing.
We are not born atheist, we are not born believing in God but we are born believing, a tendency to see patterns, it is written into us, Sanity Clause, if we are born atheists we would tell our parents from day dot, there ain't no Sanity Clause.
Yes and no. We are born atheist - at the point of birth, we don't believe in gods. We aren't hardwired to disbelieve, nor are we hardwired to believe in anything specific. The fact that we're born atheist no more means we're predetermined to remain that way then the fact we're born incapable of walking means we're predestined not to need shoes.
Superstition, when I asked about Hitler's shirt, it was not a off the cuff remark, it was a genuine scientific study, we are all in some way superstitious, another study which was carried out, participants were asked to throw darts at pictures of their loved ones, they all turned out to be very poor shoots, why!! throwing darts at a picture does not harm a loved one.
I wouldn't throw darts at a picture of my wife not because I believe it would physically injure her to do so, but because it would hurt her feelings if she were to find out - symbolism is a part of that suite of evolved capacities in our brain that allow concepts like language and ethics to flourish.
We do all have aspects of 'superstition' to our thought processes - that doesn't mean we have to give up trying to eradicate them, does it?
We are all, in some way, religious thinkers.
We all have limitations - most of the widespread religions say as much, ironically :) The trick is to try to be aware of them and to realise that the fact they have a cause does not mean that they are there for a reason...
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.
But it's the fallacy of adverse consequences. Perhaps there is evidence that human society works better with religion, but that does not mean that religion is true or God really exists.
-
Religion in the broadest sense has not been done away with and will not be so. The gods of the past have been replaced by ideologies that are 'worshiped' just as fervently as any god.
-
Religion in the broadest sense has not been done away with and will not be so. The gods of the past have been replaced by ideologies that are 'worshiped' just as fervently as any god.
Does that count as "religion" though?
-
Dear Sane,
No, I am not saying the belief is right or wrong, all I am saying is the belief is there.
Gonnagle.
Beliefs are acquired. The child is born with the instinct to grip firmly and to suckle. From then on, his/her brain starts acquiring and absorbing knowledge. During the time he/she is learning how to use language to communicate, he/she has already heard many conversations which include information about all manner of beliefs. How can a child be born with a belief?
-
Religion in the broadest sense has not been done away with and will not be so. The gods of the past have been replaced by ideologies that are 'worshiped' just as fervently as any god.
The fact that you have to put 'worship' in quotation marks suggests that you are talking about something fundamentally different to religions.
O.
-
The fact that you have to put 'worship' in quotation marks suggests that you are talking about something fundamentally different to religions.
O.
"Worship" is a daft verb anyway. Anything worthy of being worshiped would not be small-minded enough to expect it.
-
Dear Outrider,
Yes and no. We are born atheist - at the point of birth, we don't believe in gods. We aren't hardwired to disbelieve, nor are we hardwired to believe in anything specific. The fact that we're born atheist no more means we're predetermined to remain that way then the fact we're born incapable of walking means we're predestined not to need shoes.
Well old son, my thoughts, how I interpret the evidence, you mention "at point of birth", science tells me that at this "point" is a very frightening experience, I doubt anyone can imagine that one moment when we are dragged kicking and screaming from the womb.
Now the science behind mother and unborn child is still in its infancy ( infancy :o ) but I would imagine the child has feeling like, safety, warmth, protected, not thoughts but feelings.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
The above article is mostly Greek to me, but the last word in the article is interconnectedness, from this, ( my thoughts ) the child knows that a higher power is protecting it, not only does it know but from the article it suggests that it is in communication with this higher power.
The actual "point of birth" we are taken away from this higher power, that safety, that protectedness, when the child is returned to its mothers arms, what happens?
Sorry Outrider but from the evidence I can't believe that we are "born atheist".
Gonnagle.
-
Well old son, my thoughts, how I interpret the evidence, you mention "at point of birth", science tells me that at this "point" is a very frightening experience, I doubt anyone can imagine that one moment when we are dragged kicking and screaming from the womb.
Sounds about right - it's difficult to know how 'frightening' it is. Startling, it's all change and new experiences, but I'm not sure if surprise is intrinsically frightening or that fear is something we learn to associate with surprise over time?
Now the science behind mother and unborn child is still in its infancy ( infancy :o ) but I would imagine the child has feeling like, safety, warmth, protected, not thoughts but feelings.
Sort of - how will they 'feel' warm in the absence of an understanding of cold? How will they feel 'safe' in the absence of any idea of danger?
The above article is mostly Greek to me, but the last word in the article is interconnectedness, from this, ( my thoughts ) the child knows that a higher power is protecting it, not only does it know but from the article it suggests that it is in communication with this higher power.
The actual "point of birth" we are taken away from this higher power, that safety, that protectedness, when the child is returned to its mothers arms, what happens?
Biologically they're linked - I don't know if the child is aware enough to understanding the concept of 'higher power' and that's the point, for me - atheism is the absence of belief, it doesn't differentiate on why there is that absence. If they're ignorant of the concept they cannot be thought of as a 'believer' and so they're an atheist. That's not a choice, it's not a destiny, it's just a point in time.
Sorry Outrider but from the evidence I can't believe that we are "born atheist".
From the evidence, I can't see any other conclusion, but perhaps we have different ideas of what atheism constitutes?
O.
-
I don't see the labelling of babies as atheist any more useful than saying tables are atheist. Nor indeed, that they have a belief in a higher power, they don't have that capability
-
Dear Outrider,
Sounds about right - it's difficult to know how 'frightening' it is. Startling, it's all change and new experiences, but I'm not sure if surprise is intrinsically frightening or that fear is something we learn to associate with surprise over time?
Well one scientist likened it to ( how he knows this :o ) jumping out of a aeroplane with no parachute but ten times more frightening.
Sort of - how will they 'feel' warm in the absence of an understanding of cold? How will they feel 'safe' in the absence of any idea of danger?
I am not a mother ( or father ) so I go with the science presented, the child in the womb is connected to his/her mother, the child reacts to its mothers feelings, kicking when it hears its mother favourite music, one mother stated " I wish I had listened to more classical music when I was pregnant".
Biologically they're linked - I don't know if the child is aware enough to understanding the concept of 'higher power' and that's the point, for me - atheism is the absence of belief, it doesn't differentiate on why there is that absence. If they're ignorant of the concept they cannot be thought of as a 'believer' and so they're an atheist. That's not a choice, it's not a destiny, it's just a point in time.
Higher power, yes I knew I was in trouble using that term and I suppose I am on thin ice with knowing what a baby in the womb is thinking, what I do know, this pattern seeking is part of what we are, it is written into the DNA, we don't learn it, what I think I know, the baby is aware of something greater.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Not useful, just me and Outrider sharing some thoughts ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
Well one scientist likened it to ( how he knows this :o ) jumping out of a aeroplane with no parachute but ten times more frightening.
I am not a mother ( or father ) so I go with the science presented, the child in the womb is connected to his/her mother, the child reacts to its mothers feelings, kicking when it hears its mother favourite music, one mother stated " I wish I had listened to more classical music when I was pregnant".
Higher power, yes I knew I was in trouble using that term and I suppose I am on thin ice with knowing what a baby in the womb is thinking, what I do know, this pattern seeking is part of what we are, it is written into the DNA, we don't learn it, what I think I know, the baby is aware of something greater.
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonners,
Not sure if this bonding process is particularly dependent on genetic influences. As far as I know the bonding process of a new born baby will occur with early exposure and learning. If you think about it, this makes sound evolutionary sense, for instance if the mother dies soon after birth.
There is also plenty of evidence in other animals of bonding between species, often called imprinting. (e.g Lorenz and his goslings)
-
Dear enki,
I go where the music takes me, well in this case the science. :)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
The link between a mother and child is profound, and new research suggests a physical connection even deeper than anyone thought. The profound psychological and physical bonds shared by the mother and her child begin during gestation when the mother is everything for the developing fetus, supplying warmth and sustenance, while her heartbeat provides a soothing constant rhythm.
But I am aware that it is a very grey area and I am also aware that my confirmation bias might be doing overtime :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear enki,
I go where the music takes me, well in this case the science. :)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
But I am aware that it is a very grey area and I am also aware that my confirmation bias might be doing overtime :P
Gonnagle.
No problem. The article you linked to is certainly interesting and informative and, what is more important, doesn't conflict with this article from the same magazine:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-newborns-can-bond-to-mother-from-different-species/
I am suggesting that the bonding process of the newborn sets up the instinctive trust and dependency which may well be one of the reasons that we have a tendency seek something of the same as we grow older, possibly leading to religious belief, amongst other things.
-
Dear enki,
I go where the music takes me, well in this case the science. :)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
But I am aware that it is a very grey area and I am also aware that my confirmation bias might be doing overtime :P
Gonnagle.
I'll tell you another grey area........The side of a battleship.
-
Dear Vlad,
Get on stage, no really, quick before it wears off. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Get on stage, no really, quick before it wears off. ::)
Gonnagle.
As long as he's got another 49 'grey' jokes in the bag, first. ;)
-
Well one scientist likened it to ( how he knows this :o ) jumping out of a aeroplane with no parachute but ten times more frightening.
I get the reasoning, but that's sort of my point - it's reasoning, and an infant can't reason, it doesn't have the thought structures to do it. It simply reacts - is that 'fear' or instinct?
I am not a mother ( or father ) so I go with the science presented, the child in the womb is connected to his/her mother, the child reacts to its mothers feelings, kicking when it hears its mother favourite music, one mother stated " I wish I had listened to more classical music when I was pregnant".
I am a parent, but I don't for a second think that gives me any sort of insight into how they think, even now they're approaching adulthood... (especially now they're approaching adulthood!)
Higher power, yes I knew I was in trouble using that term and I suppose I am on thin ice with knowing what a baby in the womb is thinking, what I do know, this pattern seeking is part of what we are, it is written into the DNA, we don't learn it, what I think I know, the baby is aware of something greater.
It's aware of things, and it's developing a mental architecture to explore them - whether those things are 'greater' is subjective, I think, and I'm not sure the infant has any capacity to judge. It's probably just about capable of grasping some sense of 'me' and 'not me'.
O.
-
I get the reasoning, but that's sort of my point - it's reasoning, and an infant can't reason, it doesn't have the thought structures to do it. It simply reacts - is that 'fear' or instinct?
I am a parent, but I don't for a second think that gives me any sort of insight into how they think, even now they're approaching adulthood... (especially now they're approaching adulthood!)
It's aware of things, and it's developing a mental architecture to explore them - whether those things are 'greater' is subjective, I think, and I'm not sure the infant has any capacity to judge. It's probably just about capable of grasping some sense of 'me' and 'not me'.
O.
So it is capable of an ''artificial construct'' then.
Doesn't that therefore make your infant a bit more sophisticated than you have gussied?
-
Gonnagle wrote:
Higher power, yes I knew I was in trouble using that term and I suppose I am on thin ice with knowing what a baby in the womb is thinking, what I do know, this pattern seeking is part of what we are, it is written into the DNA, we don't learn it, what I think I know, the baby is aware of something greater.
Well, there has been some psychological interest in the idea of a higher power; for example, for the infant, the parent might be something like that, rather god-like. And then in the mind (or psyche), there is presumably some kind of executive function or ordering. So possibly children are internally (psychologically) organized along the lines of a hierarchy of mental functions.
It wouldn't be surprising if we saw life in the same way, so that we 'see' a higher power in everything.
-
Does that count as "religion" though?
The definitive marker here is the emotional significance one gives it i.e. does one worship it, that is, are its precepts and ethos 'sacred' and can not be substantially questioned, if at all. It is all about the attitude and reverence one endows it.
-
The fact that you have to put 'worship' in quotation marks suggests that you are talking about something fundamentally different to religions.
O.
No. It signifies that the word is being used in a broader sense than is usually associated with it but that it still includes, as a part of it, its usual nomenclature meaning.
-
So it is capable of an ''artificial construct'' then.
I've no idea if it is or not - exactly what stage the sense of self develops, how it is formulated and what complexities it might entail are impossible to deduce at that stage of development given the lack of any language by which we could communicate the ideas.
Doesn't that therefore make your infant a bit more sophisticated than you have gussied?
Only if you're suggesting that the construction of the self within the psyche is a deliberate act - I wasn't aware anyone had suggested that, but feel free to make the case.
O.
-
No. It signifies that the word is being used in a broader sense than is usually associated with it but that it still includes, as a part of it, its usual nomenclature meaning.
OK, but still outside of the conventional use, yes?
O.
-
I don't see the labelling of babies as atheist any more useful than saying tables are atheist. Nor indeed, that they have a belief in a higher power, they don't have that capability
That's right. The idea of atheism comes after the idea of theism so if the baby has no concept of Gods then it can't choose to be an atheist, or entertain anything along those lines.
-
OK, but still outside of the conventional use, yes?
O.
Convention is a funny thing.
The notion I'm expressing here came first before the conventional use, as you put it. What came first was man's attitude to things and a sense of awe and wonder etc. This has been distilled to the now limited and narrow monotheistic position. I'm just putting it in its rightful place again.
-
That's right. The idea of atheism comes after the idea of theism .so if the baby has no concept of Gods then it can't choose to be an atheist, or entertain anything along those lines.
Not sure I completely agree. Once a child is aware enough to have conscious beliefs, it could be classified as lacking a belief in a god if it had never been presented with or thought of such a concept as a god
In that sense it would at that point be atheist but not post theism.
-
Convention is a funny thing.
Most things are, if you look at them from the right angle :)
The notion I'm expressing here came first before the conventional use, as you put it. What came first was man's attitude to things and a sense of awe and wonder etc. This has been distilled to the now limited and narrow monotheistic position. I'm just putting it in its rightful place again.
Well, I'd strike a difference between a sense of awe and wonder, and a sense of worship - I'm awed and in wonder of the expanse of the universe, from quantum mechanics to cosmology, but I don't 'worship' any of it.
That said, I can see how awe and wonder without an explanation could lead to worship - however, I think to use 'worship' in that broader sense without clarifying how it differs from the current convention muddied the waters a little.
O.
-
That's right. The idea of atheism comes after the idea of theism so if the baby has no concept of Gods then it can't choose to be an atheist, or entertain anything along those lines.
The idea of atheism, yes, but the atheism comes before the idea of it.
Before the invention of the car no-one had any cars - the fact we didn't have a word or an idea for them doesn't change the fact they didn't have one.
Before we have a word for the idea of god we can't believe in that idea of god - the absence of belief is atheism, it doesn't matter why you have that lack of belief.
It might be worth, in some circumstances, clarifying that sort of inherent, ignorant atheism, I suppose, but it doesn't change the classification, just refines it.
O.
-
Not sure I completely agree. Once a child is aware enough to have conscious beliefs, it could be classified as lacking a belief in a god if it had never been presented with or thought of such a concept as a god
In that sense it would at that point be atheist but not post theism.
That lacking is due to the fact that it hasn't yet stepped into that particular arena. Atheism is a reaction to the notion of God so that notion and idea has to precede things first.
-
That lacking is due to the fact that it hasn't yet stepped into that particular arena. Atheism is a reaction to the notion of God so that notion and idea has to precede things first.
But the lack is all that is needed to be atheist. Theist/atheist is a binary position and if you lack the belief, once you are capable of holding beliefs, you are in that sense an atheist. Remember this is in a thread where the belief in something like this is being held as being inherent in humans.
-
That lacking is due to the fact that it hasn't yet stepped into that particular arena.
I wouldn't describe it as a 'lack', but rather just an absence.
Atheism is a reaction to the notion of God so that notion and idea has to precede things first.
Atheism is not a reaction to anything, necessarily. Atheism is the absence of a belief system that includes gods - whether that absence is due to ignorance of the idea or a conscious analysis that rejects the claim is irrelevant, it's still atheism.
O.
-
But the lack is all that is needed to be atheist. Theist/atheist is a binary position and if you lack the belief, once you are capable of holding beliefs, you are in that sense an atheist. Remember this is in a thread where the belief in something like this is being held as being inherent in humans.
No, the lack means it is neither one or the other. It has not yet acquired the concepts to make such a choice. There are no default positions here.
It is a bit like saying you have decided to not like tea even though you have never tried it. Until you try it you are not in either camp.
-
No, the lack means it is neither one or the other. It has not yet acquired the concepts to make such a choice. There are no default positions here.
It is a bit like saying you have decided to not like tea even though you have never tried it. Until you try it you are not in either camp.
It isn't a camp, despite what you might read here, it's a description where the postive is like tea, and the binary is no expressed liking for tea, which includes a dislike or a not sure what tea is.
-
I wouldn't describe it as a 'lack', but rather just an absence.
Atheism is not a reaction to anything, necessarily. Atheism is the absence of a belief system that includes gods - whether that absence is due to ignorance of the idea or a conscious analysis that rejects the claim is irrelevant, it's still atheism.
O.
The first bit : Ok.
Next bit. You can only say that from a position of hindsight. If there are no concepts of Gods (or the concept has not been instilled into the person) then there can be no atheism on their part. How can you disagree with a concept or idea if you have never encountered it? What you are saying is that you are making a judgement about someone else's position as an external agent but it is what the person themselves think and know that is the clinching factor here, and which dictates that person's actual position on the matter. There being three possible ones of theist, atheist and undecided or not even considered.
-
It isn't a camp, despite what you might read here, it's a description where the postive is like tea, and the binary is no expressed liking for tea, which includes a dislike or a not sure what tea is.
Not knowing what tea tastes like and not liking tea are two different positions. A before and after event.
-
Not knowing what tea tastes like and not liking tea are two different positions. A before and after event.
And atheism isn't a not liking tea or translated not believing in God. It's a lack of belief from an entity capable of liking/not liking tea see believing/not believing, not having a belief in god
-
And atheism isn't a not liking tea or translated not believing in God. It's a lack of belief from an entity capable of liking/not liking tea see believing/not believing, not having a belief in god
So am a aboogglist because I don't believe in or hold any views on Booggles, even though I haven't a clue what a Booggle is or the concepts it's suppose to contain?
-
So am a aboogglist because I don't believe in or hold any views on Booggles, even though I haven't a clue what a Booggle is or the concepts it's suppose to contain?
Yep. In terms of there being a lack of belief in Booggles, as opposed to be a Boogglist. As long as there is a capability of belief, there is belief or not belief.
-
No, the lack means it is neither one or the other. It has not yet acquired the concepts to make such a choice. There are no default positions here.
It is a bit like saying you have decided to not like tea even though you have never tried it. Until you try it you are not in either camp.
The two are complementary - you either like tea or you don't. The reason you don't like tea is irrelevant: whether it's an active choice from experience or simply a lack of information doesn't change the fact that you don't put yourself in the group 'likes tea'.
O.
-
Next bit. You can only say that from a position of hindsight. If there are no concepts of Gods (or the concept has not been instilled into the person) then there can be no atheism on their part. How can you disagree with a concept or idea if you have never encountered it?
You don't have to disagree with any given concept in order to be an atheist. Atheists are those people who don't subscribe to the theory of gods - you don't have to be aware of the concept, you don't have to have actively rejected the theory, you just have to not self-subscribe as a believer.
What you are saying is that you are making a judgement about someone else's position as an external agent but it is what the person themselves think and know that is the clinching factor here, and which dictates that person's actual position on the matter. There being three possible ones of theist, atheist and undecided or not even considered.
No, there aren't. You are pitching atheism as an active rejection, and it isn't (necessarily). It's the group of all the people who aren't theists.
O.
-
Not knowing what tea tastes like and not liking tea are two different positions. A before and after event.
I think you're conflating 'not liking' tea with 'disliking' tea. You can only dislike tea after you've tried it, but you don't 'like tea' if you've never had it, you don't know.
The group of people who don't like tea includes the people that actively dislike and the people who don't know yet.
Similarly, the people who are atheists include those that are aware of the idea and have rejected it (or remain unconvinced) and those that have no idea of the concept - theism is an active choice, and atheism is the state of not having made that choice.
O.
-
Dear Me,
I think this little debate/discussion has got ahead of itself, those words God and atheism should be left out of the debate, the words I think we should concentrate on are, belief and believe.
Whether it is by evolution or the time spent in the womb until those few minutes after we are born, we are programmed to believe that something bigger than us is looking after us.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Me,
I think this little debate/discussion has got ahead of itself, those words God and atheism should be left out of the debate, the words I think we should concentrate on are, belief and believe.
Whether it is by evolution or the time spent in the womb until those few minutes after we are born, we are programmed to believe that something bigger than us is looking after us.
Gonnagle.
We are not capable of that type of conscious belief at that stage. When we are we have also experienced nurture.
-
I think this little debate/discussion has got ahead of itself, those words God and atheism should be left out of the debate, the words I think we should concentrate on are, belief and believe.
Whether it is by evolution or the time spent in the womb until those few minutes after we are born, we are programmed to believe that something bigger than us is looking after us.
That we have a natural tendency doesn't mean that, as rational agents, we should simply give in to the natural tendency - after all, we also have a natural tendency to try to resolve disputes with violence and to hoard supplies at the expense of those outside the direct clan/tribe.
Civilisation is built, at least in part, on the suppression of some of the evolutionarily advantageous but less palatable instincts.
O.
-
That we have a natural tendency doesn't mean that, as rational agents, we should simply give in to the natural tendency - after all, we also have a natural tendency to try to resolve disputes with violence and to hoard supplies at the expense of those outside the direct clan/tribe.
Civilisation is built, at least in part, on the suppression of some of the evolutionarily advantageous but less palatable instincts.
O.
Yes indeed! I agree that we are evolving to eliminate many of our basic instincts while building up within ourselves more civilized and humane qualities. This is what is usually called spiritual development. It is the same as Self development or Character development.
And...religions have over the years been trying to make us develop in exactly that direction. So....we can see that spiritual development, religious norms, social and cultural development, biological evolution...have all been moving in the same direction.
Less animal...more divine qualities...that's the idea!
-
Yes indeed! I agree that we are evolving to eliminate many of our basic instincts while building up within ourselves more civilized and humane qualities.
I'd say 'developing' to avoid any confusion with the biological process of evolution, but broadly yes.
This is what is usually called spiritual development. It is the same as Self development or Character development.
That's not the sense I usually get when people use the phrase 'spiritual' - it seems as though 'ethical' would be a better fit here, given the context.
And...religions have over the years been trying to make us develop in exactly that direction.
Some people in some religions, but not all of them, and certainly not all religions. Given the immense power religious institutions have had in some cultures, it can be difficult to determine exactly what is a product of the religion and what is a product of the people involved, regardless of their (nominal) religion - certainly, though, there have been more than enough examples, right up to the modern day, of religious people and institutions endorsing ideas that are not progressive or ethical, but only justifiable within their own 'spiritual' framework.
So....we can see that spiritual development, religious norms, social and cultural development, biological evolution...have all been moving in the same direction. Less animal...more divine qualities...that's the idea!
Again, some truth in that, and some confirmation bias. Cultural development has very obviously not solely been progressive: almost two thousand years after some very creditable philosophy in the foundational documents of Christianity we see the Nazis trying to exterminate the Jewish people - that's not progress.
Similarly, we see religious people of many stripes attempting to ostracise gay people whilst 'spiritualists' take science buzzwords hostage to peddle pseudoscience for personal profit at the expense of anyone who'll listen. 'Divinity' is as meaningless a concept as 'spiritual', and our capacity to overcome natural impediments to procreation means that biological evolution's direct influence on humanity is severely limited.
O.
-
Less animal...more divine qualities...that's the idea!
;D I wish I had that kind of faith in mankind!
If you take off those 'spiritual' tinted glasses you will find a world full of horrors some caused by religions but I would say the majority probably not.
It's pretty easy to talk spirituality when atrocities aren't being carried out on you and yours because if they were you would find your animal qualities pretty damn quick I'm sure.
A natural disaster on a global scale is all it would take for man to go back to his baser instincts I think
-
I'd say 'developing' to avoid any confusion with the biological process of evolution, but broadly yes.
That's not the sense I usually get when people use the phrase 'spiritual' - it seems as though 'ethical' would be a better fit here, given the context.
Some people in some religions, but not all of them, and certainly not all religions. Given the immense power religious institutions have had in some cultures, it can be difficult to determine exactly what is a product of the religion and what is a product of the people involved, regardless of their (nominal) religion - certainly, though, there have been more than enough examples, right up to the modern day, of religious people and institutions endorsing ideas that are not progressive or ethical, but only justifiable within their own 'spiritual' framework.
Again, some truth in that, and some confirmation bias. Cultural development has very obviously not solely been progressive: almost two thousand years after some very creditable philosophy in the foundational documents of Christianity we see the Nazis trying to exterminate the Jewish people - that's not progress.
Similarly, we see religious people of many stripes attempting to ostracise gay people whilst 'spiritualists' take science buzzwords hostage to peddle pseudoscience for personal profit at the expense of anyone who'll listen. 'Divinity' is as meaningless a concept as 'spiritual', and our capacity to overcome natural impediments to procreation means that biological evolution's direct influence on humanity is severely limited.
O.
Evolution does not go forward like a truck. It is more like a river in which certain parts move faster than others. Some of the waters move away into tributaries. Some move away and stagnate into lakes. That does not mean the river as a whole does not have a direction. It does.
We need to be careful about this paranoia with the negatives of religion.... (thanks to people like Dawkins ::)). Alright...there were the crusades, there were witch hunts, there was persecution of some people, there are the jihad's and the current terrorists.
However, the positives are much more than these negatives. Just because some people develop infections from hospitals we don't close down hospitals. Just because some doctors kill people we don't think of doctors as killers.
We need to have a balance and realize how much religions have done to humanize people, to instill self control and a social vision .....and helped us to move away from our savage past.
-
Yes indeed! I agree that we are evolving to eliminate many of our basic instincts while building up within ourselves more civilized and humane qualities. This is what is usually called spiritual development. It is the same as Self development or Character development.
And...religions have over the years been trying to make us develop in exactly that direction. So....we can see that spiritual development, religious norms, social and cultural development, biological evolution...have all been moving in the same direction.
Less animal...more divine qualities...that's the idea!
I think you are conflating notions of human progress with evolution. For example, people who you might regard as educated, civilised, aesthetic, cerebral, spiritual, these are probably not the people with large families by and large, and so these characteristics will not feature strongly in determining the future shape of the human genome.
-
Sriram,
Evolution does not go forward like a truck. It is more like a river in which certain parts move faster than others. Some of the waters move away into tributaries. Some move away and stagnate into lakes. That does not mean the river as a whole does not have a direction. It does.
Nope: evolution is descent with adaptation – it does not have a “direction” at all. When an environment changes sometimes random genetic mutations will enable the genome better to thrive in that changed environment, and given enough change over time speciation occurs.
We need to be careful about this paranoia with the negatives of religion.... (thanks to people like Dawkins ). Alright...there were the crusades, there were witch hunts, there was persecution of some people, there are the jihad's and the current terrorists.
Apart from that though…
However, the positives are much more than these negatives.
Why do you think that?
Just because some people develop infections from hospitals we don't close down hospitals. Just because some doctors kill people we don't think of doctors as killers.
That’s true, but it’s not a meaningful comparison. Try instead, say, Boeing designing aeroplanes according to its new “just guessing” method. Once in a blue moon one of the ‘planes so designed will indeed fly, but that’s hardly the point.
We need to have a balance and realize how much religions have done to humanize people, to instill self control and a social vision .....and helped us to move away from our savage past.
Well, you’d need to demonstrate how much they have done that rather than the opposite of that to have an argument, but in the meantime the basic problem remains the privileging of religious “faith” as a reliable guide to truth. Guessing about stuff is more likely by magnitudes to lead to inaccurate answers rather than to accurate ones, and that’s a problem for the “it’s a fact for you too” religious.
-
Evolution does not go forward like a truck. It is more like a river in which certain parts move faster than others. Some of the waters move away into tributaries. Some move away and stagnate into lakes. That does not mean the river as a whole does not have a direction. It does.
Evolution does not have a direction at all, it is not 'aimed' or 'targetted', there is no ultimate destination, there is just an instantaneous reaction to localised pressures on natural variation.
We need to be careful about this paranoia with the negatives of religion.... (thanks to people like Dawkins ::)). Alright...there were the crusades, there were witch hunts, there was persecution of some people, there are the jihad's and the current terrorists.
Agreed, but we can't afford to forget that religions tendency towards authoritarianism and tribalism lends itself to these activities.
However, the positives are much more than these negatives. Just because some people develop infections from hospitals we don't close down hospitals. Just because some doctors kill people we don't think of doctors as killers.
Nothing intrinsic in being a hospital involves delivering infections - it's an unfortunate byproduct of the accumulation of sick people. Nothing intrinsic in being a doctor leads to murder, it's just that doctors are humans. Religion, though, is intrinisically authoritarian - there is an 'absolute truth' out there - and it's intrinisically tribal; this is not a good combination, whatever peaceable philosophies are painted over the top.
We need to have a balance and realize how much religions have done to humanize people, to instill self control and a social vision .....and helped us to move away from our savage past.
And, equally, we need to appreciate that their day is done, the achievements of basic civilisation that come from building communities are already well identified, and we need to move beyond tribalism and superstition and build a global community in which all are free to be as they choose. Whilst religious socieites indeed gave us many cultural developments, it's questionable exactly how much of it was down to the religions specifically and how much was down to being communities (of which religious accumulations are just one variety). Certain civilising ideas, though, have come in more recent years not from religions but in spite of them - the acceptability of, say, the Anglican community in comparison to the more fundamental Christianities of Africa and the US is not a product of religious development, but rather a product of British culture neutering the negative aspects of Christianity in Anglicanism.
O.
-
Evolution does not have a direction at all, it is not 'aimed' or 'targetted', there is no ultimate destination, there is just an instantaneous reaction to localised pressures on natural variation.
Agreed, but we can't afford to forget that religions tendency towards authoritarianism and tribalism lends itself to these activities.
Nothing intrinsic in being a hospital involves delivering infections - it's an unfortunate byproduct of the accumulation of sick people. Nothing intrinsic in being a doctor leads to murder, it's just that doctors are humans. Religion, though, is intrinisically authoritarian - there is an 'absolute truth' out there - and it's intrinisically tribal; this is not a good combination, whatever peaceable philosophies are painted over the top.
And, equally, we need to appreciate that their day is done, the achievements of basic civilisation that come from building communities are already well identified, and we need to move beyond tribalism and superstition and build a global community in which all are free to be as they choose. Whilst religious socieites indeed gave us many cultural developments, it's questionable exactly how much of it was down to the religions specifically and how much was down to being communities (of which religious accumulations are just one variety). Certain civilising ideas, though, have come in more recent years not from religions but in spite of them - the acceptability of, say, the Anglican community in comparison to the more fundamental Christianities of Africa and the US is not a product of religious development, but rather a product of British culture neutering the negative aspects of Christianity in Anglicanism.
O.
1. Merely asserting that evolution does not have a direction does not change anything. It is plain that evolution does have a direction. The journey from DNA strands and unicellular organisms to modern humans....IS the direction. Its not anyone's imagination...its actually happened that way!
As we have seen in the thread on 'A new discovery about evolution' .....it takes just one mutation to make the jump from unicellular to multicellular. A one in a trillion trillion chance! This 'chance mutation' has to happen in millions of organisms for it to become a planet wide phenomenon. From there it takes millions of other 'chance mutations' for additional complexity and emergent properties to arise.
This is the direction that evolution has taken. Its not speculation. The fine tuning and tweaking all along the way is obvious.
Now...why and how exactly this tweaking happens is a different argument which we can talk about as long as we want. No clear and ready answers are available. However merely mocking the God argument doesn't help.....nor does it help to attribute it all to 'chance'. The answer doesn't have to be either of these two extremes.
Using 'survival instinct' as the answer don't help either...because 'survival' then becomes the objective and purpose of evolution. Why should anything survive?! From where and why did that 'instinct' come in?
That all these millions of improbable mutations and emergent properties happened entirely due to random variations and chance environmental factors....is the biggest lie ever sold! Not dissimilar to the Adam & Eve story IMO. We may not yet know the reason or the driving forces ...but we need to find out.
2. Religion has authority ...yes... but it is only authority that helps people to obey and follow the rules. More so when most people are unlettered and driven more by instinct than by reason. Following the rules over several generations is what leads to a civilized society eventually. Like educating children in school.
So...putting down 'religious authority' is as bad as putting down school authorities and rules.
Secondly 'scientific authority' can be no less draconian than religious authority in many cases. It can sometimes be as misleading and rigid as the other.
3. Religions are certainly not obsolete. You may not need religion but you cannot speak for 7 billion people worldwide. Many billions of people still need religion and will always do. Primary schools and nursery rhymes will never become obsolete. Same with religion.
-
1. Merely asserting that evolution does not have a direction does not change anything. It is plain that evolution does have a direction. The journey from DNA strands and unicellular organisms to modern humans....IS the direction. Its not anyone's imagination...its actually happened that way!
That it has an historical path does not mean that, when the process started, it was 'aimed' along that path. Evolution has not only occurred from unicellular organisms to humanity, it's branched into millions of forms of life, it may well have gone back and forth between unicellular and multicellular forms in various branches, it's been in and out of the oceans in various paths.
As we have seen in the thread on 'A new discovery about evolution' .....it takes just one mutation to make the jump from unicellular to multicellular. A one in a trillion trillion chance! This 'chance mutation' has to happen in millions of organisms for it to become a planet wide phenomenon.
No, the mutation has to happen in one and then be passed on to others through reproduction.
From there it takes millions of other 'chance mutations' for additional complexity and emergent properties to arise.
Yes, and with billions of bacteria (say) reproducing multiple times per day for millions of years, you have many, many opportunities for one of those one in a trillion mutations to occur.
This is the direction that evolution has taken. Its not speculation. The fine tuning and tweaking all along the way is obvious.
The 'fine tuning' is still only evident if you presume arbitrarily that we are somehow significant, that we are the 'purpose' of evolution. You have no reason to presume that, we are just the outcome - a different path would have led to a different species, perhaps without the capacity to consider themselves the point of existence, or perhaps without the hubris.
Now...why and how exactly this tweaking happens is a different argument which we can talk about as long as we want. No clear and ready answers are available. However merely mocking the God argument doesn't help.....nor does it help to attribute it all to 'chance'. The answer doesn't have to be either of these two extremes.
It doesn't have to be at either of these two extremes, but we have evidence for one of them, and models based on one of them that have made successful predictions.
Using 'survival instinct' as the answer don't help either...because 'survival' then becomes the objective and purpose of evolution.
No, it becomes the purpose of the individual, and it's become their purpose because it's the trait that's most likely to survive and be passed on. Competition for resources - which is inevitable in a system of limited energy input - inevitably leads to survival of the fittest.
Why should anything survive?!
It shouldn't, it's good fortune on our part that it has. Who knows how many places in the universe life has emerged and then faltered? How many species on Earth have died away over time?
From where and why did that 'instinct' come in?
From natural selection of random mutation, just like all the others.
That all these millions of improbable mutations and emergent properties happened entirely due to random variations and chance environmental factors....is the biggest lie ever sold!
Your personal incredulity doesn't invalidate the explanation. We know that mutations happen. We know that organisms - the expression of those genetic mutations - compete in nature, and that fittest at a given moment are more likely to survive and reproduce, and therefore pass on those mutations. We can show the genetic trail of all the life we're aware of, chart the divergence of various groups based on common genetic traits. We've watched evolution occur in organisms. Evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution is by far and away the best supported explanation for how it occurs.
2. Religion has authority ...yes... but it is only authority that helps people to obey and follow the rules. More so when most people are unlettered and driven more by instinct than by reason. Following the rules over several generations is what leads to a civilized society eventually. Like educating children in school.
And like children in school, and society at large, you quickly get to the point where you expect people to behave without the threat of the big stick hanging over you, without someone watching your every move. Religion has served its time as a social watchdog, particular because it's failed to update its social mores from the relatively primitive ones instituted when they were invented.
So...putting down 'religious authority' is as bad as putting down school authorities and rules.
There is a time for people to leave school, and leave that sort of authority...
Secondly 'scientific authority' can be no less draconian than religious authority in many cases. It can sometimes be as misleading and rigid as the other.
There have been examples of people rigidly sticking to old ideas in the face of new evidence, yes. That is, though, diametrically opposed to the principles of scientific enquiry - it's human failing in an otherwise robust system. Religion is not self-reflective or self-updating in that fashion, change has to be forced into the system despite the evidence, because religion is built upon the presumption that it's 'THE' correct understanding.
3. Religions are certainly not obsolete. You may not need religion but you cannot speak for 7 billion people worldwide. Many billions of people still need religion and will always do. Primary schools and nursery rhymes will never become obsolete. Same with religion.
People don't need religion. We can establish that from the perfectly satisfactory lives that people without religion lead. Whether people want religion or not is irrelevant to that, and whether they want it or not is not directly related to whether it is good for them individually or for society at large.
Both of those are irrelevant to whether the claims of religion are correct.
O.
-
Yep. In terms of there being a lack of belief in Booggles, as opposed to be a Boogglist. As long as there is a capability of belief, there is belief or not belief.
What is the point of that? That means my a....... items are endless! And it doesn't mean I'm pro any of them in any form or fashion whatsoever and so making the whole thing a futile exercise; which is what this argument has been about in that it has been implied that the baby is, in some fashion or other, pro atheist.
-
The two are complementary - you either like tea or you don't. The reason you don't like tea is irrelevant: whether it's an active choice from experience or simply a lack of information doesn't change the fact that you don't put yourself in the group 'likes tea'.
O.
Neither do you put yourself in the group of 'Don't like tea' either. You are in the group ''What's tea?''
-
What is the point of that? That means my a....... items are endless! And it doesn't mean I'm pro any of them in any form or fashion whatsoever and so making the whole thing a futile exercise; which is what this argument has been about in that it has been implied that the baby is, in some fashion or other, pro atheist.
Which is why I added capable of belief and why I've argued that babies are not atheist in any sensible fashion.(though see the toddler prayer thread).
The list of things isn't endless. It's limited to the things that other people have belief in, and because of that you are right. If there was no belief in god, there would be no sensible way of talking about atheists. However, someone who has no belief in gods, doesn't need to have heard of them to be classifiable in that circumstance as atheist.
-
Neither do you put yourself in the group of 'Don't like tea' either. You are in the group ''What's tea?''
and also the group of has no like for tea.
-
Neither do you put yourself in the group of 'Don't like tea' either. You are in the group ''What's tea?''
I wouldn't put myself in the group 'dislikes tea', but I would be in the group 'doesn't like tea'. It's a subtle difference, but it's important, even more so when you look at unsubstantiable claims like gods.
O.
-
You don't have to disagree with any given concept in order to be an atheist. Atheists are those people who don't subscribe to the theory of gods - you don't have to be aware of the concept, you don't have to have actively rejected the theory, you just have to not self-subscribe as a believer.
No, there aren't. You are pitching atheism as an active rejection, and it isn't (necessarily). It's the group of all the people who aren't theists.
O.
But if you have absolutely no idea what a theist or Gods are then you can't pitch anything on the issue whatsoever. You are mute on the subject.
I disagree, atheism is an active rejection based on ones experience and understanding of the issue.
-
I think you're conflating 'not liking' tea with 'disliking' tea. You can only dislike tea after you've tried it, but you don't 'like tea' if you've never had it, you don't know.
The group of people who don't like tea includes the people that actively dislike and the people who don't know yet.
Similarly, the people who are atheists include those that are aware of the idea and have rejected it (or remain unconvinced) and those that have no idea of the concept - theism is an active choice, and atheism is the state of not having made that choice.
O.
I think your logic circuit dislikes your argument because you seem to have lost it.
-
Dear Me,
I think this little debate/discussion has got ahead of itself, those words God and atheism should be left out of the debate, the words I think we should concentrate on are, belief and believe.
Whether it is by evolution or the time spent in the womb until those few minutes after we are born, we are programmed to believe that something bigger than us is looking after us.
Gonnagle.
Some peoples' arguments here would infer that one was able to believe in something without having to know what it was one believed in or that even the subject matter even existed.
-
we are programmed to believe that something bigger than us is looking after us.
Yes, they are called parents :)
Unless you mean indoctrinated instead of programmed? (gonna use that word for everything now gonners, being a usual suspect.
-
Which is why I added capable of belief and why I've argued that babies are not atheist in any sensible fashion.(though see the toddler prayer thread).
The list of things isn't endless. It's limited to the things that other people have belief in, and because of that you are right. If there was no belief in god, there would be no sensible way of talking about atheists. However, someone who has no belief in gods, doesn't need to have heard of them to be classifiable in that circumstance as atheist.
And this gets back to a point I made earlier, this is your relative external judgement of the situation but for a child, if it could think things through, not not knowing anything about religion and Gods would ask if told, "You are an atheist.", would be "What is an atheist?" How can it be something that it knows nothing about, even in being an atheist? We are talking about the 'properties' of a child, and you are imposing something that isn't there.
-
I wouldn't put myself in the group 'dislikes tea', but I would be in the group 'doesn't like tea'. It's a subtle difference, but it's important, even more so when you look at unsubstantiable claims like gods.
O.
Explain the difference because it sounds like B.S. to me.
-
And this gets back to a point I made earlier, this is your relative external judgement of the situation but for a child, if it could think things through, not not knowing anything about religion and Gods would ask if told, "You are an atheist.", would be "What is an atheist?" How can it be something that it knows nothing about, even in being an atheist? We are talking about the 'properties' of a child, and you are imposing something that isn't there.
Can I suggest you read what I have actually said? Which amongst other things has consistently stated that until a child is capable of belief/disbelief it shouldn't be categorised as anything. Further I just agreed with you that if there is no actual concept of Boggling, that no one is aBogglist. (I know it seems weird but I was convinced by your argument).
If, however, there is Bogglists, and there are people, old enough to be capable of belief in Bogglism, and they don't know of Bogglism, in the split between those who are Bogglists and not Bogglists, they are aBogglists.
-
NS,
If, however, there is Bogglists, and there are people, old enough to be capable of belief in Bogglism, and they don't know of Bogglism, in the split between those who are Bogglists and not Bogglists, they are aBogglists.
Unless that is Vlad is in charge of the taxonomy - in which case they are anti-Bogglists.
-
Explain the difference because it sounds like B.S. to me.
There is a difference between 'I don't like tea' (I do not subscribe to the position of liking tea) and 'I dislike tea' (I subscribe to the position of disliking tea). One is a positive declaration, the other is the denial of a declaration.
Theists say 'there is a god'. Saying that you are an atheist does not necessarily entail saying 'There is no god', it covers the whole range of people who are not theists, including hypothetical people who have not heard of the notion, or who have no capacity to understand it (say, infants).
O.
-
Can I suggest you read what I have actually said? Which amongst other things has consistently stated that until a child is capable of belief/disbelief it shouldn't be categorised as anything. Further I just agreed with you that if there is no actual concept of Boggling, that no one is aBogglist. (I know it seems weird but I was convinced by your argument).
If, however, there is Bogglists, and there are people, old enough to be capable of belief in Bogglism, and they don't know of Bogglism, in the split between those who are Bogglists and not Bogglists, they are aBogglists.
Can't agree with the last bit. Those who have no knowledge of what a boogglist is, or the concepts therein, can not be classed as aboogglists. Aboogglism is not a default position because it is a position that is consciously taken when presented by the evidence and arguments.
-
Can't agree with the last bit. Those who have no knowledge of what a boogglist is, or the concepts therein, can not be classed as aboogglists. Aboogglism is not a default position because it is a position that is consciously taken when presented by the evidence and arguments.
this isn't about a default position, it's a simple piece of language, people either are boogglists or they are not. The generic term for those who aren't is aboogglist. They lack a belief in boogglism
-
There is a difference between 'I don't like tea' (I do not subscribe to the position of liking tea) and 'I dislike tea' (I subscribe to the position of disliking tea). One is a positive declaration, the other is the denial of a declaration.
Theists say 'there is a god'. Saying that you are an atheist does not necessarily entail saying 'There is no god', it covers the whole range of people who are not theists, including hypothetical people who have not heard of the notion, or who have no capacity to understand it (say, infants).
O.
To say 'I don't like tea' and 'I dislike tea' infers that they have tried tea and know what tea is. For someone who has never tasted tea they can't say either of these, only "What is tea?". Your argument falls apart at this distinction because you make no account for those who have never tasted tea, and yet you craftily squeeze those who have no notion of gods into your second section as if this case has been covered in your first, which it hasn't.
-
this isn't about a default position, it's a simple piece of language, people either are boogglists or they are not. The generic term for those who aren't is aboogglist. They lack a belief in boogglism
Aboogglism is a conscious choice based on the evidence, facts and arguments.
Someone who has no idea of the evidence, facts and arguments can't make that conscious choice.
Atheism is the same it is a conscious choice. It can't be a classification or bin for what doesn't fit theism regardless of its knowledge of the subject.
-
NS,
Unless that is Vlad is in charge of the taxonomy - in which case they are anti-Bogglists.
I'm in charge of everything around here and don't you forget it.
-
Boggleox.
ippy
-
To say 'I don't like tea' and 'I dislike tea' infers that they have tried tea and know what tea is.
Whilst there isn't commonly cause to differentiate, the two are not perfect synonyms. You can be in a position where you can't say "I like tea" without having tried it and decided that you dislike. "I dislike tea" is an affirmation of a position; "I don't like tea" is the negation of a position.
For someone who has never tasted tea they can't say either of these, only "What is tea?".
If you ask someone who has never had tea if they like tea they could well say that they don't know, but they could just as accurately (if less helpfully, with common usage) say that they don't like tea - you'd presume they dislike it, but that's not technically what they've said.
Your argument falls apart at this distinction because you make no account for those who have never tasted tea, and yet you craftily squeeze those who have no notion of gods into your second section as if this case has been covered in your first, which it hasn't.
No, the error is yours because you presume atheism to be a confirmed decision, when it is merely the characterisation of all those people who are not theists.
O.
[/quote]
-
Whilst there isn't commonly cause to differentiate, the two are not perfect synonyms. You can be in a position where you can't say "I like tea" without having tried it and decided that you dislike. "I dislike tea" is an affirmation of a position; "I don't like tea" is the negation of a position
If you ask someone who has never had tea if they like tea they could well say that they don't know, but they could just as accurately (if less helpfully, with common usage) say that they don't like tea - you'd presume they dislike it, but that's not technically what they've said.
No, the error is yours because you presume atheism to be a confirmed decision, when it is merely the characterisation of all those people who are not theists.
I can't believe you are pushing this as usually you come across as intelligent and this is beyond crass.
Going by your assessment of things this would make dogs and chimps atheists as well because you could say they are not theists, but this assessment would be plain stupid.
-
I can't believe you are pushing this as usually you come across as intelligent and this is beyond crass.
Going by your assessment of things this would make dogs and chimps atheists as well because you could say they are not theists, but this assessment would be plain stupid.
That's the nature of formal logic - it's not always helpful. Yes, by the definition of 'not accepting the proposition that there is a god' chimps and dogs (and rocks, say) are atheist. If you limit the set to those things capable of understanding the question, do you put babies in or out? They almost certainly aren't capable of understanding, but they have the potential in a way that dogs apparently do not.
O.
-
But, unfortunately, this is not a question of formal logic, only of how people understand things in everyday talk.
-
That's the nature of formal logic - it's not always helpful. Yes, by the definition of 'not accepting the proposition that there is a god' chimps and dogs (and rocks, say) are atheist. If you limit the set to those things capable of understanding the question, do you put babies in or out? They almost certainly aren't capable of understanding, but they have the potential in a way that dogs apparently do not.
O.
Then formal logic has a flaw and that's not logical!!!
-
But, unfortunately, this is not a question of formal logic, only of how people understand things in everyday talk.
Some of us, Udayana, do think in fairly formal logic. It has it's drawbacks, and its advantages.
O.
-
Then formal logic has a flaw and that's not logical!!!
It doesn't have a flaw, it simply has limitations as any form of communication does.
O.
-
It doesn't have a flaw, it simply has limitations as any form of communication does.
O.
What's that Skippy?