Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on June 24, 2018, 08:07:34 AM
-
Hi everyone,
I have written earlier about the role of religions and how they have succeeded in civilizing us over the millennia. Without religions we might never have become united into a global community and become humane, cooperative, charitable, loving and united.
The idea of a Universal Father, common to all humanity, has definitely resulted in a sense of universal brotherhood and kinship, in spite of all the linguistic, racial, geographical and political differences.
Religions may not seem very important today to some groups of people, but they have been largely responsible for uniting large groups of people in different continents, under common religious identities. This has subsequently resulted in tolerance and acceptance of other religious groups as well.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram, your region is riven with religious conflict. And you know the history of this country, and Europe as a whole, when the Protestant form of Christianity emerged? A sectarianism that was still alive and torturing in the 1970s in NI and still casts a shadow.
Brotherhood of man? Only if you model your relationships on Cane and Abel.
(We could speculate on the fact there’s no sisterhood mentioned on your post, but why bother...)
-
Sriram, your region is riven with religious conflict. And you know the history of this country, and Europe as a whole, when the Protestant form of Christianity emerged? A sectarianism that was still alive and torturing in the 1970s in NI and still casts a shadow.
Brotherhood of man? Only if you model your relationships on Cane and Abel.
(We could speculate on the fact there’s no sisterhood mentioned on your post, but why bother...)
The fact that 2 billion people around the world are united as Christians, 1.5 billion as muslims , 1 billion as Hindus....regardless of their language, race, location....does not seem important to you?!
-
The fact that 2 billion people around the world are united as Christians
Tell the people of Northern Ireland that.
... 1.5 billion as muslims ...
So no animosity between Sunni and Shia - strange because I thought that many of the conflicts raging in the middle east over recent years have, at their heart, conflict between Sunni and Shia.
And that is just conflicts within religions. Once we start to talk about conflict between religions the list is pretty well endless.
-
The fact that 2 billion people around the world are united as Christians, 1.5 billion as muslims , 1 billion as Hindus....regardless of their language, race, location....does not seem important to you?!
/"united"? that is such an appallingly wrong statement that I am quite shocked, even though nothing much shocks me.
I was listening to some of Radio 4's Sunday programme this morning, and the behaviour of so many religious people, because of a personal perversion and who are supposed to believe in God is sickening. How any senior member of any religious faith can say that any god is real or has any existence outside of the human imagination is almost impossible to credit.
-
I don't see how one can say that religions have done anything so grandiose. How would we know? By guessing?
-
The fact that 2 billion people around the world are united as Christians, 1.5 billion as muslims , 1 billion as Hindus....regardless of their language, race, location....does not seem important to you?!
As others have said, just because people are Christians, Muslims etc doesn't mean they are united.
-
Sriram,
You are welcome to your rather idealistic notions that religion is such a unifying influence, but I suggest that the facts do not seem to bear this out. It is worth looking, for instance, at this series of graphs by Max Roser:
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
and, especially the third graph which shows the percentage of years when the 'Great Powers' fought one another, from 1500-2015.
Now no one is saying that these wars were religious wars necessarily, or even that religion was a major component part, but, in much of this time period, religion was hugely more important than it is now. So, as a backcloth to these wars, it didn't quite seem the tolerant and unifying force you seem to suggest.
-
I don't think anyone of you is getting the point at all.
Just imagine how communities were, say, two or three thousand years ago. People largely lived in tribal communities, isolated from one another and usually at war with one another. There were probably thousands, if not millions of such communities all over the world.
What unity was possible between say a village in Africa, a community in Asia and another in Europe? The only uniting factor was religion. What unites people even today, in such a large and diverse country like India? It is religion.
Geography is too limited a factor. So are race and language. What is it that transcends all these limitations to create a sense of kinship? It is religion. Religion was the only 'notional' factor or belief that brought a link, a bond to very different groups of people around the world.
Its a different matter that they manage to fight between themselves sometimes, which according to me is neither here nor there. Without religions, there would be millions more fighting among themselves. Millions would have never united in the first place.
Today, broadly between 5 billion people out of the 7 billion, we have just about 4 religions. This is a very significant unifying factor.
Besides this unity, religions have also been largely responsible for the humane qualities that we associate with civilized people. Without religions not just unity but also the concepts of cooperation, truthfulness, mutual respect, self control, fidelity and so on would not have arisen and been enforced.
Religions have been largely responsible for any kind of social order, law and self discipline. Religions without doubt, have been the single civilizing factor in the word over thousands of years.
The fact that some religious groups fight among themselves is besides the point. What the situation would be without them is the point.
-
Religion is a manifestation of us as social beings. As such it shows the best and the worst of humanity. It is both uniting and divisive, creates caring and hate, is a joy and a scourge.
-
I don't think anyone of you is getting the point at all.
Just imagine how communities were, say, two or three thousand years ago. People largely lived in tribal communities, isolated from one another and usually at war with one another. There were probably thousands, if not millions of such communities all over the world.
What unity was possible between say a village in Africa, a community in Asia and another in Europe? The only uniting factor was religion. What unites people even today, in such a large and diverse country like India? It is religion.
Geography is too limited a factor. So are race and language. What is it that transcends all these limitations to create a sense of kinship? It is religion. Religion was the only 'notional' factor or belief that brought a link, a bond to very different groups of people around the world.
Its a different matter that they manage to fight between themselves sometimes, which according to me is neither here nor there. Without religions, there would be millions more fighting among themselves. Millions would have never united in the first place.
Today, broadly between 5 billion people out of the 7 billion, we have just about 4 religions. This is a very significant unifying factor.
Besides this unity, religions have also been largely responsible for the humane qualities that we associate with civilized people. Without religions not just unity but also the concepts of cooperation, truthfulness, mutual respect, self control, fidelity and so on would not have arisen and been enforced.
Religions have been largely responsible for any kind of social order, law and self discipline. Religions without doubt, have been the single civilizing factor in the word over thousands of years.
The fact that some religious groups fight among themselves is besides the point. What the situation would be without them is the point.
Or religions are a result of the formation of civilised society.
-
You have said in your post the following:
"religions have also been largely responsible for the humane qualities that we associate with civilized people".
I know that GB was far from blameless but putting that to one side for the purposes of an example of how the various religions believe in team work between each other Sriram, what about the example of your partition over there in India.
Regards ippy
-
You say that there are differences between the 1 billion Hindus and the 150 million Muslims. Maybe so.
But do you realize that 1 billion people spread across thousands of miles with different languages, racial groups, lifestyles, cuisine and so on...consider themselves as one group, Hindus......and likewise the 150 million people consider themselves as one group, Muslims....is a remarkable phenomenon in itself?! That is what I am talking about.
-
Are you just making an observation or drawing a conclusion based on it?
-
You say that there are differences between the 1 billion Hindus and the 150 million Muslims. Maybe so.
But do you realize that 1 billion people spread across thousands of miles with different languages, racial groups, lifestyles, cuisine and so on...consider themselves as one group, Hindus......and likewise the 150 million people consider themselves as one group, Muslims....is a remarkable phenomenon in itself?! That is what I am talking about.
Do they all considere themselves as Indian? Because that is the biggest group if all.
Just saying....
-
Five billion people live in probably more than 100 countries. Peoples loyalty to their countries is also questionable. Most people will run away to America for a few dollars.
But there are only four religions for five billion people, and most people will not leave their religion as easily as they leave their countries.
Religions are an extraordinary phenomenon. Dismissing them as irrational is fine...but their role in the above mentioned areas cannot be denied. We would not be the civilized world that we are (largely) but for religions.
-
Five billion people live in probably more than 100 countries. Peoples loyalty to their countries is also questionable. Most people will run away to America for a few dollars.
But there are only four religions for five billion people, and most people will not leave their religion as easily as they leave their countries.
Religions are an extraordinary phenomenon. Dismissing them as irrational is fine...but their role in the above mentioned areas cannot be denied. We would not be the civilized world that we are (largely) but for religions.
I'm not sure that 'loyalty' correlates with 'civilised'. Loyalty derives from tribal instincts. Maybe people who can see and think outwith the bounds of their cultural origins are the more civilised.
-
I'm not sure that 'loyalty' correlates with 'civilised'. Loyalty derives from tribal instincts. Maybe people who can see and think outwith the bounds of their cultural origins are the more civilised.
I am not correlating loyalty with being civilized. Where did you get that from?!
But loyalty is certainly a part of civilized behavior. Why are you dismissing it as just a tribal instinct?
I am saying that all our 'civilized' traits have been taught and enforced by religions over the centuries. Without religions we all might still be disparate tribes leading near animal like existence.
-
I am not correlating loyalty with being civilized. Where did you get that from?!
But loyalty is certainly a part of civilized behavior. Why are you dismissing it as just a tribal instinct?
I am saying that all our 'civilized' traits have been taught and enforced by religions over the centuries. Without religions we all might still be disparate tribes leading near animal like existence.
I don't think loyalty is inherently virtuous. It depends on what you are being loyal to. It derives from our tendency to form groups, in groups and out groups, us and them. Loyalty facilitates things within a group, but it creates division between rival groups that would not be there but for in-group loyalty. Religions give us one more set of fault lines that separate us.
As for "Without religions we all might still be disparate tribes leading near animal like existence" I think that is somewhat over the top. There are other civilising factors at play, commerce and trade, for example; the agricultural revolution leading to peoples living in villages rather than in tribes; curiosity, leading to early forms of science and the democratisation of knowledge, some of which was actively opposed by institutional religion.
-
Five billion people live in probably more than 100 countries. Peoples loyalty to their countries is also questionable. Most people will run away to America for a few dollars.
But there are only four religions for five billion people, and most people will not leave their religion as easily as they leave their countries.
Religions are an extraordinary phenomenon. Dismissing them as irrational is fine...but their role in the above mentioned areas cannot be denied. We would not be the civilized world that we are (largely) but for religions.
I thought your there was something wrong when you more or less indicated that Indian religions are all living side by side peacefully, and thought I'm sure we hear via the media something or other about religion based riots taking place in India frequently and there always seems to be large numbers of people being killed in the process every time they take place.
Anyway I thought I'd consult Mr Google I've now done that Sriram and it seem there is an endless stream of religion based riots going on all over the place in your beloved country, more or less all of the time, so many I don't need to list them, so much for differing faiths getting along with each other as you have inferred in previous posts of yours, I wouldn't want to put this regrettable continual riotous behaviour that India suffers at the top of a list of things that would define the various parts of a civilised society
Regards ippy
-
I don't think loyalty is inherently virtuous. It depends on what you are being loyal to. It derives from our tendency to form groups, in groups and out groups, us and them. Loyalty facilitates things within a group, but it creates division between rival groups that would not be there but for in-group loyalty. Religions give us one more set of fault lines that separate us.
As for "Without religions we all might still be disparate tribes leading near animal like existence" I think that is somewhat over the top. There are other civilising factors at play, commerce and trade, for example; the agricultural revolution leading to peoples living in villages rather than in tribes; curiosity, leading to early forms of science and the democratisation of knowledge, some of which was actively opposed by institutional religion.
There is an inherent contradiction in your statement about loyalty.
You are saying that loyalty breeds disunity with other groups. Thereby you are saying that everyone should be floating around in mid ground somewhere never gravitating towards any group...and this according to you, is somehow a sign of 'unity' with all groups. ::) :D
I am saying that loyalty encourages unity....which is obvious. Loyalty towards any group is a good thing. Loyalty is basically a good personal quality as well because it goes against ego centrism.
IMO, if 5 billion people world wide are loyal and committed to just 4 religions, that is a really good sign of unity among otherwise diverse groups. This is not possible through any other means.
-
There is an inherent contradiction in your statement about loyalty.
You are saying that loyalty breeds disunity with other groups.
History tells us exactly that though.
Through the ages war after war has, at its heart, tribal loyalty to one group and therefore animosity toward another. The kind of we are right, therefore they are wrong attitude. And that slavish (and deadly) loyalty to 'the cause' isn't just associated with religion (although it is a major force for conflict down the years) but also nationalism and loyalty to political ideologies.
So no, I don't think that loyalty towards a massive group most of which the individual has never met, is a particularly admirable trait. On the other hand respect, and particularly respect for those who aren't from your religion/nationality/political ideology is an admirable trait, but one that is almost diametrically opposed to the kind of tribal loyalty toward millions of people just by virtue that they are the same religion or nationality etc.
The problem with 'tribal' loyalty (regardless of whether that 'tribe' is defined by religion, nationality or political ideology) is that is fosters lack of respect for those that aren't in your 'tribe' and vice versa for people in a different 'tribe'.
-
There is an inherent contradiction in your statement about loyalty.
You are saying that loyalty breeds disunity with other groups. Thereby you are saying that everyone should be floating around in mid ground somewhere never gravitating towards any group...and this according to you, is somehow a sign of 'unity' with all groups. ::) :D
I am saying that loyalty encourages unity....which is obvious. Loyalty towards any group is a good thing. Loyalty is basically a good personal quality as well because it goes against ego centrism.
IMO, if 5 billion people world wide are loyal and committed to just 4 religions, that is a really good sign of unity among otherwise diverse groups. This is not possible through any other means.
A small number of large groupings sets the stage for conflict, as in the 'clash of civilisations'. The politics of identity is crude and it is fuelled by loyalty, loyalty to nation states, loyalty to ethnic groupings, to skin colour, to religion and so on. In a shrinking world it is a better citizen who can see past the closely defined identities of race and religion and nationality and cultivate an identity of being a global citizen, a human being first and foremost, not a muslim or hindu or christian. In so far as loyalty to our narrow identities inhibits our growing global awareness, loyalty is not a good thing, it is something we need to overcome in order to grow.
-
Loyalty arises from a sense of belonging and bonding. This sense of belonging grows and expands over several generations. It does not happen in one generation. From a tiny village in Africa, a persons sense of belonging cannot grow towards a world community all of a sudden. That is the point I am making, in fact. Please read the link in the OP.
It is religion alone that has made such a sense of kinship possible far removed from ones immediate surroundings or racial or linguistic group.
A global awareness has been made possible today precisely because of this build up of unity and bonding that religion has been able to foster. Without religions people would never have developed a kinship with people outside their village or immediate environment.
The groupings (4 religions) that we see today would have been unimaginable 1000 years ago. This could further narrow down in coming generations no doubt and maybe we will have just two major religious groups. Maybe this will narrow down to just one group in the future as I have mentioned in the link.
You are seeing only the minor differences and skirmishes between religions today. You aren't seeing the major unifying changes that have happened over the millennia.
-
Loyalty arises from a sense of belonging and bonding. This sense of belonging grows and expands over several generations. It does not happen in one generation. From a tiny village in Africa, a persons sense of belonging cannot grow towards a world community all of a sudden. That is the point I am making, in fact. Please read the link in the OP.
It is religion alone that has made such a sense of kinship possible far removed from ones immediate surroundings or racial or linguistic group.
A global awareness has been made possible today precisely because of this build up of unity and bonding that religion has been able to foster. Without religions people would never have developed a kinship with people outside their village or immediate environment.
The groupings (4 religions) that we see today would have been unimaginable 1000 years ago. This could further narrow down in coming generations no doubt and maybe we will have just two major religious groups. Maybe this will narrow down to just one group in the future as I have mentioned in the link.
You are seeing only the minor differences and skirmishes between religions today. You aren't seeing the major unifying changes that have happened over the millennia.
Have you noticed Sriram, that lately the mostly non-religious nations seem to be getting along swimmingly, other than some interlopers from where we call it the Middle East, with the odd bomb or two plus flying planes into buildings.
Mind you, given time non-religious people will continue to not keep on killing each other, unlike_____
Dream on Sriram.
Regards ippy.
-
Loyalty arises from a sense of belonging and bonding.
I agree where that is natural and not expected or demanded.
So, of course I feel a natural sense of community and loyalty, to people I actually know - whether friends of family or those living near me that I actually interact with. But that is necessarily a small group and of course one that tends to be rather diverse in terms of religion etc.
But that isn't what we are talking about here - we are talking about forced, unnatural loyalty, where individuals are 'taught' that they should feel more loyal towards a person they've never met, know nothing about simply because they live hundreds of miles away, but also in the UK, while they should have the same sense of loyalty to someone who happens to be French.
Likewise taught that they should feel loyalty to someone thousands of miles away who nominally shares a religion, rather than a person of a different religion (or none) who they might actually have much more in common with.
If loyalty needs to be taught (as is the case for religion, nationalism etc) then it isn't real loyalty - and that is very dangerous. Once you've taught people that they must be loyal to someone they don't know just because they are (for example) muslim, it is an easy step to support them oppressing or persecuting someone else (who you also don't know) of another religion.
-
You are still not getting the point.
Without religions....Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism... millions of human beings across the world would not have felt any kinship at all....that we take for granted today.
Just go back 3000 years and imagine that none of these religions ever existed. How do you think millions of disparate groups of people around the world would have ever developed a bonding? How do you think we would have ever reached today's stage of globalized humanism, kinship and civilized traits?
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
-
Without religions....Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism... millions of human beings across the world would not have felt any kinship at all....that we take for granted today.
What rubbish - of course they'd have felt kinship, just on the basis of other aspects of tribalism.
-
You are still not getting the point.
Without religions....Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism... millions of human beings across the world would not have felt any kinship at all....that we take for granted today.
Just go back 3000 years and imagine that none of these religions ever existed. How do you think millions of disparate groups of people around the world would have ever developed a bonding? How do you think we would have ever reached today's stage of globalized humanism, kinship and civilized traits?
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
I wonder what came first kinship or religion? I doubt religion, it's pretty obvious thunder etc., was explained as the man in the sky's anger, just as a way of trying to make sense of the world, the kinship was there a necessary assist to survival as a group, I'm all for the kinship bit but isn't it about time the Mr Magic Man in the Sky bit was consigned to history where it belongs, more urgently so from India than a lot of other places.
I knew that there seems to be a lot religion based riots in India reported in our media from time to time but I hadn't realised how many or how frequent they were, until I had a dip into Google Sriram, surprisingly to me you seem to have religion based riots going on in differing parts of your country for most of the time and most of them involve deaths usually well into double figures, so much for religion bringing kinsmanship, is this summery another one that's missing your elusive point or has Google got it wrong?
Regards ippy.
-
How do you think we would have ever reached today's stage of globalized humanism, kinship and civilized traits?
Actually there is a strong relationship between societies that were less dominated by religion and the development of civilised traits. Down the centuries the development of highly theocratic societies is typically associated with the stifling of civilising traits.
We don't talk about the dark ages and the enlightenment for nothing. We don't see the Greek and Roman cultures (that were highly secularised) as paragons of early culture for nothing. We don't see the most civilised and democratic societies that have the greatest social provision (e.g. Scandinavian countries) which are some of the least religious countries on the planet (through choice) for no reason.
-
Ok...thanks guys! Cheers.
-
I was denied information about any aspect of atheism when I was young. That was the way things were, but oh, how much sooner I would have been an atheist if it had not been so denied. Ah, well.
-
Sriram hasn't got the arguments he wants to hear or wants; over and out!
See you next time Sriram, when's the next edition of your science magazine due out? :P :P
Regards ippy.
-
I'm not sure you're right about that, sririam will process the information he gets from us (none from me on this occasion) and try to understand but what he is trying to convey is difficult to comprehend. I think, having read it all a few times, I've got his meaning. It would be easier if he was with us and drawing diagrams on a white board or moving groups of figures around on a table.
-
I'm not sure you're right about that, sririam will process the information he gets from us (none from me on this occasion) and try to understand but what he is trying to convey is difficult to comprehend. I think, having read it all a few times, I've got his meaning. It would be easier if he was with us and drawing diagrams on a white board or moving groups of figures around on a table.
I am sure Rob.
Regards ippy.
-
You are still not getting the point.
Without religions....Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism... millions of human beings across the world would not have felt any kinship at all....that we take for granted today.....
Is it a good thing that a muslim in Bangladesh feels kinship with a muslim in Malaysia because they share the same belief system ? I don't think we can say that is a good thing, it is a zero sum game as the gain (kinship) is counter balanced by the loss, the undue lack of kinship with people who follow different paths. If we identify as fundamentally different, we create division and separation which becomes fault lines for conflict. We can see this today with the Rohingya and the Buddhists in Myanmar and many other places and loyalty is a factor in all these situations. If people were loyal to their humanity rather than their particular religion or cultural group then the world would be a kinder gentler place.
-
If people were loyal to their humanity rather than their particular religion or cultural group then the world would be a kinder gentler place.
Well said.
-
I'm not sure you're right about that, sririam will process the information he gets from us (none from me on this occasion) and try to understand but what he is trying to convey is difficult to comprehend. I think, having read it all a few times, I've got his meaning. It would be easier if he was with us and drawing diagrams on a white board or moving groups of figures around on a table.
Hi Robbie
Request you to read the link I have provided in the OP. That is a little more elaborate and might convey what I have to say.
Simply put....we have evolved from animals and had/have all their survival instincts, mutual suspicions, fears and violent behavior. Thousands of years ago people living in remote villages were separated by great distances. Besides that, there were racial, linguistic, cultural differences which created a bigger gap.
Under these circumstances unifying people of such disparate groups world over and inculcating non violence, universal brotherhood, love, altruism and so on would have been impossible.
This impossible feat was achieved by religions. They created a sense of kinship, a common universal Father, common rules and laws, common goal. This task was done by different religions in different regions and they created like minded groups far removed from the local villages and communities.
People across large geographical areas, who had never met one another, felt a bond and a common goal. This is not as simple as we might today think. It is a great achievement.
Today the number of common groups has been reduced to largely four major religions. This is a fantastic achievement considering how divided the world was say, thousand years ago. No doubt, there are still minor skirmishes between religions and within religions. This is of no consequence. The important thing is the sense of belonging that people feel towards their religions.
Our present day humanism, global outlook, mutual respect etc. that we take for granted, have been possible only because of religions.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Mutual respect??? In Islam?????
Have you never read the Quran or the Hadiths, the 'sayings' of the 'prophet'?
Though what he prophecied, I've no idea. Nor did he EVER 'talk' directly with ANY god at all. Wonder why Muslims have never questioned THAT one.?!?!?
I have & talked with loads of Muslims over the years. Sunni - Shia etc !!! MMM Group cohesion???
Sorry about the 'rant' !!! That's my 5 rupees worth for today !!! Honest !!! ;)
Nick
-
Well said.
Agreed.
If only, if only , ah, if only the original first sceptics - and there must have been some right from the beginning of the superstitions that must have led to beliefs in god, had been able to enforce their message more strongly, more widely, more sensibly, more charismatically,. etc then we wouldn't be where we are today!
-
You are still not getting the point.
Without religions....Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism... millions of human beings across the world would not have felt any kinship at all....that we take for granted today.
Just go back 3000 years and imagine that none of these religions ever existed. How do you think millions of disparate groups of people around the world would have ever developed a bonding? How do you think we would have ever reached today's stage of globalized humanism, kinship and civilized traits?
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
None of which is evidence for any religion being true.
-
This impossible feat was achieved by religions. They created a sense of kinship, a common universal Father, common rules and laws, common goal.
So clearly wasn't impossible. Nor unique to religion.
The same (with the exception of 'common universal father, whatever that means - isn't even universal for all religions) has been achieved by pandering to a common sense of ethnicity, nationalism and political/societal standpoint.
-
The Abrahamic faiths with their 'universal father' have been spectacularly good at slaughtering each other over him.
-
Yeah, but think of the sense of kinship that the slaughterers felt towards each other. Killing brings us together.
-
Yeah, but think of the sense of kinship that the slaughterers felt towards each other. Killing brings us together.
The religion that slays together, stays together
-
Simply put....we have evolved from animals and had/have all their survival instincts, mutual suspicions, fears and violent behavior.
We are animals too.
-
Sriram,
I think your views are far too simplistic. You simply seem to concentrate on one thing, religion, which, of itself, can be a particularly divisive product, and then seek to suggest that its unifying force is illustrated by the fact that four major religions became the dominant forces. I would suggest that, in contrast to this, such things as increasing trade between countries and communities, urbanization, increasing democratization, the influence of the 'enlightenment' period on humanistic thinking, greater communication, and the means of communication, have all had their important parts to play here. And, of course, even with religion, there are many disparate groups within them which has led, and continues to lead to conflict. In other words, for every unifying aspect of these dominant religions(although I'm not sure that Buddhism really counts), there is a darker, more divisive side which can be seen to have its influence on many of the conflicts of today.
-
I know that there has been a wave of anti religion sentiment for the past few decades. A normal process of reform, as I see it.
That is however no reason why you people should get so carried away by the trend that you get all blinkered.
If all of you see religions only as 'slaying people'...well...what can I say!!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Religions put forward as true facts totally unevidenced - i.e. the objective, verifiable, etc sort - falsehoods, and nowadays, with the vast range of actual facts we have available, I see no valid excuse for this.
-
... you people should get so carried away by the trend that you get all blinkered.
I don't think it is us that are blinkered Siriam.
-
Religions put forward as true facts totally unevidenced - i.e. the objective, verifiable, etc sort - falsehoods, and nowadays, with the vast range of actual facts we have available, I see no valid excuse for this.
Religions don't do anything. People do. This idea of religions as good or bad seems bizarre to me. They are just what we do. Removing them would mean removing what it is of humanity that generates them. I am unsure exactly what that is but I would be worried about the idea that it can be done without cost.
-
Religions don't do anything. People do. This idea of religions as good or bad seems bizarre to me. They are just what we do. Removing them would mean removing what it is of humanity that generates them. I am unsure exactly what that is but I would be worried about the idea that it can be done without cost.
We’d just replace ‘religion’ with something else. Well, we do that anyway, we just call it nationalism or football or fandoms or politics.
-
One of the latest religions, the Bahá'í Faith, has outlined its principles as follows:
"The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements [which Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed]."
With the current state of the human condition, I'm not optimistic that those principles will be realised, but who knows.
-
We’d just replace ‘religion’ with something else. Well, we do that anyway, we just call it nationalism or football or fandoms or politics.
And that is because it's what we do. The idea of some better world without religion is an idea of humans not being human.
-
One of the latest religions, the Bahá'í Faith, has outlined its principles as follows:
"The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements [which Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed]."
With the current state of the human condition, I'm not optimistic that those principles will be realised, but who knows.
We might well make more progress towards some of these high sounding principles as time goes on, but I don't hold out much confidence in the Bahá'í Faith being of any particular use in this direction, not least because of its own internal inconsistencies.
-
We’d just replace ‘religion’ with something else. Well, we do that anyway, we just call it nationalism or football or fandoms or politics.
No, there's a huge difference. The things you mention involve reality, religions do not; there is an abasence of an actual focus when it comes to religions.
P.S. for NS: I know it is people who invent, follow and act in the name of their religious beliefs.
-
No, there's a huge difference. The things you mention involve reality, religions do not; there is an abasence of an actual focus when it comes to religions.
P.S. for NS: I know it is people who invent, follow and act in the name of their religious beliefs.
So if people invent religions, then religions are not in themselves an issue .
-
No, there's a huge difference. The things you mention involve reality, religions do not; there is an abasence of an actual focus when it comes to religions.
P.S. for NS: I know it is people who invent, follow and act in the name of their religious beliefs.
And that is precisely why it has been so successful. Free from any provable, evidence-based foundation, it provides a flexible, adaptable basis for a shared set of beliefs around which strangers can co-operate with one another.
I can't comment on whether religion has been a moral or ethical 'success', only that it seems obvious that it does 'work' as a binding social force. Money is the same. It exists entirely in our imagination... yet look at its impact. Huge benefits as well as utter deprivation.
The difference now, as I see it, is that religion is floundering when set against science and globalisation. Its too 'them and us' to remain particularly relevant in an age when people are so very mobile, physically and in the ways ideas and thoughts are communicated.
Perhaps it could change, find a new role.
-
No, there's a huge difference. The things you mention involve reality, religions do not; there is an abasence of an actual focus when it comes to religions.
P.S. for NS: I know it is people who invent, follow and act in the name of their religious beliefs.
There's really no difference. Nation states only exist because of lines drawn on a map and people deciding that this is what they are. Nationalism comes from a subjective belief around a nation state, the story that is told about it. Fandoms involve devotion to stories, groups, famous people, games, all constructed on a story. Football is a game but devotion to it involves a story about club and identity. Football stadium or church - what is the difference? Politics relies on stories about them, us, even saviours who will take us to the promised land.
This is what we do and when we stop it will be because something within us has died. Whether that is for good or bad, who knows, but as NS has said, religion is just people being people. Have you ever stopped to question your devotion to the belief that we would be better off without it?
-
There's really no difference. Nation states only exist because of lines drawn on a map and people deciding that this is what they are. Nationalism comes from a subjective belief around a nation state, the story that is told about it. Fandoms involve devotion to stories, groups, famous people, games, all constructed on a story. Football is a game but devotion to it involves a story about club and identity. Football stadium or church - what is the difference? Politics relies on stories about them, us, even saviours who will take us to the promised land.
This is what we do and when we stop it will be because something within us has died. Whether that is for good or bad, who knows, but as NS has said, religion is just people being people. Have you ever stopped to question your devotion to the belief that we would be better off without it?
But none of them relies on any God/god/spirit/soul/etc existing and totally undetectable and of course, imagined in the first place.
-
The Bahais are an offshoot of Islam. I know as I've known people who are/were Bahais.
I've read their main books & attitudes.
Nick
-
The Bahais are an offshoot of Islam. I know as I've known people who are/were Bahais.
I've read their main books & attitudes.
Nick
And, alas, are often persecuted by those of the Islamic faith, in those countries where a more fundamentalist version of the latter is dominant.
-
And, alas, are often persecuted by those of the Islamic faith, in those countries where a more fundamentalist version of the latter is dominant.
Yes, apostasy and heresy are often seen as threats to those who control organised religions. If the apostates and heretics survive persecution then a breakaway sect starts to form, which in turn creates its own organisation which is also often threatened by apostasy and so it goes on. Much the same happens in politics.
-
But none of them relies on any God/god/spirit/soul/etc existing and totally undetectable and of course, imagined in the first place.
So? There’s no more reason to be devoted to West Ham or Star Wars or One Direction than there is god. They are things people fall in love with, or admire with devotion, or become slaves to, because they serve a purpose and meet a need. People fall in love with/devote to/ serve god for the same reason. It makes no difference whether god is detectable or not.
-
So? There’s no more reason to be devoted to West Ham or Star Wars or One Direction than there is god. They are things people fall in love with, or admire with devotion, or become slaves to, because they serve a purpose and meet a need. People fall in love with/devote to/ serve god for the same reason. It makes no difference whether god is detectable or not.
I strongly disagree; the analogy simply doesn't work.
-
People seem to have gone into a discussion about the Truth behind religions. That is something connected to spirituality that I have discussed many times.
My point in this thread is about how religions succeeded in unifying groups of people far beyond their territorial limits. They also enforced self discipline, truthfulness and so on.
It is true that there have been others who have also had a role in unifying people, mainly by geography. I must mention the British Empire in particular that has had a role in unifying the world through its language and common culture. In India specifically, the British, while attempting to divide and rule, succeeded in unifying the country that had so many different kingdoms and languages.
However, no kingdom or empire has had the influence and emotional bonding that religions have generated. They are the single most important unifying and disciplining force the world has seen....and far beyond geographical limits too.
-
I think that you are reflecting this idea that religion is a part of being human, Sriram. Devotion to Luke Skywalker also crosses international boundaries in the same way. We seek our tribe. It's a part of who we are and the stories that we tell ourselves.
-
Yes...its certainly a part of being human. Religions are human constructs obviously. They however have a spiritual base and a major social purpose. That is all I am talking about.
If religions had not existed, the world would not be what it is today. It would have been far more fragmented, violent, selfish and animal like. Not that these qualities do not exist today. Its about the degree.
-
Yes...its certainly a part of being human. Religions are human constructs obviously. They however have a spiritual base and a major social purpose. That is all I am talking about.
If religions had not existed, the world would not be what it is today. It would have been far more fragmented, violent, selfish and animal like. Not that these qualities do not exist today. Its about the degree.
That's where we disagree. Religion has caused so much slaughter just in the tiny islands here. But it can also unify. It has caused some of the finest buildings to be constructed and some of the most moving music to be composed. It brings joy as well as pain, and a reaching out as well as a looking inward. Religion is a manifestation of humanity in all its guises, good, evil and just plain daft.
If religion didn't exist we'd have something else, because we already do, and as far as I can see we will just continue to replace one set of stories with another and then another.
-
So religions perfectly reflect HUMANS but not any god ?????
-
People seem to have gone into a discussion about the Truth behind religions. That is something connected to spirituality that I have discussed many times.
My point in this thread is about how religions succeeded in unifying groups of people far beyond their territorial limits. They also enforced self discipline, truthfulness and so on.
It is true that there have been others who have also had a role in unifying people, mainly by geography. I must mention the British Empire in particular that has had a role in unifying the world through its language and common culture. In India specifically, the British, while attempting to divide and rule, succeeded in unifying the country that had so many different kingdoms and languages.
However, no kingdom or empire has had the influence and emotional bonding that religions have generated. They are the single most important unifying and disciplining force the world has seen....and far beyond geographical limits too.
You seem to be contradicting yourself with the example of India. On the one hand you claim that religion has a unifying effect beyond that which can be achieved by any kingdom or empire, but then claim that the British did do just that, in effect unifying India through the exercise of colonial power.
Whilst religions have a unifying effect within groups that is countered by a divisive effect of comparable magnitude between groups . Therefore we cannot say religions are a good thing on account of their ability to create bonds, on balance it is a zero sum game.
The Partition of India is a prime example of the divisive effect of religion. Rather than uniting the nation, the country was torn apart along the fault lines of religion with immense suffering to all affected.
-
What is the contradiction? Empire building also unifies people. But it is a very limited way of doing it. It is limited by geography.
Religions unify by faith. This has no geographical boundaries. Can people in Africa, America, India, Japan, Russia be unified through empire building? No. They can however be unified through religion. And religion has a much stronger emotive bond than empire.
People were violent, suspicious and selfish from the beginning, as part of our animal nature. This will get reflected some time or the other while interacting with other groups. So, it is not religions that are violent. It is human (animal) nature.
Would it have been any different without religions? No. It would have been worse. Religions at least taught love, cooperation, self control and brotherhood within their group. This is no small achievement.
-
What is the contradiction? Empire building also unifies people. But it is a very limited way of doing it. It is limited by geography.
Religions unify by faith. This has no geographical boundaries. Can people in Africa, America, India, Japan, Russia be unified through empire building? No. They can however be unified through religion. And religion has a much stronger emotive bond than empire.
People were violent, suspicious and selfish from the beginning, as part of our animal nature. This will get reflected some time or the other while interacting with other groups. So, it is not religions that are violent. It is human (animal) nature.
Would it have been any different without religions? No. It would have been worse. Religions at least taught love, cooperation, self control and brotherhood within their group. This is no small achievement.
Rhiannon's post 68 spells out where you're going wrong Sriram, looking at your various posts gives me the impression you don't know where you're going on this one.
We all make a pigs ear of things from time to time, I wish I didn't, but this time it's you, best you just drop it.
Regards ippy
-
So if people invent religions, then religions are not in themselves an issue .
For football, there are teams, venues, spectators and a ball. No-one really thinks there is a football after-life or something.
Nationalism involves a country and its people, a physical place on the planet. No-one thinks that the planet will answer prayers or that it has instructions and wants.
For politics, there are, again, people, the effects of government. Most of this gets criticised most of the time too!
Religions have gods to which they can attach any random quality, characteristic or supposed instructions. So far, not one shread of objective evidence exists for any god. Yes, there are people involved and what they have in common is a belief that some god/spirit/soul/book-labelled-holy/etc exists. The books exist, yes, but to think they were written by anything other than human beings is a daft idea. The cop-out qualifier they come up with is that the god'inspired' the words.
-
For football, there are teams, venues, spectators and a ball. No-one really thinks there is a football after-life or something.
Nationalism involves a country and its people, a physical place on the planet. No-one thinks that the planet will answer prayers or that it has instructions and wants.
For politics, there are, again, people, the effects of government. Most of this gets criticised most of the time too!
Religions have gods to which they can attach any random quality, characteristic or supposed instructions. So far, not one shread of objective evidence exists for any god. Yes, there are people involved and what they have in common is a belief that some god/spirit/soul/book-labelled-holy/etc exists. The books exist, yes, but to think they were written by anything other than human beings is a daft idea. The cop-out qualifier they come up with is that the god'inspired' the words.
This seems like one long non sequitur. If you are an atheist, then religion is surely just part of humanity? And we are neither better nor worse for getting rid of it.
-
For football, there are teams, venues, spectators and a ball. No-one really thinks there is a football after-life or something.
Nationalism involves a country and its people, a physical place on the planet. No-one thinks that the planet will answer prayers or that it has instructions and wants.
For politics, there are, again, people, the effects of government. Most of this gets criticised most of the time too!
Religions have gods to which they can attach any random quality, characteristic or supposed instructions. So far, not one shread of objective evidence exists for any god. Yes, there are people involved and what they have in common is a belief that some god/spirit/soul/book-labelled-holy/etc exists. The books exist, yes, but to think they were written by anything other than human beings is a daft idea. The cop-out qualifier they come up with is that the god'inspired' the words.
You're missing the point. Football is tribal and theres no reason to think that West Ham are worth supporting except the story I tell myself about it - largely because I was indoctrinated to support them as a child. Fandoms are tribal - look at the Star Wars fandom which operates like a faith and within which it is possible to commit heresy. Look at the cult of Corbyn. Nationalism only exits because we have stories about nation states, good guys and bad guys and notions of 'independence' - tribalism.
For whatever reason people do this. If we don't have gods then we have Harry Styles and Lionel Messi. 'Real' doesn't come into it.
And as NS says, you can only not believe if there is something to not believe in.
-
This seems like one long non sequitur. If you are an atheist, then religion is surely just part of humanity? And we are neither better nor worse for getting rid of it.
What needs to be got rid of is the belief, the false belief, that there is any kind of god anywhere, any time. Jasper Fforde had the ideal solution in
the Tuesday Next series: everybody knows there isn't a god but they like the system of Sunday services etc so there are Vicars (Tuesday's brother is one of them) and *god* is the GPD - general purpose deity. Everyone knows the truth and the system runs along smoothly.
-
What needs to be got rid of is the belief, the false belief, that there is any kind of god anywhere, any time. Jasper Fforde had the ideal solution in
the Tuesday Next series: everybody knows there isn't a god but they like the system of Sunday services etc so there are Vicars (Tuesday's brother is one of them) and *god* is the GPD - general purpose deity. Everyone knows the truth and the system runs along smoothly.
Why? What difference will it make?
-
What needs to be got rid of is the belief, the false belief, that there is any kind of god anywhere, any time. Jasper Fforde had the ideal solution in
the Tuesday Next series: everybody knows there isn't a god but they like the system of Sunday services etc so there are Vicars (Tuesday's brother is one of them) and *god* is the GPD - general purpose deity. Everyone knows the truth and the system runs along smoothly.
But the belief that West Ham are worth supporting is equally false, especially if you are a Millwall fan.
People who don’t like light sci fi don’t like Star Wars. People who are on the Star Wars fandom generally don’t like The Last Jedi and think it’s a heresy for having strong female leads. Is that true?
-
A little off subject....but how does anyone know that there is no God? No one has even defined God.
One can argue (up to a point) against some specific image of God....like Jehovah or Ganesh or some other. That there is no God of any kind, cannot be deduced from the nature of this world.
Some people might argue that... 'the universe follows natural laws, we humans have evolved from animals'...so, there is no God! Which is a rubbish argument!
-
A little off subject....but how does anyone know that there is no God? No one has even defined God.
One can argue (up to a point) against some specific image of God....like Jehovah or Ganesh or some other. That there is no God of any kind, cannot be deduced from the nature of this world.
Some people might argue that... 'the universe follows natural laws, we humans have evolved from animals'...so, there is no God! Which is a rubbish argument!
Does anyone say that they know there is no God?
-
The implications are VERY clear if not blatantly obvious.
Someone not reading ALL the posts here ?!!?!? ;)
-
A little off subject....but how does anyone know that there is no God? No one has even defined God.
One can argue (up to a point) against some specific image of God....like Jehovah or Ganesh or some other. That there is no God of any kind, cannot be deduced from the nature of this world.
Some people might argue that... 'the universe follows natural laws, we humans have evolved from animals'...so, there is no God! Which is a rubbish argument!
If there is no definition of something, it's a nonsense question. I've also never seen the argument you have presented.
-
A little off subject....but how does anyone know that there is no God? No one has even defined God.
One can argue (up to a point) against some specific image of God....like Jehovah or Ganesh or some other. That there is no God of any kind, cannot be deduced from the nature of this world.
Some people might argue that... 'the universe follows natural laws, we humans have evolved from animals'...so, there is no God! Which is a rubbish argument!
Maybe we could say that an aspect of any definition of god would be that god is undefinable. All our definitions and descriptions are human constructs which would therefore necessarily fail to define or describe god. We cannot verify something which is unverifiable.
-
The implications are VERY clear if not blatantly obvious.
Someone not reading ALL the posts here ?!!?!? ;)
What implications and who isn't reading posts?
-
Maybe we could say that an aspect of any definition of god would be that god is undefinable. All our definitions and descriptions are human constructs which would therefore necessarily fail to define or describe god. We cannot verify something which is unverifiable.
Yes, the word 'ineffable' is sometimes used in some religions. However, there appears to be a tendency to project attributes, seen to be desirable, either separately upon a variety of Gods or collectively upon one God e.g. love, power, omniscience, joy, life, etc. Some seek those attributes or qualities by invoking them, some by evoking them.
-
A little off subject....but how does anyone know that there is no God? No one has even defined God.
One can argue (up to a point) against some specific image of God....like Jehovah or Ganesh or some other. That there is no God of any kind, cannot be deduced from the nature of this world.
Some people might argue that... 'the universe follows natural laws, we humans have evolved from animals'...so, there is no God! Which is a rubbish argument!
Sorry Sriram, just a reminder you're tired or perhaps it's late for you, you've just let yourself fall into the N P F trap.
Kind regards ippy
-
Maybe we could say that an aspect of any definition of god would be that god is undefinable. All our definitions and descriptions are human constructs which would therefore necessarily fail to define or describe god. We cannot verify something which is unverifiable.
We can surmise certain things. Verification is not always possible nor necessary. If we see a plane flying...we can surmise that it has been created by Intelligent intervention. It is obvious. Similarly, we can also surmise that life has been created by intelligent intervention. Religions attempted to explain this through mythology.
The problem arose when cosmology, theory of evolution etc. contradicted religious beliefs. It was thereafter assumed that if the universe functions through natural laws and if human life has evolved through millions of years....then there cannot be any intelligent intervention.
This assumption is clearly wrong as I have argued in another thread. Evolution or the existence of natural laws do not automatically rule out intelligent intervention.
-
The problem arose when cosmology, theory of evolution etc. contradicted religious beliefs. It was thereafter assumed that if the universe functions through natural laws and if human life has evolved through millions of years....then there cannot be any intelligent intervention.
Hi Sriram
You make it sound like an equal fight
It isn't of course but not in the way New Atheism would have us believe.
We know plenty from them of how stupid fundamentalist creationists are but the true story is perpetuation of science versus religion myth.
Evolution makes atheism intellectually acceptable says Dawkins from the shallow end.
Multiverse eliminates Fine tuning say antitheist cosmologist.....from the shallow end.
Neither evolution or multiverse are a danger to God but multiverse could be a danger to science.
IMHO
-
People who don’t like light sci fi don’t like Star Wars. People who are on the Star Wars fandom generally don’t like The Last Jedi and think it’s a heresy for having strong female leads.
Woah, hey, woah, hey, woah... Off topic a second but...
Speaking as a member of the Star Wars fandom, I can assure you that I, and the vast majority of fans I know, LOVED The Last Jedi. I offer a modified version of your statement for your consideration:
"Some people who are in the Star Wars fandom don’t like The Last Jedi and the particularly thick, insecure, misogynistic dick-heads amongst them think it’s a heresy for having strong female leads"
-
Woah, hey, woah, hey, woah... Off topic a second but...
Speaking as a member of the Star Wars fandom, I can assure you that I, and the vast majority of fans I know, LOVED The Last Jedi. I offer a modified version of your statement for your consideration:
"Some people who are in the Star Wars fandom don’t like The Last Jedi and the particularly thick, insecure, misogynistic dick-heads amongst them think it’s a heresy for having strong female leads"
Now, you see, I had this discussion with my eldest, and as a die-hard Star Wars fan she loathes the Star Wars fandom with a passion. We've decided we identify with the Star Wars Fans faction and not the Star Wars Fandom, and Rian Johnson is our High Priest.
-
We can surmise certain things. Verification is not always possible nor necessary. If we see a plane flying...we can surmise that it has been created by Intelligent intervention. It is obvious. Similarly, we can also surmise that life has been created by intelligent intervention. Religions attempted to explain this through mythology.
The problem arose when cosmology, theory of evolution etc. contradicted religious beliefs. It was thereafter assumed that if the universe functions through natural laws and if human life has evolved through millions of years....then there cannot be any intelligent intervention.
This assumption is clearly wrong as I have argued in another thread. Evolution or the existence of natural laws do not automatically rule out intelligent intervention.
'Intelligent Intervention' answers nothing though, it merely shifts the goal posts from 'how did this complex thing arise' to 'how did this intelligent interventionist arise' . No further forward in understanding really.
-
'Intelligent Intervention' answers nothing though, it merely shifts the goal posts from 'how did this complex thing arise' to 'how did this intelligent interventionist arise' . No further forward in understanding really.
Maybe. So what?
Not that you have an answer for everything either. The same infinite regress whether with 'God' or with science.
-
Maybe. So what?
Not that you have an answer for everything either. The same infinite regress whether with 'God' or with science.
I think the 'intelligent interventionist' argument is popular with some because, on the one hand it seemingly provides handy validation of religious beliefs and on the other it seemingly offers a way out of thinking through difficult philosophical problems. If we refuse answers that are superficial or appealing then we are more likely to button down and think why things are the way they are without resorting to some sort of 'outside' intervention. Face the complexity, rather than duck it.
-
We can surmise certain things. Verification is not always possible nor necessary. If we see a plane flying...we can surmise that it has been created by Intelligent intervention. It is obvious. Similarly, we can also surmise that life has been created by intelligent intervention. Religions attempted to explain this through mythology.
The problem arose when cosmology, theory of evolution etc. contradicted religious beliefs. It was thereafter assumed that if the universe functions through natural laws and if human life has evolved through millions of years....then there cannot be any intelligent intervention.
This assumption is clearly wrong as I have argued in another thread. Evolution or the existence of natural laws do not automatically rule out intelligent intervention.
We can indeed suggest intelligent intervention has created the plane flying, but in the broader sense, we cannot assume so at all, as it is evolution that has created brains which can design aeroplanes, just as it is evolution that created the brains to create spiders' webs. The origin of that evolution is the creation of life and so far we have no complete and satisfactory answer as to how life began. What we can say, however, is that there is no evidence whatever to support the idea that life was created by intelligent intervention. Indeed, even if one 'surmised' that life was created by intelligent intervention, one would also have to surmise that the origin of this intervention had a particularly imperfect intelligence, and the whole idea would quickly become impossibly complicated.
Yes, problems arose when scientific understanding contradicted some religious beliefs, but that was mainly a problem for those holding such contradictory beliefs. There is no assumption that there cannot be any intelligent intervention, only that there is no evidence whatever for such intelligent intervention and therefore science has no obligation to pursue this line of thought unless or until evidence is forthcoming. Furthermore, evolution doesn't need the input of any intelligent designer as an explanation at all. It works perfectly well without one(or more than one).
This, of course, is a long way from saying 'there cannot be any intelligent intervention' as you quite rightly say, although I would have thought that this is purely conjectural and belongs in the realms of religious and spiritual thought, rather than science, for the reasons given above.
-
We can indeed suggest intelligent intervention has created the plane flying, but in the broader sense, we cannot assume so at all, as it is evolution that has created brains which can design aeroplanes, just as it is evolution that created the brains to create spiders' webs. The origin of that evolution is the creation of life and so far we have no complete and satisfactory answer as to how life began. What we can say, however, is that there is no evidence whatever to support the idea that life was created by intelligent intervention. Indeed, even if one 'surmised' that life was created by intelligent intervention, one would also have to surmise that the origin of this intervention had a particularly imperfect intelligence, and the whole idea would quickly become impossibly complicated.
Yes, problems arose when scientific understanding contradicted some religious beliefs, but that was mainly a problem for those holding such contradictory beliefs. There is no assumption that there cannot be any intelligent intervention, only that there is no evidence whatever for such intelligent intervention and therefore science has no obligation to pursue this line of thought unless or until evidence is forthcoming. Furthermore, evolution doesn't need the input of any intelligent designer as an explanation at all. It works perfectly well without one(or more than one).
This, of course, is a long way from saying 'there cannot be any intelligent intervention' as you quite rightly say, although I would have thought that this is purely conjectural and belongs in the realms of religious and spiritual thought, rather than science, for the reasons given above.
I agree with some of your points.
As far as planes are concerned, they have also evolved from very basic models. The computer that drives them has also evolved. But they are all products of human intelligence nevertheless.
Extending this logic, we can surmise that we and our brains have also evolved through intelligent intervention. Emergent properties and complexity can be explained only that way and not through random variation.
-
You can surmise of course, but by definition that means there is no evidence for it.
-
I agree with some of your points.
As far as planes are concerned, they have also evolved from very basic models. The computer that drives them has also evolved. But they are all products of human intelligence nevertheless.
Extending this logic, we can surmise that we and our brains have also evolved through intelligent intervention. Emergent properties and complexity can be explained only that way and not through random variation.
As Maeght has suggested, you can surmise all you wish, but the fact that all changes and improvements to such things as computers and planes are totally dependent on an outside agency flies in the face of evolutionary theory and practice, where the basic principle of the evolution of living things by natural selection is well understood, well evidenced and needs no outside agency at all for this process to take place.
-
I agree with some of your points.
As far as planes are concerned, they have also evolved from very basic models. The computer that drives them has also evolved. But they are all products of human intelligence nevertheless.
Extending this logic, we can surmise that we and our brains have also evolved through intelligent intervention. Emergent properties and complexity can be explained only that way and not through random variation.
I'll let you into a little secret Sriram...Almighty God is the owner of the science of evolution. It too relies upon behaviour patterns intermingled with climate change and the surplus, or lack of vital requirements...hence we have found the mechanics behind genetic change...reaching out for vital needs alters the genetic code. We can now look at other places where genetic changes take place and they all seem to hinge upon our emotional, nervous, strength. So Jesus had got it right...upbuild this strength via his spiritual path and we can talk to our own genetic health, soothing and calming it so that our inner living-cells can repair and form better patterns and thereby become stronger and can replicate in a more wholesome way.
-
Why do people persist with the random variation thing? Have they seriously not read about natural selection, plus inheritance?
-
Back to Paley's watch, really.
-
As Maeght has suggested, you can surmise all you wish, but the fact that all changes and improvements to such things as computers and planes are totally dependent on an outside agency flies in the face of evolutionary theory and practice, where the basic principle of the evolution of living things by natural selection is well understood, well evidenced and needs no outside agency at all for this process to take place.
Why an outside agency? Changes in organisms are directed from the inside. Consciousness works from inside the DNA, I expect.
You have to get rid of this image of an external individual God sitting in heaven and directing life on earth. I am talking of an inner Consciousness.
-
Why an outside agency? Changes in organisms are directed from the inside. Consciousness works from inside the DNA, I expect.
You have to get rid of this image of an external individual God sitting in heaven and directing life on earth. I am talking of an inner Consciousness.
In that case maybe the phrase 'intelligent intervention' is causing confusion. 'Intervention' usually implies some outside agency, something separate to the system acting to change the internal operation of a system from elsewhere. If you are talking about the normal working of a system, then it is not really an intervention.
-
In that case maybe the phrase 'intelligent intervention' is causing confusion. 'Intervention' usually implies some outside agency, something separate to the system acting to change the internal operation of a system from elsewhere. If you are talking about the normal working of a system, then it is not really an intervention.
Normal and abnormal are relative terms. I have always said that there is nothing 'supernatural'. Everything is natural.
Consciousness working through the DNA could mean'inside' or not necessarily 'inside'. In a world consisting of energy (matter is energy), what is 'inside'?
If we make changes in the software of some computer equipment. Are we 'inside' the computer? No. But we still work from inside the computer.
-
Normal and abnormal are relative terms. I have always said that there is nothing 'supernatural'. Everything is natural.
Consciousness working through the DNA could mean'inside' or not necessarily 'inside'. In a world consisting of energy (matter is energy), what is 'inside'?
If we make changes in the software of some computer equipment. Are we 'inside' the computer? No. But we still work from inside the computer.
In that example, the 'we' is external to the computer surely ?
-
In that example, the 'we' is external to the computer surely ?
That is because we don't know the true nature of Consciousness. Whether it is 'inside' or 'outside' or 'everywhere' or 'all around', we cannot say.
-
Why an outside agency? Changes in organisms are directed from the inside. Consciousness works from inside the DNA, I expect.
You have to get rid of this image of an external individual God sitting in heaven and directing life on earth. I am talking of an inner Consciousness.
You've missed the point, Sriram. Your examples(planes, computers) depend on an outside agency for their modifications. Evolution is different. 1) It only applies to living things 2) There is no need for any outside agency for the process to work. That is why your examples are inappropriate. The process of evolution by natural selection(brains) and the modifications and improvements to planes and computers haven't got the similarity that you suggest.
Your idea of 'inner consciousness' is just an extremely vague surmise on your part. As Torri says, you seem to be simply overlaying your views of some sort of spiritual component on the natural processes which don't need any sort of 'consciousness' for them to work. If you wish to think that there is some sort of 'inner consciousness' at work, that's your affair, but to convince me, you would have to come up with 1) a more exact definition and 2) some tangible evidence of it actually existing.
-
That's the great thing about the spiritual/supernatural/religious. It tends to be wonderfully elastic, and non-empirical. You might as well say that the shining doves of Alpha Centauri are in control. May your shiningness shine in a sort of shiney way!
-
You've missed the point, Sriram. Your examples(planes, computers) depend on an outside agency for their modifications. Evolution is different. 1) It only applies to living things 2) There is no need for any outside agency for the process to work. That is why your examples are inappropriate. The process of evolution by natural selection(brains) and the modifications and improvements to planes and computers haven't got the similarity that you suggest.
Your idea of 'inner consciousness' is just an extremely vague surmise on your part. As Torri says, you seem to be simply overlaying your views of some sort of spiritual component on the natural processes which don't need any sort of 'consciousness' for them to work. If you wish to think that there is some sort of 'inner consciousness' at work, that's your affair, but to convince me, you would have to come up with 1) a more exact definition and 2) some tangible evidence of it actually existing.
1. Evolution does not apply only to living things. It applies to products developed by humans too.
2. Emergent Properties and development of complexity do need intelligent intervention. Whether the Intelligence is external or internal is a separate discussion. Some young scientists are trying to see if evolution is intelligent.
-
1. Evolution does not apply only to living things. It applies to products developed by humans too.
2. Emergent Properties and development of complexity do need intelligent intervention. Whether the Intelligence is external or internal is a separate discussion. Some young scientists are trying to see if evolution is intelligent.
1) Evolution by natural selection (which I clearly mentioned in Post 97 and Post 106) is the process of how evolutionary changes occur in living organisms over millions of years.
2) Emergence is the result of the interaction of multiple entities, producing structures, patterns or properties which are new or not able to be observed in any individual entity.
Intelligence and even consciousness might well be the result of some types of emergence, of course(e.g. the human brain) but it seems to depend on natural, if complex causal relations of the constituent parts. There is no evidence that a guiding intelligence has any part to play.
-
If evolution was intelligent would it really have produced humans?
-
1) Evolution by natural selection (which I clearly mentioned in Post 97 and Post 106) is the process of how evolutionary changes occur in living organisms over millions of years.
2) Emergence is the result of the interaction of multiple entities, producing structures, patterns or properties which are new or not able to be observed in any individual entity.
Intelligence and even consciousness might well be the result of some types of emergence, of course(e.g. the human brain) but it seems to depend on natural, if complex causal relations of the constituent parts. There is no evidence that a guiding intelligence has any part to play.
Human products are selected too. Jeeps for rough terrain, airliners for high altitude, ocean liners for high seas. All perfectly adapted to their respective environments. But obviously through intelligent intervention.
-
I was thinking about Paley's watch, a famous design argument, and I read an interesting comment about the stone that Paley also notices.
If Paley's argument is that the watch is designed, and so is the world, (a segue which is itself dubious), how about the stone. Is it also designed?
This looks like another flaw in his argument, since he contrasts stone and watch. The stone is natural, the watch isn't, but the stone is part of the designed world. Or have I got it wrong?
-
Human products are selected too. Jeeps for rough terrain, airliners for high altitude, ocean liners for high seas. All perfectly adapted to their respective environments. But obviously through intelligent intervention.
Yes, but that is a superficial take on things. The intelligence that designs objects is itself something that evolved through natural selection. We can say that jeeps and ocean liners are manifestations of our extended phenotype. In any fundamental account, we rule out intelligence as first cause as it is a complex derivative product of simpler natural processes as far as we know.
-
Yes, but that is a superficial take on things. The intelligence that designs objects is itself something that evolved through natural selection. We can say that jeeps and ocean liners are manifestations of our extended phenotype. In any fundamental account, we rule out intelligence as first cause as it is a complex derivative product of simpler natural processes as far as we know.
Your comment..."In any fundamental account, we rule out intelligence as first cause as it is a complex derivative product of simpler natural processes as far as we know."
:D You are again taking that for granted aren't you?!
What I am trying to question and take further...you keep bringing back as though it is some forgone conclusion that cannot be questioned. It is similar to the religious concept of God. An unquestionable conclusion.
Artificial Intelligence is the result of evolution of technology through intervention of human intelligence. Similarly, why can't human intelligence be the result of evolution of organisms through intervention of some other form of intelligence. I agree we don't know and perhaps can't know, what it is.
-
I thought the point is that intervention from some other intelligence, is not required, to describe the evolution of intelligence. After that, Occam's razor rules.
-
I think somebody should define what they mean by intelligence and include e.g. is it one simple attribute which permeates all life forms or does it have many forms according to the complexity of the organism.
-
I think somebody should define what they mean by intelligence and include e.g. is it one simple attribute which permeates all life forms or does it have many forms according to the complexity of the organism.
Slightly tangential, but it is interesting to note that intelligence has evolved at least twice independently on this planet - in vertebrates (us) and cephalopods (cuttlefish, octopus etc). An octopus has much more distributed intelligence than humans, with each arm having what almost amounts to a brain of its own, so at some times it is like a creature with 8 arms, and at others it is like 8 autonomous but conjoined creatures. The LCA of humans and cephalopods did not have a brain.
-
1. Evolution does not apply only to living things. It applies to products developed by humans too.
2. Emergent Properties and development of complexity do need intelligent intervention. Whether the Intelligence is external or internal is a separate discussion. Some young scientists are trying to see if evolution is intelligent.
I am at a loss to understand why nobody else has picked up on the fact that Sriram has on this thread (at least) been consistently guilty of committing the fallacy of equivocation; that is to say, eliding the difference between the definition of evolution in the standard evolutionary biological sense ("the change in allele frequencies over time in any given gene pool") and the loose, casual sense of change over time in non-living, non-biological insentient objects such as cars which change over time due to extensive R&D at the instigation of human wants, such as in race horses which run faster, dairy cows which yield more milk more profitably, and cute puppies who have the Kinderschema of human babies (huge wide eyes; tiny snub noses etc.) and so forth. The fallacy is in eliding the gulf between the one and the other without carefully and clearly and clinically delineating between the formal and the technical sense and the loose, non-technical sense (just as creationists do with the word 'theory,'). I'm at a loss as to how anybody has allowed this clown to get away with this. Darwin, with no genetic basis, grasped the difference between natural and artificial selection well before 1859. Why doesn't Sriram?
Rhetorical question of course.
-
Hi Shaker, nice to see you back.
I have to disagree. I was well aware that Sriram was playing fast and loose with evolution in the scientific sense. I tried to make this clear in post 97, again in post 106, when I summed up by saying:
"The process of evolution by natural selection(brains) and the modifications and improvements to planes and computers haven't got the similarity that you suggest."
and again in post 109.
I saw no point in continuing because simply repeating the same objections gets us nowhere if they aren't accepted by the other party. My attitude is that he is welcome to his ideas if it rocks his boat.
-
I am at a loss to understand why nobody else has picked up on the fact that Sriram has on this thread (at least) been consistently guilty of committing the fallacy of equivocation; that is to say, eliding the difference between the definition of evolution in the standard evolutionary biological sense ("the change in allele frequencies over time in any given gene pool") and the loose, casual sense of change over time in non-living, non-biological insentient objects such as cars which change over time due to extensive R&D at the instigation of human wants, such as in race horses which run faster, dairy cows which yield more milk more profitably, and cute puppies who have the Kinderschema of human babies (huge wide eyes; tiny snub noses etc.) and so forth. The fallacy is in eliding the gulf between the one and the other without carefully and clearly and clinically delineating between the formal and the technical sense and the loose, non-technical sense (just as creationists do with the word 'theory,'). I'm at a loss as to how anybody has allowed this clown to get away with this. Darwin, with no genetic basis, grasped the difference between natural and artificial selection well before 1859. Why doesn't Sriram?
Rhetorical question of course.
Ippy...you got company....! :D
-
Ippy...you got company....! :D
Excellent and very welcome back company too.
-
Ippy...you got company....! :D
On second thoughts...I am sorry Ippy. You are a fairly nice guy even if you do troll me around. :)
I think I made an unfair comparison. Sorry!
-
Hi Shaker, nice to see you back.
I have to disagree. I was well aware that Sriram was playing fast and loose with evolution in the scientific sense. I tried to make this clear in post 97, again in post 106, when I summed up by saying:
"The process of evolution by natural selection(brains) and the modifications and improvements to planes and computers haven't got the similarity that you suggest."
and again in post 109.
I saw no point in continuing because simply repeating the same objections gets us nowhere if they aren't accepted by the other party. My attitude is that he is welcome to his ideas if it rocks his boat.
Apologies: I didn't see that.
It's certainly true that if someone who spouts fallacious (non) reasoning doesn't accept it as such, there's not really a lot you can do. That's why the 'Searching for God' thread is as long as it is.
-
On second thoughts...I am sorry Ippy. You are a fairly nice guy even if you do troll me around. :)
I think I made an unfair comparison. Sorry!
Just because I prefer to generally simplify my words as much as I can doesn't make me wrong for all of the time or just because my view differs from yours I'm a time waster.
Let's face it Sriram can't remember the whole of that recent post of yours on this thread I commented on but I can clearly remember you more or less drowned yourself out of any sensible exchange with a howler of a major rubbish N P F statement/fail, one of the two take your pick.
I noted the comment about me being a reasonable bloke, no mention of modesty?
Regards ippy
-
Just because I prefer to generally simplify my words as much as I can doesn't make me wrong for all of the time or just because my view differs from yours I'm a time waster.
Let's face it Sriram can't remember the whole of that recent post of yours on this thread I commented on but I can clearly remember you more or less drowned yourself out of any sensible exchange with a howler of a major rubbish N P F statement/fail, one of the two take your pick.
I noted the comment about me being a reasonable bloke, no mention of modesty?
Regards ippy
:D :D
Have a good day ippy.
-
:D :D
Have a good day ippy.
You too mucker.
Regards ippy