Jesse Bering
Image:
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Last weekend I traveled to Edinburgh to attend a small workshop on religion. The group consisted of a multidisciplinary group of scholars—psychologists, biologists, political scientists, philosophers, and anthropologists—each of whom were studying the natural (that is, Darwinian) foundations of religious belief and behavior. The meeting took place at a marvelously opulent hotel near Waverly Station on Princes Street, with distant glimpses of the castle and the Old Town district. Each morning, about ten of us, still bloated with wine and food from the evening before, sat around an enormous lion-pawed walnut table in a Victorian suite while the bitterly cold Scottish winds rattled the windowpanes and rushed down the flue of the chimney, where a coal fire quietly warmed us. Here, we hatched out a variety of ideas related to the evolutionary puzzle of religion.
Now, since all of this probably reads to you like a bunch of spoiled academics being paid to engage in idle theorizing on some wealthy grant agency’s dime, I hasten to add that this was an atypical experience, as far as conferences go. Usually on these types of trips I stay at the equivalent of a Best Western that’s adjacent to a freeway or convenience store, not at a 5-star hotel. And I’m usually chewing on a Tabasco flavored Slim-Jim rather than indulging in filet mignon and crème brûlée.
Given the world’s political climate, it is hardly necessary to point out why having a better scientific understanding of religious behavior is worthwhile. In fact, while we were meeting in this overly decadent tearoom, a large group protesting Israel’s recent Gaza strikes against Hamas was marching outside the hotel, demonstrating against yet another conflict at least partially fueled by head-scratching religious ideologies. Fortunately, the past decade has seen tremendous and quite rapid developments in the naturalistic study of religion. Topics such as God, souls and sin are no longer being treated as “outside science” but rather as biologically based emanations of the evolved human mind, subject to psychological scrutiny like any other aspect of human nature. And I can only hope that soon these scientific discoveries will translate to real world intervention strategies in the reconciliation of spiritually based social conflicts.
Here is the fly-on-the-wall’s view of just a few of the topics discussed last weekend:
As the resident psychologist, I reiterated my empirically based argument that belief in the afterlife is more or less an inevitable byproduct of human consciousness. Since we cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness, even non-believers are susceptible to visions of the hereafter.
Political scientist and evolutionary biologist Dominic Johnson from the University of Edinburgh presented his argument that the idea of omniscient supernatural agents served an adaptive social policing function in the ancestral past. Johnson reasons that this would have encouraged individuals in groups to conform to group sanctions out of the fear of divine punishment, thus lessening the chances of social fission. This phenomenon would have been biologically adaptive since larger groups meant better chances of survival and reproductive success for individual members. It’s a bit like Santa Claus knowing whether we’re bad or good (but Santa doesn’t cause you to suffer renal failure, kill your crops, or sentence you to everlasting torment).
Anthropologist Richard Sosis summarized his “costly signaling” hypothesis of religious behavior. The gist of Sosis’s clever theory is that people engage in all sorts of costly religious behaviors—wasting time on rituals, wearing uncomfortable clothes, spending their hard-earned money—because, in doing so, they are advertising their commitment to the religious in-group. In other words, if you’re willing to do things such as cut off your child’s foreskin, pay a regular alms tax of 2.5 percent of your net worth or sit twiddling your thumbs for two hours every Sunday morning on a hard church pew, then your fellow believers will assume that you’re really one of them and can therefore be trusted.
Evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers from Rutgers University, meanwhile, discussed the possible role of psychological self-deception in the realm of religion and reviewed the impossible to ignore evidence that religiosity positively effects human health. And Westmont College biologist Jeff Schloss, who has worked extensively on the theological implications of Darwinism, gently compelled us to consider what these scientific developments in the study of religion will ultimately mean philosophically.
Schloss’s point is the one that gets most people thinking. “That’s all fine and dandy about the scientific research, but what does it all tell us about the existence of God?” What if, as I suggested in my answer to this year’s “Annual Question” at Edge, the data suggest that God is actually just a psychological blemish etched onto the core cognitive substrate of your brain? Would you still believe if you knew God were a byproduct of your evolved mental architecture?
See what we're tweeting about
100 Comments
Add Comment"Since we cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness, even non-believers are susceptible to visions of the hereafter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can "conceptualize the absence of consciousness". It is black, like when I was anesthetized for surgery. If I hadn't been woken up, I would not have known.
That said, even though I am a non-believer (religiously-speaking), I have a reasonable expectation that, after I die, I will continue to exist, in some form.
Even being knocked out for surgery doesn't quite do it for me in conceptualizing total nothingness. It's the notion of a brief spark in an eternal darkness that has me believing there has to be more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a group of people get together to discuss religion with the assumption that God does not exist then they will only come up with questions and answers that support what they have already decided. It also works the other way around. Perhaps, to more productive and in an effort to follow wise philosophical reasoning, these scientists should be open to either possibility and then make working theories for both sides. As there are absolute truths in everything of the physical world why shouldn't it be true in matters of religion? Any true philosopher always looks at both sides from all angles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing anesthetized does not result in cessation of brain function. Death does. When you're dead you're done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it funny giving 2.5 % . However I unfortnately am a typical American which does not tithe 10%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoing the ruitial is forbiddden in Christantity however it is part of the process. I feel it is a heart matter . Where you heart lies is what you value. Some people are the tares in the congration they hang out do thier part but they are either non producers or are there hanging out or worse are there to undermine the Church. The Bible also states what thier fate will be . Real producers back up with actions and attitudes that demonstrate thier beliefs.
In this article the authors can only back up thier assurtions that religion is dead or is best ritulized social gathering to promote a group think. In some ways if you are on the outside this is what it is . I think of the "Planet of the Apes" where the conration is praying over a unexploded Nucular weapon not understading it significe . In some ways the Bible is such a weapon . In the wrong hands it can be used for great harm and details doomsday but it also details great hope and healing.
Some people don't get it they only see what it is using the marriage of secular pschology and ignoring the role of faith and devotion to something much higher.
I also need to clairfy my comments and finish which is "The fear of the Lord is the beginig of wisdom". However many people try to miniunize relgion as a group of people hanging out saying funny things doing strange things . In some ways Relgion is adaptive . That is part of the Bible as far as the old testment in the jews living in excile learning how to survie and then returing from excile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a major componetas a coping mechism . Slavery as far as Black people were concerned to adapt and surivie slaver unitl liberation or the day of jubilation. Modern day congration have forgot this is a major part of religion. However it can be bad to encourge extremeism with its dire results.
I like the concept of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust." I like the thought of returning to nature as maybe a part of a field of wildflowers. I have always enjoyed sleeping so I also like the idea of sleeping forever. I neither want to go to heaven or hell. I would be bored to tears flying around all day singing hymns and playing on a harp. My religious friends tell me I am going to hell. The only thing I hate about this is none of us will get to say, " I told you so."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I reiterated my empirically based argument that belief in the afterlife is more or less an inevitable byproduct of human consciousness."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone else see the irony in empirically based = more or less an inevitable... So, you are telling me that an absolute truth has a few possible outcomes?
Furthermore, non-believers are susceptible to visions, not only because it may be ingrained in our conscious as one has suggested, but because we are spoon fed religion daily. Alas, Tim Tebow has deemed himself eligible to bless us after every press conference.
Perhaps, it was imbedded in his brain and his predecessors cognitive nugget, or whatever you choose to call it, but the fact remains we are susceptible to thoughts of an afterlife because we ALL want it to be true. Believers and nonbelievers alike agree that life would be much simpler if we knew we will be granted everlasting life in a god. Attempting to disprove an existence, or reaffirm ones atheist notions does no favor to anyone.
I would argue that the human sense of self derives from the cooperation of trillions of individual body cells in the form of tissues and organs, and that is all orchestrated by the brain. It is possible that, upon death, the conscious experience would be one of dissolving into trillions of dying cells and ergo an exponential decay of sensation. If a coffin is dropped out of a mortmobile 1 hour after death somebody would feel it more than if dropped 1 day after death, IMO, but of course the impact while still alive would be felt the most intensely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and there probably is a quantum state of consciousness at the point of death too. Ectassy (heaven), dread (hell), and introspection (nirvanna) are the three possible states that the mind can experience at the point of death, of course those states ought to be felt with some form of exponential decay too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>>................. God is actually just a psychological blemish etched onto the core cognitive substrate of your brain? Would you still believe if you knew God were a byproduct of your evolved mental architecture<<?_____________________Brilliant conclusion!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition, I would like to add on my thoughts about GOD, in verses . You may delete them if found irritated:
God Family (1)
_______________
Can I call the Air
A God to breathe and inspire!
In the definition of the Creator
Air has no shape and color!
Can I call Goddess, to Water
As another assistant creator!
With no shape and color
Unique system to harbor!
Also the sun, solar, light
Energy, power, light, bright!
With all substance, combination
The sun gives boost and action!
So in the cyclic order
Goddess! Air and water!
Arousal, pleasure with the Sun God
The Source of energy, the Lord!
Can I call the Air
A God to breathe and inspire!
In the definition of the Creator
Air has no shape and color!
God Family (2)
____________
Air and water do intercourse
With the Sun, the power and force.
Thus, occur, our life and death
Such has become my faith.
They made so many creations
With a system without fractions.
No demand for worship prayer
We can vow respect if we care.
What is behind the Sun, water and air
Unimportant unseen unnecessary are.
Long distance relationship is unfair
No true love, honesty and care.
Do not try too far to cross the sun
Obviously, severe heat will burn.
Be content with what you have got
In our one lifetime, enough and a lot.
Air and water do intercourse
With the Sun, the power and force.
Thus, occur, our life and death
Such has become my faith.
God is needed but when
_________________________
We may need the big GOD
For help, for safety, satisfaction;
To survive, to win and to breathe
The unseen Almighty for salvation.
Crying for help, for protection
To overcome bad situation.
When finished our body capacity
And ends up all human action.
Reaching to dead end, no way out
From the push, disease, from torture.
Backside touches in the thick wall
No rescue, no hope, see no Future.
Body fails to resist the enemy, the fear
So, we walk with Dream, in spirit's door.
None can chain nor hold you captive
God, the death angel comes for sure.
We may need the big GOD
For help, for safety, satisfaction;
To survive, to win and to breathe
The unseen Almighty for salvation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod's anger is punishing us (1)
Sex is the root, that fruit
Creator gave an order.
Hold it, do not do it
But they had the pleasure.
God failed in his sense-game
He read wrong on creation.
He proved himself imperfect
And put us here on detention.
Admit that He failed
He lacked comprehension.
And promised to kill us
So, vengeance was His intention.
Because of that fruit
We still born and do breed.
Live with love emotion
Desire, attachment and greed.
Sex is the root, that fruit
Creator gave an order.
Hold it, do not do it
But they had the pleasure.
God's anger is punishing us (2)
We were not loyal
In Heaven, in His home;
And neither on Earth
Around Arab, India, Rome.
Because of His mistake
Arrogance, misuse of power;
Cause us to suffer, to cemetery
He never looks lower from his Tower.
It was not the apple
And no other fruit;
But sex was the root
To get angry God's boot.
If God remains angry and bad
To let us cry, vanish and die!
On the contrary, Satan is what
A friend! A guide! A good guy!
We were not loyal
In Heaven, in His Home;
And neither on Earth
Around Arab, India, Rome.
God's Step Children (1)
Too many paths, religions, choices
To be a good being what should I do!
Be a decorated Religious believer
But I oppose! As I do not think so!
Whom to like and whom to follow
Who is better, a Muslim or a Hindu!
Who got the key to Heaven, to God
Who is kinder, a Christian or a Jew?
When Ram Abraham Moses Mohammad
And Jesus with Roman Arab and Indian!
Who preached in “Nunavut”, in the North
Who with Gita, Torah, Bible and Koran?
Too many paths, religions, choices
To be a good being what should I do!
Be a decorated Religious believer
But I oppose! As I do not think so!
God's Step Children (2)
People, families in Nunavut to Argentina
Why didn’t God know about them?
Even God did not send any of his sons
Ignored, no Books no Prophecy-game!
What will happen to those lost population
Who without prophet, book and religion!
Sure, they knew very well right and wrong
They even had poetry music and song!
Why treated as stepchildren by big God
Why no citing on aboriginals in religions!
Why vast population from baring straight
No conventional religions in those Regions!
If that imperfect, partial God is, A God
We all must know the meaning of "A"!
A means one, a very limited object
For limited people, what do you say?
People, families in Nunavut to Argentina
Why didn’t God know about them?
Even God did not send any of his sons
Ignored, no Books no Prophecy-game!
GOD was born from our FEAR (1)
The belief of one God and his temple
Restricted object, Center of trouble!
A God means one God who got a space
Limited and imperfect if you trace!
They worship one Stone in Mecca city
Worldwide bend over for that Almighty!
Collided asteroid dropped from the up
Expensive temple and merchants jump!
In lieu of many idols, choice came one
Dropped from sky in the form of stone!
It was the segment of a clashed star
Forced all citizens of one God's fear!
The belief of one God and his temple
Restricted object, Center of trouble!
A God means one God who got a space
Limited and imperfect if you trace!
GOD was born from our FEAR (2)
Destroyed all idols, one God to reach
Replacement was an asteroid's geometric piece.
They celebrate in sacrificing animals
In kissing that stone, make big deals.
That stone could never protect them
Adultery, stealing, killing, sin and sham!
Social injustice lack of food and peace
Home, treatment. treaty they breach!
You never forget what you learnt out of fear
Swimming, bicycling & God's killing spear!
Habit became tradition accepted by people
So, an ancient stone sealed as a God for all!
Destroyed all idols, one God to reach
Replacement was an asteroid's geometric piece.
They celebrate in sacrificing animals
In kissing that stone, make big deals.
Hope and aspirations are emotions experienced by every Homo sapien. Understanding hope and aspirations allows some Home sapiens to exploit the remainder of the species for their gain, enter religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you believe religion is the source of our morals and goodness, these ideas change with time, religion does not. Religion requires 21st century Homo sapiens to live according to the mores of the time the religion happened to be created.
We need to stop brainwashing children to believe the illogical. As children we all accept what we are told as the truth. This aspect of our evolutionary adaptation permits the ongoing exploitation of our species.
Why is it so hard for people who claim they are intelligent to accept that once the neurons in their body die, the electro-chemical matrix (our mind) that results ceases to exist.
Religious wars have plagued our species from the time we developed our selfish selves. They still do, only now we give them fancy names like Ethnic Cleansing .
It's not the individual belief or disbelief that matters. It's that there are those who study and learn - "mystic belief systems" in order to manipulate people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has always been so (for recorded history). Organized religions are just one kind of organized (for the purposes of the controllers) ideology. Political party leaders do the same, using the same techniques: "believe in our principles and thou shalt be saved" (crap)
Evolution: must take into account the thousands of generations of humans which lived "in Nature" where death and discomfort were daily companions. Human imagination supplied all that was needed then to "figure out" what lightning was: a product and sign of some super being. Imagining ways to escape death and discomfort, our ancestors "figured out" that the super beings could be bribed for "help" with that problem. Without facts, we made shit up. Now days, people make shit up to influence and control other people. That's organized religion and organized politics.
That explains the true motives of the shamans and witch doctors (be they in the Vatican or Washington, D.C.). It's easy to convince people that "believing is easier than thinking" (because it is). Thus we have large numbers of people "fighting Science" because it demands careful and difficult and persistent thinking - about known facts. They substitute "what the Bible says" for facts and off they go.
Our figuring out how the brain evolved this once handy ability (imagination) is great - but won't solve the misuse of imagination which threatens modern civilization.
Without considering whether there is any truth in religion, it is still worth asking whether there is any value in it. If, as seems possible from these studies, religious behaviour evolved because it had value to individuals or societies, does it still? Conditions may have changed such that religious belief has either no value, or is even harmful; on the other hand it may still be necessary for a society to function. What is the ethic of promoting belief if it is not true? What is the ethic of destroying belief if it is a necessary for social stability, not to mention helpful to individual welfare? In the absence of a divine edict about truth etc., would the ethical questions matter anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerceptually speaking, black is a color. The concept is a human concept. Once has to be conscious to use perception and and evaluate a concept. Your comment shows how you actually can not conceive of the absence of consciencness. It's like trying to imagine a color you've never seen. You just can't do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only survive by killing and consuming some living organism. i can not eat rocks. this suggests that when the body dies some life force goes on. i would like to assume that when i kill and consume a tomato that that life force advances upward on the scale. i like to believe that i amount to more than a vegtable. if i take an acorn from a tree, plant it and nurture it, it matures into another tree. the life force of the acorn has evolved into the life force of the tree. if i take an acorn from that tree, plant and nuture it, it evolves into another tree. it is the same life force transmitted from acorn to tree to acorn to tree... again this tells me that the life force (call IT what you will) continues on, in some form, beyond the existance of the physical living organism. go where you want to with this, it is evident (to me at least) that life feeds on life, life force is transformed, not destroyed (or created) and our present existance is but a stage in an everlasting, unending journey. as for religion... the opiate of the masses describes it well enough for me. when im asked if it (religion) is benificial the crusades come to mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfor me to continue to survive i must kill and consume some living organism. i can not eat rocks. the big fish eat the little fish and i eat the big fish. this tells me two things. 1st, that life feeds on life. 2nd, that when the physical body of an organism ceases to exist there is some "life force" that contiinues on. when i kill and eat a tomato the life force of the tomato is asimilated into me and becomes my life force. i believe that that life force has evolved to a higher stage at that point. i like to believe that i am more than a vegtable. when i take an acorn, plant and nuture it, it grows into an oakt ree; if i take an acorn from that oak tree, plant and nuture it, it grows into another oak tree. it is the very same life force tramsmitted from acorn to tree to acorn to tree.... much like me lighting a torch for you, then you lighting one for someone else and them lighting a torch for yet another. it is the same fire from one to the next, to the next... this leads me to believe that when the physical body ceases to exist the life force continues on and on and on... that the life force (like all energy) is not created or destroyed but rather transformed and transmitted from one organism to another. if it can be said that the conscious state (cogito ergo sum) is the awareness of "life" than what becomes of me when i am fully conscious but in a mental state completely void of thought (a stage of advanced meditation). i become pure consciousness pure awareness. (?). think of the implications. it is evident (to me at least) that life as i know it is just a stage in an unending, everlasting journey. as for religion... "the opiate of the masses" describes it well enough for me. if asked if religion is beneficial the crusades come to mind. PS if youre big on punctution and spelling, feel free. as for me i believed ive conveyed the gist of it and have better things to do like learning how to think' NOT what to think. have a good 1. jimmy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have to seperate the discussion of faith seperately from religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaith is a preperation for for death. Even for those who do not belive in deities have a belief that they are part of history and in that way have a type of afterlife. This is not to say that they belive they will be famously remembered, it's the understanding that the sum of their works will be used by others.
Religion is the pratice of behaviors. Many religious behaviors are not even based on the words of thier religious. To not offend they supergroup of behaviors can be called tradition. Tradition is highly adaptive.
The practice of cannabalism is highly taboo. This is due to the inheriet health risk of it. Societies that made it taboo were more fit. As an interesting side note the socities that limited cannabalism to naturally passing relatives have lasted much longer.
Why is pork forbidden in many traditions? Triganosis. It's simply more difficult to cook pork well. Societies that avoided the pratice were more fit. Traditions that were neutral on the issue may have had no swine when the traditions were assembled.
The same can be said for traditions that are vegitarain or vegan. You do not have to be vegitarian to reconized that in post hunter/gather cultures that eliminating meat allows for higher population.
The tradition against homosexuality is also population based. Cultures that pretended it has not always exisited increased their population. Even the Spartans had a complicated set of procedures to keep the society going. It was a duty.
Is it still adpative today? Yes. Look at the infection tate of HIV in muslim countries. Sexual repression leads to a lower infection rate. With the HIV you can judge each counties. Some were closer to the outbreak and wealth levels certainly have an effect. But if you eqaualize on wealth and distance you'll see that repression lead to health. That is not a judgement that repression is better, but in many cases it is healthier.
While traditions offer benifits it gets mentioned often that they caused inter-tradition conflicts. However don't sport fans still kill each other?
correction ... HIV you CAN"T judge each contry... want to make that point clear. (soory for all the other typos as well)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes understanding the cognitive basis for love make it any less important to happiness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt strikes me that what this article describes rather coyly as 'spiritually based social conflicts' are more truly grounded in religion rather than in spirituality. To be less coy: the adherents of one religious group might be willing to (and actually do) kill the adherents of another, either of another religion (such as Moslem/Hindu) or of the same religion but of a different faction (such as Protestant/Catholic). These are contemporary examples, but history offers instances at least as disturbing. The 13th century Albigensian Crusade instigated the deaths of some one hundred thousand Christian Cathars on the direct orders of the Church authorities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch religion-motivated conflicts which can, and have, reached genocidal proportions, tear the fabric of their societies asunder, and seem to leave little room for speculation about religion being a force for social cohesion, as this article hopefully suggests. Rather, they would seem to reflect more on the very human trait of 'us/them' group splitting, as illustrated by more than one study which arbitrarily divides one group into two, the individuals of each group - apparently quite irrationally - then quickly coming to perceive the members of the other group as less trustworthy, less intelligent, etc.
In this sense, religion as such, which we generally perceive as having intrinsically laudible qualities (guiding principles of morality, devotion, and so on) would seem to offer fewer tangible social advantages than might be expected. On the contrary; it would seem that any given religion or religious faction is driven by much the same concerns as other social groups, such as the strengthening and preservation of its own power base, and the elimination (sometimes quite literally) of opposing voices.
So approaching the subject of religion from the standpoint of social evolutionary advantage would seem a perilious path to follow. And an attempt to integrate it into a scientific template, as this article cautiously suggests, would also seem hazardous when literalist fundamentalist factions actively work to reject the methodology of science. But my first sentence begs the question: if these social conflicts are religious, rather than spiritual (as the author of the article contends), then what is the difference? I would suggest that spirituality can - and does - exist independently of religion. Conversely, although religion can also have spirituality as one of its qualities, religion without spirituality produces mere stasis and adherence to dogma.
You are correct, morals change, religion needs to adapt to that. But I believe you are forgetting that religion has changed, quite a bit. From the time of the egyptians worshiping the sun to the pagans worshiping the stars to modern day christianity. Religion does play catch-up, it just usually take a WHILE. The mayan religions said we go through a world change about every 2600 years, and buddhist religion acknowledges a reoccuring buddah, one of which being Jesus over 2 millenia ago. Religion adapts with the times, but not at the same rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy hypothesis for the current state of religion/religious furvor is that is IS time for a revision of major religious ideology. In the past this has happened over millenia, but our society is growing faster and faster (also brought up by mayan religion, the fractal pattern of their calander as man evolves faster and faster) and thus requires a faster adaptation by religion. It is time for man to use what they know to create a new method of preserving morals in mankind (with minimal sideeffects, ie war greed, weak points that have been exploited by people noticing the outdated effects of religion).
I am not religious by typical standards, I believe GOD being a by-product of our evolving psyche is a rational view on theology and having a huge impact on the way we view religion, thus requiring an adaptation.
Regardless of why GOD has come about, it has, and can't just be stricken from existance by scientific scrutiny. Regardless of why it is in our head, it is, and it needs to be thought about in a new way.
I personally am glad that it is being thought about by the best people to think about it. The goal isn't land or money like most religious leaders, it is understanding. For the next 2000 years, they may turn out to be religion's newest saviours.
The goal isn't to abolish the idea of GOD by proving where/why it exists, it is to better understand and adapt to it. We humans have a nack for using tools, lets turn this from a tool of destruction to a tool of understanding.
amen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you rightly point out the importance of understanding the value of religion, I think that is too "innocent" because what history shows is that religions are all co-opted by individuals bent on increasing their influence and power over the masses. This is a perversion of the evolved ability to imagine and "believe" in things which help us adapt and function in the real world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen religions strike out against Science (as they often do and are doing): this is not a positive value, it is very dangerous. The reality is that Science (with its focus on critical thought as methodology) threatens the scamming system we call "religion."
I think the author of the article is consciously trying to avoid this confrontation: he may fear (with good reason) that discussing investigation of "spirituality" will spark another hostile campaign against what must inevitably become "whistle blowing Science." It was just a couple of month's ago (during the U.S. presidential campaign) that a woman told Sen. McCain that she feared Barak Obama would be elected "because he's a moslem." This is the depth of ignorance in which religion puts its victims.
So a distinction must be made. If an individual finds it helpful to imagine that a deceased loved one is "in Heaven" - then fine. But organized religion goes much further in encouraging "magic everything" thinking in the minds of millions of adults. By observation: we can see that "spirituality" as well as prayer / meditation can be good for individuals. But when people are led in prayers based on crafted propaganda: horrors untold are the result.
Ultimately, we know that ideologies start out with "good intentions" - but there is no established method to keep them on that track. The great weakness of ideology is that it so easily becomes hijacked by evil individuals.
As "scientific earthling" points out: we need to stop brainwashing our children to believe the illogical" (actually, it should be "the non-factual" or "the untestable") But that omits that we don't fill that void with training in critical thinking. Too much of 'education' is still devoted to rote learning of "facts" which are gleaned from textbooks (which themselves are accepted "on faith").
Starting children out by simply showing them that observation and analysis are FUN is the best way I know to ensure they'll later use their own impulse to spirituality in a healthy way. Showing children plants and animals in the woods and pointing out the facts involved in this reality are the best way.
There is absolute truth. The Bible states this the Bible is also a living testement. Therefore it is adaptive. It has to be this is how the Church has survived as wel las the nation of Isreal .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, The is no God. "
Proverbs "The man of integrity walks securely, be he who takes crocked paths will be found out"
"The fear of the lord is the beginig of wisdom" Psalm 111:10
So youre trying to use scripture to prove that scripture is correct?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not need proof of existance of god, but if one is coming to me claiming such, I need external proof, other than what they are trying to prove.
I'm happy that religion is finally being subjected to scientific scrutiny. What I do wonder, however, is why people can't admit that they really don't know if there is a God, or not, or if there is in fact an afterlife. I haven't died yet, nor have you, so we really don't know. Nor do we know anything at all about this supposed God. I've looked and looked, studied and studied, and I've reached the only reasonable conclusion -- we really don't know God and can't, the same goes for an afterlife, heaven and hell, etc. Oh, you might say..The Bible says, "......." The Bible is a collection of writings by human beings, written many centuries ago. If I were to write a book that stated, "This is the word of God," would you believe it? Create a religion based on it? Build your life around it? No? Why not subject the Bible and other "spiritual" writings to the same scrutiny and criticism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for these simple but logical words. I agree with you 100%. Religion has caused so many problems from day one. I often wonder just how advanced we would be today if religion had not persecuted the great thinkers of any particular time such as Galileo. Maybe now with a new president we can get away with this idea of teaching creationism in our schools. You can bet Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc., are not teaching creationism in their schools and will far out rank us if we continue in this way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow branyanwd8rbc your comments indicate a complete lack of even a basic understanding of biology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I cannot eat rocks", ever try salt? Water is also not a living thing and you are mostly made of it.
"Life Force", I think you are confusing reality with a video game or cheap sci-fi. There is no life force. There are biological processes. When you die, the biological processes that sustain you stop; your heart stops pumping, CO2 is no longer removed from your cells, the increased acidity breaks open compartments of self-destruct compounds, your cells burst open, bacteria feed on the nutrient rich remains.
"Life feeds on life", how about photosynthesis.
The old argument , "energy can neither be created nor destroyed," for the persistence of the soul is always very funny. The people that use it are inevitably the ones who have no understanding of what it means. Our knowledge and personalities i.e. minds, are not just "Energy"! It is organized information. If I take a sentence and randomize the letters the sentence no longer has the same meaning even though none of the letters have been created or destroyed. In the case of the mind, the physical brain is what provides the organization. When you take someones brain and run it through a blender, all the matter is still there, and so is the "Energy", but it no longer works because the information has been destroyed. Information CAN be created and destroyed.
I hate the idea of death but wishing it werent so doesnt make it not so. Religion or more generally faith based beliefs are the weak minded persons way of saying, reality makes me unhappy, knowledge makes me unhappy, so I will give myself over to whoever can tell me the prettiest lie. Religion can be compared in so many ways to a virus, not least of which is the fact that it mostly targets the weak. To protect against it we need to inoculate with knowledge, logic, critical thought and the scientific method.
First one must accept that certain preconceptions are more probable and thus more reasonable. This will necessarily make the whole notion of a God (I never know what people actually mean by this term) as creator, omniscient guide, lover, mother, father, destroyer, judge, jury and hangman a bit difficult to place on par with a discussion about testable, verifiable and falsifyable theory. This underscores one of the most difficult issues when discussing religion, or its many tentacles (such as intelligent design). One cannot begin a discussion assuming equality between science and religion. The burden for religion, or any supernatural belief, is to finally provide some evidence that doesn't rely on faith. Until that can be done, it will always be incumbent on religious thought to prove its case in order that it be considered equal. Til then, it is always the simplest answers that rational people will look for to explain our world, this is the way our glorious universe works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about investigating why fsome religions (e.g., Islam) encourage violence to non-believers? This would seem to be non-productive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFun is fun and done is done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Stephen King, Riding the Bullet
violence to non-believers would mean that you can more easily spread your religion which would benifit that religion and their way of life. Taking out opposition is a way to help your sect grow
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've always thought religion plays the role of a crutch in most peoples lives. It's the excuse for not taking action, or the creditor of all miracles (aka.- preperation meets opportunity, aka. self fulfilling prophecy). I lean towards the argument that suggests the draw is the "safety in numbers" mentality. Religion has been used to rally the masses for political gain throughout history, the basis of which being- find a common ground with someone- then exploit it to advance your own agenda. Furthermore, ensure the continuity of this claim by enforcing traditions such baptisms on the newly born of the next generation to take the power of choice away from the individual. Unfortnately, this pessimistic view of religion comes from the blood and death on its hands. People, cultures, communities, countries kill in the name of religion every day. How am I to believe in the divinity of God or the symbol of a God (whatever that might be to you) when "God" is the root of all evil. My last thought would be this- I would like to be bold and say that people who hold onto the idea of an afterlife are not appreciating the significance of THIS life. I would suggest that if you are not living, enjoying, feeling, loving, experiencing, and exploring this life, there is comfort in believing that you may be granted a second chance in some form or another after death. My goal for the afterlife is to fertalize the ground in which flowers may one day flourish- the end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that the heart of the matter can be found between the "sides": Do we really have any solid idea either way? Both naturalistic and spiritual points of views are easily justified, scrutinized and hypothesized. I say that what is important is that we are HUMAN and it is in preserving our humanity that we should apply all speculative knowledge. That we would assume to understand the entire science of the universe or that we would assume to have been revealed the true nature of its spirit is rather absurd and, quite frankly, rather hubristic. Myself, I see the practical possibility that intelligence is inherent in the fabric of the universe; if it can exist within us, why not outside of or without us? I also happen to speculate that existence DOES precede essence, as it would be rather impossible for the individual "soul" to have already -been- if it was only stardust and lava formerly. Death, or entropy, is the fate of all the universe, yet I think that Einstein and Milton made a huge point in pointing out that the imagination and the unknown are perhaps a greater force than, and at the very least the same as, that of non-being.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is all about forming groups, and considering those outside the group as enemies. It is about forgetting that we are all members of one group called Humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with dropadisc. I was drinking coffee this morning, looking out of my window at my 20 acres of natural woods and thinking, "Now this is heaven." How sad it would be to deny myself heaven on earth in favor of the unknown. How sad to die when I had never truly "lived." This is really the saddest part of being a member of some cults.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho can conceptualize consciousness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod is not complicated. Just observe gorillas or baboons. God is just an abstraction of the big kahuna, AKA the biggest, baddest baboon. We are instinctively wired to want a big kahuna around. It makes us feel safe, and like the world is in order. Many humans cannot deal with the abstraction of a god that exists only as an idea. Thus we have prophets, cult leaders, priests, the pope, the Karmapa, and the divine right of kings. All of them are semantically equivalent to "big kahuna" or "big baboon".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that when religions commit slaughter, they don't kill the nubile females. They rape them and make them breeders for the cult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting point, in your case, religion is adaptive, but in a reverse order. It is wired into us, and we are adapting to knowledge, making faith in the 'big kahuna' less of a necessity to survive. We are slowly adapting to not need it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it started out as humans think that ther is 'one big kahuna' then as knowledge is gained (I assume a positive progression with knowledge and time) the idea of 'big kahuna' starts to weaken. First breaking off into different sects, weakening, then finally to atheism. I would say we are in the weakening stage. Knowledge is just overwheling us with data that shows that there need not be a 'big kahuna' to have order. We are smart enough to keep that order ourselves and work together.
As we all know of natural selection, not all can make it, but I am sure that the ones that are not the strongest, still struggle to survive. We can see that religion is struggling to survive.
Toradze- I agree. I find that many true-believing Christian women that I have known personally tend to have father issues embedded in her history, in that he had control issues of his own, ergo your Big Kahuna hypothesis. I find that Christian men often suffer likewise or just can't make up their own mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the previous commentors- Doesn't the fact of the unknown drive us to make life as good, true, beautiful, and free as we possibly may? In a way, thinking about the inevitability of death forces us to create our own "heaven". I lean toward the belief that IF anything of our beings endures beyond physical entropy, it's entirely of our own creation. But I don't think that worshipping such a notion is practical or relevant to our experiences. Whatever is going to happen on an universal level is already millions of light-years or lives beyond us.
On an imaginative note, I like to think that when I die I'll literally fall off the face of the planet and drift toward other worlds. But I'm a writer, and I understand the power of fictionalized truths in a way that most religionists fail to comprehend. Which is most evident in fundamentalist thought.
I don't want to deny any religion, or tell anyone that it is false, BUT, my problem is with organized religion. These are all great points, and my point is that if religion isn't adaptive, then why don't people have personal religions? Why must religions for groups? The fact of the matter is that the people in this article are trying to find out, but there cannot be any religious benifit from worshiping in a group rather than by ones self. The only benifit is a social one. Why must these religious people want a feeling of togetherness when all they want to do is leave and go to heaven, and getting in depends on what they as an individual does in his/her life. Fact is there is no reason for religous grouping other than a social one. A prayer is supposed to be recieved by GOD, who knows all, then why bother praying together to GOD. Does he need convincing? If religion isn't adaptive, then why form a group, if you are just trying to bypass this stage and go onto the next.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love science but I also like religion. I am a Christian but I am far from perfect. I sin , I love, I hate. We eat drink and be merry . For some there will be no tommow. Religions do evolved just like anything it can be studies. You can put dollars and cents , plus and minus on it Religion just like any human activity is open to scientific scurunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever my feeling faith and the role of realizing that god created me gave me a spirt and desires a relationship with me. Indeed Jesus wishes relationship with all peoples but it is each persons choice. Religion has failed by forcing this choice on people or used fear of views to justifie thier views. Adpation of religion is realizing they are not the only game in town.
However all faith can agree on the role of sin & redeption good and evil as absoules. There is absoute truth.
The absolute truth of the matter is that, science or spirit, it's generally an unknown and will remain so until Humans discover all the universe (which they won't, but AI will) or until whatever is revealed at death is then revealed and it's going to be entirely subjective anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe absolute truth is that we are Human first.
What a silly "conference." The next one will be on "Is government adaptive," as if we had a clear idea of what government is. Before one begins to investigate religion one should have a clear idea of what religion is. I defy anyone to provide a definition of it that is not question-begging. The same goes for "God," "survival, " and "afterlife." These are concepts, folks, not tangible things, and there are innumerable concepts of each. I once asked an atheist which God he disbelieved in. Answer: all of them. Yes, it's silly, but so is trying to investigate "all of them." But who can argue with a stay at a fancy hotel and dining on filet mignon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos to Jesse. You have stimulated some intelligent comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with this sentiment. I understand that without a way to directly observe God or the afterlife, science can only view religion as a sort of effect of the human brain. Nonetheless discussing religion with the assumption that God does not exist, comes across as presumptuous and a bit arrogant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are social beings and want to do things with others and be with people who share their beliefs. Many religions have an aspect of community to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople worship together for the same reason they see music together in concerts rather than listening at home.
Religious wars as you call them often are based much more around the gain of power and wealth with religion as an excuse. Without religion, those wars wouldn't cease, they would simply be fought under different pretenses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh no, religion may not be sacred to me, but music sure is!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople see music together because they HAVE to. A concert experience sounds completly different from listening at home. Also Hi-Fi equipment is expensive and delivers a fraction of the cost. I go to concerts to hear that sound, take away all the other people, and I'M in heaven.
This is not the same for religion. There is no benift of grouping people. It is impractical for a musician to go around to everyones home and play a private concert, but praying for that matter is personal. So personal, it doesn't really make sense to do it in a huge group. Other than for social gain.
I have seen what is almost group hysteria displayed by chanting religionists. They feed off each other and get high.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPraying is most effective when it isn't over-used. What deity would enjoy mass onslaughts of demands?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be simple to propose a theory which can show that a belief in evolution is adaptive/evolutionary. Does that mean that the theory of evolutons is "a psychological blemish etched onto the core cognitive substrate of your brain"?
All fine, but we can and do "conceptualize the absence of consciousness". I did so at the age of ten. Many depressed people do, and it drives some of them to the brink. In fact, it's not much of a stretch to state that the flip side of conceptual physics is the conceptualization of death. Anyone who has penetrated the mystery of inanimate matter must also be capable, under certain circumstances, of imagining himself as such matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Carl Jung could ad a lot to your discussion(if he were still alive). He taught that religious ideas and experience are psychic facts that can indeed be studied scientifically. They have contributed immeasurably to human culture worldwide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, my ego is so much bigger than God, and because i can hear myself and cannot hear God, so, he doesn't exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the old dark age, my body belong to religion, in the current dark age, my knowledge belongs to the self proclamed emperors of reason and logic.
You can feed a naturalist paradigm so big that you cannot see beyond it, but that doesn't make it truth.
I wonder if scientists get married by "love" or by fluke chance.
"We need to stop brainwashing children to believe the illogical. As children we all accept what we are told as the truth". ___You said that right. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistricks for freaks (1)
Greeks and Romans ruled
and so did the Egyptians;
but all became lazy, arrogants
so public had revolutions.
Their empire ended a long ago
by those talkative magicians;
who with friendly talks and promises
for better life in heavens.
They easily filled leadership vacancies
taught military unity and carisma;
warmed up the blood of vicinity
with magic, acting, cheating and drama!
People bought their promises
for their direct attachment to folks;
as story tellers to those idles
with patriotic songs, on sands and rocks.
Greeks and Romans ruled
and so did the Egyptians;
but all became lazy, arrogants
so public had revolutions.
tricks for freaks (2)
Magicians did some good
helped own tribes and neighbors;
they did amaging magical works
controlled subjects, peasents, farmers.
Thus, they became crownless kings
taught followers to remember them;
to keep teaching everybody's kids
them as prophets, with jehova's name.
Injected the thesis into gene
they programmed prophecy chip;
introduced own rule as culture
citizens entered them very deep.
Its not easy to get out of jail
from hypnosis what they did;
we failed to enjoy heaven on earth
as, still they control and lead.
Rulers bought their products
it was a good buy for clevers;
to imprison citizens inside
by selling hopes and promises.
Magicians did some good
helped own tribes and neighbors;
they did amaging magical works
controlled subjects, peasents, farmers.
tricks for freaks (1)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreeks and Romans ruled
and so did the Egyptians;
but all became lazy, arrogants
so public had revolutions.
Their empire ended a long ago
by those talkative magicians;
who with friendly talks and promises
for better life in heavens.
They easily filled leadership vacancies
taught military unity and carisma;
warmed up the blood of vicinity
with magic, acting, cheating and drama!
People bought their promises
for their direct attachment to folks;
as story tellers to those idles
with patriotic songs, on sands and rocks.
Greeks and Romans ruled
and so did the Egyptians;
but all became lazy, arrogants
so public had revolutions.
tricks for freaks (2)
Magicians did some good
helped own tribes and neighbors;
they did amaging magical works
controlled subjects, peasents, farmers.
Thus, they became crownless kings
taught followers to remember them;
to keep teaching everybody's kids
them as prophets, with jehova's name.
Injected the thesis into gene
they programmed prophecy chip;
introduced own rule as culture
citizens entered them very deep.
Its not easy to get out of jail
from hypnosis what they did;
we failed to enjoy heaven on earth
as, still they control and lead.
Rulers bought their products
it was a good buy for clevers;
to imprison citizens inside
by selling hopes and promises.
Magicians did some good
helped own tribes and neighbors;
they did amaging magical works
controlled subjects, peasents, farmers.
BLOOD THIRSTY ABRAHIM (1)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlood thirsty! With all cruel action
Became tradition, culture and religion,
Hatred against each other
Fight and war, too much to bear!
"God asked for sacrifice", he said
That's what made them constantly afraid,
In his loud and scary voice of thunder
Like a nasty military commander!
"Come and join in my force
As, I am commissioned to endorse",
People said, "get out of hear
Do not intervent our culture".
"Mine is better with one god, hear, hear
I will slaught my son for god's order,
Let me sacrifice, let me do"
People scared and cried, "no, no"!
Blood thirsty! With all cruel action
Became tradition, culture and religion,
Hatred against each other
Fight and war, too much to bear!
BLOOD THIRSTY ABRAHIM (2)
"We will join you, we will vote
Please stop cutting his throat",
Cunning said, "god asked to sacrifice
For your disobedience and vice".
"People, people! look me, look you
With this sword i have to do,
My creator asked for sacrifice
My dearest son would be nice".
God ordered for sacrifice, he said
That's what made them constantly afraid,
In his loud and scary voice of thunder
Like a nasty military commander!
Blood thirsty! With all cruel action
Became tradition, culture and religion,
Hatred against each other
Fight and war, too much to bear!
"We will join you, we will vote
Please stop cutting his throat",
Cunning said, "god asked to sacrifice
For your disobedience and vice".
BLOOD THIRSTY ABRAHIM (3)
Blood thirsty! With all cruel action
Became tradition, culture and religion,
Hatred against each other
Fight and war, too much to bear!
"I can't wait more, ...ready,...one...two"
People cried out, "...no... no,"
"OK! OK! Let me make a meditation
OK! Now, almighty accepted my action".
Instead of sacrificing beloved son
Animal sacrifice became the tradition,
What a madness, blood thirsty fantasy
A scary myth behind such a prophecy!
We believe in such a hearsay story
God's order to cut head, is a glory,
Billions of cows, sheeps and goats
For god's pleasure, we cut their throats.
Blood thirsty! With all cruel action
Became tradition, culture and religion,
Hatred against each other
Fight and war, too much to bear!
BLOOD THIRSTY ABRAHIM (4)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlood thirsty! With all cruel action
Became tradition, culture and religion,
Hatred against each other
Fight and war, too much to bear!
That man ordered forcible circumcision
To minors in inhygienic procedure action,
Enough cruelty, enough violation
Let us reform and change our direction!
Blood thirsty demon and a terrible liar
A wicked who misrepresented own wife as sister,
He can't get a waiver! He be held responsible
For destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah people!
He was the prophet and father of evil doers
A dominating teacher of last 5 thousand years,
Because of his wrong philosophical packages
We are living in uncivil darkness of ages.
Blood thirsty! With all cruel action
Became tradition, culture and religion,
Hatred against each other
Fight and war, too much to bear!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBARACK OBAMA'S RESPECT FOR NON-BELIEVERS
President Barack Hussein OBAMA
Of United States of America;
Rose as a savior, 'the man' for all
After the heinous Bush's fall.
In Barak Obama's Presidential inauguration
He respected non-believers in the nation;
A non-believer! For the first time in declarion
And a Moslem, a Hindu with a Jew and Christian.
Yes, 20th January, in two thousand nine
President Obama seemed impartial and fine;
His words and soliderity with non-believers
Stopped our heart beats and worst fears.
Thanks, President! for the wisdom and kindness
To speak for us and for our acceptance;
You made the history in your great speech
I hope you never violate and never breach.
Vast population is very happy for you
To see a free world like a brand new;
Continue to blossom, to shine and to rise
To stop hypocracies and un necessaries.
President Barack Hussein OBAMA
Of 'United States of America';
Rose as a savior, 'the man' for all
After the heinous Bush's fall.
Is religion Adaptive? Why yes! if we accept archaeological evidence. Man first believed in a world populated by the spirits of ancestors. From this evolved polytheism and then monotheisms. Since the renaissance period science has been based mainly on the philosophy of ethics. Religion is defined as a system of faith and worship. Science seeks only truth. Religion seeks revelation....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf science doesn't reach God is a false science !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf religion doesnt reach the truth is not religion !
Speculations and theories are the destruction of science and religion = blindfolded person.
The wisdom of God is far more different and complex than our thoughts.
It is like an ant try to explain New York city,.
I see your discutions just like a ranger who try to explain a forest but he cannot see it because of the trees.
Of course religion is adaptive. It is a psychological appeasement that has helped countless people get through tough times. Hopefully in the future, humanity will find a way to deal with its problems without hoping the spiritual realm will come to aid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, well, so you can talk about religion without a theological expert in the group of scholars.... What's next? The study of a believer in a box?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been asking myself this question about God for as long as I can remember. I suffered without knowing the answer. Recently I was given a book:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Fourth Sapphire Tablet of Malkhytzedek Tuthamenhaten-dreams.
The introduction to this book; dream psychology, helped me grately with my problem. I suffer no more!
I have been asking myself this question about God for very long time. Answer to my question I found in this book:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Fourth Sapphire Tablet of Malkhytzedek Tuthamenhaten-dreams.
It is very difficult task to explain this issue to one self.
greta
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPedro: "Well, well, so you can talk about religion without a theological expert in the group of scholars.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course you can. Religion can be, and is, a personal experience. Theological experts can dispute points of doctrine, or proverbially count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Theological scholasticism is not science. Impartial academic scholasticism, on the other hand, can tell us the way in which Paul shaped the concept of Christianity (although the term did not then exist) to fit his personal vision of things, or that Josephus devoted more words to Herod than to the person of Jesus. None of which might have anything to do with someone's personal experience of religion.
It's always fun to listen to a bunch of philosophers pretending to be scientists, discussing a tautology as if it were actual science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer is simple. Just make something up that sounds reasonable. Understand the initial premise is a tautology: a statement that is true because it declares itself true. Therefore, it can explain anything. You simply invoke it and come up with some "just so" story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, on one hand you can claim religion explains human cooperation. On the other hand, you can claim religion explains human warfare. See? You can claim religion explains ANYTHING.
It's just like that other tautology, evolution. You can invoke it to explain junk DNA, and when biologists come out and say: "oops, sorry, there is no junk DNA," you can invoke it to explain the lack of junk DNA.
frgough: "It's always fun to listen to a bunch of philosophers pretending to be scientists, discussing a tautology as if it were actual science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo-one - certainly not the author of the article being discussed - has claimed that the subject is science. It deals instead with what he states are topics for discussion. If, however, you consider yourself aloof from joining in with 'a bunch of philosophers', then why bother to comment here?
Try reading the article again. The entire framework of every argument was an attempt to explain religion in terms of naturalistic science. In addition, my criticism was with philosophers pretending to be scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, then again, your analysis is what passes for critical thinking far too frequently today which is why people actually take the drivel spouted in the article as something other than the mindless, shallow babbling it was.
Scientists are required to look at all sides. Unlike philosophers, however, scientists are forced to "go with the evidence". If there is no valid evidence for a god then there is no "other side" to discuss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and the legal system require that people who make claims prove their claims. This is a difficult thing for religious people to understand. If you claim that god exists then YOU have to prove god exists and not the other way around. Miracles face the same issue. Most of the people I have talked to on this often confuse the correlation of an event with causation. In statistics you even have to come up with the null hypothesis to prove it wasn't just a coincidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are remarkably cavalier with words. In the first place your definition of a tautology is incorrect. Secondly, statements can be tautologies; entire fields of understanding (like the study of religion or of evolution) cannot. Finally, evolutionary theory can be applied to the development of any type of DNA, regardless of transient understanding (or misunderstanding) of its function.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for your dismissal of the article, I for one am in favor of applying scientific rigor to the study of religion. Perhaps it will allow us eventually to treat or even eradicate this kind of mental aberration from human society.
frgough: "But, then again, your analysis is what passes for critical thinking far too frequently today"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, too rich... The difference between me and you, pal, is the difference between the artist and the critic. Those that can, do. Those that can't, criticise. At least I ventured an analysis. You just sit on the fence and whine. But then, what is my humble opinion here when compared with your undoubtedly vast and infinitely superior knowledge on these matters?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is said here to rest upon:
1. Self-protective shunning of the concept of future non-awareness;
2. Social policing and demonstrated solidarity;
3. Positive effects on health; and
4. A mere psychological blemish.
My replies:
1. True for perhaps too many of us. Possibly we should note our lack of awareness prior to our earliest awareness, and note also that any disrupted system, from a clock to a computer, longer functions as a system. This might help us to accept the simple proposition that our own awareness is an aspect of our neuro-physiological system, and co-exists with it. They began together, and they will end together.
2. Beneficial effects of any meme tend to perpetuate the meme.
3. Beneficial effects of any gene tend to perpetuate the gene.
4. We each develop our memes by constructive interpretation of sensory experience. No one construction is a blemish merely because it is a construction.
Religion is said here to rest upon:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Self-protective shunning of the concept of future non-awareness;
2. Social policing and demonstrated solidarity;
3. Positive effects on health; and
4. A mere psychological blemish.
My replies:
1. True for perhaps too many of us. Possibly we should note our lack of awareness prior to our earliest awareness, and note also that any disrupted system, from a clock to a computer, longer functions as a system. This might help us to accept the simple proposition that our own awareness is an aspect of our neuro-physiological system, and co-exists with it. They began together, and they will end together.
2. Beneficial effects of any meme tend to perpetuate the meme.
3. Beneficial effects of any gene tend to perpetuate the gene.
4. We each develop our memes by constructive interpretation of sensory experience. No one construction is a “blemish” merely because it is a construction.
Religion probably allowed for easier groupings of people in somewhat organized warefare in earlier life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFew of us have actually addressed the subject 'Is religion adaptive,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrather getting lost in it's merit, or lack of same.
I concur with the previously expressed opinion that it is certainly
adaptive, and submit the view that Darwinian principles applied.
There were many small religious groups and there are few large
ones today.
I feel that they compete for supporters, much as animals compete
for food and living space.
In order to do this they had to offer their supporters more advantage
than emotional comfort. There had to be physical advantages to
belonging to the group, and disadvantages to the reverse.
They supported believers and punshed the infidel.
I'm not bashing Islam. Look at the history of Christianity in all its branches.
It was pretty bloodt y there for quite a while.
I suppose the same could be said for aome of the eastern religions, but
I'm insufficiently familiar with their history except to say that the need for
warrior monks speaks volumes.
My point is that these formerly positive characteristics in a more limited
world became institutionalized in our lare major religions, , and now,
in our current 'connected' world, pose a survival threat to the species.
pose a serious threat to the survival of the species.
I would suggest that religion is indeed adaptive, and even follows a form of Darwinian speciation. Observing the way in which religions factionalize, with each faction acquiring its own characteristics, is not difficult. But at what point can we conclude that speciation has occurred? It would seem to have little to do with things on an individual level, where dialogue and human relationships between religions is possible, if sometimes troubled. My suggestion is that religious 'species' define themselves through their places of worship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Christian would not worship in a Hindu temple. And the words of the Torah would hardly be heard in a mosque. These are obvious inter-religious examples. But on the intra-religious level, a Catholic would of course no more think of stepping over the threshold to attend an Evangelical service than an Evangelist would attend a mass. We can bravely offer an occasional ecumenical gesture, but the reality is that where we worship is what seems to define our religious 'species'.
It would be interesting to see all this as a clade...
Hi Albert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"They began together, and they will end together." You say.
"Ashes to ashes." the prayer goes. Do they look alike to you too?
How many biological systems, including humans, in nature, are not adaptive?
Is the naturalistic paradigm adaptive as well?
Do they compete for the same limited resources?
One comes from individual "voluntary" donations, and the others come from Taxes, and private "for profit" funding.
Shouldn't they be using those resources on something verifiable?
Like carving egos on history, naming some thing after or saving children.
Should't they put the same itchy method on they own words rather than speak so freely of something they don't have a clue?
"This might help us to accept the simple proposition that our own awareness is an aspect of our neuro-physiological system, and co-exists with it."
Shall we replace the "faith dogma" with the "newly evolved", "rational dogma"?
How can any system define something outside it's own "reality"?
best
Yes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut why wait, let's burn them right away!
There you go!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou just got it so easy, of course god is not complicated.
The thing is that your idea of god seems more like a human. isn't it?
So everybody is a Monkey, except of course for the science, the new big naturalistic baboon. please.
How many years will this baboon live until they come with a new one, what happened to the previous one?
god is harmless, but man is another story. So if god is a big baboon, how come it is not bashing you for saying that is some abstraction?
Dear Jesse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you saying that millions in taxpayer's money result in the dreadful "data suggests" followed by whatever gets you the funds coming in blahblah?
Data suggests that institutions struggle only for their own benefit, by whatever means they can.
have you ever know a man that rejects its pay in behalf of the truth? or rather the opposite.
Data suggests whatever gets you the next funding.
If all humans where to be genetically blind, and no technology where to be developed yet to acknowledge the electromagnetic spectrum, wouldn't be the morning sunrise light as blemish as god?
Why somebody who is not having economic benefits from it, should discharge his faith in his own idea of god in favor of the faith in the "data suggests" idea.
Wasn't Newton "LAWS" wrong a million years ago?
I see no reason to keep accepting "current" laws of science as top of line reality, when it's only a matter of time and technologic development to have this ideas challenged an abandoned again.
Don't they resist changes at the status quo of predominant paradigm, just like any religion resist changes at their status quo of beliefs?
best
Hi ambertooth, i couldn't help but to make a funny reversal of this comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The following is a direct response to this comment.
Pedro: "Well, well, so you can talk about religion without a theological expert in the group of scholars..""
Yes Pedro, some of the "self crowned" scientists are so clever that they can do whatever they like. Just like the very inquisition they claim to fight.
Reversal
Of course you can. Science can be, and is, a personal experience. Scientific experts can dispute points of doctrine, or proverbially count how many colleages can dance on the head of a limited budget.
Scientific scholasticism is not science. Impartial (meaning budget oriented) academic scholasticism, on the other hand, can tell us the way in which Paul shaped the concept of Science (although the term did not then exist) to fit his personal vision of things, or that Josephus devoted more words to data suggestions than to the pursue of truth (meaning funds). None of which might have anything to do with someone's personal experience of religion.
=)
Hahaha....a bunch of knobbies trying to figure out GOD. You'll have better luck figuring women out....Muahahahahahahahaha.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith religion, when it's a conscious choice, it's because there are psychological advantages. It's not so much belonging to a group, as having a place in the universe, and it doesn't have to be doctrinal and judgmental. The sense of Other, a loving Other, being in control of things allows less defensive posturing and more open, and I hope, more proactive behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether this Other exists inside my own brain like a mirror in a parrot's cage or has some cosmic eternal existence really doesn't matter during my brief time of knowing and being. I choose to believe in a benign universe. Belief in God it frees me and enables me to be more benign myself.
The idea/concept of there being something after death as always caused many a mind to fantasize about it and always caused imaginations to go astray as to what it could mean. However death has its on allure around it as it encompasses the ideas of ghosts,the mysterious white light,going heaven and being a Hindu the idea of reincarnation seemed farfetched until i heard of the white kid being able to recall his past life (45 min doc on it no lie) .One might argue that the the idea of truly dieing may not be something that we as human beings would not be able to handle and try to create alternatives to relieve us of the idea of rotting in the ground oh well guess we would only find out when we die ourselves
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at it as a gamble....if it's true, you go to heaven. If not, you haven't lost anything...basic religion requires morality, not so with disbelief. If a non-believer has no beliefs there's nothing forbidding him to do the immoral or unkind. There's nothing to hold him to account in other words. If you've never had a spiritual experience, you don't know what you're missing. You can't miss what you've never had. Adaptive as a descriptive word has no meaning in regard to religion. Only a bunch of atheist scientist could have come up with that word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy is it that scientiest curse Christians and call them stupid if they don't believe in one of their theories, but all the so-called 'christian' politicians will use their data to charge taxes on various things using 'scientific' theories to justify an unjust tax?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since we cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness, even non-believers are susceptible to visions of the hereafter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a concept I've never understood. There is no need to conceptualize the absence of consciousness since all of us were in a nonextant state from at least the time of the big bang until birth. In a smaller way, we all cease to exist in a dreamless sleep, or when knocked unconscious or anesthesitized. Since we've all been there, what's to conceptualize?
"Since we cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness, even non-believers are susceptible to visions of the hereafter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a concept I've never understood. There is no need to conceptualize the absence of consciousness since all of us were in a nonextant state from at least the time of the big bang until birth. In a smaller way, we all cease to exist in dreamless sleep, or when knocked unconscious or anesthesitized. Since we've all been there, what's to conceptualize?
ZenaV: "Look at it as a gamble....if it's true, you go to heaven. If not, you haven't lost anything...basic religion requires morality, not so with disbelief."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least give poor Pascal credit for this classic proposition, instead of passing the statement off as something original to yourself, ZenaV. Basic religion, you say, requires morality. Well, basic morality requires honesty.
And who in the world are "a bunch of atheist scientists"? Were you to undergo major surgery, would you first delve into whether the surgeon was Episcopalian, or agnostic, or Wiccan? Or would you take it on trust that experience and professional qualifications were what counted for the task in hand? Your view of non-believers living a hedonistic, all-brakes-off lifestyle is too absurdist and bigoted to deserve further comment.
According to you, "adaptive as a descriptive word has no meaning in regard to religion". Then try 'hypocritical' as a descriptive word in regard to religion instead. In view of your comments, it would seem more apt.
One alternate approach would be for professional proponents of both perspective to do pastoral work in local congregations for a number of years. In that context both the analytic data based scientific work could be done and as well as immersion in the particular cultural setting of a community of people in a unique time and place. This would demand attention to both disciplines at the same time. A rich scientific/religious event would take place. My guess is that participants would begin to hold in themselves the tension that exists in the Darwinian experience. Perhaps an individual's life would not be long enough to draw conclusions. Such is the nature of the process of life. My point is that the argument would be helped along by living intentionally in the tension and ambiguity of biological life that may or may not have ends beyond the present understanding of reality. I say this a religious professional with a scientific bent of mind and a willingness to live in ambiguity - even mystery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have adapted my former religious beliefs when,I discovered I hated the concept of a biblical god,it is a monster to me .I changed my veiws of life.now I can use prayer for many purposes ease pain win competions get to sleep.I am never alone but I have no one to please or fear.My religious daughter cannot pray because she is not worthy,"I lost my temper yesterday"so she is out of favour.Whats the use of a god like that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this debate has to broken down to the root. Education. Religion is inherently 'bad'. A healthy spirituality is a form of philosophical thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion puts rules into place that have not bearing in nature. Take nudity and sex for example. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with either. When Columbus found the Caribbean Islands it was documented that the indigenous people knew no shame of their own nakedness. Doctrines of religion teach other wise. This brings me back to the root of the problem. Education.
The banana is naturally short and fat and filled with visible seeds. A majority of people are not aware of this. Our education system is based on an agricultural society. The only thing that has changed is the amount of time spent at school. We teach our children how to take tests instead of how to think logically and problem solve. History is not taught. It is presented as a memorization of dates and events. The meanings and analysis of the events are minimal if any.
"Education is wasted on the young." We need mandatory extra schooling of some sort between 20-30 years old to reeducate those who where more concerned about biological attractions and confused by chemical changes in their bodies instead of absorbing Newtons laws.
But then again..."The world needs ditch diggers too."
Topics that has something to do with God who is unseen requires faith to believe in, unless you do, there will be every logical words available in our minds not to believe in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly faith can bring you to the mindset that will and can understand God and His works.
<a href="http://www.WellnessWithAloha.com">kahuna healing</a>