Religion: invented to control the masses?

[moorobot]

There are two views contrary to this that I have some affinity for, but I haven't really considered to what degree each is the source of religion, or questioned and discussed these views. One is the view of Marx, and one is the view of Feurbach. There are two parts to this which can be read independently if you would like, one explaining each person's view.

Marx

As G.A. Cohen put it, "In a common but natural misunderstanding of what Marx meant when he said that religion was the opium of the people, he is misrepresented as saying that priests devise religion to keep the suffering and, therefore, the potentially rebellious masses quiet. And the misinterpretation of the opium sentence is compounded when its misinterpreter adds that priests are appointed by the ruling class to carry out the stated analgesic mission." ( If you're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? , pg. 79, Harvard University Press, 2001).

In contrast, what Marx meant there, as Cohen goes on to illustrate, is that the people need religion. They need it because of the unjust and inhumane conditons/ 'vale of woe' that exist(s) in the world. It is the people themselves who create religion, and although it may be good for the ruling class that they have relgion, or that priests play a significant role in the continuation of religous belief, the main reason religion exists is the creation of it by the people. As Marx later put it, "Religion is the sigh of the opressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, justs as it is the spirit of the spiritless situation". In Marx's view, while religion is "the enemy of emanicipation, it is also the route through which emanicpation must run. Emancipation comes not by proving that religion is false but by revealing the source of religion in a spiritless world that needs to have its spirit returned to it, a world that needs to be humanized." (Cohen, pg. 81, emphasis added). You should teach people that man is the highest being for man, and "overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable being". Religion is in fact a dream of a perfectly just and better world, and if you want to convince people that religion is false, you must convince people of the necessity and possibility of trying to bring about a better world. Religion creates merely an illusory happiness, and "The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is a demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion." (Marx).

Feurebach

A somewhat similar but distinct view, also mentioned and explained in the above cited outstanding book by Cohen, is that of Ludwig Feurebach (pronounced Foyer-bach, to impress your friends and teachers). In Hegel, and in Christianity, man is created by god, in god's image. But Feuerbach said the opposite was in fact true: God is created by man, in man's image. (This is not to imply, of course, that, for Feurebach, god is anything more than an idea, or part of humanity)

How so? People create god by concentrating the very best aspects/features/components of humanity, "glorifying them, and projecting them into a beyond" (Cohen, pg. 93). People do not realize that the features they are giving to god are in fact their own features: power, wisdom, goodness, decency, etc. only exist within human beings. And there is no principled limit to the power of and goodness and knowledge of human beings, considered collectively: "if anything is infinitely good and knowledgeable and powerful, it is, potentially, humanity itself" (Cohen pg. 93). So the very features which most religious people claim god has are simply the features of human beings. People then incorrectly think that they were granted imperfect or partial copies of these things by a deity which has perfect, whole copies.

Feurebach denied that he was an atheist, or that there was anything wrong with humans worshiping themselves. What he said instead is that we should realize that these traits are within humans, and worship them as they really are and not give them away or project them on to some imaginary being. To do otherwise would be to alienate ourselves, subject ourselves to an alien limitation on our own possibilities; alienation occurs when "something issues forth from men which they do not recognize as their own, and which consequently dominates them" (Cohen pg. 95). Liberation can potentially occur if we realize that man creates god in his own image and not the other way around. According to Feurebach, the best way to worship these traits is to create a free and equal socialistic society in which all of the good traits of humanity would no longer be limited.

[TomCollins]

tl;dr

[BCPVP]

You're wrong, moorobot.

[theweatherman]

REligion was clearly createrd to explian things that are/were beyond the comprehension of primative peoples.

Things like earthquakes, landslides, floods, tsunamis are all beyond the comprehension of primative man. B/c of this primative man created Gods in order to explain such happenings. Modern relgion is a form of social control.

It did not start out this way, however certain people quicklly learned that it is an easy way to cement control over the masses. they used it as such

PS: I am already drunk so please excuse my sentances. I ma sure that the flow is off but I am too drunk to fix it.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
In Hegel, and in Christianity, man is created by god, in god's image. But Feuerbach said the opposite was in fact true: God is created by man, in man's image.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider either Hegel or Feuerbach to have proven his case?

[moorobot]

Surely that is part of it. But these can easily be part of it to, and the fear of death.

[moorobot]

No, not exactly. I'm just bringing up some possibilities

[NobodysFreak]

I sincerely hope the irony of this thread isn't lost on you.

[pilliwinks]

Given how accurate Marx's other predictions have been so far, I'm a tiny bit sceptical about his claim that convincing people of the possibility of a better world will free them from religion. Apologies in advance to all you Marxists out there.

Thanks for pointing our the opiate misconception, which is pretty widespread. I find the most helpful modern comparison to be 'the antibiotics of the people', though I accept that 'anaesthetic' is what Marx meant. The point being that at that time there were no cures, only painkillers. I happen to think that from the same source as the 'opiate' there are cures for this vale of tears.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Given how accurate Marx's other predictions have been so far, I'm a tiny bit sceptical about his claim that convincing people of the possibility of a better world will free them from religion. Apologies in advance to all you Marxists out there.

Thanks for pointing our the opiate misconception, which is pretty widespread. I find the most helpful modern comparison to be 'the antibiotics of the people', though I accept that 'anaesthetic' is what Marx meant. The point being that at that time there were no cures, only painkillers. I happen to think that from the same source as the 'opiate' there are cures for this vale of tears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different topic I guess, but except for bacterial infections, there still arent cures for very many diseases..there are vaccines to prevent, pharma to delay progress or alleviate symptoms, but darn few cures.

[moorobot]

I have little affinity for Marx in particular (If he was alive today he'd accuse me of being 'utopian' and 'analytical' and not 'scientific' and 'dialectical' like him), but I don't think we should dismiss this simply because he wrote it.

[guesswest]

You've already established a huge bias by asking why religion was 'invented'. Most theists would claim religion was discovered, and surely the first task should be dismissing that claim.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I have little affinity for Marx in particular (If he was alive today he'd accuse me of being 'utopian' and 'analytical' and not 'scientific' and 'dialectical' like him), but I don't think we should dismiss this simply because he wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right. We should not just dismiss it because he predicted a bunch of other things that didn't turn out as he expected. We should dismiss is because it is mistaken about both.

I think it is clear that his opinions about religion were informed by his opinion about politics/economics. He wasn't saying people are deluded fools to believe in God. He was saying that they are forced into it by their socioeconimic conditions, and once they are 'freed', that pressure will be removed. And then they can/will/should give it up.

As far as I can tell, the same modern history that puts holes in his political theories, also debunks the notion that emancipated workers give up the comforting chains of religion. I'm no expert on this, so I'm happy to be proven wrong.

My reading of religious history is consistent with my understanding of the drivers behind religion - it may flourish under poverty, war or oppression, but despair is only one of many reasons for searching for God.

It is quite popular for writers, particularly those as rhetorical as Marx, to claim that a reason is the reason.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Seriously, anyone who doesn't realize how stupid religion is, is a complete idiot.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, anyone who doesn't realize how stupid religion is, is a complete idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people would agree that anyone who makes such a blanket statement is an idiot.

I bet all my money that there are people who are way smarter than you think religion is no stupid at all.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, anyone who doesn't realize how stupid religion is, is a complete idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the fact that there are smart people who find it non-stupid would suggest you've missed something?

[cambraceres]

To answer Guesswest first, We can only debate this from a logical standpoint, and logically it is difficult to start with the proposition that religion COULD be true.

Religion, I believe, is a falsity, all of it. Most would agree but this is not the point. Assuming religion to be reposed on fallcious arguments and devoid of merit, we can then concentrate on the question, why was religion developed?

Men are afraid of death, we are quite possibly the only beings in existence that have this curious characteristic.

We are also afraid of life, there are simply too many dangers inherent in our lives. Storms, meteors, animals, circumstances, these things vex men, and always have.

(Do I get beaten with a rubber hose for using the word vex?)

Also, men are social beings, and again we always have been. Religion is a club, a group, and being on the inside is better than being on the outside, generally speaking.

Men wish to institute Absolutes in their world. We want certainty, things that will always work. A concept that is always true would be a flagpole in the middle of a storm, something to hold on to that is true and real and righteous. These things do not exist, but if they did, wouldn't you feel better?

If you could go to a certain place to see your friends, and augment your faith in a supernatural force to always deliever you from what ills may befall you in accordance with his divine will would you not go?

If you were indoctrinated from birth, and it felt good, it is very likely you would. Liebniz nearly came to a preliminary formulation of quantum theory from a philosophical direction, but missed the mark by declaring that the stochastic nature of reality is explained away by the process of god allowing the best of all possible worlds, and disallowing all others.

Sorry to answer three people at once

Cam

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
(Do I get beaten with a rubber hose for using the word vex?)

[/ QUOTE ] No, hopefully you don't get hexed. Very good post.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
To answer Guesswest first, We can only debate this from a logical standpoint, and logically it is difficult to start with the proposition that religion COULD be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Surely all of philosophy starts with propositions that could be true. If that leads to unacceptable conclusions, they are set aside, but usually not until then.

[ QUOTE ]
Religion, I believe, is a falsity, all of it. Most would agree but this is not the point. Assuming religion to be reposed on fallcious arguments and devoid of merit, we can then concentrate on the question, why was religion developed?

[/ QUOTE ]
See, I believe this is a falsity, all of it. However, I'm happy to give it a shot and see where it leads. I can recommend the same approach to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Men are afraid of death, we are quite possibly the only beings in existence that have this curious characteristic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find plenty of animals that fear serious injury (which = death to them). But this is beside the point. Perhaps more relevant is that there are many many men who can overcome this natural fear. Often for the sake of ideas, sometimes even religious ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
We are also afraid of life... Also, men are social beings...We want certainty, things that will always work...

If you could go to a certain place to see your friends, and augment your faith in a supernatural force to always deliever you from what ills may befall you in accordance with his divine will would you not go?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're saying that religion was invented to avert our fears of death, misfortune, isolation and change? Sounds plausible.

But isn't there that thorny issue of persecution? Every major religion I know of grew in the background of very different beliefs. That meant that the originators knew perfectly that they were in for persecution, isolation, change, misfortune and in some cases death. So why do it?

[ QUOTE ]
If you were indoctrinated from birth, and it felt good, it is very likely you would.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say if you are effectively indoctrinated from birth you might well do just about anything, but that doesn't address where religion came from (invented or discovered).

[guesswest]

Well, I dismiss entirely the notion that you should ignore the possibility that religion isn't invented, because you're then ignoring the argument of the vast majority of it's constituents.

But setting that aside, even if religion is invented, it's not necessarily for bad reasons. Religion serves a great many useful purposes, especially in the developing world, in reinforcing socially useful concepts like family structures and certain ethical ideas. Not to mention all the humanitarian activity that goes on in the name of religion. It's easy to forget this living in the west, where we have the luxury of viewing religion as interfering only in some abstract world of ideas, but it's very apparent if you travel around the developing world where it's interweaved with peoples lives in ways much more immediate than ideas and politics.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that religion is invented, I suspect you'd find different people subscribing to it for vastly different reasons in different locations and circumstances.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, anyone who doesn't realize how stupid religion is, is a complete idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the fact that there are smart people who find it non-stupid would suggest you've missed something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or prehaps you're using a different rubric for 'smart' than I am.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, anyone who doesn't realize how stupid religion is, is a complete idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the fact that there are smart people who find it non-stupid would suggest you've missed something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or prehaps you're using a different rubric for 'smart' than I am.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying you dont think there are smart people who think religion is non-stupid?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion, I believe, is a falsity, all of it. Most would agree

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Men are afraid of death, we are quite possibly the only beings in existence that have this curious characteristic.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
We are also afraid of life, there are simply too many dangers inherent in our lives. Storms, meteors, animals, circumstances, these things vex men, and always have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Was this post a joke?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Do I get beaten with a rubber hose for using the word vex?)

[/ QUOTE ] No, hopefully you don't get hexed. Very good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, was this post a joke?

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion, I believe, is a falsity, all of it. Most would agree

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Men are afraid of death, we are quite possibly the only beings in existence that have this curious characteristic.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
We are also afraid of life, there are simply too many dangers inherent in our lives. Storms, meteors, animals, circumstances, these things vex men, and always have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Was this post a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

everyone, sorry for my typo

What I meant to say is that man is quite possibly the only being in existence that is AWARE of his own impending doom and is therefore intrinsicaly fearful of this uncertain end

Clear??

My sincerest apologies for this egregious error

I am APPALLED that this board could not figure out what I meant.

except for moorobot apparently, you coo

Much love (for everybody)

Cambraceres

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant to say is that man is quite possibly the only being in existence that is AWARE of his own impending doom and is therefore intrinsicaly fearful of this uncertain end

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey I was only asking. I simply thought it was basic evolutionary biology that every living thing is intrinsically fearful of death. But I'm no biologist.

Im still perplexed as to why you believe "most people agree with you" that "religion, all of it, is a falsity" and even more perplexed as to why you state that "men are afraid of life" since there are "storms, meteors, and animals".

Just seeing it followed up with "very good post" made me do a double take. Sorry.

[cambraceres]

I want to stay and play sooooo bad, please be around tomorrow wonderful thread!

Cya tomorrow everyone

love ya

Cam

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, anyone who doesn't realize how stupid religion is, is a complete idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the fact that there are smart people who find it non-stupid would suggest you've missed something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or prehaps you're using a different rubric for 'smart' than I am.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying you dont think there are smart people who think religion is non-stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that anyone who believes in religion as true is an idiot.

[guesswest]

Guys like Newton, Descartes etc?

[bocablkr]

Simple answer to your question is YES.

[guesswest]

Invented by who??

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys like Newton, Descartes etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

People a few hundred years ago are excused for believing in God as they did not have as much information availible to them.

[guesswest]

What information about religion do we have that they didn't????

You're just talking about socialization. There are scores of brilliant Christian (and other religions) academics in every major university in the world, in every kind of academic discipline. The only reason we can't name any with mainstream fame is that academics don't achieve mainstream fame anymore, with hardly any exceptions. Whatever it is that causes religious belief in people like this, it's not a lack of IQ.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
What information about religion do we have that they didn't????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what information do we have about everything else that makes the difference - not religion.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Invented by who??

[/ QUOTE ]

By the people in power at the time who realized that having other people fight a war for you in the name of religion was far better than fighting yourself.

[guesswest]

Specifically, who???

That accusation sounds like random conspiracy theory type paranoia - that 'the man' is behind everything. I'm an agnostic and tend to agree that religion is probably man-made, but I highly doubt it ever took the form of a well organized plan. Religion evolves through oral tradition like a game of chinese whispers, which is why we can trace the development of religions over extended periods of time, it doesn't need anyones help to propogate. The notion that some government or power source made up x religion for y purpose just does not fit with anything we know about the history of any major religion, nor is it in any way necessary to explain religion - it's a conspiracy theory based on zero evidence.

Governments have surely benefited from gearing their propoganda around existing and well established religions, but that's a different matter entirely.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
I simply thought it was basic evolutionary biology that every living thing is intrinsically fearful of death. But I'm no biologist.

[/ QUOTE ] It is highly doubtful that many other animals are aware of the fact that they will die.

You don't need to be aware of natural selection for it to have control over your actions. So it seems like they are taking measures to survive, and hence might be trying to avoid death. But in reality they are just eating food and reproducing because evolution has left them with these tendencies; it made food taste good to them, and sex feel good to them, it made them feel hunger etc and know how to solve hunger etc. So they eat because they are hungry, and know that eating solves hunger, and because food tastes good. Not because they know that if they don't eat they will die.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, who???

That accusation sounds like random conspiracy theory type paranoia - that 'the man' is behind everything. I'm an agnostic and tend to agree that religion is probably man-made, but I highly doubt it ever took the form of a well organized plan. Religion evolves through oral tradition like a game of chinese whispers, which is why we can trace the development of religions over extended periods of time, it doesn't need anyones help to propogate. The notion that some government or power source made up x religion for y purpose just does not fit with anything we know about the history of any major religion, nor is it in any way necessary to explain religion - it's a conspiracy theory based on zero evidence.

Governments have surely benefited from gearing their propoganda around existing and well established religions, but that's a different matter entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly with respect to Christianity, it is widely accepted that Constantine recognized the expediency of aligning Rome with the established Christian social institutions and power structure before his revelation. His "revelation" in the midst of Roman failures in battle, the need to rally the troops, and the rise of Christian martyrdom certainly had convenient timing. And at that time Christianity was far from an established religion to "gear their propaganda around". The bishops on the other hand did not have the resources to expand their power. Once aligned with Rome they had their early version of Gideon, with the Romans printing Bibles and distributing them.

It was a symbiotic relationship that has been repeated many times in history for political reasons. To think it didnt happen before Christianity and relegate it to the level of "conspriacy theories" is a bit hyperbolic.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I simply thought it was basic evolutionary biology that every living thing is intrinsically fearful of death. But I'm no biologist.

[/ QUOTE ] It is highly doubtful that many other animals are aware of the fact that they will die.

You don't need to be aware of natural selection for it to have control over your actions. So it seems like they are taking measures to survive, and hence might be trying to avoid death. But in reality they are just eating food and reproducing because evolution has left them with these tendencies; it made food taste good to them, and sex feel good to them, it made them feel hunger etc and know how to solve hunger etc. So they eat because they are hungry, and know that eating solves hunger, and because food tastes good. Not because they know that if they don't eat they will die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm tossed up on animal's awareness of death. Certainly dogs appear to mourn the death of both humans and other dogs that they have witnessed. Their reaction to their absence after death is not the same as it is when they are merely separated.

If they are awaare of permanent absence, it isnt a big stretch for them to be aware that the absence is due to the ceasing of bodily functions that they witnessed.

Elephants are also known to mourn (which could be explained away by our anthromorphizing their actions), but they also bury their dead, so they do sense the permanence in some manner.

[LadyWrestler]

Re: "Simple answer to your question is YES."

--------------------------------------------

An equally simple but better answer to the question ("Religion: invented to control the masses?") is SOMETIMES.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information about religion do we have that they didn't????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what information do we have about everything else that makes the difference - not religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it when someone says something I was going to say, exactly how I would have said it.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information about religion do we have that they didn't????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what information do we have about everything else that makes the difference - not religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a quick question about this statement.

How does a better understandiing of the workings of the world negate the possibility of an omnipotent deity?

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information about religion do we have that they didn't????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what information do we have about everything else that makes the difference - not religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a quick question about this statement.

How does a better understandiing of the workings of the world negate the possibility of an omnipotent deity?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an answer. A better understanding of the workings of the world does not complete negate the possibility of an omnipotent diety. Nor does it completely negate the possibility that the moon is made of blue cheese.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information about religion do we have that they didn't????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what information do we have about everything else that makes the difference - not religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a quick question about this statement.

How does a better understandiing of the workings of the world negate the possibility of an omnipotent deity?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an answer. A better understanding of the workings of the world does not complete negate the possibility of an omnipotent diety. Nor does it completely negate the possibility that the moon is made of blue cheese.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information about religion do we have that they didn't????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what information do we have about everything else that makes the difference - not religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a quick question about this statement.

How does a better understandiing of the workings of the world negate the possibility of an omnipotent deity?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an answer. A better understanding of the workings of the world does not complete negate the possibility of an omnipotent diety. Nor does it completely negate the possibility that the moon is made of blue cheese.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]


I believe he is saying that he sees no difference between these statements:

1. I see a world, therefore a man in the sky made it
2. I see a moon, it is white, I therefore conclude it is made of blue cheese

(both of these statements were made 100s of years ago, long before we became aware of what the moon was made of)

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe he is saying that he sees no difference between these statements:

1. I see a world, therefore a man in the sky made it
2. I see a moon, it is white, I therefore conclude it is made of blue cheese

(both of these statements were made 100s of years ago, long before we became aware of what the moon was made of)

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is a fundamental difference between the two statements. Namely, it can be conclusively proven that the moon was not made of cheese. We've been there, we've got the rocks and they aren't cheese. Saying that a man in the sky created the Earth, however, can not necessarily be disproven as a greater understanding of evolution and geology do not necessarily disprove His existence, but might only give further insight into His methods of creation.

[cambraceres]

OP, do you consider it vastly different if religion was invented by governments rather than civilian groups?

Cam

[cambraceres]

I say invented because it is hard to say discovered if you don't believe it is true. And won't accept it on faith.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, who???

That accusation sounds like random conspiracy theory type paranoia - that 'the man' is behind everything. I'm an agnostic and tend to agree that religion is probably man-made, but I highly doubt it ever took the form of a well organized plan. Religion evolves through oral tradition like a game of chinese whispers, which is why we can trace the development of religions over extended periods of time, it doesn't need anyones help to propogate. The notion that some government or power source made up x religion for y purpose just does not fit with anything we know about the history of any major religion, nor is it in any way necessary to explain religion - it's a conspiracy theory based on zero evidence.

Governments have surely benefited from gearing their propoganda around existing and well established religions, but that's a different matter entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly with respect to Christianity, it is widely accepted that Constantine recognized the expediency of aligning Rome with the established Christian social institutions and power structure before his revelation. His "revelation" in the midst of Roman failures in battle, the need to rally the troops, and the rise of Christian martyrdom certainly had convenient timing. And at that time Christianity was far from an established religion to "gear their propaganda around". The bishops on the other hand did not have the resources to expand their power. Once aligned with Rome they had their early version of Gideon, with the Romans printing Bibles and distributing them.

It was a symbiotic relationship that has been repeated many times in history for political reasons. To think it didnt happen before Christianity and relegate it to the level of "conspriacy theories" is a bit hyperbolic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, powerful people have always used other people's religious beliefs to their benefit, and still are doing. That's very different to 'inventing' it - Constantine most certainly did not invent Christianity.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information about religion do we have that they didn't????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what information do we have about everything else that makes the difference - not religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a quick question about this statement.

How does a better understandiing of the workings of the world negate the possibility of an omnipotent deity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Po,

In the past, many natural and physical phenomena were not fully understood and therefore attributed to gods. This included how we could have come into existence. Without any other explanation, God was the best answer. As man has better understood his natural world and come up with valid explanations for most things including our evolution god is no longer necessary. However, improved scientific knowledge does not preclude the existence of god, just makes him nonessential.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe he is saying that he sees no difference between these statements:

1. I see a world, therefore a man in the sky made it
2. I see a moon, it is white, I therefore conclude it is made of blue cheese

(both of these statements were made 100s of years ago, long before we became aware of what the moon was made of)

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is a fundamental difference between the two statements. Namely, it can be conclusively proven that the moon was not made of cheese. We've been there, we've got the rocks and they aren't cheese. Saying that a man in the sky created the Earth, however, can not necessarily be disproven as a greater understanding of evolution and geology do not necessarily disprove His existence, but might only give further insight into His methods of creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could argue it's been 'conclusively proven', to the same degree, that God does not exist, as to that the moon is made of blue cheese. I would actually tend to give a higher % to the moon being made of blue cheese than to Christianity (or any other religion) being correct.

I have never been to the moon and know no one who has. My knowledge of the materials from it come, filtered out, from a few select agencies. It is possible, albeit extremely unlikely, there is some gigantic blue cheese cover up going on here. You have not, 100%, disproved the moon is made of blue cheese because it is almost impossible to disprove something 100%. Likewise, Christianity has not, 100%, been disproved.

None the less, you have to be an idiot to buy the lies anyone is feeding you, about the moon being made of blue cheese, or some dude in the sky judging you on whether you believe in him or not.

[PoBoy321]

Christianity may be 100% wrong, as might every other organized religion to exist, ever have existed or which ever will exist.

That has absolutely no bearing on a discussion about the possibility of the existence of God.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, who???

That accusation sounds like random conspiracy theory type paranoia - that 'the man' is behind everything. I'm an agnostic and tend to agree that religion is probably man-made, but I highly doubt it ever took the form of a well organized plan. Religion evolves through oral tradition like a game of chinese whispers, which is why we can trace the development of religions over extended periods of time, it doesn't need anyones help to propogate. The notion that some government or power source made up x religion for y purpose just does not fit with anything we know about the history of any major religion, nor is it in any way necessary to explain religion - it's a conspiracy theory based on zero evidence.

Governments have surely benefited from gearing their propoganda around existing and well established religions, but that's a different matter entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly with respect to Christianity, it is widely accepted that Constantine recognized the expediency of aligning Rome with the established Christian social institutions and power structure before his revelation. His "revelation" in the midst of Roman failures in battle, the need to rally the troops, and the rise of Christian martyrdom certainly had convenient timing. And at that time Christianity was far from an established religion to "gear their propaganda around". The bishops on the other hand did not have the resources to expand their power. Once aligned with Rome they had their early version of Gideon, with the Romans printing Bibles and distributing them.

It was a symbiotic relationship that has been repeated many times in history for political reasons. To think it didnt happen before Christianity and relegate it to the level of "conspriacy theories" is a bit hyperbolic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, powerful people have always used other people's religious beliefs to their benefit, and still are doing. That's very different to 'inventing' it - Constantine most certainly did not invent Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and this is a continuation of the line of thought that religion wasnt invented to control the massses, but was later conscripted for control purposes.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity may be 100% wrong, as might every other organized religion to exist, ever have existed or which ever will exist.

That has absolutely no bearing on a discussion about the possibility of the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity may be 100% wrong, as might every other organized religion to exist, ever have existed or which ever will exist.

That has absolutely no bearing on a discussion about the possibility of the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a God, He exists whether or not we believe in him. If there is a God, He exists regardless of whether or not we're worshipping some other god. Saying that Christianity is wrong might be true, but has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity may be 100% wrong, as might every other organized religion to exist, ever have existed or which ever will exist.

That has absolutely no bearing on a discussion about the possibility of the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a God, He exists whether or not we believe in him. If there is a God, He exists regardless of whether or not we're worshipping some other god. Saying that Christianity is wrong might be true, but has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

First two points are of course no debatable but don't you think that God is generally defined in the Christian sense? But let's not quibble over semantics, both Christians and Deists in general are idiots.

[RagnarPirate]

Religion is a primitive philosophy. Every individual has a philosophic system. Most often it is implicit and unrecognized. But, we all have systems of metaphysics, epistomology and ethics whether we recognize them or not. Human nature includes a fundamental need to understand the reality of our world, the means of knowing about this reality, and a moral standard of good and evil to guide one's actions. Religions are one system for meeting these needs. There are much better systems such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

Kant and his political descendent Marx are destroyers of humans. Their message was that metaphysics is secodnary to epistology (reality is in the eye of the beholder). And, therefore, all knowledge, reality, and morality is subjective and relative. Their moral standard of good was the sacrifice of the individual to the new "god" of society / the "public good." Communism / Socialism's failure is not due to a lack of idealism as often claimed by its advocates. It will always fail because the philosophic belief system is not compatable with the nature of man. Man must be free to benefit from the products of his mind and body through private property in order to live successfully on earth. A slave, whether to a God or to the public whip, is not an abundant producer.

Finally, "controlling the masses" is of benefit to noone. Look at the standard of living of the dark ages even for the elite. And compare that to the standard of living for the numerous billionaires, millionaires, and even average American after the unleasing of the freedom of the enlightenment and industrial revolution. Religions and pseudo-religions like Marxism are invented by people who hate human life (including their own) and wish to destroy the lives of others.

[RagnarPirate]

It is a very valid differentiation.
Our best understanding of our universe is that it had a beginning. In addition logic says that if history was infinite we would never reach the present.
The laws of our universe also create a significant problem for those who advocate a de novo universe creation. In particular the first and second laws of thermodynamics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed and that we live in a world of increasing entropy. If these laws are accurate then it would require a source external to this universe for the initial 0 entropy matter from which the universe had its origin. This is the rational source for a deistic view of the universe (although certainly not the Christian one).

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The laws of our universe also create a significant problem for those who advocate a de novo universe creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The origin of the universe is completely outside the scope of science, by definition.

[RagnarPirate]

natural=of this universe supernatural=outside this universe

If the origin of the univese has a natural casue then it is part of science.

My point is that our current understanding of our universe places its origin outside this universe (i.e supernatural origin).

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity may be 100% wrong, as might every other organized religion to exist, ever have existed or which ever will exist.

That has absolutely no bearing on a discussion about the possibility of the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a God, He exists whether or not we believe in him. If there is a God, He exists regardless of whether or not we're worshipping some other god. Saying that Christianity is wrong might be true, but has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

First two points are of course no debatable but don't you think that God is generally defined in the Christian sense? But let's not quibble over semantics, both Christians and Deists in general are idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

If God turned out to be evil or not all powerful that would invalidate almost every part of Chrisitanity. Christians do present a very general view of God, but it is not general enough to no be wrong.

[Andrew Karpinski]

I really don't understand what you just said, theweatherman. Could you elaborate / translate?

[chezlaw]

Dr Susan Blackmore discovered the idea that mythical stories and the brain could be co-evolved and the only reason we have such large brains is to propgate religon in a runaway sexual selection frenzy like the peacocks tail.

Without going that far it seems a reasonable idea that displays of religon by men are to demonstrate to women that they will be good fathers and women prefer religous men because they are less likely to abandon them and the kids.

Religon wasn't discovered or invented or designed, it evolved.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Without going that far it seems a reasonable idea that displays of religon by men are to demonstrate to women that they will be good fathers and women prefer religous men because they are less likely to abandon them and the kids.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

What are you smoking today?

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is a primitive philosophy. Every individual has a philosophic system. Most often it is implicit and unrecognized. But, we all have systems of metaphysics, epistomology and ethics whether we recognize them or not. Human nature includes a fundamental need to understand the reality of our world, the means of knowing about this reality, and a moral standard of good and evil to guide one's actions. Religions are one system for meeting these needs. There are much better systems such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with you until the last sentence.

[ QUOTE ]
Kant and his political descendent Marx are destroyers of humans. Their message was that metaphysics is secodnary to epistology (reality is in the eye of the beholder). And, therefore, all knowledge, reality, and morality is subjective and relative. Their moral standard of good was the sacrifice of the individual to the new "god" of society / the "public good." Communism / Socialism's failure is not due to a lack of idealism as often claimed by its advocates. It will always fail because the philosophic belief system is not compatable with the nature of man. Man must be free to benefit from the products of his mind and body through private property in order to live successfully on earth. A slave, whether to a God or to the public whip, is not an abundant producer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh c'mon! - where are you getting that from??? Kant wasn't even an empiricist nevermind a skeptic. He may have 'woken from his dogmatic slumber' but there's a reason every philosophy textbook categorizes him all by himself. Categorical imperative??? Analytic truths?? A priori architecture of the mind??

[ QUOTE ]
Religions and pseudo-religions like Marxism are invented by people who hate human life (including their own) and wish to destroy the lives of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have hugely strongly feelings on Marxism, but I don't know how you could possibly read his work, if you have, and conclude he 'hate's human life' - Marx was brimming with empathy. Whether he got it wrong or right is an entirely valid question, but if he did get it wrong it surely wasn't for a lack of compassion.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without going that far it seems a reasonable idea that displays of religon by men are to demonstrate to women that they will be good fathers and women prefer religous men because they are less likely to abandon them and the kids.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

What are you smoking today?

[/ QUOTE ]
I take it you disagree, care to say why?

chez

[pilliwinks]

I think he finds it implausible that women would regard religion in their partner as a reliable marker for reproductive effectiveness.

There are obviously many counterexamples (several notorious Popes) that would suggest religion is not completely correllated with fidelity. However on balance I'd guess that those integrated with society's moral norms are a better bet than the alternative (whether they are religious or not). At the very least there's some chance they'll feel guilty about shafting you.

Having said that, I also find the idea of an evolutionary origin for religion pretty implausible. Not that it may not contribute to its spread or stability, but if it arose only as an evolutionary adaptation, you would expect religion to be much more about looking after your children/wife, and less about worshipping God, no?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

First two points are of course no debatable


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a small typo here that's a little confusing, do you mean to say that the first two points are de facto true and not open to debate?



[ QUOTE ]
but don't you think that God is generally defined in the Christian sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, unless of course you're a buddhist, taoist, hindu, wiccan, pagan...

[ QUOTE ]
But let's not quibble over semantics, both Christians and Deists in general are idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he finds it implausible that women would regard religion in their partner as a reliable marker for reproductive effectiveness.

There are obviously many counterexamples (several notorious Popes) that would suggest religion is not completely correllated with fidelity. However on balance I'd guess that those integrated with society's moral norms are a better bet than the alternative (whether they are religious or not). At the very least there's some chance they'll feel guilty about shafting you.

Having said that, I also find the idea of an evolutionary origin for religion pretty implausible. Not that it may not contribute to its spread or stability, but if it arose only as an evolutionary adaptation, you would expect religion to be much more about looking after your children/wife, and less about worshipping God, no?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it makes a lot more sense from an evolutionary point of view than if you look at it from a concious decision making point of view.

The female is most succesful (in evolutionary terms) if she selects a mate who amongst other things will stick around and support her and the kids. So those females who selected mates that believed stories that made them more likely to fit into the community and stick around did better than those females that didn't select in this way. males that believed these stories suceeded as well.

Once the process gets started then like breasts, peacocks tails etc. a rapid expansion takes place that is dislocated from the original utility of the breasts/tails/beliefs.

Now men have to display even more lavish beliefs to beat other men competing for women looking for men with strong beliefs in these stories.

The religon takes on a life of its own (as ideas can do but breast/tails can't) and exploits the fears and desires of the believers to progate itself.

Eventually it reaches the stage where the belief system causes the believer to seek to persuade other people that these beliefs are true. voila

or something like that

chez

[pilliwinks]

I quite understand what you mean. I just think the content would be different if the stories believed were being selected on reproductive effectiveness.

Peacock's tails and other cumbersome appendages perversely demonstrate the male's strength, as well as capitalising on visibility/attractiveness to mates.

For stories to do the same, they have to confer reproductive benefit. Not only that, but more reproductive benefit than the stories being espoused by the next bloke.

Consequently we would expect successful religious beliefs to be about two things: lots of sex, and looking after children.

There are aspects of this in most faiths, but to suggest that this is the origin of doctrines like sacrificial atonement or the trinity, not to mention the Tao, stretches credulity a little for me.

I reiterate that once a religion is established, I agree that sexual selection is likely to affect its spread/stability, in the same way as it does the spread of any idea/behaviour. But what about its origin?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Dr Susan Blackmore

[/ QUOTE ] Although I agree with alot of the ideas she has to say regarding memetics, didn't alot of her earlier work have to do with near-death experiences, alien abductions, teleknesis, and telepathy?

[Andrew Karpinski]

Sure. Religion is obviously false. If you believe in something that is obviously false, you are an idiot.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Religion is obviously false. If you believe in something that is obviously false, you are an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Que? If it's so obvious, would you like to provide proof?

[Andrew Karpinski]

Sure. Religion implies things which are obviously impossible are true. Hence it is false. Hence if you believe in it, you are an idiot.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Religion implies things which are obviously impossible are true. Hence it is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[Andrew Karpinski]

Well, the paradox between omniscience and omnipotence is one. The paradox between omniscience and free will is another good one.

Also, believing in something which has absolutely no proof for it is the earmark of an idiot. If I believed that the energizer bunny worked for the CIA, I would probably be an idiot, right?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the paradox between omniscience and omnipotence is one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you confusing this with something else? I don't see how there is any kind of paradox in being all-knowing and all-capable.

[ QUOTE ]
The paradox between omniscience and free will is another good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So knowing what you're going to do before you do it suddenly negates the possibility that you're doing it of your own free will?

[ QUOTE ]


Also, believing in something which has absolutely no proof for it is the earmark of an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people see evidence of God's existence every day.

[ QUOTE ]

If I believed that the energizer bunny worked for the CIA, I would probably be an idiot, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be, but for completely different reasons.

[Andrew Karpinski]

The paradox between omniscience and omnipotence :
If God knows what he is going to do, he cannot choose to not do it.

The paradox between omniscience and free will :
If God knows what you are going to do, you cannot choose to not do it.

No one sees evidence of God's existance, ever, no matter what they think.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
The paradox between omniscience and omnipotence :
If God knows what he is going to do, he cannot choose to not do it.

The paradox between omniscience and free will :
If God knows what you are going to do, you cannot choose to not do it.

No one sees evidence of God's existance, ever, no matter what they think.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first objection I will leave to others. As for the second, could not God know every possible outcome of a situation but allow you to still be free in choosing one? Seems to keep God all knowing, and you having free will.

The tricky part of understanding God is that a religion can cop out and state 'human understanding is far too limited to understand God in his full glory.' It is a clever and fairly infailable explanation. Of course this could very well be the case. Our world is one that is limited by certain laws and rules, God obviously isnt. Our limited perception cant allow us to see all of God's acts. Can God move faster than light? Probably, but if he did what would it look/feel/ be like for us? could we even percieve it?

Of course these issues are only ones for religions that 1)suppor thte notion of all powerful and all knowing God (s) and 2)suppor thte idea of a God in general.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

The paradox between omniscience and omnipotence :
If God knows what he is going to do, he cannot choose to not do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would assume that God, should He exist, would function on the same plane of space and time as people. Since if He exists, He likely doesn't, it's impossible that He would know how he would act and in turn act at two different times.

[ QUOTE ]

The paradox between omniscience and free will :
If God knows what you are going to do, you cannot choose to not do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're confusing omniscience with predestination. It isn't a matter of you choosing to do or not to do what God knows you will do, it is a matter of God knowing what you will choose to do.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
The tricky part of understanding God is that a religion can cop out and state 'human understanding is far too limited to understand God in his full glory.' It is a clever and fairly infailable explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's necessarily a cop out, per se. I think that even in science there have been many examples of people knowing that something exists without being able to prove that it exists. I'm not really up to date on my particle physics, but wasn't the existence of the gravitron for a long time assumed but unproven?

EDIT: I just looked it up on wikipedia and apparently it's still assumed to exist but remains unproven.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Theweatherman :
I don't get it. Does he know what you are going to do or doesn't he? You can't have it both ways.

PoBoy :
I am not confusing anything. If God knows I'm going to eat a fudge cookie I can't exactly eat a perogie instead now can I?

As for your first point, of course if you say 'God is not subject to the constraints' then it is foolish to attempt to constrain him with logic. This is just another reason why it's stupid to believe in him.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
PoBoy :
I am not confusing anything. If God knows I'm going to eat a fudge cookie I can't exactly eat a perogie instead now can I?


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that if God knows you're going to eat a cookie, you're going to choose to eat a cookie. If you were going to eat a perogie, he'd know it.

[ QUOTE ]

As for your first point, of course if you say 'God is not subject to the constraints' then it is foolish to attempt to constrain him with logic. This is just another reason why it's stupid to believe in him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one trying to constrain him with logic you are.

So who's the foolish one, again?

[Andrew Karpinski]

You are.

I'm not saying God is FORCING ME to eat a cookie, but free will, BY DEFINITION, demands that I have a choice. If I don't it's not free will. So if god KNOWS I'm going to eat a cookie, and he can't be wrong, then I can't eat a perogie. If EITHER OPTION CANNOT HAPPEN, then there is no true choice. Do you [censored] get me now?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Theweatherman :
I don't get it. Does he know what you are going to do or doesn't he? You can't have it both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Christianity is based upon the idea that God doesnt know what you are going to do, or chooses not to. God could still know everything that could possibly happen to you based upon your free choice. Its like a choose your own adventure, where God has read every page. Like so:

Choose between A or B.
If A, then choose C or D
If B, then choose E or F

Your path could be AC, AD, BE, or BF. You decide which to pick, but God knows all the choices.

Again even if this turned out to be a legit paradox it doesnt invalidate or disprove religion. It merely does so for those religions which believe in an all-knowing God but also free will. there are many which dont.

[Andrew Karpinski]

For the purposes of this discussion I will only be talking about Christianity. We can discuss the flaws of Hinduism / Rastafarianism / Thor et. al. another day.

If God knows everything (is omniscient) he cannot choose to 'not know' something. He knows everything.

EDIT : This is an excellent example of the omniscience, omnipotence paradox. Can God choose to not know something?

The problem with paradoxes is that by definition of one the other cannot exist. For example the old paradox of 'what happens when an unstoppable car (the porsche boxster) hits an unmoveable object (really fat guy)'. By definition of one (an unstoppable car) an unmovable object cannot exist.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
You are.

I'm not saying God is FORCING ME to eat a cookie, but free will, BY DEFINITION, demands that I have a choice. If I don't it's not free will. So if god KNOWS I'm going to eat a cookie, and he can't be wrong, then I can't eat a perogie. If EITHER OPTION CANNOT HAPPEN, then there is no true choice. Do you [censored] get me now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can eat a perogie, or a cookie, or a sliced ham if you want to, but He would know the choice that you're going to make, and that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you make the choice. If I go out to dinner with my girlfriend and I know that she's going to get a cheeseburger, does she suddenly not have the choice to get chicken? Of course she has the choice, but I know the choice that she's going to make.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
For the purposes of this discussion I will only be talking about Christianity. We can discuss the flaws of Hinduism / Rastafarianism / Thor et. al. another day.

If God knows everything (is omniscient) he cannot choose to 'not know' something. He knows everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking about the flaws of a specific religion has absolutely no bearing on a discussion about the possible existence of God (or a god, or gods, whatever).

[Andrew Karpinski]

If you know, with 100% certainty that she's going to have a cheese burger, can she eat chicken? Of course you can't know with 100% certainty, but God can.

If God KNOWS I am going to eat sliced ham and nothing else, either I'm going to eat sliced ham or nothing else or God is wrong.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

If God KNOWS I am going to eat sliced ham and nothing else, either I'm going to eat sliced ham or nothing else or God is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He knows that you're going to eat the sliced ham because you like sliced ham because your mom used to make it on Sundays or whatever. He knows the choices you're going to make, which doesn't change the fact that they are your choices to make.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Ok. Look up free will in the dictionary. You are seriously misunderstanding it.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Here I'll even do it for you :
First entry from dictionary.com (the second one is worse for you).

The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

The key is 'the ability or discretion to choose'. Now do you see why God knowing what you are going to eat might cause a problem with free will? Probably not?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. Look up free will in the dictionary. You are seriously misunderstanding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a perfect understanding of free will. What I think the issue is here is your misunderstanding of omniscience.

Now, there have been volumes written on the issue of free will, particularly by Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, but I doubt that you'd read any of it anyway, so it's kind of useless to mention it. Either way, knowing with 100% certainty what will happen (omniscience), does not remove the forces which make it happen (free will).

There's an extensive article on it on wikipedia, though, and if you're interested, it has a nice comparison of beliefs of different religions on the matter of free will.

That said, I still don't see how omniscience negates free will.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

Here I'll even do it for you :
First entry from dictionary.com (the second one is worse for you).

The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

The key is 'the ability or discretion to choose'. Now do you see why God knowing what you are going to eat might cause a problem with free will? Probably not?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not post the second entry?

Omniscience is not divine will. Again, you clearly have a misunderstanding of what an all-knowing God is.

[pilliwinks]

Oh no. Not the free will discussion again. Well, if we have to...

I think Andrew is not catching the bit about God being outside time, which is fairly crucial to wedding free will with omni3.

The trick is to think of God has having waited to see what choice you do in fact make. He didn't make you choose it, but since you have made the choice, he knows what it was. But he can 'go back' to before you made it, and say to himself I know what's about to happen. And it does. No compulsion - he just sees what you chose to do again. Of course he could smite you before then, and mess with your free will, but most people's experience is that he doesn't.

This is not rocket science. As PoBoy points out, this was straightforward for an Algerian in 400AD.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh no. Not the free will discussion again. Well, if we have to...

I think Andrew is not catching the bit about God being outside time, which is fairly crucial to wedding free will with omni3.

The trick is to think of God has having waited to see what choice you do in fact make. He didn't make you choose it, but since you have made the choice, he knows what it was. But he can 'go back' to before you made it, and say to himself I know what's about to happen. And it does. No compulsion - he just sees what you chose to do again. Of course he could smite you before then, and mess with your free will, but most people's experience is that he doesn't.

This is not rocket science. As PoBoy points out, this was straightforward for an Algerian in 400AD.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really good way of putting it. Thanks.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I quite understand what you mean. I just think the content would be different if the stories believed were being selected on reproductive effectiveness.

Peacock's tails and other cumbersome appendages perversely demonstrate the male's strength, as well as capitalising on visibility/attractiveness to mates.

For stories to do the same, they have to confer reproductive benefit. Not only that, but more reproductive benefit than the stories being espoused by the next bloke.

Consequently we would expect successful religious beliefs to be about two things: lots of sex, and looking after children.

There are aspects of this in most faiths, but to suggest that this is the origin of doctrines like sacrificial atonement or the trinity, not to mention the Tao, stretches credulity a little for me.

I reiterate that once a religion is established, I agree that sexual selection is likely to affect its spread/stability, in the same way as it does the spread of any idea/behaviour. But what about its origin?


[/ QUOTE ]
I was talking about its origin. I think your wrong to expect more about children and sex in religons if this theory was correct. Firstly there's plenty about that in religon and more importantly its the willingness/ability to believe stories about how to live our lives that is being displayed by religon.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dr Susan Blackmore

[/ QUOTE ] Although I agree with alot of the ideas she has to say regarding memetics, didn't alot of her earlier work have to do with near-death experiences, alien abductions, teleknesis, and telepathy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't know about that. Apparantly she had some sort of experience that made her investigate these phenomena but she seems to have gone about that investigation rigorously.

[ QUOTE ]
It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a sceptic.

[/ QUOTE ]

She appeared on many shows as an expert but apparantly as a debunker not a believer.

chez

[guesswest]

Andrew - I do actually tend to agree with you on the problem of the contradictions involved with those terms.

But I think taking those contradictions and concluding from them that anyone who believes in that god is 'an idiot' is profoundly shortsighted. There are plenty brilliant philosophers who have made strong arguments as to how these apparent contradictions are in fact not contradictions - referencing the meta-temporal nature of god is just one of them.

I'm not convinced by these arguments, but it's astonishing to me that you could just dismiss thinkers like this as 'idiots' because you don't agree with their conclusions. By that logic you surely have to think that anyone who disagrees with you on any argument with rational terms is an idiot. Do you ever entertain the possibility that it might be you who is getting it wrong?

[Andrew Karpinski]

Oh those paradoxes aren't really what make me think people that believe in God are idiots. It's the complete and utter lack of evidence, of ANY sort, that christians admit to (you just gotta have faith) that makes me think they are idiots.

The fact that they can't even follow a simple logical fallacy is just the icing on the cake.

[cambraceres]

There are many great thinkers who simply did not evaluate the question in those terms. I already mentioned Liebniz, possibly the most gifted genius in history, and a devout christian. In his time, many people began from the assumption that God and religion were just as they were taught. Indoctrination is strong medicine, and without having direct knowledge of the platitudes being taught in another's home, how can you make any general determinations about intelligence? The two simply are not as closely linked as they may seem. Belief is an odd thing, and to attempt to reduce to logical elements what can hardly be explained in any case is misguided. Today we are in a time of turmoil for the accepted truths of the past, the populace in general questions many more things then past generations did. Every time has had it's rebels, but they are not the point. Today to question is the norm, drawing conclusions from this however, is not helpful.

Cam

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
The female is most succesful (in evolutionary terms) if she selects a mate who amongst other things will stick around and support her and the kids. So those females who selected mates that believed stories that made them more likely to fit into the community and stick around did better than those females that didn't select in this way. males that believed these stories suceeded as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I could reply sooner Chez,

What evidence do you have to support your position above? Have you read studies to that effect? Religious men are more stable, or stick around more or are better fathers?

As to the origin being evolutionary - why isn't it found in any other species? Many animals are aware of death (although maybe not the inevitability to oneself). There is no evidence of religion in any other species. Most other species exhibit common traits that have proven to benefit reproduction. The peacocks tail for example is mimicked in many species just not usually to the same degree. If religious practice was so beneficial wouldn't you at least expect it in other higher primates?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The female is most succesful (in evolutionary terms) if she selects a mate who amongst other things will stick around and support her and the kids. So those females who selected mates that believed stories that made them more likely to fit into the community and stick around did better than those females that didn't select in this way. males that believed these stories suceeded as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I could reply sooner Chez,

What evidence do you have to support your position above? Have you read studies to that effect? Religious men are more stable, or stick around more or are better fathers?

As to the origin being evolutionary - why isn't it found in any other species? Many animals are aware of death (although maybe not the inevitability to oneself). There is no evidence of religion in any other species. Most other species exhibit common traits that have proven to benefit reproduction. The peacocks tail for example is mimicked in many species just not usually to the same degree. If religious practice was so beneficial wouldn't you at least expect it in other higher primates?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no evidence and done no research. Its just an idea.

However as an idea I think it holds up pretty well. Its possible and simple, if it happens not to be true then its reality that's at fault /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As stories require a very large brain (excessively large in evolutionary terms which is where Doc Blackmore comes in) it couldn't happen in any species that hadn't at least got as far as language.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dr Susan Blackmore

[/ QUOTE ] Although I agree with alot of the ideas she has to say regarding memetics, didn't alot of her earlier work have to do with near-death experiences, alien abductions, teleknesis, and telepathy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't know about that. Apparantly she had some sort of experience that made her investigate these phenomena but she seems to have gone about that investigation rigorously.

[ QUOTE ]
It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a sceptic.

[/ QUOTE ]

She appeared on many shows as an expert but apparantly as a debunker not a believer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, a couple years ago I read some article by Blackmore. When I went to find more stuff written by her my search turned up pyshic issues, and I didn't look to much furthur into it, and instead became a bit skeptical of Susan Blackmore. I think I might give her research another go.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dr Susan Blackmore

[/ QUOTE ] Although I agree with alot of the ideas she has to say regarding memetics, didn't alot of her earlier work have to do with near-death experiences, alien abductions, teleknesis, and telepathy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't know about that. Apparantly she had some sort of experience that made her investigate these phenomena but she seems to have gone about that investigation rigorously.

[ QUOTE ]
It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a sceptic.

[/ QUOTE ]

She appeared on many shows as an expert but apparantly as a debunker not a believer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, a couple years ago I read some article by Blackmore. When I went to find more stuff written by her my search turned up pyshic issues, and I didn't look to much furthur into it, and instead became a bit skeptical of Susan Blackmore. I think I might give her research another go.

[/ QUOTE ]
You had me worried about her credability for a bit.

Now its just her multicoloured hair that's cause for concern /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Now its just her multicoloured hair that's cause for concern


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/images/Orchard2004b.jpg

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh no. Not the free will discussion again. Well, if we have to...

I think Andrew is not catching the bit about God being outside time, which is fairly crucial to wedding free will with omni3.

The trick is to think of God has having waited to see what choice you do in fact make. He didn't make you choose it, but since you have made the choice, he knows what it was. But he can 'go back' to before you made it, and say to himself I know what's about to happen. And it does. No compulsion - he just sees what you chose to do again. Of course he could smite you before then, and mess with your free will, but most people's experience is that he doesn't.

This is not rocket science. As PoBoy points out, this was straightforward for an Algerian in 400AD.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont need to go "outside time" to reconcile "omnniscience" with free will. Omniscience means knowing everything that there is to be known...if you accept linear time, the future cant be known yet, so no knowledge of the future doesnt violate omniscience.

[guesswest]

If you assume linear time, the future can still be known via omniscience if there is such a thing as causality. And if there is no such thing as causality, that presents other problems.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
You dont need to go "outside time" to reconcile "omnniscience" with free will. Omniscience means knowing everything that there is to be known...if you accept linear time, the future cant be known yet, so no knowledge of the future doesnt violate omniscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick question:

Would an all knowing God be able to know the future in a universe without organisms?

God has knowledge of all particles, and has knowledge of all physical laws, so does that mean he can know how all of those particles will act, and thus where they will be at the next instant of time?


(I remove the organisms since I know we differ in opinion on free will)

[Rduke55]

I saw a phrase by benfranklin in another thread and I really liked it. I think it applies to the OP here.
It is the Saturday Night Dateless and Drunk Dorm Debaters.

OP, you sound very much like one of these.
"Everyone who doesn't agree with my sweeeeet point of view is a retard. Wooohooo!."

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw a phrase by benfranklin in another thread and I really liked it. I think it applies to the OP here.
It is the Saturday Night Dateless and Drunk Dorm Debaters.
OP, you sound very much like one of these.
"Everyone who doesn't agree with my sweeeeet point of view is a retard. Wooohooo!."

[/ QUOTE ]

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/pwnt-31487.jpg

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
OP, you sound very much like one of these.
"Everyone who doesn't agree with my sweeeeet point of view is a retard. Wooohooo!."

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the high praise.

I have no idea what to think about the relative influence of all the things which cause religiosity, and there are many of them. I just wanted to give a couple of views I find interesting on the subject.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP, you sound very much like one of these.
"Everyone who doesn't agree with my sweeeeet point of view is a retard. Wooohooo!."

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the high praise.

I have no idea what to think about the relative influence of all the things which cause religiosity, and there are many of them. I just wanted to give a couple of views I find interesting on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]


FWIW, I *think* he was replying to Andrew K, whom he thought was the OP.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about its origin. I think your wrong to expect more about children and sex in religons if this theory was correct. Firstly there's plenty about that in religon and more importantly its the willingness/ability to believe stories about how to live our lives that is being displayed by religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see how showing that you care about morality would be a useful marker to sexually select on, but don't you think that still leaves open the question about content?

Are women going to equally choose the Moloch worshipper who belives in child sacrifice, and the Jain who refuses to kill anything? Just because they both believe stories about how to live? Surely by your model, there should be competition between stories that will determine what are successful religions, no? Otherwise how do new religions supplant old ones?

Assuming competition has occurred, we inevitably conclude that those which are successful should be those that are either very lucky, or have a greater reproductive advantage. I think the content of successful religions and their historical development gives us a clue that actually, reproductive advantage was not a big driver.

Think about what you would include in your story if you expected sexual selection to determine the fate of your fledgeling sect. Those things are not a priority in the successful religions as far as I can see. Jesus, for example, devotes almost zero time to instructing his followers in how to treat women or children. A lot of time talking about the kingdom of heaven, but not much about practical family raising. Why?

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh those paradoxes aren't really what make me think people that believe in God are idiots. It's the complete and utter lack of evidence, of ANY sort, that christians admit to (you just gotta have faith) that makes me think they are idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure who gave you the idea that christians don't admit to evidence. Personally I am most reluctant to believe anything without evidence, and I would advise anyone else to do the same. That doesn't stop me being a believer.

I would say that the ability to recognise the truth without having to see all the data is a gift we should admire.

That isn't the same as claiming that zero data is a prerequisite for accepting the truth!

We all run our lives based on limited data. We have faith that the sun will rise. Plenty of data, but no certainty. Similarly, believers have faith that God loves them. They can give you plenty of evidence, but no certainty. You can contest their evidence or indeed conclusions, of course, but that's no reason to call them irrational idiots who admit no evidence.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]


I would say that the ability to recognise the truth without having to see all the data is a gift we should admire.



[/ QUOTE ]

Admire jumping to unsupported conclusions?

[pilliwinks]

Yup. If they're right.

[pilliwinks]

Perhaps I should elaborate a little.

As a scientist, the guys who get ahead are those who can read the limited data better, and ask the clever questions. The conclusions everyone can draw are no use to you.

Faith is a bit similar. If you are doubting Thomas, and need to put your hands in the wounds, no-one condemns you, but it's obviously better to be Abraham and trust that what you know of God is true despite appearances to the contrary.

In both cases, if you're wrong, you look like an idiot. That doesn't mean you are one, though. Just a risk-taker.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
reproductive advantage was not a big driver.


[/ QUOTE ]

The bigest driver is the reproductive adavtage of christainity itself.

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity does indeed possess those features that are necessary for an idea to compete for survival effectively.

Christianity is very good at replicating itself; the great commission, Jesus’ instruction to his followers, is to go and make disciples of all nations. Those who possess the Christian meme, who believe in the God of the Bible, therefore replicate Christianity as far as they are able to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can see how showing that you care about morality would be a useful marker to sexually select on, but don't you think that still leaves open the question about content?


[/ QUOTE ]
I believe these words are Dawkins

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that need not be involved in the fitness of an idea is truth. An idea may replicate itself widely and be extremely robust without corresponding to reality.


[/ QUOTE ]
The next important step in the fitness of the xtain meme. Is that believers inoculate themselves from reason against it. By siting faith, when pressed about hard issues.

Now, these things put together would make a very fit mene. In order for the meme to die, it would have to have some serious side effects. For instance the shakers, a chirstain sect, did not allow followers of the faith to reproduce. I'm sure you can imagine what happens to a increadiably fit meme, burdened in that fashion.

On to the actual reproductive benefit for those that believe in stories. One possible reason why those with faith are more attractive to mates, is that by believing in something ridiculous, you instead say "Look how fit I must be to carry around with me this horrible burden." What is interesting to me. The prediction that this makes is that new religions will attemp to surpass the increadulousness of christianity, to show potental mates just how fit they are. I'll let you be the judge of sceintolgy, and alien cults like the raelians, or even the shakers that I mentioned earlier.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is very good at replicating itself; the great commission, Jesus’ instruction to his followers, is to go and make disciples of all nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe these words are Dawkins

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes. About time he popped up. This is much more plausible as a driver than reproductive success - as you say, the major faiths do indeed have adaptive traits for being passed on, and not so obviously traits for fostering human reproduction.


[ QUOTE ]
One thing that need not be involved in the fitness of an idea is truth. An idea may replicate itself widely and be extremely robust without corresponding to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite true. It is also true that the idea of memes need not correspond to reality. Or that the theory of relativity need not correspond to reality. The fact that they have spread does not tell us either way. Luckily, very few people's faith is based on the argument 'well it's popular so it must be true'.

[ QUOTE ]
The next important step in the fitness of the xtain meme. Is that believers inoculate themselves from reason against it. By siting faith, when pressed about hard issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bunk. Believers, at least of my complexion, cite faith on issues of faith, and science on issues of science.

[ QUOTE ]
One possible reason why those with faith are more attractive to mates, is that by believing in something ridiculous, you instead say "Look how fit I must be to carry around with me this horrible burden." What is interesting to me. The prediction that this makes is that new religions will attemp to surpass the increadulousness of christianity, to show potental mates just how fit they are. I'll let you be the judge of sceintolgy, and alien cults like the raelians, or even the shakers that I mentioned earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, now we have the opposite to what Chez was suggesting. Now it is so counter-adaptive to believe that women select it as a strength marker. I'm afraid I find that as implausible as the other extreme. You could possibly use this kind of argument to explain suicide bombers, but none of the major faiths actively dissuade their followers from reproducing either (shakers notwithstanding). I'd like to see the evidence that women choose men who are idiots because to have made it to age 20 alive with such a burden shows strength! That's what you're suggesting.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about its origin. I think your wrong to expect more about children and sex in religons if this theory was correct. Firstly there's plenty about that in religon and more importantly its the willingness/ability to believe stories about how to live our lives that is being displayed by religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see how showing that you care about morality would be a useful marker to sexually select on, but don't you think that still leaves open the question about content?

Are women going to equally choose the Moloch worshipper who belives in child sacrifice, and the Jain who refuses to kill anything? Just because they both believe stories about how to live? Surely by your model, there should be competition between stories that will determine what are successful religions, no? Otherwise how do new religions supplant old ones?

Assuming competition has occurred, we inevitably conclude that those which are successful should be those that are either very lucky, or have a greater reproductive advantage. I think the content of successful religions and their historical development gives us a clue that actually, reproductive advantage was not a big driver.

Think about what you would include in your story if you expected sexual selection to determine the fate of your fledgeling sect. Those things are not a priority in the successful religions as far as I can see. Jesus, for example, devotes almost zero time to instructing his followers in how to treat women or children. A lot of time talking about the kingdom of heaven, but not much about practical family raising. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]
because ideas take on a life of their own. Once the religous meme discovered the stratagy of exploiting the fears and hopes of the host then it no longer needs to rely on sexual selection (as long as its not a major turn off).

As soon as religon has reached the stage of being very infectious and once infected the host infects others then sexual selection becomes less important in a species like humans, where in modern times all have a high chance of reproductive success.

Christianity is a very succesful mutation of judaism which itself was a very successful mutation of more primative belief systems.

chez

[Copernicus]

Women are attracted to men who show strength, conviction and decisiveness. Adamant faith in any religion....the "I know there is a God, I dont need any evidence there is a God, I am right"...kind of faith, is one way that strength can exert itself.

[pvn]

I finally forced myself to click on this thread. I read about three sentences of the OP before I figured I was wasting my time.

Anyway, just wanted throw this hijack in:

Government: invented to control the masses?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I finally forced myself to click on this thread. I read about three sentences of the OP before I figured I was wasting my time.

Anyway, just wanted throw this hijack in:

Government: invented to control the masses?

[/ QUOTE ]
Close enough. Invented by or evolved from an AC type society.

Historically its more a case of the organisation invented by the richest to control the masses taking control over the richest.

chez

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Think about what you would include in your story if you expected sexual selection to determine the fate of your fledgeling sect. Those things are not a priority in the successful religions as far as I can see. Jesus, for example, devotes almost zero time to instructing his followers in how to treat women or children. A lot of time talking about the kingdom of heaven, but not much about practical family raising. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]
because ideas take on a life of their own. Once the religous meme discovered the stratagy of exploiting the fears and hopes of the host then it no longer needs to rely on sexual selection (as long as its not a major turn off).

As soon as religon has reached the stage of being very infectious and once infected the host infects others then sexual selection becomes less important in a species like humans, where in modern times all have a high chance of reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that that the effective driver is actually idea infectiousness rather than sexual selection. I'd have to agree that this is far more plausible, for the reasons you cite. And I am left wondering if there was ever actually any role for sexual selection at all. No need, as far as I can see from your model. Shall we bother Mr Occam again?

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is a very succesful mutation of judaism which itself was a very successful mutation of more primative belief systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much as relativity is a successful mutation of Newtonian motion, which was itself a very successful mutation of more primitive belief systems?

Is is a common error, knowingly encouraged by Mr Dawkins (to his lasting shame among more honest biologists), to apply shoddy tests of causation to religious ideas (the same shoddiness he derides in the fundamentalists' criticisms of evolution. [/rant]. Sorry.).

To see how this works, just apply the Dawkins critique of religion to evolution: Do people believe in evolution because it is true, because they have seen incontrovertible evidence for it, or because they were indoctrinated from childhood? There is no doubt that many, almost certainly the vast majority of people who would claim to accept evolutionary origins, have never cast a critical eye over the data. They believe what they were taught because they trust their teachers/parents. And it made sense. And everyone else they respect believed it. Once you have an idea in the textbooks, it is an incredibly fit meme, regardless of whether or not it fits with reality. This has been amusingly described by Gould who gives examples of perpetuated errors such as heritability of IQ and Eohippus body size.

But what about causation? Is evolution a successful meme because it is regarded as true, or is it regarded as true because it is a successful meme?

The fundamentalists claim the latter about evolution (and plan to change it!). The atheists claim the latter about religion. In my humble opinion, both arguments are equally bankrupt. They deny that truth, or a search for it, has a significant impact on people's beliefs. And as a scientist, I regard that as both false and irrational.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that that the effective driver is actually idea infectiousness rather than sexual selection. I'd have to agree that this is far more plausible, for the reasons you cite. And I am left wondering if there was ever actually any role for sexual selection at all. No need, as far as I can see from your model. Shall we bother Mr Occam again?

[/ QUOTE ]
I just said it seems plausible that in primative societies there was a reproductive advantage to the type of beliefs that evolved into religon. If you don't find this plausible then fine. I think there's still a reproductive advantage though its diminshed rapidly since the enlightement.

Doc Blackmore goes further and thinks it was the sexual selection advantage of being able to sustain and develop stories that drove the expansion of the brain.

[ QUOTE ]
But what about causation? Is evolution a successful meme because it is regarded as true, or is it regarded as true because it is a successful meme?

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you're in the sharkey camp of claiming its not science then evolutionary theory is successful because the idea that science reveals nature is a successful meme.

I'm not going to get into your attack on Dawkins which I believe is ill-founded.

chez

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I just said it seems plausible that in primative societies there was a reproductive advantage to the type of beliefs that evolved into religon. If you don't find this plausible then fine. I think there's still a reproductive advantage though its diminshed rapidly since the enlightement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. I didn't notice that you were suggesting sexual selection primarily for primitive societies/religions. There it does become somewhat more plausible to me - tribal faiths do often have a lot to do with social behaviours.

[ QUOTE ]
Doc Blackmore goes further and thinks it was the sexual selection advantage of being able to sustain and develop stories that drove the expansion of the brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yers well. A fine hypothesis, but the competing ones of 'big brains help you find food' or 'help you kill your neighbours' etc etc also have plenty of merit.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But what about causation? Is evolution a successful meme because it is regarded as true, or is it regarded as true because it is a successful meme?

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you're in the sharkey camp of claiming its not science then evolutionary theory is successful because the idea that science reveals nature is a successful meme.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely do not deny that evolution is science. On the contrary. However I am uncomfortable with the idea that the reason evolutionary theory is successful has to do with cultural preferences (ie we like science because it works. Ergo, if it's science, we like it). That gets into the kind of relativism that the fundamentalists and fascists use to bolster their position. If fitness of ideas is all that governs what we believe, a reasonable response is to neuter, or intellectually disable the ideas or carriers thereof that we dispute.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to get into your attack on Dawkins which I believe is ill-founded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I readily agree that he's a highly intelligent, well informed scientist who has done much to publicise good science. I also think he lets the side down with his rhetoric.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah. I didn't notice that you were suggesting sexual selection primarily for primitive societies/religions. There it does become somewhat more plausible to me - tribal faiths do often have a lot to do with social behaviours.


[/ QUOTE ]
okay, sorry I failed to make that clear. that's what I was getting at and having selected the propensity for such beliefs and with such beliefs in existence its then seems plausible that the landscape was very fertile for self- propogating religous ideas tapping in to the fear/pleasure/hope centers of the mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doc Blackmore goes further and thinks it was the sexual selection advantage of being able to sustain and develop stories that drove the expansion of the brain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yers well. A fine hypothesis, but the competing ones of 'big brains help you find food' or 'help you kill your neighbours' etc etc also have plenty of merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, I don't think anyone is arguing that this must be the case. Its just one theory for our massive brains.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to get into your attack on Dawkins which I believe is ill-founded.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fair enough. I readily agree that he's a highly intelligent, well informed scientist who has done much to publicise good science. I also think he lets the side down with his rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with that to some extent. I've criticised him as well especially for his christmas lectures on the BBC which were beyond the pale imo. However, I don't think it has compromised his scientific works, just made some people more resistent to what he is trying to explain.

chez