Religion: invented to control the masses?

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

chez

[DougShrapnel]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

[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!."