|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 12/08/2005 : 14:23:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not at all. I am saying that you should open your mind up to the fact that things happen which we don't understand, and then open your mind up to the possibility that there may be a personal being behind some of it.
I think most of us consider this possibility to be as likely as the existence of fairies, magic psi balls, true breatharians and centaurs. It IS possible that these things exist, but we have no reason to consider them until there is any evidence for them.
quote:
Pay attention: if there is a being beyond the natural world, but which does contact people, then direct evidence of that being would not come from natural science, it would come from people.
Pay attention: whether or not there exists a being beyond the natural world, and whether or not it does contact people, then direct evidence of that being would not come from natural science, nor would it would come from people.
quote:
I've already mentioned it. What was it?
Must be the either we have no explanation - or we do have an explanation and god did it anyway thingie.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2005 : 19:40:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Gladly.
1) If a divine being comes up to you and says "Hi, I'm a divine being" they usually show their power to some degree. If not, you can challenge them on that.
Same with bullies.quote:
2) If a divine being tells you that something will happen, it does, usually.
Like with Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart and the rest? Few, it seems, of those people's "God told me this will happen" stories have come true. While yes, this "test" does distinguish bully from God (unless the bully says, "I'm going to cream you, you little twerp!"), we have no way to actually do this test, except by waiting around for God to speak to someone, which isn't happening that much, it seems.quote:
For example, Yahweh told Jonah to preach against Ninevah and in forty days it would be destroyed. Ninevah repents, and is spared. Does this disqualify Yahweh? No, because at other times He has also said that He is merciful and forgiving, so there's the unstated premise that they would only be destroyed if they didn't repent.
So there's the unstated premise that the Bible is an entirely accurate history. Let's stick with things that are actually verifiable, please. Or does "god-science" have no requirement for verification, and a "fact" is whatever the heck you claim to be a "fact?"quote:
Would you like more?
Absolutely.quote:
There is reams of evidence of god. All the scriptures of the world point to the existence of some divine being.
Only if your definition of "evidence" includes "it's evidence because I say it's evidence." If "god-science" aims for such a low standard, then it will necessarily be hopelessly confused by all the contradictory "evidence" which abounds. And a hopelessly confused science can add nothing to our "knowledge base" but speculation and fantasies.quote:
Pay attention: if there is a being beyond the natural world, but which does contact people, then direct evidence of that being would not come from natural science, it would come from people.
And those people are incapable of agreeing upon the nature of God, so we cannot possibly distinguish actual god-contact from some delusional schmuck's fever dreams.quote:
And there is no reasonable way for Paul the apostle to personally talk to us and tell us about his visions.
The writings of a dead person aren't hearsay. Of course, since Paul isn't the being whose existence is in question, his testimony about God is hearsay. God is perfectly capable of putting in an appearance, but often fails to do so.quote:
quote:
What method would you propose for testing "that an event was caused purely through the will of a divine being?"
I've already mentioned it. What was it?
I apologize. Either I missed it, or it didn't register on me as a method. Can you give me a hint, like which page of this thread your exposition was on? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2005 : 20:11:32 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, what about all the fulfilled prophecies of Cassandra? Why does this not count as good evidence for the existence of the Greek gods? Mustn't we conclude the Greek gods exist until such time that science can explain how the prophetess could foresee the destruction of Troy before it happened?
If not, then explain your double-standard.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 01:11:37 [Permalink]
|
NOTE TO ALL
1) If my responses seem a bit abrupt, it's because I was almost finished with my original post when I made a mistake and caused the whole thing to be erased; it's late and I had to shorten the post.
2) After my responses, I will include an "essay" in a seperate post which I am writing about the idea that all of the first religions were made up by primitive peoples. As always, I appreciate constructive criticism.
Subjectmatter:
quote:
This statement means that 'the science of god' already assumes a god of which there is a science.
When I made that numbered and alphabetized list a few posts back, did I ever assume that there was a god?
quote:
And further that any data collected within the operation of such a science does not come from the god itself but from the delusions of people.
You just entered the circle at the point which goes "therefore anyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience is, at best, appealing to emotion, not reason".
quote:
Faith is an emotion/feeling;
No, faith is believing what you are told.
quote:
quote:
Logic and science don't work in a way that supports your beliefs, therefore you continue to try changing them into something that does.
Criticism of your mode of argument (again). Not an argument for god not existing.
Ah, you're right on this one. This is not an argument against god, it is simply wrong. Logic says that if someone says that they had a vision from a god there is a possibility that they are correct. Therefore, logic does support my beliefs, to some degree.
quote:
Feeling the need to kowtow to something is a feeling.
I was not trying to say that a desire to kowtow is evidence of the supernatural, I was saying that an inability to do otherwise would be.
quote:
I, and anyone with any comprehension of reason, would never become convinced of anything until after I had studied it.
To rephrase: if you had multiple experiences which could not be explained naturally and you were mentally stable, how would you continue your examination if all natural sciences turned up no results?
quote:
Would you like to see me juggle?
Same with bullies.
Don't be specious. You guys know what I'm talking about.
quote:
Tomorrow you will do stuff with/to things.
The more unlikely the possibility that the prediction will happen, the more likely that the predicter was authentic, and not guessing, if it comes to pass.
quote:
Furthermore that the vision is true is far from sufficient evidence to suggest that it is not a delusion.
This statement seems to be a contradiction of itself. You seem to be saying that if a vision is true -- that is, not a delusion -- that would not be evidence that is was not a delusion. Would you please clarify?
Hawks:
quote:
Pay attention: whether or not there exists a being beyond the natural world, and whether or not it does contact people, then direct evidence of that being would not come from natural science, nor would it would come from people.
Oops, my bad. Direct evidence would come from the being itself. But eye-witness testimony is still evidence.
Dave:
quote:
Like with Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart and the rest?
I do not subscribe to these people, try David Wilkerson.
quote:
we have no way to actually do this test,
I was speaking primarily of the way for you (this applies to anyone who is reading) to test any possibly divine being which you may encounter.
quote:
And those people are incapable of agreeing upon the nature of God, so we cannot possibly distinguish actual god-contact from some delusional schmuck's fever dreams.
If witnesses to a crime give differring versions of events, is there a way to determine who is right? Or who is most likely to be right?
quote:
The writings of a dead person aren't hearsay.
Ooh, you're right. They're eye-witness testimony. Thank you.
quote:
Either I missed it, or it didn't register on me as a method.
What I said on was "The only way to determine for sure if some occurence was supernatural is for a supernatural being to tell you so." Now, the method for contacting that being is first to find out exactly who it is you're trying to contact, and that's the process that I started a few posts back with my numbered/alphabetized list.
quote:
Hippy, what about all the fulfilled prophecies of Cassandra?
After doing a little research on the wikipedia site you listed, I have determined that the Greeks themselves didn't originally consider the Illiad (or the Odyssey) to be |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 12/09/2005 01:13:08 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 01:13:37 [Permalink]
|
EVIDENCE OF NON-HUMAN INTERFERENCE WITH EARLY MANKIND
The following temporarily assumes an evolutionary model.
In my life, I have never heard of an ancient or primitive culture which had no belief in some sort of divine being. If you find one, let me know. The common explanation for every single known ancient culture on the face of planet having a belief in a divine being of some sort is that such a belief, or, the accompanying moral code, is beneficial to the survival of the community. Is there any anthropological evidence of this?
I think that first we must take into account the fact that such a belief would not be possible before the invention of at least a crude form of language. Without language, the best one could come up with would be their own personal fancies. It could be theorized that communication was done through drawings, but drawings cannot transmit complex thoughts as language can, even if it is sign language.
So then, if religion was invented, it was most likely done so sometime between the invention of language and the rise of civilizations. Furthermore, if a primitive animal creates a language, the first thing that they'll try to communicate probably wouldn't be the belief in a divine being. It would probably be along the lines of "food over there". An even more complex example would be "me beat you, so go away". So then, we have an animal which can communicate basic thoughts neccessary to survival.
Next, if the idea of a religion were to be made up, what would be the purpose? To control people so that they cooperate and are moral to each other? As an explanation for the world around them? To express artistic desire? Let me know if you think of any more plausible ones, but these seem to be the ones most commonly cited.
Artistic desire: this assumes that artistic desire has evolved naturally. Surely, animals did not originally have artistic desire. I doubt that anyone will claim that a primitive fish or amphibian had artistic desire. So then, in what way was artistic desire useful to the survival of a species? And even if, on the way off chance, it was a by-product of evolution, why would humans turn to the divine to express art? There's lots of natural things to draw, and the most "primitive" drawings that I can think of were of animals, and of people hunting them.
To explain their world: this assumes that they even cared about explaining their world. It has been my experience (and probably yours too) that most people don't really care about the deep questions of life, oh that they would. Lots of times children will ask their parents things and the parents will say "I don't know" or "Don't ask so many questions". It assumes that they wouldn't have given natural answers. "What happens you die?" "You rot and smell bad." It also assumes that people would be satisfied with a supernatural answer. "A god did it." "How?" "Don't ask so many questions."
To control people: there were methods of controlling people before there was religion. The alpha male controlled through him being the strongest, fastest, and most able hunter. If he wanted to controll people, he could do it by brute force or by promising food. Now, with the advent of language, he may desire to control other packs which he could not easily beat into submission or bribe. But would he do it by trying to convince them that there was some divine being that was on his side? Or that would provide food for them? By the time one of them is smart enough to say "A great man in the sky will come to my defense if you attack me" the others are smart enough to laugh at him.
Also, by the time that they're smart enough to communicate the above thought, they would also be smart enough to say "If we join our bands together and don't fight, we could probably kill a lot more animals and fight off other tribes". THAT would be much more impressive to primitive man. And so the idea of a god would be bypassed entirely. By the way, atheists often complain that people who call them immoral are mistaken, and that atheists do have morality. So why would primitive man construct a religion to give them morality? If they are attempting to build a religion in which to put a morality, then they already had a morality in the first place.
But what if someone other than the alpha male wanted controll? That other someone, who would not be strong enough to challenge the alpha male, would not be able to gather much support from fellow members of his pack. Even if he were to try to convince them that they could overthrow the pack leader, why would he use an imaginary friend as a tactic; and why would they believe him? And even if they did overthrow the pack leader, then that means that they just lost their strongest and most able hunter, and that would put them at a distinct disadvantage to other packs.
Ah, but what if the person making this up tells the others that his 'god' can take them to the afterlife? They might say "Great, how?" At which point he starts talking about them giving him food and shelter, and they all laugh him to scorn.
But what if someone learns enough about the natural world to predict it accurately and then uses this knowledge to back up his divine being theory? Again, why would he make up a divine being? Why not just say "Hey look, I know that there's food over on that other side of the mountain. Follow me."
Now, with all this mind, it is possible that some people out there stumbled upon a belief in a god. But every single culture on the face of the planet? The statistical odds of that occurring without any interference from any non-human intelligence are incredible (is there anyone out there who could calculate those odds?). Even if it is possible, it seems much more statistically probable that something non-human affected the development of mankind. Whether that something is Yahweh, God, gods, or aliens is a different question. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 03:09:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
The common explanation for every single known ancient culture on the face of planet having a belief in a divine being of some sort is that such a belief, or, the accompanying moral code, is beneficial to the survival of the community. Is there any anthropological evidence of this?
I'm not sure what sort of evidence you mean. It is clear that common theologies bind people together. People have gone to war over religion. Is that not evidence that those who worship together stick together? No one is suggesting that religion alone accounts for the success or failure of any particular civilization, only that faith is one important social glue among many.
quote:
So then, if religion was invented, it was most likely done so sometime between the invention of language and the rise of civilizations.
Probably true, as there is archeological evidence of Neolithic people burying their dead, which at least suggests a belief in the sanctity of the human body.
quote:
Next, if the idea of a religion were to be made up, what would be the purpose? To control people so that they cooperate and are moral to each other? As an explanation for the world around them? To express artistic desire? Let me know if you think of any more plausible ones, but these seem to be the ones most commonly cited.
Well, first off, nobody ever made up a religion out of the blue fully articulated from scratch. (Ok, well, except L. Ron Hubbard). There several distinct characteristics that all primitive religions share, which almost certainly have their roots in basic psychology.
The skeptics dictionary has this to say on magical thinking.
quote:
According to anthropologist Dr. Phillips Stevens Jr., magical thinking involves several elements, including a belief in the interconnectedness of all things through forces and powers that transcend both physical and spiritual connections. Magical thinking invests special powers and forces in many things that are seen as symbols. According to Stevens, "the vast majority of the world's peoples ... believe that there are real connections between the symbol and its referent, and that some real and potentially measurable power flows between them." He believes there is a neurobiological basis for this, though the specific content of any symbol is culturally determined. (Not that some symbols aren't universal, e.g., the egg. Not that the egg symbolizes the same things in all cultures.)
One of the driving principles of magical thinking is the notion that things that resemble each other are causally connected in some way that defies scientific testing (the law of similarity). Another driving principle is the belief that "things that have been either in physical contact or in spatial or temporal association with other things retain a connection after they are separated" (the law of contagion) (Frazer; Stevens).
According to psychologist James Alcock, "'Magical thinking' is the interpreting of two closely occurring events as though one caused the other, without any concern for the causal link. For example, if you believe that crossing your fingers brought you good fortune, you have associated the act of finger-crossing with the subsequent welcome event and imputed a causal link between the two." Alcock notes that because of our neurobiological makeup we are prone to magical thinking and that therefore critical thinking is often at a disadvantage. Think of trying to make sense of or give meaning to coincidences.
If you are interesting in the origin of religions, your main focus needs to be on human psychology. That you have omitted it from your list means that you're not on the right track.
quote:
Artistic desire: this assumes that artistic desire has evolved naturally. Surely, animals did not originally have artistic desire. I doubt that anyone will claim that a primitive fish or amphibian had artistic desire. So then, in what way was artistic desire useful to the survival of a species? And even if, on the way off chance, it was a by-product of evolution, why would humans turn to the divine to express art? There's lots of natural things to draw, and the most "primitive" drawings that I can think of were of animals, and of people hunting them.
And why did they draw them? Because of magical thinking. Drawing an animal, capturing it in a permanent image, was thought to be a kind of magic. If you drew an ox with your spear in its side, the power of that symbol ensured that your spear would find its mark in the hunt later that day.
quote:
To explain their world: this assumes that they even cared about explaining their world. It has been my experience (and probably yours too) that most people don't really care about the deep questions of life, oh that they would. It also assumes that people would be satisfied with a supernatural answer.
I'm not even sure how to respond to this. All people care about life's deep questions. And many are satisfied with supernatural answers to their questions because that means they don't have to worry about them any more. Accepting a supernatural answer prevents people from slipping into psychologic shock.
quote:
To control people: there were methods of controlling people before there was religion.
This is usually an argument against organized religion. It is indeed very easy to manipulate people by appealing to their faith. Look at how successful the Republicans have been at weaseling their way into power.
I'd also call your speculations about a god's role in warfare to be naive. Men have always fought men. The purpose of invoking a god is not to intimidate or impress one's enemy, but to ensure success in combat. Warriors have always adorned themselves with all manner of amulets and magical charms to protect themselves. What is a prayer if not a kind of incantation? Again, this is basic of magical thinking.
quote:
Now, with all this mind, it is possible that some people out there stumbled upon a belief in a god. But every single culture on the face of the planet? The statistical odds of that occurring without any interference from any non-human intelligence are incredible.
Not if religion |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/09/2005 03:30:36 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 07:39:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
ATTENTION: CIRCULAR REASONING DISCOVERED
quote:
The "science of God" assumes the existance of a theological construct and determines "natural" and "unnatural" based on conjecture and dogmatic theological musings instead of any evidence by the alledged theological construct itself. It isn't even hearsay. It's opinion submitted as fact.
Arguments from faith are arguments from emotional grounds,...
Logic and science don't work in a way that supports your beliefs, therefore you continue to try changing them into something that does.
Statements like these subscribing to the following circular reasoning:
The supernatural does not exist -> therefore anyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience is, at best, appealing to emotion, not reason -> therefore all theology is based on emotion (or lies), and is not actually true -> therefore the supernatural does not exist.
Negative. First premise is invalid.
Science only examines the workings of the natural world and describes them --> People who claim to have had a supernatural experience have rarely if ever studied what it was that happened to them including the basic evidence gathering demanded by the scientific method it is also oftentimes a deeply emotional experience --> Therefore the truth value of the assumption made by the person who had the supernatural experience is unknown but deemed to be highly unlikely due to lack of supporting evidence.
quote:
TO ALL:
Soon I am going to make a long post on the likelihood that all of the first religions were made up by primitive people.
Hippy
Given that there exists quite a bit of evidence through cliff and cave paintings of primitive peoples of a spiritual nature such as ritualistic hunts, it would be a valid assumption. Paleontologists have done extensive research into this subject.
Of course, all this does is prove the existance of religion, not the existance of a supernatural being. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 12/09/2005 07:44:28 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 10:48:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
The following temporarily assumes...
Grapes are orange. Oh, you say they're not? Well let's try it another way. The following temporarily assumes that the color you call purple is actually orange. Grapes are orange. See? I'm right and all those people who say grapes are purple are wrong. Duh.
I'm pretty sure you don't realize just how irrational you appear to be when you start out your next argument with the equivalent of, "The following assumes I'm already correct about what I'm going to say next." Sheesh.
Things only work the way you want them to if you make unsubstantiated assumptions. You've made it clear you believe god is real. You've made it clear you'd like us to believe it, too. Your evidence is based on your interpretation of a collection of ancient short stories, stories written in rather cryptic form and in languages which aren't your native tongue, stories whose authenticity is based on being primarily supported by adjacent stories and the continued claims of other believers that they are true.
Let's assume that biology works the way that is understood by the experts in the field of biological sciences. Let's assume that the science of physics works the way that is currently accepted within the field of physics. Let's assume that the few tiny exceptions to the rules, those things we don't thoroughly understand, don't negate the rules and provide support for magical causes. Let's assume that virgins don't get pregnant. Let's assume that people don't die then come back to life a few days later. Let's assume that people don't wave their arms and part the waters of seas. Let's assume no supernatural being who claims to be all good and loving and benevolent ever killed nearly the entire population of Earth, or whole cities, or even "bad" individuals.
Now let's work on those premises, that with very few exceptions, for thousands of years and through billions of lives those things have borne themselves out time and time again to be the way things are. Based on that premise, remember billions of lives and tens of thousands of years, not several hundred pages of often cryptic text in a collection of ancient booklets, keep this in mind...
Wrong: Magic is real therefore you believe it to be real.
Right: You believe magic to be real therefore, to you, magic is real.
If it wasn't so sad that you're so quick to abandon intellect, reason, critical thinking, and rationality, to support your belief in magic, you'd crack me up. 
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 16:02:17 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, let's start again since you PM'ed me that you felt your answers were adequate to my statements.
You began this thread claiming there were supernatural events, which I assume you define as inexplicable events or events which do not follow the laws of science.
Your underlying premise, that there are supernatural events is false.
These supposed events fall into several general categories, ghosts, UFOs, alien abductions, witchcraft, clairvoyance, faith or spontaneous healing, Bermuda Triangle, and so on. Since you failed to cite just which specific events you were referring to, anyone answering your post would have to guess which ones you meant.
In the above categories, I essentially stated that I had seen that tired crap, over and over, and none of it really amounted to anything inexplicable, nor anything that really defied the laws of science.
In addition, I have seen several claims that research showed prayer to be effective. So I went to the original research and found none of the citations to support the claim that prayer made any different outcomes than would be expected without prayer. In addition, there were several studies that had fairly good data supporting the fact that prayer had no impact on any prayed for outcome. Attending church is associated with living longer in a couple studies. But the explanation of social support fits the data as well as if not better than the claim a supernatural being is influencing the outcome.
So there is no data that anything supernatural ever occurs in the world. There is no evidence that there is any god or other supernatural being causing any actions to occur, because nothing supernatural occurs.
If you wish to cite any specific events for which you believe evidence supports your assertion, I'd be happy to see what you've got. In the meantime, without any supernatural events from which to base your claims in the OP, I see no reason to discuss the nature of the supposed events. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 16:25:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The following temporarily assumes an evolutionary model.
...
...
...
Next, if the idea of a religion were to be made up, what would be the purpose? To control people so that they cooperate and are moral to each other? As an explanation for the world around them? To express artistic desire? Let me know if you think of any more plausible ones, but these seem to be the ones most commonly cited.
What a shame that you didn't try to apply an evolutionary model to the emergence of religion. I doubt that there was a specific moment in history when religion appeared - poop - out of nowhere. It could always have started out as "non-divine thoughts" (psi-balls maybe) that later evolved into something we today would call religion. This would be something along the lines of the "meme" concept, where certain ideas propagate better than others. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 19:00:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Logic says that if someone says that they had a vision from a god there is a possibility that they are correct.
Pleasse point me to where logic says this. Some reference or something.
Because the last time I checked it didn't say that at all.
It goes a bit more like this: Unevidenced assertions may be dismissed out of hand. Not that they are automatically wrong, but that they are not assigned a value of true unless there is evidence. Evidence that can withstand rigorous scrutiny.
The statement "god exists" is an unevidenced assertion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 14:21:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
EVIDENCE OF NON-HUMAN INTERFERENCE WITH EARLY MANKIND
The following temporarily assumes an evolutionary model.
In my life, I have never heard of an ancient or primitive culture which had no belief in some sort of divine being. If you find one, let me know. The common explanation for every single known ancient culture on the face of planet having a belief in a divine being of some sort is that such a belief, or, the accompanying moral code, is beneficial to the survival of the community. Is there any anthropological evidence of this?
The human brain evolved through natural selection to look for patterns. There is a survival advantage to that particular brain function. In looking for some patterns, (such as the fruit being gathered comes from the tree once a year so I can go to the tree once a year and find it but it's a waste of energy to go there more often), there are times where one gets it wrong. Additional brain traits that led to religious beliefs were the need to have control, (it's less stressful), and the need to create beliefs that helped with the loss of group members, (if survival was enhanced by group action rather than individual action, then attachment to group members also occurred, followed by sorrow at the loss of group members). In addition to all this some individual members of groups were more successful when they had the 'answers'. It allowed them to be the leader, thus more mates, more wealth, and so on.
So you get, explaining the natural events by seeing a pattern but attributing the wrong cause, not hard to believe since it still happens today in the majority of humans,
You get a magical belief that a deceased person is either still around or you will see them when you also die,
You get a magical belief about what happens after death, (less frightening to know than to not know what happens, and since you already believe your deceased love one is there, you might as well make it a nice place,
You get group leaders taking advantage of other's beliefs in ways that control but also enhance the group sometimes, (Do what I say and god will favor you, disobey what I say and god will punish you)
You get group identity, "we believe this, we have these rituals, and you don't. We are a group, you are an outsider".
So without going on further, HFC, there are many ways that human behavior evolved to first believe in the magical world of gods and religion. It also follows that such social cultural evolution was common in most groups of humans as an evolutionary stage or phase in our development.
The evidence in favor of this explanation over yours is that all over the world religion evolved in different directions, with different components. From Greek gods and goddesses to ancestor worship, to Shintoism, and the three four main branches of Judaism: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Mormonism.
And, if you read what's in the Bible, you'll notice it is merely a local religion of the Middle East, with some roots in African mythology. The Bible has very little mention of the rest of the world, everything in the Old Testament pretty much excuses and supports all the greedy behavior of those that wrote it. It justified, for example, the killing of every man, woman, child, baby, and animal of the Amanites and taking their land, because gee, god said they could.
quote:
...Artistic desire: this assumes that artistic desire has evolved naturally. Surely, animals did not originally have artistic desire.
Really, ever hear of that bird that builds elaborate display for no other purpose than to attract a mate? And what about Peacocks? There is no survival advantage of the male feathers other than females began selecting them. I don't see how painting pictures of the 'divine' so to speak is as inexplicable as you mistakenly think.
quote:
It has been my experience (and probably yours too) that most people don't really care about the deep questions of life, oh that they would.
That's just plain silly. Most people ponder these things.
quote:
So why would primitive man construct a religion to give them morality? If they are attempting to build a religion in which to put a morality, then they already had a morality in the first place.
I believe I addressed this above as well as the control issue but to elaborate, first it should be obvious from the abuse of religion today to control people how powerful it is as a means of control.
Second, mental control is much more effective than physical control but even if it weren't, a physically strong leader might be overtaken by a weaker smarter one so either method could evolve.
Third, a lot of religious rituals do not serve a moral purpose, they serve to identify the group and reinforce the belonging drive to the advantage of the group. "We don't eat pork, those dirty people do."
I would guess the claim that morals come from religion is a newer claim used to defend the religion. Morals most certainly do not come from religious beliefs. How moral was it for Lot to screw his daughters? How moral was it for Lot to offer his 'virgin' daughters to mollify a violent crowd? How moral was it to kill Amanite infants whilst stealing their land? How moral were the Crusades? And so on and so on...
quote:
...why would he use an imaginary friend as a tactic; and why would they believe him? And even if they did overthrow the pack leader, then that means that they just lost their strongest and most able hunter, and that would put them at a distinct disadvantage to other packs.
An imaginary friend? More strange anthropology interpretations here, HFC. Look around, brains survived much more efficiently than brawn.
Priests and the like didn't necessarily gain power and prestige as having god to back them up. They actually started by claiming to be able to interpret the signs from the gods. The group was already believing by the time religious leaders emerged.
quote:
...
Now, with all this mind, it is possible that some people out there stumbled upon a belief in a god. But every single culture on the face of the planet? The statistical odds of that occurring without any interference from any non-human intelligence are incredible (is there anyone out there who could calculate those odds?). Even if it is possible, it seems much more statistically probable that something non-human affected the development of mankind. Whether that something is Yahweh, God, gods, or aliens is a different question.
And, they all managed to come up with distinctly different versions because? Was god supposedly that p |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 21:51:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now, with all this mind, it is possible that some people out there stumbled upon a belief in a god. But every single culture on the face of the planet? The statistical odds of that occurring without any interference from any non-human intelligence are incredible (is there anyone out there who could calculate those odds?). Even if it is possible, it seems much more statistically probable that something non-human affected the development of mankind. Whether that something is Yahweh, God, gods, or aliens is a different question.
The failure of reason and critical thinking that you demonstrate with that paragraph is astonishing.
And, since you are talking statistics here, would you care to share the actual calculations you used to reach your conclusion? What premises you used to determine the statistical odds of any single culture "discovering" god? The premises you use to determine the statistical odds of a "non-human intelligence" interfering? The methodology used to calculate "it seems much more statistically probable that something non-human affected the development of mankind."?
Because, seriously, you are just talking out of your ass here unless you can step up to the plate with that info.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 15:06:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy:
By the time one of them is smart enough to say "A great man in the sky will come to my defense if you attack me" the others are smart enough to laugh at him.
It's been several thousand years, and it seems that those smart enough to laugh at this nonsense are still a small minority. The planet is overrun with megalomaniacs who either believe or claim to believe the sky daddy is on their side, and people who believe them.
It seem's plausible that belief in the supernatural was at first as an explanation for those things not understood, of which there were plenty. Inevitably, the most cunning and conniving of the tribe figured out a way to make the general belief work to their advantage by claiming the their particular god(s) communicated with them, and the folk better fall in line or a shitstorm's a-comin'. This assured the priests and their buddies a steady stream of food, gold, virgins, and whatever else they desired without having to do an honest day's work.
And to think people are still falling for it. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 17:39:12 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack:
I think that everyone else understood that when I said "The following temporarily assumes an evolutionary model" all I meant was that statements like "So then, we have an animal which can communicate basic thoughts neccessary to survival" do not mean that I believe in evolution, merely that I am stating what the world would be like if the evolutionary theory was correct.
Hello Board:
quote:
I'm not sure what sort of (anthropological) evidence you mean.
In this case I'm interested in positive evidence. For instance, an interveiw with a primitive tribe in which the tribe says "Long ago one of our ancestors discovered that if you draw an animal with your spear in it you will have better success at hunting that animal. After this, we discovered that if you draw a picture of a great hunter and ask the hunter for guidance you will also have better success at hunting. And from this we realized that there was a great hunter above all hunters, and we could ensure success on a hunt by offerring him animal sacrifices." Failing that, some ancient writing to that effect would suffice. I would even accept caveman drawings to that effect provided that they communicated the specific thought that drawing the animal helped the hunt; if it's just a drawing of a hunt it may merely be a record of a successful hunt.
quote:
People have gone to war over religion. Is that not evidence that those who worship together stick together?
Sure, but the atheist Chinese state also has a well disciplined army. Discipline was needed for survival long before religion.
quote:
Probably true, as there is archeological evidence of Neolithic people burying their dead, ...
Did the earliest known burials contain artifacts in the graves, and if so, what were they?
quote:
There several distinct characteristics that all primitive religions share, which almost certainly have their roots in basic psychology.
I would be interested in seeing the data which forms the basis of Mr. Stevens work. I've sent him an e-mail and am waiting for a response.
quote:
And why did they draw them? Because of magical thinking.
In all likelihood they probably started drawing animals before they got the idea that it would help them out. Hence, they probably had artistic desire before they came up with the idea that drawing the animal would help them out. They had to have successful hunts before they were able to draw, so anyone who would draw with the purpose of increasing their luck probably did so because they were having a hard time hunting anyway. Therefore, the most successful packs would have had the least need to draw. Furthermore, I think that you would probably agree that it is when people are in danger of their life that they are most likely to have a belief in a god or in magic.
quote:
All people care about life's deep questions.
I'm going to have to ask for evidence of this, because it has been my experience that lots of people don't really care.
quote:
The purpose of invoking a god is not to intimidate or impress one's enemy, but to ensure success in combat.
Perhaps. Religion and amulets can bolster your confidence and hence make you more fierce in combat. However, since success in combat existed before religion and amulets, whoever used them first was most likely the one at a disadvantage.
quote:
Not if religion is a manifestation of innate psychological tendancies found in all people.
Provide evidence of this and I might abandon this essay. However, some people also have a tendancy to rebel against god when it doesn't work for them. Furthermore, keep in mind that an innate psychological tendancy might be confused with being raised with a belief in religion or luck.
quote:
Science only examines the workings of the natural world and describes them --> People who claim to have had a supernatural experience have rarely if ever studied what it was that happened to them including the basic evidence gathering demanded by the scientific method it is also oftentimes a deeply emotional experience --> Therefore the truth value of the assumption made by the person who had the supernatural experience is unknown but deemed to be highly unlikely due to lack of supporting evidence.
Again, we're having trouble with the terms 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Either something exists or it doesn't, so if there is a god it exists as much as the earth does. If in your first statement you are speaking of the 'natural' sciences (i.e., biology and physics, but not political science or psychology) then I would agree completely with your statement. My example of circular reasoning applies to statements like these:
quote:
Your underlying premise, that there are supernatural events is false.
Arguments from faith are arguments from emotional grounds,...
The "science of God" assumes the existance of a theological construct and determines "natural" and "unnatural" based on conjecture and dogmatic theological musings instead of any evidence by the alledged theological construct itself. It isn't even hearsay. It's opinion submitted as fact.
All of these statements are absolutes.
quote:
Additional brain traits that led to religious beliefs were the need to have control, (it's less stressful), and the need to create beliefs that helped with the loss of group members,
Evidence? I don't see why beliefs in fairy tales would have more appeal to primitive man than food would. As for the loss of group members, I'll think about it.
quote:
Really, ever hear of that bird that builds elab |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
