|
|
|
chee
New Member
USA
35 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2002 : 23:01:54 [Permalink]
|
So it comes back to me again. Can say I quite know how to define faith other than taking the standard Webster's version. What I can say is that without faith there would be no religion but the inverse is not true. While I don't define myself as a religious person, more a spiritual one, I also don't have much "faith". What is proven can be disproven given time and the right circumstances. There are no givens.
A colder place I've never known, than with someone but yet alone. |
 |
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 02:29:42 [Permalink]
|
No it's not faith, not in the religious sense. It's sort of like the way a number of Einstein's predictions took years to demonstrate(such as gravity bending light).
Faith would be calling the 30% 'God' for no reason at all. Calling it Dark matter in part admits that all the answers are not in.
Well, isn't that special. Where did you get that idea from.., Satan!
Alright @tomic, put up or shut up. "Faith would be calling the 30% 'God' for no reason at all." Why is that so?
Look again at that chart, why not 65%, or why not 95%? Ninety five percent of the universe, is currently one big 'gap,' if that's what yer getting at. Or even 100% because of a deep personal conviction. Use your 'favorite' sense, "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof." No detections or measurements, have been made of dark matter or dark energy AFAIK. You are right, all the answers aren't in, sort of like there's no proof yet. Neutrinos was the great hope, for dark matter, but didn't pan out. Not a clue to dark energy has come forth. Do you accept these scientific prophecies as valid, do you have faith in them? Me do.
Einstein's prophecy wasn't the same at all, he had solved the puzzle with relativity, dunno which, general or special. It took years for whatever star it was, to pass by the sun, and it's light was bent with a small error factor, to the near exact degree of arc, as he had prophesied. By that time, it was just more proof to relativity's validity, still remains a remarkable achievement.
Faith is a perfectly good term, no need to take a cruise down that river in Egypt. "What I can say is that without faith there would be no religion but the inverse is not true." Can buy into that. You?
Sorry, @tomic, being a smart-ass, trying to work off some angst from getting pushed around a bit. Your post was just too convenient to pass up.   
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 06:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Just a bit of info first: The first to translate the Bible into English was John Wycliff of Oxford approximately 1380. However, it was handwritten. He died a natural death, but a later Pope had his bones exhumed, crushed, and scatterred as punishment.
William Tyndale wrote the next translation which was actually printed in 1525 or 1526. He was burned at the stake.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 06:10:20 [Permalink]
|
Edited/deleted because it was a duplicate post.
Edited by - Garrette on 01/16/2002 06:27:25 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 06:17:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"That's why I speak out so strongly against religion." (Bingo! *L*)
Things that you "experience" without the use of your senses are either fantasies or delusions. In other words they are all in your imagination and have no bases in reality.
Doesn't 'imagination' exist in your reality?
Perhaps, but don't believe so, the experience was as real to me as any other. As far as there have always been believers, suggests to me, the experience is a common one. It is what me thinks could well be the impetus for forming a religion, sans a prophet. There was no fear with it, quite the opposite actually. It is difficult to explain, afterwards, everything was as it had always been, but different. *L* Me knows, very lame.
Not lame at all. Quite understandble and undoubtedly common. But understanding and commonness do not vouchsafe accuracy or truth.
I've had enlightening experiences with ghosts and was quite convinced of their reality. Same with the ouija board. My most visceral remembrance (almost) was actually a series of experiences culminating in a cold and solitary night in the Arizona desert. What happened to me was real. No details for you, but for a while I was a Carlos Castaneda follower sans the peyote. Though the experience was real, I have come to realize that my interpretation of it was not. I still cherish it, though, and love the desert, particularly the Saguaro National Park around Tucson.
But my MOST visceral experience was the final and intentional casting away of my figurative crutches and vowing that while I may be fooled by others I would certainly stop fooling myself. I remember that moment vividly, and I can honestly say I have been a much happier fellow from that instant. My 'revelation' is as strong and fruitful as any claimed by christians.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 06:22:59 [Permalink]
|
Regarding the 'faith' thing:
I think even if you define religious faith identically to scientific faith, it doesn't matter.
One faith is in a system which:
1. Professes knowledge of absolute truth
2. Presents no credible evidence for its tenets
3. Has no predictive ability
The other is faith in a system which:
1. Admits its limitations
2. Is self-correcting
3. Tests itself
4. Depends upon credible evidence
5. Has a history of predictive ability
I find the choice obvious now that I'm all grown up, even with the fallacious equation of the two faiths.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 06:26:30 [Permalink]
|
Somewhat back to the original topic (and driven by the fact that I've just purchased my SECOND book by Dawkins, though I've still not read the first):
Is there collective evolution and can/does it include opposing characteristics?
Specifically, are skepticism and supernaturalism (or belief or whatever) necessary simultaneously for the species?
Maybe 'necessary' is a poor choice of words. Perhaps I should restate it to ask if the two characteristics in tandem have so far proven successful for natural selection precisely because they ARE in tandem? Or maybe I'm just muddling it more.
(Edited for spelling)
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 01/16/2002 06:29:42 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 07:27:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are dozens of particles, science suggests exists, but as yet, undected. Is there an element of "faith" at work here?
Say you are putting together a jigsaw puzzle. When you have all but the last few pieces put together, and you can tell that the puzzle is a picture of a kitty sleeping in a hammock, is it a matter of faith to say "Aw look, it's a cute kitty!"?
It's the same with this particular view of the universe. Scientists have many, many pieces of the puzzle, and they all seem to fit perfectly. It is not a matter of faith to extrapolate from existing knowledge. They may find themselves wrong in the end, but not because there was anything wrong with their scientific method.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 11:44:18 [Permalink]
|
… I've just purchased my SECOND book by Dawkins, though I've still not read the first
Which books do you have? The guy is pretty dry for someone who is supposed to be presenting science to the lay public, BBC 2 and all. But you must remember that he is English and those people have a very poor command of the language. Now if he were only Irish then you would have something.
Is there collective evolution and can/does it include opposing characteristics?
I'm not sure what you mean by the term "collective."
There is co-evolution. You find that when two life forms a symbiotic relationship. There's a lot of that going on in orchids and the bugs that pollinate them.
And there is parallel evolution when separate species occupy the same ecological niche and start to look like one another.
Specifically, are skepticism and supernaturalism (or belief or whatever) necessary simultaneously for the species?
Oh, not very simple.
First you have to realize that they are both exaggerated side effects of our having large brains and are something left over from our "earlier selves."
Animals don't need very big brains to survive. They are a waste of energy and cause all sorts of problems in birthing. They are a sexual display exactly as the ridiculously over-sized tail on a peacock is.
In all predators there is an evolutionarily innate hunting ability. The hunter must be able to size up the situation accurately to give them the greatest chance of making a kill without wasting energy or putting himself in unnecessary danger.
Primate society, like most predators, is based on an Alpha male. The entire "tribe" depends on him and trusts him.
Through out most of their history the larger primates have not only been predators but also prey. Mostly to leopards, the fossil record shows.
These big cats have evolved to hunt at night.
The great apes (ourselves included) evolved from smaller tree dwelling apes. When you live in a tree it is best to be active during the day. The snakes are awake and hunting only in the daytime, and in the dark it is easy to fall out of the branches. The safest thing to do is to sleep in the night in the trees.
Low land gorillas (that are small enough) still make nests up in trees at night. For that matter we still like to have our bedrooms upstairs in our houses, and almost always sleep raised up from the floor.
When the great apes moved to the ground they were in the bad position of being tired and groggy at the very time of day that they were being hunted.
When your brain gets big everything that you think becomes exaggerated.
The decrement that you needed to be a successful predator became skepticism.
But the fear of evil lurking in the dark and the trust you put in the father/alpha male figure to protect you becomes supernaturalism.
Well, let me clarify that. It is what supernaturalism is based on. But the world has changed. There are no longer hungry leopards that are going to jump out of the dark and eat us.
However the fear of them was an evolved protection, that didn't go away when the big cats did, it was passed on. If you were a Homo erectus who said, "la de dah, la de dah, I ain't a scared of the dark," you didn't get a chance to pass on your genes.
This fear, while a protection against big cats, could be exploited by beta males, in order to enhance their status in the group.
An Alpha Male would protect you from peril and so receive your loyalty (faith/trust) by putting himself a risk for to benefit of the group.
A Beta Male could falsely inspire your fear response and then "save" you without putting themselves at risk and also receive your loyalty. While your "faith" is a valid evolutionary response the stimulus (supernaturalism) to invoke it in this case is a fraud.
Maybe 'necessary' is a poor choice of words.
The base causes of them made them very necessary. The exploitation of them is not.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 12:20:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
… I've just purchased my SECOND book by Dawkins, though I've still not read the first
Which books do you have? The guy is pretty dry for someone who is supposed to be presenting science to the lay public, BBC 2 and all. But you must remember that he is English and those people have a very poor command of the language. Now if he were only Irish then you would have something.
River Out of Eden and The Blind Watchmaker.
Allow me to be a bit more tolerant of him seeing as how I'm a mongrel of the Isles with about equal amounts Irish, Scottish and English with a bit of Welsh tossed in. Granted, Ireland is the only place I've been where my face shape let me melt into the crowd.
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by the term "collective."
To be honest, I'm not either, but I'll give it a shot. I think I mean what you called co-evolution. The difference being that you applied the term to a symbiotic relationship between differing species. My question is can it apply within the same species? Is there such a thing as 'self-symbiosis'?
Now that I think about it, there obviously is, and it's quite common: male/female. Or am I misapplying the terms (remember, I've freely admitted my ignorance on this topic).
quote:
When your brain gets big everything that you think becomes exaggerated.
The decrement that you needed to be a successful predator became skepticism.
But the fear of evil lurking in the dark and the trust you put in the father/alpha male figure to protect you becomes supernaturalism.
Well, let me clarify that. It is what supernaturalism is based on. But the world has changed. There are no longer hungry leopards that are going to jump out of the dark and eat us.
However the fear of them was an evolved protection, that didn't go away when the big cats did, it was passed on. If you were a Homo erectus who said, "la de dah, la de dah, I ain't a scared of the dark," you didn't get a chance to pass on your genes.
This fear, while a protection against big cats, could be exploited by beta males, in order to enhance their status in the group.
An Alpha Male would protect you from peril and so receive your loyalty (faith/trust) by putting himself a risk for to benefit of the group.
A Beta Male could falsely inspire your fear response and then "save" you without putting themselves at risk and also receive your loyalty. While your "faith" is a valid evolutionary response the stimulus (supernaturalism) to invoke it in this case is a fraud.
Okay, I understand all of this, and it mirrors much of what I had already thought on the subject, so I mostly agree. Coupla questions, though:
1. Does increased brain size necessarily result in an exaggeration of the things we think? (Maybe this is why I buy too much ice cream when objectively I'll only eat a little..."I don't overeat; I'm overevolved.")
2. Given that the causes of our present day supernaturalism are legit, but also given that the causes are for the most part no longer relevant, why does it seem that in terms of numbers of our species, the supernaturalists are being selected better?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 13:37:13 [Permalink]
|
A few lunch time thoughts about pseudo-alpha males and religion.
The difference between a chimp who, screaming, drags a branch through a peaceful group and a tribal Witch Doctor is minimal.
In both cases there is an imaginary danger and in both the danger is "conquered" by the pseudo-alpha. Leopards in the night that aren't there have become daemons (To this day the leopard/devils are call "the forces of darkness.") that aren't there.
But when the social structure becomes more sophisticated a safety measure needs to be added for the protection of the pseudo-alpha. I imagine that when presented with real danger an excuse was needed. Say you were called upon to drive the devils out of the sick family member of a real alpha. Since you can't do it, and you are claiming that it is you that has the power, the actual alpha will harm you for "refusing" to aid him.
The safety measure would be an imaginary super-alpha (a god) who would battle the imaginary forces of darkness. However this would lower the status of the pseudo-alpha. It then becomes necessary to spread the word that the only way call on the super-alpha was through the witch doctor. This way when you were trying to conquer actual evil and the imaginary super-alpha didn't work it was no longer the witch doctors fault. AND if you could make it seem that the reason that the imaginary super-alpha didn't work was actually the fault of the person needing help then you could enhance your status even more.
This whole thing should fall through because people aren't stupid and they can see for themselves that there is no super-alpha and there is nothing to hurt them in the dark.
But it doesn't.
I suppose that a few thousand years of civilization is no match for millions of years spent huddled together in the dark, being watched by hungry glowing eyes.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 13:58:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. Does increased brain size necessarily result in an exaggeration of the things we think?
Yes. What evolution was after in over sized brains was a way to attract mates.
By shear luck we also got art, music, science and culture. They just happened due to the size of the brain, all those extra neurons--freebies.
quote:
2. Given that the causes of our present day supernaturalism are legit, but also given that the causes are for the most part no longer relevant, why does it seem that in terms of numbers of our species, the supernaturalists are being selected better?
Because at one time, not that very long ago, that fear of the darkness was directly tied to natural selection. It is in all of us.
Today we are the top of the food chain and the fear no longer serves a purpose--BUT it doesn't really do any real harm on a level of finding a mate. It's just junk baggage that we carry with us.
Intelligent Design yahoos claim that human life is too complicated to have evolved. Actually being so over complicated and made up of all sorts of things that we don't really need is THE sure sign that we did evolve. Our genes are like the "junk draw" I have in my kitchen. Filled with crap I'll never use again.
My kids still love me.
[/quote]
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 14:18:11 [Permalink]
|
Whoa. This is getting interesting. It does seem to answer my question, too.
The alpha is required for the species to do well, but so are the non-alphas (really, how well would a bunch of alphas do trying to live together?).
But are the pseudos necessary? (Thinking while typing again--) It seems that a pseudo is good for himself and so I can understand why he's selected for, but is he good for the species?
--
Is it your contention then that the first appeal to a superalpha or god or supernatural beastie or whatever was an INTENTIONAL creation on the part of the first successful pseudo?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 17:06:35 [Permalink]
|
The alpha is required for the species to do well, but so are the non-alphas
What is required of silverbacks is that they put themselves in danger rather than let their troop be harmed (a silverback will die for the "sins" of his group). Most of the time the silverback (alpha male) will have the support of younger beta males who are, so to speak, in training to become an alpha of their own troop (apostles).
really, how well would a bunch of alphas do trying to live together?
There can only be one alpha at a time. Which may well be why people seem to be comfortable with mono-theism.
But are the pseudos necessary?
Not only are they not necessary but logic would dictate that they might put the group in considerable danger
Is it your contention then that the first appeal to a superalpha or god or supernatural beastie or whatever was an INTENTIONAL creation on the part of the first successful pseudo?
No, I think that the common scenario would have been that the pseudo-alpha was the one who claimed to have defeated the forces of darkness all by himself.
Gods would not have shown up until civilization started. Being the priest of a god puts the pretender into the position of a pseudo-beta male. In ways that is still a good position as far as power goes. Plus they would no longer be expected to face danger themselves.
It might be interesting for someone more learned than I to investigate the pseudo-beta status of priests related to the fact that there have been (and still are) many religions where the priests are not allowed to mate.
But your question is did they intentionally make it up.
Undoubtedly yes.
I would venture to guess that the first god was made up by a pseudo-alpha while he was in a state of panic. The first god would have been the creation of an unsuccessful pseudo-alpha and not a successful one.
The first Devil was invented by a successful pseudo-alpha, long before the first god.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 20:09:13 [Permalink]
|
1. Does increased brain size necessarily result in an exaggeration of the things we think?
Yes. What evolution was after in over sized brains was a way to attract mates. By shear luck we also got art, music, science and culture. They just happened due to the size of the brain, all those extra neurons--freebies.
Interesting stuff, fellas. If our brain size came from a sexual attraction scheme, since most us conceal our brains within our skulls, why isn't a large head or a wide forehead, considered more beautiful than it seems to be treated, today? Assuming this scheme is still at work. Is this true of dolphins as well?
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
