|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 11:32:51 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
It provides survival benefit to the tribe. Evolution leads to conflict. The idea that religion was constructed by man to combat the effects of conflict on the mind is one I'm exploring in a book of my own.
So are you saying that religion is better for morality than evolution/naturalism?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 12:07:55 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 426
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
It provides survival benefit to the tribe. Evolution leads to conflict. The idea that religion was constructed by man to combat the effects of conflict on the mind is one I'm exploring in a book of my own.
So are you saying that religion is better for morality than evolution/naturalism?
I've heard some odd questions in my day, but this one takes the cake.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 12:18:15 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 426
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
And where do you think adults who absolve themselves from thier earthly responsibilities end up? I would think they would end up destitute.
Why on earth would you think that? Unscrupulous people are often financially successful because they don't mind screwing over other people. I don't equate totally irresponsible people with unscrupulous people.
quote:
quote:
That's exactly how communism works. I just don't happen to think communism is a good thing. How much money someone has, nor how or where they spend it should not have to meet with your personal approval.
It is amazing how often biblical principles are dismissed as "communism". Really? I've never heard that arguement. I don't see biblical principles as communism. I see those who advocate those principles for others people's money as communism.
quote:
If the communists stole a good idea from the bible now and then, it does not taint scripture. Just shows the communists were not always stupid. The communists didn't get thier ideology of mandatory forfeiting of personal wealth from the Bible.
quote:
And it is not a question of my personal approval, but of what kind of a person it makes them. All I am saying is that wealth or lack of it is not a measure of responsibility.
I think you are going in a big circle here.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 12:29:31 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I've heard some odd questions in my day, but this one takes the cake.
That's what he seems to be saying. I just want him to clarify. He's saying that religion reduces conflict. If religion (and not evolution or naturalism) reduces conflict (and hence wars), and causes people to live in peace, then he seems to be saying that it's better for morality and ethics than evolution/naturalism is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 12:38:00 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
How can you say, "Religion was developed because it helps us reduce conflict and live in peace while evolution/naturalism leads to conflict" and then turn around and say, "Evolution, naturalism/atheism/materialism or the lack of religion are just as good at reducing conflict and helping us live in peace and are hence equally as good, or even better, for morality and ethics as religion?"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 1:11:31 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 426
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I've heard some odd questions in my day, but this one takes the cake.
That's what he seems to be saying. I just want him to clarify. He's saying that religion reduces conflict. If religion (and not evolution or naturalism) reduces conflict (and hence wars), and causes people to live in peace, then he seems to be saying that it's better for morality and ethics than evolution/naturalism is.
I just don't see how the two can be compared at all. One is science and the other is belief. The two can be compatible if one is allowed to be free from the other.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 2:13:02 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I don't equate totally irresponsible people with unscrupulous people.
Maybe you should. It is certainly one way of being irresponsible. Others exist as well, of course.
quote:
The communists didn't get thier ideology of mandatory forfeiting of personal wealth from the Bible.
Maybe you should read Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25. These were laws (i.e. mandatory). And they certainly involved sharing one's assets communally.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 2:19:43 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 426
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I don't equate totally irresponsible people with unscrupulous people.
Maybe you should. It is certainly one way of being irresponsible. Others exist as well, of course. You seem to have a penchant for telling others what they should think and where their money should go. Maybe you should try a little more humility in your approach to these discussions.
quote:
quote:
The communists didn't get thier ideology of mandatory forfeiting of personal wealth from the Bible.
Maybe you should read Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25. These were laws (i.e. mandatory). And they certainly involved sharing one's assets communally.
There you go again. To be a Christian means you are no longer be bound by Mosaic laws.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 2:31:17 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
The communists didn't get thier ideology of mandatory forfeiting of personal wealth from the Bible.
Maybe you should read Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25. These were laws (i.e. mandatory). And they certainly involved sharing one's assets communally.
There you go again. To be a Christian means you are no longer be bound by Mosaic laws.
So what? The communists weren't Christian and one of their principal theorists was an atheistic Jew.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 3:04:37 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 426
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
The communists didn't get thier ideology of mandatory forfeiting of personal wealth from the Bible.
Maybe you should read Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25. These were laws (i.e. mandatory). And they certainly involved sharing one's assets communally.
There you go again. To be a Christian means you are no longer be bound by Mosaic laws.
So what? The communists weren't Christian and one of their principal theorists was an atheistic Jew.
And your point is?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 3:23:19 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I just don't see how the two can be compared at all. One is science and the other is belief. The two can be compatible if one is allowed to be free from the other.
I've seen atheists/naturalists/materialists argue that religion is bad for society (even though naturalism/atheism/materialism are themselves religions). Then I've seen evolutionists like wayward1 argue that religion emerged because, when compared to evolution/naturalism, religion reduces conflict and hence it's good for survivability. How is religion worse for society than evolution/naturalism when religion emerged because it reduces conflict and helps survivability when compared to naturalism/evolutionism?
Evolutionists/naturalists need to make up their mind. Is religion good for society or is it bad for society? If you want to argue that it's bad for society then how can you turn around and say that it emerged/exists because it helps us survive?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/31/2008 3:59:20 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 5:34:48 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 426
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I don't equate totally irresponsible people with unscrupulous people.
Maybe you should. It is certainly one way of being irresponsible. Others exist as well, of course. You are tiring. If one does not take responsibility for themselves they end up with the short end of the stick. This might drive them to crime.
Gotta go for now.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 5:48:04 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I just don't see how the two can be compared at all. One is science and the other is belief. The two can be compatible if one is allowed to be free from the other.
I've seen atheists/naturalists/materialists argue that religion is bad for society (even though naturalism/atheism/materialism are themselves religions).
Give it a rest already.
quote:
Then I've seen evolutionists like wayward1 argue that religion emerged because, when compared to evolution/naturalism, religion reduces conflict and hence it's good for survivability. How is religion worse for society than evolution/naturalism when religion emerged because it reduces conflict and helps survivability when compared to naturalism/evolutionism?
Evolutionists/naturalists need to make up their mind. Is religion good for society or is it bad for society? If you want to argue that it's bad for society then how can you turn around and say that it emerged/exists because it helps us survive?
I don't think this topic has much in the way of substantive evidence in either direction. Any talk about survival value of religion vs no religion etc is largely speculative, at this point.
But I could easily imagine that religiosity could have been a boon for smaller groups of people in times past.... could have helped introduce things like self sacrifice and other forms of altruism, as well as discipline.
Today you might be able to argue that its a disadvantage, because of the tensions and conflicts it can cause... we have some really insane religious crazies who either have (or are trying to get) nuclear weapons... some may even be driven to bring about prophesized wars. I'm not singling out any particular religion, but in a world with the power of devastation and destruction that human beings now have, it may not be in our best interest for the irrationality of religious practice to be such a powerful factor in our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 8:55:01 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
And your point is?
Borrowing an idea from the bible does not mean one has to take Christian theology with it.
quote:
If one does not take responsibility for themselves they end up with the short end of the stick. This might drive them to crime.
There are people on the short end of the stick who are not criminals and people with healthy bank accounts who are.
Wealth or lack of it is not a measure of responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 9:16:02 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Give it a rest already.
Trying to silence those that disagree with it is partly how naturalism maintains itself.
quote:
I don't think this topic has much in the way of substantive evidence in either direction. Any talk about survival value of religion vs no religion etc is largely speculative, at this point.
So, you admit that the evolutionary explanation for the existence of religion is mere speculation and hence evolution relies on speculation to explain things.
quote:
But I could easily imagine that religiosity could have been a boon for smaller groups of people in times past.... could have helped introduce things like self sacrifice and other forms of altruism, as well as discipline.
Wow, appeals to imagination. Such an excellent source for reliable explanations.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 9:52:40 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Give it a rest already.
Trying to silence those that disagree with it is partly how naturalism maintains itself.
Delusions of persecution are not healthy. Naturalism 'maintains' itself because it works. The progress science has made since is a testament to its effectiveness. Why on earth you think its a bad thing is beyond me.
quote:
So, you admit that the evolutionary explanation for the existence of religion is mere speculation and hence evolution relies on speculation to explain things.
No, explanations as to possible reasons behind the evolution of religion at this point rely a great deal on speculation or hypotheses that arent readily or easily testable, unless I am misinformed (I havent read a whole lot on it). Your logic is broken if you think this somehow means *all* of evolution is based on speculation... that would be silly.
quote:
Wow, appeals to imagination. Such an excellent source for reliable explanations.
I didnt say it was reliable. It was me thinking out loud, throwing possibilities out there as food for thought, and I didnt claim otherwise. If you read carefully, you'll notice I didnt even directly advocate the argument. Seems to me like your just trying to bait some one to commit to a certain position on this topic so you can make a stink about it. I'm happy to say we don't know the answer to the question yet, at least as far as I am aware and there is nothing wrong with that.
Edit: Sorry Method, I'll stop the threadjack here. Forgot which thread this was.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 10:07:22 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Delusions of persecution are not healthy. Naturalism 'maintains' itself because it works. The progress science has made since is a testament to its effectiveness. Why on earth you think its a bad thing is beyond me.
I never said science was a bad thing. Just that naturalism maintains itself partly by trying to silence those that disagree with it. It's exactly what you tried to do. Naturalism != science.
quote:
No, explanations as to possible reasons behind the evolution of religion at this point rely a great deal on speculation or hypotheses that arent readily or easily testable, unless I am misinformed (I havent read a whole lot on it). Your logic is broken if you think this somehow means *all* of evolution is based on speculation... that would be silly.
I didn't say that all of evolution is based on speculation, just that evolution does rely on speculation to explain things (but not necessarily everything). Evolution can explain certain things (ie: changes from one generation to the next), but it does not explain things like how a microbe allegedly evolved into a man.
quote:
I didnt say it was reliable. It was me thinking out loud, throwing possibilities out there as food for thought, and I didnt claim otherwise.
The point is that just because you can easily imagine something doesn't give it any merit.
quote:
I'm happy to say we don't know the answer to the question yet, at least as far as I am aware and there is nothing wrong with that.
There is nothing wrong with saying that you don't know (by doing so, you are acknowledging that evolution does not explain the existence of religion beyond speculation and hence it does not empirically explain all aspects of human existence), but it is wayward1 that claims to have the answers here and I was merely responding to him. Unless you are defending his position, I asked him a question and am waiting for an answer from him.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/1/2008 12:24:45 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 10:36:13 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
It provides survival benefit to the tribe. Evolution leads to conflict. The idea that religion was constructed by man to combat the effects of conflict on the mind is one I'm exploring in a book of my own.
So are you saying that religion is better for morality than evolution/naturalism?
No that wasn't what I meant for you to take from those words. Please read it again if you will. Religion, or more precisely, any idea that a being can imagine that makes it either dutiful or someone else's idea to take a life, or both, would be beneficial to a being who was both required to kill and aware of the value of life. The modern "idea" serving this purpose for some would be the fallacy of patriotism. No one is a patriot of any country but the one they're born in. What a fortunate coincidence.
I said evolution causes conflict because nature operates loosely on a basic "kill or be killed" premise. A being that refused to kill to protect its family would quickly facilitate the extinction of its kind and thereby be "selected against". Even if it managed to survive to breed by pure chance, it would pass on the "refuse to fight back" gene and survival wouldn't happen for that mutation. It's obvious that evolution works based more on what's left over, than what "strives to improve".
In the "killology" book I mentioned, the reader is meant to learn how to cope with the stress of killing, that's all. It is not a book about religion in any way. I am expanding on that greatly in my work. I should add that "my work" will likely never be worthy of publishing or submited for publishing. It serves as a means of collecting my thoughts.
Now, having taken a human life or two in my day, I do feel somewhat more qualified than the average bear to examine the psychological effects of killing. I can at least profess first hand experience for credibility's sake, but I hope the experience will prove more valuable than that.
A being such as you or I who knows first hand how precious life is will be likely to eventually undergo significant psychological termoil if he or she should be required "or inclined" to take a life.
In the wild, killing comes easily. It truly is kill or be killed, and I believe this would be our nature if you could remove our self awareness. Our closest animal relatives the common and pygmy Chimpanzees are the only primates to collectively wage war on neighboring groups, and chimps display vicious killer instinct and tender loving care of their young in the same day, heck in the same hour.
A being that climbed a few rungs higher than chimps to the top of the food chain would surely be a supremely successful hunter, breeder and killer. It would coordinate its efforts with others and repel rival groups whose only motivation for encroaching might be limited water or food supply. Scenarios where they would have had to fight to preserve the family livelihood are easy to imagine. Hunting, breeding and killing would therefore be expected to be hard wired into our existence.
But when you introduce intelligence, you get a painful conflict. The being can no longer simply act on its instinct with wreckless abandon and utter disregard for the pain it inflicts on others. It must contemplate its actions and the almighty GUILT is suddenly introduced on the evolutionary scene. You get a being who is capable of both viscious survival at all costs AND loving tenderness and cherishing of its own life and the life of others. I will happily admit that without god concepts and eventual religions, I'm not sure which side of themselves humans would have favored.
History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it.
Evolution had suddenly resulted in a conflicted, confused, powerful, beautiful, loose cannon of a creature that we call human. If that creature didn't quickly invent a system of knitting all these conflicting forces into a fabric of artificial reality, it could simply have ceased to be, but it is also true that evolution isn't restricted to producing traits that are purely beneficial to a species. Intelligence could turn out to be just another of nature's blunders. Religion and science so far share the burden of having "invented" things capable of massive harm.
I didn't say religion made things more peaceful, oh no. I said it made it possible for the warrior to cope with the guilt of his terrible duty by convincing him it was not only GOD'S idea, but God's direct ORDER, that he go and decimate his neighbor. He was inclined to decimate his neighbor on his own, he just didn't have the psychological know how to do it without a little self deception.
In fact it wouldn't be until a few thousand years later that the study of the psychological effects of killing would advance enough to be coined "Killology" and be taught to the police and military men and women who still have to cope with it today.
It's all just my opinion.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/31/2008 11:31:37 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 7/31/2008 10:41:10 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Yes, separation of church and state is very recent in human history. In reading the biblical prophets, for example, one must always keep in mind that their agenda was as much political as religious for in their day no such separation existed.
And even separation of church and state doesn't really separate religion and politics.
I have always thought that separation of church and state is something that both theist and atheist agree on. I think we can all agree or disagree on the application of the idea, but deep down I can't imagine how a religion could flourish without a separation between individual freedoms and government action, nor could atheists move through society without threat of government action against them. The greatest evils done in the name of religion and atheism have both come about through the politicization of religion or disbelief. Belief or disbelief should always be a matter of personal choice and personal freedom that no government has the right to infringe on.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/1/2008 12:41:27 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I didn't say religion made things more peaceful, oh no. I said it made it possible for the warrior to cope with the guilt of his terrible duty by convincing him it was not only GOD'S idea, but God's direct ORDER, that he go and decimate his neighbor. He was inclined to decimate his neighbor on his own, he just didn't have the psychological know how to do it without a little self deception.
How does this help humans survive?
Assuming it does help humans survive, then it doesn't even make sense for evolution to evolve guilt in the first place. Why not just do away with guilt so that humans can survive by killing each other (which makes no sense, but it's what you seem to be saying).
If it doesn't help humans survive, then it doesn't explain why evolution would evolve religion to begin with.
and of course, Jhud already pointed out other problems with your nonsense, so I don't need to recite them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/1/2008 12:55:56 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Even if it managed to survive to breed by pure chance, it would pass on the "refuse to fight back" gene and survival wouldn't happen for that mutation. It's obvious that evolution works based more on what's left over, than what "strives to improve".
Is there a, "refuse to accept God" gene? Perhaps there is an, "accept Christianity" gene as well. Or maybe there is a religious gene that says, "accept some religion." Perhaps it's the case that theists have this gene and atheists don't. If this is the case, then it would seem that people with this gene tend to be more successful than people without it (since there are more theists than atheists in the world) and hence it could be said that religion still helps survivability and is therefore good for society.
quote:
I said it made it possible for the warrior to cope with the guilt of his terrible duty by convincing him it was not only GOD'S idea, but God's direct ORDER, that he go and decimate his neighbor. He was inclined to decimate his neighbor on his own, he just didn't have the psychological know how to do it without a little self deception.
After all, if religion is bad and if it is a product of evolution and our genes then someone doesn't need religion to cope with the guilt of murder. He can simply justify murdering others with no guilt by blaming it on his genes. He can say that his genes demanded that he commit murder. Even if this isn't true, if evolution and genetic composition are responsible for the self deception that you describe, then there is no reason that evolution and genetic composition can't deceive someone into rationalizing that his genes caused him to commit murder. If it is the case that evolution invented religion because religion helps justify murder and murder helps survivability, then why not simply justify murder by saying that it helps us survive and hence evolution and our genes cause us to do it. There is no reason for evolution to prevent such rationalization as long as it helps survivability. In fact, if it does help survivability, then it would make sense for evolution to produce such rationalization. Then it would be the case that evolution causes us to murder.
If religion is a product of evolution and if religion is bad, then evolution caused all the atrocities that you claim religion is responsible for, for you claim that evolution caused religion. Therefore, evolution is at least just as bad and it can cause us to commit and justify atrocities as long as those atrocities help survivability. Then one can use the notion that evolution caused us to commit and justify atrocities in the past (ie: by creating religion) to justify their future actions, saying that evolution is compelling them to commit future atrocities. One could argue that, if evolution caused people to commit (and justify) atrocities in the past, then there is no reason that it can't do it again and use that to justify their atrocities.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/1/2008 2:00:55 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/1/2008 2:41:00 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 426
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Gluadys
Nothing you say negates what I said. Apparently there is nothing left to discuss between us.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/1/2008 8:02:51 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
How does this help humans survive?
First of all it wouldn't have to necessarily "help humans survive" to be caused by natural evolutionary processes. I said before that it is also true that evolution isn't restricted to producing traits that are purely beneficial to a species. Intelligence could turn out to be just another of nature's blunders.
What I'm arguing is that we can easily see how "intelligence" would be a possible outcome, however unlikely. Mothers and fathers of animals who deeply cherish and protect their young would be more likely to see their offspring through to maturity so their offspring can also reproduce. Traits for steadily increased protectiveness could be expected to be selected for in this way. Protectiveness would lead to viable offspring. With protectiveness we could expect an eventual trait of contemplation of loss on a deep level and then a turning inward of the ability to conceptualize. Feelings of pain and loss that we see in many animals are quite obvious precursors. Once self awareness happened, whether beneficial to the species or not, it sincerely makes perfect sense for that being to have significant trouble with its own psychology.
The power of the mind is something we have yet to zero in on even now. There's no reason to think ancient man didn't have nighmares, wet dreams, hallucinations, and all manner of confusing and terrifying episodes caused by his brain.
Intelligence is a problem for evolution by natural selection, especially once it is recognized by the intelligent being. If you're actually interested in learning about evolution instead of repeatedly declaring it to be poppycock, then please feel free to read everything I write, which will be basically paraphrased summaries of the work of the world's leading evolutionary biologists
You're missing the point repeatedly.
quote:
Assuming it does help humans survive, then it doesn't even make sense for evolution to evolve guilt in the first place. Why not just do away with guilt so that humans can survive by killing each other (which makes no sense, but it's what you seem to be saying).
You're applying your narrow perspective to the whole of human history. Widen your scope a bit.
quote:
If it doesn't help humans survive, then it doesn't explain why evolution would evolve religion to begin with.
Your comment here assumes there is a "why" to evolution and it shows you are only just beginning to develop your understanding of how evolution is thought to operate. That's ok, but while you're on your learning journey, there is no reason to show your emotional attachment to your faith by lashing out against someone for doubting it.
quote:
and of course, Jhud already pointed out other problems with your nonsense, so I don't need to recite them.
Did he? I must have missed it. What Jhud said was more of the same demonstration of an emotional attachment to a way of thinking and then lashing out against any perceived threat for the sake of maintaining the vitally important belief system, just as I have mentioned above.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 8/1/2008 9:32:22 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/1/2008 8:24:46 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Is there a, "refuse to accept God" gene? Perhaps there is an, "accept Christianity" gene as well.
Perhaps. I think there's a book called "The God Gene". I haven't read it but you might enjoy it.
quote:
Or maybe there is a religious gene that says, "accept some religion." Perhaps it's the case that theists have this gene and atheists don't. If this is the case, then it would seem that people with this gene tend to be more successful than people without it (since there are more theists than atheists in the world) and hence it could be said that religion still helps survivability and is therefore good for society.
So as long as we reduce my work down to a place where it proves religion is beneficial to society, you see no problem with continuing to embrace religion?
quote:
After all, if religion is bad and if it is a product of evolution and our genes then someone doesn't need religion to cope with the guilt of murder. He can simply justify murdering others with no guilt by blaming it on his genes. He can say that his genes demanded that he commit murder.
Sir, I have gone to great lengths to explain my novice opinion to you. If you insist on giving it little more than a child's attention then I will refrain from responding to you. My argument strictly requires that a man NOT KNOW what forces are acting on his behaviors. And I think you know this by now. If he simply stated "my genes made me do it" then he would be a modern man, with understanding of his tendencies in the human state of nature, but he would have no justification for acting the way he did.
I am talking about the ORIGINS of religion, as in very early stirrings of the soul that could almost only have been imagined to be from outside ourselves. When religions ORIGINATED, no one was able to blame anything on their GENES, because they didn't know they existed.
Once originated in the human mind, the existence of such gods was eventually affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, as Bertrand Russell put it. Religions have adapted quite well over the years. At present, hesitation to believe in the existences of these ancient human fabrications has become a mark of excentricity and brings distrust and hatred on the heads of those who dare doubt. This shows nothing if it doesn't show the deeply emotional attachment we humans have with our Gods. A belief founded in real truth can be held with NO CONCERN for what conflicts with it, for real truth can be modified with new information. The problem with human thought is that it assumes a thing was never true to begin with if it is possible to modify it based on new information. This is simply not correct. The religious would do well to incorporate new information into their lives each day.
By the time Christianity was born, these thought processes were firmly rooted in the human brain. The only reason several religions ever climbed to the top was because of growing population and the ability to spread information.
quote:
Even if this isn't true, if evolution and genetic composition are responsible for the self deception that you describe, then there is no reason that evolution and genetic composition can't deceive someone into rationalizing that his genes caused him to commit murder.
Wow, you really do view evolution as a threat to your belief system don't you? The reason evolution and genetic composition couldn't deceive someone into rationalizing that his genes caused him to commit murder is because early man had no earthly idea what genes, evolution or "rationalizing" even were.
quote:
If it is the case that evolution invented religion because religion helps justify murder and murder helps survivability, then why not simply justify murder by saying that it helps us survive and hence evolution and our genes cause us to do it.
Ok, you can blame it on evolution now if you want, but you can't expect the first intelligent beings on the planet to have known all about evolution like we do now.
quote:
There is no reason for evolution to prevent such rationalization as long as it helps survivability. In fact, if it does help survivability, then it would make sense for evolution to produce such rationalization. Then it would be the case that evolution causes us to murder.
Ok, again, this might apply to modern man, but the conversation was about why man would have ever lied to himself to begin with. key words there are "to begin with", as in, way back in history, before recorded history, when the first beings we would call humans were walking the earth.
quote:
If religion is a product of evolution and if religion is bad, then evolution caused all the atrocities that you claim religion is responsible for, for you claim that evolution caused religion.
I will happily accept that ultimately evolution is fully responsible for everything we have done. Will you?
quote:
Therefore, evolution is at least just as bad and it can cause us to commit and justify atrocities as long as those atrocities help survivability. Then one can use the notion that evolution caused us to commit and justify atrocities in the past (ie: by creating religion) to justify their future actions, saying that evolution is compelling them to commit future atrocities. One could argue that, if evolution caused people to commit (and justify) atrocities in the past, then there is no reason that it can't do it again and use that to justify their atrocities.
One could argue that, but they'd have to explain themselves in much greater detail than you have. The fact that mental constructs developed in a mind that didn't know about evolution doesn't justify pointing to evolution by name every time you want to kill someone. Using this defense requires that you not know about evolution or your own psychology. It would require you to have lived around 15,000 years ago.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 8/1/2008 9:46:24 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/1/2008 10:11:47 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1381
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1 | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
