[tar]

iNow,

I think I was thinking that. But I might have been trying to phrase it a little differently.

That is that our natural, inherited, mechanisms are very simple, basic animal type mechanisms, pleasure and pain, things to strive to maintain, and things to avoid. Find food, water and shelter, avoid being eaten, avoid danger, mate, have pups, protect them, mimick the elders and the successful, and teach your pups how to survive. And pass on the genes that made it work. Fish do it, trees do it(sans the mimicking and teaching), wolves do it. All forms of life have adapted to their surroundings in a way that allowed them to be successful(live) avoid failure (death) and survive to pass on their successful pattern, to the next generation.

The genes, the simple chemical mechanisms, in our brain, making us feel good when we see the form of the opposite sex and smell their pheremons, bad when we are separated from them. The sustainance and wamth of our mother, the protection from prey and intruders that would use our resources of our father. These are the neural mechanisms we have in common with other primates. They would dictate grouping into a family and perhaps an extended family troop. But no more. These basic simple mechanisms would have to be hijacked/used (by us) to form religions, empires, cultures and civilizations.

Each of us is aware we are alive, we have the neural mechanisms to recognize kin, to know mother and father, to feel pleasure and pain, to thereby distinquish between good and bad, strive to maintain and promote the good, and avoid and eliminate the bad. These mechanisms have to be hijacked/used (by us) to form the concept of all that is good (God) and all that is evil (devil.)

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

I see. The challenge, of course, is that those same principles apply to all groups, and not just religion... Therefore, it's not really helpful for this particular discussion. Please also bear in mind that this thread refers to religion in general, and hence any concepts regarding Abrahamic notions (like god and the devil being good and evil) are far too narrow and far too isolated to apply to the discussion at hand.

[tar]

iNow,

Well the Abrahamic religions are just an example of how Moses and Jesus and Mohammed utilized the mechanisms present in all their followers. Guided them. Told the story, everybody already knew, in a way that would make them all kindred minds, working together, sharing, looking out for each other, under the same rules, laws and common judge. In each religion, the principle is the same. Just the names change, the story and the characters change. But the principle is the same. Basic human/primate brain mechanisms, arranged to be rewarded by belief in a story.

Since "the Enlightenment" another story is being written. Sort of a concensus secular story, built on facts that everybody has access to. No special membership required. But still its basic human brain mechanisms, arranged to be rewarded by belief in a story.

I have learned a lot from this thread about the science, the facts, the mechanisms that have been hijacked to form religions, and the belief in dieties. They are applicable to all areas of human endeavor, they are applicable to all my personal thoughts and emotions. Its good to have the knowledge and the insights into my own mind, my own emotions, my own prejudice and hatred. It gives me insight into the beliefs and feelings and intentions of others. Truth is a good thing, and easily shared. It's pleasing to me to imagine it pleasing others.

I'm sorry I keep going tangential on you, it's sort of my way of saying "thanks for the insight" and trying to reciprocate.

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

tar said:

I'm sorry I keep going tangential on you, it's sort of my way of saying "thanks for the insight" and trying to reciprocate.

Right on. I can relate to that. While I might push hard to remain focused and on-topic, I'm most certainly glad that others share my fascination with this.

[tar]

iNow,

What aspect are you considering now? (to get us back on track)

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

TBH, I intend to let the thread go dormant for a little while... at least until a new article, video, or bit of information piques my interest (or, until some fresh readers comment with new questions or contributions).

[iNow]

This really short video does a fine job of addressing the core discussion this thread was intended to have. It serves as a nice recap of the primary concepts, without getting too bogged down in technical details. Enjoy.


kK90eVHsdDc

[iNow]

Interesting article in the NYTimes this weekend.



The Evolution of the God Gene

... During 15 years of excavation they have uncovered not some monumental temple but evidence of a critical transition in religious behavior. The record begins with a simple dancing floor, the arena for the communal religious dances held by hunter-gatherers in about 7,000 B.C. It moves to the ancestor-cult shrines that appeared after the beginning of corn-based agriculture around 1,500 B.C., and ends in A.D. 30 with the sophisticated, astronomically oriented temples of an early archaic state.

This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

<...>

A propensity to learn the religion of one’s community became so firmly implanted in the human neural circuitry, according to this new view, that religion was retained when hunter-gatherers, starting from 15,000 years ago, began to settle in fixed communities. In the larger, hierarchical societies made possible by settled living, rulers co-opted religion as their source of authority.

<...>

Religion was also harnessed to vital practical tasks such as agriculture, which in the first societies to practice it required quite unaccustomed forms of labor and organization. Many religions bear traces of the spring and autumn festivals that helped get crops planted and harvested at the right time. Passover once marked the beginning of the barley festival; Easter, linked to the date of Passover, is a spring festival. <more at the link>

[iNow]

czMU4-vNkiE

[iNow]

I heard this short (~15m) talk this morning and found it thread relevant. Enjoy.


http://www.abc.net.a...009/2764302.htm

Why is it that almost all societies in history have been religious? Why is it that even today, when, many people no longer believe in religion intellectually, they still have a desire to believe?
Nicholas Wade outlines his idea that religious belief confers an evolutionary advantage.

[tar]

iNow,

Listened to the Nicholas Wade interview.

Struck a lot of chords that I have been mulling over in the last several months.

Left the forum alone for a while, basically because of the view held by many here that religion is silly, untrue stuff, that gets in the way of human progress...

I think it is much, much more than that.

The interview with Dr. Wade (I assume he has a doctrate, he seems very learned) he points out the survival value of commonly held beliefs and rituals. This is not to be underrated, and non-believers, no matter what they think, have found commonly held beliefs and rituals to take the place of beliefs they know are scientifically unfounded.

No matter what, we are all faced with the same existential crisis. The resolutions to our existential questions, are usually not found by an individual. We look to others, for common understanding of our situation.

That we make stuff up, is, in my estimation, taken for granted. As long as we agree to act as if a certain thing is true, it becomes true, for us.

For instance, there is no physical border that runs from the great lakes to the Pacific, that separates Canada and the U.S.. Some fences some places, but not all. Birds ignore it, fish ignore it, ants and beavers have no way of knowing its there. Its humans that accept its reality. Canadians and U.S. citizens both.

Such it is with religion. The universe and reality are huge and longlived, beyond our comprehension. We can build a model, but none that do reality any kind of justice. And any god we construct can easily be disproved and outdone. Reality is just too immense to be contained in any one construct of human making.

So your and my vision of the God that can not be is not the God that people worship.

It is the "all of it" that people most likely are referring to. And the "all of it" is anything but dead. Anything but understandable, and anything but silly.

We as humans have the right to envision the purposes of our lives, anyway we agree on.

If Dawkins wishes to call the rituals and values that humans have developed unscientific, then perhaps he can suggest a replacement construct. I do believe there is some value however in that which we have, together, managed to construct.

I personally tend to a Humanistic viewpoint, but it has its limitations, and is somewhat brazen in its attitude. I do think that reality is somewhat more overpowering than an individual, or even a billion humans for a million years, can get the upper hand on.

We are of and in reality. It belongs to us, and us to it. I have no objections to somebody putting themselves in its hands. There is no way to do otherwise.

Regards, TAR

[ADEWAS]

To be honest,there are more unseen than d seeable.Modern religions had possed more problems to d world than xpected.Lets go back and form a quorum to withold d witheld from d modern religion leaders as they are the genesis to world problem

[tar]

Adewas,

You unfortunately cannot call a "do over".

We have to do from here.

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

tar said:

Listened to the Nicholas Wade interview.

Struck a lot of chords that I have been mulling over in the last several months.

Left the forum alone for a while, basically because of the view held by many here that religion is silly, untrue stuff, that gets in the way of human progress...

I think it is much, much more than that.

The interview with Dr. Wade (I assume he has a doctrate, he seems very learned) he points out the survival value of commonly held beliefs and rituals. This is not to be underrated, and non-believers, no matter what they think, have found commonly held beliefs and rituals to take the place of beliefs they know are scientifically unfounded.

Hi Tar,

It's nice to see you. I hope you and your family had a very happy and safe holiday season. As for the points above, the survival value offered by religion and common beliefs has been one of the central themes of this thread. In more ancient times, the common understandings and rituals brought by religion most certainly helped to assist in survival and led to greater cohesion of the pack. That cohesion was a strength when our packs and family units were relatively small.

However, in modern times, we really no longer need it, and these beliefs are (IMO) rather maladaptive and causing more harm than good. With the connectivity of information around the globe, our packs are no longer small little troops comprised of 10-12 individuals, but humanity as a whole. It is in modern times that these ancient practices are becoming harmful... Much like our predisposition for salt and fat... It helped us to survive in past environments, but is having detrimental effects in the present where the environment is vastly different.

Either way, the religion and belief in deities was also secondary to the traits actually being selected (such as listening to group elders, looking for mechanisms of cause, attachment to like minded individuals, etc.). That is also a core theme being addressed by this thread.

Now, the reason we "science types" tend to dismiss these beliefs is because there is not a lick of evidence in their favor. It's all based on little more than social custom, indoctrination, and faith. It is dismissed because it is unreasonable and irrational to hold such beliefs. Worse still, you would agree with me if we were talking about something like astrology, belief in Thor, or alien anal probe abductions, yet you expect an exception to be made for your particular set of beliefs. That's both illogical and inconsistent, and your beliefs really deserve no more respect or deference than do the beliefs of people who think the tooth fairy or unicorns are real. It's truly that simple. I mean no disrespect, only to put things in perspective for you and help you understand how people like myself tend to perceive the situation.

Please note very carefully though that the credibility and plausibility of the beliefs themselves is NOT the subject of this thread. The fact that I find people who hold these beliefs to be acting irrational and unreasonable is not what we are talking about here, and it is critical that you (and others) recall that fact.

This thread is about offering evolutionary explanations for why religion and beliefs in deities is so common among humans, and why such things have been so strongly selected. We can discuss that and do so without causing defensiveness in others. However, if you'd like to challenge my assertions above that these beliefs were helpful in our historical past, but maladaptive now, I ask that you please create a new thread to explore that alternate avenue. Thanks, and take care.

This post has been edited by iNow: 3 January 2010 - 03:53 PM

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow said:

Now, the reason we "science types" tend to dismiss these beliefs is because there is not a lick of evidence in their favor.

Now, am I or am I not mistaken that you would reject as evidence a claim to have personally seen or been spoken to by God, as evidence for God? Especially, for example, if there were no other witnesses?

Am I, or am I not mistaken, that you would base such rejection on the fact that it does not comply to your premises of a repeatable, objective fact? Would you not demand that the interaction with a claimed God be repeatable and objective before it would count as evidence? Nevertheless, the God in the Bible is invisible and only shows himself when he wishes to whom he wishes, ie, inconsistent with your premises. You are asking them to reject their premises, and accept yours, and from there prove the existence of their God, at risk of you accusing them of being delusional, irrational, etc.

Can I assume that you would not reject your premises that the universe is repeatable, consistent, and objective, accept the existence of a God, and from there prove whatever it is you wish to prove to them?

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to ask that people must accept and work from your premises in order to convince you of something, but when you berate them for failing, and meanwhile do not hold yourself to the same standard for convincing them, that is quite hypocritical and out of line.

[iNow]

Mr Skeptic said:

Now, am I or am I not mistaken that you would reject as evidence a claim to have personally seen or been spoken to by God, as evidence for God? Especially, for example, if there were no other witnesses?

Am I, or am I not mistaken, that you would base such rejection on the fact that it does not comply to your premises of a repeatable, objective fact? Would you not demand that the interaction with a claimed God be repeatable and objective before it would count as evidence? Nevertheless, the God in the Bible is invisible and only shows himself when he wishes to whom he wishes, ie, inconsistent with your premises. You are asking them to reject their premises, and accept yours, and from there prove the existence of their God, at risk of you accusing them of being delusional, irrational, etc.

Can I assume that you would not reject your premises that the universe is repeatable, consistent, and objective, accept the existence of a God, and from there prove whatever it is you wish to prove to them?

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to ask that people must accept and work from your premises in order to convince you of something, but when you berate them for failing, and meanwhile do not hold yourself to the same standard for convincing them, that is quite hypocritical and out of line.

How would their claim be different than someone who claimed there was an invisible dragon in their garage, or that leprechauns get erections when they see purple unicorns?

Since you seem content to be an ignorant fool, then the least you can do is watch this:


CLsanX4ZMxQ



I will also at this point remind you how none of this has any relevance whatsoever to the discussion taking place, and how you are obviously doing nothing other than expressing your personal distaste with me. If you have an on-topic point to make, then please make it, but stop with the nonsense.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
REQUEST TO STAFF:

Please split posts #155 forward into their own thread. Maybe with a title: "Mr.Skeptics criticisms of iNow" or whatever. This hijacking of the original thread topic really needs to stop, and the number of posts which have already been made during such a short period of time suggest to me that that won't happen anytime soon.

This post has been edited by iNow: 4 January 2010 - 01:52 AM
Reason for edit: Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow said:

How would their claim be different than someone who claimed there was a dragon in their garage, or that leprechauns get erections when they see purple unicorns?

Strawman. I never said it was different than that, but if you must know it would indeed be different if said people claimed these were repeatable and objective observations.

Shall I take your strawmanning as to mean that you concede that I am right? Or will you, as you asked me to and I complied, be specific?

Quote

I will also at this point remind you how none of this has any relevance whatsoever to the discussion taking place, and how you are obviously doing nothing other than expressing your personal distaste with me. If you have an on-topic point to make, then please make it, but stop with the nonsense.

Its relevance is twofold:
1) That you are asking for special privilege in discussions involving religion, namely that the religious reject their premises in favor of your premises but that you need not do likewise
2) Attitude is always important to discussions; civility is after all part of our rules. Especially so for unfounded attitudes.

Quote

REQUEST TO STAFF:

Please split posts #155 forward into their own thread. Maybe with a title: "Mr.Skeptics criticisms of iNow" or whatever. This hijacking of the original thread topic really needs to stop, and the number of posts which have already been made during such a short period of time suggest to me that that won't happen anytime soon.

Not a bad idea. Could you also move iNow's hypocritical and offensive posts there too, so they don't distract and detract from the original thread?

[iNow]

Mr Skeptic said:

Strawman. <...> Shall I take your strawmanning as to mean that you concede that I am right? Or will you, as you asked me to and I complied, be specific?

It was not a strawman. It was a question to you. HUGE difference, Mr.Skeptic.

Mr Skeptic said:

Its relevance is twofold:
1) That you are asking for special privilege in discussions involving religion, namely that the religious reject their premises in favor of your premises but that you need not do likewise
2) Attitude is always important to discussions; civility is after all part of our rules. Especially so for unfounded attitudes.

And despite that, you still have yet to quote anywhere in this thread which supports your claims, or shows me being uncivil.

I will ask you now for like the fourth time to use the quote feature and be specific where your problem resides.

Mr Skeptic said:

Not a bad idea. Could you also move iNow's hypocritical and offensive posts there too, so they don't distract and detract from the original thread?

You have yet to cite anything specific in this thread, so your rant serves only as further evidence that you do not wish to contribute to the topic, but instead wish to attack me.

I repeat my request to the staff to split posts #155 and forward into their own thread.

[Mr Skeptic]

I am not attacking you, just your actions and your attitude.

If someone agrees with iNow that post 161 does not provide an example as iNow requested in post 158, then I will clarify further.

[iNow]

Mr Skeptic said:

If someone agrees with iNow that post 161 does not provide an example as iNow requested in post 158, then I will clarify further.

There were zero examples in post number 161, just more of your unsupported assertions and vitriol.