Jump to content
Itoero

Religion as evolutionary trait

Recommended Posts

Several studies show religious thought strengthens social cohesion.http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/religious-cohes.htmlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958132/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5898/58

This imo means religion is an evolutionary trait. Strengthening of social cohesion is important for many animals like african wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, apes...It leads to evolutionary succes.

Our complex language enabled the origin of real religion, many other animals have religious thought/behavior  but lack our complex communicationsystem which prevents the origin of real religion.

What do you think of this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 2:09 PM, Itoero said:

Several studies show religious thought strengthens social cohesion.http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/religious-cohes.htmlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958132/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5898/58

This imo means religion is an evolutionary trait. Strengthening of social cohesion is important for many animals like african wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, apes...It leads to evolutionary succes.

Our complex language enabled the origin of real religion, many other animals have religious thought/behavior  but lack our complex communicationsystem which prevents the origin of real religion.

What do you think of this?

 

MATTHEW 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

1Samuel25:34-38 (Kind David stopped Animal Sacrifices, shortly before the First Temple was built around 1000 B.C. ........................ this is when the Camels were introduced into Isreal, around that time ............................ then ............................. Jesus rides a Donkey to indicate that he is the Payment for Sin ....................... (islam or paganism adopted the Goat, as a picture of their payment for sin, at some point)

***Religion has caused migration of certain species, for Cohesion with man, not a declaration of "religion", the species man usually chooses to displace don't have much in common with them, they don't naturally choose apes for mates and etc., as an example.

(Animal Sacrifices, Eunichs, Wives, Intercessions of the Church: Ceremonies, Feasts) (God stopped interference from a process of mending the human experience with all those kinds of mediums, so really it is the diversity of prayer, meditation, and disciplines that comes into view ....................... there has been an increase in violence and the taking of life, with certain countries, races, and individuals, and this has been on the increase, not the decrease)

 

Abrupt "Cohesion" Changes with Man and Species, possibly leading to evolution/adaptation changes, happens over short period of time (like 70 Years)

DANIEL 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

DANIEL 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

You have Abraham's Animal Sacrifice, David's Sacrifice of Nabal, Jesus's Sacrifice ................... all of these around 70 Years ................... today the population of the BEES are threatened with Extinction, we took them out of place, very similar to the Camels.

1. 70 Weeks Abomination is Ceased

2. "Middle of 1290 and 1335" ... "Middle of 70 Weeks" Abomination is Ceased

Fact Check

1947 Roswell + 70 Years to 9/23/2017 (God didn't do anything, no Abomination is Ceased)

1290 Days then 9/23/2017, then 1335 (Middle of Seven Years, God didn't do anything , no Abomination Ceased)

Lets Try Again

70 Weeks / 1290 and 1335 / 1260 (42 Years)

9/23/2017 for 70th Year // 1290-1335 = 450 Days to 12/21/2018 // Plus 42 Years to 2060 A.D.

God says his Stops the "Abomination with Sign of Divorce, "Joseph the Blessings'", before the 70 Weeks are Completed, but so far God has not done anything.........................this AGE OF EXTINCTION IS FOR HUMAN BEGINS.

 

This is what God is talking About

70 Weeks 1290 and 1335 / 1260 (42 Years)

70 Years for Daniel 9:2, 9/23 to 2060 A.D. (Issac Newton's Prophecy)

"One Week = 1290 and 1335 and 1260/42", God talks about the Middle of the Week he will Cause the Abomination to Cease, we can't do much with these figures, we can't says 77 Years, God doesn't do that, but we can say, the "1260/42" Month Period kicks in before the passage, of 1290 Days or 1335 Days, if God uses them to "Discern the Middle of the Week"......................... "One Week and Middle of the Week" is not a reference to 70 Years/Weeks ................................ if God acted on 9/23/2017 it would be on the 70th Year, not in the "One Week = 1290 and 1335, and 1260 (42) ........................... God has not acted for that reason, it was a violation of the law he written.

When will God Act for the "Middle of the Week"?

Nobody Know that Answer for Sure, because God doesn't give us a straight answer, it just has not happened yet!

Isaiah 17:6 // 2Cornithians 11-24-25 (Elijah's 450, 1290 - 1335)

1. 9/11/2001 Falling Man Moses to 12/21/2012 Galactic Alignment of Sun

2. 9/23/2017, 70th Year to 12/21/2018 Dark Rift Alignment of Sun

 

This is the Only True Argument for the "Middle of the Week (Extinction of Human Race)"

*If God uses "1290 and 1335" to discern the "Middle of the Week" outside of 70 Years, then God cannot allow 1260/42 Days/Years to pass before that happens or the law is violated.  So far God has not even completed the "1290 and 1335" Discernment of Daniel!  (Best Guess 9/23/2017 to 12/21/2018, end of 1290-1335 for 450 Days).

Edited by Third@rk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 1:09 PM, Itoero said:

 

This imo means religion is an evolutionary trait. Strengthening of social cohesion is important for many animals like african wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, apes...It leads to evolutionary succes.

 

Wouldn't this also make drinking beer in a pub with your mates an evolutionary trait?

 

Quote

Our complex language enabled the origin of real religion, many other animals have religious thought/behavior...  

Citation?

Edited by zapatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Third@rk said:

This is what God is talking About

!

Moderator Note

This is a science discussion forum. Preaching is against our rules. Knock it off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Wouldn't this also make drinking beer in a pub with your mates an evolutionary trait?

 

Citation?

DANIEL 5:29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and [put] a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

DANIEL 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

DANIEL 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, [being] about threescore and two years old.

...............................

REVELATION 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty [and] two months.

...............................

Issac Newton's Prophecy is for 42 years to 2060 A.D. ending the path of Halley's Comet/Age of Extinction ........................ King David marked the Star of Bethlehem when he killed Nabal and stopped Animal Sacrifices before the First Temple was Built, we have no record of the Star of Bethlehem, it finished its course..............................1260/42 of Revelation is what King David intended in disputing his Reign of Jerusalem with, Ishbosheth, we see the figure of 42 for this reason. 

 

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

This is a science discussion forum. Preaching is against our rules. Knock it off.

 

(Topic: Religion as Evolutionary Trait ........................... Migration of Animals documented in the Bible and Reported in the Archaeology Record) (see "Camels") ("That is what God is Talking About" ................... "see bible quotation" ........................ No Preaching is taking place) (Big Thanks!) (Hip Hop Culture rather, development of Middle Eastern Culture, but Clearly that has changed with the Camel, they developed a trait that lead to global terrorism, is one conclusion)

Star Wormwood, like, Star Bethlehem, marks the end of Animal Sacrifices, for Religion, that changes the record of Man's Social Indecency with Animals or with Man, the problem occurs with the figures for this transition to take place:

One Solution: The Figures are Concurrent ... 1260/1290 Days then 9/23/2017 then 1335 Days to 5/21/2021 then 153 Days, in this case Star Wormwood doesn't exceed 153 Days and the Language is Completed (man is dead at 153 Days).

Two Solution: The Figures are not Concurrent but Turncoated ... if they are not Concurrent we cannot substitute the order, that is 1260 Days cannot come before 1290 and 1335, that means 1260 Days cannot past before 1290 and 1335 ....................... this is important because ....................... God doesn't use the figure of 77 Years, if we say "1290 and 1335" come after 70 Years Daniel 9:2, the law is violated.  God says 70 Weeks for 70 Years, not 77 Years. 

 

Everything will be resolved on 12/21/2018, an the figures can only be Concurrent. (1260 cannot come first, and a full 7 years cannot past beyond the 70 year, that means only a logical period concluding "1290 - 1335 = 450 Days" or the conclusion is invalid.

Edited by Third@rk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Third@rk said:

(Topic: Religion as Evolutionary Trait ........................... Migration of Animals documented in the Bible and Reported in the Archaeology Record) (see "Camels") ("That is what God is Talking About" ................... "see bible quotation" ........................ No Preaching is taking place) (Big Thanks!)

Star Wormwood, like, Star Bethlehem, marks the end of Animal Sacrifices, for Religion, that changes the record of Man's Social Indecency with Animals or with Man, the problem occurs with the figures for this transition to take place:

One Solution: The Figures are Concurrent ... 1260/1290 Days then 9/23/2017 then 1335 Days to 5/21/2021 then 153 Days, in this case Star Wormwood doesn't exceed 153 Days and the Language is Completed.

 

EDITING

 

The bible is no more then an obscure  mythical book, written by obscure men in an obscure age. It is not a book of science or the scientific method. Religion was simply an invention by ancient man to explain the universe around him, in the absence of science...nothing more, nothing less. Yes and as you have already been told, stop your damn preaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, beecee said:

The bible is no more then an obscure  mythical book, written by obscure men in an obscure age. It is not a book of science or the scientific method. Religion was simply an invention by ancient man to explain the universe around him, in the absence of science...nothing more, nothing less. Yes and as you have already been told, stop your damn preaching.

(No, thats not it, let me Rephrase the Position, make things Clear)

The First Temple Built in Jerusalem, this marked the migration of the Jews, and this caused culture shock..................at the same time this absence of the "Religious Connection" between the Jews and Arabian, promoted the Camel's Kinship in that Region..................in this sense the Arabian people inherited the Camel Traits by the process of religion and then evolved to be more that way, just as Topic Implies, or in that direction, I mean more nomadic less able to association with people over time, less tolerant of people: 9/11/2001.

...........

...........

The Camel Constellation (Lost to History) (153 Days Star Wormwood?)

desired-coma.jpg

We can, because we can compare the work of Ptolemy in AD150 – on whose work our modern system is based – with the earlier Persian description, preserved and described by Albumazar (Abu Masher), an Arab astronomer of about AD 850. It turns out that they agree on 45 constellations, but disagree on 3, of which one is entirely missing.

...................

A timeline on the same site also details further interesting triple conjunctions between Jupiter and Saturn:

in Aquarius in 1953 BC, announcing the birth of Abraham. This year is also the start of the Chinese calendar, following an alignment of all the planets on March 3rd 1953BC which Chinese astronomers record as having taken place near the square of Pegasus (the second decan in Aquarius. Rolleston references Zech 6:7 and Rev 19:11).

in Taurus in 1533BC, announcing the birth of Moses

scalambra.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/the-lost-constellation/

 

The Trait Evolution by Religion, traversing Animals, we can summarize that as Noah's Ark ................. that is Summarized as 153 Days in Revelation ................... not isolated to religion ................... it is a figure of observance, tied to Abraham's Sacrifice, possibly David's Sacrifice, and clearly, the Jesus's Sacrifice.  Its no wonder we see this figure connection to "153 Extinction of Humans".  We see this Tied to Camels ................... and the First Temple in Jerusalem, that was a placeholder for the coming of the messiah ..................... If we say 1260/42 is for Gentiles, as a separate period and not "Concurrent", then we've violated the law, since God tramples the temple for 153 Days (like the Lost Constellation) ........................... therefore we can only say 1260/1290 then 9/23/2017, then 1335 Days to 153 Days (Humanity is Dead).

(1290 - 1335 = 450 Days from 9/23/2017 to 12/21/2018 "45 constellations, but disagree on 3", is a conclusion that is not concurrent, but it cannot be valid for long, without modifying the value we are presented....................its a less valid conclusion, and everything will be resolved this year, very soon)

(A Dispute in the Evolutionary Age, for the Trait Deviations Observed, as recorded in the bible, and voiced, externally)

(Think of this as a Cataclysm, a major disaster shortly before humanity dies, if we are correct then, God will not Darken the Sun or anything like that, there will just be a bunch of people dead, very soon)

Edited by Third@rk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Third@rk said:

(No, thats not it, let me Rephrase the Position, make things Clear)

No amount of rephrasing of non scientific bullshit, will make it any more valid...neither will highlighting or repeating nonsense.

Quote

(Think of this as a Cataclysm, a major disaster shortly before humanity dies, if we are correct then, God will not Darken the Sun or anything like that, there will just be a bunch of people dead, very soon)

God is an unscientific concept at best and a myth at worst. Yes, you, I, the Earth, Sun, and the whole Universe does have a "use by date" 

 

The rest of your tenuous coincidental claims, are just a mixture of coincidence,  and mythical unevidenced bullshit.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, zapatos said:

Wouldn't this also make drinking beer in a pub with your mates an evolutionary trait?

Maybe but religion is imo an evolutionary trait because religious thought/behavior is present in other animals, also the African apes we evolved from.

 

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

Citation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/chimpanzee-spirituality/475731/

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/morality_animals

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 11:27 PM, beecee said:

No amount of rephrasing of non scientific bullshit, will make it any more valid...neither will highlighting or repeating nonsense.

God is an unscientific concept at best and a myth at worst. Yes, you, I, the Earth, Sun, and the whole Universe does have a "use by date" 

 

The rest of your tenuous coincidental claims, are just a mixture of coincidence,  and mythical unevidenced bullshit.

(Religion has influenced "Evolution or Migration of Certain Species" .......................... "Religion is an Evolutionary Trait" if your not in a Third World Country! .................. Many people don't view "Islam/Muslim" as a religion, it does not teach "cohesion, belief in a deity like God, nor does it teach that human life is valuable" ......................... Terrorism becomes significant, as Long as "Religion is Present", because it is not t he "Natural State of Man, not a Trait of Evolution", but it can influence "evolution/migration" (that is, non-third world countries)

This is a Good Example:

1. "Religion = Belief in a Deity like God", comes to Jerusalem when the First Temple is Built, and then the Camel is brought into Jerusalem/Arabia as a kind of "Proof of Purpose" (we don't care about you)

2. "Global Economy increases the Standard of Living in Arabia", then 9/11/2001 the Twin Towers as a picture of the Camel is destroyed (Religion has the effect of increasing the Standard of Living, "Islam does not")

3. "Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus" in the United States is Shut Down!  Not only this but the USA has cut the number of Elephants/Camels in its Zoos among other Animals!!!!!!

 

(Its like "Religion, influences man's Propensity to identify with Evolution" ........................... "Since we don't have Religion as an Evolution Trait, we are from time to time force to come to terms with this indifference, as a result of inconsistencies in our belief systems and culture!)

(YOU said "BullS*", that means you understand this discussion? Remember the United States during its war with the Native Americans also wanted the American Bull, killed, they wanted the Bison or something extinct!!!!!! ................... that is exactly the difference in these consistencies, and man's turning to evolution as the answer, is what we are discussing!) (it was not a war in America at that time, more than, it was a Religious conflict!  This is the unifier!)

Edited by Third@rk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Third@rk said:

(Religion has influenced "Evolution or Migration of Certain Species" .......................... "Religion is an Evolutionary Trait" if your not in a Third World Country! .................. Many people don't view "Islam/Muslim" as a religion, it does not teach "cohesion, belief in a deity like God, nor does it teach that human life is valuable" ......................... Terrorism becomes significant, as Long as "Religion is Present", because it is not t he "Natural State of Man, not a Trait of Evolution", but it can influence "evolution/migration" (that is, non-third world countries)

This is a Good Example:

1. "Religion = Belief in a Deity like God", comes to Jerusalem when the First Temple is Built, and then the Camel is brought into Jerusalem/Arabia as a kind of "Proof of Purpose" (we don't care about you)

2. "Global Economy increases the Standard of Living in Arabia", then 9/11/2001 the Twin Towers as a picture of the Camel is destroyed (Religion has the effect of increasing the Standard of Living, "Islam does not")

3. "Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus" in the United States is Shut Down!  Not only this but the USA has cut the number of Elephants/Camels in its Zoos among other Animals!!!!!!

 

(Its like "Religion, influences man's Propensity to identify with Evolution" ........................... "Since we don't have Religion as an Evolution Trait, we are from time to time force to come to terms with this indifference, as a result of inconsistencies in our belief systems and culture!)

(YOU said "BullS*", that means you understand this discussion? Remember the United States during its war with the Native Americans also wanted the American Bull, killed, they wanted the Bison or something extinct!!!!!! ................... that is exactly the difference in these consistencies, and man's turning to evolution as the answer, is what we are discussing!) (it was not a war in America at that time, more than, it was a Religious conflict!  This is the unifier!)

Yes I said bullshit, but I'll recall that description in favour of the more descriptive fanatical unsupported nonsense, which obviously you have proceeded with more of the same. The myth of religion and the many deities it supports had its roots with ancient man, who was devoid in general of science, scientific knowledge, and the scientific method. He needed something to explain the universe/space/time around him. Religious myths  was his first attempt. Then eventually science came along, and man learnt to explain the universe around him through more thorough observations and discoveries. We all, you, me and everyone else need to appreciate the general advance of mankind is primarily due to science and the scientific method and if it wasn't for science, you and I would probably still be swinging in the trees. 

Please note carefully, that the scientific method is applied everyday by all of us in the most mundane means, and governs our reasonings and decisions...nothing new there in actual fact, and certainly something all religions should take heed of to enable those proponents to see the light. 

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Beecee

You tell us in your second post: "God is an unscientific concept at best and a myth at worst."

Isaac Newton, in his Principia, had the following to say on the matter:

"This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of natural philosophy".   [read "natural philosophy" as "science"]

If Isaac Newton doesn't do it for you -- and there were many others who said similar things -- Richard Dawkins, a scientist (we presume) of a more recent age, is also on record, make of it as you will, as stating he considers the existence of God to be a scientific hypothesis. It would appear not everyone agrees with your opinion on God being an unscientific concept.

One must be wary when advancing blanket statements about science; these guys are an eclectic bunch, eh? Scientists say all kinds of things about science, and not infrequently, mutually contradictory things.

 

Later, in your third post, you tell us:

"The myth of religion and the many deities it supports had its roots with ancient man, who was devoid in general of science, scientific knowledge, and the scientific method", and ...

"Please note carefully, that the scientific method is applied everyday by all of us in the most mundane means ...", and

"... the general advance of mankind is primarily due to science and the scientific method ..."

 

I could quote Nobel Prize-winning scientists, and countless other thinkers who have researched the matter, (just ask), who echo my own view that "The Scientific Method", as traditionally construed, does not exist; it's pure fairy tale.

It would appear Third@rk is not the only one here guilty of propagating mythology.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes I said bullshit, but I'll recall that description in favour of the more descriptive fanatical unsupported nonsense, which obviously you have proceeded with more of the same. The myth of religion and the many deities it supports had its roots with ancient man, who was devoid in general of science, scientific knowledge, and the scientific method. He needed something to explain the universe/space/time around him. Religious myths  was his first attempt. Then eventually science came along, and man learnt to explain the universe around him through more thorough observations and discoveries. We all, you, me and everyone else need to appreciate the general advance of mankind is primarily due to science and the scientific method and if it wasn't for science, you and I would probably still be swinging in the trees. 

Please note carefully, that the scientific method is applied everyday by all of us in the most mundane means, and governs our reasonings and decisions...nothing new there in actual fact, and certainly something all religions should take heed of to enable those proponents to see the light. 

 

(The 9th Planet, people want to find ................... it has many names, the 10th Planet, Nibiru, Nemesis, MABUS .................... it was reported seen in Capricorn 2000 or so years ago the Goat, probably even earlier then that.  So at least two times .................. Abraham made a sacrifice of a few animals, then Jesus was sacrificed, after riding a donkey/goat .................... I believe those are the two relative times ...................... Lets says for example this mystery body scientists have recently tried several times to discover was real, just not any more)

(Now we can parallel that account to our understanding of the "Camel's History into Jerusalem" ......................... what if, the "Camel marked the destruction of Jerusalem", as the process that reveals the Ninth Planet, an answers the mystery that scientists now seek to answer...................wouldn't this prove that "Religion is not the product solely of Myths and Legends"..........................I think it would, furthermore, I would even go on to say that it proves there is a god, more then we already have proofs for today)

Edited by Third@rk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add a little more...

 

"Please note carefully, that the scientific method is applied everyday by all of us in the most mundane means ..." -- Beecee

 

Except for the use of the term "The Scientific Method", I'd wholeheartedly agree with this statement. To my knowledge, there are no modes of inference or reasoning that are the sole property of scientists. In other words, we all do it! Doctors, lawyers, plumbers, car mechanics, maybe even dogs and cats.

 

Now, if I'm right in this, why call it "The Scientific Method" and claim that others deploy it too? Why not call it "The Plumbers' Method" and claim that scientists apply it too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Third@rk said:

(The 9th Planet, people want to find ...................

The ninth planet, if it exists, is a scientific concept and hypothesis to explain anomalous movements of objects in the outer solar system. It has nothing at all to do with any possible coincidental and loosely described possible sighting 200 years ago.

 

Quote

Abraham made a sacrifice of a few animals, then Jesus was sacrificed, after riding a donkey/goat .................... I believe those are the two relative times  what if, the "Camel marked the destruction of Jerusalem", as the process that reveals the Ninth Planet, an answers the mystery that scientists now seek to answer.

There is absolutely no evidence to support whatever it is you are trying to interpret, particularly nonsensical jargon from an obscure book, written by obscure men, in an equally obscure age.

Quote

wouldn't this prove that "Religion is not the product solely of Myths and Legends"..........................I think it would, furthermore, I would even go on to say that it proves there is a god, more then we already have proofs for today)

Only to some brain washed religious fanatic who continues posting nonsense, even for the religious forum.

Also scientific theories are not proven and are always to their credit open for modification, addition and change, in line with new data and observation, although they do grow in certainty over time and continuing success and making predictions. eg: SR, GR the theeeeory of evolution, the latter being as certain as any scientific theory could be....a. Secondly as I already mention god, your god or any other magical spaghetti monster is an unscientific concept, borne out of ignorance and is superfluous to cosmology and our knowledge of the universe today, at least as far back as t+10-43 seconds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Third@rk said:

(Now we can parallel that account to our understanding of the "Camel's History into Jerusalem" ......................... what if, the "Camel marked the destruction of Jerusalem", as the process that reveals the Ninth Planet, an answers the mystery that scientists now seek to answer...................wouldn't this prove that "Religion is not the product solely of Myths and Legends"..........................I think it would, furthermore, I would even go on to say that it proves there is a god, more then we already have proofs for today)

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that the discussion is about religion as an evolutionary trait. It is not about any particular religion, nor about whether any particular god is real.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, if I'm right in this, why call it "The Scientific Method" and claim that others deploy it too? Why not call it "The Plumbers' Method" and claim that scientists apply it too?

The way I see it the scientific method could be also described as following the logic as dictated by observation, knowledge and learning. eg: We learn many things through life, through the gaining of experience and our senses....I see it as unconsciously following the scientific method.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Beecee

You tell us in your second post: "God is an unscientific concept at best and a myth at worst."

Isaac Newton, in his Principia, had the following to say on the matter:

"This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of natural philosophy".   [read "natural philosophy" as "science"]

If Isaac Newton doesn't do it for you -- and there were many others who said similar things -- Richard Dawkins, a scientist (we presume) of a more recent age, is also on record, make of it as you will, as stating he considers the existence of God to be a scientific hypothesis. It would appear not everyone agrees with your opinion on God being an unscientific concept.

Newton was a great scientist who was also religious....as was obviously the Father of the BB. To their credit they did science and obviously put the universe arising out of nothing behind the myth of a divine creator. I don't believe that view is generally held.As one of the greatest educators of our time said....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

The point I stand by is that supernatural and paranormal concepts are not scientific concepts.

I'm sure Richard Dawkins would agree with that assessment as would Hawking and Laurence Krauss just to name a couple.

I see religion, deities and the supernatural in general as ancient man's efforts to describe the universe around him...simple as that. Then science and the scientific method ousted the ignorance and more realistic explanations were then forthcoming....and still are.

Can that be describes as an evolutionary trait?

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, beecee said:

The way I see it the scientific method could be also described as following the logic as dictated by observation, knowledge and learning. eg: We learn many things through life, through the gaining of experience and our senses....I see it as unconsciously following the scientific method.

 

Well, it's not impossible that there does exist such a thing as "The Scientific Method" that scientists in all times, disciplines, and places -- and only scientists -- follow unconsciously, as you suggest, based on tacit knowledge, perhaps, that even scientists themselves are unable to articulate. This would be not unlike Chomsky's characterization of linguistic grammar: we can all speak English (say), but few of us can articulate the grammatical rules that apparently underlie and govern our discourse.

 

I'd still say it's a hard position to defend; one I certainly wouldn't want to have to defend myself, in light of extensive historical studies that have been conducted in an attempt to identify a putative unique method of science, whether explicit or implicit.

 

Here's something I wrote a while back, for your consideration. (Hope this isn't off topic. If it is, perhaps the mods can move us somewhere else). Happy to hear any thoughts/criticisms you might have.

 

 

The scientific method (hereafter TSM) has been traditionally defined as a single, timeless, invariant set of rules governing empirical inquiry, at least since the time of the so-called Scientific Revolution of around 400 years ago. If real, TSM would be precious indeed: it would serve to unify all the prima facie disconnected scientific disciplines (after all, it's far from obvious that anything links the activities of subatomic physicists with economists, say), it would act as the demarcation criterion to distinguish bona fide science from pseudoscience or non-science in general, and it could be appealed to in order to explain the undeniable success of the scientific enterprise.

My own view is that TSM, as characterized above, does not exist.

Whenever I express this view in internet chatrooms or elsewhere, the reaction from more scientifically oriented participants tends to be hostile, sometimes to an almost hysterical degree. One gets the impression these partisan footsoldiers, who by and large are not well read on the issue, feel they are confronted with a religious crackpot, Kentucky hillbilly, or else the victim of some other unidentified pathology. Then all hell breaks loose.

My purpose here, then, will be to articulate the reasons why a growing number of people like myself deny the existence of the scientific method as traditionally understood.

 

(1) First, we need to be clear about what is, and what is not, being claimed. My claim is not that science is entirely unmethodical; that scientists do not employ various methods of one kind or another. The claim, rather, is that there is no single overarching method of science; there is no unique method employed by all genuine scientists in all times, all places, and all disciplines. Of course chemists use litmus paper to detect the presence of acid, while geologists use dating techniques to determine the age of rocks, say. That said, surely no one would venture the opinion that carbon dating (for example) just is the scientific method. 

 

(2) Before setting out, we must pay careful attention to our application of the concept "method". We must agree that the concept properly applies to certain processes, quintessentially a cookbook recipe for instance (just follow the steps and voila!), and must be withheld from others which depend more on luck or creativity than rigid adherence to a set of rules; a lottery scoop or the writing of a novel, say. If the overzealous defender of science insists on applying the concept "method" no matter what, then the whole notion of a substantive "scientific method" is trivialized and we might as well stop right now and head down the pub instead for a few bevvies.

 

(3) The reason why belief in TSM is so widespread, and unquestioningly accepted, by the populace at large I suggest is not due to any in-depth investigation conducted into the matter by John Q, but rather simply because the idea is inculcated ad nauseum on Discovery Channel showcases, introductory science textbooks, and by high school science teachers. TSM, until quite recently at least, has just been one of these background assumptions most of us simply take for granted. We've been told it is so by the right kind of people, therefore it must be so.

At this point I'd suggest, unpalatable though it may seem at first blush, that for an understanding of TSM, probably the last people you'd want to consult -- with a few exceptions -- are scientists themselves. The issue of scientific methodology is what we might call a metascientific question; that is to say, a question about science as opposed to a question amenable to the techniques of science itself. I suspect this may be a hard pill for some to swallow, so let me recruit a little assistance from a man whose opinion you might be more willing to lend credence to than my own:

"If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds." - Albert Einstein 

Scientists, by and large, get on with doing science: metascientific issues lie outwith their own areas of expertise. There are people, however, who devote careers to studying what it is that scientists do, including the methods they employ; these people are philosophers and historians of science, and it is to them we must turn.

 

(4) Lack of consensus: Ask ten people about TSM and they'll probably all swear to its reality; it's unlikely that any two of them will agree on what it is though, if indeed they are able to provide a specification at all.

Outstanding thinkers who have written on TSM include Descartes for whom deduction is the essence of scientific reasoning; Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Stuart Mill who advocate induction; William Whewell is widely credited with introducing hypothetico-deductivism as the putative method of science (note here that any talk of speculative hypotheses was anathema to inductivists such as Newton). 

Moving into the 20th century, Karl Popper famously espoused falsificationism as the method of science. Later, subsequent upon the so-called "historical turn" in the philosophy of science, scholars began to take a close look at what real world scientists actually do -- as opposed to the ivory tower logical idealizations of previous generations -- and in many cases came to a rather stark conclusion: there is no unique method of science. Thomas Kuhn speaks of science in terms of a series of paradigm shifts; Paul Feyerabend, somewhat scandalously, concluded from his studies of historical episodes that the only inviolable methodological precept to be found is "anything goes"!

Now, lack of consensus does not necessarily imply that TSM is chimerical; it may simply be that we have not yet been able to pinpoint it. I would suggest, though, that at the very least, it ought to give pause to even the most implacable apologists of TSM.

 

(5) The porridge test: Specifications of The Scientific Method invariably turn out to be either too hot or too cold. 

If the criteria specified are overly restrictive -- that experimentation, say, be a necessary component -- then it turns out that much of what we intuitively regard as good science ends up being excluded. Many scientists (Copernicus, Darwin, etc), and many areas of science (paleontology, astrophysics, etc) conduct few or no experiments; gardeners meanwhile do lots!

On the other hand, overly permissive criteria -- formulate and test hypotheses, say -- leads to the unpalatable conclusion that pretty much the whole world is doing science. Who among us has never formed and tested a hypothesis? Ever misplaced your car keys? 

 

(6) A final thought for the time being, before I bore the pants off everyone. Given that "hypotheses" always seem to get a mention when the issue of TSM is broached, is the formation of a hypothesis the kind of thing you'd regard as methodical? Is there a step-by-step algorithm for constructing hypotheses? Is this not what would be more aptly described as a creative process? And surely the concepts of creativity and method are diametrically opposed to one another: the more of one, the less of the other.

August Kekulé famously claimed that the ring-structure of the benzene molecule came to him in a dream of a snake eating its own tail -- hardly what might be called a methodical discovery!

My denial of TSM is almost invariably met with a reaction of outrage. It does seem to me, however, if there is any impertinence at all, it arises from those who would have us believe that our finest scientific minds are little more than unthinking automata slavishly adhering to the steps of an inflexible pizza recipe. Genuises need not apply; any fool can do it!

Well, if geniuses need not apply, why do we need the likes of Newton and Einstein?

Comments, criticisms, corrections are all welcome. Thanks!

I leave you with the thoughts of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who have looked into the philosophical and methodological issues in science:

 

"Scientific method is something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it....

What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists."

Percy W. Bridgman -- "On Scientific Method"


"I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work." -- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien")

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

The point I stand by is that supernatural and paranormal concepts are not scientific concepts.

I'm sure Richard Dawkins would agree with that assessment as would Hawking and Laurence Krauss just to name a couple.

 

 

 

I'm quite sure almost all contemporary scientists would agree with you that God -- or supernatural causation in general -- has no place in science today.

 

Richards Dawkins, however, is clearly an exception -- a very prominent exception at that. You'll find him in various places asserting that he regards God as a scientific hypothesis. I paraphrase: "A universe with God would look very different from a universe without God".

 

(To be sure, Dawkins regards the God hypothesis as wildly false, but scientific nonetheless, if his own words can be taken at face value)

 

As I said, these scientists are an eclectic bunch. And who would have ever thought otherwise?

 

I often say, perhaps the only blanket statement that can -- safely! -- be made about science is, no blanket statements can be made about science.

Edited by Reg Prescott
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

Well, it's not impossible that there does exist such a thing as "The Scientific Method" that scientists in all times, disciplines, and places -- and only scientists -- follow unconsciously, as you suggest, based on tacit knowledge, perhaps, that even scientists themselves are unable to articulate. This would be not unlike Chomsky's characterization of linguistic grammar: we can all speak English (say), but few of us can articulate the grammatical rules that apparently underlie and govern our discourse.

Yeah probably off topic so start another thread if you wish, but as a non scientist and once a good Catholic boy, I'll say that while there are many ways of going about it, the prime requisite is observation, more repeated observation, experiment, repeated experiment and confirmation  and then theory stage. It has taken us a long way so far.

Quote

 A final thought for the time being, before I bore the pants off everyone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beecee said:

I see religion, deities and the supernatural in general as ancient man's efforts to describe the universe around him...simple as that. Then science and the scientific method ousted the ignorance and more realistic explanations were then forthcoming....and still are.

People that live in a state religion or cult might think differently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Itoero said:

People that live in a state religion or cult might think differently.

 

That would be because they have been brainwashed or taught to think in terms of their faith being reality and reality being a lie to trick you into hell. They are scared to let go of their faith for fear of being punished (hell) or of the peer pressure they will get for declaring their new found atheism. Don't live your life in fear - the truth will set you free.

I guess some just believe it blindly accepting it as fact without even wanting to look at evidences against their faiths. It seems so obviously wrong once you drop it and step outside of it. It's a little embarrassing that humans can be so deluded - but when you study it it is just how we developed - we did not know any better in the past and we (people of the world) are going through an age of enlightenment...  well - that happened some time ago - it is just taking many of us (like me) time to catch up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DrP said:

That would be because they have been brainwashed or taught to think in terms of their faith being reality and reality being a lie to trick you into hell. They are scared to let go of their faith for fear of being punished (hell) or of the peer pressure they will get for declaring their new found atheism. Don't live your life in fear - the truth will set you free.

I guess some just believe it blindly accepting it as fact without even wanting to look at evidences against their faiths. It seems so obviously wrong once you drop it and step outside of it. It's a little embarrassing that humans can be so deluded - but when you study it it is just how we developed - we did not know any better in the past and we (people of the world) are going through an age of enlightenment...  well - that happened some time ago - it is just taking many of us (like me) time to catch up.

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread began with the suggestion that religion may be an evolutionary trait, conferring upon the bearers the advantage of social cohesion; an important feature enjoyed also, we're told, by many animals -- besides religious dolts -- such as African wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, and apes.

The implication appears to be: "Gotta feel sorry for these religious dummies, eh? But, hey, it's not their fault: they got bad genes".

The first thought that came to my mind was: If it is indeed the case that religion is an advantageous evolutionary trait, why did it not spread through the entire human population as natural selection theory would lead us to expect? How come Itoero and Beecee, just to name two, seem to have been spared the rigors of biological determinism that afflicts only the poor unenlightened? 

Good luck?

 

More recently in the thread it has been suggested by DrP, mirroring Beecee's earlier insight, that, "they [i.e., people that live in a state religion or cult ] have been brainwashed".

Now I'm left to puzzle over why brainwashing would be necessary if "they" were already genetically determined to succumb to religious silliness...

Just to be doubly sure?
 

Edited by Reg Prescott
added three words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

More recently in the thread it has been suggested by DrP that, "they [i.e., people that live in a state religion or cult ] have been brainwashed".

Now I'm left to puzzle over why brainwashing would be necessary if "they" were already genetically determined to succumb to religious silliness...

Just to be doubly sure?
 

Good point - it seems we evolved to be this way you stated and has been discussed in the thread. You aren't denying that people are easily duped though are you?

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

:unsure:

I am sorry you disapprove - I know your opinion that religion still has a place in the world - it clearly has   - but why the lies?  Can't we have peace, love, respect etc...  without having to believe a load of made up bullshit and threats of eternal suffering that there is no evidence for?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.