[Saetre]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We apparently disagree.

I wrote up another point-by-point reply, but have decided not to post it. Let's get back to the basics. Your assertion seems to be that god instilled in us an "innate reverence for our creator". For me to respond to this hypothesis without resorting to strawman tactics, I will need to know exactly how you propose this is/was done. Do you think he used/uses genetic engineering, mind control, creationism, divine revelation or something else I haven't thought of? I have additional questions, but I will save these until I get a reply.

I've saved the previous response, but won't post it now because it seems we were talking past each other.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I wrote up another point-by-point reply, but have decided not to post it. Let's get back to the basics.

okay.

Your assertion seems to be that god instilled in us an "innate reverence for our creator". For me to respond to this hypothesis without resorting to strawman tactics, I will need to know exactly how you propose this is/was done. Do you think he used/uses genetic engineering, mind control, creationism, divine revelation or something else I haven't thought of? I have additional questions, but I will save these until I get a reply.

Naturally, there will be some relative difficulty in discussing something along the lines of logic, thought, conscience, and reason using evidence. Faith in and of itself seems almost a subset of logic, but in an interesting way. These are all concepts in which empirical science faces great challenges. It is difficult to quantify faith in an empirical sense because faith is not contingent upon evidence. Nothing is impossible however and I suspect you will need the most up-to-date, plausible naturalistic mechanism for these higher functions.

- Naturally, our brain would be the first place to start. Many scientists suppose that with the development of our frontal, temporal lobe and particularly the neocortex came memory, association, reason, and logic. This in combination with fear and need for survival, would encourage imagination, creativity, and cooperation. These attributes would allow sweeping advancement in conscience. Beyond simply remaining upright, feeling hunger and foraging for food, or grabbing that sweetie with the nice hips; we could see someone get hurt for example and wonder if that will happen to us. We may even begin picturing ways in which that could happen to us or ways to avoid those risks. We're asking questions about ourselves and trying to formulate conclusions based on our experience of recalling environmental circumstance. This recollection requires application. Some have even suggested that this inquiry led to societal bonding under faith for survival and due to its success-became selected for which is to account for its overwhelming majority. (it should be noted that many scientists argue against this hypothesis because the "faith" anomaly is too recent to have made a difference in this regard.)

Recent discovery indicates that regions of the brain are less "specialized" than we once thought. An example of this is a child who suffers brain damage in the left hemisphere still developing language unimpeded, only with their right hemisphere instead. Interestingly, an atheist and a theologian will view this evidence in two entirely different ways. One would say the brain is hard-wired with numerous parts acting in conjunction to form faith. Here, we might bring up the augmented activity scanned of those in prayer and/or meditation in one part of the brain or euphoria, joy, and happiness in another and sense of belonging, cooperation, etc... in yet another; all acting in accordance to form the foundations of faith as we know it. At the end of the day one may see nature, another may see purpose. Faith has yet to be measured by the scientific community, it has yet to offer more than just-so stories at this point and is still under considerable debate. Suffice it to say, we are far from a "clear account" of faith.

I've saved the previous response, but won't post it now because it seems we were talking past each other.

I don't think we were talking past each other at all. You asked some questions and I addressed them each in kind. Now we're starting over and still at square one. I dare say we'll never get beyond square one. Our perspectives will likely differ from irreconcilable presuppositions. IMO, Neither with sufficient empirical support to necessitate abandoning the other.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Our perspectives will likely differ from irreconcilable presuppositions. IMO, Neither with sufficient empirical support to necessitate abandoning the other.

As far as I can tell, you once again failed to address my question. I don't see what any of this has to do with our discussion. I also don't see what faith has to do with our discussion. Do you mean "faith" to be the "innate reverence for a creator"? In order to communicate your ideas regarding faith, you will need to define your usage of this term. It has myriad meanings, and I suspect you have spent a lot of time refining your conception of it. Do it justice by explaining exactly how you use the term so I may understand precisely what you are trying to say about it. Additionally your speculation regarding the development (evolution?) of our brains' capacity for faith is crude. As a start, you might try reading "How the Brain Works" by Steven Pinker. You'd also benefit from "The Birth of the Mind: How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates the Complexities of Human Thought".

I suspect that your conception of faith would be a foreign concept to most of the world's hunter-gatherer cultures (our closest caveman model), which would indicate that it is not an innate characteristic at all, but a memetic phenomenon which has simply "hitched a ride" on our "higher functioning".

You may be right about our presuppositions. If we cannot even agree about what constitutes an epistemically valid method for gaining knowledge, this discussion is doomed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

As far as I can tell, you once again failed to address my question. I don't see what any of this has to do with our discussion. I also don't see what faith has to do with our discussion.

You don't see what "reverence for our creator" has to do with faith?

Do you mean "faith" to be the "innate reverence for a creator"?

When you said; "biological phenomena can clearly account for religious belief" What did you mean by religious belief? I'll see if I can help you.

Faith; a system of religious beliefs.

So... if I'm to understand this correct, you can use the term "religious belief" without qualification, but when I use the more efficient word "faith", you're calling for definitions? Do try to keep up. It seems like you're splitting hairs here in some strange attempt to buy time to offer more of nothing.

In order to communicate your ideas regarding faith, you will need to define your usage of this term. It has myriad meanings, and I suspect you have spent a lot of time refining your conception of it. Do it justice by explaining exactly how you use the term so I may understand precisely what you are trying to say about it. Additionally your speculation regarding the development (evolution?) of our brains' capacity for faith is crude. As a start, you might try reading "How the Brain Works" by Steven Pinker. You'd also benefit from "The Birth of the Mind: How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates the Complexities of Human Thought".

Conversely, you've not really indicated that you're qualified to critique my understanding. Especially considering your use of absolutes in what science allegedly "clearly accounted for" showing a peculiar disregard for scientific discussion. You offered a host of issues on the previous page and for whatever reason decided a redirect was in order leaving several of my replies stranded. I might recommend; From Neurons to Neighborhoods. I've addressed each of your points in kind much more thoroughly than you seemed to have expected. If you have some ideas, by all means throw them out there. The problem here is you haven't offered when you believe the 'religious belief" or "faith" factor has entered into our reasoning. You've not offered why. You've not offered how. You've not offered what our "caveman" ancestors believed and you've not offered why they believed it. This insistence on maintaining some offensive ground while offering absolutely nothing is a waste of time for both of us. So far, we have no discussion at all. You're welcome to address any of the numerous responses I've provided or provide something of your own.

I suspect that your conception of faith would be a foreign concept to most of the world's hunter-gatherer cultures (our closest caveman model), which would indicate that it is not an innate characteristic at all, but a memetic phenomenon which has simply "hitched a ride" on our "higher functioning".

It's mimetic and you'd have to establish some inception; some example of what they're imitating. Honestly, the problem here is you having lacked clarity in not exposing your true intentions. It seems what you wanted me to do was to somehow scientifically establish proof for Judeo-Christian philosophy or even monotheism. You didn't word it this way because you've already read where I claimed there is no such proof and that we'd likely miss it if there were. Assuming you were paying attention of course. Science addresses the natural, not the super-natural. In context, science will postulate the most plausible natural explanation of the development of the brain and how it manifested in higher functioning. Little is understood and much of it is subject to considerable debate. To lack respect for this is to deny scientific methodology. Evolution does not necessarily address origins, it addresses the mechanisms for adaptation. What you're asking is no more scientifically relevant or fruitful at this point than asking where the first cell came from though there is scientific merit to continued research. But to state unequivocally, without having provided so much as a just-so story of your own while using absolutes like "biological phenomena has clearly accounted for religious belief" is so patently off the mark saetre I'm inclined to agree that this "discussion" is a waste of time.

You may be right about our presuppositions. If we cannot even agree about what constitutes an epistemically valid method for gaining knowledge, this discussion is doomed.

... epistemically valid method for gaining knowledge...? Good thing we're not using up ink here.

We've not discussed anything. All we've done so far is answer your questions. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the answers. I'm not here to proselytize why my God is the one and only God or to suggest that others' Gods are mistaken and I'm not here to get Scriptural references to special creation included in science text. I respect the two as being entirely unique disciplines. One endeavors to study the supernatural, another endeavors to study the natural. I believe the two lend themselves very well to society for two entirely different reasons if nothing more than to temper one another with sound reasoning.

One logical mistake I find too many making in regards to science and faith is the obligation to "take a side" or to attempt reconciling the two. I mentioned that faith is what it is, take it or leave it. I'd be happy to discuss any or all of this subject matter, but you must understand that this is the context in which I discuss these issues. If you want to debate an evangelical, you've got the wrong guy.

[Saetre]

tp...

[Saetre]

dp...

[Saetre]

This is fun, isn't it? See, we are talking past eachother. You are not understanding me, and I have no idea what you are trying to do. I would like to keep this civil if possible, so I apologize for being a bit of an ass in that last post. I was just frustrated because for a second time I felt I wasn't being given a straight answer to my question. You made this statement awhile ago:

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if it were possible that the human mind was simply constructed with an innate reverence for a creator? While some have gone on to worship creation (trees, birds, the sun, moon, etc...), what if it were possible that man was created by one God with freewill and has simply gone in differing directions? To some it is an intriguing possibility while to others it is absolute truth. What if there were a trigger be it evolutionary or sociologically circumstantial; that caused non-belief as opposed to the other way around?

Is it or is it not your belief that God has somehow instilled us with the capacity for religious belief? If this is not your hypothesis, then I'm sorry for being irritated at you for not answering my question in a way that addresses it. But can you see why I had this expectation? This isn't the only place where you mentioned this idea.

I was looking for an explanation that explained how god might have caused religious belief. Do you believe that this question can be answered in terms of "cause and effect"? If not, why? If so, I wonder why you have not proposed a mechanism that includes any mention of a god.

Now I will do my best to clear up some of the misunderstandings that have plagued this discussion so far. Feel free to clear up any misunderstandings that I have.

You quote me as having said "biological phenomena has clearly accounted for religious belief". If you will look at my original quote, you will see that I said something very different:

Even if a god intentionally birthed a universe so that humans would evolve and have minds that tended to believe in him, the behavior itself would still be explicable in naturalistic terms. My explanation is compatible with this belief. I suppose a god could have also come along and genetically engineered people to believe. Why adopt this view since evolution accounts for other biological phenomena and can clearly account for religious belief as well?

As you can see, I never said that science had accounted for religious belief. If it had, I wouldn't be here having this debate. I said that it seems clear to me that the science can explain religious phenomena. It has the potential to explain religious phenomena. I say this because I don't believe that religious belief is inherently all that mysterious. It is currently an unresolved question, but I think it is quite resolvable.

Faith has two distinct meanings:

faith |fāθ| noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

The primary definition is the only way I ever heard the word used in books and classes about religious philosophy. It is also the way I hear it used most often in my day-to-day life (note that I live in a fairly atheistic area of the country). In this type of discussion I find the second use confusing, due to the ambiguity. Your post could be interpreted in two completely different ways, neither of which seemed particularly more likely than the other. I suspected that you were probably intermixing the two terms, perhaps implying that the only religions that matter are the religions that stress a faith-based (first definition) justification of belief in god.

Religious belief is a fairly vague term, but I don't think the usage of it has caused any misunderstanding. If it has, let me know, and perhaps we can agree upon a working definition for the purposes of this discussion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem here is you haven't offered when you believe the 'religious belief" or "faith" factor has entered into our reasoning. You've not offered why. You've not offered how. You've not offered what our "caveman" ancestors believed and you've not offered why they believed it.

I believe I gave a fair account of my ideas in my original posts. I suggested that the content of the religious beliefs is functionally irrelevant, so long as they are elaborate enough to make faking them difficult. Of course the actual content of some beliefs may be varyingly detrimental or beneficial to fitness, but this is unimportant to logic of my idea. So basically people can believe in some strange counter-intuitive philosophical claims (Buddhism), Jesus, Thetans or whatever. It doesn't matter that much to my theory. I did tell you some of what our caveman ancestors may have believed, but it is hard to say and doesn't matter much to my theory. Looking to modern hunter-gatherer's is probably our best bet to understand out what sorts of beliefs they might have had. The ideas themselves are probably formed from previous traditions and the peculiarities of human nature, with dominant individuals having the tendency to make changes that would infiltrate throughout their coalition and further differentiate themselves from outsiders. Of course as aderents of a religion it is to our advantage to strongly believe (or pretend to believe) in the efficacy of our specific religion and the inferiority of those who oppose it.

Edit: If you are still interested, I'm writing up a more comprehensive sketch of this idea, and will post it when it's done.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's mimetic and you'd have to establish some inception; some example of what they're imitating.

No, it is "memetic". You should look it up. Susan Blackmore's book "The Meme Machine" is a good introduction.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In context, science will postulate the most plausible natural explanation of the development of the brain and how it manifested in higher functioning. Little is understood and much of it is subject to considerable debate. To lack respect for this is to deny scientific methodology. Evolution does not necessarily address origins, it addresses the mechanisms for adaptation. What you're asking is no more scientifically relevant or fruitful at this point than asking where the first cell came from though there is scientific merit to continued research.

I purposely did not say much about brain functioning, because it is understood so poorly. You brought that into the debate, not me. I'm interested in talking about the ultimate explanation for our religious behavior. The proximal, brain based, theories interest me a lot, but we have a long way to go before we can touch on those. That's one of the reasons why I took issue with your last post. You trivialized the problem, and posed the solution in some vaguely brain-based way.

Paleontology is a study of the history of life on earth. That life evolved, so evolution is a primary tool for understanding it, including the origin of specific traits. My question is certainly scientifically relevant.

Evolution can help answer the question "how did it come to be that I now exhibit this behavior". People shorten this to "Why do I do this" and I think this is just fine outside of a philosophy classroom.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... epistemically valid method for gaining knowledge...? Good thing we're not using up ink here.

Before you disambiguated your usage of the word faith, it seemed as though you might have been using faith (definiton 1) to justify your conclusions. This is epistemologically suspect (to put it mildly)!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

One logical mistake I find too many making in regards to science and faith is the obligation to "take a side" or to attempt reconciling the two. I mentioned that faith is what it is, take it or leave it. I'd be happy to discuss any or all of this subject matter, but you must understand that this is the context in which I discuss these issues. If you want to debate an evangelical, you've got the wrong guy.

This isn't a logical mistake, it's a logical necessity. If two beliefs contradict eachother, one or both must be wrong.

However, sometimes views seem as though they contradict when, in fact, they do not...

[Saetre]

Here's the previous response to your post, which I didn't post because I thought we had veered too far off the subject:

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It wasn't my argument necessarily, it was a broad answer to the disingenuous question posed by the OP, IMO. The points generally stand on their own with or without regard to Dawkins' "compartmentalization" notion.

I can't follow your argument.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... which really doesn't mean anything with regard to the supernatural right? I'll give you the "irrefutable" bit with disregard for the fact that science does not generally speak in these terms nor is it in the "disproving gods" biz as it would divert to yet another tired debate.

My intention was demonstrate that religion is best explained in naturalistic terms, even if it is the case that a god exists. None of the theistic causes of religion stand up to scrutiny, IMO. I don't know why you brought "disproving god" into this. I wouldn't use the word 'indisputable' in a scientific paper. Then again reputable scientistics don't dispute evolution, so I think it is an appropriate term to use in a forum where there may be confusion about the issue.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What we know of the history of religion begins with Hinduism some 5,000 years ago. This is generally understood by religious writings and artifacts. The Torah (or first five books comprising the Old Testament of Christianity) was born from oral traditions that are said to have dated conservatively, centuries before any initial formal writing of it. Hinduism has "gods"; Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the protector), and Shiva (the destroyer). While this is considered "polytheism" by definition, it is not inconceivable that they stem from common oral traditions aged by dissent. Whether or not it was a "poor job" will be the conclusion of one's own presuppositions.

We can probably get a better idea of what primal religion was like by examining the beliefs of hunter-gatherers. Even the traditions that begat Hinduism in its myriad forms are new compared to the many millennia humans (and possibly prehumans) have been engaging in religious behavior.

Anyway, my intent wasn't to challenge the hypothesize that a god had revealed himself at some point in the distant past, but that he was still revealing himself today. A god who revealed himself in the distant past would have long been completely forgotten if humans didn't have some further drive to spread these ideas.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- People disagree on what Elvis was like. Change in thought is not always improvement or contingent upon enlightenment just as evolution does not always illustrate "progress". People disagree on a great many things. If I live in Utah with my family and decide growing up under the tenets of Mormonism is tiresome, I may move. I may bring with me parts and pieces of the faith that I appreciated while abandoning those I did not. This may occur beyond the individual and form tribes of the like-minded. The major religions have an immense number of commonalities and they've changed little since their inception, but in any case those are changes through human influence, not necessarily a change in God. There are numerous Christian religions for example, and their primary differences are those most would consider relatively harmless. It is the actions of those who represent (or misrepresent) a religion that often influences subtle changes in doctrine.

Beliefs about what Elvis was like are much less varied among those who knew him. If so many people know god, how is it that they know him so differently?

The rest of this seems irrelevant.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... stopping you here to indicate that I won't be needing to consult your post on page 3 to show that you have relegated faith to a disorder. Again, it is entirely possible it is the other way around. Especially when taking into account that there is no evidence to suggest those of faith have a higher propensity for any other associated mental in-capacities. If you repeat yourself regarding the possibility that those of non-faith may in fact be in the same boat; I'll be left wondering what your point could be with all due respect.

No, you will still need to explain to me where I have relegated theism to a mental disorder. I have done no such thing. Confabulation, hallucination and wishful thinking are no more mental disorders than are sadness, happiness, ambition or fear. I repeat, religion IS NOT a mental disorder, nor have I put it in the context of one.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because of the nature of faith, science cannot address theism with an adequate number of empiricists to solve this "problem". Primarily because that is not where its resources have been dedicated. Even if it did, wouldn't it make more sense to wait at least one more generation before asking this question? Even if a UFO came crashing into the White House, worked miracles, and claimed there never was a Jesus or God, but nothing more than celestial scientists watching us in our giant petri dish; I suspect it'd take at least one generation for everyone to abandon their respective faiths don't you?

Irrelevant?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've rarely seen this indictment from one who knows what they're talking about or has even a modicum of knowledge regarding the cultures and literary stylings of the times of the initial manuscripts. The natural/tangible aspects of the texts I read are generally beyond question in their historical accuracies and you'll find them as affirmed and credible as any other revered historical text of our time. Regarding the supernatural, I'm not sure you can simply apply logic as I alluded to in my first post.

These texts are evidence for the existence of god?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm sure you'd agree that "not including 'god theories' in our hypotheses" and "Religious people are so stupid" are two entirely different attitudes. If you adhere strictly and exclusively to naturalistic methodology, more power to you brother. IMO and in the opinion of the scientific community, science is not in the "disproving gods" business. If you'd like to view it this way you're certainly welcome to it. If there is a perfectly naturalistic explanation of faith that satisfies scientific concensus, I'm perfectly willing to accept it as the most plausible naturalistic model of the inception of faith. This does not mean I am faithful to it.

Sadly, science now has the responsibility of disproving certain conceptions of god. Those conceptions that deny evolution, for example, are being challenged because they threaten the future of scientific literacy in our country.

[medicineman]

The earliest humans buried their dead with their possessions and other trinkets. Were they just disposing of trash, they wouldn't have gone through this trouble. Perhaps a belief system is just part of the human condition.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

The earliest humans buried their dead with their possessions and other trinkets. Were they just disposing of trash, they wouldn't have gone through this trouble. Perhaps a belief system is just part of the human condition.

Those people probably did have beliefs about the afterlife. But it doesn't seem to me that such complex behavior would just arise out of nowhere...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

The earliest humans buried their dead with their possessions and other trinkets. Were they just disposing of trash, they wouldn't have gone through this trouble. Perhaps a belief system is just part of the human condition.

Duality (ie. the notion that body and consciousness/"soul" are separate) seems to have arisen as a bi-product as humans evolved a consciousness.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Duality (ie. the notion that body and consciousness/"soul" are separate) seems to have arisen as a bi-product as humans evolved a consciousness.

Yes, this is most likely the answer, but it brings all those other questions in, "how is consciousness possible?" etc.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Yes, this is most likely the answer, but it brings all those other questions in, "how is consciousness possible?" etc.

Consciousness is an extremely interesting field of research. I recommended a book earlier, that I shall recommend again:



It has many extraordinary and fascinating short essays from the world's greatest thinkers and scientists on "what they believe but cannot prove". Since consciousness itself is such a highly contested field, some of the more interesting ones concerns theories around that.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It has many extraordinary and fascinating short essays from the world's greatest thinkers and scientists on "what they believe but cannot prove". Since consciousness itself is such a highly contested field, some of the more interesting ones concerns theories around that.

Interesting. Personally I don't think we'll be able to find an "scientific explanation" for consciousness as I'm leaning towards it being fundamental.

[- - e r i k - -]

Funny you should mention that. A couple of the essays revolve around whether or not we will eventually be able to find a scientific explanation for everything

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Funny you should mention that. A couple of the essays revolve around whether or not we will eventually be able to find a scientific explanation for everything

What's your opinion?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Is it or is it not your belief that God has somehow instilled us with the capacity for religious belief?

Yes, it is my belief that God has somehow instilled us with the capacity for religious belief. Science is in the business of how, theology is in the business of who.

I was looking for an explanation that explained how god might have caused religious belief. Do you believe that this question can be answered in terms of "cause and effect"? If not, why? If so, I wonder why you have not proposed a mechanism that includes any mention of a god.

Here you seem to be assuming that any action of God is by virtue not measurable using naturalistic methodology. You seem to be assuming that one must "take a side" as I mentioned before. I think this is logically errant.

You quote me as having said "biological phenomena has clearly accounted for religious belief". If you will look at my original quote, you will see that I said something very different:

I'll take another stab;

Originally Posted by saetre

Even if a god intentionally birthed a universe so that humans would evolve and have minds that tended to believe in him, the behavior itself would still be explicable in naturalistic terms.

Again, you seem to assume that any action of God cannot be explicable in naturalistic terms. Then you went on to say...

Originally Posted by saetre

I suppose a god could have also come along and genetically engineered people to believe. Why adopt this view since evolution accounts for other biological phenomena and can clearly account for religious belief as well?

- First of all, evolution cannot "clearly account" for any higher functioning. Science does not communicate in these terms and this issue is subject to considerable debate. I agree that this does not mean faith in conjunction with "other biological phenomena" cannot be accounted for, there's no need to claim "clearly accounted for..." in your conclusion. I asked you for an example and I've not seen one.
- Second of all, you seem to be asking (correct me if I'm wrong), that because something is explicable in naturalistic terms, why have a religious belief? Again, you're framing this as requiring that one "take a side" when faith/religious belief does not require "taking a side". It is what it is and does not rely on empirical proof. As such it also does not oppose science just as science does not oppose religious belief. It was the notion that God's actions were in fact measurable and His nature knowable, that birthed the discipline.

As you can see, I never said that science had accounted for religious belief. If it had, I wouldn't be here having this debate. I said that it seems clear to me that the science can explain religious phenomena. It has the potential to explain religious phenomena. I say this because I don't believe that religious belief is inherently all that mysterious. It is currently an unresolved question, but I think it is quite resolvable.

Again, so what? Not to sound rude, but honestly, how does any of this necessitate that one abandon faith/religious belief? if that's not what you're asking, please let me know exactly what point you're trying to make.

Faith has two distinct meanings:
The primary definition is the only way I ever heard the word used in books and classes about religious philosophy. It is also the way I hear it used most often in my day-to-day life (note that I live in a fairly atheistic area of the country). In this type of discussion I find the second use confusing, due to the ambiguity. Your post could be interpreted in two completely different ways, neither of which seemed particularly more likely than the other. I suspected that you were probably intermixing the two terms, perhaps implying that the only religions that matter are the religions that stress a faith-based (first definition) justification of belief in god.

Religious belief is a fairly vague term, but I don't think the usage of it has caused any misunderstanding. If it has, let me know, and perhaps we can agree upon a working definition for the purposes of this discussion.

Honestly, either one will do. This is why I said you may have been barking up the wrong tree if you wanted to debate a fundamentalist. Genesis claims (among other things) that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh. The Bible also discusses horned beasts and giant locusts. Just as the discipline of science continues to grow, the disciplines of Biblical study continue to grow. Just because J. Vernon McGee may claim that God was speaking on 6 literal days of Creation does not mean that is the end-all of my Scriptural understanding. I started off my first post by claiming the older I get, the more Christian I become and the less religious. In life, we choose battles. I choose not to accept one interpretation of Scripture and begin railing on the scientific methodology. For one thing I risk being in error scientifically and for another thing there is no tenet of Christianity that claims salvation is entirely contingent upon man's interpretations of it. It is a personal book and God is a personal God.

I believe I gave a fair account of my ideas in my original posts. I suggested that the content of the religious beliefs is functionally irrelevant, so long as they are elaborate enough to make faking them difficult.

This implies a nefarious intent and may be more the product of your presupposition than any foundation of accuracy.

Of course the actual content of some beliefs may be varyingly detrimental or beneficial to fitness, but this is unimportant to logic of my idea. So basically people can believe in some strange counter-intuitive philosophical claims (Buddhism), Jesus, Thetans or whatever. It doesn't matter that much to my theory. I did tell you some of what our caveman ancestors may have believed, but it is hard to say and doesn't matter much to my theory. Looking to modern hunter-gatherer's is probably our best bet to understand out what sorts of beliefs they might have had. The ideas themselves are probably formed from previous traditions and the peculiarities of human nature, with dominant individuals having the tendency to make changes that would infiltrate throughout their coalition and further differentiate themselves from outsiders. Of course as aderents of a religion it is to our advantage to strongly believe (or pretend to believe) in the efficacy of our specific religion and the inferiority of those who oppose it.

This may be so, but I've seen bastardizations of science text and I've seen powerful figures abuse science for their personal agendas. I now see those suggesting people who adhere strictly to their religious tenets as being inferior. (the entire premise of this thread) You may say; "... but I haven't implied these things" and I'd say; "I haven't said any of what you're claiming above either." This is the peculiarity of human nature, not exclusive to those of (a) faith. Again, I'd ask what's your point?

No, it is "memetic". You should look it up. Susan Blackmore's book "The Meme Machine" is a good introduction.

It seemed the term mimetic was so similar in concept to memetic that I thought you had surely made a mistake. I stand corrected. Didn't you express some distaste for proto-scientific theorizing earlier?

Originally Posted by Saetre

Of course first we should consider that science has demonstrated that people are very, very susceptible to confabulation, hallucinations, wishful thinking and proto-scientific theorizing.

The memetic theory is by definition in its infancy and considered proto-scientific.

I purposely did not say much about brain functioning, because it is understood so poorly. You brought that into the debate, not me.

Because this is the most established principle related to development of higher function. It's the closest understanding we have and on scale, vastly less proto-scientific in nature.

I'm interested in talking about the ultimate explanation for our religious behavior. The proximal, brain based, theories interest me a lot, but we have a long way to go before we can touch on those.

We have even further to go on memetic theory according to the scientific community. It is neither testable, nor can it be established that the same pressures apply in memes that occur in genes. To quote you loosely, but in reverse; "I believe it is nonsense to throw out the scientific laws we have so painstakingly discovered in order to account for our psychology of belief, when science can solve problems without resorting to such drastic measures."

That's one of the reasons why I took issue with your last post. You trivialized the problem, and posed the solution in some vaguely brain-based way.

I'm sorry you felt this way, but I find your "better" example woefully lacking with all due respect.

Paleontology is a study of the history of life on earth. That life evolved, so evolution is a primary tool for understanding it, including the origin of specific traits. My question is certainly scientifically relevant.

It might be scientifically relevant and I'm not one to caste "fringe-science" off as ridiculous, but among scientific theories, the notion that evolution can explain religious belief is... well, optimistic.

This isn't a logical mistake, it's a logical necessity. If two beliefs contradict eachother, one or both must be wrong.

I believe this notion is logically errant in requiring that one "take a side" between either science or faith. Faith is not a scientific discipline and science is not a deistic discipline. I don't buy into the "either you're for us or against us" way of thinking.

However, sometimes views seem as though they contradict when, in fact, they do not...

I agree.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

What's your opinion?

I believe, but cannot prove, that there is a scientific explanation for everything. Ie. everything is knowable. Given infinite time and resources that is

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I believe, but cannot prove, that there is a scientific explanation for everything. Ie. everything is knowable. Given infinite time and resources that is

But how can you explain something that is fundamental (even theoretically)? In what terms can you explain it? It seems to me that you have to admit that is not possible, and that at some point you're going to have to make due without a scientific explanation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I can't follow your argument.

Again, it wasn't an argument.

My intention was demonstrate that religion is best explained in naturalistic terms, even if it is the case that a god exists. None of the theistic causes of religion stand up to scrutiny, IMO.

This is not only your opinion, but the opinion of most in the scientific community. Religion does not offer "causes" for religion. Religion is not in the science business.

I don't know why you brought "disproving god" into this.

Because again, you seemed to have been asking; why accept a religious belief when science can "clearly account" for religious belief.

I wouldn't use the word 'indisputable' in a scientific paper. Then again reputable scientistics don't dispute evolution, so I think it is an appropriate term to use in a forum where there may be confusion about the issue.

I've not disputed evolution. I dispute the notion that evolution can be used to describe religious belief and I take issue with the notion that evolution has "clearly accounted" for religious belief. Genes and memes are two different things.

We can probably get a better idea of what primal religion was like by examining the beliefs of hunter-gatherers. Even the traditions that begat Hinduism in its myriad forms are new compared to the many millennia humans (and possibly prehumans) have been engaging in religious behavior.

Right and what do we know of the religious beliefs of hunter-gatherers?

Anyway, my intent wasn't to challenge the hypothesize that a god had revealed himself at some point in the distant past, but that he was still revealing himself today. A god who revealed himself in the distant past would have long been completely forgotten if humans didn't have some further drive to spread these ideas.

Some are driven by greed, others by xenophobia, some are driven by philanthropy, others by devotion. I've always maintained that faith is a discipline and occurs on a continuum of sorts. One may have 90% faith in a deity on Sunday afternoon and by Wednesday have 50% faith. It is a personal experience and in many respects a discipline. An entirely different discipline than science. Most don't "spread" the ideas, most simply accept them. In other words, I'm not one to approach you in the park and ask you if you've accepted Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior. I dare say few would and evidence suggests that if 80% of Americans accept Christianity, if all were compelled to "spread" the faith- you wouldn't be able to walk in the park without being accosted by believers. This is not the case. It is a select few who are this motivated by their faith. Not unlike those who oppose abortion or those who oppose our actions in Iraq. Considering the numbers, the streets should be lined with protests each and every day, but these are battles most leave for the Hill or for talking heads.

Beliefs about what Elvis was like are much less varied among those who knew him. If so many people know god, how is it that they know him so differently?

Because people are different.

No, you will still need to explain to me where I have relegated theism to a mental disorder. I have done no such thing. Confabulation, hallucination and wishful thinking are no more mental disorders than are sadness, happiness, ambition or fear.

Since when does sadness, happiness, ambition, or fear lead us to see things that don't exist?

I repeat, religion IS NOT a mental disorder, nor have I put it in the context of one.

Some may argue the notion that hallucinations are not the product of a disorder when in fact, in most cases they are attributed to one.

Irrelevant?

The responses you continue to claim are irrelevant, are direct responses to either your claims or your questions. While we're concerned with relevance, what is the point you're trying to make?

These texts are evidence for the existence of god?

IMO yes, but not this cut and dry. This is no more evidence of God than an abstract is evidence of evolution. It contains within it an explanation of the concept. Science is about the what and how, faith is about the who and why.

Sadly, science now has the responsibility of disproving certain conceptions of god. Those conceptions that deny evolution, for example, are being challenged because they threaten the future of scientific literacy in our country.

Conversely, what threatens the future of science is the manner in which it is being taught. They are two entirely different disciplines. I think you'd be surprised how little, highschool biology teachers actually know about the TOE. You cannot blame people for doing what people do and point a finger at religion for scientific illiteracy. I teach my children that their job in school is to learn all aspects of the subject for which they study. They will formulate their own line of thought regarding these issues, but unless they understand the foundation of the subject matter, they will not be able to express themselves in a comprehensible manner. We finally get to the crux of the discussion, "science now has the responsibility of disproving certain conceptions of god." When science delegates its resources to challenging aspects of the super-natural, it does itself the greatest disservice of all. This may be what you want science to do because of your presuppositions, this is not what science is in the business of doing. Science will do what it does regardless of popular thought. Science and religion are two different disciplines. I oppose theologians who attempt hijacking science to thrust their interpretation of Scripture just as I oppose atheists who abuse science in an attempt to silence the religious.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Consciousness is an extremely interesting field of research. I recommended a book earlier, that I shall recommend again:

I'll check it out. I've been researching consciousness for years, and have recently come across an introductory text that does a great job of putting all the major theories into perspective: "Consciousness: An Introduction" by Susan Blackmore.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Consciousness is an extremely interesting field of research. I recommended a book earlier, that I shall recommend again:



It has many extraordinary and fascinating short essays from the world's greatest thinkers and scientists on "what they believe but cannot prove". Since consciousness itself is such a highly contested field, some of the more interesting ones concerns theories around that.

great cover

sounds like a fun read

religion=fear of death

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

But how can you explain something that is fundamental (even theoretically)? In what terms can you explain it? It seems to me that you have to admit that is not possible, and that at some point you're going to have to make due without a scientific explanation.

We already make due without scientific explanations for a lot of things. We have at some point made due without a scientific explanation for gravity. For the sun and the stars. For a lot of things considered unexplainable and fundamental. All through history. That does not mean there isn't one. And admitting defeat is a very intellectual weak position to have.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I'll check it out. I've been researching consciousness for years, and have recently come across an introductory text that does a great job of putting all the major theories into perspective: "Consciousness: An Introduction" by Susan Blackmore.

I'll think you'll like her contribution to the book then

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I guess it also depends on how dishonestly you wish to stretch the meaning of words.

Not being dishonest at all. I was attempting to explain what I was meaning

Stop treating ordinary words as if they had elastic definitions.

And I wasn't doing that either.

I don't worship any idols. Accept it.

ANYTHING that takes the place of God in your life is our "idol worship" according to the Bible.

If you don't understand that, or refuse to, that is not MY fault.

As a matter of fact, some people have turned the earth itself into their idol worship.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

religion=fear of death

Broad generalizations about something you dislike = Fear you may be wrong.

The fact ANYONE that doesn't believe is so against such a thing shows fears that they may be wrong.

Classic Psych 101.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Broad generalizations about something you dislike = Fear you may be wrong.

The fact ANYONE that doesn't believe is so against such a thing shows fears that they may be wrong.

Classic Psych 101.

According to its own spurious logic, the above post is an audacious contradiction. It commits the same "error" (a broad generalization) that it purports to denounce. It's like saying, "All generalizations are wrong", which statement, ex hypothesi, is itself wrong.

Logic 101.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

ANYTHING that takes the place of God in your life is our "idol worship" according to the Bible.

Well then, NOTHING takes the place of God in my life, since I don't believe in omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As a matter of fact, some people have turned the earth itself into their idol worship.

so taking care of the earth is wrong?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Broad generalizations about something you dislike = Fear you may be wrong.

The fact ANYONE that doesn't believe is so against such a thing shows fears that they may be wrong.

Classic Psych 101.

what are you talking about?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

ANYTHING that takes the place of God in your life is our "idol worship" according to the Bible.

If you don't understand that, or refuse to, that is not MY fault.

According to the Bible? The Bible is not an authority on anything unless you are a Christian. Very arrogant Kevin.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As a matter of fact, some people have turned the earth itself into their idol worship.

Nature religions are generally believed to be the oldest thing around, so that's not really news…

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As a matter of fact, some people have turned the earth itself into their idol worship.

Yeah, and a lot of people have done the same with The Bible™ .

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

According to the Bible? The Bible is not an authority on anything unless you are a Christian.

AMEN! Errr…I mean…I agree!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

According to the Bible? The Bible is not an authority on anything unless you are a Christian.

And considering that, it was very prescient of them to write 60% of the book before Christ was even born.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And considering that, it was very prescient of them to write 60% of the book before Christ was even born.

Sneaky barstards.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Funny you should mention that. A couple of the essays revolve around whether or not we will eventually be able to find a scientific explanation for everything

At some point, human knowledge will crap out.

And here's why: In order to discover something new, you have to know that it's new in the first place. This requires that you study. As time progresses, knowledge will become so great that it'll take a student a lifetime just to learn the existing stuff. Thus, he won't have time to be able to figure out anything new (or know that it's new if he stumbles across it).

Eventually this will hold true no matter how specialised the area of study which the student undertakes.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

At some point, human knowledge will crap out.

And here's why: In order to discover something new, you have to know that it's new in the first place. This requires that you study. As time progresses, knowledge will become so great that it'll take a student a lifetime just to learn the existing stuff. Thus, he won't have time to be able to figure out anything new (or know that it's new if he stumbles across it).

Eventually this will hold true no matter how specialised the area of study which the student undertakes.

That would be true, if you base it on the fallacious assumption that knowledge is finite. You're also apparently making an assumption that every human will know everything, which of course is not possible. You're not giving much credit to the human race's ability to assimilate and store knowledge, and making wildly generalized platitudes doesn't help. You can't neatly compartmentalize everything.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

At some point, human knowledge will crap out.

And here's why: In order to discover something new, you have to know that it's new in the first place. This requires that you study. As time progresses, knowledge will become so great that it'll take a student a lifetime just to learn the existing stuff. Thus, he won't have time to be able to figure out anything new (or know that it's new if he stumbles across it).

Eventually this will hold true no matter how specialised the area of study which the student undertakes.

No, no. Human intelligence will be artificially enhanced. Starting with Nootropics (smart drugs), leading into cyborgenic technologies, and the eventual collapse of human-machine intelligence. In the future, human consciousness will be uploaded onto a non-biological substrate with unlimited computational resources (such as, the ability to ingest the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannia faster than you can say: Technological Singularity. )

[- - e r i k - -]

Doofy, I don't know what to say. That was downright dumb. Please tell me you were joking.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Doofy, I don't know what to say. That was downright dumb. Please tell me you were joking.

Nope, no joke.

There's limits to the amount of info people can store in any particular time frame - even in a specialised subject such as, say, music technology.

Unless life spans become longer, at some point we'll hit the buffers.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That would be true, if you base it on the fallacious assumption that knowledge is finite.

Your logic is off there.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're also apparently making an assumption that every human will know everything, which of course is not possible.

You read this bit, right?

Originally Posted by Doofy

Eventually this will hold true no matter how specialised the area of study which the student undertakes.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're not giving much credit to the human race's ability to assimilate and store knowledge

You're damn right I'm not.

Let me tell you a story: A couple of years after I'd finished teaching uni, I was visiting one of my former students, who himself was now teaching the subject. A couple of guys from some software company arranged to come in for a demonstration day of some whizz-bang new audio software they'd developed. They ran the demo, informing everyone that what the software did was completely new and did wonderful things which hadn't been done before.
Everyone in the building was excited about the new capabilities and possibilities.
Well... ...at least they were until I pointed out that software b had been doing this very same thing for five years *and* had a GUI.

And that's the point. The company developing this software had spent so much time on their own little idea that they hadn't taken the time to check whether it was actually doing anything that hadn't already be done.

This will happen to all human knowledge eventually. You have to know what's gone before to have any chance at all of doing something new or you'll forever be reinventing the wheel. At some point, it'll become impossible to know everything that's gone before, no matter how specialised the subject.

[- - e r i k - -]

The assumption that our collective knowledge is finite is a logical fallacy no matter how you put it. Save for a planet-wide disaster, we will continue to amass knowledge, improve on it and extend it for as long as we exist (and further on even).

Our capacity for storing knowledge grows faster than we amass it, and accessing it and sharing it gets easier every day. We don't need to rely on the knowledge of isolated individuals or groups any longer. The evolution of our collective knowledge has no boundaries.

[Doofy]

Disagree.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

At some point we will hit a brick wall.

[- - e r i k - -]

Application of knowledge and the amassing of knowledge are separate things. You make assumption from illogical comparisons rendering them baseless to say the least.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Application of knowledge and the amassing of knowledge are separate things.

I'm not talking about application of knowledge.

At some point, we will hit a brick wall. You need to know the rules before you can break them, and at some point the rules will become so numerous that it'll be impossible to know them all in a lifetime.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm not talking about application of knowledge.

At some point, we will hit a brick wall. You need to know the rules before you can break them, and at some point the rules will become so numerous that it'll be impossible to know them all in a lifetime.

But it's already true that no one mind can comprehend the present sum of knowledge in a particular field, let alone the sum of all human knowledge—nor is it necessary. For example, there is no such field as "the human brain" but rather, neuropathology, neurophysics, neuropsychiatry, neurolinguistics, and a thousand others, with specialists in each field devoting themselves to specialized areas within that field.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

But it's already true that no one mind can comprehend the present sum of knowledge in a particular field, let alone the sum of all human knowledge—nor is it necessary. For example, there is no such field as "the human brain" but rather, neuropathology, neurophysics, neuropsychiatry, neurolinguistics, and a thousand others, with specialists in each field devoting themselves to specialized areas within that field.

I'm pretty sure you could train 26 monkeys to each type a single letter. Add a few monkeys for punctuation.

You're still not going to get Shakespeare.

[Dakarʒ]

So I take it you don't think we could one day become so intelligent and powerful we became 'gods. Gotta disagree on that.

[- - e r i k - -]

You have a very sad and pessimistic view on things Doofy. I'm glad you're wrong.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You have a very sad and pessimistic view on things Doofy. I'm glad you're wrong.

Look me up in 2207, we'll see who's right and who's wrong. Million quid on it.