Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 02-13-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
... but isn't this type of argumentation playing into the hands of creationists? Life occurred, therefore.....

Not really. By "self-generating," I mean each individual coming to the realization on his own. Christianity is obviously a result of a form of groupthink on a massive scale.

Quote:

IMO (the idea of) god can be explained away as a phenomenon that can help coherence in evolving civilizations and help stabilize moral standards that are beneficial to a group. This also provides a possible reason for nascent "god circuitry" in the brain - we would need this sense of god to better participate in society. This is where I think Julian Jaynes (se thread on his book here )was right on the mark.

I have no problem with this. I'm just unwilling to grant Christianity an equal status to basic deism or pantheism with respect to the "nascent 'God circuitry.'"

Philosoft · 02-13-2003, 02:46 PM

Never thought I would scoop Bill Snedden. You must have just walked in the door.

Welcome back, Bill.

John Page · 02-13-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Not really. By "self-generating," I mean each individual coming to the realization on his own. Christianity is obviously a result of a form of groupthink on a massive scale.[/B]

Not divine revelation, then?

Cheers, John

Keith · 02-13-2003, 04:11 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by John Page

"IMO (the idea of) god can be explained away as a phenomenon that can help coherence in evolving civilizations and help stabilize moral standards that are beneficial to a group. This also provides a possible reason for nascent "god circuitry" in the brain - we would need this sense of god to better participate in society."

I like this...but now I can't help wonder why coherence in evolving civilizations, stability of moral standards, things being beneficial to a group, etc. are (or appear to be) such an inherent quality of nature. Why does nature tend to prefer these qualities? Is it possible that nature could possibly have just been random and unpurposeful? To what purposeful entity do atheists attribute the order and design that we can't avoid observing everywhere?

Keith

Keith · 02-13-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by PandaJoe

"Not really, since if you accept Christianity, you must imagine that all other religions are just as you describe."

I would describe most, but not all, non-Christian theistic religions as poor counterfeits of the real thing, which is Christianity.

Keith

John Page · 02-13-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
I like this...but now I can't help wonder why coherence in evolving civilizations, stability of moral standards, things being beneficial to a group, etc. are (or appear to be) such an inherent quality of nature. Why does nature tend to prefer these qualities? Is it possible that nature could possibly have just been random and unpurposeful? To what purposeful entity do atheists attribute the order and design that we can't avoid observing everywhere?

Survival in a competitive environment.

Cheers, John

P.S. I suggest avoid nature as an anthropomorphic cause - existence *is*. Nature is just "how things are" and has not been discovered as a hidden cause. Thus, there is no "purposeful entity" for atheists until such is proven to exist.

Cheers, John

Keith · 02-13-2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by Bill Snedden

To keep this on topic, atheism is not an attempt to explain anything. For that matter, neither is theism simpliciter. For that, one needs a worldview, of which either atheism or theism may be a component.

O.K., I can live with that.

Keith

Keith · 02-13-2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by John Page

"Survival in a competitive environment.

P.S. I suggest avoid nature as an anthropomorphic cause - existence *is*. Nature is just "how things are" and has not been discovered as a hidden cause. Thus, there is no "purposeful entity" for atheists until such is proven to exist."

I didn't understand this. I don't doubt that nature is "how things are" but no one is likely to find this satisfying. It seems to be our nature to want to understand, not just what is, but why it is the way it is. To whatever degree nature is purposeful, it is reflecting some of the personality that designed it, no?

Keith

AnthonyAdams45 · 02-13-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

I don't doubt that nature is "how things are" but no one is likely to find this satisfying.

I do. I find it completely satisfying; it tastes great and is less filling.

Not what you meant? You mean it doesn't fulfil my needs for spiritual nourishment. Oddly, I don't seem to have any. I am, as anyone who knows me will tell you, warm, funny, showing no sign of having anything missing in my life. In fact, I'd guess all of them assume I believe in the divine, just as they do, up to the point I tell them otherwise. Which I can't say that I do all that often; I have no bent to proselytization (?). But no one ever asks me, "Do you feel there's something missing on your life?" before I tell them I'm an atheist.

Further, I think John finds his notion of nature to be satisfying, since it is his present working hypothesis. So that's two. Look around; lots more abound.

Philosoft · 02-13-2003, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
Not divine revelation, then?

Heh. Never can tell if it's revelation or if I forgot to take my clozapine again.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2003, 02:46 PM	#22
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Never thought I would scoop Bill Snedden. You must have just walked in the door. Welcome back, Bill.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.