Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ecco · 08-26-2007, 01:03 PM

Nuwanda:

Quote:

where did it all come from, what's the point, is there a God, if so is it interested in mankind, etc. Science didn't claim to know the answers,

If you ever want to consider the origins of religion, just read and understand the above statement.

Where did it all come from? Science didn’t and doesn’t know.

What’s the Point? There has to be a point, doesn't there?

Is there a god? According to mankind there have been and are many gods (invented by mankind).

And last but not least – “Science didn't claim to know the answers”. Gee science can’t explain it – I guess the answer must be goddidit.

RAFH · 08-26-2007, 02:44 PM

As has been pointed out time and again, seeking and finding causes to seemingly causeless events is a human trait, one which evolved out of our consciousness and intelligence. The ability to recognize patterns and deduce causes is one of the fundamental bases of intelligence as we know it in humans. It is the reason we survived and have been successful as a species. As such it has become a crucial aspect of being human, a trait that gives us an enormous advantage. A horse can run fast for a relatively long time. A leopard can creep through the grass and jungle almost imperceptibly, a vulture can detect rotting meat from miles away, whales can hear each others songs over vast distances in the ocean, bats and dolphins can echo-locate in entirely different mediums, yet both can create and navigate in 3D with astonishing accuracy. All of these are survival traits the organisms with them rely upon. Why should humans be any different. One of our biggest advantages in the competition for resources and survival is our ability to detect patterns and deduce causes. And we take it a bit too far at times, because in the real world, it is a heck of a lot more effective to detect a pattern that isn't there and deduce a cause for it that doesn't exist than to fail to detect patterns at all or deduce their causes. A few false positives aren't a problem, sometimes maybe even beneficial in cementing group cohesion. One false negative can mean extinction, if not of the species, perhaps the group, if not of the group, perhaps the individual. So the tendency towards false negatives was pretty much bred out of us while false positives were not. Indeed, often false positives provided other benefits so not only was the tendency for false positives passively retained, it was actively retained.

wordy · 08-27-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

One of our biggest advantages in the competition for resources and survival is our ability to detect patterns and deduce causes.

And we take it a bit too far at times, because in the real world, it is a heck of a lot more effective to detect a pattern that isn't there and deduce a cause for it that doesn't exist than to fail to detect patterns at all or deduce their causes.

A few false positives aren't a problem, sometimes maybe even beneficial in cementing group cohesion.

One false negative can mean extinction, if not of the species, perhaps the group, if not of the group, perhaps the individual.

So the tendency towards false negatives was pretty much bred out of us while false positives were not.

Indeed, often false positives provided other benefits so not only was the tendency for false positives passively retained, it was actively retained.

I like what I quoted.

False beliefs could even work as a kind of hard to fake sign of commitment to the group one belong to. As a Brand name or outer Marker indicating that one belong. Wearing a Cross or picture of Jesus or Thor's hammer.

RAFH · 08-27-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

One of our biggest advantages in the competition for resources and survival is our ability to detect patterns and deduce causes.

And we take it a bit too far at times, because in the real world, it is a heck of a lot more effective to detect a pattern that isn't there and deduce a cause for it that doesn't exist than to fail to detect patterns at all or deduce their causes.

A few false positives aren't a problem, sometimes maybe even beneficial in cementing group cohesion.

One false negative can mean extinction, if not of the species, perhaps the group, if not of the group, perhaps the individual.

So the tendency towards false negatives was pretty much bred out of us while false positives were not.

Indeed, often false positives provided other benefits so not only was the tendency for false positives passively retained, it was actively retained.

I like what I quoted.

False beliefs could even work as a kind of hard to fake sign of commitment to the group one belong to. As a Brand name or outer Marker indicating that one belong. Wearing a Cross or picture of Jesus or Thor's hammer.

Give that man (?) a medal!! The Purple Cross of the Grand Order of Rationality.

Nuwanda · 08-27-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Nuwanda could you expand on what you say here?

Quote:

I've found it terribly difficult to find a church that accepts those who have a real relationship with God.

I thought they would love such a person. Are you trying to tell them they are not sincere enough and you act like a teacher to them? You compete with their Pastor? You should start your own Church maybe?

The Real Relation with God Church.

It looks like me teasing you but I mean it sincerely. What Churches have you tried out up to now? As a strong atheist I tested very many Churches here locally to see how they treat an atheist that wants to learn how it feels to be religious. Very differently. some actually thought me was possessed by Satan.

Sorry for the late response.

You'll probably grin enough to grow wrinkles when I tell you, but I've tried various independant churches (non-denominational) and have struggled to relate for many reasons. I feel that many churches tend to be more focused on "turf warfare" with other churches for members rather than raising up disciples; Many are overly concerned with growing numbers instead of helping the community; That they take a tithe from their congregants which is a form of ecclesiastical extortion (the tithe is not a Christian doctrine); The messages on Sunday mornings are soft-balls across the plate - just enough info to call it a Christian sermon, but not enough to turn people away (and lose more tithe checks). The gospel is offensive to the "flesh" of a man because it is a spiritual message (one must use wisdom with this one obviously). Jesus turned away 5000+ followers with one sermon - on purpose! (See John chapter 6). I've never seen a pastor take a 5000+ congregation and turn them away due to the call for devotion from those who would take the name "Christian." He would be considered a ministry failure, I'd consider him a man after God's own heart.

That's the short and incomplete answer to your question.

Nuwanda · 08-27-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecco

Nuwanda:

Quote:

where did it all come from, what's the point, is there a God, if so is it interested in mankind, etc. Science didn't claim to know the answers,

If you ever want to consider the origins of religion, just read and understand the above statement.

Where did it all come from? Science didn’t and doesn’t know.

What’s the Point? There has to be a point, doesn't there?

Is there a god? According to mankind there have been and are many gods (invented by mankind).

And last but not least – “Science didn't claim to know the answers”. Gee science can’t explain it – I guess the answer must be goddidit.

No, you misunderstood me. I don't believe in God because science couldn't answer all my questions. My belief in God came when I heard the authentic gospel - which had nothing to do with "where did it all come from." God is not the answer for me by default due to the limitations of science.

My point was of all the options agnosticism seemed for me the best fit. In light of the fact that very little concerning the larger questions of existence can be answered by science, atheism's claim to know for certain that there is no God was, for me, unreasonable. To say one doesn't know is at least a step towards consistency. It was my personal experience with God that made the difference for me - not for you - for me (just to be clear).

wordy · 08-27-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

My belief in God came when I heard the authentic gospel - which had nothing to do with "where did it all come from." ...

It was my personal experience with God that made the difference for me - not for you - for me (just to be clear).

My experience is that very many christians would have that experience and they chose other versions than you have so it seems to be two different things here.

1.) The personal experience seems very similar to many believers.

1.a. There are several different such experiences and they tend to be related to the believers personality style.

So there are christian groups taking care of those difference in styles.

Some believers want very strict and programmed style. Like Catholicism sometimes even preaching in a language nobody get a word of. They sing and have no cue on what the words mean. But they want it that way.

Pentecostals want almost ecstatic shows that is very noisy and emotional and bodily active. You sway and dance and jump up and down and fall to the floor and get laying on hands and a lot of hugs and caressing strokes even if you are a total stranger to them. Other christans sit in total silence and the action is going on within them. Only a smile on their face reveal they are experiencing strong joy.

2.) the personal experience could be similar or different but the other factor is how they interpret their experience. The way they find verses in scripture that support their unique interpretation, their special Brand name. So the turf defence is due to them needing to defend their special Brand. The Market needs a good name Brand so that is expected. the only way to survive is to get the Brand name known to be the In thing to join.

Read Rodney Stark and you see how important a good Brand name is.

The winner takes it all.

Zorathruster · 08-29-2007, 09:07 AM

Richard Dawkins forwards the idea of a Meme-plex. It is the multiple reinforcing memes that all support a particular idea. Religion has numerous supporting ideas, most falacious, but still attractive to humans. We fear death - religion makes a huge effort to waylay that fear by postulating a post life paradice. We like to come together socially but would really rather not have to get to know people too well. The church service brings people together and has them cooperate (sing songs, read poems) and then lets them go home.

Numerous other aspects of religion all come together to reinforce the religious practice. My belief, although unfounded, is most guys don't really believe all that stuff, they just show up to extract the benefits available to all participants. .... Thats why I show up on occasion.

Shadow · 08-29-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi the Hun

...if someone were to find proof or evidence of a religion's God, but they completely dissagreed with the principles and beliefs of the religion, would they worship the God, or be rebellious? (and let's just assume that this God is omnipotent).

Well, if I were given proof of the Abrahamic god my only moral choice would be to be rebellious. Who could worship such a monster?

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

08-26-2007, 02:44 PM	#22
RAFH Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii Posts: 6,400	As has been pointed out time and again, seeking and finding causes to seemingly causeless events is a human trait, one which evolved out of our consciousness and intelligence. The ability to recognize patterns and deduce causes is one of the fundamental bases of intelligence as we know it in humans. It is the reason we survived and have been successful as a species. As such it has become a crucial aspect of being human, a trait that gives us an enormous advantage. A horse can run fast for a relatively long time. A leopard can creep through the grass and jungle almost imperceptibly, a vulture can detect rotting meat from miles away, whales can hear each others songs over vast distances in the ocean, bats and dolphins can echo-locate in entirely different mediums, yet both can create and navigate in 3D with astonishing accuracy. All of these are survival traits the organisms with them rely upon. Why should humans be any different. One of our biggest advantages in the competition for resources and survival is our ability to detect patterns and deduce causes. And we take it a bit too far at times, because in the real world, it is a heck of a lot more effective to detect a pattern that isn't there and deduce a cause for it that doesn't exist than to fail to detect patterns at all or deduce their causes. A few false positives aren't a problem, sometimes maybe even beneficial in cementing group cohesion. One false negative can mean extinction, if not of the species, perhaps the group, if not of the group, perhaps the individual. So the tendency towards false negatives was pretty much bred out of us while false positives were not. Indeed, often false positives provided other benefits so not only was the tendency for false positives passively retained, it was actively retained.

08-29-2007, 09:07 AM	#28
Zorathruster Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Woodstock, GA Posts: 123	Richard Dawkins forwards the idea of a Meme-plex. It is the multiple reinforcing memes that all support a particular idea. Religion has numerous supporting ideas, most falacious, but still attractive to humans. We fear death - religion makes a huge effort to waylay that fear by postulating a post life paradice. We like to come together socially but would really rather not have to get to know people too well. The church service brings people together and has them cooperate (sing songs, read poems) and then lets them go home. Numerous other aspects of religion all come together to reinforce the religious practice. My belief, although unfounded, is most guys don't really believe all that stuff, they just show up to extract the benefits available to all participants. .... Thats why I show up on occasion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.