Do We Need God to Survive?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Watched a number of episodes the other day on the Life series narrated by David Attenborough. In one episode he said that survival is what life is all about. I'm sure that statement is likely to be disputed by a number of forum members. So it got me to thinking.....if what he said is true then theism and atheism plays some type of survival role in our lives.

Now I'm not sure if both can co-exist and aid in our survival but maybe it can. Possibly one is the key to our survival. Then again one or both may contribute nothing to our survival. Either way it doesn't mean much unless you think Attenborough is correct.

Could it be that either theism or atheism is dragging us towards certain doom or is one necessary to help prevent our demise?

 

[Doreen]

Watched a number of episodes the other day on the Life series narrated by David Attenborough. In one episode he said that survival is what life is all about. I'm sure that statement is likely to be disputed by a number of forum members. So it got me to thinking.....if what he said is true then theism and atheism plays some type of survival role in our lives.

Now I'm not sure if both can co-exist and aid in our survival but maybe it can. Possibly one is the key to our survival. Then again one or both may contribute nothing to our survival. Either way it doesn't mean much unless you think Attenborough is correct.

Could it be that either theism or atheism is dragging us towards certain doom or is one necessary to help prevent our demise?

Given any scientific model I can think of we are being dragged toward our eventual doom regardless - homo sapian will no longer exist as a species one way or another, sooner or later. But we can look at the question as
Does theism or atheism detract from our ability to survive? Or will one or the other speed up our demise?

Frankly I can imagine an atheist species going on and on and I can imagine theist species doing the same, each falling to evolution, stars exploding, the heat death of the universe, the big crunch, ecological devastation, disease, internal wars, wars with aliens, etc. And I can't really even guess which leads to a longer civilization in general, even though I am obviously one and not the other.

I don't think survival is all that life is about, but that's another issue.

 

[-ND-]

You know that saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It does not matter if you believe in God or if you don't. The only thing that matters is if you are a good person or bad person. That decides how long people survive and that decides who and what can prevent it.

 

[baftan]

Watched a number of episodes the other day on the Life series narrated by David Attenborough. In one episode he said that survival is what life is all about.

This is an empty statement. It is not wrong; yet, it doesn't say anything: "survive" means "continue to live or exist" (Oxford Dictionary); and "survival" means "the act or fact of surviving, esp. under adverse or unusual circumstances" (Dictionary.com). These definitions mean only one thing: If we replace "life" with any system that exist , the sentence will remain correct: Planetary systems, galaxies, a culture, anything. Because survival is not restricted to life; it can be used for non-alive things (rather "systems"; single atom or single code in any given DNA are not considered subjects to "survival") too.

Suppose we restrict "survival" for only alive things. In this case, we still don't say anything: Obviously, life is life as long as it survives; otherwise it would not be "alive", it would be "dead" or "extinct".

if what he said is true then theism and atheism plays some type of survival role in our lives.

This is nothing to do with what David Attenborough wanted to imply. He meant life as a biological entity, and the strategies of species within a given environment and within a definite life span (Of course, you don't get this from "survival is what life is all about" sentence. I watched the subject documentaries and that's my estimation about his intention).
Theism and Atheism do not belong to this realm. They belong to mental universe of human beings. Biologically, both are similar, both have to eat and drink, both need secure environment to survive; individual or communal belief systems do not play any role in this area.

Now I'm not sure if both can co-exist and aid in our survival but maybe it can.

If you are talking about biological terms, "our survival" has nothing to do with those concepts, I mentioned this above. In cultural terms, however, their survival and their co-existence depend on human mental universe, not on nature.

Then again one or both may contribute nothing to our survival.

Human ways of thinking have mostly served to our survival, actually, human ideas contributed more than survival: Theism or Atheism are policies, life styles, political and social style issues. In terms of survival of human universe, the real contribution comes from human technological innovations and applications, not from disagreement on God's existence. A religion or any idea could only be a serious survival determinant if this religion was forbidding any use of unnatural technology. This could be a problem. Yet none of these famous religions and their opponents are offering such a weird idea.

Either way it doesn't mean much unless you think Attenborough is correct.

Attenborough has to be correct, because his quoted statement doesn't mean anything.

Could it be that either theism or atheism is dragging us towards certain doom or is one necessary to help prevent our demise?

There are thousands of other things which can lead us towards certain doom. And some of them are more serious than all cultures and religions put together: the lack of enough amount of arable land and drinking water, too much CO2 in atmosphere, or diseases.

 

[lightgigantic]

Watched a number of episodes the other day on the Life series narrated by David Attenborough. In one episode he said that survival is what life is all about. I'm sure that statement is likely to be disputed by a number of forum members. So it got me to thinking.....if what he said is true then theism and atheism plays some type of survival role in our lives.

Now I'm not sure if both can co-exist and aid in our survival but maybe it can. Possibly one is the key to our survival. Then again one or both may contribute nothing to our survival. Either way it doesn't mean much unless you think Attenborough is correct.

Could it be that either theism or atheism is dragging us towards certain doom or is one necessary to help prevent our demise?

I think your question depends on the issue of how a particular ideology frames the question of the individual and the environment that they're in (since ultimately its the environment that makes or breaks the individual's survival chance).

IOW it boils down to the action that follows one's thinking on the purpose of the universe.
If one thinks the universe is simply a vehicle of enjoyment, then the stakes of destruction are increased.

If one thinks that the universe snares the individual in illusion or that the universe is actually the jurisdiction of god (and its not becoming to get our greasy fingers all over it) then it is decreased.

Of course this is more of a guideline for material stability or long term material benefit.

Anything material ultimately succumbs to the greater cycle of annihilation (and subsequent creation). All that remains is the question of quality, not quantity.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I thought someone might pick up on the thread title. I should have worded it differently. Could it be a question a theist might ask...just a thought. It wasn't the intent however.

Back on topic, I think I would need to know if belief in God actually contributes something to our survival. Does faith in a supreme being directing or controlling our destinies tend to make a individuals braver than they really are? By that I mean a foolish courage, a willingness to sacrifice oneself believing full well it isn't the end. Now I realize that there are many reasons other than religious for people to risk their lives. However the thread is not focussed on them right now.

 

[Doreen]

I thought someone might pick up on the thread title. I should have worded it differently. Could it be a question a theist might ask...just a thought. It wasn't the intent however.

Back on topic, I think I would need to know if belief in God actually contributes something to our survival. Does faith in a supreme being directing or controlling our destinies tend to make a individuals braver than they really are? By that I mean a foolish courage, a willingness to sacrifice oneself believing full well it isn't the end. Now I realize that there are many reasons other than religious for people to risk their lives. However the thread is not focussed on them right now.

I think whatever we come up with would be very speculative, but I can take a shot - note, I will not form a conclusion....

Pro-religion/Anti-atheism (in terms of survival as a species)
can instill positive forms of individual bravery which might help humans at key junctures - let's imagine we must colonize another planet to survive. Notions of sacrifice and goodness coming from religion might inspire people to acts that save the day.
can cohere groups of people, so that they have sense of being in community with others
can make one assume things and so people assume God has given them a way out of some problem, so they hope where they might not and discover a way to keep the sun from fading out or going nova.
can, Absolutely - in its Abrahamic forms - give humans the right to think the world is their to do with what they will. So perhaps they will save themselves even though this means the destruction of most or all other species.
can give solace in bad periods where there is no logical reason to not succumb to depression.
can give meaning to life and purpose and this might also carry homo sapians through tough periods.

Anti-religion/pro atheism (in terms of survival as a species)
religion can cause division between people and war
religion - certainly some of the big ones - consider 'the world' less important than the afterlife. This can allow destructive behavior and a lack of care and stewardship.
religion can give homo sapians a sense of being more important than other species, species that turn out to be vital for the survival of homo sapians - ecosystems can replace the word species here.
Religions might lead to inaction and expectations of being rescued by a deity.
Relgion might limit options - for example technological - that were considered sinful.


This is just some of the first things that came to my mind. Probably just a start of some full list. I am not even sure I hit the main points.

Religion is so complicated that to ask, which we are basically doing here,

what does religion cause/prevent/make more likely?

is a vast question.

 

[lightgigantic]

I thought someone might pick up on the thread title. I should have worded it differently. Could it be a question a theist might ask...just a thought. It wasn't the intent however.

Back on topic, I think I would need to know if belief in God actually contributes something to our survival. Does faith in a supreme being directing or controlling our destinies tend to make a individuals braver than they really are? By that I mean a foolish courage, a willingness to sacrifice oneself believing full well it isn't the end. Now I realize that there are many reasons other than religious for people to risk their lives. However the thread is not focussed on them right now.

Or to ask it another way, does faith in one's self as the being the ultimate "doer" and beneficiary of one's action and sacrifice install in one an inflated individual sense of proprietorship, tending to make one braver than they really are? By that I mean a foolish courage, a willingness to sacrifice oneself believing full well one's trivial desires are ends in themselves?
Does disbelief in god actually contribute something to our survival?

 

[wynn]

Could it be that either theism or atheism is dragging us towards certain doom or is one necessary to help prevent our demise?

What would actually be our "demise", what our "survival"?


Unless we answer questions such as Who and what are living beings? What is their purpose in life?, we can't discuss their demise or survival.

 

[glaucon]

What would actually be our "demise", what our "survival"?


Unless we answer questions such as Who and what are living beings? What is their purpose in life?, we can't discuss their demise or survival.

Interesting.

Although I would agree with Signal's point here, his act of raising these questions brought to mu mind another interesting and relevant question:

given the mere facticity of a pro- or con- theist position throughout the majority of human civilization, in what way can we account for this in terms of an evolutionary strategy?

In other words: what purpose does thinking about a deity serve?

 

[wynn]

Although I would agree with Signal's point here, his act of raising these questions brought to mu mind another interesting and relevant question:

Your mu mind. Priceless!

 

[wynn]

given the mere facticity of a pro- or con- theist position throughout the majority of human civilization, in what way can we account for this in terms of an evolutionary strategy?

In other words: what purpose does thinking about a deity serve?

It's far more than just thinking about a deity, it's also acting in line with that thinking and perceiving/interpreting in line with that thinking.

The way I see it, the utmost benefit of this is that it is only with reference to the Highest, to the Ultimate, the Absolute that one can ensure things like consistency of action, maintaining that life "makes sense" and is worth living, that living beings have worth, that moral principles should be followed and are worth to be followed.

Whereby this Highest, Ultimate, Absolute isn't necessarily a deity, it can also be principles (such as Liberté, égalité, fraternité) - the crucial is that people have some sense of hierarchy of authority, and they don't consider themselves to be the highest authority.

Of course, some instances serve better as the Highest, Ultimate, Absolute than others. Traditional conceptions of the highest deity are much bettter suited for that because they are considered to have also created the Universe and everything and are in control of it. Whereby principles such as Liberté, égalité, fraternité are not considered to be that sort of super-power - for example, one can't explain the origin of the Universe, earthquakes or the existence of selfhood with them.

 

[glaucon]

Your mu mind. Priceless!

lol
Damn. Foiled by Greek again.

It's far more than just thinking about a deity, it's also acting in line with that thinking and perceiving/interpreting in line with that thinking.

The way I see it, the utmost benefit of this is that it is only with reference to the Highest, to the Ultimate, the Absolute that one can ensure things like consistency of action, maintaining that life "makes sense" and is worth living, that living beings have worth, that moral principles should be followed and are worth to be followed.

Whereby this Highest, Ultimate, Absolute isn't necessarily a deity, it can also be principles (such as Liberté, égalité, fraternité) - the crucial is that people have some sense of hierarchy of authority, and they don't consider themselves to be the highest authority.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

I find this:

Whereby this Highest, Ultimate, Absolute isn't necessarily a deity,

my emphasis

to be of particular interest.

I would also go so far as to suggest that it is this tendency to manufacture an Absolutist concept that is in fact responsible for the theist sense of God.

 

[wynn]

I would also go so far as to suggest that it is this tendency to manufacture an Absolutist concept that is in fact responsible for the theist sense of God.

But is it entirely manufactured? You seem to exclude the possibility that the way humans think about things could actually be in line with how things truly, objectively are.

Just because we can in some way explain that something is manufactured, doing so doesn't yet prove that it indeed is manufactured (being manufactured meaning it as such has nothing to do with "how things truly are").

 

[Lori_7]

Watched a number of episodes the other day on the Life series narrated by David Attenborough. In one episode he said that survival is what life is all about. I'm sure that statement is likely to be disputed by a number of forum members. So it got me to thinking.....if what he said is true then theism and atheism plays some type of survival role in our lives.

Now I'm not sure if both can co-exist and aid in our survival but maybe it can. Possibly one is the key to our survival. Then again one or both may contribute nothing to our survival. Either way it doesn't mean much unless you think Attenborough is correct.

Could it be that either theism or atheism is dragging us towards certain doom or is one necessary to help prevent our demise?

it seems to me that it's more about quality of life, and religion doesn't really play a part in that, but god does.

 

[Doreen]

What would actually be our "demise", what our "survival"?

Excellent point. People often talk about genetic modification and human computer interfaces and various kinds of cyborg, even uploaded existences as ways 'we' will thrive or survive.

 

[glaucon]

Just because we can in some way explain that something is manufactured, doing so doesn't yet prove that it indeed is manufactured (being manufactured meaning it as such has nothing to do with "how things truly are").

I agree that your logic is sound here.

Alas, it comes down to ontology then.
I don't believe that there is any "how things truly are".

However, see the following:

But is it entirely manufactured? You seem to exclude the possibility that the way humans think about things could actually be in line with how things truly, objectively are.

Indeed entirely.
We're talking here about a concept, which, by definition, is ontologically mental. Unless you're willing to argue that somehow, some extra-mental power can create a concept in a human brain, I can't see how this can be avoided.

Again, I don't subscribe to this objectively ontological notion of 'reality' [sic].

 

[wynn]

I find this:

Whereby this Highest, Ultimate, Absolute isn't necessarily a deity,

my emphasis

to be of particular interest.

To be sure: By using the word "necessarily" there, I was not alluding to the concept of God being a necessary entity.

I am pointing out that people seem to do fine, at least according to their own assessment of "doing fine", even without reference to a specific deity as described by existing religions.
However, people seem to fare poorly if they don't hold something as their highest, ultimate, absolute or are relativistic about it.

 

[glaucon]

To be sure: By using the word "necessarily" there, I was not alluding to the concept of God being a necessary entity.

I am pointing out that people seem to do fine, at least according to their own assessment of "doing fine", even without reference to a specific deity as described by existing religions.
However, people seem to fare poorly if they don't hold something as their highest, ultimate, absolute or are relativistic about it.

I wholeheartedly agree.
Without such an 'existential criterion', it does seem that we each would be quite aimless, and collectively, well, non-collective...lol

I think this is an evolutionary kind of epiphenomenon; a mental conceit, that we need to guide us.

 

[wynn]

Alas, it comes down to ontology then.
I don't believe that there is any "how things truly are".

Except that the way they truly are is that there is no way how they truly are?
Why not reflect the statement back on itself!

But like you say - I don't believe that there is any "how things truly are" - at this point, it comes down to belief.
And beliefs are changeable.

But is it entirely manufactured? You seem to exclude the possibility that the way humans think about things could actually be in line with how things truly, objectively are.

Indeed entirely.
We're talking here about a concept, which, by definition, is ontologically mental. Unless you're willing to argue that somehow, some extra-mental power can create a concept in a human brain, I can't see how this can be avoided.

Not at all.

You seem to come from the position that humans and human thinking (along with human perceiving, experiencing, valuing, ...) are something completely detached from the Universe - that the laws that govern the Universe do not work in human thinking etc. about the Universe.


I refer to this thread: The world - True or false; esp. our exchanges in posts 89 and 90, and 100.