Theism vs. Atheism - Experience or Interpretation?

[baumgarten]

What does it matter if religion is rooted in biology? It only means superstition in general is rooted in biology.

Which means that religious belief is an inherent human tendency, not some silly "mind epidemic" that needs to be (or even possibly could be) eradicated.

 

[Sarkus]

Roman, I believe throughout your posts you are equating "atheism" to "belief in non-existence of God".
If you continue to do such you will continue to draw wrong conclusions from what people say.

Straw man. Dinosaurs were not people. We have no evidence that they were like people. We have a good deal of evidence that they were in fact, unlike people.

Congratulations on realising that.
The Dinosaurs were atheist. They had no belief in God.
Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
Atheism is the default state of existence.

So you are denying the existance percieved of religious experiences?

I deny no such thing until I understand what you mean.

I presented some of it. Did you read it?

You presented something. But it wasn't evidence. Care to highlight what you think IS evidence?

I mentioned nothing of rule, and nothing of the galaxy. This is meaningless hyperbole.

Hyperbole is not meaningless when it clearly highlights flaws in an argument.

However, if we were to examine the nature of people without laws to keep them behaving, if without coercive force, people would take the wealth of other people, if they had the capability, then an examination of global pirate phenomena would be a worthwhile undertaking, no?

Eh?

People are generally rational. We use reason. We look at the evidence available to us and form useful conclusions. Reason and our ability to find patterns (especially when patterns may not exist) is an entirely utilitarian endeavor.

Yet the majority of the population is religious.
Religion requires someone to believe in something for which there is no evidence. How is this rational?

Precisely. That's why religion occurs. An incomplete data set, an inaccurate model. Correlation vs. causation. As a primitive human, or pre-human, wouldn't it be safer to form false conclusions based on correlation rather than assume that there's a false positive?

And thus they walk the path of irrationality - step by careful step - until they become indoctrinated - generally through peer-pressure and intellectual laziness. Some actually start to seriously question what they are believing in - and kudos to those that still believe. But the majority just do not question it.

I am intrigued, though, as to why it is SAFER to base a false conclusion on correlation? Why safer? Safe from what/whom?

 

[Sarkus]

Which means that religious belief is an inherent human tendency, not some silly "mind epidemic" that needs to be (or even possibly could be) eradicated.

Doesn't make it right (nor wrong, for that matter).

 

[baumgarten]

Doesn't make it right (nor wrong, for that matter).

By George, I think you've got it!

 

[Fire]

Which means that religious belief is an inherent human tendency, not some silly "mind epidemic" that needs to be (or even possibly could be) eradicated.

Well we can alter the way organised superstition has influence in our lives. Putting an end to forced religious indoctrination (especially on children) would be a good start.

 

[baumgarten]

Well we can alter the way organised superstition has influence in our lives. Putting an end to forced religious indoctrination (especially on children) would be a good start.

You mean politically? Whatever. There's a reason states appeal to fanatic behavior. Fanatics offer the strongest support.

From parent to child, it's also biological. Parents teach their children what they believe.

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean politically? Whatever. There's a reason states appeal to fanatic behavior. Fanatics offer the strongest support.

Yup.

 

[Fire]

You mean politically? Whatever. There's a reason states appeal to fanatic behavior. Fanatics offer the strongest support.

From parent to child, it's also biological. Parents teach their children what they believe.

There is no political basis for it in a secular country like mine. The secular left is larger than the religious right in the UK. 7% of British citizens attend church/worship every week, and a lot of those are recent immigrants. It's crazy therefor, that we continue to force a particular religion down the neck of just about every child in a state school.

I would say it's only a matter of time before religious indoctrination is cut altogether from secular state schools (if it hasn't already in areas), but I just find it odd that we continue to endorse this act of abuse.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Atheism is the default state of existence

Correct! Therefore how could religion have a biological root rather than a biological effect???

To use your analogy, without the correct CMOS code, it wouldn't be the same ......

Dependance does not imply or infer equivalence. Simply because one depends on the other does not justify ascribing the attributes of biology to psychology. Religion is an external catalyst that causes psychological fallout and biological reactions. So are specific superstitions in general.

By materialist definitions the correct biological function is emotion, NOT religion. Religion can be eradicated from time and space and replaced with "Else-ation", to produce the same emotional response.

At any rate, Sarkus has a point. Biological or psychological, these attributes don't make religion right anyway. It still requires right-sizing as an obsolescent philosophy.

Oh, baum, I refuse to recognise labels because I see the cul-de-sac Roman wants to corner me in. I have no labels. Pardon my mixed universes.

 

[S.A.M.]

Correct! Therefore how could religion have a biological root rather than a biological effect???

No one is born knowing a language.

Is language therefore without any biological basis at all?

 

[baumgarten]

Dependance does not imply or infer equivalence. Simply because one depends on the other does not justify ascribing the attributes of biology to psychology. Religion is an external catalyst that causes psychological fallout and biological reactions. So are specific superstitions in general.

So "religion" as an idea is external to the brain that is affected by it? That is still dualism, and it still implies that people have an innate ability (and responsibility!) to defy the natural behavior of the human brain.

By materialist definitions the correct biological function is emotion, NOT religion. Religion can be eradicated from time and space and replaced with "Else-ation", to produce the same emotional response.

That's not true, since humans have a natural tendency to independently develop religious beliefs. A child personifies his toys; an adult personifies the forces of nature. As Fire said, anyone can be superstitious.

At any rate, Sarkus has a point. Biological or psychological, these attributes don't make religion right anyway. It still requires right-sizing as an obsolescent philosophy.

Who said that religion is right? I've seen arguments that it's useful, rational, and natural, but who has said that people should be religious?

Oh, baum, I refuse to recognise labels because I see the cul-de-sac Roman wants to corner me in. I have no labels. Pardon my mixed universes.

The point is not how you are labeled, it is the implication of what you are saying.

 

[Enterprise-D]

You mean politically? Whatever. There's a reason states appeal to fanatic behavior. Fanatics offer the strongest support.

Correct baum...unfortunately, politics heavily depends on the fanatic vote. Almost everywhere. Very sad.

From parent to child, it's also biological. Parents teach their children what they believe.

Ok I'll ask my past Math prof if she gets an extra salary for her biological teaching of Math...

No one is born knowing a language.
Is language therefore without any biological basis at all?

I like you a good parry and thrust. Homo sapiens do indeed possess the ability to invent language. However the English Language, the Spanish Language, the French Language, Dutch, Hindi, Russian etc etc etc are not biological.

Or else, French babies would pop out knowing French immediately.

Or will develop French speech without schooling (absurd right?).

The actual communicative grammar and syntax are passed on through...you guessed it, indoctrination...just as Religions are.

So "religion" as an idea is external to the brain that is affected by it? That is still dualism, and it still implies that people have an innate ability (and responsibility!) to defy the natural behavior of the human brain.

That's not true, since humans have a natural tendency to independently develop religious beliefs. A child personifies his toys; an adult personifies the forces of nature. As Fire said, anyone can be superstitious.

I have now identified the problem (well I got it while answering Sam). I've been taking the argument to be that specific religions (Islam, RC etc) are biological. Which is simply not true. Or else as with the language example, people would be popping out inheriting the specific beliefs of their parents without indoctrination. The invention of superstition however may be an innate Homo Sapiens ability just as the ability to invent language is.

Who said that religion is right? I've seen arguments that it's useful, rational, and natural, but who has said that people should be religious?

Touche, correct

The point is not how you are labeled, it is the implication of what you are saying.

I simply avoided the labels because I sensed a trap that Roman was setting.

 

[S.A.M.]

I like you a good parry and thrust. Homo sapiens do indeed possess the ability to invent language. However the English Language, the Spanish Language, the French Language, Dutch, Hindi, Russian etc etc etc are not biological.

Or else, French babies would pop out knowing French immediately.

Or will develop French speech without schooling (absurd right?).

The actual communicative grammar and syntax are passed on through...you guessed it, indoctrination...just as Religions are.

Explain dyslexia

 

[Enterprise-D]

Why? A dyslexic person would no more be born inheriting a specific language than anyone else.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why? A dyslexic person would no more be born inheriting a specific language than anyone else.

So a dyslexic individual acquires dyslexia?

Language is universal, the kind of language may be different but all humans everywhere can speak (see the analogy here?).

Why?

I believe atheism is the dyslexia of religion

 

[Roman]

simply avoided the labels because I sensed a trap that Roman was setting.

Trap?
Hah!
I simply thought that as a fellow atheist, you would be a fellow materialist. And in doing so, we could reach a conclusion. I presumed wrong. I have no interest in debating this with you further, as I would have to show you that my way of thinking is better than your way of thinking. And that probably won't happen anytime soon.

I wouldn't mind participating in a discussion of materialism vs. dualism, but this isn't the thread to do it in.

 

[Roman]

Roman, I believe throughout your posts you are equating "atheism" to "belief in non-existence of God".
If you continue to do such you will continue to draw wrong conclusions from what people say.

Not exactly that atheism is non-belief in God, no. Atheists have a different model with which they use to describe the world. So they're belief in what a different set of tools reveals them is still a belief. We just happen to come to our conclusions without the need for the divine. We reach our conclusions based on repeatable evidence, though repeatable evidence makes up a very small fraction of experience. Most experience is such a complex interaction of valuables, our small primate brains will be forced to draw false conclusions.

Congratulations on realising that.
The Dinosaurs were atheist. They had no belief in God.
Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
Atheism is the default state of existence.

Theism is an emergent behavior, due to the size and complexity of our brains. The theistic beliefs of a dinosaur are irrelevant, as they lacked the apparatus to form any sort of thought like that.

Such an argument would be similar to me saying "Donkeys use their tails to swat flies. Swatting flies is the default existence." A complete non sequitor.

Yet the majority of the population is religious.
Religion requires someone to believe in something for which there is no evidence. How is this rational?

Modern religion is a social phenomena. Prehistoric religions, when they first emerged, were most definitely out of the part of our brain that causes rationality.

There of course is the comfort that religion gives people, which is a belief that satiates a psychological need. A psychological need that is biological.

I am intrigued, though, as to why it is SAFER to base a false conclusion on correlation? Why safer? Safe from what/whom?

Humans, when compared to animals we had to hunt, flee and compete with on the savannah, have three things for them– thumbs, big brains, and endurance.

We survived by our wits. Pattern discerning behavior. If we knew a pattern, we could project what the pattern would be like in the future, and from that, anticipate future events. An incredibly powerful ability. However, we were, and still are, bombarded with so much data, we have little way of discerning what variables result in what actions, save through experience.

So not safer in the manner you're thinking of, but more of a "safer in our genes." The offspring that were more sensitive to patterns (even when they may have been false), the offspring that were more adept at constructing models (nevermind that they hopelessly anthropomorphized things that they oughtn't), were more human. That is, they had more of the abilities that make humans such ruthless competitors.

You must also recognize the social role of religion, and how social people are. There's benefit to individuals when they go along with the group. When the group does well, we do well. There's even a psychological effect called "group ego" or some such, where individuals identify their egos with the collective, such as fans of a particular soccer team or pride in one's nation.

These are incredibly powerful mechanisms. They allow, for a very rare occurence– the coming together of non-relatives in cooperation. Religion is something of an emergent quality, helping people to relate to one another.

But this is not because of religion. Religion is a human construct, based on our pattern-seeking nature and perpetuated as a socially cohesive force. The sum qualities of people gave rise to religion, just as the parts of our heads gave rise to symbolic representation and language.

 

[(Q)]

I assume you mean the politician?

No, I'm talking about this clown:

http://www.johnedward.net/about_John_Edward.htm

 

[lightgigantic]

Roman

To make this statement :

Modern religion is a social phenomena. Prehistoric religions, when they first emerged, were most definitely out of the part of our brain that causes rationality.

... you need to establish what are the general principles you applied to determine that religion is an abstraction of society

 

[Sarkus]

Theism is an emergent behavior, due to the size and complexity of our brains.

Emergent behaviour? No - I don't think so (unless you have evidence?). It might perhaps be the outward realisation of true evolutionary traits - such as being a societal animal, and our inquisitiveness. In other words it is more likely to be our other "human" traits that merely lead themselves, through indoctrination and widespread submersion, through fear, through everything else, to become "religious". But that is not the same as saying religion itself is an emergent behaviour of the brain, or part of the biological build of humanity - as that implies a far closer relationship than is probably there.

The theistic beliefs of a dinosaur are irrelevant, as they lacked the apparatus to form any sort of thought like that.

And thus were atheist - by default. Did they have a belief in God? No. Thus atheist.

Such an argument would be similar to me saying "Donkeys use their tails to swat flies. Swatting flies is the default existence." A complete non sequitor.

Strawman - as this analogy is nothing like my statement.
Your view of atheism is clearly one that can only be reached AFTER being religious, that it is a choice one makes only after being presented with both sides of the story.
This just isn't so.
Atheism is merely an absence of a belief in God.

Modern religion is a social phenomena. Prehistoric religions, when they first emerged, were most definitely out of the part of our brain that causes rationality.

Evidence please.
And our brains do not CAUSE rationality. That's like asking someone to cause logic.
We can either act rationally or irrationally - follow logic or not.
Earlier people might not have understood that what they were doing was irrational or not - and to them it might have seemed rational.
But this just shows that what they were doing was acting on instinct / inherent behaviour above rationality. And this inherent behaviour (societal animals, survival etc) led to religion. But it didn't start as religion. As I posited, religion is merely the realisation of a number of human traits in a society that knew no better.

There of course is the comfort that religion gives people, which is a belief that satiates a psychological need. A psychological need that is biological.

Which makes religion no more or less biological than anything else we do - and is thus a pointless statement to make.

You must also recognize the social role of religion

Never in question - but this does not, per se, answer the question.

Religion is something of an emergent quality, helping people to relate to one another.

No - Religion is the tool - the emergent quality is the need for society.

But this is not because of religion. Religion is a human construct, based on our pattern-seeking nature and perpetuated as a socially cohesive force. The sum qualities of people gave rise to religion, just as the parts of our heads gave rise to symbolic representation and language.

Aaah - and now you're beginning to understand. But you claim that it is biological because we humans constructed it, and we humans are biological - thus the construct is biological. Pointless.