(Un)wired For God

Thanks for info Michael. I very much agree that religion is a coping mechanism.

S.A.M. said:
Except for that little bump called history, which shows that such societies [areligious ones, not ones with economic tax incentives] nearly always implode and either revert or give way to religious ones.
Click to expand...

I'd say that would be because people are more inclined to listen to their emotions than their reason.

Its not the least fit that become outliers?
Click to expand...

Sometimes the things that can make you an outlier are also advantageous.
 
SAM,
In Christianity we find one denomination claiming the other denominations are not true/real Christians. I was thinking Shiite and Sunni Muslims are doing the same thing within their religion.
 
earth said:
Well, I thought I would give it a try and see if you could accept that answer.
Click to expand...

The Salafis say they are the Real Muslims, because they follow the practices of the prophet. Unfortunately they are unable to substantiate how following the practices of the prophet in a different time and place classifies as Real. The Wahabis say they are the Real Muslims, because Abdul Wahab "reformed" them, but again, what gives Abdul Wahab [or Baha'ullah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or <insert reformer of choice>] any special dispensation to decide what is Real Islam or Unreal Islam is hard to tell. Reading the Quran, one gets constant warnings against telling others what to do or how to define their religion or insist on what is right or wrong except as decided by consensus, etc.

So how anyone manages to figure out they are the [Un]Real Muslims is something that always puzzles me. The Bahais insist they are not Muslims even though they believe in one God and consider Mohammed a Prophet, because they think Bahaullah gave them version 2.0. But al Azhar [the foremost Islamic university] insists they are because beleving in God and Mohammed automatically makes them Muslims. So they insist they are NOT Real Muslims. The Ahmadiyya insist they are Real Muslims because they say version 2.0 as given to them by the reincarnation of Jesus, ie Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, is add on, not substitute. Al Azhar agrees they are Muslims but ignores the reincarnation bit as added delusions.

So will the Real Muslim please stand up to be counted? Oh look, its all of them, even the ones who didn't stand up. ;)
 
my POV is too complicated to put here, it'll also create a whole new discussion other than the OP, so if you people think it's worth it, start a new one instead of us hijacking or diverting this one, unless michael doesn't mind of course.
 
scifes said:
one, being self righteous about religion is an extreme that can be taken with any concept, such as self defense, like the americans defending themselves in other continents using nuclear bombs, where is religion there? it can be applied without religion, self righteousness can be adopted by any freak of justice, or of any other idea, religious or not.


which takes us to two: i really believe islam was and is a scapegoat said to cause acts of terrorism, while i think they mainly are reactions to depression more than acts of islam. true, terrorists may paint their actions as religious, and do them in the name of religion, but if there was no islam, would they not have done their acts of "terrorism".
Click to expand...

Sorry for my ignorance, according to in my little knowledge of history, I can tell you that if any religious group have the right to be called the "scapegoat" it would be the Jewish, not the muslims. No other religion that I know has gone through so much suffering due to intolerance.

How do you interpret the reaction of the jewish to this suffering?

Did they go and started acts of terrorism against the germans? I do not think so, but I am sure you or someone else in this forum would know...

If the answer is no, if the jewish did not go and started acts of terrorism against the germans then it would have been perhaps because in their religion, killing others is not acceptable. Or that they were evolved enough not to take the issue of "an eye for an eye" that I think the Torah promotes to an extreme. Do you think they may have evolved better than the muslims?

I know now they attack other countries in the middle east, perhaps they are defending themselves this time around, then you should accept that if muslims have the right to defend themselves then jewish have the same or even more right to do it.

Please feel free to correct me, again, perhaps I should not be giving an opinion in these forums, I just have limmited knowlege of religions. I do not have one.:eek:
 
I agree with most of the OP, however:

science still hasn't explained everything without holes in the theories (ie: missing link in evolution) - I am still open to many things as long as they don't contradict the science that is known to me. When I gain new information, I can adapt if need be.

I feel that religious scriptures can be useful resources when not taken literally. People wrote this stuff for a reason. I wonder what was really happening a long time ago, to cause such wild perceptions of what they believed to be true. Many possibilities have roled through my mind, :D. My biggest problem with any religion, is how it seperates from those not a part of it. Worst of all is when beliefs contradict and large groups on both sides can't admit they don't know, they both believe they do know!!! Conflicts over ignorance is what I dislike about religion! No ability to question ones faith is another issue I have, asking questions to try and gain/understand new knowledge is a good thing and should be encouraged!

There are so many things unknown, I have no problem saying 'I don't know', I wish more people could do the same, then beliefs wouldn't be such a problem, if we knew they were just one of many possible answers. It's too bad most believe their beliefs are the only possible answer!

Sorry I went of topic a little but,
I only think this religious dysfunction stuff applies to those that believe religious scripture litterally, and to those that can't adapt with new knowledge.

Some religious minds have adapted with science, they don't believe the scripture litterally, they know man wrote the books, but they just aren't satisfied with what we know yet so they believe in God and do consider themselves religious. Many need the comfort of 'kniowing' what lies in the afterlife - it is hard to admit you don't know if afterlife really exists, or even not knowing what it is if it does exist - but we don't know, so why do we continue pretending to know?
Because 'Heaven' sounds like something worth believing in, especially since everyone has lost loved ones, so 'Heaven' is like a reunion for many!
We have trouble dealing with not knowing. I already know, we don't know much we believe, but most aren't willing to admit that ;).
But our dysfunctional world has many causes to it's dysfunction. Money, Competition, Nationality, etc... can all lead to the same kinds of dysfunction that Religion can.
 
spidergoat said:
The so-called missing link is not a hole in the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be a hole?
It leaves many possible explainations that could coexist with evoluition!
All that evolution knows about monkey-man is that we share a common ancestor. Their are lots of speculation as to what that ancestor, or 'missing-link' could be, but nothing has been proven.
If their weren't any holes it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a fact!
 
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution describes how this happens. It does not depend on knowing every detail of human evolution, as it is confirmed by numerous other sources.

Besides, several missing links have already been found. Without DNA, one may still speculate about where they fit on the human family tree. What kind of missing link do you want? An ape that walks upright? An upright creature with a larger brain and robust ape-like features? Those fossils all exist.
 
I still feel there are hard-wired neurological bases for religious belief but perhaps it's co-oped by religiosity and not necessarily built for religion itself.
Click to expand...

People are about survival. It works and is how we have managed to be a successful species.

When people are put under pressure they look for security. No matter the situation, country or other. They simply look for what's best for them and their family members.

A good example is prison life. If you don't accept the protection of the group you will be in trouble. You may have to accept the protection of a bunch of racists in order to stay safe, which is to say, you give up your values and everything else with it, to stay safe.

The sunni-shite issue in Iraq is another. When put under pressure with the uncertainty of what and who is going to protect them, they go in the direction of self-preservation. If the pre-dominant way to gain some security is to belong to a larger group of "sames" and religion is the biggest separator of these, then they will separate out via religion.

It just so happens that because religion affects such large numbers more than anything else, when push comes to shove, we often separate out via religion.

Look at the civil war as another. You are just forced to take sides sometimes, even if you as an individual would rather not.

If the sh*t really hit the fan here in the US and there was anarchy and the christians were massing in large groups killing everyone who was not a christian.

Then what do you think everyone who is not a christian would become real quick. Self-preservation to maybe fight another day.

So when times are tough, people look for security, then it depends on what that means and what side they have to take.

Religion is just one of many ways that people in tough times find a way to belong to a larger group that may protect them through the uncertainty.

So it goes, the more desperate they are the more they will cling to religion, race, nationality and whatever else separates us and them.

Sneetches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWBGAzPtCl4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlO8RvA3Jb4&feature=related
 
spidergoat said:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution describes how this happens. It does not depend on knowing every detail of human evolution, as it is confirmed by numerous other sources.

Besides, several missing links have already been found. Without DNA, one may still speculate about where they fit on the human family tree. What kind of missing link do you want? An ape that walks upright? An upright creature with a larger brain and robust ape-like features? Those fossils all exist.
Click to expand...


Certain parts of evolution is fact. Other parts of evolution is still unclear and there is room for many possibilities. So even if we know evolution happened, if we don't know how, or if other factors helped, then their are still holes in the theory. Our common ancestor to monkey being the most important 'missing link' with regards to human evolution.
Finding other members of the tree is nothing when compared to finding that common ancestor of ours.

The fossils that ALL exist, none of which provide the DNA evidence to prove them to be our common ancestor with monkeys. We just keep finding new members of the tree. We have the technology to prove so much of evolution, and yet human evolution has this huge gaping hole (as my buddy once said "monkey - man, the overnight phenomenon!").

Who is to say that this common ancestor has to be from earth? Maybe that's why we haven't been able to find it yet.

I still think alot makes more sence if aliens did visit along time ago ;).
They could fill in the missing parts of human evolution, they could be percieved as Gods by ancient men, lots can fit with early visitors from space helping out :D.
 
scifes said:
sorry michael, that's not how it goes.. when a group of people who follow certain teachings call themselves a certain name, they care if one who doesn't follow their teachings associate himself with their name.

that's common sense, you should know that.
Click to expand...
What's your point scifes? Please try to write clearly.
 
Pipes75 said:
The fossils that ALL exist, none of which provide the DNA evidence to prove them to be our common ancestor with monkeys. We just keep finding new members of the tree. We have the technology to prove so much of evolution, and yet human evolution has this huge gaping hole (as my buddy once said "monkey - man, the overnight phenomenon!").
Click to expand...

excerpt:
Humans and chimpanzees diverged from a single ancestral population through a complex process that took 4 million years, according to a new study comparing DNA from the two species.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195873,00.html
 
Oh jesus. The issue is DNA. We only know the relationships from anatomical studies, so they cannot be conclusive. If any particular fossil is the common ancestor of humans and apes or monkeys cannot be known for sure. It's an interesting question, but lack of such a fossil does not falsify evolution. If we found no fossils of anything, it would still be true based on what we know about modern DNA.

We have found many fossils which count as missing links. There is a mammal ancestor of all monkeys, apes, and humans.

There are bipedal creatures classified as apes, which probably were the species that led to homo, they call them Australopithecenes.

Anyway, these fossils fit with the theory, in that they show that before there were anatomically modern humans, there were apes that walked upright, that got larger and larger brains, started using tools and fire, and spread out of Africa to inhabit the world. That's just what we know so far.

The trouble with people like you is that no matter what scientists find, there may always be a transition between them and existing fossils. If finding Lucy didn't shut you up, nothing will.
 
scifes said:
my POV is too complicated to put here, it'll also create a whole new discussion other than the OP, so if you people think it's worth it, start a new one instead of us hijacking or diverting this one, unless michael doesn't mind of course.
Click to expand...
Start a new thread or post here - just make some sense!

:p
 
This was a pretty good thread - thanks to everyone who posted in it. We even managed to discuss the OP somewhat :)

:cool:
 
spidergoat said:
Oh jesus. The issue is DNA. We only know the relationships from anatomical studies, so they cannot be conclusive. If any particular fossil is the common ancestor of humans and apes or monkeys cannot be known for sure. It's an interesting question, but lack of such a fossil does not falsify evolution. If we found no fossils of anything, it would still be true based on what we know about modern DNA.

We have found many fossils which count as missing links. There is a mammal ancestor of all monkeys, apes, and humans.

There are bipedal creatures classified as apes, which probably were the species that led to homo, they call them Australopithecenes.

Anyway, these fossils fit with the theory, in that they show that before there were anatomically modern humans, there were apes that walked upright, that got larger and larger brains, started using tools and fire, and spread out of Africa to inhabit the world. That's just what we know so far.

The trouble with people like you is that no matter what scientists find, there may always be a transition between them and existing fossils. If finding Lucy didn't shut you up, nothing will.
Click to expand...

Number 1, you need to calm down. People like me, lol.

Number 2, from your own link
"Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don't believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor."

Sounds like they say the same as me kinda, an unknown common ancestor is the issue though.

Number 3, plenty of earlier evolution then ours has been scientifically proven, doesn't it seem a bit odd human evolution still has soo many holes? Finding fossils after fossils but never finding that common ancestor, interesting.

Number 4, I never said evolution is false - all I am saying is plenty of things can coexist with the evolution that is known. Evolution may have had an intelligent hand that helped with our rapid human evolution, or it may not have - don't pretend to know what is still unknown. ;)


PS
earth, I'll take my alien theory over the inbreeding monkeys and primative beastiality lmao - the link is interesting, but it doesn't do anything as far as proving our original ancestor, it just shows some different and rather disturbing paths along the human evolutionary journey.
 
Number 3, plenty of earlier evolution then ours has been scientifically proven, doesn't it seem a bit odd human evolution still has soo many holes? Finding fossils after fossils but never finding that common ancestor, interesting.
Click to expand...

That is your fallacy. If evolution is proven to happen in only one case, then it is a viable explanation for the origin of all species. It doesn't have to prove itself for every animal, but so far nothing has contradicted it. Even our own evolution fits nicely into the pattern. Over time, the species turns into another species.

If you knew anything about anthropology, you would realize that the sparse fossil record is not surprising, it's expected. The really strange thing is how they have managed to find what they have. It sometimes takes a heroic effort on the part of researchers. They are only found in sedimentary rock, and only in Africa, and only in certain geological formations, many of which are subject to violent political upheavals and war.

Furthermore, as I tried to explain, we wouldn't know a common ancestor if we saw it. There might be anatomical similarities between primates and hominids, but that is the case with many specimens. We might already have the fossil of the common ancestor and not know it! Enough fossils have been studied to come to the conclusion that we definitely evolved from an ape-like creature, which must at some point, have been more primate-like. We are definitely of that lineage, although the family tree hasn't been fully reconstructed.

And all this has little bearing on the essential correctness of the Theory of Evolution.
 
Michael said:
...
...
...
NOTE: It does make one wonder (as posited in the article): Does religiosity lead to social dysfunction? If YES then what? Is it possible that many of the problems in the poorest countries are a direct result of their being so religious? A vicious cycle?
Click to expand...

Loosing your sense of self by stopping the function parietal lobe does in fact tend to product a highly "one with everything" experience; however, if it is used as a coping mechanism then it's used by very few people.

Religiousness (like alchohol) is best exercised in moderation. In a moderate environment it helps set a foundation for cooperative behavior. In an extreme environment it of course leads to dysfunction.
 
I often think that yes, the brain is somewhat hardwired for belief
Click to expand...

I've not read any of the other posts since Sam decided to get involved, (it's the usual bitching about irrelevant, pointless nonsense), so apologies if I say anything that has already been said.

The interesting thing is that those whom instantly assume a belief in something typically survive longer than those who don't.

Take for instance you and I walking through some long grass. You hear a rustle and instantly believe it is a dangerous snake. I on the other hand, hearing the same rustle, think it's just the wind.

Out of the two, you'll be doing the surviving.

So instant belief in the unseeable actually completely outranks rationality every single time as far as survival goes.

As far as survival goes, nothing outranks belief in gods - hence why people have those beliefs. Interestingly, if people believed in gods that didn't offer heavens, nobody would care whether it existed or not.

It is indeed the very basis for the wager, (Pascal). It is merely an issue of personal survival, and in that regard one can't really argue against it.

It's not only humans that have such instant belief, look at any animal when there's a noise. The belief that it is a threat - as opposed to anything else - is absolutely inherent. Given that us humans have self awareness and the drive for survival, gods become somewhat par for the course.

Regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top