Why we believe in God(s)

Rav

Rav

∞
Valued Senior Member
Many of you may have seen this lecture before, or read some of the articles that are based on the same research, but I'm sure it will make for some interesting discussion in any case.

Andy Thomson on Why we believe in God(s).

Note: The paper mentioned at 27:35 entitled "Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief" (by D Kapogiannis) is available in PDF format here.

For those that are particularly interested in the subject matter (which I'm sure wont be all of you) I really recommend that you also watch an earlier version of this lecture which can be found here. It's a little longer, a little more raw (it is interspersed with questions from the audience) but it is also a little more comprehensive on some points.

Note that the point here is not to disprove the existence of some kind of creator deity but to present a scientific explanation for the emergence of religious beliefs.

Feel free to discuss, critique or whatever floats your boat. But if you are going to participate, please actually watch at least one version of the lecture.
 
Rav,

I've seen the video, and I disagree with you.
You'll have to explain what it is you see.

Another thing I noticed is that he is preoccupied with ''religion''.
Scriptures, and previous to that, aural knowledge, was around long before
the modern era of the psycology of religion that he refers to.
Click to expand...

He needs to explain the vedic knowledge and how they came to have
such advanced knowledge of the universe, or they obtained the knowledge that we lived in a universe inhabited by planets, without the aid of telescopes.

You need to explain to me how ''God'' is understood by science, why you claim
that this preacher is, talking science and not some kind of fundamentalism in which he has used science to fit his agenda.

Answer these questions first then we'll get to the science of what he proposes.
 
It’s a very simplistic move of only one level to create God in one’s imagination as the reason for life and all, and not a good level move at all, for then one must fool even one’s self by then exchanging horses in mid stream since this Life that begot life is even all the more the problem of what could not be accepted in the first place. It is even infinitely worse. Should they then use LIFE as the basis for Life which made life?

Can the believers even know this? No, for they just went to another [wrong] level and halted there. Yes, they stopped, now satisfied with an even larger dilemma. This is called begging the question.

Can they realize it? No, for they halted the proceedings and closed the case before it could be opened, stopping dead in the water.

What to do? Ignore them, for they are stuck fast and can’t escape.
 
SciWriter said:
It’s a very simplistic move of only one level to create God in one’s imagination as the reason for life and all, and not a good level move at all, for then one must fool even one’s self by then exchanging horses in mid stream since this Life that begot life is even all the more the problem of what could not be accepted in the first place. It is even infinitely worse. Should they then use LIFE as the basis for Life which made life?

Can the believers even know this? No, for they just went to another [wrong] level and halted there. Yes, they stopped, now satisfied with an even larger dilemma. This is called begging the question.

Can they realize it? No, for they halted the proceedings and closed the case before it could be opened, stopping dead in the water.

What to do? Ignore them, for they are stuck fast and can’t escape.
Click to expand...


But how is it that vedic literature knew we were living in a universe, and the earth was not only round, bit spherical, without the aid of specialised scientific equipment?

Could it be that they knew this the way it is stated in the scripture?

If so should we conclude that they were imagining God, but got everything else right?

jan.
 
spidergoat said:
Our star has a planet, so it's a reasonable guess to assume other stars have planets.
Click to expand...

How did they know the sun was a star?
How did they know this was a planet within a solar system within a universe?
How did they know the other luminaries in the night sky were stars, when they
don't look like the sun?
How did they know the stars were years away, instead of little dots in the sky?

When you've answered these, I've got a trailor load more. :)

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
But how is it that vedic literature knew we were living in a universe, and the earth was not only round, bit spherical, without the aid of specialised scientific equipment?

Could it be that they knew this the way it is stated in the scripture?

If so should we conclude that they were imagining God, but got everything else right?

jan.
Click to expand...

The moon and the sun were seen to be round, so… then, too the earth.
 
Jan Ardena said:
How did they know the sun was a star?
How did they know this was a planet within a solar system within a universe?
How did they know the other luminaries in the night sky were stars, when they
don't look like the sun?
How did they know the stars were years away, instead of little dots in the sky?

When you've answered these, I've got a trailor load more. :)

jan.
Click to expand...

The sun is bright like the stars are. Like I said, you are assuming they knew these things rather than guessed them. I don't even think they guessed them, but we are getting away from the topic. I'll save my comments until I see the video.
 
Jan Ardena said:
But how is it that vedic literature knew we were living in a universe, and the earth was not only round, bit spherical, without the aid of specialised scientific equipment?
Click to expand...
Maybe they saw the Earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse and realized what they were looking at.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Rav,

I've seen the video, and I disagree with you.
You'll have to explain what it is you see.



He needs to explain the vedic knowledge and how they came to have
such advanced knowledge of the universe, or they obtained the knowledge that we lived in a universe inhabited by planets, without the aid of telescopes.

You need to explain to me how ''God'' is understood by science, why you claim
that this preacher is, talking science and not some kind of fundamentalism in which he has used science to fit his agenda.

Answer these questions first then we'll get to the science of what he proposes.
Click to expand...

Knowledge of the universe is not necessarily evidence for god or the supernatural.

Anyway, I think it's a good summary of the kind of explanations that science has to offer for the existence of religion. It's a kind of optical illusion, or cognitive illusion. Our minds that evolved for certain tasks related to living can also be deceived by those same mechanisms.
 
Rav said:
Note that the point here is not to disprove the existence of some kind of creator deity but to present a scientific explanation for the emergence of religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

i caught that..he never implied that God doesn't exist..he was just explaining how religion capitalized on the human condition(my words),

LOL..he was talking about the four year old and its natural ability for imaginary friends, saying that imaginary friends are normal, (he did not say how we grow out of it)..but that said, wouldn't that qualify Lori as normal?


..nice try Jan..
 
spidergoat,

Knowledge of the universe is not necessarily evidence for god or the supernatural.
Click to expand...


That's not the point.
This preacher doesn't appear to have any idea of this culture, he seems preoccupied with Christianity.

Anyway, I think it's a good summary of the kind of explanations that science has to offer for the existence of religion.
Click to expand...

It's pathetic, and you know it.
Show me where he scientifically explains how ''God'' came to be the entity
in all human minds, simultaneosly.

It's a kind of optical illusion, or cognitive illusion. Our minds that evolved for certain tasks related to living can also be deceived by those same mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Oh! Give me a break. :rolleyes:

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
That's not the point.
This preacher doesn't appear to have any idea of this culture, he seems preoccupied with Christianity.
Click to expand...
He isn't a preacher, he is a scientist. I don't think he's even concentrating on Christianity. One major idea is that we look for "agents" as the cause of phenomenon because we evolved in an environment in which an agent was often the cause of things, such as animals making tracks, birds making nests, etc...


Jan Ardena said:
It's pathetic, and you know it.
Show me where he scientifically explains how ''God'' came to be the entity
in all human minds, simultaneosly.
Click to expand...
It's a father figure who's authority we respect. This pattern, to look for authority, might be burned into our brains at an early age through our experience in a hierarchical social structure. Monotheism is by no means a universal cultural trait. Some cultures look for multiple agents (polytheism).
 
Jan Ardena said:
He needs to explain the vedic knowledge and how they came to have such advanced knowledge of the universe, or they obtained the knowledge that we lived in a universe inhabited by planets, without the aid of telescopes.
Click to expand...

As is typical of most theists, you are underestimating the intelligence and ingenuity of human beings. We are an incredibly smart bunch and collectively we are able to operate above and beyond the abilities of any single individual. Hundreds if not thousands of years of careful observation, collaboration, testing of hypotheses and peer review, even without advanced scientific equipment, can indeed yield an impressive knowledge base. I have absolutely no doubt that there would have been some incredibly smart people in ancient India.

You need to explain to me how ''God'' is understood by science, why you claim that this preacher is, talking science and not some kind of fundamentalism in which he has used science to fit his agenda.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that I need to do anything other than wait for you to provide a refutation of the content of the lecture. You are at least sort of in the ball back with the ancient vedic stuff. Maybe a more specific example will help.
 
Rav said:
Many of you may have seen this lecture before, or read some of the articles that are based on the same research, but I'm sure it will make for some interesting discussion in any case.

Andy Thomson on Why we believe in God(s).

Note: The paper mentioned at 27:35 entitled "Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief" (by D Kapogiannis) is available in PDF format here.

For those that are particularly interested in the subject matter (which I'm sure wont be all of you) I really recommend that you also watch an earlier version of this lecture which can be found here. It's a little longer, a little more raw (it is interspersed with questions from the audience) but it is also a little more comprehensive on some points.

Note that the point here is not to disprove the existence of some kind of creator deity but to present a scientific explanation for the emergence of religious beliefs.

Feel free to discuss, critique or whatever floats your boat. But if you are going to participate, please actually watch at least one version of the lecture.
Click to expand...


Watch 39 minutes, basically got bored. He made too many manufactured conclusions from the evidence he was providing.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Rav,


As is typical of most theists, you are underestimating the intelligence and ingenuity of human beings.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but no.


We are an incredibly smart bunch and collectively we are able to operate above and beyond the abilities of any single individual. Hundreds if not thousands of years of careful observation, collaboration, testing of hypotheses and peer review, even without advanced scientific equipment, can indeed yield an impressive knowledge base. I have absolutely no doubt that there would have been some incredibly smart people in ancient India.
Click to expand...

You mean as long as they omit sanatana-dharma, the param-para system, and varnash-rama system from there history.
It was all imagined I take it. :rolleyes:


I don't agree that I need to do anything other than wait for you to provide a refutation of the content of the lecture. You are at least sort of in the ball back with the ancient vedic stuff. Maybe a more specific example will help.
Click to expand...

To attempt to refute this man is to give credibility to his sermon.

This man is a mere cog in the machine. His job is give morale to the troops.
He doesn't have a clue outside of his designation. That is my opinion.

If you believe he is talking science, then as I stated in the other thread, show where it is, because I can't see it.

jan
 
Adstar said:
Watch 39 minutes, basically got bored. He made too many manufactured conclusions from the evidence he was providing.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Click to expand...

did you notice that some of the pics were lame and unnecessary? (everyone knows what a Swiss army knife is) and he glanced over certain things (ie..and this means that..)
he complicated the presentation (maybe the audience was for scientist?)
 
I got a new Goddess for yee all . Maria Makiling . She is more of a Fairy of a sacred Mountain . It reminded Me of Maria , that I am Helping with her Bathroom. I be Makiling Maria , except I can't cause I made a promise to some one else that I would not Makil her. That was a joke . I Makil Her when ever I see her . I makil everyone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top