Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Religious Discussion

G

Grumm

Planetoid
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
So, up until recently I was part of a site that had some forums for religious discussion; they unfortunately just axed those forums in an attempt to make it more of a 'singles hook-up' site (for whatever reason they think that makes sense). Thus I'm looking to see if anyone's interested in beginning a discussion here, as this seems to be the place for such. I'm mainly interested in discussing Christianity, as it's what I know the most about, but am happy to go into any religion.

For starters, I'll state my beliefs, or rather, lack thereof:

I'm an agnostic-atheist.
There is little to no evidence at all for the existence of Christ.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence against God and the supernatural.
Religion is a destructive, controlling force that has accomplished little good.

And, the most important thing of all:

I could be wrong and have no problem with that. In fact, if I'm wrong, I'd love to hear how and where; but, I will debate the points, in the interest of finding out the truth.

So, any takers?
 
I, for one, don't think "religion" can be pigeonholed quite so simply. I don't have much of any need for it myself, as I am straight-up agnostic (though friendly to those who hold belief) and good with my not-knowing.

But just to take Christianity as an example, while it has persecuted and it has restrained, and the "fundamentalists" are a plague upon the face of Science and all that moves us forward, socially -- at the same time, it has produced positive effects in people's lives when nothing else could, it has fed and clothed millions, built schools, and been the motivator for exploration and humanitarian work. Back in history, there's lots of knowledge that would have been utterly lost if it hadn't been for monastic libraries; the old Church, back when there was just one, wasn't always anti-science, and in fact a lot of monks of the time were also natural philosophers, back before the term "scientist" was even coined. The Church commissioned some of Western culture's finest works of art and architecture, and millions of creative people have found inspiration from its teachings.

Religion is a huge awful concept, and it can and has been far too easily used to abuse and control. Zealotry is one of the worst flaws I can think of in a human being. But Religion doesn't always do evil, and it is complex and long-lived enough to have produced more than a single result. I would say I object to the majority of organized religions as structures, but I only occasionally have difficulties with the people who make up those organizations.

... Not sure that this advances the discussion too much, just voicing my objection to one of your basic points. One of MY basic philosophical tenets is that the universe is always more complex than you imagine (no matter how complex you imagine it), so when I see something so broad distilled down so far, it kind of raises my hackles, is all. :)
 
There's plenty of evidence christ existed - It's his divinity that's in question, as most of the passages of the bible relating to that (Miracles, the resurrection) were added hundreds of years after his death. I, personally, believe his divinity is completely immaterial to his message.

Science, and humanity as a whole, know so very, very little about both the higher and lower levels of reality. On a scientific tack (And also moving into your third point), my first step towards becoming religious was when I read about the state of the brain during prayer, meditation, worship, and other 'religious' experiences, irregardless of religion.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2009/1214/prayer121409.shtml">http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2009/1214/prayer121409.shtml</a><!-- m -->

The last section hits especially close to home for me.

My question was this - So prayer is hardwired into our brain, humanity has evolved to be religious. Why? What's the evolutionary payoff? The conclusion that made the most sense to me was simple enough. Something put it there. Bear in mind that I was very much an atheist when I had this conclusion.

As for your third point, it's important to distinguish the organization from the message. Besides, you're way too inclusive. Buddhists are destructive, controlling, and accomplish little good? How about taoists? Pagans? The church is a pretty selfcentered organization, dedicated to it's own power and perpetuation. This was even true in Christ's time. He had some pretty harsh things to say about the church. The message is absolutely worthwhile to everyone the world over, though.

"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, 'Of all the commandments, which is the most important?' 'The most important one,' answered Jesus, 'is this: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." The second is this: "Love your neighbour as yourself." There is no commandment greater than these.' 'Well said, teacher,' the man replied. 'You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.' When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God.' And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions." Mark 12:28-34

For context, it's important to understand these two commandments are two faces on the same coin, as Christ stated that God is within all of us and we are a part of Him. The message, therefore, is be good. Love one another. Care for your fellow man. That's not so bad, eh?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4[/youtube]
 
Ah, but this is the kind of discussion I enjoy... :)

Much of that is absolutely true, but what is a beautiful and accomplished painting to a single person burned at the stake? Can we assign a value to such things, so that we can say "Well, that's a wonderful, inspiring cathedral; what'd ya think, it's okay to kill, say, ten thousand?"? Is it even right to do so?

Much knowledge was saved, yes, but far more lost to fires started by priests who found any knowledge not tied to God sinful and unclean. Much of greek philosophy was destroyed by the church, and a good portion of what escaped managed to be bastardized into "christian" teachings (for example, of the seven cardinal virtues, four are taken from older greek writings). An untold number of writings and teachings were stamped out by the church. They did preserve some, granted; but again, that hardly tips the scale, I think.

How many of those clothed and fed by christian charities were only lucky because those donating ad distributing the food and clothing were afraid of going to hell or thought that it was the right thing to do simply because the bible says so? How many are good and kind only because they fear hell? More importantly, if you are only good to avoid punishment, are you truly good?

Nothing is ever simple. On that we can agree. But, I feel that the atrocities caused by religion, or really even faith in the supernatural without any kind of rational basis, cannot be reconciled by the good done as, what seems to be, a byproduct.

Myself, as part of being agnostic-atheist, I'm a humanist; so long as the goal of an individual is to lead a good, noble life and to help others if possible, then the frame in which they place that is not always important. It just saddens me that some people need religion (or seem to, as I think it's degrading to say that anyone 'needs' anything to give themselves purpose) in order to do good, rather than doing it for it's own sake.
 
There is little to no evidence at all for the existence of Christ.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence against God and the supernatural.
Religion is a destructive, controlling force that has accomplished little good.
Click to expand...

1. I agree. There is little, to no evidence that any of the events in the Bible/Quar'an/Any other religous Holy book have ever taken place.

2. I don't think that there is enough evidence to prove either side really. From the scientific evidence that I have seen, it seems that science cannot prove that there is, or is not a God, or Deity.

3. Completely, and wholeheartedly agree. Religion is probobly the true evil of this world.
 
Sorry Seraph, didn't see you there.

As for evidence of Christ's existence, to what are you referring? The Gospels? Contradictory and written long after Christ supposedly died; Mark, the first written, didn't come about until late 69-early 70 AD, with the other four (that are included in the bible, as there are far more) written over the next 10 to 40 years. This means that the first wasn't written until about forty years after the supposed death, in a time when the average life expectancy is around 30-35 years.

Past the Gospels, what's next? Josephius Flavius? Wrote his works at around the same time as the author or authors of Mark (whoever he/they might have been), and the oldest surviving pieces don't make any mention of christ. That didn't appear until the fourth century, when they were added by Eusebius, who also said "If by falsehood a man may be lead to God, it surely cannot be a sin". Hard to take the word of anyone who admits that lying's okay as long as it has a desired outcome.


The hard fact is that no one, not a single person, wrote about Christ during the time he was actually supposed to be alive. Historians of the time, including those in the area where he operated, make no mention of him at all, or of any person resembling him. All writings concerning Christ come from at least 25 years after his death (Paul's works were written around 55 AD, but are hardly significant as he seems to place Christ as a mythical figure who was never on earth; he also knew nothing about most of the miracles). The vast majority of writings on Christ were done from the second century on.

I could be wrong here; I'd appreciate any new info you have on it that I may not have heard.

I think your conclusion is wrong on prayer; being religious has had massive survival value throughout most of human history. The more devout you were, the more fanatical in your faith, the better your chance of surviving to pass along your genetic material. It's no wonder then that many people would have such a trait. That's evolution for you. That which increases survival potential gets passed along.

All religions throughout time have been destructive at some point, with the so far notable exception of neo-paganism (wicca and such). Buddhism doesn't get off on this one. In addition to fighting currently going on in some parts of the world (buddhists/Muslims and Buddhists/Hindu), we can look at Tibet; under the rule of the Lamas, the people of Tibet were kept in abject poverty while the priest caste lived a life of leisure, and common punishments for even the most minor of offences included eye-gouging, ripping out the tongue of the offender, and disembowelment.

Moving on to the message, it's good only if one takes bits and pieces of it. You have to ignore, for example, the Christ endorsed slavery, never repealed the law to kill homosexuals ("And if a man should lay with a man as if with a woman, they both shall be put to death" found in Leviticus), he looked down upon women (referring to his own mother simply as "woman"), he never spoke out against rape (neither did anyone in the entire bible), and he never allows for any kind of goodwill towards those of other faiths. It's safe to say that the bible can be made to command one to do anything, provided the right passages are ignored or included.

Lastly, it's not enough to just be good, love one another, and care for your fellow man; you must also believe. A good, just, and noble atheist suffers the same ultimate fate as a horrible unrepentant murderer: Everlasting torment in hell.

PS: Atheist and agnostic are not opposed. See my post in the "Creationism vs. Evolution, making 'bullshit' sound sexy" thread.
 
I had a fire drill and lost the first version of all of this to a wrong click, and Grumm has replied away, anyway, but I'm going to post it anyway as is.


Re: value of human life. You can certainly put a value on human life, and people do it all the time. I'm not talking robberies or murder for hire, either, I'm talking insurance companies and benefit review boards and compensatory damage courts. I value human life, and preserve it when possible, and I believe it shouldn't be wasted when it's preventable. But I recognize that it WILL be wasted, and there's nothing we can really do about that. So to claim it's invaluable and worth more than anything is rather naive, actually. I think you probably know people who are pretty much wastes of skin, too, in your daily life.

As for the murder and burning and the horrors and tragedies, it's also naive to look at all that and point the finger to religion. The Nazis targeted religion, but they weren't religious themselves. The Soviets were formally anti-religious, and we still got pogroms and work camps and human lives ground in the gears of society. Same with modern China. Pol Pot I believe it was had people with glasses shot because they were the trappings of intellectualism, and that wasn't motivated by religion. What we're dealing with there is something more basic than religion: the horror and impulse to destroy appears to be basic to human society (individuals vary, but overall, we're not that great on keeping it together). Whether it's religious fervor, or nationalistic paranoia, or anti-intellectual willful ignorance, or whatever: that's just the framework, the excuse to let our baser hatreds flow (much like PVP, now that I think about it). So you can't pull out that and say it's all religion's fault, when humans do that naturally with or without religion.


Side note: Kawa addressed that point possibly as much as a year ago. Gnosis is spiritual knowledge, Theism is religious theory. You can be agnostic, meaning you can't claim any spiritual certainty, and still be a theist, meaning you believe in the forms and philosophy of religion. You can be gnostic and atheistic. Priests are, necessarily, gnostic theists. And people can be agnostic atheists.
 
The nazis were most certainly religious. Not only did Hitler many times say that he was "doing the lord's work" or "continuing the work of Christ", the nazi party was made up of young, catholic men and women. As for the soviets, Communism is formally anti-religious; during his reign, Stalin helped organize and permit russian orthodox celebrations and parades, even in Moscow. Stalin knew the value of religion as a tool. I'll not speak on Pol Pot, as I've done very little study on him; i do know, however, that his followers, who were committing the violent acts, were at least partially made up of men and women following the Shinto belief.

Agreed though that any system can cause people to obliterate one another, political, religious, or otherwise.

I also recognize that human life will be lost for spurious reasons. But those deaths caused because of religion were preventable; after all, as atheist/secular countries in europe can attest, one doesn't need religion to be good or prosperous.

(I'm just responding to those who post, not posting away regardless :)
 
Arrrrrg! Stupid fingers.....

Anywho, edited just for you lol


PS: according to Merriam-Webster's, It is in fact a word :p
 
Yeah, I know. But I don't have to like it.

There's literally no use of it I've ever seen that shouldn't have used "regardless." And what does the "ir" add? Is it a reversal, like irrelevant and irrespective? So when someone says "irregardless," do they actually mean "regarding"? They don't think so.

It's pointless and stupid and I have an instant impression of people who use it as muzzy-headed and lacking linguistic perspicacity.

So... really dislike "irregardless," is what I'm saying.
 
MM - Agnostics hold ultimates to be unknowable, atheists know that there's none. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic</a><!-- m --> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist</a><!-- m -->

They seem opposed to me.

The main flaw I find with your argument re: christ's existence is the complete discard of the gospels, which were amalgams of older documents and oral history. While I see your point, I think it's a mistake to completely disregard them. I'm not at all certain christ existed, mind; But scholars have accepted historical figures on less evidence. Christ is just under harder scrutiny. King Arthur is a good example of this. The linked article - From the AP, these aren't total whackjobs - takes a piece of rock with a name on it as evidence in favor of his existence. That wouldn't even be glanced at while discussing Christ. Not that I think scholars universally accept King Arthur as real, my point is that there's a harsh bias.

I don't see how a behavior that can drive you insane, or fanatical behavior is in ANY way a survival trait. Fanatics do things like run headlong into losing battles and other retarded shit like that. Care to try explaining your line of logic?

MM's post sums this up far more succinctly then I could, so I'll leave it at that.

As for taking bits and pieces - Well, yeah. The bible is a butchered, much-translated document. Leveticus, especially is utter bullshit through and through. The message has continually evolved throughout time, as humanity matures and moves towards what I view as being the core of the message. That bit was kind of subjective, maybe I should have foregone it. A lot of this discussion is an ill fit for me, as I view myself as believing in religion, all of them, more then the specific christian faith, despite my moniker.
 
Seraph Nicholas said:
MM - Agnostics hold ultimates to be unknowable, atheists know that there's none. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic</a><!-- m --> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist</a><!-- m -->

They seem opposed to me.
Click to expand...
I can see why you'd see them as opposed, but I don't think they are.

Agnostics say you can't ever know everything there is, you can't have ultimate knowledge. Which means you can't know for sure whether or not there's a being powerful enough to be called a god. If you think there is, you might be wrong. If you think there isn't... you might be wrong. Best you can speak to is your own experience. So while agnosticism is useful most frequently in the spiritual discussion ("gnosis" does relate specifically to spiritual matters), one could make the argument that it's basically just scientific skepticism in the spiritual realm.

Atheists, however, believe there's no god. That's pretty much the defining trait.

So you can be an atheist, but if you're willing to entertain the idea that you're wrong, you end up being agnostic, too.

Seraph Nicholas said:
A lot of this discussion is an ill fit for me, as I view myself as believing in religion, all of them, more then the specific christian faith, despite my moniker.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a bit of the Baha'i philosophy.

I do tend to agree that there's a part of our brain that is wired for belief. Belief in something, yes. But I don't know if it's intentional, if it's an accidental by-product of clunky early sentience that we've just found a purpose for, or if it developed for certain reasons that we've just adapted to religion. Common belief can be a community-unifying development, and humans are social animals (in the aggregate), so those that could join the group by believing in the things the group believes in would be more likely to find mates, propagating the tendency through the population by classic evolutionary methods.

What leads me away from thinking it's intentional in its placement or in its current use is the fact that it can be applied to a variety of focuses: you can access that part of your brain through any religion, any sufficiently powerful philosophy or cause. If it were designed, I can't help but expect it to be more purposeful.

But, like the rest of us (you've heard of introns in genetics, right?) it's not really very specifically designed.
 
Fair enough, MM. Though typically I reserve such judgment for people who use terms like "oh snap" and "fo rizzle".

Seraph, The definition of atheist you posted is: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (I just copy/pasted it from your link). It's one thing to not know something, another to not believe in it. I don't know whether or not there is a higher power, and believe that absolute knowledge of such is impossible. HOWEVER, I do not believe in one and the evidence seems to point in that direction. An example of this that you might endorse is: For all we know, there could be a giant cup of coffee orbiting a sun 4 million light years from earth. We can't prove that it exists, but can't prove that it doesn't exist either; therefor we don't know if it exists or not. We are agnostic towards the existence of the giant cup of coffee. However, I doubt that either of use believes that it exists (I should say, I doubt that you believe it exists). We are therefor also atheist towards the existence of the giant cup of coffee.

Also, the link you posted about arthur contains: "Although there is no evidence linking the stone directly with King Arthur, the slate is proof that the name Arthur existed during the era in which he reputedly lived, Wainwright said. " So, it's not acceptance that he was real, only that the name was around at that time.

I think you're also underestimating the power of fanaticism; after all, the Catholic Church has been around for just under 2000 years, and at earlier times was composed almost entirely of fanatics. Also, the first line of the article on prayer is: "Prayer may help reshape one's brain for better or for worse. It can make you healthy or it can make you insane. " Thus, the effect is not always detrimental. In addition, it's been postulated that it is not specifically prayer, but intense concentration on a positive attitude and "good thoughts", for lack of a better term, as well as trance-like states, produce the same effects.
 
Grumm said:
Fair enough, MM. Though typically I reserve such judgment for people who use terms like "oh snap" and "fo rizzle".
Click to expand...
If I ran into someone who used those terms seriously, without comic intent, then I'd share your approach. :)

One of the thoughts I like to entertain when people wonder about how we developed this or why we tend to do that, is that yes, maybe Humanity was designed with a purpose. But it accomplished that purpose in, like, 30,000 BC or something, and then didn't have the good grace to die off when it was obsolete, by it's designers' judgment. So everything we've done since, all our art and culture and multiplicity of mind-sets and beliefs, is all the descendants of simple machines trying to come up with things to do with the capacity they've been given, now that their purpose is finished. And a lot of that effort is spent on trying to come up with a new purpose for ourselves, but the problem is, nobody can decide which is the right one, because the true right one is long over with.

That kind of thing makes me smile, sometimes. I'm weird.
 
The Baha'i are interesting, but I don't quite buy into it. I don't like the 'successive chapters' idea, more, I view all religions as being a way for the diversity of humanity to have a diversity of relationships with God, however they choose to interpret him. On this idea, I often take my AA meetings as being religious, in a sense, despite the complete lack of specification of what the oft-mentioned 'higher power' is. That's also why I accept the purposelessness of the brain activity I mentioned - Everyone should develop their own, personal relationship with and idea of God.

Re: atheist/agnostic, I see your point.

Sure, the church has been around forever, but priests aren't exactly known for their plethora of offspring, ja? That's all besides the fact that an organization has no bearing on evolution - What's the payoff of fanaticism to the individual? And yes, the effects are not necessarily detrimental, but evolutionary theory states that time should have exterminated the negative side effects. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor</a><!-- m --> ... =104310443 is a slightly better article then the other I linked. 'When it comes to the brain, Newberg says, spiritual experience is spiritual experience. "There is no Christian, there is no Jewish, there is no Muslim, it's just all one," Newberg says.' is the line that summarizes my thoughts best, and is a core part of my personal religious theory. As for concentration on good thoughts or trances, I couldn't find any mention of them having this specific effect - Then again, I didn't really know where to start. Do you have a reference?

MM - Ahahah. I like it.
 
Okay, the link you gave didn't work, so If you can find the actual one I'd be appreciative. As for a link from me, I'm going to have to hunt for a bit. Had they not removed the forums I used to post in, I could go right to it. But, here's one I've got so far: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web2/Benner.html">http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... enner.html</a><!-- m -->.

But regardless (take THAT, MM lol), what is prayer really, other than hopeful, positive thinking and concentration? Do people pray for dark, hurtful things? Well, come to think of it, some likely do, but that's not the norm.

Now, as for an organization having no bearing on evolution, and the rest of it, we need to take a step back. You originally posted: "So prayer is hardwired into our brain, humanity has evolved to be religious. Why? What's the evolutionary payoff? The conclusion that made the most sense to me was simple enough. Something put it there. Bear in mind that I was very much an atheist when I had this conclusion."

Priests are the only ones who pray; so, it is not only the few children they might have determining whether or not that genetic trait passed along or not. In times when not being a believer got you tied to a log and set on fire, being able to believe, and to manifest outward signs of that belief, would have been a survival trait. Less people with that ability would die by human-created methods, and so that trait carries on.

Evolution doesn't necessarily remove negative traits; for instance, we need vitamin C to survive, a vitamin that almost all other animals who require it produce in their own body. But we are able to get it from elsewhere, so this negative trait remains. Same premise with behavioral traits, though in a somewhat different fashion.

A fanatic is more likely to do something to get themselves killed, true. But, since faith is a survival trait, and survival traits are desirable in mates, the fanatic would have a better chance to pass along that trait. Faith=survival, great faith= better chance of survival, thus those with great faith=more mating chances. More mating chances=more offspring, more offspring=better chance of passing along desirable trait.

Even some animals show behavioral traits with negative survival value; take herd animals for instance (herd, flock, whatever). When a predator appears, the first member of the herd to spot it begins making noise and acting erratically, activities which predators focus on. But, this activity allows the greater part of the herd to survive... and organizations can be treated the same way.
 
Faith isn't bred, it's taught. When religion grew, fear caused people to turn to it as "survival." It wasn't a survival trait because that would mean you were born with it. You aren't "born" with religion ingrained into your thought processes like walking- which isn't taught- that's an actual genetic trait for survival. You need to walk in order to survive and gather necessities in order to live. Having faith for a religion you were forced into is adaptation. You had to adapt to a faith in order to survive- ADAPTATION is a survival trait. So please, you can't lump in "prayer" and "faith" as traits. They aren't in your DNA. You learn those things.​
 
Hahvoc, it is not faith per se, but rather the predisposition for faith and a person's physical manifestation of that faith that are the traits I'm referring to. But going beyond that, a meme can indeed be a survival trait to one who espouses it; read The Lucifer Principle, by Howard Bloom, for an in-depth look at that.
 
There is a complete difference between an adaptation and a survival trait. Survival traits are laced in your DNA- natural selection is how that came about. Adaptation is just that- adapting to your surroundings in order to better survive when sudden change arrives. You can't call physical manifestations of faith as survival traits. They are adaptations.​
 
So, Hahvy, you're saying, like... a monkey's ability to eat ants safely is an evolved survival trait, but learning how to take a stick and put it in the ant hole to collect ants to eat isn't evolved, it's adapted and learned. Is that a decent example of what you're talking about?

Finally got a chance to read Seraph's link about prayer-based brain changes on a computer that didn't block the site, and I'd have to say, it would have a lot more credibility with me if it wasn't a report by a Catholic organization. I do think there's a part of the brain that's receptive to and connected with a "state of grace" or a mental experience of rapture. I do remember hearing about studies of brain activity on certain drugs and brain activity in the height of Zen meditation, and how they were neurologically similar, which means that religious ecstacy is as much neurochemical as it is cognitive and divine. I do think that's what most people try to access with religion, and the experience kind of pays off for itself, experientially, but there's so much other stuff tied up into it: dogma you have to believe, rituals you have to follow.

That's why, if I needed to chose a religion, I'd me an animist. Shamanic animist, if necessary. Then, the divine is in everything, and there's very little barrier between you and the universe, just consciousness. Besides, I hear the peyote is decent.

Anyway, what was I saying? Oh, yeah. So we have a thing in our brains which puts us in touch with what earlier generations could only interpret as the divine experience. These days, we know a bit more about neurotransmitters. But because they could reach a state where they felt this ecstasy, this connectedness, this oneness, they attached it to the beliefs of a higher being. Was that part of the brain placed there by a higher being as kind of a walkie-talkie we could use? If so, that being needs to change the batteries, because a lot of people are getting a lot of differing, conflicting messages. I tend to think it's naturally-evolved, but as for why, I couldn't begin to tell you. I tend to fall back on the "unintentional side-effect of being conscious in the manner that humans became" that we just discovered and put to use in whatever way we could think of.
 
Mr Master said:
So, Hahvy, you're saying, like... a monkey's ability to eat ants safely is an evolved survival trait, but learning how to take a stick and put it in the ant hole to collect ants to eat isn't evolved, it's adapted and learned. Is that a decent example of what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. To put it into human aspects: How do you get somewhere that's too far/takes too long to walk to? You adapt. You learn how to ride a bike or drive a car or find some other means to get there. That's learned behavior. It's an adaptation just like technology in and of itself is an adaptation for better survival. It can't be apart of your DNA and therefore isn't a survival trait. Just like religion. The pattern of spots on a Leopard are a survival trait- it allows them to be more attractive to potential mating partners and makes them harder to see at night.​
 
--+Hahvoc Requiem+-- said:
Mr Master said:
So, Hahvy, you're saying, like... a monkey's ability to eat ants safely is an evolved survival trait, but learning how to take a stick and put it in the ant hole to collect ants to eat isn't evolved, it's adapted and learned. Is that a decent example of what you're talking about?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. To put it into human aspects: How do you get somewhere that's too far/takes too long to walk to? You adapt. You learn how to ride a bike or drive a car or find some other means to get there. That's learned behavior. It's an adaptation just like technology in and of itself is an adaptation for better survival. It can't be apart of your DNA and therefore isn't a survival trait. Just like religion. The pattern of spots on a Leopard are a survival trait- it allows them to be more attractive to potential mating partners and makes them harder to see at night.​
Click to expand...
And in this context, the ability to have belief appears to be genetic, if brain-area-function studies tell us what we think they do, but what we turn that belief toward is entirely an adaptation. Religion is not genetic, but the ability to have a religious experience might be, if we're interpreting the research right.
 
Mr Master said:
--+Hahvoc Requiem+-- said:
Mr Master said:
So, Hahvy, you're saying, like... a monkey's ability to eat ants safely is an evolved survival trait, but learning how to take a stick and put it in the ant hole to collect ants to eat isn't evolved, it's adapted and learned. Is that a decent example of what you're talking about?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. To put it into human aspects: How do you get somewhere that's too far/takes too long to walk to? You adapt. You learn how to ride a bike or drive a car or find some other means to get there. That's learned behavior. It's an adaptation just like technology in and of itself is an adaptation for better survival. It can't be apart of your DNA and therefore isn't a survival trait. Just like religion. The pattern of spots on a Leopard are a survival trait- it allows them to be more attractive to potential mating partners and makes them harder to see at night.​
Click to expand...
And in this context, the ability to have belief appears to be genetic, if brain-area-function studies tell us what we think they do, but what we turn that belief toward is entirely an adaptation. Religion is not genetic, but the ability to have a religious experience might be, if we're interpreting the research right.
Click to expand...

Belief is different. Some people will never believe in one thing but will believe in another. That's choice. And the bold print is a contradiction. An experience isn't genetic. You can't experience one thing and have someone else experience it just because they are your child. Or a relative. Or be apart of the same species.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom