...I agree that religion often represents the best in humanity, however it is my contention that it borrows from humanity and is attributed to religion.
I would interested to hear your thoughts on Botton's "religion for atheists":
This is bloody brilliant, and it encapsulates a great deal of what I have been trying to say in this thread. I particularly agree with de Botton when he says that "we have secularized badly". The reason this happened is because secularization was reactive—it emerged as a fierce challenge to the authoritarian structures of religion, and in this process sought to eliminate religion altogether. I very much like de Botton's more ecumenical approach, whereby the patterns of religious behaviour and methods are still meaningful and informative, and most importantly they communicate something inherently valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
...As a self-proclaimed anti-theist, my personal opposition is not to the concept of religion or the belief in god. My opposition is equally applicable to both of your analogies:
The enemy is zealous dedication to an irrational conclusion.
I commend you for that. My problem with this is that I am not convinced of my ability—nor anyone's for that matter—to be purely rational. One of the explanations for why I am still a theist is my recognition that reason fails me.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
You seem to presume, though I could be wrong, that "the betterment of the individual and the community" can only effectively be executed through religion. If so, why? If not, and you believe that this can be acheived outside of religion, the result is that religion is not required from an individual or community perspective and it is therefore stripped down to nothing more than 'belief'. If theism and aetheism are able to accomplish the same goals then the only difference between the two world views is faith in a higher power. While religion requires faith, faith does not require religion...
I would choose not to say that "the betterment of the individual and the community can only effectively be executed through religion." I would rather argue that the pursuit of these ideals is distinctly "religious" behaviour. In the video that Gozer posted above, Alain de Botton clearly argues that secularists do not do a good job of enacting these ideals. I am hesitant to agree that the same effects can be achieved apart from organized religion, simply because it is within organized religion that this occurs most prominently. There are likely billions of people on the planet who do not agree that religion is merely optional. In my own church, there are hundreds of people who have undergone incredibly healthy and helpful personal and familial change that they cannot divorce from their religious experience. There is no doubt in my mind that they are better off in every way for their religious conversion, and I am quite certain that most of them are at a point at which they do in fact "need" their religion. It is not absurd. It is not nonsense. For many, it yields unparalleled results.
I think that "religion" is a corrupt institution like any institution, but that our modern organized religions contain vestiges of things that we have collectively ignored and forgotten in our aggressive pursuit of individual life, liberty, and happiness.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
This is bloody brilliant, and it encapsulates a great deal of what I have been trying to say in this thread. I particularly agree with de Botton when he says that "we have secularized badly". The reason this happened is because secularization was reactive—it emerged as a fierce challenge to the authoritarian structures of religion, and in this process sought to eliminate religion altogether. I very much like de Botton's more ecumenical approach, whereby the patterns of religious behaviour and methods are still meaningful and informative, and most importantly they communicate something inherently valuable.
I commend you for that. My problem with this is that I am not convinced of my ability—nor anyone's for that matter—to be purely rational. One of the explanations for why I am still a theist is my recognition that reason fails me.
Darn few debates on this topic are worth the time and tend to prove either (depending on your point of view) that: 1)We are primates who think we are smarter than we are; or, 2) We are indeed created as fallen and imperfect beings.
I commend you on your participation. The debate brings to mind the famous quote from Francis Bacon (who may possibly wrote the odd sonnet, poem and play using the name of Shakespear) that goes:
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
The idea that inert matter forms itself such that not only does it replicate itself but that it WANTS to replicate itself, is a phenomenon that would seem to require more answer than, "chance plus time". I get the replication part as we see that in lifeless chemical processes. I do not get the striving, the desire, the need to replicate itself. And hear I am not talking about humans, I am talking about some of the most basic forms of life.
I mean, why does a little one-cell organism care enough to grow a little tail to chase food? If that is one of the basic differences between a chunk of matter that is alive and a chunk that is dead, then where did this "caring" come from? It is a very great mystery that is not so easily dismissed as arising from chance.
It is almost as if matter itself has a very small and weak general quality that makes it want to reproduce itself and maybe even become intelligent. One philosopher has claimed that intelligence is a fundamental quality of matter as it appears that if matter is left alone sufficiently long, some of it will become self-aware and intelligent.
It is sufficiently mind bottling that I respect your deep considerations into the great issue of life and the meaning behind it.
The idea that inert matter forms itself such that not only does it replicate itself but that it WANTS to replicate itself, is a phenomenon that would seem to require more answer than, "chance plus time". I get the replication part as we see that in lifeless chemical processes. I do not get the striving, the desire, the need to replicate itself. And hear I am not talking about humans, I am talking about some of the most basic forms of life.
In fact, that would seem to me to be the basic characteristic most favored by the process of evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chester
I mean, why does a little one-cell organism care enough to grow a little tail to chase food? If that is one of the basic differences between a chunk of matter that is alive and a chunk that is dead, then where did this "caring" come from? It is a very great mystery that is not so easily dismissed as arising from chance.
I'm not sure that you really understand what the theory of evolution is. Organisms didn't develop tails because they wanted to chase food. Tails were a genetic mutation which just by dumb luck happened to be useful for chasing food, thereby making those individual organisms more successful, and thereby passing their mutant tail genes on and on.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
The idea that inert matter forms itself such that not only does it replicate itself but that it WANTS to replicate itself, is a phenomenon that would seem to require more answer than, "chance plus time". I get the replication part as we see that in lifeless chemical processes. I do not get the striving, the desire, the need to replicate itself. And hear I am not talking about humans, I am talking about some of the most basic forms of life.
There is no striving, there is simply Natural Selection.
Given two populations of otherwise identical self-replicators, those programmed to replicate themselves more often will come to dominate.
This is not a 'desire' anymore than a computer virus replicating itself in your system is a desire. See how the exact same argument works for something clearly non-living: Given two otherwise identical computer viruses the one programmed to replicate itself more aggressively will become more common.
In the beginning there were the self-replicators. Through non-random selection, those which contained programming (genes) to replicate themselves as aggressively as possible came to dominate and those genes which coded for aggressive replication were reproduced throughout the population of replicators, thus has it continued through the long, long ages.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
The idea that inert matter forms itself such that not only does it replicate itself but that it WANTS to replicate itself, is a phenomenon that would seem to require more answer than, "chance plus time".
Why?
If I had a screen and the small sand falls through the screen and the larger pieces do not, does that mean the small pieces WANT to fall through?
Of if I have some molecules in the right circumstances, they'll self assemble into very specific structures (crystals), does that mean Carbon WANTS to be a diamond? Or water wants to be a snowflake?
Stunning complexity arises naturally from the interaction of a few simple rules, we're not used to seeing it and we can't always intuitively understand it, so our natural inclination is to attribute such things to an Agency.
However to do so without a reason, to just say "it seems to require something more" isn't good reasoning.
As others have pointed out, it's much more than "chance + time", it's easy to underestimate the power of selection.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I understand the scientific basis behind evolution. But most of you guys are missing his point. There are urges and desires and wants in the animal kingdom. Many of these urges and desires are towards procreation, as can be understood. But there is something more to it than just that. Much like your own impulses. Many here have urges to correct his science, but these urges are just that. Urges. Wants. They did not simply evolve into being, precisely because there is nothing simple about it. What possible procreational benefit could there be to arguing on a message board? Much less some of the idiosyncratic behaviors of my different cats?
Photon, in particular I like your answer, it is a good one. But it takes his point and makes it a very simple one, whereas I believe I understand his point to be a lot more subtle and nuanced than that. Your point is likely correct, but there is more to it than just that. Someone bringing up issues like this is not always just someone with a poor understanding of evolution talking. I understand that it is easier to "correct" someone than it is to address this question, but the question remains.
They did not simply evolve into being, precisely because there is nothing simple about it.
Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it's granted by an external agency; that doesn't answer the question, it just dodges it or at least pushes it up a level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
I understand that it is easier to "correct" someone than it is to address this question, but the question remains.
There's lots of stuff out there on how different characteristics could have evolved, I haven't done a lot of reading in that area so I'm not really prepared to make a case, but I know the case exists.
Just trying to point out that not understanding is not sufficient reason to say "therefore god(s)/magic/aliens/whatever".
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
It is true that Natural Selection does not require striving. Yet there still is striving. It still exists.
I think that you are confusing two different things here. Organisms don't "strive" to grow a tail (or at least, if they do, it doesn't result in growing a tail.) However, organisms do strive to eat enough food, drink enough water, and reproduce. However, as already noted, these instincts would clearly lead to more successful reproduction of those organisms, and therefore would clearly be "naturally selected".
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I understand the scientific basis behind evolution. But most of you guys are missing his point. There are urges and desires and wants in the animal kingdom. Many of these urges and desires are towards procreation, as can be understood. But there is something more to it than just that. Much like your own impulses. Many here have urges to correct his science, but these urges are just that. Urges. Wants. They did not simply evolve into being, precisely because there is nothing simple about it. What possible procreational benefit could there be to arguing on a message board? Much less some of the idiosyncratic behaviors of my different cats?
Damn, I had written a long response to this and then my connection died and I lost it. To expand on what Makarov said, striving to survive and propagate are naturally-selected behaviours. Or rather, they're behaviours that are the result of naturally-selected traits. This is an important distinction when we look at psychological evolution. It's an oversimplification to say 'what's the procreational benefit of an animal doing X?' You need to ask, 'what traits cause an animal to do X, and what are the benefits of such a trait (either to the individual or the group).'
For your example of arguing on a message-board, there are a number of potentially useful traits that contribute to this behaviour, from desire to participate in social environments, combativeness within such an environment, and an ability to learn behaviour and interaction from others. All of these things are potentially useful adaptations.
I think that you are confusing two different things here. Organisms don't "strive" to grow a tail (or at least, if they do, it doesn't result in growing a tail.) However, organisms do strive to eat enough food, drink enough water, and reproduce. However, as already noted, these instincts would clearly lead to more successful reproduction of those organisms, and therefore would clearly be "naturally selected".
I think you're confused as to what I'm confused about. If that makes sense. I know that organisms do not strive to grow a tail. It is not in the cards, it doesn't happen that in the embryonic stage an organism tries hard to remove a trait, or to create a new one. That is not in question.
But then that also leads to the fact that it isn't the question. There is more to life than natural selection, much like there is more to life than gravity or the first law of thermodynamics. Much like how gravity needs to be taken in to account for every act of natural selection (things don't disregard gravity even if that would be advantageous to an organism), there are other things happening in life where the answer is more than just one of natural selection.
Psychology is a field of study which is a good example. There are things happening in the brain which do not act counter to Natural Selection (as it is practically a scientific law, and as a result is not easily or readily moved against, even if it were possible. I'm not confused as to how this works, even if I am not the most precise in my language, please forgive this). But then there are also things that are happening in the brain where natural selection is a poor rule to explain why it is happening, nearly as poor a rule to use to explain it as Ohm's law would be, even if what is happening cannot break that law either, and must satisfy it. There is a difference between understanding the implications of something on natural selection (and vice versa), and in using natural selection as the answer as to why something is the way it is. It is tempting to use natural selection to answer every question, and then to feel that that is all the answer you need, but that just reminds me of the saying "when you have a hammer, all your problems look like nails".
I think you're confused as to what I'm confused about. If that makes sense. I know that organisms do not strive to grow a tail. It is not in the cards, it doesn't happen that in the embryonic stage an organism tries hard to remove a trait, or to create a new one. That is not in question.
Sorry, I did misunderstand you then. Thanks for clarifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
But then that also leads to the fact that it isn't the question. There is more to life than natural selection, much like there is more to life than gravity or the first law of thermodynamics. Much like how gravity needs to be taken in to account for every act of natural selection (things don't disregard gravity even if that would be advantageous to an organism), there are other things happening in life where the answer is more than just one of natural selection.
Psychology is a field of study which is a good example. There are things happening in the brain which do not act counter to Natural Selection (as it is practically a scientific law, and as a result is not easily or readily moved against, even if it were possible. I'm not confused as to how this works, even if I am not the most precise in my language, please forgive this). But then there are also things that are happening in the brain where natural selection is a poor rule to explain why it is happening, nearly as poor a rule to use to explain it as Ohm's law would be, even if what is happening cannot break that law either, and must satisfy it. There is a difference between understanding the implications of something on natural selection (and vice versa), and in using natural selection as the answer as to why something is the way it is. It is tempting to use natural selection to answer every question, and then to feel that that is all the answer you need, but that just reminds me of the saying "when you have a hammer, all your problems look like nails".
All fair points (I especially like the above-bolded piece of wisdom.) However, recognizing deficiencies in our current understanding of the world still leaves us a long way from evidence of the existence of a creator/omnipotent and omniscient being. For example, many of the mysteries of the physical world that were likely used as "evidence" of God's existence just a hundred years ago are now satisfactorily explained by modern scientific knowledge.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
By contrast, 67% of those surveyed said they trusted "people who are religious" in general, and even more respondents - 73% - expressed trust in "people who are not religious."
I'm actually quite surprised to see Alberta on the lower-end of the scale.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."
