Memammal

In response to iNow's request above, let me for now just deal with this one part that Unity+ might have misunderstood. Unity+ somehow concluded from earlier quotes that we evolved to generally believe in all kinds of fallacies and kept on with this line of reasoning notwithstanding my correction as well as earlier and subsequent explanations that our species had once believed in many fallacies (or superstitions), that according to Wright (and the referenced Wikipedia article) it came about as a result of a spandrel or unintended by-product of evolution, that some of us still believe in the supernatural (where I argued that some of the exact same underlying motives/factors are likely still present) and lastly, that seeing that our species has since evolved further by virtue of the ever-changing genetic/environmental interactions and through the gathering of scientific knowledge, some of us have in fact become sceptical and critical of anything akin to the supernatural. It is NOT, as he put it, changing environments that resulted in the belief in fallacies no longer being for our benefit. It is because of the ongoing and ever-changing gene/environment interaction (including the age of enlightenment and thus a more open-minded, more receptive society, scientific progress, etc.) that we now (dare to) have more insight and knowledge and less superstition. In an attempt to shed some further light on Wright's original line of argument, let me copy an even wider extract from that essay (which is why it would have been much easier if the referenced source was read the first time around). Anyway, here it is: "So to explain the existence of “primitive” religion—or for that matter any other kind of religion—we have to first understand what kinds of beliefs and practices the human mind is amenable to. What kinds of information does the mind naturally filter out, and what kinds naturally penetrate it? Before religion appeared and started evolving by cultural evolution, how had genetic evolution shaped the environment in which it would evolve—that is, the human brain? To put the question another way: What kinds of beliefs was the human mind “designed” by natural selection to harbor? For starters, not true ones. At least, not true ones per se. To the extent that accurate perception and comprehension of the world helped humanity’s ancestors get genes into the next generation, then of course mental accuracy would be favored by natural selection. And usually mental accuracy is good for the survival and transmission of the genes. That’s why we have excellent equipment for depth perception, for picking up human voices against background noise, and so on. Still, in situations where accurate perception and judgment impede survival and reproduction, you would expect natural selection to militate against accuracy." Wright then continued under the sub-heading Truth and Consequences to refer to something that is known as the Stockholm syndrome and raised the following points: "Hearst’s condition of coerced credulity is called the Stockholm syndrome, after a kidnapping in Sweden. But the term “syndrome” may be misleading in its suggestion of abnormality. Hearst’s response to her circumstances was probably an example of human nature functioning properly; we seem to be “designed” by natural selection to be brainwashed. Some people find this prospect a shocking affront to human autonomy, but they tend not to be evolutionary psychologists. In Darwinian terms, it makes sense that our species could contain genes encouraging blind credulity in at least some situations. If you are surrounded by a small group of people on whom your survival depends, rejecting the beliefs that are most important to them will not help you live long enough to get your genes into the next generation. Confinement with a small group of people may sound so rare that natural selection would have little chance to take account of it, but it is in a sense the natural human condition. Humans evolved in small groups—twenty, forty, sixty people—from which emigration was often not a viable option. Survival depended on social support: sharing food, sticking together during fights, and so on. To alienate your peers by stubbornly contesting their heartfelt beliefs would have lowered your chances of genetic proliferation." I trust that this will help.

When I read your various comments in your previous post (#102) it became clear to me that we have reached an impasse (which is far removed from any intention to "promote discourse for the evolution of ideas"). I apologise for being rude about it, but those particular questions that you raised (that I referred to in my previous post) were nonsensical in light of everything that I have already conveyed to you. Surely there should be no reason for having to repeat myself, or for having to further explain/expand on something that should have been understood already. Hence my reaction, which, in retrospect, was perhaps uncalled for.

It seems to me that you are debating something for the sake of having a debate. Like this rather silly and ignorant question. I would be repeating myself, so figure it out for yourself.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there exist perfectly plausible scientific explanations for the "origin" of the universe that are far more rational than god-did-it. The urge to opt for the latter, i.e. a supernatural creator, actually complicates matters as is evident from the endless scientific and philosophical debates surrounding this topic from the watchmaker analogy, the cosmological argument, intelligent design to various others. I trust that science will eventually resolve it once and for all, hence the reason why I regard such a notion to be short-sighted. I am already satisfied that there are sufficient grounds upon which to dismiss the far-fetched idea of a supernatural creator, which is why I (personally) perceive it as superstitious. The problem with that has just been illustrated in the way you reacted to my quotes. I attempted to pick highlights from Wright's essay in order to create some sort of summarised narrative, but by doing so I exposed the argument to being nit-picked out of context. You interpreted that out of context. Let me quote a larger part of that paragraph: "When something appears in every known society, as religion does, the question of whether it is “in the genes” naturally arises. Did religion confer such benefits on our distant ancestors that genes favoring it spread by natural selection? There are scientists who believe the answer is yes—enough of them, in fact, to give rise to headlines like this one, in a Canadian newspaper: “Search continues for ‘God gene.’” Expect to see that headline again, for the search is unlikely to reach a successful conclusion. And that isn’t just because, obviously, no single gene could undergird something as complex as religion. Things don’t look good even for the more nuanced version of the “God gene” idea—that a whole bunch of genes were preserved by natural selection because they inclined people toward religion. Oddly, this verdict—that religion isn’t in any straightforward sense “in the genes”—emerges from evolutionary psychology, a field that has been known to emphasize genetic influences on thought and emotion. Though some evolutionary psychologists think religion is a direct product of natural selection, many—and probably most—don’t. This doesn’t mean religion isn’t in any sense “natural,” and it doesn’t mean religion isn’t in some sense “in the genes.” Everything people do is in some sense in the genes. (Try doing something without using any genes.) What’s more, we can trace religion to specific parts of human nature that are emphatically in the genes. It’s just that those parts of human nature seem to have evolved for some reason other than to sustain religion." ​Note how I only copied the last part of the above as an introduction to the intended summarised narrative. Let me again quote another extended portion of said essay: "And yet, you might say, religion does have the hallmarks of design. It is a complex, integrated system that seems to serve specific functions. For example, religions almost always handle some key “rites of passage”—getting married, getting buried, and so on—whose ritualized handling is probably good for the society. How do you explain the coherence and functionality of religion without appealing to a designer—or, at least, a “designer”? You don’t. But biological evolution isn’t the only great “designer” at work on this planet. There is also cultural evolution: the selective transmission of “memes”—beliefs, habits, rituals, songs, technologies, theories, and so forth—from person to person. And one criterion that shapes cultural evolution is social utility; memes that are conducive to smooth functioning at the group level often have an advantage over memes that aren’t. Cultural evolution is what gave us modern corporations, modern government, and modern religion. For that matter, it gave us nonmodern religion. Whenever we look at a “primitive” religion, we are looking at a religion that has been evolving culturally for a long time. Though observed hunter-gatherer religions give clues about what the average religion was like 12,000 years ago, before the invention of agriculture, none of them much resembles religion in its literally primitive phase, the time (whenever that was) when religious beliefs and practices emerged. Rather, what are called “primitive” religions are bodies of belief and practice that have been evolving—culturally—over tens or even hundreds of millennia. Generation after generation, human minds have been accepting some beliefs, rejecting others, shaping and reshaping religion along the way. So to explain the existence of “primitive” religion—or for that matter any other kind of religion—we have to first understand what kinds of beliefs and practices the human mind is amenable to. What kinds of information does the mind naturally filter out, and what kinds naturally penetrate it? Before religion appeared and started evolving by cultural evolution, how had genetic evolution shaped the environment in which it would evolve—that is, the human brain?" Our beliefs in fallacies came about as an unintended by-product of evolution (a spandrel)...that is the argument. And many believers do believe in fallacies, don't they? They believe that that they will be protected or cured by supernatural intervention, they believe in an internal life for their souls and you can easily see why they want to believe that. That is survival instinct at its best...only in reality there is no proof that something like that can, or will happen...it is just a belief, a hope. So, do you see how our species invented ways to avoid accurate perception in order to "stay alive"? And it is fallacious because it assumes that humanity here on planet earth is somehow unique or different to the rest of our vast eco system (admittedly not all religions assume this) whereas evolution has taught us that we are not. It would appear that at this point in time your eyes lit up as you perceived this as an acknowledgment that it was speculative and a hard-to-test claim, but in fact he then went on to introduce the by-now famous chimpanzee observations of Frans de Waal. As a side note that Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions) that I referenced also deals with De Waal's work together with an abundance of support for the idea that religion has an evolutionary origin. I will be happy to quote relevant parts thereof if needed. I WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REST OF THIS RESPONSE SEPARATELY AS THE REPLY-FUNCTION HAS SEEMINGLY CEASE TO OPERATE IN A NORMAL FASHION. LET ME RATHER POST THIS BEFORE IT GETS LOST. TO BE CONTINUED. Fortunately, for some of us, we can thank the age of enlightenment and science for our ability to be able to think more critically about certain matters...or let me be more scientific in saying that the dynamic interactions between our ever-changing genes and our ever-changing environments have brought us to a better insight (and will continue to do so). You erred in your assumption that the collective of everything that we have learned through the ages and that we know today would remain constant and unfiltered. Scientific facts and theories, for example, are hardly fallacies. You keep on drumming up the idea of a "creator" so by your logic there must be a supernatural start and a supernatural end, right? Science is, however, unmoved by assumptions such as "creation", "start" and/or "end", but allow me to throw in the idea of nature being its own designer, creator, sustainer and/or destroyer..? To conclude: Essentially it does not matter what our respective biases are in relation to this topic. Subconsciously each of us arrive at some sort of comfort zone via our unique interactive genetic/environmental make-up. It may be by virtue of organised religion, personal spirituality, agnosticism or atheism. If we understand the narrative behind the likely origins of our spirituality and we acknowledge the deeply rooted psychological need that many humans have to believe in something (rather than in someone..?), it should assist us in forming a better understanding of- and mutual respect for each other's religious or spiritual niche.

Personally I find the notion - that, because there are some things that still have to be scientifically concluded, it justifies a belief in a supernatural creator/god - irrational and myopic. I have already addressed this so called god-of-gaps in my posts #85 as well as in the part that you quoted above. There have been countless debates on this subject, both in the fields of science and philosophy, but to me it is unambiguously clear. It does substantiate my original point of departure though, which was that our species acquired a belief in the supernatural as an unintended by-product of evolution. As such the before-mentioned (absurd) reaction to the so-called mysterious is akin to an "instinctive" reaction to anything unknown. In post #64 I raised the above argument (that our species acquired a belief in the supernatural/gods as an unintended by-product of evolution) and made a reference to the appendix to Robert Wright's book The Evolution Of God. I provided the link again (in post #84) in relation to the so-called God-gene. He presented a perfectly good case that he conveyed in a reasonably short essay, which is why I never considered it necessary to quote him. In it he concluded among other things the following: "we can trace religion to specific parts of human nature that are emphatically in the genes. It’s just that those parts of human nature seem to have evolved for some reason other than to sustain religion." "that doesn’t mean religion is an adaptation, even though religion may involve love, awe, joy, and fear and thus involve the genes underlying these things." "A spandrel is an incidental by-product of the organic “design” process, whereas an adaptation is a direct product. Religion seems to be a spandrel." "...biological evolution isn’t the only great “designer” at work on this planet. There is also cultural evolution: the selective transmission of “memes”—beliefs, habits, rituals, songs, technologies, theories, and so forth—from person to person." (here he made reference to Richard Dawkins) "...what are called “primitive” religions are bodies of belief and practice that have been evolving—culturally—over tens or even hundreds of millennia. Generation after generation, human minds have been accepting some beliefs, rejecting others, shaping and reshaping religion along the way." "Before religion appeared and started evolving by cultural evolution, how had genetic evolution shaped the environment in which it would evolve—that is, the human brain? To put the question another way: What kinds of beliefs was the human mind “designed” by natural selection to harbor? For starters, not true ones." "...in situations where accurate perception and judgment impede survival and reproduction, you would expect natural selection to militate against accuracy." "...evolutionary psychology suggests that a much more natural way to explain anything is to attribute it to a humanlike agent. This is the way we’re “designed” by natural selection to explain things. Our brain’s capacity to think about causality—to ask why something happened and come up with theories that help us predict what will happen in the future—evolved in a specific context: other brains." "That’s a somewhat speculative (and, yes, hard-to-test!) claim." "For starters, we can observe our nearest nonhuman relatives, chimpanzees." "As the primatologist Frans de Waal has shown, chimpanzee society shows some clear parallels with human society." "Natural selection has equipped chimps with emotional and cognitive tools for playing this political game. One such tool is anticipation of a given chimp’s future behaviour based on past behaviour." "If you imagine their politics getting more complex (more like, say, human politics), and them getting smarter (more like humans), you’re imagining an organism evolving toward conscious thought about causality. And the causal agents about which these organisms will think are other such organisms, because the arena of causality is the social arena. In this realm, when a bad thing happens or a good thing happens, it is another organism that is making the bad or good thing happen." "So it’s no surprise that when people first started expanding their curiosity, started talking about why bad and good things emanate from beyond the social universe, they came up with the kinds of answers that had made sense within their social universe." "More than one hundred years ago Edward Tylor wrote that “spirits are simply personified causes,” but he probably didn’t appreciate, back then, how deeply natural personification is." "As the anthropologist Pascal Boyer has observed, “the only feature of humans that is always projected onto supernatural beings is the mind.” I can go on, but I am sure you get the gist of it. In post #84 when replying in context to a comment raised by Prometheus, I also cited the Wikipedia article "Evolutionary origins of religions" that not only echoes the above sentiments, but goes even further in explaining the evolutionary roots of religions. It is pretty much self-explanatory and well-referenced. In said post I also argued that something like morality is not exclusively human, nor is ethics exclusively religious. I concluded in said post and in the one following it, that these various beliefs and/or their associated gods were (and still are) all just in the mind. Creator and god(s) are not necessarily one and the same and there are quite a few variations on the theme. Refer to the Wikipedia article "Creator deity" here. You extracted a part of my statement and i.m.o. you reacted to it out of context. Please read the entire paragraph and specifically the sentence that followed what you extracted. And lastly I would like to quote from the sub-forum sticky that I referred to in my opening post #64: "Science seems to work rather well. So any concept of God or any religious tenets that directly contradict science as buttressed by experimental evidence is clearly indistinguishable from superstition. Superstition is, essentially by definition, wrong."

Again, the problem with that (and with your original subject title) lies in the use of the word "created".

Interesting thread. And as a side note it is worth repeating a sentiment that disarray already alluded to on the previous page. If we are part of a greater whole (or collective consciousness), that greater whole cannot be exclusively representative of selected cultures, species or even planets. There can be no human-only greater whole. If humans have something like "immortal souls" or are in someway part of a collective consciousness, then, at the very least, all fauna, past present and future, within the entire universe, have to be part thereof.

Science has repeatedly concluded that there is no reason- or need to insert (de novo) creation and therefore an external or supernatural creator in order to explain the existence of our universe. I have...earlier in the thread in posts #64 & #84. The subject under discussion actually deals with God, but refer to my first comment. Your second sentence should then be equally applicable to the subject of this thread in reference to the (proven?) existence of any god (or creator). Please explain.

^ You don't need to read the entire book, more or less half of the referenced appendix (to which I already provided the link to) should suffice. It should not take more than 15 minutes to read. Is it convincing scientific evidence? If you are overly sceptical, I doubt if you will see it as such. On that point, don't you think that it will be a rather fruitless and wasteful use of resources to conduct a proper scientific research project on what is BELIEVED to be any one, three or more possible supernatural deities (depending on who you speak to) and for which there is not a shred of evidence except "holy" scriptures that were written millennia ago. Did science conclusively rule out the existence of Ra, Odin & Zeus (among others)? Was it ever really necessary? Or was it a case of concluding, with hindsight, that they were all just mythical (and, where applicable, to narrow down the likely cultural history behind these imaginary gods just for good measure)? We all agree that they were imaginary, right? Yet they were once regarded as the indisputable heavenly rulers of their respective earthly empires. Surely there is no need for scientists to waste time on fiction and/or superstition. Given the lack of evidence for supernatural deities vs the mountain of evidence for the unlikelihood thereof, the conclusion should be obvious.

I like to think that the first half of the appendix to Robert Wright's book The Evolution Of God that I referenced earlier provides a very eloquent explanation. I agree with you 100%. I was trying to emphasise the fact that we should be mindful to not think of ourselves as different to the rest of our planet's wildlife apart from our NATURALLY evolved traits. I did so in order to be critical of any notions that we are in some SPECIAL ways different (or divinely created) that enable us to have extraordinary attributes like the ability to sin, or to have an immortal soul, while the rest of the wildlife species on our planet supposedly do not have such features.

Again, I get it. There really should not be any argument about the essence or meaning of "atheism", which is arguably best described here: Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.Atheism is contrasted with theism which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) Any confusion that may exist is brought about as a result of semantic (mis)interpretation, something that is also being exploited by some theists. The "issue" is not helped by definitions and references such as the one that I posted earlier, nor by these: Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." (https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism) Strong or positive atheism is the positive belief that a god does not exist. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism)

^ Refer to that definition that I copied in my previous post. Admittedly not cast in stone; I got it here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O62-secularbeliefs.html I am not convinced that deists should form part of that umbrella term though..? Going back to the original topic, I would definitely remove the "faith based" part of it. That does not make any sense.

^ Yeah I get it, but do (or don't) you regard it as a secular belief as well? Secular beliefs: nonreligious beliefs that reflect an emphasis on living in the here and now. Secularists use scepticism and rationalism to question traditional religious beliefs; they may be humanists, atheists, deists (believing in a creative force, or first cause), or agnostics.

This could also be stated differently, as follows: how will we be able to learn that any of our beliefs (in reference to a god, a religion, spiritual or secular) are more estimable than those of others? and because of this, I think that we can not compare somebody's personal or cultural belief with those of others [as all beliefs are man-made].

There are of course others that cannot be argued away based on figurative, symbolic or poetic interpretation, nor by the notion that it was merely the inspired word of God. No point in trying to convince a fundamentalist believer that their holy scriptures contain flaws though...

Following on from my last paragraph above. First of all, I regard the holistically inclined eastern religions like Taoism and Confucianism in very much the same light as Pantheism where a personified and personal god-like figure (and by implication the term "god" or "deity") has no significance. Referring to Hinduism, it appears to be divided along the lines of the dualistic schools (where "Brahman is different from Atman (soul) in each being, and therein it shares conceptual framework of the god in major world religions") and non-dual schools of Hinduism ("Brahman is identical to the Atman, Brahman is everywhere and inside each living being, and there is connected spiritual oneness in all existence"). In Hinduism Brahman is regarded as the "cause of all changes", a "metaphysical concept which is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe". There was one glaringly obvious omission in my last post though, that of Deism. Broadly speaking Deism implies an impersonal god, removed from- and no longer tinkers with the natural world that said god initially created. There are various interpretations like this one "Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation" and this "Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation". OK, so we obviously cannot discard the Deistic god in the same manner than before. However, the notions that said god is "supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe" and "that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God" can be disputed. Deism furthermore implies Intelligent Design. There is little to no scientific support for either of these assumptions, in fact this so-called god of gaps has been reduced to the initial singularity and/or the first living cell; and there exist perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for both of these.

Referring to the last post above ^ and with respect to TransientResponse, it was rather difficult to extract anything meaningful from it. Perhaps it is due to language-related factors, but I did not understand the essence of what you were trying to convey..? I apologise beforehand for having to refer to "old & trusted" Wikipedia, but these two articles sum it up very nicely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality (this link keeps jumping to a sub-section; I intended to link the entire main article) I added morality to the mix as morality and to some extent, ethics & altruism, are often cited as uniquely human (and god-given), a presumption that seems false. I previously provided a link to substantiate the fact that the origins of moral/ethical codes could not have been linked to divine intervention (http://genealogyreligion.net/the-earliest-moral-ethical-laws-were-not-religious). In the mean time the search for- and the existence of the so-called god-gene as well as the soul (as an entity separate from mind/body) that are allegedly also human-specific, remain contentious and unresolved. Robert Wright raised some valid points in his book The Evolution Of God in this regard (www.evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_appendix; pls note that I don't agree with all his conclusions though). He also discussed the history/origins of the various religions in the same book (links to extracts thereof are provided in the before-mentioned article). Here is a similar opinion along the same lines: "Supernatural thinking arises naturally from the normal operations of the evolved human brain-mind. Any attempt to explain religion that does not begin with these aspects of mind will fall short because the many functions of supernatural thinking and religious belief are proximate rather than ultimate causes." (http://genealogyreligion.net/the-many-functions-of-religions, which is definitely worth reading). And lastly, another insightful article re this subject that has reference to some of the opinions that have been raised earlier: http://genealogyreligion.net/whitehouse-on-ers If we are merely evolved animals without any unique god-given purpose or attributes, we can surely deduce that the various personified, personal and supernatural gods as depicted in contemporary organised religions and in particular monotheism, do not (never) exist(ed), that they were all man-made. That raises the question as to whether the same logic can be applied to so-called impersonal, natural or abstract "gods"? In the case of Animism or Pantheism, for example, it does not necessarily apply. Will it be appropriate to use the word "god" for such beliefs though? It boils down to semantics. It also becomes a bit blurry and less relevant, doesn't it? If one wants to have a spiritual relationship with an abstract realm without getting spooky or supernatural, why not?

But we know and agree that our species is part of the animal kingdom, right? So why would our species have special attributes other than those that can be explained by virtue of evolutionary mechanisms? Why do you refer to it as "bold assertions"? I did not state anything controversially revolutionary that has not been speculated about in very much the same manner by others? My opinion in this regard was very much in line with the existing reasoning among those involved with what is coined as sociocultural evolution.

We should be careful in addressing such a (potential) premise. The idea that our species acquired morality is to some extent contentious, if not outright flawed. Morality, as we understand it, implies free will to make "conscious" decisions (not so?) and both free will and our ability to act "consciously" are increasingly regarded by numerous fields of science as somewhat illusionary. Individual human behaviour is seen as a result of an interaction between a specific genetic make-up and a specific set of environmental dynamics. That implies that if you rewind any individual's life and all other things are kept constant, he/she will act exactly in the same manner again. Keep in mind that we are merely evolved animals and as such no different to the rest of the animal kingdom i.t.o. morality. The act of committing sins, for example, is therefore somewhat of a misnomer. The moral codes and religion (or structured superstitions) that you referred to, were merely tools in acquiring better social interaction and coherence at a time when our earlier ancestors started forming larger social groups (when clans grew and merged into tribes that later grew into societies). The origins of primitive superstition(s) are widely regarded as a by-product of evolution, that part is true. I agree with what you posted ^. Referring to the perceived dominance of monotheism, again we should be careful to generalize. Is it accurate to describe it as "dominant"? Polytheistic religions (and Buddhism) still have a huge following and are not necessarily being dominated by monotheism within their own cultural domains. I think it is important that we also acknowledge other sociocultural factors that played their roles in furthering certain religions. The role of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in establishing Christianity as a world-wide religion comes to mind...in line with your reference to "the violent spreading of the religions".

^^ Solid explanation. Mmm... I am starting to wonder if you were not implying (all along) that this part of religious transformation (towards monotheism) was the unfortunate (or unnatural) part thereof, i.e. the notion that monotheism has ended up being a toxic brand of religion..?

My apologies if this has been raised already, but this reminds me of an analogy about patches of dry land that transform into puddles of water when the rainy season starts after which tadpoles make their appearance from fertilized eggs and at some later point engage with each other in a philosophical discussion about the fact that their specific puddle should have been intelligently designed and/or created for them to have the perfect environment with just enough sunlight, water, depth in order to survive, to be given tails to swim, etc. This of course without knowing that there are many more puddles just like theirs, that they will soon lose their tails and was it not for the rain or the eggs, well, they would not have been there. PS. Nicely constructed and insightful post above ^ by PoPpAScience.

Sarcasm..? How will that help in furthering this discussion? Kindly be more specific with where you were heading with your argument in order for me to respond to it in an appropriate manner. You previously wrote anything that was meaningful here: I dealt with the era of enlightenment. In that respect I referred to what is defined as: "The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th-century Western Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It spread across Europe and to the United States, continuing to the end of the 18th century." What exactly is the point that you were trying to make with "religions flipped to a one god system" in relation to said enlightenment and your reference to "the general timing of the flips"? I don't follow, so I can't react to that specific part other that to perceive the first-mentioned as the transition to monotheism. I.m.o there was nothing extraordinary about the last-mentioned transition, it was just another and supposedly more meaningful way of cultural tribes (re)packaging their deity. Is this the point that you would like to debate? Are you implying that the topic under discussion deals with a specific monotheistic religion and therefore a specific god?

No, it was not dishonest; just a mishap. I reacted to your post and while posting it the other one came along. I edited mine with a PS and a reference ^ to the post above mine. Hope it clears it up. I am in full agreement that certain cultural paradigm shifts had profound influences on the gene/environment interplay and as such also on the way our forefathers perceived these matters. The example of the era of enlightenment is very relevant. Descendants of pre-enlightenment generations (those that were never exposed to that paradigm shift) seem to find it much harder to adapt, or change. A lot of them got stuck; not through their own unwillingness or blissful ignorance, but by virtue of their inherited gene/environment make-up. As for the transition to monotheism, that is dealt with- and explained in the book that I previously referenced (The Evolution Of God). I don't really want to expand on that too much at this point in time as I don't consider it to be implicitly relevant to the topic. Maybe a discussion for another day..?

Sorry... I first responded to your quoted part and only then noticed Phi for All's post. My agreement was with his post in its entirety. My original post should be read within the context of the references that I made therein to the sticky and an earlier post by iNow. What I meant to imply was that if we know which god was being referred to in stating the original question under discussion, it would likely be possible to debunk it via other means than through a specifically targeted scientific process. For example, if it is believed that the Bible is the word of the Christian God, it will be possible to point out certain vital shortcomings in this proposed divine word by virtue of the knowledge that we have since acquired. It is therefore possible to refute said deity indirectly by means of questioning the historical claims put forward by his/their followers' religion or their religious scripts.

With what? Would science attempt to prove or disprove anything outside the natural realm? PS. I agree with the last post above ^... I did not mean to imply that science per se should be the tool to debunk said deities. I agree that parts of various religious texts (or oral lore) did intend to organise their society's behaviour (like the Code of Hammurabi). That has nothing to do with the origin of what started out as primitive superstitions and over time developed into organised religions though. It also does not imply that religion was a prerequisite for morality or ethics, if that is what you were suggesting. There are examples of ancient ethical codes dating back before the dawn of religions (http://genealogyreligion.net/the-earliest-moral-ethical-laws-were-not-religious). Today there are many peaceful and contended secular societies. A more interesting angle to the idea that superstition (more specifically spirituality) was a by-product of evolution is the suggestion that on a psychological level our species has the urge (for lack of a better term) to be spiritual. The specifics of the "god" is less relevant, the need to believe in something, or to be spiritual, however, appears to be deeply rooted.