The "rational" foundations of religion?

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Even more basically, we are a pattern-seeking species. We need to make sense of everything around us; organize information into coherent narrative - even if we lack vital data, we fill in the blanks. We are also intensely self-reflective: we need to impose our sensibility, our mode of thought, our volition, onto the world around us. We need to establish purpose and causation on every event: the human imagination requires that, if we didn't make something happen, an entity like ourselves, only more powerful, must have. Plus, we are constantly aware of death and have a strong aversion to experiencing it, even as we inflict it on others.

It's not only us, humans. E.g. my dog barks when he sees something strange esp. if it's moving, until he figures out that it's not animate.

Or, if animate, not a threat.

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

It's not only us, humans.

Nothing begins with humans; we inherit the instincts and habits of survival from a long, long line of ancestors - and then kick it up a notch, or two, or ten, until it makes sense only to the human imagination - only in the story we tell ourselves -  and has long ceased to serve its its original function.

[Area54]

The OP apparently denies that there was anything rational in the foundation of any religion. Yet, as @Peterkin and @Ken Fabian point out, there are perfectly rational reasons to account for the origin of religions.

The OP makes much of the need for evidence to define, or identify reality. (And seems to have reached the questionable conclusion that he has quite a good grasp of reality.) Our early ancestors had minimal evidence; no microscopes, telescopes, chemical analyses, MRIs; no systematic process for investigating nature. Based upon the evidence they did have, it was reasonable and rational to imagine that the movement of the trees in a wind, the changing of the seasons, the blessings of the sun, were the product of agency. To conclude otherwise would, based upon available evidence, have been nonsensical. If the alternative to believing in an afterlife is a life long, paralysing fear of death, perhaps it is rational to believe a religion that offers an alternative. Conclusion - there are rational reasons for founding a religion. (As an aside, Ron Hubbard seemingly did it for the money.)

My conclusion is that the OP knows almost nothing about religion, practically nothiing about how sciences such as anthropology or geology can investigate the reality of the past, and next to nothing about what constitutes reality. Apart from this, his posts are entertaining.

@deependFor the record. I am an agnostic, but atheistic in regard to all the religions I have so far come into contact with. As to cult membership, I am quite engaged by model railways, but - contrary to your apparent expectation - there is a lot of evidence that they really do exist.

I found almost nothing in your posts that was logical, or reflected reality, or revealed an understanding of what your were discussing. I echo the implicit recommendation by @Phi for All: don't assume you know better than everyone else: stop preaching; listen to what others say; reflect on it; engage, rather than tell people how they think and how wrong they are. I look forward to the interesting discussions that could follow your conversion. Damascus, this way!

[Ken Fabian]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Even more basically, we are a pattern-seeking species. We need to make sense of everything around us; organize information into coherent narrative - even if we lack vital data, we fill in the blanks. We are also intensely self-reflective: we need to impose our sensibility, our mode of thought, our volition, onto the world around us. We need to establish purpose and causation on every event: the human imagination requires that, if we didn't make something happen, an entity like ourselves, only more powerful, must have. Plus, we are constantly aware of death and have a strong aversion to experiencing it, even as we inflict it on others.

Yes, people will fill in the blanks with something, right or wrong.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Yes, people will fill in the blanks with something, right or wrong.

Generally, yes. I don't think it is so for all people, all blanks.

[Peterkin]

30 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

es, people will fill in the blanks with something, right or wrong.

That's how science comes about. You see parts of the puzzle and make guesses as to what's in between: try things out, change some factors and see what changes, imitate how things happen in nature and thus learn to control them....

That's one side of pattern-formation - and it's not exclusive to humans. 

Then, there is the narrative side: filling in what may have happened before, to cause the present event and projecting what might happen after, as a result. We make stories, we elaborate, exaggerate, embellish. That's how art comes about. 

And then, the most emotional aspect of pattern-formation is wishful thinking, or magical thinking: the desire - so strong that we convince ourselves (not you, obviously; those other people) that we can affect something that is, in fact, beyond our control. That's also a contributing factor in superstition, as it is in gambling, risk-taking behaviours, unused gym memberships and popular self-help books. 

Organized religion, like nationalism and ideologies, is simply a way for some clever people to harness all of that potential for belief (the need to see pattern, the narrative and the sense of empowerment) and build it into a hierarchical social structure, with themselves at the top, the most ruthless members of the tribe as facilitators and the most credulous at the bottom.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Peterkin

[Ken Fabian]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Generally, yes. I don't think it is so for all people, all blanks.

You are right. Some blanks are not going to be as significant as others. Some people will be less fearful of the unknown or not need explanations for the inexplicable. But it can be socially disruptive to have competing beliefs or for dangerous beliefs to spread unchecked.

I like to think I am rational but I still have the emotive responses to the strange and unexpected. Superstitions I learned as a child can still be triggered, even though I dismiss them as irrational. We are susceptible - our powers of imagination can be a vulnerability as well as a powerful tool to provide understanding and predictability.

[Area54]

20 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's how science comes about. You see parts of the puzzle and make guesses as to what's in between: try things out, change some factors and see what changes, imitate how things happen in nature and thus learn to control them....

That's one side of pattern-formation - and it's not exclusive to humans. 

Then, there is the narrative side: filling in what may have happened before, to cause the present event and projecting what might happen after, as a result. We make stories, we elaborate, exaggerate, embellish. That's how art comes about. 

And then, the most emotional aspect of pattern-formation is wishful thinking, or magical thinking: the desire - so strong that we convince ourselves (not you, obviously; those other people) that we can affect something that is, in fact, beyond our control. That's also a contributing factor in superstition, as it is in gambling, risk-taking behaviours, unused gym memberships and popular self-help books. 

Organized religion, like nationalism and ideologies, is simply a way for some clever people to harness all of that potential for belief (the need to see pattern, the narrative and the sense of empowerment) and build it into a hierarchical social structure, with themselves at the top, the most ruthless members of the tribe as facilitators and the most credulous at the bottom.

You have attempted to sum up human character and its causes in half a dozen short paragraphs. I think, in the process, you've formed an over-simple pattern. It reads well, even very well, but I doubt its efficacy for interacting with the world. Put another way, in this instance you've offered a view of reality that is more dangerously askew than that held by @deepend. I say more dangerous, because your view is close enough to the truth to be seductive, but far enough away from it to be deceptive.  I try to avoid the seductively decpetive.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

The OP apparently denies that there was anything rational in the foundation of any religion. Yet, as @Peterkin and @Ken Fabian point out, there are perfectly rational reasons to account for the origin of religions.

 Our early ancestors had minimal evidence; no microscopes, telescopes, chemical analyses, MRIs; no systematic process for investigating nature. Based upon the evidence they did have, it was reasonable and rational to imagine that the movement of the trees in a wind, the changing of the seasons, the blessings of the sun, were the product of agency. To conclude otherwise would, based upon available evidence, have been nonsensical. If the alternative to believing in an afterlife is a life long, paralysing fear of death, perhaps it is rational to believe a religion that offers an alternative. Conclusion - there are rational reasons for founding a religion. (As an aside, Ron Hubbard seemingly did it for the money.)

I've been saying words to that effect for yonks. That's why our ancestors imagined Gods in rivers, mountains, the Sun, Moon etc. It could be termed rational in the face of the lack of scientific knowledge.

Of course now days, science has pushed the rational need for gods/afterlife into near oblivion, although that inbred fear of the finality of death, still holds sway over many. 

[Area54]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I've been saying words to that effect for yonks. That's why our ancestors imagined Gods in rivers, mountains, the Sun, Moon etc. It could be termed rational in the face of the lack of scientific knowledge.

Of course now days, science has pushed the rational need for gods/afterlife into near oblivion, although that inbred fear of the finality of death, still holds sway over many. 

Yes, it seems a no-brainer, but then that is based upon the evidence we currently have and a particular interpretation of it. Others seem to be able to look at the same evidence and come up with a different interpretation. It makes no sense to me (or to you), but that doesn't mean we are right.

It is speculative, but I wonder if there has been a signifcant change in some aspect of brain architecture or operation in the last few millenia that that encourage the rational approach. I realise the conventional explanation is that it is a cultural evolution, but I've not seen a convincing, evidence based argument for that. (Though I haven't gone out of my way to look for one.)

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Nothing begins with humans; we inherit the instincts and habits of survival from a long, long line of ancestors - and then kick it up a notch, or two, or ten, until it makes sense only to the human imagination - only in the story we tell ourselves -  and has long ceased to serve its its original function.

I've been witnessed to a UFO. While it gave me a thought filled, sleepness night, my imagination remained within reason, and I dismissed it as some sort of atmopsheric phenomena or light trickery, rather then some big eyed, pale skinned Alien pilot driven craft. 😉

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

@deependFor the record. I am an agnostic, but atheistic in regard to all the religions I have so far come into contact with. As to cult membership, I am quite engaged by model railways, but - contrary to your apparent expectation - there is a lot of evidence that they really do exist.

 I tend to reject labels, and simply accept the logic and viability of science and the scientific method.

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

 Others seem to be able to look at the same evidence and come up with a different interpretation. It makes no sense to me (or to you), but that doesn't mean we are right.

Reminds me of the line from the movie contact, when Ellie meets the Alien species in the guise of her Father......."You're an interesting species. An interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other'.

[Peterkin]

51 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You have attempted to sum up human character and its causes in half a dozen short paragraphs.

I thought it was an expansion, without going on at the tedious, pedantic length i usually do, of pithier and less inclusive views that had gone before.

But, hey, if I've managed seductive, deceptive and dangerous, I've achieved something literary. Thank you!  

[Area54]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I thought it was an expansion, without going on at the tedious, pedantic length i usually do, of pithier and less inclusive views that had gone before.

I thought it was an expansion rather than an extension. It introduced concepts not explictly stated, nor implicitly obvious from your earlier remarks, with which I was in agreement. Your expansion/extension had, in my view, plausible elements, but also some with such exceptions as to invalidate the generalities. However, it is a side issue and off-topic for this thread. If you ever care to debate/discuss it in another thread I would be game. Just let me know by pm if you start such a one.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

 

It is speculative, but I wonder if there has been a signifcant change in some aspect of brain architecture or operation in the last few millenia that that encourage the rational approach. I realise the conventional explanation is that it is a cultural evolution, but I've not seen a convincing, evidence based argument for that. (Though I haven't gone out of my way to look for one.)

I see a good case for cultural selection, as societies grow in size.  Those which deal with, say, crop failures by tossing virgins down volcanoes tend to collapse more rapidly than those which respond by assigning members tasks like meteorological observation, experimenting with mulching materials, methods of water diversion, trying different seed stocks, etc.  IOW, societies where a religious hierarchy and metaphysics dominates life intensively may be less likely to thrive.  Societies where both faith and reason are allowed some scope will do better and lead to more divisions of labor that allow innovation.  Brain architecture doesn't have to change at some deep anatomical level, culture just needs to allow both hemispheres to actively engage.

[Area54]

25 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I see a good case for cultural selection, as societies grow in size.  Those which deal with, say, crop failures by tossing virgins down volcanoes tend to collapse more rapidly than those which respond by assigning members tasks like meteorological observation, experimenting with mulching materials, methods of water diversion, trying different seed stocks, etc.  IOW, societies where a religious hierarchy and metaphysics dominates life intensively may be less likely to thrive.  Societies where both faith and reason are allowed some scope will do better and lead to more divisions of labor that allow innovation.  Brain architecture doesn't have to change at some deep anatomical level, culture just needs to allow both hemispheres to actively engage.

I don't disagree that one can make a well structured argument. What I am maintaining is that I have not seen such arguments supported by extensive evidence. Where evidence is offered, my impression has been  that it was, consciously or unconsciously, cherry picked. This is a field in which my reading has been casual and therefore I may have overlooked many examples of which I am doubting the existence. Nor do I mean to imply that the present absence of such evidence means it isn't out there, waiting to be discovered. It's just that i have seen little examining the possible role of recent brain evolution (last 50k years, say) in the changes. (Which changes, while postulated have not necessarily been adequately demonstrated.) There appears to me, with limited background, that cultural explanation is accepted with a fairly low bar.

In a sense my comments are an appeal to anyone who has a deep knowledge of current thinking of this topic to provide a summary and point me to texts that will address it in depth.

Your last sentence is interesting because it made me think of Julian Jaynes' book from the 70s, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Not sure why you think engagement of both hemispheres would be mediated by culture rather than neurology. Perhaps you were speaking metaphorically?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I thought it was an expansion rather than an extension.

Me too.

 

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Your expansion/extension had, in my view, plausible elements, but also some with such exceptions as to invalidate the generalities.

You could have said what they were, and which of my statements were erroneous. (None were intended to be deceptive.)

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

. However, it is a side issue and off-topic for this thread.

True. I didn't feel that the thread had sufficient merit for me to safeguard its integrity.

I can enlarge upon the theme of religion, its origins and development (again), or withdraw the objectionable statement(s) - assuming I agree with the reasons they're considered inadmissible - or else retire from the discussion.  

48 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Not sure why you think engagement of both hemispheres would be mediated by culture rather than neurology.

Because the individuals who fire on all cylinders are burned at the stake in one culture and given gold medals in another. That is cultural selection. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by Peterkin

[TheVat]

52 minutes ago, Area54 said:

 

Your last sentence is interesting because it made me think of Julian Jaynes' book from the 70s, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Not sure why you think engagement of both hemispheres would be mediated by culture rather than neurology. Perhaps you were speaking metaphorically?

I was.  I remember thinking Jaynes was fascinatingly wrong, and thus a good stimulant to the field.  Events in the RW conspire atm, but will get back to your question tomorrow I hope.

[Area54]

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You could have said what they were, and which of my statements were erroneous. (None were intended to be deceptive.)

I am unable to express my objections concisely enought to warrant further disruption of me by the thread. This was why I proposed taking up the discussion in a seaprate thread.

Regarding deception, I did not intend to suggest you were deliberately lying. Rather, the nice flow of your argument makes it seem more convincing than the evidence warrants. I think you may have misled yourself.

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

I remember thinking Jaynes was fascinatingly wrong

Absolutely. Nicely put. Pretty much how it struck me. I would probably also call it seductively deceptive.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I am unable to express my objections concisely enought to warrant further disruption of me by the thread. This was why I proposed taking up the discussion in a seaprate thread.

There was a previous thread on this subject, in which I explained my reasoning in detail. I'm disinclined to go through it again, facile assessment of my mental state notwithstanding.  Retirement is my best option.

 

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Pretty much how it [Jaynes] struck me. I would probably also call it seductively deceptive.

Interesting. I should revisit him to see why that should be.

[deepend]

On 3/5/2022 at 6:55 PM, swansont said:

Opinions aren’t necessarily supported by evidence. I think chocolate is better than vanilla. Am I a cult?

  In a way, yes.  But an opinion on a flavor is hardly a matter worthy of a cult label.  Now if you want to bring up a topic besides religion, such as history, race, economics or politics, those are issues where the term "cult" can be applied.  For a couple of those topics especially, in going into them I would be going up against the cult of forums.  Which is to deny the basic human right of freedom of speech.  And in my case, the freedom to speak the truth.  It is pretty difficult to speak about a cult from within the rules of a cult. 

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, deepend said:

  In a way, yes.  But an opinion on a flavor is hardly a matter worthy of a cult label.  Now if you want to bring up a topic besides religion, such as history, race, economics or politics, those are issues where the term "cult" can be applied.  For a couple of those topics especially, in going into them I would be going up against the cult of forums.  Which is to deny the basic human right of freedom of speech.  And in my case, the freedom to speak the truth.  It is pretty difficult to speak about a cult from within the rules of a cult. 

Bold move. I'd be terrified of using such metrics to judge people. It's far too easy to label opinions you don't like as coming from a "cult". And frankly, it's too unsophisticated to help me explain various phenomena, and would probably lead me to make all kinds of specious claims that sounded reasonable only to me. Slapping the "cult" label on whatever I don't agree with doesn't help me grow or learn about the world around me. It would be a mental crutch, a fallacy of reasoning that would give me an unstable, fractured foundation upon which to build knowledge.

[deepend]

On 3/5/2022 at 7:32 PM, Phi for All said:

You know how I can tell you're preaching? Because you quoted my post but didn't address a single point I made in it. You didn't address the distinctions I made, you ignored my Aristotle quote (directly in response to your previous post), and then you hand-waived away the rest of what I said with a declaration about what's pointless and what's truth. If you want to learn, I'd say this is why folks don't like to discuss anything with you. You don't engage, you just spout the stuff you think you're sure of. It's not interesting, it's not educational, and it's certainly not discussion.

 

  You know how I can tell you are full of crap?  By reading what you type.  You brought up Aristotle by mentioning a quote of his.  I told you what I thought of Aristotle.  You didn't say you wanted an opinion on your quote by Aristotle directly.  If you want an answer, ask a question.  But I will now answer it as if you were seeking an opinion on his quote.  It is a load of BS.  Without having a rational mind, he can offer no opinion on what a rational mind is.  So he was wrong.  He may have tried to do the best he could, but there are aliens from other planets who would be dismayed by what the vast majority of people even today would view as rational.  Let alone over 2000 years ago.

  Next, only a fool would "entertain" any sort of thought.  You can think about any sort of point of view.  Making a judgement based on all the pro's and con's of any topic.  But to me that isn't the same as "entertaining" any point.  To me, entertaining a thought is akin to putting yourself in the shoes of somebody who holds a certain point of view.  That to me is getting too personally involved in it.  Which isn't a good position to be in to make a dispassionate judgment from.

On 3/5/2022 at 7:55 PM, Peterkin said:

And most things just don't need knowing. Good philosophy!

Or, you could start a whole thread about why no such discussion should take place.

  Don't put words into my mouth.  If somebody hits you on the toe with a hammer, it doesn't require any study to know if it hurts.  Next, why start another thread about discussing religion.  That's what this one was about.

On 3/6/2022 at 5:04 AM, Ken Fabian said:

A community that shares language and beliefs and rules of behavior has advantages. I think the human imagination and propensity to dream and fear the unknown combine to make having shared beliefs, even wrong ones, better than having none. The need for sharing beliefs came long before it was clear what was rational and what was not.

The power to evoke strong emotions does make humans vulnerable to manipulation - but makes it possible for leaders to unite and inspire them to a great task or a Cause. The power of unified belief to aim people in the same direction have made societies strong. 

Having unified beliefs that are all evidence based and rational ought to make societies stronger but I don't think anyone's ever actually tried it. I'm not sure humans are even capable of agreeing on what is evidence based or what is rational. If you come to that question with beliefs already in place they probably seem evidence based and rational.

 

  What you speak of has nothing to do with religion.  Things like bees, ants and termites have had societies of sorts for over one hundred million years.  No sort of religion is involved.  And your opinion as to why religions exist is wrong.  One of the reasons why they exist is that when the reality you live in can't produce hope, you are likely to seek help from the paranormal.  Or in another word, fantasy.  I also seem to recall telling somebody around here the main reason why religions exist.  It is because if there is a way in which one human can control another, there are many who will try to do so.  Especially when it is something that has been done successfully in the past.  Which is the case of religion. 

  Next, I say to hell with "leaders" and what they might inspire their people to do.  Because most if not all leadership is corrupt and an ego trip for the leaders.  You also speak of going in a direction that make societies strong.  If such a direction has ever existed, I've never heard of it.  Our society is weak and getting weaker.  What most people would call strength I would call filth.  In the past 20,000 years, humans have lost an amount of brain that is about equal to the size of a tennis ball. We aren't evolving.  We are de-evolving. And it is highly unlikely that any humans will be around to see the year 2050 due to human caused global warming.

  Next, you are probably right that humans are incapable of beliefs that are based on rationality.  I'm sure the concept has existed.  But from what I have seen, most people want to be led.  They have enough on their plate in just day to day existence.  They would prefer somebody else take on the bigger problems.  Also, most don't really give a damn what happens.  As long as it happens to someone else.

On 3/6/2022 at 11:50 AM, Area54 said:

The OP apparently denies that there was anything rational in the foundation of any religion. Yet, as @Peterkin and @Ken Fabian point out, there are perfectly rational reasons to account for the origin of religions.

The OP makes much of the need for evidence to define, or identify reality. (And seems to have reached the questionable conclusion that he has quite a good grasp of reality.) Our early ancestors had minimal evidence; no microscopes, telescopes, chemical analyses, MRIs; no systematic process for investigating nature. Based upon the evidence they did have, it was reasonable and rational to imagine that the movement of the trees in a wind, the changing of the seasons, the blessings of the sun, were the product of agency. To conclude otherwise would, based upon available evidence, have been nonsensical. If the alternative to believing in an afterlife is a life long, paralysing fear of death, perhaps it is rational to believe a religion that offers an alternative. Conclusion - there are rational reasons for founding a religion. (As an aside, Ron Hubbard seemingly did it for the money.)

My conclusion is that the OP knows almost nothing about religion, practically nothiing about how sciences such as anthropology or geology can investigate the reality of the past, and next to nothing about what constitutes reality. Apart from this, his posts are entertaining.

@deependFor the record. I am an agnostic, but atheistic in regard to all the religions I have so far come into contact with. As to cult membership, I am quite engaged by model railways, but - contrary to your apparent expectation - there is a lot of evidence that they really do exist.

I found almost nothing in your posts that was logical, or reflected reality, or revealed an understanding of what your were discussing. I echo the implicit recommendation by @Phi for All: don't assume you know better than everyone else: stop preaching; listen to what others say; reflect on it; engage, rather than tell people how they think and how wrong they are. I look forward to the interesting discussions that could follow your conversion. Damascus, this way!

  Religions are crap.  The reason why they exist is basically meaningless.  They are either crap or outright evil.  Evil to the extent that the truth isn't even allowed to be spoken.  I know of one forum where it can be done.  But because it is a forum where truth can be spoken, it is practically a ghost town.  Why?  Because the vast majority of people want absolutely nothing to do with the truth.  The REAL truth.  Is that preaching?  No.  It's the TRUTH.  So don't tell me what I know or don't know.  For what I might say, you aren't allowed to hear it, you don't want to hear it and this forum wouldn't allow me to speak it.

54 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Bold move. I'd be terrified of using such metrics to judge people. It's far too easy to label opinions you don't like as coming from a "cult". And frankly, it's too unsophisticated to help me explain various phenomena, and would probably lead me to make all kinds of specious claims that sounded reasonable only to me. Slapping the "cult" label on whatever I don't agree with doesn't help me grow or learn about the world around me. It would be a mental crutch, a fallacy of reasoning that would give me an unstable, fractured foundation upon which to build knowledge.

 

  "Cult" isn't a crutch.  Either something is right or it is wrong.  For the vast majority of people, what they think is wrong.  So they are cultists to me.

[Phi for All]

55 minutes ago, deepend said:

You know how I can tell you are full of crap?  By reading what you type.  You brought up Aristotle by mentioning a quote of his.  I told you what I thought of Aristotle.  You didn't say you wanted an opinion on your quote by Aristotle directly.  If you want an answer, ask a question.  But I will now answer it as if you were seeking an opinion on his quote.  It is a load of BS.  Without having a rational mind, he can offer no opinion on what a rational mind is.  So he was wrong.  He may have tried to do the best he could, but there are aliens from other planets who would be dismayed by what the vast majority of people even today would view as rational.  Let alone over 2000 years ago.

This is called circular logic (which is no logic at all). You don't like Aristotle so Aristotle is wrong. And then you top it off by giving what you think is the opinion of aliens from other planets, as if that had anything to do with rational conversation.

58 minutes ago, deepend said:

Next, only a fool would "entertain" any sort of thought.  You can think about any sort of point of view.  Making a judgement based on all the pro's and con's of any topic.  But to me that isn't the same as "entertaining" any point.  To me, entertaining a thought is akin to putting yourself in the shoes of somebody who holds a certain point of view.  That to me is getting too personally involved in it.  Which isn't a good position to be in to make a dispassionate judgment from.

Here's that preaching thing again. I never used the word "entertain", yet you devote a whole paragraph to it after quoting me. Is this just a random thought, or was it in response to something someone else said?

1 hour ago, deepend said:

"Cult" isn't a crutch.  Either something is right or it is wrong.  For the vast majority of people, what they think is wrong.  So they are cultists to me.

It's a total crutch that you use to oppress yourself and others. It's made you think that 3 out of 4 people are wrong about everything. I think you need more help than we can give you here, friend.

 

[Arete]

Every human population has some form of religion extending back to the paleolithic and Neanderthals - which is an absurd level of coincidental convergence if there is no evolutionary explanation. So several hypotheses with varying levels of evidence exist.

Most of them stem from the field of evolutionary psychology, which is... not my favorite field of evolutionary biology, to put it politely. In my opinion, the explanations provided tend to be high on the assumption that correlation indicates causation and light on direct hypothesis tests. 

That said, there is some meat on the bone in the sense that religion is a byproduct of adaptive cognitive systems (e.g. animacy detection, social cognition, precautionary reasoning) and there is some evidence that religious behavior correlates with evolutionary fitness via inclusive selection. In lay terms, being a member of a group can increase evolutionary fitness, leading to positive selection for group norms, even if those specific norms are not selectively advantageous in of themselves - e.g. participation in a religious ceremony allows access to the collective resources of the group, refusal leads to excommunication, and in many environments, death of self and/or one's offspring. Thus, positive selection for religious participation occurs. 

Why is this useful? Well, if done properly (see previous caveat) it allows for the generation of hypotheses and predictions of traits and evolutionary trajectories. Given that religious participation is less critical for fitness in modern societies, how labile are the psychological traits associated with religious participation?  Are there specific genetic/epigenetic markers that predict propensity for religious belief - and is their presence/absence linked with other traits, such as risk of depression? etc. 

If you were to dismiss the entire body of evolutionary evidence as "irrational" or "a cult" for.... well... reasons I guess... you'd be rather myopically and ignorantly dismissing a body of potentially useful evolutionary anthropology and neurobiology. 

Edited March 8, 2022 by Arete

[swansont]

11 hours ago, deepend said:

In a way, yes.  But an opinion on a flavor is hardly a matter worthy of a cult label. 

So you're just expanding the definition of a cult to include this ludicrous example in order to support your position.

Not worthy of the label is another way of saying no.