The "rational" foundations of religion?

[Area54]

17 hours 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.

  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.

  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.

 

  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.

  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.

 

  "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.

When you mature enough to consider thinking about the comments of others, rather than launching into an automatic, angst ridden, agenda driven, logic free, outburst, you might be able to identify the flaws in your thinking. You might also be a lot happier. I wish you well in that respect. In the meantime I am heading for a sensible thread.

[swansont]

On 3/4/2022 at 7:45 PM, deepend said:

I have been to every Atheist forum out there.  And have been banned from them all for daring to speak the truth.

You know, we've had a number of visitors who made a similar claim about this site, and none of them were actually banned for daring to speak the truth. That's a narrative that feeds the ego of a small mind, though, so I can see why they latch on to it.

[Arete]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

You know, we've had a number of visitors who made a similar claim about this site, and none of them were actually banned for daring to speak the truth. That's a narrative that feeds the ego of a small mind, though, so I can see why they latch on to it.

"I've been kicked out of every bar in the city for being too charming, witty and respectful."  

[TheVat]

Should we expect a letter mailed to law enforcement, composed of glued-on letters cut out from magazines?   Stop me before I post again!

 

 

[deepend]

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

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.

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?

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.

 

  Ok.  I've had enough of you.  Apparently a rational discussion is beyond you.  Go haunt somebody elses thread.

20 hours ago, Arete said:

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. 

 

  It is interesting how much effort some people will put into being wrong. I never said that religions didn't exist in the far past.  In fact, in a reply to someone else I pointed out that religions of sorts probably existed before there were any humans around.  I brought up a creature that I saw on an old nature show that appeared to be worshiping.  And though I tried, there is no way to find out exactly what that creature was.

  Next, you don't need to spout a load of BS to try and explain the human condition.  I will explain it as concisely as possible.  Humans behave the same as bacteria.  Basically, that makes us bacteria.  So there it is.  Does that simplify the situation enough for you?

[Arete]

1 hour ago, deepend said:

  It is interesting how much effort some people will put into being wrong.

Indeed. I also wasn't responding to you personally. 

1 hour ago, deepend said:

  Humans behave the same as bacteria.  Basically, that makes us bacteria.  So there it is.

Absolutely. I accepted a type iv pilus from a friendly giraffe earlier today, got a sweet new metabolic plasmid, and now I don't actually need to breathe air. I also ate a big lunch, but just replicated my circular genome and divided, and we felt great. 

1 hour ago, deepend said:

 Does that simplify the situation enough for you?

It sure does. The Dean is sure going to be happy to hear that intro psych and microbiology are the same class. Gonna save the campus a bunch.  

[Ken Fabian]

On 3/7/2022 at 8:44 AM, Peterkin said:

the most ruthless members of the tribe as facilitators and the most credulous at the bottom.

I don't think it is so simple or so dark. The shaman/priests weren't usually the chiefs and whilst both might have status and power and interests in common each would be a check on the other. Lore and law often bound even the behavior of priests and chiefs.

Our prehistoric ancestors were not simple brutes even if - as now - they were capable of brutality. I expect there were sincere and sometimes desperate efforts to call on spirits and gods for the good of the tribe as well as chiefs and dynasties that sought to lead well, with the support of their community. It wasn't always winner take all. And their communities were not powerless; bad things could happen to chiefs and priests that let everyone down.

[Dropship]

On 3/2/2022 at 11:53 PM, deepend said:

..There is nothing rational about any aspect of religion.  All religions are cults.  They have no basis in reality..

Depends which religions you're talking about..:)

As regards Christianity, Jesus wasn't a "religion", he was Jesus!

He said straight out "I'm not from this world" and blew peoples socks off with his 37 miracles to prove it.

So why shouldn't we believe him?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Dropship said:

Depends which religions you're talking about..:)

As regards Christianity, Jesus wasn't a "religion", he was Jesus!

He said straight out "I'm not from this world" and blew peoples socks off with his 37 miracles to prove it.

So why shouldn't we believe him?

Where did Jesus say he was not from this world? So far as I recall, he said, according to St John's gospel, "My kingdom is not of this world", (John 18:36) which is very different.

More generally, almost all the information about Jesus that we have comes from religious texts (the New Testament), with very little corroboration from independent sources. That includes the accounts of miracles, which are reported events contrary to our experience and our science. So how do we know we can trust these sources? 

Edited March 9, 2022 by exchemist

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I don't think it is so simple or so dark. The shaman/priests weren't usually the chiefs and whilst both might have status and power and interests in common each would be a check on the other. Lore and law often bound even the behavior of priests and chiefs.

I wasn't talking, in that passage, about tribal peoples, animism, organic spirituality, but organized religion in 'civilized' societies  (and I  certainly never characterized anyone as simple brutes! Not even the MAGA crowd - credulous, yes, I call the vast majority of Jews, Muslims and Christians credulous. Also, please note, I included nationalists and followers of every stripe.)

In fact, the shaman/priests made that crucial bridge between science and magic: they were the healers and psychologists, as well as the spiritual guides of their tribe. As were, later on in pagan societies, the herbalists and wise-women, the juju and medicine men of Africa and North America - the southern continent was already civilized and organized - when the Europeans conquered them. Shamans and mages were the peoples' priesthood. These were the ones whom militant Christianity, under the monsignors, bishops, archbishops and grand inquisitors (the imperial, hierarchical priesthood) was determined to blot out once and for all. 

And it grew very dark, indeed, if never simple. It's dark enough now.

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

So far as I recall, he said, according to St John's gospel, "My kingdom is not of this world",

And thereby alienated the Jews. They had been promised a messiah to lead them against their foreign oppressors and rule over Judea as king.  

[Dropship]

Jesus said in John 8:23 in multiple bible versions "I am not of this world", so technically he was an alien..:)

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 8:23

[Arete]

Just now, Dropship said:

Jesus said in John 8:23 in multiple bible versions "I am not of this world", so technically he was an alien..:)

Given the Gospel of John was written by an Alexandrian theologian, in Greek, 100 years after the death of Jesus - and I would assume you're quoting a subsequent English translation, how accurate do you think the direct quotes are? 

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, Dropship said:

Jesus said in John 8:23 in multiple bible versions "I am not of this world", so technically he was an alien..:)

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 8:23

Quite right! I had overlooked this. 

[deepend]

22 hours ago, Arete said:

Indeed. I also wasn't responding to you personally. 

Absolutely. I accepted a type iv pilus from a friendly giraffe earlier today, got a sweet new metabolic plasmid, and now I don't actually need to breathe air. I also ate a big lunch, but just replicated my circular genome and divided, and we felt great. 

It sure does. The Dean is sure going to be happy to hear that intro psych and microbiology are the same class. Gonna save the campus a bunch.  

  You seem to disagree with me.  In both bacteria and humans there is one driving factor.  The need to reproduce.  No matter what.  You could call it an inherited trait.  Inherited brain wiring or brain chemistry.  It could very well be that you will develop health problems if you don't breed.  Any of the philosophies any philosopher has ever come up with throughout history doesn't stand much chance against this inherited physiology.  (But mine could)  And any of the kinds of science discussed at this forum is only likely to exacerbate the problem.

  Also, as I was telling somebody else, this is the main reason behind religion.  It gives people the ability to do whatever in the hell they want and justify doing so.  What is the end result likely to be?  Ever see the movie Soylent Green?  Would you like to know the answer?  That would require speaking the truth.  Which the vast majority of people avoid like the plague.  And the vast majority of forums won't allow to be spoken.

9 hours ago, Dropship said:

Depends which religions you're talking about..:)

As regards Christianity, Jesus wasn't a "religion", he was Jesus!

He said straight out "I'm not from this world" and blew peoples socks off with his 37 miracles to prove it.

So why shouldn't we believe him?

 

  Jesus was EVIL!  Maybe not as evil as mohammed, but evil enough.  To rearrange an old saying, you can commit more evil with honey than with vinegar. 

[Arete]

12 minutes ago, deepend said:

  You seem to disagree with me.  In both bacteria and humans there is one driving factor.  The need to reproduce. 

All liquids conform to the shape of their container, but I doubt many people would agree that it means that mercury and water are basically the same. 

[deepend]

1 hour ago, Arete said:

All liquids conform to the shape of their container, but I doubt many people would agree that it means that mercury and water are basically the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, deepend said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

World population of T-Rex. Zero.

Just as meaningful as your chart.

[iNow]

59 minutes ago, zapatos said:

World population of T-Rex. Zero.

Just as meaningful as your chart.

Ahhh, but both T-Rex AND human populations can be charted on to graphs ERGO humans are exactly the same as a tyrannosaurus!! Boom… mic drop! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Stephen Hawking. 

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ahhh, but both T-Rex AND human populations can be charted on to graphs ERGO humans are exactly the same as a tyrannosaurus!! Boom… mic drop! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Stephen Hawking. 

You filled in for deepend marvelously! 😄

[exchemist]

14 hours ago, Arete said:

Given the Gospel of John was written by an Alexandrian theologian, in Greek, 100 years after the death of Jesus - and I would assume you're quoting a subsequent English translation, how accurate do you think the direct quotes are? 

Well it is interesting that the English translation seems to come out the same in different versions of the bible, which is far from always the case.  

But your view that St. John's gospel was written by a theologian is intriguing. There is certainly a distinct whiff of theology-building in it, which distinguishes it from the synoptic gospels. However I was not aware that the authorship of this gospel had been established with any certainty. From where do you get this information about an Alexandrian?    

[dimreepr]

An interesting related question: Is it rational to believe in god?

I think Nietzche spent his mind on how to replace god, as in "the parable of the madman"

Quote

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.

Maybe Jesus had better luck...

Edited March 10, 2022 by dimreepr

[Arete]

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

But your view that St. John's gospel was written by a theologian is intriguing. There is certainly a distinct whiff of theology-building in it, which distinguishes it from the synoptic gospels. However I was not aware that the authorship of this gospel had been established with any certainty. From where do you get this information about an Alexandrian?   

You're right in that it's a topic of considerable debate, and I'm very much a layperson on the topic, so am happy to be wrong - I've read a few articles on the origin of the fourth Gospel and I am struggling to find the article, or I'm misremembering I may well be confusing the letters of John with the gospel. Either way, modern scholars seem to agree that John the disciple himself didn't write it. 

 

 

[Dropship]

On 3/2/2022 at 11:53 PM, deepend said:

 ..I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that this religion section was for discussing the rational foundations of religion.  There is nothing rational about any aspect of religion..

Yes, some other religions are crocks, but Christianity is a fascinating "Superscience" that we as yet know zilch about..:)

We could speculate that our "reality" is simply an illusion or dream, and we could further speculate that Jesus was a "Master of the Art of Dream Manipulation", bending reality with his 37 miracles to perform what looked like "miracles" to people, and he said WE could do it too ("move mountains") if we had the knack, how kool is that..:)

Go for it Neo..:)

 

 

[exchemist]

14 hours ago, Arete said:

You're right in that it's a topic of considerable debate, and I'm very much a layperson on the topic, so am happy to be wrong - I've read a few articles on the origin of the fourth Gospel and I am struggling to find the article, or I'm misremembering I may well be confusing the letters of John with the gospel. Either way, modern scholars seem to agree that John the disciple himself didn't write it. 

 

 

Yes that much seems to be agreed. It is certainly more theological in style than the synoptic gospels: the "Word" in the prologue, more worked out ideas about the Trinity, etc. And it has some extra stories, I think, that are not in the others, e.g. the woman taken in adultery.