Not to bash religion, but....

[Tom1205]

There are so many religions out there....so many Gods... so many "bibles" (i.e. religious texts). Who are you to tell people to believe in

 

what? What gives your "particular religion" the authority to claim ultimate truth?

 

 

 

This phenomenon alone supports the idea that religion is merely a man-made entity, arisen from different

 

cultures/geographic areas, and is not the truth.

 

 

 

Obviously, one may argue, there is "good" religion, like Christianity, hence you should believe in Christianity. But how can you base

 

the validity / truthfulness of a religion on merely if it's morally good or bad?

 

 

 

In psychological experiments, animals are given food (positive reinforcement) randomly and unpredictability. Then you start to

 

observe that the animals will form ritualistic body movements to try to obtain the food. The body movements are movements that the

 

animals were doing right before receiving the food. This shows that religion arose because of one person / caveman who happened to

 

receive a positive reinforcement by doing something, and has passed on the belief that "by doing that something, you will get

 

a reward".

 

 

Thoughts?

Edited February 16, 2014 by Tom1205

[iNow]

What did you want to discuss, exactly?

 

Are you asking... Is religion a product of human minds? Are you exploring why do humans speculate about potential rewards or after death experience, or why so many feel the need to evangelize such beliefs and convince others to believe the same way they do? Do you wonder if the teachings of any religion are more moral than the teachings of another?

 

It's not clear above, so unfortunately does come across a little like you're just trying to bash religion.

[Ringer]

Even though I agree religion is a man made entity the example of Skinner showing superstition arise doesn't show that that's how religion arose, positive reinforcement doesn't even make sense as an explanation because there isn't a behaviorist reward. More likely examples of how religion may have arose would be as a form of explaining the unknown like people blaming ghosts for noises in their houses. Or perhaps as a way for people to control others (though IMO it's unlikely religion started this way, it may have been a side effect).

[iNow]

Even though I agree religion is a man made entity the example of Skinner showing superstition arise doesn't show that that's how religion arose, positive reinforcement doesn't even make sense as an explanation because there isn't a behaviorist reward.

I disagree. Social cohesion and avoidance of ostracization are very powerful motivators, as are our inherent predispositions to model the behaviors and beliefs of our parents and obey tribal leaders or local authority figures.

 

EDIT: I think our tendency for ritual plays a role, too. This serves as yet another example of something that changes neurochemistry and would be reinforced when enacted.

Edited February 16, 2014 by iNow

[Ringer]

I disagree. Social cohesion and avoidance of ostracization are very powerful motivators, as are our inherent predispositions to model the behaviors and beliefs of our parents and obey tribal leaders or local authority figures.

They are powerful motivators, but that isn't positive reinforcement. I'm not saying things like that don't play a role in how religions grow either. Positive reinforcement just doesn't work on feelings and motivations (at least not in traditional behaviorist language).

 

EDIT: I think our tendency for ritual plays a role, too. This serves as yet another example of something that changes neurochemistry and would be reinforced when enacted.

I would agree with this as well. I'm not saying that there are not a wide variety of different things play a role in religion's beginning and continuing influence, I just don't see how conditioning played a role in religion's origins (not its continuing existence, because there is a lot of negative reinforcement to pressure one to be/stay religious). I'd be happy to change my opinion, but I can't think of a good reason to believe religion began from a similar situation of the Skinner experiment on superstition.

[chadn737]

There are so many religions out there....so many Gods... so many "bibles" (i.e. religious texts). Who are you to tell people to believe in

 

what? What gives your "particular religion" the authority to claim ultimate truth?

 

 

 

This phenomenon alone supports the idea that religion is merely a man-made entity, arisen from different

 

cultures/geographic areas, and is not the truth.

 

 

 

Obviously, one may argue, there is "good" religion, like Christianity, hence you should believe in Christianity. But how can you base

 

the validity / truthfulness of a religion on merely if it's morally good or bad?

 

 

 

In psychological experiments, animals are given food (positive reinforcement) randomly and unpredictability. Then you start to

 

observe that the animals will form ritualistic body movements to try to obtain the food. The body movements are movements that the

 

animals were doing right before receiving the food. This shows that religion arose because of one person / caveman who happened to

 

receive a positive reinforcement by doing something, and has passed on the belief that "by doing that something, you will get

 

a reward".

 

 

Thoughts?

 

One needs to be careful not to fall into the Genetic fallacy. Showing how something arose does not necessarily show that it is true or false. Consider science. All our theories arise from human thought and receive positive reinforcement through experimentation and observation. One could easily argue that a caveman, with his increasing intelligence, stumbled upon the idea of God and it was true.