SPLIT TOPIC: The God Delusion
prodigalson wrote: Actually, the site is quite good in that it makes a very clear and convincing presentation. Too bad it deals with not-so-stalwart citizens of God's country.Prodigalson, you should really read this book:
Comments
-
Carnivore wrote: Prodigalson, you should really read this book:
Or maybe he shouldn't....
Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, describes The God Delusion as Dawkins' "weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available". He suggests that "All ideals – divine, transcendent, human, or invented – are capable of being abused. That’s just the way human nature is. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at religion." One of McGrath's main points is that "Dawkins’ assertion that science disproves God is not right" He has subsequently produced a book-length critique of The God Delusion called The Dawkins Delusion?. -
Hamilton wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Prodigalson, you should really read this book:
Or maybe he shouldn't....
Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, describes The God Delusion as Dawkins' "weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available". He suggests that "All ideals – divine, transcendent, human, or invented – are capable of being abused. That’s just the way human nature is. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at religion." One of McGrath's main points is that "Dawkins’ assertion that science disproves God is not right" He has subsequently produced a book-length critique of The God Delusion called The Dawkins Delusion?.
Alister McGrath is a religious cheerleader who has dedicated his career to attacking people like Dawkins. His opinions on this book have no more credibility than any other bible-thumping freak out there. The fact that he writes prolifically about it doesn't change this underlying truth. To describe Dawkins as "lashing out uncritically at religion" is to reveal a profound ignorance of Dawkins' work. -
Oddly enough, if you look at the guy in the blue shirt (leaning over on the bench) ... he's reading a copy of the book you mentioned! I didn't recognize it at first, because of the different cover. Now, is this the average Dawkins enthusiast? Hardly a convincing argument for either the validity of Dawkins' ideas or the sanity of his followers.
So now I really think ProdigalSon should avoid the book! -
Hamilton wrote: Oddly enough, if you look at the guy in the blue shirt (leaning over on the bench) ... he's reading a copy of the book you mentioned! I didn't recognize it at first, because of the different cover. Now, is this the average Dawkins enthusiast? Hardly a convincing argument for either the validity of Dawkins' ideas or the sanity of his followers.
1. That picture looks Photoshopped. Are you the one who created that site?
So now I really think ProdigalSon should avoid the book!
2. There's nothing in that picture at all to indicate that that particular guy is a junkie.
3. What bearing would this possibly have on the validity of Dawkins' arguments? I can guarantee you that there are far more junkies carrying around the bible than the God Delusion (I know this, because I see them in the ER all the time). I guess that would "hardly be an argument for the validity of the bible's ideas or the sanity of its followers." -
absolutely photoshopped. boo, cheater :evil:
-
Heh - it's not my site - but that photoshopped response was funny. Everyone on that site is a junkie - I've seen them in the neighborhood - there are actually a few that he/she missed when putting the site together, but it's effective as is.
In all seriousness, I find Dawkins to be yet another in a series of overly-intellectual contrarians with a rather feeble grasp of the subject matter which he criticizes....because he's writing from some type of emotional wound suffered at an early age - and attempts to transcend it through bitchiness. Religion has an emotional component that can't be reasoned away through witticisms; his writings are cathartic.....but the scribblings of a arrogant coward.
Those who need religion, need it....there are far worse things they could engage in. Some outgrow religion at an early age and view it with the same gravity as the tooth fairy...they don't denounce it....they just mature as an individual and live by their own standards.
Dawkins' writings may prove motivational to those in transition....but I don't see his writing enlightening anyone to the point that they'll abandon their faith.
Fanatics are not religious - they're psychotic - religion is merely their chosen expression.
Was Stalin representative of Atheism? -
Hamilton wrote: ..with a rather feeble grasp of the subject matter which he criticizes....
You clearly haven't actually read any of his work.Hamilton wrote: because he's writing from some type of emotional wound suffered at an early age - and attempts to transcend it through bitchiness.
So do you have anything at all to substantiate this absurd claim, or is this just an ad hominem personal attack, since you have no valid criticism of the man's actual work?Hamilton wrote: Religion has an emotional component that can't be reasoned away through witticisms;
That's exactly his point. Religion is not held to the same standards that we would hold any other assertions to. It is wrongly held in unwarranted high esteem without any underlying support for its veracity. People can believe whatever they want. The problem is that we elevate some people to have a disproportionate influence on important matters of public policy that they really have no credible reason to be commenting on.Hamilton wrote: his writings are cathartic.....but the scribblings of a arrogant coward.
Again with the name-calling. There's nothing cowardly about standing up to those who are clearly in power in our society, however ignorant they may be.Hamilton wrote: Those who need religion, need it....
A tautology.Hamilton wrote: there are far worse things they could engage in.
True, I guess. They could be killing puppies.Hamilton wrote: Some outgrow religion at an early age and view it with the same gravity as the tooth fairy...they don't denounce it....they just mature as an individual and live by their own standards.
Perhaps these are the cowardly ones. Religion is responsible for so much divisiveness and evil in our world. I would hope that if we were making important public policy decisions based on belief in the tooth fairy, Dawkins wouldn't be the only one to speak out. He is just intellectually honest enough to not place other irrational beliefs in a separate category just because they're shared by a lot of people.Hamilton wrote: Dawkins' writings may prove motivational to those in transition....but I don't see his writing enlightening anyone to the point that they'll abandon their faith.
Those afflicted with the mind-virus of religion are unlikely to be convinced by any logical argument for precisely this reason, since they'll see any logical incongruity of their beliefs to be simply a test of their faith.Hamilton wrote: Fanatics are not religious - they're psychotic - religion is merely their chosen expression.
So you're saying these children are psychotic?Hamilton wrote: Was Stalin representative of Atheism?
Stalin never claimed to speak for atheists. -
Well ...I don't know if those children are psychotic...but they certainly wouldn't be a welcome sight at the playground.
Dawkins may provide a certain degree of reassurance to those who need it, but on the whole, he's irrelevant.... those immersed in religion dismiss him and those who are really hip to the game don't need him. -
It's not a matter of reassurance, it's a call to action to fix something that's deeply wrong with our society. The United States is afflicted with this problem in a way that is unheard of in any other industrialized country.
-
Carnivore wrote:
You make a lot of good points, Carnivore, only to undermine them with a statement like this. You can't reprimand Hamilton for name-calling in one sentence and then say that anyone who's religious is sick with a "mind-virus."
Those afflicted with the mind-virus of religion are unlikely to be convinced by any logical argument for precisely this reason, since they'll see any logical incongruity of their beliefs to be simply a test of their faith.
Furthermore, many religious people can be convinced by logical arguments. (And some non-religious people can't be.) But a logical argument requires that both parties agree to the fundamental postulates. That automatically puts theists and atheist at odds, because a god is a hell of a postulate that you either accept or you don't. I have never seen an acceptable proof that God exists; I've also never seen an acceptable proof that none does. On this topic, one can only persuade.
It sounds like you're saying religion is illegit because it's not rational. And I agree that it's not - but art, literature, and love are not rational either, and all of these things are supremely valuble. Of course, every artwork and novel (and religion) is not valuable to every person - we only appreciate the ones that inspire an emotional experience, and each person's experience is unique. I can perfectly understand that religion just doesn't inspire that kind of experience for you. But your world would be pretty narrow indeed if the only things you found valuable were logical.
The problem with many religious people, IMO, is that they've started taking religious stories literally, essentially treating them as if they are scientific fact. Then when scientific fact disproves the story, they feel threatened. Which is silly - a story can be meaningful and tell an emotional truth without being literally true, so why fret if it isn't?
If you haven't already read it, you might be interested in Karen Armstrong's book The Battle for God, which discusses fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's a very interesting look at this problem.
I'm not sure there is a solution this problem, and certainly there's no easy one. But I do think anyone who wants to "fix something that's deeply wrong with society" and get people to stop taking their religious stories so literally would be a lot more persuasive if they didn't use words like "delusion" when talking about belief. -
I have never seen an acceptable proof that God exists; I've also never seen an acceptable proof that none does.
I agree. And in such a situation, you go with the simplest solution, meaning, the one that doesn't require magic and invisible creatures.
I find it refreshing to see someone like Dawkins to come out and directly confront the bullshit (in my opinion) that has dominated our species for so long without making apologies. I'm sick of tiptoeing around people's emotional need for a big daddy in the sky and acting like it makes sense. Give me more strong atheists, not less. -
A couple thoughts on religion.
1. The notion of proving God's existence or lack thereof is pointless without first defining the term "God", upon which there is no agreement whatsoever. Is God a sentient being? Is it something in whose image we were created, i.e. who looks like us? Is it a man or woman? A supernatural/magical being of some sort? Is it just spiritual energy in another plane of existence? Is it something more ephemeral, a "higher power", and if so what the heck does that mean? Mayor Bloomberg represents a higher power than me, and so does my boss. What is a higher power exactly? Nature? Is God something that exists in our hearts? Is it love? "Goodness"? The point is, we might as well be arguing over whether beebletoes exist, since the term God is equally meaningless. And as such, any "believer" is free to just define God as he pleases and then boldly state that he believes in it.
2. Religion in its non-ideological form is really just one part of culture. The vast majority of people are the religion that their parents raised them to be, including atheists. As such, it's about the same as language, taste in food, humor, fashion, etc. To grossly stereotype, being Iranian and Shia or Mexican and Catholic is roughly equivalent to being Japanese and liking rice or French and liking wine. Most of religion has to do with rituals, community, and family, and is about as harmful as any other elements of a given culture, from its food to its music to all its other rituals.
It's really only when religion takes on an ideological bent and attempts to prove itself "correct", answer scientific questions, or is used by opportunistic leaders to inspire hatred, that it becomes dangerous. And, as has been pointed out above, religion is not necessary to provoke human beings into hatred and war, it's merely one of several handy tools. -
I started reading The God Delusion last week. I read about a third of it before I grew bored and decided to skip it. The author really does know his stuff, and presents a lot of compelling and convincing arguments. However, I found the condescending tone of the book, and the utter lack of respect for the other side of the argument to be off-putting and annoying. I don't like that attitude on any side of any aisle.
I enjoy books and discussions of topics that tend more towards presenting the information and documentation in as balanced way as possible, and giving the reader his own ability to make reasoned judgments of said information. Just as Michael Moore beats you over the head with his point of view, be it right or wrong, so does the guy in this book. No fun, if you ask me.
Er, two cents, I guess, since you just happened to mention something I "read". -
Richard Dawkins = condescending twat. Though usually right, he pisses off the converted he's preaching to. I had a thing for his wife though when I was a kid.
If you want evolutionary biology, Stephen J. Gould was a much nicer guy and makes a much nicer read. -
I'm not sure I found him condescending. I did find him forceful in his dismissal of all these primitive mythologies, which may come off as condescending. And honestly, considering some of the beliefs out there I think that taking a strong stand is long overdue. I was overjoyed to see someone not buying any of this junk for an instant, and if anything I could use more of that.
-
BigGuy
Dawkins.
And I understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
-
Can't actually read it. Is it just a regular ol' heart diagram?
-
You all should read another Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene."
Fascinating shit. Carn- as el doctori, you would love this. (If you haven't yet) -
Re: Selfish Gene. Interesting and very influential work (and much more lilkely to be read in 100 years than the latest). But I'd still point people at Gould first. The point is, that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not a theologian, and for a good read about religion I'd prefer an expert in that field.
-
Isn't Gould also an evolutionary biologist?
Theologans don't do anything for me. As an atheist, I have no interest in the thoughts of someone who is an 'expert' in...what imaginary creatures think.
And I think Dawkins was right to dismiss Gould's non-overlapping magisteria as a weak cop-out. If something can be known, it can be known by science. If it can't be known, there's no reason to believe it exists so forget about it. There is nothing I know of that can be explained better by religion than by science, and this is Dawkins' position.
I know that Dawkins felt The Extended Phenotype was an even more important book than The Selfish Gene. Haven't read it, and don't know much about it.
Finally, I should point out than in addition to being an awesome book, The God Delusion is dedicated to Douglas Adams, which makes it pretty tough to beat. -
BigGuy wrote: Isn't Gould also an evolutionary biologist?
Yes. And more entertaining than Dawkins. Which is why I suggest him for evolutionary biology (and neither of them for religion).BigGuy wrote: And I think Dawkins was right to dismiss Gould's non-overlapping magisteria as a weak cop-out. If something can be known, it can be known by science. If it can't be known, there's no reason to believe it exists so forget about it. There is nothing I know of that can be explained better by religion than by science, and this is Dawkins' position.
Well I can think of one thing that can better be explained by religion than science, and that's religion (even if science has some interesting things to say about religion). As a hard-core reductionist, who practises breaking down biology all the way to quantum mechanics for a living, I wouldn't recommend using the Schrödinger Equation and working your way up if you wanted to e.g. critique the artistic merit of Andy Warhol, or describe the ideas and history of Zarathustrianism. Even I have to accept so-called emergent properties and the validity of higher orders of inquiry and description than physics. Thus NOMA doesn't seem like a cop-out, more like the pragmatism that every scientist has to use in practice in order to get out of bed in the morning. -
I don't see how religion would be any good at explaining religion but I'm open to listening. In my opinion religious feelings fall solidly within the realm of psychology. Understanding that people fear death (thanks to evolution) gives one a significant start I think.
I wouldn't recommend using the Schrödinger Equation and working your way up if you wanted to e.g. critique the artistic merit of Andy Warhol, or describe the ideas and history of Zarathustrianism
Nobody wants to do that. The important point is that it looks more and more like it could theoretically be doable. Not that we're anywhere close at this point. I agree with people like Dawkins & Steven Pinker & Douglas Hofstadter that emergent phenomenon like art etc. are merely the co-opting of evolutionary mechanisms designed for something else. We don't always know what that something is or how it works, but we will. Obviously something like love is pretty easy to explain in terms of the pair bonding required to raise children who stay helpless for a surprisingly long period of time. I believe that all these systems will one day be broken down in turn until we (or the AIs who replace us) could theoretically follow the whole chain.
Abstractions like bed, floor & coffee are necessary for getting out of bed in the morning, since they sum up a dizzying array of particles, molecules & larger structures in one easy symbol. Which is itself probably just a collection of neurons. Unlike Gould however, I believe that invisible creatures and religion are not required anywhere, and are in fact a distraction. -
BigGuy wrote: I don't see how religion would be any good at explaining religion but I'm open to listening.
Well, religious studies, to be more precise. Which builds on science, philosophy, psychology, theology, and so on.BigGuy wrote: In my opinion religious feelings fall solidly within the realm of psychology. Understanding that people fear death (thanks to evolution) gives one a significant start I think.
So I take it you've never had to come to terms with a first person transcendental experience?BigGuy wrote:
I confess, I do get a warm fuzzy feeling from my faith that all particles obey the relativistic wave equation. It gives me an underlying sense of certainty about the objective reality of the world we live in. But very little in the way of a blueprint about how to treat my family and friends, what causes are worth striving for, what kinds of art or culture I find sublime or abhorrent.I wouldn't recommend using the Schrödinger Equation and working your way up if you wanted to e.g. critique the artistic merit of Andy Warhol, or describe the ideas and history of Zarathustrianism
Nobody wants to do that. The important point is that it looks more and more like it could theoretically be doable. Not that we're anywhere close at this point.BigGuy wrote: I agree with people like Dawkins & Steven Pinker & Douglas Hofstadter that emergent phenomenon like art etc. are merely the co-opting of evolutionary mechanisms designed for something else. We don't always know what that something is or how it works, but we will. Obviously something like love is pretty easy to explain in terms of the pair bonding required to raise children who stay helpless for a surprisingly long period of time. I believe that all these systems will one day be broken down in turn until we (or the AIs who replace us) could theoretically follow the whole chain.
Unfortunately, the mathematics says you can drill down, but you can't go the other way. It can't be done, given the number of bits required by a computer to exactly represent even a fairly small closed system like a protein or chromosome exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. We have a lot of links in the chain, but going upwards from one level to another level invariably involves approximations which break on a larger scale or equations whose solutions scale factorially and thus are of little practical use. The physics and mathematics which tells us this is quite solid. What you end up with is that the only practical way to study real complex systems is on their own terms. I don't think that describing love as evolutionarily mandated, though technically correct, is going to help save a marriage.BigGuy wrote: Abstractions like bed, floor & coffee are necessary for getting out of bed in the morning, since they sum up a dizzying array of particles, molecules & larger structures in one easy symbol. Which is itself probably just a collection of neurons. Unlike Gould however, I believe that invisible creatures and religion are not required anywhere, and are in fact a distraction.
I can agree with you in theory that invisble creatures and religion are not required for cosmology, and their existence is ruled out by conservation of mass-energy and so on. Atheism may be technically correct, but really it's dreadfully dull and somewhat preppy and facile -- it kind of misses the point in a lot of ways. Real peoples around the world continue to produce an amazing depth of culture and ideas, and as part of that, they secrete religion as a canvas for some very interesting philosophy, traditions, ethics, and brain states. Some of it sublime, some counterproductive or dangerous. And importantly, it's definitely not going out of style. I personally find it just as fascinating and relevant to learn about people's responses down the ages to genuine personal ineffable experiences, as to study the rise and fall of civilizations or the probability distributions of clumps of matter. I can't learn anything interesting from atheism; it's a one trick pony. -
doctorj wrote: [quote=" I can't learn anything interesting from atheism; it's a one trick pony.
I am reading the God Delusion right now. Doc, these are some interesting points and you've opened up some issues that may be, dare I say, too deep for this board ( not for lack of intelligence or enthusiasm, mind you).
I have to say, I would never be so bold to say I cant learn ANYTHING from xyz...
At the very least the book is an interesting study of human psychology through the ages. Are we hard wired for religion or are we indoctrinated?
I'm watching the wizard of Oz right now.
In the end, the when the curtain was pulled back and dorothy, the lion, tinman and scarecrow realize the wizard is fake and they had the "power" themselves all along is a great analogy.
The points you made about religion are valid, but I also have to wonder, what would happen to us as a human race, if we pulled the curtain back, so to speak, and realized that even without "wizards" in the sky or anything else, that we have the power all along.
What would happen to us if we as humans concentrated on science, logic and reason to improve ourselves and are state of being ( and dropped religion) - is it possible or impossible?
Would we be curing diseases, traveling through time or would we still be hitting each other with sticks after 10,000 years of human history like we are today...? One could make many arguments for or against but I would be interested in it. Can we have compassions. love and emotion without religion?
Sidenote:
One of my favorite movie scenes from a (mediocre) movie that speaks to the human condition is in Mad max beyond Thunder Dome (1985) when he comes across a group of children in the desert that have essentially made up a religion and filled in the blanks with fairy tales and small clues about the creation of their existence and a savior...Its a movie, but very interesting and I think very plausible given the human brain. Maybe we are hard wired for religion, but sometimes I wish we weren't.
I find the book and the study of atheism interesting. But I also find people's reactions to it very interesting too. -
SevenOneEighty wrote:
Well, if we could do that somehow, what you'd get is a proliferation of non-theistic religions like Landmark and NLP and EST and Amway and certain kinds of Buddhism that tell you that you had the power all along. It'd take some radical re-engineering of the brain, including deep structures generally present mammals, to rid the world of religion in the broad sense.
The points you made about religion are valid, but I also have to wonder, what would happen to us as a human race, if we pulled the curtain back, so to speak, and realized that even without "wizards" in the sky or anything else, that we have the power all along. -
doctorj wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]
Well, if we could do that somehow, what you'd get is a proliferation of non-theistic religions like Landmark and NLP and EST and Amway and certain kinds of Buddhism that tell you that you had the power all along. It'd take some radical re-engineering of the brain, including deep structures generally present mammals, to rid the world of religion in the broad sense.
The points you made about religion are valid, but I also have to wonder, what would happen to us as a human race, if we pulled the curtain back, so to speak, and realized that even without "wizards" in the sky or anything else, that we have the power all along.
Yes! Interesting - I had this same conversation with my colleagues at the park! And this is also where it went too. So are we hard-wired to have "religion" or to follow as humans? It seems we cannot get away from it in some sense...we seem to "need" it to survive somehow. We must "believe" in something - even if it des not follow logic. Science and Logic alone do not take the lead in ANY human civilization in history - it is always at least second to religion (correct me if I am wrong).
Are we just not tapping in to the right parts of our brains? We supposedly use only 10% of it...what if we could find a way to use more of it? Would it change our disposition? Are we simply unable to reach those heights in our current state and if we did would religion still be at the top?
This is one of the best quotes from Einstein that is in the book that summarizes concisely how I feel sometimes:
"I don't try to imagine a personal god; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it"
of this quote from Douglas Adams:
"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Why do we need to believe in the fairies is an interesting question?
Endnote:
Now, this is where the topic went with my friends and I am dead serious about this as it relates to opening up brain power. I am NOT an avid user of drugs at all, but the discussion moved to ways that we can increase our brain strength or use or open gateways in it and drugs, all kinds ( natural and synthetic), came up.
This is a separate discussion of course, but isn't it interesting that some of the music we love the most was made by musicians while they were admittedly completely HIGH in the 60s and 70's...? I don't want to turn this in to a drug conversation but bring it up only as a separate discussion about tapping in to brain power/ levels we may have. I just thought it was related to human potential. -
Of course humans have a strong inclination to believe in things that they can't prove, but that's a very different thing than saying that we're hardwired to believe in God. We may believe our spouse is being faithful, that Bush's foreign policy will be detrimental to the nation's long-term interests, that capitalism/socialism holds the key to global prosperity and happiness, that the Mets will win the World Series. Those are all beliefs, but it's quite a leap to say that because we have beliefs, we must inevitably believe in God.
The "All societies believe in God and therefore it must be human nature" argument is one of the most incorrect prevailing fantasies around. In most of the far East, for example, people may (and often do not) have religion and a sense of the mores and values it teaches, but the vast majority do not believe in anything remotely resembling what we are here referring to as "God", i.e. a single human-like higher entity who created the universe and cares about us, etc. Clearly, just because a society has religion doesn't mean that the people there believe in God in anything approaching the Western sense of the word. In Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc., there is really no entity analogous to God.
Furthermore, in Europe itself, the home of Christianity, belief in God is in widespread retreat. In some countries fewer than 15% of the population consider God to be an important part of their lives, and these are in nations with more than a thousand years of Christian indoctrination and tradition. Where's the hardwiring at work there?
The fact is that most people believe what they are raised to believe. I think that we are indeed hard-wired to wonder about the answers to mysterious questions and formulate hypotheses to explain them, and God has long been the simplest explanation. Most people also take comfort in a certain mysticism that provides promises of an afterlife, or in general of a super-material plane where not everything is cold atoms and molecules. However, widespread belief in God is neither inevitable nor nearly as common as many people claim. -
escap wrote: Of course humans have a strong inclination to believe in things that they can't prove, but that's a very different thing than saying that we're hardwired to believe in God. We may believe our spouse is being faithful, that Bush's foreign policy will be detrimental to the nation's long-term interests, that capitalism/socialism holds the key to global prosperity and happiness, that the Mets will win the World Series. Those are all beliefs, but it's quite a leap to say that because we have beliefs, we must inevitably believe in God.
Right, I used 'religion' (not God - if I did I meant religion) and I was using the term loosely and in the most inclusive way possible to represent human behavior without naming every belief or practice.... But I agree with your points.
The "All societies believe in God and therefore it must be human nature" argument is one of the most incorrect prevailing fantasies around. In most of the far East, for example, people may (and often do not) have religion and a sense of the mores and values it teaches, but the vast majority do not believe in anything remotely resembling what we are here referring to as "God", i.e. a single human-like higher entity who created the universe and cares about us, etc. Clearly, just because a society has religion doesn't mean that the people there believe in God in anything approaching the Western sense of the word. In Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc., there is really no entity analogous to God.
Furthermore, in Europe itself, the home of Christianity, belief in God is in widespread retreat. In some countries fewer than 15% of the population consider God to be an important part of their lives, and these are in nations with more than a thousand years of Christian indoctrination and tradition. Where's the hardwiring at work there?
The fact is that most people believe what they are raised to believe. I think that we are indeed hard-wired to wonder about the answers to mysterious questions and formulate hypotheses to explain them, and God has long been the simplest explanation. Most people also take comfort in a certain mysticism that provides promises of an afterlife, or in general of a super-material plane where not everything is cold atoms and molecules. However, widespread belief in God is neither inevitable nor nearly as common as many people claim.
Indoctrination is the domino effect we are all living with.
Many faiths provide explanations for the unknown based on our understanding of our physical environment (Earth). The physics of cause and effect in our universe are still being understood. It would be interesting to see how a religion might look in another galaxy where, as an example, light, time, color and senses are different from what we know here in our own.
I've often wondered what our worldy religions might look like if say( as one example) our physical limitations or some other human characteristic or parameter were changed.
A silly example:
If human beings had the ability to jump 40 feet from a standing position because of incredible leg strength and our vision improved 300% and we could see microscopic organism without a microscope, what effect would that have on our religious behavior/ practices?( or anything else for that matter). I ask this silly question in all seriousness but as a more relevant example, you can imagine a culture in history that existed in an arid climate worshiping a god of water/ harvesting, a much needed commodity for food and survival....
Do light and time behave the same in other galaxies and if not, what would those religions look like? If it took the earth 3 years to go around the sun, what would religion look like then?
Did God create man or did man create God? Given a different set of cultures or circumstances, it appears we have the ability to have different versions to suit our needs s humans and cultures.
For me Atheism begins to look at these questions and also asks: "Hey man, did you just make that sh*t up"? And if so, why did you make it up? -
I would never claim that monotheism is hardwired, for all the reasons you point out, and more. But I can't think of a society where religion(s) in some form, organised or not, isn't prevalent. Plenty of metaphysics still going down in countries where Abrahamic monotheism has been on the decline. We may yet find a compelling material basis for this in the brain (e.g. the kinds of experiments the neurotheology crowd get up to) which would be very interesting, though not exactly enlightening.
SevenOneEighty: you might enjoy poking around the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds