Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[godsfavoritecolor]

OC or, PH (pseudo-humilitarian) as I prefer to label him, uses arguments that are the definition of specious arguments. He reminds me of a Christian apologist I know, Holy Dave, who, when he is not pontificating, denies or questions every one of his opponents assertions and answers every question put to him with a leading question.

 

Why waste your time with him?

[Antlerman]

Yes, it has been said that literalism is responsible for fundamentalist thinking on both sides of the God issue. Either it is literally true, or literally false. I think that entire premise is deeply flawed. Systems of language humans use in not about binary equations of true/false. It's far more complex than that.

 

Only so many ways I can say I totally agree. I suspect many of us Ex-Cs tend to blithely accept that premise because we came out of fundamentalist church traditions ourselves.

Well, its a way of thinking that is a combination of culture and personalities. If you were someone who joined up with a fundamentalist church, as opposed to being raised in one, you have to ask why is it that that linear, binary way of thinking resonated with you? Even though now I can understand and see multiple perspectives as different shades of truth, it is a tendency of mine to fall into the trap of this is true/this is false thinking. Add to that my emotional need for the security of "sure answers" when I was younger. It was a trap set to snare me. But the 'sure answers' turned out to be oversimplified political rhetoric, bad reasoning, emotional appeals, etc.

 

But that same trap set to snare me lay on the opposite side of that fence in turning to amassing scientific facts as the Ground of Faith. Like my old friend said to me when I challenged him about saying "I'm so glad I have the truth now", having deconverted himself, that this was the same language he used when we were in Bible College together. He responded, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth!" He was serious, of course. And that's the point. All this cry of "I have Evidence!", is the same thing, like holding up a Bible in one's hand and shaking it. It looking for that Rock of Truth to put ones faith in. But it's faith nonetheless.

 

It is my argument that living is based on so much more than arguments of True vs. False, Evidence vs. Fantasy, Rational vs. Religious equations. Life and truth is dynamic, evolving, living, and symbolic. We aren't binary creatures. We aren't robots, or soldiers for a god. Truth is living and dynamic in the human heart. Not a science equation.

[OrdinaryClay]

There is evidence from several fields including archeology, anthropology and comparative social studies in animals. Cognitive neuroscience also has some anatomic and developmental discoveries that support the idea of religion as a byproduct of the evolution of society.

Then provide a citation that demonstrates this beyond simple unsubstantiated speculation.

[OrdinaryClay]

Your analogy has no substance. The hypothesis that germs were the cause of disease was based on much more then some wild guess. There was empirical evidence showing that sterilization worked among other falsifiable evidence. None of this exists with Dawkins' byproduct idea. It is completely ad hoc.

 

No, your accusations are false.

 

Look, assuming evolution is true, which it clearly is. There are only really two possibilities, our tendency to be religious has a genetic component or it is entirely social. Are you really arguing that religion has NO genetic component? I find it rather unlikely. Most behavior has a genetic component.

I'm not sure understand what an evolutionary byproduct is or what it implies. The reason Dawkins claims religion is a byproduct is because he wants to claim no evolutionary value. Reread my posts on what a byproduct is. I never said anything about genetics so that is irrelevant.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Your analogy has no substance. The hypothesis that germs were the cause of disease was based on much more then some wild guess. There was empirical evidence showing that sterilization worked among other falsifiable evidence. None of this exists with Dawkins' byproduct idea. It is completely ad hoc.

 

No, your accusations are false.

 

Look, assuming evolution is true, which it clearly is. There are only really two possibilities, our tendency to be religious has a genetic component or it is entirely social. Are you really arguing that religion has NO genetic component? I find it rather unlikely. Most behavior has a genetic component.

I'm not sure understand what an evolutionary byproduct is or what it implies. The reason Dawkins claims religion is a byproduct is because he wants to claim no evolutionary value. Reread my posts on what a byproduct is. I never said anything about genetics so that is irrelevant.

If he is wanting to claim no evolutionary value, I will have to baring outside information disagree with dawkins. But harkening back to my proposition, it can be a evolutionary trait(to be religious) that now we will ultimately not need.

[oddbird1963]

There is evidence from several fields including archeology, anthropology and comparative social studies in animals. Cognitive neuroscience also has some anatomic and developmental discoveries that support the idea of religion as a byproduct of the evolution of society.

Then provide a citation that demonstrates this beyond simple unsubstantiated speculation.

 

 

You're either deflecting from the point or truly don't get it. Why does there need to be a citation when Dawkins clearly acknowledged he was engaging in speculation.

 

You need to answer what you mean when you say his points of view are "Empty." Those are your words.

 

You really need to clarify what you mean by 'citation' as well. I think you probably have a special definition in mind that you are saving to reject any citations that might be produced.

 

So, you need to define your terms. What do you mean by "empty?" What are you wanting when you demand a 'citation?'

 

And once again, why should we listen to you yet reject the opinion of a scientist like Dawkins due to his 'empty' opiniions?

[OrdinaryClay]

Your analogy has no substance. The hypothesis that germs were the cause of disease was based on much more then some wild guess. There was empirical evidence showing that sterilization worked among other falsifiable evidence. None of this exists with Dawkins' byproduct idea. It is completely ad hoc.

 

No, your accusations are false.

 

Look, assuming evolution is true, which it clearly is. There are only really two possibilities, our tendency to be religious has a genetic component or it is entirely social. Are you really arguing that religion has NO genetic component? I find it rather unlikely. Most behavior has a genetic component.

I'm not sure understand what an evolutionary byproduct is or what it implies. The reason Dawkins claims religion is a byproduct is because he wants to claim no evolutionary value. Reread my posts on what a byproduct is. I never said anything about genetics so that is irrelevant.

If he is wanting to claim no evolutionary value, I will have to baring outside information disagree with dawkins. But harkening back to my proposition, it can be a evolutionary trait(to be religious) that now we will ultimately not need.

In order for you to judge the future need of an evolutionary trait you must be able to state the original need. Then you need to be able to explain why the need no longer exists. Now, predictably, most atheists then go on about "rationality" and the "age of reason". This is more empty talk. Humans alive 2000 yrs ago were just as rational and capable of reason as we are today. The only difference is our technology not our minds. Evolution works on genes not technology. There is every reason to believe our psyche is exactly the same today as it was 2000 yrs ago or even 5000 yrs ago.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Your analogy has no substance. The hypothesis that germs were the cause of disease was based on much more then some wild guess. There was empirical evidence showing that sterilization worked among other falsifiable evidence. None of this exists with Dawkins' byproduct idea. It is completely ad hoc.

 

No, your accusations are false.

 

Look, assuming evolution is true, which it clearly is. There are only really two possibilities, our tendency to be religious has a genetic component or it is entirely social. Are you really arguing that religion has NO genetic component? I find it rather unlikely. Most behavior has a genetic component.

I'm not sure understand what an evolutionary byproduct is or what it implies. The reason Dawkins claims religion is a byproduct is because he wants to claim no evolutionary value. Reread my posts on what a byproduct is. I never said anything about genetics so that is irrelevant.

If he is wanting to claim no evolutionary value, I will have to baring outside information disagree with dawkins. But harkening back to my proposition, it can be a evolutionary trait(to be religious) that now we will ultimately not need.

In order for you to judge the future need of an evolutionary trait you must be able to state the original need. Then you need to be able to explain why the need no longer exists. Now, predictably, most atheists then go on about "rationality" and the "age of reason". This is more empty talk. Humans alive 2000 yrs ago were just as rational and capable of reason as we are today. The only difference is our technology not our minds. Evolution works on genes not technology. There is no reason to believe our psyche is exactly the same today as it was 2000 yrs ago or even 5000 yrs ago.

God you are thicker than I thought. You must also be a creationist, because you would have to be to disregard what I have said. The need was a explanation of what we saw in the world. Ever wondered why there are so many different religions. It is not the spawn of satan, it is simply people of different areas back long ago (before we knew any real by modern standards science) musings on how the world works, and answering the questions in life, like where do we go when we die. We needed a answer so we created it. We would not have been able to build societies back then if we didn't come up with these rules. This is a not a question of rationality really. It is a matter of answering questions. It just so happens that these answered changed from, the earth and everything on for example being created in 6 days to be we have evolved over millions of years

[OrdinaryClay]

...It is a matter of answering questions. ...

Science and technology will never provide all the answers.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

...It is a matter of answering questions. ...

Science and technology will never provide all the answers.

Maybe but I have a hard time believing that people 2000 years ago have any good answers.

[The-Captain]

But that same trap set to snare me lay on the opposite side of that fence in turning to amassing scientific facts as the Ground of Faith. Like my old friend said to me when I challenged him about saying "I'm so glad I have the truth now", having deconverted himself, that this was the same language he used when we were in Bible College together. He responded, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth!" He was serious, of course. And that's the point. All this cry of "I have Evidence!", is the same thing, like holding up a Bible in one's hand and shaking it. It looking for that Rock of Truth to put ones faith in. But it's faith nonetheless.

 

It's difficult to maintain perspective. The only constant seems to be our ultimate ignorance, I try to keep that in mind.

[Sconnor]

...It is a matter of answering questions. ...

Science and technology will never provide all the answers.

 

Science and technology doesn't claim to have ALL the answers.

 

Skeptics, agnostics and unbelievers tend to use science, logic, and reason in determining what is most likely true about the world we live in. But obviously "most likely true" is not an absolute, as science is provisional and doesn't deal in absolutes like your belief system.

 

We use reason and evidence to acquire information about the reality around us by asking questions and amassing knowledge that is open to inquiry that can be confirmed or not confirmed, which is always open to change as opposed to your method of obtaining knowledge (religion and faith), which is a process where the religious have a collection of fixed beliefs pertaining to morals and the meaning of life supported solely on faith (no objective evidence) which is NOT open to change -- religious truths are absolute.

 

You are the deluded soul who supposedly has the answers.

 

You supposedly have THE answer, to one of are most important questions: How do we obtain eternal life?

 

You assert you have the absolute answer.

 

Please provide empirical/objective evidence for the main stay of your religion: the resurrection.

 

Please provide empirical/objective evidence for a person being resurrected -- good as new -- after being dead and buried for three days and then provide empirical/objective evidence that this action actually removes sin and saves.

 

You are the one who believes in this supposed (absolute) knowledge, and yet you habitually bury your head in the sand like a little cowering chicken shit and ignore my request to address my posts and provide objective evidence for your outlandish christian claims.

 

This speaks VOLUMES.

 

--S.

[Legion]

Either it is literally true, or literally false. I think that entire premise is deeply flawed. Systems of language humans use in not about binary equations of true/false. It's far more complex than that.

Along with Doc, I want to chime in with general agreement on this A-man. I think truth and understanding are different things. I think truth implies making a distinction among propositions, but understanding implies a complex relation which includes prediction, and the ability to explain.

[Shyone]

There is evidence from several fields including archeology, anthropology and comparative social studies in animals. Cognitive neuroscience also has some anatomic and developmental discoveries that support the idea of religion as a byproduct of the evolution of society.

Then provide a citation that demonstrates this beyond simple unsubstantiated speculation.

I did, which you apparently did not read.

 

Or if you did read the references, then which areas of research do you claim to be unsubstantiated speculation? And, after presenting you with references, how long will it be before you either 1) call them "unsubstantiated speculation or 2) ask for references that have already been given?

 

What about the archeological evidence of prehuman hominids burying their dead ritualistically?

 

Paleolithic burials

 

90,000 year old double burial of Homo sapiens at Qafzeh cave in IsraelThe earliest evidence of religious thought is based on the ritual treatment of the dead. Most animals display only a casual interest in the dead of their own species.[21] Ritual burial thus represents a significant advancement in human behavior. Ritual burial represent an awareness of life and death and a possible belief in the afterlife. Philip Lieberman states "burials with grave goods clearly signify religious practices and concern for the dead that transcends daily life."[8]

 

The earliest evidence for treatment of the dead comes from Atapuerca in Spain. At this location the bones of 30 individuals believed to be Homo heidelbergensis have been found in a pit.[22] Neanderthals are also contenders for the first hominids to intentionally bury the dead. They may have placed corpses into shallow graves along with stone tools and animal bones. The presence of these grave goods may indicate an emotional connection with the deceased and possibly a belief in the afterlife. Neanderthal burial sites include Shanidar in Iraq and Krapina in Croatia and Kebara Cave in Israel.[23][24][25][24]

 

The earliest known burial of modern humans is from a cave in Israel located at Qafzeh. Human remains have been dated to 100,000 years ago. Human skeletons were found stained with red ochre. A variety of grave goods were found at the burial site. The mandible of a wild boar was found placed in the arms of one of the skeletons.[26] Philip Lieberman states:

 

"Burial rituals incorporating grave goods may have been invented by the anatomically modern hominids who emigrated from Africa to the Middle East 100,000 years ago".[26]

Matt Rossano suggests that the period in between 80,000 -60,000 years after humans retreated from the Levant to Africa was a crucial period in the evolution of religion.[27]

 

Or the evidence of symbolic behavior from early humans:

 

Some of the earliest evidence of symbolic behavior is associated with Middle Stone Age sites in Africa. From at least 100,000 years ago, there is evidence of the use of pigments such as red ochre. Pigments are of little practical use to hunter gatherers, thus evidence of their use is interpreted as symbolic or for ritual purposes. Among extant hunter gatherer populations around the world, red ochre is still used extensively for ritual purposes. It has been argued that it is universal among human cultures for the color red to represent blood, sex, life and death.[30]

 

The use of red ochre as a proxy for symbolism is often criticized as being too indirect. Some scientists, such as Richard Klein and Steven Mithen, only recognize unambiguous forms of art as representative of abstract ideas. Upper paleolithic cave art provides some of the most unambiguous evidence of religious thought from the paleolithic. Cave paintings at Chauvet depict creatures that are half human and half animal, an example of anthropomorphism commonly associated among shamanistic practices.

 

How about the development of morality in other primate species?

 

Let me add a few references from Cognitive Science:

 

Barrett, J.L. "Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion." Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2000, vol. 4 pp 29-34

Barrett, J.L. and Jonathan A. Lanman. "The Science of Religious Beliefs." Religion 38, 2008. 109-124 3

Boyer, Pascal. "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought." Basic Books, 2001

Boyer, Pascal. "Religious Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions," Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol 7, pp 119-24

Boyer, P and Liénard, P. "Why ritualized behavior? Precaution Systems and action parsing in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals .” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 29: 595-650.

Sørensen, J. "A Cognitive Theory of Magic." AltaMira Press, 2006

McCorkle Jr., William W. "Ritualizing the Disposal of the Deceased: From Corpse to Concept." Peter Lang, 2010

Geertz, Armin W. (2008). "From Apes to Devils and Angels: Comparing Scenarios on the Evolution of Religion," in J. Bulbulia et al. (Eds.) The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, & Critiques. Santa Margarita: Collins Foundation Press, pp. 43-49.

[Legion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwsKg6LwAuY

[classicchinadoll]

Biblical literalists and fundamentalists are more akin to atheists than moderate bible believing christians in that the reason they choose to believe all of it and not just pick out the nice bits is because they want to believe what's true rather than make an emotional decision and base their beliefs on what they want to be true.

Yes, it has been said that literalism is responsible for fundamentalist thinking on both sides of the God issue. Either it is literally true, or literally false. I think that entire premise is deeply flawed. Systems of language humans use in not about binary equations of true/false. It's far more complex than that.

 

And now to the Sam Harris-derived lopsided view about moderates and their potential effects (which I consider, along with many other atheists as well, as well, political nonsense)....

 

I am sick of moderate christians blaming fundamentalists for their prejudices yet promoting the archaic source (the bible) that leads logical ppl to fundamentalism

Promoting their Bible how? As the inerrant, infallible, direct-dictation of God to man? Let's start there.

 

You, and countless other, misuse the term "cherry-picking" again and again, to the point it is more a political slam against anyone that they want to lump into the same pile without distinction, than any meaningful term. I've corrected this countless times here, and others have come to see it as accurate after themselves having been inappropriately using it as above. I'll try it again:

 

"

Cherry picking

is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

Hypothetically, if someone were to look at the Bible as a fallible book, written by humans who felt the inspiration of "God", expressing their thoughts, in their language, using their cultural symbols, in the contexts of their mythologies and understanding of society and values, then it could be rightly, academically called "inspired writing", just like one would in speaking of a work of music, or art, or poetry, etc. If this person who found that book to contain inspired parts that "spoke to them", used is as evoking feelings or thoughts about "God" for them, then I fail to see how it is being approached as a book of Authoritative Facts, to qualify their understanding as violating reason and rationality, to be "ignoring" anything that "contradicts that position". The position is never contradicted, because it is not a contradictory position. The position is that is has truth and error. Recognizing and accepting that is not "Cherry Picking". It is in fact only the literalist who has the position that it is without error and all perfect and delivered by God, that are the actual cherry pickers.

 

 

 

You are obviously intelligent and i would dare say more educated then myself, so forgive me if i am not fully comprehending your argument but i have some ideas on these things.

 

 

I will address different parts of your argument perhaps not in any particular order, but more so according to my comprehension of certain points.

 

I believe that if you are going to take the position that the parts of the bible that speak to you about god is inspired by him then basically you are creating a god in your own image, or more to the point conjuring up your own personal god based on your wishlist. logical ppl realise this is ridiculous. why would a logical person believe that there is a god and he is just the way you imagine him to be. basically if you are going to claim the bible is inspired whether you promote it as infallible or not a logical person is either going to reject it all, or if indoctrination is successful put there own feelings aside in choosing what is true. it is a very illogical position to believe there is a god and he bears any resemblance to what you feel god is like, basically if this were the case then if someone else's feelings of god was that he required you to blow up ppl and die doing so they were acting on inspiration from god.

[Shyone]

I believe that if you are going to take the position that the parts of the bible that speak to you about god is inspired by him then basically you are creating a god in your own image, or more to the point conjuring up your own personal god based on your wishlist. logical ppl realise this is ridiculous. why would a logical person believe that there is a god and he is just the way you imagine him to be. basically if you are going to claim the bible is inspired whether you promote it as infallible or not a logical person is either going to reject it all, or if indoctrination is successful put there own feelings aside in choosing what is true. it is a very illogical position to believe there is a god and he bears any resemblance to what you feel god is like, basically if this were the case then if someone else's feelings of god was that he required you to blow up ppl and die doing so they were acting on inspiration from god.

"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has

always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved

and he was invariably found on the side of those in power. ... Most of the gods

were pleased with sacrifice, and the smell of innocent blood has ever been considered

a divine perfume" Robert G. Ingersoll

 

"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."

Anonymous (from the internet)

[classicchinadoll]

I believe that if you are going to take the position that the parts of the bible that speak to you about god is inspired by him then basically you are creating a god in your own image, or more to the point conjuring up your own personal god based on your wishlist. logical ppl realise this is ridiculous. why would a logical person believe that there is a god and he is just the way you imagine him to be. basically if you are going to claim the bible is inspired whether you promote it as infallible or not a logical person is either going to reject it all, or if indoctrination is successful put there own feelings aside in choosing what is true. it is a very illogical position to believe there is a god and he bears any resemblance to what you feel god is like, basically if this were the case then if someone else's feelings of god was that he required you to blow up ppl and die doing so they were acting on inspiration from god.

"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has

always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved

and he was invariably found on the side of those in power. ... Most of the gods

were pleased with sacrifice, and the smell of innocent blood has ever been considered

a divine perfume" Robert G. Ingersoll

 

Very true shyone, unfortunately fundamentalists don't create god in their own image but rather Paul's image

 

"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."

Anonymous (from the internet)

[classicchinadoll]

oops sorry i inserted my comment into your quote, which isn't a bad thing if you agree but misrepresentative if you disagree.

[Carmen]

I didn't read the whole post, but I'd just like to say one thing. I don't think "attacking" any form of Christianity will do any good. Christians will only see this as "persecution". It's good to ask people questions to get them thinking, but often being angry and bitter about religion will only reinforce the believers' belief that atheists are sad, twisted, evil people.

[OrdinaryClay]

There is evidence from several fields including archeology, anthropology and comparative social studies in animals. Cognitive neuroscience also has some anatomic and developmental discoveries that support the idea of religion as a byproduct of the evolution of society.

Then provide a citation that demonstrates this beyond simple unsubstantiated speculation.

I did, which you apparently did not read.

 

Or if you did read the references, then which areas of research do you claim to be unsubstantiated speculation? And, after presenting you with references, how long will it be before you either 1) call them "unsubstantiated speculation or 2) ask for references that have already been given?

 

What about the archeological evidence of prehuman hominids burying their dead ritualistically?

 

Paleolithic burials

 

90,000 year old double burial of Homo sapiens at Qafzeh cave in IsraelThe earliest evidence of religious thought is based on the ritual treatment of the dead. Most animals display only a casual interest in the dead of their own species.[21] Ritual burial thus represents a significant advancement in human behavior. Ritual burial represent an awareness of life and death and a possible belief in the afterlife. Philip Lieberman states "burials with grave goods clearly signify religious practices and concern for the dead that transcends daily life."[8]

 

The earliest evidence for treatment of the dead comes from Atapuerca in Spain. At this location the bones of 30 individuals believed to be Homo heidelbergensis have been found in a pit.[22] Neanderthals are also contenders for the first hominids to intentionally bury the dead. They may have placed corpses into shallow graves along with stone tools and animal bones. The presence of these grave goods may indicate an emotional connection with the deceased and possibly a belief in the afterlife. Neanderthal burial sites include Shanidar in Iraq and Krapina in Croatia and Kebara Cave in Israel.[23][24][25][24]

 

The earliest known burial of modern humans is from a cave in Israel located at Qafzeh. Human remains have been dated to 100,000 years ago. Human skeletons were found stained with red ochre. A variety of grave goods were found at the burial site. The mandible of a wild boar was found placed in the arms of one of the skeletons.[26] Philip Lieberman states:

 

"Burial rituals incorporating grave goods may have been invented by the anatomically modern hominids who emigrated from Africa to the Middle East 100,000 years ago".[26]

Matt Rossano suggests that the period in between 80,000 -60,000 years after humans retreated from the Levant to Africa was a crucial period in the evolution of religion.[27]

 

Or the evidence of symbolic behavior from early humans:

 

Some of the earliest evidence of symbolic behavior is associated with Middle Stone Age sites in Africa. From at least 100,000 years ago, there is evidence of the use of pigments such as red ochre. Pigments are of little practical use to hunter gatherers, thus evidence of their use is interpreted as symbolic or for ritual purposes. Among extant hunter gatherer populations around the world, red ochre is still used extensively for ritual purposes. It has been argued that it is universal among human cultures for the color red to represent blood, sex, life and death.[30]

 

The use of red ochre as a proxy for symbolism is often criticized as being too indirect. Some scientists, such as Richard Klein and Steven Mithen, only recognize unambiguous forms of art as representative of abstract ideas. Upper paleolithic cave art provides some of the most unambiguous evidence of religious thought from the paleolithic. Cave paintings at Chauvet depict creatures that are half human and half animal, an example of anthropomorphism commonly associated among shamanistic practices.

 

How about the development of morality in other primate species?

 

Let me add a few references from Cognitive Science:

 

Barrett, J.L. "Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion." Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2000, vol. 4 pp 29-34

Barrett, J.L. and Jonathan A. Lanman. "The Science of Religious Beliefs." Religion 38, 2008. 109-124 3

Boyer, Pascal. "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought." Basic Books, 2001

Boyer, Pascal. "Religious Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions," Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol 7, pp 119-24

Boyer, P and Liénard, P. "Why ritualized behavior? Precaution Systems and action parsing in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals .” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 29: 595-650.

Sørensen, J. "A Cognitive Theory of Magic." AltaMira Press, 2006

McCorkle Jr., William W. "Ritualizing the Disposal of the Deceased: From Corpse to Concept." Peter Lang, 2010

Geertz, Armin W. (2008). "From Apes to Devils and Angels: Comparing Scenarios on the Evolution of Religion," in J. Bulbulia et al. (Eds.) The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, & Critiques. Santa Margarita: Collins Foundation Press, pp. 43-49.

Which reference provides a testable, falsifiable and reproducible demonstration of religion as a byproduct? None. Dawkins claims there is a byproduct relationship. This does not demonstrate a byproduct relationship. The claim in this thread is that our belief in the supernatural is a byproduct behavior. That we acquired a behavior called ceremony (or any behavior) is obvious.

 

The irony is that most of these would claim just the opposite from a byproduct relationship, that, at least, ceremony serves an evolutionary purpose.

 

A group of scholars speculating is sometimes passed off as science, and in some disciplines it is gotten away with, but that does not make it science.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

There is evidence from several fields including archeology, anthropology and comparative social studies in animals. Cognitive neuroscience also has some anatomic and developmental discoveries that support the idea of religion as a byproduct of the evolution of society.

Then provide a citation that demonstrates this beyond simple unsubstantiated speculation.

I did, which you apparently did not read.

 

Or if you did read the references, then which areas of research do you claim to be unsubstantiated speculation? And, after presenting you with references, how long will it be before you either 1) call them "unsubstantiated speculation or 2) ask for references that have already been given?

 

What about the archeological evidence of prehuman hominids burying their dead ritualistically?

 

Paleolithic burials

 

90,000 year old double burial of Homo sapiens at Qafzeh cave in IsraelThe earliest evidence of religious thought is based on the ritual treatment of the dead. Most animals display only a casual interest in the dead of their own species.[21] Ritual burial thus represents a significant advancement in human behavior. Ritual burial represent an awareness of life and death and a possible belief in the afterlife. Philip Lieberman states "burials with grave goods clearly signify religious practices and concern for the dead that transcends daily life."[8]

 

The earliest evidence for treatment of the dead comes from Atapuerca in Spain. At this location the bones of 30 individuals believed to be Homo heidelbergensis have been found in a pit.[22] Neanderthals are also contenders for the first hominids to intentionally bury the dead. They may have placed corpses into shallow graves along with stone tools and animal bones. The presence of these grave goods may indicate an emotional connection with the deceased and possibly a belief in the afterlife. Neanderthal burial sites include Shanidar in Iraq and Krapina in Croatia and Kebara Cave in Israel.[23][24][25][24]

 

The earliest known burial of modern humans is from a cave in Israel located at Qafzeh. Human remains have been dated to 100,000 years ago. Human skeletons were found stained with red ochre. A variety of grave goods were found at the burial site. The mandible of a wild boar was found placed in the arms of one of the skeletons.[26] Philip Lieberman states:

 

"Burial rituals incorporating grave goods may have been invented by the anatomically modern hominids who emigrated from Africa to the Middle East 100,000 years ago".[26]

Matt Rossano suggests that the period in between 80,000 -60,000 years after humans retreated from the Levant to Africa was a crucial period in the evolution of religion.[27]

 

Or the evidence of symbolic behavior from early humans:

 

Some of the earliest evidence of symbolic behavior is associated with Middle Stone Age sites in Africa. From at least 100,000 years ago, there is evidence of the use of pigments such as red ochre. Pigments are of little practical use to hunter gatherers, thus evidence of their use is interpreted as symbolic or for ritual purposes. Among extant hunter gatherer populations around the world, red ochre is still used extensively for ritual purposes. It has been argued that it is universal among human cultures for the color red to represent blood, sex, life and death.[30]

 

The use of red ochre as a proxy for symbolism is often criticized as being too indirect. Some scientists, such as Richard Klein and Steven Mithen, only recognize unambiguous forms of art as representative of abstract ideas. Upper paleolithic cave art provides some of the most unambiguous evidence of religious thought from the paleolithic. Cave paintings at Chauvet depict creatures that are half human and half animal, an example of anthropomorphism commonly associated among shamanistic practices.

 

How about the development of morality in other primate species?

 

Let me add a few references from Cognitive Science:

 

Barrett, J.L. "Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion." Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2000, vol. 4 pp 29-34

Barrett, J.L. and Jonathan A. Lanman. "The Science of Religious Beliefs." Religion 38, 2008. 109-124 3

Boyer, Pascal. "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought." Basic Books, 2001

Boyer, Pascal. "Religious Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions," Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol 7, pp 119-24

Boyer, P and Liénard, P. "Why ritualized behavior? Precaution Systems and action parsing in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals .” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 29: 595-650.

Sørensen, J. "A Cognitive Theory of Magic." AltaMira Press, 2006

McCorkle Jr., William W. "Ritualizing the Disposal of the Deceased: From Corpse to Concept." Peter Lang, 2010

Geertz, Armin W. (2008). "From Apes to Devils and Angels: Comparing Scenarios on the Evolution of Religion," in J. Bulbulia et al. (Eds.) The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, & Critiques. Santa Margarita: Collins Foundation Press, pp. 43-49.

Which reference provides a testable, falsifiable and reproducible demonstration of religion as a byproduct? None. Dawkins claims there is a byproduct relationship. This does not demonstrate a byproduct relationship. The claim in this thread is that our belief in the supernatural is a byproduct behavior. That we acquired a behavior called ceremony (or any behavior) is obvious.

 

The irony is that most of these would claim just the opposite from a byproduct relationship, that, at least, ceremony serves an evolutionary purpose.

 

A group of scholars speculating is sometimes passed off as science, and in some disciplines it is gotten away with, but that does not make it science.

That proves it your a creationist!

 

On the last thing you said here is the irony, your asking for a appeal to consensus. And also, you would have to throw out a great deal of neuroscience and evolutionary pyschology as well as anthropology if your are looking for the type of things you are looking for.

I would suggest looking at the standards your holding this stuff to. Testable and reproducible, can't apply in the way you are asking it to since it is looking soley at the mind, because it is not tangible. This could be falsifiable if new information is presented. This is testable, because based of what we know(facts), this fits current facts. Reproducible, like evolution you can't reproduce it.

look at it this way

 

we have things 1 2 and 3

 

these things are available

 

we have 4

 

How does four work in these things.

 

I guess you disregard the theory of relativity, because it is conjecture based off of known facts.

 

And also why have ceremony without the meaning behind it. If Neanderthals are burying there dead in specific ways, this has a particular meaning to them.

 

The ceremony would be a response to the byproduct, the idea that based of what they saw in the world and how they were able to answer the questions they had, there was a supernatural.

 

religion is a evolutionary byproduct of a evolving brain needed answers to continue

[classicchinadoll]

thank you valkerie but i think oc isn't paying attention. he just wants to argue. i think the hypothesis that religion is an evolutionary advantage would also be a possibility though we can't see what benefits it has, the fact that we evolved and have this propensity would make that a possibility. but doesn't make dawkins hypothesis any less scientific. they are just alternative hypotheses. and once again he accuses dawkins of stating it as fact when nobody else has claimed that.

[Shyone]

thank you valkerie but i think oc isn't paying attention. he just wants to argue. i think the hypothesis that religion is an evolutionary advantage would also be a possibility though we can't see what benefits it has, the fact that we evolved and have this propensity would make that a possibility. but doesn't make dawkins hypothesis any less scientific. they are just alternative hypotheses. and once again he accuses dawkins of stating it as fact when nobody else has claimed that.

It is perhaps ironic that one could argue that religion produces advantages for survival and therefore we should all be religious. Our "atheist approach" would be considered aberrant and potentially destructive evolutionarily and therefore harmful to the species.

 

If our ancestors survived by religion, then why should those who think religion is important want to discard that evidence that religion is beneficial?

 

Regardless, it has no bearing on the truth of religion except that the gradual development argues against a naive people without any religion being given revealed religion. But OC already knows that there has been religious "development" (I use that word instead of evolution because he hates that word). He knows about the Egyptians, Babylonians and Sumerians. He knows about Neanderthal and pre-human homo ritualistic burials. He knows that small primative societies have ancestor worship and animism.

 

But despite the "yes, yes, yes, yes, yes" knowledge of the steps in the development of religion, he would cry, "NO!" regarding the conclusion that religion has developed.

 

As to whether there is some evolutionary advantage of religion? I doubt it has any advantage over and above social cohesion which could have been (and has been) accomplished without superstitious beliefs.

[Antlerman]

You are obviously intelligent and i would dare say more educated then myself, so forgive me if i am not fully comprehending your argument but i have some ideas on these things.

 

I will address different parts of your argument perhaps not in any particular order, but more so according to my comprehension of certain points.

 

I believe that if you are going to take the position that the parts of the bible that speak to you about god is inspired by him then basically you are creating a god in your own image, or more to the point conjuring up your own personal god based on your wishlist. logical ppl realise this is ridiculous.

Yes you did miss a lot in what I posted, which is fine. There was a lot in there, plus it's probably foreign in a lot of regards to the more popular points of view out there. But I'm happy to go further in explaining it.

 

I went to some length to try to explain what "inspired" might mean. You appear to take it to mean the notion of Authoritative Revelation when you encounter that word. To me it would be like calling a work of an artist "Authoritative Revelation". That's silly. It can however be expressed as being 'inspired', which means that it is something that wells up from inside and expresses itself externally in various forms or modes of expression. Those within Christianity who may see the Bible as an inspired work, are not necessarily taking it to mean it is a Dictation, but rather an expression of the Divine, expressed through humans.

 

This is very different than the literalist who thinks the words are without error, or that they by-pass and supersede any and all humanness in them, like saying the works of Michelangelo is not his, but God's, and to challenge them is blasphemy. Others would look at his works and say they see the spirit of the Divine being expressed through him. Huge difference between that and infallibility. Michelangelo's works are not Authoritative on all matters Art.

 

I've heard it expressed this way by some, that the Bible "contains the word of God". What does that mean? If you set aside that notion of Dictation, and Inerrant Infallibility, then what you have is 'expressions of the Divine', what people understand "God" to represent in symbol. Understood as this, then it is not "Cherry Picking" at all to say "this speaks to me and this doesn't", because it is consistent with the view that it contains expressions of the Divine though humans at that time in that context. There is no ignoring evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary would be evidence that it is Perfect. Then they would be cherry picking if they were to deliberately ignore those bits which contradicting their position.

 

Using Cherry Picking for the liberal, is a misapplication of the term. Applied to the fundamentalist however, it is entirely appropriate.

 

why would a logical person believe that there is a god and he is just the way you imagine him to be.

I will say that "People create God in their own image, and serve God, so that God can serve them." There's a lot in that statement to consider. Indulge me to explain...

 

Is it logical for a person to believe there is a god just the way you imagine him to be? I'd agree it is not, but probably for different reasons than you might. I would say it is both of failure of reason, and faith. God by very definition is transcendent. God is transcendent because it expresses something beyond what is immediately comprehensible, accessible, or realized. That is the power of God as a symbol. Faith in the human being, is best described as I've read Tillich express it, as "the ultimate concern...[it is] a centered act of the personality... It is an act in which both the rational and the nonrational elements of his being are transcended." That faith expresses itself symbolically as "symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate". That last statement is key to understanding this.

 

To imagine God to look just like you, to be up there in the sky imagining what do about this or that, holding a checklist in his hand making a tally sheet about your wrong doings (much like a child might imagine his mom or dad doing to make sure they've been a good little boy or girl), is hardly an expression of Ultimate Concern. In fact, I'd say there's very little thought about something beyond being socially accepting going on there. And isn't that what the whole promise of Heaven and threat of Hell is about? A carrot stick for good behavior?

 

That's not an expression of ultimate concern, and if it were for them, then I'd say that that is a pretty shallow life if it never tries to see itself a part of the greater whole, or tries to see itself beyond itself. It is saying that the individual ego is the ultimate state of being. And that conclusion is itself a logical contradiction to evidence. For most the religious institutions hold them there for reason of control.

 

But what about this "serving God so God can serve you" statement? In extending oneself, individually and collectively into an symbolic reality beyond yourself or other individuals (whether that has elements of God or gods, or not), draws someone into that space that can, if all goes well, begin to transform their understanding, their perceptions, their experience, their personalities, their attitudes, and their actions. As that happens, quite literally (sort of), "God" now creates man in his own image. It's the internal world, the existential world of the individual and the collective creating a symbolic world to transform external reality into that image; the image of "God".

 

Think about it, "In the beginning was the Word (the symbolic representation of God), the word was with God and the Word was God (the experience of God in the human collective).. and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (We transformed ourselves into the image of our symbolic representation of our existential selves, not only culturally, but biologically through the process of bio-cultural feedback affecting sexual selection). Now, I realize that's not what the author of John had in mind, but it does fit. But really, is it that far off the mark? That's the mark of a good mythology actually, that it can be understood from many points of view.

 

basically if you are going to claim the bible is inspired whether you promote it as infallible or not a logical person is either going to reject it all, or if indoctrination is successful put there own feelings aside in choosing what is true.

Why? I don't understand. To say it contains inspired words, does not demand someone to either accept it all or reject it all. That conclusion is not logical, IMO.

 

Indoctrination is about it being viewed as Authoritative. When it comes to personal growth it is absolutely necessary for someone to fully engage their own feelings and thoughts. In fact it is my belief that most everyone here, not the least of which myself, left Christianity far, far more over reasons of personal growth than over "logical contradictions". Being suppressed is the Apex of why we broke free, in order to become, to evolve, to grow.

 

I would make the argument, that understanding that religious symbols are not about historical, scientific facts, and that those like LNC and Clay who argue about them on that level, are in fact doing them a greater disservice than a good, and that they are instead about Expressions of Human Faith through symbolic representation. If in the course of using such symbols the symbols themselves become about Facts, and not objects of faith to point to something beyond themselves, to that Ultimate Concern, then they in fact replace the Ultimate Concern, or "God" with themselves and all thoughts, concerns, feelings, hopes, become servants to them. They don't free, but enslave. That is what really can be understood as idolatry.

 

A slave cannot grow as a whole person. There is no freedom. Any symbol that enslaves the spirit through forced obedience to dogma must be overturned in favor of one that allows freedom. Cries from the apologist that "Christ will set you free!", followed by a dogmatic demand that all must convert or be rejected by God, is at best an oxymoron. At worst a sin against the world and "God" in it.

 

it is a very illogical position to believe there is a god and he bears any resemblance to what you feel god is like,

Actually, to risk the appearance of contradicting myself a little here, in one sense it's not a contradiction. Let me explain. If God is understood as the symbolic expression of that ultimate concern of the whole person, mind and spirit (or heart if you prefer), then of course there is innately in that expression and sense of what you feel inside yourself that you represent symbolically as "God". If not, if God were utterly foreign to you, to anything you can relate to on any level as a living being with an internal nature, then I would imagine it to represent more an ultimate terror than any sort of Goal. That ultimate terror we symbolically create as the Devil. The antithesis of what we desire.

 

Where I agree is that to imagine you can understand it, or attempt to define it as in some Church Dogma, is to remove it from that position of symbolic representation. To reduce the Infinity to dogma is illogical and a contradiction.

 

basically if this were the case then if someone else's feelings of god was that he required you to blow up ppl and die doing so they were acting on inspiration from god.

This is a whole separate point, but one that raises a good question. On what basis can you accept or reject others use of symbols? I could devote a whole thread to this, as it touches entirely on these notions of Authority: whether it is the religious dogma with its Word of God, or turning to Science and Reason with its attendant methodologies of empirical evidences.

 

Without turning this into a 10,000 word post (which it's already at over 1500), it is my belief that as humans we engage an internal world complete with its own subjective truths. These are different than external facts, but nonetheless equally as valid in the pursuit of living. In a sense, as you mentioned before about denying your thoughts and feelings to the creeds of some religious dogma, in a great many regards those who take the tools of science and its discoveries of the natural world and extend this beyond itself philosophically into the whole of life, that that natural, physical world is the only *real* reality, are in essence doing nothing different at all.

 

It is now a replacement for the Holy See in subsuming all thought and understanding to its overarching system - the very definition of a new mythology (a system of representation of symbols that interact with with individuals, which are all woven together to into a system under which all understanding must be filtered. Is this making sense yet?). The subjective world defies hard, physical reality. The subjective world is in every sense itself as 'objective' as the external world. Especially when we move into the inter-subjective world of other individuals' subjective worlds in a shared worldspace of society and culture. Our expressions of the worldspace symbolically are objective realities with which we interact, which influence and change the physical world, which affect and influence the internal world.

 

Now you tell me what Authority can speak to that internal world? Science and the study of the natural world? The Church which denies the freedom to imagine the world outside its controlled set of symbols out of a perceived threat to its Authority over human society and culture? How do we say that those who disregard the rights and freedom, the liberty of their spirit through acts of domination or terrorism are "wrong"? In other words on what basis do we form a governing system over the inter-subjective (cultural), and inter-objective (societal) worlds?

 

What do you propose? So you feel that attacking moderates takes any of this into account and offers anything of transforming value?