Jump to content

Thoughts


Recommended Posts

Got this email from a friend of mine today, and I think there are some interesting points for discussion in here. -----Religion has helped humanity to buffer the effects of our basal instincts and develop behavior more conducive to large-scale group living. However, in doing this, it has developed, endorsed and championed our language-born ability to create 'reality-structures' out of thin air (i.e., make shit up and take it for truth). There was a time when our basal human instincts perhaps represented the greatest threat to our species (ex. warring, raping, pillaging etc), and as such, religious thinking made some vital contributions to help stay the tide of our animal-nature. However, with the advent of weapons of mass destruction putting extraordinary power into individual hands, I find myself considerably more frightened by our ability to 'create reality'. More than ever, our species needs to develop a capacity for objective thinking, and religion does not help with this. That being said ... if I'm ever forced to go to prison, and if there's an option of going to a 'Christian Prison', I'd take it in a heart beat. The point being, in a local sense, religion does a lot of good staying the tide of our '7-deadly-sins biological survival forces', but again, on a global scale the need to develop our collective capacity for objective thought is, in my opinion, a more pressing matter. We are, in fact, facing the possibility of human kind self-annihilation.Importantly, we can't simply discard religion because it's filled with 'fairy-tails'. Humans need help facing the powerful forces embedded in us through millions of years of evolution. These forces are like an arsenal of loaded guns hidden in our genes and without a great deal of concerted effort these loaded guns go-off hurting others and/or ourselves (see Tiger's Wood). I suspect the solution requires a new process whereby we can both regulate our animal nature and maintain objective thinking. One possibility is that we might discover such a process through objective thought. Objectivity, as it turns out, places us right back in the middle of the 'great unknowable mystery of life'. This is clear to anyone that's honestly spent time considering what science has uncovered to date, and even this magic, is a mere speck in a vast infinite mystery. Scientist that can't see or don't recognize this are themselves trapped in a reality of their own making whereby they've developed ideas and thoughts that make the universe seem far more 'knowable' and 'controllable' than objective thought would otherwise tell us. For instance, most scientist outside of physics have yet to grasped the implications of quantum mechanics and comfortably go about their business subscribing wholeheartedly to their Newtonian worlds. In short, I suspect that 'true objectivity’ inevitably brings us to God ... not the God of Religion ... but the God of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Got this email from a friend of mine today, and I think there are some interesting points for discussion in here. -----Religion has helped humanity to buffer the effects of our basal instincts and develop behavior more conducive to large-scale group living. However, in doing this, it has developed, endorsed and championed our language-born ability to create 'reality-structures' out of thin air (i.e., make shit up and take it for truth).
The notion that religious truths are reality-structured begs the notion that religion is false. If religion is true, then this statement is a strawman.
There was a time when our basal human instincts perhaps represented the greatest threat to our species (ex. warring, raping, pillaging etc), and as such, religious thinking made some vital contributions to help stay the tide of our animal-nature. However, with the advent of weapons of mass destruction putting extraordinary power into individual hands, I find myself considerably more frightened by our ability to 'create reality'. More than ever, our species needs to develop a capacity for objective thinking, and religion does not help with this.
Again doesn't this theory ignore the amount of input religion has placed in society through the numerous examples of building universaties and schools in every country in the world through out history? The author is pretending that religion is anti-learning, when history has shown us the complete opposite.
That being said ... if I'm ever forced to go to prison, and if there's an option of going to a 'Christian Prison', I'd take it in a heart beat. The point being, in a local sense, religion does a lot of good staying the tide of our '7-deadly-sins biological survival forces', but again, on a global scale the need to develop our collective capacity for objective thought is, in my opinion, a more pressing matter. We are, in fact, facing the possibility of human kind self-annihilation.
The need to have everyone agree that we should act religious without religion is kind of a funny thing to wish for isn't it? It's really saying that the good things of religion are what we want to keep, while we get rid of the rest of it. The problem is that the good things about religion is really religion, the 'bad' parts are when man adds his two cents to what the Bible says.
Importantly, we can't simply discard religion because it's filled with 'fairy-tails'. Humans need help facing the powerful forces embedded in us through millions of years of evolution. These forces are like an arsenal of loaded guns hidden in our genes and without a great deal of concerted effort these loaded guns go-off hurting others and/or ourselves (see Tiger's Wood).
I thought the millions of years of evolution were what was gaining us all the good things in humans? Isn't the system of evolution supposed to be the cat's meow? Bringing us compassion and love and caring for the elderly because we have evolved these ideals? In fact isn't religion holding us back from a better evolutionary future? Seems there is a desire to again, pretend that you can steal from religion and then claim it all came from evolution.
I suspect the solution requires a new process whereby we can both regulate our animal nature and maintain objective thinking. One possibility is that we might discover such a process through objective thought. Objectivity, as it turns out, places us right back in the middle of the 'great unknowable mystery of life'. This is clear to anyone that's honestly spent time considering what science has uncovered to date, and even this magic, is a mere speck in a vast infinite mystery. Scientist that can't see or don't recognize this are themselves trapped in a reality of their own making whereby they've developed ideas and thoughts that make the universe seem far more 'knowable' and 'controllable' than objective thought would otherwise tell us. For instance, most scientist outside of physics have yet to grasped the implications of quantum mechanics and comfortably go about their business subscribing wholeheartedly to their Newtonian worlds.
This is a very refreshing acknowledgment that science isn't so clear in it's claim to have all the answers.
In short, I suspect that 'true objectivity’ inevitably brings us to God ... not the God of Religion ... but the God of life.
Overall I appreciated the tone of this email, but think the notion that religion is completely false and just filling a need that humans would completely fail without, shows it to be slightly flawed in it's conclusions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The notion that religious truths are reality-structured begs the notion that religion is false. If religion is true, then this statement is a strawman.
Hmm. I don't think true/false are really relevant to this perspective. The point is that we live in the world of our ideas, true or false.
Again doesn't this theory ignore the amount of input religion has placed in society through the numerous examples of building universaties and schools in every country in the world through out history? The author is pretending that religion is anti-learning, when history has shown us the complete opposite.
Learning is A-OK for religion as long as it doesn't encroach on certain areas where the knowledge is already fixed.
The need to have everyone agree that we should act religious without religion is kind of a funny thing to wish for isn't it? It's really saying that the good things of religion are what we want to keep, while we get rid of the rest of it. The problem is that the good things about religion is really religion, the 'bad' parts are when man adds his two cents to what the Bible says.
We can act morally without religion for sure. Most places get on with religions other than Christianity and they are wrong in your view. So they behave well because of false beliefs.
I thought the millions of years of evolution were what was gaining us all the good things in humans? Isn't the system of evolution supposed to be the cat's meow? Bringing us compassion and love and caring for the elderly because we have evolved these ideals? In fact isn't religion holding us back from a better evolutionary future? Seems there is a desire to again, pretend that you can steal from religion and then claim it all came from evolution.
Evolution is always racing to keep up with changing environments. In our case, we are living in much larger groups than we have in any time in our history, and the adaptations we had to living in smaller groups may now be counter-productive. Evolution is always catching up with the environment.
Overall I appreciated the tone of this email, but think the notion that religion is completely false and just filling a need that humans would completely fail without, shows it to be slightly flawed in it's conclusions.
Thanks for your thoughts on it. I think this guy has a very insightful way of looking at these things.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Learning is A-OK for religion as long as it doesn't encroach on certain areas where the knowledge is already fixed.
Maybe in my case, but many Christians accept evolution while maintaining a firm conviction in the Bible.
We can act morally without religion for sure. Most places get on with religions other than Christianity and they are wrong in your view. So they behave well because of false beliefs.
But you know my belief is that God placed morality in all hearts, not just Christians, we just recognize where it comes from.
Evolution is always racing to keep up with changing environments. In our case, we are living in much larger groups than we have in any time in our history, and the adaptations we had to living in smaller groups may now be counter-productive. Evolution is always catching up with the environment.
Well, then by this definition, evolution will always be too slow seeing as how the population curve is exponentially rising.
Thanks for your thoughts on it. I think this guy has a very insightful way of looking at these things.
I agree
Link to post
Share on other sites
But you know my belief is that God placed morality in all hearts, not just Christians, we just recognize where it comes from.
So given that he has already done that, we definitely don't need religion.
Well, then by this definition, evolution will always be too slow seeing as how the population curve is exponentially rising.
Yes, typically the environment can change faster than we can.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So given that he has already done that, we definitely don't need religion. Yes, typically the environment can change faster than we can.
You do see how these two statements are in conflict don't you?In fact the entire human race can be destroyed with a single person in a biological lab who screws up, or is pissed because his girlfriend left him for a latex jock or someone else of an equally manly profession.So evolution will not work, because one bad egg can now destroy the entire world.Good luck with that post-religion world you guys are all hoping for.And Brv..I'm a mid-trib for the record, but I really lean pan-trib...it'll all pan out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So evolution will not work, because one bad egg can now destroy the entire world.
Don't confuse evolutionary theory with a philosophy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Religion has helped humanity to buffer the effects of our basal instincts and develop behavior more conducive to large-scale group living. However, in doing this, it has developed, endorsed and championed our language-born ability to create 'reality-structures' out of thin air (i.e., make shit up and take it for truth).
I needed reinforcements. “Look,” I said, “four billion people believe in some sort of God and free will. They can’t all be wrong.”“Very few people believe in God,” he replied.I didn’t see how he could deny the obvious. “Of course they do. Billions of people believe in God.”The old man leaned toward me, resting a blanketed elbow on the arm of his rocker.“Four billion people say they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered into eternal damnation, or bad reincarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence. People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions.“A belief in God would demand one hundred percent obsessive devotion, influencing every waking moment of this brief life on earth. But your four billion so-called believers do not live their lives in that fashion, except for a few. The majority believe in the usefulness of their beliefs—an earthly and practical utility—but they do not believe in the underlying reality.”I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. “If you asked them, they’d say they believe.”“They say that they believe because pretending to believe is necessary to get the benefits of religion. They tell other people that they believe and they do believer-like things, like praying and reading holy books. But they don’t do the things that a true believer would do, the things a true believer would have to do.“If you believe a truck is coming toward you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck. If you tell people you fear the truck but do nothing to get out of the way, that is not belief in the truck. Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions, it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing.”“Are you saying God doesn’t exist?” I asked, trying to get to the point.“I’m saying that people claim to believe in God, but most don’t literally believe. They only act as though they believe because there are earthly benefits in doing so. They create a delusion for themselves because it makes them happy.”“So you think only the atheists believe their own belief?” I asked.“No. Atheists also prefer delusions,” he said.“So according to you, no one believes anything that they say they believe.”“The best any human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. This is why people of different religions can generally live in peace. At some level, we all suspect that other people don’t believe their own religion any more than we believe ours.”I couldn’t accept that. “Maybe the reason we respect other religions is that they all have a core set of beliefs in common. They only differ in the details.”“Jews and Muslims believe that Christ isn’t the Son of God,” he countered. “If they are right, then Christians are mistaken about the core of their religion. And if the Jews or the Christians or the Muslims have the right religion, then the Hindus and Buddhists who believe in reincarnation are wrong. Would you call those details?”“I guess not,” I confessed.“At some level of consciousness, everyone knows that the odds of picking the true religion—if such a thing exists—are nil.”
Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't confuse evolutionary theory with a philosophy.
At some levels they blend together. If the process of evolution that brings change to people's motives, morality and responsibility is unable to stop the possibility for humans to destroy themselves and the planet with it, then evolution the process and the philosophy, are out dated and need to be discarded fro something that will work.I suggest we go with the proven formula of religion.I will write up a list of topics to be taught at public schools.First one of course will be about tithing...
Link to post
Share on other sites
I needed reinforcements. “Look,” I said, “four billion people believe in some sort of God and free will. They can’t all be wrong.”“Very few people believe in God,” he replied.I didn’t see how he could deny the obvious. “Of course they do. Billions of people believe in God.”The old man leaned toward me, resting a blanketed elbow on the arm of his rocker.“Four billion people say they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered into eternal damnation, or bad reincarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence. People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions.“A belief in God would demand one hundred percent obsessive devotion, influencing every waking moment of this brief life on earth. But your four billion so-called believers do not live their lives in that fashion, except for a few. The majority believe in the usefulness of their beliefs—an earthly and practical utility—but they do not believe in the underlying reality.”I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. “If you asked them, they’d say they believe.”“They say that they believe because pretending to believe is necessary to get the benefits of religion. They tell other people that they believe and they do believer-like things, like praying and reading holy books. But they don’t do the things that a true believer would do, the things a true believer would have to do.“If you believe a truck is coming toward you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck. If you tell people you fear the truck but do nothing to get out of the way, that is not belief in the truck. Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions, it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing.”“Are you saying God doesn’t exist?” I asked, trying to get to the point.“I’m saying that people claim to believe in God, but most don’t literally believe. They only act as though they believe because there are earthly benefits in doing so. They create a delusion for themselves because it makes them happy.”“So you think only the atheists believe their own belief?” I asked.“No. Atheists also prefer delusions,” he said.“So according to you, no one believes anything that they say they believe.”“The best any human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. This is why people of different religions can generally live in peace. At some level, we all suspect that other people don’t believe their own religion any more than we believe ours.”I couldn’t accept that. “Maybe the reason we respect other religions is that they all have a core set of beliefs in common. They only differ in the details.”“Jews and Muslims believe that Christ isn’t the Son of God,” he countered. “If they are right, then Christians are mistaken about the core of their religion. And if the Jews or the Christians or the Muslims have the right religion, then the Hindus and Buddhists who believe in reincarnation are wrong. Would you call those details?”“I guess not,” I confessed.“At some level of consciousness, everyone knows that the odds of picking the true religion—if such a thing exists—are nil.”
I liked the head of the Salvation Army who said: If I could suspend our people over hell for one minute, I would have the all the motivation we would ever need.Or maybe that was Catbert.
Link to post
Share on other sites
At some levels they blend together. If the process of evolution that brings change to people's motives, morality and responsibility is unable to stop the possibility for humans to destroy themselves and the planet with it, then evolution the process and the philosophy, are out dated and need to be discarded fro something that will work.
It looks to me like you're saying that you don't want to believe evolution happened and is happening because that implies scary things (e.g., the end of the human species) might happen. If you're really interested in objectives truths, you don't think like that. Geologic history documents that species do go extinct when the environment changes. We may feel bad about that, but that's not evidence to the contrary. It's like saying you don't believe in gravity because then you might fall down and get hurt.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It looks to me like you're saying that you don't want to believe evolution happened and is happening because that implies scary things (e.g., the end of the human species) might happen. If you're really interested in objectives truths, you don't think like that. Geologic history documents that species do go extinct when the environment changes. We may feel bad about that, but that's not evidence to the contrary. It's like saying you don't believe in gravity because then you might fall down and get hurt.
Nope not even remotely saying that.I am saying that even if evolution is 100% real, it will not work for our future. So the very structure that supposedly directed our lives by using survival of the species as the main goal, will ultimately fail us, because we can now destroy the planet. And it's inability to adapt at the needed speed is a good reason why we should chuck it along with 8 track cassettes.Let me ask you this. Do you think you will live to see a nuclear weapon detonated in anger somewhere in the world?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope not even remotely saying that.I am saying that even if evolution is 100% real, it will not work for our future.
When you say evolution won't "work", I infer that you think someone is trying to solve something using evolution. Is the word "evolution" short-hand for all human understanding?
So the very structure that supposedly directed our lives by using survival of the species as the main goal, will ultimately fail us, because we can now destroy the planet. And it's inability to adapt at the needed speed is a good reason why we should chuck it along with 8 track cassettes.
You'd make a lot more sense if you would stop imagining that science is an alternative religion cooked up as a response to Christianity.Does believing in 8-tracks further world peace? Can I construct a model in which 8-tracks save humanity? No. Does this mean I don't believe in the existence of 8-track tapes? Of course not. Does denying the existence of 8-track tapes further world peace?
Let me ask you this. Do you think you will live to see a nuclear weapon detonated in anger somewhere in the world?
Yes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I needed reinforcements. “Look,” I said, “four billion people believe in some sort of God and free will. They can’t all be wrong.”“Very few people believe in God,” he replied.I didn’t see how he could deny the obvious. “Of course they do. Billions of people believe in God.”The old man leaned toward me, resting a blanketed elbow on the arm of his rocker.“Four billion people say they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered into eternal damnation, or bad reincarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence. People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions.“A belief in God would demand one hundred percent obsessive devotion, influencing every waking moment of this brief life on earth. But your four billion so-called believers do not live their lives in that fashion, except for a few. The majority believe in the usefulness of their beliefs—an earthly and practical utility—but they do not believe in the underlying reality.”I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. “If you asked them, they’d say they believe.”“They say that they believe because pretending to believe is necessary to get the benefits of religion. They tell other people that they believe and they do believer-like things, like praying and reading holy books. But they don’t do the things that a true believer would do, the things a true believer would have to do.“If you believe a truck is coming toward you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck. If you tell people you fear the truck but do nothing to get out of the way, that is not belief in the truck. Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions, it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing.”“Are you saying God doesn’t exist?” I asked, trying to get to the point.“I’m saying that people claim to believe in God, but most don’t literally believe. They only act as though they believe because there are earthly benefits in doing so. They create a delusion for themselves because it makes them happy.”“So you think only the atheists believe their own belief?” I asked.“No. Atheists also prefer delusions,” he said.“So according to you, no one believes anything that they say they believe.”“The best any human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. This is why people of different religions can generally live in peace. At some level, we all suspect that other people don’t believe their own religion any more than we believe ours.”I couldn’t accept that. “Maybe the reason we respect other religions is that they all have a core set of beliefs in common. They only differ in the details.”“Jews and Muslims believe that Christ isn’t the Son of God,” he countered. “If they are right, then Christians are mistaken about the core of their religion. And if the Jews or the Christians or the Muslims have the right religion, then the Hindus and Buddhists who believe in reincarnation are wrong. Would you call those details?”“I guess not,” I confessed.“At some level of consciousness, everyone knows that the odds of picking the true religion—if such a thing exists—are nil.”
So I guess consciousness is over-rated since we do the majority of things out of habit anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say evolution won't "work", I infer that you think someone is trying to solve something using evolution. Is the word "evolution" short-hand for all human understanding?
I am just furthering the thoughts presented in the OP. The idea that evolution gets all the credit for everything in our lives means that it is 'responsible' for getting us to the point of being able to destroy the world, without the emotional maturity to handle this responsibility.It's not a "therefore it's not true' or anything else, it's just an observation of the OP's point.
You'd make a lot more sense if you would stop imagining that science is an alternative religion cooked up as a response to Christianity.
see above
Does believing in 8-tracks further world peace? Can I construct a model in which 8-tracks save humanity? No. Does this mean I don't believe in the existence of 8-track tapes? Of course not. Does denying the existence of 8-track tapes further world peace?
The 8track represents an outdated method of accomplishing a goal. Evolution can be grouped into this equation if the OP's points are considered.
Yes.
Me too.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The 8track represents an outdated method of accomplishing a goal. Evolution can be grouped into this equation if the OP's points are considered.
Except that evolution is not a method of accomplishing a goal. So not at all.Don't anthropomorphize evolution. It hates that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that evolution is not a method of accomplishing a goal. So not at all.Don't anthropomorphize evolution. It hates that.
lol, okay. Evolution is not an outdated method of change that is completely useless in today's society.Hope it hurries up before the Ebola virus gets weaponized though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Religion has helped humanity to buffer the effects of our basal instincts and develop behavior more conducive to large-scale group living. However, in doing this, it has developed, endorsed and championed our language-born ability to create 'reality-structures' out of thin air (i.e., make shit up and take it for truth). There was a time when our basal human instincts perhaps represented the greatest threat to our species (ex. warring, raping, pillaging etc), and as such, religious thinking made some vital contributions to help stay the tide of our animal-nature. However, with the advent of weapons of mass destruction putting extraordinary power into individual hands, I find myself considerably more frightened by our ability to 'create reality'. More than ever, our species needs to develop a capacity for objective thinking, and religion does not help with this. That being said ... if I'm ever forced to go to prison, and if there's an option of going to a 'Christian Prison', I'd take it in a heart beat. The point being, in a local sense, religion does a lot of good staying the tide of our '7-deadly-sins biological survival forces', but again, on a global scale the need to develop our collective capacity for objective thought is, in my opinion, a more pressing matter. We are, in fact, facing the possibility of human kind self-annihilation.Importantly, we can't simply discard religion because it's filled with 'fairy-tails'. Humans need help facing the powerful forces embedded in us through millions of years of evolution. These forces are like an arsenal of loaded guns hidden in our genes and without a great deal of concerted effort these loaded guns go-off hurting others and/or ourselves (see Tiger's Wood).
i don't accept the premise of the first sentence. on the scale of societies there is no evidence religion has been responsible for the evolution of morality or has historically been some sort of buffer against evolved violent instincts in humans. if anything it has historically tended to strengthen the instict towards tribalism, which isn't a good thing if avoiding warring/raping/pillaging is the goal.
I suspect the solution requires a new process whereby we can both regulate our animal nature and maintain objective thinking. One possibility is that we might discover such a process through objective thought. Objectivity, as it turns out, places us right back in the middle of the 'great unknowable mystery of life'. This is clear to anyone that's honestly spent time considering what science has uncovered to date, and even this magic, is a mere speck in a vast infinite mystery. Scientist that can't see or don't recognize this are themselves trapped in a reality of their own making whereby they've developed ideas and thoughts that make the universe seem far more 'knowable' and 'controllable' than objective thought would otherwise tell us.
your friend seems to know about as much about what science is and what scientists are like as BG does. scientists recognize and are much more objective about the scope of what we don't know and can't control than the general public is. they also tend to be more "religiously" emotional about the unknown.
For instance, most scientist outside of physics have yet to grasped the implications of quantum mechanics and comfortably go about their business subscribing wholeheartedly to their Newtonian worlds.
another false stereotype. most scientists are well aware of the possible implications of QM for the classical world. nobody knows exactly that those implications are yet though, so there is nothing to grasp.
In short, I suspect that 'true objectivity’ inevitably brings us to God ... not the God of Religion ... but the God of life.
you should tell your friend that babbling cryptically about something doesn't make it profound. what exactly is he proposing? that we should make the preservation of human life our religion? most of us already do that in one way or another.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So evolution will not work, because one bad egg can now destroy the entire world.
"Work" for what? It's a natural process, what is it supposed to "work" for?
What is this from?
i don't accept the premise of the first sentence. on the scale of societies there is no evidence religion has been responsible for the evolution of morality or has historically been some sort of buffer against evolved violent instincts in humans. if anything it has historically tended to strengthen the instict towards tribalism, which isn't a good thing if avoiding warring/raping/pillaging is the goal.
I could argue this point with you. I agree with you about ingroup/tribalism, but that is an inter-group process. Religion is a within-group organizer, and part of the problem now is that our circles are widened enough to make the inter-group conflict mechanism counterproductive.
your friend seems to know about as much about what science is and what scientists are like as BG does. scientists recognize and are much more objective about the scope of what we don't know and can't control than the general public is. they also tend to be more "religiously" emotional about the unknown.
heh. he is a scientist. a pretty good one too.
you should tell your friend that babbling cryptically about something doesn't make it profound. what exactly is he proposing? that we should make the preservation of human life our religion? most of us already do that in one way or another.
no, I don't think that is what he is proposing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I could argue this point with you. I agree with you about ingroup/tribalism, but that is an inter-group process. Religion is a within-group organizer, and part of the problem now is that our circles are widened enough to make the inter-group conflict mechanism counterproductive.
the way i read it inter-group violence is his context, since he's talking about war as a threat to humanity - pushing the button etc. i was disputing that "there was a time when" religion had made vital contributions to stay the tide of our warring/pillaging/(inter-group) raping nature. if you're suggesting that warring tribalism was good for the survival of humanity in the past you're arguing against him, not me.
heh. he is a scientist. a pretty good one too.
then by being so cryptic and vague he's being a poor philosopher. or maybe a good one
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got this email from a friend of mine today, and I think there are some interesting points for discussion in here. -----

Religion has helped humanity to buffer the effects of our basal instincts and develop behavior more conducive to large-scale group living. However, in doing this, it has developed, endorsed and championed our language-born ability to create 'reality-structures' out of thin air (i.e., make shit up and take it for truth). There was a time when our basal human instincts perhaps represented the greatest threat to our species (ex. warring, raping, pillaging etc), and as such, religious thinking made some vital contributions to help stay the tide of our animal-nature. However, with the advent of weapons of mass destruction putting extraordinary power into individual hands, I find myself considerably more frightened by our ability to 'create reality'. More than ever, our species needs to develop a capacity for objective thinking, and religion does not help with this.
I can agree that religon has had it's benefits and though it still does we need to make a sharp effort to a more rational line of societal thought, be it objective thinking or a more logical appoach.
That being said ... if I'm ever forced to go to prison, and if there's an option of going to a 'Christian Prison', I'd take it in a heart beat. The point being, in a local sense, religion does a lot of good staying the tide of our '7-deadly-sins biological survival forces', but again, on a global scale the need to develop our collective capacity for objective thought is, in my opinion, a more pressing matter. We are, in fact, facing the possibility of human kind self-annihilation.
I have always thought that since the time our ancestors stormed out of Africa wreaking havoc and causing mass extinctions to other animals that we have remained on this trend. Hopefully with a new "objective" approach and an advanced intelligence we can come to grip with the error of our ways and with science make some intelligent choices about what is best for mankind.
Importantly, we can't simply discard religion because it's filled with 'fairy-tails'. Humans need help facing the powerful forces embedded in us through millions of years of evolution. These forces are like an arsenal of loaded guns hidden in our genes and without a great deal of concerted effort these loaded guns go-off hurting others and/or ourselves (see Tiger's Wood). I suspect the solution requires a new process whereby we can both regulate our animal nature and maintain objective thinking. One possibility is that we might discover such a process through objective thought. Objectivity, as it turns out, places us right back in the middle of the 'great unknowable mystery of life'.
I disagree here. I think we can discard religon because it is a fairy tale. I don't think adults with their prec-concieved notions will change much so the hope is with the education systema and our children. As far as the "loaded gun" hidden in our genes I don't think it's as big a mystery as you make it. We all have the "killer instinct" inside of us. We turn it off because we don't want to be victims ourselves. I think people are basically good, though we read about the exceptions in the newspaper every day. I am not so sure it is embedded in our genes as much as it is a concious decision for the most part. Ditching objective thought doesn't seem in any way to be near the "unknowable". Are you proposing a mass extinction of education in favor of a religon to help control the masses? Uh, didn't think so. This is clear to anyone that's honestly spent time considering what science has uncovered to date, and even this magic, is a mere speck in a vast infinite mystery. Scientist that can't see or don't recognize this are themselves trapped in a reality of their own making whereby they've developed ideas and thoughts that make the universe seem far more 'knowable' and 'controllable' than objective thought would otherwise tell us. For instance, most scientist outside of physics have yet to grasped the implications of quantum mechanics and comfortably go about their business subscribing wholeheartedly to their Newtonian worlds. In short, I suspect that 'true objectivity’ inevitably brings us to God ... not the God of Religion ... but the God of life.Alot of semantics going on there with a couple of huge leaps off a cliff. Though I might be a speck in the vast expanse of time, I value that speck immensely without subscribing to a God of Life or Rah or Vishnu, regardless of how complicated QM are. We don't need throw our hands up and say, "wow, that's deep. Let's get rid of rational thought!" So what if the universe is less knowable or controlable, we need to be concerned with what we can accomplish and I don't see religon filling the bill.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree here. I think we can discard religon because it is a fairy tale. I don't think adults with their prec-concieved notions will change much so the hope is with the education systema and our children. As far as the "loaded gun" hidden in our genes I don't think it's as big a mystery as you make it. We all have the "killer instinct" inside of us. We turn it off because we don't want to be victims ourselves. I think people are basically good, though we read about the exceptions in the newspaper every day. I am not so sure it is embedded in our genes as much as it is a concious decision for the most part. Ditching objective thought doesn't seem in any way to be near the "unknowable". Are you proposing a mass extinction of education in favor of a religon to help control the masses? Uh, didn't think so.
I think what he meant was that we can't simply discard it without replacing it with some other way to temper ourselves, not that we should keep the fairy tales themselves.
Alot of semantics going on there with a couple of huge leaps off a cliff. Though I might be a speck in the vast expanse of time, I value that speck immensely without subscribing to a God of Life or Rah or Vishnu, regardless of how complicated QM are. We don't need throw our hands up and say, "wow, that's deep. Let's get rid of rational thought!" So what if the universe is less knowable or controlable, we need to be concerned with what we can accomplish and I don't see religon filling the bill.
He specifically advocated objectivity and rationality, so I think you missed the point of this last paragraph. I think the point was that we must balance our ability to describe and quantify with an appreciation for and contact with the great mystery of the universe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...