Do Things Always or Almost Always happen for a Purpose?

[Aquitaine]

To me, one of the most interesting developments in the scientific study of religious behavior has been the research done within the past twenty or so years on the innate psychology of religiosity.

It seems like every month or so some new bit or piece of evidence is brought forth to support the notion that our religious behaviors might ultimately be products of the structure and functioning of our brains. In other words, our brains might have evolved in such a way that we are now naturally inclined to certain religious behaviors -- behaviors such as approaching the world as if it holds souls, spirits, ghosts, and such.

A rather recent addition to that increasing body of evidence is the discovery that people tend to intuitively think the natural world has a designer. That things and events happen in order to bring about an end, rather than simply happen without any intentional purpose.

Now, the idea that things and events happen for a purpose seems to me at least to be a religious idea, in the sense that many religious people seem to hold to it as part and parcel of their religiosity.

But I'm curious...do you think things happen for a purpose? If so, why do you think so? If not, why not?

Sorry for the rather rambling OP: I kept losing my train of thought due to a slurry of telemarking calls this evening.

I don't have anything to contribute to the topic of this thread, I just wanted to express my suprise and delight that you're back(!).

 

[Laika]

Answered "No, things do not have a purpose and I am not religious". The whole question hinges on defining "purpose" and attributing it as a quality of the mind, whether human or divine. I occassionally correct my dad who asks "why is the weather doing this?" or something like that. but I'm not saying I don't do it sometimes.

I believe that there is a universal material "necessity" of a law governed universe, but that those laws are not the product of the mind of men or the mind of god. tha necessity is a product of matter, rather than mind, so cannot have the human attribute of ascribing "purpose". However, what I can say is how deeply ingrained the concept of a designer is into western culture because of the christian origins of liberalism in theories of natural law, as well as the natural sciences. There has never been a point in western society where people have consciously sought to reject both the conception of god and the "theological" underpinnings of western thought. So I would say truthfully, that (western) science still assumes some level of design today and I agree with the research, but I do not accept this attribution of design as a "natural predisposition". it is not- it is a product of the dominance of christian-liberal ideology.

 

[Desert Snake]

Answered "No, things do not have a purpose and I am not religious". The whole question hinges on defining "purpose" and attributing it as a quality of the mind, whether human or divine. I occassionally correct my dad who asks "why is the weather doing this?" or something like that. but I'm not saying I don't do it sometimes.

I believe that there is a universal material "necessity" of a law governed universe, but that those laws are not the product of the mind of men or the mind of god. tha necessity is a product of matter, rather than mind, so cannot have the human attribute of ascribing "purpose". However, what I can say is how deeply ingrained the concept of a designer is into western culture because of the christian origins of liberalism in theories of natural law, as well as the natural sciences. There has never been a point in western society where people have consciously sought to reject both the conception of god and the "theological" underpinnings of western thought. So I would say truthfully, that (western) science still assumes some level of design today and I agree with the research, but I do not accept this attribution of design as a "natural predisposition". it is not- it is a product of the dominance of christian-liberal ideology.

So your waffling between positions?

 

[Laika]

So your waffling between positions?

more along the lines of ...

"I've heard this nonesense before but I'm not in the mood to do a Soviet denouncation of western science as the agent of the church."

 

[Desert Snake]

more along the lines of ...

"I've heard this nonesense before but I'm not in the mood to do a Soviet denouncation of western science as the agent of the church."

Hmmm

 

[Rick O'Shez]

OP: Do Things Always or Almost Always happen for a Purpose?
No. But things always happen for a reason.

It makes me smile when people come out with that line "Everything happens for a reason". Sure, it does, but not in the way they want it to mean.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is just one happening for which we do not understand the reason. For all others, we have some idea.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So your waffling between positions?

We could do with more of that.

 

[Laika]

Hmmm

defending religion as a natural predisposition, without ever actually asking what on earth a "natural predisposition is", is not a scientific argument. it relies on philosopical propositions of "human nature" which are almost never subjected to scientific scruitiny but are widely held in western societies.

next thing you know they'll bridge the gap between philosophical nonesense and scientific reasoning by saying its a genetic trait without ever examining the structure of the brain, the formation of human behaviour and the relationship between genetics and psychology, insist on the correctness of this view irrespective as to whether "god exists" is a true statement and that people are genetically predisposed to believe certian things irrespective as to whether they are true and that atheists are denying their biology by pursuing objective standards of truth.

And ta da! western science supports religion whilst denoucing atheism as a mental illness because atheists are indenial of their true biological predisposition to want to believe in god. no evidence required because it's built on "common sense" assumptions and it reaches the newspapers where it can do some damage; objective truth is an illusion when compared to the deep "natural" desire to surrender our faculties to an authority and atheists are pathological liars who cannot be trusted.

it the "there are no atheists" argument wrapped up in scientific clothing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

defending religion as a natural predisposition, without ever actually asking what on earth a "natural predisposition is", is not a scientific argument. it relies on philosopical propositions of "human nature" which are almost never subjected to scientific scruitiny but are widely held in western societies.

I think you can easily view religion as a psychological coping mechanism, particularly as a way of coping with the fear of death.
I came across some interesting research where the application of a magnetic field to a particular part of the brain reduced religious belief in the participants:
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/e...a43e61b4a0
"The results provide the first evidence that group prejudice and religious belief are susceptible to targeted neuromodulation...."

It appears that the neuromodulation increased the ability of the participants to respond rationally. So it looks like both group prejudice and religious belief are treatable conditions!

 

[psychoslice]

Things happen, things don't happen, things will always happen, get use to it!!!!.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Things happen, things don't happen, things will always happen, get use to it!!!!.

As we Buddhists say: "**** happens!"

 

[psychoslice]

As we Buddhists say: "**** happens!"

Ha Ha, I can always relay on you for a good laugh, lol, yea baby.

 

[FearGod]

To me, one of the most interesting developments in the scientific study of religious behavior has been the research done within the past twenty or so years on the innate psychology of religiosity.

It seems like every month or so some new bit or piece of evidence is brought forth to support the notion that our religious behaviors might ultimately be products of the structure and functioning of our brains. In other words, our brains might have evolved in such a way that we are now naturally inclined to certain religious behaviors -- behaviors such as approaching the world as if it holds souls, spirits, ghosts, and such.

A rather recent addition to that increasing body of evidence is the discovery that people tend to intuitively think the natural world has a designer. That things and events happen in order to bring about an end, rather than simply happen without any intentional purpose.

Now, the idea that things and events happen for a purpose seems to me at least to be a religious idea, in the sense that many religious people seem to hold to it as part and parcel of their religiosity.

But I'm curious...do you think things happen for a purpose? If so, why do you think so? If not, why not?

Sorry for the rather rambling OP: I kept losing my train of thought due to a slurry of telemarking calls this evening.

I believe some of the things happen for a purpose.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I believe some of the things happen for a purpose.

Could you give some examples?

 

[FearGod]

Could you give some examples?

The born of the state of Israel is one, it's programmed to happen and it did.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

To me, one of the most interesting developments in the scientific study of religious behavior has been the research done within the past twenty or so years on the innate psychology of religiosity.

It seems like every month or so some new bit or piece of evidence is brought forth to support the notion that our religious behaviors might ultimately be products of the structure and functioning of our brains. In other words, our brains might have evolved in such a way that we are now naturally inclined to certain religious behaviors -- behaviors such as approaching the world as if it holds souls, spirits, ghosts, and such.

A rather recent addition to that increasing body of evidence is the discovery that people tend to intuitively think the natural world has a designer. That things and events happen in order to bring about an end, rather than simply happen without any intentional purpose.

Now, the idea that things and events happen for a purpose seems to me at least to be a religious idea, in the sense that many religious people seem to hold to it as part and parcel of their religiosity.

But I'm curious...do you think things happen for a purpose? If so, why do you think so? If not, why not?

Sorry for the rather rambling OP: I kept losing my train of thought due to a slurry of telemarking calls this evening.

I can think of only one possible purpose behind anything, the creation of the universe occurring in order to spawn sentient life. Everything since then is all coincidence, and the Big Bang may not have had a purpose to begin with if whatever initiated it didn't have a conscious will behind it.

Meanwhile, since there is either no Creator, or the Creator will not be actively involved in It's creation, all we can do is learn who we are, what we're good at, and pursue that as our purpose--whether there's an ultimate consequence/reward or not.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The born of the state of Israel is one, it's programmed to happen and it did.

Circular logic.

 

[Desert Snake]

I can think of only one possible purpose behind anything, the creation of the universe occurring in order to spawn sentient life. Everything since then is all coincidence, and the Big Bang may not have had a purpose to begin with if whatever initiated it didn't have a conscious will behind it.

Meanwhile, since there is either no Creator, or the Creator will not be actively involved in It's creation, all we can do is learn who we are, what we're good at, and pursue that as our purpose--whether there's an ultimate consequence/reward or not.

Could've answered that with a simple 'non-answer'. But the sentence structure is ok.

 

[FearGod]

Circular logic.

No, it isn't a circular logic, it is a fact that foretold to happen and it happened which means
it is programmed to happen at one specific time.

Circular logic doesn't work here.