Religion: Evolution Of The Perfect Lie

[Scott1]

I don't see how this would cause the end of Catholicism, or any religion for that matter. "Just because he doesn't remember the afterlife doesn't mean it is nonexistent," believers would argue of the resurrected man. Religious leaders would question the integrity of the discovery, attack those who supported it or took part in it, and rail about how this is yet another example of science trying to 'play God'. No, religions don't die because of one scientific discovery--hell, a huge number of people in this country won't even accept that evolution happens, much less consider it reason to doubt their faith.

Very true..... most likely someone would make a reality TV show about it.

I think improved education, rather than a profound scientific discovery, is the only thing that can cause a decrease in religion/superstition.

And it is my hope that education causes a decrease in superstitious religious beliefs.... but not religion.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Does this seem like it is denouncing questions. No.

Prove with what? Catholicism praises faith, and faith is belief in the unproven. Explain to me how one can prove everything and still possess faith? The very nature of faith is antithesis to true questioning, which requires ultimate intellectual freedom. 100% faith is considered a virtue. 100% faith means 100% certainty in the existence of God. 100% faith means unquestioning belief. Un. Questioning. Belief.

If it went against what we know, then how would it be true?

But religion has gone against what we know. Religion claimed that the sun whirled around the Earth. It claimed that the universe was created in six days. Older religions explained fire and thunderstorms with gods and goddesses. Look at it this way. There have been countless questions that religion once answered but was proven wrong (spirits in the fire, gods hurling lightning, the universe created in six days). Are there any examples of a religious answer to a question being confirmed as true? No. Religion always contradicts with what we know and always adapts, changing itself when it's disproven, to only answer those questions we continue to not have our own answers for. It's extremely convenient for a true concept to demonstrate such perfect flexibility, not to fact, but to society's needs for facts we haven't figured out.

How do you equate faith with a lack of trust in objective evidence?

I wasn't aware that I did; I haven't reread my post (I'm kind of in a hurry right now), but if I did I misspoke. Faith is a disregard of the requirements of objective evidence. Even so, it can represent a lack of trust in objective evidence if believers go against objective evidence solely because of their faith (Creationists, for example).

My belief is not un-confirmed. I doubt you would accept my evidence though, and I doubt I could adequatley convey it to you.

I work with logic and logic alone. Please, start a new thread and attempt to adequately convey the confirmation of your truth and I'll be more than happy to look at it logically, and I do promise with an open mind.

Would not it be more simple for God to have done it in one day?

Yes -- and a good point that I should have addressed. The adaptive traits must be considered in tandem; they cannot hurt each other. Comparing Simplicity to Interest, it's obvious that cutting the Genesis story to God snapping his fingers once would have a greater negative impact on the interest and staying power of the story than it would have a positive impact on its simplicity -- six days really isn't all that complicated. Hmm, I look at that and it appears like a weak attempt at explaining away a flaw in my argument, but maybe that's just me being oversensitive; if you'd like me to go into more detail as to why I think this modification is sound, I can do that.

Do you maintain that you are not guilty of the reification of ideas and a false counterposition?

No, I was intimately aware of the fallacious nature of my argument before I posted fifteen double-spaced pages explaining it. Thank you for your piercing two-line analysis (and for introducing me to the word 'reification').

But just for the benefit of everyone else, could you explain how, specifically, my reasoning is unsound?

 

[jewscout]

TTC i still say that your premise is wrong. Regardless of what some would say, i believe organized religion to simply be a structured institution around the concept of the Divine and spirituality. Though the institutions change the basic concepts have remained the same.
Whether it be death and resurrection,
the Shema
or there is no g-d but, Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet.

Like any institution, things change with time, but the core remains the same.

 

[Scuba Pete]

and faith is belief in the unproven.

No... it's belief in the unseen. You show faith every time you use a light switch. Unless of course, you CLAIM that you can see electricity. Nothing wrong with faith and you could not type these messages without it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

NetDoc-- There are two distinct uses of the word "faith": one is to believe in something without evidence or proof, and the other is to have confidence in an idea or concept. It's important to distinguish between having faith/confidence in things that are well evidenced (like electricity), and having faith in something despite a lack of evidence (i.e. faith in spirits, gods, etc). Check out the "Faith Defined" thread in the Science vs. Religion forum.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

TTC i still say that your premise is wrong. Regardless of what some would say, i believe organized religion to simply be a structured institution around the concept of the Divine and spirituality. Though the institutions change the basic concepts have remained the same.

Fair enough; upon revisiting my point, I suppose I am primarily concerned with dispelling religion as a lie -- the structured belief system by which one 'knows' the unknowable, the belief systems which present answers to objective questions, the identification of a supernatural moral imperative that then proceeds to dictate your life and your fate. Those are the 'ideas' that I'm discussing.

A more deistic concept of a higher power, that of an unknowable presence beyond our comprehension, could actually serve as the kernel of truth anchoring the disparate ideas of religion. Were religion truly an outright fabrication, my thesis would lead towards it having perfect flexibility -- including the flexibility to discard the concept of a higher power if it proved untenable. With a few exceptions (Buddhism, for one), religion has, throughout the millenia, maintained this assertion -- it would certainly satisfy my conditions for that 'anchor' of objective truth and would cause this thesis to conclude such.

Thank you for showing that the thesis does not, necessarily, support an atheistic conclusion -- it merely supports an antireligious conclusion.

Do you maintain that you are not guilty of the reification of ideas and a false counterposition?

Thinking on your point a little more, I realised that my coarse response wasn't warranted; you did make a point, and it took me looking up 'reification' and looking into false counterpositions in a bit more detail to find it. I'm sorry; I read into your response more snide dismissal and less reasoned opposition than I should have.

Reification of Ideas?

I do not have any official philosophical training other than a 100-level Philosophy course in University and a lengthy LSAT prep course, so my understanding of reification stems entirely from its definition in Webster's. For those of you who don't know, reification refers to treating an abstract, formless concept as if it were a concrete, material object. Deut. 32.8 is claiming that my argument is guilty of doing that to the abstract concept of 'ideas.'

Firstly, I do not necessarily see how the reification of ideas is in itself fallacious -- I supported the application of natural selection to ideas in the first part of my thesis, and if doing so is logically unsound, then you should be able to explain why that doesn't work instead of just describing what I'm doing.

Secondly, and this is, perhaps, to prepare a counter-rebuttal to anything you have to say about my 'Firstly,' I don't believe that I am taking the abstractness of ideas and treating them like they were material organisms; I am not reworking what ideas are, I am reworking what natural selection has traditionally been applied to. I am taking one abstract concept (natural selection) that normally applies to material organisms and showing how it also applies to another abstract concept (ideas). Natural selection is a cohesive principle that can be summarized in six lines of simple logic; I see no reason why that principle must be restricted to concrete organisms if it can be shown that the characteristics of something else (namely abstract ideas) will also satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions for natural selection.

False Counterposition

Well, after twenty minutes of Googling, I've only gained a vague understanding of what you mean by a false counterposition. Regardless, I believe that any application of bifurcation fallacies or false dilemmas can be remedied by changing my terminology. Instead of referring to ideas as 'truth' and 'lies,' which is admittedly simple, would your objection be satisfied if I instead referred to ideas as 'ideas based on objective fact' and 'ideas not based on objective fact'?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry, TheTrendyCynic. I didn't notice your following remarks until this morning. Otherwise I might have addressed them sooner.

No, I was intimately aware of the fallacious nature of my argument before I posted fifteen double-spaced pages explaining it.

Ah. Just testing us, I guess.

Thank you for your piercing two-line analysis (and for introducing me to the word 'reification').

And thank you for your humor. As for reification, it's an an important concept and a lot easier to spell than is "hypostatization".

But just for the benefit of everyone else, could you explain how, specifically, my reasoning is unsound?

You've already satisfied yourself about me, and no one else appears in need of such an explanation, so it's unclear why I should take on such a burden. On the other hand, my comments were, if not overly harsh, at the very least overly terse, and perhaps warrant some elaboration.

Specifically (as you requested), you commit a number of fallacies, including:

• reification and false dilemma
  Truth is not a thing. It is an evaluation of the degree to which an idea or complex of ideas correspond to reality (actuality). The opposite of truth is representational error, not lie, a lie being an intentional misrepresentation. Furthermore, for adherents of scientific realism, truth is approximate rather than absolute and, thereby, always subject to refinement. A posteriori truth, far from being fixed or anchored, is highly dependent on the amassed empirical skills applied to the item in question. The more complex and/or abstract the item, the greater is the dependency.
  
  So, for example, the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus gave way to the model of Rutherford and Bohr which, in turn, 'evolved' into today's representation based on quarks and leptons. But no one would suggest that the atomism of Democritus was a lie. Similar examples could be drawn from fields ranging from archaeology and cosmolology to sociology and psychology.​
• genetic fallacy
  It is a fallacy to judge an idea based on its history rather than its merits.​
• affirmation of the consequent (coverting the conditional)
  Put briefly, the assertion {if A then B; B; therefore A} is fallacious, e.g.:
  

  • if it's highly 'adaptable', it is more likely a lie than the truth. Religion is highly 'adaptable', therefore religion is a 'lie'.
  • If it's a leafy vegetable, it is more likely green than nongreen. Limes are green, therefore limes are a leafy vegetable.
• fallacy of composition
  It is a fallacy to attribute to religion - a term you chose not to define - purported attributes of specific religions. So for example, while one might argue (incorrectly, I believe) that Protestantism is 'adaptive', I suspect that both Orthodox Judaism and the Coptic church have demonstrated less 'adaptive' variation than the theory of evolution. Should we view these two theologies as 'truth' in contradistinction to the 'lie' of evolution?​

I'm sure that there was much that I could have said better, and I no doubt overlooked items that could have been addressed. I only hope that you attribute those oversights to my "knee-jerk fanaticism" rather than the viability of your position.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

reification and false dilemma: Truth is not a thing. It is an evaluation of the degree to which an idea or complex of ideas correspond to reality (actuality). The opposite of truth is representational error, not lie, a lie being an intentional misrepresentation. Furthermore, for adherents of scientific realism, truth is approximate rather than absolute and, thereby, always subject to refinement. A posteriori truth, far from being fixed or anchored, is highly dependent on the amassed empirical skills applied to the item in question. The more complex and/or abstract the item, the greater is the dependency.

I agree that the use of the words 'truth' and 'lie' was ill conceived. I believe the argument remains intact and is, in fact, improved if I reword it to refer to 'ideas based on objective facts' and 'ideas not based on objective facts.' Both types of ideas can be true and both types of ideas can be false, but we can clearly put more confidence in the ideas of the former category than in those of the latter.

The purpose of the analysis would be to identify a set of characteristics that, independent of the idea itself, can indicate a strong likelihood of the idea being of one type or the other. Ideas that have survived for a long time despite not being based on objective fact will demonstrate flexibility, adaptation and inherent resistance to skepticism independent of the truth of the idea to a greater degree than ideas that are based on objective fact. We can look for those characteristics and use them to identify ideas that are likely based on something other than objective fact.

genetic fallacy: It is a fallacy to judge an idea based on its history rather than its merits.

Not if I am defending that judgment by explaining why the history of the idea applies to the merits of the idea. That's the entire purpose of this statement -- to justify what would otherwise be a genetic fallacy by appealing to the logical consequence of natural selection. A logical structure that bears the characteristics of a fallacy is not necessarily a fallacy: Insulting a witness by calling her a dirty whore is textbook ad hominem. Calling a witness a whore if she's accusing a man of infecting her with syphillis is a potentially valid point -- she could have contracted the disease from someone else.

affirmation of the consequent: Put briefly, the assertion {if A then B; B; therefore A} is fallacious, e.g.:

• if it's highly 'adaptable', it is more likely a lie than the truth. Religion is highly 'adaptable', therefore religion is a 'lie'.
• If it's a leafy vegetable, it is more likely green than nongreen. Limes are green, therefore limes are a leafy vegetable.

You're right, which is why a necessary component to my argument is another statement: If an idea is based on objective fact, then it will not be able to evolve adaptable characteristics over time as well as an idea that is not based on objective fact. My conclusion is the logically sound contrapositive to that: If an idea has perfectly evolved adaptable characteristics over time, then it is likely not based on objective fact.

The argument needs restructuring; flexibility and adaptation should not be listed only as an adaptable trait, but separately as the enabling force behind natural selection and evidence that the idea is not based on objective fact.

fallacy of composition: It is a fallacy to attribute to religion - a term you chose not to define - purported attributes of specific religions.

Another good example of the need to reword elements of the argument. My use of "religion" is extremely generic; it refers to the set of ideas composed of all religions. The evidence of evolution is how the religious ideas that flourished were the ones with adaptive traits that would better help them survive -- not necessarily those religions based on objective fact. The argument could be made that without a clear objective fact to reference, without that 'anchor of truth,' the existence of religious ideas will not depend on truth but upon the existence of social influences that would shape those ideas. The power of those social influences to affect religion can then be illustrated by looking to the history of religion and how it has changed in response to social influences.

So for example, while one might argue (incorrectly, I believe) that Protestantism is 'adaptive', I suspect that both Orthodox Judaism and the Coptic church have demonstrated less 'adaptive' variation than the theory of evolution. Should we view these two theologies as 'truth' in contradistinction to the 'lie' of evolution?

The mere presence of ideological change is not sufficient evidence for my thesis -- the change must be, specifically, a clear adaptation in response to environmental stimuli. I have defined the environment of an idea as the society in which it spreads and flourishes, and so evidence of adaptation must be to pressures exerted by society. The idea of evolution does not change because of societal pressure -- it changes as understanding of the objective facts on which it is based change.

Okay, I spent some time (err, a lot of time, actually...) trying to summarize my argument in what will hopefully pass as a formal, logical outline. Perhaps this might make it a little easier to attack specific parts of my argument:

1. Darwinian natural selection applies to the abstract concept of ideas.
2. (1) Ideas are compelled to change over time in response to environmental stimuli as Darwinian natural selection describes.
3. The environment in which ideas exist is society.
4. (2, 3) Ideas are compelled to change over time in response to societal stimuli as Darwinian natural selection describes.
5. Objectively true ideas are exclusively dependent on objective facts.
6. Objective facts do not change over time as a result of societal stimuli.
7. (5, 6) Objectively true ideas do not change over time as a result of societal stimuli.
8. (4, 7) Objectively true ideas will not change over time as Darwinian natural selection describes.
9. Religious ideas change over time as Darwinian natural selection describes.
10. (8, 9) Religious ideas are not objectively true ideas.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ideas are compelled to change over time in response to environmental stimuli as Darwinian natural selection describes.

I was unaware that evolution was compelled, or that evolutionary theory rests on compulsion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe the argument remains intact and is, in fact, improved if I reword it to refer to 'ideas based on objective facts' and 'ideas not based on objective facts.' ... The purpose of the analysis would be to identify a set of characteristics that, independent of the idea itself, can indicate a strong likelihood of the idea being of one type or the other.

In that case, why not simply ask the theist: "Sir or madame, upon what objective facts do you base your theology?" Of course, to be fair you might wish to pose the same question to the philosophical naturalist.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I was unaware that evolution was compelled, or that evolutionary theory rests on compulsion.

Then allow me to enlighten you:

com·pel (k

m-p

l

)
tr.v. com·pelled, com·pel·ling, com·pels

1. To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact: An energy crisis compels fuel conservation. See Synonyms at force.
3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway: “The land, in a certain, very real way, compels the minds of the people” (Barry Lopez).

The mechanism of natural selection is certainly irresistable; observe the structure of Darwin's own description of the phenomenon. There is no exception. If an organism meets the conditions set out by the four premises, the conclusion is inescapable: It will be subject to natural selection, presumably until it attains a state from which no further improvement is possible. If we observe the histories of any number of species (or of any number of objectively untrue ideas), we will see the mechanism of natural selection at work. The abstract mechanism of natural selection is easily analogous to a guiding 'force' that drives evolution in the direction of adaptation. It is a force that is unavoidable and, thus, compulsory.

That is, actually, a potential weakness of the argument -- one could prove it false by referencing an example of an idea that is not objectively true and that has not been influenced by societal factors, since I argue that the influence of social stimuli is unavoidable just as the influence of environmental stimuli on a living species over time is unavoidable

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

In that case, why not simply ask the theist: "Sir or madame, upon what objective facts do you base your theology?" Of course, to be fair you might wish to pose the same question to the philosophical naturalist.

Because they will respond "On the existence of God, an objective truth of which I am certain." I could respond to that by saying 'prove it,' but that leaves me with the negative claim of atheism, and I am attempting to make a positive claim: That I can prove religion is an idea that is not based on objective facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then allow me to enlighten you: ...

Thanks. I actually have access to a couple of dictionaries and, once I get home, Darwin's work as well as numerous works by Dawkings, Gould, Eldridge, Myer, E.O. Wilson, and others. What I expressed was not confusion about the word "compel', but surprise that you viewed evolution as being 'compelled'.

 

[jewscout]

Because they will respond "On the existence of God, an objective truth of which I am certain." I could respond to that by saying 'prove it,' but that leaves me with the negative claim of atheism, and I am attempting to make a positive claim: That I can prove religion is an idea that is not based on objective facts.

However you are making the assumption that to have a belief in the Divine one needs some sort of organized religion as a prerequisite, which is not necessarily the case.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ideas that have survived for a long time despite not being based on objective fact will demonstrate flexibility, adaptation and inherent resistance to skepticism independent of the truth of the idea to a greater degree than ideas that are based on objective fact.

Maybe it would help if you showed me how this might be applied to (a) atomism, (b) Orthodox Judaism, and (c) evolution.

 

[Valjean]

I usually skip over long posts but this magnum opus is well thought-out and presented. I hadn't considered this analogy before but your conclusions seem reasonable. I'll print it and re-read it at leisure.

One petty point in the biological premise might be corrected, though. Natural selection doesn't work through individual adaptation to existing environments, it works through reproductive success. Nature abounds in examples of maladaptive traits that compromise individual survival but increase reproductive success.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Thanks. I actually have access to a couple of dictionaries and, once I get home, Darwin's work as well as numerous works by Dawkings, Gould, Eldridge, Myer, E.O. Wilson, and others. What I expressed was not confusion about the word "compel', but surprise that you viewed evolution as being 'compelled'.

This is what happens when you summarize your objection in a single sentence; I did the best I could and addressed all possible objections you could have meant. I posted the definition of compel not to patronize you, but to explicitly define it such as to rule out any possible semantic confusion. I then followed by explaining what your issue actually was, by defending the idea that natural selection is indeed a compulsive force.

Do you agree? If you do, please say so, so I can continue to address your other objections with the knowledge that this one has been set aside. If you continue to disagree with this point, please further explain your objection or why my explanation doesn't satisfy your concerns.

I am genuinely trying to have an open and productive discussion with you. I can see you appreciate brevity, but there is such a thing as being too terse. I'm sure you'll agree there's also such a thing as being too thorough

Maybe it would help if you showed me how this might be applied to (a) atomism, (b) Orthodox Judaism, and (c) evolution.

I'd love to -- give me some time to better familiarize myself with Orthodox Judaism and I'll give it a go... I'll try to post this afternoon.

However you are making the assumption that to have a belief in the Divine one needs some sort of organized religion as a prerequisite, which is not necessarily the case.

I'm sorry, you're right -- I should have rephrased that statement. I am only interested in discrediting religion with this argument, not belief in the divine (I mentioned that before in an earlier post). I certainly concede that this argument doesn't rule out belief in a higher power -- it only rules out the current dogma that seeks to explain that higher power.

Natural selection doesn't work through individual adaptation to existing environments, it works through reproductive success. Nature abounds in examples of maladaptive traits that compromise individual survival but increase reproductive success.

A good point. I don't think it impacts the validity of the argument, as in relating natural selection to ideas, survival is tightly linked to reproductive success. Adaptive traits that benefit survival will also, almost by logical definition, benefit reproductive success when it comes to ideas -- in that way, they're simpler than animals.

This is also true of the animal kingdom too, though; most evolutionary traits aid in reproductive success by aiding survival. There are a few exceptions where the benefits to reproductive success outweigh the detriments to individual survival (female spiders eating their mates, for example); it would be very interesting to see if there are any ideas that also serve as exceptions to this generality.

Is there an example of a type of idea that sacrifices itself to benefit another? Perhaps setting itself up to be proven false if, by doing so, another, similar idea is given greater credit?

You've opened up some interesting paths this argument can take -- if the basics of natural selection can apply to ideas, are there other elements of evolution we might see as abstract concepts propagate through the competitive environment of society? Hmmm....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I posted the definition of compel not to patronize you, but ...

Of course you were being patronizing.

I then followed by explaining what your issue actually was, by defending the idea that natural selection is indeed a compulsive force. Do you agree?

I previously wrote:

"What I expressed was not confusion about the word "compel', but surprise that you viewed evolution as being 'compelled'."​

Anything that interacts with the environment 'compels' a response. In this since, everything is a "compulsive force", thereby rendering the observation superflluous. I suspect, however, that you intend something more than this. What that might be is not yet clear.

As for my view, they are wholly nonteleological. I see evolution as sieve, not ladder - as consequence, not compulsion.

... give me some time to better familiarize myself with Orthodox Judaism ... I'll try to post this afternoon.

You are apparently a very quick study ...

 

[CJW]

it's constantly adapting itself into a smaller and smaller corner framed by those few questions we've yet to answer.

That's is incorrect. If one honestly believes in science then the most scientific answer is that science does not have all the answers. Incompleteness theorems, evidence of typology in Nature, etc.. One can say that about traditional scientia, as the pure pursuit of knowledge and truth.

The sheer faith in scientism and philosophic naturalism that is increasingly popular, just as it was on the Left in the late 1800s and early 1900s in proto-Nazi times, is not concerned with the pursuit of knowledge as such. Instead, Darwinists define science by their faith in naturalistic explanation, then they have various mythological narratives of naturalism. (That are quite mutable. These narratives have to be changed and revised incessantly. A charateristic of a lie?)

Let's look at it. Everything you just wrote, at length, was it naturally selected?

For it seems that it was not intelligently designed. Correct?

 

[CJW]

At the heart of an idea is a desire to spread, and at the heart of religion is a command to spread the word.

Traditional religions that limit men's promiscuity by their sexual ethic, what is the explanation? According to philosophic naturalism the idea ought to have evolved for the best genetic effect in the spreading of one's own genes. Such would be the favored genes, and any meme not to spread the genes would be eliminated, naturally.

Yet there is religion, set against naturalism or impulse by Nature. Why? The best way to spread its concepts would be by more and more conceptions, especially given the supposed physical nature of beliefs, right there, in your genes.

The main problem here is that the entire basis of your claims is fairly ignorant and besides that, self-refuting. I'll go into some of your examples of "evolution" that illustrate a fair degree of ignorance. But here, you deny the mind/transphysical in favor of the brain/physical and in that inversion, everything crumbles. Am I arguing with your brain events? Is an idea physical or metaphysical? Is the mind physical or transphysical?

You assume that everyone else's ideas are natural, being of Nature. So why aren't your own?