Theists aren't Theists To Explain Nature

[Kilgore Trout]

I've met very few theists who are at all interested in understanding nature, so, I'd say they're probably not theists in order to explain nature.

 

[Noaidi]

I've met very few theists who are at all interested in understanding nature, so, I'd say they're probably not theists in order to explain nature.

Interesting point. Many theists (more specifically, christians) I have spoken to seem more pre-occupied with the supernatural realm than with the world they are actually living in. The only theists that I have encountered that have expressed an interest in (and concern for) Nature are those who follow an Earth-based path.

Do certain religions place more emphasis on what is supposedly to come rather than what we have now?

 

[Sunstone]

Near as I can find out, the notion that religion was invented by cavemen to explain thunder was itself invented sometime during the 1700s and is about as useful today as leeching, which was also employed during the 1700s. There are more recent and certainly more sound theories about the origin of religions.

 

[Noaidi]

There are more recent and certainly more sound theories about the origin of religions.

Got any links, Sunstone? It's a fascinating topic.

 

[Sunstone]

Got any links, Sunstone? It's a fascinating topic.

Read Scott Atran's book, "In Gods We Trust". His style of writing is so poor as to be painful, but his theories are nowadays pretty much the cutting edge on this subject. Oh, and in all fairness, you might also read David Sloan Wilson's "Darwin's Cathedral".

 

[Noaidi]

Read Scott Atran's book, "In Gods We Trust". His style of writing is so poor as to be painful, but his theories are nowadays pretty much the cutting edge on this subject.

I've got the book, but haven't read it yet. I've flicked through it and, yes, the writing style is turgid, but I'll give it another go sometime.

 

[dust1n]

Do you really believe that theists believe in God so they can explain the natural world? If so, why would you think something like that? Do we give that impression? I know that I never did, I love science.

I thought theists were trying to explain the supra-natural world, an even more ridiculous sentiment.

 

[Sunstone]

I've got the book, but haven't read it yet. I've flicked through it and, yes, the writing style is turgid, but I'll give it another go sometime.

Good. His ideas are important enough that it's certainly a pity the man cannot smack two sentences together without creating a congested mess of words. But that's life.

 

[dust1n]

Of course, my thoughts go second to a time when the Catholic Church was pretty strick on contrary scientific ideas, like gravity for example, which was originally explained by stating that angels held everything down to earth.

It could be the centuries of actual attempts from Christian institutions to explain the natural world that carries on over into the modern day, Christine. You have a whole lot of burden of history to deal with.

 

[Noaidi]

Good. His ideas are important enough that it's certainly a pity the man cannot smack two sentences together without creating a congested mess of words. But that's life.

What's Altran's premise? (I'm asking because I want to know what he's saying without having to plough through the book! I only have one life to live )

 

[ChristineES]

Near as I can find out, the notion that religion was invented by cavemen to explain thunder was itself invented sometime during the 1700s and is about as useful today as leeching, which was also employed during the 1700s. There are more recent and certainly more sound theories about the origin of religions.

Until I read that bumper sticker, I would have thought that, too. I was amazed that even one person thought that people followed faith to explain nature- or at least, that was how it started. I was hoping (and I was right) that it was just a messed up mind who bought the bumper sticker and put it on his/her car in the first place, not to mention the one who made it in the first place(I get that from the responses here in this thread, so thank you for clearing that up). I didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything, I apologize if that came across- I just didn't know.

 

[Noaidi]

Until I read that bumper sticker, I would have thought that, too. I was amazed that even one person thought that people followed faith to explain nature- or at least, that was how it started.

Hi Christine.
What do you make of proponents of Intelligent Design who claim that a 'designer' is responsible for the workings of the natural world? IDers often highlight what science cannot currently answer by proclaiming that 'design' is the only explanation. Isn't this similar to the 'caveman thunder' scenario?

 

[ChristineES]

Hi Christine.
What do you make of proponents of Intelligent Design who claim that a 'designer' is responsible for the workings of the natural world? IDers often highlight what science cannot currently answer by proclaiming that 'design' is the only explanation. Isn't this similar to the 'caveman thunder' scenario?

I like science. I like to study the stars and outer space mostly. I like to study what is there- animals, the ocean, etc. But how it all came into being, we have no way of finding out.

Thunder is in the here and now- there were thunderstorms in my area yesterday and I know what caused the lightning and what thunder is.

Even fossils of Neanderthal are in the here and now- empirical evidence- what they looked they can use clay to cover the bones and make a reasonable facsimile of the face. What Neanderthals did, what they wore, etc, scientists can only guess at- yes, they are very educated guesses and come from observation of tribal people like the bushmen, etc. But unless we invent a time machine (I don't believe in time travel) we have no way of going back in time to observe Neanderthals.
I don't use my faith to explain how the world works, where it came from, and all that. I use to explore and experience my spiritual side. I believe that spirits exist.
To me, there is a separation of flesh and spirit at some point and our spirit came from God.

 

[Noaidi]

I don't use my faith to explain how the world works, where it came from, and all that. I use to explore and experience my spiritual side.

More theists should be like you!

 

[Sunstone]

What's Altran's premise? (I'm asking because I want to know what he's saying without having to plough through the book! I only have one life to live )

How I wish you had not asked!!! The New York Times once took 11 pages to explain Atran's premise in a nutshell. I used to have a link to the article before I changed computers. Still, you might try to google it up.

On the other hand, I feel foolish enough today to attempt to give you something to go on that is much shorter than the New York Times article.

Basically, Atran begins by asking what are the evolutionary origins of religious behaviors? Or, in other words, how did religious behaviors evolve in humans?

His answer to those questions is that religious behaviors -- and especially those religious behaviors dealing with supernatural agents -- are evolutionary spandrels.

An evolutionary spandrel is a trait or behavior that evolved incidental to another trait or behavior which itself was selected for. It's a trait or behavior that was not itself selected for, but which evolved because another trait or behavior that was in fact selected for needed the spandrel.

So, here's what happened according to Atran: Our ancestors lived in a dangerous world in which they were better off assuming, until proven otherwise, that everything that happened around them was caused by one agent or another.

By an "agent" Atran means anything with a will. For instance, a lion has a will. A man has a will. A god has a will. But a flower does not have a will. The wind does not have a will. So, circumstances during our evolution were such that when a bush moved it was more advantageous for our ancestors to assume the movement was caused by an agent, such as a lion, than for them to assume it was caused by a non-agent, such as the wind. At least, when they assumed the movement was caused by a lion, they were ready to act should it turn out the movement was actually caused by a real lion.

Now, those of our ancestors who assumed (until proven otherwise) that an agent caused the bush to move were more ready to defend themselves than those of our ancestors who made the opposite assumption -- that no agent was present. Thus the former group tended to survive longer and more often than the latter group. And for that reason, there evolved in we humans a predisposition to see or perceive agency in events.

Atran then goes on to argue that this tendency to see or perceive agency in events eventually resulted in the evolutionary spandrel seeing or perceiving supernatural agency in events. Supernatural agency includes everything from pixies to deities, of course. So, for Atran, the question of how or why humans evolved the religious behavior of seeing, perceiving, or believing in a supernatural world is answered.

OK. That's as good as I can sum up Atran's position in a few words. I fear I might have misled you by leaving out too much of his views, though. You really should see if you can get hold of that 11 page New York Times article.

I myself don't accept that Atran is correct. I think he is close to the truth of the matter, but I think there is another explanation which is ever closer to the truth.

It seems to me that the gods originated in the human trait of perceiving personalities in things. As a social species, it was crucial for us to recognize that our friends and enemies had personalities. A personality is, after all, a set of tendencies toward behaving in certain ways. For instance, someone with a dour personality tends to behave in dour ways. Back in the deep past of our evolution, our ancestors achieved the astonishing ability to perceive each other as having personalities -- and hence, they were better able to predict each other's behavior.

Of course, they did not stop with perceiving each other as having personalities. They also perceived everything under the sun -- and then the sun itself -- as having personalities. So, for instance, not only did our ancestor, Og, perceive his buddy, Mag, as having a personality. Og also perceived the weather as having a personality. He thought of the weather as "Old Man Weather". And it was a short jump from seeing the weather as "Old Man Weather" to seeing the weather as a god.

The key is to realize that seeing things as persons -- as having personalities -- allows you to better predict their behavior. That favors survival.

My "personality theory" is like Atran's "agent" theory in that both of us see the evolution of a supernature as a spandrel.

 

[Noaidi]

Sunstone.
Thanks for that. It makes sense for humans to superimpose a personality on phenomena. Many pagan religions do this - seeing the rocks or trees or rivers as having a 'spirit' means that you can better identify with them or have a relationship with them.
Is this not similar, though, to the caveman and his angry thunder-god scenario?

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone.
Thanks for that. It makes sense for humans to superimpose a personality on phenomena. Many pagan religions do this - seeing the rocks or trees or rivers as having a 'spirit' means that you can better identify with them or have a relationship with them.
Is this not similar, though, to the caveman and his angry thunder-god scenario?

I think it's superficially similar to the "caveman's thunder-god" notion. But the human who sees personalities in all things is not necessarily attempting to explain why there is thunder, whereas the "caveman" who creates a deity to explain thunder is most certainly attempting to explain things.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I think it's superficially similar to the "caveman's thunder-god" notion. But the human who sees personalities in all things is not necessarily attempting to explain why there is thunder, whereas the "caveman" who creates a deity to explain thunder is most certainly attempting to explain things.

The two go hand in hand. If the caveman who perceived agency in all things wanted to know why it was storming, he came to the conclusion that some type of weather spirit was angry. We see this type of pattern seeking behavior displayed in superstitions/religions throughout history and even to this day. The bumper sticker is as accurate as it can be in so few words.

 

[Noaidi]

The two go hand in hand. If the caveman who perceived agency in all things wanted to know why it was storming, he came to the conclusion that some type of weather spirit was angry. We see this type of pattern seeking behavior displayed in superstitions/religions throughout history and even to this day. The bumper sticker is as accurate as it can be in so few words.

Yes, this is what I meant too. If humans perceive personalities in living and non-living things, then perhaps intent becomes a feature of their interpretation.

 

[Sunstone]

We see this type of pattern seeking behavior displayed in superstitions/religions throughout history and even to this day.

I think that's a stretch. I don't encounter the supposed behavior that often. So I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree.