Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[Escéptico]

Perhaps that still is the notion of "randomness" today.

How so? That would appear to be the exact opposite of the contemporary notion of randomness.

 

[sandandfoam]

I understand your point, S, but then how do you explain so many people just believing what others tell them? Do you think that everyone who believes in religion has had a mystical experience?

I think this is another example of the English language failing us.
The word belief covers both situations above although they seem two very different situations to me.
Personally I am interested in the latter, I wish to understand and know, when I talk about my beliefs they are provisional and refer to this.
Believing in the fixed sense of adopting anothers point of view and opinions is something I cannot explain but I can't imagine many believe in this sense. If they did how do you account for the majority of Catholics for example who practice birth control ? I think we all rationalise things in our own terms

 

[Magic Man]

I think this is another example of the English language failing us.
The word belief covers both situations above although they seem two very different situations to me.
Personally I am interested in the latter, I wish to understand and know, when I talk about my beliefs they are provisional and refer to this.
Believing in the fixed sense of adopting anothers point of view and opinions is something I cannot explain but I can't imagine many believe in this sense. If they did how do you account for the majority of Catholics for example who practice birth control ? I think we all rationalise things in our own terms

We definitely rationalize things in our own terms, but I think that's a different story. I'm using "believe" as "think something to be true". I think believing something someone else told you is exactly where we get rationalization. Catholics rationalize things because they were told one thing, but don't want it to be true. They don't want to throw out their whole religion because of one little thing, but they also want to be able to do that one thing. So they decide that that one thing, like birth control, is ok.

 

[Storm]

Appologies, I havn't read the entirety of the thread.

No problem.

I know I can ignore the 'reality' of mystical experiences, because I've taken some pretty crazy drugs. But I'm not sure how you're defining mystical.

For purposes of this thread, I'm using "mystical experience" in the terms of neurotheology. In short, they're trance states that, as Sunstone puts it, briefly ngate the subject/object divide.

Not today. But primitive humans? That is what we're talking about, right? Origins and such?

I just don't think that they were THAT primitive. Not so primitive that they couldn't tell the difference betweenreality and their own imaginations. That's not primitive, it's stupid.

[ninja edit]To put a timeline into perspective, I'm assuming we're talking about before the dawn of civilization. Greater than 20,000 years ago. More likely around 500,000 to 1 million.

Good, we're on the same page.

It should be noted that in that time, from my admittedly limited understanding of archaeology/ anthropology, there probably weren't "gods" in the sense we mean it. Religion was more likely animism, ancestor worship, or a mix of the two.

Agreed, but it is the only biological reason I can think of.

To restrict the discussion to biology alone excludes the question of how we came up with God in the first place.

 

[GadFly]

It is clear to me what Gadfly was saying (I think). If atheists believe there are no grounds for theistic beliefs, to be intellectually consistent they must agree that there is no reason to believe in science since both based on unproven principles of logic. Yes, science works. Religion works, too, or it would have faded away long ago. But because religion deals with something intangible in human life they try to disown it by changing the rules: they can change the rules, but they can't build societies or cultures because their picture of reality is incomplete.

Did I get that right, Gadfly?

You sure did!

 

[Storm]

Well, they didn't have any notion of randomness, did they? Ancient peoples were emphatic in their belief that event was inextricably linked with intention.

I wonder, Esceptico, if you're not looking to more (relatively) recent cultures. By the time written language was developed (without which we can't know what the beliefs were), God was entrenched in the human mind.

 

[Storm]

I understand your point, S, but then how do you explain so many people just believing what others tell them?

Well, cultural indoctrination is different. An individual might be a Christian, for instance, simply because he was raised to it and never thought to question. But start preaching Scientology at him, and he's automatically a skeptic.

Do you think that everyone who believes in religion has had a mystical experience?

No, of course not.

 

[GadFly]

That's pure rhetoric unsupported by reason or evidence, Gadfly. Besides what has any of that to do with the OP? What have you folks done to my beautiful thread?

We have kept on target by straightening out your logic and correcting the gaps in reasoning. We have shown you that truth does not come from evolution of concepts but is revealed by experience which synthesis claims is evolution but is really revelation. If it was not this way, it would not be possible to reason, use science, or progress at all in our knowledge of religion. In short, we have solved the problem that atheist have with semantical confusion by changing premises in the middle of discussion.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, cultural indoctrination is different. An individual might be a Christian, for instance, simply because he was raised to it and never thought to question. But start preaching Scientology at him, and he's automatically a skeptic.


No, of course not.

All I'm saying is that the people who did have mystical experiences probably tried to explain them to others, and some of the others believed them. As more people fell into this, some others started to believe because everyone else did. This still happens today, and I just think it was more prevalent back then.

 

[Magic Man]

We have kept on target by straightening out your logic and correcting the gaps in reasoning. We have shown you that truth does not come from evolution of concepts but is revealed by experience which synthesis claims is evolution but is really revelation. If it was not this way, it would not be possible to reason, use science, or progress at all in our knowledge of religion. In short, we have solved the problem that atheist have with semantical confusion by changing premises in the middle of discussion.

Then why is everyone still disagreeing with you?

 

[Storm]

All I'm saying is that the people who did have mystical experiences probably tried to explain them to others, and some of the others believed them. As more people fell into this, some others started to believe because everyone else did. This still happens today, and I just think it was more prevalent back then.

I agree. All I would add is that those first mystics probably wouldn't have been believed if they hadn't been sincere.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree. All I would add is that those first mystics probably wouldn't have been believed if they hadn't been sincere.

To me that might or might not be true, but I don't think that's the real question. I think the real question is how they would come up with the idea in the first place if not for mystical experience.

 

[Storm]

Fair enough.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Well, they didn't have any notion of randomness, did they? Ancient peoples were emphatic in their belief that event was inextricably linked with intention.

Randomness or "chance" is the soft pillow of ignorance. It's saying, "Just because." Fractals are not "random" because they are unpredictable. When the term is used in physics (at least, before it became the soft pillow for some scientists), it refers to the unpredictability of an event, not "chance. Randomness or "chance" is not a causative effect, but a tag we put on our own ignorance. If you follow the water to its source rather than just look at the waterfalls, you will find that the indeterminate nature of reality demands a "deep order." The nature of the "deep order," the unobservable order, is what's called into question, not its reality.

Religion is indicative of unseen principles at work; like a fractal being graphed and the mathematics hidden. Short of personal experience--which is always there but usually as a hidden variable--religious beliefs, to use an analogy physicists use, is an attempt to visualize the inner workings of a clock without opening the case.

 

[GadFly]

Gadfly, I have two questions for you: Do you actually believe the statements you make? Do you think those statements are actually proving any points?

Yes. I also back them up with consistent rationality without altering my premises. Yes, many points are being proved in so far that man is willing to accept evidence as evidence.

I can not take credit for these ideas as they are not mine alone. On this forum my ideas may not be in the majority but in Western Civilization these ideas dominate the cultue. Atheist do not only oppose the GadFly but the very fabric of civilized thinking.

 

[GadFly]

One wonders how much you paid for your basicometer.

Your answer should be a clue to the strength of your premises for reasoning.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes. I also back them up with consistent rationality without altering my premises. Yes, many points are being proved in so far that man is willing to accept evidence as evidence.

I can not take credit for these ideas as they are not mine alone. On this forum my ideas may not be in the majority but in Western Civilization these ideas dominate the cultue. Atheist do not only oppose the GadFly but the very fabric of civilized thinking.

Why do you think that your ideas would be in the majority in Western civilization, and still be opposed by all but 1 or 2 people on here? Don't you think that if that was the case, more than .1% of the population on these forums would agree with you?

 

[GadFly]

To hopefully get back on topic, no one said anything about my comment earlier.

I can't think of any other reasons as to WHY we have evolved the notion of the divine.

More correctly stated, experience has added to your revelation of the Devin.

 

[Kungfuzed]

More correctly stated, experience has added to your revelation of the Devin.

How do you define revelation? Is it so broad as to cover anything we experience, learn, or even think?

 

[GadFly]

To hopefully get back on topic, no one said anything about my comment earlier.

I can't think of any other reasons as to WHY we have evolved the notion of the divine.

Your statement would be more comforting to you if you accepted the concept of God coming to you by from experience reminding you of revelation of God rather than the evolution of a concept.