Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[Rolling_Stone]

How do you figure that? What in that excerpt implies that conclusion to you?

It's demagoguery laced with facts. Everything in life evolves, but religion and religious concepts are supposed to be discredited because they, too, evolve.

 

[Magic Man]

It's demagoguery laced with facts. Everything in life evolves, but religion and religious concepts are supposed to be discredited because they, too, evolve.

Religious concepts which were supposedly expressed directly to humans from God should not evolve. If God told humans something at some point, then it shouldn't change.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Religious concepts which were supposedly expressed directly to humans from God should not evolve. If God told humans something at some point, then it shouldn't change.

Get real. Does a first-grader go directly to college upon leaving the first grade?

 

[Magic Man]

Get real. Does a first-grader go directly to college upon leaving the first grade?

What? So, God's rules should be changeable? If so, then shouldn't He come back, and tell us the updated versions as they change? The Bible says "This is the way it is according to God". The way it is shouldn't then change unless God specifically tells us it has. If God tells us to do something or not to do something, shouldn't he take into account our evolution, and either tell us in way that is conducive to our evolution, or come back and tell us a new version when our evolution makes it necessary?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What? So, God's rules should be changeable? If so, then shouldn't He come back, and tell us the updated versions as they change? The Bible says "This is the way it is according to God". The way it is shouldn't then change unless God specifically tells us it has. If God tells us to do something or not to do something, shouldn't he take into account our evolution, and either tell us in way that is conducive to our evolution, or come back and tell us a new version when our evolution makes it necessary?

Sheesh! :spam:

 

[Magic Man]

Sheesh! :spam:

Well, I guess you proved me wrong.

 

[Da Troof]

What? So, God's rules should be changeable? If so, then shouldn't He come back, and tell us the updated versions as they change? The Bible says "This is the way it is according to God". The way it is shouldn't then change unless God specifically tells us it has. If God tells us to do something or not to do something, shouldn't he take into account our evolution, and either tell us in way that is conducive to our evolution, or come back and tell us a new version when our evolution makes it necessary?

OK so what were Gods rules before the bible? Remember the bible didn't come into existance until long after the story of Jesus. What were the rules after Jesus but before the bible? How did anyone know?

 

[Magic Man]

OK so what were Gods rules before the bible? Remember the bible didn't come into existance until long after the story of Jesus. What were the rules after Jesus but before the bible? How did anyone know?

If you'd read more closely, you'd realize that I'm not Christian. I'm arguing that, if Christianity's rules shouldn't change, since they were handed down directly from God. They have changed, and that causes problems.

Also, the Old Testament existed before Christ. Only the New Testament came after him.

 

[Sunstone]

It appears the excerpt was written by someone just as norrow-minded and dogmatic as any creationist trying to rationalize their beliefs.

Although I don't entirely agree with Dennett, the excerpt fails to appear that way to me at all.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Although I don't entirely agree with Dennett, the excerpt fails to appear that way to me at all.

Funny you should say that. I actually agree with what he says in the excerpt, it's just that it's too broadly applied--much like the way creationists manipulate information to 'prove' their case.

 

[Magic Man]

Funny you should say that. I actually agree with what he says in the excerpt, it's just that it's too broadly applied--much like the way creationists manipulate information to 'prove' their points.

So, you can't take something known to be true and apply it to other similar situations?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So, you can't take something known to be true and apply it to other similar situations?

Ever read Plato?

 

[Magic Man]

Ever read Plato?

Please proceed with the point.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Please proceed with the point.

In The Republic, Plato has Socrates using narrow abstract ideas and then applying those ideas to other things using broad brush strokes. While the arguments appear solid and eloquent, it obscures the reality. Sure, religion has some of the characteristics he describes, but it's also more--much more. Societies and cultures are built on shared values (religion's concern), not technology and rhetoric.

 

[Magic Man]

In The Republic, Plato has Socrates using narrow abstract ideas and then applies those ideas to other things using broad brush strokes. While the arguments appear solid and eloquent, it obscures the reality. Sure, religion has some of the characteristics he describes, but it's also more--much more. Societies and cultures are built on shared values (religion's concern), not technology and rhetoric.

I don't think he would argue that there's much more to it. In fact, I bet that's why he wrote a whole book about it. You do remember that it was just an excerpt, right?

 

[GadFly]

We have an innate desire to create patterns, even where none exist.

Most philosophical persons in the Western Civilization believe and function on the exact opposite premise of reality. The forms have always been here. We do not create these forms(Plato).That is why we know a chair is chair and not something else.

 

[GadFly]

the evolution of our brains brought it about. Its reasoning ,see the storm and have to reason it out ,its a by product of our intelligence. we have to catalogue everything in our own image so we give it a name .

Where did the catalog come from? Was it always there? Have the rules of intelligence always existed?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I don't think he would argue that there's much more to it. In fact, I bet that's why he wrote a whole book about it. You do remember that it was just an excerpt, right?

Then a better example should be used. I was going to buy the book, but upon thumbing through its pages the author, like other atheist authors, routinely anthropomorphize God or use concepts of God that makes them vulnerable to their criticisms. Doing so destroys their credibility. Concepts of God in the likes of what Plotinus, for example, offers aren't so vulnerable to their attacks.

Back to the topic. There is no doubt in my mind that religion is a by-product of evolution, as is the God-concept. Much of what passes for religion in the world today isn't. As far as I'm concerned, Dawkins, Dennet, etc., do religion a favor by acting as a refiner's fire. The shame of it is that onlookers think discrediting those religions that deserve it discredits all religion when in fact it's just evolution weeding out the unfit.

 

[GadFly]

Thanks for the link - extremely interesting reading.

I think that both reasons could be used, because the idea of God is so pervasive and widespread through society. I particularly like the explanation that people invoke the idea of God because it allows people to explain something easier than "stuff just happens", rather than the random chance, and so forth.

Especially interesting reading was the idea that we start off with the capacity of belief, like capacity for language, and that gets shaped and developed by society into ideas of God, and the experiments with children mentioned.

Plato would say that we knew a chair was a chair because the chair form was always there. Was the form of God always there? Did we evolve the notion of God or was the notion always there to be recognized as man matured and grew? This, I think, is a better explanation of reality.

 

[Magic Man]

Then a better example should be used. I was going to buy the book, but upon thumbing through its pages the author, like other atheist authors, routinely anthropomorphize God or used concepts of God that makes them vulnerable to their criticisms. Doing so destroys their credibility. Concepts of God in the likes of what Plotinus, for example, offers aren't so vulnerable to their attacks.

Back to the topic. There is no doubt in my mind that religion is a by-product of evolution, as is the God-concept. Much of what passes for religion in the world today isn't. As far as I'm concerned, Dawkins, Dennet, etc., do religion a favor by acting as a refiner's fire. The shame of it is that onlookers think discrediting those religions that deserve it discredits all religion when in fact it's just evolution weeding out the unfit.

The point there is that if you discredit them to the point of proving there was no source other than human imagination, then why believe that any other religion would be anything more than that?