Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[GadFly]

Sorry, can you explain that. I'm not sure what you mean about premises and conclusions about what is real.

Whatever logical statement is made, it is only as strong and truthful as its premises. A premise may be 2+2; the conclusion is = 4. Two pulse two is a strong premise as long as 2 always means 1+1. But if 2 ever changes to mean one;then , the conclusion of 2+2 is two instead of 4. But remember the premise changed. In reality the less a premise has changed, the more dependable is the logic.

God is the most basic premise to everything man knows, not experience,not humanism,not communism but God. If one does not believe in God, he has rejected all premises upon which to make conclusions. Is that what you were looking for?
God Bless, the GadFly

 

[Charity]

Very good you are right on you lay it on the line....I enjoy someone with intelligence if only everyone knew truth instead of fiction...It seems easier to believe lies than the truth....

 

[Yerda]

Whatever logical statement is made, it is only as strong and truthful as its premises. A premise may be 2+2; the conclusion is = 4. Two pulse two is a strong premise as long as 2 always means 1+1. But if 2 ever changes to mean one;then , the conclusion of 2+2 is two instead of 4. But remember the premise changed. In reality the less a premise has changed, the more dependable is the logic.

God is the most basic premise to everything man knows, not experience,not humanism,not communism but God. If one does not believe in God, he has rejected all premises upon which to make conclusions. Is that what you were looking for?
God Bless, the GadFly

Aye, cheers. I disagree though.

God doesn't seem like a necessary or even useful premise in many instances. However, If you were to insist that we regress every step of what we know or believe about the cosmos for instance and even if we agreed that we arrive back at a "first premise" or cause, it does not follow then that it is what you call God, unless the terms are synonymous. IN that case I would agree if only you used the term as I use 'first' - merely the beginning of a sequence.

 

[Yerda]

When I am attacked and called a meme, whatever that is, I go to the root of their illness and attack their logic.

You've misunderstood, mate. He wasn't calling you a meme. Memes are pieces of information that hypothetically evolve like genes by replicating and competing. Think of the children's game Chinese Whispers.

Wikipedia - Meme

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Sorry, can you explain that. I'm not sure what you mean about premises and conclusions about what is real.

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?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

P.S.

Welcome to RF, Charity.

 

[Sunstone]

God is the most basic premise to everything man knows, not experience,not humanism,not communism but God. If one does not believe in God, he has rejected all premises upon which to make conclusions. Is that what you were looking for?

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?

 

[Yerda]

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?

Ah, I see.

It is not clear to me that theistic belief and science are based upon unproven principles of logic.

 

[Magic Man]

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?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God is the most basic premise to everything man knows, ...

One wonders how much you paid for your basicometer.

 

[meogi]

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

Stress. Stress from losing members of your family and friends, seemingly random natural disasters that take heavy tolls, and survival in general. The idea of the divine allows for an assemblance of control over that which we really have no control over. It would reduce stress and thus increase survivability.

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

 

[Storm]

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

Stress. Stress from losing members of your family and friends, seemingly random natural disasters that take heavy tolls, and survival in general. The idea of the divine allows for an assemblance of control over that which we really have no control over. It would reduce stress and thus increase survivability.

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

Too simplistic.

 

[Magic Man]

Too simplistic.

There might be more to it, but I think there's some truth in that notion. This might not be the only cause, but it might be a cause of its growth and resilience.

 

[Storm]

Oh, I acknowledge it might be a factor, but it explains nothing as to why we would believe.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, I acknowledge it might be a factor, but it explains nothing as to why we would believe.

That's true. No argument about that here.

 

[Storm]

"Why did we evolve the notion of God" is, to my mind really three questions:

1) Where did we get the idea in the first place?

2) Why did we believe it was reality, rather than just a story?

3) What made it so advantageous as to be universal?

 

[Sunstone]

"Why did we evolve the notion of God" is, to my mind really three questions:

1) Where did we get the idea in the first place?

2) Why did we believe it was reality, rather than just a story?

3) What made it so advantageous as to be universal?

Have you read the Scott Atran article referenced in the OP?

 

[Magic Man]

"Why did we evolve the notion of God" is, to my mind really three questions:

1) Where did we get the idea in the first place?

2) Why did we believe it was reality, rather than just a story?

3) What made it so advantageous as to be universal?

Right. Maybe Phil should employ you to start his threads for him. We might get a better discussion that way.

 

[Storm]

I have.

I think he's got pieces of the puzzle, but I was surprised by the lack of reference to mystical experience. That strikes me as a vital piece.

 

[tomspug]

Fine. What do you want me to say? Do you want me to "cast pearls before swine"? Should I say he's chasing after waterfalls instead of following the water to its source (an illustration I used), confusing the finger for the moon it's pointing to, or the map is not the territory? I could say something like, "Religion is the attempt to imitate the Ideal-Form; the (human) concept to bring it about in material form" or "we awaken to the Concept" or "the religious impulse is a principle of primary existence," but that would simply be offering up another waterfall to chase after to someone whose only interest is chasing after them. One should not make the mistake of trying to prove God to someone interested only in playing in the sandbox of ideas (please excuse the mixed metaphors) because real valid proof cannot be consciously produced.

What Gadfly said is correct: "What this thread attempts in saying and asserting the concept of God evolves, is an attempt to subtly avoid the premises for the existence of God."

Instead of being frustrated with why someone can't seem to understand you're perspective, why don't you try to understand THEIR perspective FIRST? It could just be that you're not doing a very good job of communicating your ideas.