Why Didn’t A More Rational View Of Life Crush The Development Of Fantastical Religious Ones?

[Heyo]

I was talking about now. If people didn’t wanna follow religion, they wouldnt so why are so many still doing it today? I think it’s because people around the world know something’s up with life. They know there a greater mystery that’s hidden.

And that drives them to religions? Why not philosophy? With all its faults, philosophy still has some resemblance to science in its more rigorous approach to inquiry.
Most people are not interested in philosophical questions. Religions don't deal with philosophical questions. Religions have answers that are quick, easy to understand - and false, to paraphrase H. L. Mencken.
People who understand science, i.e. the philosophy of science, can see that. People who can't see that don't understand science.

 

[wellwisher]

… and why have they persisted to this very present day of intelligence?

Back in the day as major religions were taking shape why didn’t a more scientific view of our world and universe crush the development of religions? Why did fantastical stories flourish and get believed as truth? One would think we’d know better. I mean we do have some brains.

The most important tool of science is human consciousness. While religions appear to be a projection of the brain's operating system, that is behind our human consciousness; inner man and outer man. Religion helped to develop the very tool; consciousness, that is most needed by science. For example, the earliest science of astronomy, was blended with astrology, with astrology; gods, a projected map of the inner workings of the brain's operating system, derived from religion. They saw the gods in the sky, which allowed an empirical system of science to develop with good predictive value.

The alchemist, who were the early pioneers of chemistry and even modern science methods, projected mythological ideas into their craft. Mercury was quicksilver often expressed as the dragon eating its own tail and disappearing; evaporation, then reappearing over there.They were able to use that to create a conceptual platform for many experimental procedures and the cataloging of chemical reactions that still are used today; distillation and extraction. Even the Big Bang theory was originally formulated by the Belgian physicist and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître; Genesis and let there be light.

The intuitive assumption used was humans evolved in nature, therefore the human brain by adapting to this harsh reality, causes the wiring of the human brain to become a reflection of reality. The ideas of the whims of gods or a deterministic God, would someday be translated to mean statistical or logical science approaches to reality, respectively. If it is good enough for the gods or God than humans will reflect it. Religion is connected to brain IT or information technology and tends to lead the conceptual foundations of science, since reality is still a projection of the very brain, that evolved in and parallels reality.

Morality is about harnessing basic human propensities, which helps to tweak the natural brain's software. With the concept of God being an higher entity, this allows the individual to tweak their own brain, without needing an external Big Brother like fake news. Secular like fake news tries to do the same things, but without knowing or caring about the neural damage they do.

This discussion is about science, while carrying the water for fake news is not scientific, but more like an unnatural religion. Most religions teach honesty which is what is needed for real science. Bogus data is not good science, since it misuses the important tool of consciousness. How can you trust their science of fake news, if their religion is based on dishonesty? That is also their world view due to the mis-tweaking of their consciousness. Scientists used to be trusted to be as sincere as a priest, but this is no longer the case. Then spend too much time condemning sincerity of faith.

The early scientists were often holy people, trusted by their fellow humans to do sincere science. The alchemist were priests and doctors both trained by the Church. They used their training as a sincere platform to seek the truth in nature, even to their own detriment; Galileo.

 

[Augustus]

That explains why religions were successful in the past, but why are they still?

It may sound cynical, but I think the same explanation still applies. Science isn't understood by a vast majority of people, and it is still "best guess time" for them.

Religion is not simply “primitive science” though, it is just worldview and ritual.

Religions still exist because “religious type” thought is pretty much essential to healthy human cognition.

People make the mistake of seeing religions as something fundamentally different to “secular” worldviews.

As a species we need to create meaning where none exists. We want to feel connected to something larger than the self, explain why things are as they are and explain how things should be.

To do this we weave narratives, create a mythos and tell stories that are not really true.

Science tells us humans are not rational, but many who claim to follow an ideology of scientific rationalism think we can be saved by people becoming more rational.

It’s just the latest iteration of a common soteriological trope about order overcoming chaos or light overcoming darkness.

The meaning we make in the world relies far more on fictional preferences than scientific facts.

 

[Augustus]

Who knows how much a scientific worldview could've flourished if the Greek atomists had not been erased by the Platonic tradition for a millennia

Their view was no more “scientific” than the Platonists though.

Epicureanism was an ethical philosophy, and with all of the Greek schools of thought, natural philosophy was subservient to ethics.

It wasn’t a kind of proto Secular Humanism.

 

[Nakosis]

… and why have they persisted to this very present day of intelligence?

Back in the day as major religions were taking shape why didn’t a more scientific view of our world and universe crush the development of religions? Why did fantastical stories flourish and get believed as truth? One would think we’d know better. I mean we do have some brains.

You assume that humans usually act from rational thinking instead of the occasional once in a blue moon.

I find most of our choices are based on our feelings. Who doesn't want to feel protected by a big all powerful sky daddy?

 

[libre]

It wasn’t a kind of proto Secular Humanism.

I never intended to suggest such.

 

[wellwisher]

… and why have they persisted to this very present day of intelligence?

Back in the day as major religions were taking shape why didn’t a more scientific view of our world and universe crush the development of religions? Why did fantastical stories flourish and get believed as truth? One would think we’d know better. I mean we do have some brains.

It is the same reason, that reason was not able to crush the random view of the universe that substitutes dice and cards for reason. Do you think science would be better off, it was only based on reason and not also on a black box oracle, that is does not require reasoning? Setting up experiments, based on a black box mathematic procedure, does not need reason, since it is just a procedure. The Golden Age of Science ended with the rise of black box science. What nevertheless evolved was applied science; better tools. Black box science is a good tool for applied science, but it can become a crutch for pure science, like evolution. The applied scientist still has to reason in advance. The black box tool, help to speed up the experimental processes between rational steps,,but it does not take over reason, as a substitute. GC jobs will use statistical models, but this does not supplement eliminate the rational knowledge of working of the machines. You need to reason the needed tweaks. Evolution cannot reason the needed tweaks since reason is suspended for observational empiricism.

Anther reason has to do with evolution. The neocortex, especially in the front of the brain, is the newest part of the brain. At its extreme it is connected to abstract thinking which involves the imagination. Religions use the imagination. If you assume gods are imaginary, then thinking about them uses the imagination; neocortex. Religion is actually the foundation of abstract thinking and therefore helps the neocortex to develop further. Humans, deep down, sense what is healthy and evolving and were not about to be de-evolved back to sensory reality like a reactive animal; older brain.

God, for example is an abstraction that represents the extremes; original concept of infinity. To put your mind around the concept of God in an earnest way, is mind expanding; agnostic. It pulls you way outside the box of the natural man reacting to the environment. It creates images of the future, when humans can fly like the gods who have no limits. Applied Science has the mind expanding skills to make it real, with the world religion exercising the neo-mind first.

Evolution is so irrational, therefore a connection to evolution and deliberate Neo-cortex development, does not logically follow. It wants to reduce this to random and not a natural healthy neural determinism. My model for evolution; water model, has more predictive value, being more rational. Pure science has fallen way behind, staying in the black box, rather than retool, to explore in the gaps.

 

[F1fan]

They had when they were born. In most cases their parents raised them to disbelieve.

My parents and the rest of my family are all believers. I had a natural inclination to ask questions and observe those around me. I was around 8 when I noticed the Christians around me were not behaving in a consistent way to their beliefs, and I was suspicious the claims were not true. Over time I read more and found religions to be non-factual and irrational.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, so it’s the people so obviously they think religion has some merit. Like I said earlier, I think people follow religions because they think that there’s something up with life. That there’s something deeper, some hidden meaning beyond the idea that the cosmos have always existed.

You're giving the masses way too much credit. No one ponders the religious ideas they are exposed to in their social exprience and decides they are true in a rational way. The people of a social tribe will adopt the ideas that are prevalent subconsciously, much the way language is acquired. Religious ideas are adopted because they hear otehrs refer to them as true. This is how children end up thinking Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real. The difference is just as children are told that Santa is real they are also told that Santa is a fiction. Children are exposed to the religious ideas of their family and community, and even nation, and acquire them as part of what they believe is true. The difference here is that there are very few saying these ideas are baseless and absurd.

Let's note that religions have had thousands of years to become established in cultural traditions and meaning, while science is relatively new. Heck evolution is only about 150 years old and many today still hold on to a tradition of belief that a literal interpretation of Genesis is valid. Most cultural acquisition is not a rational or crimitcal process, it is a process where children are taught what to believe well before they can learn how to think critically. And few children are taught how to think critically, which leaves them unskilled at making proper decisions. Generalaly people behave according to the social norms they adopt and try to avoid the punishments that come if they violate norms and rules.

Humans are capable of reasoning and logic, but not many have the knowledge nor how to use it. And belonging is an evolved trait and is a strong motivator for humans. Studies show that people will adopt a false idea in order to not be outcast, and this is one reason why adopting religious views is still a strong social reality. Look up the Ashe experiments, and the Milgram experiments if you want to learn why people will act irrationally even if they know they are wrong.