Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

We are all born with the idea of God

  • 18-03-2013 4:06am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭


    Yes, this is a slightly long read and yes, I got the title from some quote from one of the Civilization games. I've probably misquoted it anyway but hey.

    My better half said something today that shocked me a little. She said that she believed she had a guardian angel. Now this is from a very non-religious girl (and she'd have to be because of the disdain I have for religion in general) but it did get me thinking.

    Firstly, I don't have any feeling that someone is watching over me or is there to protect me. I don't feel anything in fact. I don't know if there is a God or guardian angels not. I'm not willing to count it out but I'm also not willing to accept it as it's normally put forward through the very human medium of religion.

    Religion for me is simply a business, whether the participants or even the promoters actually know it or not. There is a need for people who look beyond themselves for comfort in life and that need is fulfilled by various religious institutions which, predictably enough, often do very well for themselves and their hierarchy as a result. Successfully providing supply for a given demand has worked as a money maker or power provider since civilisation was conceived. It's human nature at it's most basic - provide for yourself. And that's not to say that some very, very good people don't get into religion with the very best of intentions and/or serve a community superbly throughout their religious designation.

    However, that's only half of the answer for me.

    My real issue lies with the fact that there really are so many people believing there is something beyond themselves to look to.

    Fact is that every civilisation has inevitably veered towards a deity or deities as core to their civil functions at some point and to varying degrees thereafter. But all had a very consistent approach - something else is watching over me and controls the stuff I don't.

    It's an odd notion to me but it's so consistent over time that it cannot be simply written off.

    OK, it could be a flaw in human psychology but it's too widespread to be a flaw. Any flaw in the biological construct of the human being is usually limited to a minority, e.g. downes syndrome to physical defects to schizophrenia to anxiety/depression to glucose intolerance. This is a logical product of evolution. If anything is flawed in evolutionary terms, the flaw is gradually but inevitably lost in the process of natural selection. But in fact, in this case the minority in the world are those that ignore the "spiritual" path, like me, and do not innately feel like there is a greater knowledge and understanding out there. So, by that logic, does that mean that since I am in the minority which does not feel "God", I am flawed?

    I'm starting to think so.

    You could say that the process of natural selection takes longer than the time we've had civilisation exist on the planet and that is certainly arguable. But the rapid human evolution we have seen in the last 3000 years has done nothing to quash this "God" demand in humans. It's still going very strong. We've gone from simple engineering to molecular manipulation in the blink of a geological eye.

    So now I'm thinking that the logical explanation to the God phenomenon is that there simply has to be something else, some other force, driving this human desire, something that is obvious probably in hindsight, something that we cannot yet comprehend, something we cannot yet quantify.

    I mean, so far, evolution has managed an awful lot. It has managed to almost universally decode "stuff" to the point where an advanced life-form can interpret everything around us based on physics; waves of sub-atomic particles (sight), utterly miniscule disturbances in matter (hearing), molecular composition (taste and smell) and chemical reactions (touch) are how we decipher the world and it is very, very precise and nothing to do with chance.

    So how could evolution get God so consistently wrong?

    We think of ourselves as advanced because we are comparing ourselves to the other lifeforms on our planet which clearly are not as advanced as us. Same as we did when we thought the world was flat and that lightning was God's fury. But are we advanced enough yet to be able to quantify God? I'm not sure.

    All I know is that to presume that we know enough to discount God as this stage is assuming we already know it all; like we did when we thought the earth was endless, the sun moved around us for our benefit and mobile phones were for ponces.

    I am now starting to think that it is simply illogical to think that we are alone and that a higher and more advanced life-form is not present and somehow unknown to us. Actually, I'm jumping a little here but I think that the above should be a valid point for theorising. It's only a fraction of my thinking but I would like to hear rebuttal on this first.

    So, am I just a lunatic trapped in a lunatics mind or does the above not make sense to anyone who favours logic and reason over flight and fancy? (Which is why I posted here rather than any of the Religious fora!)

    TLDR: Read the fking thing before posting. TYVM. :)
    (That and my other half has too much involuntary, indirect influence over me. :))


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    My real issue lies with the fact that there really are so many people believing there is something beyond themselves to look to.

    Your premises are unfortunately flawed.
    First all of those people all have different beliefs in entirely different gods and mythologies. A person who believes in a god like Zeus cannot be talking about the same entity that a modern christian believes.
    If there is only one true being or something, we would get less and less of these entirely different versions of god and be getting closer to the truth.
    The opposite is true.

    Second you say that civilisation tends towards religion, but then provide a simpler explanation for this in the same post.
    Religion for me is simply a business, whether the participants or even the promoters actually know it or not. There is a need for people who look beyond themselves for comfort in life and that need is fulfilled by various religious institutions which, predictably enough, often do very well for themselves and their hierarchy as a result. Successfully providing supply for a given demand has worked as a money maker or power provider since civilisation was conceived. It's human nature at it's most basic - provide for yourself.

    Third you assume that religious belief is a flaw, but then also detail a way it could be evolutionarily advantageous. It can function as a core of a civil system.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    Your premises are unfortunately flawed.
    First all of those people all have different beliefs in entirely different gods and mythologies.

    Actually yours I believe is the flawed argument. All religions have a common source, based on the ability of humans to reflect on themselves i.e. the self awareness of their own being. Once humans have the thought "who am I, why am I here, and what is here anyway", they automatically start looking for answers. It is the pondering of what we are and why we are here that leads humans eventually to the conclusion that something caused this thing they observe including themselves. All religions are an effort to describe what this cause is, and all are likely futile because if there is an intelligence that caused our universe there is no way we could understand it, it would be physics beyond our wildest imagination.

    The second factor I think is that humans have spent most of their time immersed in nature for almost all their existance. Humans were hunter gatherers and then farmers for tens of thousands of years, and industrialization, living in cities, etc, is very recent. Observation of nature was a big factor in the development of religion, especially the cycles of nature. If you spend enough time in nature it is spellbinding how literally every day this time of year a new species of plant starts to bud anew for the season. What is the trigger for them to start budding?

    There is recent research that a non coding RNA molecule in plants has a memory effect, and after a specific number of days (20 - 30 on average) of near freezing temperatures the molecule activates a gene that initiates budding. The more we uncover about the mechanisms of nature the more fascinating they become. I think humans got the idea of God from seeing effects like this, they would not have understood the mechanism behind it, but they were so immersed in nature they knew instinctively there was mind like behavior involved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    It is the pondering of what we are and why we are here that leads humans eventually to the conclusion that something caused this thing they observe including themselves.
    Yup, which was what lead us to our current understand of lightning, which as we all know is Thor being angry.

    First none of your waffle addresses any of the points I made.
    Second it assumes that all people reach the same conclusion you did, which is not true. Especially since the empty, vapid, non-explanation version of god you hold is an entirely modern western invention created as the gaps h could close in started to close.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Their could well be "guardian angels". OP, do you have children? Well suppose you do and you die. You realize that their is life after death. Now imagine one of your kids is having a very hard time in their life, would you be watching over them? If you could then you probably would, thus making you a guardian angel of sorts?

    I say all the above as an atheist btw...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Their could well be "guardian angels". OP, do you have children? Well suppose you do and you die. You realize that their is life after death. Now imagine one of your kids is having a very hard time in their life, would you be watching over them? If you could then you probably would, thus making you a guardian angel of sorts?

    I say all the above as an atheist btw...

    That is one of the silliest things I've seen posted as a serious comment here. How does that in any way suggest that there is such a thing as a guardian angel? Is it because you like the idea? I can't see any other reason why anybody would make such huge leaps of assumtion. That scenario doesn't even describe a guardian angel, it describes some sort of observational angel.

    Also, there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    fitz0 wrote: »
    That is one of the silliest things I've seen posted as a serious comment here. How does that in any way suggest that there is such a thing as a guardian angel? Is it because you like the idea? I can't see any other reason why anybody would make such huge leaps of assumtion. That scenario doesn't even describe a guardian angel, it describes some sort of observational angel.

    Also, there.
    And what kind of sick twisted being would force a person to watch their family in their times of pain and need, but not allow them to help, or even communicate with them.

    It would take a lot of imagination to think up of a worse hell.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    King Mob wrote: »
    And what kind of sick twisted being would force a person to watch their family in their times of pain and need, but not allow them to help, or even communicate with them.

    It would take a lot of imagination to think up of a worse hell.

    Exactly. Wait, maybe God is the Devil.

    the-best-of-conspiracy-keanu-19793-1322167217-3.jpg

    Supposing for a second that KC's scenario is true. Does that mean that everyone who has a hard life is so unloved by their dead family that nobody is watching out for them? Seems kind of harsh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Im not suggesting "god" would force you to watch over people. What I suggested has feck all got to do with god or religion


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    What I suggested has feck all got to do with god or religion

    Or much else. If it doesn't even have the flimsy theist base, what generates the idea of a conscious afterlife?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    fitz0 wrote: »

    Or much else. If it doesn't even have the flimsy theist base, what generates the idea of a conscious afterlife?

    Consious life without a physical body is scientifically plausible


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Is our consciousness dependant on our physical bodies? Perhaps some other lifeform somewhere in the universe has evolved to some wishy washy energy state but all available evidence that I've seen points to us being stuck within our meatsacks.

    Please point me to some evidence that shows humans existing without our physical systems to sustain us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    King Mob wrote: »
    Your premises are unfortunately flawed.
    First all of those people all have different beliefs in entirely different gods and mythologies. A person who believes in a god like Zeus cannot be talking about the same entity that a modern christian believes.
    If there is only one true being or something, we would get less and less of these entirely different versions of god and be getting closer to the truth.
    The opposite is true.

    The point is that humans have always created manifestations of the same thing; a higher consciousness. It's extremely consistent, to the point that it cannot be chance.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Second you say that civilisation tends towards religion, but then provide a simpler explanation for this in the same post.

    No, my explanation for religion is as a solution to a human need. It's the cause of the human need that I'm not sure of at all.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Third you assume that religious belief is a flaw, but then also detail a way it could be evolutionarily advantageous. It can function as a core of a civil system.

    Again, religion functions as an advantage to society, but the fact that it is such a powerful tool in bringing people together is my issue. The fact that it appeals to almost every human being is astounding to me.

    Let's put religion aside as a human solution to a human problem and let's focus on the problem itself.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Actually yours I believe is the flawed argument. All religions have a common source, based on the ability of humans to reflect on themselves i.e. the self awareness of their own being. Once humans have the thought "who am I, why am I here, and what is here anyway", they automatically start looking for answers. It is the pondering of what we are and why we are here that leads humans eventually to the conclusion that something caused this thing they observe including themselves. All religions are an effort to describe what this cause is, and all are likely futile because if there is an intelligence that caused our universe there is no way we could understand it, it would be physics beyond our wildest imagination.

    The second factor I think is that humans have spent most of their time immersed in nature for almost all their existance. Humans were hunter gatherers and then farmers for tens of thousands of years, and industrialization, living in cities, etc, is very recent. Observation of nature was a big factor in the development of religion, especially the cycles of nature. If you spend enough time in nature it is spellbinding how literally every day this time of year a new species of plant starts to bud anew for the season. What is the trigger for them to start budding?

    I agree. But I'm not yet sure that rationalising nature is the root of the cause.

    I think it's safe to say that very little in our universe is random, if anything at all. Everything follows a set of rules, everything is relative and balanced. If something happens it happens for a reason, whether we can explain or understand the reason is irrelevant. We are very, very simple life-forms after all and so the argument that because we cannot explain it, it doesn't exist, is a nonsense.

    Humans do try to reason and rationalise everything around them. I can't explain dark matter but I know it has a reason to exist. I'm sure someone can explain it, probably not many. However, in my personal ignorance, taking the leap to assume that the reason it exists is because someone or something else put it there is just so far fetched it seems almost random. Yet it is so consistent that it can only be logically assumed that there is a reason.

    What we can do is look at the evidence known to us, and, looking at the almost universal human need for spiritual satisfaction, is that not evidence enough to at least consider that there might be something else to this need that we simply cannot explain at this point in our evolution.

    Maybe down the line we might. We are clearly evolving very quickly even over the past few generations and advancing as a species exponentially. Maybe when we reach a point where we are no longer unique and basic biological individuals and more functioning members of a higher collective consciousness we might have a better chance of understanding.

    In fact, who is to say that a species out there has not already advanced to a higher collective consciousness and that they not only know all the rules but know how to bend, break or even recreate them. Maybe they are no longer limited to biological constructs and the idea of a living or dying moot. We do seem to be trending that way ourselves after all. Maybe omnipresence is actually achievable eventually, maybe something like kinetic energy can be decoded and controlled forming a massive, predictable network capable of sustaining consciousness.

    That's pretty far-fetched but it could conceivably be a rational explanation. My point is that how can we know for sure? Not being able to prove something should not be a determining factor, only being able to disprove it should. Otherwise we are just fooling ourselves. And how can we disprove God?


    I need to type less. Apologies for the text walls! :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    The point is that humans have always created manifestations of the same thing; a higher consciousness. It's extremely consistent, to the point that it cannot be chance.

    No they haven't. Zeus is a far different concept from Brahma, which itself is a very different concept to YHWH. Just because all these concepts get lumped together as gods does not make them the same thing, or even similar things.

    Your point about god being manifestations of the same thing is as silly as equating Natural Selection and Quantum Mechanics as the same concept which do exactly the same thing.

    When you realise that your theory begins from a faulty premise all else follows.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Is our consciousness dependant on our physical bodies? Perhaps some other lifeform somewhere in the universe has evolved to some wishy washy energy state but all available evidence that I've seen points to us being stuck within our meatsacks.

    Please point me to some evidence that shows humans existing without our physical systems to sustain us.

    I have no evidence but it is possible. Look it up yourself


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The point is that humans have always created manifestations of the same thing; a higher consciousness. It's extremely consistent, to the point that it cannot be chance.
    But they are not the same thing. They are both "higher conciousnesses" but one is described as capricious, selfish, vain, vengeful, incestuous and is described as frequently interacting with humans, up to and including impregnating mortals. And the other is Zeus
    While modern less dogmatic Christians would describe the supposedly same being as being all loving, all wise and doesn't interfere with humans.

    These can't be the same being.

    And then there's religions who believe in things that can't be described as a "higher consciousness" such as animism and ancestor worship, which are in fact likely older than the concepts of Gods.

    It is in no way consistent.
    No, my explanation for religion is as a solution to a human need. It's the cause of the human need that I'm not sure of at all.
    But if powerful people have a vested interest in giving power and influence to religions, it's obvious that civilisation is going to tend towards it.
    No need to invoke magic for an explanation.
    Again, religion functions as an advantage to society, but the fact that it is such a powerful tool in bringing people together is my issue. The fact that it appeals to almost every human being is astounding to me.

    Let's put religion aside as a human solution to a human problem and let's focus on the problem itself.
    And again it being a powerful tool in bringing people together doesn't make it a flaw. It makes it beneficial in helping those who tend toward such behavior survive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    Hang on, are you arguing that the universal human tendency to create manifestations of beings watching over us is not consistent?

    The specifics of each chosen deity is irrelevant. The fact that there is always a deity is the point.

    Put it this way. To each manifestation humans are secondary and worship is always practiced. That is the consistency I am referring to. Our secondary existence under something else.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    OK, it could be a flaw in human psychology but it's too widespread to be a flaw. Any flaw in the biological construct of the human being is usually limited to a minority, e.g. downes syndrome to physical defects to schizophrenia to anxiety/depression to glucose intolerance. This is a logical product of evolution. If anything is flawed in evolutionary terms, the flaw is gradually but inevitably lost in the process of natural selection.

    I think you could do with better informing yourself on evolution and Natural Selection. To take a really simple example.
    Suppose, for example, that a gene were to exist which provides immunity to a widespread disease A. However, suppose also the presence of two of these genes together would actually create another disease B entirely. But here's the thing, natural selection works on the principle of survival of the fittest to reproduce. So long as the organism carrying those genes is able to reproduce the genes will selected for. Under these conditions if disease A is wiping out the population then NS will select for the genes that provide an immunity to it even if that means providing the population with potential for another disease B.

    Here you have a logical example of selection for a genetic trait which causes harm. Fair enough, except this isn't just theoretical it's the real difference between a very strong resistance to malaria and sickle cell disease. And also immunity to Cholera and Cystic Fibrosis. (It's also been speculated that people with CF have an increased resistance to TB.) Evolution often works as a series of trade-offs where there is no perfect path it can take.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hang on, are you arguing that the universal human tendency to create manifestations of beings watching over us is not consistent?

    The specifics of each chosen deity is irrelevant. The fact that there is always a deity is the point.

    Put it this way. To each manifestation humans are secondary and worship is always practiced. That is the consistency I am referring to. Our secondary existence under something else.
    Yes that in precisely what I am arguing as that's what is evident.
    Zeus is not the same as the Christian God on any level. And both are even more different from the supernatural entities in animism and shamanism.
    And worship is likewise not universal.

    If there was actually one consistent being that all people had an innate sense of, they would not be so different.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    King Mob wrote: »
    But they are not the same thing. They are both "higher conciousnesses" but one is described as capricious, selfish, vain, vengeful, incestuous and is described as frequently interacting with humans, up to and including impregnating mortals. And the other is Zeus
    While modern less dogmatic Christians would describe the supposedly same being as being all loving, all wise and doesn't interfere with humans.

    These can't be the same being.

    And then there's religions who believe in things that can't be described as a "higher consciousness" such as animism and ancestor worship, which are in fact likely older than the concepts of Gods.

    It is in no way consistent.

    See above.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But if powerful people have a vested interest in giving power and influence to religions, it's obvious that civilisation is going to tend towards it.
    No need to invoke magic for an explanation.

    So why then does it work so effectively? Why do people lap up all manner of religious nonsense, when nonsense it clearly is?
    King Mob wrote: »
    And again it being a powerful tool in bringing people together doesn't make it a flaw. It makes it beneficial in helping those who tend toward such behavior survive.

    Again, why this particular way though? If evolutions purpose was to bring us together to work in societies then why do it by implanting a feeling of a life-form greater than us? It doesn't make sense. Evolution gave us social awareness to bring us together, not this idea of spirituality. Sure, it has been used successfully for that purpose in the past but that cannot be the sole purpose of spirituality.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Hang on, are you arguing that the universal human tendency to create manifestations of beings watching over us is not consistent?

    But your concept is not universal, for example the Greek concept of god is a bunch of capricious toddlers given power without being instructed on how to use it morally, while the Jewish concept of god is a convenient excuse to go out and butcher your neighbours (because they don't follow your religion, a war reason the Greeks never used) and a way differentiate yourself from them, and is a far different religious concept to Confuscianism which is a non-theistic religion more interested in the best way to run your life on this world and be a productive part of society.

    And as you can see from my three examples, consistency within religion is non-existent.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    Jernal wrote: »
    I think you could do with better informing yourself on evolution and Natural Selection. To take a really simple example.
    Suppose, for example, that a gene were to exist which provides immunity to a widespread disease A. However, suppose also the presence of two of these genes together would actually create another disease B entirely. But here's the thing, natural selection works on the principle of survival of the fittest to reproduce. So long as the organism carrying those genes is able to reproduce the genes will selected for. Under these conditions if disease A is wiping out the population then NS will select for the genes that provide an immunity to it even if that means providing the population with potential for another disease B.

    Here you have a logical example of selection for a genetic trait which causes harm. Fair enough, except this isn't just theoretical it's the real difference between a very strong resistance to malaria and sickle cell disease. And also immunity to Cholera and Cystic Fibrosis. (It's also been speculated that people with CF have an increased resistance to TB.) Evolution often works as a series of trade-offs where there is no perfect path it can take.

    Totally agree. But you are looking at evolution in the shorter term. Long term, evolution has provided us with arms, legs, a brain, sight, hearing and a feeling of God.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    I have no evidence but it is possible. Look it up yourself

    You're the one making the claim it is possible. How is it possible? By what mechanisms can is happen? What are the conditions needed for it to happen? Does consciousness become energy, or is it even possible for disembodied energy to be sentient?

    Look it up is not and never has been a suitable response on this forum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes that in precisely what I am arguing as that's what is evident.
    Zeus is not the same as the Christian God on any level. And both are even more different from the supernatural entities in animism and shamanism.
    And worship is likewise not universal.

    If there was actually one consistent being that all people had an innate sense of, they would not be so different.

    Or maybe we have all manner of failed attempts to explain something that we cannot explain. They are all attempts though and they have all failed to find the truth. Which is understandable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    But your concept is not universal, for example the Greek concept of god is a bunch of capricious toddlers given power without being instructed on how to use it morally, while the Jewish concept of god is a convenient excuse to go out and butcher your neighbours (because they don't follow your religion, a war reason the Greeks never used) and a way differentiate yourself from them, and is a far different religious concept to Confuscianism which is a non-theistic religion more interested in the best way to run your life on this world and be a productive part of society.

    And as you can see from my three examples, consistency within religion is non-existent.

    I'm not sure I would band Confucianism or Taoism in with what I would label as religion, and I'm sure there are others. They are more a way of dealing with self and nature in my admittedly fairly ignorant eyes. However, the act of worship is the key for me. What makes people worship?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Or maybe we have all manner of failed attempts to explain something that we cannot explain. They are all attempts though and they have all failed to find the truth. Which is understandable.
    So if they are all different and all failed attempts, why assume they have any actual validity at all?

    Plenty of cultures all believed that the Earth arose from the sea somehow or arose from the bodies of dead gods. There is far more consistency between these legends than between the gods in them.
    Does this mean that people had an innate knowledge of how the world was formed, especially since we know these legends had no baring on reality?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    King Mob wrote: »
    So if they are all different and all failed attempts, why assume they have any actual validity at all?

    Plenty of cultures all believed that the Earth arose from the sea somehow or arose from the bodies of dead gods. There is far more consistency between these legends than between the gods in them.
    Does this mean that people had an innate knowledge of how the world was formed, especially since we know these legends had no baring on reality?

    I think our curiosity has us try to explain lots of things. Everything really.

    But why the need to explain something above us? You or I might not have the same feeling or the need to explain it but we are massively outnumbered.

    I'm looking logically at the evidence around me. People tend towards deities on a global scale, and have done all throughout history. Although we lack a method to prove or disprove it yet, the evidence certainly suggests at least that there is some unknown force behind this.

    It is there for a reason and the reason is what I'm interested in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,314 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    So how could evolution get God so consistently wrong?
    My god has the hammer, yours was nailed to a cross :pac: The god of war would be good motivation to fight, but many have twisted the "peaceful" forgiving christian god as a reason to goto war, so it may be more true that their god is the devil in sheep clothing?

    Religion is/was often used to explain what people didn't understand, by some to calm their people, by others to rule theirs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Perhaps some other lifeform somewhere in the universe has evolved to some wishy washy energy stat .

    Getting back to the op fitz0, do you think that one of the lifeforms the YOU acknowledge may exist could perhaps, unbound by the physical limits of our universe, could come to earth an observe our lives? And in some way be not disimilar to a guardian angel?

    Oh and by the way if you youself agree that their may be non physical life out there, it wouldnt be that much of a stretch to think that human conscience could exist beyond the physical.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    the_syco wrote: »
    My god has the hammer, yours was nailed to a cross :pac: The god of war would be good motivation to fight, but many have twisted the "peaceful" forgiving christian god as a reason to goto war, so it may be more true that their god is the devil in sheep clothing?

    Religion is/was often used to explain what people didn't understand, by some to calm their people, by others to rule theirs.

    Exactly. But why should something so bonkers actually work? It's appealing to an incomprehension so specific, the idea we are secondary to a superior entity or entities.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    I'm not sure I would band Confucianism or Taoism in with what I would label as religion, and I'm sure there are others. They are more a way of dealing with self and nature in my admittedly fairly ignorant eyes.

    But if you preclude Confuscianism and Taoism from being religion, then you refute your own point about the universality of religion. And from there the rest of your argument falls apart.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    Getting back to the op kingmob, do you think that one of the lifeforms the YOU acknowledge may exist could perhaps, unbound by the physical limits of our universe, could come to earth an observe our lives? And in some way be not disimilar to a guardian angel?

    Oh and by the way if you youself agree that their may be non physical life out there, it wouldnt be that much of a stretch to think that human conscience could exist beyond the physical.

    I think that it's maybe possible that a higher consciousness could consist of multiple lower entities, maybe akin to a multi-celled organism or even a trade union! (The latter has a higher individual complexity but could be termed a symbiotic single consciousness to a very, very tiny degree, and even then the level of individual complexity is debatable!)

    But as far as guardian angels are concerned, I think it's a serious long shot! :D

    It's probably another failed attempt to explain what we cannot explain, but it is not inconceivable that some interest is being paid to us by something more evolved than us.

    A human might own an ant farm, but I doubt the human is overly concerned with communicating with or becoming involved with the ants at their intellectual level, more interested maybe in observing. That and the human is very much limited itself and cannot alter itself sufficiently to participate at the same level as the ants.

    All speculation of course but that is the point. All we can do is speculate, never fully know.

    At least not yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    But if you preclude Confuscianism and Taoism from being religion, then you refute your own point about the universality of religion. And from there the rest of your argument falls apart.

    So you are saying that because the above are outside of some scale that people have conceived to classify religion, the overwhelming evidence of the tendency to worship is unreliable?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I think our curiosity has us try to explain lots of things. Everything really.

    But why the need to explain something above us? You or I might not have the same feeling or the need to explain it but we are massively outnumbered.

    I'm looking logically at the evidence around me. People tend towards deities on a global scale, and have done all throughout history. Although we lack a method to prove or disprove it yet, the evidence certainly suggests at least that there is some unknown force behind this.

    It is there for a reason and the reason is what I'm interested in.
    So why are you rejecting other possible reasons that aren't supernatural ?

    You've already offered explanations yourself for why people tend to belief in deities without those deities actually existing, put don't seem to be considering them at all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Getting back to the op fitz0, do you think that one of the lifeforms the YOU acknowledge may exist could perhaps, unbound by the physical limits of our universe, could come to earth an observe our lives? And in some way be not disimilar to a guardian angel?

    Oh and by the way if you youself agree that their may be non physical life out there, it wouldnt be that much of a stretch to think that human conscience could exist beyond the physical.

    Well it's certainly possible that if some lifeform could become pure energy, capable of travelling the vacuum of space ands still be capable of observing anything that it could come all the way to earth to observe a single member of a species that bears no relation to it. Doesn't seem likely in the slightest though. Seems quite ridiculous to be honest. To posit that this being then guards said member of an alien species only heightens the ridiculousness of it.

    I think it would be a stretch to then apply this far out idea to humanity. Like I said, all the evidence that I've seen points to us being confined to a meaty prison, with no evidence to support existence outside of it. Taking the purely hypothetical alien that's evolved or technologically changed into energy (a thoroughly science fantasy concept) that in no way has any basis in observable fact and so cannot be applied to us, real people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    So you are saying that because the above are outside of some scale that people have conceived to classify religion, the overwhelming evidence of the tendency to worship is unreliable?

    No what I am saying is that at one point you are saying that "religion, religious worship and god is universal, and all concepts of each are essentially the same", and turning around when I point out that religions are different, to say that "some religions are not really religions".

    You can see how your second point defeats your first. If you acknowledge that religion is not a universal (nor near-universal if you want to quibble), then you have to acknowledge that your conlcusion that "if everybody is born religious there must be something in it" is not supported by sufficient evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    King Mob wrote: »
    So why are you rejecting other possible reasons that aren't supernatural ?

    You've already offered explanations yourself for why people tend to belief in deities without those deities actually existing, put don't seem to be considering them at all.

    No, I don't reject any notions at all. I'm saying that we cannot know and that based on the only evidence we can understand, it would seem logical that there is something making us believe we are secondary as a species.

    And no deities exist for my mind. At least none that have been correctly identified. However, to assume that we are the highest, most evolved species in the universe and that we know enough to reason that there is no species above us, or even with us right now, is akin to saying that the world is flat before ever sailing out there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No, I don't reject any notions at all. I'm saying that we cannot know and that based on the only evidence we can understand, it would seem logical that there is something making us believe we are secondary as a species.
    And again you've already suggested some ideas for this thing that aren't supernatural.
    1) Society tends towards religion as there is a vested interest it that.
    2) It's evolutionarily advantageous for a group of people to be religious.
    And no deities exist for my mind. At least none that have been correctly identified. However, to assume that we are the highest, most evolved species in the universe and that we know enough to reason that there is no species above us, or even with us right now, is akin to saying that the world is flat before ever sailing out there.
    Who's arguing this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭The Clown Man


    No what I am saying is that at one point you are saying that "religion, religious worship and god is universal, and all concepts of each are essentially the same", and turning around when I point out that religions are different, to say that "some religions are not really religions".

    You can see how your second point defeats your first. If you acknowledge that religion is not a universal (nor near-universal if you want to quibble), then you have to acknowledge that your conlcusion that "if everybody is born religious there must be something in it" is not supported by sufficient evidence.

    Nope, I said that there seems to be a predisposition in human nature that something else resides above us, and that this is not evident in everyone but evident enough to have religion at al become such a powerful mechanism for control.

    People are not born religious, but are born with some sort of spiritual awareness. How religion caters for this awareness is up to that religion, after all it's only an exercise in exploiting this awareness usually for the purpose of control. And not everyone is going to be spiritual but the vast majority are, and there is no refuting that fact.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,197 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    People are not born religious, but are born with some sort of spiritual awareness.

    People are born with some sort of spiritual awareness? They're not even born self aware.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    TLDR: Read the fking thing before posting. TYVM. :)

    I will see your TLDR and raise you the current explanation for why humans developed religions. :)

    Ok, so humans as I'm sure you know evolved to be largely social animals. We group together in things like tribes and families and other types of units.

    It is not surprising therefore that social interaction takes up a large percentage of our brain power, we have evolved brains that are good (relatively speaking) at processing and modelling social interaction. This ranges from the basic I can tell you are a person by how you look, to the more subtle such as believing you are angry with my because of the current configuration of your face muscles.

    In order to be able to do this relatively efficiently and quickly the human brain has developed a number of assumptions, sort of mental short cuts. A classified example of this is pattern matching in face recognition. Another is assuming that something moving is an animal. We do all these things because even though we may make mistakes it is still correct enough of the time, and more importantly correct at the crucial time, that it is more efficient that attempting to model the entire world in accurate terms. To put it another way, even if you run away from the grass because its movements are interpreted by your brain as those of a predator but it turns out it is just the win, you don't lose all that much bar some mild embarrassment. If on the other than it actually was a predator and you instead start mentally modelling all the interactions of the grass and working out what the pattern in the grass was the lion would have eaten you long before your brain got to "Oh, its a lion, run away"

    It is likely that this trait is found in a lot of animals (which is why you can get your cat to play with a ball of string simply by moving it a particular way), but in humans this is taken a step further by evolution by applying these short cuts in an interesting way to our social interactions.

    Unlike a lot of animals (and new born babies, this skill seems to develop after birth) we have developed similar mental short cuts in order to think about and consider the actions of other humans who are not currently in front of us. So when you have a fight with your girlfriend and she storms out of the room, you can continue to think about her, continue to consider and model how you think she is feeling, what you think she is doing, where she has gone etc after she is no long in front of you stimulating your visual cortex. This may seem obvious, you were thinking about her when she was there are you simply continued to think about her after she left, but it is a mental trait that humans had to develop and one we suspect few if any other animals possess (at least our levels).

    Part of the way you do this is by forming a mental model of your girlfriend's mind that is separate to her physical body. When she is in front of you you are visually processing all her movements and spacial position of her body, what she is physically doing and wearing and how she is moving etc. To continue with this physical model of your girlfriend after she has gone would be an incredible waste of energy. You might care if she is still upset, but you don't really need to know at what position her left leg is. Incorporating all of that into your mental model of "my girlfriend" would involve a lot of irrelevant mental processing. So your mind doesn't, it thinks of your girlfriend when she is not there as an abstract mind. Sure you rationally know she has a body, but these are mental short cuts, not actual detailed models, in the same way you know the face on Mars isn't really a face but you still "see" a face.

    So how does this get to religion? To sum up humans have this big brain that is largely devoted to social interactions, and we have developed all these short cuts that work pretty well in allowing us to focus on the important bits of human interaction and survival but do less well at accurately modeling reality (unless your girlfriend actually is a floating mind). So what happens when we turn our attention to the none human aspects of the world around us?

    Well if we had super mega awesome brains that we unlimited in size and had unlimited energy we may have developed brains that were also very good at modeling natural interactions between non-intelligent non-alive systems such as rain particles or rivers or forest fires. But despite how awesome our brains are they aren't that awesome. We instead co-opt the skill set of our brains developed largely for human social interaction and apply those to the natural world around us.

    And this works ok. Just ok. Not super well. We a damn bursts and water is flowing down hill you can sort of work out that the water will follow this path, go around that hill and then slam into your house. You do that though by sort of thinking of the water as an animal coming to attack you. You assign it a mind with motivation and purpose. You do that because evolutionary this is easier than having a whole set of brain devoted to working out interactions with humans who have minds, motivations and purpose and a whole other set of brain for fluid dynamics.

    So while you are racing back to your mud house to try and save your precious collection of Sabre Tooth Tiger skins, you are also, instinctively, trying to figure out why does the water want to destroy your house (I bolded that because really it is what religion ultimately is)? This is natural because if you were racing back to your house because Grok the local warlord was on his way to destroy your house you would be thinking the same thing, why does he want to destroy my house and what can I do to reason with him to prevent him doing it. You think the same thing about the water because you are using the same brain that largely can only think in the context of Grok the Warlord, and not in the context of millions of particles of H2O interacting based on the rules of fluid dynamics. And from an evolutionary point of view this is good enough, because even if you mistakenly believe the water has agency and purpose and motivation, you are still racing home to save your house.

    So the first stage to religion is that humans developed a notion that in nature there exists minds, human like minds, that motivate and cause natural actions to take place. Initially it was the thing itself, the water had a mind, the earthquake was angry etc. But even this is too much mental energy, so humans abstracted this out to give nature as the physical extension of these minds.

    And these minds that we instinctively assign to nature are where gods come from.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Well it's certainly possible that if some lifeform could become pure energy, capable of travelling the vacuum of space ands still be capable of observing anything that it could come all the way to earth to observe a single member of a species that bears no relation to it. Doesn't seem likely in the slightest though. Seems quite ridiculous to be honest. To posit that this being then guards said member of an alien species only heightens the ridiculousness of it.

    I think it would be a stretch to then apply this far out idea to humanity. Like I said, all the evidence that I've seen points to us being confined to a meaty prison, with no evidence to support existence outside of it. Taking the purely hypothetical alien that's evolved or technologically changed into energy (a thoroughly science fantasy concept) that in no way has any basis in observable fact and so cannot be applied to us, real people.

    I agree, it does sound ridiculous. I'm glad you agree though that it is in theory, possible. Remember that throughout history, many many things that seemd rediculuous are now part of every day life. Tell a caveman that someday we could talk to our far away friends with a phone or that we could travel through the sky's in a mechanical bird and he would probably laugh at you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I agree, it does sound ridiculous. I'm glad you agree though that it is in theory, possible. Remember that throughout history, many many things that seemd rediculuous are now part of every day life. Tell a caveman that someday we could talk to our far away friends with a phone or that we could travel through the sky's in a mechanical bird and he would probably laugh at you.

    Isn't everything, in theory, possible? Says little to nothing about whether it actually is possible, and even less if it actually happened.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I'm gonna quote myself from a post last year where I summarise my position on why we have a tendency to believe in God:
    Zillah wrote: »
    I think it is a confluence of a number of features that people have touched on:

    - Over-active agency seeking: Evolutionarily speaking it is a much safer bet to assume agency where there is none rather than vice versa. Assuming a tiger is in the bushes when there is none: You look silly. Assuming a tiger is not in the bushes when there is one: Eaten. Extrapolate these features to the big picture and the brain intuits the presence of someone behind it all.

    - Social bonding and the preservation of culture: The tribe with a religion - rituals, songs, dances, shared myths and principles, social structure - has a big advantage over the one that doesn't.

    - Authority-oriented thinking: We intuitively analyse social status amongst ourselves, whether that is to boss people around or being happy being led, or switching around depending on circumstances, we tend to assume someone is at the top...but your Dad or the priest isn't quite as high as one can go, is it?

    - Existential angst: One side-effect of self-awareness and abstract thinking is the realisation of mortality and purposeless. We don't like this and our bias towards positive thinking leads to assuming that we're not mortal and that we have a purpose.

    - Memetics: Thoughts and ideas fight with each other for prominence and survival in society. Some are better at it than others, and the ones that learn to stick around tend to stick around for a very long time, and have a number of ingenious adaptive and defensive features that keep them going.

    - Pareidolia: The brain seeks out patterns, and can be over-active doing it. This relates a lot to agency seeking. Better to assume the presence of a non-existent feature, plan or pattern than to miss one that does exist.

    That's it in a nutshell. It's a big gooey, irrational, hypocritical mess of all of those things. Most people tend to focus on one or two of them, but I think they all play a role. I suppose morality is a factor too, but the way religion handles morality I would say that it is simply a feature of their approach to authority.

    So basically here is where I disagree with you: There are better reasons for our disposition towards belief in God than those beliefs being true. We skeptics are, phenotypically speaking, a minority. That doesn't mean we're on the way out. It could mean that we're on the way in :). We have less and less need for superstition these days - what type of brain will thrive in our increasingly dehumanised, ultra-large, ultra-fast civilisation of the coming centuries only God knows.

    Heh.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Zombrex wrote: »
    We instead co-opt the skill set of our brains developed largely for human social interaction and apply those to the natural world around us.

    And this works ok. Just ok. Not super well. We a damn bursts and water is flowing down hill you can sort of work out that the water will follow this path, go around that hill and then slam into your house. You do that though by sort of thinking of the water as an animal coming to attack you. You assign it a mind with motivation and purpose. You do that because evolutionary this is easier than having a whole set of brain devoted to working out interactions with humans who have minds, motivations and purpose and a whole other set of brain for fluid dynamics.

    This is very interesting, and ties in very well with evolution's habit of co-opting one system for another use entirely - but is it conjecture or do you have some sort of citation? This is a rather specific claim about brain functions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    The ease of accessing information and the internet is the selective pressure here these days, so my money's on a brain that thinks entirely in terms of pictures of cats and breasts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Sarky wrote: »
    The ease of accessing information and the internet is the selective pressure here these days, so my money's on a brain that thinks entirely in terms of pictures of cats and breasts.

    And animated gifs!

    More seriously though: People are more and more offloading their memory to technology. If the internet-age survives long enough we're going to see a shift towards the implicit assumption that recording a lot of information in the brain is no longer necessary, and will likely start to turn into a "reference" format, where we remember that a thing exists or happened but need to look up the specifics. We could hold many times more of these references in our brains than we can full memories.

    Pure conjecture, obviously, but I can see even for myself how my thinking is influenced by having gmail have a permanent record of communications and google/wikipedia having the knowledge of the human race searchable in an instant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    When such information is so quickly accessible, will the difference between the brain as a store of knowledge and the brain as a store of references for knowledge really be all that significant? I'm a microbiologist, and I know a few things about bacteria, but I can look up almost everything there is to know on, say, quantum physics with a few button pushes. I'm not an expert on quantum physics, but say in the future when you can access the information faster than the hours it would take to read it all, will the concept of expertise still exist?

    There's still a big difference in having information and knowing how to apply it, of course. Maybe that'll be the bottleneck that cripples my above pseudo-prediction?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Zillah wrote: »
    This is very interesting, and ties in very well with evolution's habit of co-opting one system for another use entirely - but is it conjecture or do you have some sort of citation? This is a rather specific claim about brain functions.

    Don't have the papers if that what you mean, I get most of my stuff from popular science works. New Scientist has had a number of articles about this stuff, as have Scientific American (which I think is much better than New Scientist)

    Most of the work comes, afaik, from experiments where psychologists put people into states of feeling out of control or confused and then watch as they mentally try and regain a mental model of what is happening to them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Sarky wrote: »
    When such information is so quickly accessible, will the difference between the brain as a store of knowledge and the brain as a store of references for knowledge really be all that significant? I'm a microbiologist, and I know a few things about bacteria, but I can look up almost everything there is to know on, say, quantum physics with a few button pushes. I'm not an expert on quantum physics, but say in the future when you can access the information faster than the hours it would take to read it all, will the concept of expertise still exist?

    There's still a big difference in having information and knowing how to apply it, of course. Maybe that'll be the bottleneck that cripples my above pseudo-prediction?

    I've often wondered if the notion of expertise will vanish eventually. If every human being is granted instant and intuitive access to the sum total of human knowledge, will it just be normal for them that every single person is a medical doctor, an architect, an engineer and a lawyer all at the same time? I'd imagine the forces that come into play would be the (likely modified!) brain's ability to index and integrate this knowledge rather than its ability to acquire it. Obviously this is already a factor in third level education: A student's ability to make an argument and demonstrate broad, theory-level understanding is more important than memorisation. I think we'll go more in that direction, massively so.

    What a great derail :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Isn't everything, in theory, possible? Says little to nothing about whether it actually is possible, and even less if it actually happened.

    Agreed, so it would be a bit stupid to completely write something off with no evidence to the contrary.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement