Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. He was convinced by the evidence (argued by Behe for I/C) that a god must have been required for life. He had no time for religion or even an intervening god. he simply accepted that there was a compelling case for a god for the appearance of life.
My point was Flew was once a notable atheists [no God] and he 'converted' to a theist [believe in God], albeit an Aristotelian God. He was no more an atheist but rather became a theist.
He asserted that is 'where the evidence lead.'
My other point is the basis 'where the evidence lead' is controversial.
This is why we need a Critical Philosophical Framework and System to ensure 'where the evidence lead' has no holes that allow leakages.
Last edited by Continuum; 09-13-2015 at 08:04 PM..
You write as though all you present is well established rather than your take on unexplained phenomena.
Even if there is some gene responsible for the tendency toward religious belief, it would not be a gene with that specific mission, would it? I mean genes are unaware of theological questions, aren't they?
It would have to be a gene disposing people toward some general mindset, which manifested itself in religious belief. In such a case that same gene could have manifest itself in some other form of behavior...hyper patriotism, racial prejudice, intolerance of change.....the specifics aren't really nailed down here, are they?
You missed out that 500 pounds gorilla. Note I wrote therein;
The ED drives are generic to all humans. Those who are not of the majority of theists and religionists and those who are not able to modulate the ED will end up with various secular methods to deal with it, e.g. escapism with drugs [all sorts], pain killers, tranquilizers, uppers, downers, etc. and whatever it take to suppress the ED drive.
The genes that lead to the ED [existential dilemma] and subsequently to religious/theistic beliefs is not specific only.
However the religious/theistic solution or balms is the most effective to deal with the angsts of the ED.
This ED can culminate in a certain set of negatives but not all types of negatives, e.g. racial prejudice or racism. Racism arise from the tribalism streak attributable to a different set of genes. The other different set of negatives [besides positives] are hunger, sex, general survival, etc.
The ED that drive the religious/theistic set, the drugs, escapism, etc, belong to a specific set.
Last edited by Continuum; 09-13-2015 at 08:02 PM..
Correct. The 'God -gene' (manifested in what C.S . Lewis called the "God -shaped bottle") is (so I am strongly inclined to think) an evolved survival mechanism that manifests in all human communities and I am pretty sure that Continuum did not intend to suggest that it was divinely aimed at getting one religious message over. The fact that it fails to have done so in such a spectacular way is really the best argument for why it is an innate instinctive trait (and I argue that, if we have it, we have evolved it and if so, it must have a survival advantage) and argues against a god doing anything. And a god that does not do anything is as good a reason suppose it isn't there, as anything else, and is my major reason (over the problem of evil - which is actually part of that logical package) to be pretty convinced that no gods exist.
Still not 100% though
You are right. As in my post, I was not talking of any specific God or religious/theistic gene.
I stated my CPFS comprises 100s if not a 1000+ of interlocking elements which is necessary to support that 100% [subject to the Principle of Rationality].
This 'DNA basis' is merely one element and you will note I have already introduced other elements. Still hundreds to go to set up that 100% net.
What is essential is we need to exhaust all related knowledge and controversies surround this one element raised herewith to ensure this piece of the 'puzzle' is fool proof.
My point was Flew was once a notable atheists [no God] and he 'converted' to a theist [believe in God], albeit an Aristotelian God. He was no more an atheist but rather became a theist.
He asserted that is 'where the evidence lead.'
My other point is the basis 'where the evidence lead' is controversial.
This is why we need a Critical Philosophical Framework and System to ensure 'where the evidence lead' has no holes that allow leakages.
That would be nice, but it is the problem with the Holmes dictum 'When you have eliminated the impossible..' It is never possible to eliminate all possible possibles. There are always going to be unexplained questions. The best we can do is ensure that the system we use for evaluating data avoids our being misled by checking and posing objections all the time, but the best we can do is get the best explanation that fits the facts. Where we are sure we have all the relevant facts, we can be pretty sure - as in personal gods. But even that is not totally certain. In the case of cosmic creators that leave no trace, if we can get better than 'disbelief until the evidence points one way' we are doing darn well.
Of course you may have a philosophical method that eliminates a lot of holes in the net and that would be very welcome, but I doubt that it can eliminate all of them on all kinds of god -claims.
As to Flew, I think he didn't ask for a second opinion from other biologists, but, as I recall, though I had my doubts at the time, there was no counter -argument to I/C at that time. I think he took an honest step of following the evidence, but it was premature and turned out to be a trail of breadcrumbs to the Bible. To the chagrin of the creationists..and that is what I/D is all about, in the end...he didn't go further than deism. But that was perhaps a step further than he should have taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
You are right. As in my post, I was not talking of any specific God or religious/theistic gene.
I stated my CPFS comprises 100s if not a 1000+ of interlocking elements which is necessary to support that 100% [subject to the Principle of Rationality].
This 'DNA basis' is merely one element and you will note I have already introduced other elements. Still hundreds to go to set up that 100% net.
What is essential is we need to exhaust all related knowledge and controversies surround this one element raised herewith to ensure this piece of the 'puzzle' is fool proof.
That sounds a staggeringly large job, but in the super computer age it might be possible to integrate every scrap of information we have. If we don't blow their mechanical minds, we may indeed be able to get exhaustive knowledge and eliminate a lot of false claims and leads. But I can just hear the God -fanciers protesting that this is all based on limited human understanding and god is beyond all that.
In which case, we are back where we are saying: "Then any god who claims to be just cannot blame us for not believing what has insufficient evidence for belief." Punishing us for relying on the brains we were given instead of faith - which has been demonstrated repeatedly to be a very poor way of getting at the facts - is perhaps the nearest to a logical contradictory god: one who is suppose to be good and just and yet gives us a bum deal (1). Still not 100% but that god does not exist, or I am as sure of it as I am that santa does not. can't be 100% about that, either.
(1) I have a grudging respect for those who bite the bullet and say that God can do what he likes whether it is 'good' (to our way of thinking) or not. But making God a cosmic thug who demands love Or Else is a real turn -off.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-13-2015 at 08:59 PM..
That sounds a staggeringly large job, but in the super computer age it might be possible to integrate every scrap of information we have. If we don't blow their mechanical minds, we may indeed be able to get exhaustive knowledge and eliminate a lot of false claims and leads. But I can just hear the God -fanciers protesting that this is all based on limited human understanding and god is beyond all that.
In which case, we are back where we are saying: "Then any god who claims to be just cannot blame us for not believing what has insufficient evidence for belief." Punishing us for relying on the brains we were given instead of faith - which has been demonstrated repeatedly to be a very poor way of getting at the facts - is perhaps the nearest to a logical contradictory god: one who is suppose to be good and just and yet gives us a bum deal (1). Still not 100% but that god does not exist, or I am as sure of it as I am that santa does not. can't be 100% about that, either.
(1) I have a grudging respect for those who bite the bullet and say that God can do what he likes whether it is 'good' (to our way of thinking) or not. But making God a cosmic thug who demands love Or Else is a real turn -off.
That is really are staggering large job which can be handled more easier if we present the problem in a flowchart method.
I present by main and sub-elements in flowcharts like the one [example format] below.
I print them in A4. When I connect the relevant flowcharts [up to 50] even for a sub-section it will take a room.
The problem I faced is in a forum like this the most we can discuss is one minor subsection of the master and many made a meal out of it [out of natural dogmatism, skepticism, etc.] as they cannot [unfortunately] see the full picture.
The checkmate is, whatever the theist claim as 100% in anyway we create a sub-flowchart for them and argued it just does not fit or their conclusion lead to a dead end within the Master Flowchart.
You missed out that 500 pounds gorilla. Note I wrote therein;
[indent]The ED drives are generic to all humans. Those who are not of the majority of theists and religionists and those who are not able to modulate the ED will end up with various secular methods to deal with it, e.g. escapism with drugs [all sorts], pain killers, tranquilizers, uppers, downers, etc. and whatever it take to suppress the ED drive.
[.
Your 500 pound gorilla allows for only two possible responses to the theoretical religion gene? Religion or drug addiction?
Further, for all we actually know, the true dynamic may be an atheist gene in operation, one which suppresses impulses to embrace superstitious explanations, but is present in only 10 percent of the population. Those without this gene fall prey to spiritualistic bunk.
Further, for all we actually know, the true dynamic may be an atheist gene in operation, one which suppresses impulses to embrace superstitious explanations, but is present in only 10 percent of the population. Those without this gene fall prey to spiritualistic bunk.
I believe the ED is inherent in all humans DNA wise and drive the 90% towards religiosity and theism.
For a start, there could be a 10 percentile of atheist but they do not arise of any inherent specific atheistic gene but rather due to various reasons [perhaps RNA wise], e.g.
1. stronger evolved neural circuits that are able to inhibit the ED away from the religious and theistic directions on a optimal cost-benefit basis.
2. Brain damage
3. Other psychological drives
4. Nurturing factors
5. Many other reasons.
For example the normal working machinery of the senses are inherent in all humans. But due to cross wirings that happened during neural development we have synaethesia. E.g. tasting music, hearing colors or other combination.
In general to facilitate survival of the individuals, there are a 10 percentile of high risk taker who do have any fears of death [inactive amydala -certain parts of it] like the others.
But I believe, whilst we have an inherent unavoidable DNA toward religiosity/theism, evolutionary wise, humans in general are progressing away from religiosity/theism just like humanity are moving away from slavery, racism and other negativities. This is via the developments in the RNA and neural inhibitors and modulators like [analogically] the Three Gorges Dam taming the inherent Yangtze River.
I believe the ED is inherent in all humans DNA wise and drive the 90% towards religiosity and theism.
For a start, there could be a 10 percentile of atheist but they do not arise of any inherent specific atheistic gene but rather due to various reasons [perhaps RNA wise], e.g.
1. stronger evolved neural circuits that are able to inhibit the ED away from the religious and theistic directions on a optimal cost-benefit basis.
2. Brain damage
3. Other psychological drives
4. Nurturing factors
5. Many other reasons.
For example the normal working machinery of the senses are inherent in all humans. But due to cross wirings that happened during neural development we have synaethesia. E.g. tasting music, hearing colors or other combination.
In general to facilitate survival of the individuals, there are a 10 percentile of high risk taker who do have any fears of death [inactive amydala -certain parts of it] like the others.
But I believe, whilst we have an inherent unavoidable DNA toward religiosity/theism, evolutionary wise, humans in general are progressing away from religiosity/theism just like humanity are moving away from slavery, racism and other negativities. This is via the developments in the RNA and neural inhibitors and modulators like [analogically] the Three Gorges Dam taming the inherent Yangtze River.
Humans have a pretty close match with monkey DNA.
So "religious evolution" among humans is making them godless - and eventually we become monkeys since monkeys don't have a religion either, or do they?
That is really are staggering large job which can be handled more easier if we present the problem in a flowchart method.
I present by main and sub-elements in flowcharts like the one [example format] below.
I print them in A4. When I connect the relevant flowcharts [up to 50] even for a sub-section it will take a room.
The problem I faced is in a forum like this the most we can discuss is one minor subsection of the master and many made a meal out of it [out of natural dogmatism, skepticism, etc.] as they cannot [unfortunately] see the full picture.
The checkmate is, whatever the theist claim as 100% in anyway we create a sub-flowchart for them and argued it just does not fit or their conclusion lead to a dead end within the Master Flowchart.
Very nice. But that is related to the management pf personal resources. What flowchart could we devise to address the problem of the God -claim?......
And even as I say it, I can see the idea clear. If indeed there are not god -claim feasibility flowcharts already. We certainly wouldn't need a global computer system, processing every scrap of data in search of a specific set of answers, but again I think theists would simply define God as something beyond and outside anything mentioned in such flowcharts.
Mind, doing so would probably discredit them pretty much, in the eyes of anyone who wants some serious arguments to go on and would only appeal to those already God believers who want a way of ignoring all doubts and questions.
So "religious evolution" among humans is making them godless - and eventually we become monkeys since monkeys don't have a religion either, or do they?
They - or chimps - certainly seem to have the social instincts that we have tended to think of as distinctively human and even God -given. The startle and flight at the unexplained noise or sudden movement is common to a lot of species.
But human problem solving (which is an instinctive ability found in other higher animals) is of such a high order (and I can sympathize with those who argue that it can only be God -given) that we can look at stars and plants and mountains and ask questions about them.
The innate tendency to come up with any answer rather than none (which is incidentally handy for the authority - figures in impressing their subjects) is of course couched in terms of the world they understand, but - of course, bigger, more powerful, invisible, if necessary and leaving no evidence other than a story (1) a rock shaped like a hog's butt or a group of stars that looks like a codpiece.
(1) which can be put down to inspiration or a dream if anyone asks how the freak they know all this and 'It's a traditional ancient story, so it must be true' won't do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
