In defense of theism (bible, Israel, Christianity, God)

[LargeKingCat]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I keep seeing this general concept of asking either why prayer was beneficial or a statement asking how it became a part of most societies. I think we have to keep in mind that prayer, religion, belief in deities, etc... should be thought of as more than singular objects. In other words, there are a lot of phrases to suggest that man consciously created prayer and religion at some point. As though there were some person, many centuries ago, who thought to himself "I'm going to make up a story about this man in the sky and it will explain a bunch of things. That will better help me to control society."

This is really no less absurd than to suggest that a genetic trait was consciously and physically implanted at some point. People make the mistake of looking at prayer, religion, etc... as being these semi-formed or wholly formed characteristic traits of the human race as if one day it wasn't there and the next day it was.

Ideas, general concepts, knowledge, and all of the things we perceive in the world rarely, if ever, come fully formed. Ideas, in my opinion, should be thought of as emergent characteristics that must undergo a certain form of natural selection. Just as a trait does not suddenly "appear" in nature, ideas do not either. It is a matter of simple population dynamics and the propagation of an idea, as well as the "fossil record" of human thoughts and ideas that can give the impression of sudden emergence.

When scientists talk about the "Pre-Cambrian Era" in evolution or geology, they often refer to an era where there was a sudden population explosion of numerous different creatures of all sorts, sizes and shapes. Obviously, for anyone who knows what they're talking about, this is very easily explainable by a lapse in certain elements of the fossil record. No one expects that overnight, millions of different species just "emerged." Similarly, when we look at our human past, we could take a fairly liberal analogy of the Pre-Cambrian Era and compare it as similar to the emergence of societies, agriculture, and farming. That is, to say, humans existed on this planet for roughly 200,000 years before the emergence of agriculture. We were here. We were there. We were everywhere. But we weren't in extremely large, centrally located numbers until about 6,000 years ago. In a sense, just like the Pre-Cambrian fossil record, it's as though we suddenly "appeared." In reality, we didn't really just "appear" but we began to work together as communal beings to better propagate our survival.

But, along with this convergence of humans came a need to answer questions. "We need it to rain. Why won't it rain? WHAT ARE WE DOING WRONG?" It is entirely human, as a result of our sense of self, to expect that we as individuals MUST have some effect on the outcome of things beyond our control. Slowly, very slowly, and all across the world (just as isolated populations of species diverge) answers became available. I once wrote a story about a man several thousand years ago who was on a hunting expedition in the midst of a severe drought. Just as they were all about to die from starvation, the man urinated on the rock. In thirty minutes, there was a deluge of water pouring from the sky. Over time, the rock became sacred and only the locally appointed witch doctor could perform the ritual of urinating on the rock. It was a sarcasm of the human condition but the convergence of ideas makes sense. The rock is a part of the Earth and the urine could resemble water. The urine splashing on the rock could be subconsciously interpreted as rain. The coincidental rainfall thirty minutes later assembled these things together in a spark of "I must have done that by urinating on this particular rock."

I don't believe it is ridiculous, absurd, or even remotely impossible that the majority of religious behavior started out in such innocent and uncanny ways that happened almost purely by chance. For instance, the Mayans used to drown teenagers in wells to "make it rain." Simple creative thought can possibly lead to a viable explanation as to how this "trait" emerged in that society. There was probably a drought. A teenager probably fell in a well and drowned. And there was probably rain that saved the crops shortly thereafter. The connection is obvious. "Drown a teenager in a well. Make it rain." The further connection becomes even more obvious: "Something must want me to drown the teenager in the well. My input must make something 'happy' so as to make it rain."

But the trait itself must be propagated through many minds and not just one. Most traits tend to emerge slowly throughout a population but steadily rise in number until any future emergent populations have "taken" that trait to themselves. Thus, a large number of people who witness the drowning of a teenager only to have it rain later might very easily propagate a species of ideas.

Though some of these examples are extreme, it should be noted that most primitive cultures had rather harsh rituals. From the Jews of the Old Testament to the African cultures and on to the Eastern Asian philosophies, many of them originally took the form of rather brutal and barbaric ways. But, along with that, came the ability to appoint soothsayers, witch doctors, spiritual elders, and so on and so forth. It became a position of power, a position of knowledge and these people were often seen as those with the most wisdom.

It's not hard to follow the trajectory from there. Essentially, my entire point has been that religion did not emerge overnight. Religion is a byproduct of the human sense of self, our desire to understand the world around us, and a byproduct of a time in our species when we most needed to explain the world around us as a matter of survival. It was our first and our worst explanation of the world around us. It no longer serves a useful purpose except to drive otherwise decent people into the depths of the most horrendous evil.

We as Humans are Driven by a reward system. We can even train animals to follow a pattern and such by rewarding them with a treat . Your point is right on.
I want to add early on the aspect of dreams. As long as humans have had a brain, they have had dreams. Perhaps at times someone dreamed of a friend or companion who had died , maybe trampled by a wooly mammoth during a hunt. This could be taken as a "spirit" as in the "Spirit" of the dead comrade appearing in a dream, hence the primitive and early concept of afterlife, not to mention the appearance of the "Spirit" after ingestion of those little purple mushrooms that were found near the hunting grounds.......
If such activity leads to a sense of permanence in a tempral world, then humans, even primitive ones, with an inate curiosity and as desire for immoratlity, would not have hesitated to persue such endeavors.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Well thank you for the clarification. The title of the thread is potentially misleading as I said.

I see absolutely no advantages of either Theism or Religion to be honest. I see many problems with them however.

And I am sure you realise that if something gives us nothing of use (or at least nothing that can not be just as easily obtained without it) and it does provide even just one solitary bad things.... then it is in negative equity of usefullness and should be dispensed with as soon as possible.

Religion has multiple uses:

• Religion serves as a reminder that we cannot know everything, and the holy crusades and such serve as reminders of such dangers of believing one can know everything.
• Religion serves the same purpose as beer.
• Religion creates diversity. It creates a reminder that just because someone's views are insane, it doesn't mean he or she will act that way.

I don't think it is possible to deny these benefits. We need some religion, not much, but some, as a reminder that insanity is not a bad thing.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Religion has multiple uses:

None that I am aware of, but I will clarify what I mean further by saying that I do not just mean no uses, but no uses that could not be achieved in its absence just as well. If you can solve all your tasks with a hammer and a nail, then there is no point bringing a screw driver with you everywhere too. Especially if that screw driver causes other problems.

Similarly if we can achieve everything we want without religion, then why bring religion anywhere, especially given the problems it also causes.

Originally Posted by Clintone

Religion serves as a reminder that we cannot know everything

Firstly we do not know what the limits of our knowledge are. Neither you nor I can see the future. Secondly we do not need religion to highlight to ourselves our limitations. Thirdly it is religion that often hampers progress in knowledge. Fourthly people in, say, Science openly admit there is much we do not know but that we need to find out but Religion often acts like every question that needs to be asked already is answered.

So this statement is quite, quite false from you I am afraid.

Originally Posted by Clintone

Religion serves the same purpose as beer.

I have no idea what you are talking about here, but firstly I would point out that this just plays to exactly what I keep saying on this forum that if you can achieve the same things without religion that you can with it (which you can) then why have religion at all. Your statement here is showing NOT that religion is in any way useful... but that it is.... as I keep pointing out.... entirely superfluous to requirements.

Originally Posted by Clintone

Religion creates diversity. It creates a reminder that just because someone's views are insane, it doesn't mean he or she will act that way.

Actually it quite often stifles diversity. Nor am I aware of how it creates any... rather it responds to diversity in it's adherents. Look at the fact that Christianity has over 33,000 recognised branches, each of which with varied and sometimes irreconcilable differences between them.

Also the problem is that it often legitimises people acting insane. For example if I started hearing voices tomorrow I would instantly seek medical advice. But there are people in books and on television telling us that they hear the voices of god or angels. This legitimises for people hearing voices those voices in their heads. This can lead many not only to NOT seek medical advice, but to grant the voices in their heads the credence of divine authority and source.

I have heard too often after a murder that "the voices made me do it". I think the blame and blood for those murders lies partly at the feet of those in our society who go around legitimising such things in the heads of the perpetrators.... all to make their own career.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I don't think it is possible to deny these benefits.

Really? I just did. Go look. The first is quite false, the second is nonsensical but just shows religion to be superfluous to requirements and the third is entirely imagined on your part and the opposite is quite true in fact.

I see nothing in what you wrote that even begins to adumbrate an actual advantage for religion. It is just an invalid and pitiful attempt to legitimise insanity and error.

[Clintone]

Similarly if we can achieve everything we want without religion, then why bring religion anywhere, especially given the problems it also causes.

One thing we can't have without religion is belief in a God. Some people evidently want this, as most of the world is religious. This alone makes it worthwile.

Also, religion creates diversity. People do not commonly change religion. When different people have different unchanging traits, that is diversity. A group with one religion means a stifling of diversity.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Clintone

One thing we can't have without religion is belief in a God. Some people evidently want this, as most of the world is religious. This alone makes it worthwile.

Also, religion creates diversity. People do not commonly change religion. When different people have different unchanging traits, that is diversity. A group with one religion means a stifling of diversity.

Yeah right diversity...A fat lot of good that does when each one thinks they have the one and only true path...They quarrel over who is right to the point where people kill each other over who has the better myth.

[Clintone]

I was going to make an argument that, for atheists to gain respect, and for more people to realize lacking a religion is not bad, it would be best to appear as reasonable and open-minded of a group as possible. We should want the religious to argue in defense of their beliefs, in the interest of seeing their points of view. Naturally we should also want to show these points of view as inaccurate, should they be inaccurate, but we should still want to hear about more religious persons' points of view.

However, making blanket statements about religion being bad, I suppose could motivate people. It might be for the better. Sometimes you just need to push forth by any means necessary.

Everybody go do whatever you think is right, in whatever way you think is best to do that. Maybe being quiet and docile, even more docile than atheists already are, is not the best way for people to lose fear of the lack of religion.

I'll always remember Isaac Asimov's story "Robbie." It was about a robot, who naturally would have no soul, who was mistreated due to not being viewed as a living being, though it could think and perhaps even feel. That was when I began understanding that the idea of no afterlife was not a bad thing. Before that story, atheists frankly creeped me out. I was agnostic. I still might be according to some views of the term.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Clintone

I was going to make an argument that, for atheists to gain respect, and for more people to realize lacking a religion is not bad, it would be best to appear as reasonable and open-minded of a group as possible. We should want the religious to argue in defense of their beliefs, in the interest of seeing their points of view. Naturally we should also want to show these points of view as inaccurate, should they be inaccurate, but we should still want to hear about more religious persons' points of view.

Sometimes crazy notions deserve mocking.

However, making blanket statements about religion being bad, I suppose could motivate people. It might be for the better. Sometimes you just need to push forth by any means necessary.

The concept that atheists are simply rebels w/o morals is a perception that needs to change.

Everybody go do whatever you think is right, in whatever way you think is best to do that. Maybe being quiet and docile, even more docile than atheists already are, is not the best way for people to lose fear of the lack of religion.

Why would anyone wish folk to lose their faith? It is more to do with trying to help them see an alternative that is not frightening. I am sure religious and irreligious would be "bestest" of buddies and share a beer w/o compunction if say the supported the same sports team. Only religion has the ability to divide folk.

I'll always remember Isaac Asimov's story "Robbie." It was about a robot, who naturally would have no soul, who was mistreated due to not being viewed as a living being, though it could think and perhaps even feel. That was when I began understanding that the idea of no afterlife was not a bad thing. Before that story, atheists frankly creeped me out. I was agnostic. I still might be according to some views of the term.

Most folk need to believe in an afterlife to make sense of the obvious cruel and nonchalant world we live in. Neither theist nor atheist can really change any of this.

With the advent of non religious non belief growing, it plays into the theist meme in that this is a sign of the great falling away before the end comes. In the end what anyone believes is of no consequence as their beliefs change nothing.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Sometimes crazy notions deserve mocking.
The concept that atheists are simply rebels w/o morals is a perception that needs to change.
Why would anyone wish folk to lose their faith? It is more to do with trying to help them see an alternative that is not frightening. I am sure religious and irreligious would be "bestest" of buddies and share a beer w/o compunction if say the supported the same sports team. Only religion has the ability to divide folk.
Most folk need to believe in an afterlife to make sense of the obvious cruel and nonchalant world we live in. Neither theist nor atheist can really change any of this.
With the advent of non religious non belief growing, it plays into the theist meme in that this is a sign of the great falling away before the end comes. In the end what anyone believes is of no consequence as their beliefs change nothing.

I understand why you conflate theism with religion, Seeker . . . because you have explained your background. But they are NOT the same phenomenon. Specific BELIEFS ABOUT God constitute religions . . . a belief in the EXISTENCE of God constitutes theism. They are separate issues that can be addressed on their own merits or lack thereof. Beliefs about God (right, wrong, insane or . . . whatever) do not and cannot have any impact on the existence of God.

[laysayfair]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I will answer your two things in two different posts as they are both massive areas of discourse and I find it useful to split them.



This question is a LOT easier to answer than you think.

The intentional Stance.

Firstly we have evolved something that has been labeled „The intentional stance“.

What this means is that we naturally impute design and intent into things before anything else.

The evolutionary reasons for this are clear. If a bush rustles for example it is safer to assume something with intent is there… and be wrong… than to assume nothing is there…. And be wrong. The former means you over react but survive. The latter means you under react and get surprise attacked by the lion or leopard etc.

We naturally therefore ask questions “What was that… what is it for… what does it want… what are its intentions” about everything that comes our way. It is no surprise therefore that we do the same about the universe itself.

Internal Representations

We also have evolved the ability to create representations of people or things in our heads and to run internal simulations about how those things think or will act. A sentence like “I wonder if he knows… that I know…. That he knows that I already know the secret” sounds simple enough on paper but actually involves massive computational power on the parts of our brains. Our brains also create a representation of “he” and runs simulations on it to decide conclusions based on different parametres… such as what knowledge “he” might already have or not have.

Such representations can almost be as real to us as the real person themselves. If not more so as any of us know when sneaking home from a party after curfew. The representations of our parents we hold in our brains while we wonder how they are going to react and what punishments they will pile on us are often more real and scary than the reality when we actually arrive home.

In creating such representations of inanimate things we often anthropomorphise. In other words we start thinking some of our representations are real. We act like we can bribe our car into starting (If you start I will get you a full lovely service with the best oil I promise) or that we can appeal to the weather to be good on the day of a planned picnic.

To answer your question another way therefore, people can similarly anthropomorphise the entire universe, and start wondering what it wants or by superstitious over how it is treating us. Where deism and theism comes in is when people think that that anthropomorphized representation of the universe actually exists, and worse can actually be petitioned or appealed to (such as in prayer) to act on our behalf in some way or other. Worse again is when people think they know what it wants and that we all need to act in the “right” way and make the correct propitiations to it. Such ideas then later become compounded with the notions that if you do NOT do things rights… things like hell await you.

Summary

So I think you will find that how people get this idea that invisible beings control everything is actually not just very easy, but has some very firm evolutionary grounding. Thinking in this way is actually quite natural, which is probably what leads people to think there is some kind of “god gene” for belief. Technically there is. Much of our instinctual make up predisposes us to belief in things like that.

Very Good Post. I never really thought that but when I think back to my son's toddler years and his wanting to know what everything was, where it came from and how it got there. Add a child's penchant for using his imagination to fill in the blanks and I think my son, if he had managed to come up on an island alone would have invented a "religion" to fill in the void. I told him the moon was basically a big rock that circled the earth, that it reflected the sun's rays but the story he came up with to explain it was much more magical and imaginative. Kid's make up the most wonderful stories and will try to explain to you the reasoning behind it and why you should believe it. It's almost like kids inherently believe in magic...

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Clintone

One thing we can't have without religion is belief in a God.

False. Firstly: Yes we can. Thats that Deists are. People who think there is a creator entity but they do not assume it to be interventionist, have rules moral or otherwise for the universe, or in some cases it may even be unaware we are there... like humans once were unaware of the existence of bacteria.

Secondly: As I pointed out I am talking about things that are good, and useful, that if you can have them without religion then religion is superfluous to requirements. I see nothing good, useful, accurate OR true about belief in god, therefore I would class this under the "problems" section I was talking about in the line you quoted from me which was: "Similarly if we can achieve everything we want without religion, then why bring religion anywhere, especially given the problems it also causes."

Originally Posted by Clintone

Also, religion creates diversity.

You said this already and I replied. Repeating it a second time does not make it magically more accurate than it was not before. I repeat: Actually it quite often stifles diversity. Nor am I aware of how it creates any... rather it responds to diversity in it's adherents. Look at the fact that Christianity has over 33,000 recognised branches, each of which with varied and sometimes irreconcilable differences between them.

Originally Posted by Clintone

People do not commonly change religion.

ALSO totally false. I am aghast at the number of things you are simply making up now here. Check out the recent PEW polls for example which show the average US citizen changes religion more often than they change cell phone provider. Read:

"Americans change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives. Most people who change their religion leave their childhood faith before age 24, and many of those who change religion do so more than once."

You are entitled to your own opinion here Clint, but you are surely not entitled to your own facts, so pretty please stop making them up. Religion, frankly, stifles diversity by considering anyone not acting correctly in the light of that religion a "sinner" or "apostate" or worse. Religions are very actively trying to stem diversity in all its forms.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I was going to make an argument that, for atheists to gain respect, and for more people to realize lacking a religion is not bad, it would be best to appear as reasonable and open-minded of a group as possible.

Given it is one of the, if not the, fasted growing minorities around the world I do not think they need the advice of you on how to gain respect. Especially given your penchant for simply making up facts to suit you.

Originally Posted by Clintone

However, making blanket statements about religion being bad, I suppose could motivate people. It might be for the better. Sometimes you just need to push forth by any means necessary.

Actually the main strength of the atheist movement today is that there are so many different voices, taking the discourse to the religious on many different fronts. To stick to just the big names you have Myers being massively hostile to religion as a whole, you have Harris attacking the base moderates give to the fundamentalists in the world, you have Dennett pushing to have Religion treated and studied as a natural phenomenon, you have Dawkins attacking the more basic, but still prevelant, 101 fallacies that most theists lead with, you have Barker giving the experience of an ex-preacher, you have V.S.R. studying at the level of the brain the aspects of the human condition that lead us to think in god types ways, you have shermer, Randi, Penn and Teller and Goldacre throwing light on the more kooky claims in the world and showing why they are kooky.

There is no one approach to the defeat of religion. It is to be taken to them on the local and the broad level, on many fronts, all at the same time and that IS what is happening in modern times and it is wonderful to behold.