Atheism and Authority

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ryanatau That is irrelevant. And by the way Freud was an atheist too and his explanation is a secular on thus the title The Future of an Illusion. The illusion being religion

I've never figured that logic and reason were irrelevant. As to Dr. Freud, as I said, I hold him in great esteem as an insightful ground breaker. But as with many ground breakers, the details of their work more often then not gets left behind as successive generations of research more successfully fleshes out the details. So, for instance, while I worship Darwin, I probably wouldn't quote 'Origins of Man' in a contemporary discussion of human evolution, I wouldn't quote Mendel in a discussion of genetics, I wouldn't quote Curie in a discussion of radiation sickness and I wouldn't quote Alexander Graham Bell in a discussion of modern telephonics.

Having said that...

Quote by: ryanatau Like all of Freud's work it has to do with father issues. Basically we want a God because it represents a father figure to protect us against the evils of the world and also punishes us for being evil.

I don't have a major problem with this idea... in fact I've often said that people realize that human leaders can be flawed and therefore their decisions can be as well. A God, on the other hand, is an unassailable authority. And while Greek and Roman gods were as fallable as humans, they were still beyond our reach and influence.

So yes, God can be the ultimate father figure, laying down the rules for his "family".

Which only leads me to the question, "If this is so, why? Why would 90% of humans share this desire to be instructed and disciplined?"

The logical answer for me is that it's an evolutionary survival mechanism, an instinct that causes humans to seek ways to bond with their social group, in order to insure harmonious cooperation within that group and thus its survival.

Ask yourself... do you believe in evolution? If, as research is now telling us, some higher animals share traits that were once were thought to be strictly human... tool making, complex communications, altruism, empathy and a sense of fair play ...isn't it fair to suggest that human behavior is also a result of more complicated survival instincts, combined with learned behaviors and conscious thought?

After all, it's said that a wolf is born with the instinct to hunt, but it has to be taught the complex behaviors in HOW to hunt by the pack, or it will soon starve, regardless of those hunting instincts. For humans, because our mental capabilities are so much higher, it takes about 12 to 20 years to teach a human cub what they need to know in order to take up their role as a fully contributing adult human, compared to a couple of years for a young wolf.

We know for a fact that humans are born with an instinct for language, curiosity, learning, socialization, sexuality and much more. I see no reason that the desire for spiritualism, being such a common denominator among people across the globe and throughout history, isn't also an natural instinct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One last example to ponder: recent research has determined that young men, from 16 to 23 or so, share common traits that they will eventually grow out of. Young men are generally more aggressive, They are more fearless. They are more intellectually pliable, more susceptible to group or mob influences, and more amenable to obediently following older leaders.

So, aside from making young men perfect candidates for team sports, what other use might such apparently common genetic traits be applied to?

How about cannon fodder? Soldiers. A constantly renewing supply of aggressive, fearless warriors willing to follow their leaders into hell to defend their tribe.

Quote by: ryanatau The problem as I see it for us atheists is that we have taken a negative position on an important question that demands positive proof because of its importance.

And there's the rub. Atheists are focused only on the idea that God does not exist, without knowing how to replace that "Great Father Figure" you claim everyone yearns for.

So if there is no God, and my hypothesis is correct, that humans are genetically wired for spirituality as a survival mechanism, then what can atheism offer to fill those needs? Buddhism comes closest... meditation and chanting to achieve the religious state achieved by prayer and ritual, the Eightfold Path and other rules to live by to achieve a harmonious, cooperative social group, and access to fellowship.

Quote by: Milton Bradley That's why I often attack the problem by quoting the bible back to the believers.

There it is... nothing makes religion look sillier than it's own teachings.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Which one is more truer? That exactly is a question worth thinking about. Im a strong believer that if there is a God, he doesnt want to be known by logic or evidence.

Why not? Why is it necessary for God to be knownto by faith alone? What's the advantage? What else in human experience do we accept on faith alone? Nothing that I'm aware of.

Sounds like a rationalizing excuse to me. We have no choice but to believe in God strictly by faith... because... um... God wants it that way... yeah, that's it.

Quote by: Kakumei Theists use prayer and spiritual 'feelings' to confirm the truths that they seek, In doing so, that how they believe in some supernatural things and not others. Im sure its also a matter of choice as well.

You're part way there. Theists use prayer and ritual to achieve a religious mental state, which they perceive as 'The Presence of God', which is a powerful enough experience to serve as personal proof that God exists. Non-theist religions can use the same means... chanting, meditation ...to achieve the same state, which they perceive not as oneness with God, but 'Oneness with the Universe' or 'Oneness with All Things'.

It's a powerful and useful state that's very beneficial to human well being.

.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Sonart . The logical answer for me is that it's an evolutionary survival mechanism, an instinct that causes humans to seek ways to bond with their social group, in order to insure harmonious cooperation within that group and thus its survival.

Your making the same mistake Marx made with his philosophy of History. Just because some system explains things that you see does not make it true. In fact, we consider things that can explain every possible propositions unscientific. For example, psycho-analytics and Marx's theory of History are both considered pseudo-science because they can explain any conceivable trait. This used to be considered a strength of a theory but it has begun to be considered a weakness.

Ask yourself... do you believe in evolution? If, as research is now telling us, some

Yes, I believe evolution is a good instrument to help us understand the world. Do I believe it actually happened as such? I do to some extent. However, it certainly helps us predict future events and for me its truth is through that. And because of this we can use evolution to help us understand human cognition and human nature (if such a thing exists). However, we should be cautious because there are other factors besides evolution that contribute to man in the conceit. Thus only looking for our evolutionary roots to explain ourselves would be to only give a partial view.

We know for a fact that humans are born with an instinct for language, curiosity, learning, socialization, sexuality and much more. I see no reason that the desire for spiritualism, being such a common denominator among people across the globe and throughout history, isn't also an natural instinct.

It might be. But it also might not be. However, depending on what you believe humans need in religion necessitates what should take its place.

Just because you see no reason why spiritualism is not a natural instinct does not mean that it is a natural instinct. Further more, I don't think it is at all conclusively proven that humans have an innate nature that controls the entirety of their lives.

[Jack]

I suspect many factors form together to create the feelings and perceptions we call spiritual, divine, supernatural, etc.
I can see Sonart's point that we may have evolved the capacity for spiritual thoughts and feelings. But those are the names we give a complex set of characteristics. We have a sense of wonder, we are aware of there being things we don't know (we can ask questions for which we have no answers), we are pack animals in a species that is generally paternalistic. Stopping at just those factors I think it's easy to see where looking to a male figure for guidance and leadership is quite natural. If that person can also answer the questions we have we'll hold him/her in much higher esteem.

I don't think we've evolved a capacity for religious belief per se. It's the accumulation of many separate factors acting together that makes us spiritual beings, able to express love, compassion, empathy and the like.

[Piscean]

I'll probably look it up myself later, but..... does Hume ever postulate that the belief in the miraculous is in itself a miracle? I rather doubt it from what I've gathered so far.

Anyway... that's my position. I never would have chosen to believe in the miraculous events chronicled in scripture based on the authoritative testimony of anyone save God Himself. That's it... in a twinkling... something clicked... the words that I had regarded for so long as myth, if not fairy tales, suddenly rang with undeniable truth. I think my little story scares the crap out of atheists too. Because it means that it could happen to them, and the implications related to a metaphysical conversion of that kind are staggering. It would flip their world inside-out and upside-down... ooooh and the moral implications?

Yep, anybody who has to keep their head stuck in the sand and not believe in anything science hasn't figured out yet is obviously quite affraid of the posibilities.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Kakumei Lets say God is testing us, and he wants us to find answers without this logic reasoning. Assuming this, he masks his existance and wants us to put our faith in his 'prophets' and such. Again this has alot to do with the 'x' factor i was talking about.

What's the point of this speculation? We have no evidence that a god is testing us, only the concept. Concepts don't necessarily mean reality. An all knowing god would know that we are prone to logic on some level, thus his reasoning would be illogical. Faith is belief without logical proof or empirical evidence, and that, to me is illogical.

Using your example above, anyone could claim to be a prophet, including me and god says you aren't making any sense. Feel free not to believe me, but using your above scenareo, you should be compelled to believe me if you are to remain consistant.

[Kakumei]

Quote by: Jack That's a fine example of auto-or self-suggestion. Much of religious faith is based on self-suggestion. It's also common in superstitions. "If I spill salt and don't throw it over my shoulder I'll have bad luck. I threw it over my shoulder and had a pretty good day. See, it works."

Well, I guess it just depends on what you choose to agree with. Im not arguing anything here I just wanted to throw that statement out there and see what I got back.

[Jack]

I think my little story scares the crap out of atheists too. Because it means that it could happen to them, and the implications related to a metaphysical conversion of that kind are staggering. It would flip their world inside-out and upside-down... ooooh and the moral implications?

Anyone truly seeking reality isn't going to fear having their world view changed. That's what we're hoping for. But to speak for myself, it would take overwhelmingly convincing evidence to make me return to a belief in theism. It would take more than your "little story" or the Bible stories to change the conclusion I've reached. Having been a theist, I'm familiar with the feelings and emotions that are perceived as personal evidence of the presence of god. I've come to understand they are just that, emotions and feelings, not any type of divine touch. I can still summon those up, I can still "speak in tongues". It's all a product of the mind.

No, I'm not afraid of being convinced of anything. But I do need to be convinced, not made to feel guilty for thinking for myself, not repeatedly told I'm sinful and need god. None of that is convincing. I'm fairly immune to psychobabble. My bullshit detector is updated and running at all times. Show me a reason to believe and evidence that your god is the real god and I'll believe again. Fail to convince me and I'll continue to consider religion bunk.

[rez]

Quote by: Jack Anyone truly seeking reality isn't going to fear having their world view changed.

That is right Jack. If I may give a brief example.

If two people are walking to some destination and each person knows of different short cuts, then each person should split up and walk along their own short cut. If each individual truly wanted to know which short cut was better, then one person wouldn't run just to prove the other wrong. If you wanted to truly seek reality each person would walk as they usually do.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ryanatau Your making the same mistake Marx made with his philosophy of History. Just because some system explains things that you see does not make it true. In fact, we consider things that can explain every possible propositions unscientific.

LOLOLOL!!! My friend, read this through a few times, ok?

The exact opposite is true... we consider things that explain every possible proposition - and are testable - to be scientific proof, your selective example of Marx notwithstanding. Neurotheology is not simply some oddball hypothesis... it's been researched and tested.

--"If brain function offers insight into how we experience religion, does it say anything about why we do? There is evidence that people with religious faith have longer, healthier lives. This hints at a survival benefit for religious people. Could we have evolved religious belief?

Prof Dawkins (who subscribes to evolution to explain human development) thinks there could be an evolutionary advantage, not to believing in god, but to having a brain with the capacity to believe in god."--

Quote by: ryanatau And because of this we can use evolution to help us understand human cognition and human nature (if such a thing exists).

Which is exactly what I'm doing. Evolutions supplies lifeforms with mechanisms for survival, therefore human beings are no less a highly complex and sophisticated collection of survival mechanisms, and our invention of 'God' is one of those.

Quote by: ryanatau It might be. But it also might not be. However, depending on what you believe humans need in religion necessitates what should take its place.

I don't disagree. But as Jack keeps pointing out, spirituality without divinity is not only possible, it already exists, particularly among Asian cultures. Buddhism, Taoism, Confusiunism, etc.

Quote by: ryanatau Just because you see no reason why spiritualism is not a natural instinct does not mean that it is a natural instinct.

That's the weakest of all arguments, ryanatau. It doesn't mean that it ISN'T either, and scientific research is finding more and more that human spiritual experience is a function of the human brain, and the human brain is a product of evolution, and all of it makes logical, reasoned sense.

As you said... "Just because some system... can explain every possible propositions... that you see does not make it true."

Ummm... actually yes... if some system explains everything we see, it often does make it true.

Quote by: Jack I don't think we've evolved a capacity for religious belief per se. It's the accumulation of many separate factors acting together that makes us spiritual beings, able to express love, compassion, empathy and the like.

Granted, but I see it as a vastly complex and sophisticated synergistic symbiosis of overlapping systems, some with the sole purpose of balancing out others.

For instance you mention a sense of wonder... this would be an evolutionary advancement of earlier mental abilities... curiosity and inventiveness, combined with imagination to achieve awe and wonder. Wonder leads us to explore and seek answers, certainly a survival trait, since answers allow us to adapt and overcome. But at the same time, awe and wonder about things that don't seem to have answers could lead to fear, unless we also have a mechanism calm that fear.

Likewise the search for the 'Great Father Spirit'. Higher animals look to the alphas in their own packs and herds for guidance and leadership. Why wouldn't we even more complicated humans not search for a higher 'Alpha' to guide us through the great unknown that terrifies our imaginations.

Quote by: Piscean Yep, anybody who has to keep their head stuck in the sand and not believe in anything science hasn't figured out yet is obviously quite afraid of the posibilities.

It's God itself that's a mechanism to explain away and overcome the fear of the unknown. Nah, I always go back to Daniel's Wager.

--"Given that the vast amounts of rationally explained scientific knowledge we now possess were all once unexplainable phenomena which we attributed to the workings of gods, the best bet is that those things we still don't know also have rational, scientific explanations that do not include gods. We just don't know what they are yet."--

Just because science hasn't figured something out, doesn't mean it's unknowable. We just haven't figured it out yet.

Quote by: Jack No, I'm not afraid of being convinced of anything. But I do need to be convinced, not made to feel guilty for thinking for myself, not repeatedly told I'm sinful and need god. None of that is convincing. I'm fairly immune to psychobabble.

.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Sonart . LOLOLOL!!! My friend, read this through a few times, ok? The exact opposite is true... we consider things that explain every possible proposition - and are testable - to be scientific proof

You don't get it. A system that explains all observed data is proved. A system that can explain any data that can potentially happen is unprovable. If a system can explain both what does happen and could also explain the exact opposite of what does happen it is a bad theory.

That's the weakest of all arguments, ryanatau. It doesn't mean that it ISN'T either, and scientific research is finding more and more that human spiritual experience is a function of the human brain, and the human brain is a product of evolution, and all of it makes logical, reasoned sense.

You made a claim and I expect you to prove it. Just because it is reasonable does not mean there are not other reasonable explanations. Your claim is underdetermined by the data.

Ummm... actually yes... if some system explains everything we see, it often does make it true.

No it doesn't. If a system explains everything that we see and could also explain the opposite it makes it a very weak theory. Here is an essay in which Karl Popper talks about how a theory that can explain everything is weak.

Sir Karl Popper

[Sonart]

.

You made a claim and I expect you to prove it.

Not being a neuro scientist, I certainly can't prove it myself. That's why I keep linking to sources. And my confidence only increases as I keep finding that what I once thought was simply my own silly hypothesis is achieving increasing scientific support...

The "God" Part of the Brain

How the Brain ‘Creates’ God

This Is Your Brain on God -- WIRED Magazine

God on the Brain --- BBC, Science

Neurotheology: Which came first, God or the brain? -- "And if one is so inclined or "wired" towards faith, research suggests that regular prayer or meditation lowers blood pressure and heart rate, and decreases depression and anxiety. (6). It may be an "opiate of the masses", but as opiates run, itís a pretty healthy one."

Study: No ‘God spot’ in the human brain -- msnbc, Aug. 2006 -- "The human brain does not contain a single "God spot" responsible for mystical and religious experiences, a new study finds.

Instead, the sense of union with God or something greater than the self often described by those who have undergone such experiences involves the recruitment and activation of a variety brain regions normally implicated in different functions such as self-consciousness, emotion and body representation.

The finding, detailed in the current issue of Neuroscience Letters, contradicts previous suggestions by other researchers that the there might be a specific region in the brain designed for communication with God. "

.

[Jack]

contradicts previous suggestions by other researchers that the there might be a specific region in the brain designed for communication with God. "

I wonder who proposed that silly notion? Did they also suggest which god that spot put us in touch with?

[ryanatau]

Sonart:

I think part of our divide is that we are looking at the problem from two differing perspectives. I actually agree with you about evolution and its contribution to human cognition. But because I actually believe in something does not mean it is the only way to view the world. I also happen to believe that there are a multitude of valid ways of looking at the world. Some might be better for me some better for someone else. Some views are absolutely better than another but that still doesn't mean it is the only view. So, personally I agree with you. However, where we disagree is not on the specific theory you proposed I mostly agree with that. Where we disagree, I think, is that I believe there my exist other valid, but not necessarily better, ways of viewing the world.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Jack I wonder who proposed that silly notion? Did they also suggest which god that spot put us in touch with?

What further research determined was that rather than an single God Spot, (LA Times, 1997) there is, instead, a God Net, or an interconnected network of brain functions that, when properly stimulated, allow us to achieve a state of 'Oneness with the Universe'.

Alas, pre-scientific humans had no other way to describe this state other than "a Oneness with God", and those who could achieve this state more often and more powerfully -- priests, prophets and the like -- were free to define the 'God' they experienced in whatever fashions they chose. The God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Jesus, the God of Mohammed, the God of Joseph Smith... or the God of David Koresch and Jim Jones.

Buddhists and Taoists were able to define their states without God.

Quote by: ryanatau I also happen to believe that there are a multitude of valid ways of looking at the world. Some might be better for me some better for someone else.

Granted. The problem, as I see it, is with the judgementalism that seems to accompany the more dogmatic faith systems. As Jack put it, "But I do need to be convinced, not made to feel guilty for thinking for myself, not repeatedly told I'm sinful and need god."

I've conceded that I see religious faith -- whether real or, as I submit, a product of our own evolved minds -- as an overall benefit to humans. It provides individuals with comfort and courage in difficult times, with inner strength and calm, with a reassuring sense of community fellowship, and the reassurance and structure of moral guidance.

Yet as often as not, this moral guidance is based on dogmatic traditions that might be thousands of years old, and completely inappropriate for a modern, pluralistic society.

For example, Christians are hard pressed to explain how both the Old and New Testaments can be perfectly comfortable with the institution of slavery. They try spinning the language and the translations, everything but simply accepting the fact that 2,000 years ago slavery was not only accepted but a necessary part of every civilized economy.

Another example, the sanctity of life. 2,000 years ago infant mortality and childbirthing deaths were horrific, so every single life counted in keeping tribal populations stable. "Be fruitful and multiply" made sense. Today being fruitful and multiplying is killing the planet. Keeping people alive artificially, beyond what is dignified, is cruel and immoral. Forcing women to raise unwanted and unloved children into over-crowded, violent poverty is equally cruel and immoral.

Discrimination against gays, when we now know better, is cruel and immoral. Ignoring the lessons of contemporary science, because it happens to conflict with 2,000 yr old dogma is stupid and immoral. And discriminating against perfectly decent people who contribute fully to society, simply because they don't believe in that dogma is equally cruel, stupid and immoral.

Yet here in America, our leaders continue to kowtow to the dictatorship of an obsolete 2,000 yr-old dogma. Go figure.

There has to be a better way. We need a new religion, one not based on superstitious divinities, but which can still provide people with the comforts and healing of the religious experience, of fellowship, and of moral guidance adaptable to a modern world. Buddhism is the closest thing I've seen to such a religion, but even that can get into too much mystic eastern mumbo-jumbo.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ryanatau You don't get it. A system that explains all observed data is proved.

No, it would be proven if you could reproduce it in a laboratory again, and again until the disbelievers srcutiny was destroted.

Quote by: ryanatau A system that can explain any data that can potentially happen is unprovable. If a system can explain both what does happen and could also explain the exact opposite of what does happen it is a bad theory.

Yeah, like math.

Quote by: ryanatau No it doesn't. If a system explains everything that we see and could also explain the opposite it makes it a very weak theory. Here is an essay in which Karl Popper talks about how a theory that can explain everything is weak.

Ask the good doctor if he thinks math is bunk. It's the perfect analogy, is it not?


Math explains both what we can observe, and it's extrapolations seem to provide believable explanations for what we cannot observe, but only postulate.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Ask the good doctor if he thinks math is bunk. It's the perfect analogy, is it not? Math explains both what we can observe, and it's extrapolations seem to provide believable explanations for what we cannot observe, but only postulate.

No math isn't a good analogy. Math is a tool not a theory. The question is not whether a theory can explain both events with evidence and rational hypotheses without evidence. The question is whether a given theory can explain any given event. In other words, if I am going an experiment that can produce event X or event Y (and only one will happen). If the theory I have could explain either event then it is a useless theory. It is unable to be verified because everything verifies it and it has no predictive power because it could predict both events X and Y regardless of which one actually happens. In this way math is only a tool. Math is used inside a theory and not as a theory itself. Math does not try to predict anything nor explain the world. However, many scientists use math to help them apply their theory so it can better predict future events. An example of a theory that can explain every event is astrology. Most people do not think this is a strength that my horoscope can explain two people's days that might be completely opposite (I got a job today and the other person lost their job the horoscope read "today will be a day of great change" or whatever). This is what I mean when I say it is not a strength to be able to explain all possible events. I am not talking about the difference between rational and empirical hypotheses I fully respect rational hypotheses. Here is Karl Popper's example:

What I had in mind was that his previous observations may not have been much sounder than this new one; that each in its turn had been interpreted in the light of"previous experience," and at the same time counted as additional confirmation. What, I asked myself, did it confirm? No more than that a case could be interpreted in the light of the theory. But this meant very little, I reflected, since every conceivable case could be interpreted in the light of Adler's theory, or equally of Freud's. I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and in Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation.According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact-that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed-which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness. With Einstein's theory the situation was strikingly different. Take one typical instance-Einstein's prediction, just then confirmed by the findings of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must beattracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such adirection that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distances on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect. Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation-in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected. This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question were compatible with the most divergent human behaviour,so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behaviour that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.

Sir Karl Popper

In this example he uses Einstein's theory as a good example of a theory that can be tested and psycho-analysis as an unprovable theory.

So no math is not a good analogy. Math is not a theory but a tool. Again, the question is not whether a given theory is a rational hypothesis or an empirical hypothesis. Either can be valid. However, if it is empirical it should not be able to explain both the things we actually do experience and also things that we don't experience.

[ryanatau]

Also, it is the math that makes things provable. "My theory says this fill hit the ground at velocity=X." "My theory says this fill hit the ground at velocity=Y." We measure the actual instantaneous velocity at impact and it equals Z. Therefore both theories were incorrect. We see how math was a tool used in both theories and in the experiment to test the theories. It was not itself a theory but only said "If this theory is right it should product this outcome"

[wyoguy]

Thanks for the link to Popper, ryanatau. I think that his point is relevant and accurate. Can't say as I like the way it kicks the legs out from under God's Providence, though. lol