A natural argument against the belief in gods

[Jack]

Humans are an instinctively tribal species. And while this trait served us extremely well throughout our long history, we have not only outgrown its usefulness, but are now victim to its destructive influence.

Compared to other animals, humans exhibit extreme "groupishness." We are unusually co-operative with, even altruistic toward, in-group members. And on the flip-side, we are distinctly suspicious of out-group members. We suspect their habits, motives and values, and even question their intelligence. Our apprehension is extreme: while a small number of animal species display occasional viciousness, their aggression is nowhere near the scale of human righteousness, warfare or terrorism.

In explaining the tribal nature of Homo sapiens, evolutionary scientists collectively share the view that within-group co-operation improves the survival rates of its members, who, for example, would be hard-pressed to succeed as independent hunters. In a harsh environment with limited resources, it is highly adaptive to be both pro-social within our tribes and anti-social to outsiders who compete for food and mates. We have been hunter-gatherers for more than 99 percent of our history as a member of the Homo genus, and for 90 percent of our time as the sapiens species of this genus. So what worked for our progenitors has been deeply hardwired into who we are today.But the out-group hostility element of tribalism is no longer adaptive in the modern, complex form of civilization we have created. We are now more interdependent as a species than ever before, by virtue of our interconnected economies, our real-time, Internet-based communication, the power of our weaponry and the environmental influence of our industrial activity. The benefit of out-group hostility has not only expired, but is now severely detrimental to our well-being both as individuals and as a species. We should be working hard to defy our impulse toward out-group hostility. And this is precisely the problem with religion -- it feeds the very instinct that we should be resisting.

While religion promotes the in-group, prosocial side of tribalism, it also fosters the out-group, anti-social side. The out-group feature of religion is uniquely problematic: faith separates people in a deep, fundamental way. Faith-based belief systems are absolutely incommensurable. Different faith-based convictions cannot be reconciled because there is nothing to appeal to in order to understand, challenge or share them. Either you have a certain form of faith or you don't -- there is no rational way to reconcile different views of reality. Religion not only promotes difference, it makes divisions impossible to eliminate, so between-group co-operation is discouraged and out-group hostility is fueled. [Penn] Jillette makes the point that "the only argument against religious terrorism is to try to share the reality of the world." And he points out that faith separates us since it means that "anything goes." Indeed, a shared sense of reality is the only valid starting point for reducing our tribal instincts.

...the more relevant argument is that religion promotes out-group mentality in an age of interdependence when we can't afford to surrender to ancient instincts. Just as we have to resist our ancestral urge to eat sweet, fatty foods -- an instinct that once served our survival but now threatens our well-being in a world where sugar and fat are abundant -- we also have to resist the urge to indulge in the tribalism that religion promotes. Our greatest opportunity as human beings is also our toughest challenge: to defy our maker. Not the faith-based, mystical one, but the natural selection one, which shaped who we are in an environment that was much different than the one in which we now live.

Ted Cadsby: Defying Our Maker: What the New Atheists Miss

I have often stated that religious belief is outdated and irrelevant to our modern world but I don't recall ever expanding on that idea as eloquently as Ted Cadsby does.

Humans have not only evolved physically, our social structure has evolved as well. Our most basic drives and instincts were formed at a time when we lived very differently than we do today; hunting and killing our dinner, building and rebuilding our villages as we kept up with the herds of prey or after devastating natural disasters, planting and harvesting our crops by hand. Competition among tribes involved the risk of losing access to prey or the best places to plant crops. Humans had to guard against raids in which food, weapons and even members of the tribe were stolen by neighboring groups. It was a time in our evolution when it made sense to live in small, isolated tribes and to be on guard against those not of our tribe.

Those days are no more. True, humans still compete with each other for limited resources but on a much grander scale. Our tribes have become nations; instead of 10 or 50 people in a tribe we now have millions, in some cases billions, in a nation. Cooperation is often more beneficial than competition on a global level.

The divisive and tribal nature of religion made sense in its time, but that time is past and so are any benefits that religious belief provided us. "The gods" is no longer a necessary postulation for natural occurrences. "Our gods" versus "your gods" is an outdated reason for warfare and contention on a global scale. Religions have not only outlived their usefulness but have become detrimental to our continued survival as a species. Too often warfare is justified by our old tribal instincts. Even in the Middle East or Africa, where it could be argued that the majority still live tribal lifestyles, religious beliefs cause more strife and division than they promote peace and the general welfare.

Religious beliefs, as with other superstitions, have outlived their usefulness, indeed mankind has outgrown their need. For the good of humanity they ought to be relegated to the past where they belong.

[Peter]

Well said Jack. The only remaining value to humanity in religion is the placebo effect for people scared shitless of death.

Religion is also very valuable to the priest parasites who feed off of humanities ignorance and fears.

But on the whole religion today is a huge detriment to mankind.

[Zeebadee]

Religious beliefs, as with other superstitions, have outlived their usefulness, indeed mankind has outgrown their need. For the good of humanity they ought to be relegated to the past where they belong.

A subtle attempt to equate instinct with superstition. Are you going to define which human instincts are wrong, or are you just gonna call them all wrong?

[Jack]

A subtle attempt to equate instinct with superstition.

No subtle attempt at anything, read what I posted. I equated religious beliefs with superstition. I do not consider, nor do I believe there's any evidence suggesting religious beliefs are synonymous with instinct or that religious beliefs are instinctual.

[BlackSheep]

No subtle attempt at anything, read what I posted. I equated religious beliefs with superstition. I do not consider, nor do I believe there's any evidence suggesting religious beliefs are synonymous with instinct or that religious beliefs are instinctual.

I think something like instinct is involved with it. There is some instinctual or at least subconscious pattern finding that is the core of superstitions. This is demonstrated by baseball players and pigeons.

Superstition in the pigeon

One of Skinner's experiments examined the formation of superstition in one of his favorite experimental animals, the pigeon. Skinner placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these same actions.[47]
One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.[48][49]
Skinner suggested that the pigeons behaved as if they were influencing the automatic mechanism with their "rituals" and that this experiment shed light on human behavior:
The experiment might be said to demonstrate a sort of superstition. The bird behaves as if there were a causal relation between its behavior and the presentation of food, although such a relation is lacking. There are many analogies in human behavior. Rituals for changing one's fortune at cards are good examples. A few accidental connections between a ritual and favorable consequences suffice to set up and maintain the behavior in spite of many unreinforced instances. The bowler who has released a ball down the alley but continues to behave as if she were controlling it by twisting and turning her arm and shoulder is another case in point. These behaviors have, of course, no real effect upon one's luck or upon a ball half way down an alley, just as in the present case the food would appear as often if the pigeon did nothing—or, more strictly speaking, did something else.[48]
Modern behavioral psychologists have disputed Skinner's "superstition" explanation for the behaviors he recorded. Subsequent research (e.g. Staddon and Simmelhag, 1971), while finding similar behavior, failed to find support for Skinner's "adventitious reinforcement" explanation for it. By looking at the timing of different behaviors within the interval, Staddon and Simmelhag were able to distinguish two classes of behavior: the terminal response, which occurred in anticipation of food, and interim responses, that occurred earlier in the interfood interval and were rarely contiguous with food. Terminal responses seem to reflect classical (as opposed to operant) conditioning, rather than adventitious reinforcement, guided by a process like that observed in 1968 by Brown and Jenkins in their "autoshaping" procedures. The causation of interim activities (such as the schedule-induced polydipsia seen in a similar situation with rats) also cannot be traced to adventitious reinforcement and its details are still obscure (Staddon, 1977).[50]

B. F. Skinner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jack]

I think something like instinct is involved with it.

I agree that instincts exist in humans and that some form the basis of our superstitious and pattern-detecting abilities, but those instincts are neutral. Specific beliefs in gods may be outgrowths or products of those instincts but there are no instincts I've ever heard about specific to god-belief let along specific to the belief in a specific god, any more than there are instincts to believe specifically in luck or fortune or predestination. If anything, religious beliefs and superstitions are perversions of the basic wiring of our brains that enable us to perceive patterns and imagine.

[BlackSheep]

I agree that instincts exist in humans and that some form the basis of our superstitious and pattern-detecting abilities, but those instincts are neutral. Specific beliefs in gods may be outgrowths or products of those instincts but there are no instincts I've ever heard about specific to god-belief let along specific to the belief in a specific god, any more than there are instincts to believe specifically in luck or fortune or predestination. If anything, religious beliefs and superstitions are perversions of the basic wiring of our brains that enable us to perceive patterns and imagine.

I agree they are neutral. I would suggest these "instinctual" pattern finding often go wrong if logic does not override them, but their purpose is like the quick and dirty and wearing your underwear because you think it is lucky is unlikely to kill you.

[ganglier]

Your argument is based on the assumption that religion is always a group affair, while in fact it is actually a completely solitary path. It is a very recent phenomena that religion has come to be associated with institutions and this groupishness of religion is mostly a christian doctrine and phenomena. It is rarely, if ever found among eastern religions. Maybe your western, christian mindset has affected your perspective on reality?

You also make the false assumption that wars are fought over religion when they are more often fought over secular concerns and in most cases power or wealth is the real reason for killing others. Even wars that are apparently religious are usually just over land. The major wars of the 20th century were all secular. The communists in Russia and China killed the largest number of people, millions of them.

You also make the assumption that religion is nothing more than a superstition and atheism is for the welfare of the entire human race, yet this would only be true if it is a fact that god does not exist, something that is far from decisively proven and not as self evident to many intelligent, thoughtful humans as it seems to be to you.

[Dismay]

Your argument is based on the assumption that religion is always a group affair, while in fact it is actually a completely solitary path. It is a very recent phenomena that religion has come to be associated with institutions and this groupishness of religion is mostly a christian doctrine and phenomena. It is rarely, if ever found among eastern religions. Maybe your western, christian mindset has affected your perspective on reality?

Religion is more often than not a group affair, it seems to be almost required by definition. For if an individual to have a belief in a deity separate from any religious doctrine it would no longer by definition be a religion. It would be more along the lines of deism or pantheism.

Also eastern religions do have doctrines they aren't as strict as the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions but they exist. For example hinduism does not have a centralized doctrine but it does have the vedas.

As for our location influencing perspective, all of us are guilty of that. Is it any surprise that we focus on things that we see in our everyday lives?

You also make the false assumption that wars are fought over religion when they are more often fought over secular concerns and in most cases power or wealth is the real reason for killing others. Even wars that are apparently religious are usually just over land. The major wars of the 20th century were all secular. The communists in Russia and China killed the largest number of people, millions of them.

This is just bad history sorry, you are entitle to your own beliefs and opinions not your own facts... Throughout history Protestant Vs.Catholics, Catholics killing Jews, Protestants fighting Jew, Catholics Vs. the Moors... You should have paid more attention during history.

Also the Soviets (not Russians) and Chinese were not communist, communists advocate a stateless classless society, which is clearly not the case for either of them... Also the problem with attributing these deaths to secularism is the secularism explains what it isn't rather than what it is. Both of these states were very authoritarian and did not value human life.

You also make the assumption that religion is nothing more than a superstition and atheism is for the welfare of the entire human race, yet this would only be true if it is a fact that god does not exist, something that is far from decisively proven and not as self evident to many intelligent, thoughtful humans as it seems to be to you.

Religion is a superstition and a superstition that has killed many people over the years... Atheism however is nothing, it is a lack of a belief not the cure all for all human ills (which I think you were the only one to suggest otherwise)...

[tarchira]

Religions have not only outlived their usefulness but have become detrimental to our continued survival as a species.

yep, we should remove the religion like Albania under Enver Hoxha (1967 - 1985) where

The clergy were publicly vilified and humiliated, their vestments taken and desecrated. More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death. The monastery of the Franciscan order in Shkodër was set on fire, which resulted in the death of four elderly monks.

article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated, "The State recognises no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in the people" and the penal code of 1977 imposed prison sentences of three to ten years for "religious propaganda and the production, distribution, or storage of religious literature." A new decree that in effect targeted Albanians with Christian names stipulated that citizens whose names did not conform to "the political, ideological, or moral standards of the state" were to change them. It was also decreed that towns and villages with religious names must be renamed. Hoxha's brutal antireligious campaign succeeded in eradicating formal worship, but some Albanians continued to practice their faith clandestinely, risking severe punishment. Individuals caught with Bibles, icons, or other religious objects faced long prison sentences. Religious weddings were prohibited.Parents were afraid to pass on their faith, for fear that their children would tell others. Officials tried to entrap practicing Christians and Muslims during religious fasts, such as Lent and Ramadan, by distributing dairy products and other forbidden foods in school and at work, and then publicly denouncing those who refused the food, and clergy who conducted secret services were incarcerated.

wouldn't be fun living in that Atheist country?

Even in the Middle East or Africa, where it could be argued that the majority still live tribal lifestyles, religious beliefs cause more strife and division than they promote peace and the general welfare.

don't get me wrong. in the name of Islam people had and have committed heinous act. i am not denying it but is it just influenced by Islamic principles (ironically that condemn those evil acts) or do you think that western foreign policies don't have any effect? and if that is so, then Atheism is also detrimental to our continued survival as species.

Religious beliefs, as with other superstitions, have outlived their usefulness, indeed mankind has outgrown their need. For the good of humanity they ought to be relegated to the past where they belong.

ironically, one of the pioneers of modern scientific method Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham (aka Alhazen in West) said

I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge

you can argue that Al-Hazen's saying is not valid in this modern world but can today's Science explain everything in nature?

[ganglier]

Religion is more often than not a group affair, it seems to be almost required by definition. For if an individual to have a belief in a deity separate from any religious doctrine it would no longer by definition be a religion. It would be more along the lines of deism or pantheism.

That obviously depends on the definition of religion. You seem to be defining it very narrowly if you are insisting that without an institutionalised doctrine it can't be religion. from dictionary.com - 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The root of the word religion is usually traced to the Latin religare (re: back, and ligare: to bind), so that the word is associated with "being bound."
The basic idea is that someone's religion is their particular method of establishing a bond, a connection, between them and their god/s.

Also eastern religions do have doctrines they aren't as strict as the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions but they exist. For example hinduism does not have a centralized doctrine but it does have the vedas.

It's not a question of doctrine or teachings, my disagreement is with the idea that religion must be a group. You also have this same idea because you seem to be defining a religion by its doctrine. It's a superficial and narrow understanding of religion.

It's a very western-christian centric view of what religion is and certainly not the norm in the world or in the history of religion. It is in fact the judaic and christian religions that have a strong focus on this idea of religion being tied to the society, the church, the institution.

As for our location influencing perspective, all of us are guilty of that. Is it any surprise that we focus on things that we see in our everyday lives?

It's not surprising at all, its inevitable. Our experience, culture etc colours our perspective on the world. It wasn't meant as a criticism, I was only pointing out that this is a very narrow perspective on what religion is, and a very western-christian centric point of view. As such, the conclusions that were reached from such a narrow viewpoint, were also limited in their scope and usefulness.

This is just bad history sorry, you are entitle to your own beliefs and opinions not your own facts...

Here are some facts for you ...

In the 20th century approx 165 million people died due to wars.

WW1 - 15 million dead
WW2 - 55 million
Stalin - 20 million
Mao Zedong's regime - 40 million
Russian civil war - 9 million
further 27 million in mostly civil wars - eg congo, kymer rouge

None of these wars were caused by religion. All were over power, land, national borders, lets call it patriotic groupishness?

Throughout history Protestant Vs.Catholics, Catholics killing Jews, Protestants fighting Jew, Catholics Vs. the Moors... You should have paid more attention during history.

I'm wondering if you even attended the history class. Would you like to be more specific about these wars throughout history? Name of war, number of people killed etc Maybe then I could assess the truthfulness of your idea. It seems very christian-centric.

Also the Soviets (not Russians) and Chinese were not communist, communists advocate a stateless classless society, which is clearly not the case for either of them... Also the problem with attributing these deaths to secularism is the secularism explains what it isn't rather than what it is. Both of these states were very authoritarian and did not value human life.

Mao Zedong and Stalin, who were responsible for 60 million deaths, were in fact leaders of communist countries. I didn't attribute the cause of these wars to secularism, I was pointing out that most of the causes of wars were not-religious or in other words, secular.

To attribute religion as the cause of wars "throughout history", is a very simplistic analysis of the situation and doesn't seem to be based on any facts or evidence. The original post also made this suggestion that religion is responsible for all the wars. I think its just atheist propaganda that circulates on the internet. I've yet to see it backed up with any evidence at all. And if we are judging on the 20th century and strictly by the numbers killed, the atheists seem to have the high score. Stalin was the ultimate anti-theist and he was very enthusiastic and efficient about killing people. Or isn't that part of your calculation?

Religion is a superstition and a superstition that has killed many people over the years... Atheism however is nothing, it is a lack of a belief not the cure all for all human ills (which I think you were the only one to suggest otherwise)...

Again, this depends on your definition of superstition. Atheism is not nothing, it's a world view like any other. It may lack belief in supernatural deities, but that in itself is a statement about reality.

It was not me who suggested that atheism was a cure for human ills, it was indirectly suggested by the original post which said "for the good of humanity [religious belief] should be relegated to the past". For the good of humanity, hell, the atheists are starting to sound like fundies. Suggesting that we eradicate religion is the same thing as promoting atheism. It's hardly a rational solution to the problem of all this religious killing that's apparently going on.

[Jack]

yep, we should remove the religion like Albania under Enver Hoxha (1967 - 1985) where

wouldn't be fun living in that Atheist country?

Fun? Perhaps, but not necessarily. There would still be social, economic and political problems facing us, we'd just have one less thing to be divided and confrontational about. I support a secular society, like the one we're supposed to have in the U.S., not an anti-clerical one like Albania. I may be anti-clerical personally but I wouldn't enforce that opinion legally. I prefer it die out on its own as people wake up to the fact that their religious leaders are exploiting them and stealing their hard-earned money in the name of religion.

State atheism is the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1] In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion...State atheism is thus a misnomer referring to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.

State atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

don't get me wrong. in the name of Islam people had and have committed heinous act. i am not denying it but is it just influenced by Islamic principles (ironically that condemn those evil acts) or do you think that western foreign policies don't have any effect? and if that is so, then Atheism is also detrimental to our continued survival as species.

I don't see how a lack of faith or a lack of belief in superstitions can be "detrimental to our continued survival as species". Does faith healing save more lives than modern medicine? Should we still be drilling holes in people's skulls to release demons? Has faith restored limbs to amputees? I would argue that a strictly religious society would far more likely to fail to evolve than a secular one.

you can argue that Al-Hazen's saying is not valid in this modern world but can today's Science explain everything in nature?

The perceived need to have an answer for everything now is the motivating factor behind the invention of religions and superstitions. Humans have a wonderful brain, one that becomes frustrated with a lack of understanding. If we don't know an answer or can't find one we invent one to relieve our frustration. It is difficult but necessary, if we are to continue in our efforts to find natural explanations for nature, to admit that there are things we don't yet know and even things we will never know absolutely.