Off-topic: Science and religion and the mind

[NCT]

I was too lazy to dig through to find the threads where this kind of stuff was being discussed, but a link to an article came across my Twitter feed (from Alyssa Milano, of all people, I think), and I thought some of y'all might find it interesting. Actually, this linked piece is a sort of survey that points to other resources for more in-depth reading. Anyway, interesting stuff.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/why_do_we_believe/

[HellYeahHokie]

I'm not sure I want to know why you are receiving Alyssa Milano's twitter feeds.

[aufan59]

Well they obviously nailed it on the head here:

The authors argue that cooperation is the key. Cooperation is clearly beneficial for human social groups in hunting, defense, child-rearing, and many other survival behaviors. Religion, they say, is a way of reinforcing the principles that join members of a group. Brembs points out that observing a religious ritual like a rain dance allows communities to identify loyal members and punish those who don’t seem to be contributing to the group.

You join a group because the group fits your needs, not because a group has the correct answers.

Religion is just a set of agreements so a group can work together. Science accomplishes this too.

[Jim]

I think it an accurate position to hold that in earlier times, when a formal education was harder to attain and classes/castes were more in play in society that the people who sought that unreachable happiness were more apt to be placated by religious promises. The great equalizer was in the next life so folks could be as comforted as possible with the idea that "things will be better".

Plus, to keep hte masses in check, religious dogmas preached obedience to a higher religious authority with excommunication as a possibility for those who bucked the system too hard. Of course threats of being burnt at the stake or drawn-and-quartered worked as well.

James' idea that religious belief had a positive correlation with lower intelligence would probably be more accurately explained with ignorance being higher among the more religious rather than actual intellectual capacity. Potential can be kept in check with the proper environment as was clearly shown in medieval Europe as well as primarily around the (third) world today.

"Liberals being more intelligent. Interesting point. And this study was conducted in 1901 when being a liberal had a far different connotation taht it does today. Back then folks who believed in the rights of a human to create, invent and potentially prosper as a result was considered "liberal". Innovation was at the core.

Almost always those who control the media and education are the ones that define what is and what isn't. Progressive socialism was ushered into American politics at the higher levels with Theodore Roosevelt. He firmly believed that people should be allowed to own only so much. He adn his predecessors also frowned upon private ownership. So I would suggest that today's liberal and progressive are actually more representative of those who are lazier, more dependent and less likely to put forth the effort to improve themselves with their own sweat. Intelligent people are fostering/evolving and nuruting that show/promise to the masses as well.

Back to James. I like the idea he presents about "membership" and "cooperation" among people with religion basically being a method of a code of conduct to ensure survival of more than jsut ones self. The more coordinated, the more successful and possibly less fear in being cast out, alone and with a higher probability of being doomed as a result.

Science and Religion. At least he brings forth the idea of a "belief" and an "imaginative construct" being employed by both major human philosophical drives. Rather than just dreaming things up, I think we use previous experiences and "construct" an initial level of understanding and then build on it as we are able to secure, at lerast in our own minds, further steps leading to a more general understanding. Most beauty in scientific understanding usually results in simple truths that are arrived at when it becomes apparent how small pieces fit into the overall puzzle. Equations less than an inch long in a book explain some of the most profound ideas and truths. That is beauty.

But like he says, a scientific study of religious beliefs will almost forever be unattainable. Science does zero in on what parts of our brains are engaged when religious thoughts, visions etc. are experienced. That is not a scientific means of determining the truth of a higher plane most folks either belive in directly or quietly wish for it to be true and are quiet about it to avoid ridicule.

[aufan59]

But like he says, a scientific study of religious beliefs will almost forever be unattainable. Science does zero in on what parts of our brains are engaged when religious thoughts, visions etc. are experienced. That is not a scientific means of determining the truth of a higher plane most folks either belive in directly or quietly wish for it to be true and are quiet about it to avoid ridicule.

Religion, god, etc. are a function of the human brain. No reason to think that religion can't be uncovered scientifically. One you figure our why a human chooses to be religious, you have figured out religion...

[Blue Hen]

From my very elemental understanding and viewpoint :

Religion emerged in evolving cultures and civilizations as man's explanations for natural phenomena of which he had no scientific knowledge of.


Would that be a 'duh' ?

[Jim]

You ought to step up onto the stage like Algore and get your "Nobel Prize" then. Case closed.

[NCT]

From my very elemental understanding and viewpoint :

Religion emerged in evolving cultures and civilizations as man's explanations for natural phenomena of which he had no scientific knowledge of.


Would that be a 'duh' ?

I think that's a big chunk of the story. But religion goes beyond explaining otherwise inexplicable natural phenomena. To survive, or rather, to be a supportive component of a surviving culture, religion must also benefit the worshipers. I'm not sure that feeling satisfied that the sun can be explained by a god and a shiny chariot is enough. Now, if as a group you "figure out" that certain observances (and agricultural practices) coincide with changes in the chariot-god's path across the sky, so if his trips get shorter, and then you do certain things, the trips get longer again, and by taking cues from the god you end up with more food ... maybe now we're talking about religion as a short-cut to science. And without technology, the chariot-god is easier to understand than planetary motion.

[HellYeahHokie]

Religion, god, etc. are a function of the human brain.

That's your opinion, based on blind faith that no god exists.

[Hero1957]

That's your opinion, based on blind faith that no god exists.

Good point HYH

[Jim]

... was not in reference to your response following that particular post from me. So don't be offended as I wasn't laying down an insult at you.

[Jim]

I think that's a big chunk of the story. But religion goes beyond explaining otherwise inexplicable natural phenomena. To survive, or rather, to be a supportive component of a surviving culture, religion must also benefit the worshipers. I'm not sure that feeling satisfied that the sun can be explained by a god and a shiny chariot is enough. Now, if as a group you "figure out" that certain observances (and agricultural practices) coincide with changes in the chariot-god's path across the sky, so if his trips get shorter, and then you do certain things, the trips get longer again, and by taking cues from the god you end up with more food ... maybe now we're talking about religion as a short-cut to science. And without technology, the chariot-god is easier to understand than planetary motion.

And I believe it is apparent that is how most knowledge is gained. Observation coms first and then by some freak accident, a person with an analytical mind comes forth and tries to tie a few things together.

Today the more advanced nations have a single omnipotent god if they have one at all. Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I don't think it so corrupt that folks further back in time and even contemporaries at the times these religions came into being were all totally dancing, blood sacrificing fools as they are depicted. Even the Jews believed in animal sacrifice and this was well after Abraham came and went. In fact Abraham's father was a Sumerian priest and they had a very robust collection of gods and godesses. Clearly "pagan" through and through.

If worshipping some unseen force that you attached a female personality to brought about warmer weather and thus grain to be harvested then you were happy and felt blessed as people could sustain themselves. Fertility godesses being female was a dead ringer in my book as women got pregnant and brought forth children. I think men knew they had a part in it as women without men didn't pop out any kids. Simple 1 "+" 1 = 3 math. Oh! the power of the "+". Yet when the single god concept arrived they newly enlightened killed the pagans. Somehow "God" got jealous (why? as he created the pagans as well and why didn't He enlighten them along with the rest?). Anyway, we have a good idea of how this multiple gods/single god interface went.

The sun provides us earthlings with our sustainence. Science can prove it and anybody who has lived in a perpetually cold environ realizes they ain't going to get any Wheaties for breakfast - just a fish - if they're lucky.

I hold to the belief that religion explains (or attempts to if studied honestly) the "Why" of things. Science explains the "Mechanics" of how the miracle of our universe and all the life it holds (we don't know this for a fact as we're still whet behind the ears as far as our road to maturity is going) operates. The two are inseparable inmy view. They are complimentary and that is that.

[aufan59]

That's your opinion, based on blind faith that no god exists.

Our notion of god, and our belief in religion is certainly a function of the human brain.

[aufan59]

I think that's a big chunk of the story. But religion goes beyond explaining otherwise inexplicable natural phenomena. To survive, or rather, to be a supportive component of a surviving culture, religion must also benefit the worshipers. I'm not sure that feeling satisfied that the sun can be explained by a god and a shiny chariot is enough. Now, if as a group you "figure out" that certain observances (and agricultural practices) coincide with changes in the chariot-god's path across the sky, so if his trips get shorter, and then you do certain things, the trips get longer again, and by taking cues from the god you end up with more food ... maybe now we're talking about religion as a short-cut to science. And without technology, the chariot-god is easier to understand than planetary motion.

How does this explain the rain dance?

It is all about group dynamic. Groups function better when they are united with a single cause.

For example, the Germany war machine worked because the Germans were united against the Jews, not because extinguishing the Jews really benefited the Germans.

[HellYeahHokie]

Our notion of god, and our belief in religion is certainly a function of the human brain.

That's not what you said. You said God was a function of the brain.

Certainly how we perceive or understand God (our notion) is limited by our brain's function. But that doesn't mean the workings of our brains created the concept of God. Well, it does in your opinion, but that's your opinion based on blind faith you are correct.

[NCT]

Our notion of god, and our belief in religion is certainly a function of the human brain.

By definition, "notions" and "beliefs" are functions of the human brain. My notion of this table is a function of the human brain.

[NCT]

I subscribe to a podcast produced by BBC Radio 4 called "In Our Time". Host Melvyn Bragg discusses a particular topic for about an hour with a panel of experts (almost always academics). I listen to it during my commute. It's a little bit like going back to school. I love it. I got behind and am catching up. Yesterday, "The Infant Brain" came up. All their programs are archived on the interwebs. Here's a link to this particular episode:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r2cn4

Other programs (programmes, heh) as examples: Calvinism, Camus, the Nicene Creed, the Silk Road, the Physics of Time.

You can subscribe through iTunes or rummage through their archives at the site.

[aufan59]

That's not what you said. You said God was a function of the brain.

Certainly how we perceive or understand God (our notion) is limited by our brain's function. But that doesn't mean the workings of our brains created the concept of God. Well, it does in your opinion, but that's your opinion based on blind faith you are correct.

But our notion of god is god. This is the only way that humans have been exposed to god.

[HellYeahHokie]

But our notion of god is god. This is the only way that humans have been exposed to god.

Again, that is only your opinion. For those who believe in God, He has revealed himself to man. For Jews, he revealed himself in a burning bush, among other means. In the case of Christians, he has revealed himself in a physical human form of Jesus. Jesus wasn't a notion. He's a historical reality.

Again, you can believe that Jesus wasn't God. But if believers rely on blind faith that He was God, it's nothing more than your blind faith that says he wasn't.

[aufan59]

Again, that is only your opinion. For those who believe in God, He has revealed himself to man. For Jews, he revealed himself in a burning bush, among other means. In the case of Christians, he has revealed himself in a physical human form of Jesus. Jesus wasn't a notion. He's a historical reality.

Again, you can believe that Jesus wasn't God. But if believers rely on blind faith that He was God, it's nothing more than your blind faith that says he wasn't.

Communication from god has had to filter through a human first. Whether he exists or not is irrelevant, our proof of him was function of a human brain at some point.

Additionally, the reason why god is still relevant, the reason why everyone isn't an atheist is also a function of the human brain. God still 'exists' in modern society because of how our brains function.

[HellYeahHokie]

Communication from god has had to filter through a human first. Whether he exists or not is irrelevant, our proof of him was function of a human brain at some point.

Additionally, the reason why god is still relevant, the reason why everyone isn't an atheist is also a function of the human brain. God still 'exists' in modern society because of how our brains function.

Well then, this is all a silly arguement then. You are taking the "If a tree falls in the forest but nobody is around to hear it, did it make sound?" arguement and changing it to "If a tree fell in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, did the tree even exist?"

By your reasoning, the only reason anything exists is a function of a human brain. By your reasoning, whether you exist or not is irrelevant. My brain is processing messages on a computer that say some other person with a screen name aufan59 is writing them. But that doesn't prove you or these words I'm reading exist, right?

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make, other than perhaps trying in some way to prove your blind faith in the lack of a God has more validity than someone's blind faith in the existence of God.

[aufan59]

Well then, this is all a silly arguement then. You are taking the "If a tree falls in the forest but nobody is around to hear it, did it make sound?" arguement and changing it to "If a tree fell in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, did the tree even exist?"

By your reasoning, the only reason anything exists is a function of a human brain. By your reasoning, whether you exist or not is irrelevant. My brain is processing messages on a computer that say some other person with a screen name aufan59 is writing them. But that doesn't prove you or these words I'm reading exist, right?

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make, other than perhaps trying in some way to prove your blind faith in the lack of a God has more validity than someone's blind faith in the existence of God.

I'm simply saying the tree is irrelevant if no tangible proof of the tree exists. However, the tree does become relevant when people talk about the tree. Tell stories about the tree and pass it down generations. But this relevance is only a function of our brains, not of something actually existing.


I don't think it is blind faith. As Karl Popper said,
‘Seeing no reason to believe is sufficient reason not to believe.’

I think this is the logical approach. It isn't about blind faith, it is about realizing that something is irrelevant and moving on to the next idea.

[HellYeahHokie]

I'm simply saying the tree is irrelevant if no tangible proof of the tree exists. However, the tree does become relevant when people talk about the tree. Tell stories about the tree and pass it down generations. But this relevance is only a function of our brains, not of something actually existing.


I don't think it is blind faith. As Karl Popper said,
‘Seeing no reason to believe is sufficient reason not to believe.’

I think this is the logical approach. It isn't about blind faith, it is about realizing that something is irrelevant and moving on to the next idea.

I'm not buying it. The tree is relevant because it exists. It's part of the great cosmos and has an impact on the cosmos. Whether human being choose to find the existence of a tree relevant to their individual life is a function of their brain. However, that doesn't mean that a very real tree doesn't exist or even have an impact on their life.

"Seeing no reason to believe" is the blind faith part.

[aufan59]

I'm not buying it. The tree is relevant because it exists. It's part of the great cosmos and has an impact on the cosmos. Whether human being choose to find the existence of a tree relevant to their individual life is a function of their brain. However, that doesn't mean that a very real tree doesn't exist or even have an impact on their life.

"Seeing no reason to believe" is the blind faith part.

I disagree. Not believing in something doesn't take blind faith, it is just healthy skepticism.

When someone hears something unbelievable, they might say "I'll believe it when I see it." Is that blind faith? If you say so. I think it is a reasonable, logical stance.