Comments on: Homo religious http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Vie http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-12718 Vie Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:06:53 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-12718 The thesis of Shermer’s argument is: “People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking primates.” I said that was too simple. Pattern-seeking primate and childhood indoctrination are not the same ideas, to the individual who responded to my comment. Shermer’s ‘patternicity’ applies equally to every animal on the planet. Natural selection would favor a ‘false positive’ in a rabbit as much as a human. As we all know, it would be ridiculous to assume that a rabbit is religious. Hence, ‘patternicity’ is too simple to account for the belief in religion or God, because it applies equally to every animal on the planet. Moreover, how does believing a lion is responsible for a rustle in the grass lead to believing a sky god makes rain fall? It’s a non-sequitor. The false positive, as outlined in the post, has nothing to do with explaining a belief in God. It’s more reasonable to say that the belief in God stemmed from recognizing cause-and-effect. If primitive man overturned a jug of water, he would eventually understood that knocking the jug fell over because of his action. The jug, however, was not inclined to fall over unless something knocked it over. Hence, if a volcano erupted something must have caused it. If the rain fell, it fell because of a cause. Disease had to be caused by something. Our ancestors had no means to understand forces that caused these events, but they knew they were caused by something. Animisitc beliefs, and the belief in impersonal forces (which many anthropologists believe proceded the idea of spirits) arose from this. Comparing animistic beliefs or their predessessors with religion is a little like comparing a heat-seeking missile to a rock, they’re both weapons right? While there are definetly parallells, there is no way a missile and a rock are the same thing. Religions are infinetly more complex, but the post doesn’t bother to mention that. While a desire to understand the natural world is a reason why people believe in religion, it isn’t the only one. Anxiety over dying is a far better way to account for religion’s longevity. Anxiety and fear are one of the factors commonly cited as one of the reasons religion exists. In one introductory anthropology text book four reasons for the rise of religion are discussed; a need for understanding, fear and anxiety (particularly about mortality), reversion to childhood feelings, and a need for community. But Shermer didn’t mention four, did he? “People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking primates.” I only count one. Oh wait, let me double check. Yeah. That’s one. And it doesn’t sufficiently account for religions existence at all. Secondly, people aren’t robots. Indoctrination can only account for so much. Your opinion is irrelevant. The fact is that many different and divergent views do exist. People do evaluate the beliefs they are taught against the personal experience and knowledge they acquire (I was brought up Catholic, by the way). “Patternicity” doesn’t account for that. Another flaw is that there are, in reality, a lot of organization that promote cohesion and enforce social rules. If that and the need to understand natural phenomenon were the sole reason religions exist, then isn’t it likely that it would have been replaced by government and science? It could reasonably be assumed that religion offers something to it’s adherents that other social structures do not. Comfort, amongst other things. It also endeavors to explain man’s place in the world, how we should behave in it, what our duties are to our fellow humans. These ideas aren’t new, and they’re constantly reinvented to suit the times. We can debate whether or not these people should feel they need a prescription or guidance on these matters. We can argue there are better sources that provide that. However, it’s inescapably clear that the majority of religious individuals know that other options and views exist, and that they’ve chosen religion for some reason. Denying that there was a choice made is willfully misunderstanding the issue. Clearly there’s some value to be had in it, or no one would bother adhering to it. The value can be debated, but ultimately relegating it to an anachronistic, evolutionary leftover doesn’t cut it. The thesis of Shermer’s argument is: “People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking primates.” I said that was too simple. Pattern-seeking primate and childhood indoctrination are not the same ideas, to the individual who responded to my comment. Shermer’s ‘patternicity’ applies equally to every animal on the planet. Natural selection would favor a ‘false positive’ in a rabbit as much as a human. As we all know, it would be ridiculous to assume that a rabbit is religious. Hence, ‘patternicity’ is too simple to account for the belief in religion or God, because it applies equally to every animal on the planet.
Moreover, how does believing a lion is responsible for a rustle in the grass lead to believing a sky god makes rain fall? It’s a non-sequitor. The false positive, as outlined in the post, has nothing to do with explaining a belief in God. It’s more reasonable to say that the belief in God stemmed from recognizing cause-and-effect. If primitive man overturned a jug of water, he would eventually understood that knocking the jug fell over because of his action. The jug, however, was not inclined to fall over unless something knocked it over. Hence, if a volcano erupted something must have caused it. If the rain fell, it fell because of a cause. Disease had to be caused by something. Our ancestors had no means to understand forces that caused these events, but they knew they were caused by something. Animisitc beliefs, and the belief in impersonal forces (which many anthropologists believe proceded the idea of spirits) arose from this.
Comparing animistic beliefs or their predessessors with religion is a little like comparing a heat-seeking missile to a rock, they’re both weapons right? While there are definetly parallells, there is no way a missile and a rock are the same thing. Religions are infinetly more complex, but the post doesn’t bother to mention that.
While a desire to understand the natural world is a reason why people believe in religion, it isn’t the only one. Anxiety over dying is a far better way to account for religion’s longevity. Anxiety and fear are one of the factors commonly cited as one of the reasons religion exists. In one introductory anthropology text book four reasons for the rise of religion are discussed; a need for understanding, fear and anxiety (particularly about mortality), reversion to childhood feelings, and a need for community.
But Shermer didn’t mention four, did he? “People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking primates.” I only count one. Oh wait, let me double check. Yeah. That’s one. And it doesn’t sufficiently account for religions existence at all.
Secondly, people aren’t robots. Indoctrination can only account for so much. Your opinion is irrelevant. The fact is that many different and divergent views do exist. People do evaluate the beliefs they are taught against the personal experience and knowledge they acquire (I was brought up Catholic, by the way). “Patternicity” doesn’t account for that.
Another flaw is that there are, in reality, a lot of organization that promote cohesion and enforce social rules. If that and the need to understand natural phenomenon were the sole reason religions exist, then isn’t it likely that it would have been replaced by government and science? It could reasonably be assumed that religion offers something to it’s adherents that other social structures do not. Comfort, amongst other things. It also endeavors to explain man’s place in the world, how we should behave in it, what our duties are to our fellow humans. These ideas aren’t new, and they’re constantly reinvented to suit the times. We can debate whether or not these people should feel they need a prescription or guidance on these matters. We can argue there are better sources that provide that. However, it’s inescapably clear that the majority of religious individuals know that other options and views exist, and that they’ve chosen religion for some reason. Denying that there was a choice made is willfully misunderstanding the issue. Clearly there’s some value to be had in it, or no one would bother adhering to it. The value can be debated, but ultimately relegating it to an anachronistic, evolutionary leftover doesn’t cut it.

]]> By: John Draeger http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-12055 John Draeger Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:12:31 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-12055 Yes, this comment is late, but perhaps someone new to the blog will read older posts and get something out of it: There are 2 competing ideas for why supernatural explanations evolved in human thought. One is covered by Dr. Shermer and has been called the by-product model. Brain functions that evolved for other survival benefits have produced, as a by-product, religious thought tendency. The other model was covered by Dr. T in comment #12 - the forward extension of child-like thinking. I distinctly remember Dr. Shermer wrote somewhere that he found the later model appealing at one time. Consider that mother and father are used to refer to gods, and human-created gods have at least some human characteristics. Since we know the human form evolved due to a number of historical earth catastrophes (extinction events) it's extremely unlikely that any real god would have a human form. Perhaps we should not be trying to chose one or the other; it could be some of both. Oh, and to Devil's Advocate (#34), it probably wasn't a chicken leg - maybe some bone marrow from a larger beast - but any statement about a chicken seems to be inherently funny so I liked your explanation anyway! Yes, this comment is late, but perhaps someone new to the blog will read older posts and get something out of it:

There are 2 competing ideas for why supernatural explanations evolved in human thought. One is covered by Dr. Shermer and has been called the by-product model. Brain functions that evolved for other survival benefits have produced, as a by-product, religious thought tendency. The other model was covered by Dr. T in comment #12 – the forward extension of child-like thinking. I distinctly remember Dr. Shermer wrote somewhere that he found the later model appealing at one time. Consider that mother and father are used to refer to gods, and human-created gods have at least some human characteristics. Since we know the human form evolved due to a number of historical earth catastrophes (extinction events) it’s extremely unlikely that any real god would have a human form.

Perhaps we should not be trying to chose one or the other; it could be some of both.

Oh, and to Devil’s Advocate (#34), it probably wasn’t a chicken leg – maybe some bone marrow from a larger beast – but any statement about a chicken seems to be inherently funny so I liked your explanation anyway!

]]> By: kabol http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-11964 kabol Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:55:35 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-11964 i apologize - i am net-nannying. i am even annoying myself. i apologize – i am net-nannying. i am even annoying myself.

]]> By: kabol http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-11963 kabol Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:52:18 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-11963 what's with the epistles, people? and give us some paragraphs! you'd use those if you you were writing lengthy missives the old fashioned way, wouldn't you? does anyone actually write the old fashioned way? scary. what’s with the epistles, people? and give us some paragraphs! you’d use those if you you were writing lengthy missives the old fashioned way, wouldn’t you?

does anyone actually write the old fashioned way?

scary.

]]> By: Tim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-11959 Tim Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:40:19 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-11959 What happens if my "inner knowledge" is different from your "inner knowledge?" What happens is a contradiction. Either the world exists, or it doesn't. Either the world is objective or it is subjective and exists only as ideas. If something only exists as an idea then that is the mind-body dichotomy. Something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect. You speak of Santa saying that since he delivers the goods then he is real through people believing that he is real. What you are saying is that if the con works, then it is good. No, actually what you are saying is that if people believe the con is real then it is real. If you would like to study how such faith is poisonous to people then I recommend research "The House of Yahway." All the people there believe that there is a God and this God is discovered through inner knowledge. They follow their leader who is the world's ear to God (again discovered through inner knowledge) and they substitute their thinking to his judgment and irrationally derived knowledge (which comes from comes from God, or aliens, or the environment, or society, or from evolution, or from some other authority or phenomenon). I think you will find that such sources of knowledge and subsequent action based on such "knowledge" leads to inefficiency and with it poverty, misery, and stagnation. Faith, force, and mysticism destroy morality, logic, and wealth. Santa does not deliver the goods for a lot of people who believe in him. Visit an orphanage on Christmas and see how many gifts are there. Visit child services and see how many children not only do not get gifts, but are gifts on Christmas. No myth or any form of wish thinking "delivers the goods," only action first to produce the gifts and then the thoughtful action to give such gifts delivers the goods. Belief does not do anything, thought and action are what gets things done. You say you didn't say anything about epistemology, yet you speak about nothing else. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, where it comes from and how things can be understood. You claim a source of knowledge outside of evidence, outside of reason, outside of logic, that this source of information is irrationally derived from impulse, which carries with it not just epistemological questions but metaphysical ones as well. You say you've said nothing about ethics, yet at the same time talk about what is acceptable to do and what is not in regard to children and your fellow man. Such issues are issues of ethics and your source? Again, "magic," or if you find that to be too condescending (but true) then "inner knowledge." What is logical to me? Non-contradictory identification. Do you know why? Because that is what logic is. Logic is not anything to anybody, it is a process that is either used, or it is not. If there are sources of knowledge outside of reason and objective reality that can contradict objective reality, then there can be no logic. If such knowledge does not contradict objective reality and can be discovered through reason (reason being discrimination of thought to discover what is true and what is not about reality), then such "inner knowledge" is irrelevant and any ability to "feel" your way to truth (that actually get you to truth) gets you there by coincidence and therefore is not a valid way to gain knowledge. Logic cannot apply in a philosophy based on subjectivism. For that reason you are not being logical, not because you are a fart or some other name you want to call me. What happens if my “inner knowledge” is different from your “inner knowledge?” What happens is a contradiction. Either the world exists, or it doesn’t. Either the world is objective or it is subjective and exists only as ideas. If something only exists as an idea then that is the mind-body dichotomy. Something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect.

You speak of Santa saying that since he delivers the goods then he is real through people believing that he is real. What you are saying is that if the con works, then it is good. No, actually what you are saying is that if people believe the con is real then it is real. If you would like to study how such faith is poisonous to people then I recommend research “The House of Yahway.” All the people there believe that there is a God and this God is discovered through inner knowledge. They follow their leader who is the world’s ear to God (again discovered through inner knowledge) and they substitute their thinking to his judgment and irrationally derived knowledge (which comes from comes from God, or aliens, or the environment, or society, or from evolution, or from some other authority or phenomenon).

I think you will find that such sources of knowledge and subsequent action based on such “knowledge” leads to inefficiency and with it poverty, misery, and stagnation. Faith, force, and mysticism destroy morality, logic, and wealth.

Santa does not deliver the goods for a lot of people who believe in him. Visit an orphanage on Christmas and see how many gifts are there. Visit child services and see how many children not only do not get gifts, but are gifts on Christmas. No myth or any form of wish thinking “delivers the goods,” only action first to produce the gifts and then the thoughtful action to give such gifts delivers the goods. Belief does not do anything, thought and action are what gets things done.

You say you didn’t say anything about epistemology, yet you speak about nothing else. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, where it comes from and how things can be understood. You claim a source of knowledge outside of evidence, outside of reason, outside of logic, that this source of information is irrationally derived from impulse, which carries with it not just epistemological questions but metaphysical ones as well. You say you’ve said nothing about ethics, yet at the same time talk about what is acceptable to do and what is not in regard to children and your fellow man. Such issues are issues of ethics and your source? Again, “magic,” or if you find that to be too condescending (but true) then “inner knowledge.”

What is logical to me? Non-contradictory identification. Do you know why? Because that is what logic is. Logic is not anything to anybody, it is a process that is either used, or it is not. If there are sources of knowledge outside of reason and objective reality that can contradict objective reality, then there can be no logic. If such knowledge does not contradict objective reality and can be discovered through reason (reason being discrimination of thought to discover what is true and what is not about reality), then such “inner knowledge” is irrelevant and any ability to “feel” your way to truth (that actually get you to truth) gets you there by coincidence and therefore is not a valid way to gain knowledge. Logic cannot apply in a philosophy based on subjectivism. For that reason you are not being logical, not because you are a fart or some other name you want to call me.

]]> By: kabol http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-11950 kabol Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:47:17 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-11950 sorry -- you put a oh for fux sake can someone explain the code. sorry — you put a

oh for fux sake can someone explain the code.

]]> By: kabol http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-11949 kabol Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:44:59 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-11949 mr mook - i can't understand this post at all. please help me on your next one by differentiating between the text you're quoting and your own: "<em>" quoted text "</em>" leave off the quotation marks. unless, of course, you were just having a conversation with yourself. that's always fun. mr mook – i can’t understand this post at all.
please help me on your next one by differentiating between the text you’re quoting and your own:

“” quoted text “”

leave off the quotation marks.

unless, of course, you were just having a conversation with yourself. that’s always fun.

]]> By: Tim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-11944 Tim Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:13:42 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-11944 " ‘children would starve on the streets and become pedophile meat because there is no reason to feed or protect them without irrationally derived morality,’ Never mentioned pedophiles or morality. Sounds like someone has issues! hahaha " This statement is a measure of your character. ” ‘children would starve on the streets and become pedophile meat because there is no reason to feed or protect them without irrationally derived morality,’

Never mentioned pedophiles or morality. Sounds like someone has issues! hahaha ”

This statement is a measure of your character.

]]> By: Max http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-11853 Max Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:35:53 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-11853 I predict that Tim will have the last word in this thread for a period of at least one month. I predict that Tim will have the last word in this thread for a period of at least one month.

]]> By: Tim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious/#comment-11765 Tim Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:06:31 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3951#comment-11765 Yes, there are the strawmen, there is the belittlement, the appeal to authority and the dogmatic rejection of those who disagree with your current position, the "I know you are but what am I" responses, yes, keep it coming. P.S. I will keep posting that video too because it perfectly describes what is wrong with your thinking as well as the rest of the anti-rationalists. Yes, there are the strawmen, there is the belittlement, the appeal to authority and the dogmatic rejection of those who disagree with your current position, the “I know you are but what am I” responses, yes, keep it coming.

P.S. I will keep posting that video too because it perfectly describes what is wrong with your thinking as well as the rest of the anti-rationalists.

]]>