“We’ve evolved to be creationists” “We’ve evolved to be creationists” is a quote from the “The Atlantic Monthly” article “Is God an Accident?”—December 2005 issue. Paul Bloom, author of the article, informs us that “human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena…this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry”. Paul Bloom informs us that nearly everyone on earth believes in miracles, afterlife, and the creation of the earth by some supernatural power. While doing research into infant behavior, psychologists have recently discovered that humans are born with a predisposition to believe in some supernatural actuality. These scientists conclude that this predisposition is a random happenstance of cognitive functioning gone awry. These conclusions led to the question “Is God an Accident?”--the title of the article. I have just found the answer to a question that has baffled me for years. Why do non-believers love to talk religion? Perhaps talking about religion is much like ‘whistling past the cemetery’. Everyone loves to talk religion because we are all born with the “gut feeling” that there is a body/mind duality. Because we “feel” that mind is a “spiritual” entity we easily accommodate heaven, soul, god etc. Science says that this gut feeling is a result of “cognitive functioning gone awry” and religion tells us that this is a matter of faith. What do you think?
I think most of us have always been creationists. We are a Christian nation who (mostly) believe in God. Atheism is a newer phenomena. My parents and grandparents said they never heard of atheists in the 20-60s. I think atheists talk cr@p against God because deep down they KNOW He exists. They KNOW they're going to hell and it scares the cr@p out of them. There is a hole in the soul of all of us that only God can fill. They are trying to justify their beliefs by finding like-minded people and then attack the believers. They argue against God because they're trying to convince themselves they're right. People talk cr@p against things they fear or hate. Atheists probably fear and hate God. They KNOW He's there. They just don't want to believe it because there's no "proof." I disagree with Bloom that “human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena…this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry”. That's the hole in the soul. Our cognitive function is fine, thank you. We're like that because we're God's children/creation. Not some monkey relative.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Except for some of the founding fathers, of course. Yeah? Dates back to at least 500 B.C. http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/history.html And the word is phenomenon. Singular. Maybe they just didn't listen/ look. Based on what evidence? Keep trying, you're not even close. If there's no proof then how do we know he's there? Blind unthinking belief? Give me a break... Pffft. Wrong.
What was the universe formed by? the some thing that has all ways existed? not from absolute nothing, i am sure no scientist will say we started from nothing. This leaves two choices, belief in an eternal some thing, or a creator, as we do not have the means yet to go back so far to find out (may be never will) humans are stuck with an unanswerable question.
We don't know yet. Still to be answered. Why limit yourself to two choices, or even just those two? As far as science is concerened the answer is "we don't know, but we may find out". Unanswered (and maybe unanswerable) questions are fine, atheists can live with them, without the need to postulate some nebulous "creator".
When written history began five thousand years ago humans had already developed a great deal of knowledge. Much of that knowledge was of a very practical nature such as how to use animal skins for clothing, how to weave wool, how to hunt and fish etc. A large part of human knowledge was directed toward how to kill and torture fellow humans. I guess things never really change all that much. In several parts of the world civilizations developed wherein people learned to create laws and to rule vast numbers of people. Some measure of peace and stability developed but there was yet no means for securing the people from their rulers. I guess things never really change all that much Almost everywhere priests joined rulers in attempts to control the population. Despite these continual wars both of external and internal nature the human population managed to flourish. Egypt was probably one of the first long lasting and stable civilizations to grow up along the large rivers. Egypt survived almost unchanged for three thousand years. This success is attributed to its geographical location that gave it freedom from competition and fertile lands that were constantly replenished by the river overflowing its banks and thus depositing new fertile soil for farming. Western philosophy emerged in the sixth century BC along the Ionian coast. A small group of scientist-philosophers began writing about their attempts to develop “rational” accounts regarding human experience. These early Pre-Socratic thinkers thought that they were dealing with fundamental elements of nature. It is natural for humans to seek knowledge. In the “Metaphysics” Aristotle wrote “All men by nature desire to know”. The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”. The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it. The Folk Theory of General Kinds Every particular thing is a kind of thing. The Folk Theory of Essences Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior. The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences is: The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics Kinds exist and are defined by essences. We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality. Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness. The information comes primarily from “Philosophy in the Flesh” and http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/302/folkmeta.htm
Reminds me of an essay by Douglas Adams, "Is there an artificial God?". The idea of God did evolve to fit certain purposes. He gives the example of the religion of Bali, where they used the temple calender to organize the planting of rice. Western agricultural scientists come in and experimented with different methods, which increased yeilds, but eventually led to devastation by pests. We might not even know why the particular form of our religion works for us, but I suggest it is independent of it's essential truth.
There isnt any latent 'out of the womb' belief, but there is a sort of cognitive need to believe i think. Or rather a need for a certainty, nihilism definitely puts you at odds with your brain. Coupled with that i think we're sort of hard-wired to have holisitic mind states. Thats all 'nirvana' really is, a switched state of consciousness that you could induce in practically anyone given the right conditions. Put together those two things are very likely to output religiosity. I wouldnt say it has anything to do with supernaturalism, alot of scientists like to throw that term around but it very rarely means anything.
That's a bit of a stretch. We evolved into being 'believers'... that is using emotion to predominantly determine what is 'true' (it doesn't have to be restricted to the 'supernatural'). 'God' is a projection of human features unto reality. Take reality, add two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and it magically becomes sentient, full of human emotion, full of human intent, and full of human authoritarian behavior. It is called anthropomorphization and it comes from a survival mechanism in humans. Religion on the other hand provides many benefits by grouping 'believers' into larger social units that share. The downside is that 'God' becomes intertwined with a theist's identity. If 'God' is attacked then a theists will perceive the attack being on them personally (commonly as an attack on their very lives). So, religion results in resource sharing and psychological suppport (increasing the odds of the survival of its members over the millenia), 'God' is easy and natural for humans to imagine, and 'belief' makes 'God' part of a person's identity... thus protecting the idea. Naturally religion says 'belief' is good and to be a part of the religion you must 'believe'; therefore, evaluation of truth via emotion is a prerequisite for attaining the benefits of religion.
