Religion

[Revelation In Space]

Instrumentum Regni [Latin] - Instrument of Government

Much that was called religion has carried an unconscious attitude of hostility toward life. True religion must teach that life is filled with joys pleasing to the eye of God, that knowledge without action is empty. All men must see that the teaching of religion by rules and rote is largely a hoax. The proper teaching is recognized with ease. You can know it without fail because it awakens within you that sensation which tells you this is something you’ve always known. - Frank Herbert, Dune

Origins of Religion
Religion, in its broadest sense, is the pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance; the alleged, or at least pretense of an alleged strict adherence to a specific set of principles. In this sense everyone is religious. As far as we can determine there have never existed any people anywhere at any time who were not in some sense of the word religious. It is only recently, however, that careful study of the origins of religion and its development has been undertaken. Throughout most of mankind's history one's religious tradition was something one was born into without choice, often without the knowledge of any alternatives. In the 19th century, with mass migration, and improved means of communication and travel, that began to change.

The arrival of scientific inquiry and especially the theory of evolution also inspired the intellectual to question established institutions including religion. Through the methodology of anthropology, sociology and psychology mankind had striven to search through the human mind as well as the ruins of ancient civilizations to find answers about his spiritual past and present yearnings.

Some of the theories that were most prominent were that religion sprang from primitive people's belief that the immortal soul remained after death, inhabiting the things around them. Dreams, hallucinations and visions of dead ancestors inspired this. Then came the idea that prehistoric people believed, not in the personal immortal soul, but rather, the impersonal supernatural force which controlled everything. This came from a fear and awe of the unknown. Another theory suggests that religion came from magic - an attempt to control the environment around our primitive ancestors by imitating nature. Sprinkling water while beating drums to sound like thunder would produce rain, for example.

It is impossible to guess, with any degree of accuracy or ability to confirm, the origins of religion. More often these theories are veiled attempts to explain religion away by dismissing early forms to have been based upon illusions, ignorance and fear, thereby undermining religion in general. No tenable explanations have been introduced and yet from a faulty premise the illusion of a sound conclusion is, somewhat ironically, based more upon ignorance and fear. Science and religion have a great deal more in common than either would care to admit.

It is also apparent that many of the concepts of the world religions, though separated geographically, traditionally, culturally, and socially, have a great deal more in common than one might think.​

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, they're infested with humans.

 

[Revelation In Space]

Yeah, they're infested with humans.

What took you so long? You have to think about that? Not that I disagree, by the way.

 

[axocanth]

Science and religion have a great deal more in common than either would care to admit.
​

You're not the first person to have noticed! See, for example, Mary Midgley's "Evolution as a Religion" and David Stove's "Darwinian Fairytales". The latter, in particular, is superb. Stove is an atheist, by the way (dunno about Midgley).

Think science precludes immortality? The genes are immortal, Richard Dawkins tells his spellbound audience.

 

[Revelation In Space]

You're not the first person to have noticed! See, for example, Mary Midgley's "Evolution as a Religion" and David Stove's "Darwinian Fairy Tales". The latter, in particular, is superb. Stove is an atheist, by the way (dunno about Midgley).

What about you, if I may ask? You are an unbeliever, atheist you yourself call it, who doesn't buy into Darwinian evolution? That isn't unusual from my experience. None of the atheists I know buy into it, but it is extremely unusual for the militant atheists I come across online. By the way, I don't use the term militant in a derogatory sense. I consider myself an online militant theist. But I empathize with even militant atheists. I think they have an excellent point. I see militant atheists as being far more socio-politically frustrated in a theistic culture than actually concerned with Gods, the Bible or religion. For example, I don't celebrate Christmas or Easter and I wouldn't if I had young children either. Atheists would. They're not upset with mythology in their lives so long as it doesn't interfere with them politically.

But what about you? What are your opinions, if any, on the Bible? Why are you not a theist and what does being a theist mean to you?

 

[axocanth]

Re above. A fuller answer later, gotta run now. But check out a fella named David Berlinski -- routinely dismissed as a Creationist or ID proponent. He's not; he's a secular Jew. His views are not unlike my own.

 

[Revelation In Space]

Re above. A fuller answer later, gotta run now. But check out a fella named David Berlinski -- routinely dismissed as a Creationist or ID proponent. He's not; he's a secular Jew. His views are not unlike my own.

Oh, I like Berlinski. I've posted some of his videos here and there.

 

[axocanth]

To be as brief as possible (not easy!) . . .

My interests are mainly the philosophy of science, language, and mind.

Yes, I believe the evolutionary account at its most general level, i.e., tracing my family tree back a few million generations would probably produce something that looks more like a fish than Uncle Bob. Of course, the more that is asserted, the more likely it is to be false, and I'd be hesitant about committing to much more. Natural selection theory, for example, I consider to be quite vacuous, as I argued recently at some length in another thread ("Intelligent Design Redux").

I certainly wouldn't defend my views on evolution with the same unholy zeal typically seen in places like this. If there's one thing a heavy dose of philosophy of science is guaranteed to do, it is remove that smug grin from one's face lol. What seemed so simple and certain previously seems far less so afterwards. Unfortunately a lot of the science buffs in places such as this tend to be not only completely ignorant of, but fiercely hostile to the philosophy of science. They know nothing about it, but are simply obeying the commands of their own high priests again. If Lawrence Krauss or Richard Feynman says philosophy of science is a load of crap -- and they do! -- that's good enough for the Red Guards.

It's a shame that they deprive themselves of the opportunity to gain a better understanding of their own passion. Views expressed tend to be hopelessly naive and often quite false. Not least, this ignorance results in them grossly overestimating the reliability of scientific knowledge claims.

There are two very good reasons to be suspicious of scientific theories being true:

(i) The pessimistic induction: Scientific theories of past generations have almost invariably turned out to be rejected by later generations of scientists, even those regarded as most highly confirmed; those that once could not conceivably be wrong.

(ii) Underdetermination of theories by evidence/data : A plurality of theories can be constructed to accommodate precisely the same set of data or evidence. This is no philosopher's flight of fancy: we already know it can happen and has happened innumerable times in the history of science.

Yes, right now it may be quite inconceivable that evolution is false. But we've been in that position before, and were quite wrong.



As for theism, I never really took much interest in it. The standard atheist story goes like this: I attended church till I was about 13, at which time I applied my powers of critical reason to the matter and determined that it couldn't possibly be true. (By a funny coincidence Einstein said pretty much the same thing. Weird, eh?).

I stopped around 13 too, as soon as my parents stopped forcing me to get out of bed on a Sunday morning. Precocious critical faculties had sod all to do with it lol. A freezing cold church, hard pews, women with silly hats vs. an extra hour in bed adequately explains it. Since then, it's never held any attraction for me, except for the philosophical and historical aspects. Not much of a story!


There are quite a few others out there like Berlinski, by the way, who feel that the current evolutionary story cannot possibly be right. On perhaps the most salient fact of our own existence -- consciousness -- it is quite silent, for example, as far as I can tell anyway. Their voices tend to be silenced quickly, though. The reaction to any book criticizing it all is a foregone conclusion: the writer will be put through the mill, discredited with a savagery that beggars belief, then hung, drawn, and quartered. As you said astutely yourself, careers have been ruined for less.

It's a sad reflection of the intellectual zeitgeist, if you ask me, and I sometimes wonder whether it would be safer to stand in the middle of Mecca and scream obscenities about Muhammad than to cast the slightest aspersion on evolutionary orthodoxy. I know you know what I mean!

How about yourself? Do you reject all of it? Berlinski himself, I think, would prefer to describe himself as an agnostic on the matter.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What took you so long? You have to think about that? Not that I disagree, by the way.

You think you're a priority for me?

 

[Revelation In Space]

Yes, right now it may be quite inconceivable that evolution is false. But we've been in that position before, and were quite wrong.

I see microevolution as compatible with the Bible and totally observable, but macroevolution I see as Berlinski himself said in the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary, a failed metaphysical experiment.

During the great migration thanks to the industrial revolutions new religious concepts became more common in occidental cultures, but at the same time the intelligentsia was challenging the self-proclaimed moral, social and political authority of the apostate church. Ironically, at a time when even secular society was unbelievably prudish. So, we started getting these ships for exotic lands with animals for display, including the chimpanzee. At the time even piano legs had to be covered for "decency." And chimps looked adorable in clothes. That's where the science of eugenics comes in.

Science tends to make up stuff based upon vague insubstantial suppositions. Which is fine, as do we all, but as we learn we see, well that doesn't work like that. Science has incentive not to do that. Like politics, there is too much invested to change. Like John Cleese said, science is a method of investigation not a belief system.

How about yourself? Do you reject all of it? Berlinski himself, I think, would prefer to describe himself as an agnostic on the matter.

Atheism, evolution, religion or the Bible? Everything is suspect to the skeptical non-ideologue. Nothing wrong with atheism, evolution, religion, or the Bible themselves, but in the hands of a thoughtless ideologue it's just so much noise. You have to dig through the crap, dirt, noise and even good intentions to get to the best truth you can find.

I think we are all agnostic; the term is redundant. I believe in the Bible and what I have so far discovered it really says. That's subject to change. My faith is in Jehovah rather than myself, science, religion, or the fragile wisdom of mankind.

 

[Revelation In Space]

You think you're a priority for me?

I know I am. Otherwise, turn the channel.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I know I am. Otherwise, turn the channel.

Just run away and you won't be assaulted by reality. As usual.

 

[Pinball1970]

I see as Berlinski himself said in the Expelled:

Why quote a non Biologist?

 

[Revelation In Space]

Why quote a non Biologist?

You want me to quote Judy Mikovits? Your science priests threw her under the bus. You want me to quote a biologist who teaches the Bible in her spare time, a JW? You don't need to be a biologist to disagree with a failed metaphysical experiment.

 

[Revelation In Space]

Just run away and you won't be assaulted by reality. As usual.

Certainly not here I won't, and specifically not by you.

 

[Pinball1970]

You want me to quote Judy Mikovits? Your science priests threw her under the bus. You want me to quote a biologist who teaches the Bible in her spare time, a JW? You don't need to be a biologist to disagree with a failed metaphysical experiment.

Wow, how many idiotic comments in the first 30 seconds? The theory is just "hunches and anecdotes" we "cannot make sense of the fossil record."

You really need to stop listening to these videos and consider the arguments from the other side for once. Text books or visit a decent natural history museum.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Certainly not here I won't, and specifically not by you.

Perhaps if I used smaller words?

 

[Revelation In Space]

Perhaps if I used smaller words?

If you like.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Don't want to over load you.

 

[axocanth]

@ Revelation

Consider . . .

Wow, how many idiotic comments in the first 30 seconds? The theory is just "hunches and anecdotes" we "cannot make sense of the fossil record."

You really need to stop listening to these videos and consider the arguments from the other side for once. Text books or visit a decent natural history museum.

Now, I really don't want to be rude to anyone here, but I'm guessing you've heard the same kind of idiotic reaction we see expressed above as many times as I have over the years. In a nutshell: a not very sophisticated, not particularly bright, appallingly misinformed man (= Pinball) contemptuously dismissing a man who is all the things he is not (= Berlinski). - "Just another hillbilly who probably thinks that scientists think that dogs change into cats overnight".

It's roughly analogous to a child dismissing general relativity with "My watch never speeds up or slows down. What a moron that Einstein dude is. He needs to lay down his banjo, read more basic physics textbooks, or visit a decent clock shop.".



Mr Berlinski may be wrong. So might Mr Einstein for that matter. However, he is not convinced by the orthodox evolutionary account, expresses skepticism (isn't that the scientific way?), and raises legitimate questions. Anything wrong with that? Or should we all shut up and just repeat the Ten Commandments with Pinball leading the sermon? A great many scientists are not convinced by the orthodox evolutionary account.

Pinball has me on ignore. You may wish to ask him to ponder the following. It may be best not to: the result will almost certainly be more of the same child-level inanity.


1. What is "The Theory of Evolution"?

Ask ten different scientists and you're liable to get ten different answers. Members here themselves, for example, routinely rehash the Ministry of Propaganda slogan "There is the fact of evolution and then there is the theory of evolution. The two are different. The latter is that which explains the former." Pinball himself observes the same distinction (in the "ID Redux" thread). Is it unusual for scientists themselves to challenge "The Theory"?

2. Fossil record: Is it, or is it not the case that scientists themselves draw wildly divergent conclusions from the fossil record -- both in terms of the pattern (tempo or mode), and the unobservable processes and mechanisms supposedly responsible for these patterns? If so, why is it unreasonable to suggest that the fossil record is "mystifying"? Scientists themselves do not agree on what sense to make of it.

3. re anecdotes. In Pinball's view, what do all episodes of so-called natural selection have in common? Is there a common force responsible in all cases, for example, analogous to a Newtonian gravitational force which explains all its instances? If not, what is the commonality? I asked him before (same thread); he did not understand the question. If there is nothing substantive linking all cases of natural selection, much as there is nothing substantive linking all cases of human battle, why is the word "anecdote" unreasonable?

4. Is it, or is it not the case that leaders in the field (Gould, Lewontin) have criticized their peers for concocting "Just So" stories, which might reasonably be described as "anecdotes"?

5. How does Pinball suggest we transcend the anecdotal and confirm putative episodes of natural selection in the distant past?


While you're at it . . .

Why quote a non Biologist?

Does Pinball know the difference between a conceptual and an empirical question? Is the possible vacuity of natural selection theory, say, an empirical or a conceptual question? Can Pinball name a discipline which devotes itself to the examination of conceptual questions? (clue: it's not science).