[Closed] God's will

For religion(s) to take authorship of the core moral code that makes us human the world over is to distort history.

Not imo. I very much doubt that moral codes predate religion, in fact I'm sure they don't, and to suggest they do sounds like a distortion of history to me.

Well, we're down to pretty much the fundamentals of the well worn deist / atheist argument. For me the evidence points pretty much one way. Primate ethics research does it for me.

You don't need a religion for a moral code to exist. The role of religion has largely been to evolve and adapt and benefit the ruling class of the period whilst confusing people with mystical notions. That is not to say that religion may not be used to bring about social change, I'm sure that ISIS supporters see themselves as doing God's work as did liberation theologists. They are both wrong, however.

Agreed BillMC! Religious doctrines were developed and maintained by the ruling few to control the masses. Certainly in a time when mysticism prevailed.

Therefore, in my world, religion has nothing to do with the true nature of God. Because of the ruling doctrines, God is perceived as a deity, a he, a she. That's just pretty poor human conditioning, bordering on arrogance.

The key point here is that we all, each and everyone of us has our own experience of the world and who is to say, or cast judgement that one persons' experiences are false or true? Better or worse? It's so deeply personal to each individual that not one of us can stand up and negate another's feelings. Same goes with belief, faith, call it what you will.

I can go with faith being a coping mechanism. If my un-doctrined faith helps me be a better person, enables me to accept the many varied shades of grey, rather than needing everything in neat little boxes of true and false, right and wrong, fact and fiction, then that works for me and quite frankly, don't give too much of a shit if that is not for others. After all, it's my world, my life, my experience and as I said before, I'm good with that so long as it creates care, compassion and gratitude within me.

For those of you who can get along with no faith or belief, that's fine with me too! Even when, just like those who choose to belong to another, polar opposite way of thinking, that it needs shouting from the rooftops to seemingly try to confirm ones own beliefs.

But then, many people need to belong to a group, gain an identity, to tell them how they 'should' behave, think, act and react to their worlds. This often occurs when we are in our teens, whilst we're trying to figure out who we are and how we interact with the world around us. Sheep.

Go get your own world, your own life, dare to be different, dare to believe, in anything you want. Just think, feel and open up to the infinite possibilities that being a human being in this infinite Universe allows. It's not all black and white, so don't fear the greys!

...In the absence of proof, science seeks that proof. Without proof, anything is merely a theory.

"Science" is not the only way to understand life - and science doesn't seek anything, it is just a pattern of human thought.

Somafunk- if you refused to go to church or religious studies from a very young age (which you have the right to do, of course), how can you have an informed opinion on something you refused to learn about or understand?
It's a little bit like certain religious groups that refuse to learn or understand science and decide they know better, despite being totally uninformed.

and science doesn't seek anything.

Oh dear! Oh dear, Oh dear! The whole point of science from its very earliest days is to seek knowledge.

Somafunk- if you refused to go to church or religious studies from a very young age (which you have the right to do, of course), how can you have an informed opinion on something you refused to learn about or understand?

I know a religious education teacher who holds no personal belief but did a theology degree and dares to teach about it and a psychiatrist who specialises in sexual abusers but who has never been a paedophile herself. Shocking isn't it.

You don't have to be in the gang to have an interest and knowledge of the gang.

Convert- you missed my point (or maybe I didn't make it very well).

You're right, you don't have to be in the gang to have an interest or knowledge about the gang, but that was my point- soma funk seems to have an opinion based in neither knowledge nor interest.

I'm not suggesting that you have to have faith to teach or attend religious studies, but how can you have an informed opinion if you close your ears to understanding what other folks believe? You don't have to believe in God yourself to learn a little about religion.

Some interesting posts.. I was drawn (in a spiritual way perhaps) to this little snippet (cut from a post and not representing their view in any way.)

most human beings are mentally unhinged

Perhaps we could change 'most' to 'all'

I like the slackalice approach, just make stuff up... mmm! but then what happens when the sheep start following my made up stuff (bingo! we have more [s]bullshit[/s]/religion/faith/belief/)

Any takers for 2+2=Banana (how do you coax a sheep? tck,tck, here my pretty.)

And back to the OP: it's a very tricky question! I don't believe that God's Will imposes in such a way for good, evil, or natural disaster. But then I can't begin to explain where miracles fit in? I think SaxonRider's contributions are closest to what I feel, but he has expressed himself far better than I could on this subject.

you missed my point (or maybe I didn't make it very well).

You are right, I did - apologies.

Irrespective of your personal beliefs it is an undeniable fact that religious groups profoundly effect world issues so to know about them is important to understand how the world ticks. Having said that its reasonable to say that RE classes in bygone days (& I suspect there are still pockets that do so now) were no more that recruitment/indoctrination sessions.

Yooohooo..
[img] ~c200[/img]

...The whole point of science from its very earliest days is to seek knowledge.

I would say that scientific method is a tool man has used to order information and test ideas, the seeking of knowledge is not confined to those who use science as their tool.

What quite a lot of the "God is omnipotent so he can do what he likes" miss is that God is, typically, also omnibenevolent or all-good/all-loving. God cannot do anything which makes the world a less good place. If the granting of free will to life, or simply the existence of evil, makes the world a better place then god cannot necessarily overrule it. That's key to the arguments I pointed out above.

Science" is not the only way to understand life - and science doesn't seek anything, it is just a pattern of human thought.

Science clearly seeks to establish "facts" by the reduction of infinite error using the scientific methodology and observation rather than pure thought. TBH what version of thinking does not seek something - usually the "truth"- with its method? None of them are designed to be wrong or get the wrong answer though we can debate if they work.
As for pattern of human thought I have no idea what this means but the laws of motion are not a pattern of human thought any more than gravity is or boyles law is.

As for morals we have basically two choices

1 god chose morals for a reason - there is a point to the 10 commandments

2 god chose them on a whim and we just have to follow

if it is 1 [ it must be obvs] then anyone can see the reasons and be moral. The golden rule pre dates religion and without religion we would and did still have a moral code. I am nit sure why one would argue otherwise as atheists are not amoral. As we have had religion clearly it has a affected our moral codes as say the treatment of homosexuals demonstrates. We are starting to ignore it a lot more theses days as the treatment of homosexuals shows.
Neither side can claim to to be the most moral or the only moral ones we just have different ones and will each think our own the best. No offence but many christians are very uncomfortable with some of the moral codes of the bible such as stoning adulterers and homosexuals so , generally, they chose which bits to follow.

how can you have an informed opinion on something you refused to learn about or understand?

say that scientific method is a tool man has used to order information and test ideas, the seeking of knowledge is not confined to those who use science as their tool

Being given a divine book led us to believe and not question all sorts of things

It slaos led us to be rather poor to those who proposes a heliocentric universe rather than the earth being at the centre.

You can pray for enlightenment as a method to seek knowledge but science has given us considerably more understanding [ in the physical real at least] than prayer has.

FWIW I agree science may have limits and may struggle to explain aesthetics and perhaps love but the religious method struggles with everything as it tries to fit facts into a view rather than gain facts and form a view.

Apologies, CBA.

But Junkyard, as far as I can tell, you have an informed opinion and you can't go back and uninform yourself! You provide reasoned arguments and engage in intelligent debate. You don't just write off religious people as unhinged nutters (at least, not without debate and intelligent consideration :wink:).

In response to your examples of homeopathy and the KKK- it's immediately obvious to the vast majority of us that the KKK, a hideous racist, homophobic group is wrong. It's also blindingly obvious that homeopathy has no scientific basis beyond a placebo effect. Religion however, is the product of centuries of human debate and is a large part of millions of lives, and perhaps not so easily dismissed as wrong or right, even to someone who isn't religious themselves.

I'm not inclined to get into the "science versus religion" discussion again today, but I believe they are aiming to do different things and are not mutually exclusive.

try and look at the power of something as simple as the Ten Commandments a value system which underpins so many modern societies

it does across as arrogant, societies existed perfectly well before the 10 commandments came along, with their own codes of conduct, whether mandated by religion or in another way, long before montheisim, let alone the abrahimic religions, the Jews nabbed them from the Hittites, who'd written them down before judaism existed
(itd be great to know more, but christians went on a religious book burning spree in the middle ages in an ISIS style)
The Chester Beaty Library in Dublin castle has an amazing collection of religious manuscripts from across the globe and is well worth an afternoon if you're bored of overpriced stout.

Australian Aboriginies had lived more or less isolated for 50000 years since migrating there from Africa (via se asia), pre european migration to the continent they had their own laws about what foods could be eaten and how it should be shared, punishments if laws were broken, rules for family, marriage and social organisation, rules for looking after land and sacred sites, and rules for ceremonies and rituals.
Same shit completely different religion/society and all recorded orally

my rambling point if I have one,(i was more concise after a few ales last night) is that the ability to survive in a complex society is in our genes, altruism and religiosity have a genetic component , like any other personality trait, so to an extent we [u]are[/u] all born with a sense of right and wrong and religion is just a way to reinforce our own moral code

if
god = love
then
god = oxytocin

Religious doctrines were developed and maintained by the ruling few to control the masses.

Religious doctrines predate civilisation, surplus, and the existence of the masses.

If you look back during more recent times the indigenous peoples of the Americas all had religious doctrines long before the arrival of Europeans, and yet they often didn't have a structured class system where the elite few needed to control the masses, especially in the case of the hunter-gathering societies.

It seems to me that it is more about religion v religion , than religion v science , they can't all be right .

I also subscribe to the thought that a collective belive has been an advantage to Homo sapiens , a reason to fight and stick together in the face of competition with rival groups of humans It could be a part of the reason why our species of human is still around and the others are not , and why successfully sociertys of the past had a religious element.

I am more interested in what somone does in the real world than what they think , If the doctor who helped save my life following a pulmonary embolism was Muslim/Christian/atheist was the least important part , and I don't care if someone thinks that it was the will of God ( It was science skill and training imo) I am just glad to be here .

You provide reasoned arguments and engage in intelligent debate. You don't just write off religious people as unhinged nutters (at least, not without debate and intelligent consideration :wink:).

Flattery Flattery but thanks.

Despite my entrenched anti religious views on here a number of my close friends are very devout to a variety of faiths- I was at eid last thursday for example. In general I see good people trying to adhere to a moral code and conduct that I myself could not achieve. Forgiveness being one of them. That said I cannot for the life of me understand why they think there is a god.

Whilst I agree science and religion are not mutually exclusive many of the findings of science and what the bible tells us are mutually exclusive

we evolved or we were created as an example.
IMHO you really need to pick one or you end up with a very strange fudge where the bible is the word of god or just metaphorical. These mental gymnastics those of faith have to go through lead to an inconsistent view IMHO

I very much doubt that moral codes predate religion, in fact I'm sure they don't

It's academic now anyway, isn't it?

A couple of millennia ago, religion may well have shaped society. Brought law to the lawless and pseudo-scientific explanations for the world around us. And that was probably a good thing, evolutionary even.

But now we have an established legal system, the threat of fines / jail has replaced the threat of fiery hell for all eternity (and doesn't require "faith" in the judicial system). Whether religion predates moral codes or vice versa is, at best, a history lesson.

But anyway. Someone posited earlier, "god is love." This throwaway internet meme fodder is part of why I asked the original question. If god is love, then why does bad shit happen? Is the implication that when something good happens it's all "yay, god" but when something bad happens it's our fault? That's just special pleading, surely.

Thinking about it, can both cases be true? For "it's all god's will, good and bad, and anything we can't explain is because he moves in mysterious ways" is the crux of the Old Testament; for "god is love, but man's corruption spoils that sometimes" we have the NT. Does that sound about right?

But then, if it's our own fault for the ills in the world, god created us "in his own image" - so it's a manufacturing defect. How does that sit with a perfect omniscient god?

I very much doubt that moral codes predate religion

Its seems most unlikey we had no morals at all and then formed a god and then formed morals
In essence religion is not the starting point for morals it is just another method to provide morals.

I like the slackalice approach, just make stuff up... mmm! but then what happens when the sheep start following my made up stuff (bingo! we have more bullshit/religion/faith/belief/)

You end up with a situation identical to that of L Ron Hubbard and Dianetics, a religion that he thought up, that people joined and that, ultimately, he lost in his divorce to his wife. Yes, a RELIGION that was part of a divorce settlement,

So, he started another one that is still going strong today and that has recently been granted "religion" status so that it can get all those nice tax benefits. Not that it needs more money, but when you have a lot, it's nice to have more, right?

Going with traditional religions for a moment though... I've always seen the huge cathedrals around the world, with their high pulpits and gold leaf, as a means of inspiring awe in the population. Quite apart from being there to save or help the population, I just think they were put up to intimidate them, remind them that they are the little people, insignificant to this religion. I admire the architecture, but the message is one that I do not like.

Oddly, the only time I even remotely enjoyed a church service was at Sandhurst. Because it meant I could sit down for a while and not have to do press-ups. I still have a problem with religion and killing, something that is a cornerstone of every army (pretty much), but I will support the blokes that do.

In general I see good people trying to adhere to a moral code... That said I cannot for the life of me understand why they think there is a god.

Arguably, that's two different things. Religion provides the moral code, a belief in a deity is there to enforce it.

Ergo, if we accept that people [i]want [/i]to be good people, we could readily have a godless religion and have the same benefits.

As DNA said, is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to have fairies at the bottom of it?

Junkyard- I wasn't trying to flatter you, it was sincerely meant, based on what your contributions to the thread.

if we accept that people want to be good people, we could readily have a godless religion and have the same benefits.

Thanks to the pea 🙂

Religion really does my head in 🙂

I don't really see a difference between Father Christmas and God TBH...
(No offence BTW)

I would imagine we tried to instil modes of conduct before we were verbal and its hard to have a god concept without language.

Indeed. Have a google around the experimentation and observational studies done on primates. If a moral code is present in primate societies it's laughable not to appreciate they were in existence in humans prior to organised religion being in existence to clarify (and take ownership) of them.

If a moral code is present in primate societies it's laughable not to appreciate they were in existence in humans prior to organised religion being in existence to clarify (and take ownership) of them.

It makes sense that it predates organised religion. I suppose the question then is where did that instinctive or inherent, as opposed to commanded, moral code come from? Can it be entirely put down to survival of the fittest or whatever the appropriate evolutionary aspect is when it includes behaviours that at times put others needs or interests above our own?

If there is such a thing as an God (any God)

1) why does he/she/whatever let nice people like ST Jenn get Cancer

2) why can't he/she/whatever then stop it

I would guess that in the history of the world more pepole have been killed by religion than any war.
Just imagine how nice it would be if all religions never started.

JohnClimber, for your 1st question, I agree that is a valid and difficult question and I can only refer you back to SaxonRider's response on page 1.
For your second point I have to disagree with you. Plenty of wars have absolutely nothing to do with religion (although some are in the name of religion). WW1? WW2? The Falklands conflict (territory)? The Gulf War (oil)? The violence in Ukraine? I doubt Assad is committing atrocities in Syria in the name of religion, even if IS are, If you think the end of religion would bring an end to war and conflict, I think you'd be bitterly disappointed to find that war and conflict would continue.

Have a google around the experimentation and observational studies done on primates. If a moral code is present in primate societies it's laughable not to appreciate they were in existence in humans prior to organised religion being in existence to clarify (and take ownership) of them.

Erm, you have completely changed the context of what was being discussed. This what you previously said :

I see the 10 commandments (actually not all 10 - you can have the first four as self serving twonk) as humanity's value system - it kind of evolved just like the whole standing up thing. Religion just nabbed it and chucked it in a burning bush. The best bit is some of us don't need them as decreed rules, it just comes naturally.

Are you now seriously claiming that in non-human primate societies they don't steal or shag their neighbour's missus because it is morally unacceptable?

I am perfectly happy to accept that a chimps, for example, live by a set of rules which provide social order, for example you don't steal or shag a dominant male's missus cause you get a slap if you do, although the dominate male might well steal off you - cause no one will give him a slap.

If a less dominant male believed he'd get away with stealing then I'm sure he'd give it a go, I can't believe that he would be worried about his "conscience" or that it was "morally unacceptable", only that he might get a slap.

I don't go around stealing from people not simply because I might get punished but because it would be morally unacceptable to me, even if I was certain to get away with it.

As I say, I'm sure other primates live by rules which provide social order and cohesion, I can't believe that you can describe that as a moral code though.

I haven't seen any evidence that morality predates religion, I'm sure the two arrived hand in hand. Along with music.

The violence in Ukraine?

Actually religion does play a small part in the violence in Ukraine. But your point is correct. Wars are power struggles. Religions give a sense of belonging and make an appeal to loyalty. But nations and states also do that, yet few people argue that nationhood is bad and all countries should be abolished. Although I probably would.

ernie lynch- I didn't realise that religion had a part in the Ukraine violence, I stand corrected.

I haven't seen any evidence that morality predates religion, I'm sure the two arrived hand in hand. Along with music.

TBH i assume you are being humourous on this thread though I run this risk of you saying I am being personal

I didn't realise that religion had a part in the Ukraine violence

Well I think it plays a minor part - the Orthodox East and the Catholic West. I believe that Ukraine means "borderland", it's historically been where West meets East, where different cultures converge.

I only made the point to emphasise that the situation in Ukraine is rather more complex than Russian aggression, as our media and government would like us to think. You have on the one hand eastern Ukraine which feels a close affinity with the East and Russia, and on the other hand western Ukraine which feels a closer affinity with Europe.

Ironically iirc Ukraine was historically once the centre of Russia and home to Russia's capital city, it was in fact more 'Russian' than Moscow.

What about dance, drama and art were they all non existent before religion

I had considered adding dance, and yes, the suggestion that morality and religion arrived to the sound of music wasn't a totally serious point. Although there was a half-serious point about the role of spiritualism in human evolution.

On the question of drama that's definitely not unique to humans, chimps and other primates can be incredibly dramatic purely for effect, and try giving medicine or examining a crow if you want to see a proper drama queen in action.

And I'm not convinced that art is unique to humans either. Certainly there are birds that can create beautiful works of art out of colouful objects and shapes, even a crow or magpie can appreciate the aesthetic value of a shiny sliver coin.

Morality on the other hand is unique to humans imo.

ernie_lynch - Member

Well I think it plays a minor part - the Orthodox East and the Catholic West. I believe that Ukraine means "borderland", it's historically been where West meets East, where different cultures converge.

I only made the point to emphasise that the situation in Ukraine is rather more complex than Russian aggression, as our media and government would like us to think. You have on the one hand eastern Ukraine which feels a close affinity with the East and Russia, and on the other hand western Ukraine which feels a closer affinity with Europe.

Ironically iirc Ukraine was historically once the centre of Russia and home to Russia's capital city, it was in fact more 'Russian' than Moscow.

I don't want to de-rail the thread, but I have quite a bit invested in the whole Ukraine issue, and religion only plays an incidental part. It is NOT essentially about the Orthodox East and the Catholic West, although Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk would have you think it is. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine declared itself independent of the Patriarch of Moscow. As a result, when Russia seeks to diminish Ukraine's standing in the eyes of the world, it targets its Church as much as its territory and its culture.

Finally, you are right in thinking that Kyiv was once the capital of the Rus'. [url= http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/05/14/how-moscow-hijacked-the-history-of-kyivan-rus/ ]Moscow is an upstart compared to Kyiv.[/url]

religion only plays an incidental part. It is NOT essentially about the Orthodox East and the Catholic West, although Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk would have you think it is

Which I guess is probably why I said "I think it plays a minor part" 🙂

Which I guess is why I was unaware that it played any part 🙂

What about dance, drama and art were they all non existent before religion

True fact, drama didn't exist before the Internet.

somafunk - Member
...i consider that anyone that has a genuine belief in an all seeing/all encompassing God or deity must be [b]mentally unhinged[/b]

Thank god (sorry) this is another religion thread. You would be in trouble on any other thread with comments like that. But religion, another matter altogether....as per....

Someone better tell the Catholics that an omnipotent God is inconsistent with free will.....quick....

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

I googled omnipotence and this C S Lewis quote came up.

religious, territorial, class, gender, sexual orientation and race divisions cause so much grief don't they? We're all one species of mammal, we all live on the same planet, we all die and guess what? Nothing happens to us after that. Let's just get back to basic, common sense living.

I am off toa rugby thread to say if you like rugby you are mentally unhinged
Then I will try anyone who likes 29 ers is mentally unhinged and if you SS on a fat bike you are mentally unhinged
Nothing will happen to me if i do this

Your religion does not get special protection and we can be as rude about it as you are about the SNP and AS.
Dont get so sweaty 😀

"mentally unhinged " is a bit strong. I prefer deluded, foolish, bereft of common sense. For many it's simply a way of handing-off responsibility to "someone " else rather than accept it themselves.

Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is the ability to be almighty in every sense and aspect. The user can achieve absolutely anything without any limit or condition, including the conceptually impossible, like "bigger than infinity."

CS Lewis did do some interesting writing on the subject of religion but it is just the difficulty all believers have in explaining how their all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god watches children die of cancer or go blind from worms eating their eyes. Its hard to understand why a parent who could stop this would let this happen to their children.

FWIW i dont know of a good answer to it and theologians have mused on it for centuries.

scotroutes- "handing off responsibility" for what? I don't get what you mean?

"mentally unhinged " is a bit strong. I prefer deluded, foolish, bereft of common sense.

The problem with that is that the terms deluded, foolish, and bereft of commonsense, are all relative, and since most human beings believe in the existence of a god it makes those terms completely inappropriate. It makes the reference to commonsense particularly ridiculous.

most human beings believe in the existence of [b]a[/b] god

But they do have commonsense on their side.

The most commonly held belief is that there is a god. That's what commonsense says.

Back to why would a loving god allow good people to suffer...... I don't have any great answers, and I've given this a lot of thought.
Accepting that people die for numerous reasons, sometimes unfortunate genetics, sometimes infection, sometimes from floods or earthquakes, wars, pollution, accident, etc. If God's Will were to intervene to prevent all those deaths, then how would the earth actually function? Would He suddenly put a stop to the way biology works? Should he prevent people from killing others? Should he stop people from doing all those 21st century things that cause premature death? Should he kill bacteria and viruses that kill innocent people but are also vital to the way the earth works?

If God's Will were to intervene to prevent all those deaths, then how would the earth actually function? Would He suddenly put a stop to the way biology works? Should he prevent people from killing others? Should he stop people from doing all those 21st century things that cause premature death? Should he kill bacteria and viruses that kill innocent people but are also vital to the way the earth works?

So what the hell happens in heaven ?

I was hoping that heaven might be somewhere to look forward to.

what I mean is, as tragic and horrible as things are in this world, I don't think they are caused by God's Will.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy at the moment myself. 🙁

I'm feeling pretty gloomy at the moment myself.

Cheer up ! 🙂

If you've got a cat or dog, or even a young child, just go and look at them......they don't ponder about life and its meaning, they just get on with enjoying life.

There's a lesson for us all there.

If He created a world in which human suffering is required in order for it to "work" then he's not very clever, is he?

Omnipotence and stupidity in the same deity,what hope is there?

Ernie lynch- the cat is my best bet for something that enjoys life without pondering the meaning 🙂

I'm not sure that you can compare early human belief systems (animism, totemism) with organised religion. Plus all of the madonnas scattered about would suggest that people worshipped the matriarch as in canario culture up to arrival of the Spanish in the C16th. Religions picked up earlier belief systems and integrated them into a new world view which is why christianity, islam and judaism all have a similar take on the creation of the universe.
If we are to compare humans with apes then we should confine ourselves to the bonobo ape which is closest to us genetically, and lives a highly social, highly sexual and peaceful existence (without a religion).

I am bemused by how religious ideas can lead to a rise in the sale of over-priced dried milk. Marvelous much!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/26/blood-moon-mormon-church-apocalypse-warning

http://beprepared.com/

They don't seem to do dried beer. I'm out.

Out of my small staff, i have a couple of Christians - one a church goer, who isnt quite sure he understands what he believes in, but it helps him, the other two fundamentalist Christians, with two kids in school who are batshit mental.

After the Nepalese earthquake, fundamentalist Christian told other Christian that it was god's will all the people had died. Other Christian went ballistic at him and how he could be so insensitive and clueless.

edit - he isn;t batshit due to being a Christian, just due to being clueless, God must have blinked when he sprinkled savvy and common sense onb the family

Thankfully this happened no where near me, and I didn't have to reprimand either of them for it.

I'm not sure that you can compare early human belief systems (animism, totemism) with organised religion.

Which presumably is precisely why that comparison hasn't been made.

The connection between primate human society and religious doctrine was made.

.

If we are to compare humans with apes then we should confine ourselves to the bonobo ape which is closest to us genetically, and lives a highly social, highly sexual and peaceful existence (without a religion).

A species which lives in peaceful matriarchal societies is hardly a good comparison to humans. A much better comparison would be chimpanzees which are violent towards members of their own species and live in patriarchal societies, and with which we are as closely related to as bonobos.

And how do you know bonobos are "without a religion"? How do you know they don't have a spiritual belief system? I can only assume that you don't know and are working on the assumption that they are incapable of having religious beliefs.

Which makes your point rather silly - it's hardly surprising that they don't do something which they are incapable of doing.

which is why christianity, islam and judaism all have a similar take on the creation of the universe.

They are all Abrhamic faiths and share the same lineage, abrhaham, Moses, etc

They disagree on whether jesus was the son of god, a prophet or neither
IIRC Judaism is just the OT or a number from that

They diverge at certain points in their history but they have a similar take because they are the same god IMHO - not a point they accept obviously- who confusingly gave different messages to different parts of the followers creating a massive schism - god then did the same within the faith see sunni v shia or catholic v protestant

they are the same god IMHO - not a point they accept obviously

Are you sure ? I have never met a Muslim who didn't accept that their God was the same God as the Jewish and Christian God. Or a Christian that didn't accept that God is the same as the Jewish God, most I think realise that the Muslim God is the same God. Can't comment on Jews as my experience with talking to them about their religion is extremely limited/practically nonexistent, but I would be surprised if they didn't accept that they shared the same God with Christians and Muslims.

chimpanzees which are violent towards members of their own species and live in patriarchal societies, and with which we are as closely related to as bonobos

who confusingly gave different messages to different parts of the followers creating a massive schism - god then did the same within the faith see sunni v shia or catholic v protestant

I reckon all of them - Jews, Muslims and Christians and the various sub groups within those - would dispute that God gave different messages, and instead say that the others have misheard/misunderstood/got it all wrong. Which as we know has resulted in untold conflict and other horrors. Which kind of fits with the overriding story, as I understand it, of God creating something good and humans making a complete arse of it.

Yes they will mishandle the data and reach the wrong conclusion 😉

In fairness the sunni v shia thing is because the prophet failed to name a heir - simplified massively. However clearly jews and all christians worship the same god.
However if I build[ create] a wheel and it fails I dont blame the wheel

Yes, I agree, and I think Ernie is right that most or at least some of them would recognise that too.

you will find we were much more bonobo than chimp in hunter-gatherer society, cooperation not conflict ensured survival

I'm sorry you didn't make it clear that you were talking about in prehistory times when you said "if we are to compare humans with apes" I assumed that you were talking of the present.

I fully accept the theory of primitive communism when humans lived in classless societies in which each contributed according to their ability and received according to their needs.

Of course after hundreds of thousands of years of primitive communism it all went pear-shaped with the arrival of surplus, accumulative wealth/money, and class systems/class antagonism.

It's interesting to note that this prehistory human story is remarkably like the religious equivalent.

Man once lived in Paradise where all his needs were satisfied and everything was peaceful happy and there was no sin. Then man fell to the temptation of greed, everything thereafter changed. He was banished from the Garden of Eden and was surround by misery violence and greed. His sins and greed were passed down to each new generation.

You could call both stories "The Fall of Man".

Btw, bonobos are no more closer related to humans than chimpanzees. Perhaps there's another story about the "The Fall of Chimpanzees"? Perhaps chimpanzees were once bonobos which fell to sin/greed?

bonobos are no more closer related to humans than chimpanzees

We obviously read different books on genetics. Engels, incidentally, in 'The role played by labour in the ascent from ape to man' dismisses the idea of animals making art. You should read it.

Engels, incidentally, in 'The role played by labour in the ascent from ape to man' dismisses the idea of animals making art. You should read it.

He might well have dismissed the idea of animals making art but as far as I am aware Engels was not a noted naturalist/zoologist, so I'm not sure either why I should read the opinions of a non-expert or why you attach so much importance to it.

This is artwork created by an animal :

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

That artwork is created for [i]exactly[/i] the same reason as humans create artwork - because it is considered to be aesthetically pleasing. Note the creativity which goes beyond choosing brightly coloured objects but also considers form, shape, contrast, and arrangement.

Do they change with the times? Is there a futurist, surrealist or a cubist version? Nice pictures but this rather smacks of personification.

Obvious they change with the times. Plastic baubles, sweetie wrappers?

Anthropomorphise not personification surely?

and errr... No billmc, rather like the bower bird you are clutching at straws

Do they change with the times?

So you've changed from dismissing the idea of animals making art to now dismissing the idea that fashion exists in other species.

I don't know whether fashion exists with regards to the above examples, quite possibly I imagine - why not ?

Btw it was once thought, certainly in Engels's time, that one of the big distinguishing factors between humans and all other species was that only humans used tools. Then it was discovered that chimpanzees can learn how to use tools in a completely natural environment. Much more recently it has been discovered that crows can not only use tools but can actually make tools by shaping an object - up that point it was considered that only humans could do that sort of problem solving.

There is very little indeed that distinguishes humans from other species imo. The only real difference imo is morality/moral code. Or soul if you are religious.

That artwork is created for exactly the same reason as humans create artwork

How do you know?