[Closed] "I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth"

There have been lots of useful evolutionary changes in the brain, that have allowed us to progress and succeed as individuals and as a society. I'm more inclined to think that religion co-opts those useful evolutionary traits, eg obeying your parents helps you survive, but also that mechanism in the brain can be co-opted by religion as 'Obey god the "father"' (or more specifically obey some guy who says he knows what god wants).

Almost 8 pages..

"Altogether now, after me, 1.2.3..1.2.3"

[img] [/img]

molgrips - Member

He's not saying you need religion - but you need the *ability* to have religion. So whatever happened to our brains to support abstract ideas like religion seems to have been significant. But religions were the first such big ideas that we had, which enabled society to then go on and develop other large scale ideas.

This theory seems dependent on 2 very shaky concepts

1) Religion as the first big idea
2) Religion enabling all other big ideas.

For the former, I'd say there's a number of better contenders for that prize. Cooperation, tool making, fire on demand, language, forward planning, the ability to intentionally influence your environment, agriculture, trade... Essentially, the neolithic revolution and everything which led to it, which changed mankind from hunter/gatherers to settlers and builders. This all pre-dates and is a prerequisite of organised religion as we understand it

And the latter, what's the justification for that? Humanity develops the capability to develop big ideas but then runs into a wall til it invents religion, and all future big ideas are enabled by religion- rather than by the same capability that enabled religion?

I've only just started the second one but in the beginning it talks about religion as a means not to simply subjugate people but its very conception being the evolutionary trigger that enabled large-scale co-operation of humans beyond the local tribal group.

Sapiens is a good read, though I dont think he says religion is a trigger just another lie we used on our way to get where we are

It does struggle from a lack of proper referencing
and I was a little dissapointed by the lack of genetics 🙁

It may well be that religion kickstarted science, I don't know enough about it to validate that claim.

religion has done far more to hold it back!

This is it... Some bolshy atheists seem to be getting upset about this but all there really is for us to be annoyed about, is bog standard Theresa May cynical hypocrisy, and who's got enough energy to get annoyed every time she does that?

Me! That's who!

The people who've got a right to be annoyed are genuine Christians seeing their Lord's name taken in vain, yet again. Christ wouldn't vote for this shower, he'd ride up on his velociraptor and hadoken her into the sea. (*)
(* It's a while since I went to church, I'm sketchy on the details)

Disagree. We all have the right to be angered by and to challenge hypocrisy.

"Altogether now, after me, 1.2.3..1.2.3"

I'm not going to criticise Theresa May appearance but she does seem to have a huge streak of vanity - in fact miles and miles wide!

the focus shouldn't be on god and the existence or whatever, it's irrelevant always has been. Focus should be who's pulling the strings and for what reason.

There is a lot in that I agree with.

 

1) Religion as the first big idea
2) Religion enabling all other big ideas.

You are confusing concepts. It's talking about abstract ideas, not specifics like 'oh why don't I grab this stone and hit this shell with it'.

And the latter, what's the justification for that?

It's only £5.49 in the Kindle store.

molgrips - Member

You are confusing concepts. It's talking about abstract ideas, not specifics like 'oh why don't I grab this stone and hit this shell with it'.

I'm not sure you really read my post?

"Cooperation, tool making, fire on demand, language, forward planning, the ability to intentionally influence your environment, agriculture, trade... Essentially, the neolithic revolution and everything which led to it, which changed mankind from hunter/gatherers to settlers and builders. This all pre-dates and is a prerequisite of organised religion as we understand it"

and to this you respond "why don't I grab this stone and hit this shell with it"? That makes no sense.

The neolithic revolution is essentially the foundation of modern civiliation (in fact it's turn 1 in Civilisation!). It's where we see the first organised trade, the first pemanent building and land ownership, the first calendars, astronomy and navigation, the design of complex tools and transport, alphabet, division of labour, social class and hierarchies... and the creation and spread of the first organised religions. It didn't happen because of religion, and it's certainly not a smaller idea than religion, nor is it comparable to primitive, improvised tool use. It happened because we figured out how to live and survive and thrive in big groups and how to make the world work for us rather than just existing in it.

TBH the more I write the sillier the concept of religion as the "first big idea" seems, let alone the idea that it facilitated the development of all others. it's just one of dozens of big ideas that happened at around the same time, all spinning out of the same developments. Are you sure you understood it correctly?

I'm not sure you really read my post?

Oh perhaps I did. I thought you were equating specific ideas with abstract ones.

However I am not sure that this is true:

This all pre-dates and is a prerequisite of organised religion as we understand it"

I'm not talking about organised religion. I'm talking about abstract ideas like world creator spirits and so on. Which would pre-date 'civilisation' as you have defined it, I'd imagine.

Religion formulated and created a social code. If you put to one side Creation and some of the other (imo understandable at the time) but very dated things like homosexuality being an abomination and focus on the social code aspects and then understand that these texts are founded 3 or 4,000 years ago that's pretty incredible.

With such an organised society the human race would not have prospered and we would not have had the environment for science that has existed.

Without derailing the thread I am very slightly surprised the nay-sayers haven't pointed out the author is Israeli and Professor at a Hebrew University having graduated from Oxford

molgrips - Member

I'm not talking about organised religion. I'm talking about abstract ideas like world creator spirits and so on.

How does something so abstract give people a common identity? You can't on the one hand say "you're confusing abstracts with specifics" then on the other talk about the applied version of this abstract concept as if it's the same thing (especially when we have no idea if such concepts were prevalent)

jambalaya - Member

Without derailing the thread I am very slightly surprised the nay-sayers haven't pointed out the author is Israeli and Professor at a Hebrew University having graduated from Oxford

What the actual ****?

@jambayla...you'd best give yourself forty lashes for speaking out against your glorious leader. Or have you finally seen reason 😀

jambalaya - Member

Without derailing the thread I am very slightly surprised the nay-sayers haven't pointed out the author is Israeli and Professor at a Hebrew University having graduated from Oxford

Must resists the troll........

As has been demonstrated many times altruism is seen throughout nature, where presumably religion is not a factor.

I'm eagerly awaiting the explanation for 'homosexuality being an abomination' being understandable at the time.....

Religion formulated and created a social code.

Religion formulated and created a social code.

I'm eagerly awaiting the explanation for 'homosexuality being an abomination' being understandable at the time.....

Maybe when one key to survival was having a large population - sex without procreation was an issue...? Speculation on my part.

The Greeks were pretty enthusiastic about it. Wasn't murdering homosexuals just middle east thing?

Sums up my view of Religion and it's derivation as primarily a social code for living together. I see religion leading directly to the establishment of civilisation and the basis of the social and government structures we enjoy today. I have that book on a list to buy.

So thats why were living in a world with so many authoritarian dictators as opposed a libertarian paradise :p God.

Ruling ancient authoritarians invent authoritarian god, what a surprise.

As has been demonstrated many times altruism is seen throughout nature

Oh?

Religion formulated and created a social code.

I wonder if rather than religion [i]creating[/i] these things, rather it was a byproduct of civilisation at the time?

From what I've read today, prehistoric "religion" was totally different from what we call religion today. It would've been a common set of values, laws if you like, which organised groups agreed to adhere to (or were coerced into). The god-bothering aspect would've been things like worshipping the sun, which seems to be a fairly rational thing to worship when you're not convinced it'll come back tomorrow. Religion didn't create a moral code, rather a moral code created religion?

Douglas Adams posited that there were three stages of social evolution which he termed "how, why, where." 1) How do we eat? 2) Why do we eat? 3) Where shall we have lunch? We're at stage 2 here, people are starting to wonder about their world, ask proto-philosophical questions, and once you've got a group of people together asking that sort of question all manner of speculative answers will propagate and flourish. Pretty soon you've got a dominant idea and hey, religion.

Maybe when one key to survival was having a large population - sex without procreation was an issue...? Speculation on my part.

I'd say that's a pretty good guess.

And of course by the time you get to the Abrahamic religions we've got another compelling reason. The best way to get more believers is for current believers to reproduce in large numbers and tell their offspring their facts. So much easier than converting someone who might already have strong beliefs to the contrary. Every sperm is sacred, no bum fun or condoms for the devout.

I like to think that religion was born out of the evolutionary need for humans to have cooperation within populations and monogamy.. its all just a more complicated version of swans dancing.

kimbers - Member

I'm eagerly awaiting the explanation for 'homosexuality being an abomination' being understandable at the time....

Maybe something to do with "creating a common identity", nothing ties a room together quite like having someone to hate, fear, or look down on. It was thousands of years before the birth of the first dole claimant, Poland hadn't been invented, nor the road bike, and there were too many arabs and jews to want to **** with them. So, gays are the obvious choice. If you're ever inventing an ideology, nation or movement, remember the very first thing you want to do is find your Carthage and tell everyone it needs delending.

[i]Unless[/i], and this is important, you are Carthage. Schoolboy error that.

The other explanation is population expansion but homosexuality doesn't put much of a dent in that really, especially since it's not mutually exclusive with reproduction.

[img] [/img]

8

8 yes well done, it stalled briefly, but service resumed fortunately.

Bit late to this, what have I missed?

If only there was some way of reading previous discussion...

😀 should have put that on the last post. I assume it's the usual religious thread. I'd have brought biscuits I'd have noticed it sooner 🙁

should have put that on the last post. I assume it's the usual religious thread. I'd have brought biscuits I'd have noticed it sooner

It started out as usual but the last few pages have been more balanced imo, see discussion started by Molgrips of the book he's reading.

@Cougar I suppose we will never be sure how or why it started, a lot of social history is just an educated guess for obvious reasons. It's my belief as mankind's brains developed they sought a "meaning of life" (queue obvious jokes) and this was combined with a social code. I can see how those against religion see this as authoritan and controlling but we struggle to get along today when we live in a world of relative plenty I can only imagine what things where like thousands of years ago. As you say religion and "the law" are synonymous.

The whole social history, progressive society thing is only the Christian perspective.

For example, in Thailand ladyboys I.e. transexuals, are revered as being the closet to the gods in that culture. They have a positive, mythical status. The complete opposite to the (historical) Christian attitude towards transexuals being deviant.

My point being, if you wish to suggest Christianity has helped the world organise and civilise itself you are looking at the world through a very narrow, and probably biased because of your personal faith, perspective.

My point being, if you wish to suggest Christianity has helped the world organise and civilise itself you are looking at the world through a very narrow, and probably biased because of your personal faith, perspective.

Absolutely, but no-one's suggesting anything of the sort.

@molgrips...read through the thread. The words used imply a Christian narrative of history and there is very little mention of other religious history.

Certainly wasn't my point - but people seem to have assumed it was...

funkmasterp - Member
Bit late to this, what have I missed?

Jamba sported some impressive bait, but had no takers. Got to be a first! I think the boys losing his touch! 😆

molgrips - Member
As has been demonstrated many times altruism is seen throughout nature
Oh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)

evolutionary biologists can get all in a tiz about altruism, it can be very hard to quantify in a fitness and survival sense, but its seen extensively in apes and monkeys (even between tribes and species) and allegedly all the way down to bacteria

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

In biology, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.[1] [b]Altruism in this sense is different from the philosophical concept of altruism[/b], in which an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

Didn't that go well? May this be the measure of all future STW religion threads.

If we can just deal with the people complaining about other people having a discussion that they're not actually taking part in themselves, and others playing the Windows 95 argument, we'll have cracked it I reckon.

And where's SaxonRider?

If we can just deal with the people complaining about other people having a discussion that they're not actually taking part in themselves

Shame, as he seems to be one of the few 'out' christians on here I would have been really interested in his thoughts on how one reconciles TM's policy/actions with the teachings and acts of Jesus.

In biology, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.[1] Altruism in this sense is different from the philosophical concept of altruism, in which an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another.

Some would argue there's no such thing as true altruism. As in there's always a reward somewhere, and often not material.

Edenvalleys point is definately valid considering some of the posters in this thread molgrips.