RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
August 17, 2012 at 6:23 pm
(This post was last modified: August 17, 2012 at 6:27 pm by Simon Moon.)
(August 17, 2012 at 1:55 am)Lion IRC Wrote: (And women-made) But in any case, how did the first man (and woman) happen to stumble across religion?
Humans have pattern seeking brains. It is much better for survival to create a pattern where a 'rustling bush = hungry bear', than to create a pattern where 'rusting bush = wind'.
This same pattern seeking also leads to creating patterns (where there are none) with supernatural aspects.
"Pattern recognition combined with post hoc reasoning can lead to a strong form of magical thinking. Basically, people are prone to see patterns where there are none (such as in occurrences of "bad luck" and "good luck") and then attempt to attribute them to some sort of correlation (such as the clothes worn that day). This has been correlated to a feeling of loss or lack of control.
In simple cases this can lead to basic superstitious beliefs (such as not walking under ladders) but when applied on a more sophisticated and larger scale it may serve as the impetus for such major cultural artifacts as religion or conspiracy theories."
Quote:Why wouldn’t natural selection eliminate such an extravagant drain on human resources?
Because they may have a more important survival aspects. Like a unifying factor for groups of humans.
Quote:Not a fan of the oral tradition I see. What would you favor as a replacement? Wikipedia? Mr Assange's unsourced, anonymously reported hearsay?
The oral tradition is great for story telling, where it doesn't matter if details get change over time. It is horrible for relaying facts, where if details are changed the credibility is destroyed.
Quote:Hmmm. Thats a great big slap in the face to historians. There are entire university faculties doing what you describe. One wonders what victorious New Atheism might tell lies about if ever some day they eventually rule the world. And what do we then make of the so-called Higher Criticism/Historical Method?
You know Bart Ehrman is a historian right?
Not at all. Historians do a great job using all sources, when available, to reconstruct history. They do not speak in terms of certainty with regards to history. They know their limitations.
Quote:Something needs to be done about modern archaeologists who dig up stuff which corroborates bible history. (Solomon, Caiaphas, Shishak, the lost city of Petra.)
So...
There are archeological and historical accuracies in the Bible. What's your point? You're not trying to smuggle in supernatural claims on the back of some archeological and historical accuracies, are you?
If so, you must have some real problems with the archeological and historical accuracies of the Iliad and the Odyssey.
Quote:I disagree. I say miracles happen every day.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/life-g...racle.html
You're claiming that sexual reproduction and birth is a miracle? Really?
Quote:Almost a million words. "cobbled" together over 1000 years. By 40 known writers.
Oh yeah, and it just so happens to be the most widely read and published book in human history.
Tale of Two Cities - 150 million.
The bible - over 6 billion!
The Bible writers are not known.
Who cares how many Bibles are read or published? This is a fallacious appeal to popularity and appeal to tradition. The Quran has sold about 3 billion copies. Does that mean it's 50% as truthful as the Bible?
Quote:Yes and atheism is either a religion or it isnt.
If not, then you are effectively arguing for DISUNITY...the opposite of unity, cooperation, harmony, teamwork, family, etc, etc.
It isn't. That was an easy one.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
