(August 17, 2012 at 11:33 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(August 17, 2012 at 4:27 am)apophenia Wrote: I disagree with the OP. The OP sounds like little more than back of the envelope conjecture and is likely of as much substance as the fables it's meant to criticize.

I don't feel like hauling out all the brain science and crap, so I'll just leave it at that. You need to spend more time studying what science has to say on the matter and less time making up just-so stories to comfort you in your prejudices.

So you are saying that the application of force is actually a good thing, then. I dunno what you mean by "just-so stories," in fact your entire post sounds really vague, but I'd be interested in hearing what you meant in a solid, concrete fashion and why you feel the way you do. After all I post this stuff to see what other people think about it.

You know, I should just tell you to go fuck yourself for claiming that I said something that I didn't say, and for implying that I was endorsing the use of force, and by force I presume you mean religion enabled force that unnecessarily oppressed people then and now. I should just ask you to provide your evidence that the explanation you give for the why of religion is correct. However, I'll be kinder than you deserve and indicate where I think you are wrong. My reading of the science, and of the writings of people such as noted psychologist and former director of the Institute of Cognition and Culture at Queen's University Belfast Jesse Bering, French anthropologist Pascal Boyer, and J. Anderson Thomson, Jr., MD, Trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and a staff psychiatrist for Counseling and Psychological Services at the University of Virginia, is that religion is a consequence of the way our brains are, so to speak, designed. Various systems in the brain, and general cognitive features of the human brain, give rise to religious perceptions and religious inferences as a side effect, more or less, of their serving to help us cope and thrive as a species and a species for whom these systems, when they're not throwing off religious error, are helping us function and thrive as the social, culture building, big brained apes that we are.

Now if you have some evidence that this is not the case, or that your theory is preferable to the theory from evolution and cognitive science, I'd like to see your evidence that this view is wrong, and that you are right. Let me quote your opening statement, and any other relevant part of the OP to be sure exactly what it is you are arguing. And I don't want to misrepresent you like you misrepresented me, so let me know if I've omitted a key piece of your argument or of the evidence for it. You said:

"Religion, as we mostly agree, is a man-made concoction. It is often founded partially on history, and mostly on fabrication. The likelihood of this explanation being the most accurate is backed up by observing a rumor being spread; starts as fact, changes a little bit from each person telling it until it's a story about a different person, a different situation, and a different outcome so that it's no longer recognizable. Happens all the time, and time is a multiplying force in it, too; the longer it goes on, the more warped it gets....

...So I get to the meat of what I'm getting at here with this; this points to people taking the stories and rumors and cobbling them together for the sake of creating something to use as a means of control. [Pascal Boyer goes through a number of such "common sense" arguments about the why's and wherefores of religion and gives reasons for doubting them; I don't recall this specific one but if you're nice to me, I might look (or ask you to explain how this functions in, say, the African tribe whose religion is centered around the belief that some of the tribe are malevolent witches using their powers to ruin their neighbors, or in any of the plethora of examples from around the world in which there is no centralized authority; in particular, I find your thesis unpersuasive as to it being the case that the heterodox religious systems of India, the Eleusinian mystery cults, Hellenic paganism , Japanese Shinto and pre-Shinto religion, Chinese shamanism, native American religion, and Roman and Celtic paganism were "cobbled together for the sake of something to use as a means of control". But I won't prejudge you. What's your evidence that this was a driving force in the creation of these religions?]....

...You see, rulers of the old days were not very strong; there is a reason the whole "divine right" thing became so popular; because it was the cheapest and easiest way for men with no real grip on their reign otherwise to actually HAVE a grip on their reign. ... [Chinese shamanism, Taoism, and a whole host of other Chinese "philosophy of the way" religious systems — which emerged in what is known as "the hundred schools period" — predate unification of China, Zhong-guo, and to be precise, emerged at a time when there was no unifying authorities, or as Wikipedia states, "in the 8th century BC, power became decentralized during the Spring and Autumn Period" and in the ensuing "Warring States period" which is about as well organized as it sounds; the heterodox religious systems of India were largely a reaction to the hegemony of the Vedic traditions, and were hardly underwriting any kingships there; the Eleusinian mystery cults, despite rising to great prominence and respectability, to the best of my knowledge never meddled in the kingships of the various Greek city states, and to the best of my knowledge weren't used to prop up the fledgeling Athenian democracy, but do correct me if I'm wrong; I apologize for not being as expert on the religions of Japan, Greece, Rome, the British Isles or pre-European North America, but I suspect we'd be hard pressed to find the Divine Right of Kings as a driving concern in the development of these religions. Only other piece I have to add is that, as documented in The Transmission Of The Lamp, which is an eleventh century work by Buddhist monks detailing the biographies of significant figures in the transmission of the Dharma or teachings of Buddhism, to China, of which I've read a significant portion, there was a large element who were advocating reclusiveness, of abandoning society to sit on a mountain and ponder the Dharma — I'm curious as to how you feel their advocating abandoning society and becoming recluses was a move to prop up the authority of weak kings.]....

...Religion was simply used to unify. To scare the poor and pitiful into submission....

...This is why religion is no longer necessary. If, indeed, it even ever really was to begin with.... [This seems to imply a false dichotomy, ignoring the possibility that, biologically, religion may be a necessary evil, but in and of itself have no adaptive value; and that's not necessarily the case, but it is an option your argument seems to exclude without justification. If you have justification for excluding it, please provide it.]..."

Those appear to be your central claims. Religion arose as a) storytelling gone awry, and b) as a means of controlling the populace. I find your arguments far from compelling, and I require more than mere "plausibility" — if you could even manage that, which I don't think you can given the breadth and depth of religious phenomenon in the history of mankind. I will in fairness add, that I was upset when I wrote this, as a result of what appeared a crass and opportunistic misrepresentation of me, and I don't do my best work when angry, so if I've missed something critical and "jumped the shark" as they say, I apologize in advance. If you want to go into the specifics of some of the religious systems mentioned for which I lack detail, I'll do what I can to help; I have a modest library on Japanese religion; a larger library on Chinese religion; a very small selection of texts on the heterodox systems of India; a small collection of books on the major world religions; and then there's also the internet. My best friend is in the middle of a financial crisis, and my father is in town on a rare and unexpected visit, so I don't know how much time I can afford right away. But first I need to know what your answers to my primary objections are. (I may not get to your response until Monday or Tuesday.)

Till then.

I think some of you folks are mixing the origin of religion(s) with the origin of belief in the super-natural.
A religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." [from our friend, the dictionary.com].
And a belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" [same source].
And "belief in the super-natural" is what we generally call "faith". If you can prove something super-natural, it becomes part of the natural world, no?

At first, people must have wondered about death; how can the personality of the dying person just disappear? Maybe it goes somewhere...
Add some sprinkles of newcome fire and experiments with burning random stuff, or simply some strange bug that infected a few people and made them "see" their dead loved ones or something that they interpreted as dead people... and the rest is "evolution".

...Ok, Apo, the moment you started with the condescension I immediately almost checked out entirely on what came after. I was trying to understand where you were coming from and therefore positing the only thing that really could be inferred from it since your initial post didn't really give me anything to work with but only vaguely referenced me being wrong. Writing "I should tell you to go fuck yourself" and then pretending like you didn't do just that is the height of condescension and it does little to prove to me that you are such the skilled debater that you claim to be, in fact it harms my opinion of you GREATLY. Well...I should tell you that I no longer give a fuck about what you have to say given that I almost never suffer condescension but I won't, and instead I'll just say this: If you had such a problem with what I wrote then you could have addressed it in far more mature terms rather than acting like a child whose mother I just insulted. At BEST you've sunk to the level you accuse me of being at, at WORST you've INTENTIONALLY insulted me to a far greater extent than I UNINTENTIONALLY insulted you, and next time you have a problem with something I say where I didn't basically state you're unworthy of something [as if you have any right to judge me what I am and am not worthy of receiving], then say that instead so we can resolve the situation before it goes to the point where we BOTH are being insulted over a fucking misunderstanding.

[if you want the quick summary of what I am about to type, just skip to the bottom]

Now, to address your point; I am not going to deny that the information you bring up is very accurate and in all likelihood completely accurate as to why religion became such a key point in human history. After all, spirituality has existed for a very long time. But that's SPIRITUALITY. There is a very key difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality is a personal...experience, if you will, a personal belief. Religion, however, is the organization of a belief so that it no longer becomes personal, it becomes shared. Spirituality can be used as a coping mechanism, of course, it's very obvious as to where and why, and in many circumstances it can even be used to create a binding effect within a tribe/clan/culture by the sharing of it AS AN IDEA. RELIGION is when the idea becomes organized enough that it's accepted into a form of practice and ritual.

To cut through this quickly and get to the point: I say religion, specifically religion, was necessary for individuals to hold power over other individuals, and why this is no longer the case because there are other, far better ideas to unite people around. My proof religion being necessary is manifold: The shamans and mystics and oracles who often determined how/when a tribe went to war by their mumbo-jumbo, playing off the superstitious credulity of their fellow clan-members. You want sources on that, then pick up a high-school level history book, it'll do the trick. Shall we look at the priesthoods of Egypt, perhaps, and how the Pharaohs went to them for advice for just about everything important, therefore elevating their esteem much higher? Shall we look at the papacy of the Catholic Church and all its splendor and artifice and all the ridiculous amounts of corruption that have plagued it from the very getgo? How about the Oracles of Greece who were doted upon with gifts for the service of "predilection?" How about the Dalai Lama and his own version of a priesthood basically lording it over the peasantry and serfs in their little private kingdom in Tibet until the Chinese basically booted him out? Find me an example where religion has NOT basically been used as an excuse to maintain power over the poor pitiful less-informed; you may do so but you won't find as many as I will be able to dig up where religion WAS used as an excuse to maintain power over the aforementioned peasantry.

Do I refute that spiritual "higher power" concepts are basically a neurological, evolutionary trait imbued in us? No, because I don't have the information necessary to do so and truth be told that would make sense. But that's not my point. I'm not saying that spirituality was invented by humans, I am saying the organization of spirituality and the use of it to force and exert and manipulate control over others, something we know as religion, WAS.

Basically, you're taking issues with the "how" and "why" of my post and I agree it is faulty and all over the place but the general idea that I was getting at was that religion was necessary for most, if not all rulers of nations and cultures, to justify why they should rule. Nowadays the consent of rule is derived more from the people rather than an invisible power. Mostly. This is an idea that is spreading; most of Europe and the Americas have adopted it, nations in the Mediterranean are starting to demand it, hell even nations in the middle east are starting to warm to the idea [though US interference over the last decade has done little to promote it positively]. No longer is religion necessary to justify a leader's rule; it's being rapidly replaced [rapidly is a relative term but contrasted to the overall length of human history it's rapid] by the idea that a ruler is only fit to rule at the behest of those he governs. THAT was the entire point I was driving at; not so much the origins of belief and why we believe [I'll leave that to evolutionary biologists and neurologists who have studied and practiced in their fields for decades] but rather what those beliefs have been so often used for across human history and why we don't need to succumb to that way of thinking anymore as a means to legitimize governance.

In short: My response to your objections are: You are correct, but that was not quite the point I was driving at. I was wrong where you stated I am wrong and I readily admit that but my overarching point still remains that religion was a basis for rule of the few over the many for far too long and it is no longer necessary for it to do so since newer ideas have taken root in the mentality of the human race, ones that afford far more respect to a far larger group of people rather than just the self-proclaimed "chosen" few.

You put words in my mouth and then you claim that I'm the bad guy for being insulted? What an ass.


You obviously know dick about the various traditions of shamanism mentioned. That you can find some examples where religion appears to fit the mold doesn't explain the many examples I gave where it doesn't. (Grecian oracles helping Greek rulers maintain control over the masses? That's a joke, right?) Like many stupid atheists who have made similar arguments in the past, you have a narrow view of what religion is, and a gaping ignorance of the history of religion, so you base your argument on a small range of examples of religion, and address that. That makes your entire argument a straw man. And you still haven't addressed why your explanation is a more compelling explanation of the phenomenon than evolutionary psychology and the cognitive science.

The rest was little more than equivocation on the meaning of the word religion.

Go fuck yourself.

(August 19, 2012 at 10:57 pm)apophenia Wrote:


You put words in my mouth and then you claim that I'm the bad guy for being insulted? What an ass.


You obviously know dick about the various traditions of shamanism mentioned. That you can find some examples where religion appears to fit the mold doesn't explain the many examples I gave where it doesn't. (Grecian oracles helping Greek rulers maintain control over the masses? That's a joke, right?) Like many stupid atheists who have made similar arguments in the past, you have a narrow view of what religion is, and a gaping ignorance of the history of religion, so you base your argument on a small range of examples of religion, and address that. That makes your entire argument a straw man. And you still haven't addressed why your explanation is a more compelling explanation of the phenomenon than evolutionary psychology and the cognitive science.

The rest was little more than equivocation on the meaning of the word religion.

Go fuck yourself.

Makes my entire argument a straw man? You didn't even UNDERSTAND my argument, clearly. Everyone else so far clearly grasped it yet you're the only one who didn't. Your lack of comprehension is not my fault, and it no longer is my problem, either. Not to mention I bring up several examples and you just dismiss them on the grounds of their being a "small range?" What, you want me to list every single fucking one? If several examples doesn't work, then no amount really will, and I'm not going to waste my time on someone who doesn't want to admit they're WRONG. The crime of "putting words in [your] mouth" was not enough to warrant your hostility to begin with and the fact I was actually quite level-headed in my reply was just thrown in my face. You know what? You're fucking retarded.. YOU failed to grasp what the point I was making is. YOU still fail to do so despite my laying it out. YOU made an extremely vague post where you disagreed with something I never even fucking said which I attempted to clarify upon. YOU reacted with unwarranted hostility and excessive condescension.

YOU go fuck yourself, you stuck-up overblown philosobabbling bitch, consider yourself ignored. I should have expected such close-minded bawling from a person who follows a belief that treats intelligence and inquiry of the world around them as something to forsake.