Is Religion Innate or a Cultural Construct?

[SystemTheory]

Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?

Yes.

A good book on the psychology of religion was written a century ago, The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. He has particular empathy for those afflicted with spiritual pain (sick souls, he calls us), and it was only later that I heard his father suffered such bouts. This book helped me a lot during a period of such affliction.

Another scientific effort at understanding how human beings learn to self-other communicate, which is what we do, by the way, is The Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz. The earliest forms of language are body language and the use of iconic signs. These modes of communication are contrasted with indexical signs (causality) and symbols (assigned meaning).

Personally I have yet to meet a child who popped out of the womb capable of causal reasoning, and since reasoning as a toddler is by nature iconic and attached strongly to the need for an external parent, these iconic modes of reasoning are (1) natural; (2) inherently good although can become a source of pain; and (3) iconic modes of reasoning will always be with us, expressed in art, religion, mythology, science fiction, scientific speculations, etc.

For example, without a day and a night, does the phrase "the Earth formed X billion years ago" have any psychological meaning? None. It may as well have been yesterday or the day before.

Also when the scientist says the singularity is a uniform homogeneous mixture of proto-matter, such that light does not shine due to dis-equilibrium, I can't imagine any difference between that and what the Bible says, "the Earth was a formless wasteland and darkess covered the abyss." There is a limit to what one can imagine in science or religion.

 

[snoopies622]

...when the scientist says the singularity is a uniform homogeneous mixture of proto-matter, such that light does not shine due to dis-equilibrium, I can't imagine any difference between that and what the Bible says, "the Earth was a formless wasteland and darkess covered the abyss."

Well, there is the matter of the origins of such beliefs. The laws of physics and the stories in the Bible have different origins. One might say they are supported by different epistemologies.

 

[SystemTheory]

The laws of physics and the stories in the Bible have different origins.

The origin or source of each epistimology is the same. Stuff happens and we make up a story or a meaning. The fact is that, in empirical science, stuff happens repeatedly so we have confidence in the story based on repeatability. When we speculate backwards from what is empirically known, we enter the realm of general mythology ...

Time is the inverse of frequency, or something repetitive. In a singularity there is no frequency, hence, no time, hence, eternity (now).

God placed the eternal in their hearts, without men ever discovering, from beginning to end, what God had done. The Bible.

An instant realization sees endless time. Endless time is as one-moment. When you enter the eternal moment you realize who is seeing it. Zen koan (mind problem).

Scientists have their own mythology. At the boundaries of empirical knowledge it becomes quasi-causal.

Einstein wondered what it means when two events occur at the same time? Can one cause the other? How many events are occurring right now, and what can one really know about their causes? It must be that we study, not reality, but how our own body relates to and interprets experience as "reality."

 

[snoopies622]

I'm not completely following you, SystemTheory. How do you distinguish between science and religion?

 

[SystemTheory]

Science is a myth (made up story) of the rational mind perpetuated by the ritual of repeatable experiments.

Religion is a myth (made up story) that takes on unique personal meaning in the context of life's repeated rituals.

I am about to order Freud's book on religion The Future of an Illusion. However my goal is to consider also how humans create a myth about the modern world, or put faith in money, which are also illusions (dreams about the future which may or may not be true).

 

[croghan27]

Is not religion one of the propositions that Karl Popper classes as 'non-falsifiable' as in can never be proven wrong. If all else fails there is always the "because God wants it that way" explanation (of anything) which is unassailable by logic or evidence.

As such it can and does reach into realms that science (or logic - and frequently common sense, for that matter) cannot go. A strong belief in a system like that has a powerful attraction.

The comment (which I cannot local just now ) that religion comes to the fore in times of stress is particularity salient here. When politics (as with dictators), economics (as in depressions) or even science (developing things like hydrogen bombs) present an individual or group with dicey or unacceptable situations, there is always religion as a fall back - it cannot be shown wrong and explains what is happening.

Some kind of religion will always be about to smooth over, make acceptable, the rough parts of life. This works all on its' own - an existential God minding his/her universe is not necessary to this belief.

 

[Galteeth]

Yes.


Also when the scientist says the singularity is a uniform homogeneous mixture of proto-matter, such that light does not shine due to dis-equilibrium, I can't imagine any difference between that and what the Bible says, "the Earth was a formless wasteland and darkess covered the abyss." There is a limit to what one can imagine in science or religion.

I don't think science has much to say on the subject of singularities as actual phenomenon. Singularities represent a breakdown of the laws of physics.

This superficial similarity you are noticing is a result of the causuality paradox (either infinite regression of cause and effect or a first, uncaused cause) that neither religion nor science has really been able to deal with. Since causuality is a fundamental element of all human thinking, this is not surprising.

 

[RonL]

I don't know to transfer a picture on the Bing home page, but the picture of the day gives a very good example of a myth, "A mountain that is said to be the trunk of a tree that grew all the fruits of the world, it was cut down by an ancestor and caused a great flood". It makes contact with three countries in S.America. (Mount Roraima)

Can anyone transfer the image ?

http://www.bing.com/

 

[DaveC426913]

Can anyone transfer the image ?

No. It's carefully obscured. Just link to the page.
Or just post any image from Google.

But what is the relevance?

 

[RonL]

No. It's carefully obscured. Just link to the page.
Or just post any image from Google.

But what is the relevance?

Guess the link will last for the rest of the day.

The thread has made mention of myths a number of times and when I saw this, it reminds me of some of the illustrations of my religous past. One deal breaker for me is the story (myth) of Samson slaying 10,000 Philistines in a single day with the jawbone of a donkey (printable correct word) I was well into adulthood when I ran the numbers on that.

What was that last guy thinking as he climbed that mass of dead bodies.

There may be no relevance, I'm just astonished at the things that much of humanity believe without question.

http://www.bing.com/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Arkon Daraul's Secret Societies, A History gives a good brief summary of the history of secret cult like societies and the methods they used to attract and retain members. One of the most interesting were the Castrators who essentially alienated their members from the rest of society by their very core practice.

Its interesting that at one time the Mithraist secret society was a contender against Christianity for the religion of the realm in Europe. Apparently the date for Christmas was even stolen from the Mithraist Festival of the Sun holiday. Recruitment for esoteric vs exoteric religions both had their advantages though in current times since the leaders do not necessarily have much control over the official religion of their nation esoteric religions suffer. The benefit of Christianity was that it offered 'salvation' or assurances of peace and prosperity to anyone who asked for it. It was a peasant's religion and so it spread much more widely and rapidly than the more choosy esoterics. Esoterica was later built into Christianity to attract more austere members and create a two tiered religion with a church that gained wide political influence.

Humans seem to like mystery and religion offers both mystery and answers. Those seeking an understanding of the world around them find comfort in the idea that some things are simply unknowable and that if they subscribe to a particular society of thought that they may find some minimal answers that others do not have. Some are attracted to the idea of greater answers and power (from whence we get our esoteric religions) and still others are most content to follow and fit in.

I think that the pains and fears that religion assuages are natural to the human condition and religion is simply the easiest and most accessible means of dealing with these issues. Perhaps religion for this purpose will be outmoded some day but for now it is a very healthy meme that may not ever go away completely.

 

[SystemTheory]

The benefit of Christianity was that it offered 'salvation' or assurances of peace and prosperity to anyone who asked for it. It was a peasant's religion and so it spread much more widely and rapidly than the more choosy esoterics. Esoterica was later built into Christianity to attract more austere members and create a two tiered religion with a church that gained wide political influence.

Black Elk prays to the Great Spirit like this (English translation): "Look upon these children with children in their arms and smiling, and help us walk the good road to the day of quiet. This is my prayer. Hear me!"

Jesus appeals to the infantile needs of humanity to seek a parent in the world and a parent in oneself. In my study of various religions and human psychobiology, I have found none that speak to my infantile desire to internalize the abilities of a parent more than in the words of Jesus. When the infantile effort to internalize the abilitities of the parents is properly understood we will have a much better understanding of the function of religion. Even the psychologists are not immune from their own infantile logic, so they create their own belief systems (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is a non-empirical judgment system based on prevailing beliefs about behavior, not empirical methods).

 

[Ulagatin]

My thought is that any religion mirroring the human condition will be eternal and undying. An earlier poster stated that as we discover more scientific facts about our universe, the claws of faith would slacken. I agree and disagree to a large extent regarding this proposition, as while the poster has suggested what I believe to be truth in one sense, it is far from the entire story. What must be considered is that, while science certainly enlightens humankind and disentangles some of the mysticism previously tied to various unexplained phenomena, it also produces certain philosophical considerations for humankind.

In essence, the rise of science in the modern era has given birth to existential nihilism, such that we must find and create our own meaning, in many senses of the word. While most existentialists are and have historically been atheists, the father of existentialism himself (Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard) was in fact a deeply religious man.

We understand, as central to consciousness, the role of truth, the role of structure and beauty, and so, undoubtedly, religion must play centrally in this poetry of existentialism, in the conquest of suffering, and the triumph of human passion in pursuit of virtue, grand purpose and meaning.

In other words, a pursuit of purpose and meaning is inherent to the human consciousness in many senses - for example, we perceive physical reality and then we condition it with our own mental structures (our biases and predispositions in thought) in order to make sense of the sensory information made available to us. There are often many aesthetic considerations in our thought processes - for example, consider mathematics. The famous mathematician Euler discovered a theorem which led to his beautiful identity $$e^{i\pi} + 1 = 0.$$ Euler's identity is considered remarkably beautiful in the world of mathematics as it links many of the fundamental constants and operations in mathematics in one simple equation, no more than perhaps two inches long.

Now consider a great painting by Picasso - what makes it beautiful and awe-inspiring in the beholder's eye? Is it sheer talent, or is there some more fundamental element in the relationship between the observer and the artwork itself?

Clearly, our methods of thought, our predispositions and our cultural biases all have an impact on our aesthetic appreciation of abstract notions and ideas. They also have an impact upon our method of rationalising the perceived world insomuch as the structure we apply in our minds to understand and perhaps truly transcend the sensory data we have been presented with at anyone point in time.

This philosophy can be generalised for religion. Religion is, in essence, a set of supernatural beliefs and practices exemplifying an inherent moral code, often presented in holy scripture as doctrinal truth. Religion is in some sense the death of nihilism as it presents meaning and purpose to the follower, often in a revelational manner, while science detracts from human purpose and meaning in this very particular sense. Therefore, science and religion roughly act in counter-balance, akin to a conservation law. I personally believe that they can truly be integrated, and that they are not necessarily in disaccord in all manners.

With regard to my opening paragraph, it is not science alone that has led to a weakening in the claws of faith, but rather to the advance of postmodernism, and as a result of that movement, secular humanism. More historically, modernity led to the dichotomy between church and state, a fundamental turning point in the Western world that subsequently led to a decline in religious belief (and greater faith in the Age of Reason - a period of great importance for philosophy and science alike). A religious work ethic is clearly present in the corporate world though, and in many regions in the Western world (and beyond), religion is a powerful force, its grasp in constant flux, but naturally undying due to its lure beyond any measure.

 

[croghan27]

Ulagatin ...er...er... No.

I fear you are (well written) but wrong or at least misguided from beginning to end. Of course religion mirrors(sic) the human condition everything that humans do mirrors 'the human condition, however that is defined, too.

I strongly disagree that science leads to nihilism - what is science but a quest for meaning - and what is theology but one as well, save that theology comes up with answers inside its' own parameters, and so is limited, ... as for moral codes and religion ... are you trying to say that Picasso, a disbeliever, lacked morals when he created Gurnicia? More probably the Bishops and Priests that supported Franco lacked morals than he.

Science asks questions - religion gives answers (what may or may not be correct). If you want to talk about humanity - the human mind will always ask questions (and that is as general as I will get!), and so will never be satisfied (the game is more important than the winning). Religion in answering question is embarking on its' own termination.

Hamlet's pretentious:There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. is not an affirmation of God.

 

[Ulagatin]

Glad to hear your point of view. I must have abstracted far too much regarding my point about Picasso because it was not understood - this was simply to highlight the elements of human consciousness that I discussed in my original post (ie truth, beauty and structure), and not to indict him on any such charge as you are proposing that I have done. You clearly have far more knowledge of Picasso than I (I only used his name as an example of a famous painter - I know precious little more than this about him).

We clearly have different interpretations of the word 'meaning' - science does construct meaning insofar as it allows us to better understand ourselves and our universe, but it also often leads to a decoupling from the egocentrism of religion - ie it casts doubt on the cosmic importance of human beings, and devalues a sense of greater meaning or purpose.

For instance, cosmology is based upon several parameters - if you are aware of Hubble's law of expansion (the FRW model of cosmology), it gives us the energy density of the universe at any point in time, and this density is time-dependant (as the scale factor in the left hand side of the equation changes). The cosmological constant (the vacuum energy) is very important in the equation as it has implication for the rate of the expansion of the universe (we are currently in a vacuum-dominatd phase - expansion approximates $${e^{Ht}}$$ in our time, where H is Hubble's constant or Hubble's parameter). If we saw a much greater rate of inflation earlier in the history of the universe, galaxies would not have been able to form as gravity would have been too weak to counteract the repulsive force. If the inflation rate was much smaller early in the history of the universe, the converse would be true, and the universe would end with a big crunch (and depending on the time-scale of this, intelligent life may never have become a reality in our universe).

The evolution of intelligent life is most certainly dependant on certain intrinsic properties of our universe (such as demonstrated above), but intelligent life (manifested as human beings) is not at the centre of everything as many religions would have us believe - the evolution of intelligent life is greatly important to us (obviously) but not in any grand sense to anything else on a larger scale - we are cosmically insignificant. The universe did not "come into existence" (for want of a better phrase) for the purpose of humanity, or for any other intelligent life according to science. Religion (while much older than the science of cosmology in this sense, obviously) attempts to create meaning from this void, and it is in this sense that I define meaning.

Darwinian evolution would have us believe that humans have evolved from apes - clearly contradictory to the message of the world's major religions. Again, it paints an image of a 'void in meaning' of our world. Seeking answers from religion allows oneself to overcome this void, hence the strength of religion in maintaining faith in people. The key word is faith, as it is by definition not based upon reason but rather on hope.

Now, back to the original point regarding the creation of meaning from science. While science can give us a great deal of information, and will continue to do so, there are fundamental questions beyond its scope - questions in the realm of metaphysics and theology. Such a question is "What caused the big bang?" as this implies cause-and-effect which is then a time-dependant relationship. The big bang itself defined time (a flawed sentence, for sure, but our language is difficult to use when we discuss these matters) and so it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to discuss what happened prior to the big bang. It is fundamentally BEYOND THE DOMAIN OF SCIENCE and so we have an argument as to why science will not be able to kill religion in its entirety.

I strongly disagree that science leads to nihilism - what is science but a quest for meaning - and what is theology but one as well, save that theology comes up with answers inside its own parameters, and so is limited...

Science is most definitely a quest for meaning - even a quick glance at modern theoretical physics confirms that view, and theology is in its own sense a quest for meaning, with pre-defined answers as (generally) given in holy scripture. Perhaps what I should have stated in my last post is that science reconfirms in the observer's mind an inherent nihilism, rather than it itself leading to nihilism.

What you have failed to recognise is that both science and theology exist in a hierarchy, with certain bounds inherent to each field. For example, science is codified in the language of mathematics, and bound upon empirical measurement and observation. Theology is based upon a philosophical structure and therefore does give answers (correct or incorrect) within its own parameters. These parameters are just different to those found in science and mathematics, as parameters within theology are (arguably) created by religious scholars, but parameters within science and mathematics are (to a greater or lesser degree) discovered, simply because of the nature of these fields.

Please elaborate on the statement that religion is embarking on its own termination by answering questions.

Science asks questions - religion gives answers (what may or may not be correct). If you want to talk about humanity - the human mind will always ask questions (and that is as general as I will get!), and so will never be satisfied (the game is more important than the winning).

I agree entirely with this segment of your post, and have no more to add here. As a side note, I did not fully understand the last line of your post, regarding Hamlet. I'm only 17 and have read almost no Shakespeare.

I myself am not a religious man, which may be of interest to you (it may have appeared from my original post that I have a religious bent, but not so).

Thanks for your reply, croghan, and for your compliment on my writing.

Davin

 

[||spoon||]

I thought the case for Evolution was already pretty strong - yet the debate continues..

What debate? There is no debate about the fact of evolution amongst credible scientists and, even more so, amongst credible biologists.

 

[mugaliens]

...what is science but a quest for meaning - and what is theology but one as well, save that theology comes up with answers inside its' own parameters, and so is limited...

I'd argue that as theology's parameters extend far beyond those of science, it's a lot less limited than science.

Science asks questions - religion gives answers.

Oh, come on! Science gives answers, too. It just tries its best not to do so until it has verifyable, repeatable, peer-reviewed data. And whether one accepts it or not, most religions are fairly well-based in observation. Quite practical. Sure, there's tons of speculation beyond the observable, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[SystemTheory]

What debate? There is no debate about the fact of evolution amongst credible scientists and, even more so, amongst credible biologists.

Ben Stein makes a compelling case for allowing discussion of intelligent design in a 2008 documentary, I think it is called Intelligence Expelled.

Personally I don't judge credibility by the scientist/biologist but by the compellingness of the theory and the evidence. While it is possible randomness caused life, in this film, one of the most compelling points is just how unlikely life is to start on Earth from unliving matter. I don't think Randomness must be worshipped as a God anymore than reverence for God should preclude the study of randomness. I happen to have a healthy fear/respect for both!

 

[Evo]

Ben Stein makes a compelling case for allowing discussion of intelligent design in a 2008 documentary, I think it is called Intelligence Expelled.

Personally I don't judge credibility by the scientist/biologist but by the compellingness of the theory and the evidence. While it is possible randomness caused life, in this film, one of the most compelling points is just how unlikely life is to start on Earth from unliving matter. I don't think Randomness must be worshipped as a God anymore than reverence for God should preclude the study of randomness. I happen to have a healthy fear/respect for both!

It's a crackpot film.

 

[mugaliens]

It's a crackpot film.

Science is "a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science" ). Did you systematically examine Mr. Stein's statements and discount them by means of scientific discovery? Or is your comment a knee-jerk reaction to anything religious?

This isn't a dig. As intelligent, thinking beings, we cannot allow our reactions to be the same as those who dismiss many things scientific as "evil." Rather, we must put forth reasons why we believe the film is baseless.

For example:

Ben Stein makes a compelling case for allowing discussion of intelligent design in a 2008 documentary, I think it is called Intelligence Expelled.

Personally I don't judge credibility by the scientist/biologist but by the compellingness of the theory and the evidence. While it is possible randomness caused life, in this film, one of the most compelling points is just how unlikely life is to start on Earth from unliving matter. I don't think Randomness must be worshipped as a God anymore than reverence for God should preclude the study of randomness. I happen to have a healthy fear/respect for both!

The film was "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." One aspect that is noteworthy was it's highlight of academic freedom. However, negative reactions were generally about ten times greater than the positive ones. It was sketchy on details, loaded with fallacies, and failed to properly address either evolution or intelligent design.

With regard to the randomness argument against evolution, life isn't random, but chaotic, in the mathmatical/scientific sense of the word, and with clear, well-known, and reproducible (on a much simpler scale) self-organizing chemistry. One only need to watch a video of eukaryotic mitosis, a purely chemical process, to witness that self-organizing chemistry is not only possible, but occurs on a constant basis. Even simple molecules can be self-assembling - witness the snowflake! Yet even this simple molecule experiences variation.

The question then becomes one of how a species improves itself over time against entropy. The answer is that it doesn't defy entropy at all, any more than I defy entropy when I go to the gym, or more appropriately, when I select a pretty, intelligent, capable woman as a life-long companion and mother of my children.

Entropy still occurs in a single organism, but not between successive generations.

Genetic variation, particularly as a component of differential reproduction, is the key that allows successive generations to be a bit different than one's parents. Some of those differences (traits) are beneficial for survival and reproduction, and are generally passed on to further offspring.

The concept is simple, but it does take time for one to unlearn falsehoods which keep them from understanding it. Even when people are brilliant in some areas of knowledge and thought, they can be found lacking in other areas. Sadly, Ben Stein's film reveals an area about which he has little real knowledge.

 

[croghan27]

I'd argue that as theology's parameters extend far beyond those of science, it's a lot less limited than science.



Oh, come on! Science gives answers, too. It just tries its best not to do so until it has verifyable, repeatable, peer-reviewed data. And whether one accepts it or not, most religions are fairly well-based in observation. Quite practical. Sure, there's tons of speculation beyond the observable, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

No doubt theology ranges far beyond science - it is not restrained by such nuisances as reality and things that are quantifiable. (How hot are burning bushes that are not consumed?).

I agree that religions are in some way reality based - but it is more of a 'temper of the times' reality, closer to politics, than one that is concerned with verities. Remember Hitler called nuclear physics 'the Jewish science' and dismissed it. This malleability of religion is useful for chauvinistic purposes - but when it comes to revealing universal truths it is rather a constraint.

Science builds upon its' past discoveries, (Christ touched on this when he commented that he came to fulfil the scriptures not deny them). Science has not tossed out Pythagoras and plane euclidean geometrics, but has gone to places where parallel line DO meet: Newton and Galileo are not made superfluous by the standard model of physics - they are just by-passed, gone beyond.

Marx looked at history and came to the conclusion that that religion(s) was of small import in the various wars and reformations - they were used as some kind of screen, but at heart materialistic factors were the determinants. "I love god and A-merica." has less to do with God than it does with A-merica.

Something called religion will always be with us, yes - but the religion of one society is far different than that of another ... Bob Dylan's "With God on Our Side" plays with this idea. Science, encapsulating more concrete truths, works for both capitalist and communist, the establishment and terrorists.

 

[marcus]

Would non-theist religion be stable against random mutation?

I'd like to hear more discussion of the original question "will relig. always be with us (humans)?" Which is surely a window on human nature since how you address the question depends on how you think of human nature.

I thought Astronuc quoting merriam-webster.com was a good start. I think the original question is good, not because you could answer it but because trying to answer can help clarify and stimulate ideas.

I brought along the dictionary quote. It allows for the possibility of non-theist religion. That challenges one to imagine a non-theist religion taking over some substantial portion of our species. (Thinking of religions as viral abstractions capable of spreading and being to some extent inherited.) And then a natural question arises as to the stability of a non-theist religion.

Even if we got to a point in history where people's religions did not attribute a mind to Nature (a mind either in or above governing or before creating, some mind as an important factor, playing some major role) would that be stable?

Might it not be that even after several generations or centuries of not attributing a mind to physical and biological evolution, people would suddenly get the inspired idea "the Universe has a Mind!" and revert to theistic practices and start converting each other to theistic faiths all over again. Because it is so appealing to our social animal nature to try to put a face on things and relate to things via a personality that we can sort of empathize with.

That's my two bits at the moment. The basic focus as I see it is defining so you get some clear ideas. Here are the dictionary quotes again:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology

religion -
1 (a) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (b) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


By 1b, 2 and 3, theology (specifically a belief in a god or gods) is not necessarily part of religion. So an atheist or agnostic can be religious or have religion.


theology - 1. the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

2. a theological theory or system, e.g., a belief in a god or gods.


Looking at etymology of religion: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back - in other words religion can provide a moral constraint (self-restraint) on one's behavior.

 

[SystemTheory]

The concept is simple, but it does take time for one to unlearn falsehoods which keep them from understanding it. Even when people are brilliant in some areas of knowledge and thought, they can be found lacking in other areas. Sadly, Ben Stein's film reveals an area about which he has little real knowledge.

He has sufficient knowledge and understanding of freedom of expression and the process of scientific debate to make his major point, which is that scientists should debate the theories and the evidence. I am not up on all the research, but it appears there is no compelling evidence that chemical self-organization did indeed generate life without an intelligent spark. However, I am of the Buddhist belief that if we are intelligent, nature must be basically intelligent, and therefore the creation is a reflection of the Creator.

My old Lasers and Optics professor once gifted me with his theory that God is the universe. I liked that idea so much it has become my conviction ... and I regard the universe as equally intelligent and random, much like a reflection of how I observe it to be.

 

[croghan27]

I sort of agree with a poet (named Pope, no less )

"Presume not God to scan, the proper study of mankind, is man." Which, even if a tad less than gender neutral, encapsulates (at least) my view.

That MW definition of theology is interesting:
theology - 1. the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

Many of those arguing for a God centred universe use the phrase the 'religion of atheism' - and so try to foist upon their opponents all the doctrinaire faults they, themselves, have supported.

It is difficult to discuss religion in a sociological/philosophical sense without straying off into concepts of supreme beings - Gods.

 

[Galteeth]

Glad to hear your point of view. I must have abstracted far too much regarding my point about Picasso because it was not understood - this was simply to highlight the elements of human consciousness that I discussed in my original post (ie truth, beauty and structure), and not to indict him on any such charge as you are proposing that I have done. You clearly have far more knowledge of Picasso than I (I only used his name as an example of a famous painter - I know precious little more than this about him).

We clearly have different interpretations of the word 'meaning' - science does construct meaning insofar as it allows us to better understand ourselves and our universe, but it also often leads to a decoupling from the egocentrism of religion - ie it casts doubt on the cosmic importance of human beings, and devalues a sense of greater meaning or purpose.

For instance, cosmology is based upon several parameters - if you are aware of Hubble's law of expansion (the FRW model of cosmology), it gives us the energy density of the universe at any point in time, and this density is time-dependant (as the scale factor in the left hand side of the equation changes). The cosmological constant (the vacuum energy) is very important in the equation as it has implication for the rate of the expansion of the universe (we are currently in a vacuum-dominatd phase - expansion approximates $${e^{Ht}}$$ in our time, where H is Hubble's constant or Hubble's parameter). If we saw a much greater rate of inflation earlier in the history of the universe, galaxies would not have been able to form as gravity would have been too weak to counteract the repulsive force. If the inflation rate was much smaller early in the history of the universe, the converse would be true, and the universe would end with a big crunch (and depending on the time-scale of this, intelligent life may never have become a reality in our universe).

The evolution of intelligent life is most certainly dependant on certain intrinsic properties of our universe (such as demonstrated above), but intelligent life (manifested as human beings) is not at the centre of everything as many religions would have us believe - the evolution of intelligent life is greatly important to us (obviously) but not in any grand sense to anything else on a larger scale - we are cosmically insignificant. The universe did not "come into existence" (for want of a better phrase) for the purpose of humanity, or for any other intelligent life according to science. Religion (while much older than the science of cosmology in this sense, obviously) attempts to create meaning from this void, and it is in this sense that I define meaning.

Davin

Well, in a sense, the evolution of intelligent life is extremely significant and central to the parameters of the universe. If you take some forms of the anthropic principle at face value, they imply the structure of the universe is totally context dependent. The necessity of intelligence to "bring light" so to speak, or self awareness, adds a "meaning" to the universe with life that is not present in conceivable universes without life, or more specifically, intelligent life.

 

[Ulagatin]

Hi Galteeth,

Agreed. Just read Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" which discussed these concepts. I was not aware of the anthropic principle prior to reading this.

Might I suggest, to Croghan, that atheism in fact be considered a religion - it is a set of beliefs (or indeed a principle belief) in the non-existence of God. If our definition of religion is this broad, then religion will be along with humanity until the very end, as it is a priori an integral element of human consciousness. No man or woman can have no beliefs, no convictions, no judgements.

Davin

 

[DaveC426913]

... religion will be along with humanity until the very end ... No man or woman can have no beliefs, no convictions, no judgements.

Hang on there. Religion does not have the market cornered on convictions and judgements. Beliefs, yes. But convictions and judgements can be perfectly rational.

 

[Ulagatin]

Hi. I see you have the PF award for best humour.

Religion does not have the market cornered on convictions and judgements. Beliefs, yes. But convictions and judgements can be perfectly rational.

I'm sure many religious folk disagree about the implicit statement you have made there!

Davin

 

[croghan27]

Hi Galteeth,

Agreed. Just read Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" which discussed these concepts. I was not aware of the anthropic principle prior to reading this.

Might I suggest, to Croghan, that atheism in fact be considered a religion - it is a set of beliefs (or indeed a principle belief) in the non-existence of God. If our definition of religion is this broad, then religion will be along with humanity until the very end, as it is a priori an integral element of human consciousness. No man or woman can have no beliefs, no convictions, no judgements.

Davin

Oh my - I hope I have not implied that atheists have no beliefs or convictions ... they look at religion somewhat as Francis Church did when he wrote: Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus. http://beebo.org/smackerels/yes-virginia.html. an embodiment, a metaphor a (perhaps) cute tale that satisfies the immature - but not really a basis to design a life.

Would you say that Bertrand Russell had no convictions? made no judgements? (He indeed, had some legal convictions for following his steadfast, atheistic and moral beliefs in non-violence.) He certainly managed to have a very upstanding life without the superstructure of religion, God or manachian notions of ultimate evils or goods.

You have been reading too much of Dawkins or Hitchens (who I do not agree with at all). Try Terry Eagleton: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching who effectively destroys Mr. Dawkin's argument while presenting a sensible view of God.

Most atheists I know just find religion and God somewhat extraneous to their lives - something that provides explanations for things that need no explanation, reasons for things that are reasonable without priests, ministers, imams or liturgy.

 

[Evo]

Might I suggest, to Croghan, that atheism in fact be considered a religion - it is a set of beliefs (or indeed a principle belief) in the non-existence of God.

I can't disagree with this more. Do you believe in the trout god of the Ainu? No? So you have a set of beliefs in its non-existence? I don't believe in many things that don't exist, and just because someone else does believe, and that they give it some level of importance, doesn't mean my disbelief has to hold an equal amount of importance. It's a non issue for me.

 

[Galteeth]

I can't disagree with this more. Do you believe in the trout god of the Ainu? No? So you have a set of beliefs in its non-existence? I don't believe in many things that don't exist, and just because someone else does believe, and that they give it some level of importance, doesn't mean my disbelief has to hold an equal amount of importance. It's a non issue for me.

Perhaps what he is referring to is the context of moral truths. Religions hold that morality is absolute and inviolable. An atheist may have absolute moral convictions, but by default, they would believe that a moral truth is not an objective truth in the same way the laws of thermodynamics are. The same would go for such things as the meaning of existence. In that sense, it is a fundamentally different world view, and that could be how one defines "religion".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Existence cannot be explained in total. "What came before the big bang?", for example. In fact, it is, I believe, the mainstream school of thought that the sole purpose of science is to produce useful models, not to answer the most exotic questions from philosophy and theology. So atheists cannot claim that denial of religious beliefs is a scientific position. All that we can say is that we have no scientific evidence supporting such beliefs.

So how can one simply deny a wealth of human history describing encounters with "others"? How does one reject out of hand what 90% of the world's population beleives to be true in one form or another? How does one ignore the tens of thousands of testimonials found in churches all over the country each Sunday?

All that is required is a simple leap of faith. Of course atheism is a religion.

 

[Doc Al]

Of course atheism is a religion.

Is that meant to be an insult to atheists?

 

[mgb_phys]

Do you believe in the trout god of the Ainu? No? So you have a set of beliefs in its non-existence? I don't believe in many things that don't exist,

Isn't that a quote by somebody.
An atheist is somebody who believes in ONE less God than a religous person.

 

[SystemTheory]

I can't argue with any reasoning written in this short essay on religion, which appears to be written by Charles Darwin after much thought on the subject:

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

the essay convinces me that a thoughtful scientist accounts for the nature of humanity as expressed in wide variety and that Agnosticism is probably more "scientific" than Atheism or Theism. That said, credible scientists have expressed all three sentiments in terms of belief in God, no belief in God, and not sure if there is or is not a God (Intelligent Creator).

I witnessed a Japanese Zen Master in Los Angeles give a wonderful talk called "I and not-I are one." This is good mystical science if one studies the boundaries of the imagination and the modern field of fuzzy logic!

Another religious teacher is quoted, "No one doubts his own existence, though he may doubt the existence of God. If he seeks enlightenment and discovers the truth in himself, that is all that is required."