Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Michael McMahon]

"Call it God; call it superstition; call it, as Atran does, “belief in hope beyond reason” — whatever you call it, there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science... The bottom line, according to byproduct theorists, is that children are born with a tendency to believe in omniscience, invisible minds, immaterial souls — and then they grow up in cultures that fill their minds, hard-wired for belief, with specifics. It is a little like language acquisition, Paul Bloom says, with the essential difference that language is a biological adaptation and religion, in his view, is not."
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/maga ... ion.t.html

Are we really biased to believe in God? Sometimes we can't remove our subconscious perception of God simply because we were taught about religion in childhood and also because our culture is influenced by many generations of theists. Although if I was raised as an atheist and descended from multiple generations of atheists, then I mightn't have the faintest inclination to ever believe in God. For example many people in China come from several generations of non-religious communists and it's possible that they never personally had to reject God simply because they never had a mental image of God in their recollection. By contrast if I was to somehow get angry with God then the temptation might be to think that God can actually hear your atheistic rebellion just like He was hearing a prayer. In other words you'd be engaged in a contradiction seeing as it doesn't make sense to be angry at a non-existent being from an atheistic perspective. It seems to be people that depend on God rather than it necessarily being God Who depends on our worship. That is to say many religions in their early years were supported by people who converted to a faith of their own free will without having had any conception of what God was like beforehand. For instance pre-Christian Europe had the polytheistic faith of the Roman Empire without much reference to God as benevolent being. So if we feel pressured to believe in God before death, it's not out of neurological coercion since our tendency to mitigate death anxiety through theism is a simply a reflection of our historical era. From a human evolutionary perspective it's like we've unlimited free will in whether or not we believe in God. However we're perhaps a tiny bit unconsciously biased to have some transcendent beliefs simply because we've genetically inherited the coping mechanism of previous generations as to how they dealt with their mortality. Maybe my free will is slightly reduced when it comes to God simply because it's not psychologically possible for me to be as atheistic as an ancient Roman soldier who never even heard the word "God".

[Michael McMahon]

Definition: "The expression "fig leaf" is widely used figuratively to convey the covering up of an act or an object that is embarrassing or distasteful with something of innocuous appearance, a metaphorical reference to the Biblical Book of Genesis in which Adam and Eve used fig leaves to cover their nudity after eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

God banished Adam and Eve from heaven for stealing the apple. But how do we know the apple wasn't itself a fig leaf in the sense of being a euphemism? It's easy to see how an awful lot could go wrong in a nude society where temptation abounds. For all we know the story of Adam and Eve could've been God's way of banning nudism. The irony is that this is actually compatible with the scientific account of human evolution since our earliest ancestors didn't have the tools to make clothing.

87D4B06C-AA4B-4ED7-A6B9-17DC6DCC51F2.jpeg (45.69 KiB) Viewed 2486 times

"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature in need of regeneration and a proclivity to sinful conduct."

16CA65E5-4B62-463A-9BEB-06B8E04DC032_4_5005_c.jpeg (59.69 KiB) Viewed 2486 times

Homo habilis

Wearing insufficient clothing would make it harder to withstand the elements:
"The study also describes climate change as crucial for the process by which Neanderthals disappeared from the planet. In their case, their competition with Homo sapiens also played a role, but scientists believe that climate change would be enough on its own. Even a species that has been able to control its conditions, for example by using fire, dressing, has been at the mercy of climate change, Raia recalls."
- indnes.cez

"Since the woman sought wisdom, she ate the fruit of the tree, and gave some to Adam to eat too. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” When God came into the garden, they hid from him. He noticed that they had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and turned them out of Paradise."
https://www.alimentarium.org/en/knowled ... dden-fruit

[Sy Borg]

I'd not thought of that angle! Like many, I always assumed it referred to human suffering though loss of innocence, but who knows for sure?

[Raymond]

People are the only creatures that show the procreation tools ubiquitous, or conspicuous at least. All cultures cover them. All natural indigenous tribes have their ways. It's rather conspicuous too that women in these tribes don't cover their "milky organs", which only indirectly have to do with procreation. I think nudism is a reaction to being covered up too tight.

[Belindi]

Michael McMahon quoted:

"Since the woman sought wisdom, she ate the fruit of the tree, and gave some to Adam to eat too. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” When God came into the garden, they hid from him. He noticed that they had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and turned them out of Paradise."

You can't beat poetic language for concision and clarity. The problem is understanding symbolism has to be learned.

The sin is said to be 'original' because to seek knowledge and wisdom independently of God is what all people must do. We have no choice in the matter, so this separation from God is existential aka 'original'.

Later on, as the story goes, God took pity on us and sent his Son to show us the way back to God. However Genesis is not concerned with that part of the story.

[Miles the 5th]

"Call it God; call it superstition; call it, as Atran does, “belief in hope beyond reason” — whatever you call it, there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science... The bottom line, according to byproduct theorists, is that children are born with a tendency to believe in omniscience, invisible minds, immaterial souls — and then they grow up in cultures that fill their minds, hard-wired for belief, with specifics. It is a little like language acquisition, Paul Bloom says, with the essential difference that language is a biological adaptation and religion, in his view, is not."

Are we really biased to believe in God? Sometimes we can't remove our subconscious perception of God simply because we were taught about religion in childhood and also because our culture is influenced by many generations of theists. Although if I was raised as an atheist and descended from multiple generations of atheists, then I mightn't have the faintest inclination to ever believe in God. For example many people in China come from several generations of non-religious communists and it's possible that they never personally had to reject God simply because they never had a mental image of God in their recollection. By contrast if I was to somehow get angry with God then the temptation might be to think that God can actually hear your atheistic rebellion just like He was hearing a prayer. In other words you'd be engaged in a contradiction seeing as it doesn't make sense to be angry at a non-existent being from an atheistic perspective. It seems to be people that depend on God rather than it necessarily being God Who depends on our worship. That is to say many religions in their early years were supported by people who converted to a faith of their own free will without having had any conception of what God was like beforehand. For instance pre-Christian Europe had the polytheistic faith of the Roman Empire without much reference to God as benevolent being. So if we feel pressured to believe in God before death, it's not out of neurological coercion since our tendency to mitigate death anxiety through theism is a simply a reflection of our historical era. From a human evolutionary perspective it's like we've unlimited free will in whether or not we believe in God. However we're perhaps a tiny bit unconsciously biased to have some transcendent beliefs simply because we've genetically inherited the coping mechanism of previous generations as to how they dealt with their mortality. Maybe my free will is slightly reduced when it comes to God simply because it's not psychologically possible for me to be as atheistic as an ancient Roman soldier who never even heard the word "God".

First post! Henig says above, “there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly.” Yes, Believing is fundamental to man’s perceived realities. We all believe something; rather there is a god, there isn’t a god, there are lots of gods, or it was all just a big bang! I was reminded of a book I read a long time ago, The Storyteller, by Vargas Llosa. What stuck with me all these years was how a primitive Amazon indigenous people like the Machiguenga, who had remained untouched by modern man, had their own unadulterated native myths and superstitions that were both quite complex and comprehensive. It gave them a nomadic, non-possessive nature. Like, how the Sun and Moon constantly and consistently move, therefore it must be against the god, gods to stay any one place for longer than a day. Human experience with nature plays a major role in the beginning and development of myths, religions, and otherworldly ideas. Ancient history shows a vast array of different cultural beliefs in other worldliness. What did ancient people see or think when they looked up and saw the moon and stars? At the very least, something bigger and more than themselves? Perhaps thoughts like, “How did all this get here and why am I in the middle of it? I didn’t start or make any of this!” There is also another inherent human quality that’s quite significant here, and that’s to have a meaningful sense of purpose (Great topic for another discussion). When our little brains start putting all this together: wondering if there is something beyond, our need for a sense of purpose, and an incredible imagination; it becomes ideas that are then shared and result in superstitions, oral traditions, myths, and religion. Then developing societies start filling children’s minds “hard wired for belief” with these systems of thought and they become cultural norms.

A note on the idea that if an individual raised multi-generationally in a culture with no concepts or ideas presented about “a” god, therefore one wouldn’t necessarily have to believe or have to reject “a” god; is absolutely correct. One can only choose to believe or reject ideas acquired through observing nature or adopt the given norms that come from their society and culture. When a society does not have a given concept for “a” god, then that god does not exist and will not be a choice. If, however, that same individual in that same “no god” society rejects the given norms and ideas, and rather, contemplates nature with it’s larger than life attributes, is that individual compelled by inherent human qualities to form beliefs in the great something beyond? And if that belief conflicts with the no god norms, mightn’t you find a professing atheist arguing with god?

A last question regarding mankind’s “inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly;” is it even humanly possible to know or understand an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god?

[Raymond]

Great comment! Some remarks.

"There is also another inherent human quality that’s quite significant here, and that’s to have a meaningful sense of purpose (Great topic for another discussion)."

This is why many people turn to god(s). Science doesn't provide a purpose or meaning. It describes. There was a big bang, even an infinite row of them and infinite new ones to come behind us. But that merely describes the mechanism at work and not why that’s there "in the first place". Dawkins's selfish genes and memes are his meme about evolution. The purpose or meaning he assign to life, to pass on genes or memes, is in fact a "begs the question fallacy", its a circular reasoning from which there is no escape. That’s because he falsely assigns a purpose and meaning to a description of evolution (you can consider Lamarckian evolution just the same, but it's unpopular). You can understand why Dawkins so vigorously fights theism. Theism offers a purpose and meaning he (and other new atheists) are incapable to understand.

You ask:

"A last question regarding mankind’s “inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly;” is it even humanly possible to know or understand an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god?"

I think it's possible to understand but would it be a human god still? And as the gods made us in their image, doesn't that mean that they're...eeehhh...well, human like? I think the human gods are a tiny fraction of all gods. Every creature kind in the universe has a representative in the eternal heavens, or better, the other way round). In the preamble to creation (the gods had good reason) all gods were happily involved.

[Michael McMahon]

We all believe something; rather there is a god, there isn’t a god, there are lots of gods, or it was all just a big bang! I was reminded of a book I read a long time ago, The Storyteller, by Vargas Llosa. What stuck with me all these years was how a primitive Amazon indigenous people like the Machiguenga, who had remained untouched by modern man, had their own unadulterated native myths and superstitions that were both quite complex and comprehensive. It gave them a nomadic, non-possessive nature.

One way to think of an eternal entity is one that's infinitely bored! Waiting around for millions of years would've taken it's toll! If there was an intelligent designer than they must have been bored out of their mind when they concocted the insect bedlam below!

Troglobites: Strange Cave Specialists | Planet Earth | BBC Earth

I think it's possible to understand but would it be a human god still? And as the gods made us in their image, doesn't that mean that they're...eeehhh...well, human like? I think the human gods are a tiny fraction of all gods.

[Raymond]

We all believe something; rather there is a god, there isn’t a god, there are lots of gods, or it was all just a big bang! I was reminded of a book I read a long time ago, The Storyteller, by Vargas Llosa. What stuck with me all these years was how a primitive Amazon indigenous people like the Machiguenga, who had remained untouched by modern man, had their own unadulterated native myths and superstitions that were both quite complex and comprehensive. It gave them a nomadic, non-possessive nature.

One way to think of an eternal entity is one that's infinitely bored! Waiting around for millions of years would've taken it's toll! If there was an intelligent designer than they must have been bored out of their mind when they concocted the insect bedlam below!

Troglobites: Strange Cave Specialists | Planet Earth | BBC Earth

I think it's possible to understand but would it be a human god still? And as the gods made us in their image, doesn't that mean that they're...eeehhh...well, human like? I think the human gods are a tiny fraction of all gods.

Ha! Guess even the trilogbite-gods got bored! Luckily, to sooth their boredom, depression, and despair, they can look at themselves in action on Earth.

[Michael McMahon]

"Extradition is an action wherein one jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to the other's law enforcement."

There are billions of people on the planet who'll all die eventually in their own time (not making a threat here) and so heaven if it exists must be a massive place to accommodate so many people. It's theoretically possible that each religion has their own share of heaven even though I know many believe in a heaven controlled by one exclusive prophet. Let's just say for the sake of argument that there was a Jewish part of heaven on the first floor and Christians lived on the ground floor. Just like our separate Churches it's possible that their respective heavens don't interact too much. But if you've lived your life as a perfect Christian and nonetheless egregiously demeaned another Abrahamic faith or vice versa, then who knows if they've an uneasy truce in heaven where you could be sent for judgement in another religion's faith. Even though respecting the beliefs of another faith isn't always explicitly stated in the different holy books it's still conceivable that you could be extradited for upsetting the supernatural balance.

[Michael McMahon]

'During the Cold War, the CIA conducted human behavior experiments using truth serums alongside LSD for interrogation purposes. However, in the Congressional enquiries held on the subject in 1977, CIA officials stated, “No such magic brew as the popular notion of truth serum exists.”' (thewire)

An atheistic counterargument to divine judgement is that it requires a God who knows all of your thoughts which some may find intrusive. However there are other ways to extract information. Since the afterlife would entail a separation from your body then a supernatural judge and jury would probably have methods beyond what's physically possible in a normal court. A truth serum might be possible if heaven existed. A physical truth serum ordinarily fails because it only leads to drug-induced disorientation and apathy. It's logically consistent though not scientifically feasible to alter not only the reward system of a subject but also the pain response. For example the reward system of other species can be used to incentivise behaviour that humans would find repugnant. One reason we are tempted to lie is to avoid embarressment but if embarrassment is neurologically reversed to reward thrill-seeking behaviour then this would no longer be an obsticle.

[Michael McMahon]

Screenshot_20220531-180945_Chrome.jpg (286.37 KiB) Viewed 2174 times

One means of interpreting an impersonal God would be through surrealism. If everything were created by God and yet all we can see is chaos, then there must be method to the maddness! It'd be like we were all connected by an infinite being that isn't actually fully self-aware. Perhaps God would use us and our experience of life as a form of internal exploration by imbuing a tiny element of Himself in everyone. In other words God would merely be seeking to understand the absurdist mystery inside God's own existence by creating us.

[Michael McMahon]

In other words there is meaning in trying to reduce the inherent absurdism.

[Michael McMahon]

There's an implied truce between religion and science where science apparently controls the living world and religion controls the afterlife. Yet this carries a difficulty in that it often requires a gradual conversion from atheistic science to religion before death. Many people don't fully know their beliefs as children or young adults. A medical emergency that reminds you of your mortality can be extra frightening if you're also fretting about your worldview. There's a hidden layer of absurdity in the status quo where if an omnipotent God exists then it'd seem that He should control the physical world too. Likewise if materialism is true then it'd seem hypocritical to convert to religion before your imminent death. Pure atheism would seem to suggest that the most you could hope for in the afterlife is either oblivion or a blind and random version of reincarnation. The dilemma is that both metaphysical systems have advantages depending on our age. Seeing as we're all limited, finite and humble beings it'd probably be perfectly acceptable to either convert to a different faith before death or to stand firm. We could do so privately or publicly. That is to say we've likely free will right up to the moment of our death and for all we know possibly beyond. Or else are heaven and reincarnation both deterministic processes?! Who knows!

[yid=cHSk606yFas&t][/yid]
Captain fantastic Sweet child o' mine scene

[Michael McMahon]

(I removed the =seconds component of the time function in the web link but I mistakenly left in the &t part)