NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps religion is a reflection of humans selfish nature in that it is used to control or influence other humans to someone elses benefit?

Edit: w00t! Timewarp! Considering the subject, Ironic indeed.

I was in English today and a few guys were having a bit of a debate/arguement.
One guy was saying that because the very essence of human nature is quite selfish/"survival of the fittest". It is the core of who we are as human beings and has been within us from caveman times. He was saying that because we all think of ourselves first and the betterment of our own situation, it means religion doesn't really "work". He didn't really make it clear by what he meant by 'not working' but basically he was saying that religion defies human nature because it goes against our basic instincts.
On the other hand, there were a few guys who were saying that from human nature, we delveoped abstract thought and the ability to love and care for others. From this we further developed morals etc. and hence religion isn't really that farfetched and is pretty understandable within the 'bounds' of human nature.

Hmm, quite hard to explain, but thoughts?
Does religion defy human nature?

Altruism is a pretty basic aspect of human nature, and altruism is a core aspect of pretty much all religions in existence...

I answer your question with another question: What can change the nature of man?

Augh, too much Planescape: Torment.

Hmm, quite hard to explain, but thoughts?
Does religion defy human nature?

I don't think so. Self-denial and charity and all that may seem counter to our interests, but if you believe you'll receive a great boon in the afterlife, it's not altruism or sacrifice as much as simply putting off the reward until after death. There's still something in it for you. :p

The second group is right. The only reason human beings have survived and thrived as we have is because most of us naturally look out for each other. Apparently that instinct isn't strong enough to survive the beat down our current society give it, but meh.

In any case, religion was an early expression of the community everyone knew they needed to survive. In the present, it has become something often far different, but some of the origins remain in some faiths. This is evident in the Muslim idea of the Community and the stressing of unity in the Catholic Church, as well as the so called "oness" that Buddha described he felt with all living things.

It's unnatural not to have some sort of belief in the divine. Even those who supress it and deny it at one point had this belief.

Altruism is a pretty basic aspect of human nature, and altruism is a core aspect of pretty much all religions in existence...

Hmm, I think what the guy was saying that altruism wasn't part of 'original' human nature i.e. cavemen and such. He had a much more basic view of human nature perhaps and suggested that things such as altruism came with evolution.

Hmm, I think what the guy was saying that altruism wasn't part of 'original' human nature i.e. cavemen and such. He had a much more basic view of human nature perhaps and suggested that things such as altruism came with evolution.

Nope, it's been observed in non-human species as well. It seems to be quite common in nature.

Augh, too much Planescape: Torment.

That game kicks an unbelievable amount of ass. Got it a few weeks ago, but haven't managed to get through it yet. Partly because I started over after I got the hang of things (you should explore a whole are before going to a new one etc.) and because I save it for the boring hours at work.

I was in English today and a few guys were having a bit of a debate/arguement.
One guy was saying that because the very essence of human nature is quite selfish/"survival of the fittest". It is the core of who we are as human beings and has been within us from caveman times. He was saying that because we all think of ourselves first and the betterment of our own situation, it means religion doesn't really "work". He didn't really make it clear by what he meant by 'not working' but basically he was saying that religion defies human nature because it goes against our basic instincts.
On the other hand, there were a few guys who were saying that from human nature, we delveoped abstract thought and the ability to love and care for others. From this we further developed morals etc. and hence religion isn't really that farfetched and is pretty understandable within the 'bounds' of human nature.

Hmm, quite hard to explain, but thoughts?
Does religion defy human nature?

He grossly misunderstands human nature.
If we were always looking for our own advantage only, we would all be living solitarily, probably still somewhere in Africa. We are not, though. Humans are social animals, which evolved to live in family groups or small tribes.
As such, we cannot be egoistic all the time. We are to some extend, but we also are social, emphatic, and altruisitc. At least towards the people we consider to be part of our tribe. Towards outsiders, we have a tendency to be highly aggressive.
If we didn't have these characteristics, this level of interaction and mutual assistance in almost everything we do, we couldn't have evolved to this point. Or rather, we probably wouldn't have needed to. Much of our brain capacity these days is used for human interaction, communication, interpreting another individuals behaviour, etc. In short, social.

All that religion did was provide a simplistic explanation as to why we should act like this, when apparently it is not the norm in nature. Most animals never evolved this level of social interaction, despite the size of the groups some of them live in. The only thing close would be our nearest relatives, chimps and gorillas.
Religion doesn't defie human nature in the least, on the contrary.

Hmm, I think what the guy was saying that altruism wasn't part of 'original' human nature i.e. cavemen and such. He had a much more basic view of human nature perhaps and suggested that things such as altruism came with evolution.
If we hadn't developed altruism, humans would be little more than less funny looking Orangutans.

I was in English today and a few guys were having a bit of a debate/arguement.
One guy was saying that because the very essence of human nature is quite selfish/"survival of the fittest". It is the core of who we are as human beings and has been within us from caveman times. He was saying that because we all think of ourselves first and the betterment of our own situation, it means religion doesn't really "work". He didn't really make it clear by what he meant by 'not working' but basically he was saying that religion defies human nature because it goes against our basic instincts.
On the other hand, there were a few guys who were saying that from human nature, we delveoped abstract thought and the ability to love and care for others. From this we further developed morals etc. and hence religion isn't really that farfetched and is pretty understandable within the 'bounds' of human nature.

Hmm, quite hard to explain, but thoughts?
Does religion defy human nature?

No, it panders to them by promise, contradicts them by possibility, and finds a somewhat nominal medium between, which unfortunately utilizes fear/despair as the cornerstone.

Honestly, there's nothing against basic instincts to love and care for others. What's against the basic instincts is to expect to have enough contol over your instincts to keep yourself from being too selfish, especially in a supportive medium.

If we hadn't developed altruism, humans would be little more than less funny looking Orangutans.

Indeed. But even with said altruism, is it still within our basic human nature to care for ones self before maybe our neighbour? I mean, we can care about others all we want but in a situation.... Say you have the choice; either you die or someone else dies, most times it'll be the other person right?
Edit:Boy, this thread is well fucked.

Edit:Boy, this thread is well fucked.

Well, it involves religion. Narf.

It's unnatural not to have some sort of belief in the divine. Even those who supress it and deny it at one point had this belief.

True. Humans do seem to have a "religious instinct". I think that this developed alongside our instinct for empathy. When you combine our empathy (our concept of "other") with our hierarchial social structure (our concept of "other more powerful") it is a natural progression to "Other most powerful". I.E. "God"

Indeed. But even with said altruism, is it still within our basic human nature to care for ones self before maybe our neighbour? I mean, we can care about others all we want but in a situation.... Say you have the choice; either you die or someone else dies, most times it'll be the other person right?
Edit:Boy, this thread is well fucked.
Eh, as long as the other person were useful I'd probably die. Then at least my life would have some purpose, cus that guy got to live cus I died.

But yeah, that's my issue. Most people would choose themselves. Doesn't mean they aren't naturally altruistic when circumstances allow.

If religion defies human nature, then why did every single ancient civilization have a religion and believe in god/gods, and why did the civilizations after them do so as well? If anything, atheism defies human nature.

If religion defies human nature, then why did every single ancient civilization have a religion and believe in god/gods, and why did the civilizations after them do so as well? If anything, atheism defies human nature.

That's more if's than is's. Perhaps you should try again.
Atheism is also quite common in human nature, as the more selfish of that particular philosophy are no better than the pseudo-pious.
You don't have much ground there.

Eh, as long as the other person were useful I'd probably die. Then at least my life would have some purpose, cus that guy got to live cus I dies.

But yeah, that's my issue. Most people would choose themselves. Doens't mean they aren't naturally altruistic when circumstances allow.

Hmm, I see what you mean.
He was trying to say that in the heat of them moment, our basic human nature comes through and we would save ourselves. There are many though, like yourself, who probably wouldn't.

Humans are social animals. Maybe not the hivelike "uberorganism" mentality of bees and ants, who act like one big organism rather than thousands of seperate organisms, but mammalian level, as seen in certain primates, lions (maybe), and wolves. We help our tribe and our tribe helps us. Our loyalty is to the tribe. Screw that tribe on the other side of the river. They can burn in hell for all you care because they're not your tribe. They shouldn't eat food that was in your village.

Religion is an extension of this tribal instinct. In the tribe, you have a chief or elders. He/she/it/they is/are your leader(s). They're sole purpose is to focus on keeping your tribal members together and alive. They have a set of rules that are supposed to keep the tribe together and on the same page. Without these rules, the tribe would be a group of vulnerable people instead of a killing machine it needs to be to survive. Gods and goddess act like super-chiefs/elders. They could turn your tribe into a smoldering crater just by thinking it. Their rules are rules that overrule your tribe's rules because God help you if they are pissed.

That's more if's than is's. Perhaps you should try again.
Atheism is also quite common in human nature, as the more selfish of that particular philosophy are no better than the pseudo-pious.
You don't have much ground there.


One if for a question, one if for a statement.

So, are you saying that atheists are selfish? And that people that have a religion are pseudo-pious?

One if for a question, one if for a statement.

So, are you saying that atheists are selfish? And that people that have a religion are pseudo-pious?
I'm saying the sense of self is comparable in either context, and through such pervasion, it's obviously not against human nature in either case.
There's a clear implicit argument that atheists, by not worshipping some imaginary creature or even a REAL creature, by definition NOT worshipping anything as a higher power than their own conscience and wisdom, speaks pretty clearly about the likelihood of selishness.
Doesn't mean they are by necessity, it just says that it's an easy argument against selflessness.

If religion defies human nature, then why did every single ancient civilization have a religion and believe in god/gods, and why did the civilizations after them do so as well? If anything, atheism defies human nature.
I wouldn't say that religion defies human nature, but I wouldn't say that atheism does either.
Atheism is also quite common in human nature, as the more selfish of that particular philosophy are no better than the pseudo-pious
And the most altruistic atheists are just as good as the actually pious.:)

And the most altruistic atheists are just as good as the actually pious.:)Agreed, as rare as such in both cases. :(

I'm saying the sense of self is comparable in either context, and through such pervasion, it's obviously not against human nature in either case.
There's a clear implicit argument that atheists, by not worshipping some imaginary creature or even a REAL creature, by definition NOT worshipping anything as a higher power than their own conscience and wisdom, speaks pretty clearly about the likelihood of selishness.
Doesn't mean they are by necessity, it just says that it's an easy argument against selflessness.

Well I'm a religious person myself, but I do like to question things. In any case, what I was trying to say earlier was that if you look at the majority of all civilizations (or at least like 95%-99% of them), they all had some sort of religion that was very common among the people. I believe that it's a part of most human being's natures to believe in/be commanded by a force greater then them, and in many cases religion fufills that purpose. As for atheism, there simply haven't been atheists in great numbers until recently, or of course they haven't had much power, because those that have power are the writers of history.

Well I'm a religious person myself, but I do like to question things. In any case, what I was trying to say earlier was that if you look at the majority of all civilizations (or at least like 95%-99% of them), they all had some sort of religion that was very common among the people. I believe that it's a part of most human being's natures to believe in/be commanded by a force greater then them, and in many cases religion fufills that purpose. As for atheism, there simply haven't been atheists in great numbers until recently, or of course they haven't had much power, because those that have power are the writers of history.

I don't think so, I think the initial impulse for belief comes from anthropomorphizing natural phenomena unexplainable at the time as opposed to a natural inclination to be commanded.

We are built to fear the unknown and therefore seek to appease those unknown things that create fear.

As for atheism, there simply haven't been atheists in great numbers until recently, or of course they haven't had much power, because those that have power are the writers of history.

Who paid for the scribes when the world went Dark?





So much of the script is enduring not because of its veracity, so much as its fancy.
Recent events in my own country have provided great, GREAT examples of the difference between actual events and attempts to have history written a certain way.
Certainly, in past circumstances, there were less opportunities to corroborate things that don't "agree" with administrative prerogative.

Administrative prerogative ... dark ages. Connection?

I don't think so, I think the initial impulse for belief comes from anthropomorphizing natural phenomena unexplainable at the time as opposed to a natural inclination to be commanded.

We are built to fear the unknown and therefore seek to appease those unknown things that create fear.
F*ckin' Winner of Thread.

I don't think so, I think the initial impulse for belief comes from anthropomorphizing natural phenomena unexplainable at the time as opposed to a natural inclination to be commanded.

We are built to fear the unknown and therefore seek to appease those unknown things that create fear.

Perhaps, but I find that many people have to be told what to do, they can't figure it out for themselves. So in a way, if someone tells them it's the right thing, then they would do it/believe it.

That may not have made sense because my eyes are burning and I've been awake for 18+ hours, so sorry if it didn't make sense.

Who paid for the scribes when the world went Dark?





So much of the script is enduring not because of its veracity, so much as its fancy.
Recent events in my own country have provided great, GREAT examples of the difference between actual events and attempts to have history written a certain way.
Certainly, in past circumstances, there were less opportunities to corroborate things that don't "agree" with administrative prerogative.

Administrative prerogative ... dark ages. Connection?

I dunno, rich people?

Perhaps, but I find that many people have to be told what to do, they can't figure it out for themselves. So in a way, if someone tells them it's the right thing, then they would do it/believe it. All manner of social convention is essentially this, reinforced.
The thing about "soul"s is that it's individual responsibility. Totally. Something no human has domain over in any real sense, even less anything concocted by selfish people/institutions in order to manipulate people over value of said concept.

That may not have made sense because my eyes are burning and I've been awake for 18+ hours, so sorry.
Ah well, NS.

I dunno, rich people?

And churches made the most $ from whom?

Yes, people afraid of losing something they didn't understand. Trading $ for a place in "the kingdom".

All manner of social convention is essentially this, reinforced.
The thing about "soul"s is that it's individual responsibility. Totally. Something no human has domain over in any real sense, even less anything concocted by selfish people/institutions in order to manipulate people over value of said concept.

Ah well, NS.

What about souls?

No. And anybody who says it does doesn't understand our biological and physiological evolution. I don't either, but I have the sense to at least comprehend what it is that they posit.

What about souls?

Quo?

What other leverage works in matters of "faith", which is the obvious currency of religion?

No. And anybody who says it does doesn't understand our biological and physiological evolution. I don't either, but I have the sense to at least comprehend what it is that they posit.

Relax, it's just something some of the less secure atheists tell themselves...

;)

Relax, it's just something some of the less secure atheists tell themselves...

;)

Are you saying it's a "playing safe by #'s" concept? o.0

Relax, it's just something some of the less secure atheists tell themselves...

;)

:confused:

Not exactly sure who or what you're referring to.

:confused:

Not exactly sure who or what you're referring to.

Could it be like a religion-based schizophrenia that was alluded to in one of the other religion threads?

Quo?

What other leverage works in matters of "faith", which is the obvious currency of religion?

I always figured my soul was just my brain. As far as leverage, don't forget about justice. In Islam for instance, the basic requirement to ascend to heaven on the Day of Judgement is to believe in God, and to be a good person/ do good things/ don't do too many bad things. The Quran always maintains that God is the greatest judge, and that everyone shall have what they deserve in the end. Right now, that doesn't happen though, sometimes the ***holes get it all good, and sometimes the good people get screwed over. But I guess that's kind of what you were saying except in different terms.

Though I really don't know where either of us are going with anyone of this, do you?

I always figured my soul was just my brain. As far as leverage, don't forget about justice. In Islam for instance, the basic requirement to ascend to heaven on the Day of Judgement is to believe in God, and to be a good person/ do good things/ don't do too many bad things. The Quran always maintains that God is the greatest judge, and that everyone shall have what they deserve in the end. Right now, that doesn't happen though, sometimes the ***holes get it all good, and sometimes the good people get screwed over. But I guess that's kind of what you were saying except in different terms.

Though I really don't know where either of us are going with anyone of this, do you?If you're talking about the nature of perceived reward, then you're talking about religion. Without it, you've got no religion.
Whether the nature of the reward is actually deserved or not is whether it is appealing to a base instinct of selfishness ... innate and natural, or not?
The human nature aspect of it there, methinks.

I think that's where we're going with it, but feel free to clarify if i missed something.

BTW - i'm off to listen to the sweet cullings of Morpheus.

:confused:

Not exactly sure who or what you're referring to.

I was referring to the people saying that Religion defies Human Nature.

Could it be like a religion-based schizophrenia that was alluded to in one of the other religion threads?

???

religion is all about self interest. particularly the ones that say you'll go to hell if you don't believe. or the ones that people will claim moral superiority for following.

It's unnatural not to have some sort of belief in the divine. Even those who supress it and deny it at one point had this belief.

'Unnatural' in the sense of lesser numbers existing, but not in the sense of it is a requirement of human nature to have a belief in the divine. Civilisations have been prone to it as a means of social cohesion, and it is passed on through education/indoctrination of the young, but it is not automatically part of human nature. Explanation of the world is, but religion is not always needed for this, as evidenced by the atheistic movement in this and the last centuries.

remember, humans are also social creatures. It's not just our own survival that we value, but also that of our family/tribe/culture. And religion is a cultural trait, one of the most important things that helps us feel attached to our fellow tribal members. IMO that makes it one of the most human things there is.

Altruism is a pretty basic aspect of human nature, and altruism is a core aspect of pretty much all religions in existence...

For once, I agree with Vetalia. Altruism does after all, play a large rôle in the survival of communities, and I don't think anyone would really bother being altruistic at all if it weren't at least somewhat natural for them to do.

Hmm, quite hard to explain, but thoughts?
Does religion defy human nature?
No.

Religion arises from basic human drives. Religion exists to satisfy various human wants and needs, both on an individual and social level.

Religion does not create love, altruism, morality, honor, respect, or any other human emotion.

Religion certainly didn't defy human nature.It was the first form of knowledge,it provided the first explanation about how and why things are.But since science is the current form of knowledge,it's becoming increasingly obsolete,however it still serves it's purpose to lots of people who don't know much else about the world they live in.

???

Snark met snark. I usually post like that when i see what appears to be an appeal to numbers effort in a conversation about something.

Knotthole Glade;12933645']Religion certainly didn't defy human nature.It was the first form of knowledge,it provided the first explanation about how and why things are.Then, the first intentional lie, since it was almost certainly utterly wrong and a misinterpretation of actual circumstances, as any attempted pragmatism about religion is (by definition) ... since it comes down to "faith", not "fact". That makes it as far from knowledge as it's likely to be, other than not even corroborating misinterpretation and delusion whatsoever.
Knotthole Glade;12933645']
But since science is the current form of knowledge,Funny how you're not gonna get much further than that.
Knotthole Glade;12933645']it's becoming increasingly obsolete,however it still serves it's purpose to lots of people who don't know much else about the world they live in....and who want easy, emotionally sympathetic answers so they can feel better about their place in the world, and their fragile egos don't have to suffer anymore for whatever reason they got disproportional in the first place.

Funny how you're not gonna get much further than that.
Though it would be foolish to limit one's knowledge to that of scientific enquiry.

Though it would be foolish to limit one's knowledge to that of scientific enquiry.

Enquiry? As in the Enquirer? Or this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-enquiry

You are submitting, then, that there is "knowledge" that has equitable value of rigour and investigation other than that of scientific "enquiry"?

"Gut-feelings", "hunches", and instinct are not knowledge, they are attitudes, persuasions, physio-emotional responses and perspectives.
If you're talking about "experience", then it's still a scientific method that you're talking about.

So perhaps you mean to clarify?

:cool:Imagine trying to describe the feeling of kissing your one true love in purely scientific terms. :p

Physics or no?

:P

Enquiry? As in the Enquirer?
As in the enquiry of knowledge and experience using the scientific method.

You are submitting, then, that there is "knowledge" that has equitable value of rigour and investigation other than that of scientific "enquiry"?
I am submitting that there are huge parts of life where science is lacking; poetry, literature, painting, philosophy, politics, relationships, to name but a fraction.

Science may help us to understand certain aspects of the above, but to simply view life from a scientific point of view would be dull, and if I may say so, foolish.

To take the example of philosophy, I would submit that it has, quite obviously, 'equitable value of rigour and investigation' outside of scientific enquiry. Indeed, philosophy has shown that all of modern science rests upon a fairly shaky premise, namely the Problem of Induction (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/).

Now, this is not to detract from scientific enquiry in the correct place. Science is a wonderful tool of enquiry, but we must not get carried away; it is, after all bound by its own framework and limitations.

Imagine trying to describe the feeling of kissing your one true love in purely scientific terms. :p

:cool:

Physics or no?

:P
I'm not saying you couldn't describe such a thing in scientific terms, biologically, physically, chemically, etc., but there would be something seriously lacking from the description.

I'd like to think we're past the idiocy of behaviourism, thank you very much.

I'm not saying you couldn't describe such a thing in scientific terms, biologically, physically, chemically, etc., but there would be something seriously lacking from the description.Not if you want to remain objective.

Not if you want to remain objective.
So?

Emotion is, to a point, a necessarily subjective thing; but that doesn't mean it's of any less worth than the scientific objectivity of chemicals going round your brain or your proximity to someone you are attracted to.

In fact, it's only with the subjective emotions that we can make any sense of the objective chemical, biological and physical reactions. Two sides of the same coin, really. Can't have one without the other; can't have the emotion without the chemicals, and vice versa.

One fits in with the scientific framework, and is thus labelled 'objective' by scientists. Unfortunately, many have taken this to mean that these outward reactions are all that is important; some even say that's all there is at all.

So?

Emotion is, to a point, a necessarily subjective thing; but that doesn't mean it's of any less worth than the scientific objectivity of chemicals going round your brain or your proximity to someone you are attracted to.

In fact, it's only with the subjective emotions that we can make any sense of the objective chemical, biological and physical reactions. Two sides of the same coin, really. Can't have one without the other; can't have the emotion without the chemicals, and vice versa.

One fits in with the scientific framework, and is thus labelled 'objective' by scientists. Unfortunately, many have taken this to mean that these outward reactions are all that is important; some even say that's all there is at all.

Emotion only happens within one's brain. There is no outside connection even if it may feel that way. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing beyond biology except what one makes up through imagination. The whole love thing is insubstantial, so there is really no scientific understanding required at all, let alone that there would be something lacking if one were nevertheless to use scientific methods to explore emotions.

Emotion only happens within one's brain. There is no outside connection even if it may feel that way.
So when I'm very sad the fact that I start to cry is complete coincidence?

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing beyond biology except what one makes up through imagination.
You've never experienced love, anger, sadness, happiness, humour, confusion, or any of the other emotions?

You honestly believe emotion is completely imaginary?

Could you point to the biological imagination?

The whole love thing is insubstantial
:eek:

Wow.

That's quite a statement. Your back-tracking to behaviourism.

Soon you'll be denying there's a mind.

I don't see how anyone can deny that we have emotions. Tell you what UB, next time your at the pub, go up to the biggest, hardest looking guy and punch him in the face. Before he throws a wobbly, just remind him that he's merely imagining his anger, and that its all a construct.

I guarantee you he'll still feel anger.

And watch out for that 'outside connection' of his anger travelling towards you at high speed. :P

Certain emotions, like love, are basic human survival instincts amplified by a more complex brain and concepts developed by said brain, such as religion. Without love, men would abandon their pregnant and EXTREMELY vulnerable (you try running while having a biologically-programmed desire to not harm an organism inside of you that is the product of an evolutionary and biologically-vital act) and everyone would completely abandon one-another, which would leave everyone incredibly vulnerable. Religion is a product of a complex brain that's responsible for said "love". It satisfies a need for an ultimate reward (an eternity in scenic heaven, where you are supposed to have access to whatever your heart desires, whether it be a hot babe or a glass of beer that's bigger than you are), answers (why the hell are we born in the first place? What's his problem? Oh, God invented disease as a means of testing us. that's why he has that problem), some sort of leadership and guidelines no matter how meaningful (or meaningless), and as a means of accepting death rather than spending all your energy into erradicating the one thing that can prevent overpopulation short of complete sterilization of the entire earth's population.

I was in English today and a few guys were having a bit of a debate/arguement.
One guy was saying that because the very essence of human nature is quite selfish/"survival of the fittest". It is the core of who we are as human beings and has been within us from caveman times. He was saying that because we all think of ourselves first and the betterment of our own situation, it means religion doesn't really "work". He didn't really make it clear by what he meant by 'not working' but basically he was saying that religion defies human nature because it goes against our basic instincts.
On the other hand, there were a few guys who were saying that from human nature, we delveoped abstract thought and the ability to love and care for others. From this we further developed morals etc. and hence religion isn't really that farfetched and is pretty understandable within the 'bounds' of human nature.

Hmm, quite hard to explain, but thoughts?
Does religion defy human nature?

Your classmate cannot prove that the very essence of human nature is individual selfishness. For instance, arguing a point (particularly an abstract point, eg religion or society) is transcendental behaviour -- the ego is attached to a concept, a position of debate, and arguing for this position not only does nothing to advance the individual's survival, it may even directly endanger it.

(No, I'm not saying to threaten your classmate's life. The example I'd suggest is one who risks their life for a principle, a hero. Yes that furthers their survival, if they survive the risk they take ... but are they a real hero if they do it for fame rather than for love of the principle?)

Your classmate cannot define "religion" as purely altruistic. What is more selfish than "I will obey my lord, because it makes the difference between eternal damnation and eternal salvation, for me personally." ? That's a level of selfishness (not that I'm saying all religious faith is based on that...) by comparison to which a mugger is not much more than a fitness instructor.

The precipitous growth of the ego in adolescence often leads to extreme positions like "all behaviour is selfish" or "evolution dictates that I must kill everyone who is unlike me." There is a kernel of truth in his position, but unless you make gross over-simplifications like "religion is entirely altruistic" or "passing on ones genes depends on being entirely selfish" it is far from the whole truth. Make vast assumptions like that and stick to them, and you become either a raving nutter like Neitzche or a convict/murder-victim.

One final thought: religions have crashed whole societies into ruin or even extinction. But they didn't do that by ruining each person individually, tricking them away from their self-interest, but by defining arbitrary and wrong goals for society as a whole. We are social animals, and religions are social behaviour (looked at without faith, of course. With faith, they are a real world in which one lives.)

Btw, though not religious myself, I utterly respect religious faith as a path to understanding. We all live in some kind of model world, and to pretend we made that model ourselves, by the exercise of pure reason on verifiable experience, is quite as arrogant as to claim certainty from faith.

Too much faith is cowardly. Too little is dangerous.

A religious person who has not read the books of their faith is no better, and no worse, than an atheist who cites science they have not learnt. In both cases, to read is to experience, experience brings wisdom, and wisdom consists in recognizing error.

To "know" the truth is to be deluded.

Zus spake Tharasthustra.

As in the enquiry of knowledge and experience using the scientific method.


I am submitting that there are huge parts of life where science is lacking; poetry, literature, painting, philosophy, politics, relationships, to name but a fraction. That may be a genre where it doesn't belong, since science as a function is inherently different than a fancy. As a philosophical ATTITUDE, yes it's arguable to be an attitude.
One i support wholly.

Science may help us to understand certain aspects of the above, but to simply view life from a scientific point of view would be dull, and if I may say so, foolish.It is doubly foolish, however, to apply no critical reasoning to any instance of experience, for obvious consequence of self-delusion in way of emotional and psychological satisfaction. If a person wants a life of meaning, one has to ask what the merit of meaning is. This is the obvious rub between the semantic and pragmatic approaches to life - one can argue that "the meaning" of life is to do what makes you happy, and be somewhat accurate, whereas another can obviously argue that "the meaning" of life is to STAY ALIVE and LIVE, which is quite clearly a pragmatic approach to it that doesn't delve into "quality of life" trappings of mindset and philosophy.

To take the example of philosophy, I would submit that it has, quite obviously, 'equitable value of rigour and investigation' outside of scientific enquiry. Indeed, philosophy has shown that all of modern science rests upon a fairly shaky premise, namely the Problem of Induction (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/).All shakiness actually comes from the reliability of the tools of observance and control settings. For which, science is less shaky than reliable, in most regards.
As with any non-semantic object or tool, there are settings for which something (a device) is more useful than another, and continuing to improve something's ability to be used AS a tool is where the function and pragmatism of science shines brilliantly. Semanticism obviously can't keep up.
One can apply a philosophy of reason to things and happily bridge attitude with pragmatism.

Now, this is not to detract from scientific enquiry in the correct place. Science is a wonderful tool of enquiry, but we must not get carried away; it is, after all bound by its own framework and limitations.Certainly people are willing to argue their own delusions before pragmatic responsibility, in a horrible disproportion of number to saying simply "I don't know, but i'm trying, and i'm not imposing my desires over the data, except to simply verify or negate the value of the question/argument in the first place.
I'd mentioned the limitations earlier, certainly.


Imagine trying to describe the feeling of kissing your one true love in purely scientific terms. :pThat, itself, is a shaky premise, considering how many people find themselves comfortable about arguing something that really has a "general" definition and can't, apparently, be reconciled in any better fashion, regardless of how many books and songs and sonnets and public displays seem to want to argue the singularity of the concept.
"One true love" means, pragmatically, one focus of an emotional delusion of sorts.
Not to say it doesn't exist in a semantic fashion (one that may obscure all other value for a person, since that's obviously a problem), simply that it cannot be agreed upon in truth for simple reason of the nebulousness of the concept in the first place.

I could argue the psychophysiological aspects of it, the neurochemical aspects of it, the emotional bonding aspects of it, but then we'll just end up arguing about "how real" hallucinations are.

The argument is bullshit. People are not social Darwinists. We are evolutionarily conditioned to care about our children and the community in which our children will live, because this will help them survive and continue our genetic survival. We don't think of that reason, of course, but the reasons we create for doing it are irrelevant, all that matters to evolution is the end result.

And by the way, compassion is not a by-product of religion, and it is the height of arrogance that many religious people feel that the two are synonymous.

And by the way, compassion is not a by-product of religion, and it is the height of arrogance that many religious people feel that the two are synonymous.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
*bows*

Btw, though not religious myself, I utterly respect religious faith as a path to understanding. We all live in some kind of model world, and to pretend we made that model ourselves, by the exercise of pure reason on verifiable experience, is quite as arrogant as to claim certainty from faith.
Why do you "respect" religious faith as a path to understanding? Why should religion get a free pass from debate or thought, when it's perfectly acceptable to debate or question any other idea? To quote Douglas Adams on the subject, because he says it far better than I ever could:
"Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? Because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument, but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down, you are free to have an argument about it, but if on the other hand somebody says "I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday," you say, "Fine, I respect that."

(in fact, I think this deserves a discussion in it's own right, so I think I'll make a new thread about it, so as to avoid too much of a hijack)

Too much faith is cowardly. Too little is dangerous.
Sure, that sounds nice and profound, but where does blind faith (Redundant, yes) ever get us? Sure, we all probably have our gut feelings and what not that we believe without evidence, some more than others. The difference between this and faith is that these aren't usually held quite as strongly as the unshakable faith that religion creates, which is generally held in spite of all evidence. For example, I have a gut feeling, without any real evidence or rational justification, that there is other intelligent life out there in the universe. However, if the evidence were to indicate that I am wrong, I would accept this. The religious believer, on the other hand, will not waver in their belief no matter what evidence is given against their holy stories. Many Christians (and not just a fringe group, but a very mainstream part of society) still believe in Noah's flood, and the creation of Genesis. This is the difference between the gut feelings and rule of thumb that people in general find useful and religious faith.


A religious person who has not read the books of their faith is no better, and no worse, than an atheist who cites science they have not learnt. In both cases, to read is to experience, experience brings wisdom, and wisdom consists in recognizing error.
I agree here, but I think you hold atheists to having to know far more science than you should. Yes, atheists should understand the basics of evolution and of science in general, but not because they are atheists-- because everybody should understand basic science. It doesn't even take an advanced understanding of scientific theories to find that atheism is a sound idea.


To "know" the truth is to be deluded.

Zus spake Tharasthustra.
While we may not know things in the strictest sense of the word, in practice, it is silly to claim that we can't know things. We "know" that evolution is a sound theory, and that the earth is rather older than 6,000-10,000 years old. We "know" that, on earth, objects fall at a rate of 9.8 meters/second/second. We "know" that we are about 8 light-minutes from our sun. Yes, there is a slight chance that we are wrong about those things, but it is, in practice, negligible.

The ability to create gods is a distinctly human thing. How many badgers and dolphins have been found to worship something that they can't physically experience?

I think a good part of what MAKES us human is the ability to imagine things that are not there, and so the creation of gods (and, of course, the religions that follow) helps to DEFINE us as human.

That being said, I don't believe that the choice to not utilize this ability to imagine gods makes us any less human. It might be argued that the "god" stage is one of the phases we (as a species) need to pass through on the way to finding the true enlightenment of actual reality...

What I mean is, consider thunder. At first, man didn't know where it came from, so he theorized a god making all that noise. It wasn't a great answer, but it was certainly a better than nothing, and it showed a willingness to try and find out what the world was about rather than just surviving it. Now, with more sophisticated brains we know the physical causes of thunder and are richer for it, but the "god did it" stage certainly helped us get here.

If religion went against human nature we wouldn't have much religion, if any.

:rolleyes:

If religion went against human nature we wouldn't have much religion, if any.

:rolleyes:

5 pages in.
:D

In many ways, religion is the manifestation of our own internal responses to our fears, specifically our fear of death, as well as a way to explain that which we don't understand.

In many ways, religion is the manifestation of our own internal responses to our fears, specifically our fear of death, as well as a way to explain that which we don't understand.

Adding to that, I'd say that part of human nature is to explain away what we don't understand. Like lightning. Before anyone knew a thing about electricity, it was pretty obvious that something up there was angry with us.
People have always personified things, so it seems pretty natural to attribute things we don't understand to a personified entity.

'Thing' count = 4

If religion went against human nature we wouldn't have much religion, if any.

:rolleyes:

That's not exactly true.Human nature is changing while humans evolve,so if religion didn't defy early primitive human nature as a way of explaining things,it might now because we don't need much of those explanations and we know they are silly.
Maybe religion could evolve accordingly though?

Adding to that, I'd say that part of human nature is to explain away what we don't understand. Like lightning. Before anyone knew a thing about electricity, it was pretty obvious that something up there was angry with us.
People have always personified things, so it seems pretty natural to attribute things we don't understand to a personified entity.

'Thing' count = 4

"Woah, what's that?"
"That, my son, is lightning"
"What does it mean?"
"It means the Gods are angry"
"What can we do?"
"We must sacrifice a chicken"

Later that day...

"Oh noes, more lightning, the Gods are not appeased, what can we do?"
"We must kill more chickens...






...by the way, is your daughter still a virgin?"

Btw, though not religious myself, I utterly respect religious faith as a path to understanding. We all live in some kind of model world, and to pretend we made that model ourselves, by the exercise of pure reason on verifiable experience, is quite as arrogant as to claim certainty from faith.

*...*Why do you "respect" religious faith as a path to understanding? Why should religion get a free pass from debate or thought, when it's perfectly acceptable to debate or question any other idea? To quote Douglas Adams on the subject, because he says it far better than I ever could:

*snip Adams on manners*


Since you cast that in the form of a question, I will answer.

I utterly respect religious faith as a path to understanding, because it is hard to do. I am sure you will scoff, keeping fixed in your mind some Christian or Christians who is dogmatic and hateful and to whom "faith" means an obstinate refusal to think, but I think you miss my point.

I respect religious faith as a path to understanding. It does not follow that the objects of that faith (moral rules, "facts" related in religious texts, the existence of god or the attitude of the believer toward that god) are above criticism or debate. If the believer is really seeking understanding (and I grant that many are not, seeking certainty without real knowledge) they will debate what they find important in the religious belief, thereby advancing their own understanding. Simply abandoning the entire belief-system because they couldn't defend the literal truth of Genesis, while that might please you, would in fact be simple weakness and a foolish waste of what the believer has already invested time and thought in.


*...*
Too much faith is cowardly. Too little is dangerous.Sure, that sounds nice and profound, but where does blind faith (Redundant, yes) ever get us?

It gives us persistence in holding a belief. At the very least, we do others a service by advocating what may be a wrong belief sincerely and with the resourcefulness which a flippant "devils advocate" can never muster.

That is essentially the criterion of "trolling" here on NSG. I find it good.

This little line was not meant to be profound. It was simply a limiting statement. Without it, it might appear that I held "faith" of some sort as an unqualified good, to be maximized at all costs. I find a place for it, but certainly don't think it's more important than doubt or self-criticism.

I answer your question with another question: What can change the nature of man?

I'll choose regret as one of my options.

That game kicks an unbelievable amount of ass. Got it a few weeks ago, but haven't managed to get through it yet. Partly because I started over after I got the hang of things (you should explore a whole are before going to a new one etc.) and because I save it for the boring hours at work.

Be a mage!

So when I'm very sad the fact that I start to cry is complete coincidence?

I know you weren't talking to me, so I hope you won't mind if I respond.

All your perceptions are, technically speaking, in your brain. Your feeling of sadness is in your brain. Your awareness of whatever is making you sad is occurring in your brain. Your response to your sadness will begin with your brain, which will direct any physical or psychological reactions.

Technically speaking, absolutely no outside information is required to make this happen. What is required is the impulses that are passing in your brain.

I had the opportunity to watch a type of experiment being performed on an individual who was about to undergo brain surgery. To map the area of a lesion, light electrical impulses were given to certain regions near the lesion. The patient, fully conscious, reported any sensations from these impulses. What really stuck with me was when the patient reported that one of the impulses produce the exact sensation of eating a BLT. Obviously he hadn't actually gotten a BLT, yet with the correct impulses his brain "perceived" a BLT.


You've never experienced love, anger, sadness, happiness, humour, confusion, or any of the other emotions?

You honestly believe emotion is completely imaginary?

Could you point to the biological imagination?

He said, "The fact of the matter is that there is nothing beyond biology except what one makes up through imagination."

I happen to agree with this, at least on this subject. Love, anger, sadness, happiness, humor, confusion, and any other emotion you want to name are all forms of brain activity. They do not exist anywhere else. They are the very definition of subjective, because your emotions can only exist within your brain. You may be able to share your experiences, to some limited extent, with other people, but they will never actually experience your emotions because they will never fully share your brain and your brain alone.


:eek:

Wow.

That's quite a statement. Your back-tracking to behaviourism.

Soon you'll be denying there's a mind.

"Mind" is just a word for the abstract that our brain creates. Like your emotions, your mind is one of the many products of your wonderful brain!


I don't see how anyone can deny that we have emotions. Tell you what UB, next time your at the pub, go up to the biggest, hardest looking guy and punch him in the face. Before he throws a wobbly, just remind him that he's merely imagining his anger, and that its all a construct.

I guarantee you he'll still feel anger.

And watch out for that 'outside connection' of his anger travelling towards you at high speed. :P
I really don't think that's what UB was saying, but perhaps he'll be willing to correct me (or you) himself.

Adding to that, I'd say that part of human nature is to explain away what we don't understand. Like lightning. Before anyone knew a thing about electricity, it was pretty obvious that something up there was angry with us.
People have always personified things, so it seems pretty natural to attribute things we don't understand to a personified entity.

'Thing' count = 4

:D
Real nice.

Hmm. Reacting to the "impersonal" forces of nature as though they are our creator, who has us at its mercy ... is perhaps not so irrational at all. Personifying all of nature is pretty sloppy, sure ... but nature is our creator and it is wise to be cautious when dealing with what we don't understand.

"Explain away what we don't understand" is very much what I was trying to say before. It is very tempting to be satisfied with the model rather than the reality. It is not even necessary to explain nature to the point of being able to precisely predict it, most people are satisfied to know that someone else, some expert, can explain it ... a sort of "faith in science" if you will.

Apologies to the real scientists: it's not you I find fault with, but rather your fanatical acolytes. The half-knowledgable who lunge for the grail and declare us all victors in a war against mystery. I for one hedge my bets, and continue to worship in the rustic temple of mystery as well as the shiny new temple of science.

:D
Real nice.

Hmm. Reacting to the "impersonal" forces of nature as though they are our creator, who has us at its mercy ... is perhaps not so irrational at all. Personifying all of nature is pretty sloppy, sure ... but nature is our creator and it is wise to be cautious when dealing with what we don't understand.

I think all of us have had one of those days when it really, really seems like the universe is out to get us.

I've never believed in God or gods, but on those days even I will have this sneaking suspicion that the very fabric of reality has a nasty sense of humor and has decided it doesn't like me. I can completely understand the impulse to personify the physical forces around us.


"Explain away what we don't understand" is very much what I was trying to say before. It is very tempting to be satisfied with the model rather than the reality. It is not even necessary to explain nature to the point of being able to precisely predict it, most people are satisfied to know that someone else, some expert, can explain it ... a sort of "faith in science" if you will.

Some people seem to view science as a kind of modern alchemy, capable of all manner of magic tricks that will produce instant solutions and perfect results if only we can find the correct combination of lead and dragon's teeth.

It's inevitable that such people will then be disappointed to learn of the messy, imperfect reality of science. Science isn't a perfect science, you know...

Apologies to the real scientists: it's not you I find fault with, but rather your fanatical acolytes. The half-knowledgable who lunge for the grail and declare us all victors in a war against mystery. I for one hedge my bets, and continue to worship in the rustic temple of mystery as well as the shiny new temple of science.
What worries me most is the people who simply think science can do things that it cannot. For instance, the people who think that science will tell them what they "should" and shouldn't do in broad moral areas. It just doesn't work that way, folks.

Science can't tell you whether or not we "should" use embryonic stem cells. Science can tell you what stem cells are. It can tell you what we can do with them. It can tell you what we can't do without them. It can tell you the concrete, material costs and benefits. But it can't tell you how to FEEL about anything. It's not supposed to. It doesn't work that way.

I think all of us have had one of those days when it really, really seems like the universe is out to get us.

I've never believed in God or gods, but on those days even I will have this sneaking suspicion that the very fabric of reality has a nasty sense of humor and has decided it doesn't like me. I can completely understand the impulse to personify the physical forces around us.

So, monotheism is a more paranoid variety of personification than polytheism ...

Some people seem to view science as a kind of modern alchemy, capable of all manner of magic tricks that will produce instant solutions and perfect results if only we can find the correct combination of lead and dragon's teeth.

It's inevitable that such people will then be disappointed to learn of the messy, imperfect reality of science. Science isn't a perfect science, you know...

And nor is it monolithic. "Sciences" like psychology or economics get an unfair advantage by association with "more rigorous" science like biology or statistics. It's not that psychologists or sociologists are a lazy bunch, but in those fields it is inherently difficult to seperate the observer and the system being observed ... so the results are a lot more "messy."

I'm sure that will offend someone, so I'll just leave it there. ;)

What worries me most is the people who simply think science can do things that it cannot. For instance, the people who think that science will tell them what they "should" and shouldn't do in broad moral areas. It just doesn't work that way, folks.

Yes, I agree. Although philosophers have worked on those "broad moral areas" their work has only trickled down into actual practice by individual persuasion, and individual example-setting. I wouldn't say there has been no moral progress, but moral thought doesn't have the glory and the faith in shiny newness that material science enjoys. Rather the opposite, sadly ... there seems to be a popular perception that human nature is getting worse, not better.

I'm kind of confused, because I think that way sometimes ... but we have less slavery, less oppression, and more diversity of opinion than what I like to think of as a golden age of moral though, ancient Greece. Perhaps it seems less glorious (less shiny new and better, like the latest gadget) because it is generally achieved through politics, a messy process in which even victory comes with regrets for what could have been. Or maybe I'm just plain confused.

Science can't tell you whether or not we "should" use embryonic stem cells. Science can tell you what stem cells are. It can tell you what we can do with them. It can tell you what we can't do without them. It can tell you the concrete, material costs and benefits. But it can't tell you how to FEEL about anything. It's not supposed to. It doesn't work that way.

But scientists have authority (in the bad sense) which they can use to advance their personal, moral position on such things. Being respected for their robust knowledge of how, they must be tempted to leverage their opinions about why with that authority. Dawkins being a prime example.

Ironically, I did something very similar over on the thread about SWORRDAS, appealing to the authority of an ex-serviceman to support my moral position about remote-control weapons. The vet simply answered "sure, we're stone killers" in effect, and my attempt failed. Served me right, I was getting rather emotional.

At the very least, I would expect that a scientist (or soldier for that matter) would give more than the usual amount of thought to the moral issues in the use of their knowledge. But that doesn't make their moral position "scientific" (or "chivalrous" I guess) ... it's still only tested and improved by debate in the moral mode. Perhaps also by practice in making decisions (eg if involved in political decisions) and by the exercise of their own conscience.

So, monotheism is a more paranoid variety of personification than polytheism ...

Look, it's not paranoid if the furniture in my apartment really is determined to get me by moving in the way of my shins.


And nor is it monolithic. "Sciences" like psychology or economics get an unfair advantage by association with "more rigorous" science like biology or statistics. It's not that psychologists or sociologists are a lazy bunch, but in those fields it is inherently difficult to seperate the observer and the system being observed ... so the results are a lot more "messy."

I'm sure that will offend someone, so I'll just leave it there. ;)

As a neuroscientist who is living with a social psychologist, let me also agree to leave it there. :P We've had many a heated discussion about the relative value of my "bench science" versus his more extensive "applied field study" work.


Yes, I agree. Although philosophers have worked on those "broad moral areas" their work has only trickled down into actual practice by individual persuasion, and individual example-setting. I wouldn't say there has been no moral progress, but moral thought doesn't have the glory and the faith in shiny newness that material science enjoys. Rather the opposite, sadly ... there seems to be a popular perception that human nature is getting worse, not better.

There's also a terrifying popular assumption that shiny new science is supposed to magically fix human nature, and a perpetual state of surprise and indignation when it "fails" to do so. Yikes.


I'm kind of confused, because I think that way sometimes ... but we have less slavery, less oppression, and more diversity of opinion than what I like to think of as a golden age of moral though, ancient Greece. Perhaps it seems less glorious (less shiny new and better, like the latest gadget) because it is generally achieved through politics, a messy process in which even victory comes with regrets for what could have been. Or maybe I'm just plain confused.

I think you can't separate moral thought from the thinkers. When you remember that the famous thinkers of ancient Greece were pretty much all rich males of one particular ethnicity, things fall into place a bit more.


But scientists have authority (in the bad sense) which they can use to advance their personal, moral position on such things. Being respected for their robust knowledge of how, they must be tempted to leverage their opinions about why with that authority. Dawkins being a prime example.

Grr, and this is a tough spot. On the one hand, people who have spent the time and energy developing expertise SHOULD be given credit for their work. On the other hand, I have issues with appeals to authority (including one's own).


At the very least, I would expect that a scientist (or soldier for that matter) would give more than the usual amount of thought to the moral issues in the use of their knowledge. But that doesn't make their moral position "scientific" (or "chivalrous" I guess) ... it's still only tested and improved by debate in the moral mode. Perhaps also by practice in making decisions (eg if involved in political decisions) and by the exercise of their own conscience.
That bolded bit is a key part of it.

I believe that, because I am a scientist (and have been one my whole life) my over-all thinking process tends to be more "scientific" than the average person's. It's just a matter of habit.

But that does not mean that the moral conclusions I have reached are the official "scientific" answer. I have gone about my thinking in a scientific manner, but when it comes to morality you are always having to start with assumption at one point or another. Science cannot pick the "right" assumptions for you. Science will not tell you which perspective you should adopt. So, while you can guide your thinking using scientific methods or structure, you cannot actually reach any one "scientific" conclusion.

To put it another way, science is a means to pursue ends. Which ends you choose to pursue will be up to you.

Look, it's not paranoid if the furniture in my apartment really is determined to get me by moving in the way of my shins.

But that's not the entire world!
Burn some incense and speak a few words of prayer to Ikea, the god of furniture.

There's also a terrifying popular assumption that shiny new science is supposed to magically fix human nature, and a perpetual state of surprise and indignation when it "fails" to do so. Yikes.

Yes, for instance surveillance technology or microchipping. If we catch and punish every single offender, no-one will commit a crime ever again.
Actually, people would be less likely to commit crimes if punishment was more reliable. But doing that at the exact same time as we reduce standards of trial, and while doing nothing about the vast inequality of legal representation, seems like a superficial faith in technology which does nothing to address the causes of crime.

EDIT: An nor does a higher standard of trial. There should have been another sentence in there somewhere, but it would only cover up that there are two quite seperate issues getting my goat: the equity of courts; the appeal of crime to the disadvantaged. Two kinds of fairness.

I think you can't separate moral thought from the thinkers. When you remember that the famous thinkers of ancient Greece were pretty much all rich males of one particular ethnicity, things fall into place a bit more.

*nod* I'm confused on that one.

Grr, and this is a tough spot. On the one hand, people who have spent the time and energy developing expertise SHOULD be given credit for their work. On the other hand, I have issues with appeals to authority (including one's own).

The 'two kinds' of authority. We should probably use some different word.

Even in 'legitimate' authority (competence as recognized by peers) there is a certain division. The talented worker does better work than the plodder, even if both are equally dedicated and 'know' all the same stuff. Morally, that is unfair, but it's just got to be that way for the good of the entire field and for the mutual achievement of all who work in it.


I believe that, because I am a scientist (and have been one my whole life) my over-all thinking process tends to be more "scientific" than the average person's. It's just a matter of habit.

But that does not mean that the moral conclusions I have reached are the official "scientific" answer. I have gone about my thinking in a scientific manner, but when it comes to morality you are always having to start with assumption at one point or another. Science cannot pick the "right" assumptions for you. Science will not tell you which perspective you should adopt. So, while you can guide your thinking using scientific methods or structure, you cannot actually reach any one "scientific" conclusion.

To put it another way, science is a means to pursue ends. Which ends you choose to pursue will be up to you.

... and how well the scientific approach will serve you, in pursuit of those ends, depends on the ends in question. If becoming the President of the United States was your objective, I hazard to guess that forming an hypothesis and then designing an experiment to try to disprove it, wouldn't quite get you over the line.

Yeah, I'm reduced to joking. You're right.

I just want to say one more thing on science as a religion before I hit the hay.

I enjoy science. Checking in on a bit of physics or genetics, finding some of the orthodoxy of my youth overturned, gives me a cheerful sense of progress, of "out with the old, in with the new" which some people find in buying a new car or a new computer every few years. Some of the problems have been solved, some of the awkward bits don't seem very important any more. It seems to work better now, and it has an exciting sense of newness.

From the age of about 10 to the age of 22 or so, I considered myself a scientist. Whether it was drugs, or a too-eclectic choice of friends, or sheer laziness which broke me out of that mold I cannot say, but I chose insanity over intellectual dominion. In one sense, I failed as a scientist: I was simply unable to learn all the orthodoxy I needed to pass exams while remaining true to the underlying principle I valued more: "I must think these things through for myself. I must think them myself, even if I wred them or heard them in a lecture, they are not true to me until I have found them as a consequence of my other beliefs."

I still follow that principle. I am very easily led, as anyone who has tried to argue with me will have noticed. I am an intellectual slut ... flatter my intelligence, and your opinions are mine.

Perhaps I never was a scientist. Perhaps my teachers and my peers were not all they could have been. Perhaps it was the drugs. Or perhaps my ego is too strong to serve any truth but my own (or risk itself beside the footsoldiers of opinion.) Perhaps I chose insanity, for fear of a quiet life.


Here is the thing I want to say about science as a religion. Religions are founded by prophets, by holy men*. Leaving aside Scientology or parasites on the bodies of old religions, religions were founded by mystics, by men obsessed by a sense of truth. Their sincerity was their power ... and it is beyond my knowledge whether those prophets succumbed to a psychosis so pure and impersonal that it spoke to their followers as if it was their own madness, or whether those prophets carried the message of some god who spoke to them. Prophets, not gods, founded religions, with varying degrees of success.

(*I am too ignorant of minor religions to know of even one whose prophet was female.)

The prophets were sincere and inspired. Their acolytes were sincere and devout. Their followers were devout. After that, is only piousness and corruption.

OF COURSE it seems to us that our science will inform and build all of the future, that our method of science will grow and improve indefinitely. It's wonderful to live at the peak of something, be it a civilization or a love-affair, an enlightenment or a manic episode.

But perhaps, just perhaps, the fanatical acolytes will usurp the authority of the real scientists. The acolytes' talent lies in power, in authority, and non-scientists will be swayed by portentious words more than informed scepticism. The Jesus or Confucius of the future may be Einstein, it may be Darwin. It may be a pantheon of prophets, Bohr and Freud and Mill. The vast documentation of our golden age will be culled and burned by those future theocrats, leaving only what they can write laws to enforce.

Or perhaps we really have perfected civilization, and it is only onwards and upwards for the human mind henceforth. In the future, we will all be true scientists. No suck-ups, no fakers, no wannabes. Renaissance people, every one of us.

Beginnings are very sensitive times, as someone said.

If "religion defies human nature", then why do so many humans in so many different places, with so many different cultures, all have some exposure to some sort of religion?

I just want to say one more thing on science as a religion before I hit the hay.

*Personal ramblings snip*

Here is the thing I want to say about science as a religion. Religions are founded by prophets, by holy men. Leaving aside Scientology or parasites on the bodies of old religions, religions were founded by mystics, by men obsessed by a sense of truth. Their sincerity was their power ... and it is beyond my knowledge whether those prophets succumbed to a psychosis so pure and impersonal that it spoke to their followers as if it was their own madness, or whether those prophets carried the message of some god who spoke to them. Prophets, not gods, founded religions, with varying degrees of success.

Religion starts because, as humans, we always look for reasons - a good thing in that it's led to all sorts of discoveries - a bad thing in that when we don't know the answer, we tend to ascribe a reason that fits until another comes along with enough weight behind it to explode the original falsity.

When lots of people believe in a reason, then it takes very powerful evidence for a better reason to take its place. Especially when you have a power structure that has every incentive not to accept the new reason.

Most early 'mystics' were likely babblers of nonsense - they may have genuinely believed they were inspired but I suspect they were mostly high - most early mystics were likely naturalists, dabblers in herbs and spices, medicine men and the like.

Most were likely corrupted by the powers that be because, in a world where you can depend on very little, you clutch at anything and if that's a medicine man reputed to have powers, well that gives him power even if he is a complete madman.

The prophets were sincere and inspired. Their acolytes were sincere and devout. Their followers were devout. After that, is only piousness and corruption.

I'm not sure what I can say to this assumption so I can only say - cite?

*snip*

But perhaps, just perhaps, the fanatical acolytes will usurp the authority of the real scientists. The acolytes' talent lies in power, in authority, and non-scientists will be swayed by portentious words more than informed scepticism. The Jesus or Confucius of the future may be Einstein, it may be Darwin. It may be a pantheon of prophets, Bohr and Freud and Mill. The vast documentation of our golden age will be culled and burned by those future theocrats, leaving only what they can write laws to enforce.

Luckily, science inherently doesn't allow that to happen, well not for long - there's plenty of instances of a scientist coming out with a new theory that goes against the established order - it may take 30 years for the new theory to be accepted but the truth will out in science because it's a branch based on evidence.

Or perhaps we really have perfected civilization, and it is only onwards and upwards for the human mind henceforth. In the future, we will all be true scientists. No suck-ups, no fakers, no wannabes. Renaissance people, every one of us.

I suspect the next big battle is ethics - I suspect eugenics was simply dabbled with by the Nazis, rejected but I think the issue is going to come up again, as an example.

Science has little to say about ethics, religion holds the debate in this regard whether you're for or against. What will set the boundaries of the future? Will those boundaries become a new form of religion?

Beginnings are very sensitive times, as someone said.

Indeed

It is doubly foolish, however, to apply no critical reasoning to any instance of experience, for obvious consequence of self-delusion in way of emotional and psychological satisfaction. If a person wants a life of meaning, one has to ask what the merit of meaning is. This is the obvious rub between the semantic and pragmatic approaches to life - one can argue that "the meaning" of life is to do what makes you happy, and be somewhat accurate, whereas another can obviously argue that "the meaning" of life is to STAY ALIVE and LIVE, which is quite clearly a pragmatic approach to it that doesn't delve into "quality of life" trappings of mindset and philosophy.
What I'm contesting though, is not the idea that there all areas of life should be examined critically, but the idea that science, and the scientific method, has a monopoly on such critical reasoning. Of course one shouldn't give up on rationally appraising situations and actions, but that doesn't mean that we must always use the scientific method.

Indeed, there are plenty of situations where the scientific method is just not useful; but this does not mean the abandonment of all rational thought.

Quite clearly, philosophical thought uses critical reasoning, yet it is distinct and outside from the scientific method.

And slightly off-topic, I personally feel that searching for a meaning to life is a fruitless, pointless exercise.

All shakiness actually comes from the reliability of the tools of observance and control settings. For which, science is less shaky than reliable, in most regards.
Not at all.

The entire of science, the scientific method itself, is based on an assumption without fact; namely, that if an experiment, A, produces a result, X, then A, in the exact same conditions will always produce X. Or more simply, the Sun will rise tomorrow because it has always been observed to do so.

Now, this is not such an insane assumption; our lives would be pretty hectic if we had to test every thesis of every fact any time we relied on a fact.

However, it is still an assumption based, not on fact, but on observation. Again, this is not a deathblow to science; nor am I attempting to find such a thing. But it is something to seriously contemplate. It shows that science, like most, if not all, knowledge works inside its own framework; a framework we must acknowledge to exist.

I know you weren't talking to me, so I hope you won't mind if I respond.
Not at all; always pleased to debate with you Bottle.

He said, "The fact of the matter is that there is nothing beyond biology except what one makes up through imagination."

I happen to agree with this, at least on this subject. Love, anger, sadness, happiness, humour, confusion, and any other emotion you want to name are all forms of brain activity. They do not exist anywhere else. They are the very definition of subjective, because your emotions can only exist within your brain. You may be able to share your experiences, to some limited extent, with other people, but they will never actually experience your emotions because they will never fully share your brain and your brain alone.

"Mind" is just a word for the abstract that our brain creates. Like your emotions, your mind is one of the many products of your wonderful brain!
The splitting of mind and brain is one of the troublesome leftovers from Cartesian Dualism. 'Mind' and 'brain' are one and the same; two sides of the same coin. Your 'mind' cannot exist without your 'brain'. Your brain' cannot exist without your 'mind'.

This reductionism, something very acceptable in modern science, is cropping up more and more in popular discourse. It reduces everything to something science can understand and 'conquer', and seems to push for and end to the humanities; turning them into some minor corner of scientific enquiry. Moreover, those who oppose this materialistic reductionism are often portrayed as 'enemies' of science, wishy-washy minded fools who believe in every hokey religion and New Age fad (indeed, Brevious and UB, in their earlier posts seem to have assumed that I was arguing for an abandonment of science, or even in favour of religious irrationality, rather than simply an acknowledgement of the limits of the scientific method).

To quote Mary Midgley:

"This kind of language is being used today when scientifically-minded people tell us that parts are more real than the wholes that they belong to. This view is sometimes called reductionism, meaning that the wholes can be reduced, without loss, to the sum of their parts. It is a striking contemporary piece of metaphysics and I think we need to understand it. If it is taken literally, it can seem to mean that our everyday experience is simply misleading and ought to be replaced by something discovered through a microscope."

UB, Brevious and yourself seem to be arguing that our emotions are 'hallucinations', somehow 'less real' than the electrical or chemical responses that move through our brains when we experience emotions. But just as with the mind/brain, I do not believe that we need split the two, emotion/chemical, into separate and somehow 'less real' divisions.

We undoubtedly experience emotion. Yes, love, hate, sadness, etc., are at one level chemical and electrical responses. But the emotion we feel at the same time is not an illusion; it is very much real, as known by anyone who has ever suffered a nasty break-up or experienced the death of a loved one. To reduce these very real emotions to just chemical or electrical processes in the brain is as ignorant as someone stating that emotion is all that there is; that there are no electrical or chemical processes. Midgely again:

"We do not need to see entities at different levels of complexity as competitors, fighting for our attention. We can perfectly well study all of them. Still less do we need to try and settle that rivalry by calling one of them real and the others more or less illusory. There is only one world and they are all aspects of it."

Science has little to say about ethics, religion holds the debate in this regard whether you're for or against. What will set the boundaries of the future? Will those boundaries become a new form of religion?
This almost illustrates my point.

Why must there only be a choice between religion and science?

Neither science nor religion hold any sort of monopoly on knowledge, especially ethics, while science seems almost wholly unable to answer ethical dilemmas. Those like Richard Dawkins or Alister McGrath who portray the realm of knowledge as a bloody battle between science and religion seem to be missing out on a vast amount of human knowledge which has nothing to do with either.

This almost illustrates my point.

Why must there only be a choice between religion and science?

Neither science nor religion hold any sort of monopoly on knowledge, especially ethics, while science seems almost wholly unable to answer ethical dilemmas. Those like Richard Dawkins or Alister McGrath who portray the realm of knowledge as a bloody battle between science and religion seem to be missing out on a vast amount of human knowledge which has nothing to do with either.

I'm not sure science can't infringe on ethics, it works to clarify long-held assumptions and creates the broad parameters of the discussion. The issue is, what do we do with this information.

For example, science may find a cause for deformity, but it doesn't tell us whether we should abort fetuses known to be deformed. Science gives us the information from which we need to make an ethical decision

I can't see where religion justifiably comes into this.

So I feel science can't really work with religion, science should be working with ethics and those ethics should be divorced from religious belief.

I'm not sure science can't infringe on ethics, it works to clarify long-held assumptions and creates the broad parameters of the discussion. The issue is, what do we do with this information.

For example, science may find a cause for deformity, but it doesn't tell us whether we should abort fetuses known to be deformed. Science gives us the information from which we need to make an ethical decision.
I can quite agree with that.

Science can supply us with information to base much ethical theory on; especially on subjects such as euthanasia, abortion, etc.

It just has a little trouble when discussing moral theory. The two ethical theories which have held scientific rationality as their strong point - utilitarianism and dialectical materialism - seem to stumble because of their reliance on the scientific method. Utilitarianism, because much in life is rarely quantifiable, and dialectical materialism, because society and history do not fit well with rigid scientific laws.

So, monotheism is a more paranoid variety of personification than polytheism ...

Sigworthy.
:D

*snip drunken rambling part 1*

Here is the thing I want to say about science as a religion. Religions are founded by prophets, by holy men*. Leaving aside Scientology or parasites on the bodies of old religions, religions were founded by mystics, by men obsessed by a sense of truth. Their sincerity was their power ... and it is beyond my knowledge whether those prophets succumbed to a psychosis so pure and impersonal that it spoke to their followers as if it was their own madness, or whether those prophets carried the message of some god who spoke to them. Prophets, not gods, founded religions, with varying degrees of success.
Religion starts because, as humans, we always look for reasons - a good thing in that it's led to all sorts of discoveries - a bad thing in that when we don't know the answer, we tend to ascribe a reason that fits until another comes along with enough weight behind it to explode the original falsity.

Yes, we cannot help imposing order, looking for rules. In a sense, the human mind is a model of the world the person lives in, it must be simpler than that world (I forget what the principle is called, but "the lesser cannot comprehend the greater") and in order to simplify it we must make generalizations and abstractions. Explanations, if you prefer that word.

However, I take issue with the bit I bolded. Ideas do not "explode" each other, rather every idea grows out of the soil of the ideas before it, even ideas which are effectively dead, having no further use. Newtonian physics was not "exploded" by Relativity, it was demoted to a lesser role as a very useful approximation.

Though I'm not learned in theology, I like to think of religious ideas as the soil out of which science grew. Alchemists were not scientists, but how can we imagine electron shells or the periodic table simply occurring to someone as a theory, without all that earnest striving to extract 'essences' and perform magic on inert material?

When lots of people believe in a reason, then it takes very powerful evidence for a better reason to take its place. Especially when you have a power structure that has every incentive not to accept the new reason.

Ah, yes. Well, theocracy can go take a flying ... y'know. But perhaps there's a lesson there we haven't quite learnt yet ... about mixing up what we believe with what we want.

Most early 'mystics' were likely babblers of nonsense - they may have genuinely believed they were inspired but I suspect they were mostly high - most early mystics were likely naturalists, dabblers in herbs and spices, medicine men and the like.

Good on them. We had to start somewhere, and while looking into one's own mind may generally produce only confusion, it is a very useful confusion in that we can then recognize our own failings (logical fallacies, wishful thinking, yearning for order but also for freedom) instead of projecting them into our model of the world.

Most were likely corrupted by the powers that be because, in a world where you can depend on very little, you clutch at anything and if that's a medicine man reputed to have powers, well that gives him power even if he is a complete madman.

Disagree. If I can't have a doctor, I'll have the medicine man or woman. Some of the remedies would actually work (they still do) and it beats sitting under a tree with no knowledge other than "I feel like I'm going to die."



The prophets were sincere and inspired. Their acolytes were sincere and devout. Their followers were devout. After that, is only piousness and corruption.
I'm not sure what I can say to this assumption so I can only say - cite?

How about the New Testament? It seems pretty clear to me that Christ believed himself to be the son of god. His disciples had varying degrees of conviction about that, but by persuasion not by their personal experience. Hence the word "devout," they needed a degree of faith which Jesus himself did not. Then you have followers, who need constant slapping into line because the prophet is not the most important thing in their lives. Then you have the powermongers who benefit materially (in wealth and power) by being seen as devout ... and this I call "piety."

You see I am using "prophet" rather loosely. A Christian might well object that Jesus was the son of god, and thereby more than just a prophet ... well, I'm not a Christian. I see Christianity originating with Christ, and it's pretty clear that simple word of mouth wouldn't have got Christianity through to the current day (at least in any way we would recognize it.) The acolytes and the followers who wrote stories about Christ (from which the New Testament was taken) obviously played an important part.

Then Christianity moved on from trying to persuade converts to see things their way, to making laws to force them to act as though they did. That stage I don't respect at all, and it's still happening. Grr.

Don't read too much into "inspired" -- I don't mean somehow magically aware of the truth (almost an oxymoron, by the definition of "magic"). Simply that prophets (successful ones anyway) were very enthusiastic, very motivated about conveying the "truth" they had discovered. It helped to be rich and educated, like Muhammed or Buddha.

But perhaps, just perhaps, the fanatical acolytes will usurp the authority of the real scientists. The acolytes' talent lies in power, in authority, and non-scientists will be swayed by portentious words more than informed scepticism.Luckily, science inherently doesn't allow that to happen, well not for long - there's plenty of instances of a scientist coming out with a new theory that goes against the established order - it may take 30 years for the new theory to be accepted but the truth will out in science because it's a branch based on evidence.

Hmm? See my first paragraph in this post. Science doesn't proceed by argument which one side 'wins' so much as by persuasion. The "winning" side would be at a disadvantage without a sound defence by the "loser." The very fact that you say "established order" shows some similarity between science and religion -- they both have their heirarchy of power based on knowledge (or 'percieved knowledge' if you really can't acknowledge religious ideas as such.)

Or perhaps we really have perfected civilization, and it is only onwards and upwards for the human mind henceforth. In the future, we will all be true scientists. No suck-ups, no fakers, no wannabes. Renaissance people, every one of us.
I suspect the next big battle is ethics - I suspect eugenics was simply dabbled with by the Nazis, rejected but I think the issue is going to come up again, as an example.

Well, that is an interesting example. Perhaps it is more than dabbled in, but only the Nazis got caught? Seeing as racialism got them into power and they were arrogant enough in their conviction they would win, they left hiding the evidence a bit late.

But the idea that we will grow ethically driven by the necessity to make decisions about things that science makes possible rather worries me. I guess ethics is about decisions and how they are made, so we learn by practice, by having power to make decisions. :confused:

Science has little to say about ethics, religion holds the debate in this regard whether you're for or against. What will set the boundaries of the future? Will those boundaries become a new form of religion?

Ah. What do we consider to be the bounds of Science ? Is moral philosophy science ? Is popular culture ? The scientific method itself is philosophy, it came from the religious philosophy of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Who knows what froth of modern culture might be the basis of future ethics?

My argument was that Science itself, not the knowledge gained from it, could be the basis of a religion. A theocracy based on Science would be a horrible thing, prone to creating and destroying people or classes of people as though they were theories. I think in retrospect that the idea is somewhat flawed in that there is no science without it's subject. The method cannot exist without some knowledge to work with.

But this is an idea which deserves its own hijack. ;)

Beginnings are very sensitive times, as someone said.
Indeed
A little optimistic note to end on. But the idea that science is in its infancy does rather cast the huge potential for it to go wrong as religions so often do into a frightening light.

What I'm contesting though, is not the idea that there all areas of life should be examined critically, but the idea that science, and the scientific method, has a monopoly on such critical reasoning. Yes, it's pretty much the predictable result of trial and error, which again, is the beauty of scientific reasoning.
:D

Of course one shouldn't give up on rationally appraising situations and actions, but that doesn't mean that we must always use the scientific method. Well, i wasn't making habituation of "the" "scientific" "method".

Indeed, there are plenty of situations where the scientific method is just not useful; but this does not mean the abandonment of all rational thought.Again, it's about critical reasoning, for which most scientific attitudes work best in determining the veracity of the experience. Not "the" "scientific" "method" persay.

Quite clearly, philosophical thought uses critical reasoning, yet it is distinct and outside from the scientific method.So long as you're on "the" "scientific" "method", i suspect, you can run into this problem.
Really, you're not going to be using a lot of vector calculus for figuring out your taxes - nonetheless there's reasonable, rational, structured approaches to both and involving both that maximize efficiency.


And slightly off-topic, I personally feel that searching for a meaning to life is a fruitless, pointless exercise.What? o.0
Searching for meaning is a natural response to loss. Some people spend the better parts of their lives and psyches on *attributing* meaning to things, even if they're merely accepting the things that assuage them best.
As most fancies of thought, though, that's what you'll get - a miasma of supposition and emic, whereas the etic is clearly manifest in most regards.


Not at all.Actually, quite a bit.

The entire of science, the scientific method itself, is based on an assumption without fact; namely, that if an experiment, A, produces a result, X, then A, in the exact same conditions will always produce X.Erm, no. Again, you seem to be doing a forest for trees analogy.
Or more simply, the Sun will rise tomorrow because it has always been observed to do so.The sun doesn't actually "rise" at all (not as a whole, obviously, as also obviously plasma and ejecta do from it) for which it can be pointed out that the premise itself was false. That isn't the problem of the structure: it's a problem of lack of due dilligence in both identification and value.


Now, this is not such an insane assumption; our lives would be pretty hectic if we had to test every thesis of every fact any time we relied on a fact.For which society owes almost everything. Nonetheless, one of the two clear exceptions to most understandings of entropy *is* societal development. Also, you should include in the discussion what qualifies a definition of anything, as in note of its exceptions.

However, it is still an assumption based, not on fact, but on observation. Again, this is not a deathblow to science; nor am I attempting to find such a thing. But it is something to seriously contemplate. It shows that science, like most, if not all, knowledge works inside its own framework; a framework we must acknowledge to exist.

It's probably easily summated as such:
*balances hands*
Left hand - wishes
right hand - sh*t

Left hand - religious perspective
right hand - pragmatic perspective

I probably don't need to demonstrate the values implied here.

Sigworthy.
:D

Hey, give it a lick of paint first if you like ... "personification" isn't self-evident without context.

*pang of deja vu*

There's probably a more specific term ... like, er, anthropotheism or some such ? If you can improve it, I'll happily claim credit with an edit ;)

Oh, and any idea who said "Beginnings are very delicate times" or like that? I have an awkward suspicion it might have been from Dune.

Hey, give it a lick of paint first if you like ... "personification" isn't self-evident without context.

*pang of deja vu*But that's my shtick! :(



There's probably a more specific term ... like, er, anthropotheism or some such ? If you can improve it, I'll happily claim credit with an edit ;) That one's just fine. Coin away! :D

Oh, and any idea who said "Beginnings are very delicate times" or like that? I have an awkward suspicion it might have been from Dune.That sounds almost like CGB Spender, but i'm probably wrong.

You're right, or at least, right enough:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/quotes

But that's my shtick! :(

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :)
Even more so when the imitator can't remember where they heard it. That proves it really hit 'em between the eyes :cool:


You're right, or at least, right enough:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/quotes

Princess Irulan huh? I bet Frank Herbert stole it from someone classical. It surely goes back a bit further than the "butterfly effect." Great novel, but probably not something to be quoting in a serious debate.

"Science in its infancy" is definitely hyperbole. Kind of contradicts my assertion that science and religion are different stages of the same process ... but y'know. I like to throw a sop to every side I can identify of an argument. And any post that long should have at least one bit of glaring idiocy in it, gives folks a toehold. :D

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :)
Even more so when the imitator can't remember where they heard it. That proves it really hit 'em between the eyes :cool:
On the shoulders of greats. I'm merely a fleck of dandruff. :)



Princess Irulan huh? I bet Frank Herbert stole it from someone classical. It surely goes back a bit further than the "butterfly effect." Great novel, but probably not something to be quoting in a serious debate.Oh, there's always something you can use from it. Besides, if you're talking about "serious" debate, frequent the Star Wars vs. Star Trek threads, and show a little irreverence ... and see if there's some mod intervention. *nods emphatically*

I like to throw a sop to every side I can identify of an argument. And any post that long should have at least one bit of glaring idiocy in it, gives folks a toehold. :DGive 'em an inch and they'll take an inch and a half!
Seriously, it's engineering a better idiot. :D

"Science in its infancy" is definitely hyperbole. Kind of contradicts my assertion that science and religion are different stages of the same process ... but y'know. I like to throw a sop to every side I can identify of an argument. And any post that long should have at least one bit of glaring idiocy in it, gives folks a toehold. :D

So I think the answer to the original question is that curiosity is human nature and we'll put an answer to that curiosity no matter what form it takes.

There are vested interests in certain answers being the right answer regardless to whether it truly is the right answer.

Both science and religion are in the business of providing answers however, and if we're using IMDB.com....

Merovingian: What is the reason? Soon the why and the reason are gone and all that matters is the feeling. This is the nature of the universe. We struggle against it, we fight to deny it; but it is of course a lie. Beneath our poised appearance we are completely out of control.

So I think the answer to the original question is that curiosity is human nature and we'll put an answer to that curiosity no matter what form it takes.

There are vested interests in certain answers being the right answer regardless to whether it truly is the right answer.

Both science and religion are in the business of providing answers however, and if we're using IMDB.com....
Good show. *bows*

Give 'em an inch and they'll take an inch and a half!
Seriously, it's engineering a better idiot. :D

If they give ME an inch I'll take 2.54 cm.
I won't even accept a scurvy inch, or whatever it's called. They can keep that.

If they give ME an inch I'll take 2.54 cm.
I won't even accept a scurvy inch, or whatever it's called. They can keep that.

I'm taking post 100!

Yay!

I do not think that religion defies human nature, but instead is something some people cling to and others do not. I think that some people find it a comfort and a reason to keep going on (or to not, in some cases) to have a higher being to look up to, a cause, or such a set, familiar structure of beliefs. Others, however, may find it laughable to believe in something so controversial or unproven as a God or Goddess or some other higher being. It really depends on the person, whether it defies their personal nature as an individual or not. That's what I think, anyway.

I'm taking post 100!

Yay!
Until, of course, Ruffy starts warping the thread/time continuum like the last time he and i tangled.
:D

And i could delete my last two posts :p

I'm not so vain.

I answer your question with another question: What can change the nature of man?

Augh, too much Planescape: Torment.

You, Ravel, you changed me. :P

Thats the only answer I have ever found where she doesn't try to kill me.

And no, it does not defy human nature, humans do care about other member of their pack/troupe. What Religion does is it secures interpack cooperation by usurping the pack mentality and placing a non-physically present entity as the alpha leader of a new larger pack, and this entity's wrath as the glue that prevents human greed from damaging civilization.

Until, of course, Ruffy starts warping the thread/time continuum like the last time he and i tangled.
:D

And i could delete my last two posts :p

I'm not so vain.

Ahh, Ruffwin's law of NSG - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference involving Il Ruffino approaches one.

Ahh, Ruffwin's law of NSG - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference involving Il Ruffino approaches one.

Ooh, quite true.
*nods emphatically*

Ooh wait .... that makes me a statistic again, doesn't it?

Hmm. Reacting to the "impersonal" forces of nature as though they are our creator, who has us at its mercy ... is perhaps not so irrational at all. Personifying all of nature is pretty sloppy, sure ... but nature is our creator and it is wise to be cautious when dealing with what we don't understand.

Which is why we should all sacrifice chickens (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12941350&postcount=75). :D

Ooh, quite true.
*nods emphatically*

Ooh wait .... that makes me a statistic again, doesn't it?

Statistically speaking, we're all statistics. *nod*

Statistically speaking, we're all statistics. *nod*

Since you put it THAT way ....

:(


I meant more along the lines of me being a statistic of Ruffwin's Law of NSG ... or at least, bringing as many casualties along with me as i can.
But yeah.
**

You know, there's an identity thread that came up, that gave me an idea - what if we are able to express our identities with statistics.
?

Since you put it THAT way ....

:(


I meant more along the lines of me being a statistic of Ruffwin's Law of NSG ... or at least, bringing as many casualties along with me as i can.
But yeah.
**

You know, there's an identity thread that came up, that gave me an idea - what if we are able to express our identities with statistics.
?

81% of me thinks that might be fun. :)

81% of me thinks that might be fun. :)

See, you get it. Dmitri Martin provides excellent examples as well, if i do say so m'self.

:D

BTW - QFT?

Until, of course, Ruffy starts warping the thread/time continuum like the last time he and i tangled.
:D

And i could delete my last two posts :p

I'm not so vain.

Over in spam is a very silly post I made (scientific method at work!) trying to find out if deleting a post would free up the 100 spot. I discovered that it would ... but then I decided I wasn't that vain either. :p

Plus, what's to stop Barringtonia doing the same? That's a sort of MAD, where we destroy any post we made before and replace them with a long tail of spam. Unedifying, to say the least!

On that subject, I once tried to post Jolt post # 12412412, but despite a spate of spamming, had it snatched from my grasp by some roleplaying muppet (not even an NSer) who had so little respect for the prize they'd stumbled apon, they deleted their own post. Some people :rolleyes:

Over in spam is a very silly post I made (scientific method at work!) trying to find out if deleting a post would free up the 100 spot. I discovered that it would ... but then I decided I wasn't that vain either. :p

Plus, what's to stop Barringtonia doing the same? That's a sort of MAD, where we destroy any post we made before and replace them with a long tail of spam. Unedifying, to say the least!

Yeah, that last bolded bit ... Winner of thread.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

Personally, I do not believe altruism is apart of human nature. I simply believe it is imposed on most people because almost all religions are religious. However, there are places on Earth where culturally, Altruism is seen as shameful. The best example is several parts in Asia.

Religion is an outgrowth of human nature and our overwhelming need to control the uncontrollable..

I was in English today and a few guys were having a bit of a debate/arguement.
One guy was saying that because the very essence of human nature is quite selfish/"survival of the fittest". It is the core of who we are as human beings and has been within us from caveman times. He was saying that because we all think of ourselves first and the betterment of our own situation, it means religion doesn't really "work". He didn't really make it clear by what he meant by 'not working' but basically he was saying that religion defies human nature because it goes against our basic instincts.
On the other hand, there were a few guys who were saying that from human nature, we delveoped abstract thought and the ability to love and care for others. From this we further developed morals etc. and hence religion isn't really that farfetched and is pretty understandable within the 'bounds' of human nature.

Hmm, quite hard to explain, but thoughts?
Does religion defy human nature?

Don't know if anybody has said this yet but......

Religious people are in fact amongst the most selfish people on the planet, being concerned as they with their own souls!