|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the necessity of religion in our modern society? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi Delshad,
Very nicely put, although I can't say I agree with the details, I do believe that religion has, at least to some extent, had some positive effects in the past. Although even if the "truth" about the world led to us all going out and mugging old ladies, it would still be the truth. The truth is independent of its consequences on human behaviour. Having said that, I think altruistic behaviour could, and has evolved. Take social insects, pack animals, birds, fish, primates - all form social groups which can operate in complex ways and often without any underlying intelligence whatsover. The fact is that cooperation can actually work (something thats very very difficult to believe IMHO).
quote: Do you have any references / links on this? PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi Delshad,
quote: This is an excellent link - it shows leading scientists trying to ensure that recent work (my guess is with evolutionary psychology) does not get abused in much the same way as Hitler abused the fledgling science of genetics in the 1930s, and the superpowers abused nuclear physics for the Cold war. A completely laudable aim in my opinion - time will tell how influential it actually is though.
quote: Its difficult not to agree that insects et al have different social structures to man but its important to note that they also have different social structures to one another. That is to say, birds have v. different social structures to insects and they are both different from pack animals etc. Thus having a differet social structure in itself does not elevate humans into a higher status. The same can be said for humans questioning motives. Because human beings have higher intelligence they can question their motives on anything ranging from what they eat to who they kill. So its applicable to just about anything. So we maintain social structure and we would naturally question why it is that why have the social structure we do. This to me does not lead naturally to religion. It is of course a difficult problem, but I would say that the best tools for analysing the problem can be found in game theory, theories of self-organisation and evolutionary psychology, not religion. The problem I have with religion is its invocation of the supernatural, appeal to irrationality and irrefutability, and dogma in the face of conflicting evidence. The best argument I've heard for believing in the existence of the supernatural is Martin Gardner's credo consolans - I believe because it is consoling - not because it may be true. Incidentally, I've just started reading a book called "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought" by Pascal Boyer so I'll share my thoughts with you on that when I've finished it - no doubt I'll probably end up agreeing with everything you've written PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi Delshad,
quote: Well I agree with everything you've written here - and yes, I made an incorrect inference by assuming that by "self-aware level", you meant a "superior" one. That said, human beings are unique in that they have to capacity to think through their actions and restrain their impulses (and perhaps the capacity of genuine altruistic behaviour? I don't know, I'll leave that to the philosophers). Human beings can also codify notions of "right" and "wrong" based upon the needs of a society (or more accurately the needs of the power-brokers in that society) - thus establishing a moral framework. But is a moral framework the same as a religion? To me, religion is a cultural meme, which has survived through a process of natural selection. It follows some very simple rules: 1) Religions reproduce (spread) with mutation Religions (a set of coded instructions) are passed down through word of mouth, normally from parent to child. The fact that it mutates can readily be seen in the fact that today's religions have so many sects and points of divergence and from the simple maxim that information is never perfectly transmitted (not in humans at any rate, and certainly not in this post). 2) Different religions are competing for the same resources You can't follow more than one religion! All religions are competing in "belief-space" for the hearts and minds of followers. Those religions with the most hearts and minds will therefore reproduce more etc analogously with genes and organisms. Religions with other features will "stick" particularly well e.g. if the penalty for apostasy is death then the religion has a very stable platform on which to build, but if the religion is too outlandish then it simply will not survive at a serious level for very long (eg Hammarubi creation myths). So I see Religion as a mind virus which has affected man, not something mankind requires and thats where we probably differ. Thats not to say religion hasn't sometimes been good. In my opinion its probably been overall neutral, indifferent to the fate of its hosts as long as it could spew forth and multiply, but I do find the growing band of superstition and irrationality which one normally associates with religion to be disconcerting. Especially now as religious fundamentalists of varying creeds seem to have the finger on the button! PE PS A far better explanation of my point of view can be found in Dawkins essay "Viruses of the Mind", here: http://www.santafe.edu/...i/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi Delshad,
Thanks for the post. Third things first:
quote: The part of the link you're referring to is a quote from Daniel Dennett, which Dawkins has used to begin his article. here it is in full: The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions, and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some Trojan horses thrown in for good measure. For a meme which preys on the cultural mind, a Chinese brain is very different from a French brain. Memes act on thoughts, ideas and cultural baggage - you'd be misunderstanding Dennett, one of the world's leading authorities on artificial intelligence, if you assume that what he meant was that a Chinese brain was physiologically much different to a French brain. But don't take my word for it, you can research his papers for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Interestingly also, Dennett mentions how memes restructure the human brain in order to make it more habitable - much like your comments on plasticity. I've no doubt this occurs as you say it does, but I'm afraid I don't understand its relevance to this debate. Perhaps you could elaborate.
quote: Excellent point - not one I'd previously considered. One could merely have a meme for atheism rather than religion. The basic crux of memes, in my limited understanding, is that they work like fashions (indeed fashion is itself a meme) and you can certainly make an argument that atheism spreads like a fashion, as well. But lets look closer at any a priori assumptions we're making. You are claiming that humanity could have had, lets call it "God-consciousness", from the inception of the ability of the brain to hold and disseminate memes, whereas I'm claiming that the human brain would only have had the capacity to rationalise about the immediate world around him. I can say that this capacity arose through selction pressures and evolution, whereas you'd have to propose some entirely new mechanism whereby Homo sapiens and his ancestors acquired this "God-consciousness". This requires an extra step which requires explanation on your part.
quote: I don't see why this is. How does the proliferation of memes affect the ability to acquire language? I'm afraid you'll have to also explain this further to me. I recommend having another bash at Dawkins article. PE ------------------It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: In my previous post I was using the concept of memes as an analogy which to evoke some insight rather than as a scientific truism, but I take your point. I think I'm OK with this as long as I don't try to make any predictions, rather than use the concept as a way of viewing the world. I mean, after all, is the idea that we can represent the physical world in terms of pictures, numbers and words falsifiable? One way in which the memes idea might be falsifiable would be to see ancient voodoo religions which are not passed down generationally and not get much publicity sharing the same number of members as one of the monolithic (sorry - monotheistic) religions of the world? Almost seems too obvious. Can't say I've given this much thought though (yet). Given all the research that seems to be happening in memetics at the moment, I think I need to look into this a little bit further. Trouble is, once we start talking memes we start talking sociobiology and risk heading down the sickly tortured path that is post-modernism and all that is dark, dank and vile. Daniel Dennett's written a nice article here: Page Not Found - ASE - TUFTS UNIVERSITY But since the meme idea is so controversial (more proto-social-science than science) and there's so much to read I'll get back to you on this if I may. Incidentally, I have great trouble with Susan Blackmore's point, not because I think its wrong (I don't) but by using the word "just" she cheapens the concept. Its like saying "humans are just a bunch of chemicals" - true certainly, but unequivocably false in that it loses so much of the contextual richness that being a human being involves. The word "just" has a lot to answer for in my opinion! PE ------------------It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi Delshad,
quote: Thats right. There's very much a continuum as to what memes can actually be. Reading around today, I've seen words, fashions, even exchanges between animals classed as memetic. The important factor is that it is information that is transmissable and able to mutate.
quote: Viruses do not have to be destructive. Many biological viruses are benign - the ones which do best are obviously the ones which leave their host "unharmed", as they themselves cannot survive without a host. Thats why Ebola outbreaks are relatively contained - they kill so quickly that the virus doesn't get a decent chance to propagate. Some viruses may be extremely short lived - these actually form the majority of all viruses which have ever existed. The fact is, they were unable to propagate successfully and they died out. Culturally however, the word "virus" is a loaded word, as it generally refers to disease. To be fair, I think Dawkins has deliberately chosen this word because he is fervently anti-religion and he wants to evoke mental images of viral infections with the analogy, but in its proper usage, the analogy with viruses seems to be quite sound. After all, loony religions and cults are springing up (and dying out) all the time and some of the most harmful (David Koresh, Rev Jim Jones etc) kill their adherents before they get a chance to infect the rest of the population.
quote: Dawkins is probably the most secular of secular humanists in the world, to my knowledge. He is virulently opposed to any form of faith, where "faith" means believing in something despite a lack of evidence for it. I've seen him described as a rationalist fundamentalist. In my personal experience (I was raised a muslim), religion is inhibiting rather than liberating and requires us to obey unquestioningly and without thinking. As an example of what I mean, lets take the first cause argument (used by many religious adherents) for God. 1) Everything is caused by an external agent2) The universe is a thing 3) Therefore the universe must have been caused by an external agent (God). But you're never supposed to substitute "God" for universe in the above argument. Why? This doesn't make sense to me - we're supposed to use this logic to arrive at a God, and this disapply it to God itself. Which is it? (Incidentally I think this argument is flawed because premise 1 is untrue).
quote: In an earlier post I wrote that personally, I thought religion was essentially neutral - I can't really gauge whether or not its had a positive effect on the world without comparing with an identical world which never had religion. In fact a strong part of me thinks that religion had to evolve, an early attempt to make sense of the social rules and structures which evolution had already imposed upon us. When early man saw lightning hit a tree, is it any wonder he thought there must be a powerful being causing it, and that he should take steps not to offend this being(animal sacrifice anyone?).
quote: Agree with you 100%. Just because nature is harsh, it doesn't mean we have to be because we have rational thought and he capacity for compassion. Its a fallacy to say that just because you agree with evolution or don't believe in God you don't have a basis for morals. As mentioned above, I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that the idea (meme) for God(s) developed because we already had the morals embedded deep within our psyche, arising from no other factors than evolutionary pressures upon social cohesion, and we needed some way to rationalise them, based on our everyday experience.
quote: Here again we disagree, as I don't think that being without religion equates to being without morals (although it does make the choices more difficult). There is an ongoing philosophical debate as to whether ethics can exist without religion. You might find these ideas of an ethical system without absolutes quite informative: http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.shermer-sphinx.html Kind regardsPE ------------------It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi Delshad,
Just briefly:
quote: I disagree with the premise every event must have a cause, but the logic you've employed here fom that premise on looks sound....
quote: Personal preference. Again, I see nothing irrational here.
quote: This is the gigantic logical leap which I don't accept. Why can't the first cause be the Big Bang, or Allah's creator's creator (if you catch my drift)? Why does the first cause have to be a "being" or conscious at all? What caused Allah to make the universe?And what caused whatever caused Allah to make his decision to make the universe? etc Infinite regress? Does He know his own actions in advance?If so, in what sense can he be said to be conscious and making decisions? You see, you have postulated a first cause, postulated a first causer "being" and married the two together without considering the myriad of other possibilities for this first cause - this is the danger of building an argument by starting from the conclusion. But I have to ask myself why you would not have previously questioned this and I keep coming back to socio-cultural reasons than logic. This isn't to say lack of belief isn't socio-cultural either - if I'd been around in the Middle Ages I have no doubt I'd have been as strident in my beliefs as the next Joe. But I believe its up to me to use the tools of rationality and apply it as best as I can (although being human does mean I'm not necessary rational . My brain was generally designed for coping with the rigours of the African savannah, so there's no reason I should be able to comprehend the mysteries of the universe, but it seems the best approach for me is to question everything and not accept it simply because my parents / teachers / elders told me to. If you have already done this then good luck to you. I still have a lot more questions than answers... Kind regardsPE ------------------It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi Delshad,
Likewise - wish you all the best. However, I note with concern that you've just used the First Cause argument in another thread shortly after I brought it up above as an example of fallacious reasoning, and refuted it (post 17, I think). In order to understand your point of view I'd appreciate your responses to my objections in #17 or not post the First cause argument anywhere at all, otherwise you'd end up giving the impression that you were simply quoting arguments verbatim and not thinking them through. (I'm referring to this post of yours: http://EvC Forum: An honest answer for a newbie, please. If I've misunderstood and these weren't your views, then I apologise). Kind regardsPE edit: wrong post reference - twice!------------------ It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell [This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-14-2002] [This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-14-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024