Religion is human nature??? WTF???? By that rationale "the unreligious" are not human. Religion is just an allegorical explanation to explain the currently unexplainable...Whereas science is a framework of experiment to discover the currently unexplainable. There's a big difference. For religion the unexplainable is the end of the causal timeline - That is why it is stagnant. For science it is the beginning of the causal timeline - Which is why it evolves. I will give you that the brain was predisposed to religious thought, because the brain is programmable and there was simply no other alternative. Now we have the framework of science, religious thought is no longer nessecary. "God" has always hidden just beyond the realm of human understanding (the currently explainable). First god resided in the sky. Then god resided in space. Then god resided beyond the observable universe. The borders of God's Kingdom are constantly being pushed back by explaining the currently unexplainable, and on a long enough timeline, God will have no place left to hide. I agree that we do have cognitive predispositions towards certain things. Such as seeing faces on the surface of Mars, because it was useful in our evolution to recognise faces....But you seem to think that is the way it is always going to be, completely denying the evolutionary nature of thought processes and the brain itself (which as I've said before is programmable, but is also evolving). Religious thought was useful for allegorically explaining the unexplainable in the absence of any other framework. It gained strength and momentum because of the conditions of human experience at the time it evolved - the brain learns through repetition. Every time you sense something your brain makes another copy. Every time you sense something your brain makes another copy. And in that realm of human experience there was no scientific framework, but there was story-telling, which is a framework in itself. The storytelling framework was useful because it matched human experience of that era. Now, I don't believe Science has replaced the Storyelling framework, there will always be a place for it...but it has replaced Religion, which is a subset of the Storytelling framework. Science is a framework for discovery, and Storytelling is an framework to spread ideas (not to discover them). The problem with religion is that it says there is no need to discover, or learn more about our environment beyond the currently explained because it has already been explained by a dead-end in the story - "Then a miracle occurs." The danger with religion is that it has attempted to explain the currently unexplainable with supernatural phenomena, personified it, and then gave it divine authority. And the reason it does that is because that is all the story-telling framework can do. That is the zenith of the Storytelling framework's capabilites. And therefore, in an attempt to go beyond it's limitations it gives people belief that things they do are justified, because the story says so. And anything, no matter how dangerous, is subject to this justification because it has divine authority. Your entire argument seems to rely on where we come from, rather than where we are going. Where we are going - funny I should use that phrase because that is the very nature of the brain. The brain predicts. Yes, it has a memory, but that is required to give it accurate predictions. Every time you sense something your brain makes another copy. And it does so for a statistical analysis of what might happen next. If you play a certain verse of "Stairway to Heaven" backwards you might here the word "Satan" if you're told to look for a word listening to it backwards. But if you listen to it again, having been given the words that lend themselves to the phenomes you will hear every single word on that page. Why? Because your brain has been primed to make a prediction about what you're going to hear. It is a very simple way of programming the brain to have a cognitive predisposition. This is why religions demand constant worship. Why people go to church every single Sunday, and why they send their children to Sunday School - To reinforce that cognitive predisposition to the explanations of the religion through repitition. This is also why the equally unlikely and unprovable explanations of other religions are laughable to the indoctrinated. As an athiest I think of the christian god as preposterous as a Christian might find Thor or Zeus. So do not forget that every religious person is an atheist in the sense that they have rejected every other human god as preposterous, in favour of one. Atheists have just gone one god further... What we are finding is that in a world where pattern recognition is increasingly relevant over allegory (you need pattern-recognition to effectively live in a world where technology is ubiquitous) is that the average IQ in western civilisations is rising as quickly as 3 points every ten years. We are getting smarter because we are adapting to the scientific framework. We are adapting to a world of discovery. Our brains our adapting to an environment where scientific methodology is increasingly more relevant. The ultimate point is that successful social ideas can be conveyed through a story-telling framework, underpinned by the evolving scientific framework, but there is no longer the need for god. There is no longer the need for divine totalitiarian authority to a social standpoint because we are constantly developing rational ways to justify these standpoints, rather than a dead-end allegorical way. (It's just the way it is because God said so) So please don't tell me that Religion is Human Nature. Because it's evolution that is nature of all life (including human). Finally... This isn't just about suicide bombers. This is about daily politics. America is arguably the world's only current super-power. But George Bush Senior famously said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." And he stuck by that statement. Why? Because he knew it wouldn't affect his political career because America is predominantly a Christian country. There is also a correlation beween athiesm and IQ - The smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe in a religion. But no American political figure can speak openly about their athiests standpoint, if they have them, because it would be career suicide. The conclusion - The world's only superpower's electoral structure is biased against intelligent and honest individuals - The very people best suited to run the country.
I agree that religion is human nature, as i sort of mentioned earlier: Now i'm no expert here, i may be wrong, but i think it's the same sort of basic instinct as how lonely kids will invent an imaginary friend, and even how fairy tales such as santa clause are thought up. The same sort of basic instinct can be the reason for imagining things like a guardian angel, among other angels that people believe are watching other us... If someone is "unreligous" it doesn't mean they are not human, they could be just resisting the urge to think illogically - that sounds harsh, but cmon, who walks on water? Do you really believe that the eucharist becomes Jesus's flesh, and that the wine becomes Jesus's blood at mass? No? Then you are more logical than religous
TL;DR. Seriously, can someone hit reset or something? Back-reading this debate is like drowning in an encyclopedia. Or to go a step further back, I propose that since the original topic concerned advertising theological viewpoints on buses and the moral correctness of doing so, most of this thread is a trolled, tangled deviation and would be best off euthanised.
In summary: Most people weren't bothered about the slogan Then some people started bashing religion Naturally others thought that was a bit unreasonable, and so defended religion Then the religion bashing came back even stronger
Beautifully summarised, glad to know it wasn't just me getting stupider I'm quite interested in the issue surrounding the bus ads, though, if anyone feels like inputting on that again instead of their views on the origin on the universe.
I'm not sure there really is such a thing. I have heard of it but I've never really seen it. +1 Maybe some wacko religions where you have to follow all rules 100% or youre dead. If youre talking about Christianity then no, there isn't some 'code'. We have the 10 commandments which we are supposed to follow, but we are all human and even if we try we will make mistakes and do bad things. In Christianity, to get into Heaven you need to have Jesus as your savior and live for him. No that doesnt mean you cant have a life. I am defenitley not a good person to explain this though. But basically, no there is no 'code' you can sin all your life and do all the bad things you can imagine and if before you die you ask Jesus to forgive you, you will go to Heaven. Now you may say then why would people just do that. Live their life how they want to and then ask for forgiveness at the end. Well you do have to be sincere as well. It may make your life on Earth more fun but in the end if you go to Heaven you will not be rewarded as greatly. It is tough to explain but that is how Christianity is sort of. As I said I am not the person to explain it. Defenitly, my High School graduating class was mostly Christian. I think most all (if not all) the top students where Christians. Defenitly no IQ drop if you are Christian. Because God gives everyone a choice and someone made bad choices which has now affected these kids. They did nothing wrong, but someone made a bad choice adn these kids are paying for it. Same thing as all those innocent people dying in the Holocaust. The Nazis made bad choices and many people paid the the price even if they did nothing wrong. Awesome post! I hate it when people look at some idiots and lump them together with other Christians. Awesome story. Religion can be an awesome thing! Seeing things like that happen is just so amazing. (though its not good she died)
As a Christian, I oppose the ad. But, the laws allow them to do it so I cant do anything about it. If there was a petition against it, yes I would sign it. Otherwise it IS free-speech (well not free because they pay for the ad )
I laughed so hard at that. There are certainly some.. wordy responses here, huh I was aware of the ten comandments, but I always assumed that you were at least expected to live by them as best you can. Ahwell. Probably should have spent my RE lessons doing something other than making jokes..
True. The thing is, with it being public transport, it's less like one company or body of people expressing a view and more like the nation as a whole expressing a view. It seems to be England as a whole stating its secular stance, which may seem fine at first but it's fundamentally no different than if the ads were supporting any given religious view. I mean, can you imagine if the ads all ran, "Judeo-Christian God is more tolerant than Allah...let's drop this Islamic nonsense!" ? It'd be disgusting, and it'd cause uproar. Fundamentally it's no different - the ads are rubbing a certain theological stance in everybody's faces and doing so from an unchallengeable position of government-backed authority. It seems really wrong to me, even though I agree with the message being promoted.
But that would show an ounce of fore-thought. That is simply not allowed. I expect it was a case of "Here is monies. Put this on some buses." 'For that much we offer a felating service too, interested?' Since money seems to run everyone and everything.
However the various religions of the world are fully entitled and do in some cases to advertise their "message" however they like (with in the law). There are occasionally ads in the buses round here for a religious view point. Not on this scale admittedly but that's a matter of where to prioritise money presumably the humanists don't have gold plated cathedrals to up keep. I accept the point made (very) early on that this is stooping to the level of the extremer end of the religion spectrum and that its probably unnecessary However I agree with the sentiment. Why is it that if one person "gives there life over to god" they are accepted or praised if another turns it over Zeus and the rest of the Dodekatheon they are given medication and sent for help? I suppose what i'm getting at is that i agree with Dawkins' sentiment that religion (all religions) are given an easy ride world wide and although i'm all for tolerance of people and their beliefs (with in reason) perhaps they should be treated with a little less kid gloves and reverence. I'm doing it my self there are masses of people out there and they believe in a giant fairy but in order to avoid insulting them I'm not entitled to say they are as crazy as a man who personally believes in little fairies at the bottom of his garden, which we would all agree is nuts.
Do you see any animals worshipping gods? No? Obviously religion is an emergent product of human thinking --its tendency to think in a coherent story rather than a list of facts, its sophisticated theory of mind, its many logical reasoning errors (seeing patterns and causalities where there aren't any) and its desire for meaning and attachment (science is an emergent product of human thinking too, by the way, so take your pick: you're human either way). Stop sounding so sanctimonious. I'm sorry, but you are. Do you think my religious terminal cancer patient would have benefited from a scientific expose on death and dying more than from a belief in god and an afterlife? "Don't delude yourself. There is no scientific proof that there is a God or afterlife. Your suffering is entirely random and meaningless, and when you die, that's it. Now deal." Thus enlightened, she feels a lot better. Like religion, science does not have all the answers to all life's problems. I think you are getting so hung up on the logical differences between religion and science, that you are forgetting the functional differences (i.e. difference of purpose). Story telling does not only spread ideas, it develops and inspires them. All science started with story. The story of flight (Icarus). The story of men on the moon (Verne, Wells, many myths before them). The story of SETI (chariots of the gods, man in the moon...). The story of medicine (shamans and healers). The story of robots (Golems)... the list goes on. Stories are ideas. Stories inspire. Religion is a story: not about discovery of the physical realm, but about the meaning of life. Science is a story: not about discovery of the meaning of life, but about the nature of our physical reality. Philosophy is a meta-story from which all other stories spring forth: the story of what it means to understand. My argument points out who we are, right now. One day we may think scientifically (although our brain would need to speed up considerably for that. Scientific thinking is rather slow for split-second decision making. You always end up relying on gut instinct. Perhaps with cybernetic implants, eh?). But there are aspects of our existence where the cold scientific factual perspective gives us no comfort or meaning. Some people develop a spiritual humanism; others have found religion a support and inspiration. As long as they don't go around killing others over it that's fine by me. You are also presumptuous in considering religion a static authoritarian belief system. Again, prophets would beg to differ. At the moment we see constant changes in the church: translation of scriptures in a language accessible to the common people, abandonment of dogma, acceptance of female clergy and gay relationship for instance. Religion, too, has to evolve to continue to exist. If it does not, natural selection will take its course. The difference between you and me is that I accept that where our thinking is going is a gradual evolutionary process of learning, insight and maturity, not one of "intelligent design" that can be forced upon people by an authority, religious or scientific. First, religious ideas start with pattern recognition and questions about causality. Second, the Flynn effect is a result of technological progress resulting in better living circumstances (decent food, clean water and education tends to have a positive effect on physical and brain development), and a more cognitively demanding and stimulating environment. People were not getting smarter because they were taught science --they were getting smarter because they were getting fed better and getting taught, period (learning to read and write specifically has done more for people than any scientific discipline. It's the language thing, see? Read about Luria and Vygotsky if you want to know more). Science contributed to improved living circumstances, but not to improved cognitive insight. Now wake up and smell this one: the Flynn effect has not been observed for the last 15 years. Despite massive scientific advances people are not getting any smarter. you see, Joe Average doesn't understand science, he just believes in it like people used to believe in God. Because he beholds the miracle of the mobile phone, colour TV and antibiotics on a daily basis, yea, while nobody has parted the Red Sea for a while. Science just tells him a better story (mostly). he doesn't understand how it all works, just that it does --it's the new blind faith. There is no scientific insight or thinking involved. Joe Average does not apply scientific reasoning to his personal life any more than he does religious doctrine. OK, just out of curiosity: what do I tell my terminal religious cancer patient who believes he'll go to heaven? What? No scientific answer for me? I guess that's one area it doesn't cover. Religion is an emergent phenomenon of how people think. It is not enough to stamp your feet and say: "We don't need religion anymore!", because there are obviously situations in which some people appear to, because science has no meaningful answers for them. It is obviously not possible to just ban religion because they tried that in Stalinist Russia and Mao's China, and people still worshipped at pain of death (as the Christians did in Rome). And how is that different from you stamping your feet and saying: "Pray to my God, ye heathens, which is called Science!". You can't tell people what to believe in. Your insights about religion should have taught you at least that. Like many of our cognitive schemas of How The World Works, religion is resistant to challenge and evidence to the contrary. There is a survival reason for why such cognitive schemas are so recalcitrant. They are practical, convenient, comforting, reassuring to the person's daily life survival --no matter what an outsider may think; and if they could be easily challenged by daily life experiences to the contrary, we would live in chaos. Even science requires replicability of experiments and probability of 5% as the cutoff between a chance occurrence and a cause occurrence. And it is utterly, utterly naive to think that the removal of religion will make people wiser, smarter, nicer, more independent people. People will still be dumb, stupid, nasty and tribalist, and still run after the nearest dictator who makes them feel special and promises to be their daddy who will make it all alright for them (especially when they get to pick on some minority out-group with impunity). Religion makes no difference. People were cruel and caring before religion; they are cruel and caring now. People were cruel and caring before science; they are cruel and caring now. Those who call themselves religious are cruel and caring, and those who call themselves atheists are cruel and caring, and those who call themselves scientists are cruel and caring (but they are possibly more methodical about it). Religion, atheism and science are just mental frameworks which people will conveniently believe in to suit their purpose. And what is the correlation between IQ and humanity? Emergence phenomena. They're a miracle of sorts.
Yea, ok, sure. Pull more generalizations out of your butt why don't you. I think that the "smarter" one is, the more likely they are to interpret their religion themselves and act accordingly, instead of basing their actions on either blind faith, or the fear and anticipation of after-life punishment and rewards.
Back that up. So, I'm guessing Steven Hawking, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, Michael Faraday, Galileo, Descartes and Isaac Newton must have all been absolute idiots... Thats more like it
I Googled for that one. There are actually some studies. But they are rather sloppy --they make no distinction between religion and spirituality (not the same thing) and no difference between orthodox evangelicals and those with a more individual, personal faith. The measure of religion in these studies, like that of intelligence, is rather simplistic. The connecting link is explained to be education: it raises IQ but also causes people to question established ideas rather than unconditionally accept them. Nice huh? But throw socio-economic status into the mix and you get a slightly different story. In a comparison of countries worldwide they found that the ones with lowest average IQ also were the most religious. However the poorest countries were also the most religious --exactly the same scatter plot emerged. no surprise, really, as a country's GDP relates to its educational facilities and hence to its population's IQ. One could equally argue that it proves that those who have a full belly are less likely to consider a need for God. As I said: religion fulfills a need... Other interesting findings: - Religion is associated with a higher Emotional Intelligence (awareness of, and ability to cope with one's own emotions and those of others). - Recruits to fundamentalist religions are not of less average intelligence than the general population. So could something else be going on here? Perhaps smarter people just have more sophisticated ideas of faith and spirituality that cannot easily be captured by a gross categorisation of whether or not you are religios (IQ comes in 200 grade points; "religiosity" is measured as a binary). Or perhaps religion is not about intellectual but existential psychology: Exactly.
Yes of course you are supposed to live by them the best you can. But if you make mistakes and dont always follow them like you should doesnt mean you go directly to hell and don't have a chance. Everyone can go to Heaven no matter what they have done. As long as you ask Jesus to save you and forgive your sins as I said.
Isn't there a lot of ambiguity about how literally they should be taken, though, depending on how Biblical your faith is? I know a lot of moderate Christians openly disregard parts of the Bible because they're simply not feasible in the modern age (promoting slavery, selling daughters, repaying murders in livestock, etc.) but a lot of fundamentalists insist that you're only a true Christian if you follow the Bible to the letter. If you're representing Christianity I think it's worth stating which side you fall on, because they might as well be different religions. Biblical Christianity is scary and morally indefensible, and maintains that the ten commandments are to be upheld at all times, to the letter, on pain of death and damnation to Hell. Including the one about not working on sundays Sensible Christians take this with a pinch of salt, as with a lot of the Bible.
All of those questionable commandments come from the Pentateuch - the first five books of the Bible, which were (according to them, anyways) written by Moses and company for the Israelites, right after they'd escaped captivity in Egypt some two thousand years BC. It was The Law - the only way to be saved was to follow The Law absolutely perfectly, and make all the required sacrifices in anticipation of the Messiah, who as the ultimate sacrifice, would finalize everyone's salvation. Jesus, however, didn't just make that sacrifice, he changed the rules as well - he revoked The Law, in favor of a new system - believe in him (including that he died to save us from our sins, etcetera), and we would be saved. The Law, with its odd little rules, sacrifical demands, and morally questionable commandments are no longer applicable to Christianity - they belong to Judaism. Any "Christian" who claims that they are still in effect is blindly following dogma rather than actually reading their Bible.
