Is religion inherently dangerous?

[_Moniker]

The more I learn about evolution and sociobiology (I don't discount it, of course I have a degree in a field of social sciences...) the more arguments for God seem just patently absurd.

Since social science and evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the question of God, your attempt to connect these dots makes me wonder what it is you're studying.

I think I stated the more I learn about evolution the entire notion that God created anything seems more and more absurd, to me. I mentioned sociobiology because it delves into aspects of human social behavior. Understanding that human behavior can be traced to evolution, also, makes God dwindle, for me.

I was going to approach (on MAD) the evolution of bacteria and see if there were any that objected to the scientific fact of bacteria evolving. Then, from there work my way up and ask why man is set aside as not being evolved, yet, created?

Evolution has nothing to do with the question of God. That's a myth, and most theists seem to have no problem with evolution. It might have something to say about some particular relgious beliefs regarding the origins of man, but the question of God is entirely reasonable, as is evidenced by the fact that many intelligent and reasonable people, even former devout atheists, have reached the same conclusion.

I have never said evolution discounts God and I've stated the opposite on this board a few times, yet, for me, understanding social behavior, cultural evolution, and biological evolution strips away many of the arguments people have made for God belief, to me. I don't see how by using reason God belief is derived. I know there are those much more intelligent than I that believe in God, yet, I have never seen a convincing argument where they draw on evidence and reason to form this belief.

Something was mentioned that humans have always felt or sensed the divine, so, they sought it because somehow or another they knew the truth value of it.

This is more reasonable than Dawkins' disproved arguments that people simply become religious for the same reasons Muslims tend to be born on Muslm continents and children tend to accept belief in Santa Clause. His theory is decimated by the simple fact that intelligent adults from all corners of the world reason with the data throughout their lives and follow the evidence to the conclusion that a God exists.

Well, I think it's a combination of, perhaps, something innate and cultural.

I think it's possible that evolution and cultural evolution can explain God belief.

It can't, or at the least, it hasn't. Aggresive attempts by the New Atheists to prove that it does strike me as desperate because most of these rely on wild theories that are no more scientifically grounded than most religious beliefs.

Well, neurotheology most definitely looks at innate aspect to God belief. There is other scientific research that seeks out why people have spiritual experiences. Even looking at mirror neurons we can see how we just pretty much mimic those about us and emotions can sweep through crowds. Laughing is contagious. Crying can become contagious. We are social creatures and in light of that there can be innate aspects to us that predispose us to have experiences and then the culture pretty much dictates what we label these experiences as.

Was it advantageous for people to have spiritual experiences or is it just a leftover from a primitive mind?

False dilemma, because it s neither. The best way to understand the reasons for belief is to listen to their reasons. The argument from design is perhaps the oldest. And this was popular long before the cosomological evidence started to support the existence of God. How did they come to think this way? Via exposure to the natural world.

You don't know it's neither. There is scientific research that seeks to look into spiritual/mystical/numinous experiences and even some theists grasp on to this research as pointing to God designing us with an ability to sense him.

Reasons for belief? You think most people that believe in God throughout history and even now listed reasons for their belief and thought of cosmological evidence to support their belief? I rather doubt that.

In any event, these kinds of wild theories hoping evolution can explain modern beliefs, are untestable, so to accept them means to throw the scientific method out the window. Evolution doesn't explain "God belief," despite the wishful thinking from the New Atheists like Dennett and Dawkins.

Evolution explains changes over time. If there is scientific research that specifically looks to unlock portions of our brain that light up when undergoing religious experiences then why is this any different than looking into the other aspects of human evolution? We know language evolved. Culture evolves. Brains have evolved. This is fact.

I have creases in my palms. I can stare into them and attempt to unravel the mysteries of my fate and past by tracing them and interpreting these lines. Interestingly enough many, many, many other cultures look to palms to unlock hidden "truths".

Nothing to do with perceiving a divine creator of all that is.

I was attempting to draw a parallel between a part of my body that is apparent for all to see and everyone has pretty much similiar. My palms are the way they are because of genetic factors. Now, I mix a genetic factor with a cultural belief that "truth" can be found there and you get a way to see how the two mix to form false beliefs.

Because many people through out history, and different cultures, sensed a "truth" is this something I, too, should look to?

No, and that isn't why people get into palm reading. They get into palm reading because they were exposed to its bull. On the other hand, acknolwedging the existence of a superior being responsible for all that is, requires exposure to nothing more the natural world.

The palm is natural! I can see it, by God!!!

[_EAllusion]

The palm is natural! I can see it, by God!!!

Palm reading arose from superstitious thinking endemic to us humans. It's not as though just a con passed between generations of hucksters. It once was a very seriously and wildly accepted religious practice along with other forms of divining signs. I would've used astrology as your example, though. It's more widely accepted at this point. Not only has it been believed across cultures and times, but it has a powerful intuitive element that is simply formalized in astrological theory.

[_dartagnan]

No it isn't. It was an effort to apply evolutionary principles to a different field.

Which was a bigoted attempt to demean religious beliefs. Can there really be any reasonable doubt that Dawkins begins with an age nda here and molds teh data to appear as evidence to support his conclusion? His attempt to apply evolution principles to religion is flawed because he ignored a century of history and sociological scholarship. As McGrath proved, Dawkins relies on 19th century theory of religion to fue his arguments. But since that theory has long since been discredited, Dawkins argument rests on a failed premise.

Perhaps that's why you asked why can't evolution be a meme. You seem to still be confusing the meme concept with what he means when he talks about religion as a virus.

No I'm not so stop pretending you've shown this. I read his rationale and explicated it right here, using his own words. Nothing you have presented from his articles has undermined my understanding.

Oh well. You've already made it clear you're not particularly interested in getting the details right.

Because I didn't simply take it for granted that you know the mind of Dawkins, and that it must be strictly metaphorical simply because you say so, despite Dawkns' statement to the contrary? Again, Dawkins never explicitly denies that a meme is a literal living creature. You've yet to provide anything in his writings that says they aren't. You just assert that isn't what he meant, and then declare victory and the matter settled. His analogies and choice of words implies that they are. In any event, wether they are living or just idead that are relayed to other people, doesn't change the fact that his choice of words is bigotbased. He has no single standard by which to apply the term to beliefs he doesn't like, while exempting those he calls scientific. He has to operate in a double-standard.

Evolution is too complex to be a meme, but the ideas that make up evolutionary theory are memes (as far as the theory goes).

Not evolution, but "belief" in evolution. Memes are ideas and beliefs, right? So why can't belief in evolution be a meme? Well, according to Dawkins, it is a meme, but it isn't a virus because evolution is a "good" meme. What an idiot.

I don't think you have a solid grasp on what you are disagreeing with, which is ironic given what you wrote above.

What yo think is irrelevant. You haven't refuted anything I have said on the matter. In fact you entered this discussion pretending to refute something I never even said.

Who else? Of course not all desires are good to have, which you may or may not argue. It's hard to tell what tangent you'll go off on.

It's called a clarifying question. I forgot how intolerant you can be.

Jesus. The patterns of neurons firing in my brain can cause an imitation of itself to form in your brain via the transmission of ideas through communication. There's nothing arcane or controversial there.

Why bring up firing neurons at all if we're simply talking about humans sharing ideas via normal communication? The controversial part is where Dawkins sets aside some beliefs as viruses and others as simply good ideas. He has no reasonable, objective scientific basis for this. It is based strictly in bigotry, nothing more.
Let me ask you something.
If I close my eyes and picture a yellow flower on a green table, while neuroscientists take image photos of the activity in my brain, do you think that this image will be perfectly identical to an image taken an hour later when the experiment is repeated and I picture the same flower?
A materialist assumes that ideas and beliefs are generated and stored in the brain and that eventually we will be able to understand the language by which information is processed in the brain. But this isn't based on scientific experiment. It is based on a blind faith to materialism. So is Dawkins' theory here. Without this premise his imitation argument fails.

The paragraph on Dawkins' memes was so absurdly wrong on so many levels, I replied. You weren't even half-right.

Where was I wrong? You haven't pointed out one single specific point where I was allegedly wrong, except on the queston as to whether memes were merely metaphors or not. I responded with Dawkins who said they weren't, and then you went on a rant about how they can be both metaphorical and biological. But even if I grant you this point, how does this prove I was wrong on "many levels?"

You could've just said, instead, that Dawkins' thinks religion is a virus of the mind and that the non-religious are more enlightened than the religious, at least with respect to the topic of religion. Yet you said this, "Nehor, I don't think it can be shown that humans have evolved as creatures who are genetically designed to seek out the divine for no apparent reason. This is how Dawkns thinks and he has resorted to arguing that it is a genetic virus that just happens to be something only the more advanced humans have managed to evolve out of. What arrogance." That's so bloody wrong it's hard to know exactly what angle to correct it from.

I misspoke on the genetic part. I had no idea you were responding to this.

As I said, Dawkins doesn't think religious inclination evolved for "no apparent reason." You replied by saying his reasons suck. Come again? I point out that memes aren't genetic in nature, which in this paragraph is a key detail. You dispute the point, but only by switching "genetic" to more accurate descriptions like "biological" while not appreciating the difference.

But again, Dawkins doesn't explicit discount the possibility that they are physical entities. Do you have a statement from him denying that they are?

Then you say there is no point quibbling over what he thinks memes are, because they aren't real. Huh? Such is conversation with you.

Bu ths is such a minor point to be quibbling over. The elephant in the room is the fact that Dawkins refers to religious beliefs as viral memes. Whether they are "genetic" viruses is really beside the point. "Virus" is the controversial term, not genetic.

The problem of course is that what you thought there was clear enough. The idea of more "advanced" humans evolving out of a genetic defect is easy enough to understand. It's just really wrong when describing Dawkins.

Perhaps, but I would bet he is sympathetic to such views. I first heard this view on this forum by one of his die-hard proponents.

I've spent tens, if not hundreds of thousands of words going into detail over what is wrong with specific attempts at theistic justification

No, you have spent tens, if not hundreds of thousands of words going into detail over what you think is wrong with specific attempts at theistic justification.

Some of which I know you've read. Remember when you complained that I never replied to the fine-tuning argument, then I sent numerous links where I gave detailed replies to the fine-tuning argument, including some where you were actively participating?

Yes, and I found your responses weak. I never said you never offered responses. I said you nevere refuted these arguments. I'm sure you have to your satisfacton.

I've never reasoned like that, and I challenge you to find any example where I have.

Well, if you don't perceive him, then for you there is no observation or evidence and my observation and evidence isn't transferable to you. So wouldn't you consider my perception of God a result of self-delusion?

Bully for them. On the plus side, in their native fields, each and every one of those class of arguments are rejected rather resoundingly.

LOL. Of course they are EA. Whatever helps yo sleep at night. These men are all idiots.

If some biologist buys into a moral argument that most moral philosophers think is a joke while a moral philosopher buys into an organismic design argument that most biologists think is a joke, it undercuts the point a bit.

You're trying to dummy down Collins' argument again, as if it is based strictly on morality. It isn't. The design argument and that of teleology is by far the most persuasive among scientists, as it is for me. You haven't even come close to refuting these.

[_antishock8]

[Mod Scottie: personal attack deleted.]

Hi, antishock8, apparently you got a bit riled that I deleted something. I did so because if anyone replied to me I'd feel compelled to reply to them. I'm having less and less time to spend here and less and less interest in posting here, so, I just deleted it after I posted. Yet, just for you here is my prior post.

I've been chomping at the bir over this thread... and I know I shouldn't reply, yet, I will. I read this by Dennett a few weeks ago and thought about creating a thread at MAD about the subject:

http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/r-Ch.10.html
Quote:
Some people hate Darwin's idea, but it often seems that even we who love it want to exempt ourselves from its dominion: "Darwin's theory is true of every living thing in the universe — except us human beings, of course." Darwin himself fully realized that unless he confronted head on the descent of man, and particularly man's mind, his account of the origin of the other species would be in jeopardy. His followers, from the outset, exhibited the same range of conflicts visible in today's controversies, and some of their most important contributions to the theory of evolution were made in spite of the philosophical and religious axes they were grinding.


The more I learn about evolution and sociobiology (I don't discount it, of course I have a degree in a field of social sciences...) the more arguments for God seem just patently absurd. I was going to approach (on MAD) the evolution of bacteria and see if there were any that objected to the scientific fact of bacteria evolving. Then, from there work my way up and ask why man is set aside as not being evolved, yet, created?

Something was mentioned that humans have always felt or sensed the divine, so, they sought it because somehow or another they knew the truth value of it. I think it's possible that evolution and cultural evolution can explain God belief. Was it advantageous for people to have spiritual experiences or is it just a leftover from a primitive mind? I have creases in my palms. I can stare into them and attempt to unravel the mysteries of my fate and past by tracing them and interpreting these lines. Interestingly enough many, many, many other cultures look to palms to unlock hidden "truths". Because many people through out history, and different cultures, sensed a "truth" is this something I, too, should look to?

Seems silly.

I hope my initial deletion didn't cause you too much stress.

~edit~ For those interested here is a paper on how sociobiology is impacting political science:

http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/2466/The ... al_Science

That was an awesome reply. Knock of the delte BS, woman. Either woman up or don't participate, but you obviously have good input to offer!

Anyway. There you go.

[_EAllusion]

No it isn't. It was an effort to apply evolutionary principles to a different field.

Which was a bigoted attempt to demean religious beliefs.

The idea of memes is something Dawkins introduced in a very famous and well-received book which you clearly have not read. It really doesn't concern religion per se. Religion isn't the focus of the offering. It's more a contribution to the field of sociology than anything, though it isn't particularly well-received. It's better received in pop culture than in academia. Dawkins has taken that theoretical contribution of his and turned it on the subject of religion, which is a relatively minor aspect of his writing on the subject. You think demeaning was the whole point of coming up with the concept, but you've got your history backwards there's no real need to buy Dawkins on the religion point to accept memetics.

But again, Dawkins doesn't explicit discount the possibility that they are physical entities. Do you have a statement from him denying that they are?

Dawkins thinks they are physical entities. You even offered a quote where he explicitly says so. That's because Dawkins, like many, many people in fields related to biology and psychology, thinks mental states supervene on brain states, which are physical things. If you become convinced of some idea, you're neurochemistry literally will alter. "Physical" and "genetic" aren't synonyms. A couch is physical. It doesn't have genes, at least not the the sense that chromosomes contain genes.

I've spent tens, if not hundreds of thousands of words going into detail over what is wrong with specific attempts at theistic justification

No, you have spent tens, if not hundreds of thousands of words going into detail over what you think is wrong with specific attempts at theistic justification.

Heh. "I think" is implied in every single thing I write. Is this what you are reduced to Kevin?

Yes, and I found your responses weak. I never said you never offered responses. I said you nevere refuted these arguments. I'm sure you have to your satisfacton.

Actually, you did say I had never responded to it or something to that effect. You also said or implied (I don't recall) that I hadn't even heard of the argument until recently. I then went to considerable trouble looking up old threads to refute this assertion. I know you won't think my responses compelling. That's your M.O. Kevin. Of course, that was the M.O. of Mormon Kevin too. He never was all that impressed and wasn't shy about saying so. But one day he completely flipped, which suggests what goes on underneath the facade is a little more complex than that.

Well, if you don't perceive him, then for you there is no observation or evidence and my observation and evidence isn't transferable to you. So wouldn't you consider my perception of God a result of self-delusion?

Delusion is a technical term used in psychology, which is how I'm interpreting it here. Part of my job is determining if people are being delusional after all. I don't think experiences of God are veridical, if that is what you are asking. If you are asking why I think such a thing, that's not the point of this thread. On the plus side, there are numerous other threads, some of which you wrote posts in, where I do go into detail why a) we doubt the reality of some classes of experiences and b) why religious experiences belong to that category.

LOL. Of course they are EA. Whatever helps yo sleep at night. These men are all idiots.

They're not idiots. Well, I'm sure some are. But for the most part, they're just wrong. Just plain wrong. When someone says X is a good theistic justification and others say it isn't, somebody has got to be wrong.

You're trying to dummy down Collins' argument again, as if it is based strictly on morality. It isn't. The design argument and that of teleology is by far the most persuasive among scientists, as it is for me. You haven't even come close to refuting these.

Again? I'm not even talking about Collins. Collins buys into a design argument offered by C.S. Lewis, often confused for a moral argument because the object of design in this case is our sense of right and wrong. Of course, Collins also busies himself going after how dumb and mendacious other design arguments you also buy are, so there's that. Collins is an interesting fellow because of the juxtaposition between attacking some design arguments and accepting another a design argument when they fail for the same reasons.

[_dartagnan]

I think I stated the more I learn about evolution the entire notion that God created anything seems more and more absurd, to me.

And it seems more plausible and even probable to many a scientist.

I mentioned sociobiology because it delves into aspects of human social behavior. Understanding that human behavior can be traced to evolution, also, makes God dwindle, for me.

I guess, if you base all your behavior on beliefs.

I have never said evolution discounts God and I've stated the opposite on this board a few times, yet, for me, understanding social behavior, cultural evolution, and biological evolution strips away many of the arguments people have made for God belief, to me.

What arguments? Because I can't think of a single argument for God that biological or sociological science discredits.

I don't see how by using reason God belief is derived. I know there are those much more intelligent than I that believe in God, yet, I have never seen a convincing argument where they draw on evidence and reason to form this belief.

Well for me, I'm not particularly religious. I consider myself a theist after the order of Einstein and Flew. I read their comments and think to myself, that's totally me!

Well, neurotheology most definitely looks at innate aspect to God belief. There is other scientific research that seeks out why people have spiritual experiences.

All of which derive from materialistic approaches, and none of which have been shown to be valid.

Even looking at mirror neurons we can see how we just pretty much mimic those about us and emotions can sweep through crowds. Laughing is contagious. Crying can become contagious.

Don't forget yawning.

We are social creatures and in light of that there can be innate aspects to us that predispose us to have experiences and then the culture pretty much dictates what we label these experiences as.

Naturally. But belief in God has not shown to be a simple matter of cultural evolution. Religious affiliation perhaps, but not belief in a supreme deity. Every culture from every corner of the planet experiences the same phenomenon. This does nothing to discredit the fact that billions of people perceive a supreme entity. If it were a simple matter of culture or whatever, then we might expect people would be leaving it in droves once this became evident. But their experiences weigh heavily in their faith, and this something cultural exposure cannot account for.

You don't know it's neither.

And you don't know that it is. Why is it more reasonable to narrow something down strictly to two possibilities?

There is scientific research that seeks to look into spiritual/mystical/numinous experiences and even some theists grasp on to this research as pointing to God designing us with an ability to sense him.

What you are referring to are isolated experiences of the more extreme variety whereas I am discussing the near universal experience shared by humans around the globe. Calling research scientific doesn't make the findings valid. Show me a scientific research project and I'll show you scientists criticizing the methodology. Neurotheology is a perfect example of this.

Reasons for belief? You think most people that believe in God throughout history and even now listed reasons for their belief and thought of cosmological evidence to support their belief? I rather doubt that.

Well it is true nonetheless. The most powerful argument today is that of a fine-tuned universe. The argument is that nature around us makes God manifest. Not physically, but by what he has made with such necessary precision and purpose. There are literally hundreds of inexplicable laws and constants in our universe which share no common values except one: they are what they are in order to make life possible on earth.

The Ancient Jews understood a similar argument from Psalms 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork." For the ancients, spiritual experiences and miracles were not the basis for belief. It was observation of reality that mattered. The apostle Paul said the same thing many centuries later, and the argument took a similar form by Muslim philosophers centuries later.

Evolution explains changes over time. If there is scientific research that specifically looks to unlock portions of our brain that light up when undergoing religious experiences then why is this any different than looking into the other aspects of human evolution

We have the technical equipment to view portions of the brain and we get to see all sorts of areas light up under various conditions. But what do you think this proves exactly?

We know language evolved. Culture evolves. Brains have evolved. This is fact.

Nobody is disputing it either. I'm just saying this has nothing to do with God belief. Brain size pertains to intelligence, in most cases, but there is no evidence it pertains to beliefs, other than as a means to store them. Nor is there evidence that beliefs come from our brain in the first place. Now we're getting into the distinction between brain and mind, and depending on the premise one accepts, the conclusion will be very different. I have a brain, but I am not my brain. I could have half my brain removed by surgeons and I would still be me.

[_dartagnan]

The idea of memes is something Dawkins introduced in a very famous and well-received book which you clearly have not read.

I read the relevant portions dealing with memes, more than a year ago. The rest of the book bored me.

It really doesn't concern religion per se.

Didn't say it did.

Religion isn't the focus of the offering.

Didn't say it was.

It's more a contribution to the field of sociology than anything, though it isn't particularly well-received. It's better received in pop culture than in academia.

No kidding. Probably because he isn't a sociologist, trying to speak on sociological matters, and his agenda is as clear as the sun.

Dawkins has taken that theoretical contribution of his and turned it on the subject of religion, which is a relatively minor aspect of his writing on the subject. You think demeaning was the whole point of coming up with the concept, but you've got your history backwards there's no real need to buy Dawkins on the religion point to accept memetics.

Oh I agree that memes is hardly the only stupid thing Dawkins has said regarding religion. It is just probably the most stupid.

Dawkins thinks they are physical entities. You even offered a quote where he explicitly says so.

No the citation said it wasn't merely metaphorical, but also technical. But what he meant by that was not at all clear.

That's because Dawkins, like many, many people in fields related to biology and psychology, thinks mental states supervene on brain states, which are physical things. If you become convinced of some idea, you're neurochemistry literally will alter.

Right.

"Physical" and "genetic" aren't synonyms.

I misspoke on the genetic part. I was probably confusing Dawkins' Selfish Gene idea (which is a misnomer since genes aren't selfish!) with the "God Gene" theory. I thought you were doubting they were physical entities that literally leapt from brain to brain. Sethbag said this was a misunderstanding back in May so I thought you were arguing the same thing.

Heh. "I think" is implied in every single thing I write. Is this what you are reduced to Kevin?

Reduced to? I said you haven't provided a refutation to the fine-tuned argument. You responded by saying you've responded to the stuff. Talking about things and refuting them are not the same thing. And from what I remember, you were arguing along the same lines as Dawkins (i.e "God doesn't explain anything either")

Actually, you did say I had never responded to it or something to that effect.

Yes, I remember. But at the time I said that, I wasn't aware of your responses at ZLMB. You said I was participating on that forum, which is true. But I wasn't participating in those particular discussions.

You also said or implied (I don't recall) that I hadn't even heard of the argument until recently. I then went to considerable trouble looking up old threads to refute this assertion. I know you won't think my responses compelling. That's your M.O. Kevin. Of course, that was the M.O. of Mormon Kevin too. He never was all that impressed and wasn't shy about saying so. But one day he completely flipped, which suggests what goes on underneath the facade is a little more complex than that.

I know I am but what are you?

Delusion is a technical term used in psychology, which is how I'm interpreting it here.

It is also a favorite choice among atheists in explaining their minority status in the world. It is also on the cover of Dawkins' most popular book.

Part of my job is determining if people are being delusional after all.

You're a psychologist, seriously?

They're not idiots. Well, I'm sure some are. But for the most part, they're just wrong. Just plain wrong. When someone says X is a good theistic justification and others say it isn't, somebody has got to be wrong.

Well we can agree on that last statement.

Again? I'm not even talking about Collins. Collins buys into a design argument offered by C.S. Lewis, often confused for a moral argument because the object of design in this case is our sense of right and wrong.

How many other biologists, former atheists converted to theism by the moral argument have you mentioned in the past?

Of course, Collins also busies himself going after how dumb and mendacious other design arguments you also buy are, so there's that.

No he doesn't.

Collins is an interesting fellow because of the juxtaposition between attacking some design arguments and accepting another a design argument when they fail for the same reasons.

No he doesn't.

Go ahead and say it. You haven't really read Collins' book have you? Collins and I agree completely on the argument from design. Don't confuse ID with the anthropic principle.

[_EAllusion]

No the citation said it wasn't merely metaphorical, but also technical. But what he meant by that was not at all clear.

It was easily understandable Kevin. You should've got it when he talked about neurons. He's just trying to point out that memes are biological things and not just a metaphor for something ineffable. He's trying to say he's talking about a real thing cleaved in nature.

Heh. "I think" is implied in every single thing I write. Is this what you are reduced to Kevin?

Reduced to? Yes, trying to correct me by adding "I think" when "I think" is implicit in whatever I say. Every now and then I see this gambit, and it reflects poorly on the user each time.

How many other biologists, former atheists converted to theism by the moral argument have you mentioned in the past?

None. That doesn't even include Collins, technically. I've mentioned a few biologist believers I know who buy moral reasoning for God, but there was no real conversion there. Just lifelong believers who think the design argument is dumb while at the same time buy into an idea that is received just as poorly in ethics as creationism is in biology. It's just a way of pointing out that theistic arguments tend to get rejected in their native fields, but have more appeal to those outside of those areas of expertise. This is just to respond to the the appeal to scholars to buy various theistic arguments. Apparently, I'm supposed to be impressed to the point that I reconsider my confidence in their wrongness. Look into the details, and it appears less impressive - less respectable. After all, there isn't a single attempt at theistic justification that has any significant standing in its relevant field. The closest I can think of are some epistemological views of Alston et al. Definitely not fine-tuning, which is what you are into as of late.

No he doesn't.

Yes he does. The reasons why Behe's argument for design for the bacterial flagellum fails ultimately applies to Collins argument for moral sense just the same. Collins deals with because he thinks evolution can explain some things, but not others. He doesn't really get to the core of what is wrong with the design inference in the first place.

Go ahead and say it. You haven't really read Collins' book have you? Collins and I agree completely on the argument from design. Don't confuse ID with the anthropic principle.

[/quote]

Collins also buys the fine-tuning argument. What he rejects is ID reasoning that not that long ago you were pimping. Have you had one of your famous changes of heart? Maybe in a year you'll be talking about how naïve fine-tuning arguments are while pointing out how unassailable Plantinga's sensus divintus argument is. Never can tell with you.

[_dartagnan]

Reduced to? Yes, trying to correct me by adding "I think" when "I think" is implicit in whatever I say.

Sure, but there is a difference between saying I'm the smartest person in the world, and "I think" I am the smartest person in the world.

Every now and then I see this gambit, and it reflects poorly on the user each time.

Only if you misundertand the application. I am not denying that it is implicit that you "think" it. I am denying that you refuted something simply because you said it, regardless if you think it.

Yes he does.

No he doesn't. Not the "design" argument I follow.

The reasons why Behe's argument for design for the bacterial flagellum fails ultimately applies to Collins argument for moral sense just the same. Collins deals with because he thinks evolution can explain some things, but not others. He doesn't really get to the core of what is wrong with the design inference in the first place.

Again, I know he rejects ID. I've read the book. I own the book, somewhere. And he doesn't "attack" it as vehemently as you imply.

Collins also buys the fine-tuning argument.

Right. It seems this is the most persuasive among intellectual theists.

What he rejects is ID reasoning that not that long ago you were pimping.

I was? I remember you asking me to clarify my position on the design argument and I explicitly clarified it to be that of a finely-tuned universe. You're probably referring to a time when I assumed the official "Intelligent Design" was referring to the design of the universe. I wasn't familir with the official movement a year ago, only the name. The ID movement deals strictly with biological arguments it seems, which has never been an issue for me because I'm not a biologist, who wouldn't know a good biological argument if it slapped me in the face.

[Guest]

I mentioned sociobiology because it delves into aspects of human social behavior. Understanding that human behavior can be traced to evolution, also, makes God dwindle, for me.

I guess, if you base all your behavior on beliefs.

Understanding how humans interact and how this changes over time strips away God being a mastermind of why humans are the way they are.

I have never said evolution discounts God and I've stated the opposite on this board a few times, yet, for me, understanding social behavior, cultural evolution, and biological evolution strips away many of the arguments people have made for God belief, to me.

What arguments? Because I can't think of a single argument for God that biological or sociological science discredits.

Biological evolution strips away the God made me just the way I am argument. I've seen people say that without God there couldn't be love, altruism, and the sort -- this can be explained by scientific theories that explore why humans interact the way they do and the benefits to these interactions in the continuation of our species. The personal experience is stated as proof of God and, yet, my understanding of cultural tendencies to assign a serotonin rush to a specific entity helps me to understand why people are swayed by personal testimony and their own experiences. Essentially understanding how humans interact strips away my need for God as the one that passes down morality. Understanding how cultures evolve explains how these beliefs are passed down from generation to generation and gradually change.

Well, neurotheology most definitely looks at innate aspect to God belief. There is other scientific research that seeks out why people have spiritual experiences.

All of which derive from materialistic approaches, and none of which have been shown to be valid.

So, you want to dismiss materialistic approaches that have not been shown to be valid, yet, are comfortable with going with the default of God did it? Scientists can study the natural world -- what would you have them study?

We are social creatures and in light of that there can be innate aspects to us that predispose us to have experiences and then the culture pretty much dictates what we label these experiences as.

Naturally. But belief in God has not shown to be a simple matter of cultural evolution. Religious affiliation perhaps, but not belief in a supreme deity. Every culture from every corner of the planet experiences the same phenomenon. This does nothing to discredit the fact that billions of people perceive a supreme entity. If it were a simple matter of culture or whatever, then we might expect people would be leaving it in droves once this became evident. But their experiences weigh heavily in their faith, and this something cultural exposure cannot account for.

Most religions started out not worshiping a supreme entity. What religion can you reach back to in history where there was one supreme entity that has stayed the precise same way? Didn't most religions start out with different gods and goddesses (or spirits) being responsible for aspects of the natural world? As people learned more about the natural world how did these beliefs evolve? How did the deities evolve? Did the deities morph into one grand deity that became outside the scope of what was known?

You don't know it's neither.

And you don't know that it is. Why is it more reasonable to narrow something down strictly to two possibilities?

I said, in my opinion, that I think God belief can be explained as an innate feature, as well, as cultural. If there is something else I can add in there add it. Could there be other things? Sure. What are they? God exists? Is that the one thing it should be narrowed down to?

There is scientific research that seeks to look into spiritual/mystical/numinous experiences and even some theists grasp on to this research as pointing to God designing us with an ability to sense him.

What you are referring to are isolated experiences of the more extreme variety whereas I am discussing the near universal experience shared by humans around the globe. Calling research scientific doesn't make the findings valid. Show me a scientific research project and I'll show you scientists criticizing the methodology. Neurotheology is a perfect example of this.

You're right that there are criticisms into the research. Yet, that we're understanding that our brains are responsible for how we perceive the world is not that radical of a notion. If we know God how do we do so, Kevin? Through our heart that beats blood? I think not. Why not look to the organ that is responsible for processing our perceptions of the world about us?

Reasons for belief? You think most people that believe in God throughout history and even now listed reasons for their belief and thought of cosmological evidence to support their belief? I rather doubt that.

Well it is true nonetheless. The most powerful argument today is that of a fine-tuned universe. The argument is that nature around us makes God manifest. Not physically, but by what he has made with such necessary precision and purpose. There are literally hundreds of inexplicable laws and constants in our universe which share no common values except one: they are what they are in order to make life possible on earth.

I admit I haven't read much on this,yet, from what I understand the fine tuning argument rests on the idea that so many things must have come together just perfectly to allow life to form on this earth and who else but God could be responsible for this? God formed everything just so in order to create a marvelous world for us to live on and life to thrive (just the life we see here). I've read arguments that delve off into multiple universes... and it's all over my head at this point. I need to read more.

The Ancient Jews understood a similar argument from Psalms 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork." For the ancients, spiritual experiences and miracles were not the basis for belief. It was observation of reality that mattered. The apostle Paul said the same thing many centuries later, and the argument took a similar form by Muslim philosophers centuries later.

Okay, well, I don't see that quoting religious text can be looked to for explanations when it can be shown that there are places that religious text falls down in explaining the natural world.

Evolution explains changes over time. If there is scientific research that specifically looks to unlock portions of our brain that light up when undergoing religious experiences then why is this any different than looking into the other aspects of human evolution

We have the technical equipment to view portions of the brain and we get to see all sorts of areas light up under various conditions. But what do you think this proves exactly?

It proves that if I poke you in the right place your brain detects it and lights up. It proves that this is the organ responsible for processing how we interact with the world. Let me assume for a moment God exists. How do people know God? Through the brain? If people are saying they are experiencing a presence of God and a certain portion of their brain lights up (same portion of the brain in other subjects, as well) then we can draw a few conclusions about that, can't we?

We know language evolved. Culture evolves. Brains have evolved. This is fact.

Nobody is disputing it either. I'm just saying this has nothing to do with God belief. Brain size pertains to intelligence, in most cases, but there is no evidence it pertains to beliefs, other than as a means to store them. Nor is there evidence that beliefs come from our brain in the first place. Now we're getting into the distinction between brain and mind, and depending on the premise one accepts, the conclusion will be very different. I have a brain, but I am not my brain. I could have half my brain removed by surgeons and I would still be me.

Okay, well, if I had a portion of my brain removed I wouldn't be me. Ever seen someone after a car accident where they had brain damage? They're not the same person, usually. Where do you think beliefs come from?