Originally posted by sonship
SwissGambit

Evolution isn't a guiding force. It's like throwing a pile of crap at a wall. Most slides off, but some of it sticks.

Do you REALLY believe that such a random process could arrive at the human brain - here contemplating its own existence ?

As Googlefudge said, it is not a random process. And yes, it did.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Gee, thanks for the links.

Second sentence of the first link:

"Barbara King argues that while non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion."

And, otherwise, adds nothing but unconvincing and uninteresting speculation.

The second link offers nearly zero. In ...[text shortened]... alism in the place of religion, you'd have nearly the exact substance.

Any ideas of your own?

Exactly. No evidence, just speculation and not even good speculation.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The predictability is that the adaptation best suited for the environment will survive.

I don't think its a huge leap to see better brain power as a useful attribute.

Perhaps the first brain is more difficult to explain but I'm sure somebody
on here can clearly explain that.

The predictability is that the adaptation best suited for the environment will survive.

This sentence doesn't make the phenomenon of trillions of trial and error random mutations arriving at a self conscious brain easier to believe.

For one, over such a huge amount of time needed the environment would change drastically. The environment of earth over 4 billions years is supposed to have varied greatly.

The environment hasn't "held still" for the duration of the trillions of combinations of the stuff of brain grey matter to adapt to one condition.

And this "adapting" is the amazing capacity of consciousness ??!

I don't think its a huge leap to see better brain power as a useful attribute.

It is more than a huge leap to assume how consciousness arose from material. How much does the ego weigh ?

Perhaps the first brain is more difficult to explain but I'm sure somebody
on here can clearly explain that.

Anybody want to try ?

Originally posted by sonship
[b For one, over such a huge amount of time needed the environment would change drastically. The environment of earth over 4 billions years is supposed to have varied greatly.
[/b]

For god's sake get a basic book on evolution.
(You don't have to believe it ... just read it!)

The only environment that is important is the one the organism is living in.

Animals maybe not best adapted to their current environment (pandas!)
but they are the result of their forbears being better adapted to their
environments than their cousins.

Originally posted by sonship

The predictability is that the adaptation best suited for the environment will survive.

This sentence doesn't make the phenomenon of trillions of trial and error random mutations arriving at a self conscious brain easier to believe.

For one, over such a huge amount of time needed the environment would change drastically. The enviro ...[text shortened]... lain but I'm sure somebody
on here can clearly explain that. [/quote]

Anybody want to try ?

"The environment hasn't "held still" for the duration of the trillions of combinations of the stuff of brain grey matter to adapt to one condition. "

How do you know this? I'm just asking, how do you come to know this? I would like to know this, if it is true. Help me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That penchant for religion, or god gene as I also referred to it, is not found in any animal save man.

As I pointed out, it is a whole range of factors, so 'god gene' is a particularly bad characterization as that seems to suggest a single factor.
So your claim that it is not found in any other animal is flawed, as some of the characteristics most certainly are found in other animals. In fact, almost all of them are. The main reason religion is not common in other animals is the difficulty in preaching to them.

Originally posted by sonship

The predictability is that the adaptation best suited for the environment will survive.

This sentence doesn't make the phenomenon of trillions of trial and error random mutations arriving at a self conscious brain easier to believe.

For one, over such a huge amount of time needed the environment would change drastically. The enviro ...[text shortened]... lain but I'm sure somebody
on here can clearly explain that. [/quote]

Anybody want to try ?

i think we have a little stumbling block between us. which is the use and meaning of the word 'consciousness'. to you consciousness is tied in to your beliefs, it has an extra special meaning that isnt really there from the perspective of science. the definition of the word is pretty vague, but i would say it boils down to levels of 'self-awareness'. which i feel is something that can be increased by natural selection, rooted in selfishness. not too selfish though, as the individual needs the tribe to be successful, i think between looking out for the self and the tribe those with more 'awareness' succeed.

"Perhaps the first brain is more difficult to explain but I'm sure somebody
on here can clearly explain that."

all you need to do is look at nature. we already have the brain in all its states from fatty tissue around a light sensitive cell on a tiny organism all the way up to the human noggin. its there in all its glory.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In a previous thread, the idea was offered how man's penchant for religion could be explained in evolutionary terms, i.e., there existed some evolutionary benefit to the development of religion--- even if such benefits have since expired.

This position[hidden]really, anything related to evolution-as-a-guiding force[/hidden] leads to a few unresolved que ...[text shortened]... many of them are physical in nature in comparison to the amount which were conceptual in nature?

Edit: “For starters, what are the supposed benefits to (what usefulness is conveyed as a result of) religion as it relates to evolution?”

The provision of a solid sense of core identity to the members of a specific group of people, and in addition the clear differentiation of that group from others;


Edit: “Why is man the only creature with the god gene?”

Oh why is man the “only” creature with the …algebra gene? Show me this so called god gene, for I ‘m a human being –and methinks not the only one– without it;


Edit: “What other temporary steps could religion be compared to, e.g., what other bridges in man's alleged evolutionary climb were formerly useful, now discarded?”

All kinds of attitude that promotes the dualistic approach “Them/ Us”. Nazism was formerly useful for the Germans, now it ‘s discarded;


Edit: “Assuming these formerly useful steps, how many of them are physical in nature in comparison to the amount which were conceptual in nature?”

Methinks all religions are man-made and thus conceptual in nature, although the concept of religion is related to an evolutionist advantage of a specific social group over the others. Religions will die on their own when their circle will be done, that is when the concept of non-religion will better serve the core identity and the worries of the human beings. You see, methinks all states of being are determined by mind; so to me it ‘s the mind that leads the way, not the religions, although the religions at some point lead the mind of the believers -of the human beings that became at last products of their religious products. The ultimate stuff of reality is epiontic, not this or that G-d which is wrongly supposed by the religious personages that brought this stuff into being
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I pointed out, it is a whole range of factors, so 'god gene' is a particularly bad characterization as that seems to suggest a single factor.
So your claim that it is not found in any other animal is flawed, as some of the characteristics most certainly are found in other animals. In fact, almost all of them are. The main reason religion is not common in other animals is the difficulty in preaching to them.

While that is an amusing answer, it doesn't rise to the level of engagement.

In the label of 'god gene,' I am hyphenating the entire religious spectrum which has colored man's entire history, for no other purpose than brevity.
Despite the supposed and alleged similarities of attendant capacities found in the other animals, there is literally nothing recorded in any account written by man which would attest to the religious nature of animals.
Not a few here or there: nothing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While that is an amusing answer, it doesn't rise to the level of engagement.

In the label of 'god gene,' I am hyphenating the entire religious spectrum which has colored man's entire history, for no other purpose than brevity.
Despite the supposed and alleged similarities of attendant capacities found in the other animals, there is literally n ...[text shortened]... by man which would attest to the religious nature of animals.
Not a few here or there: nothing.

im not sure this makes any sense, brevity????


believing in god is just a bi-product of us developing the ability to cook........no cooking, no god.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While that is an amusing answer, it doesn't rise to the level of engagement.

I am not sure why you find it amusing, nor what the second half of your sentence means.

In the label of 'god gene,' I am hyphenating the entire religious spectrum which has colored man's entire history, for no other purpose than brevity.
Well your attempt at brevity is in danger of misleading both yourself and others. It has clearly mislead yourself as you have gone on to make claims that do not make sense. You have essentially claimed that 'the entire religious spectrum' is unique to man, which is clearly false.
I suggest you avoid careless labelling for the sake of brevity.

Despite the supposed and alleged similarities of attendant capacities found in the other animals, there is literally nothing recorded in any account written by man which would attest to the religious nature of animals.
I suspect you just haven't read very much, or you are using a very narrow definition of 'religious nature' despite your very expansive 'entire religious spectrum' you used earlier.
Certainly for you to claim to know the contents of every account written by man is simply ridiculous.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your emoticons are cute.
You should use them more often to express your innermost feelings.

I have put the conversation out there, and owe you zero[hidden]the amount you offered in supporting your position previously, curiously[/hidden]with respect to demonstrating my homework.

It is obvious I know something about the topic in raising it in the firs ...[text shortened]... measure of thrill, I'd rather engage in a thoughtful consideration of the topic, if you're game.

Why do you keep couching text inside hidden boxes? Do you work in the fortune cookie industry?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think we have a little stumbling block between us. which is the use and meaning of the word 'consciousness'. to you consciousness is tied in to your beliefs, it has an extra special meaning that isnt really there from the perspective of science. the definition of the word is pretty vague, but i would say it boils down to levels of 'self-awareness'. wh ...[text shortened]... ensitive cell on a tiny organism all the way up to the human noggin. its there in all its glory.

i think we have a little stumbling block between us. which is the use and meaning of the word 'consciousness'. to you consciousness is tied in to your beliefs, it has an extra special meaning that isnt really there from the perspective of science.

So Psychology is NOT a science ? And in Psychology there is no such thing as consciousness?

Maybe you are making the mistake of assuming only Physics or Cosmology is "science."

The concept of consciousness is a part of the sciences.

the definition of the word is pretty vague, but i would say it boils down to levels of 'self-awareness'.

I don't know what you think you have accomplished by suggesting that the concept is open to further clarification and discussion to pinpoint exactly what is meant by consciousness. The same could be said for time or energy or motion or mass, etc.

Precise ways of defining these concepts is also sometimes under some amount of vagueness. You do not dismiss their reality because of that.

which i feel is something that can be increased by natural selection, rooted in selfishness. not too selfish though, as the individual needs the tribe to be successful, i think between looking out for the self and the tribe those with more 'awareness' succeed.

How matter arose to be self aware or "selfish" is a gigantic enigma, a mystery indeed.

stella -
"Perhaps the first brain is more difficult to explain but I'm sure somebody
on here can clearly explain that."

all you need to do is look at nature. we already have the brain in all its states from fatty tissue around a light sensitive cell on a tiny organism all the way up to the human noggin. its there in all its glory.

"Just look at nature" doesn't help unravel the practically miraculous phenomenon of material to self awareness through random mutation and natural selection.

We also have everything from a marble rolling along to an electric locomotive. But there is a great deal of intelligent engineering spanning the method of movement of one to the method of movement of the other.

"No Big Deal" just doesn't do it for me. How did material become "self aware"?

And how much does the typical human ego weigh in grams or whatever physical measurement ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure why you find it amusing, nor what the second half of your sentence means.

[b]In the label of 'god gene,' I am hyphenating the entire religious spectrum which has colored man's entire history, for no other purpose than brevity.
Well your attempt at brevity is in danger of misleading both yourself and others. It has clearly mi ...[text shortened]... inly for you to claim to know the contents of every account written by man is simply ridiculous.[/b]

I am not sure why you find it amusing...
I figured when you said

The main reason religion is not common in other animals is the difficulty in preaching to them.

that you meant it tongue in cheek.
Maybe not.

You have essentially claimed that 'the entire religious spectrum' is unique to man, which is clearly false.
Oh.
So you have some examples you care to cite which discuss the religiosity of any creature other than man?
You understand that this is the challenge put forth in the thread, right?
That man is the only religious creature on the planet?
If you're saying that I am wrong in claiming this, do the sensible thing: quote the source which provides proof of the religiosity of any creature outside of man.

Certainly for you to claim to know the contents of every account written by man is simply ridiculous.
I don't think you understand what we're discussing.
You simply couldn't understand it and say the things you're saying.
I am claiming--- very seriously, very emphatically--- that there exists no record of animals behaving in any way, shape or form similar in action to the evident religious nature of man.
If there exists any such record, make it available.
Otherwise, my belief on the topic remains warranted.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Why do you keep couching text inside hidden boxes? Do you work in the fortune cookie industry?

It's merely to avoid a wall of text.

You seem offended.Reveal Hidden Content