Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]It is interesting to me that apparently there actually IS a "religious gene", wiring sensitivity to religious feeling/expression into the brain. One then asks, why?

The simple answer for the evolutionist is that somehow this gene gave people a survival advantage. The other alternative is that maybe this gene got 'carried' by another gene. We kn ...[text shortened]... the ride.

Dawkin's goes into this in greater detail in 'The God Delusion'.[/b]

Interesting, have you materialist actually identified a God gene or are you wildly speculating as usual, trying to reduce spirituality to that which is purely material, AGAIN!, as if, spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Interesting, have you materialist actually identified a God gene or are you wildly speculating as usual, trying to reduce spirituality to that which is purely material, AGAIN!, as if, spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements.

There is no God gene, God is a human construct.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There is no God gene, God is a human construct.

You will have to account for those idle words.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You will have to account for those idle words.

It is YOU who have to account for your words of an illogical vindictive god who allows murder in its name.

Originally posted by Taoman
Thanks. Our meanings do arise from within.

I agree with most of what you express, but think some is too black and white. "No truth in any religion" is a BIG statement, really. Also, some in their highest forms, are rationally based philosophies rather than theistic religions.

It is interesting to me that apparently there actually IS a "religious gene", wiring sensitivity to religious feeling/expression into the brain. One then asks, why?

Jesse Bering published a book titled' The God Instinct ' in 2010,where he argues that God is not a delusion but a sophisticated cognitive illusion. Belief in God ,he says , carries poweful evolutionary benefits. He says God is not a cultural invention or an existential band-aid but an intrinsic human trait.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Jesse Bering published a book titled' The God Instinct ' in 2010,where he argues that God is not a delusion but a sophisticated cognitive illusion. Belief in God ,he says , carries poweful evolutionary benefits. He says God is not a cultural invention or an existential band-aid but an intrinsic human trait.

Of course the question you have asked i.e. why this trait has come about cannot be adequately answered by Evolutionists.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Of course the question you have asked i.e. why this trait has come about cannot be adequately answered by Evolutionists.

I'm not entirely sure which question you're referring to, but the origin and persistence of religion can easily be explained in evolutionary terms.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Jesse Bering published a book titled' The God Instinct ' in 2010,where he argues that God is not a delusion but a sophisticated cognitive illusion. Belief in God ,he says , carries poweful evolutionary benefits. He says God is not a cultural invention or an existential band-aid but an intrinsic human trait.

"Intrinsic" is a strong word. I'm sure you would agree that some evolutionary developments are advantageous under certain circumstances but become disadvantageous (or, at least, vestigial) as circumstances change.

Further, if humans who are non-theistic are evolutionarily disadvantaged, or if the existence of non-theistic humans is disadvantageous to the species, why are there any non-theistic humans? Not only do they exist, they are, nowadays, a sort of protected species in some thriving societies, and are relatively scarce, even disfavored, in some societies that are not currently thriving. In yet others, they are not particularly protected, but are abundant anyway, because the religions are more tolerant and less theocratically inclined. An answer that is consistent with the data is that diversity with respect to theism (i.e., the existence of some non-theism) confers an advantage on the species as a whole or a society within the species. It may be that while theism offers some benefit, non-theists are more prone to fill a niche in a society that contributes to that society's overall well being and relative success. Of course it may also be the case that theism and atheism are both becoming vestigial; witness the relatively recent arrival of the word "apatheism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Finally, I wonder why Bering would say that theism is not a cultural invention or a "band-aid." Those characterizations could apply to something that exists because it confers an evolutionary advantage. This is made more evident when it is realized that the diversity of belief -- some theists, some non-theists -- appears to be the advantageous situation, so that theism is not the cultural current status, diversity of belief about god is, and diversity of belief is certainly not a reason to say that theism is the aspect that is intrinsic to humans. if anything here is intrinsic, it is the diversity of belief, and it is diversity that we should celebrate and promote.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I'm not entirely sure which question you're referring to, but the origin and persistence of religion can easily be explained in evolutionary terms.

I was referring to Taoman's question as to why was this "Religion Gene" came about? What was the evolutionary need for that?

Originally posted by JS357
"Intrinsic" is a strong word. I'm sure you would agree that some evolutionary developments are advantageous under certain circumstances but become disadvantageous (or, at least, vestigial) as circumstances change.

Further, if humans who are non-theistic are evolutionarily disadvantaged, or if the existence of non-theistic humans is disadvantageous to the sp ...[text shortened]... it is the diversity of belief, and it is diversity that we should celebrate and promote.

Sure, celebrate the diversity of religion that causes war? Since religion is a man made artifact, shouldn't there be world wide rules about killing in the name of religion? Real world wide consequences? Like real consequences for apostasy for instance, just to name one barbaric practice. Or the maiming of young girls vagina's for religious reasons. Or witch hunts. Some world wide set of rules that would keep the best of religion and absolutely squash the incredibly barbaric aspects, like subjugation of women for religious reasons, women forced to worship in separate places, for instance. Women not being allowed in the upper ranks of religious power.
Do that and my objection to religion would disappear.

Originally posted by JS357
"Intrinsic" is a strong word. I'm sure you would agree that some evolutionary developments are advantageous under certain circumstances but become disadvantageous (or, at least, vestigial) as circumstances change.

Further, if humans who are non-theistic are evolutionarily disadvantaged, or if the existence of non-theistic humans is disadvantageous to the sp ...[text shortened]... it is the diversity of belief, and it is diversity that we should celebrate and promote.

Why such "Instinct" or "Intrinsic Trait" should arise in humans? Why only humans are carrying that gene? How is that the higher vertebrates like the apes from whom we are supposed to have evolved have hardly reached even an human infant's IQ,let alone develope adaptation like the God gene ?Is this not a tremendous evolutionary gap between our evolutionary predecessors and us?Such type of questions perplex us i.e. myself and Taoman.
By the way I went to the link you gave me and thanks for it!
I do feel however that the apathy shown by many modern youth towards the range of questions of theism/atheism/agnostic-ism hardly deserves to be given a name of a mode of thinking viz.apatheism.It is more likely a syndrome resulting from a surfeit of sensual pleasures and absence of parental/societal guidance.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Sure, celebrate the diversity of religion that causes war? Since religion is a man made artifact, shouldn't there be world wide rules about killing in the name of religion? Real world wide consequences? Like real consequences for apostasy for instance, just to name one barbaric practice. Or the maiming of young girls vagina's for religious reasons. Or witch ...[text shortened]... in the upper ranks of religious power.
Do that and my objection to religion would disappear.

I don't think the rules about killing should differentiate on the basis of whether it is religiously driven, but agree with your objection otherwise. Basically, if we are to celebrate and promote diversity, we can't support those who seek to eliminate it. It's a bit of a paradox, but choices have to be made.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Sure, celebrate the diversity of religion that causes war? Since religion is a man made artifact, shouldn't there be world wide rules about killing in the name of religion? Real world wide consequences? Like real consequences for apostasy for instance, just to name one barbaric practice. Or the maiming of young girls vagina's for religious reasons. Or witch ...[text shortened]... in the upper ranks of religious power.
Do that and my objection to religion would disappear.

There is only one religion that promotes love rather than hate and also has
a saviour so our sins against God can be forgiven and makes sense. You
should know what that is without me telling you, but I will mention it
anyway. It is the Judo-Christian religion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is only one religion that promotes love rather than hate and also has
a saviour so our sins against God can be forgiven and makes sense. You
should know what that is without me telling you, but I will mention it
anyway. It is the Judo-Christian religion.

You worship Judo? What about the other ones, Karate, Savate, MMA, Akido? Didn't know anyone would worship them, except maybe for Bruce Lee....

So your religion is the religion of love? How do you explain the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the attempted forced teaching of creationism to be taught in a science class as opposed to a religion class? Exactly where is the love there?

Originally posted by Taoman
Thanks. Our meanings do arise from within.

I agree with most of what you express, but think some is too black and white. "No truth in any religion" is a BIG statement, really. Also, some in their highest forms, are rationally based philosophies rather than theistic religions.

It is interesting to me that apparently there actually IS a "religious gene", wiring sensitivity to religious feeling/expression into the brain. One then asks, why?

Methinks theoplacia alone is the cause of the birth of any religion. There is no such a thing as a specific religious concept that came into reality out of a non pre-existing idea; ignorance alone turned the people into religionists in first place, and these religionists stayed as ignorant as before although they had at last “the answer”. Whatever it was impossible to be answered, it was “action of God” or “God’s message”…

It never occurred in the universal history of the religions a pure theoplacia that brought up a single religion that was not based on the field of ignorance or on pure fantasy. Every new religion is a metalaxis or an exelixis of a previous one, even when both of them have a quite different moral axis; this is, for example, the reason why from the model of Dionyssos we came to the model of Jesus: although the two personas are quite different, the latter is a meta-concept of the former. In addition, Christianity could never consolidate its authority if it was not based on previous theoplacia’s concepts. In fact, for the fundamental Christian (regardless of denomination) everything that represents the pro-Christian religious beliefs (and the beliefs of religions that emerged after Christianity, ie Islam), is supposed to be evil, it is supposed that it “derives from Satan”.

So I see no such a thing as a religious gene; and I do not rely on gods. I just see the endless agony of the mankind during its struggle to find something solid to stand on firmly. But there is nothing solid; just



Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy
😵