Originally posted by rvsakhadeoPersonally I don't see any need to postulate a 'god' or 'religion' gene in order to explain the origin and persistence of religion 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 avalanchethecatReligiosity is a word I connect with this apparent genetic trait. Genetically we do pass on traits and religiosity may well be one of them, as may be a predilection for music for example. I would hardly think it is a universal trait nor an argument for or against a deity.
Personally I don't see any need to postulate a 'god' or 'religion' gene in order to explain the origin and persistence of religion in evolutionary terms.
The other point I was seeking to make was the definition of what we mean by religion.
While some may see Buddhism as a religion, and I think large aspects of it fit the definition, there is a whole stream of it that avoids theistic modes (sometimes practiced as a form of tantra) and is predominantly uses a philosophical, meditative approach to deeper insights about life, the principal liberating one being that which BB has referred to.
And religions are all very varied in nature, even the theistic ones. It is easy to debunk religious feeling by pointing to its worst and most destructive manifestations. Religion cannot be divorced from the times it arose in, and every time has had extremely brutal expression even in the non-religious field. However I think fanatic religious beliefs are ever a past and present scourge, and an indication of a primitiveness we desperately need to evolve past still.
Like man himself, religion also has higher forms of expression, and can have very compassionate, tolerant rational expression like liberal Christianity, that, as ever, the "only-I-am-right" fundamentalists portray as of the devil also. Ho hum.
Originally posted by sonhouseHow do you know there is no fundamental truth? Because all the religions make contradictory claims?
No fundamental truth, there are too many religions saying too many contradictory things for there to be truth in any of them. Nobody knows anything more than anyone else on the planet, we are all in the dark when it comes to fundamental truths. Most religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the like are more concerned with controlling men and subjugating women.
This is not spirituality, this is control pure and simple.
Isn't it possible that all religions teach some truth, but that no religion has all the truth, or just maybe one of them does?
It seems to me, judging by what you said, that you haven't thought it through. To state categorically that there is no fundamental truth you have in essence stumbled on a fundamental truth. One that is self contradictory.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseNo fundamental truth, there are too many religions saying too many contradictory things for there to be truth in any of them.
No fundamental truth, there are too many religions saying too many contradictory things for there to be truth in any of them. Nobody knows anything more than anyone else on the planet, we are all in the dark when it comes to fundamental truths. Most religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the like are more concerned with controlling men and subjugating women.
This is not spirituality, this is control pure and simple.
I understand your frustration, but your statement is completely illogical. Just because two (or more) religions contradict each other doesn't necessarily entail they are both (or all) wrong.
Nobody knows anything more than anyone else on the planet, we are all in the dark when it comes to fundamental truths.
Would you say that it is a "fundamental truth" that we are all in the dark when it comes to "fundamental truths"? If so, how can you be sure that we are all in the dark when it comes to "fundamental truths"?
Most religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the like are more concerned with controlling men and subjugating women.
As a Christian, how am I being controlled? Please enlighten me, because so far this has not been my experience.
Originally posted by TaomanOh I wasn't really disagreeing with you, friend, I see a lot of good stuff in your posts and respect your opinions. I was just clarifying my own position following rvsakhadeo's question. I'm pretty confident that the behavioural traits that lead to religious belief are consequent to genetics, but I reckon it's probably a bit more complicated than a simple genetic predisposition towards religiosity.
Religiosity is a word I connect with this apparent genetic trait. Genetically we do pass on traits and religiosity may well be one of them, as may be a predilection for music for example. I would hardly think it is a universal trait nor an argument for or against a deity.
The other point I was seeking to make was the definition of what we mean by religion. ...[text shortened]... ty, that, as ever, the "only-I-am-right" fundamentalists portray as of the devil also. Ho hum.
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecathow is this simple Christian principle, 'support the weak', explained in evolutionary terms? Are we not told that in evolutionary terms, its those weaker elements which are to be overcome and ultimately suffer extinction? Please explain.
Oh I wasn't really disagreeing with you, friend, I see a lot of good stuff in your posts and respect your opinions. I was just clarifying my own position following rvsakhadeo's question. I'm pretty confident that the behavioural traits that lead to religious belief are consequent to genetics, but I reckon it's probably a bit more complicated than a simple genetic predisposition towards religiosity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere's a wealth of discussion across the web on the evolutionary benefits of 'altruistic' behaviour. Have you really never encountered any of it?
how is this simple Christian principle, 'support the weak', explained in evolutionary terms? Are we not told that in evolutionary terms, its those weaker elements which are to be overcome and ultimately suffer extinction? Please explain.
Incidentally, as a principle I reckon it's rather older and more widespread than simply 'Christian'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRead 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. Your answer can be found in there, but of course you won't. You prefer the darkness.
how is this simple Christian principle, 'support the weak', explained in evolutionary terms? Are we not told that in evolutionary terms, its those weaker elements which are to be overcome and ultimately suffer extinction? Please explain.
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatyes i have encountered it, but none of it is satisfactory, can you not explain it is simple terms, with reference and example, after all, you did make the assertion, did you not? The fact that the principle may be older and more widespread is besides the point.
There's a wealth of discussion across the web on the evolutionary benefits of 'altruistic' behaviour. Have you really never encountered any of it?
Incidentally, as a principle I reckon it's rather older and more widespread than simply 'Christian'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes i have encountered it, but none of it is satisfactory
yes i have encountered it, but none of it is satisfactory, can you not explain it is simple terms, with reference and example, after all, you did make the assertion, did you not?
Well then read the book i suggested. You can buy it on Amazon second hand for £1-80, here's the link -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1309201008&sr=8-2
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou have read it, and yet, you seem unwilling/unable to provide me with a single example, what chance therefore, does a poor theist have, if, a passionate atheist cannot come up with the goods after reading it.
[b]yes i have encountered it, but none of it is satisfactory
Well then read the book i suggested. You can buy it on Amazon second hand for £1-80, here's the link -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1309201008&sr=8-2[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatwhat about art and beauty, what are the evolutionary benefits of appreciating art and beauty, what about appreciation of music, how does that benefit us in evolutionary terms?
There's a wealth of discussion across the web on the evolutionary benefits of 'altruistic' behaviour. Have you really never encountered any of it?
Incidentally, as a principle I reckon it's rather older and more widespread than simply 'Christian'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am currently reading the book but have not read it for a while, life has got in the way ie. drumming.
you have read it, and yet, you seem unwilling/unable to provide me with a single example, what chance therefore, does a poor theist have, if, a passionate atheist cannot come up with the goods after reading it.
Fear not about the complexity, you'll be dealing with arguably the greatest science writer of our generation. As the quote from the New York Times review on the front cover says -
....the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius....
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobok, i can wait, are you sure the NYT did not state the greatest science fiction writer of our generation?
I am currently reading the book but have not read it for a while, life has got in the way ie. drumming.
Fear not about the complexity, you'll be dealing with arguably the greatest science writer of our generation. As the quote from the New York Times review on the front cover says -....the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius....
'the sort of popular science fiction writing that makes the reader feel like a genius',