Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion: a survival mechanism?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 47 of 81 (190050)
03-04-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Brad McFall
03-04-2005 12:17 PM


Re: Another Type of Survival
Fascinating!
Now you've given me more to think about this weekend.
I probably won't continue this line of discussion since I think we might be heading off topic from the survival mechanism. We are probably going deeper than the original topic was aiming.
Thank you very much for talking with me.
Have an excellent weekend.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 03-04-2005 12:17 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 48 of 81 (190078)
03-04-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brad McFall
03-03-2005 7:24 PM


Re: Religious belief and health
I still don't see where you want to go with this, I think you are over-analyzing things. That's all I can say about it, because of what I'm going to say next.
Although I think your style has improved slightly, DominionSeraph is probably right: you start writing when you are already halfway a long train of thought. You seem to assume all of us have read Kant, Russel, Carnap, Jammer and others to such an extent that your merely mentioning them in passing explains everything you don't say. Well, "I know nothing, I'm from Barcelona." Let that be your starting point with me.
Brad McFall writes:
Carnap wrote that in Kant's Synthetic A priori in the Structure of Space in Philosophical Foundations of Physics in An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science edited by Martin Gardner.
This is how I would have said that:
Carnap wrote that in chapter 18 of his "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science", edited by Martin Gardner.
I know you can write plain sentences, Brad. Indulge me, and the discussion would become much less one-sided for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2005 7:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 03-04-2005 4:18 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 49 of 81 (190080)
03-04-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
03-04-2005 10:24 AM


Re: Just ignore him
NosyNed writes:
Just ignore him. He doesn't post often enough to be a real nuisance. He is doing the best he can and works hard at this posts. If you don't like them just don't read them.
Yes, but DominionSeraph had to ride that horse for quite a long thread didn't he. Maybe you Admins could just direct people like "Dom" to Brad's thread at All about Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2005 10:24 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-05-2005 4:55 AM Monk has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 50 of 81 (190081)
03-04-2005 3:46 PM


Plain old evolution
I wonder why no one has latched on to the idea of the brain evolving in such a way as to be "wired" for believing, the way it is suggested in the article. That way, the development of religion in man would have a solid, biological foundation, with the group-connected advantages as the selective element:
quote:
One factor in the development of religious belief was the rapid expansion of our brains as we emerged as a species, says Todd Murphy, a behavioural neuroscientist at Laurentian University in Canada. As the frontal and temporal lobes grew larger, our ability to extrapolate into the future and form memories developed. "When this happened, we acquired some very new and dramatic cognitive skills. For example, we could see a dead body and see ourselves in that position one day. We could think 'That's going to be me,'" he says. That awareness of impending death prompted questions: why are we here? What happens when we die? Answers were needed.
quote:
Some believe that religion was so successful in improving group survival that a tendency to believe was positively selected for in our evolutionary history.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 04 March 2005 20:50 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 03-04-2005 4:20 PM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 54 by robinrohan, posted 03-04-2005 6:20 PM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 57 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-05-2005 6:08 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 81 (190084)
03-04-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Parasomnium
03-04-2005 3:28 PM


Re: Religious belief and health
I think if you "Ramseyfy" Carnap's "gene" you do not get the same thing as doing WHAT HE DID for the "electron". It matters not whether you or I know what Carnap did. To justify what he thought only leads to the narrowing of the discussion but I see no stoping one from metasizing with ordertypes his ability to Ramsify any "theory" no matter what lingos or memes the scientists of the theory USE. That is my personal view. Take it or leave it but this question mark remains as I remarked it from Chapter 27 precisely.
So the particular sentence you selected is immaterial. I assert that it is due to failure to notice the signficance of nonadaptive traits that modern science hasnt seen what I already have in nature, irregardless of how we might talk about, what it is the scientists are acutally doing. Just try to imagine you are the person who selects which bird pics to include in ONE PAGE. It's not a hard thing. My grandfather wouldnt do it with stamps. He gave that job to my Grandmother. Martin Gardner also writes for Scientific American and I made my "insight" by comparing that presentation of science with another human one from TV. I try to present visually all there is to it. That's all. What else can I say? See the complex as simple. I did not want to refer to a paricular chapter at that time. NOW I DO! It is not a trick or optical illusion. You must knock over the first domino if you want to get out of jail free and not be carded.You don't suppose Dominion Seraph hacked my photobucket password do you?
The relevant paragraph for your thread actually was in Chapter 27 where you or I read,
quote:
"Consider, for instance, the assertion, "All red-headed woodpeckers have red heads." Is it analytic or synthetic? At first you may answer that it is, of course, analytic. "Red-headed woodpeckers"means"wood-peckers that have red heads", so the sentence is equivalent to the assertion that all woodpeckers with red heads have red heads. Such a sentence is not only A-true but also L-true.
You are right if the meaning of "red-headed woodpecker" is such that "having a red head" is, in fact, an essential component of the meaning. Vut is it an essential component? An ornithologist may hve a different understanding of "red-headed woodpecker". For him the term may refer to a speices of bird defined by a certain type of body structure, shape of bill, and behavior habits. He may consider it quite possible that this species of bird, in some isolated region, may have undergone a mutation that changed the color of its head to, say, white. For sound taxanomic reasons, he would continue to call such birds red-headed woodpeckers even though their heads were not red. They would be a species variant. He might even refer to them as "white-headed red-headed woodpeckers". Therefore, if "red-headed woodpecker" is so interpreted that having a red head is not an essential component, the sentence becomes synthetic."
I dont have any special system of thought I just know a little bit about shapes of herps that does not match anything but what is under the rock. It is wrong only to consider it mental when it is observational. That's all. Boy was I shocked to find Bishop's "white-headed" Desmognathus under a rock in South Carolina AND have Kraig Adler say my ability to notice that a large Plethodon from Virgina was distinct from all others described to 80s date WITHOUT DNA evidence. The herpetologist cared not for my ability to sort the form(although his grad student noticed and that is why I was asked to sort through fish in Africa) but only for the latest technology to sort what I already sorted mentally. What a blow it was to see how science really worked! Some day I should get paid for my ability which I carry over to the evc discussion, but not today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Parasomnium, posted 03-04-2005 3:28 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 52 of 81 (190087)
03-04-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Parasomnium
03-04-2005 3:46 PM


Re: Plain old evolution
I thought I kinda did in Message 7.
Breeding the foxes for tameness.
We might be wired to believe as a child, but are we truly wired to believe into adulthood or have we been conditioned?
quote:
That awareness of impending death prompted questions: why are we here? What happens when we die? Answers were needed.
I don't feel that answering these questions would automatically lead to religion. Stories maybe, but not necessarily religion or a supreme being.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Parasomnium, posted 03-04-2005 3:46 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Parasomnium, posted 03-04-2005 5:48 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 53 of 81 (190101)
03-04-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by purpledawn
03-04-2005 4:20 PM


Re: Plain old evolution
purpledawn writes:
We might be wired to believe as a child, but are we truly wired to believe into adulthood or have we been conditioned?
The point is that, to be wired as a child, we necessarily have a brain that is capable of believing things. To be able to be conditioned to believe certain things, we need to have the hardware first.
purpledawn writes:
quote:
That awareness of impending death prompted questions: why are we here? What happens when we die? Answers were needed.
I don't feel that answering these questions would automatically lead to religion. Stories maybe, but not necessarily religion or a supreme being.
Well, the questions must lead to something, and it might just have happened to have been religion. Besides, stories may be very magical to a mind that has barely risen out of the swamp of animal instinctiveness, especially so if the stories are about what happens after death. We're not talking about people who are sophisticated, calling themselves Jews and everything, I'm thinking rather of people who have just overcome the grunting stage. I can imagine that, once a mind grasps the idea of its own existence, it's very hard for it to contemplate it's eventual non-existence.
{edited to change "maybe" into "may be"}
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07 March 2005 10:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 03-04-2005 4:20 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by purpledawn, posted 03-05-2005 7:20 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 81 (190104)
03-04-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Parasomnium
03-04-2005 3:46 PM


Re: Plain old evolution
"I wonder why no one has latched on to the idea of the brain evolving in such a way as to be "wired" for believing . . ."
I suppose that the only thing that matters in regard to religion is whether it's true or not. If it's not true, it's totally pointless. If it is true, it's the only thing that matters.
But I suppose one might speculate that if one is "wired" for religious belief, then one might be wired for other beliefs as well.
What other things? Oh, all sorts of things. One might be wired, for example, to believe in the superiority of the group; others, the individual. Or one might be wired to believe in capitalism or socialism or the superiority of those who are tall or bald.
I guess if we are wired, we can't help it, so we are not to be blamed for our delusions. I'm wired to believe in reincarnation, I think. I have recurrent dreams of past lives.
I'm also wired to believe in the "tinniness" of all this talk about people being wired for this or that.
No, no. That will not do.
I am wired to believe that I am responsible for every action in my life, much of which is reprehensible, some of which is okay.
No, the best explanation of religion is the following idea: I feel is if I am incorporeal (from an earlier post by Parasomnium).

The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.---Milton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Parasomnium, posted 03-04-2005 3:46 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Parasomnium, posted 03-07-2005 3:06 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 55 of 81 (190142)
03-05-2005 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brad McFall
03-04-2005 10:38 AM


Brad McFall writes:
One thing you find is that one's notion of genetical continuity, no matter the group(,) is somewhat tied, to the one's feelings about the recent history of physics. If you think you can talk about what is taken advantage of in the "next" generation, biologically (of religin, fetishes, taste of food, spice etc) then it seems odd, to have said ("than") that you think by simply making the kind of "blanket" statements that you (do""),,, retain, any gains that Jammer narrated, as linked @Renouvier to Poincare to Bohr to Feynman say... without dealing with Kierkegaard! There are ending possibilities indeed. They/that would be just fine for a physicist but as soon as you notice Kierkegarrd in the discussion it is impossible to NOT deal with creationist issues.
And this is why I don't read the works of philosophers.
Humans are good at pattern matching, and reading someone else's reasoning creates a rut along that line of reasoning leading to their conclusion.
You seem to have matched something in this discussion to something Kierkegaard said, and then skipped merrily along the rut, right to his conclusion.
As for me, I don't have to deal with any creationist issues. My line of reasoning -- which is rigourously tested every step along the way -- doesn't lead in that direction.
Brad McFall writes:
You insist it seems, that I must be able in one sentence or two to communicate something that is up against the whole trend of modern science and do it as convincingly as the last 100yrs of scholarship combined.
You can take as much time and space as needed. However, as I think there's at least one or two basic assumptions that we differ on, we need to find the point of divergence.
"You exist."
I accept that, and I'm pretty sure you do too. (It's not axiomatic for me, though)
Take it from there.
Brad McFall writes:
I have no problem if you want to think you might be thinking like I think Gould might have been thinking
You qualified that nicely. Didn't define how you think Gould might have been thinking, but nice nonetheless.
Brad McFall writes:
but I really CAN engage a discussion of why I think this discontinuous and digital question is a mistake. It was a mistake when APPLES' computers first appeared on the Cornell campus and we were only using the mainframe and it is the same drag; and drop-today.
Why was it a mistake?
You didn't posit a goal, which is necessary for a determination of 'mistake' to be made.
Brad McFall writes:
Jammer links rejection of actual infinity, to, a conceptual philosophy of sciencem, to Poincare's denouncement against giving up differential equations, to,, the difference of kinematics and dynamics;from newer considerations on identity but coopts, the Lucretian exiguum clinamen principiorum rather for goals I think can not be, intellectually sustained, as biological trajectories of reproduction-educate-students, about,,, the/ transitivity/of/genetic transmission. Im stuck with that. You dont need to be. Be free.
I am free. In fact, I don't think it's even possible to get a pragmatist stuck.
As a last resort, we can always flip a coin. That breaks all stalemates.
Brad McFall writes:
The sythesis of Kant's teleology grants teleomatics that Jammer links historically but Kant's idealism as so understood did not cover the analytic of this as Carnap categorically declaimed per Jammer's concepts and thus telenomics must address more not less clasicalism but if you dont accept the ability to carry this in good will your learners of biological change will mistake translation in space with form making.
That is easier for me to write then yes and no"" to specific questions. I know you might not understand it so that is why I often, DONT post.
Understanding wouldn't be a problem if you'd explain what your nouns refer to. I mean, it might be simpler for me to enter a debate with, "You are wrong as per DominionSeraph's reasoning," but that doesn't tell anybody what that reasoning is.
Brad McFall writes:
If you require actual rope to "tie" it in with, well thin, I obviously can not satisfy you there.
Logic will be sufficient.
Brad McFall writes:
If you are not interested in discussiing the following page just as you simply turned round "bifurcation logical fallacy, anyway" then I cant oblige. I committed no such regression. If you cant see that modern science has been depauperated since the founding of nuclear physics I cant help you on that level. I can always just chat however.
This is page 167 of Max Jammer's "The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics"
That page is in the middle of an argument. What's there to discuss?
Post the entire argument, and I'll be happy to point out any and all flaws. It may boil down to something as simple as, "He got lost in the abstract."
Brad McFall writes:
Also, before Jammer comes to the issue of individuality and identity he discusses how a Princeton prof corrected a Cornell prof. Trust me I probably know the area between Mercer and Tompkins Counties better than I dont know much but the lookout at Mystic in CT south of Providence.
Southwest.
If you're south of Providence, you better know how to swim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 03-04-2005 10:38 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Brad McFall, posted 03-07-2005 12:34 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 56 of 81 (190144)
03-05-2005 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Monk
03-04-2005 3:35 PM


Re: Just ignore him
MyMonkey writes:
Maybe you Admins could just direct people like "Dom" to Brad's thread at All about Brad McFall
Thanks for the link.
That thread does have more posts than I like to enter into, though. I don't much like getting lost in the crowd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Monk, posted 03-04-2005 3:35 PM Monk has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 57 of 81 (190146)
03-05-2005 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Parasomnium
03-04-2005 3:46 PM


Re: Plain old evolution
Parasomnium writes:
I wonder why no one has latched on to the idea of the brain evolving in such a way as to be "wired" for believing, the way it is suggested in the article.
I don't think anyone denies the idea.
I'd say we're hardwired for the type of reasoning, but it's basically the same thing.
Snap judgments are undeniably useful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Parasomnium, posted 03-04-2005 3:46 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 58 of 81 (190151)
03-05-2005 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Parasomnium
03-04-2005 5:48 PM


Re: Plain old evolution
quote:
we necessarily have a brain that is capable of believing things.
So then my question is what is believing?
A child tends to "believe" someone they have learned to trust, someone in authority, and possibly someone they haven't yet learned to mistrust?
Even a child will not "believe" or trust a parent who lies or causes them harm.
So our simple speaking ancestors are sitting around the fire after dinner discussing death and where we go. This group had witnessed a man dying and watched closely. They noticed that after his last exhale he didn't move anymore. So one man postulates that his breath is now among us. Seemed like a reasonable answer to the rest of them.
Is that believing or just accepting what seems reasonable given the evidence in front of them?
So are we wired to believe or reason?
Or are we wired to reason and conditioned to believe?

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Parasomnium, posted 03-04-2005 5:48 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-06-2005 9:00 PM purpledawn has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 59 of 81 (190366)
03-06-2005 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by purpledawn
03-05-2005 7:20 AM


Re: Plain old evolution
purpledawm writes:
So then my question is what is believing?
A child tends to "believe" someone they have learned to trust, someone in authority, and possibly someone they haven't yet learned to mistrust?
Even a child will not "believe" or trust a parent who lies or causes them harm.
'Trust' is the default state. If someone never received any contradictory information, they'd never leave that state. However, as there are liars and people who don't know what they're talking about, contradictory information abounds.
But that's a separate issue entirely.
purpledawm writes:
So our simple speaking ancestors are sitting around the fire after dinner discussing death and where we go. This group had witnessed a man dying and watched closely. They noticed that after his last exhale he didn't move anymore. So one man postulates that his breath is now among us. Seemed like a reasonable answer to the rest of them.
Anything dealing with death is likely to have only come about long after things dealing with nature. Death, being so common, would likely have not garnered even a second thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by purpledawn, posted 03-05-2005 7:20 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Parasomnium, posted 03-07-2005 3:12 AM DominionSeraph has not replied
 Message 62 by purpledawn, posted 03-07-2005 6:30 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 60 of 81 (190409)
03-07-2005 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by robinrohan
03-04-2005 6:20 PM


Re: Plain old evolution
Hi Robin,
It’s good to see you’re back.
robinrohan writes:
I guess if we are wired, we can't help it, so we are not to be blamed for our delusions.
Maybe I shouldn’t have said wired to believe things. It sounds too much as if we are wired to believe some specific things. I think now that I should have phrased it more carefully, something like wired to be able to entertain beliefs of any kind.
And perhaps the same kind of wiring would also allow us to find out if our beliefs are justified. After all, a belief is nothing but a speculation about something. Why then don’t we take this one step further and speculate about the truth of our belief? Not only do we have the mental capacity to have a belief about something, we also have the capacity to question that belief.
Thus, if we entertain a delusion in spite of the fact that there is no justification for it, we could, in the end, be rightfully blamed for not using our capacity to the full.
No, the best explanation of religion is the following idea: I feel is if I am incorporeal
The feeling of incorporeality may have been a most magical thought for primitive people, akin to the incorporeal world where stories seem to reside. The combination of the two might be irresistible for a mind that has just climbed out of the abyss of non-consciousness.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07 March 2005 11:49 AM

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by robinrohan, posted 03-04-2005 6:20 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 61 of 81 (190412)
03-07-2005 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by DominionSeraph
03-06-2005 9:00 PM


Re: Plain old evolution
DominionSeraph writes:
Anything dealing with death is likely to have only come about long after things dealing with nature. Death, being so common, would likely have not garnered even a second thought.
How is this likely? Isn’t it also plausible that a creature that has only just begun to have thoughts at all, let alone second thoughts, would find it difficult to grasp the idea of death, especially its own death?
You didn’t address what I think is Purpledawn’s main point, which is
quote:
Is that {what the primitive people in her example are doing, P.} believing or just accepting what seems reasonable given the evidence in front of them?
So are we wired to believe or reason?
Or are we wired to reason and conditioned to believe?
So, are we wired to believe or reason? Meaning, I think, are we wired to believe, or are we wired to reason? My take on this is: a bit of both. I think the wiring for believing and the wiring for reasoning aren’t that far apart, or perhaps even the same. Believing things requires a certain amount of reasoning, and vice versa. Believing and reasoning are two sides of the same coin.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-06-2005 9:00 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024