
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Hard wired into us, having no faith is either a relativley abnormal state of mind which is a very recent evolutionary change. Or it's a product of our education system.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:34, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

If you had an island of people where, no religion was ever taught, and extensional questions were answered with scientific reasoning, then no religion would form.
"there is no such thing as a Christian child, only a child with Christian parents"
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:36, Reply)

Creation myths, after life etc. And yes it's biological, and neurological.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:38, Reply)

( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:40, Reply)

( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:42, Reply)

and if you isolated people with no background bias and taught them science, the need for religion wouldn't appear.
I don't see why that's so hard to understand, it's perfectly logical.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:45, Reply)

obviously this is not fool proof, but it would vb interesting
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:47, Reply)

which was, it's hard wired, having no religion is relativley rare and either something that is being dropped through natural selection OR because we have modern education and scientific method to get round our innate need to answer the inanswerable.
His argument seems to be No you're wrong because: "we have modern education and scientific method to get round our innate need to answer the inanswerable YOU SPASTIC"
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:48, Reply)

whereas what I think you mean is that the need for explanations is.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:50, Reply)

they may inherit it from their parents and surroundings, but they are not born with it. Hence the idea that if you remove all traces of religion then a society could form with out it.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:51, Reply)

not having access to the real answers, they make up stories. That is how all religions form.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:55, Reply)

but if you're brought up to look for scientific answers, then those are the answers you'll seek.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:59, Reply)

the chances of a Jesus figure occurring in the 21st century are slim to none, for exactly this reason.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:02, Reply)

It's a hugley contentious thing to research. But there's pretty decent evidence and theories that it is innate and instictual and that it gave a competitive advantage and was thus evolved. religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/12/religious-belief-is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/
www.amazon.com/Faith-Instinct-Religion-Evolved-Endures/dp/B003B3NVZY
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:57, Reply)

the island of non-religion mentioned earlier, to truly investigate this argument.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:03, Reply)

( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:06, Reply)

this would probably have to be more of a thought experiment than one that could be implemented
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:10, Reply)

in the same way it was a pain to build the LHC.
I don't have the funds at the moment to run this I'm afraid.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:18, Reply)

I'm suggesting a group of people isolated from all religious knowledge and text, that form a society based on science, where existential issues are answered with facts and theories, not stories. Would not create a religion for it's self.
Religions sprung up to answer fundamental questions about human existence and were manipulated for political gain; we can now answer many of those questions thus there is no need for religion. An isolated group of people with this point of view and without the weight of religious history upon them would most likely not create a new religion as they would have no need for it.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:47, Reply)

I don't see how that makes us less special than "some ineffable being wanted some monkeys to worship him".
Rather the opposite, in fact.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:52, Reply)

Which is what I meant by not mutually exclusive.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:02, Reply)

( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:02, Reply)

Has a direct equivilent of "What was before the big bang"
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:08, Reply)

but you know as well as we know, that while there may be holes in the scientific explanation for life, the universe etc scientists except the holes exist actively look to fill those holes with new knowledge and understanding.
religion says, "we don't know something therefore it was supernatural" which is igorant and lazy
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:07, Reply)

Obviously I know that, but saying people won't turn to religion because they'll have a foundation in science to answer their questions. When there's a number of questions that either can not, or have not been answered by Science and you think your Island children will not fill in the blanks themselves?
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:12, Reply)

( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:16, Reply)

in the same way that people 2000 years ago didn't understand disease (god is displeased), the universe (god made it from papier mache)or even how our bodies work(God does magik in my tummy)then in 2000 years maybe we will know what came before the big bang.
just becasue we don't know something, doesn't mean we never will
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:17, Reply)

also, i would counter and say, why does there need to be a reason?
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:52, Reply)

Natural curiosity, that's why.
*I assumed you meant 'existential'
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:58, Reply)

Just because the question exists, doesn't mean that there is necessarily an answer.
It's a bit nihilistic, but there you go.
( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:00, Reply)

( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:43, Reply)

( , Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:45, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread