h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> atheists generally aren't the ones going around shooting others <<

Are you really certain about that? Where do laws come from? Where does religion come from? Where does ethics come from?

>>Are you really certain about that?<<

Yes. Not to get into a big bun-fight over it but you generally don't hear of atrocities committed in the name of Dawkins or atheism.

>>Where do laws come from?<<

A power that has both the desire and the ability to impose a set of rules.

>>Where does religion come from?<<

Fear and humanity trying to understand why the sun comes up in the morning and all those other things we never used to be able to understand.

>>Where does ethics come from?<<

A similar place to laws I guess: a group or individual with the power and desire to act in a certain way because they see it in some way useful/beneficial/advantageous.

I was under the impression that religion was a social construct containing ethics, means of organising ones life, a sense of history, a sense of purpose, with social laws, social diets, social rituals.

Yes but you asked where it came from, not what it was. I responded to a glib question with a glib answer.

You said religion came from fear and wanting to understand the unknown, I said it came from proto-societies developing rules for society.

"I said it came from proto-societies developing rules for society."

In other words religion was devised to control the population. Is that really what you are saying?

F.

>> In other words religion was devised to control the population. Is that really what you are saying? <<

Are your thoughts and mind not controlled? What holds societies together? What holds society together from one generation to the next? The global financial meltdown, the loss of natural resources, the destruction of biodiversity, the arms industry - what is the cause of that?

ps To answer your question: yes it is a form of control. But what is "management" if not control. Laws are controls. What we are taught are a form of control. Government is all about control. I think the question is too unspecific.

Hi Stone Aart,

Yes, I have heard about the Southampton study. I think that the lack of results is because they have not yet had anyone have an out-of-body experience while in the relevant ward. I assure you, I await the results with baited breath!

In terms of ethics, morality, etc - I would say that there is most likely an evolutionary origin for them. That is to say, a society will survive better if the individuals within it have an aversion to stealing from or killing each other at random - and if the society prospers, so do the individuals within it. The 'golden rule' ('do unto others...') can also be derived this way. And it is striking that these are the most universal 'moral laws' among human societies.

Many societies also develop their own moral laws, which are much less universal. I have likened this in the past to language - it is clearly 'made by humans', but not in the sense that one person ever designed it, or that an individual can choose rules for themselves and call them 'equally valid'.

Gif

"I think the question is too unspecific."

The question was very specific. It asked if you honestly believed that religion was invented to control the population and not, as Honestlago suggested, as a result of early humans struggling to understand the world they lived in.

Whether management, government or laws are also a form of control, or indeed whether control is a good or bad thing, was not part of the question and not relevant to your answer.

You answered 'yes'.

In your view then religion is not about some creator or force beyond what we know (although it may include such things) but simply about the control that belief in such things can exert over the believers. In other words some humans invented god as the ultimate child scaring bogeyman in a cynical and deliberate (and successful) attempt to control some other humans?

F.

What do you all make of this?

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110513.html

I had some theists on Facebook saying it meant Theism and Atheism were equally reasonable.

I don't think it says that at all (having skimmed it) but rather than beliefs in dualisms and the personification of nature is natural outgrowth of the developing theory of mind in children and doesn;t mean such thoughts are true.

Thoughts / opinions?

Their investigation is interesting and their analysis seems sound. That children in particular are inclined to believe in the supernatural doesn't seem too surprising to me since they have a limited understanding of how things work. As adults we should be more demanding of evidence for things that appear to break the rules we have learned about the world.

As the bible puts it (1 Corinthians 13:11*) we should put away childish things - including a belief in fairies - as we become adults.

Of course a natural inclination to believe in fairies has no bearing on their actual existence.

Incidentally, both theism and atheism are equally reasonable given no further information; but there is masses of further information, making a far more reasonable case for one than the other.




* probably the most out of context and mis-quoted passage in the whole book.

F.

>> (1 Corinthians 13:11*) we should put away childish things -
* probably the most out of context and mis-quoted passage in the whole book <<

Among the childish things I threw away was my bible.
Wish I had it now to read that section in context.
Because... I know now it is wrong advice for young adults.

Stay young, think young, feel young and never be shamed away
from the pleasures of youth. One day, it becomes obvious to
anyone who lives long enough to enter their second childhood
that they never should have grown up or put anything away.
Children know what is important.


~jwf~

"In your view then religion is not about some creator or force beyond what we know (although it may include such things) but simply about the control that belief in such things can exert over the believers. In other words some humans invented god as the ultimate child scaring bogeyman in a cynical and deliberate (and successful) attempt to control some other humans?"

Religion is not simple it is complex. Human society is complex. Yes control is part of it whether in a religious or non-religious framework. In a religious framework they make explicit these supra-individual objects they call Gods. In non-religious frameworks these supra-individual elements are what I would call tacit gods. Things like nationalism, tribal loyaties (e.g. football teams), the right for individual choice, the right to property etc are "gods" but are not formulated explicity and not explicity personalised.

What I am skeptical of is when someone claims to speak the "truth" (I refer you to post-modern literature). We know what happens in societies run by secular idealogists. At least with religion there is usually an ethical foundation to it, with some humanistic origin to it. I don't think one can readily disentangle religion from culture. This "militant atheism" from some angles appears as a continuation of the "western" colonialisation of natural resources and the colonialisation of peoples minds.

Personally I see the biggest issues facing mankind as not religion, but in the globalised economic framework that leads to increasing inequality and increasing depletion and destruction of natural resources.

#30220 >> - atheists generally aren't the ones going around shooting others and blowing themselves and others up<<

let's change "atheist" for "white people" and check for equivalence and "acceptability".


- white people generally aren't the ones going around shooting others and blowing themselves and others up.

Except that your check for equivalence doesn't work here, Stone Aart. Religious zeal doesn't restrict itself by colour or ethnicity. Anders Breivic was apparently trying to stop Norway being taken over by Muslims. The so-called militant athiests don't come close to that level of militancy.

F.

@30232 -

Gif

Hi Stone Art,

>let's change "atheist" for "white people" and check for equivalence and "acceptability".

You can't just take a factual statement, replace one word for another chosen for its vaguely racist implications, then claim that because the resulting sentence is vaguely racist the original must also be "unacceptable" and therefore untrue.

If you think HI's claim is wrong, you should challenge it directly - demand some form of statistical evidence from HI that his assertion is true. You can't just alter it to an obviously untrue claim and claim that the two must therefore be "equivalent".

Gif

Hmmm it is supposed to be sunny according to the met office but it is overcast and drizzly.

>>Yes, I have heard about the Southampton study. I think that the lack of results is because they have not yet had anyone have an out-of-body experience while in the relevant ward. I assure you, I await the results with baited breath! <<

According to the P Investigator, they have plenty of "interesting" results, it's just that they are not ready to publish (?). I suspect that some people have claimed to have experienced these out of body experiences (I think he said it is about 10% of those "close" to death" that experience them), but they haven't seen the objects that have been placed on cupboards etc. That is to say I think they are getting a null answer to the hypothesis that the effect is "real" and not some sort of internally generated perceptual displacement effect.

I have a few question for the experts and others (thanks in advance).

If the Romans hadn't destroyed the temple in 70AD what would have happened to fledgling Christianity?
Paul the Apostle is said to be the true founder of Christianity and he apparently lived and died before the temples destruction.

What would have happened to Judaism if the peoples of Judah hadn't been captured and sent into exile to Babylon?

ps what are peoples views that the founder of the "hebrews" was from Ur in mesopotamia. Presumably he would have carried with him the story of gilgamesh with him on his departure that made its way into Genesis. Or would the gilgamesh story have been learnt and integrated into Genesis during the Babylonian exile?