In Bread

Post Reply New Topic

Long ago, about the time I first knowingly albeit unintentionally alienated my brother, I was for reasons which seemed good at the time actively looking at the "debate" between the Creation Science people and the Evolutionist mainstream.

I discovered - no surprise to us in academia - the pretty much nobody on either side of the "debate" bothered to look at what the others were really saying. It was all "The Toronto Maple Leafs rule!" versus "The Green Bay Packers are the best"

One exception - I forget his name, I forget most names. One gentlema [I use the term advisedly] wrote a book in swhich he ACTUALLY looked at arguments on both side and on each point discussed evidence pro and con. A rare thing - a model and inspiration for all of us here.

At the end, he came up with this hypothesis:

The religious instinct, he says, is bred into some, out of others. An evolutionary thing [he opted for the evolution side. obviously].

In early human times, he suggests, there were leaders who needed followers. Some humans evolved a need to identify a leader and follow, attributing divine power to the Boss. Others evolved the capacity and need to lead, and had no worship instinct.

Hence, says he, today's believing sheep and seg-sufficient goats.

Discuss

[I am, after all, an academic]

I think it is very difficult for religion to be decoded by evolutionary science. The science of evolution essentially stops when it stops being testable. Now I am not going to argue that evolution does not exist. I can however suppose that many people can look at the science and reach all manner of conclusions about how this and that aspect of society could have emerged from evolution; no matter what qualification I possessed however, it would still be a supposition. It could be termed philosophy at best but the fact that it is based on the established facts makes it no more valid than any other case based on the same facts.

As a good example of this; take quantum mechanics. There are over a dozen differing interpretations of the maths behind quantum mechanics, all equally mathematically valid and unprovable. They remain at best, hopeful educated guesses, useful theories, and not hard scientific facts. Hoping to account for religion within evolutionary theory is far beyond the science and ventures blatantly into the realm of philosophy. I have no problem with this, so long as it is admitted that this is philosophy and not science.

It is well known that I am a Christian and that I have no issue with evolution or science. In fact I think that the relationship between religion and science is symbiotic. I also tend to think that people are hard wired to want to believe in God. I believe that he has planted a seed in each of us at the most basic level, which calls us to faith. If it was discovered that that seed was planted by an evolutionary process; that would not destroy that conviction, since I believe when we discover something in the universe, we discover something of God.

You seem to indicate that religion is not in bread but rather in roles. The Jewish religion can choose between matzos, challah, or perhaps bagels. I'm not sure if those little wafers that they take with wine to substitute taking a bite out of Christ can be classified as bread but I gather they are not particularly tasty. Matzos with poppy seeds are quite good with a smear of butter and if they could be substituted for the Catholic wafers I imagine even the Catholic tendencies for pedophilia would not discourage adherents. Italian Catholics probably would prefer something a bit spicier like mini-pizzas and if beer could be substituted for the traditional wine things would go well indeed.

I really do like

It is fascinating to discover from the comments so far that, not only am I AS, but that I am not human.

91: " I also tend to think that people are hard wired to want to believe in God. I believe that he has planted a seed in each of us at the most basic level, which calls us to faith. If it was discovered that that seed was planted by an evolutionary process; that would not destroy that conviction, since I believe when we discover something in the universe, we discover something of God."

This is not actually, despite my habits, an essay on the pop quiz, so I will not grade your response. I will, however, concur with what you say. Ingenioious as my author's proposal is, it really ignores the universality of the impulse toward the divine. And the frequency with which serious intellectual and community leaders find thir way to God. By my author's criteria,Pascal should have been genetically programmed for atheism. Certainly I was.

Many people on all sides of the debates, look for the apparently vulnerable petty detail and miss the doughnut.

Actually, I would be inclined, were I to follow this up, to argue against "genetic"

There is reason to believe that certain things, including some personality traits, are independent of the DNA.

How much and what is imposed from world incident - nurture versus nature - and how much is otherwhence is not currently accessible.

In any case, clearly there is no helplessness, nothing ineluctable about it. Check out free will.

There IS [however you choose to explain it, not my concern] demonstrably a whole lot of seeking of the divine going on through time and space.

A fly has 8 chromosomes, a man has 46 and the Ophioglossumhas more than a thousand. Is the Ophioglossumworshiping god? Sincerely, I don't think so.

Maybe it's about what is encoded. So let's suppose god is in the middle of:
- The need to ask questions, find answers and explain problems
- The need of goals to achieve
- The need for fear for survival
- The need for rules, processes of social interaction to work better as a group

But even if you keep the questions, the goals, the fear, the rules to a minimum in a rich environment, even then, the reasons for a god seems to disappear...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg84mFeIsLQ[/youtube]

So it's not about Genetics, it's not about evolution,
It's not about healing, it's not about Medicine
It's not about the the revolution of the planets, it's not about Science
It's not about History
It's not about beauty, it's not about Art
It's not about fairness, police, it's not about Law
It's not about Education
It's not about respect, it is not about Ethics
It's not about Birth, life nor death
It's not about Spirituality
It's not even about hope.

Of course, religions have played a huge role in every single field, in the tribe it was a reason and a cause for everything. But today believers feel more and more cornered in the few citadels that they think they are their own. Should they feel threatened by the critics? Not at all.
It is often said that you don't have to prove a negative, but if the strident atheists were really strident, they should really try hard to prove that God does not exist. They won't because they can't the same way it is impossible to prove that God exists.
And it will be always impossible to prove if he exists or not, believers and non believers will have one thing left: Faith

Religion is about Faith and Faith only, you believe or you don't or you just simply say: I don't know

Well yes -

faith is at the root of all belief disbelief knowledge inquiry.

A shame that certain people are not willing either to discuss at an adult level nor to leave the Other in peace [and yes, Sand, you do find them on ALL sides of EVERY issue]

Good point. You should try it. I personally am the same personality model as Doubting Thomas - I have not left anything unexamined [including close to daily reexamination] since 8th grade [I fear I swallowed some stuff whole before then].