Belief in God Instinctive?

[seer]

NO, you did! Read your thread title - BELIEF IN GOD INSTINCTIVE? and ' . . . So there are two possibilities I see here. God created us as beings that would search for meaning outside of ourselves . . .'

First, no the evolutionary process does not deal with truth nor falsehood. The behavior that evolves and succeeds is what promotes the survival of the species is what is important. The belief in spiritual dualism may be beneficial or it may be neutral to the survival of the human species.

Yes Shuny, belief in God would be instinctive, if the study is correct, and I did not say that it was UNIVERSAL. And there was a question mark - sheesh! So you agree - that believing a falsehood my be beneficial - so the whole process is not aimed at truth, just what is benefical - true or not. So Darwin's "horrid doubt" as well as Churchland's quote are valid.

[seer]

I would say that in so far as the human mind has evolved, human beings, unlike less evolved beings, have the distinct ability to think in the abstract and thus establish belief systems that are perceived to be in the best interest of their mental and physical well being, not that those beliefs necessarily have anything to do with ultimate truths. Instinct, if such instinctive ideas exists at all, I don't believe is something that is innate in the human mind but rather is instilled, hardwired if you will, in the mind through the evolutionary process by way of cultural memes. You are making the assumption that there is an ultimate path of truth that we instinctively follow but our ability to think in the abstract I would suggest leaves the future open to new ideas, and just as we have created religions and Gods we can also, and have also, uncreated them when they become no longer useful or even detrimental to our collective well being and survival. We adopt our ideas, in my opinion, in order to survive in a world in which the fundamental nature of it is beyond our capacity to know. Christianity I would suggest was a new idea not a new covenant.

Well no Jim, first, there are no such things as memes, that is just made up nonsense. Second, it doesn't matter how it came about - the chicken or the egg, the fact is the evolutionary process caused us to think religiously - and if you are a materialist you have to concede that the process caused us to think falsely on a massive, even universal scale. So in what other ways has the process deceived us? Finally, religious thinking seems basic to our nature (according to the study) - with other basic desires, the desire for food, shelter, love, companionship, beauty, etc… there are corresponding realities to fulfill them - but not for this other worldly desire? I think not.

[phaedrus]

Well no Jim, first, there are no such things as memes, that is just made up nonsense. Second, it doesn't matter how it came about - the chicken or the egg, the fact is the evolutionary process caused us to think religiously - and if you are a materialist you have to concede that the process caused us to think falsely on a massive, even universal scale. So in what other ways has the process deceived us? Finally, religious thinking seems basic to our nature (according to the study) - with other basic desires, the desire for food, shelter, love, companionship, beauty, etc… there are corresponding realities to fulfill them - but not for this other worldly desire? I think not.

Several points.

The bolded statement is an assertion rather like Margaret Thatcher's famous 'There is no society!' If you wish to argue this point, do so otherwise your 'harrumph' is basically worthless.

There are 2 features of religious thinking that I can think of that would be of real survival value: One, our brains have evolved to find meaning, see patterns, solve puzzles, seek cause and effect, explain and predict. All valuable stuff if you want to survive. Sometimes those same skills will be used in appropriate arenas, or give erroneous results. Superstition is a fine example. (And other studies show children are natural 'magical' thinkers). A large proportion of people in history believed breaking a mirror caused bad luck, or that gypsies could curse, or that bad things come in threes. All of these are examples of our brains (and cultures) trying to establish connections where there are none. Does an evolutionary feature need to be 100% effective and correct? Of course not. The second feature of religious thinking that might prove useful is its ability to take a mythos and use it to give hope in the potential of the future. The 'promised land' motif has been a powerful imaginative tool for people under oppression in all kinds of earthly situations. Such thinking might be useful in avoiding existential despair and hopelessness in times of trial.

[shunyadragon]

Yes Shuny, belief in God would be instinctive, if the study is correct, and I did not say that it was UNIVERSAL. And there was a question mark - sheesh! So you agree - that believing a falsehood my be beneficial - so the whole process is not aimed at truth, just what is benefical - true or not. So Darwin's "horrid doubt" as well as Churchland's quote are valid.

Well, IF the belief in God is instinctive, it is UNIVERSAL with humanity, you cannot have it both way. I quoted you in the text also concerning the belief in God, you brought in at the beginning of the thread not me!!

Absolutely no, there is no mythical horrid doubt. Yes, evolution is indifferent to truth and falsehood as a matter of the physical nature of our existence. Truth and Falsehood is human construct..

[JimL]

Well no Jim, first, there are no such things as memes, that is just made up nonsense. Second, it doesn't matter how it came about - the chicken or the egg, the fact is the evolutionary process caused us to think religiously - and if you are a materialist you have to concede that the process caused us to think falsely on a massive, even universal scale. So in what other ways has the process deceived us? Finally, religious thinking seems basic to our nature (according to the study) - with other basic desires, the desire for food, shelter, love, companionship, beauty, etc… there are corresponding realities to fulfill them - but not for this other worldly desire? I think not.

Memes in my opinion are not nonsense they are just common sense. They are just ideas, ideas that are passed on from generation to generation, and surely ideas exist as encoded information in books, newspapers, signs, speech and physical behavior, and yes, in brains. But again they needn't have anything to do with ultimate truth, they have to do with survival and collective well being. If religious thinking had to do with truth, then we would all believe the same thing, if it had to do with ultimate truth, then it is you who would have to concede that all of our ideas are false, for surely if ultimate truth is what leads us then why would we not all believe the same things. I agree that there are corresponding realities to fill our basic needs but that is only natural, God isn't a basic need in so far as our survival and well being in this world goes, though a God may be needed if our desire to live eternally were to be met.

[seer]

Several points.

The bolded statement is an assertion rather like Margaret Thatcher's famous 'There is no society!' If you wish to argue this point, do so otherwise your 'harrumph' is basically worthless.

There are 2 features of religious thinking that I can think of that would be of real survival value: One, our brains have evolved to find meaning, see patterns, solve puzzles, seek cause and effect, explain and predict. All valuable stuff if you want to survive. Sometimes those same skills will be used in appropriate arenas, or give erroneous results. Superstition is a fine example. (And other studies show children are natural 'magical' thinkers). A large proportion of people in history believed breaking a mirror caused bad luck, or that gypsies could curse, or that bad things come in threes. All of these are examples of our brains (and cultures) trying to establish connections where there are none. Does an evolutionary feature need to be 100% effective and correct? Of course not. The second feature of religious thinking that might prove useful is its ability to take a mythos and use it to give hope in the potential of the future. The 'promised land' motif has been a powerful imaginative tool for people under oppression in all kinds of earthly situations. Such thinking might be useful in avoiding existential despair and hopelessness in times of trial.

First, Phaedrus memes are made up nonsense, especially in cultural terms:

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca M.D., a critic of memetics, calls the theory a "pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of consciousness and cultural evolution". As a factual criticism, Benitez-Bribiesca points to the lack of a "code script" for memes (analogous to the DNA of genes), and to the excessive instability of the meme mutation mechanism (that of an idea going from one brain to another), which would lead to a low replication accuracy and a high mutation rate, rendering the evolutionary process chaotic.

Second, it is not about the evolutionary process getting everything 100% correct. This is not getting the sum wrong in a math question. Religious belief from the beginning of “recorded” human history has been prevailing and innate. And it’s not like we got a couple of things wrong - it was a massive misunderstanding of the world - and our relation to it. It is deception on a large, universal scale. And if there is no corresponding reality then, no matter the cultural benefit, the process gave us brains that regularly deceive us. So where else do we see patterns or make connections where they don’t exist - perhaps in evolutionary theory?

[seer]

Memes in my opinion are not nonsense they are just common sense. They are just ideas, ideas that are passed on from generation to generation, and surely ideas exist as encoded information in books, newspapers, signs, speech and physical behavior, and yes, in brains. But again they needn't have anything to do with ultimate truth, they have to do with survival and collective well being. If religious thinking had to do with truth, then we would all believe the same thing, if it had to do with ultimate truth, then it is you who would have to concede that all of our ideas are false, for surely if ultimate truth is what leads us then why would we not all believe the same things. I agree that there are corresponding realities to fill our basic needs but that is only natural, God isn't a basic need in so far as our survival and well being in this world goes, though a God may be needed if our desire to live eternally were to be met.

Meme theory goes beyond just ideas Jim. It is almost like passing a gene on. Ideas can be accepted or rejected, memes, from what I have read can not - it really is just made up nonsense, with no evidence to support it (I really can't believe it, Dawkins makes something up, and you guys rush to accept it). And Jim, the vast majority of mankind has believed in a invisible world populated with a being or beings that could influence our lives, it doesn’t matter that we did not have the same view of what these beings were - the fact that we believed in such a world and beings is what does matter. And how do you know that belief in a spiritual world was not necessary for the survival of our species - perhaps we would not have made it this far without such unifying beliefs in respective cultures.

But that was not my point. It is clear by this study, and from recorded history, that religious belief in innate to the human condition. And if materialism is correct then there is no corresponding reality to fulfill this innate human desire. Unlike other inherent human desires.

[seer]

Well, IF the belief in God is instinctive, it is UNIVERSAL with humanity, you cannot have it both way. I quoted you in the text also concerning the belief in God, you brought in at the beginning of the thread not me!!

No Shuny, men’s religious thinking is universe, I did not say or suggest otherwise. And yes I can have it both ways - some instincts are just more developed than others.

Absolutely no, there is no mythical horrid doubt. Yes, evolution is indifferent to truth and falsehood as a matter of the physical nature of our existence. Truth and Falsehood is human construct..

Then why on earth would you disagree with Churchland? She said the evolution process was not aimed at truth. So it is obvious that the evolutionary process gave us faulty brains. Brains that are deceived on a massive scale.

[JimL]

Meme theory goes beyond just ideas Jim. It is almost like passing a gene on. Ideas can be accepted or rejected, memes, from what I have read can not - it really is just made up nonsense, with no evidence to support it (I really can't believe it, Dawkins makes something up, and you guys rush to accept it). And Jim, the vast majority of mankind has believed in a invisible world populated with a being or beings that could influence our lives, it doesn’t matter that we did not have the same view of what these beings were - the fact that we believed in such a world and beings is what does matter. And how do you know that belief in a spiritual world was not necessary for the survival of our species - perhaps we would not have made it this far without such unifying beliefs in respective cultures.

But that was not my point. It is clear by this study, and from recorded history, that religious belief in innate to the human condition. And if materialism is correct then there is no corresponding reality to fulfill this innate human desire. Unlike other inherent human desires.

I don't think seer that "innate to the human condition" means what you think it means. You seem to be implying that what is innate to the human condition is innate in life itself. What is innate in the human thought is innate as a result of being conditioned. An infant isn't born with preconceived ideas of God or the supernatural, they have no notion of such things until they are impressed upon them. That is all that is meant by memes, the impression of ideas that shape the mind in conformity to the culture. But memes are not such, as you think, that they can not be overcome, but they are powerful as any former believer would tell you.

[phaedrus]

First, Phaedrus memes are made up nonsense, especially in cultural terms:




Second, it is not about the evolutionary process getting everything 100% correct. This is not getting the sum wrong in a math question. Religious belief from the beginning of “recorded” human history has been prevailing and innate. And it’s not like we got a couple of things wrong - it was a massive misunderstanding of the world - and our relation to it. It is deception on a large, universal scale. And if there is no corresponding reality then, no matter the cultural benefit, the process gave us brains that regularly deceive us. So where else do we see patterns or make connections where they don’t exist - perhaps in evolutionary theory?

There's that assertion again ... just repeated. I assume this means you have no argument.

Here let me try one: The rest of your post is utter nonsense.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, men’s religious thinking is universe, . . .

Glad you agree. You cannot conclude the belief in God is instinct based on the study. there are more than two possibilities than you indicated in the opening post The universal nature of religious beliefs can have a number of different conclusions.

I did not say or suggest otherwise. And yes I can have it both ways - some instincts are just more developed than others.

It's either universal or it is not. You indicated that religious thinking is universal, conflict here. What do you mean 'some instincts are better better developed than others.' This does not make sense.

Then why on earth would you disagree with Churchland? She said the evolution process was not aimed at truth.

I did not say I disagreed with everything Churchland proposed. The simplistic quote you cited is too brief to give meaning, and the evolution of behavior is more complex than a brief simplistic philosophical statement

So it is obvious that the evolutionary process gave us faulty brains. Brains that are deceived on a massive scale.

No, your giving anthropomorphic meaning to a natural process. There is no deception in evolution, only survival of the species. IF God exists, evolution has a purpose that is Divine regardless, and survival of the species is one of the processes of creation. IF God does not exist nature has a purpose in evolution, survival of the species. What we observe in evolution does not change either way. We cannot distinguish, truth, falsehood or deception in observing evolution as a natural process either way. In the natural realm evolution is simply a natural process that we observe by the evidence.

[seer]

Glad you agree. You cannot conclude the belief in God is instinct based on the study. there are more than two possibilities than you indicated in the opening post The universal nature of religious beliefs can have a number of different conclusions.

It's either universal or it is not. You indicated that religious thinking is universal, conflict here. What do you mean 'some instincts are better better developed than others.' This does not make sense.

Of course it makes sense, a belief could be instinctual but not fully matured. Belief in God being the more full or correct expression of that basic instinct. God belief would still be the result of that Instinctual religious tendency.

I did not say I disagreed with everything Churchland proposed. The simplistic quote you cited is too brief to give meaning, and the evolution of behavior is more complex than a brief simplistic philosophical statement

You agree that evolution cares nothing for truth only for what works. True or not.

No, your giving anthropomorphic meaning to a natural process. There is no deception in evolution, only survival of the species. IF God exists, evolution has a purpose that is Divine regardless, and survival of the species is one of the processes of creation. IF God does not exist nature has a purpose in evolution, survival of the species. What we observe in evolution does not change either way. We cannot distinguish, truth, falsehood or deception in observing evolution as a natural process either way. In the natural realm evolution is simply a natural process that we observe by the evidence.

Then the evolutionary process gave us religious brain that are massively wrong. Brains that interpret the world in a deeply flawed way. If materialism is true that is.

[seer]

There's that assertion again ... just repeated. I assume this means you have no argument.

Here let me try one: The rest of your post is utter nonsense.

Really phaedrus? Where is your evidence of memes? Can you point one out? Where do they live? You do know that Dawkins just made it up - correct?

[shunyadragon]

Of course it makes sense, a belief could be instinctual but not fully matured. Belief in God being the more full or correct expression of that basic instinct.

There is absolutely no evidence for this. This view actually smells of racial or cultural natural superiority, which is reminds me of some bad 20th century stuff.

You agree that evolution cares nothing for truth only for what works. True or not.




Then the evolutionary process gave us religious brain that are massively wrong. Brains that interpret the world in a deeply flawed way. If materialism is true that is.

Yes, evolution cares nothing about truth, therefore evolutionary processes cannot give us anything that is massively wrong or right, or deeply flawed. Again, your giving anthropomorphic meaning to natural process, and this does not work. It did not help with pet rocks or crystals either.

If God exists than, as I said before, it is correct. If it is natural and no God, it is incorrect, and natural processes are indifferent. There is nothing massively wrong or right about it.

If you believe in God as I do, and apparently you do, evolution is than Divinely intended, but nothing can be observed right or wrong in the natural processes themselves.

[seer]

I don't think seer that "innate to the human condition" means what you think it means. You seem to be implying that what is innate to the human condition is innate in life itself. What is innate in the human thought is innate as a result of being conditioned. An infant isn't born with preconceived ideas of God or the supernatural, they have no notion of such things until they are impressed upon them. That is all that is meant by memes, the impression of ideas that shape the mind in conformity to the culture. But memes are not such, as you think, that they can not be overcome, but they are powerful as any former believer would tell you.

Well Jim, perhaps one day someone can actually show us a meme (or are they immaterial?). What is innate are physical brains that think religiously - brains that interpret the world religiously. We can easily imagine a race of rational beings that did not have brains that evolved to think religiously. The fact is James, if there is no corresponding reality to human religious tendencies then the evolutionary process created brains that are deeply, and inherently flawed. So what else are we getting wrong?