Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307477123' post='2250917']
To use the example of geocentrism (which is a favourite because of the scandal it caused) the Church were reluctant to change their views because of how they interpreted mankind's place: god's most special creation. I'm speculating here, but I guess that for them back in the day, being told that they were not at the center of the universe might have been as shocking as hearing today that our universe is not the only universe (supposing it were proved).
[/quote]

The way that I saw geocentrism explained was, at least pertaining to the Bible, phenomenological. Pertaining to the Church itself, which is not infallible when it comes to science, it would have been wrong.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307470554' post='2250868']
And the Christian Faith does.

That fact in itself is not insignificant.[/quote]

Right, I can criticise something the Christian Faith is about without looking like I'm attacking straw men that are not even part of the ideology. Atheism is not an ideology.

[quote]The Faith of Christ provides (among other things) a clear path to moral and virtuous life, which if conscientiously followed leads to great good for oneself and others.

(I'm not responding to the rest of that spiel, as it is attacking straw men, and does not address what I actually wrote. I don't have time to keep beating that dead horse.)[/quote]

That's how I see it. You're attacking the label 'atheist' as if it's supposed to mean anything other than lack of belief in gods. If you're tired of beating that dead horse, just as I'm tired of hearing you kicking and punching that poor thing ( ), you can shift your focus toward actually proving that being an atheist is conducive to Communist Russia and mass murder based on the fact that one is an atheist. Or you could bury it.

[quote]What exactly do you mean by "the private lives of individuals"? As society is made up of individuals, one's beliefs and ideas of right and wrong will necessarily influence one's public actions if he acts consistently. Are you saying religious believers should avoid any mention of faith or religion, or acting according to the moral principles of their faith, outside the closed doors of their home (or at least the closed doors of their church)?

That would directly deny the Christian obligation to evangelize and administer to others, and to legally prohibit any public show of religion would in fact be oppressive to religious believers, and the enforcement of such would amount to Communist-like totalitarian rule.
And would you want any public expression of your atheism similarly banned?

As far as I know, nobody's pointing a gun to your head and demanding that you convert to Christianity. But, as you haven't specified what you're talking about, I'm afraid I can't say any more on that.[/quote]

I'm a fan of secularism, so I don't promote the extinction of religion from the private lives of individuals and religious institutions. But when their beliefs that I don't hold start to affect how I see I should live my life and my ideals of right and wrong, then I will challenge them, just as you would if you saw your rights being infringed on. That's all.

[quote]If the "theist" is a Christian, one would hope that love of God and neighbor (commanded by Christ) and fear of eternal damnation would stop him.

It's hard to see how a Faith which commands "Thou Shalt not Kill," "love thy neighbor as thyself," "love your enemies; do good to those that hurt you," "turn the other cheek," "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword," "forgive thy brother not seven times, but seventy times seven," and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" would justify mass murder.

Such a "Christian" would be acting in direct defiance to the teachings of his Faith, and would be either a cynical hypocrite (Jesus had quite a few harsh words for religious hypocrites), or completely insane, in which case lack of faith would likely not better him.

(Again, I am not interested in defending bloodthirsty non-Christian religions anymore than you are in defending Joseph Stalin.)[/quote]

I'd have to read the bible to see which passages could be cherry-picked and interpreted to justify mass murder, but just because not all Christians live as the bible would have them, doesn't mean that they would find other justification outside the bible. Didn't Bush Jr. give a slightly religious twist to the invasion of Afghanistan? What was the general acceptance of his ideas like? What do you think about him?

[quote]And I would argue that lack of objective morality and secure moral beliefs is far more potentially (and actually) dangerous.[/quote]

Prove that it is indeed objective and comes from a true source before you dismiss other frameworks as subjective.

Morality is a complicated subject, but that doesn't mean that most people who see themselves as wanting to do good and reasonable don't have a good moral framework, even if they differ from person to person.


[quote]Evolution or biology is a poor standard for determining moral standards.
Exactly what is and isn't "biologically hardwired" in human behavior is hard to determine, and there are plenty of biologists who would claim that such things as murder, lying, and adultery are "hardwired" in our genes. Does that mean those things should all be considered acceptable moral behavior?
(As Christians, we believe that a tendency towards sin and evil due to original sin is in fact "hardwired in our genes.")

Chimpanzees, commonly regarded as man's closest living relatives, often brutally kill members of their own species, and engage in infanticide and cannibalism. If such behavior is inherited from ape ancestors, does that make it moral?[/quote]

That's not actually what I meant by when I said that our morality is hardwired and explained by evolution of social animals. It says nothing about what we see as moral (and certainly not objectively) but rather that the capacity to be moral (have empathy, be selfless, altruistic) have evolutionary explanations for their origins. I'm certainly not saying that that gives people a free pass to act like wild animals with only their small family tribes to look out for.

Primitive small tribes of humans act like a raiding group of male chimps who raid other groups sometimes randomly and unprovoked. Cannibalism also happened in human history (just so you know cannibals, native south American at least, believed that they are internalizing the characteristics of the person they ate...it was desirable to them.)

[quote]And if morality is a mere "social construct," then it has no objective basis and is always subject to change. Something being socially acceptable doesn't make it morally right. For instance, for much of human history, slavery was an accepted part of most human societies. Racism and racial discrimination was socially acceptable at times in the past. Yet few liberals would now declare those things moral.

What is and isn't "common" in "most" moral systems is somewhat subjective, and subject to change. There are plenty of things that have been common practice in societies that I'm sure you would not agree with.
As I've pointed out, simply using what's commonly accepted in society is a weak basis for morality.[/quote]

The good thing about change is that it can change for the better. What was the Church's position on slavery? Is it true that they said that black people didn't have actual human souls and so could be enslaved?

I don't base my moral framework on society, I base it on what I think is right.

[quote]You'd have to ask him. Think he means belief in God - as when Nietzsche wrote "God is dead."[/quote]

Probably.

[quote]If there is no "real morality" then your "morality" is just as valid as the Communists' and you have no solid basis to critique theirs beyond your personal preferences and tastes.[/quote]

Yes, I can't claim a divine power and the creator of the universe to back me up. I know that makes my side look just a little weak. especially when competing with so many other groups that do.

Edited June 7, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1307478880' post='2250944']
The way that I saw geocentrism explained was, at least pertaining to the Bible, phenomenological. Pertaining to the Church itself, which is not infallible when it comes to science, it would have been wrong.
[/quote]

Could you elaborate a bit more on this, or point me towards the right links? If they based their theology on what they thought was the geocentric model, and used it as a foundation, then why did they resist people such as Galileo?

I think that since then they've learned to be a bit more careful, not less fallible. The Church's acceptance and incorporation of evolutionary theory shows this.

Edit:

"If there were no [s]God[/s] theists, there would be no atheists." --G.K. Chesterton

Edited June 7, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]It's used as an ad hoc excuse often, and it's laughable. [/quote]

Edit: post hoc.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307480364' post='2250956']
"If there were no [s]God[/s] theists, there would be no atheists." --G.K. Chesterton


[/quote]

[quote] No one is born an atheist or a skeptic, one who doubts the possibility of ever discovering truth. These attitudes are made less by the way one thinks than by the way one lives. If we do not live as we think, we soon begin to think as we live. We suit our philosophy to our actions and that is bad.

Let me tell you of the story of an atheist in London, England. I used to do considerable work in St. Patrick's Parish, in Soho Square. One Sunday morning I came into the front of the church to read Mass, and found a young lady standing in front of the communion rail haranguing the congregation. She was saying, "There is no God! There is too much evil in the world! Reason cannot transcend sense! It is impossible to conclude to His existence!" "Every night," she said, "I go out to Hyde Park. I talk against God. I circulate England, Scotland and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a belief in the existence of God."

As I reached the communion rail, I said to her, "Young lady, I am very happy to hear you say you believe in the existence of God."

She said, "You silly fool, I don't!"

I said, "I understood you to say just the contrary. Suppose I went out every night to Hyde Park and talked against twenty-footed ghost and ten centaurs. Suppose I circulated England, Scotland and Wales, denouncing a belief in these ghosts and in these centaurs. What would happen to me?"

She said, "You would be crazy! They would lock you up!"

I said, "Do you not put God in the same category as these fantasies of the imagination? Why would I be crazy attacking them and you are not crazy for attacking God?"

She said, "I don't know. Why?"

[b] I said, "Because when I attack these phantoms of the imagination, I am attacking something unreal, but when you attack God, you are attacking something as real as the trust of a sword. [color="#FF0000"]Do you think we could have any such thing in the world as prohibition unless there was something to prohibit? Could there ever be anti-cigarette laws unless there were cigarettes? How can there be atheism unless there is not something to atheate?"[/color][/b]

She said, "I hate you!"

I said, "Now you've given the answer."

Atheism is not a doctrine, it is a cry of wrath.

[b]There are two kinds of atheists. There are the simple persons who have read a smattering of science and concede, probably, there is no God; but the other type of atheist is militant, such as the communist. They really do not deny the existence of God, they challenge God. It is the reality of God that saves them from insanity. It is the reality of God that gives them a real object against which they may vent their hate.[/b]


-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, [url="http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/sheen.htm"]Your Life is Worth Living, Good and Evil[/url][/quote]

Edited June 7, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307390706' post='2250531']
That's probably because you feel that the only sense of meaning applicable is objective meaning. I feel there doesn't have to be one for people to lead meaningful lives. I don't spend that much time pondering the undesirable consequences of my death because I don't find them to be applicable.

I know that faithful people have done and are doing good in the world, but that in turn does not downplay or lessen the wrongs that faith is doing. I'll focus my claims to be less vague in the future.[/quote]
For every nutcase stoning people in the Ugandan jungle (which I condone no more than you condone the actions of Stalin or Mao), there's millions more Christians feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, visiting the imprisoned, and instructing the ignorant, just as Christ taught.

It seems you and other atheists like to obsess over the former, and ignore or dismiss the latter - even though Christian good works in volume far outweigh the abuses and evil un-Christlike actions performed by Christians.

Of course, a fanatic stoning people or such makes headlines, while Christians running a homeless shelter does not. It's Man Bites Dog vs. Dog Bites Man.



[quote] You mean the one thing that I was hinging on all this time isn't real? I guess I should stop watching BBC then...

(I know where you're getting at and no, I don't trust journalists to be impartial.)



Shifting the goalpost...




Dolphins have sex outside their fertile periods [/quote]
Yes, and humans do too, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Copulation between man and woman is open to the generation of new human life, while same-sex sodomitic acts, by their very nature can never, ever bring forth life.


While there's nothing wrong with sex outside of fertile periods (for dolphins or humans), if you're trying to go the route of proving behavior moral for humans by using examples from the animal kingdom, you're on very shaky ground. Male dolphins have been known to rape females. Apes beat each other to death, and kill and eat rivals' babies. Spiders and other arthropods eat their mates.


[quote]Two things (whether you want to answer them or not, I'll just throw it out there): is homosexuality intrinsically wrong or is it something that society preaches because society sees it to be a threat to its own fabric somehow.[/quote]
Homosexuality is intrinsically morally wrong.

Like I said, run a search if you're interested in further details. (Sorry if I'm being unhelpful, but this topic has been argued ad nauseum on these boards, and I simply don't have time to go into this in detail right now. When homosexual issues come up, the entire thread turns to get derailed into arguments over homosexuality.)

[quote]Reliance's on natural arguments against homosexuality are weak.

Another thing: if you're talking about a disease such as AIDS, actually the incidence of that among homosexuals is much lower than among heterosexuals, proportionally. As for psychological problems, are you differentiating between intrinsic problems (if so, then which) and those that come from a social animal being an outcast?[/quote]
It's a scientific fact that anal and oral sex (especially anal) are more conducive to the spread of viruses and bacteria than vaginal intercourse. To be blunt, a vagina is designed to handle a penis, while a rectum is not.

And it's also a fact that if people were observing Christian morality, the spread of AIDS would decline drastically. In the parts of Africa in which AIDS is epidemic, extreme sexual promiscuity (including bi-sexual promiscuity) is the norm. If people followed Christian morality by observing chastity/monogamy, avoiding sodomy, and not doing illicit drugs, there would be much less AIDS.

Somebody linked to the psychological survey on another thread, and unfortunately, I don't have the link, but a fact that surprised the survey's authors were that the rates of problems were just as higher or higher in places known for being very tolerant and accepting of homosexuality (such as San Fransisco and the Netherlands) as in less "tolerant" places, indicating that they are not only the result of outside opposition. Also, in the states which allowed homosexual "marriage," divorce rates are much higher than for "straight" couples.

Of course, Christians don't regard homosexuality as immoral just because of health hazards, but this is something to think about.

[Nihil Obstat]

That was an excellent story by Archbishop Sheen! Thanks for posting it, David.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307486094' post='2251000']
No one is born an atheist or a skeptic, one who doubts the possibility of ever discovering truth. These attitudes are made less by the way one thinks than by the way one lives. If we do not live as we think, we soon begin to think as we live. We suit our philosophy to our actions and that is bad.

Let me tell you of the story of an atheist in London, England. I used to do considerable work in St. Patrick's Parish, in Soho Square. One Sunday morning I came into the front of the church to read Mass, and found a young lady standing in front of the communion rail haranguing the congregation. She was saying, "There is no God! There is too much evil in the world! Reason cannot transcend sense! It is impossible to conclude to His existence!" "Every night," she said, "I go out to Hyde Park. I talk against God. I circulate England, Scotland and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a belief in the existence of God."

As I reached the communion rail, I said to her, "Young lady, I am very happy to hear you say you believe in the existence of God."

She said, "You silly fool, I don't!"

I said, "I understood you to say just the contrary. Suppose I went out every night to Hyde Park and talked against twenty-footed ghost and ten centaurs. Suppose I circulated England, Scotland and Wales, denouncing a belief in these ghosts and in these centaurs. What would happen to me?"

She said, "You would be crazy! They would lock you up!"

I said, "Do you not put God in the same category as these fantasies of the imagination? Why would I be crazy attacking them and you are not crazy for attacking God?"

She said, "I don't know. Why?"

[b] I said, "Because when I attack these phantoms of the imagination, I am attacking something unreal, but when you attack God, you are attacking something as real as the trust of a sword. Do you think we could have any such thing in the world as prohibition unless there was something to prohibit? Could there ever be anti-cigarette laws unless there were cigarettes? How can there be atheism unless there is not something to atheate?"[/b]

She said, "I hate you!"

I said, "Now you've given the answer."

Atheism is not a doctrine, it is a cry of wrath.

[b]There are two kinds of atheists. There are the simple persons who have read a smattering of science and concede, probably, there is no God; but the other type of atheist is militant, such as the communist. They really do not deny the existence of God, they challenge God. It is the reality of God that saves them from insanity. It is the reality of God that gives them a real object against which they may vent their hate.[/b]


-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, [url="http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/sheen.htm"]Your Life is Worth Living, Good and Evil[/url][/quote]

"[b]Because when I attack these phantoms of the imagination, I am attacking something unreal, but when you attack God, you are attacking something as real as the trust of a sword."

[/b]


This is where it gets weird. How did he define 'god' in this case, the reason for existence? If it was something along those lines, then people would be crazy to dispute that.

[Mr.Cat]

Atheism is merely the lack or rejection of theism. For most atheists I know, it is a lack of theism.

But to an atheist, god is as real as the easter bunny or santa.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307486405' post='2251006']
For every nutcase stoning people in the Ugandan jungle (which I condone no more than you condone the actions of Stalin or Mao), there's millions more Christians feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, visiting the imprisoned, and instructing the ignorant, just as Christ taught.

It seems you and other atheists like to obsess over the former, and ignore or dismiss the latter - even though Christian good works in volume far outweigh the abuses and evil un-Christlike actions performed by Christians.

Of course, a fanatic stoning people or such makes headlines, while Christians running a homeless shelter does not. It's Man Bites Dog vs. Dog Bites Man.[/quote]

Okay, speaking for myself, I publicly acknowledge that there are many Christians that do a great deal of good in the world. The good side of Christianity shows in those cases. I also assume that you are against the criminalization of homosexuality in countries such as Uganda, even if you think it's immoral, and with your scriptures which say that they should be killed (a simple yes/no answer should suffice if you're tired of the topic).


[quote]Yes, and humans do too, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Copulation between man and woman is open to the generation of new human life, while same-sex sodomitic acts, by their very nature can never, ever bring forth life.

While there's nothing wrong with sex outside of fertile periods (for dolphins or humans), if you're trying to go the route of proving behavior moral for humans by using examples from the animal kingdom, you're on very shaky ground. Male dolphins have been known to rape females. Apes beat each other to death, and kill and eat rivals' babies. Spiders and other arthropods eat their mates.[/quote]

I'm using parallels in nature to to show that they exist in nature, and are not a unique product of humans. Though not supporting a case on its own (since just because animals do something then it's okay for humans), that fi lt er s out a lot of bad arguments.


[quote]Homosexuality is intrinsically morally wrong.

Like I said, run a search if you're interested in further details. (Sorry if I'm being unhelpful, but this topic has been argued ad nauseum on these boards, and I simply don't have time to go into this in detail right now. When homosexual issues come up, the entire thread turns to get derailed into arguments over homosexuality.)[/quote]

Okay, just for the record, I think it isn't wrong, but I'll stop there.


[quote]It's a scientific fact that anal and oral sex (especially anal) are more conducive to the spread of viruses and bacteria than vaginal intercourse. To be blunt, a vagina is designed to handle a penis, while a rectum is not.

And it's also a fact that if people were observing Christian morality, the spread of AIDS would decline drastically. In the parts of Africa in which AIDS is epidemic, extreme sexual promiscuity (including bi-sexual promiscuity) is the norm. If people followed Christian morality by observing chastity/monogamy, avoiding sodomy, and not doing illicit drugs, there would be much less AIDS.[/quote]

Just to let you know, there are certain groups in Africa who believe that the cure for AIDS is to have sex with a virgen. Children suffer because of this.

Some desperate people will listen to people who offer hope, such as witch doctors, not priests.

[quote]Somebody linked to the psychological survey on another thread, and unfortunately, I don't have the link, but a fact that surprised the survey's authors were that the rates of problems were just as higher or higher in places known for being very tolerant and accepting of homosexuality (such as San Fransisco and the Netherlands) as in less "tolerant" places, indicating that they are not only the result of outside opposition. Also, in the states which allowed homosexual "marriage," divorce rates are much higher than for "straight" couples.

Of course, Christians don't regard homosexuality as immoral just because of health hazards, but this is something to think about.
[/quote]

Hmmm. I didn't know this. Something to look up.

Edited June 8, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307492093' post='2251072']
Atheism is merely the lack or rejection of theism. For most atheists I know, it is a lack of theism.

But to an atheist, god is as real as the easter bunny or santa.
[/quote]



I reject the claims of theists for my own reasons, but not the possibility of a god because if there is one, I don't know it in the first place.

You really can't be angry at or frustrated with something you don't believe in.

But I guess there are a lot of people somewhere between full atheism and agnostic theism that could actually be angry at some form of god.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307492804' post='2251076']But I guess there are a lot of people somewhere between full atheism and agnostic theism that could actually be angry at some form of god.[/quote]Atheists hail from all the different human religions, the common distaste is for religious discrimination and practices. Such as some of the atheists who hail from Islam are not angry with Allahn but that there is now a death threat on them from musims who either condone, believe, or practice such inhumane religiosity.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307493290' post='2251078']
Atheists hail from all the different human religions, the common distaste is for religious discrimination and practices. Such as some of the atheists who hail from Islam are not angry with Allahn but that there is now a death threat on them from musims who either condone, believe, or practice such inhumane religiosity.
[/quote]

Relative to Western society and based on the idea that killing people for leaving a religion is not justified, though they would see the idea behind it as an objective truth, Islam is one backward religion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307491414' post='2251067']
"[b]Because when I attack these phantoms of the imagination, I am attacking something unreal, but when you attack God, you are attacking something as real as the trust of a sword."

[/b]


This is where it gets weird. How did he define 'god' in this case, the reason for existence? If it was something along those lines, then people would be crazy to dispute that.
[/quote]

He makes a similar point that I made earlier the point that it makes little sense to be curious and ask so much of God from Christians or seek the company of Christians if Atheists do not doubt their doubt or feel something lacking. He makes the point from reason and conscience that you don't go about attacking the imagery. Because it is crazy and insane. Positive Atheism via Communism and other groups who held positive forms of Atheism which attacked God or His people did just that, it is the fact that God does exists that saves them from insanity. If He did not their attacks would make no sense what so ever and be counter to sanity.

Edited June 8, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

There are three possible kinds of God: the god of one's own ego, in which the atheist believes, and which is also the god of modern confusionism; the god of nature, of stone and gold and silver, which belonged to the old religions of idolatry; and the Supreme God, who made both man and nature, and redeemed them both upon the cross. Those who tell us that they deny the existence of God are merely substituting one god for another. --Fulton John Sheen