Is the fact that religion pops up in every form of civilization...

HansHolzel

It's impossible to predict our future knowledge. That's a logical point. But if you don't fancy the advertising industry as an example of valid social science, here's another, very specific one.

In 1976 in France, Emmanuel Todd predicted the fall of the Soviet Union within 15-30 years, based on statistics like rising infant mortality. He was largely ignored because his analysis was unfashionable at the time.

Science is always a social endeavour, subject to social pressures.

Hotblack Desiato

Good example of something that is NOT science. Make a claim which is only testable after the fact, rather than one based upon a hypothesis which can be proven or disproven or refined by the observations of others.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

In 1976 in France, Emmanuel Todd predicted the fall of the Soviet Union within 15-30 years, based on statistics like rising infant mortality. He was largely ignored because his analysis was unfashionable at the time.

I'm sure Nostradamus had the same problem. And I'd suspect that rising infant mortality didn't have that much to do with the fall of the Soviet Union.

You'll appreciate, one guy making one prediction doesn't amount to a hill of beans. A very large number of people, using sophisticated analysis tools, failing to notice that the whole of Europe was walking into a financial crisis is a little bit more illuminating.

HansHolzel wrote: »

Science is always a social endeavour, subject to social pressures.

I've no problem there.

HansHolzel

The USSR was going broke. Todd studied the evidence properly and published an accurate scientific prediction, unlike say, Karl Marx, whose unscientific prophecy has been falsified.

But if GCU wants to assert "one guy making one prediction doesn't amount to a hill of beans", I give up. Go tell it to Copernicus.

As for ninja900, I'll say it again, slowly: Todd PUBLISHED his prediction and gave an accurate timescale for when it would happen. "Testable after the fact" my orse.

nozzferrahhtoo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid that just looks like you're repeating it.

But that difference doesn't overcome the common issues of the limits to human capacity.

Again: Nor did I claim it did. My comments are not related to the limitations of science. My comments are related to how clearly adopting one mindset is not the same as adopting any other as there are marked differences between them and their outcomes.

Your replies to me seem to consistently be to a conversation I am not actually taking part in. We are talking past each other in two entirely distinct conversations that we each appear to be having with ourselves.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again: Nor did I claim it did. My comments are not related to the limitations of science. My comments are related to how clearly adopting one mindset is not the same as adopting any other as there are marked differences between them and their outcomes.

Your replies to me seem to consistently be to a conversation I am not actually taking part in. We are talking past each other in two entirely distinct conversations that we each appear to be having with ourselves.

In fairness, I'm not casting asparagus and I thought I was acknowledging that, indeed, there wasn't a difference between us on what we might term the general limitations.

I'd actually feel the thread made some progress on the topic.

Can I throw some asparagus? I don't like it

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bluewolf wrote: »

Can I throw some asparagus? I don't like it

How do you feel about cheese?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emd_wKeQjxI

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

Can I throw some asparagus? I don't like it

Either you're one of a select group of individuals with questionable genomic tendencies.

Or else, you've never grabbed a frying pan, stuck it on a high heat, dropped in a large knob of butter and a fistful of asparagus stalks and whipped them out 90 seconds later. Please ignore the parmesan in the following photo:

That stuff is *dangerously* delicious.

CNR94

It's a way for simpler people to explain complex things. Difficult questions are bound to be asked eventually in every society and a god is an easy explanation.

nozzferrahhtoo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, I'm not casting asparagus and I thought I was acknowledging that, indeed, there wasn't a difference between us on what we might term the general limitations.

I'd actually feel the thread made some progress on the topic.

Between you and your asparagus and Fry trying to be the devils avocado... the atheist relationship with flora and fauna is starting to get weird.

Hotblack Desiato

HansHolzel wrote: »

The USSR was going broke. Todd studied the evidence properly and published an accurate scientific prediction, unlike say, Karl Marx, whose unscientific prophecy has been falsified.

But if GCU wants to assert "one guy making one prediction doesn't amount to a hill of beans", I give up. Go tell it to Copernicus.

As for ninja900, I'll say it again, slowly: Todd PUBLISHED his prediction and gave an accurate timescale for when it would happen. "Testable after the fact" my orse.

Fail. Economics isn't a science either.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

Fail. Economics isn't a science either.

I don't particularly disagree.

I suspect science might not be a science, either.

hello goodbye

MickFleetwood wrote: »

Neither, just my own observations. :P Apologies for the lazy OP.

Basically, I think human nature has an inherent need for something to live for, some kind of goal that we all strive to achieve. Such as reaching Heaven or whatever fantastical place your religion outlines.

Humans in general also need something to believe in, I guess. Most cannot face up to the fact that they've likely only got one shot at life.

I would have the belief that human nature does indeed have an inherent need to live. As individuals we strive to survive in this world of chaos and as part of our survival we need to give meaning to the chaos of nature and forces which we have no control over .
Humans need to feel in control and yes need to make goals and achievements to feel this. On a larger scale we need to provide meaning to the choas that is omnipresent and religion, mythology etc has in the past provided this.
Now capitalism does!

:-$

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect science might not be a science, either.

Isn't there a Darwin Award for statements like this?

GCU it has been perfectly clear for a long time that you don't understand the scientific method, falsifiability or any of the other underpinnings of the sciences. And your criticisms of science often are based solely off this ignorance. I would suggest you educate yourself about the philosophical and empirical underpinnings of science before you criticise it again.

dan dan

It is a simple case of the cute hoor syndrome. One morning in every form of society,or group of isolated people. A cute hoor wakes up and says God(in whatever form) spoke to me last night. He said I will tell you all anything he needs you to do . If theres anything you need to say to God then you tell me and I tell him. This is such important vocation.I cannot be working or such .I need to be cosseted,after all I am Gods man.

Brian Shanahan

dan dan wrote: »

It is a simple case of the cute hoor syndrome. One morning in every form of society,or group of isolated people. A cute hoor wakes up and says God(in whatever form) spoke to me last night. He said I will tell you all anything he needs you to do . If theres anything you need to say to God then you tell me and I tell him. This is such important vocation.I cannot be working or such .I need to be cosseted,after all I am Gods man.

You forgot the bit: "and if you don't do exactly as god has told me to tell you to do, you'll be et by lions". And upon the occasion of lions snacking on José, "see, see, I told you. José ignored god's will and now his sexy daughter is all mine...I mean he's been punished for his sins."

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

GCU it has been perfectly clear for a long time that you don't understand the scientific method, falsifiability or any of the other underpinnings of the sciences. And your criticisms of science often are based solely off this ignorance. I would suggest you educate yourself about the philosophical and empirical underpinnings of science before you criticise it again.

No, I understand them alright. It's just that some folk confuse one theoretical view of what science is with the actual practice of science.

In particular, I find many don't understand that all science ever does is suggest a model. There's never any suggestion that the model explains reality. The contention is only that the model is usually useful in helping us to know what to expect to follow from a certain action. People who understand science know what I've just said. The Level 7 Degree holders, on the other hand, look on the models as if they've been handed to us on tablets of stone.

No-one has refuted any point that I've made, and it is highly significant that you are retreating into vague, half-arrogant mumblings.

Try describing how any explanation for the origin of the Universe could be falsified.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Try describing how any explanation for the origin of the Universe could be falsified.

Consequences from the models being shown to be false...

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Try describing how any explanation for the origin of the Universe could be falsified.

A few possible ways:

1) Current conditions not being a possibility from initial conditions as postulated by theory, and no way of reconciling them (for a long time this appeared to be a problem with the Big Bang theory, however dark matter was a possible solution, which has much evidence behind it).
2) Background radiation not corresponding to expected values from the start of the universe (about 1% of the snow on untuned Cathode Ray TVs is background radiation which started a few nano-seconds after the big bang).
3) Red shift reversing itself (one of the early evidence for the Big Bang was provided by Edwin Hubble when he proved through the Doppler like red-shift that stars were moving away from us. It's one of the reasons why the big-ass space telescope has his name on it).

I could probably list quite a few more if I had any of my science books to hand, but they're up in the attic atm (on an Alfred Bester kick now).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bluewolf wrote: »

Consequences from the models being shown to be false...

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A few possible ways:

1) Current conditions not being a possibility from initial conditions as postulated by theory, <...>

Grand, so far as it goes. But, bear in mind, you're never actually observing the process per se.

Put another way, we're never in the position of being able to fill a hundred test tubes with absolutely nothing, not even time, and see if anything happens.

So, yes, we can state the sum total of our observations of what we see about us, and describe an initial state that might explain them. We can state the potential falsification is if we observe some present feature that we hadn't noticed before, that can't be produced by that initial state.

But that's really saying that the thing we can falsify is our understanding of the present state, rather than what we suggest might have produced it.

nagirrac

From a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang to today, we have a well established model of how our universe evolved, backed up by a ton of observable data. This is definitely science. What happened at the moment of the big bang, or whether there was a "before" the big bang is a mystery, and any proposed hypotheses for what happened are highly speculative. In short "we don't know". Although the latter is science in the broad sense of the word as in "trying to understand our natural world", these various hypotheses cannot be tested at present, let alone falsified, so they are not examined by the empirical scientific method.

Most cosmologists these days seem to favor the multiverse idea, which sounds fanciful until you listen to their arguments. I just finished Sean Carroll's book "From Eternity to Here" and it contains the clearest explanations of relativity and QM, and the problems in reconciling them, that I have come across to date. Carroll makes a plausible case for a bouncing universe that fluctuates eternally between a low entropy state (the big bang) to a high entropy state (the big crunch). It resolves the arrow of time paradox in that time flows in one direction during the expansion cycle (the one we are in) and in the opposite direction during the contraction cycle.

There seems reasonable agreement among cosmologists that our actual universe is not just a multiverse, but is also a subset of a much larger "world". It is debatable how much we can know about this greater world, as in Carroll's words "according to quantum mechanics, what we can observe about the world is only a tiny subset of what actually exists".

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A few possible ways:

1) Current conditions not being a possibility from initial conditions as postulated by theory, and no way of reconciling them (for a long time this appeared to be a problem with the Big Bang theory, however dark matter was a possible solution, which has much evidence behind it).
2) Background radiation not corresponding to expected values from the start of the universe (about 1% of the snow on untuned Cathode Ray TVs is background radiation which started a few nano-seconds after the big bang).
3) Red shift reversing itself (one of the early evidence for the Big Bang was provided by Edwin Hubble when he proved through the Doppler like red-shift that stars were moving away from us. It's one of the reasons why the big-ass space telescope has his name on it).

I could probably list quite a few more if I had any of my science books to hand, but they're up in the attic atm (on an Alfred Bester kick now).

All of these relate to events that occurred after Planck time. In reality, as I said in the above post, nothing is known between the instant of the big bang (or even if there was such as instant) and Planck time. A bit mad that we are talking about a period of 10^-43 seconds.

antiskeptic

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An interesting point on the social psychology of humanity in general?

Discuss.

It appears to me that they all derive from a common ancestor (which is still around today - what with it being fittest).

Call it ToRD (Theory of Religious Devolution) if you like.

Sarky

"bollocks" sounds better.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antiskeptic wrote: »

It appears to me that they all derive from a common ancestor (which is still around today - what with it being fittest).

Call it ToRD (Theory of Religious Devolution) if you like.

Was that in the papers the Chinaman gave you?

HansHolzel

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In particular, I find many don't understand that all science ever does is suggest a model. There's never any suggestion that the model explains reality. The contention is only that the model is usually useful in helping us to know what to expect to follow from a certain action.

Eh? Wtf?

Anyway, in 1997, with Fischer Black having died, Myron Scholes got the Nobel Prize for Economics for the Black-Scholes equation but within a year his hedge fund went wallop thanks to a Russian financial crisis. Events, dear boy, events have a habit of upsetting the best-laid plans of maths and men.

So sit down. You're refuted.

Zombrex

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An interesting point on the social psychology of humanity in general?

Discuss.

It is expected given the modern theories about why humans subscribe to religious beliefs and behaviours. These theories include things like hyperactive agency detection.

Basically we all have very similar brains that are prone to similar types of tricks and mental illusions to help us process the world around us. Religion is an off shoot of that so it is expected that particular patterns will appear through all of human religions, in the same way that all human writing shares similar patterns.

Religion is a reflection of how the human mind works, and because the human mind works similarily across cultures and ethnic groups, so two will religions work similarly

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

So sit down. You're refuted.

Erm, how is that? Incidently, my incomprehension is genuine.

Zombrex wrote: »

Basically we all have very similar brains that are prone to similar types of tricks and mental illusions to help us process the world around us.

Which, of course, will also impact on any explanation we attempt when trying to account for religion.

Essentially, we haven't a John Jaysus.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Which, of course, will also impact on any explanation we attempt when trying to account for religion.

Well yes, but of course the explanations science are coming up with for religion are actually testable models, where as the religious explanations (which is normally along the lines of our religion X is the true one and all other religions are just misunderstandings of our true religion) are not.

Like anything in psychology it may be difficult to remove our own sense of self from the picture completely, but it does a far better job than assessing the truth of religous claims

human 19

Copy of 1 of my posts from a previous thread....

Consider the dawning of consciousness in our ancestors. Consider that much of their well-being and survival depended on what came from the sky, and hence rivers. Rain/sun.

What must they have made of thunderstorms...the power must have made them feel puny. They may have also being trying to figure out what the stars were. Hence , possibly, gods being placed in the sky.

Late rains or other such phenomena led them to rituals such as sacrifices to appease these gods as they assumed ordinary human motives such as displeasure to the actions of these "gods"

Then consider mate-bonding and the early conscious dealing with death of a mate or child....or fear of one's own death. If these were attributed to the actions of the gods, this could have given rise to the concept of an afterlife as solace.

As such beliefs take hold, they are passed on..and on...and on...

and this was before some genius decided how much power he could have if he claimed to understand how the gods were thinking and what they wanted.

Personally I believe, but am open to correction as I havent read anything about this, that religion entered and filled the gap between consciousness and knowledge.

Justin1982

As an atheist, I reckon that the second worst day of my life was when it dawned on me that there was no god, there was no nothing. I was twelve then and it was pretty scarey.
As a fond lover of Christmas, the darkest day of my life was when it dawned on me that there was no Santy, there was no person bearing free presents or whatever I wanted. I was 6 then and it was 3 days before Christmas day. :P

Religion will pop up every where as people will always want to be able to explain their existence and have hope for an after life. It just turns out that Christianity was a particularly good religion. It was well thought out and it provided a template for providing order in Western culture that probably wasnt there until Christianity arrived. Its moral code (when actually applied as described in the bible) is its true value.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

Well yes, but of course the explanations science are coming up with for religion are actually testable models, where as the religious explanations (which is normally along the lines of our religion X is the true one and all other religions are just misunderstandings of our true religion) are not.

Grand, so far as it goes. It's just that their testability might not amount to a hill of beans, as it's unlikely to uncovered anything with any point.

Is it fair to say, any explanation advanced here is just accounting for religion - it's not actually explaining anything.

the_syco

Is the fact that religion pops up in every form of civilization shows that some people can live off others fear of death very nicely...

HansHolzel

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, how is that? Incidently, my incomprehension is genuine.

Incidentally, I can see that.

Hotblack Desiato

Justin1982 wrote: »

It just turns out that Christianity was a particularly good religion. It was well thought out and it provided a template for providing order in Western culture that probably wasnt there until Christianity arrived.

Balls to that. The Ancient Greeks, or pre-christian Rome didn't have order?

Its moral code (when actually applied as described in the bible) is its true value.

The 'moral code' in the bible is rather interesting but you'd have to read it in full to find the bits that christians like to pretend don't exist. The 'good bits' are mostly common to many human cultures and religions. The Abrahamic religions add a large dose of unhealthy sexual 'morality' to the mix though.

Justin1982

ninja900 wrote: »

Balls to that. The Ancient Greeks, or pre-christian Rome didn't have order?

The 'moral code' in the bible is rather interesting but you'd have to read it in full to find the bits that christians like to pretend don't exist. The 'good bits' are mostly common to many human cultures and religions. The Abrahamic religions add a large dose of unhealthy sexual 'morality' to the mix though.

The vikings, celts, ancient greeks and pre christian rome didnt have a particularly high level of moral values and they had a lot of gods who were mainly pre-occupied with War, Sex, Capitalism and one up man ship. For a ruler of any of these kingdoms or civilizations it contributed to a fairly turbulent and violent society. Christianity when adopted properly made for a rather peaceful and moral society.

They pagan gods were not particularly caring towards the average citizen of these civilizations either. The sudden promise of just one single god who cared about everyone from every social standing and promised eternal life in heaven for just obeying the ten commandments must have been pretty appealing also. Rather than having to die in battle just to get Valhalla.

Yeah Christians tend to focus on the positive aspects of the bible and its positive message. But that is mainly so that they can promote these positive values in any society that adopts the bible as its moral code.

HansHolzel

(1) The early Christians obeyed an unusual religious duty to look after the sick.

(2) Basic nursing care will save many lives in times of epidemics e.g. the late Roman empire.

(3) Christians were seen to have a better chance of survival, hence the practical appeal of their god.

(4) Then Constantine made it the official religion.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, so far as it goes. It's just that their testability might not amount to a hill of beans, as it's unlikely to uncovered anything with any point.

They might not amount to anything, but I'm not sure how you can sa it is unlikely.

You seem to have already made up your mind.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Is it fair to say, any explanation advanced here is just accounting for religion - it's not actually explaining anything.

Why would you say that?

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

The vikings, celts, ancient greeks and pre christian rome didnt have a particularly high level of moral values and they had a lot of gods who were mainly pre-occupied with War, Sex, Capitalism and one up man ship. For a ruler of any of these kingdoms or civilizations it contributed to a fairly turbulent and violent society. Christianity when adopted properly made for a rather peaceful and moral society.
..............

Ah jaysus, you're a gas man.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

They might not amount to anything, but I'm not sure how you can sa it is unlikely.

You seem to have already made up your mind.

I've a bias, clearly. Reality is incomprehensible without a bias. However, absolutely, you're right that there's no basis for any statement about how likely it is that some testable model will come up with anything that folk actually find useful, as an alternative to religion.

Zombrex wrote: »

Why would you say that?

I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but how could it be any other way? The fact that people, very commonly, adhere to religions can be accounted for by saying that it gives answers that are credible to people who lack understanding of how things work, and/or gives people a sense that the world is safer and more predictable than it is, and/or gives people an assurance that, in the general scheme of things, they are more than self-loading cargo. But there's no way of moving from saying that it could be one or all of those things, to actually saying it is one of those things.

Zombrex

Justin1982 wrote: »

Christianity when adopted properly made for a rather peaceful and moral society.

I suspect the truth of that sentence hangs on a very specific definition of the word "properly".

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've a bias, clearly. Reality is incomprehensible without a bias. However, absolutely, you're right that there's no basis for any statement about how likely it is that some testable model will come up with anything that folk actually find useful, as an alternative to religion.I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but how could it be any other way?

We already have testable models that come up with useful explanations that are alternatives to religion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The fact that people, very commonly, adhere to religions can be accounted for by saying that it gives answers that are credible to people who lack understanding of how things work, and/or gives people a sense that the world is safer and more predictable than it is, and/or gives people an assurance that, in the general scheme of things, they are more than self-loading cargo. But there's no way of moving from saying that it could be one or all of those things, to actually saying it is one of those things.

Sure there is, again we have already started doing this.

Kivaro

Justin1982 wrote: »

Christianity when adopted properly made for a rather peaceful and moral society.

The Inquisition must have been great craic.
"Christianity & Moral". Talk about the biggest oxymoron .................. EVER.

But I like the word "adopted" because that is what christianity did to create itself out of the multitude of religions that existed before it did.

See my signature below.
|
|
|
|
|
V

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

We already have testable models that come up with useful explanations that are alternatives to religion.

I'm trying to think of some way of getting to the nub of the matter.

If we agree that much social science is hokum, then we've to ask ourselves what science is really contributing to a ranges of serious questions that have a lot to do with human welfare. (If we don't agree they're hokum, then clearly this line of argument won't work.)

Decisions need to be made. For the sake of argument, Government needs to decide how to deal with personal debt in a way that both meets economic needs and is politically acceptable. "Science" does damn all that's useful there. In fact, arguably, science added to the mess by convincing some people that it could tell them something useful about the future value of property.

Bearing in mind, again, that a key difference between physical and social sciences (leaving aside Schrodingers Cat for a moment). Predictions made by social sciences influence outcomes, where predictions made by physical sciences (largely, so far as we know) don't. independently of whether the proposition is true or false, an assertion that there is/isn't a god has a social impact.

And it's not easy to tell if the impact, on either side, is good or evil. Its not easy to tell an Egyptian mother that circumcising her daughter is worse than accepting she'll have a pre-marital sex life, with risks of single motherhood and other social problems. I mean, it's easy to make grandstanding statements about FGM in front of a sympathetic Western audience who fundamentally don't give **** about Egyptian teenagers in any real sense. The gap in credibility is when you're trying to convince someone who actually stands to gain or lose from the outcome.

(I've a feeling this threads either going to suddenly die a quiet death, or explode to about 1,000 posts, 900 of which will be spluttering with outrage over what they wished that last paragraph said, just to make the grandstanding that bit easier.)

HansHolzel

Go away and read Karl Popper ffs

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

Go away and read Karl Popper ffs

Sure I did. Years ago. That's why I said

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

<...> some folk confuse one theoretical view of what science is with the actual practice of science.

Do I take it that Thomas Kuhn isn't on the Level Seven syllabus?

magicbastarder

HansHolzel wrote: »

Go away and read Karl Popper ffs

are you not allowed disagree with karl popper even if you have read him?

HansHolzel

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Do I take it that Thomas Kuhn isn't on the Level Seven syllabus?

At last. I was waiting for you to trot out Kuhn.

“Some of the principles deployed in my explanation of science are irreducibly sociological, at least at this time. In particular, confronted with the problem of theory-choice, the structure of my response runs roughly as follows: take a group of the ablest available people with the most appropriate motivation; train them in some science and in the specialties relevant to the choice in hand; imbue them with the value system, the ideology, current in their discipline… and, finally, let them make the choice. If that technique doesn’t account for scientific development as we know it, then no other will.” (Kuhn 1988:237-38)

The foregoing can also easily account for figures like Lysenko. Let Solzhenitsyn speak here by way of explanation.

"In 1934, Pskov agronomists sowed flax on the snow – exactly as Lysenko had ordered. The seeds swelled up, grew mouldy and died. The big fields lay empty for a year. Lysenko could not say that the snow was a kulak or that he himself was an ass" (The Gulag Archipelago 1974:57).

(The full Kuhn source is “Reflections on my Critics” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan) Cambridge UP, 1988 (article originally published in 1970).

I have a doctorate by the way but the ignorance of tiresome, would-be intellectual trolls must be exposed.

magicbastarder

HansHolzel wrote: »

At last. I was waiting for you to trot out Kuhn.

HO HO. YOU FELL INTO HIS TRAP.

HansHolzel wrote: »

I have a doctorate by the way