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

HansHolzel

Carry On is the intellectual level I'm up against all right.

HansHolzel

magicbastarder wrote: »

HO HO. YOU FELL INTO HIS TRAP.

Or, to quote Ken from Carry On Up the Khyber,

"Get rid of this idiot!"

kylith

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.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Pre-Christian Celtic societies had more gender equality, right to divorce, gay rights, and provisions for the care of the sick, elderly, and disabled than Christian societies have, in some places, today (and in places where there are gay rights etc it's not for want of opposition from the church). In Viking societies rape was punishable by death, rather than the fine and free wife that the bible prescribes. There was more democracy in pre-Christian Greece than after Christianification. IMO there are many societies which were made less civilised by the introduction of Christianity.

HansHolzel wrote: »

(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.

I'll have to disagree with you about point 3 there. IMO it was the promise of eternal life after death which swayed people to Christianity. When your life expectancy is only into your mid-20s some guy telling you that if you worship this new god you'll have life after death has to be a fairly tempting option.

HansHolzel

Source for the disease angle in the rise of Christianity - William McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (1976).

If you can name a more eminent historian than McNeill, you can be sure CerebralCortex and Sarky will have heard of neither :-)

Sarky

I'm a research microbiologist, not a historian. I'm sure bannasidhe will be happy to embarrass you at some point though.

HansHolzel

Go on, go away and get a gang after me :-)

magicbastarder

the force is strong in this one.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.)

That seems a non-sequitur. Even if "much social science is hokum", science can still offer huge contributions to the questions of human welfare. It depends on the impact the science makes. If only 1 out of every 100,000 scientific hypothesis turns out to be supported that can have a huge impact if the 1 hypothesis cures small pox or creates a toilet.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

That statement isn't true, so there isn't a huge amount of point in debating the conclusions that stem from that sentence.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

It does, but again your apparent assertion that science cannot therefore not study this question or provide any useful theories is not true.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And it's not easy to tell if the impact, on either side, is good or evil.

That isn't relevant to the issue.

You don't seem to have addressed any of the points properly, so I'm not sure how you view this post as getting to the nub of the issue.

The nub as I see it is that science provides explanations for religious belief and behaviour that explain this behaviour as a result of mental processes, an explanation that does not require supernatural deities in order model the behaviour accurately.

How "good or evil" that is is irrelevant.

Sarky

HansHolzel wrote: »

Go on, go away and get a gang after me :-)

Oh, she's not a gang. Just a professional historian. It'd be silly, me debating history, so I won't. She knows a thing or two about it though, so she's a far better choice.

You'll be grand, sure you wouldn't have posted stuff without knowing whether it held up to scrutiny or not, would you? You'd have to be *mad* to do something silly like that...

kylith

HansHolzel wrote: »

Source for the disease angle in the rise of Christianity - William McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (1976).

If you can name a more eminent historian than McNeill, you can be sure CerebralCortex and Sarky will have heard of neither :-)

Does he have actual evidence that this is why people were converting to Christianity, such as documents or letters, or is it his opinion based on his interpretation of the evidence available?

The 'afterlife' proposal is one I came across from Simon Sebag Montefiore. I don't know if he's 'eminent' enough for you though.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

Grand. And what point is it that you are under the impression that you've made?

HansHolzel wrote: »

I have a doctorate by the way

Pacific Western University?

Zombrex wrote: »

That seems a non-sequitur. Even if "much social science is hokum", science can still offer huge contributions to the questions of human welfare. It depends on the impact the science makes. If only 1 out of every 100,000 scientific hypothesis turns out to be supported that can have a huge impact if the 1 hypothesis cures small pox or creates a toilet.

The point is that the social impact is complicated. If you ask "how do I get political agreement to continuing investment in Dublin City water services, to ensure an adequate supply to cater for expected population", science can't really help you. I'm really only repeating that post - there's a slate of questions, intimately related to human welfare, that science can't add to.

Zombrex wrote: »

The nub as I see it is that science provides explanations for religious belief and behaviour that explain this behaviour as a result of mental processes, an explanation that does not require supernatural deities in order model the behaviour accurately.

How "good or evil" that is is irrelevant.

I'll agree that "good or evil" could be misleading. Science can certainly account for religious belief in those terms - you'll notice I've explicitly acknowledge that. My point is more that, if you listen to that account and say "that's plausible, but so what?" science doesn't have much (and probably not anything) to say.

HansHolzel

Sarky wrote: »

Oh, she's not a gang. Just a professional historian. It'd be silly, me debating history, so I won't. She knows a thing or two about it though, so she's a far better choice.

You'll be grand, sure you wouldn't have posted stuff without knowing whether it held up to scrutiny or not, would you? You'd have to be *mad* to do something silly like that...

I know it stands up to scrutiny. I'm qualified to know that.

You admit you don't know if it does or it doesn't.

When I start making ignorant comments about microbiology, then you can step in.

Sarky

I'd really rather you didn't. You'd probably accuse me of hanging up on you all by myself.

HansHolzel

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. And what point is it that you are under the impression that you've made?

If you were able to understand what I wrote, you'd realize you're out of your depth, not least where Kuhn is concerned.

HansHolzel

Sarky wrote: »

I'd really rather you didn't. You'd probably accuse me of hanging up on you all by myself.

No, I'd accuse you of contributing to this thread in spite of self-confessed ignorance of the subject matter.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

If you were able to understand what I wrote, you'd realize you're out of your depth, not least where Kuhn is concerned.

If you're genuinely a Phd, which clearly we can't know, you're demonstrating precisely the quasi-religious aspect that folk object to.

Make your point, or leave the field.

magicbastarder

HansHolzel wrote: »

I know it stands up to scrutiny. I'm qualified to know that.

is this how you got your qualification? 'never mind reading my argument, i'm qualified to make my claims without evidence'?

HansHolzel

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you're genuinely a Phd, which clearly we can't know, you're demonstrating precisely the quasi-religious aspect that folk object to.

Make your point, or leave the field.

If you can manage it at all, do as I did and show us you know something about Thomas Kuhn, whose name you dropped.

Or else stay in the field, with your sprong.

Sarky

HansHolzel wrote: »

No, I'd accuse you of contributing to this thread in spite of self-confessed ignorance of the subject matter.

I post once in this thread calling antiskeptic's bollocks idea bollocks, and weeks later you're insulting me out of the blue with no provocation? How does that work, than?

Motopepe

History will not enlighten us on the subject of the inception of religious beliefs and / or practices among humans. Its pre-historic.

Turtwig

HansHolzel wrote: »

"Get rid of this idiot!

HansHolzel wrote: »

Carry On is the intellectual level I'm up against all right.

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

HansHolzel wrote: »

Or else stay in the field, with your sprong.

HansHolzel wrote: »

If you were able to understand what I wrote,

Less of the condescending remarks, please.

nagirrac

Motopepe wrote: »

History will not enlighten us on the subject of the inception of religious beliefs and / or practices among humans. Its pre-historic.

There is some evidence that Neanderthals were burying their dead in an intentional manner (with grave goods), so religious beliefs / practices may not even be unique to homo sapiens, let alone homo sapiens sapiens. This would date to 300,000 years ago and possibly 500,000 years ago. Shamanic religions from the Upper Paleolithic period, as evidenced from cave drawings, date to at least 30,000 years ago and possibly 80,000 years ago. The idea of a spirit world separate from the physical world has been around since the beginning of humanity, it clearly evolved, so the interesting question is why it was retained and became such a significant influence of all modern civilizations. Attempting to explain these phenomena in terms of how modern humans think or believe may not be that relevant to early hunter gatherer nomadic societies.

Motopepe

Indeed it may not be relevant. However, I tend to question "The idea of a spirit world separate from the physical world" being "around since the beginning of humanity". The idea of a spirit world separate from the physical world is most likely a relatively recent idea. There is the possibility that early humans perceived only one world and made no distinctions between those aspects that they would later attempt to separate out into different worlds.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

If you can manage it at all, do as I did and show us you know something about Thomas Kuhn, whose name you dropped.

Is not the miracle of the Juniper bushes enough?

I can assure that, if I used Google Scholar, I could actually come up with something approaching an apt quote. But what's the point of that? As far as I'm concerned, the quote you supplied illustrates some of what I mean, when I point out that the practice of science is a social process.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The point is that the social impact is complicated.

That is the point to what?

We were discussing if science can provide an alternative explanation for religious faith that does not invoke or require the supernatural.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you ask "how do I get political agreement to continuing investment in Dublin City water services, to ensure an adequate supply to cater for expected population", science can't really help you. I'm really only repeating that post - there's a slate of questions, intimately related to human welfare, that science can't add to.I'll agree that "good or evil" could be misleading. Science can certainly account for religious belief in those terms - you'll notice I've explicitly acknowledge that. My point is more that, if you listen to that account and say "that's plausible, but so what?" science doesn't have much (and probably not anything) to say.

That is ridiculous. You can say "so what" but you can say that to anything. We have just landed a man on the moon and cured all world hunger ... so what.

The "so what" is that we have an explanation for religious faith, that explains human wide religious faith, that doesn't require any particular faith to be true, that explains the experiences of individual religious followers better than their own religion.

Saying "so what" seem to be just burying one's head in the sand.

Let me put it another way, would would impress you GCU?

nagirrac

Motopepe wrote: »

Indeed it may not be relevant. However, I tend to question "The idea of a spirit world separate from the physical world" being "around since the beginning of humanity". The idea of a spirit world separate from the physical world is most likely a relatively recent idea. There is the possibility that early humans perceived only one world and made no distinctions between those aspects that they would later attempt to separate out into different worlds.

I agree its highly speculative what early humans believed. Ritual burials with grave goods is perhaps suggestive of belief in a spirit world or afterlife, or perhaps not. Shamanic religions however clearly derive from a two worlds view, and the cave drawings in deep underground caves are the best evidence we have of how belief in Gods and a spirit world evolved. The Bradshaw Foundation is a great source for research on cave drawings from various Paleolithic cultures. The attached article suggests a link between Paleolithic and Neolithic religious artwork.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/04/scholar-cave-paintings-show-religious-sophistication/

biko

MickFleetwood wrote: »

Discuss.

Arrg why did you go and do that. Now I won't answer the question..

:P

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

That is the point to what?

We were discussing if science can provide an alternative explanation for religious faith that does not invoke or require the supernatural.

This might be the crossed wire. I'd take it that's true, so far as it goes. I just wouldn't see any immediate value in the information.

Zombrex wrote: »

That is ridiculous. You can say "so what" but you can say that to anything. We have just landed a man on the moon and cured all world hunger ... so what.

In fairness, 'we' (in the broadest sense - I can't claim much of the credit myself) might have put men on the moon. But, having done so, the reaction pretty much was "so what". It's not like 'we' rushed back, as it just didn't seem to justify the expense. And we haven't cured all world hunger. If we did, in some kind of sustainable way, I would be impressed.

Motopepe

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree its highly speculative what early humans believed. Ritual burials with grave goods is perhaps suggestive of belief in a spirit world or afterlife, or perhaps not. Shamanic religions however clearly derive from a two worlds view, and the cave drawings in deep underground caves are the best evidence we have of how belief in Gods and a spirit world evolved. The Bradshaw Foundation is a great source for research on cave drawings from various Paleolithic cultures. The attached article suggests a link between Paleolithic and Neolithic religious artwork.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/04/scholar-cave-paintings-show-religious-sophistication/

The final quotation in that article is important “It is difficult to pinpoint the moment where deities appeared,....But their appearance could not be a revolution — a brutal and fast process. Rather, there was more likely a natural, slow evolution of gods."
Indeed, the same must apply to the evolution of the idea of 'a spirit world'. It is likely that there was a time when humans responded to phenomena that they encountered more than trying to understand it. Responses could come thick and fast but understandings need to evolve. A person or group may notice that certain experiences in a cave produce certain effects and they respond to such things in various ways. Imbuing these experiences with fixed meanings is a drawn out process.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This might be the crossed wire. I'd take it that's true, so far as it goes. I just wouldn't see any immediate value in the information.

The value is understanding of how the world appears to work. The same with all science.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, 'we' (in the broadest sense - I can't claim much of the credit myself) might have put men on the moon. But, having done so, the reaction pretty much was "so what". It's not like 'we' rushed back, as it just didn't seem to justify the expense. And we haven't cured all world hunger. If we did, in some kind of sustainable way, I would be impressed.

Well ok, maybe it just takes a lot to impress you GCU

(as an aside the moon landings get a bad wrap, mostly due to poor PR from NASA. NASA like to go on about how the moon landings inspired the world, which some people would be justified in saying "so what" to. But in reality, and we are only recently started to fully understanding this, the lead up to the moon landings produced a huge number of scientific and technological advances, the benefit of which is probably immeasurable)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

The value is understanding of how the world appears to work. The same with all science.

Oh, indeed, that can be helpful. I just don't see how it helps us, particularly, to know that religious belief can be accounted for with an explanation that doesn't involve a god.

From left field, I've a daughter suffering her way through Leaving Cert Project Maths at the moment. She a load of questions to do that involved the equation of a circle. I was doing the whole parental "this Project Maths stuff is just so good for you", to trying to raise her interest above apathy.

"Fine," she says, "So what practical use will I ever have for this."

"Loads", I said confidently, Googling "practical uses equation of a circle". To find absolutely none. Lots of nerds, with lots of pages about the equation of a circle. Not one coming out with any practical situation where it would actually make your life easier or better.

And, tbh, that's what the ultimate test has to be. OK, some stuff can be interesting to some of us just because it's interesting. Batting the breeze about religious stuff can be interesting. But it's not knowledge that makes anyone's life better. Its not as if the conclusion is "These guys believe in something that could be false, we must stop them."

Zombrex wrote: »

<....> the lead up to the moon landings produced a huge number of scientific and technological advances, the benefit of which is probably immeasurable

Immeasurable. Hmm. So, presumably, if it can't be measured, science can't tell us if it was worthwhile.