General religion

[Politesse]

It could be argued that 100% of the population is impaired, that we all have strengths and weaknesses, that our weaknesses in ability, biases, prejudices, assumptions, blind spots, etc, etc, impair us all in some way.....so it's probably only a matter of degree and range of impairment than absence of it.

That goes without saying. But is that impairment really because of eating an apple with a serpent in a magic garden?

And does being religious really make a person have more babies? I think environmental factors make people have more babies, not religion.

And we're using this word "religion" like it's something rigid. It isn't. We are capable of inventing religions that are purely rational and scientific in their beliefs and practices. Why does religion have to have so much woo? Why does it need to have dopey beliefs?

Because, almost by definition, not all religions share the same ideological assumptions and value judgements as yourself.

 

[DBT]

It could be argued that 100% of the population is impaired, that we all have strengths and weaknesses, that our weaknesses in ability, biases, prejudices, assumptions, blind spots, etc, etc, impair us all in some way.....so it's probably only a matter of degree and range of impairment than absence of it.

That goes without saying. But is that impairment really because of eating an apple with a serpent in a magic garden?

And does being religious really make a person have more babies? I think environmental factors make people have more babies, not religion.

And we're using this word "religion" like it's something rigid. It isn't. We are capable of inventing religions that are purely rational and scientific in their beliefs and practices. Why does religion have to have so much woo? Why does it need to have dopey beliefs?

ETA: I see rousseau beat me to it.

One problem, some may see their own impairment as a strength, that their faith, belief, assumption, the way they see the world is a positive thing regardless of any evidence to the contrary

 

[abaddon]

My perspective is more of a personal and spiritual one than anything. I think there is a tendency for people to spend their lives angsty because they feel the world is broken,

"The world" isn't broken, civilization is. Climate change, a major bioextinction event, et al... these are problems.

A spirituality that isn't escapism will be about acquiring the resilience to deal with both the good and the bad in life. Not "I want my own private little heaven".

that it should be another way. That we need to fix religion.

I'm interested in a science-informed naturalistic spirituality/religion myself. There are several on offer. I see no good reason that anti-science ideas should be valued though. The fact is, we know reality well-enough that it's not the case that "anything goes". I don't know how to respect people that deliberately reject truth in order to console themselves with lies. There's nothing necessary in that. Does "evolved to be religious" mean evolved to believe the specific superstitions that "militant atheists" take to task?

But when you start seeing religious people simply as those with an emotional rather than rational bond with the world, it opens up a kind of commonality between the two spheres.

Consider that the "emotional thinking" that's been criticized doesn't mean "in tune with one's long-evolved being" and thus relating well with one's self and the rest of nature. It means the thing you see whenever observing Trump's followers or the posts of theists in these forum. Namely, the toddler-like "I'll believe whatever I want!" obstinacy.

Some people see the divine with a God, some see the divine without a God. Fundamentally it's the same thing with different language.

In many cases it is not the same thing. You're lacking a judicious discrimination between good ideas and horrible ones because you won't get more specific. Whatever you mean by "divine", there are theists who won't agree because they worship a horrific god - and you're probably not referencing that god. So it's not all the same thing with different language.

For me personally, I prefer to see the beauty and the uniqueness in the beliefs of others,

Which ones though? Which beliefs are beautiful? Why not see the ugly ones too? The beliefs include human sacrifice and abject obedience to a celestial tyrant.

in the diversity of mankind, rather than feel like everyone needs to think a certain way. In my view, that's a better way to live my life.

You've been telling atheists to think a certain way while trying to be less angsty by divesting yourself of discriminating harmful from helpful ideas?

Perspectivism doesn't imply all perspectives are equally valid or good. There is such a thing as progress (your Biologism can't change the fact) and one way progress happens is by arguing.

 

[rousseau]

"The world" isn't broken, civilization is. Climate change, a major bioextinction event, et al... these are problems.

A spirituality that isn't escapism will be about acquiring the resilience to deal with both the good and the bad in life. Not "I want my own private little heaven".


I'm interested in a science-informed naturalistic spirituality/religion myself. There are several on offer. I see no good reason that anti-science ideas should be valued though. The fact is, we know reality well-enough that it's not the case that "anything goes". I don't know how to respect people that deliberately reject truth in order to console themselves with lies. There's nothing necessary in that. Does "evolved to be religious" mean evolved to believe the specific superstitions that "militant atheists" take to task?

But when you start seeing religious people simply as those with an emotional rather than rational bond with the world, it opens up a kind of commonality between the two spheres.

Consider that the "emotional thinking" that's been criticized doesn't mean "in tune with one's long-evolved being" and thus relating well with one's self and the rest of nature. It means the thing you see whenever observing Trump's followers or the posts of theists in these forum. Namely, the toddler-like "I'll believe whatever I want!" obstinacy.

Some people see the divine with a God, some see the divine without a God. Fundamentally it's the same thing with different language.

In many cases it is not the same thing. You're lacking a judicious discrimination between good ideas and horrible ones because you won't get more specific. Whatever you mean by "divine", there are theists who won't agree because they worship a horrific god - and you're probably not referencing that god. So it's not all the same thing with different language.

For me personally, I prefer to see the beauty and the uniqueness in the beliefs of others,

Which ones though? Which beliefs are beautiful? Why not see the ugly ones too? The beliefs include human sacrifice and abject obedience to a celestial tyrant.

in the diversity of mankind, rather than feel like everyone needs to think a certain way. In my view, that's a better way to live my life.

You've been telling atheists to think a certain way while trying to be less angsty by divesting yourself of discriminating harmful from helpful ideas?

Perspectivism doesn't imply all perspectives are equally valid or good. There is such a thing as progress (your Biologism can't change the fact) and one way progress happens is by arguing.

I'm on board with everything you say here, no problems at all arguing against faulty or anti-science beliefs, in that regard I have no problems with militancy, in the way you describe.

What I take issue with is the atheist bias that the religious are 'dumb', and that everyone needs to be 'smart'. It's difficult to put into words, but maybe more plainly, I feel this is a sad and negative way to live one's life. Not every religious person is an anti-science Trump supporter or QAnon believer. Sometimes they're just a person who feels the world is beautiful, who sees divinity in it, and finds the concept of God uplifting. I have a few relatives like this and I choose not to see their beliefs as 'dumb' or 'wrong', I choose to see them as a part of a unique worldview, to let them be the humans that they were born as. Sure, if they became curious and asked me about science or whatever, I'd be happy to oblige an answer. My point is simply that there is value in recognizing that maybe - yes the world has problems - but it's ok to accept humanity as it exists, and that there isn't a should with regard to human nature, or human beliefs.

If you want to spend your life attacking religion, I have no qualms with that, but it might be a more positive experience with the recognition that the religious in their various forms are just as human as us, and not a project to be corrected.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm interested in a science-informed naturalistic spirituality/religion myself. There are several on offer. I see no good reason that anti-science ideas should be valued though. The fact is, we know reality well-enough that it's not the case that "anything goes". I don't know how to respect people that deliberately reject truth in order to console themselves with lies. There's nothing necessary in that. Does "evolved to be religious" mean evolved to believe the specific superstitions that "militant atheists" take to task?

Religion is a strange duck because people get to vote the correct answer to a question. Whatever is popular enough becomes the truth. This obviously doesn't work in a classroom. 4 + 4 cannot equal 19 no matter how many students got the answer wrong simply because their religion tells them the answer is 19. That's basically the problem. Persons think their religion is special and that it therefore is always going to be true, and that whatever it inspires them to think or do is acceptable.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe what's best for me personally is to think of gods and all manner of woo as a separate emotion, one that I lack, one that I believe I possibly experienced in my youth but that certainly diminished and then disappeared as I got older. It doesn't mean I cannot love or enjoy community or that I can't enjoy family and friends. It just means that it's impossible for me to identify with the experience of thinking there is a god or a unicorn or that I have a soul or that there is a heaven and a hell or believe in stories like Noah or Adam and Eve. Maybe that will set up a better forum for exchange and discussion with persons that make the claims that such things are real.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm interested in a science-informed naturalistic spirituality/religion myself. There are several on offer. I see no good reason that anti-science ideas should be valued though. The fact is, we know reality well-enough that it's not the case that "anything goes". I don't know how to respect people that deliberately reject truth in order to console themselves with lies. There's nothing necessary in that. Does "evolved to be religious" mean evolved to believe the specific superstitions that "militant atheists" take to task?

Religion is a strange duck because people get to vote the correct answer to a question. Whatever is popular enough becomes the truth. This obviously doesn't work in a classroom. 4 + 4 cannot equal 19 no matter how many students got the answer wrong simply because their religion tells them the answer is 19. That's basically the problem. Persons think their religion is special and that it therefore is always going to be true, and that whatever it inspires them to think or do is acceptable.

Hmmm. I don't know about that. I think that religion can be progressive. Just yesterday, the pope said that he approved of gay civil unions. I thought that was pretty progressive coming from a pope. Imo, the current pope is far more progressive than those in the past. This may just be a baby step, but it's a step in the right direction.

UUs are very progressive. As long as you have a liberal approach to beliefs, you can embrace any religion, including secular humanism and still be a UU. They seem mainly concerned about social justice and charity. Isn't that progressive?

Many sects of Christianity are progressive in that they don't take the Bible stories as literal, but as myths or morality tales with a lesson in them. There are also progressive Jews, aka secular Jews.

The Baha'i Faith is fairly progressive. Some believe it was an attempt to make the Muslim religion more progressive, as it embraces such tenants as Universal Peace, The Equality of the Sexes and Racial Equality, for example. There are some things in its teachings that I find a bit offensive, but considering that it was born in Iran in the 1840s and considering the religion that it grew out of, it's fairly progressive.

I've come to the conclusion that humans are drawn to mythology, and religion is the result of this mythology. When these myths are taken too literally, they can be very divisive, but let's be honest, any ideology whether it's secular or religious, when taken to one extreme, has the potential to become dangerous and divisive.

And, when it comes to intelligence, there are plenty of very intelligent religious people. There are also plenty of atheists that aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box. Not that I'm brilliant but I have known a few atheists that were rather dogmatic and didn't seem too understand a lot of complex issues. It seems kind of silly to think that only atheists are smart or that all theists aren't. Humans are both rational and emotional creatures. How boring it would be if we were all like Dr. Spock.

If I must judge, I try to judge character and not beliefs. I detest anyone's beliefs if they are used to harm or judge others. So, fundamentalism examples of religion are all potentially harmful, but that doesn't mean that all of the followers of such religions are harmful. My mother and I had so much in common despite my rejection of Christianity at around the age of 20. She and I always voted the same way and shared most of the same values. Her books shelves were full of Christian apologetics, while mine were full of science and atheist books. We were both searching for truth but found different pathways.

So, I don't feel as if religion is necessarily a bad thing. I try to look at the positive things in religion. For example, the formations of community, emotional support for those who are experiencing hard times, and charity work. If it were not for some of the more moderate Christian churches in my small city, there would be no food banks for the needy. If believing in myths helps one find purpose, then I think it's wrong for me to judge those people.

To sum it up, my belief is that in all things that humans create, there is usually both a positive and a negative side. This is true of religion. And, as I've mentioned earlier, religion often does evolve and become more progressive. I see that as a positive aspect. I doubt it will ever go away, but I certainly hope it will become far more progressive than it is currently in much of the US. We have a long way to go, but maybe it's not hopeless.

 

[DBT]

Compartmentalization doesn't help.

 

[abaddon]

Are people evolved to be religious? Maybe, maybe not. Could be a byproduct of evolution. Maybe it's a social function that went awry when it directed people to look to "other realms" beyond nature, when previously they were relating with nature by anthropomorphizing it and not projecting mind OUT of the cosmos (thus 'dis-enchanting' life on earth).

Does it mean people should be how they are? No, this is the is/ought fallacy. Which I think in this instance is a fallacy that can't be got around as some try to do sometimes. If I obeyed all ways that I'm "built" by evolution, I'd be a horrible person. It's right to expect people to choose prosocial beliefs instead of sociopathic ones and seek truth instead of comforting delusions.

Does it mean to just accept how people are? No, we're a pretty fucked up species. Humanity is a project to be bettered or we'll go on destroying the life on earth and harming each other.

Does 'evolved to be religious' mean that the dogmas of religions are biologically evolved? No, if the propensity to religious behaviors is there in a general way, it doesn't necessarily mean it has to manifest in the specific ways (some of them detrimental) that it does. So there should be no problem with folk who criticize religions and hope for improvements regardless if that offends the "but these are my sacred beliefs" believers.

 

[rousseau]

Are people evolved to be religious? Maybe, maybe not. Could be a byproduct of evolution. Maybe it's a social function that went awry when it directed people to look to "other realms" beyond nature, when previously they were relating with nature by anthropomorphizing it and not projecting mind OUT of the cosmos (thus 'dis-enchanting' life on earth).

This is a larger conversation but I don't think it's ipso facto - evolved to be religious - it's a lack of a certain degree of skepticism, which manifests itself in religious thought among some people. For others, they may not be religious, but have a degree of unfounded certainty about other things. The underlying principle is that their cognitive structure views and accepts cultural norms as real, and strives for them. Religion would just be a subset of those norms - and a changeable norm at that.

Does it mean people should be how they are? No, this is the is/ought fallacy. Which I think in this instance is a fallacy that can't be got around as some try to do sometimes. If I obeyed all ways that I'm "built" by evolution, I'd be a horrible person. It's right to expect people to choose prosocial beliefs instead of sociopathic ones and seek truth instead of comforting delusions.

I agree. I'm not claiming people ought to be that way, I'm claiming that they are that way. I don't promote a passive acceptance of this that says 'this is just the way things are', but instead an acceptance that 'the world doesn't have to be perfect, not everything has to be logical and bend toward my biases' for me to grant validity, realness, or humanity to those things. I think it's also very human and natural to try to change reality, but maybe just keep in mind a certain reverence for others.

I'm basically on board with the intent of most people in this thread - just not sure I'm fully getting through with some of my points. I'm not critical of changing religion, or engaging the religious, but rather just othering them, and viewing ourselves as paragons of virtue.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm interested in a science-informed naturalistic spirituality/religion myself. There are several on offer. I see no good reason that anti-science ideas should be valued though. The fact is, we know reality well-enough that it's not the case that "anything goes". I don't know how to respect people that deliberately reject truth in order to console themselves with lies. There's nothing necessary in that. Does "evolved to be religious" mean evolved to believe the specific superstitions that "militant atheists" take to task?

Religion is a strange duck because people get to vote the correct answer to a question. Whatever is popular enough becomes the truth. This obviously doesn't work in a classroom. 4 + 4 cannot equal 19 no matter how many students got the answer wrong simply because their religion tells them the answer is 19. That's basically the problem. Persons think their religion is special and that it therefore is always going to be true, and that whatever it inspires them to think or do is acceptable.

Hmmm. I don't know about that. I think that religion can be progressive. Just yesterday, the pope said that he approved of gay civil unions. I thought that was pretty progressive coming from a pope. Imo, the current pope is far more progressive than those in the past. This may just be a baby step, but it's a step in the right direction.

...


To sum it up, my belief is that in all things that humans create, there is usually both a positive and a negative side. This is true of religion. And, as I've mentioned earlier, religion often does evolve and become more progressive. I see that as a positive aspect. I doubt it will ever go away, but I certainly hope it will become far more progressive than it is currently in much of the US. We have a long way to go, but maybe it's not hopeless.

Kudos to Francis. He obviously has a conscience, a good thing for our species.

It's important for any individual, religious or not, to be able to separate woo and religion. Woo is always going to be woo and religion is always going to be religion. The degree to which religion incorporates woo is the degree to which religion will always be harmful, so we can think of woo as harmful, religious waste.

An argument can be made that religion is woo practiced at the group level. But why does religion need to have woo at all? If we're going to praise religion for it's social benefits then lets do that. Whence cometh the need for woo?

But I understand the need for woo, which arises simply because of cognitive differences. Our brains simply have a long way to go. Woo, tribalism, etc. - it's part of what we are.

 

[southernhybrid]

Hmmm. I don't know about that. I think that religion can be progressive. Just yesterday, the pope said that he approved of gay civil unions. I thought that was pretty progressive coming from a pope. Imo, the current pope is far more progressive than those in the past. This may just be a baby step, but it's a step in the right direction.

...


To sum it up, my belief is that in all things that humans create, there is usually both a positive and a negative side. This is true of religion. And, as I've mentioned earlier, religion often does evolve and become more progressive. I see that as a positive aspect. I doubt it will ever go away, but I certainly hope it will become far more progressive than it is currently in much of the US. We have a long way to go, but maybe it's not hopeless.

Kudos to Francis. He obviously has a conscience, a good thing for our species.

It's important for any individual, religious or not, to be able to separate woo and religion. Woo is always going to be woo and religion is always going to be religion. The degree to which religion incorporates woo is the degree to which religion will always be harmful, so we can think of woo as harmful, religious waste.

An argument can be made that religion is woo practiced at the group level. But why does religion need to have woo at all? If we're going to praise religion for it's social benefits then lets do that. Whence cometh the need for woo?

But I understand the need for woo, which arises simply because of cognitive differences. Our brains simply have a long way to go. Woo, tribalism, etc. - it's part of what we are.

Yeah. That makes sense.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmmm. I don't know about that. I think that religion can be progressive. Just yesterday, the pope said that he approved of gay civil unions. I thought that was pretty progressive coming from a pope. Imo, the current pope is far more progressive than those in the past. This may just be a baby step, but it's a step in the right direction.

...


To sum it up, my belief is that in all things that humans create, there is usually both a positive and a negative side. This is true of religion. And, as I've mentioned earlier, religion often does evolve and become more progressive. I see that as a positive aspect. I doubt it will ever go away, but I certainly hope it will become far more progressive than it is currently in much of the US. We have a long way to go, but maybe it's not hopeless.

Kudos to Francis. He obviously has a conscience, a good thing for our species.

It's important for any individual, religious or not, to be able to separate woo and religion. Woo is always going to be woo and religion is always going to be religion. The degree to which religion incorporates woo is the degree to which religion will always be harmful, so we can think of woo as harmful, religious waste.

An argument can be made that religion is woo practiced at the group level. But why does religion need to have woo at all? If we're going to praise religion for it's social benefits then lets do that. Whence cometh the need for woo?

But I understand the need for woo, which arises simply because of cognitive differences. Our brains simply have a long way to go. Woo, tribalism, etc. - it's part of what we are.

The woo can be explained. If we're to bind a large group of disparate people together and we want to avoid conflicts between them, the thing that binds them together needs to be abstract. Preferably mysterious. A nation is the same thing. Nations are also bound together by nothing but woo. There's very little that sets people apart on either side of a national border. It still works in motivating people to do all kinds of things, like military service.

Smart people see through the hand waving and magic. Stupid people take the woo litteraly.

I think it makes a lot of sense when John Cleese said that he doesn't think the people who wrote the Bible were litterally minded. I think they wrote what they did because they had to. And our brains are no different from the brains of people 2000 years ago. Smart people understand the rituals and see the beauty in it. Less sophisticated thinkers believe God litterally exists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hmmm. I don't know about that. I think that religion can be progressive. Just yesterday, the pope said that he approved of gay civil unions. I thought that was pretty progressive coming from a pope. Imo, the current pope is far more progressive than those in the past. This may just be a baby step, but it's a step in the right direction.

...


To sum it up, my belief is that in all things that humans create, there is usually both a positive and a negative side. This is true of religion. And, as I've mentioned earlier, religion often does evolve and become more progressive. I see that as a positive aspect. I doubt it will ever go away, but I certainly hope it will become far more progressive than it is currently in much of the US. We have a long way to go, but maybe it's not hopeless.

Kudos to Francis. He obviously has a conscience, a good thing for our species.

It's important for any individual, religious or not, to be able to separate woo and religion. Woo is always going to be woo and religion is always going to be religion. The degree to which religion incorporates woo is the degree to which religion will always be harmful, so we can think of woo as harmful, religious waste.

An argument can be made that religion is woo practiced at the group level. But why does religion need to have woo at all? If we're going to praise religion for it's social benefits then lets do that. Whence cometh the need for woo?

But I understand the need for woo, which arises simply because of cognitive differences. Our brains simply have a long way to go. Woo, tribalism, etc. - it's part of what we are.

The woo can be explained. If we're to bind a large group of disparate people together and we want to avoid conflicts between them, the thing that binds them together needs to be abstract. Preferably mysterious. A nation is the same thing. Nations are also bound together by nothing but woo. There's very little that sets people apart on either side of a national border. It still works in motivating people to do all kinds of things, like military service.

Smart people see through the hand waving and magic. Stupid people take the woo litteraly.

I think it makes a lot of sense when John Cleese said that he doesn't think the people who wrote the Bible were litterally minded. I think they wrote what they did because they had to. And our brains are no different from the brains of people 2000 years ago. Smart people understand the rituals and see the beauty in it. Less sophisticated thinkers believe God litterally exists.

Confirmation bias is hardwired in our brains. It literally selects against information that does not agree with its bias. It's probably the best demonstration we have that there is no such thing as free will in any macro sense.

But you are right, there is power in woo, which explains its inclusion in our behavior despite large differences in cognitive ability.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The woo can be explained. If we're to bind a large group of disparate people together and we want to avoid conflicts between them, the thing that binds them together needs to be abstract. Preferably mysterious. A nation is the same thing. Nations are also bound together by nothing but woo. There's very little that sets people apart on either side of a national border. It still works in motivating people to do all kinds of things, like military service.

Smart people see through the hand waving and magic. Stupid people take the woo litteraly.

I think it makes a lot of sense when John Cleese said that he doesn't think the people who wrote the Bible were litterally minded. I think they wrote what they did because they had to. And our brains are no different from the brains of people 2000 years ago. Smart people understand the rituals and see the beauty in it. Less sophisticated thinkers believe God litterally exists.

Confirmation bias is hardwired in our brains. It literally selects against information that does not agree with its bias. It's probably the best demonstration we have that there is no such thing as free will in any macro sense.

But you are right, there is power in woo, which explains its inclusion in our behavior despite large differences in cognitive ability.

Confirmation bias doesn't explain why gods were invented to begin with.

 

[Atheos]

We have enough evidence to surmise that gods were invented because of a combination of many quirks of how our brains process information, not just one.

We tend to see faces in clouds, shadows, etc., because our ancestors living in harsher environments were much more likely to survive if they saw faces lurking in the nearby foliage than if they didn't. We tend to ascribe agency to the sound of a twig snapping and assume an animal, possibly a predator rather than the wind or a heavier branch pressing down on it.

We have a tendency to trust answers given to us by others, even if we can't verify them for ourselves, which gave rise to the rich heritage of god-myths who control everything from hurricanes and earthquakes to the ability of a man to have an erection (see Priapus) right down to the activities of ephemeral streams.

Confirmation bias kicks in when competing god-myths clash across cultures. Bacchus was the god of wine, but his power was in turning grape juice into wine. Jesus on the other hand could turn plain old tap water into wine. My god's bigger than your god.

 

[Lion IRC]

We have enough evidence to surmise that gods were invented because of a combination of many quirks of how our brains process information, not just one.

"Inventing" God doesn't change reality.
You would do better to try and argue that an imaginary God creates a placebo effect.
But deliberate invention of something unreal and unsupported by evidence isn't self-sustaining. It will eventually extinguish itself for want of tangible benefit.

...We tend to see faces in clouds, shadows, etc., because our ancestors living in harsher environments were much more likely to survive if they saw faces lurking in the nearby foliage than if they didn't.

Only accurate sensory experience confers a survival advantage. False or imagined sensory experience (paranoia/delusion/numinous awe - jumping at shadows) would have the opposite effect. In evolutionary terms, it would be a waste of energy. Tricking your prey into mistaken sensory experience is the natural selection equivalent of a sucker punch so evolution would cull prey that couldnt/didnt discern reality from the imaginary.

...We tend to ascribe agency to the sound of a twig snapping

Yep. For good reason.
Agency is one of the most sound, rational and well evidenced epistemic categories we have.
Even the tree which falls on a twig and makes a sudden noise, is not a spontaneous, uncaused event.

...and assume an animal, possibly a predator

Yep. For good reason.

...rather than the wind or a heavier branch pressing down on it.

Knowing the cause of falling tree branches confers a survival advantage.

...We have a tendency to trust answers given to us by others, even if we can't verify them for ourselves,

Yes, for good reason. The word of a trusted person is more than sufficient verification. Their eye sight is no worse than yours. Their hearing is no worse than yours.

...which [tendency] gave rise to the rich heritage of god-myths who control everything from hurricanes and earthquakes...[snip].

Those god myths are collectively a corroboration of one another and of the properly basic belief collectively known as theism. Human beings are not forced or tricked into imagining something which is a better explanation of reality than atheism.

...Confirmation bias kicks in when competing god-myths clash across cultures.

No, I think atheism has always been an available menu option. It's not like humans were unable to jettison religion anytime they wanted. Neither is it the case that atheism has no appeal to those who would LIKE to imagine that there is no God and no afterlife. Richard Dawkins entices people to atheism with the slogan - enjoy your life...stop worrying, there's probably no afterlife.

I can easily turn your argument back on itself and claim that atheism is the myth. An impotent god is exactly the sort of god that would be imagined by the hedonist who wants to live like there's no tomorrow.

... Bacchus was the god of wine, but his power was in turning grape juice into wine. Jesus on the other hand could turn plain old tap water into wine. My god's bigger than your god.

LOL. Yes, but big, bigger, biggest is precisely why we have the ontological argument for the necessity of a maximally great being. Even the pantheon knows and/or wants to know which god is the greatest. A mortal god is lesser than an immortal god. An omnipotent god can un-create anything created by Marduke.

 

[DBT]

A trusted person may be sincere but mistaken.

 

[abaddon]

Only accurate sensory experience confers a survival advantage. False or imagined sensory experience (paranoia/delusion/numinous awe - jumping at shadows) would have the opposite effect. In evolutionary terms, it would be a waste of energy.

No. Worrying "is that an animal?!" confers the survival advantage. Rather obviously, it's better to imagine an animal is there than assume there isn't.

You're like the guy who ran back to his tribe, telling them "there's an animal behind that bush over there!" without ever having investigated it. It gives a survival advantage alright, not because he knew his assertion was true but simply because he ran away to the safety of his group.

The survival advantage of inventing gods works on a set of such impulses, as Atheos was saying. Prescientific societies could not control nature so they projected agency. That way there will seem to be a power "out there" to negotiate with for safety. They imagine that by propitiating the god, the god makes sure the crops grow and their enemies will not succeed in wiping them out. That's why the "biggest god" argument was made - to quail their existential terror, the god must be bigger and badder than anyone's else's. That's also the reason for the "impotent god of the atheists" assertion - you get to say "you atheists have a littler god than mine!"

It all confers the kind of survival advantage there is in belonging to a larger group and being part of their groupthink. The predator, doubt, is not going to get you there. And the god's going to make you safe from existential anxiety so long as you believe and be a good boy there within the faith-group.

 

[Lion IRC]

A trusted person may be sincere but mistaken.

Natural selection doesnt favor "sincerely mistaken" survival instincts or learned behaviours.