Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[rousseau]

Dharma isn't prescriptive. It's not a set of rules for you to follow. And if you follow them you'll get a reward in the afterlife.

Dharma can mean different things depending on the context. In the context of human life (Samsara), dharma refers to a code of conduct, a set of ethical guidelines for people to live their lives, in harmony with the natural order of the universe. The word dharma can also literally mean religion or faith in god(s), and the rituals associated with the worship of such deities.

That's only Abrahamic religions. The point of Dharma is that following the rules it makes you a better person, for you. Following Dharma is it's own reward.

Following the way of dharma in one's life leads to moksha, emancipation from the life-death-rebirth cycle of samsara. Moksha is self-realization, and attainment of knowledge and of the universe we inhabit, which frees us from the bonds of material life. In Buddhism, this concept is taken even further, with rigid rules of conduct, with the explicit goal of seeking enlightenment - attaining the state of the Buddha, and release from the bondage of our material existence.

That's actually a very important and critical difference. If you follow Dharma because you want to be rewarded, you've already violated Dharma. Being good only has value if you don't exect a reward, and you're not doing it to be rewarded. Hinduism and Buddhism aren't life games to be played to score big in the afterlife. That's not at all how those religions work. If you think that they are you're just filtering Hinduism (and Buddhism) through the Christianity filter.

In a way they are exactly that - they promise freedom from our material existence as humans. You cease to respawn in the game of life and merge with the universal consciousness, Brahma. That is the reward.

My original critique stands. I think you are reducing Hinduism to fit into a Christian theological framework. Hinduism is smarter than that

It's too easy to view some of these Eastern religions from a Western, atheistic perspective, and miss how they're actually practiced by a great deal of their adherents. And in many ways they are very different religions when put through the two different filters (east and west).

Philosophically, Indian religion differs from Christianity, but in practice not as much. And generalizations usually don't work, religious practice is far more complex than simple summaries.

I agree with Copernicus for the most part but need to reply to him when I get the time.

 

[bilby]

Women are very much driven to reproduce, so are many men. What we aren't driven to do is reproduce beyond our material means.

Reproduction rates are falling because of contraception yes, but also because most millennials can barely afford to survive, let alone drop 2k/month on daycare for four years.

The fact that wealth inversely correlates with reproductive rates at pretty much every scale suggests that this is false.

Daycare costs are a first-world and a modern world problem. They've not been around long enough, nor adopted widely enough, to be indicative of global population level historical norms.

White, middle-class, post-industrial Canadians (and Americans, and Western Europeans) are outliers, and examples drawn from their experiences are therefore misleading when attempting to characterise human beings as a species.

 

[rousseau]

Women are very much driven to reproduce, so are many men. What we aren't driven to do is reproduce beyond our material means.

Reproduction rates are falling because of contraception yes, but also because most millennials can barely afford to survive, let alone drop 2k/month on daycare for four years.

The fact that wealth inversely correlates with reproductive rates at pretty much every scale suggests that this is false.

Daycare costs are a first-world and a modern world problem. They've not been around long enough, nor adopted widely enough, to be indicative of global population level historical norms.

White, middle-class, post-industrial Canadians (and Americans, and Western Europeans) are outliers, and examples drawn from their experiences are therefore misleading when attempting to characterise human beings as a species.

At least understand that your model of people not wanting to reproduce is misguided. Even your own wife wanted to have kids.

I'll grant you that a subset of people don't want to reproduce, but a great deal of us very much do.

 

[rousseau]

I'll take Secular Humanism, if I need a religion, no gods required. I have no idea why some people need a god in their lives, but lots of them so and plenty of them are smart, and educated.

The last time I visited my primary MD, she told me that because I do so much for my next door neighbor, who is also one of her patients and has told her that I do a lot for her, I will have more jewels in my crown. As most of you know that's a Christian belief that the more good deeds you do, the more you will be rewarded in heaven.

I really wanted to say something to her, like I don't believe that shit. I'm good without god. But, I decided to leave it alone. Most American doctors believe in a god or pretend that they do. Reading some of Joseph Campbell helped me understand that humans have always been drawn to mythology, so perhaps we're hard wired for it but in contemporary times, a lot of us have lost the wiring.

My take on it is not that we are hardwired for belief in gods, but our brains are evolved in such a way that belief in divine moral authority is a side effect of the way our brains are wired. Richard Dawkins referred to this kind of thing as an evolutionary "misfire"--like the way in which moths navigate by light but are drawn into flames sometimes as a result.

As most of us know, brains form vast networks of neurons that use associations with sense data to form models of what our operating environment is like. Moving bodies need guidance systems, and that is basically the function of a brain--to keep us alive, healthy, and able to reproduce. At birth, we begin to learn everything under the protection and supervision of more mature individuals. We accept authority and guidance automatically, so those mature teachers become the prototype for gods. Polytheistic societies have pantheons structured as families, and gods are super-powerful, all-knowledgeable beings with super parental authority. We pray to them, just as we pleaded for favors and permissions from adults when we were children. Gods are completely human in their thought processes, desires, whims, and dominance relationships with humans. In short, atheism is not the most natural approach that most humans are going to take as they grow up and learn how things work. And it is entirely natural for them to feel the need for some kind of authoritative guide in defining moral behavior--the difference between good and bad. They feel threatened by atheists primarily because atheism rejects the existence of a moral authority and removes the underpinning for their basic beliefs about the difference between right and wrong behavior.

I've noticed that even on the philosophy stack exchange, I'm assuming populated largely by atheists, there are quite a few questions on whether a certain thing is or isn't ethical. Without the awareness that the world is ambiguous. Then you don't need to look too hard on the Buddhist section to see people appealing to the religion for certainty, rather than making up their mind themselves.

My thought is that this behavior makes some level of sense if - a) religious moral codes actually work pretty well, b) one's social group largely follows the same rules, and c) one doesn't have the aptitude for post-conventional reasoning. When you put it in this light following an authority figure is the most efficient way to get by - the rules work, everyone around you agrees with them, and you don't have to think any harder about it. Even if there isn't real, divine authority, there is some level of social authority - Buddhism is popular for a reason.

Personally I wouldn't use the term 'evolutionary misfire' - I think that lends too much credence to the idea that we should be thinking more rationally, and not that most people are better off following their instincts and fitting in with their social group. To me this frame of thinking is more in line with Dawkins work on genetics, but he likely wouldn't be quick to admit it. But I would call religion itself a by-product of our psychology, rather than something with any intrinsic purpose.

And on some level, when you have a hard time making sense of the world, a tried and tested framework is much more comforting than having to accept that you have no clue what you're doing.

So anyway, I agree with your post, but I would add that it may not be true for all people. There are some who are comfortable with ambiguity, and strive to make it more concrete, rather than relying on easy answers.

 

[bilby]

Women are very much driven to reproduce, so are many men. What we aren't driven to do is reproduce beyond our material means.

Reproduction rates are falling because of contraception yes, but also because most millennials can barely afford to survive, let alone drop 2k/month on daycare for four years.

The fact that wealth inversely correlates with reproductive rates at pretty much every scale suggests that this is false.

Daycare costs are a first-world and a modern world problem. They've not been around long enough, nor adopted widely enough, to be indicative of global population level historical norms.

White, middle-class, post-industrial Canadians (and Americans, and Western Europeans) are outliers, and examples drawn from their experiences are therefore misleading when attempting to characterise human beings as a species.

At least understand that your model of people not wanting to reproduce is misguided. Even your own wife wanted to have kids.

It's not a model, it's an observation. It cannot be 'misguided'

(Even if it makes you uncomfortable)

I'll grant you that a subset of people don't want to reproduce, but a great deal of us very much do.

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

if humans are able to fuck without that resulting in children, then their reproductive rate falls below replacement levels.

"Falls below replacement levels" is an observed fact, and in no way contradicts nor is contradicted by "a great deal of us very much do [want to have kids]". Both are simultaneously true, and I am happy to agree that your statement is completely true.

There are couples who want a dozen children. There are couples who want three. They are outnumbered by those who want two, or one, or none. And they are outnumbered sufficiently that the weight of all their desires leads to insufficient birth rates to maintain the population.

I am making no judgement about which opinion is right, or appropriate, or desirable. I am observing the aggregate results of all of the opinions, and reporting that it is a birthrate that is below the replacement level.

The major drivers of population growth were poverty, poor education, lack of access to effective contraception that is in the control of women, and lowering mortality rates. The latter being demonstrably outweighed by the first three.

Individuals will inevitably have wildly varying opinions, which is perfectly OK, but completely irrelevant to population level observations.

You are arguing against a position I have not expressed and do not hold, and you are doing so by highlighting events at a completely irrelevant scale - your position is no more a refutation of mine that TSwizzle's reporting of weather conditions in Santa Monica is a refutation of human caused climatic changes.

 

[Copernicus]

Dharma isn't prescriptive. It's not a set of rules for you to follow. And if you follow them you'll get a reward in the afterlife.

Dharma can mean different things depending on the context. In the context of human life (Samsara), dharma refers to a code of conduct, a set of ethical guidelines for people to live their lives, in harmony with the natural order of the universe. The word dharma can also literally mean religion or faith in god(s), and the rituals associated with the worship of such deities.

That's only Abrahamic religions. The point of Dharma is that following the rules it makes you a better person, for you. Following Dharma is it's own reward.

Following the way of dharma in one's life leads to moksha, emancipation from the life-death-rebirth cycle of samsara. Moksha is self-realization, and attainment of knowledge and of the universe we inhabit, which frees us from the bonds of material life. In Buddhism, this concept is taken even further, with rigid rules of conduct, with the explicit goal of seeking enlightenment - attaining the state of the Buddha, and release from the bondage of our material existence.

That's actually a very important and critical difference. If you follow Dharma because you want to be rewarded, you've already violated Dharma. Being good only has value if you don't exect a reward, and you're not doing it to be rewarded. Hinduism and Buddhism aren't life games to be played to score big in the afterlife. That's not at all how those religions work. If you think that they are you're just filtering Hinduism (and Buddhism) through the Christianity filter.

In a way they are exactly that - they promise freedom from our material existence as humans. You cease to respawn in the game of life and merge with the universal consciousness, Brahma. That is the reward.

My original critique stands. I think you are reducing Hinduism to fit into a Christian theological framework. Hinduism is smarter than that

It's too easy to view some of these Eastern religions from a Western, atheistic perspective, and miss how they're actually practiced by a great deal of their adherents. And in many ways they are very different religions when put through the two different filters (east and west).

Philosophically, Indian religion differs from Christianity, but in practice not as much. And generalizations usually don't work, religious practice is far more complex than simple summaries.

I agree with Copernicus for the most part but need to reply to him when I get the time.

Thanks, Rousseau. I don't see how I can have a fruitful discussion about religion with DrZoidberg, since he is intent on lecturing me about what I know and believe about religions. It would take up too many of my remaining heartbeats to correct his misguided inferences in that regard, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't actually change his opinions on what I know and believe.

I really do enjoy studying Indian religions. I've even visited Bali, which is the last remaining bastion of Hinduism in Indonesia. The differences between Balinese Hinduism and the various versions of it I was exposed to in India are fascinating. I have also had some exposure to the nastika (non-Vedic) religions in India, albeit not as much as I would have liked. So I think I've got some idea of the diversity of just those religions, not to mention the various versions of Buddhism in China, Korea, Thailand, and Japan. But one of the most interesting religions is the version of Christianity which they have in southern India, which they inherited largely from the Portuguese version of Catholicism, although Christianity there predated the arrival of the Portuguese. I had a Christian friend in Chennai who took me around to the various temples, but also his own church, where hymns sounded like Buddhist chants. He had the impression that Saint Thomas had founded the church, and showed me an ancient cross sculpted into the wall that they attributed to the saint. (It was a Portuguese cross.) Fascinating.

 

[rousseau]

Women are very much driven to reproduce, so are many men. What we aren't driven to do is reproduce beyond our material means.

Reproduction rates are falling because of contraception yes, but also because most millennials can barely afford to survive, let alone drop 2k/month on daycare for four years.

The fact that wealth inversely correlates with reproductive rates at pretty much every scale suggests that this is false.

Daycare costs are a first-world and a modern world problem. They've not been around long enough, nor adopted widely enough, to be indicative of global population level historical norms.

White, middle-class, post-industrial Canadians (and Americans, and Western Europeans) are outliers, and examples drawn from their experiences are therefore misleading when attempting to characterise human beings as a species.

At least understand that your model of people not wanting to reproduce is misguided. Even your own wife wanted to have kids.

It's not a model, it's an observation. It cannot be 'misguided'

(Even if it makes you uncomfortable)

I'll grant you that a subset of people don't want to reproduce, but a great deal of us very much do.

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

if humans are able to fuck without that resulting in children, then their reproductive rate falls below replacement levels.

"Falls below replacement levels" is an observed fact, and in no way contradicts nor is contradicted by "a great deal of us very much do [want to have kids]". Both are simultaneously true, and I am happy to agree that your statement is completely true.

There are couples who want a dozen children. There are couples who want three. They are outnumbered by those who want two, or one, or none. And they are outnumbered sufficiently that the weight of all their desires leads to insufficient birth rates to maintain the population.

I am making no judgement about which opinion is right, or appropriate, or desirable. I am observing the aggregate results of all of the opinions, and reporting that it is a birthrate that is below the replacement level.

The major drivers of population growth were poverty, poor education, lack of access to effective contraception that is in the control of women, and lowering mortality rates. The latter being demonstrably outweighed by the first three.

Individuals will inevitably have wildly varying opinions, which is perfectly OK, but completely irrelevant to population level observations.

You are arguing against a position I have not expressed and do not hold, and you are doing so by highlighting events at a completely irrelevant scale - your position is no more a refutation of mine that TSwizzle's reporting of weather conditions in Santa Monica is a refutation of human caused climatic changes.

Dude, you said pretty clearly: Reproduce isn't a human drive.

If what you meant is that the aggregate results of all opinions is a birthrate below replacement level, then perhaps avoid making absolute statements like Reproduce isn't a human drive. We can only read and understand what you actually type.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dharma isn't prescriptive. It's not a set of rules for you to follow. And if you follow them you'll get a reward in the afterlife.

Dharma can mean different things depending on the context. In the context of human life (Samsara), dharma refers to a code of conduct, a set of ethical guidelines for people to live their lives, in harmony with the natural order of the universe. The word dharma can also literally mean religion or faith in god(s), and the rituals associated with the worship of such deities.

That's only Abrahamic religions. The point of Dharma is that following the rules it makes you a better person, for you. Following Dharma is it's own reward.

Following the way of dharma in one's life leads to moksha, emancipation from the life-death-rebirth cycle of samsara. Moksha is self-realization, and attainment of knowledge and of the universe we inhabit, which frees us from the bonds of material life. In Buddhism, this concept is taken even further, with rigid rules of conduct, with the explicit goal of seeking enlightenment - attaining the state of the Buddha, and release from the bondage of our material existence.

That's actually a very important and critical difference. If you follow Dharma because you want to be rewarded, you've already violated Dharma. Being good only has value if you don't exect a reward, and you're not doing it to be rewarded. Hinduism and Buddhism aren't life games to be played to score big in the afterlife. That's not at all how those religions work. If you think that they are you're just filtering Hinduism (and Buddhism) through the Christianity filter.

In a way they are exactly that - they promise freedom from our material existence as humans. You cease to respawn in the game of life and merge with the universal consciousness, Brahma. That is the reward.

My original critique stands. I think you are reducing Hinduism to fit into a Christian theological framework. Hinduism is smarter than that

It's too easy to view some of these Eastern religions from a Western, atheistic perspective, and miss how they're actually practiced by a great deal of their adherents. And in many ways they are very different religions when put through the two different filters (east and west).

Philosophically, Indian religion differs from Christianity, but in practice not as much. And generalizations usually don't work, religious practice is far more complex than simple summaries.

I agree with Copernicus for the most part but need to reply to him when I get the time.

Religions and religious texts are written for mass market appeal. That means that they need to be both deep and dumb. They need to be able to appeal to smart people as well as stupid people. If you dig a little religions are quite different. But idiots, all over the world, are similar. I think that's what you are talking about? In practice you'll see all manner of things in religions which are similar. Because humans have the same fundamental psychological needs.

Stupid people just like being told how to think so they can turn off their brains. They also want easy answers to the big questions. Hinduism do have easy answers to the big questions. But they have lots of them. A wide variety of answers, many of which are mutually exclusive. The deep answer of Hinduism is that nobody knows. Much like Buddhism. Also, like reality. The two religions are focused on how to live your life to have a good life. Not so much on why. Both are religions that superficially seem simple, but aren't. Christianity, on the other hand, is all about the single message. It's a fundamental aspect of it. Christianity is all about whipping a meandering and fractured memetic religious story down into a single coherrent narrative.

All three religions are gnostic. Ie, the phsysical world is the fake world. The spiritual world is the real world. All of them tell us to reject the physical world because the spiritual world is the more important world. But Christianity is incredibly simplistic in how we're supposed to interpret this. In Hinduism these contraditions are not a problem because the whole point is that we're supposed to think for ourselves. In Christianity these contraditions is a problem because we're NOT supposed to think for ourselves. That's about as a fundamental difference between these religions as you can possibly get. Also... interestingly, not a part of Judaism. This is unique for Christianity and Islam. Only Christianity and Islam has a thought police. HInduism has no daddy to tell us how to think. We're all daddy. Like Hindus Jews care about what rituals you peform. Now what you believe.

Hindus don't burn heretics for beliving or saying the wrong things. Hinduism is a set of activities. It's not a faith. They might burn people who have committed acts of sacrilege. But not for what they believe

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Religions and religious texts are written for mass market appeal.

I really doubt that. These are inventions like any other. Sometimes those inventions get mileage because of the conditions in which they arise. Sometimes they flop because they aren't applicable or don't relate. By your claim if they do not appeal then it can be concluded they were written to be unappealing, that some inventions and discoveries were intended for the dustbin. Sounds like a common logical fallacy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Religions and religious texts are written for mass market appeal.

I really doubt that. These are inventions like any other. Sometimes those inventions get mileage because of the conditions in which they arise. Sometimes they flop because they aren't applicable or don't relate. By your claim if they do not appeal then it can be concluded they were written to be unappealing, that some inventions and discoveries were intended for the dustbin. Sounds like a common logical fallacy.

All religious texts from all major world religions started out as oral stories, that we retold over and over and over. They were only written down AFTER the religion already had wide appeal. That means that they only wrote down things that was already working. That's how evolution of popular culture works today. There's an extremely fast evolution of ideas. New ideas get pushed out all the time. Most fall flat. Some things stick. And then the culture continues as if this was the direction planned from the start. The stuff that flopped just dissapear from the narrative. Successful popular culture is both deep, as well as appealing to stupid people. I think that's a better analogy.

 

[atrib]

Dharma isn't prescriptive. It's not a set of rules for you to follow. And if you follow them you'll get a reward in the afterlife.

Dharma can mean different things depending on the context. In the context of human life (Samsara), dharma refers to a code of conduct, a set of ethical guidelines for people to live their lives, in harmony with the natural order of the universe. The word dharma can also literally mean religion or faith in god(s), and the rituals associated with the worship of such deities.

That's only Abrahamic religions. The point of Dharma is that following the rules it makes you a better person, for you. Following Dharma is it's own reward.

Following the way of dharma in one's life leads to moksha, emancipation from the life-death-rebirth cycle of samsara. Moksha is self-realization, and attainment of knowledge and of the universe we inhabit, which frees us from the bonds of material life. In Buddhism, this concept is taken even further, with rigid rules of conduct, with the explicit goal of seeking enlightenment - attaining the state of the Buddha, and release from the bondage of our material existence.

That's actually a very important and critical difference. If you follow Dharma because you want to be rewarded, you've already violated Dharma. Being good only has value if you don't exect a reward, and you're not doing it to be rewarded. Hinduism and Buddhism aren't life games to be played to score big in the afterlife. That's not at all how those religions work. If you think that they are you're just filtering Hinduism (and Buddhism) through the Christianity filter.

In a way they are exactly that - they promise freedom from our material existence as humans. You cease to respawn in the game of life and merge with the universal consciousness, Brahma. That is the reward.

My original critique stands. I think you are reducing Hinduism to fit into a Christian theological framework. Hinduism is smarter than that

Your thinking is wrong. I am not a Christian, I am an atheist Hindu, born to practicing Hindu parents. I am well versed in Hindu philosophy and theology, have visited India a dozen times and travelled extensively in the country. I have talked to many Hindus about this subject and have attended religious ceremonies at temples, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain, and participated in pooja at makeshift pandals celebrating deities like Durga, Kali and Ganesha. I also speak Hindi and bengali. I am confident that my understanding of Hindu philosophy and theology is considerably deeper than yours.

So, do you dispute any statements I have made in my original response? If so, make your case, instead of simply accusing people of being biased.

 

[atrib]

All three religions are gnostic. Ie, the phsysical world is the fake world. The spiritual world is the real world. All of them tell us to reject the physical world because the spiritual world is the more important world.

Umm no. In Hinduism, the material world we inhabit is very real, and Hinduism provides guidelines on how to live and behave following the guidelines in the Vedas and Upanishads - dharma, kama, artha and moksha. It is our actions in the material life that control our destiny - to remain part of Samsara (the material world, or family) or to attain moksha, or emancipation through self realization.

HInduism has no daddy to tell us how to think. We're all daddy. Like Hindus

See above.

Hindus don't burn heretics for beliving or saying the wrong things.

Some do. The history of India provides many examples of Hindus committing violence in the name of their beliefs.

Hinduism is a set of activities. It's not a faith.

It is both. There is faith in the divine, Brahman, and the rituals/activities are designed to help us achieve unity with Brahman.

They might burn people who have committed acts of sacrilege. But not for what they believe

Tell that to the millions of Muslims who were killed by Hindus during partition, simply for believing in the wrong god.

I suggest you educate yourself a bit before you go pontificating on subjects that you clearly have no expertise in.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All three religions are gnostic. Ie, the phsysical world is the fake world. The spiritual world is the real world. All of them tell us to reject the physical world because the spiritual world is the more important world.

Umm no. In Hinduism, the material world we inhabit is very real, and Hinduism provides guidelines on how to live and behave following the guidelines in the Vedas and Upanishads - dharma, kama, artha and moksha. It is our actions in the material life that control our destiny - to remain part of Samsara (the material world, or family) or to attain moksha, or emancipation through self realization.

HInduism has no daddy to tell us how to think. We're all daddy. Like Hindus

See above.

Hindus don't burn heretics for beliving or saying the wrong things.

Some do. The history of India provides many examples of Hindus committing violence in the name of their beliefs.

Hinduism is a set of activities. It's not a faith.

It is both. There is faith in the divine, Brahman, and the rituals/activities are designed to help us achieve unity with Brahman.

They might burn people who have committed acts of sacrilege. But not for what they believe

Tell that to the millions of Muslims who were killed by Hindus during partition, simply for believing in the wrong god.

I suggest you educate yourself a bit before you go pontificating on subjects that you clearly have no expertise in.

Ehe... you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Well done using irrelevant examples and hoping I wouldn't notice

 

[atrib]

Ehe... you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Well done using irrelevant examples and hoping I wouldn't notice

Which statements do you disagree with? Please be specific. And please tell me how being a Hindu, reading the Vedic texts, and participating in Hindu religious ceremonies would to irrelevant to a discussion on Hindu theology.

Your 5 minute scan of Wiki does not constitute scholarship. I have pointed out errors in your claims, which you have not even attempted to rebut. Have you read the Vedas, the Gita or the Upanishads? Have you been to India, and what is your familiarity with Hindu theology? All you do is make up shit and then refuse to respond when your errors are pointed out. Stick to what you know and you won't be embarrassed in public.

 

[TomC]

Ehe... you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Well done using irrelevant examples and hoping I wouldn't notice

Say what?

I'm no scholar, but what Atrib described sounds exactly like the Hinduism I am somewhat familiar with.

It looks to me like you are the one applying the Abrahamic template to every religious tradition.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Dude, you said pretty clearly: Reproduce isn't a human drive.

And it isn't.

It's a drive for some people, but not for others, and on average, humans as a species don't choose to do it.

They do, however, overwhelmingly choose to fuck.

Which until very recently, was a close enough proxy for evolutionary purposes.

 

[bilby]

If what you meant is that the aggregate results of all opinions is a birthrate below replacement level, then perhaps avoid making absolute statements like Reproduce isn't a human drive. We can only read and understand what you actually type.

Apparently, you can only read and fly off the handle about it.

Actually understanding it got thrown under the bus; Do you really think that I would have seriously thought that nobody wants to reproduce? Is that a plausible interpretation, based on your experience of me?

It was right there in context, being counterposed with the idea that fucking is a more significant drive - yet you chose to respond as though it stood as a sentence alone, and to take the least charitable possible interpretation and arc up about it.

 

[rousseau]

I'll take Secular Humanism, if I need a religion, no gods required. I have no idea why some people need a god in their lives, but lots of them so and plenty of them are smart, and educated.

The last time I visited my primary MD, she told me that because I do so much for my next door neighbor, who is also one of her patients and has told her that I do a lot for her, I will have more jewels in my crown. As most of you know that's a Christian belief that the more good deeds you do, the more you will be rewarded in heaven.

I really wanted to say something to her, like I don't believe that shit. I'm good without god. But, I decided to leave it alone. Most American doctors believe in a god or pretend that they do. Reading some of Joseph Campbell helped me understand that humans have always been drawn to mythology, so perhaps we're hard wired for it but in contemporary times, a lot of us have lost the wiring.

My take on it is not that we are hardwired for belief in gods, but our brains are evolved in such a way that belief in divine moral authority is a side effect of the way our brains are wired. Richard Dawkins referred to this kind of thing as an evolutionary "misfire"--like the way in which moths navigate by light but are drawn into flames sometimes as a result.

As most of us know, brains form vast networks of neurons that use associations with sense data to form models of what our operating environment is like. Moving bodies need guidance systems, and that is basically the function of a brain--to keep us alive, healthy, and able to reproduce. At birth, we begin to learn everything under the protection and supervision of more mature individuals. We accept authority and guidance automatically, so those mature teachers become the prototype for gods. Polytheistic societies have pantheons structured as families, and gods are super-powerful, all-knowledgeable beings with super parental authority. We pray to them, just as we pleaded for favors and permissions from adults when we were children. Gods are completely human in their thought processes, desires, whims, and dominance relationships with humans. In short, atheism is not the most natural approach that most humans are going to take as they grow up and learn how things work. And it is entirely natural for them to feel the need for some kind of authoritative guide in defining moral behavior--the difference between good and bad. They feel threatened by atheists primarily because atheism rejects the existence of a moral authority and removes the underpinning for their basic beliefs about the difference between right and wrong behavior.

I've noticed that even on the philosophy stack exchange, I'm assuming populated largely by atheists, there are quite a few questions on whether a certain thing is or isn't ethical. Without the awareness that the world is ambiguous. Then you don't need to look too hard on the Buddhist section to see people appealing to the religion for certainty, rather than making up their mind themselves.

My thought is that this behavior makes some level of sense if - a) religious moral codes actually work pretty well, b) one's social group largely follows the same rules, and c) one doesn't have the aptitude for post-conventional reasoning. When you put it in this light following an authority figure is the most efficient way to get by - the rules work, everyone around you agrees with them, and you don't have to think any harder about it. Even if there isn't real, divine authority, there is some level of social authority - Buddhism is popular for a reason.

Personally I wouldn't use the term 'evolutionary misfire' - I think that lends too much credence to the idea that we should be thinking more rationally, and not that most people are better off following their instincts and fitting in with their social group. To me this frame of thinking is more in line with Dawkins work on genetics, but he likely wouldn't be quick to admit it. But I would call religion itself a by-product of our psychology, rather than something with any intrinsic purpose.

And on some level, when you have a hard time making sense of the world, a tried and tested framework is much more comforting than having to accept that you have no clue what you're doing.

So anyway, I agree with your post, but I would add that it may not be true for all people. There are some who are comfortable with ambiguity, and strive to make it more concrete, rather than relying on easy answers.

I was curious so tracked down Dawkins comment which can be found here. Put in this context his explanation makes more sense to me. It's not misfire as in - trait [x] evolved incorrectly, but rather trait [x] evolved for a valid reason but is sometimes co-opted by religion.

That seems pretty much in line with my own thinking.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ehe... you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Well done using irrelevant examples and hoping I wouldn't notice

Which statements do you disagree with? Please be specific. And please tell me how being a Hindu, reading the Vedic texts, and participating in Hindu religious ceremonies would to irrelevant to a discussion on Hindu theology.

Your 5 minute scan of Wiki does not constitute scholarship. I have pointed out errors in your claims, which you have not even attempted to rebut. Have you read the Vedas, the Gita or the Upanishads? Have you been to India, and what is your familiarity with Hindu theology? All you do is make up shit and then refuse to respond when your errors are pointed out. Stick to what you know and you won't be embarrassed in public.

Allright. I'll start with the easiest one. Your claim that Hinduism is equally focused on heresy as Christianity (and Islam). In the particion between India and Pakistan the Hindus problem with the Muslims were based on what the Muslims were doing, for historical grievances and for tribal reasons. Not because the Muslims had the wrong thoughts on theological matters and dared express them. This conflict was on a completely different level. The Brittish colonial rulers had done their darndest to play out Muslims and Hindus against eachother. What a surprise this all blew up with the Brits handed over power to the natives. Hindus might have super strong opinions on what's religiously right or wrong, but they're not going to stab you over it. Unless you desecrate one of their temples. But that's fair and reasonable IMHO, and has nothing to do with murdering heretics.

Yes, I've read all Hindu religious texts. Many times. When growing up I even had the Bhagavad Gita as a comic book. Many. I've seen the inside of hundreds of Hindu temples, all over India and in Europe. I've been to hundreds of Pujas. Come to think of it... probably thousands. Most memorable was a Kali puja in Hampi where we were being watched by litteral actual live and wild cobras. I've had several gurus. And wasn't molested by any of them. Not even once. Together with a monk I once took care of an elephant, high up in the Welsh mountains. The elephant had been a gift to this temple from the Indian government. Over a lifetime I have spent a lot more time meditating than masturbating.

I grew up with this. I then spent 20 years running away from it. Now I'm back. Next month me and my crew will participate in Galungan on Bali.

Good luck, trying to outrank me.

Not to tell you what you think or believe, but you come across someone who grew up culturally Christian and then converted later in life. And now you're trying to fit Hinduism into a Christianity shaped box. A problem since Christianity is a smaller box than Hinduism.

I'm not a Hindu today. But I do have the highest respect for it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hindus might have super strong opinions on what's religiously right or wrong, but they're not going to stab you over it.

Hinduvta fanatics will infact do just that. In case you did not notice. Christian missionaries are one especial target. Just as one example.