What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Origins of Religion

interesting....my own thought is that we've always had an idea of eternity and God imprinted on our hearts and God has revealed some things about Himself in everything that surrounds us (Romans 1).

They do make some valid points. Religion can be used (abused?) to maintain group cohesion even when there are better, more humane alternatives. But that ignores religion as a force in and of itself that can drive human behavior.

I dunno...I had to read about other faiths recently, as part of a Comparative Civilizations class, and I think religion is more than glue for society...it can also drive groups and individuals to do things, based on their beliefs. Also, if you look at the effect different faiths have on society...only Christianity has resulted in a vast improvement in living conditions, a change in the way sexuality was handled, and an improvement in the status of women, children, and the vulnerable members of society. Not surprisingly, Christian missionaries have sometimes suffered attacks while spreading The Good News. The Good News is powerful, and often seen as potentially subversive.

And...that is all from me, lol. :)
 
.
Brother Lewis, no wonder I no longer believe near anything science comes up with. Next thing you know, they will begin designating the character of raindrops, and attempt in some weather report to tell me there’s a 0-100% possibility of having any weather phenomenon known. Then our Brother Barbarian will someway attempt to convince me of being evolved in some manner, maybe even associated with that raindrop; I wouldn’t know the difference, and just keep flapping my arms in hope of developing feathers and wings. :)
 
So the reason you and I have religion is because our ancient ancestors looked for signs in the weather to figure out how to please the forces on nature, or for the stability religion provides societies? Good to know, with that information, I can finally let go of all my superstition and join the ranks of atheists who don't believe in anything supernatural.

Well except I can't. The explaination is good enough if there's no such thing as God, or anything else supernatural. but if anyone prays and feels a deeper connection to God, then there's a phenomon that is unexplained and unaccounted for.
 
yeah...I think the problem is that there's a subtle bias here...they're asking "Why do so many people have religious beliefs?" and then analyzing the question basically from a standpoint of "Why would people believe something so irrational?" instead of "is there any truth to it? any common themes?," etc.
 
Eugene said:
.
Brother Lewis, no wonder I no longer believe near anything science comes up with. Next thing you know, they will begin designating the character of raindrops, and attempt in some weather report to tell me there’s a 0-100% possibility of having any weather phenomenon known. Then our Brother Barbarian will someway attempt to convince me of being evolved in some manner, maybe even associated with that raindrop; I wouldn’t know the difference, and just keep flapping my arms in hope of developing feathers and wings. :)
Click to expand...

I think science has merrit, but I don't think of this stuff as science. It's philosophy. All it uses is logic with the base foundation being that God doesn't exist, and a few other scientific theories. No prove it before my eyes that science does in experiments.
 
I think science has merrit, but I don't think of this stuff as science. It's philosophy.
Click to expand...

It comes down to evidence. Science works by making inferences from evidence. Hence, gravitation and evolution are accepted as facts, because the evidence for them is overwhelming. Philosophy used to be grounded in evidence, but today, less so. And this is why scientists generally agree, while philosophers seem to have trouble agreeing, even on very basic things.

All it uses is logic with the base foundation being that God doesn't exist
Click to expand...

Science is unable to have such a foundation, since it can only use physical evidence. The supernatural is entirely beyond the reach of science; it can neither deny nor affirm God. Fortunately, scientists are not limited to science.

No prove it before my eyes that science does in experiments.
Click to expand...

Proof, in the sense of logical certainty, is not part of science. It's more like the legal notion of proof, that is of evidence sufficient to make denial unreasonable. But there certainly is abundant proof for evolution, beginning with directly observed speciation, through numerous predictions of fossil intermediates later found, though genetic evidence, confirming phylogenies by anatomical or fossil evidence, and so on. Would you like to see some of it?

Science has been spectacularly successful at understanding the physical universe. It has led many people to envy the position of science in our culture, and sometimes seduced them into trying to recruit science to support their religious ideas. That is always a mistake.
 
Eugene said:
.
Brother Lewis, no wonder I no longer believe near anything science comes up with. Next thing you know, they will begin designating the character of raindrops, and attempt in some weather report to tell me there’s a 0-100% possibility of having any weather phenomenon known. Then our Brother Barbarian will someway attempt to convince me of being evolved in some manner, maybe even associated with that raindrop; I wouldn’t know the difference, and just keep flapping my arms in hope of developing feathers and wings. :)
Click to expand...
I remember when I was in school, theory was just that - theory - not proven, now a theory is seen as fact, they are assumptions and theory to theory building is now a fact. It's ludicrous.

Scientists don't know as much as they'd like us to believe, simply because their "facts" are only hypothetical guesses.
 
The amazing thing is that people subject their children to this type of non stop atheist propaganda all day long in the unbeliever school system.

1) The bank inflates prices, which forces both parents to work.

2) The bank super inflates education, forcing working parents to send their children to the unbelieving school system.

Its a well designed system for eliminating faith.
 
Michael74 said:
The amazing thing is that people subject their children to this type of non stop atheist propaganda all day long in the unbeliever school system.

1) The bank inflates prices, which forces both parents to work.

2) The bank super inflates education, forcing working parents to send their children to the unbelieving school system.

Its a well designed system for eliminating faith.
Click to expand...
The first Amendment won't allow for government to allow for only one faith .all must be allowed in school or none.sadly some won't pay for private school or homeschool even if able.private schooling isn't that expensive.some can't pay.14k a year or less is the cost here.
 
The Constitution does not require atheistic propaganda, only freedom for people to choose their own beliefs. Science can be taught without pretending (lying) that science proves atheism. Its obvious who has taken control of the unbeliever school system.

Sadly, unbeliever schools are often funded with regressive levies that oppress the poor and elderly. This makes the bank's education inflation all the more insidious. Regressiveness is something else that voters should vote away.
 
Last edited:
Michael74 said:
The Constitution does not require atheistic propaganda, only freedom for people to choose their own beliefs. Science can be taught without pretending (lying) that science proves atheism. Its obvious who has taken control of the unbeliever school system.

Sadly, unbeliever schools are often funded with regressive levies that oppress the poor and elderly. This makes the bank's education inflation all the more insidious. Regressiveness is something else that voters should vote away.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest.no bias isn't possible.I grew up with the ten commandments and prayer in school.Christian only education, besides old earth geology which a non scientific origin from ly all and others was being pushed in the days prior to the gold standard removal in Europe and the us.I wish we would shift from origin hypothesis to what is.creationism nor any view is really science,you can't observe a diety to prove it or test it.
 
Barbarian said:
It comes down to evidence. Science works by making inferences from evidence. Hence, gravitation and evolution are accepted as facts, because the evidence for them is overwhelming. Philosophy used to be grounded in evidence, but today, less so. And this is why scientists generally agree, while philosophers seem to have trouble agreeing, even on very basic things.
Click to expand...

Evidance is to science as logic is to philosophy. However, like logic needing to be grounded in good reasoning as it's foundation, science needs to have good evidance to be it's support. When a scientific understanding takes the work of other theories, and spins them to new situations, at best it can be called a hypothesis, and until it can be proven (or for the sake of argument, have evidance to support the conclusions), it is philosophy.

Science is unable to have such a foundation, since it can only use physical evidence. The supernatural is entirely beyond the reach of science; it can neither deny nor affirm God. Fortunately, scientists are not limited to science.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If evidance is the nessassery element then by evidance God can be proven and given evidance for. What is looked for though is repeatable evidance. Something to prove in a lab. Anything alive and conscience is much harder to hold repeatable evidance to. But people gain and lose trust with eachother over acculumation of evidance in interactions together, even if there's not much evidance repeated. Science is able to hold the foundation of evidance. Unfortunately it's not able to share it with the scientific community. Finding God has to be personally sought and supported.

Proof, in the sense of logical certainty, is not part of science. It's more like the legal notion of proof, that is of evidence sufficient to make denial unreasonable. But there certainly is abundant proof for evolution, beginning with directly observed speciation, through numerous predictions of fossil intermediates later found, though genetic evidence, confirming phylogenies by anatomical or fossil evidence, and so on. Would you like to see some of it?
Click to expand...

Thanks but no thanks. Evolution is an intreasting topic, but it's more often then not a moot point. Whether it's true or not doesn't change the world or be useful in everyday life. And since it's so polarized a topic, I'd rather look at evolution at my leisure when or if I feel the desire to.
 
Experts have long analyzed religion, and usually their biases are evident in how they choose to study faith. Freud wrote about the delusion of religion, various sociologists have viewed it as a man made institution to ensure social stability by adding a sacred element to cultural norms, and now this latest study I guess is approaching it from an evolutionary standpoint. See, here's the thing...
The Freudians assumed that religion was false and that psychoanalysis was superior. The sociologists assumed that most everything was/is socially constructed. This latest study assumes that there must be some sort of genetic hard-wiring driving religious beliefs and behaviors.

And, of course, the school of thought one clings to says a lot about you. I am a Born Again Christian, but I like sociology, so I tend to think of other faiths as being mostly socially constructed. They exist to keep things running smoothly, basically. What makes Christianity different, for me at least, is that Christianity has had a different (read: good, beneficial) effect on societies all over the world, compared to other faiths.
 
Interesting. I've read that the Paleolithic time period may have been when the first forms of spirituality and religion came into play. Known as Shamanism, it was a practice that resulted in people altering their states of consciousness, and then this sort of caught on and became somewhat 'religion-like.' Think there is something deep within us, stirring for hope outside of this material world.
 
Michael74 said:
Vote away the unbeliever school system, and train children up to fear the Lord the way the Bible commands.

Vote away the bank so Joe average has more resources to get stuff done with.
Click to expand...
before america we as colonies had that idea,the puritan's passed laws forcing education.again 10 percent of population at best is saved
I live in the most unchurched area in the nation.yet we have the highest homeschooling in the state,most private schools as well.a private schools that isnt christian.a unity church which is gnostic.
 
Barbarian observes:
It comes down to evidence. Science works by making inferences from evidence. Hence, gravitation and evolution are accepted as facts, because the evidence for them is overwhelming. Philosophy used to be grounded in evidence, but today, less so. And this is why scientists generally agree, while philosophers seem to have trouble agreeing, even on very basic things.

Evidance is to science as logic is to philosophy.
Click to expand...

No. Evidence is to science as evidence is to philosophy. No theory of the world can proceed a priori. It must always be grounded in what is. We can infer things about the unobservable only by observing the world. (our own minds being part of the world)

Philosophy lost its way, I think when it retreated from evidence. Once you lose that grounding, than logic can go anywhere. And it does.

However, like logic needing to be grounded in good reasoning as it's foundation, science needs to have good evidance to be it's support. When a scientific understanding takes the work of other theories, and spins them to new situations, at best it can be called a hypothesis, and until it can be proven (or for the sake of argument, have evidance to support the conclusions), it is philosophy.
Click to expand...

No. It is a hypothesis. Quite different from a philosophy, which must be a system. A hypothesis is merely a prediction based on previously known things, about things not yet known. It is grounded in what we already know. When there is sufficient evidence to make it clear that the hypothesis is correct, then it is a theory. And "theory" is as certain as things are, in science. The word, properly applied, is quite different, than the commonly-used meaning in everyday discourse, where it has come to mean something like "we aren't sure, but we think maybe..."

Science is unable to have such a foundation, since it can only use physical evidence.
Click to expand...

Science is primarily inductive. That is, we find the particulars and infer the rules from them. That might seem a bit sloppy, but God made us incredibly good at it. And of course, science has been more successful at explaining the world in a useful way, than anything else we can do. Philosophy is still trying to figure out the basics. Not that it's useless; a decent scientist should have a reasonable understanding of philosophical principles. But it isn't what makes science what it is.

Barbarian observes:
The supernatural is entirely beyond the reach of science; it can neither deny nor affirm God. Fortunately, scientists are not limited to science.
I disagree. If evidance is the nessassery element then by evidance God can be proven and given evidance for.
Click to expand...

If so, then anyone of reasonable intelligence would accept His existence. But that's not the case. We have logical proofs for God, but not compelling evidence. If He wanted it so, it would be easy for Him to make Himself unambigously obvious. But He won't do that. I think it has to do with His desire that we freely choose Him.

What is looked for though is repeatable evidance. Something to prove in a lab.
Click to expand...

Like the DNA analyses that confirmed common descent, worked out by entirely different lines of evidence. Like the demonstration that dinosaurs (but only the line of dinosaurs predicted to be in the group ancestral to birds) had birdlike respiratory systems. Like the confirmation that oxygen isotope ratios in the bones of primitive whales confirmed that they were largely freshwater animals at first.

That sort of thing. Of course, repeatability is not merely a lab procedure. It's going out in nature and observing and testing hypotheses to see if they are correct. Labs are only a small part of science; much of it must go on outside the lab.

Barbarian suggests:
Proof, in the sense of logical certainty, is not part of science. It's more like the legal notion of proof, that is of evidence sufficient to make denial unreasonable. But there certainly is abundant proof for evolution, beginning with directly observed speciation, through numerous predictions of fossil intermediates later found, though genetic evidence, confirming phylogenies by anatomical or fossil evidence, and so on. Would you like to see some of it?
Thanks but no thanks. Evolution is an intreasting topic, but it's more often then not a moot point. Whether it's true or not doesn't change the world or be useful in everyday life.
Click to expand...

If you ever need an antibiotic, you'll be affected by it. The use of non-fetal stem cells was worked out by recourse to evolutionary theory; cells can be induced to become pluripotent, so that there is no need to harvest fetal tissue, because of the findings of evolutionary scientists. This might not be much to you, but as a Catholic, it means a lot to me.
 
Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
It comes down to evidence. Science works by making inferences from evidence. Hence, gravitation and evolution are accepted as facts, because the evidence for them is overwhelming. Philosophy used to be grounded in evidence, but today, less so. And this is why scientists generally agree, while philosophers seem to have trouble agreeing, even on very basic things.



No. Evidence is to science as evidence is to philosophy. No theory of the world can proceed a priori. It must always be grounded in what is. We can infer things about the unobservable only by observing the world. (our own minds being part of the world)

Philosophy lost its way, I think when it retreated from evidence. Once you lose that grounding, than logic can go anywhere. And it does.



No. It is a hypothesis. Quite different from a philosophy, which must be a system. A hypothesis is merely a prediction based on previously known things, about things not yet known. It is grounded in what we already know. When there is sufficient evidence to make it clear that the hypothesis is correct, then it is a theory. And "theory" is as certain as things are, in science. The word, properly applied, is quite different, than the commonly-used meaning in everyday discourse, where it has come to mean something like "we aren't sure, but we think maybe..."



Science is primarily inductive. That is, we find the particulars and infer the rules from them. That might seem a bit sloppy, but God made us incredibly good at it. And of course, science has been more successful at explaining the world in a useful way, than anything else we can do. Philosophy is still trying to figure out the basics. Not that it's useless; a decent scientist should have a reasonable understanding of philosophical principles. But it isn't what makes science what it is.

Barbarian observes:
The supernatural is entirely beyond the reach of science; it can neither deny nor affirm God. Fortunately, scientists are not limited to science.


If so, then anyone of reasonable intelligence would accept His existence. But that's not the case. We have logical proofs for God, but not compelling evidence. If He wanted it so, it would be easy for Him to make Himself unambigously obvious. But He won't do that. I think it has to do with His desire that we freely choose Him.



Like the DNA analyses that confirmed common descent, worked out by entirely different lines of evidence. Like the demonstration that dinosaurs (but only the line of dinosaurs predicted to be in the group ancestral to birds) had birdlike respiratory systems. Like the confirmation that oxygen isotope ratios in the bones of primitive whales confirmed that they were largely freshwater animals at first.

That sort of thing. Of course, repeatability is not merely a lab procedure. It's going out in nature and observing and testing hypotheses to see if they are correct. Labs are only a small part of science; much of it must go on outside the lab.

Barbarian suggests:
Proof, in the sense of logical certainty, is not part of science. It's more like the legal notion of proof, that is of evidence sufficient to make denial unreasonable. But there certainly is abundant proof for evolution, beginning with directly observed speciation, through numerous predictions of fossil intermediates later found, though genetic evidence, confirming phylogenies by anatomical or fossil evidence, and so on. Would you like to see some of it?


If you ever need an antibiotic, you'll be affected by it. The use of non-fetal stem cells was worked out by recourse to evolutionary theory; cells can be induced to become pluripotent, so that there is no need to harvest fetal tissue, because of the findings of evolutionary scientists. This might not be much to you, but as a Catholic, it means a lot to me.
Click to expand...

Barbarian, I doubt we'll agree with eachother on many of those points, but still I want to clairify. Just in case.

The first point you replied to was "I think science has merrit, but I don't think this is science. It's philosophy." Since then your defense of the subject has stemmed towards evolution, as well as science in general. But read the article in the OP. The basis of the article is on an idea of not biological evolution, but on social evolution. It raise two theories on how religion came to be. One explaination (theory) was that the roots explaination was in creating a theory of mind towards the elements in the same way we do for people and animals. To anticipate them and act accordingly. And in doing so towards elements religions formed to try and please the elements so to keep disaster at bay and gain the blessings of good fortune. That is theory one. A social evolution can be applied to this theory as a topic of it, otherwise evolution is not included in the theory. Theory two explains religion with simular social growth in mind, suggesting religion came to be as a socitial and cultural glue. That in order for small groups to stay together and cooperate, religion was well suited, and however it came about it survived because of it.

It is to these two theories, and the article on general that my first comments were directed towards. And in those contexts I base my standing that this is not science, it's philosophy. It's not using evidance as it's foundation, but is using a few pretext philosophies. One that there is no merrit to religion, and needs to be explained outside of that subject matter, and two that people grew/evolved socially not just biologically. Both of those as far as Inam aware are pure rationelle based, not evidance based conclusions. Thus philosophy, not science.

Moving on from there though you and I started on a conversation of science verses philosophy. For the record I'm not saying science is philosophy, or that philosophy is a bad thing. What I have said so far is that the theories in the article are not science, they are philosophy. I still stand by that. I would go further though to say that it is philosophy in error, because the rationelle they are based on are either not true, (that God doesn't exist and religion has no merrit), or that the rationelle is unlikely to be true, (that as the ages have passed people have evolved to be smarter, or more evolved in some other social aspect). I can explain how that is unlikely, but if that's not your intrest that's ok.

But moving on, science and the aspects that are engaged with science whether it be understanding, innovation, medicine, or criminal investigation, science is founded on evidance. We agree on this. It is merited based on the merit of the evidance, and the lack of counter evidance to say other explainations.

Philosophy on the other hand is based on logic, rationelle. Whether it's about understanding, deductive reasoning, cultural understandings and norms, work ethic, or the too many other aspects where our philosophical reasoning touch our lives, they are all merited based on sound logic, sound reasoning. On some occasions, evidance is part of that reasoning, but that's actually in the minority usually. So it falls to logic and rationelle.

Hope that clears some things up. If you still want to correct me like a teacher to a student saying: "No, this is how it works." You can. But there's no need to do so. Likely all it will do is just show further that we will not agree on certain points. It will not give your point nor mine any more authenticity then we've both already provided. But it will appear in my eyes as insulting, as if I am in need of being corrected as a insolent child. So for that reason I ask that you take a different approach if you still wish to continue in any of the topics discussed so far.
 
I'm not so well-disposed to sociobiology, from which social evolution comes. However, it is true that societies compete for scarce resources in the same way that organisms or populations do. Hence, it is true that altruism, honesty, courage, loyalty and kindness have survival value for societies.

Kinship selection is a measurable fact in biology, and no doubt it works in humans, too. If people are altruistic toward others to the degree that they share genes with them, their genes are likely to be continued in the population. It was Jesus' great message that all humans should be one kinship group. He repeatedly wove that message into almost everything He taught. It often runs contrary to human behavior, but it is not only what He wants, it's inherently good for mankind.

And it's written in natural law, more fundamental than kinship selection. As the Chinese proverb has it, even the worst brigand, seeing a child poised at the edge of a well, feels an urge to run and save it. What Jesus is asking is for us to follow our own created nature which He gave to us, and to resist the evil which He did not give to us, but came from the rebellion of our first parents. There are sociobiological explanations for this, of course.

Sometimes two truths juxtapose nicely. As one wise person observed, truth cannot oppose truth. Oh, and I am a teacher. Sorry about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top