Startling follow-up

O

Operacast

Well-Known Member
Messages
320
Reaction score
4
Points
18
I was quite startled to find a point/counterpoint argument online on why religion has evolved the way it has, in which the chief points to and fro took up many of the questions that I've mulled over here concerning religion and its development's possible relationship to the intricacies of evolution. The argument is carried on by a panel of scientists and skeptics only, and they end up concentrating on certain aspects that I've already touched on here in this forum. That's why I found the discussion so startling.

Before some posters here may feel the possible urge to retreat to their usual corners, I'd be sincerely interested in hearing from people who first read the full discussion here

Edge: MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION: A Talk With Jonathan Haidt

and here

The Reality Club: MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION

instead, before saying anything that may be too pat on this subject. As you can see, these panelists happen to cover a lot of ground, and I think we'd find a discussion here on what they cover potentially fruitful.

Many thanks,

Operacast
 
I have been on this site for years now... this is the first time I have been directed to a workable defence of religious belief!! Not that I'm about to convert just yet :D
 
Operacast,
Operacast said:
Before some posters here may feel the possible urge to retreat to their usual corners, I'd be sincerely interested in hearing from people who first read the full discussion here

Edge: MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION: A Talk With Jonathan Haidt
Click to expand...
From the article:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From a review of the anthropological and evolutionary literatures, Craig Joseph (at Northwestern University) and I concluded that there were three best candidates for being additional psychological foundations of morality, beyond harm/care and fairness/justice[/FONT]....
​
I don't think this fellow went back far enough. There sees to have been no element of "moral psychology" in some of the old animistic religions. Religion and morality were linked much later.

The old animistic philosophies were primarly attemps to make sense of the universe and to develop ideas about the afterlife and the soul (see Primitive Culture By Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, p 429-431). They were not specifically concerned with morality or social standards.

It seems the religion/ethics connection came about with more theistically oriented religions. Besides, it may be that the moral concepts are freestanding - comprehensible without linking them into religion.
 
Namaste OC,

Thanx for the article and the contemplation...

Now in a futile attempt to not go to my corner...

After reading the article, and then the rebuttals/comments, and then the response.

I was compelled to respond to the rebuttals, twas interesting how everyone twists things to suit their fancy. Reminded me of a quote that said "Everyone spends 90% of their conversational time either trying to look good or trying not to look bad" (probably a terrible misquote that I shall be corrected on) Also reminded me of the book 'Bias' where it was discussed that some liberal journalist said something to the effect of "I don't know how Bush could have won the election, I don't know ANYBODY that voted for him" How telling is that? What circles did she travel in as an objective journalist??

Which leads me to my favorite comment of defending the fact that atheists don't contribute as much to charities as the religious... (another paraphrased misquote) "Well what charities could we contribute to that we don't object to their religious organizations" Again, what circles does this fellow travel in that he can't find anything or anyone he is willing to assist yet he wants to stand as a rep of a moral, socially responsible atheist??

But the bottom line on the discussion is that it appears atheists concede (???, I'm sure I'll be corrected) that while religions have somehow created communities that benefit society as a whole, despite their plethora of issues that negate a percentage of said benefit, that there should be another way.

So what is the method of developing that social responsibility and sense of community in an atheistic society?
 
wil said:
Namaste OC,

Thanx for the article and the contemplation...

Now in a futile attempt to not go to my corner...

After reading the article, and then the rebuttals/comments, and then the response.

I was compelled to respond to the rebuttals, twas interesting how everyone twists things to suit their fancy. Reminded me of a quote that said "Everyone spends 90% of their conversational time either trying to look good or trying not to look bad" (probably a terrible misquote that I shall be corrected on) Also reminded me of the book 'Bias' where it was discussed that some liberal journalist said something to the effect of "I don't know how Bush could have won the election, I don't know ANYBODY that voted for him" How telling is that? What circles did she travel in as an objective journalist??

Which leads me to my favorite comment of defending the fact that atheists don't contribute as much to charities as the religious... (another paraphrased misquote) "Well what charities could we contribute to that we don't object to their religious organizations" Again, what circles does this fellow travel in that he can't find anything or anyone he is willing to assist yet he wants to stand as a rep of a moral, socially responsible atheist??

But the bottom line on the discussion is that it appears atheists concede (???, I'm sure I'll be corrected) that while religions have somehow created communities that benefit society as a whole, despite their plethora of issues that negate a percentage of said benefit, that there should be another way.

So what is the method of developing that social responsibility and sense of community in an atheistic society?
Click to expand...

And that is precisely the question I've been banging my head against ever since I stopped being an atheist in my late 30s --

THANK YOU!!

Best,

Operacast
 
Namaste OC,

I can't answer the question...and don't have any inspiration to do so as I am comfortable with my religious beliefs...doh! (back to my corner)

But in the NYtimes article.
For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely.
Click to expand...
Does survival of the fittest and natural selection indicate that a. the G!d loving/fearing are higher on the chain, more likely to survive? b. that the impetus of a G!d came before man? eg that our evolutionary ancestors believed? c. that there is some implicit reasoning to develop a belief in G!D? like coming out of the water, the development of the eye, opposing thumb, or speech?
 
wil said:
Namaste OC,

I can't answer the question...and don't have any inspiration to do so as I am comfortable with my religious beliefs...doh! (back to my corner)

But in the NYtimes article. Does survival of the fittest and natural selection indicate that a. the G!d loving/fearing are higher on the chain, more likely to survive? b. that the impetus of a G!d came before man? eg that our evolutionary ancestors believed? c. that there is some implicit reasoning to develop a belief in G!D? like coming out of the water, the development of the eye, opposing thumb, or speech?
Click to expand...

Candidly, it's pretty much because I posed precisely that question to myself nearly fifteen years ago and could find no logical reason to answer "No" that I stopped being an atheist. You're the first person I've encountered who sees the question as clearly. I think once we get the answer to that multi-part question, we will know whether or not God exists. So far, no one has given me a logically compelling reason to answer your query with a "No". This is why I view myself as a Provisional Theist today. Can you think of a logically compelling reason to answer your query with a "No"?

Best,

Operacast
 
Namaste OC,

My issue is I don't believe in a god per se. I believe in what I interpret the writers as explaining about G!d, eg the unexplainable. I believe much of what is written in many religions is answering the questions, Who?, What?, Why?, How?, When? and Where? by folks that answered these based upon expounding via contemplation/inspiration answers they'd heard around the fire...

I believe the scientists are looking for G!d in the unified theory of things and frankly just don't see the difference, just a different fire and different answers which have evolved over time as our understandings grew.

So G!d to me is principle, a sort of law of the universe we've just yet to discover, but the fact is that law is amazing and has a lot to do with perspective. {Which just dawns something on me...now I don't know exactly but are the Anthony Robbins, Jim Rohn, EST, Landmark types....are they religious?? Somehow I think not, so are they fledgling bonding groups of secularists with positive attitudes? eg perspective shifts that allow them a group think and positive bennies on society and their segment??}

So I've been growing to a more non-theistic view of G!D and Christianity....I'm surely not an atheist, nor agnostic, because I still believe in the unexplainable...

oh well so much for making sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top