Stray Dog, I don’t think we can generalize about whether religious fanaticism is more or less adaptive. I suspect it would depend on the religion, and the circumstances. (As Sam Harris points out, Jain “fanaticism” would consist of trying not to kill bugs.)
TyC00n, you ask if there are any “non-religious” ancient peoples. I think this depends on what we are willing to consider as “religions.” Many groups will have a distinctive worldview, identity, and customs, which may or may not count as religious. Hell, a lot of Chinese would fit that description.
Group solidarity can be achieved in various ways. Ideally you are born into it. Failing that, you can achieve it through some sort of “convenient fiction” (e.g. religion). Such alliances risk being less stable, unless the cost of entry and exit is particularly high (circumcision anybody?).
As to going to the Third World and having yourself a bunch of kids, well, then you’d be competing with the men of the Third World, who are especially adapted to this r-selected reproduction strategy. As a rule of thumb, the bigger a man’s balls, the more he can expect to benefit from such a strategy. As “Sperm Wars” puts it–if you have a bigger army, you are more likely to benefit from fighting. In this case the “army” is sperm supply, and the “fighting” consists of having sex with the same sluts as a bunch of other men. Men with smaller balls are more likely to benefit from monogamy and fidelity. (Is this proof that God hates women, or what?)
A religious bias in favour of large families would be useful. 1% of Quebec’s population can trace its lineage back to this pair:[quote]Tremblay is today the biggest French-speaking lineage in Northern America. The single root of the lineage is Pierre Tremblay, born around 1626 in Randonnai, a village located in the region of Perche in Lower-Normandy, France. He later moved to Beaupré, where he married Ozanne Achon on 2 October 1657. They got 12 children, of which 10 became adults. Their six daughters are the roots of the famous Roussin, Gagné, Savard, Perron, Peymart dit Laforêt and Pelletier lineages. The for sons Pierre, Michel, Louis and Jacques founded the four branches of the Tremblay lineage. [/quote]Supposedly there’s a pair who outdo even them, being responsible for close to a percent of the North American population, but I can’t find that info now.
[quote=“Tyc00n”][quote=“Erhu”]
I believe that if we look, we can find God with both our eyes and with our hearts.[/quote]
I don’t believe faith-based statements belong in this thread…lets not confuse science and religion like some parts of the U.S. (sorry I couldn’t resist)[/quote]
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” —Albert Einstein
Except Catholic priests of course…and bishops, nouns and the Pope.[/quote]
I’m sure that the Pope’s tough stance on contraception use has contributed significantly to the population growth of religious communities. While a few bishops, nuns, and priests are abstaining, the rest of the congregation is out populating the earth.
Also, priests may be contributing more to the gene pool than we give them credit for.
I think you got that a bit wrong. While big testes indicate that the members of a society are promiscuous on both sides, small testes are indicative of polygnous societies. Gorillas, who are extremly polygnous, are a perfect example of this. The males have giant bodies (from fighting off other males) and tiny balls. They have tiny penises too, for that matter. Perhaps this means that God just hates female gorrillas.
In monogamous or quasi-monagomous societies, males typically have medium-sized testes.
Small-balled men would probably benefit most by having lots of money and a tightly-controlled harem.
People, imho, as much as i love this thread, you’re picking on small points (the testes issue) and ignoring the big ones. I still haven’t heard a refutation of my “rape is as natural as religion” theory.
I guess you took offense to my use of the word “illusion.” Perhaps that was an unfair characterization, and I’ll retract “illusion” and replace it with “phenomenon.”
The problem with your statement as quoted above is: if free will can’t be proven, that in itself is an argument against it! And if it could be proven, how will we know that we’re not just making an error and recording the facts that we want to record? This is where quantum mechanics and the issue of “measuring an experiment affects the outcome” comes into play.
Free will, as a concept, is as unprovable as any religious belief, and I believe it stands as the conscious or unconscious backing of many a religion - philosophical taoism being a notable exception. by attacking free will, I’m attacking a non-scientific premise in the same way I attacked religion above and equated it (as a natural human tendency) with rape. If the concept of free will is another ‘vestigial organ/belief’, i doubt we’ll ever be able to discard it, as the human body has been so reluctant to discard the appendix.
this all comes from Nietzsche, where he points out that those who want to live a “natural life” have a poor concept of nature, which is itself a random, amoral, uncaring phenomenon that kills and preserves without any rhyme or reason. Evolution is a kind of chart of “nature allowed this to happen but prevented that from happening” — but nature without any anthropomorphizing, just nature as a record of historical events, the history of a bunch of random atoms colliding or not colliding, never being measured, with only their macro outcomes being recordable, such as the case of the rabbit that changed color, above.
it’s kind of an extended metaphor on my part (not counting what i borrowed from F. N.) and I guess I should lay off the betel nuts a bit. But one more time I’ll state that I find this thread to be far more interesting (and polite) than any that has come up on this board in the last few months… thanks to all who contributed, and please understand I’m trying to make my points without pissing you off, I really am.
Um, I think you got that a bit wrong. Big testes indicate that the members of a society are promiscuous on both sides. In other words, both the guys and the ladies are getting action from multiple partners. In strictly polygnous societies, males have small balls. Gorillas are a perfect example of this. They have giant bodies and tiny balls (and tiny penises too, for that matter). Perhaps this means that God just hates female gorrillas. [/quote]
Not quite. Testicle size isn’t related to monagmy or polynany. (damn the spelling to hell). Testicle size is related to how many times they can go without a decent break! (Chimpanzees have bigger testicles than humans) As for penis size, the current theory (its a controversial matter), is that a greater penis size is used to intimidate other males rather than for any particular female impression. However given the dearth of female socio-biologists perhaps we’ll see other theories arise (no pun intended).
Nope. To be most successful in evolutionary terms, its best to move to a 3rd world country (or anywhere really cheap) and have as many children as feasibly possible. Perhaps if you make enough money teaching in Taiwan, you can retire to the Philipines and support 5 wives and have 100 children.
So looking at the world today, its the worlds poor and rural citizens who are the most successful in evolutionary terms. Clearly technological progress and financial success, do not bode well for your genes.[/quote]
[quote=“Tyc00n”]
Not quite. Testicle size isn’t related to monagmy or polynany. (damn the spelling to hell). Testicle size is related to how many times they can go without a decent break! (Chimpanzees have bigger testicles than humans) As for penis size, the current theory (its a controversial matter), is that a greater penis size is used to intimidate other males rather than for any particular female impression. However given the dearth of female socio-biologists perhaps we’ll see other theories arise (no pun intended).[/quote]
That’s the exact opposite of what I’ve read. When female chimps go into heat, it stimulates the males to play with themselves in front of the females. As you say there is not conclusive data either way, but penis size might play a part in the females’ partner selection.
Oh, and when that doesn’t work, they rape the females. Now let’s all run through the forest and smell flowers and return to our natural states.
[quote=“Erhu”]
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” —Albert Einstein[/quote]
It seems that Einstein meant from that statement that science can only be pursued by those who possess a religious-like love of truth and understanding. The faith he refers is to is faith that the world is rationale and comprehensible to humans. The full quote is below:
I don’t mean to nitpick here, but that one sentence from Einstein is often used to imply that Einstein actually thought science needed religion as we normally think of “religion”, but he didn’t. I don’t think most people consider faith in the rationality of the universe to be a religious belief. If we continue reading the transcript of the speech, we see more of Einstein’s skepticism towards theistic religion.
[quote]Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required–not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.
We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.
[b]The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. [/b]For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel’s book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.
[….]
[/b]The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.[/b] [/quote]
In the above speech and other speeches/writings, Einstein repeated his opposition to the idea a personal God who intervened in human affairs, performed miracles, told his followers to fear him, killed people, etc. In other words, he was not a theist. And yet theists love to use that one sentence from one speech to portray him as the ultimate mediator between science and religion. He did want to reconcile religion and science, but not traditional, theistic religion and science. He had no use for that.
Yes, lurkky, rape is natural. So is murder, for that matter. Mother Nature doesn’t care if we’re enjoying our stay here on the earth, she just wants us to spread our genes by any means necessary. (Apologies for implying that evolution is intelligent or purposeful.)
Groo:
Yes, I thought that was interesting too. Of course this begs the question of exactly what a “religion” is (e.g., must it presuppose the supernatural?), and while we’re at it, we might as well ask which types of religions are adapted to what circumstances or environments. I suspect that what works for a small-scale, “tribal” group (the kind that our ancestors had long before they were homo sapiens) will be different from what works for a larger-scale society.
Free will is a philosophical question, which perhaps physicists may ultimately be able to weigh in on. I don’t see any good evidence for or against it now–or as Kant points out, deep down, we can’t bring ourselves to imagine that either option (causality or free will) ISN’T true.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]
That’s the exact opposite of what I’ve read. When female chimps go into heat, it stimulates the males to play with themselves in front of the females. As you say there is not conclusive data either way, but penis size might play a part in the females’ partner selection.[/quote]
Well this whole area is very much debated in scientific circles… were the chimps measured up and then noted for successful selection? I’m really not sure if using chimps is a good idea for this experiment given their sheer promiscuity.
Of course if I follow my instinct on this one I would say that penis size is important to female selection of males, since I’m sure all of you have heard women talk about it in exactly the same way men talk about breast size.
Some women care, and other women are not so concerned, but any population of women who regard it as important will have an effect on natural selection.
Whatever do you mean? Are there ANY non-religious ancient peoples?[/quote]
The article said societies without a religious foundation don’t last more than 3 generations.
[/quote]
I don’t think thats related to success through evolution at all. Perhaps it was a reference to communism, but even though communism has basically failed in China, that doesn’t mean their society has does it?
FYI: Free Will has not been proven or disproven yet.[/quote]
The more I look at it, the less I believe in Free Will. (Not to be confused with Willy of course, who was freed)[/quote]
If you want to be more empirical about Free Will, we really are not sure. Look at quantum physics, as Lurky first mentioned, because the brain is electrical(neurons). Quantum Physics is nothing like Classical Physics. There are a lot of strange things that happen in QP like one particle effecting another particle that is not in the same room or country. Or particles disappearing in one spot and reappearing somewhere else without traveling the distance between. And in QP observing a particle actually has an effect on that particle. Particles define themselves as they are observed – believe it or not. Einstein called quantum physics “spooky” and didn’t like how unpredictable it was.
So, to summarize, some scientist have speculated that the act of conscious observation is an integral element of creating one outcome from a neutral haze of possibilities. The physicist, John Wheeler said: “No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”
Quantum physics is a fascinating subject, full of counter intuitive results, some people might find uncomfortable. Might need to leave yourself a little breathing room in your scientific-method view of the world. Reality is not just what’s before your eyes.
[quote=“lurkky”]The problem with your statement as quoted above is: if free will can’t be proven, that in itself is an argument against it! And if it could be proven, how will we know that we’re not just making an error and recording the facts that we want to record? This is where quantum mechanics and the issue of “measuring an experiment affects the outcome” comes into play.
Free will, as a concept, is as unprovable as any religious belief, and I believe it stands as the conscious or unconscious backing of many a religion - philosophical taoism being a notable exception. by attacking free will, I’m attacking a non-scientific premise in the same way I attacked religion above and equated it (as a natural human tendency) with rape. If the concept of free will is another ‘vestigial organ/belief’, i doubt we’ll ever be able to discard it, as the human body has been so reluctant to discard the appendix.
this all comes from Nietzsche, where he points out that those who want to live a “natural life” have a poor concept of nature, which is itself a random, amoral, uncaring phenomenon that kills and preserves without any rhyme or reason. Evolution is a kind of chart of “nature allowed this to happen but prevented that from happening” — but nature without any anthropomorphizing, just nature as a record of historical events, the history of a bunch of random atoms colliding or not colliding, never being measured, with only their macro outcomes being recordable, such as the case of the rabbit that changed color, above.
[/quote]
One thing I don’t get is how Nietzsche can say we have no Free Will and then say “Rebel against nature!” How do we rebel against something we have no control over? He should have said, just give up and raise sheep, right? (all you Nietzche worshipers can chime in now)
I disagree that the universe is chaos. Too much sticking together of atoms for that. Yes, there are colliding of particles, but there are Universal Laws governing these collisions. Calling nature good or bad is subjective. So, I see order - there are Universal Laws that govern how atoms stick together just so, how gravity works just so, how evolution creates things like humans and their compassion. We are a projection caused by these basic Laws being in existence. These Universal Laws have shaped the clay into something quite unique and ordered.
It seems that Einstein meant from that statement that science can only be pursued by those who possess a religious-like love of truth and understanding. The faith he refers is to is faith that the world is rationale and comprehensible to humans…[/quote]
I posted that quote to elucidate the point that matters of faith and religion have been and continue to be relevant in a discussion about science and vice versa. It doesn’t matter what Einstein’s personal religious beliefs were, as his statement conveys a general truth about the relationship between religion and science.
In order to properly explore this concept, we should read the paragraphs preceding the quote in question, which for some reason you left out. It’s in these paragraphs that the definition of a religious person is provided.
This definition (see the bolded parts) is pretty broad, and would most certainly apply to many believers of monotheistic religions, although it’s expanded the traditional view to include any individual who lives life with a sense of selfless purpose. This definition also underscores that this “superpersonal” passion is incapable of being rationalized.
[quote] At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. [/quote]
These two paragraphs express the apparent conflict between religion and science quite eloquently. And the oft-stated quote has become a proverb among many theologans and scientists alike, because it expresses their own, not necessarily Einstein’s, personal views. That Einstein later goes on and attacks monotheism in order to express his personal beliefs is irrelevant.
BTW: Here are some links to articles discussing modern-day scientists’ belief in God. There are more people in the field of science who believe in God than one might think.
I can believe that plenty of theologians and scientists might consider Einstein’s quote to mean just what you say, but not the cater-to-the-lowest-common-denominator media who paste it every time the subect of science and religion arises. Nor do I think the every day man understands what Einstein meant. And I stand by my original interpretation. In the paragraph of which that quote ends, he explains what he means clearly. I’ve read a great deal about Einstein, and it syncs up with what I know he thought of theistic religion in general.
And I disagree that his statement conveys a “general truth” about the relationship between religion and science. It might convey a general opinion, or your specific opinion, but the idea that science and religion are compatible is hotly contested among theologians and philosophers of science.
But one more time I’ll state that I find this thread to be far more interesting (and polite) than any that has come up on this board in the last few months… thanks to all who contributed, and please understand I’m trying to make my points without pissing you off, I really am.
[/quote]
)