Debate: Are we naturally religious?

[speeds]

Well the "proof" isn't something I can show you guys, it is more on the lines of anecdotal accounts of my private life which I don't wish to share. There are some other historical pieces of evidence but that is just complimentary to my personal experiences.

To me "being with God", whether you believe in him or not, is simply being a good person. In the end no matter who is right, that is all that matters.

How you go about being a good person certainly matters, though. Proselytism and missionary work is generally considered to be in the service of god, or being with god. "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands," (Matthew). Currently in Russia the state is adopting an official faith (Russian Orthodox) and beginning to suppress other religions in the nation. Here you have an example of one group doing what they think is right by moving towards a state sponsored (enforced?) religion, within the framework of proselytism. Being a good person according to the tenants of your faith intersects with the well being of others. Yet this is in keeping with the actions of the church at large in the past. A more nefarious example would be the Vatican's stance on prophylactics. On the one hand the RCC has many initiatives to help curb the spread of the AIDS virus in Africa--which is noble and good--but their direct, venomous opposition to condoms and sexual education undermines their efforts and in many cases worsens the epidemic. Over time the concept of what it means to be a good person or to live a good life has changed. In the Torah there are a number of offenses which are to be punished by stoning (adultery, breaking the Shabbat, etc.). This behaviour would be a moral obligation if the Torah was not interpreted so casually.

 

[speeds]

Speeds,

My comments and observations are aimed at improving the theory of Evolution. Most descriptions of the theory include 4 or 5 basic principles or laws, including the passing on of genes to the next generation, adaptation, not having a species eaten out of existence, etc. And Natural Selection. I'm just suggesting it needs 6 or 7 or 8 basic principles to be more complete.

I suggested a missing catalyst explains the lack of evidence of Natural Selection for more than half the life of the planet. Some scientists posit this catalyst was the atmosphere reaching a certain level of oxygen, which is plausible and the kind of thing I'm looking for. It's just a guess, though. There are other possibilities I can see, like the moon moving away to a far enough distance to keep the tides from being 100 feet tall. That'd be one thing missing from the theory.

I suggested that the Phylogenic Tree has been burned to the ground and regrew from near scratch. Mammals became dominant after the dinosaurs were killed off by a freak but recurring/periodic kind of catastrophic event. Evolution from a single cell to Man over billions of years was only possible because of asteroid strikes and other natural type disasters. The theory should include this fact.

And there is an artificial component needed to update the theory. We cross pollinate plants for characteristics that have nothing to do with adaptation or selection or survival of the fittest. We pollute the water and kill off entire species (almost another kind of catastrophe). We make poisons to kill off undesirable pests. We're manipulating genes with science, and that's a radical alteration to any natural kind of growth of the Phylogenic Tree. In fact, you could classify this as a kind of intelligent design - we are the designers, not in the creationism sense of the words. I'd consider this critical to having a more complete theory.

The fossils currently being pulled out of the Burgess Shales in Alberta will give us more information about the Cambrian explosion and the period immediately following it. One of Dawkins' theories about the event is that soft organisms (spineless and shell-less) haven't left us many fossils that might stretch out the so-called explosion into a more gradual development of species; now we're seeing remarkable evidence of those kinds of soft creatures in the Shales by the U-Leicester researchers & co.. Every type of phlya on Earth today can be traced back to the fossils from the Shales in addition to creatures that are currently unclassifiable. Perhaps it will eventually lead us to an understanding of whether the Phylogenetic tree has roots that go back the entire span of life on Earth, or if indeed the process has been stopped and restarted in the past to the extent you propose.

To your point on external factors affecting evolution, specifically cosmological events, it is unlikely that a major event has occurred during the period of human evolution (approximated at 5- to 6-million years). But clearly events have shaped the evolution of all species over the long term. The debate between whether our evolution is gradual or punctuated is ongoing, especially due to the incompleteness of the human fossil record.

As for your artificial element of evolution/natural selection, or the guiding hand of mankind, I'm not really sure if there is a debate on this or not. Clearly humans have designed the evolution of plants and animals both directly and indirectly. Stebbins, in Variation and Evolution in Plants (1950), pulls modern evolutionary synthesis into botany (polyploidy and hybridization).

 

[huevonkiller]

How you go about being a good person certainly matters, though. Proselytism and missionary work is generally considered to be in the service of god, or being with god. "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands," (Matthew). Currently in Russia the state is adopting an official faith (Russian Orthodox) and beginning to suppress other religions in the nation. Here you have an example of one group doing what they think is right by moving towards a state sponsored (enforced?) religion, within the framework of proselytism. Being a good person according to the tenants of your faith intersects with the well being of others. Yet this is in keeping with the actions of the church at large in the past. A more nefarious example would be the Vatican's stance on prophylactics. On the one hand the RCC has many initiatives to help curb the spread of the AIDS virus in Africa--which is noble and good--but their direct, venomous opposition to condoms and sexual education undermines their efforts and in many cases worsens the epidemic. Over time the concept of what it means to be a good person or to live a good life has changed. In the Torah there are a number of offenses which are to be punished by stoning (adultery, breaking the Shabbat, etc.). This behaviour would be a moral obligation if the Torah was not interpreted so casually.

I'm not affiliated with any church.

That's not my problem, I don't condone such actions.

 

[igotask8board]

I'm not trying to convert anyone. To each his own.

 

[Denny Crane]

The fossils currently being pulled out of the Burgess Shales in Alberta will give us more information about the Cambrian explosion and the period immediately following it. One of Dawkins' theories about the event is that soft organisms (spineless and shell-less) haven't left us many fossils that might stretch out the so-called explosion into a more gradual development of species; now we're seeing remarkable evidence of those kinds of soft creatures in the Shales by the U-Leicester researchers & co.. Every type of phlya on Earth today can be traced back to the fossils from the Shales in addition to creatures that are currently unclassifiable. Perhaps it will eventually lead us to an understanding of whether the Phylogenetic tree has roots that go back the entire span of life on Earth, or if indeed the process has been stopped and restarted in the past to the extent you propose.

I don't say the process has been stopped and restarted, just really deflected onto a very different long term course. 99.9% of life may be wiped out in a cataclysm, but there's still that .1% that continues on from it's "current" state (at that time). That .1% could be many species or on branches on the Phylogenic tree. That .1% may have died out rapidly if not for the cataclysms.

What's missing from the fossil record is the slight variations of life that is found in the fossil record for most of the earth's existence.

To your point on external factors affecting evolution, specifically cosmological events, it is unlikely that a major event has occurred during the period of human evolution (approximated at 5- to 6-million years). But clearly events have shaped the evolution of all species over the long term. The debate between whether our evolution is gradual or punctuated is ongoing, especially due to the incompleteness of the human fossil record.

These cosmological events were more frequent early on, obviously, but my interest is in the roughly 65M year periodic ones (K/T, P/Tr, etc). I'm comfortable with man's evolution over the past 5-6 million years or even up to 65M years ago. The point that is of real interest is the question of "what if the dinosaurs weren't killed off all at once?" You have 59M years of selection, adaptation, etc., with those beasts eating our ancestors before the 5-6 million year period.

More importantly, these events alter species in ways have nothing to do with Evolutionary Theroy (selection, adaptation, etc.).

As for your artificial element of evolution/natural selection, or the guiding hand of mankind, I'm not really sure if there is a debate on this or not. Clearly humans have designed the evolution of plants and animals both directly and indirectly. Stebbins, in Variation and Evolution in Plants (1950), pulls modern evolutionary synthesis into botany (polyploidy and hybridization).

I'm aware of this, what I seriously doubt is that it's covered in GMJ's textbook. It isn't mentioned here, either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

It isn't mentioned in the "Origin of the Species" either, even though man knew how to alter the phyogenic tree since Mendel, if not before.

Seems to me to be a glaring omission.

 

[bbwMax]

Just read this while having a look about it.

Link

Very good read.

 

[speeds]

I'm not affiliated with any church.

That's not my problem, I don't condone such actions.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. To each his own.

Eh, sorry for being such a blowhard, guys.

 

[igotask8board]

Eh, sorry for being such a blowhard, guys.

No, you have a legit argument. I thought about it some more, and in the end I decided to be a good person. Maybe God was made up to keep the masses in check. When you go to Church, all they focus on is how Jesus paid and suffered for our sins, making it one big guilt trip. They don't preach about his teachings.

But remember, nice guys finish last.

 

[huevonkiller]

Yeah you know what, I decided not to be a good person in the end. What a load of crap advice that was.....

 

[igotask8board]

Yeah you know what, I decided not to be a good person in the end. What a load of crap advice that was.....

Yes, I saw your post earlier in this thread. You wouldn't believe how much in common we have.

 

[huevonkiller]

Yes, I saw your post earlier in this thread. You wouldn't believe how much in common we have.

It is cool man, I don't mind your perspective on this subject either.

 

[Blueangel4]

The internet will spur many non-believers.

I have one thing to say to those non-believers... "DON'T EVER UNDERESTIMATE A HEART OF A CHAMPION"

The above quote by Igotask8board moved me. Look at Brett Favre and other great champions. Brett is the best current example, for me, to demonstrate the heart and undying spirit he has. I think that contributes to his tremendous success as a future Hall of Famer.

"Are we naturally religious?" Yes, I believe we are -- but that depends on what we mean by religious. I think we are born with right and wrong on our hearts and spirits. While maturing, we become aware of how we stand spiritually. I think some people are more spiritually aware than others.

Science vs. God? I believe in God, because of what my spirit stands for, confirmed by my experiences and observances. Evolution vs. God? God could have created and used evolution. Who actually knows? Science? We ARE science.

To be bad or to be good at the end? This question and the answer is why I believe in what Jesus taught. He said the two greatest commandments are: to love God and to love one another.

To go to war because of religion? Barbaric. My dad always said that hatred poisons the mind. I believe that the mind affects the body. I understand that this fact is, in fact, medically correct. Therefore, hatred would eventually destroy a person.

Spirit has everything to do with what we are, why we are here, and what we should be contemplating. I believe there is such a thing as a spiritual war. It has nothing to do with what "religion" you are. It has everything to do with WHAT you are.

 

[GMJ]

My dad always said that hatred poisons the mind. I believe that the mind affects the body. I understand that this fact is, in fact, medically correct. Therefore, hatred would eventually destroy a person.

FWIW, there's a fallacy here. You're taking a poetical definition of poising, and then using it in a biological sense. Although I will give you this, the physiological response to anger raises one's heart rate, and this has been shown to be a direct factor in increasing the probability of heart disease.

copy/paste font stealing FTW

 

[Chutney]

I like David Hume's explanation:

The belief of invisible, intelligent power has been very generally diffused over the human race, in all places and in all ages; but it has neither perhaps been so universal as to admit of no exception, nor has it been, in any degree, uniform in the ideas, which it has suggested. Some nations have been discovered, who entertained no sentiments of Religion, if travellers and historians may be credited; and no two nations, and scarce any two men have ever agreed precisely in the same sentiments.... The first religious principles must be secondary, such as may easily be perverted by various accidents and causes....

I don't think religion is a completely natural characteristic of humanity. As Hume pointed out, there are so many varied forms of religion, or even absences of it, that disprove that notion. Instead, I think humans are naturally inquisitive about basic questions about reality and their place/role in the world. Religion is one of the earliest attempts to deal with those questions and different settings, emphases, perspectives, etc. lead to different forms of religion.

I also thinks its interesting that a lot of people are referring to monotheistic traditions like Christianity when answering this question. That's a relatively modern phenomenon if we're talking about the origins of humanity.

 

[speeds]

I also thinks its interesting that a lot of people are referring to monotheistic traditions like Christianity when answering this question. That's a relatively modern phenomenon if we're talking about the origins of humanity.

True. Dawkins likes to say everyone is an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Thor, and thousands of other gods that have been discarded over history. He just goes one god further.

 

[Blueangel4]

GMJ, I just love your posts. You keep people straight in what they are saying. I respect what you said about anger raising one's heart rate. What I said about "hatred poisoning the mind" -- the word "poisoning" was metaphorical, as in state of mind. My reference to the mind having an affect on the body was related to some write-ups I've seen by medical experts, which confirmed my own belief that the mind can have an affect on the body. For instance, mental stress can show up in the physical realm as hives and other absurd maladies. So, whatever people want to call that, I have seen cases where it relates.

P.S. Hope to see lots of your posts, because you keep it real. I love that.