Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

You're not actually disputing that it is. Even if belief in God is hardwired by evolution (which I'd dispute) it would not be evidence that God exists. Behavior motivated by false belief can provide evolutionary advantages. A primitive who automatically thinks a predator is after him every time the bushes rustle has a survival advantage over another who tries to figure out if it's the wind or not before running.
I totally agree with the bolded portion.

However, I was referencing the assertion that the aesthetics are subjective, not that the aesthetics are a derivative of truth. The poetry I see in science and nature, or the poetry others see in God, are both likely stemming from similar genetic traits that at some point provided an evolutionary advantage.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with the bolder portion.

However, I was referencing the assertion that the aesthetics are subjective, not that the aesthetics are a derivative of truth. The poetry I see in science and nature, or the poetry others see in God, are both likely stemming from similar genetic traits that at some point provided an evolutionary advantage.
I could see some argue that theism actually is a genetic disadvantage because faith in a God to take care of you could put you at a disadvantage to work as hard.
 
This is false. He has publicly admitted being romantically involved with the theory of evolution. He carries that same passion for his atheistic views as well.

I have no idea what statements you're referring to, but regardless if you actually read any of his books on the subject Dawkins belief in evolution is clearly motivated by specific evidence that has nothing to do with feelings or intuition.
 
I question the advantage to having a religious doctrine determine the guidlines of choice ..many religious folks don't rely on a supreme being to work hard..there are lazy atheists and lazy christians. When humans realize they can make intelligent choices..they evolve but not because they are told it's ok or don't have a supervisor to do that. I think written language and literacy have been the springboards of human advancement
 
I could see some argue that theism actually is a genetic disadvantage because faith in a God to take care of you could put you at a disadvantage to work as hard.
I could see several viewpoints, but it makes sense to me that a belief in a god, in a shared contextual framework, would provide the scaffolding by which a community can work together, grow, trade, share, defend against outsiders, and many more things that could lead to a higher likelihood of genetic propagation.

I'm in the middle of reading a great book called Sapiens: a brief history of humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. A big part of the book is the assertion that humankind was able to develop past a family or tiny tribe based on it's unique ability to create shared myths. The belief in capitalism, religion, LLC's, Devine Right, or any mental construct allows some agreed upon principals by which people in a society can come together and build, work or grow together. Money for example is a shared myth, it is only worth something because of the social and political constructs that have created its concept. And so long as we all agree that money is something, I can sell my guitar to someone I don't know and have faith that the money I receive in return is an adequate exchange. Likewise, the shared myth of any specific god or religion provides the framework for people who have not met to work together and expand society. I recommend the book highly, it's very interesting and well researched. There are some ideas he proposes I agree with and others I don't but regardless he puts together some truly interesting concepts to think about.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with the bolded portion.

However, I was referencing the assertion that the aesthetics are subjective, not that the aesthetics are a derivative of truth. The poetry I see in science and nature, or the poetry others see in God, are both likely stemming from similar genetic traits that at some point provided an evolutionary advantage.


Ok, wasn't asserting that aesthetics never have a common basis. By subjective I just meant different people have the same feelings as Mags does about different subjects.
 
Ok, wasn't asserting that aesthetics never have a common basis. By subjective I just meant different people have the same feelings as Mags does about different subjects.
cool.

I just get tired of the same back and forth discussions/arguments so I decided to interject a small twist into the conversation. I wasn't trying to be combative, just mainly bending the subject towards what I find interesting. Sorry if I derailed the thread.
 
cool.

I just get tired of the same back and forth discussions/arguments so I decided to interject a small twist into the conversation. I wasn't trying to be combative, just mainly bending the subject towards what I find interesting. Sorry if I derailed the thread.
That's usually my job!
 
I could see several viewpoints, but it makes sense to me that a belief in a god, in a shared contextual framework, would provide the scaffolding by which a community can work together, grow, trade, share, defend against outsiders, and many more things that could lead to a higher likelihood of genetic propagation.

I'm in the middle of reading a great book called Sapiens: a brief history of humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. A big part of the book is the assertion that humankind was able to develop past a family or tiny tribe based on it's unique ability to create shared myths. The belief in capitalism, religion, LLC's, Devine Right, or any mental construct allows some agreed upon principals by which people in a society can come together and build, work or grow together. Money for example is a shared myth, it is only worth something because of the social and political constructs that have created its concept. And so long as we all agree that money is something, I can sell my guitar to someone I don't know and have faith that the money I receive in return is an adequate exchange. Likewise, the shared myth of any specific god or religion provides the framework for people who have not met to work together and expand society. I recommend the book highly, it's very interesting and well researched. There are some ideas he proposes I agree with and others I don't but regardless he puts together some truly interesting concepts to think about.
Good point. I retract my statement
 
cool.

I just get tired of the same back and forth discussions/arguments so I decided to interject a small twist into the conversation. I wasn't trying to be combative, just mainly bending the subject towards what I find interesting. Sorry if I derailed the thread.
The thread has been derailed a long time ago
 
the first rule of fight club is...nobody talks about fight club..but I've got 20 bucks on crowT to win it in a round and a half
I don't know, Crow is an MMA fan but Mags is one of those scrappy Asians. That's a close call.
 
Religious experience is common to many people, and historically since early mankind. It's almost certainly some type of brain function, like the atrophy of the hippocampus mentioned above. Only those who suffer from this brain injury would have the religious experience.

Peer pressure for those who didn't suffer the injury explains the rest.

Except for us atheists.
 
If rape were bad it would be one of the 10 Commandments.
Sly....In those days, armed groups of savage men did just that. Covet they neighbors wife may be the general category for biblical believers.
 
And before you call out the hoax, I know it's a hoax. I thought it was pretty funny
 
Don't make me quote more Scripture. I've read the Bible cover to cover 2X. The Bible has a rape manual. There are specific directions with regard to what should happen after a woman is raped. That man-made book that was cherry picked by the Catholics is full of atrocities. And Christians want to sit here and talk shit about Muslims when both of their religions are full of atrocities.

Oh my! I am afraid that is a really shallow take. You need to understand, Jesus taught a different way than the current religion of his day. The Jewish religion as in the Torah which is the source of the Old testament and the current religion at the time of Jesus. What ever lessons you find distastefully in the old Jewish religion, you likely will find Jesus or his disciples teaching a different message on the same subject. It seems to me that Jesus pretty much reformed all the old harsh Jewish ways and that is the basis of Christianity. Mohammad however, took the old Jewish ways and doubled down, adding even more harshness and exclusiveness to Islam. So I see a vast difference between Christianity and Islam.
 
Last edited:
Oh my! I am afraid that is a really shallow take. You need to understand, Jesus taught a different way than the current religion of his day. The Jewish religion as in the Torah which is the source of the Old testament and the current religion at the time of Jesus. What ever lessons you find distastefully in the old Jewish religion, you likely will find Jesus or his disciples teaching a different message on the same subject. It seems to me that Jesus pretty much reformed all the old harsh Jewish ways and that is the basis of Christianity. Mohammad however, took the old Jewish ways and doubled down, adding even more harshness and elusiveness to Islam. So I see a vast difference between Christianity and Islam.

Jesus said that if you look at another woman in lust you are to put your own eye out... I love me some Jesus bro but he is not god. God is his father. And his father is very jealous.
 
Jesus said that if you look at another woman in lust you are to put your own eye out... I love me some Jesus bro but he is not god. God is his father. And his father is very jealous.
Well, considering He said He was God (John 10:30), you're basically saying Jesus was a liar.
 
Well, considering He said He was God (John 10:30), you're basically saying Jesus was a liar.

Say what you want but then there's this:

John 5:17 KJV

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Trinitarians want to act like all 3 are the same but they are not.
 
Well, considering He said He was God (John 10:30), you're basically saying Jesus was a liar.

Then there's the "context" argument. Saying "I and the father are one" can mean the same thing as "My wife and I are one".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top