I was hoping we could talk about which people thought was more "evolutionarily sound," and let me explain what I mean by that.
You can either be religious or atheistic, you can't be both. This means that both ideas are "competing for real estate" within a person's mind. As more people take up one idea, necessarily less people have the other. This is very analogous to natural selection within species, as one species beats out another to fill the same niche.
The "niche" here is human thought.
As Robert Wright wrote in his book The Evolution of God we've seen this same kind of battle take place between religions. Religion was clearly the way to think, since almost all humans evolved thinking it. You could not find a civilization that did not have a form of religion. One religion would be better suited to get and convert more people, and as it did, necessarily, other religions shrink and were eventually replaced. The battle for the human soul, as it were. However, NOW more and more we are seeing a new "species" emerge in the form of atheism, and it too is competing for the same niche in human thought. Which will stick in the minds of men(and women) better? Which is more believable?
Many of you will say people are born "atheistic*," but that forum of atheism is easily replaced by something else. This is the unthinking blank state of mind that religion and other concepts can easily influenced and grow into. No, I am talking about the atheistic philosophy; is IT more "fit" than religion? Is it better at converting people? Does it have what it takes to bet out religion? Or will it "die out" as many philosophies have before it? Or maybe religion will just die a natural death?
*I would say "agnostic" of course, but lets table that debate.
An interesting question. As religious people tend to have more children than atheists, and as religion is undoubtedly transmitted most frequently from parent to child, I think religion has strong Darwinian support. However, there is a contravening memetic trend, namely that religion tends to make empirical claims that contradict our ever-increasing knowledge about the empirical world; this trend tends to weigh against the former trend.
I don't know which is the stronger ultimate trend; I would have picked "not enough data" if that were one of the options.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I've already mentionned before my predictions on the future of religion.
Religion will never truly die out. It's a strong idea that gives comfort and a sense of purpose that is too important, nay too vital for some people to give up.
However Religion's purpose, ideals and influence will decline steadily over time. The reason for this is the lack of leadership to force religion on it's people. I"m not saying you need to be forced to believe in God, I"m saying that without being in an environment that constantly fosters and encourages faith, more people will end up turning away.
There used to be a time in the Western world where atheism and agnosticism were not an option. You either believed in God, or you were a horrible sinner, subject to open persecution. Since then religion has steadily lost it's influence. It's a very slow process, but it is inevitable.
You can already see a peek of what it will look like by looking in Europe. In most european countries, religion has little relevance in most topics. Political candidates don't need to re-affirm their faith during their campaigns, people don't brag or even mention their faith much. It's just not that important.
I would even go as far as predicting that eventually most popular religions will become outdated curiosities. You know when you see a young indie couple go into a wicca shop and buy some Dragon's Flame incense to burn for fun? I can honestly see in the far future a young couple talk about this old stone building where you can go into a closet and talk to a dude about all the naughty things you did.
Japan is a bit like this where faith is mostly for certain occasions. A man may repeat Buddhist prayers at a funeral, or a child may make a wish at a Shinto shrine. However their religion is nearly non-existent during their day-to-day life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
You have to also consider the fact that the very concept of natural selection, right now, is pretty much screwing with us.
Highly successful people tend to have less children than less successful ones, so... survival of the not-so-fit might be a better term.
I probably should have inverted my vote, based on that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from parinoid »
I rolled 5 D6's and got 3 fours. They must have changed the odds of getting a 4!
You have to also consider the fact that the very concept of natural selection, right now, is pretty much screwing with us.
Highly successful people tend to have less children than less successful ones, so...
I probably should have inverted my vote, based on that.
I think there was a study that concluded that religious thinking is promoted by natural selection.
On the long term run, religion and atheism will co-exist (unless religious people destroy all scientific knowledge), but I hope that abrahamic religions loose on the long term.
xkcd wisdom notwithstanding, I think too much is unknown about societal structure into the future to make strong claims, here. Too much hinges on whether
Education (primary and secondary) is revolutionized
Technology does something extraordinary
Cultural decline continues
and factors similar to those.
Buddhism is making headway into the psycho-analytic (academic) community, that's all I know. It's spreading into something mainstream as it is being demystified and synthesized with Western Science (and the overall Western science). I don't know if it counts as religion here, though. Probably not in the sense Taylor would mean, but someone might pose the question differently for similar insights.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
You can already see a peek of what it will look like by looking in Europe. In most european countries, religion has little relevance in most topics. Political candidates don't need to re-affirm their faith during their campaigns, people don't brag or even mention their faith much. It's just not that important.
Really? 20 million Muslims in Europe would probably disagree with you, and even more millions of Christians.
Look at arguments over banning the hijab in France. Or the murder of a certain Dutch cartoonist who dared put Mohammed's image in print. Or at the rise of far-right parties throughout Western Europe, whose primary target is those same Muslims. It also wasn't all that long ago that the IRA was still actively campaigning against what it saw as Protestant tyranny over Catholic Northern Ireland - they didn't give up their paramilitary operations until 2005. And what's the name of German chancellor Angela Merkel's political party? Right, the Christian Democratic Union. The majority party in the most populous country in Europe. You could argue that they're not really Christian, but if that's the case, then why even have it in the name?
And that's only in Western Europe. If you look at much of Eastern Europe, you see a population that's arguably even more religious. For instance, 90% of the Polish population is Roman Catholic. Consider also the terrible fighting in the Balkans between the primarily Muslim ethnic Albanians, and the primarily Catholic Serbians.
I don't know if Atheism will ever eventually supplant Religion as the primary belief system (of non-belief), but there's nowhere on earth where that's already the case. Definitely not Europe.
That seems a bit... specific... mind if I ask why?
Because, outside of Scientology, they're the religions that have most justified the cause of fundamentalist stupidity. There is a reason why christians and muslims have more tragedies in their name than jainists, for example.
Because, outside of Scientology, they're the religions that have most justified the cause of fundamentalist stupidity. There is a reason why christians and muslims have more tragedies in their name than jainists, for example.
I always assumed that reason was two-fold: Theres more of them and they've been around longer.
I think this is true, but on the flipside, I would contend that Christianity and Islam also tend be faiths that push for social justice.
Very sweet and sour for sure.
You could also claim that Nazism pushed for 'social justice'. It doesn't matter what they're trying to achieve, what matters is their ideas about what 'justice' and 'right and wrong' are.
This 'Idiocracy' idea is... well, XKCD said it best:
Lets not go down the fictitious way of thinking that people are getting dumber, they aren't.
Notice I've never mentioned IQ or something like that in my post.
Just general quality of life. There's census data to back up the fact that, in general, people with low life quality tend to have more children.
This may or may not affect the thread question in some way. Well, so that we don't derail the thread, I propose we just let's leave it at that, kinda of moot anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from parinoid »
I rolled 5 D6's and got 3 fours. They must have changed the odds of getting a 4!
What do you mean by "atheistic philosophy"? I'm an atheist and a materialist, but not all atheists are materialists. So, atheists have nothing in common besides denying the existence of divinity.
Then we have people who are both atheistic and religious: some Buddhists and various other groups.
I think that religion serves a couple of functions: explaining away the unexplained and providing a series of meaningful rituals (birth, adulthood, death, wedding) and symbolism. As times goes by, I imagine people will adopt a more scientific approach to the world and we won't be using it to explain the unexplained as much. But, it can still serve a purpose for all its ritualism and whatnot.
1) I think there was confusion as to the question. I interpreted it as, "does the theory of natural selection support atheism or religion". Not does natural selection produce one or the other.
Also, the question is flawed when it asks about, "religion" - natural selection can't produce religion. It can produce a tendency to percieve patterns where none exist, superstitions, but it can't produce a construct like religion any more than it can produce a bridge. Man makes those.
Yeah, but while we attract the stupid moral people, you guys get all the smart immoral people. We don't stand a chance in a bat fight.
I hope this was joking, because the idea that religious people are any more moral than atheists would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive, and blatantly wrong.
I hope this was joking, because the idea that religious people are any more moral than atheists would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive, and blatantly wrong.
But it's not wrong or offensive to say that atheists are more rational than religious people?
But it's not wrong or offensive to say that atheists are more rational than religious people?
When did she say that? Oh... right, she didn't. She just said that religion gets stupid moral people and atheism gets smart immoral people. Both groups should be insulted by this. I discounted the stupid/smart thing because I was confident she didn't mean that (since she IS religious) and focused on the morality issue, since I hear it a lot spoken seriously.
Gotcha. In that case, I think atheism grows to replace religion's attempts to explain the world, but religion maintains sway as a form of psychological theater and cultural/community hub.
Yep. And it's the mark of a rational mind to dispell them when confronted with them. If you can show me that I'm believing in something senselessly, I'll stop believing in it. That's how rational thinking works.
But, at least you admit that your personal framework of how you like things to be is what's leading you to adopt an irrational worldview. Much how imaginary friends work.
My whole point in this argument has been that suspending rational thought in favor of blind belief in something someone tells you is true (but has no logic to support their position) is harmful! Whether the person is a parent, a statesman, an activist or a priest - not thinking is bad.
And relgion encourages not thinking.
It does. That can't be denied. Faith is by definition not thinking, just believing. "Thou shall not put your god to the test".
However, more to the point on this thread, it's what Arven was saying.
So, I ask again:
Why is it ok for an atheist to say religious people are less rational than atheists, but not ok for an theist to say atheists are less moral?
Now, keep in mind I disagree with both statements, but I wanted to know your take on it, since (and this could be just be my misunderstanding of what's being said) you seem to be agreeing with one.
I care less about us making mistakes that lead to degenerate environments than I am when we don’t push ourselves and make something that’s boring to play. - MaRo
Really? 20 million Muslims in Europe would probably disagree with you, and even more millions of Christians.
Look at arguments over banning the hijab in France. Or the murder of a certain Dutch cartoonist who dared put Mohammed's image in print. Or at the rise of far-right parties throughout Western Europe, whose primary target is those same Muslims. It also wasn't all that long ago that the IRA was still actively campaigning against what it saw as Protestant tyranny over Catholic Northern Ireland - they didn't give up their paramilitary operations until 2005. And what's the name of German chancellor Angela Merkel's political party? Right, the Christian Democratic Union. The majority party in the most populous country in Europe. You could argue that they're not really Christian, but if that's the case, then why even have it in the name?
And that's only in Western Europe. If you look at much of Eastern Europe, you see a population that's arguably even more religious. For instance, 90% of the Polish population is Roman Catholic. Consider also the terrible fighting in the Balkans between the primarily Muslim ethnic Albanians, and the primarily Catholic Serbians.
I don't know if Atheism will ever eventually supplant Religion as the primary belief system (of non-belief), but there's nowhere on earth where that's already the case. Definitely not Europe.
Can you show me where I said all of Europe is completely atheistic? Because I said no such thing. All I said is that faith is on an inevitable decline.
And as I said the process is slow. Obviously religion still makes the headlines. Speaking of the Christian Democratic Union, do you know their creed?
The German Christian Democratic Union is a political center party. It relates to all persons of all types of levels and groups in our country. Our policies are characterised by the Christian concept of mankind and the responsibilities to God. The Christian concept of mankind forms the CDU's ethical basis for responsible politics. We, nevertheless, it takes cognizance of the fact that no political program can be derived from any Christian faith. The CDU is open to any person who recognises the dignity, freedom and equality of all persons and accepts the guiding principles of political behavior which emanate from the former values.
Also if you look at their history, the party was originaly created in an effort to join many faiths under one political banner. So it's not like it's a party dedicated to stuffing religion down people's throat.
Yes, the events in France and Denmark have made their way around the world, I'll grant you that. Now, without googling, could you tell me any other important news related to religion that happened in europe in 2010? I bet not as many as the number of republican gay sex scandals.
And Muslim, they would be that last truly enforced religion, wich is what allows them to maintain high number of faithful. However folling the revolution currently happening in the middle-eastern world, I'm very curious what long term effects it will have with what people believe. We probably won't live long enough to see though, as it bears repeating, this take a very long time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
No she did not, or did I said she did. You said it
Lol, you have a lot of time on your hands, don't you? You seem to get a major kick out of scanning through everything people wrote and quoting it.
The thought processes people are using to back up their religion are not proper logic. Saying, "all religious people are irrational" is ridiculous and I've never said that. However, critiquing arguments that contained logical fallacies as being illogical is the definition of critique. If you deem that as insulting, then you don't belong on a debate forum.
Stop looking for a fight and start doing something productive.
Lol, you really don't have a life do you? You seem to get a major kick out of scanning through everything people wrote and quoting it.
The though processes people are using to back up their religion are not proper logic. Saying, "all religious people are irrational" is ridiculous and I've never said that. However, critiquing arguments that contained logical fallacies as being illogical is the definition of critique. If you deem that as insulting, then you don't belong on a debate forum.
Stop looking for a fight and start doing something productive.
Alright, fair enough.
I said I might have misunderstood and was just asking questions for clarification. There really is no need to jump down my throat over it.
You can either be religious or atheistic, you can't be both. This means that both ideas are "competing for real estate" within a person's mind. As more people take up one idea, necessarily less people have the other. This is very analogous to natural selection within species, as one species beats out another to fill the same niche.
The "niche" here is human thought.
As Robert Wright wrote in his book The Evolution of God we've seen this same kind of battle take place between religions. Religion was clearly the way to think, since almost all humans evolved thinking it. You could not find a civilization that did not have a form of religion. One religion would be better suited to get and convert more people, and as it did, necessarily, other religions shrink and were eventually replaced. The battle for the human soul, as it were. However, NOW more and more we are seeing a new "species" emerge in the form of atheism, and it too is competing for the same niche in human thought. Which will stick in the minds of men(and women) better? Which is more believable?
Many of you will say people are born "atheistic*," but that forum of atheism is easily replaced by something else. This is the unthinking blank state of mind that religion and other concepts can easily influenced and grow into. No, I am talking about the atheistic philosophy; is IT more "fit" than religion? Is it better at converting people? Does it have what it takes to bet out religion? Or will it "die out" as many philosophies have before it? Or maybe religion will just die a natural death?
*I would say "agnostic" of course, but lets table that debate.
I don't know which is the stronger ultimate trend; I would have picked "not enough data" if that were one of the options.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Religion will never truly die out. It's a strong idea that gives comfort and a sense of purpose that is too important, nay too vital for some people to give up.
However Religion's purpose, ideals and influence will decline steadily over time. The reason for this is the lack of leadership to force religion on it's people. I"m not saying you need to be forced to believe in God, I"m saying that without being in an environment that constantly fosters and encourages faith, more people will end up turning away.
There used to be a time in the Western world where atheism and agnosticism were not an option. You either believed in God, or you were a horrible sinner, subject to open persecution. Since then religion has steadily lost it's influence. It's a very slow process, but it is inevitable.
You can already see a peek of what it will look like by looking in Europe. In most european countries, religion has little relevance in most topics. Political candidates don't need to re-affirm their faith during their campaigns, people don't brag or even mention their faith much. It's just not that important.
I would even go as far as predicting that eventually most popular religions will become outdated curiosities. You know when you see a young indie couple go into a wicca shop and buy some Dragon's Flame incense to burn for fun? I can honestly see in the far future a young couple talk about this old stone building where you can go into a closet and talk to a dude about all the naughty things you did.
Japan is a bit like this where faith is mostly for certain occasions. A man may repeat Buddhist prayers at a funeral, or a child may make a wish at a Shinto shrine. However their religion is nearly non-existent during their day-to-day life.
Highly successful people tend to have less children than less successful ones, so... survival of the not-so-fit might be a better term.
I probably should have inverted my vote, based on that.
How do you explain the Flynn effect?
This 'Idiocracy' idea is... well, XKCD said it best:
Lets not go down the fictitious way of thinking that people are getting dumber, they aren't.
On the long term run, religion and atheism will co-exist (unless religious people destroy all scientific knowledge), but I hope that abrahamic religions loose on the long term.
That seems a bit... specific... mind if I ask why?
Education (primary and secondary) is revolutionized
Technology does something extraordinary
Cultural decline continues
and factors similar to those.
Buddhism is making headway into the psycho-analytic (academic) community, that's all I know. It's spreading into something mainstream as it is being demystified and synthesized with Western Science (and the overall Western science). I don't know if it counts as religion here, though. Probably not in the sense Taylor would mean, but someone might pose the question differently for similar insights.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Really? 20 million Muslims in Europe would probably disagree with you, and even more millions of Christians.
Look at arguments over banning the hijab in France. Or the murder of a certain Dutch cartoonist who dared put Mohammed's image in print. Or at the rise of far-right parties throughout Western Europe, whose primary target is those same Muslims. It also wasn't all that long ago that the IRA was still actively campaigning against what it saw as Protestant tyranny over Catholic Northern Ireland - they didn't give up their paramilitary operations until 2005. And what's the name of German chancellor Angela Merkel's political party? Right, the Christian Democratic Union. The majority party in the most populous country in Europe. You could argue that they're not really Christian, but if that's the case, then why even have it in the name?
And that's only in Western Europe. If you look at much of Eastern Europe, you see a population that's arguably even more religious. For instance, 90% of the Polish population is Roman Catholic. Consider also the terrible fighting in the Balkans between the primarily Muslim ethnic Albanians, and the primarily Catholic Serbians.
I don't know if Atheism will ever eventually supplant Religion as the primary belief system (of non-belief), but there's nowhere on earth where that's already the case. Definitely not Europe.
Because, outside of Scientology, they're the religions that have most justified the cause of fundamentalist stupidity. There is a reason why christians and muslims have more tragedies in their name than jainists, for example.
I always assumed that reason was two-fold: Theres more of them and they've been around longer.
You could also claim that Nazism pushed for 'social justice'. It doesn't matter what they're trying to achieve, what matters is their ideas about what 'justice' and 'right and wrong' are.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Just general quality of life. There's census data to back up the fact that, in general, people with low life quality tend to have more children.
This may or may not affect the thread question in some way. Well, so that we don't derail the thread, I propose we just let's leave it at that, kinda of moot anyway.
Then we have people who are both atheistic and religious: some Buddhists and various other groups.
I think that religion serves a couple of functions: explaining away the unexplained and providing a series of meaningful rituals (birth, adulthood, death, wedding) and symbolism. As times goes by, I imagine people will adopt a more scientific approach to the world and we won't be using it to explain the unexplained as much. But, it can still serve a purpose for all its ritualism and whatnot.
Anything other than the "default" position.
Also, the question is flawed when it asks about, "religion" - natural selection can't produce religion. It can produce a tendency to percieve patterns where none exist, superstitions, but it can't produce a construct like religion any more than it can produce a bridge. Man makes those.
I hope this was joking, because the idea that religious people are any more moral than atheists would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive, and blatantly wrong.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
But it's not wrong or offensive to say that atheists are more rational than religious people?
When did she say that? Oh... right, she didn't. She just said that religion gets stupid moral people and atheism gets smart immoral people. Both groups should be insulted by this. I discounted the stupid/smart thing because I was confident she didn't mean that (since she IS religious) and focused on the morality issue, since I hear it a lot spoken seriously.
Stop looking for a fight Taylor.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Gotcha. In that case, I think atheism grows to replace religion's attempts to explain the world, but religion maintains sway as a form of psychological theater and cultural/community hub.
So, I ask again:
Why is it ok for an atheist to say religious people are less rational than atheists, but not ok for an theist to say atheists are less moral?
Now, keep in mind I disagree with both statements, but I wanted to know your take on it, since (and this could be just be my misunderstanding of what's being said) you seem to be agreeing with one.
Can you show me where I said all of Europe is completely atheistic? Because I said no such thing. All I said is that faith is on an inevitable decline.
And as I said the process is slow. Obviously religion still makes the headlines. Speaking of the Christian Democratic Union, do you know their creed?
Source : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-party-cdu.htm
Also if you look at their history, the party was originaly created in an effort to join many faiths under one political banner. So it's not like it's a party dedicated to stuffing religion down people's throat.
Yes, the events in France and Denmark have made their way around the world, I'll grant you that. Now, without googling, could you tell me any other important news related to religion that happened in europe in 2010? I bet not as many as the number of republican gay sex scandals.
And Muslim, they would be that last truly enforced religion, wich is what allows them to maintain high number of faithful. However folling the revolution currently happening in the middle-eastern world, I'm very curious what long term effects it will have with what people believe. We probably won't live long enough to see though, as it bears repeating, this take a very long time.
What evidence? That atheism is growing very rapidly or that there are more religious people?
Lol, you have a lot of time on your hands, don't you? You seem to get a major kick out of scanning through everything people wrote and quoting it.
The thought processes people are using to back up their religion are not proper logic. Saying, "all religious people are irrational" is ridiculous and I've never said that. However, critiquing arguments that contained logical fallacies as being illogical is the definition of critique. If you deem that as insulting, then you don't belong on a debate forum.
Stop looking for a fight and start doing something productive.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I said I might have misunderstood and was just asking questions for clarification. There really is no need to jump down my throat over it.