| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2007 03:05:25 PM · #701 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
ability to express our thoughts with language. |
Although, to judge from this thread, whether or not we can actually communicate with it is a moot point.
A more rational answer to the point is that we are the only animal that has developed sociological non-practical pattern behaviour. Perhaps the real question should be, if wolves had developed what Karl Popper called a 'world 3' civilisation, i.e. an awareness that there might be forces greater than an individual member of that species - for example, gravity, or even divinity - would those wolves organise some form of reverence of that force? |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:06:48 PM · #702 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What is the common thread that has repeatedly moved man to worship. Since the dawn of mankind, evidence exists that man worshiped his god(s). Why?
I am not aware of any monkey/ape groups that worship a God(s). If man evolved from monkey/apes, then what occurred in the transition that made him feel the need to worship? Why does only man (to my knowledge) worship God(s)? |
It can be argued that "worship" as we understand it is a communicative function, that it is rooted in the part of the brain that handles logic and speech. Who are we to say, after all, that my dog Karma does not worship me in her own way? But individual urges towards worship have no larger meaning outside a larger context, a social context.
Now, we humans are highly social animals, it's our very nature. Throw ever-increasing levels of communication into the mix as we evolve, and it seems to me reasonable enough to see our social hierarchies projected beyond ourselves; and so we have God, or gods as the case may be.
So I don't think an observed absolute urge by many different societies to identify a godhead is, of itself, particularly compelling evidence that one must exist. As "animals", we are (collectively, if not individually) most comfortable when we exist within a defined hierarchy. The godhead, to my way of thinking, is a logical, even inevitable, projection of our human hierarchies outward from ourselves. We are, collectively, more at ease in a world that has a God than we are in one that lacks a God.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:07:22 PM · #703 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is not God who must prove his existence, it is the non-believer who must prove that he does not. |
Actually, no. It is the believer postulating the existence of god that is burdened with the proof thereof. |
I suspect that you would agree that man has worshipped. Per legalbeagles the listevidence purports that this is so. If man worships (as the evidence says he does), then what is the common thread between these many cultures, geographical locations and times in history to explain why?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:12:40 PM · #704 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
What is the common thread that has repeatedly moved man to worship. Since the dawn of mankind, evidence exists that man worshiped his god(s). Why?
I am not aware of any monkey/ape groups that worship a God(s). If man evolved from monkey/apes, then what occurred in the transition that made him feel the need to worship? Why does only man (to my knowledge) worship God(s)? |
It can be argued that "worship" as we understand it is a communicative function, that it is rooted in the part of the brain that handles logic and speech. Who are we to say, after all, that my dog Karma does not worship me in her own way? But individual urges towards worship have no larger meaning outside a larger context, a social context.
Now, we humans are highly social animals, it's our very nature. Throw ever-increasing levels of communication into the mix as we evolve, and it seems to me reasonable enough to see our social hierarchies projected beyond ourselves; and so we have God, or gods as the case may be.
So I don't think an observed absolute urge by many different societies to identify a godhead is, of itself, particularly compelling evidence that one must exist. As "animals", we are (collectively, if not individually) most comfortable when we exist within a defined hierarchy. The godhead, to my way of thinking, is a logical, even inevitable, projection of our human hierarchies outward from ourselves. We are, collectively, more at ease in a world that has a God than we are in one that lacks a God.
R. |
This post addresses part of my argument. If it is true that man needs a hierarchy and thus a God(s), then what does that say about men who do not? Does it say that they believe them selves to be at the top of the hierarchy? I believe it does. which is where I was trying to go with the knowledge posts
Message edited by author 2007-01-16 15:16:28.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:13:03 PM · #705 |
| The developmental process of 'society' would do as an answer. Although i suspect it's not the one you're looking for. |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:18:48 PM · #706 |
Originally posted by e301:
The developmental process of 'society' would do as an answer. Although i suspect it's not the one you're looking for. |
If the developmental process of society consistently explained the emergence of worship through the ages and man groups, cultures, etc., then I would consider that as an explanation.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:20:23 PM · #707 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If it is true that man needs a hierarchy and thus a God(s), then what does that say about men who do not? Does it say that they believe them selves to be at the top of the hierarchy? I believe it does. |
Yes, in a sense, but I'm not sure that means what you think it does. Within the context of my earlier exegesis, men who do not feel a need to worship are less-socialized (or at least differently-socialized) than those who believe in God. Even within other species than ours, among the social animals, there are certain numbers of them that do not socialize, and these are essentially (within the context of the group) "rogues". It has nothing to do with "God", and little to do with hierarchies per se, except in the obvious sense that the animal does not fit into the hierarchy.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:37:19 PM · #708 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If it is true that man needs a hierarchy and thus a God(s), then what does that say about men who do not? Does it say that they believe them selves to be at the top of the hierarchy? |
No, it doesn't say anything. Again, your question presupposes an answer, and breaks down completely when that answer comes. If you convert this argument into dialectic form, it fails right at the end:
All men display a disposition toward hierarchy. God represents the top of a hierarchy. Not all men believe in God. Men who do not believe in God place themselves at the top of the hierarchy.
There's no basis for the last supposition, making the entire argument moot. At that point, it doesn't matter what men who don't believe in god believe their karmic social order to be, which is rather the point.
I also don't accept the notion that atheists are "asocial". :) |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:40:02 PM · #709 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I also don't accept the notion that atheists are "asocial". :) |
I am â€Â¦ just ask all my friends.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:46:37 PM · #710 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I also don't accept the notion that atheists are "asocial". :) |
That's a semantic disputation, at least as it relates to what I was saying. "Social" and "socialized" have different meanings in a technical sense and in a vernacular sense.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 03:59:25 PM · #711 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Other animals may very well wonder at the world around them (gorillas are known to admire a sunset), but we have an apparently unique ability to express our thoughts with language. |
Gorillas are known to communicate with language (with humans), and can therefore express their feelings about something like a sunset.
So, does Koko have a soul, and is its fate determined by whether or not she believes Jesus died for her sins?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:01:11 PM · #712 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Other animals may very well wonder at the world around them (gorillas are known to admire a sunset), but we have an apparently unique ability to express our thoughts with language. |
Gorillas are known to communicate with language (with humans), and can therefore express their feelings about something like a sunset.
So, does Koko have a soul, and is its fate determined by whether or not she believes Jesus died for her sins? |
No, she has a special dispensation from God because she's the gorilla his dreams :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:10:29 PM · #713 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
I also don't accept the notion that atheists are "asocial". :) |
That's a semantic disputation, at least as it relates to what I was saying. "Social" and "socialized" have different meanings in a technical sense and in a vernacular sense.
|
I suppose I was confused by this:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Even within other species than ours, among the social animals, there are certain numbers of them that do not socialize, and these are essentially (within the context of the group) "rogues". |
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:24:30 PM · #714 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
If it is true that man needs a hierarchy and thus a God(s), then what does that say about men who do not? Does it say that they believe them selves to be at the top of the hierarchy? |
No, it doesn't say anything. Again, your question presupposes an answer, and breaks down completely when that answer comes. If you convert this argument into dialectic form, it fails right at the end:
All men display a disposition toward hierarchy. God represents the top of a hierarchy. Not all men believe in God. Men who do not believe in God place themselves at the top of the hierarchy.
There's no basis for the last supposition, making the entire argument moot. At that point, it doesn't matter what men who don't believe in god believe their karmic social order to be, which is rather the point.
I also don't accept the notion that atheists are "asocial". :) |
Good job at placing the concept into words. The problem is however in that in your critique you appear to have left off the precursor "If it is true...". If it is not true, then the balance as you point out is invalid. However, if it is true that man needs a heirarchy, then the argument follows. "All men display a disposition toward hierarchy. God represents the top of a hierarchy. Not all men believe in God. Men who do not believe in God place themselves at the top of the hierarchy."
Message edited by author 2007-01-16 16:26:15.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:29:29 PM · #715 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, does Koko have a soul, and is its fate determined by whether or not she believes Jesus died for her sins? |
No, she has a special dispensation from God because she's the gorilla his dreams :-)
R. |
We, on the other hand, are most certainly both doomed ... ; )
 |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:32:34 PM · #716 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
I also don't accept the notion that atheists are "asocial". :) |
That's a semantic disputation, at least as it relates to what I was saying. "Social" and "socialized" have different meanings in a technical sense and in a vernacular sense.
|
I suppose I was confused by this:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Even within other species than ours, among the social animals, there are certain numbers of them that do not socialize, and these are essentially (within the context of the group) "rogues". |
|
Gotcha. That's not well-worded. It was meant to imply that they don't accept the hierarchy. It would perhaps be better to say "are not properly socialized".
R.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:51:12 PM · #717 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The problem is however in that in your critique you appear to have left off the precursor "If it is true...". |
No, that's standard dialectic form. It's accepted that humanity is predisposed to forming hierarchies and observing the universe in terms of hierarchy. It doesn't further the discussion to argue points already accepted. If you would like to argue the first point, then your entire argument falls apart right off the bat.
Originally posted by Flash:
If it is not true, then the balance as you point out is invalid. However, if it is true that man needs a heirarchy, then the argument follows. "All men display a disposition toward hierarchy. God represents the top of a hierarchy. Not all men believe in God. Men who do not believe in God place themselves at the top of the hierarchy." |
That is extremely spurious logic. It's like saying (Python fans rejoice):
All fish live underwater. All mackerel are fish. If you buy kippers it will not rain, but only if you first prove that all fish live underwater.
The last supposition is still out of place in the original example, and cannot follow from what was said before, no matter how you slice it. |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 05:17:36 PM · #718 |
I think this short video should help with the overall understanding: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGdXBo-ukCk
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 05:23:49 PM · #719 |
That's awesome. :) I like the insertion of the Monkees in there. :) |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 05:35:31 PM · #720 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Legalbeagle,
The question still lingers; why has/does man felt compelled to worship?
...
I believe that there is an inherant need in man to believ in something greater than himself. That could be because there is in fact something greater than himself, a creator who established the order of all things, or it could be a shortcoming of man. If it is a shortcoming of man, (to believe/worship), then it is a common shortcoming through history and accross many cultures. |
I think that you answer your own question. Men have believed in many many things through history. This is evidence for the gullibility of humans, but most certainly not for the existence of any one of those entities.
One argument on the evolutionary benefit from developing a belief system revolves around inherited knowledge: children learn from their parents. The information "red berries are bad - do not eat them" is useful information. Children that learn and obey will tend to live longer than children that do not. The information "you will go to hell if you are naughty" is not useful, but the child is in no position to determine and discard useless from useful information.
Message edited by author 2007-01-16 17:35:56.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2007 03:13:22 PM · #721 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's accepted that humanity is predisposed to forming hierarchies and observing the universe in terms of hierarchy. |
Originally posted by Louis:
"All men display a disposition toward hierarchy. God represents the top of a hierarchy. Not all men believe in God. Men who do not believe in God place themselves at the top of the hierarchy." |
Originally posted by Louis:
That is extremely spurious logic. It's like saying (Python fans rejoice):
All fish live underwater. All mackerel are fish. If you buy kippers it will not rain, but only if you first prove that all fish live underwater.
The last supposition is still out of place in the original example, and cannot follow from what was said before, no matter how you slice it. |
Your position of "extremely spurious logic" escapes me. I do not see the correlation between your "fish" example and the prior example of "all men display...".
You stated that "its accepted that man is predisposed to heirarchy". From this it is logical to conclude that the highest form on the heirarchy is God - at least that is historically his place. It is true that not all men believe in God. Therefore, those that do not believe in god must place something else at the top of thier heirarcy (as by your own admission "man is predisposed"). Since only God is higher than man, if God is not at the top of the heirarchy, then man must be. Therefore, those who do not believe in God, must place themselves at the top of the heirarchical ladder. [I do not follow how this logic meets your example of "if you buy kippers it will not rain".]
I understand why those who do not believe in God may not wish to state or claim this arrogant position, however their lack of claiming it does not make it less so.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2007 05:03:27 PM · #722 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I understand why those who do not believe in God may not wish to state or claim this arrogant position, however their lack of claiming it does not make it less so. |
So because you said that it makes it so? LMAO Get real dude. Where is the logic in that? Talk about an arrogant position...
|
|
|
|
01/17/2007 05:17:28 PM · #723 |
It has nothing to do with hierarchy or ego and everything to do with reality. I.E. there is no proof of god; therefore acknowledging its claimed superiority and worshiping it would be stupid.
I like the way Richard Dawkins puts it,
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
|
|
|
|
01/17/2007 05:21:26 PM · #724 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You stated that "its accepted that man is predisposed to heirarchy". From this it is logical to conclude that the highest form on the heirarchy is God - at least that is historically his place. It is true that not all men believe in God. Therefore, those that do not believe in god must place something else at the top of thier heirarcy (as by your own admission "man is predisposed"). Since only God is higher than man, if God is not at the top of the heirarchy, then man must be. Therefore, those who do not believe in God, must place themselves at the top of the heirarchical ladder. [I do not follow how this logic meets your example of "if you buy kippers it will not rain".]
|
Excuse the bluntness, but the problem now is that none of your arguments contain anything remotely resembling logic. You are claiming to make logical conclusions that are impossible from the suppositions provided. To use your own way of stating it, simply saying something does not make it so. Simply stitching two sentences together with "it is logical to conclude" between them is egregiously bad arguing. |
|
|
|
01/17/2007 05:38:59 PM · #725 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You stated that "its accepted that man is predisposed to heirarchy". From this it is logical to conclude that the highest form on the heirarchy is God - at least that is historically his place. |
It is spurious logic.
Proposition A. Man is predisposed to hierarchy.
Conclusion 1. God is the highest form of hierarchy.
The proposition is not supporting your conclusion. If we accept Proposition A, it does not lead necessarily to Conclusion 1. For one thing, you’ve need another proposition, such as Proposition B) God exists. That would get you closer to your goal of Conclusion 1, but we don’t agree on Proposition B and it is not a given. However, you’ve skipped ahead in your argument to take your Conclusion 1 as a proposition in your next series of arguments.
Proposition C. God is the highest form of hierarchy.
Proposition D. Man is predisposed to hierarchy.
Conclusion 2. God exists.
You need to better support Conclusion 1 before you can use it as Proposition C.
|
|
