| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2007 12:53:22 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I dont think 'cult' here implied the negative connotations that we think of today. |
Oh, sorry, I wasn't really talking about the Cargo Cult when I said groups were unfairly labeled. I was just getting sidetracked... |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 12:58:31 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Originally posted by JBHale:
I think a lot of groups are unfairly labeled as cults... In fact, Ima make a new thread about now! |
From the OED, Cult:
1) Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings
2) A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
3) Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.
Only recently (2004) have they added this:
4) A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
I dont think 'cult' here implied the negative connotations that we think of today. The cargo cults example is interesting because different tribes in different places developed the same beliefs - just to make sense of the situation. Examples such as this lead some to believe 'religion' (in every sense) is something that has evolved in humans, we had a 'need' for it, to try and understand the world around us. Could we apply the same logic to more well established religions today? |
You could, but the question is whether the logic is valid.
If it's valid, then scientists should be able to explain the ( non-theistic, scientific ) reason for the 'need' that has 'evolved' in humans. When they do, religious 'need' should be something that can be eliminated by changing the underlying factors that manifest themselves as 'need'.
It shouldn't be all that difficult for science to find the reason for the 'need'. After all, it must be genetic if it 'evolved' in humans - so all that would be required is a comparison of DNA samples from a statistically valid pool of atheists, devout Christians, devout Muslims, devout Buddhists, etc. The 'need' gene shouldn't be too difficult to isolate in that type of study. Then it should be easy to predict a persons state by examining their DNA - if the 'need' gene is 'ON', the person should be a theist, if 'OFF', an atheist. Perhaps it will be shown to be a combination of 2 genes. That way, there would also be an explanation for two types of agnostics, those that are more inclined toward theism, and those that are more inclined toward atheism. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 01:02:07 PM · #153 |
| that my friend is Memetics! |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 01:06:58 PM · #154 |
| That kind of stuff couldn't fly any further over my head. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 01:23:05 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
that my friend is Memetics! |
Ron is suggesting, bafflingly, that there is some kind of physical "religion" gene, not understanding, I suppose, the difference between a meme and a gene. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 01:45:27 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
that my friend is Memetics! |
For 'cargo cults' yes - cultural evolution. But the cultural exposure that results in cargo cultism in different groups is similar among those groups.
Memetics doesn't explain the independent development of religion, nor the many different expressions of religion ( monotheism, multitheism, pantheism, animism, etc. ), in widely dispersed people groups with no inter-group contact. They all exhibit the same 'need' but attempt to meet that need in vastly different ways.
Memetics requires contact, does it not?
Of note is that the groups that become 'cargo cults' had a religion BEFORE cargo cultism replaced it.
Message edited by author 2007-11-13 13:46:31. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 01:53:12 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Memetics doesn't explain the independent development of religion... |
Actually, it appears to offer a very good explanation. Interesting stuff.
Originally posted by RonB:
Memetics requires contact, does it not? |
No. Much like genetics, it only requires a significant change or event. That could mean contact with a foreign culture or object, or it could mean a comet, unusual flood, or any other event that defies conventional explanation with "contemporary" knowledge.
Originally posted by RonB:
Of note is that the groups that become 'cargo cults' had a religion BEFORE cargo cultism replaced it. |
Sure, and dinosaurs had predecessors before they evolved into birds or modern reptiles. So? |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 01:59:00 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
that my friend is Memetics! |
Ron is suggesting, bafflingly, that there is some kind of physical "religion" gene, not understanding, I suppose, the difference between a meme and a gene. |
Actually a) just the opposite - I don't for one moment believe that there is a 'religion' gene. My point was that IF the need for religion had evolved in humans ( across widely dispersed people groups ), then it should have a scientific basis ( I don't believe there is one ), THEREFORE science should have no problem in isolating that causitive factor. I hypothesized that IF there is a scientific cause, it must be genetic, because the 'need' very often develops independent from, and often counter to, social/cultural indoctrination.
b) I understand the difference between a gene ( biological / physical ) and a meme ( psychological / cultural ).
Message edited by author 2007-11-13 14:03:57. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 02:09:48 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
that my friend is Memetics! |
If you believe that, then it logically follows that a belief in macro evolution, is also memetics.
To paraphrase Hawking's story:
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's memetics all the way down!"
:-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 02:40:45 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by RonB:
it logically follows that a belief in macro evolution, is also memetics. |
That's anything but logical. Macro evolution is supported by physical evidence, not cultural superstition, and no different than belief in gravity or mathematics. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 02:50:34 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by RonB:
[My point was that IF the need for religion had evolved in humans ( across widely dispersed people groups ), then it should have a scientific basis... |
Religious belief may very well have a scientific basis. I think we can all agree that humans are curious by nature, and driven to find answers. The difference lies in what individuals are willing to accept as an answer. It follows logic that there's a cause for everything (if something occurred, then something must have caused it to occur), but some people are more willing to attribute unexplained phenomena to the supernatural than others. It might be impossible to determine a physical difference between staunch atheists and religious fanatics, though... even the most rational atheist may have been scared to death of monsters under the bed as a kid or hold a firm belief in UFOs. In other words, maybe we ALL have the same physical need to believe, and simply don't agree on what. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:17:45 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
it logically follows that a belief in macro evolution, is also memetics. |
That's anything but logical. Macro evolution is supported by physical evidence, not cultural superstition, and no different than belief in gravity or mathematics. |
You imply that religion is supported ONLY by cultural superstition, and that is simply not true. Every born-again Christian that I have spoken with has at least one, and usually many more than one, personal experience(s) that support(s), and strengthens their belief.
Gravity is observable; Mathematics is provable; Macro evolution is neither.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:19:22 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Gravity is observable; Mathematics is provable; Macro evolution is neither. |
What do you mean? Why not? |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:28:42 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You imply that religion is supported ONLY by cultural superstition, and that is simply not true. Every born-again Christian that I have spoken with has at least one, and usually many more than one, personal experience(s) that support(s), and strengthens their belief. |
I'll bet you'd find the same is true of those who chase UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster, not to mention the priests or shamans of hundreds of now-defunct religions. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:29:44 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Gravity is observable; Mathematics is provable; Macro evolution is neither. |
...or both. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:29:56 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Gravity is observable; Mathematics is provable; Macro evolution is neither. |
What do you mean? Why not? |
You cannot observe macro evolution. It is not something that has been observed and recorded first-hand.
You cannot prove macro evolution. Every conclusion drawn to support macro evolution is based upon assumptions. While fossils are factual ( in that they are observable ), the conclusions about their age is based on assumptions. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:31:35 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I don't for one moment believe that there is a 'religion' gene. My point was that IF the need for religion had evolved in humans ( across widely dispersed people groups ), then it should have a scientific basis ( I don't believe there is one |
I'd like to discuss that if I may. What is the 'benefit' of religion? By 'benefit' I mean in the darwinian sense. This normally means some enhancement to the survial of ones gene. But Darwinian 'benefit' can be applied to individual organism not just genes. An animals behaviour tends to maximise the survival of the genes FOR that behaviour. Why to moths fly into flames? It doesnt seem advantageous to the individuals genes! It has been shown that insects use celestial bodies such as the sun and the moon to navigate in a straight line. This works as they are at optical infinity, if not it throws them out and they end up circling the source, and elegantly, logarithmically, spiral to a flamey death! On the whole though, this behaviour is of an obvious advantage to the moth.
The fact that religion is so ubiquitous probably means it worked for the benefit of something. It is thought by some therefore that the religious 'need' that all humans(apart from me!) have, served a purpose that allowed us to survive and thus reproduce - for the good of the gene! Religion was a survival mechanism, safety in numbers you might say.
Others have said more, and far more eloquently, but you get the idea! Now that the gonad bashing is out of the way this is turning into an interesting discussion! |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:37:08 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Every born-again Christian that I have spoken with has at least one, and usually many more than one, personal experience(s) that support(s), and strengthens their belief. |
When the Red Cross planes dropped western medicine on Tanna island in Vanuatu, I'm pretty certain the natives thought this proof positive of the existence and divinity of John Frum, only strengthening, and not diminishing, their belief in him and the eventual downfall of the whites. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:41:07 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Gravity is observable; Mathematics is provable; Macro evolution is neither. |
What do you mean? Why not? |
You cannot observe macro evolution. It is not something that has been observed and recorded first-hand. |
In your lifetime, you mean. That doesn't mean it can't be observed over the course of time and recorded scientifically. Many scientific studies span more than several generations.
If there's even one case of a new species deriving from an existing one sometime in the next 100,000 years or so, I'll expect you to put down your harp for a minute and go shake Mr. Darwin's hand. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:44:47 PM · #170 |
| BTW: Exactly how "macro" does it have to be to be considered a "macro-evolutionary" event? How is it determined? Number of chromosomes? Total base pairs? Human hearing becoming sensitive in the microwave band so we can get rid of our cell phones and receive the signal directly? When pigs fly? |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:45:39 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
You imply that religion is supported ONLY by cultural superstition, and that is simply not true. Every born-again Christian that I have spoken with has at least one, and usually many more than one, personal experience(s) that support(s), and strengthens their belief. |
I'll bet you'd find the same is true of those who chase UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster, not to mention the priests or shamans of hundreds of now-defunct religions. |
So what? I don't discount the existence of UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster. The claims of those who believe in them do not, in any way, run counter to my beliefs in either religion OR science. And while I may not share in the spiritual or cultural beliefs of shamans, there is ample evidence that many of their ministrations are beneficial. In general, they do seem to have a much better understanding of the efficacious use of various plants and minerals, for instance, then do the practitioners of 'modern' medicine.
And what 'now defunct' has to do with anything, I don't know. The implication is that if any religion ceased to retain adherents, it proves that all religions share the same fatal flaws. That's analogous to saying that all languages are flawed if any language has become defunct. It's illogical. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:50:32 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by RonB:
That's analogous to saying that all languages are flawed if any language has become defunct. It's illogical. |
...or that if a prior theory of evolution was incomplete, the current theory must be dismissed. :-P |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:57:37 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You cannot observe macro evolution. It is not something that has been observed and recorded first-hand. |
YOU don't believe something because you can't see it? That's priceless! :-D
You're either complaining that something can't be observed because it takes a long time, or that scientists believe a dinosaur suddenly *poofed* into a duck one day. Both are patently absurd. We're talking about tiny changes accumulating over millions of years... and they CAN be observed. The fossil record gives us time-lapse data that's readily observable... as if we took a picture every 10 million years. We can also extrapolate from smaller changes observed within our lifetimes, much as we extrapolate major geological features from smaller contemporary processes. Just because something takes a long time doesn't mean it can't be proven, and Darwin's conclusions were drawn from observation.
Originally posted by RonB:
You cannot prove macro evolution. Every conclusion drawn to support macro evolution is based upon assumptions. While fossils are factual ( in that they are observable ), the conclusions about their age is based on assumptions. |
Thanks to the fossil record and genetic science, there is far more tangible evidence for evolution than there was for atomic theory. Kaboom.
Message edited by author 2007-11-13 17:04:34. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 03:58:43 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Every born-again Christian that I have spoken with has at least one, and usually many more than one, personal experience(s) that support(s), and strengthens their belief. |
When the Red Cross planes dropped western medicine on Tanna island in Vanuatu, I'm pretty certain the natives thought this proof positive of the existence and divinity of John Frum, only strengthening, and not diminishing, their belief in him and the eventual downfall of the whites. |
Yep. And that just goes to prove my point. For each of them, it was a personal experience. A real airplane and real cargo could not be discounted as mere "cultural superstition". |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 04:00:26 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Every born-again Christian that I have spoken with has at least one, and usually many more than one, personal experience(s) that support(s), and strengthens their belief. |
When the Red Cross planes dropped western medicine on Tanna island in Vanuatu, I'm pretty certain the natives thought this proof positive of the existence and divinity of John Frum, only strengthening, and not diminishing, their belief in him and the eventual downfall of the whites. |
Yep. And that just goes to prove my point. For each of them, it was a personal experience. A real airplane and real cargo could not be discounted as mere "cultural superstition". |
I'll meet you at the next appearance of Jesus in a taco shell. |
|
