Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's explore this a little further, shall we? While I don't disagree that fear is a primal force in resistance to the untimely (or maybe inconvenient) termination of physical existence, is it possible that there exists something even more basic than fear?
Sure. The fact that people willingly place themselves into mortal danger argues as much.
Also, while you may not categorize every aspect as an evolved trait, owing to the universality of certain traits, surely consistency demands that all such drives be necessarily agent-driven. That being said, why would evolution produce such an antithetical, counter-intuitive emotional outburst, especially in light of those groups which (supposedly) do not adhere to any afterlife scenarios?
I've already told you I don't entirely count evolution as the soul (hardy-har har) reason for belief in an afterlife.
However, since we're playing it out, I'd point to studies which show that the highly spiritual tend to live longer, healthier lives. It may very well be the case that belief in an afterlife - and the "eternity in loving bliss" (or fill_in_your_Heaven_concept_here) inherent with that belief - provides for a lower anxiety level in general.
It isn't hard to see how lowered levels of stress can be beneficial over a lifetime.
-JC
Originally posted by HalitoseThat presupposes that the religious theory is the most logical. Atheism, like religion, doesn't rest on logic or truth.
[b]1) Putting an alternative theory forward as more likely because there is insufficient evidence of the first. I am not doing this.
Isn't that what atheism is -- a position of denying the existence of God? Basically you are committed to a "~A" claim. Both "A" and "~A" are logical positions that posit truth-claims.
When using "absence of evidence ...[text shortened]... I am denying an unsupported position.[/b]
Denial is itself an assertion of truth.[/b]
It's a belief system, like any other.
You believe in Gods, or you don't.
Their existence or non-existence is impossible to prove.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky I think you think Churlant is drawing a longer bow than he actually is. To describe religion as an evolutionary trend may or may not be correct, but particular aspects of religion evolving? I doubt it. The afterlife is a common feature of religious doctrine, but it's not universal, and I would suggest that it is a cultural construct, developed after the initial development of religious thought.
Let's explore this a little further, shall we? While I don't disagree that fear is a primal force in resistance to the untimely (or maybe inconvenient) termination of physical existence, is it possible that there exists something even more basic than fear?
Also, while you may not categorize every aspect as an evolved trait, owing to the universality of ...[text shortened]... pecially in light of those groups which (supposedly) do not adhere to any afterlife scenarios?
Daniel Dennet has recently written about a possible evolutionary link with religious thought. I haven't read the book but it might be interesting to consider.
Originally posted by amannionVery nicely described. This is absolutely along my own lines of thought.
Freaky I think you think Churlant is drawing a longer bow than he actually is. To describe religion as an evolutionary trend may or may not be correct, but particular aspects of religion evolving? I doubt it. The afterlife is a common feature of religious doctrine, but it's not universal, and I would suggest that it is a cultural construct, developed after ...[text shortened]... link with religious thought. I haven't read the book but it might be interesting to consider.
-JC
Originally posted by ChurlantSince you both seem to be in agreement, I'll reply on this post. Given that evolution always chooses the immediate best, how does one reconcile the concept of an afterlife?
Very nicely described. This is absolutely along my own lines of thought.
-JC
Putting one's self as an obstacle between another and mortal danger does not require a belief in the afterlife.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDid you read what I said?
Since you both seem to be in agreement, I'll reply on this post. Given that evolution always chooses the immediate best, how does one reconcile the concept of an afterlife?
Putting one's self as an obstacle between another and mortal danger does not require a belief in the afterlife.
I don't reconcile the afterlife with evolution since I don't think they're connected.
There MAY be an evolutionary explanation for religious feelings, but I'm not suggesting and never would suggest that it follows that there is an evolutionary link to the concept of an afterlife.
My own personal view is that religious feelings probably evolved as one useful way to make sense of the world around early humans.
We being what we are, have taken these probably very simple feelings and worked them culturally into very complex rules and procedures and doctrines - many of which may have no real link with the original religious feelings.
I completely agree with you about the non-requirement for an afterlife. Putting myself between another and mortal danger would definitely NOT rely on a belief in any afterlife since I have none.
Originally posted by Halitose
Isn't that what atheism is -- a position of denying the existence of God? Basically you are committed to a "~A" claim. Both "A" and "~A" are logical positions that posit truth-claims.
No, I am not commited to anything. There is no claim here and that is different to a ~claim. The claim that god exists is one that is put forward by people who believe in him. I have absolutley no belief which I carry concerning the subject; my day to day life does not revolve around something like the atheistic perception of the natrual world and how I reconcile a denial with god therein, I just exist. I hold beliefs aplenty, none of which are dependent on atheism, which is merely a terminology given to a lack of claim based on a lack of evidence. A ~claim would be 'I believe god does not exist', this is not what I am saying.
When using "absence of evidence" as a premise, agnosticism, not atheism would be the neutral ground. IIRC, even Bertrand Russell took up the “official” position of agnosticism in his debates with theists.
I am not using absence of evidence as a premise. I am making no premise because there is no convincing evidence.
Wouldn't this be like an American remaining a democrat until convinced of republicanism?
No, not at all, it would be like someone holding no political view whatsoever, until he became convinced by republicanism. See the difference?
Induction formulates general principles from particular facts. The whole point is that facts are established by evidence, not the lack of it -- ergo the fallacy.
I am not inducing anything here, I am not stating a matter of fact, there is no claim to make. Denial is not a ~claim.
Denial is itself an assertion of truth.
Nonsense, it is the only position one should occupy until one receives evidence pointing to the possibility of something. You, for example, would surely deny the existence of Pegasus until such time as evidence were presented? And indeed any other concept I put forward to you which was unsupported. This is not logical fallacy, it is common sense. Perhaps the use of everyday language (as it tends to simplify more complex things for the sake of ease in communication) may suggest claims are being made, but there is a difference between a contrary claim and a denial of a positive claim.
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm not generally so optimistic, though if you look at cultural evolution over the past few hundred years, there is some evidence to suggest the "escalator" model may be appropriately applied in some instances.
It helps to buy into the Hegelean "Escalator Myth". It gives your theory more credibility.
-JC
Originally posted by amannionI was trying to reconcile both of your statements, perhaps surmising more than I ought. You said that the concept of an afterlife is not universal, but I disagree. While the shape and feel of the afterlife may differ, all religions hold to some type eternal state, thus, an afterlife.
Did you read what I said?
I don't reconcile the afterlife with evolution since I don't think they're connected.
There MAY be an evolutionary explanation for religious feelings, but I'm not suggesting and never would suggest that it follows that there is an evolutionary link to the concept of an afterlife.
My own personal view is that religious feelin ...[text shortened]... and mortal danger would definitely NOT rely on a belief in any afterlife since I have none.
Also, we were discussing how evolution would sponsor one thing (fear of death, religious feelings) to promote some survival mechanism, only to drop it when no longer needed. It's difficult to separate religious feelings from an afterlife/eternal state, and equally troublesome explaining fear.
Originally posted by amannionI don't presuppose anything. I've reached conclusions based on evidence and personal experiences. You, however, seem committed to agnosticism, which is a presupposition. Look first for the beam in your own eye.
That presupposes that the religious theory is the most logical. Atheism, like religion, doesn't rest on logic or truth.
It's a belief system, like any other.
You believe in Gods, or you don't.
Their existence or non-existence is impossible to prove.
Originally posted by StarrmanSigh. We seem to be talking right past each other. Lets start over again -- with definitions. Could you give me your defintion of atheism?
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Isn't that what atheism is -- a position of denying the existence of God? Basically you are committed to a "~A" claim. Both "A" and "~A" are logical positions that posit truth-claims.
No, I am not commited to anything. There is no claim here and that is different to a ~claim. The claim that god exists is one ...[text shortened]... but there is a difference between a contrary claim and a denial of a positive claim.[/b]
Originally posted by ChurlantAh yes; with the last century being the bloodiest in history (and the current one off to a good start in topping it) it's quite clear how these models are sustainable.
I'm not generally so optimistic, though if you look at cultural evolution over the past few hundred years, there is some evidence to suggest the "escalator" model may be appropriately applied in some instances.
-JC
Originally posted by HalitoseIf you don't expand your focus to humanity as a whole, then I suppose it's no surprise you are skeptical.
Ah yes; with the last century being the bloodiest in history (and the current one off to a good start in topping it) it's quite clear how these models are sustainable.
-JC
Originally posted by HalitoseI thought I had. Okay, in an attempt to be consistent in answering your previous rebuttals of my original definition, how about this:
Sigh. We seem to be talking right past each other. Lets start over again -- with definitions. Could you give me your defintion of atheism?
Weak atheism is not a claim about the nature of god, either positively or negatively in regards his existence. It is merely a point from which, since there is no evidence to warrant a consideration of the concept of god on anything other than a cultural or even semantic level, one denies the existence of such a concept, until evidence is presented. It is a normative and claimless state, held in view of the lack of reasonable proof that the notion of god is possible. So, you could say that I am ignorant of god and as such see no reason to make a claim, either that a) he exists or b) that he does not exist. I am not a 'non-theist' in the same way that I am not a tnon-pegasist'. I do not say that Pegasus does not exist (except in a colloquially accepted way), but say that there is no reason to consider that existence or the lack of it. It differs from Agnosticism which in which there is a claim that god could be possible, but there is not yet enough evidence to support a decision.