AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

The Lord Rabbi of Britain explains why religion survives:-http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/opinion/the-moral-animal.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121224&_r=0-Read this and then read the entire article.-"Since the 18th century, many Western intellectuals have predicted religion's imminent demise. Yet after a series of withering attacks, most recently by the new atheists, including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, still in Britain three in four people, and in America four in five, declare allegiance to a religious faith. That, in an age of science, is what is truly surprising. -The irony is that many of the new atheists are followers of Charles Darwin. We are what we are, they say, because it has allowed us to survive and pass on our genes to the next generation. Our biological and cultural makeup constitutes our "adaptive fitness." Yet religion is the greatest survivor of them all. Superpowers tend to last a century; the great faiths last millenniums. The question is why. -Darwin himself suggested what is almost certainly the correct answer. He was puzzled by a phenomenon that seemed to contradict his most basic thesis, that natural selection should favor the ruthless. Altruists, who risk their lives for others, should therefore usually die before passing on their genes to the next generation. Yet all societies value altruism, and something similar can be found among social animals, from chimpanzees to dolphins to leafcutter ants. -Neuroscientists have shown how this works. We have mirror neurons that lead us to feel pain when we see others suffering. We are hard-wired for empathy. We are moral animals."

1280 views

Hehehe Ok, this is too funny in light of our conversation over the past week. Hardwired for empathy? You mean, we are designed to love?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1336 views

"Religion is the best antidote to the individualism of the consumer age. The idea that society can do without it flies in the face of history and, now, evolutionary biology. This may go to show that God has a sense of humor."

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1322 views

bm: Hehehe Ok, this is too funny in light of our conversation over the past week. Hardwired for empathy? You mean, we are designed to love?-Empathy is not love, but most of us can love. All the Rabbi is saying is that society needs religion, and I agree

1320 views

bm: Hehehe Ok, this is too funny in light of our conversation over the past week. Hardwired for empathy? You mean, we are designed to love?
> 
> Empathy is not love, but most of us can love. All the Rabbi is saying is that society needs religion, and I agree-Empathy is not love, that is true. It is the precursor to love. That is to say, without empathy, love is impossible. I think that we are hardwired to love as well, though.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1320 views

DAVID: The Lord Rabbi of Britain explains why religion survives:-http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/opinion/the-moral-animal.html?nl=todaysheadlines&...-(I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling of his name on all posts: he is Sacks not Sachs.)
 
An article that I find more interesting for what it doesn't say than for what it does.-"Superpowers tend to last a century; the great faiths last millenniums. The question is why. 
Darwin himself suggested what is almost certainly the correct answer. He was puzzled by a phenomenon that seemed to contradict his most basic thesis, that natural selection should favor the ruthless. Altruists, who risk their lives for others, should therefore usually die before passing on their genes to the next generation. Yet all societies value altruism, and something similar can be found among social animals, from chimpanzees to dolphins to leafcutter ants. 
Neuroscientists have shown how this works. We have mirror neurons that lead us to feel pain when we see others suffering. We are hard-wired for empathy. We are moral animals.[...] It reconfigures our neural pathways, turning altruism into instinct, through the rituals we perform, the texts we read and the prayers we pray."-Natural selection favours whatever helps a species to survive. Other social animals do not require rituals, texts or prayers, and for them altruism is already an instinct. Most rituals, texts and prayers have nothing whatsoever to do with altruism: the individual is taught to worship his gods and tell them how wonderful they are, to ask for forgiveness for sins, to send rain, daily bread, deliverance from evil etc. Love thy neighbour is just one of many precepts laid down by religions, and this is sometimes with the proviso that thy neighbour should worship the same god as you, and if he doesn't it's perfectly OK to wage war on him. Sacks has already shown that altruism is not the invention of religion, and yes, some of us are moral animals and some of us are immoral animals, and no doubt that was the case when we were living in caves.-Sacks may be right when he says: "It remains the most powerful community builder the world has known." However, the first major omission in his thesis is highlighted by the next passage: "Religion binds individuals into groups through habits of altruism, creating relationships of trust strong enough to defeat destructive emotions." Has there ever been a more divisive force than religion? It does indeed build communities, and all too frequently these have created and still create conflict: for instance, Christian and Muslim sects at war with themselves and with one another. For all their faults, I do not recall Messrs Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens ever once calling upon their followers to go forth and kill the "fidel".-"Mr. Putnam's research showed that frequent church- or synagogue-goers were more likely to give money to charity, do volunteer work, help the homeless, donate blood, help a neighbor with housework, spend time with someone who was feeling depressed, offer a seat to a stranger or help someone find a job. Religiosity as measured by church or synagogue attendance is, he found, a better predictor of altruism than education, age, income, gender or race."-I can believe this, and I would not wish in any way to downgrade the positive effects that religion undoubtedly has. A sense of community, especially one which emphasizes altruism, can be immensely beneficial to all concerned, but this is where we come to the second major omission. None of this has the slightest relevance to our search for truth. Humans need religion, just as they need fiction, just as they need myth, just as they need prostitution, just as they need food and clothing and shelter. All of these have outlasted superpowers, and have gone on unchanged for millennia. In the case of religion, the answer to the question "why" is that we humans are conscious beings, aware of our unexplained origins, our environment and our insecurity; many of us would like explanations and reassurances, and religion gives us both. It may be based on truths of some kind. It may not. But whether it is or it isn't, it serves a useful purpose, and that is the main criterion used by natural selection.-"Religion is the best antidote to the individualism of the consumer age. The idea that society can do without it flies in the face of history and, now, evolutionary biology. This may go to show that God has a sense of humor. It certainly shows that the free societies of the West must never lose their sense of God."-Which religion? The monotheistic religions have proved throughout the centuries that they are not only incapable of countering individualism, but that in many cases they actively encourage it (kill an infidel and earn yourself 1000 virgins; trust in Jesus and you will be saved). Although I agree that society can't do without religion, that does not mean that God exists (let alone that he has a sense of humour), or that religion is always a good thing. I would be far happier if Rabbi Sacks had ended by saying that the so-called "free" societies of the West must never lose their sense of altruism.

1346 views

DHW: For all their faults, I do not recall Messrs Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens ever once calling upon their followers to go forth and kill the "fidel".
> ->Richard Dawkins: But here, I want to say something nice about creationists. It's not a thing I often do, so listen carefully. (Laughter) I think they're right about one thing. I think they're right that evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion.... what I want to urge upon you -- (Laughter) -- instead what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism... grasp the nettle of the word "atheism" itself, precisely because it is a taboo word carrying frissons of hysterical phobia. Critical mass may be harder to achieve with the word "atheist" than with the word "non-theist," or some other non-confrontational word. But if we did achieve it with that dread word -- "atheist" itself -- the political impact would be even greater...It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)..It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.-and on and on and on and on... is killing the mind any different than killing te body?-As a soldier, I have seen this same tactic employed by governments as a means of making it possible to send one man to kill another man. You dehumanize the other person until they become a faceless non-entity, a disease, a parasite, and then you eradicate them without remorse or guilt. I think it is unfair of you to lay that solely on the feet of religion, though they most certainly are guilty of it as well, despite the admonitions against such in their own holy books.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1333 views

DHW: For all their faults, I do not recall Messrs Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens ever once calling upon their followers to go forth and kill the "fidel".-TONY (quoting Dawkins:) I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.-and on and on and on and on... is killing the mind any different than killing the body?-As you will know from the "brief guide" and from many of my posts, I have little time for Dawkins and his fundamentalist atheism. However, he is not inciting people to kill theists, and he is not inciting anyone to kill the mind ... unless you wish to argue that missionaries, and indeed those whom Christ himself sent forth to spread the word, also set out to kill the mind. Trying to convert people to your way of thinking does not constitute killing the mind, and your next comment is, in my view, out of all proportion:
 
TONY: As a soldier, I have seen this same tactic employed by governments as a means of making it possible to send one man to kill another man. You dehumanize the other person until they become a faceless non-entity, a disease, a parasite, and then you eradicate them without remorse or guilt.-For all his bombastic arrogance, Dawkins is not talking of eradicating (i.e. killing) Creationists, but of eradicating an idea. No doubt Sacks, the Pope, Jesus, and God himself would like to eradicate atheism.-TONY: I think it is unfair of you to lay that solely on the feet of religion, though they most certainly are guilty of it as well, despite the admonitions against such in their own holy books.-I think it is unfair of you to say that I am laying such brain-washing solely at the feet of religion. I am pointing out that while Sacks rightly praises religion for creating communities, he conveniently ignores the manner in which it also divides communities even to the extent of advocating murder. Dawkins does not advocate murder.

1330 views

Slightly off topic ...
atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Similarly neither are theism and agnosticism.-A strong or gnostic atheist might say something like there is no God.-Now for all his faults Dawkins has carefully avoided saying this. What he is adamant about is the nonsensical Christian (that is nonsensical for him and me) interpretations of a literal Christian God. (And no doubt any of the Abrahamic, Norse, Roman Greek and other gods). -http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html-Apparently ancient Romans and Greeks used to call Jews and Christians atheists because they believed in a non existent God.

1300 views

Rom: Now for all his faults Dawkins has carefully avoided saying this. What he is adamant about is the nonsensical Christian (that is nonsensical for him and me) interpretations of a literal Christian God. -My answer for Dawkins is not to answer him from a religious and biblical standpoint, for in that sense he is OK, but the science he uses to support his atheism is frankly very suspect as I will show, when my new book is finally out from the publisher. They start work on it this month, finally, having had it since mid-September.

1286 views

Rom: Now for all his faults Dawkins has carefully avoided saying this. What he is adamant about is the nonsensical Christian (that is nonsensical for him and me) interpretations of a literal Christian God. 
> 
> My answer for Dawkins is not to answer him from a religious and biblical standpoint, for in that sense he is OK, but the science he uses to support his atheism is frankly very suspect as I will show, when my new book is finally out from the publisher. They start work on it this month, finally, having had it since mid-September.-And which atheism is that?

1303 views


> Rom: And which atheism is that?-I'm not sure what you are asking, but Dawkins says he is 99% atheist, no God.

1288 views


> > Rom: And which atheism is that?
> 
> I'm not sure what you are asking, but Dawkins says he is 99% atheist, no God.-oh I think if you looked, you could find him speak kindly of Spinoza's or Einstein's god.

1288 views


> Rom: oh I think if you looked, you could find him speak kindly of Spinoza's or Einstein's god-I'm not far from there myself. These are the quotes I use:-"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our ownâa God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature." And: " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

1274 views

ROMANSH: Slightly off topic ...
atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Similarly neither are theism and agnosticism.-As I see it, they can only be mutually exclusive for fundamentalists on either side. The essence of agnosticism is that it remains open to both possibilities while accepting neither.-ROMANSH: A strong or Gnostic atheist might say something like there is no God.
Now for all his faults Dawkins has carefully avoided saying this. What he is adamant about is the nonsensical Christian (that is nonsensical for him and me) interpretations of a literal Christian God. (And no doubt any of the Abrahamic, Norse, Roman Greek and other gods).
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-doe...-On one level, we are ALL agnostics, because none of us can KNOW whether any sort of god exists or not. The title The God Delusion, however, should tell you all you need to know about Dawkins' degree of certainty concerning the existence of a god. But even here, under the silly chapter heading 'The Poverty of Agnosticism', he places himself on a level of 6 "but leaning towards 7", the strongest category of atheist. "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." -ROMANSH: Apparently ancient Romans and Greeks used to call Jews and Christians atheists because they believed in a non existent God.-Another instance of arrogant intolerance (which of course Dawkins shares with his fellow fundamentalists in most of the religions he attacks). Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, instructs that any prophet who suggests serving other gods should be put to death, and we all know the bloodthirsty history of Christianity and Islam, in which even members of different sects murder one another for having different views of the same God! Sacks is right in that religion builds communities, but it is just as divisive as it is unifying.

1307 views

As I see it, they can only be mutually exclusive for fundamentalists on either side. The essence of agnosticism is that it remains open to both possibilities while accepting neither.-I disagree dhw - they can be mutually exclusive for moderates who hold on their definitions too tightly as well. A fundamentalist (strong) atheist might be open to having weak atheists and some agnostics fall within the atheist definition.
 
> On one level, we are ALL agnostics, because none of us can KNOW whether any sort of god exists or not. The title The God Delusion, however, should tell you all you need to know about Dawkins' degree of certainty concerning the existence of a god. But even here, under the silly chapter heading 'The Poverty of Agnosticism', he places himself on a level of 6 "but leaning towards 7", the strongest category of atheist. "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." -This is getting close to gnostic or strong agnosticism; fundamentalist agnosticism if you like. I would put myself in the weak agnostic camp. "I don't know and that includes what you may or may not know". Rather than the strong camp: "I don't know and neither do you".-Rgarding Dawkins scale, I thought it childish, but at least a starting point for discussion.
A while back I did this for myself:
http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/beliefbubbles_files/slide0001.htm
it is for discussion and not some absolute logic map. Ideally I would like to have separated deism from theism and some of the bubbles should overlap.-> Another instance of arrogant intolerance (which of course Dawkins shares with his fellow fundamentalists in most of the religions he attacks). Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, instructs that any prophet who suggests serving other gods should be put to death, and we all know the bloodthirsty history of Christianity and Islam, in which even members of different sects murder one another for having different views of the same God! Sacks is right in that religion builds communities, but it is just as divisive as it is unifying.-I am always careful about accusing others of arrogance, partly for Jungian reasons, but more so another person's passion might come across as arrogance to me. Ultimately the label of 'arrogance' that I might utter, is a reflection of the chemical processes that go on in my brain.-But you are right agnostics have not built strong communities. That is why I spend some time here to show support for the little community that has grown here.

1311 views

rom: I am always careful about accusing others of arrogance, partly for Jungian reasons, but more so another person's passion might come across as arrogance to me. Ultimately the label of 'arrogance' that I might utter, is a reflection of the chemical processes that go on in my brain.
> 
> But you are right agnostics have not built strong communities. That is why I spend some time here to show support for the little community that has grown here.-I have not seen you as arrogant, but then the discussants here are careful to be polite in disagreement. By your scale I am a strong theist, based solely on scientific evidence. I don't see chance or serendipity, or stochastic processes lying at the cause of our realaity. The layers of the genome's complexity is still to be unfolded completely. Can an unthinking digital code make other digital codes without something/someone providing input?-I started out as a soft agnostic, and after 30 years of reading, I'm where I am.

1289 views

To get back on track my reading of Sir Sacks has been limited. I have only read reproduced transcripts with John Humphrys (In God We Doubt, not a great book from my perspective).-Here are a couple of quotes from Sir Sacks.
> To my mind, faith lies in the question. If you didn't have faith you wouldn't ask the questions [why do children suffer]. If I did not believe in a just and a law abiding God, I would not find injustice and human suffering worthy of question whatsoever. 
Sir Sacks justifies this with the non sequitur, that if there was no god then the universe would be indifferent to his existence.-and-> God is listening to me in a much more direct way in Judaism than in Christianity, because in Christianity you pray through a son of God. In Judaism we talk directly.-Nothing changes I suppose

1275 views


> rom:Nothing changes I suppose-That is why I use science only in my reasoning, and apply no personality to God as I conceive of Him.

1256 views

Dhw: As I see it, they [agnosticism and theism/atheism] can only be mutually exclusive for fundamentalists on either side. The essence of agnosticism is that it remains open to both possibilities while accepting neither.-ROMANSH: I disagree dhw - they can be mutually exclusive for moderates who hold on their definitions too tightly as well. A fundamentalist (strong) atheist might be open to having weak atheists and some agnostics fall within the atheist definition.-Our approach is quite different, but I am a simpler soul than you. For me, a moderate atheist would be one who is not TOTALLY convinced of God's non-existence, in which case he is allowing for some possibility that God does exist, so there is no mutual exclusion between atheism and agnosticism. Ditto of course with theism. My definition of a fundamentalist would be someone who does NOT allow for other possibilities, which automatically entails exclusion. We're back to definitions, as usual!-ROMANSH: Regarding Dawkins scale, I thought it childish, but at least a starting point for discussion.-For those who don't know it, here is Dawkins' scale. I cannot fault it.-1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."-ROMANSH: A while back I did this for myself:-http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/beliefbubbles_files/slide0001.htm-it is for discussion and not some absolute logic map. Ideally I would like to have separated deism from theism and some of the bubbles should overlap.-I thought the bubbles did overlap, and very nicely too. I could have done without Gnosticism, though, and without your references to it in your post, as I think it only confuses the issue, especially when linked to agnosticism and atheism. I don't see how you can call Dawkins' "6 leaning towards 7" close to "gnostic agnosticism" or "fundamentalist agnosticism". If there is such a thing as fundamentalist agnosticism, it would have to be category 4 ... as far away from "knowledge" of God's existence/non-existence as one can get. I myself am happy just to say that nobody "knows", but I like the way Dawkins has dealt with that too.
 
I likened Dawkins' arrogant intolerance to that of the religious fundamentalists he attacks.-ROMANSH: I am always careful about accusing others of arrogance, partly for Jungian reasons, but more so another person's passion might come across as arrogance to me. Ultimately the label of 'arrogance' that I might utter, is a reflection of the chemical processes that go on in my brain.-I'm horrified that my reference to "arrogant intolerance" has somehow got linked to you (see David's post)! I use the term to describe any approach that ridicules or threatens other people and their beliefs on the grounds that the speaker is convinced that he knows the truth. (I have plenty of friends who are passionate about their beliefs, but do not ridicule or threaten other people. Passion does not exclude respect.) As David rightly says, despite the many disagreements, there has (nearly) always been respect between participants in our discussions. My apologies if I gave the wrong impression.-ROMANSH: But you are right agnostics have not built strong communities. That is why I spend some time here to show support for the little community that has grown here.-It is greatly appreciated.

1290 views

I'm horrified that my reference to "arrogant intolerance" has somehow got linked to you (see David's post)! I use the term to describe any approach that ridicules or threatens other people and their beliefs on the grounds that the speaker is convinced that he knows the truth. (I have plenty of friends who are passionate about their beliefs, but do not ridicule or threaten other people. Passion does not exclude respect.) As David rightly says, despite the many disagreements, there has (nearly) always been respect between participants in our discussions. My apologies if I gave the wrong impression.-I did not read it that way at all, neither your post nor David's. Having said that I am never certain how my posts come across, and to use the English vernacular sometimes I do go in with both feet and with my studs showing. -But to be honest, I do have concerns about describing Dawkins as arrogant, not so much for him; he is a big boy and can look after himself. More so for us. I would argue Jung had an interesting observation that if we see a trait in someone else that we don't like, this dislike is a reflection of a fear that we too hold this trait.

1265 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum