View Topic

I'm not sure I'll ever not be an atheist, but I believe that religious ideals have been selected by something similar to darwinian selection, and that selection mechanism works by killing societies that have defective ideals the same way genetic diseases kill organisms who have defective genes.

As such, religions are worth examining in an effort to find the ideals that made them successful.

I'm not sure I'll ever not be an atheist, but I believe that religious ideals have been selected by something similar to darwinian selection, and that selection mechanism works by killing societies that have defective ideals the same way genetic diseases kill organisms who have defective genes.

As such, religions are worth examining in an effort to find the ideals that made them successful.

But they're not as successful as they once were...there's been a decline in religion, and especially organized religion.

I think why it's been successful is because people naturally want to believe that they're part of something bigger than themselves and they want to believe that they continue on forever in some form...death isn't the end of them. Religion is the easiest way to satisfy both drives. There's also indoctrination...ideas and beliefs instilled into people as children are less likely to ever be challenged.

It actually reminded me of my last signature on the forum for Jan's ML server forum, kinda ironic since you're the only person here who was there too:

From the documentary "Jesus Camp"

"The reason you go for kids is because whatever they learn by the time they're 7 or 8 or 9 years old is pretty well there for the rest of their lives...As I understood, your question to me was 'Do you feel it's right for the fundamentalists to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs?' I guess fundamentally, yes I do, because every other religion is indoctrinating their kids. I would like to see more churches indoctrinating."

"You can tell a child anything ... you can make a child into a soldier that carries an AK47."

"You could call it brainwashing, but I am radical and passionate in teaching children about their responsibility as Christians, as God-fearing people, as Americans."

I do find that outlook interesting though, treating religions as memes (in the original sense of the term).

I do find that outlook interesting though, treating religions as memes (in the original sense of the term).

Exactly. More specifically, as collections of memes analogous to organisms. There's no simple reason why they were successful, I think.

Religion may be declining, but I think that the memes that religion created live on in non-religious people - or at least I hope so. For example the idea that each individual in some sense has the same value as each other individual is not intuitively obvious. It's a religious idea, plain and simple. In this sense, even non-religious people remain religious in that they enact religious ideals in their life.

I do find that outlook interesting though, treating religions as memes (in the original sense of the term).

Exactly. More specifically, as collections of memes analogous to organisms. There's no simple reason why they were successful, I think.

Religion may be declining, but I think that the memes that religion created live on in non-religious people - or at least I hope so. For example the idea that each individual in some sense has the same value as each other individual is not intuitively obvious. It's a religious idea, plain and simple. In this sense, even non-religious people remain religious in that they enact religious ideals in their life.

So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).

So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).

Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible. I think that the religion that Atheists argue against today, which has many of its roots in fundamentalist or near fundamentalist sects of christianity, is very different from the religion that existed in the past.

It's only when everyone could read the words that were written down in scripture that they began to be taken literally, and since America is filled with descendants of these sects, American Atheists generally argue against literal interpretations of the bible. Like.. GRRR, The world is older than the bible says, GRRR, slavery is bad, GRRR humans arose through evolution by natural selection not adam and eve, and the GRRRs go on and on but they generally are against literal interpretations. It's fairly facile, I think.

So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).

Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible. I think that the religion that Atheists argue against today, which has many of its roots in fundamentalist or near fundamentalist sects of christianity, is very different from the religion that existed in the past.

But why? From my view, positive aspects of religion such as morality do not need a religious foundation to exist. Continuing the gene/meme analogy, I'd think that it's more akin to convergent evolution; such philosophical views could develop independently from different sources, much as mulitcellular life evolved independently at least dozens of times, from a highly diverse set of organisms.

So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).

Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible. I think that the religion that Atheists argue against today, which has many of its roots in fundamentalist or near fundamentalist sects of christianity, is very different from the religion that existed in the past.

But why? From my view, positive aspects of religion such as morality do not need a religious foundation to exist. Continuing the gene/meme analogy, I'd think that it's more akin to convergent evolution; such philosophical views could develop independently from different sources, much as mulitcellular life evolved independently at least dozens of times, from a highly diverse set of organisms.

The morality we take for granted in secular humanism is derived from religious values - if a different set of religious values, say Taoist/Daoist or Buddhist traditions, incorporated materialism the way that Christianity did during the enlightenment, I think we could expect the equivalent of secular humanism that arose from it to be different in important respects.. In more communal cultures, for example, I'd expect that the rights of the individual would be more likely to be denied in favor of the rights of family units.

What I mean is, the secular humanism we have in the west is descended from Christianity, it did not evolve in a vacuum. That's why the values of secular humanism are so similar to those of conventional Christian faiths. And I think Christianity has much to offer us yet..

Maybe we should preemptively move this to hall of great discussions.. it's actually something I'm interested in talking about in detail, just to develop my ideas about it better. It's a pretty new tack for me to be taking.

So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).

Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible. I think that the religion that Atheists argue against today, which has many of its roots in fundamentalist or near fundamentalist sects of christianity, is very different from the religion that existed in the past.

But why? From my view, positive aspects of religion such as morality do not need a religious foundation to exist. Continuing the gene/meme analogy, I'd think that it's more akin to convergent evolution; such philosophical views could develop independently from different sources, much as mulitcellular life evolved independently at least dozens of times, from a highly diverse set of organisms.

The morality we take for granted in secular humanism is derived from religious values - if a different set of religious values, say Taoist/Daoist or Buddhist traditions, incorporated materialism the way that Christianity did during the enlightenment, I think we could expect the equivalent of secular humanism that arose from it to be different in important respects.. In more communal cultures, for example, I'd expect that the rights of the individual would be more likely to be denied in favor of the rights of family units.

What I mean is, the secular humanism we have in the west is descended from Christianity, it did not evolve in a vacuum. That's why the values of secular humanism are so similar to those of conventional Christian faiths. And I think Christianity has much to offer us yet..

Of course those ideas don't evolve in a vacuum; they are naturally influenced by everything before and around it. But the same is true for religions—they are also highly influenced by the cultural norms around them. Taking your example of more communal cultures, I'd argue the reverse: religions that evolve in those conditions are used to justify less individuality as morally correct.

But really, none of it evolves in a vacuum; it all evolves together, influencing and being influenced by each other. For instance, the emphasis on ancestor veneration/worship in traditional Chinese religion is clearly a byproduct of the culture's emphasis on filial piety. I believe that ideas of morality can evolve in the absence of religion, as other philosophies could develop in similar ways.

Maybe we should preemptively move this to hall of great discussions.. it's actually something I'm interested in talking about in detail, just to develop my ideas about it better. It's a pretty new tack for me to be taking.

@Sapphiron @Gerrick

Let me know if you'd like me to change the title of this topic.

But really, none of it evolves in a vacuum; it all evolves together, influencing and being influenced by each other. For instance, the emphasis on ancestor veneration/worship in traditional Chinese religion is clearly a byproduct of the culture's emphasis on filial piety. I believe that ideas of morality can evolve in the absence of religion, as other philosophies could develop in similar ways.

I don't really know the difference between religious values and non-religious values in this instance.. If you mean that morality could have theoretically happened without belief in a supreme being, maybe it could have, no way to know since it's never happened.

Anyway, this is a little bit besides the point I think. What I mean is that the values found in Christianity and other religions are like the DNA of human cultures, as they currently exist, and they appear to have worked very well for producing the kinds of societies that are stable and productive. Current attempts to do away with religion on a society-wide basis have been dramatically unsuccessful, so far, so the idea that I'm trying to combat is the one where we do away with religion entirely. I think that we still have a lot to learn as a society before we can take off our religious training wheels. Note again that I don't mean we have anything to learn from these new fundamentalist faiths, which I find to be philosophically flawed..

I don't really find much wrong with secular humanism, because I don't think that this is one of the aims of secular humanism. I'm sorry if I'm rambling seemingly without aim, I'm still trying to figure out my own head on these issues.

I do think tau has a point though. The east and the west have very different views on religion itself. While in the west our societies are based around religion, in the east its almost the other way around. Having done a lot of study into this one of the things that struck me about religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Chinese Folk Religion is that they are all very personal. Of the major religions in the east only Buddhism and Sikhism have any sort of real holy text, though Sikhism itself is a very new religion in the grand scheme of things. (Hinduism's Mahabharata and the Vedic scrolls and the like are situational due to Hinduism's disparate nature. Calling Hinduism a religion is a misnomer honestly.) And even then the schools of Buddhism interpret things in vastly different ways. Unlike in the west where our morality is defined by our faith and our culture's traditional faith, in the east its almost the opposite, one is born into a religious tradition and may pick where in it they stand. The concepts we expect of religions in the west like holy texts, orthodoxy and heresy and a defined religious hierarchy either do not exist or have radically different status. Despite this disparate religious network, especially in India and China they are distinct societies. And now I feel like I'm rambling on so I'm just going to stop here xD

But really, none of it evolves in a vacuum; it all evolves together, influencing and being influenced by each other. For instance, the emphasis on ancestor veneration/worship in traditional Chinese religion is clearly a byproduct of the culture's emphasis on filial piety. I believe that ideas of morality can evolve in the absence of religion, as other philosophies could develop in similar ways.

I don't really know the difference between religious values and non-religious values in this instance.. If you mean that morality could have theoretically happened without belief in a supreme being, maybe it could have, no way to know since it's never happened.

Anyway, this is a little bit besides the point I think. What I mean is that the values found in Christianity and other religions are like the DNA of human cultures, as they currently exist, and they appear to have worked very well for producing the kinds of societies that are stable and productive. Current attempts to do away with religion on a society-wide basis have been dramatically unsuccessful, so far, so the idea that I'm trying to combat is the one where we do away with religion entirely. I think that we still have a lot to learn as a society before we can take off our religious training wheels. Note again that I don't mean we have anything to learn from these new fundamentalist faiths, which I find to be philosophically flawed..

I don't really find much wrong with secular humanism, because I don't think that this is one of the aims of secular humanism. I'm sorry if I'm rambling seemingly without aim, I'm still trying to figure out my own head on these issues.

I basically agree on most points here. My main concern was just with this statement:

So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).

Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible.

Maybe you intended that analogy to mean something different from what I thought it meant, but that was about it.

I'd argue that religion merits as much examination as any similarly popular philosophical movements (chief among them being Confucianism). And on a broader scale, all literature has something to teach about human nature, and enduring religious tenets and texts are definitely very high on that list.

I think I'll hold onto the statement that you disagree with.. I don't think that a secular humanist ideology could have arisen without support from a religious institution. But of course we can't prove that one way or the other, and it's not such a big disagreement anyway... so..

Anyway, I think we pretty much agree. I was somewhat hoping for some more disagreement to go on so I could discuss it a bit further.