Science-Religion. Which wins?

mifune · August 29, 2010, 2:46am

What about that do you find foolish? I don’t consider physicists using a machine to better understand the field as foolish whatsoever.

Perhaps this further quote of yours clarifies:

This is a complete absurdity perpetuated by those with absolutely no rudimentary education on the matter. Do you honestly trust the non-scientific claims that scientists are colluding to destroy the Earth with black holes if there was the legitimate possibility of such? And regretfully, the media widely circulated these ominous musings of those uneducated on the matter, including the news of a [fatuously</a> conceived lawsuit](<a href=“http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/lhc_lawsuit_thrown_out/]fatuously”>Hawaiian anti-LHC lawsuit thrown out • The Register) designed to subvert and mislead the public’s understanding (and apparently you’ve been duped into it). It isn’t only ridiculous conjecture, but physically unattainable, even under the assumption that the LHC will create one. The basic science:

[ul][li]Black holes, if they are created at all in the LHC, will not consume matter and energy quickly. They will be energetically unstable and evaporate abruptly due to a high thermal temperature and because of the laws of quantum mechanics.[/ul][/li]
Despite a conceptual outline of the science, it simply doesn’t penetrate many people’s brains. They disregard, or even snub, the laws of physics that we are already well acquainted with and invent apocalyptic substitutes. But the absurdity that a black hole will consume the Earth is more emotionally attractive than the scientific laws that transparently contravene such a speculation just as we are far more captivated by the paranormal, superstitions, pseudosciences, and religious dogma rather than critical thought, rationality, and objectivity.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 2:49am

Lastly, I would like to present a series of arguments against the existence of a supernatural deity. Of course, some arguments came up earlier in this series of posts, but weren’t fully expanded as I wasn’t quite on the subject. So it’s only natural for me not to be happy with the fact that many religious followers are simply uncomfortable with the fact that there is no compelling argument or conclusive evidence for the existence of their god. It’s much better to provide a convincing argument against their belief rather than simply, thereby committing them to a contradiction, hence the following arguments.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 2:50am

Problem of evil

Most religious folks who adhere to a god in a monotheistic religion will agree that their god is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (endowed with unlimited power), and omnibenevolent (loving).

If one still believes in the existence of a god (say, on faith), this wouldn’t simply be a matter of believing something without evidence. If one persists in believing that their god possesses each of these properties, then one is committing themselves to belief in a falsehood

I will provide a simple logical syllogism:

1) By hypothesis, assume that a grand celestial entity exists.

2) If a divine being exists, it would be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

If such existed, there would be no evil in the world. For instance, if this god was omniscient, then it would know when a hurricane, house fire, or lynching, or any other malevolent or potentially harmful event is imminent. If it was omnipotent, then it could foresee and prevent the occurrence. If it was omnibenevolent, it would attempt to forestall it. Hence, the unfortunate event would be impeded.

3) As such, if an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent cloud-fairy existed, no evil would exist. [From 2]

Suppose then, that if 1) is true, one should conclude that:

4)Evil does not exist. [From 1-3]

The plain, unmistakable truth is that upon a quick glance around or by staying attuned to current events, humanity is not uniformly pleased with it’s existence and malevolent ordeals are overwhelmingly common. Hence:

5)Evil does exist.

Note that 4) and 5) are contradictory. One cannot simultaneously conclude that there is and there is not evil present in the world. Thus, one must conclude that:

6)An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god does not exist.

Thus, 2) and 6) necessitates a contradiction, affirming that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent cannot exist on logical grounds. Of course, theists attempt to beat a path around this argument so it’s worth mentioning the common responses (deemed theodicies):

mifune · August 29, 2010, 2:51am

”We aren’t capable of comprehending what an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god does. It has it’s own morality.”

Then what is the point of labeling it as omnibenevolent by nature? Don’t we mean that this god is benevolent by normative guidelines that are readily intelligible? And by “omnibenevolent,” this is tantamount to saying that this entity – as the ostensibly quintessential emblem of morality – would be morally perfect and that it lacks the frailities, vices, and imperfections of “ordinary beings.” If not, then it is simply a willful abuse of words to endow it with a term attesting to it’s common perception of moral infallibility. Therefore, it would be a moral transgression for it to allow evil to occur, which, due to its purported properties of omnipotence (the ability to do anything) and omniscience (awareness of everything), such could be willfully be prevented. So, at the very least, it would be lacking one or more of these three qualities. And without the possession of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, this divinity simply cannot exist.

HarveyLewis · August 29, 2010, 2:52am

Wow, a 4 hour monologue. I wonder if this is a CC record.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 2:53am

”Evil isn’t because of “God,” per se – it’s because it created humans with a morally significant sense of free will.”

Historically, the free will defense is the most common and, perhaps, the easiest to criticize. The underlying premise is that the evil in the world is a byproduct of human action, not by “God,” because doing so would impinge upon the free will. Hence, it’s basis is patently amoral by holding the position that free will is a greater good than what makes up for the trouble and disastrous consequences that it produces. That is, morality runs secondary to the exercise of one’s “free will.” One could claim that evil is vindicated by the fact that the choice of one’s actions is free; although cruelty is evil, this evil is compensated for its defects on account of the notion that when it transpires it is freely desired (or, from a separate perspective, unencumbered by restraint).

But is free will sufficiently good to absolve the evil that it causes? To use the free will theodicy, one must abide by the position that free will assumes precedence over the existence of morality. This is not a false dilemma, but its true basis. One cannot argue that they are equally important because that contradicts the premise of the argument. And one cannot argue that the exercise of the morality plays second-fiddle the exercise of one’s free will because that not only contradicts the argument’s foundations as well, but adopts an anarchic mentality, by asserting that the use of free will in inherently superior regardless if the byproducts of it’s use are “right,” “wrong,” or somewhere in between.

The further derailing point is that a profound degree of evil in the world is not a production of human activity. Natural disasters are perhaps the most profound example. Consider the plights of famine, destruction, and overall suffering on the basis of drought, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other calamities.

Consider this commonly mentioned example: An arsonist is intent to set fire to a school. Is it reasonable to maintain that if a god intervenes it is disrupts free will? Is it also reasonable to maintain that, if this divinity is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, it would permit this occurrence? For instance, the laws of society preventing arson do not interfere with this scoundrel’s objective. Since nearly all theists (at least those within the Christian, Jewish, and Islamist faiths) believe that “God” is uniformly acquainted with the thoughts and actions of all of humanity, shouldn’t it be held accountable in the same fashion as a onlooker that witnesses the crime but willfully refuses to intervene?

mifune · August 29, 2010, 2:55am

”Evil is ultimately beneficial in the long run. It’s all a part of the plan. In the arson example, if people die in the fire, they will go to heaven. Others will establish a newfangled fidelity to better future circumstances by enforcing statutes that ensure that such an atrocity never materializes again. Lastly, friends and family of the victims will be humbled and generate a profound maturity towards lasting nobilities, such as empathy and solicitude, audacity, and will seek to develop one’s personal fortitude.”

For these protests to be plausible, it must be assured that the favorable results in question will occur and that the evil is inevitably necessary for the benefit to occur. If the benefit could occur without the evil, then the evil is not justified by the results.

So, regressing back to the arson analogy, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that the painful deaths suffered by those consumed in the event were necessary to (supposedly) proceed to the afterlife and do not justify a deity’s allowing the deaths to occur.

Is it reasonable to contend that in every instance of apparent evil, that there exists good results that offset it? In many cases, grieving family members do not develop empathy, personal fortitude, or a greater sense of bravery, but rather become spiteful, embittered, wretched, mistrustful, or incorrigibly demoralized. Nor is there any basis for the claim that a collective sense of moral urgency emerges. One instance of a particular crime does not prevent a future occurrence.

Moreover, there is no evidential basis for the assumption that there is just enough nth order good to preempt an equivalent degree of evil. In fact, this is rarely, if ever, reflective of actuality. Regrettably, many people do grow old and die desperate, penurious, and grief-stricken without anyone revealing to them the kindheartedness and hospitality that could feasibly ameliorate their pain, suffering, and general sense of anguish. Overall, it appears that there is far more gratuitous, immoderate evil (valueless evil from which no greater good results) than could be accounted for in terms of higher order goods. Additionally, as the philosopher William Rowe pointed out, if a flash of lightning ignites a tree and eventually spreads through the entire forest while killing a fawn and no human is ever informed of the incident, this is unwarranted evil that neither derives nor preserves free will and unreservedly holds no capacity in developing courage, empathy, or strength of character.

Clearly, if evil occurs, it is not ultimately for the common or greater good, nor is one indiscriminately qualified to presume that it does in the event of simple scenarios to the contrary. In short, the “greater good argument” commits the fallacy of begging the question, in which the assertion under reservation is erroneously assumed – whether equivocally or unequivocally – in the premise.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 2:57am

Argument from Inconsistent Revelations

This argument follows that throughout the history of religion, there have been incompatible, objectively groundless, and mutually exclusive revelations of precisely what populates a “supernatural realm.” If one studies the historical lineage of religious or supernatural conviction, humans first worshipped ill-founded animisms (by attributing a spiritual essence to inanimate objects, natural phenomena, and so on), then largely proceeded to polytheism typically by assigning separate gods to certain subsets of nature and centering mythology around their interactions, and finally to monotheism, which rebuffs the notion that there is a certain plurality to the divine and ordinarily attributes to it a range of properties in order to render it as a supreme conception. However, each perspective is as un-evidenced as another, and of the estimated 100,000 religious faiths that have ever been conceived by humanity (and an infinite number of possibilities), no two have ever precisely agreed and many are radically disparate. Since there is no method of resolving these conflicting claims, it follows that it is prudent to reserve one’s judgment. The argument notes that many religions provide contradictory accounts as to what these human superiors are (God/gods/spiritual divinities, etc.) and what such entities aspire to or hanker after. Therefore, since all these incompatible accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 2:59am

If we juxtapose this account alongside an endeavor that actually uses objective evidence to reach conclusions – science – it is clear which is superior for the effect of determining truth and deriving knowledge. The sciences are not sectarian. Science is the democratization and globalization of knowledge that unites a common understanding of the natural world and largely through a universal language. Yes, there are separate realms of science that do indeed require very different aptitudes and degrees of skill for their prosecution, but they are largely entwined within a unified framework that is simply categorized on the basis of a specific subset of objective inquiry. And there may indeed be competing hypotheses, but nothing of what is legitimately confirmed is contradictory. For instance, there is not one science that proclaims pressure and volume to have an inverse mathematical basis whereas another posits a direct association.

Science is commonly jostled in these discussions as being just as corruptible as religion in terms of its potential for atrocity but that’s largely unfounded. Science in itself is not a particular system of fundamental social ideals and is not an active source of corruptibility because it attaches to itself no particular ideological agenda. Scientists will not persecute each other on the basis of scientific quibbles but that hasn’t exactly held true for religion’s use as a political and military tool for wielding a collective protocol that one’s motives are transcendentally superior and supremely justified. It’s what people do not know, the associated fear, and the cruelty that fear breeds that drive people to commit persecution and heinous atrocities in the name of religion. In many cases, religion has not only been, to repeat the prosaic phrase, the opium of the masses, but the cyanide as well.

Science is a methodical, honest, and systematic approach that relies on objective evidence and logical rigor to form conclusions and buttress hypotheses up the hierarchy of certainty. It knows no conclusions beforehand, but rather verifies them through the accumulation of evidence from natural investigation. Religious- or faith-based assertions represents a diametrically polarized view of how “truth” is created. It is unsystematic, unmethodical, and objectively groundless, and largely uses a primitive, misguided, and commonsensical approach to deriving a sense of intellectual fulfillment. In other words, it fabricates a story to represent a particular group’s paradigmatic understanding of the empirical world, which is always wrong, because the world and it’s true basis in reality are too remote from ordinary understanding to be merely invented. It forms conclusions in advance and a true defense of its assertions requires the biasing of one’s viewpoint to the point where objectivity and truth must be discarded.

Anyways, that was quite a digression. Back to the argument (on the basis of inconsistent revelations).

For instance, Christians regard Jesus as the messiah of the Hebrew prophecies and the savior of humankind; Jews beg to differ. Likewise, Muslims believe the Qur’an to be divinely authored while Christians and Jews do not. Such examples are ubiquitously rampant even within major religious bifurcations. Many subsets of the Christian faith express mutually incompatible ideologies.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:02am

In mathematical terms, if, for the sake of argument, one assumes that a specific god exists and there are n inconsistent faiths from which to choose, then the probability of selecting the correct religion is 1/n. To better illustrate the point, if we adhere to the estimation that 100,000 separate religious faiths have existed over the course of humanity, there is a 1/100,000 chance that one will ascend to their religion’s heaven and avoid the hell of the other 99,999. (Again, this is riddled with groundless assumptions – the existence of a specific god, the existence of an afterlife, etc.) But since there are an infinite number of possible inconsistent faiths from which to choose, essentially the probability of choosing the accurate faith is 1/∞ – very very improbable indeed even while granting the preliminary assumptions on the basis of facilitating argument.

Furthermore, even within particular religious texts, contradictions are in substantial abundance. Consider these examples:

*“. . . God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”  (James:1:13)
“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.”  (Genesis 22:1)

“. . . for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.”  (Jeremiah 3:12)
“Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. Thus saith the Lord.”  (Jeremiah 17:4)
 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."  (John 5:31, Christ speaking)

“I am one that bear witness of myself . . .”  (John 8:18, Christ speaking)

“I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”  (Genesis 32:30)  "No man hath seen God at any time."  (John 1:18)  "And I [God] will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts . . ."  (Exodus 33:23)*

Christian apologists ordinarily attempt to superficially dismiss such contradictions by avowing that the fault is not intrinsic in the Bible’s inspiration, but rather in its translation. But this is an ill-conceived, misguided defense given the sheer number that there are (the list is quite obviously much longer than the brief sample that I listed above). But if these apologists had any degree of persuasive wit, it would naturally follow that every single part of the Bible is suspect to reservations with regard to its plausibility.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:07am

Destiny of the unevangelized

This is predominantly a question regarding the destiny of those that have never been exposed to a particular system of belief. The point in question is whether those who have never been subjected to and acquainted with a particular theology or religious doctrine will be unfairly disadvantaged in an eschatological sense for failure to conform to the expectations of its dictates. This would include those who died without the opportunity to become familiarized with Christianity or any other religion (either from seclusion or from living in the days before the advent of Christianity or said religion), those who died in infancy or before birth, and the mentally debilitated.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:08am

Argument from Poor Design

The argument from poor design is employed specifically against the idea of a creator god and refutes the notion that living systems are too well-designed to have developed on the sheer basis of chance (as perpetuated by creationism and intelligent design). It follows on the basis of this reasoning:

1)An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent divinity would create organisms with optimum design or an unparalleled functional resolution.

2)Organisms have attributes that are imperfect and they possess a prominent extent of biological defects, peculiarities, and overall sub-optimization exactly as if they have evolved.

3)Hence, a deity did not design these organisms or is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

There are many cases of suboptimal biological features as found in nature. In the mammalian eye, the retina is inverted from its most advantageous form. The nerves and blood vessels lie upon the surface of the retina rather than behind it, as in the case of many invertebrate species. The arrangement mandates a series of complex physiological adjustments and provides a blind spot, which corresponds to the point at which there is an absence of light-sensing photoreceptor cells that comprise the point of the retina at which the optic nerve passes through, producing an ill-defined vagueness in the visual field. Additionally, the eye requires six muscles to move, when three would satisfy the need.

Regarding other matters, the eye is susceptible to the unfortunate medical condition of a detached retina due to the unsecured attachment of the retina to the underlying sclera. This wouldn’t be the case if the nerve fibers passed through the sclera and formed the optic nerve on the posterior portion of the eye. Mollusks have this practical arrangement, but the mammalian eye, along with other vertebrates, have the functionally defective presentation of the upturned retina.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:09am

Various other “poorly designed” biological features are present in nature:

[ul][li]Vestigial structures, including the coccyx and wisdom teeth in humans, femurs and pelvis in whales (since its ancestors were land-dwelling organisms), wings in flightless birds (i.e. ostriches), among others. [/li]
[li]Hereditary, genetic diseases such as single- or multiple-gene defects and chromosomal abnormalities.[/li]
[li]Rarely used muscles and nerves, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot, which was used by human predecessors for the sake of grasping objects with the feet.[/li]
[li]The plant enzyme rubisco, which is inhibited by oxygen, cannot differentiate between oxygen and carbon dioxide, possesses a very slow turnover rate, and is not sufficiently saturated by present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (attributable to its appearance in a primitive, anaerobic atmosphere.)[/li]
[li]Nearly all plants and animals produce their own vitamin C as an inborn capacity of metabolism. But humans (and some other primates), due to a mutation in the enzyme L-gulonolactone oxidase, possess this defect, which may lead to scurvy and eventual death.[/ul][/li]
For a list of additional unproductive structures, see: [Useless</a> Body Parts | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine](<a href=“http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=]Useless”>http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=)

Common criticism of the argument includes that certain biological features – the mammalian eye, plant enzyme rubisco, the panda’s thumb, and so on – functional well for what they do. But the argument isn’t that they aren’t functional, it is that the “design” is substandard and other modifications would be more effective. Furthermore, there are biological features that are virtually dysfunctional. For instance, the plantaris muscle is so devoid of any operative use that it is often mistaken for a nerve due to the extent of its atrophy. In fact, nine percent of the human population lacks the muscle entirely without any functional deficit.

Counterarguments also take the form that apparent inefficiency is actually quite beneficial for the sake of longevity of the organism. For instance, plants only absorb and harvest a certain amount of sunlight in order to sidestep an overabundance of oxidative stress, a very well-understood biotic phenomenon. However, it doesn’t do a single thing to potentially rescue the argument from design; it simply refocuses the issue as to why the specific elements of the photosynthetic network are “designed” with the inability to establish a means of efficiently metabolizing standard levels of exogenous energy. Evolution by means of natural selection provides a much more effective and confirmable explanation because it recognizes the historical circumstances concerning photosynthesis. The process of using sunlight to synthesize metabolic materials originally evolved in an aquatic environment and subsequently adapted (however inefficiently) to the light energy provided in terrestrial settings. In other words, the suboptimal state is a consequence of the lack of hereditary mechanism to eradicate specific remnants that once served a useful purpose in the evolutionary process.

One shouldn’t find it excusable for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god to include faulty, ill-conceived designed as a means of causing potential distress or gratuitous death, which begins to blur the line between the argument from poor design and the argument from evil. If one is simply content to recognize “good design” (to clarify, structure and configuration that is purportedly of optimal stature) while neglecting the profound manifestations of “bad design” (the presence of suboptimal features), this is simply cherry-picking the “evidence” that seems to support such a groundless, preconceived conclusion while disregarding the facts that contradict it. In other words, counterarguments erect a false dichotomy – if the structure and features of an organism seem optimally efficient, some cloud-fairy did it; if the structure and features are not present in the most advantageous configuration, it is the result of the consequences of mankind’s sin or that expertise and order aren’t effective standards within the criteria of biological “creation.” If a celestial divinity isn’t aware of these flaws then it isn’t omniscient; if it is aware but devoid of influence, then it isn’t omnipotent; if it is aware and holds the capacity to effect betterment but chooses not to, then it isn’t omnibenevolent, consequently invalidating the concept. By the same token, there is nothing about life that requires an intelligent force other than the modern-day ignorance perpetuated by poor education, unprofessional disinterest, and/or the ideological rigidity enabled through the means of holy books and religious doctrine.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:14am

Argument from Free Willingness

An omniscient god with free will is logically inconsistent because, by its very ontology, it would be bound to follow the future of which it already aware (definition of “omniscience”), therefore invalidating its own free will. An omniscient god that possesses free will supposedly has a full understanding of the eternity future. As such, humanity would be fated to conform to its comprehension of the future and would not possess the free will to digress from it. Thus, the free will of humanity would contradict the omniscience of a supernatural force.

One method of attempting to wriggle out of this is to state that a creator god simply exists “outside of time.” But as an ostensible property of its very existence, it resides in a sequence of events that are obligated to occur within a temporal framework and thus influences and mediates occurrence. By consequence, occurrences are events of which causation is inextricably linked, which obligates the inclusion of time. For a more organized and rigorous reasoning, I’ll defer to a proof provided courtesy of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. <a href=“2”>Supposition of infallible foreknowledge</a> If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. <a href=“3”>Principle of the Necessity of the Past</a> It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. <a href=“4”>1, 2</a> Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. <a href=“5”>Definition of “infallibility”</a> If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. <a href=“6”>Transfer of Necessity Principle</a> So it is now-necessary that T. <a href=“7”>3,4,5</a> If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. <a href=“8”>Definition of “necessary”</a> Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. <a href=“9”>6, 7</a> If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. <a href=“10”>Principle of Alternate Possibilities</a> Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

[Foreknowledge</a> and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](<a href=“http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/]Foreknowledge”>Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:17am

”God exists outside of logic”

If one advances this fatuous excuse, then there are absolutely no limits as to what one can possibly separate from. If human logic is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of “God” is inherently futile. It is human logic, psychology, and subjective judgment that humanity (or, more specifically, theists) conceives the concept of ethereal deities in the first place. Secondly, “beyond logic” or “free from logical constraints” (or any other phrasing variant) is nothing more than an admission that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible. Thirdly, to say that “God” could create a round square or a cubical sphere, for instance, is to say that its abilities are those that cannot logically exist, placing it into the realm of nothing more than delusional fantasy, equivalent in fabricated ontology to many of our former childhood friends (Santa Clause, fairies, the Easter bunny, and so on).

Logic, at its very basis, is reasoning conducted or assessed according to rigorous principles of proof and inference and describes relationships among propositions in terms of consequence, contradiction, contrariety, conversion, and so forth. In essence, it represents a specific system or codification of the principles of validity and deduction. Any contravention or departure from logical grounds inherently denotes an untruth. That said, appealing to the unknown to substantiate the known is one of the most basic logical fallacies that exists. In addition, it is certainly a factual trend that scientific truth and impartially obtained evidence have invariably encroached upon beliefs in the pseudoscientific, religious, godly, superstitious, and delusions of all kinds and necessitates supernatural dissolution.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:20am

Argument from Parsimony

We can also explain much of religious phenomena purely in terms of its natural formation and through the psychology of the worship of divine beings, peculiar animisms, and other phantasmagorical conceptions. I have mentioned much on this previously so I shouldn’t burden myself with an overabundance of reiteration.

But it is worth noting that similar to other organs and features within the human body, cognition has a functional structure that possesses a genetic basis and thereby evolved through natural selection. Therefore, understanding the evolutionary roots of religious belief and superstitious ritual, along with its cognitive acquisition and cultural transmission, is a genuine scientific undertaking, by exploring the underlying survival and reproductive purposes that they may have presented. Although the scientific study of religious conviction is a relatively novel speciality within the realm of cognitive psychology, there is much evidence to buttress the argument that spiritual cognition represents a byproduct of an assorted number of evolutionary adaptations. Religion had survival value in more primitive times by associating culture to the dictates of a common system of worship, on a basis of which is often egocentrically oriented. A mutually shared sense of values, rituals, mores, ideologies, and obeisance to objects or supernatural apparitions ascribed a supreme importance facilitates a sense of social uniformity, intellectual appeasement, and political stability. While intellectually we are at a point in which social dynamics is largely orchestrated through secularized paradigms, we haven’t outgrown the emotional satisfaction that spiritual conceptions of reality provide or the neurosis associated with the fear of the unknown. This extends to the point in which folklore, mythology, and superstition are exceedingly attractive than logic, reasoning, and evidenced assertion. Purposeful contraventions of inborn expectations regarding how the world is constructed and its presupposed significance make religious cognitions strikingly indelible and emotionally persuasive.

Humans evolved as social animals, with an inherent apprehension of hierarchical dominion in the form of the alpha male. Once we evolved the capacity to think abstractly, we did what abstract thinkers do, and fashioned quixotic paradigms from commonsense intuition. The ideation of the “supreme alpha male” is one who possesses an inviolable extent of authority and jurisdiction, illimitable powers of prerogative, boundless faculties of omniscience, and dispenses all rewards and punishments. Many cultures have experienced their own conceptually disguised version of the same spin-off in the historical dominance of patriarchally slanted monarchies. It’s not exactly a difficult process to precisely imagine where the concept of “God” originates. It’s not “out there” or, if one attempts to wax excessively vague and pseudo-philosophical, “beyond our reality” (that is, not independent from the human mind), but a byproduct of its evolved structure and physiology, and it has very very earthly origins indeed.

Two main research efforts involve analyzing the influence of social exposure on religious zealotry and spiritual conformity and its physico- and electrochemical basis. Regarding the former pursuit, religious individuals acquire reverent conviction and doctrinal taste through social contact. For instance, the child of a Shaivist Hindu will not become a Muslim or Roman Catholic without the relevant social exposure. While this is not to say that simple immersion directly engenders a specific theological stance, one will not simply contrive a pre-existing religion on a seemingly arbitrary pulse devoid of any conscious influence. Cognitive science can benefit the genuine understanding of the underlying psychology that account for these manifest correlations in order to better understand the rudiments and psychogenic nature of religious conviction and its associated rituals.

Neuroscientists have conducted numerous studies concerning personal religiosity and the coinciding neural and chemical responses in the brain. As for a case of a generalized phenomenon, people with temporal lobe epilepsy are often perpetually engaged in a strange hyper-religiosity. The temporal lobe, specifically, is very well-documented as the seat of transient, sensuous experiences (see pp. 62-64 of the link below). Relatedly, a series of experiments have shown that electrically stimulating particular structures of the brain induce religious or mystical experiences relating to the culture of the individual. Additionally, much of the neurological phenomena associated with spiritual thought encompass some degree of excessive initiation of the limbic system, the part of the brain influencing emotion, which produces intensified religious experiences. As such, Alzheimer’s Disease consorts with a degradation of the structures comprising the limbic system. Those blighted with the condition are inclined to lose the physical facility for religious conviction, even for those who previously found it to be an enduring attraction. What exactly does this say for the nature of religious conviction?

[The</a> Psychology of Religion: An … - Google Books](<a href=“The Psychology of Religion, Fourth Edition: An Empirical Approach - Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Peter C. Hill, Bernard Spilka - Google Books”>The Psychology of Religion, Fourth Edition: An Empirical Approach - Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Peter C. Hill, Bernard Spilka - Google Books)

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:21am

Furthermore, I believe that it is worth articulating precisely why theists choose to believe in the notion of supernatural divinities. I think one will find much overlap between belief in celestial beings and belief in other pseudo-scientific, superstitious, non-evidenced metaphysical persuasions, and other ill-founded unshakable certitudes.

Perhaps the most obvious, and the least in need of any extent of elaboration, is religious indoctrination. It isn’t mere coincidence that most individuals are inclined to remain implacably calcified in whatever religion is dominant in their community or family unit. If people were genuinely receptive to the arguments enunciated by religious apologists, the religious distribution would be a bit more homogeneous and not so starkly segregated on the basis of political lines in other words, on the basis of where one resides in the world. For instance, if one spends his or her childhood in Syria, he or she would almost certainly grow up a Muslim (in fact, Islamic apostasy in Syria is largely a capital offense, but that’s a different story). If one grew up in India, he or she would, for all intents and purposes, grow up a Hindu. If one was brought up in Norway in the age of the vikings, that individual would, in all likelihood, believe in Thor and Heimdallr. All cultures have concocted religious beliefs that self-righteously proclaim to worship the correct deities and many promote the idea that others who adhere to the bunk religions and false deities will meet an unpleasant fate.

The concentration of religious affiliation within a particular geographical sector, upbringing within a particular ethnicity, or simple subjection to the prevailing attitude of a cultural subdivision, which suggests that people believe their religion simply because that happened to be the one in which they were indoctrinated, which is, in turn, unflaggingly reinforced around them. It is ordinarily a universal phenomenon that believers acquire a religion before their critical thinking skills are at a point where they properly develop a sense of objectivity, logical facility, and distinctions between truth on the basis of primitive emotional gratification and truth on the basis of objective evidence, analytical rigor, and methodical deduction. If exposure to beliefs devoid of any fidelity to the necessity of evidence or well-founded deduction were reserved for an age of greater maturity, I can resolutely assure that indiscriminate supernatural conviction wouldn’t be quite as pervasive.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:22am

Moreover, religion is indisputably a point of interest to families and communities, essentially generating a coercive persuasion to conform to religious expectations. Those who prefer to withdraw from these faith-driven expectations are not simply altering a particular aspect of their lives, but may in fact be perceived as deserting one of the most important bonds which maintain communal or familial relations. Even if such is never explicitly communicated, people (particularly young children) readily ascertain that certain ideas, convictions, idealisms, and social practices should be indiscriminately trusted and immune from criticism. There are no equivocations, no options, and no doubts permitted. And unfortunately, religious belief is almost always integrated into the cognitive framework of young children emphatically as unassailable fact before their critical thinking skills are fully functioning and, as a result, they fall into a passive gullibility because they have no basis on which to rationally discriminate. And by developing with others who hold the same convictions, these beliefs are ineradicably embraced with a childlike naivete, and otherwise cognitively normal people search for ways to defend these intensely inculcated emotions irrespective of clear, analytical thought. Similar to other mental phenomena, early exposure has the most profound influence on developing brains and religious conviction, in particular, is eventually imprinted and embedded behind emotional barricades that meticulous logic and careful reasoning cannot possibly encroach upon.

That said, children often feel internally conflicted or fraught with impressions of personal misconduct if they experience the slightest twinge of suspicion regarding the faith shared by the family or surrounding community. In fact, many children grow up with the impression that if they do not faultlessly submit to the religious persuasion shared within the household or collective community and do not impeccably govern themselves in accordance with its dictates, there is something legitimately wrong with them and that they are a threat to the social order or a second-class citizen. And it’s unfortunate that many people have this idea inculcated within their minds as young children, which is subsequently propagated through the generations. In more primitive eras, religion certainly conferred a survival advantage; today, the attitude that it is fair-minded to willfully disown a family member over a particular political religious stance (or lack of) fosters an inevitable privation in one’s sense of intellectual independence. I think it’s quite sad that many are deluded into certain misconceptions, experience an overall loss in personal or cognitive freedom, and are taught to prioritize an unquestioning reverence for tradition, authority, revelation, or faith rather than a critical, inherently skeptical, and evidential approach to reality. That is not beneficial for anyone’s mental, moral, or intellectual development.

The capacity of peer and familial pressure in preserving, at the very least, a veneer of religiosity or doctrinal conformity for many individuals cannot be validly disputed.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:23am

I am a proponent of teaching comparative religion, which is inherently a study of a realm of thought without any particular bias towards a specific faith-based system. Unfortunately, this is diametrically opposed to the method in which children are universally reared in religious dogma. They almost always experience immersion in a particular faith that of the family and consequently adhere to that religion not because they undertake the practice of objective assessment and determine it as a uniformly valid network of objectively derived assertions, but simply because they happened to have been brought up in it and/or find it emotionally or instinctively pleasing.

I am also of the opinion that it is important to teach historically significant yet largely extinct religions, such as those of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Nordic peoples. These, in a way vastly similar to the Abrahamic scriptures, are of highly fundamental stature for the most complete understanding of English and comparative literature and historical studies. The Old and New Testaments should be taught, in addition to the scriptures that stand as sacred documents constituting the collective literature of other faiths, but in a very unequivocal and unambiguous fashion not as reality. Religious scriptures, by their very origins, are anything but reality and nucleated around fiction, myth, and poetry and, to varying degrees, are not reliable guides governing precise occurrence-based historical documentation aside from perhaps the collective occupations, resentments, values, idealisms, and iconography of a specific culture.

mifune · August 29, 2010, 3:25am

Moreover, religions, particularly those that have been historically successful, have the tendency to propagate the notion that the individuals who do not believe in their god are inherently contemptible, immoral, and a genuine threat to the social order. When such scatterbrained lies are perpetually immortalized and are taken as credible on the irrational influence of social consensus, then typically it is rare that one would possibly consider abandoning a theistic religion. Very few individuals have the audacity to breach social solidarity, even when it is transparently flawed or downright wrong. Who wants to withstand the impression that they are immoral or simply regarded by society as devoid of redeeming moral virtue? This is very much what atheists face in many parts of the world, especially in America, where, at this point in time, it is virtually inconceivable to receive election to public political office as an open atheist or agnostic. Of the 517 members of Congress, not one of them admits to being irreligious. In such well-educated segment of the population, it is too overwhelmingly statistically improbable for that to be true and I find it to be a profound indication of social malignancy that one must prevaricate or explicitly lie about their irreligiosity in order to hold favor with an electorate that is innately very discriminatory of political figures on matters concerning race, sex, religious stance, and sexual orientation. I think that’s a tragedy and something that requires a bit of consciousness raising. It’s difficult not to see the invariable proselytizing into anti-atheist bigotry as a profound basis governing individual religiosity. Children of religious families learn within their household and in public schools that America is a nation of and for people who believe in God (“In God We Trust”) and this message is pervasively fortified throughout their lives by politicians, religious clergy, and social leaders of all varieties.

There are a variety of other ways in which people affirm allegiance to faith on the basis of what they wish were true rather than what they can actually support through objective evidence, logic, and rationality. Most discernible is the wish that physical death isn’t the end of life and that one’s time on Earth is merely a preparation for the eternal life that will follow. In terms of sheer ingenuity, there isn’t a better business scam out there. Many religious theists attempt to proselytize freethinkers into believing in their god as an emotional solicitation of the faith-driven notions regarding the cessation of existence for the unevangelized – eternal damnation or simply ceasing to exist. This arguably reveals noteworthy about the believers themselves – they, too, fear eternal punishment as the cessation of existence not because it is in any way substantiated by logic or systematic reasoning, but rather through wishful thinking. People don’t want to believe that physical death is the termination of all perception, emotions, and thoughts so remain credulous to the idea that somehow their mind will continue to exist without any corporeal bearing in the perpetuity of sustained bliss, or, in a twist off of the same concept, reincarnated in a separate form on the basis of one’s earthly conduct. By propagating the myth that one’s tangible existence is merely a gateway to the supernatural evokes enough emotion and fear for many to surrender to a particular faith, given that doubt or statistical uncertainty is not comforting to human brain. Historically, many religion’s have used the concept as part of the wishful thought that there exists a place of eternal punishment in reserve for those who have the audacity to deny them political and cultural dominion and that there is a god that happens to be good to them but apathetic or spiteful towards towards those with conflicting ideological leanings and physical discrepancies.

Science-Religion. Which wins?

CONNECT WITH US