The function of religion ?

[dancupid]

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage...  for religion.   Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:

Parasitism does exist.  And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.


You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years.  Does that make it a good thing?

I'm not sure evolution cares about good or bad (you think cookoos are bad?)- a human judgement that parasites are bad is irrelevant (unless it gives you an evolutionary advantage).
Morality and good and evil etc are myths just like religion.
We're all parasites (look at what you had for dinner today)

[yrtrnc]

Your proof is just as good as mine...

If your point was that wild, unsubstantiated claims, such as those proposed by religion, should be irrelevant, i.e. should not be taken as truth, or given any value, and should be outright rejected when confronted with contradictory proof, then yes?
My point was that my opinion is relevant and yours is not because I have proof to substantiate my opinion, and you don't. I'm not even sure what exactly you are arguing.

And thats my point, your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine because you cannot prove your point just as much as I cannot prove mine.

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

My answer is:
Then this game's existence would be irrelevant. Reality would be whatever we sensed and detected in this game, and the game itself would be reality. If you claimed you know that this is all a game to trick us, and the reality was different, then we'll have two options.
One would be that you show proof that there is a game, in which case we would adjust our understanding of reality to include this game.
 The other would be that you have no proof and there is no way to test for your claim of there being a game, in which case your claim will be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense, just as claims by people who "know" that big foot, fairies, and unicorns exist, until such time that you provide proof, and we go to option one.
In short, your "knowledge" of a game, and it's basis in reality is totally irrelevant without proof.

[Rassah]

Your proof is just as good as mine..

If I put down two sticks on the ground, then next to them put down two more sticks, and that way prove to you that 2+2=4, which you can see, feel, and if you listen to the clacks of the sticks as they hit the ground, hear, that is my "good" proof that 2+2=4. If you claim that it's not 4, you better have a damn good proof, and saying "it is in my opinion that 2+2 does not make 4" is not as good a proof as mine. Continuing to claim so will make you seem deluded, and will make your statements irrelevant. Facts don't care about your opinions.

[foggyb]

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage...  for religion.   Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:

Parasitism does exist.  And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.


You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years.  Does that make it a good thing?

I'm not sure evolution cares about good or bad (you think cookoos are bad?)- a human judgement that parasites are bad is irrelevant (unless it gives you an evolutionary advantage).
Morality and good and evil etc are myths just like religion.
We're all parasites (look at what you had for dinner today)

How can anyone that believes themselves to be enlightened, possibly think that a non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness can implant or shape abstract ideas (or manipulate their processing) in a mind?

[dancupid]

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage...  for religion.   Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:

Parasitism does exist.  And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.


You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years.  Does that make it a good thing?

I'm not sure evolution cares about good or bad (you think cookoos are bad?)- a human judgement that parasites are bad is irrelevant (unless it gives you an evolutionary advantage).
Morality and good and evil etc are myths just like religion.
We're all parasites (look at what you had for dinner today)

How can anyone that believes themselves to be enlightened, possibly think that a non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness can implant or shape abstract ideas (or manipulate their processing) in a mind?

The scientific evidence?

[yrtrnc]

You may be right 99% of the time, that still does not make your proof any better than anyone else's..

Your proof is just as good as mine..

If I put down two sticks on the ground, then next to them put down two more sticks, and that way prove to you that 2+2=4, which you can see, feel, and if you listen to the clacks of the sticks as they hit the ground, hear, that is my "good" proof that 2+2=4. If you claim that it's not 4, you better have a damn good proof, and saying "it is in my opinion that 2+2 does not make 4" is not as good a proof as mine. Continuing to claim so will make you seem deluded, and will make your statements irrelevant. Facts don't care about your opinions.

[foggyb]

How can anyone that believes themselves to be enlightened, possibly think that a non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness can implant or shape abstract ideas (or manipulate their processing) in a mind?

The scientific evidence?

That's funny. I was taught that science is used to explain the physical universe. Information and abstract ideas exist in the absence of any physical matter.

[RodeoX]

I think religion does a lot for peoples mental health and to create social order. It doesn't matter that there is no actual God.

[foggyb]

I think religion does a lot for peoples mental health and to create social order. It doesn't matter that there is no actual God.

You're right. Religion doesn't require a God. Atheism, for example. Everyone believes in something. Call it their religion if you like. The person that believes in nothing at all, is mentally ill.

[Rassah]

You are right ONLY if you have your own personal definition of proof that is not generally accepted by the rest of society, or if you are insane.

You may be right 99% of the time, that still does not make your proof any better than anyone else's..

Your proof is just as good as mine..

If I put down two sticks on the ground, then next to them put down two more sticks, and that way prove to you that 2+2=4, which you can see, feel, and if you listen to the clacks of the sticks as they hit the ground, hear, that is my "good" proof that 2+2=4. If you claim that it's not 4, you better have a damn good proof, and saying "it is in my opinion that 2+2 does not make 4" is not as good a proof as mine. Continuing to claim so will make you seem deluded, and will make your statements irrelevant. Facts don't care about your opinions.

[Rassah]

How can anyone that believes themselves to be enlightened, possibly think that a non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness can implant or shape abstract ideas (or manipulate their processing) in a mind?

The scientific evidence?

That's funny. I was taught that science is used to explain the physical universe. Information and abstract ideas exist in the absence of any physical matter.

Who is to say that our minds and thought processes are not chaotic? If anything, the fact that our minds and thoughts are so random, chaotic, unpredictable, and most importantly unreliable, is proof that they are a product of a "non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness."
No information exists in a sense of physical matter. Books are composed of paper and ink, computer files are composed of steel and electrons, and your memories are composed of carbon-based cells that form neural networks. "Abstract ideas" are just electrical impulses, racing through your complex neural network, that decide to take a detour and try to explore a different neural pathway. There is nothing special about redirecting electrons to go down a different path, no matter how much your ego wishes there was.
Also, atheism isn't a religion or a belief. The "a" in atheism specifically means "lack of." I am an atheist not because I "believe" there is no god, but because I "don't believe" others when they tell me there is a god. I don't have a belief, I just don't find other's beliefs convincing.

[foggyb]

Who is to say that our minds and thought processes are not chaotic? If anything, the fact that our minds and thoughts are so random, chaotic, unpredictable, and most importantly unreliable, is proof that they are a product of a "non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness."
No information exists in a sense of physical matter. Books are composed of paper and ink, computer files are composed of steel and electrons, and your memories are composed of carbon-based cells that form neural networks. "Abstract ideas" are just electrical impulses, racing through your complex neural network, that decide to take a detour and try to explore a different neural pathway. There is nothing special about redirecting electrons to go down a different path, no matter how much your ego wishes there was.
Also, atheism isn't a religion or a belief. The "a" in atheism specifically means "lack of." I am an atheist not because I "believe" there is no god, but because I "don't believe" others when they tell me there is a god. I don't have a belief, I just don't find other's beliefs convincing.

Information does exist apart from any human mind. A contradiction is an abstract idea. For example: I can say, "my car is in the parking lot, and my car is not in the parking lot." That would be a contradiction that cannot happen apart from the laws of logic being a reality.

Your brain does not need to be processing an abstract thought, in order for information to exist. If this was the case, if you were the only living mind, every time you went to sleep, the universe would implode.  

The universe, and our minds, are not chaotic. They are structured, ordered. There is no such thing as chaos in this universe, chaos being the absence of information.

Besides, if what you say is true about the human mind, then how can you argue anything at all? Just give up, its pure chaos in our heads.  

[yrtrnc]

Even if everyone in the world agreed with you it still makes you just as right as I am, no more. You may call me insane or any other word you can conjure up, and I will still have my own opinion. For me what is important is, that I respect yours and wish you well.

You are right ONLY if you have your own personal definition of proof that is not generally accepted by the rest of society, or if you are insane.

You may be right 99% of the time, that still does not make your proof any better than anyone else's..

Your proof is just as good as mine..

If I put down two sticks on the ground, then next to them put down two more sticks, and that way prove to you that 2+2=4, which you can see, feel, and if you listen to the clacks of the sticks as they hit the ground, hear, that is my "good" proof that 2+2=4. If you claim that it's not 4, you better have a damn good proof, and saying "it is in my opinion that 2+2 does not make 4" is not as good a proof as mine. Continuing to claim so will make you seem deluded, and will make your statements irrelevant. Facts don't care about your opinions.

[grondilu]

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage...  for religion.   Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:

Parasitism does exist.  And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.


You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years.  Does that make it a good thing?

I'm not sure evolution cares about good or bad (you think cookoos are bad?)- a human judgement that parasites are bad is irrelevant (unless it gives you an evolutionary advantage).
Morality and good and evil etc are myths just like religion.
We're all parasites (look at what you had for dinner today)

There were two parts in my post.  The first one was to show you that the fact that religion exists does not mean that it gives an evolutionary advantage to humans.  It does not anymore than the common cold or diabetes does.

The second one was to alarm you of your reasoning that consists in saying "it has existed for thousands of years, so it must be good".

These were two separate arguments.  Please don't mix them.

[Rassah]

Even if everyone in the world agreed with you it still makes you just as right as I am, no more. You may call me insane or any other word you can conjure up, and I will still have my own opinion.

OK, then tell me why? Why does one of my opinions, based on evidence, and corroborated by everyone else in the world, is just as right as your differing opinion, even if it was not based on evidence and only you believed it?

[Rassah]

The universe, and our minds, are not chaotic. They are structured, ordered. There is no such thing as chaos in this universe, chaos being the absence of information.

Besides, if what you say is true about the human mind, then how can you argue anything at all? Just give up, its pure chaos in our heads.  

Information is only information if there is something to understand it, record it, and recognize it. Using that understanding, the universe is quite chaotic.
Admittedly, though, order and chaos are human concepts. What we see as ordered, such and boxes stacked alphabetically, may seem chaotic to someone with a different language alphabet. Likewise, boxes being placed chaotically all over a warehouse without any seeming order, look perfectly structured to a robot that remembers the location of each box in its database, and placed then based on how much time it would waste placing and retrieving them. So, in that sense, all we can really say is whether the information is stored efficiently based on the time it takes to recall it, and the quality of recalled information. Compared to written words, recorded videos, or data stored on computers, our memory storage is EXTREMELY inefficient.
Though that physical method of memory storage and recall is I guess what gives us a chance to be unique, defining us as who we are with every new neural link and every new neural break. And all we are really doing is trying to use our inefficient brains to make structure and sense out of a chaotic world. Why? Because evolution said that's the best method of survival.

[yrtrnc]

In our small little minds and barely significant existence you being 99% right may mean something to you and everyone else in the world but it does not even mean a grain of dust in all the deserts of the world. It is insignificant to the Universe. And no matter how clever we think we are the Universe will find a way to prove us otherwise. The only word that comes close, if there were such a word to describe this, is the word mystery.

Even if everyone in the world agreed with you it still makes you just as right as I am, no more. You may call me insane or any other word you can conjure up, and I will still have my own opinion.

OK, then tell me why? Why does one of my opinions, based on evidence, and corroborated by everyone else in the world, is just as right as your differing opinion, even if it was not based on evidence and only you believed it?

[foggyb]

The universe, and our minds, are not chaotic. They are structured, ordered. There is no such thing as chaos in this universe, chaos being the absence of information.

Besides, if what you say is true about the human mind, then how can you argue anything at all? Just give up, its pure chaos in our heads.  

Information is only information if there is something to understand it, record it, and recognize it.

That sentence is correct! That 'something' is a supreme creator God.

Information cannot exist without being created first.

Since obviously information existed before any physical mind (otherwise we could have actual logical contradictions), the only rational conclusion that can be reached, is that there is an omnipresent, all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Other theories can be formulated, but none of them are rational if they don't make an exception for a supreme being.

[grondilu]

The universe, and our minds, are not chaotic. They are structured, ordered. There is no such thing as chaos in this universe, chaos being the absence of information.

Besides, if what you say is true about the human mind, then how can you argue anything at all? Just give up, its pure chaos in our heads.  

Information is only information if there is something to understand it, record it, and recognize it.

That sentence is correct! That 'something' is a supreme creator God.

Information cannot exist without being created first.

Since obviously information existed before any physical mind (otherwise we could have actual logical contradictions), the only rational conclusion that can be reached, is that there is an omnipresent, all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Other theories can be formulated, but none of them are rational if they don't make an exception for a supreme being.

Information does not need a conscious mind to exist, though I understand this is a tricky philosophical question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

[yrtrnc]

I once had a dream, a dream where us humans were in outer space building a mind. A mind that contained all knowledge and all possibilities. We were building an omnipotent being, a god. Maybe we never came from god, we came to build god. We may just as well succeed . Succeed in making our own god.