Religious and educated?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

No not really, just been reading about when a baby actually starts to think, seems the jury is out, lots of theories, nothing conclusive.

And I really will have to revisit my theory that atheists have no sense of humour, maybe Connolly, Izzard and Pratchett are exceptions to the rule.

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

And I really will have to revisit my theory that atheists have no sense of humour, maybe Connolly, Izzard and Pratchett are exceptions to the rule.

Gonnagle.

I don't believe for one moment that you ever entertained such a daft "theory".

[Outrider]

But moral philosophy still has to be supported by external agencies.  I, as an individual, can't decide what is OK and what is not in isolation.  The supporting structure becomes the social ethos of the day, which is ok for today, but with that ethos changing very rapidly, where does it put any of us tomorrow or in a year's time or whatever?  Isn't a moral philosophy meant to guide society, not be led by it?

No, moral philosophy doesn't have to be led by outside agencies (presuming you mean outside of us individually), but it often is, otherwise we would have had no developments in moral philosophy in human history. We are each capable of deciding for ourselves which principles and precepts we consider to be important and structuring our own moral philosophy around those - they will, undoubtedly, be influenced by our societal upbringing, but not wholly limited to it.

O.

[Outrider]

Again, to note, atheism and agnosticism are not differing positions on the same axis, they are perfectly compatible with each other, and are positions on two fundamentally different questions.

You mean like religion and science aren't "differing positions on the same axis, they are perfectly compatible with each other, and are positions on two fundamentally different questions."

Religion and science aren't both answers to questions - religion can be considered a development of 'why are we here' (ignoring, for the moment, the question-begging inherent in that), whereas science is a methodology.

Naturalism, the precept upon which the methodology of science is founded, is inherently antithetical to religion, because it presupposes an absence of agencies not bound by cause and effect.

So no, because agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions and can co-exist quite happily is not to say that religion and science are necessarily compatible.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Leonard,

No not really, just been reading about when a baby actually starts to think, seems the jury is out, lots of theories, nothing conclusive.

And I really will have to revisit my theory that atheists have no sense of humour, maybe Connolly, Izzard and Pratchett are exceptions to the rule.

Gonnagle.

Apparently Eddie Izzard was about to make an appearance but couldn't go on stage because he ''felt a little funny''. His manager told him to get on stage quickly before it wore off..........

[Outrider]

Is it? Search me. This sounds incoherent anyway. If a moral philosophy is being led and not doing the guiding, it's being led by a different moral philosophy.

Precisely; so what moral philosophy is the 'right' one?  By your argument, there is no reason why we, in the west, should be worrying about the moral philosophy of ISIS, or the people smugglers around the world.

So because we don't believe in your god all our moral philosophies are of equal merit? As applications of the 'you can't be good without a god' argument go that's particularly small-minded, specious claptrap.

If you are only moral because you are blindly following the instructions of your holy book, you aren't good at all, you're just a slave to someone else's morality.

O.

[Outrider]

Dear Leonard,

We emerge into thoughts of God/gods, maybe Outrider is right, we are born atheist.

Gonnagle.

Did he say that? I don't think we are born either theist or atheist. At birth we have no knowledge of either.

I think I did say that - at least I hope I said that It's the so called 'weak' agnostic atheism, merely the absence of belief rather than the (untenable) gnostic atheism of 'there is no god'.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Absence of belief!

We have been worshipping gods since Paleolithic times, I don't think we ever have had a absence of belief, its in the genes.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Naturalism, the precept upon which the methodology of science is founded, is inherently antithetical to religion, because it presupposes an absence of agencies not bound by cause and effect.

Naturalism is partly the false extrapolation of material methodology and an arbitrary decision to put one's faith in an absence of agencies not bound by cause and effect.

[Leonard James]

Dear Outrider,

Absence of belief!

We have been worshipping gods since Paleolithic times, I don't think we ever have had a absence of belief, its in the genes.

Gonnagle.

Speak for yourself! 

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

Absence of belief!

We have been worshipping gods since Paleolithic times, I don't think we ever have had a absence of belief, its in the genes.

Gonnagle.

We have worshipped many things - nature, the sun, disembodied conceptual personalities... We have attempted to pacify that which we could not control or which we did not understand, and ritual behaviour has been part of that. That's culture, but we are not born with a particular culture, we are shaped into it.

The tendency to see agency where there is none, it seems, does have an inherent basis - that tendency to recognise patterns is part of why we develop conceptual thinking and language, but as with any 'test' there is the possibility of false positives.

We are also social creatures, and so ideas are communicated, shared and multiplied not necessarily in proportion to the evidence, but in proportion to the cultural appropriateness: religion was appropriate in primitive societies, and becomes increasingly less so as we increasingly have evidence to support better explanations.

That we have a tendency to believe makes us human, it doesn't make gods true.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Naturalism, the precept upon which the methodology of science is founded, is inherently antithetical to religion, because it presupposes an absence of agencies not bound by cause and effect.

Oh dear another numpty confusion of material methodology and philosophical naturalism.

[Outrider]

Naturalism, the precept upon which the methodology of science is founded, is inherently antithetical to religion, because it presupposes an absence of agencies not bound by cause and effect.

Oh dear another numpty confusion of material methodology and philosophical naturalism.

If it confuses you, dear, you'd probably best stop talking about it. Of course, that wouldn't leave you with very much... oh, win-win.

O.

[ippy]

Dear Outrider,

Absence of belief!

We have been worshipping gods since Paleolithic times, I don't think we ever have had a absence of belief, its in the genes.

Gonnagle.

Gonners it comes from ignorance; "I don't understand therefore things like why the wind blows etc, so it must be another one of those godidit moments", primitive thinking that was the rout to the religions, it's as simple as that, all man made, or perhaps I should say person made.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Good post, one which I don't think I have any argument, but ( always a but ) I am not arguing are gods true, just the belief we have had for millions of years.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Naturalism, the precept upon which the methodology of science is founded, is inherently antithetical to religion, because it presupposes an absence of agencies not bound by cause and effect.

Oh dear another numpty confusion of material methodology and philosophical naturalism.

If it confuses you, dear, you'd probably best stop talking about it. Of course, that wouldn't leave you with very much... oh, win-win.

O.

I'm not the one confusing methodological naturalism(whether there is such a thing) or perhaps more properly methodological materialism with philosophical naturalism.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Godidit, why!

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Godidit, why!

Gonnagle.

Because the early primitive people thought anything they didn't understand, had been imposed on them from outside sources and it was their ignorance that made them think up ideas like, now you guess what ideas they may have thought up to explain things Gonners? It shouldn't be difficult for you.

I suppose it's the old story, if you don't want to believe something you wont.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear ippy,

Godidit, why!

Gonnagle.

Because the early primitive people thought anything they didn't understand, had been imposed on them from outside sources and it was their ignorance that made them think up ideas like, now you guess what ideas they may have thought up to explain things Gonners? It shouldn't be difficult for you.

I suppose it's the old story, if you don't want to believe something you wont.

ippy

I'm not getting Plato, Buddha, Moses in any of that Ippy.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Before we start with the great thinkers, I would like ippy to explain where the godidit idea came from.

We have evidence that Paleolithic man worshipped gods, so the idea of gods has been around for well over two million years.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

Because the early primitive people thought anything they didn't understand, had been imposed on them from outside sources and it was their ignorance that made them think up ideas like, now you guess what ideas they may have thought up to explain things Gonners? It shouldn't be difficult for you.

OK, ippy I'll take the bait: science, laws of nature, spontaneous healing, ...   

I suppose it's the old story, if you don't want to believe something you wont.

Save for the spelling mistake, I could say exactly the same about you.  Every critical point you make about theists applies equally to atheists.  You have no certainty that what you believe or disbelieve is true.  Our beliefs are shaped by our experiences, as well as vice vera.

[Jack Knave]

Common sense would suggest that less educated people are more gullible in practically all areas where they are uneducated ...

Having lived and worked among so-called 'uneducated' people in India and Nepal, I was surprised by the fact that, on the whole, the most gullible of the people I had dealings with were the educated westerners (including myself).  The common sense factor seems to get educated out of us, leaving us reliant on technology, complicated and expensive reports, etc.

I would say that we are talking about areas that people feel a need in their lives. I would guess they were 'wise' because their basic needs wouldn't be satisfied by some 'plastic' western trinket. When someone has convinced themselves, or been convinced, that they have this need then how they tackle it will depend on their knowledge of the content of that need and its implications in their lives. For example a lot of third world rural people find it hard to understand the need for politics etc. as their lives styles have worked to date without it.

This is true of the EU. It is a contrived illusion that we really don't need.

[ippy]

Dear Vlad,

Before we start with the great thinkers, I would like ippy to explain where the godidit idea came from.

We have evidence that Paleolithic man worshipped gods, so the idea of gods has been around for well over two million years.

Gonnagle.

Like I said if you don't want to get it you wont, but I'll give it one more go.

Early man was ignorant about all sorts of things, so for anything they didn't understand, "I cant understand the why of all sorts of natural phenomena", the man looks up and ding ding, "I know because I can't explain things  it must be some sort of outside force that is doing and controlling things, what'll we call it", ding ding, "yes that's it we'll call it a god".

That's the most likely the way the man made idea of this is where god idea came from, it's obvious to me, I don't know why there is any reason to think otherwise, especially when you accompany the total lack of evidence that would support the idea of or for anything like this he, she or it idea of something called a god.

Not what you want to hear? I suppose there'll be no surprises there.

ippy 

[ippy]

Common sense would suggest that less educated people are more gullible in practically all areas where they are uneducated ...

Having lived and worked among so-called 'uneducated' people in India and Nepal, I was surprised by the fact that, on the whole, the most gullible of the people I had dealings with were the educated westerners (including myself).  The common sense factor seems to get educated out of us, leaving us reliant on technology, complicated and expensive reports, etc.

I would say that we are talking about areas that people feel a need in their lives. I would guess they were 'wise' because their basic needs wouldn't be satisfied by some 'plastic' western trinket. When someone has convinced themselves, or been convinced, that they have this need then how they tackle it will depend on their knowledge of the content of that need and its implications in their lives. For example a lot of third world rural people find it hard to understand the need for politics etc. as their lives styles have worked to date without it.

This is true of the EU. It is a contrived illusion that we really don't need.

I was driving through Spain about 1963 thereabouts and I saw women still bashing out their washing on rocks by the river I can remember then thinking I suppose we'll, (the UK), will have to stall while they catch up, it put me off of the whole idea of the EEC then.

Of course that's not all and I've seen and heard of many more reasons since that have put me off of the whole idea and now the disunity about the refugees just one more good reason why we don't need them.

I voted against the EEC that won the day; who voted for a Federal Europe?   

Do you remember Brown creeping off and going out of his way to avoid being photographed in Lisbon and he signed something there probably some of our birthrights; it was the sheepish way he did it, do you know what it was he signed away; he was obviously not that proud of himself whatever it was.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Early man was ignorant about all sorts of things, so for anything they didn't understand, "I cant understand the why of all sorts of natural phenomena", the man looks up and ding ding, "I know because I can't explain things  it must be some sort of outside force that is doing and controlling things, what'll we call it", ding ding, "yes that's it we'll call it a god".

 

That's great Ippy........If English was good enough for early man then it's good enough for me.

How did he come up with words like force and God if he couldn't see them?

So the Ippy hypothesis is that science and religion came about at the same time?