The 'I believe in one less god than you' schtick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've yet to see any of the religionists that post on this forum post any viable evidence that supports their belief they're always on about, including you Vlad.

Oh yes Vlad, why do you always always go around in ever decreasing circles just because you haven't got an answer? You remind me of the typical politician when asked about the weather answers with something like how do we find the answer to the problem of night time low flying aircraft in Guatemala keeping the residents awake?   

Yes that kind of not answering is ridiculous! 

ippy.

Ippy I'm struggling to see what your post has to do with how the first human culturally conditioned social norm belief came about.

You see the problem here is that eventually cultural societal norms have to ultimately lead back to something that cannot be described as a culturally conditioned societal norm.

[Outrider]

Yes but even if you didn't you must have come across religion for the first time. What was it that that made you conscious of your disbelief and conscious of the reasons why some people believed and you didn't ……..in short when did you discover you were somehow speshul?

I'm not special - maybe, by the time I encountered someone peddling religious myths, I'd already started to think critically for myself? I don't know, I don't remember when I first came across it, I just don't remember there being a time when I considered it a serious suggestion.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that segues quite nicely into where, then did the first societal norm cultural belief come from.

As a consequence of the evolutionary benefits of human higher conscious neurobiology and a highly developed social structure, which is evolutionarily essential for animals that take many years to develop to the point of independence.

So humans have a highly inquisitive nature (as this is evolutionarily advantageous) - hence arises the god of the gaps. Things early human societies did not understand so not unreasonably (although wrongly) ascribed to some great power, i.e. a god.

Secondly highly developed social structures require rules and customs to make them run and to perpetuate them from generation to generation. Again a 'god' which agrees with the social norms of the group is great to create. It helps keep the minions in check (these aren't our rules, they are god's rule and you know what he does when he's angry - yup you remember that earthquake last week), and also allows a sense of belonging to develop - we have the one true god on our side, that tribe over there doesn't - we are better, safer, more worthy than they are - stick with us. And the structures and societal norms are perpetuated via customs and rituals - and so begins religion.

[ippy]

Ippy I'm struggling to see what your post has to do with how the first human culturally conditioned social norm belief came about.

You see the problem here is that eventually cultural societal norms have to ultimately lead back to something that cannot be described as a culturally conditioned societal norm.

Like I said in my last post, just after that post I see you've posted
a collection of meaningless words, thanks Vlad for making my point for me.

ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the interesting element of the Santa - don't believe, believe, don't belief arc is that we only come to believe in Santa (for a while) because we are taught to do so and our cultural heritage support that learned belief. No tiny baby inherently believes in Santa and no child growing up in a culture where Santa is never a thing (not even thought of) would come to believe in Santa organically. We are dealing entirely with learned belief, driven by societal norms.

And so it is with theism too - strange how people in the UK tend to gravitate toward belief in the gods that their parents believe in and is culturally appropriate - while in India people will do the same, meaning that the christian god tends to be the most popular learned belief in the UK, while in India it it the hindu gods etc.

To go a step further - as far as I am aware no-one every comes to believe in a religion unless they have encountered that religion and/or its believers. And this is the key point - if a religion were 'true' outside the confines of its believers, then surely someone who has never encountered or learned about that religion could come to believe it - but it never happens.

If christianity (or islam or hinduism) is true then why wouldn't a remote tribe in the Amazon or Australia, who have never encountered christianity (or islam or hinduism) or its believers come to believe through direct divine revelation. But they never do - these people only start to become christians (or muslims or hindus) once they have been taught about it and what it means by other people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To go a step further - as far as I am aware no-one every comes to believe in a religion unless they have encountered that religion and/or its believers. And this is the key point - if a religion were 'true' outside the confines of its believers, then surely someone who has never encountered or learned about that religion could come to believe it - but it never happens.

If christianity (or islam or hinduism) is true then why wouldn't a remote tribe in the Amazon or Australia, who have never encountered christianity (or islam or hinduism) or its believers come to believe through direct divine revelation. But they never do - these people only start to become christians (or muslims or hindus) once they have been taught about it and what it means by other people.

I think this 'local religion' bit is overplayed. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism are world religions which have persisted long after any political entity which may have carried them has ceased to exist.

Also atheists hardly ever seem to extend the theory to their own cultural manifestations e.g secularism, cultural apatheism and atheistic communism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not special - maybe, by the time I encountered someone peddling religious myths, I'd already started to think critically for myself? I don't know, I don't remember when I first came across it, I just don't remember there being a time when I considered it a serious suggestion.

But you said your upbringing was in a context where it was never taken seriously.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think this 'local religion' bit is overplayed. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism are world religions which have persisted long after any political entity which may of carried them has ceased to exist.

No - you are missing the point.

Of course Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism have been carried by believers from one place to another and those believer have often attempted to convert the people they have found either through persuasion or force.

My point is that, as far as I know, no-one has ever become a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu etc without being made aware of that religion from another human source. If these religions are about divine revelation, that wouldn't need to be the case - the Christian god could make himself known to a remote tribe in the Amazon and teach them that Jesus is his son etc etc (just as the bible suggests the christian god did to many people in biblical time) - so you'd get a tribe that independently became christians (muslims, hindu etc). But it never happens.

[ProfessorDavey]

Also atheists hardly ever seem to extend the theory to their own cultural manifestations e.g secularism, cultural apatheism and atheistic communism.

I cannot speak for all of those 'isms (as some I don't even understand) but actually there is evidence that societies espousing secularism have arisen completely independently of each other - so there is clear evidence that secular societies arose in antiquity in India, China and Greece/Rome who would have no connection with each other, nor a link back to a common source. As far as I am aware there is no equivalent examples of major religions independently springing up with no connection to each other or a link to a common believer community.

I think it is also the case that communist communities have sprung up all over the place and throughout time independently.

But that isn't really the point as none of the examples you use claim divine intervention, so would either arise because they are inherently obvious, or through transmission by people. Religions that claim to be based on divine intervention should be able to arise spontaneously throughout the world and independently of any transmission by people (because of the claimed divine intervention) - yet they never so. They always arise only once with further promulgation always linked to transmission by humans.

[Outrider]

But you said your upbringing was in a context where it was never taken seriously.

Right?  I'm not sure how that makes me 'special', I'm sure there are a number of people in a similar situation.

O.

[jeremyp]

I cannot speak for all of those 'isms (as some I don't even understand)

Don't worry, neither does Vlad.

He thinks that by categorising some argument as belonging to an -ism and then ridiculing the -ism in some unrelated way, he has refuted the argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - you are missing the point.

Perhaps then you shouldn’t be suggesting cultural conditioning at the same time.

Of course Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism have been carried by believers from one place to another and those believer have often attempted to convert the people they have found either through persuasion or force.

My point is that, as far as I know, no-one has ever become a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu etc without being made aware of that religion from another human source. If these religions are about divine revelation, that wouldn't need to be the case - the Christian god could make himself known to a remote tribe in the Amazon and teach them that Jesus is his son etc etc (just as the bible suggests the christian god did to many people in biblical time) - so you'd get a tribe that independently became christians (muslims, hindu etc). But it never happens.

I think the evangelising by religions and the market place in religions is about ways of handling natural feelings, impulses, leanings and thinking. I think atheists of the evangelical variety think they are in this market place. Some recognise that actually atheism doesn’t have enough for a stall at market and so then work to discredit basically,those impulses and thoughts. By thoughts impulses and feelings I’m thinking of those beyond the empirisphere of scientism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't worry, neither does Vlad.

He thinks that by categorising some argument as belonging to an -ism and then ridiculing the -ism in some unrelated way, he has refuted the argument.

I think you are projecting your own approach of confusing ridicule with disagreement there Jeremy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the evangelising by religions and the market place in religions is about ways of handling natural feelings, impulses, leanings and thinking. I think atheists of the evangelical variety think they are in this market place. Some recognise that actually atheism doesn’t have enough for a stall at market and so then work to discredit basically,those impulses and thoughts. By thoughts impulses and feelings I’m thinking of those beyond the empirisphere of scientism.

As so often I have no idea what you mean Vlad and why this is a response to my comment.

Let me be perhaps a little clearer.

The bible (and sacred texts of other religions) is full of instances where god directly communicates a message with people on earth. So if god is capable of doing this and, using christianity as an example, why (having sent his son to earth to live, die and be resurrected) wouldn't he directly communicate this to peoples all over the earth. Why wouldn't a remote aboriginal tribe living in 1stC in what we now know as Australia receive a message directly from god about Jesus. Or a remote tribe in the Amazon. So that when western people finally made contact centuries later those tribes would have strange inscriptions of a man on a plank of wood whom they called jesse to yessu or something close to Jesus.

But is never happened for christianity nor any other religion, to my knowledge. A particular religion never springs up independently in more than one place. It is only transferred by people. If god can communicate with people (presumably all people wherever they are) why wouldn't he do it directly. Why would he leave it to random chance that people with a directly connection to that religion might stumble across a new tribe 1500 years later.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As so often I have no idea what you mean Vlad and why this is a response to my comment.

Let me be perhaps a little clearer.

The bible (and sacred texts of other religions) is full of instances where god directly communicates a message with people on earth. So if god is capable of doing this and, using christianity as an example, why (having sent his son to earth to live, die and be resurrected) wouldn't he directly communicate this to peoples all over the earth. Why wouldn't a remote aboriginal tribe living in 1stC in what we now know as Australia receive a message directly from god about Jesus. Or a remote tribe in the Amazon. So that when western people finally made contact centuries later those tribes would have strange inscriptions of a man on a plank of wood whom they called jesse to yessu or something close to Jesus.

But is never happened for christianity nor any other religion, to my knowledge. A particular religion never springs up independently in more than one place. It is only transferred by people. If god can communicate with people (presumably all people wherever they are) why wouldn't he do it directly. Why would he leave it to random chance that people with a directly connection to that religion might stumble across a new tribe 1500 years later.

Firstly are Amazonian tribes people religious or non religious?
If religious so much much for the default of atheism.
I don’t know many tribesmen who are unreached by global society but I expect nobody does or knows of there religion.

As I said missionary and evangelical activity of the religions is a bit more than just a theological debate.
In Christianity Jesus commission is to make disciples.

In terms of God convincing people extra culturally in the way you think God should do it. The closest I know is of a chap with know Spanish who was convicted by the Holy Spirit during a Spanish language sermon and became a Christian.

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly are Amazonian tribes people religious or non religious?
If religious so much much for the default of atheism.
I don’t know many tribesmen who are unreached by global society but I expect nobody does or knows of there religion.

As I said missionary and evangelical activity of the religions is a bit more than just a theological debate.
In Christianity Jesus commission is to make disciples.

In terms of God convincing people extra culturally in the way you think God should do it. The closest I know is of a chap with know Spanish who was convicted by the Holy Spirit during a Spanish language sermon and became a Christian.

Again failing to answer the question.

It matters not whether the Amazonian tribes are religious or not, the point is why would they not have received the message of christianity (or hinduism, islam etc etc) directly from god, rather than having to rely on transmission via people. In the bible god seems perfectly capable of communicating directly, so why did he fail to transmit his 'word' directly to the Amazonian people etc.

As far as I'm aware no religion has ever arisen more than once, independently in different places. If the messages contained in religions come from god (who can communicate directly) that is very, very strange. Or we can, of course, come to the most obvious conclusion - that religions (and their gods) are created by people and therefore can only be transmitted by people as there is no god to transmit the message directly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again failing to answer the question.

It matters not whether the Amazonian tribes are religious or not, the point is why would they not have received the message of christianity (or hinduism, islam etc etc) directly from god, rather than having to rely on transmission via people. In the bible god seems perfectly capable of communicating directly, so why did he fail to transmit his 'word' directly to the Amazonian people etc.

As far as I'm aware no religion has ever arisen more than once, independently in different places. If the messages contained in religions come from god (who can communicate directly) that is very, very strange. Or we can, of course, come to the most obvious conclusion - that religions (and their gods) are created by people and therefore can only be transmitted by people as there is no god to transmit the message directly.

I don’t see the relevance of what you are saying to the validity of the religions.
These are world religions adhered to for the first time by people irrespective of culture because they chime with something existential. When they get the religion it is the crystallisation of their life experience although as a Christian I would say this is more down to God himself than philosophy, doctrine or practice. It is in Christianity at least the recovery of sight seeing through the glass darkly as it were. It is a recovery rather than additional.

For you this all seems a dealbreaker

[ProfessorDavey]

I don’t see the relevance of what you are saying to the validity of the religions.
These are world religions adhered to for the first time by people irrespective of culture because they chime with something existential. When they get the religion it is the crystallisation of their life experience although as a Christian I would say this is more down to God himself than philosophy, doctrine or practice. It is in Christianity at least the recovery of sight seeing through the glass darkly as it were. It is a recovery rather than additional.

For you this all seems a dealbreaker

Weird how these 'world religions' only ever seem to be transmitted to new believers, who've never previously encounter the religion, via other people - never via god directly. It is almost as if god doesn't actually exist

Let's imagine there is life on another planet of equal intelligence etc to humans - if god is omnipresent then they are just as much his 'creation' as humans are. Why would god wait to communicate his message until humans develop to technology to communicate with those people. Why doesn't he just tell them directly. He seems to be constantly chatting to folk in the bible - why is he so reticent to chat to folk directly in other parts of the world who hadn't yet encountered judeo-christianity - why does he wait for current believers to find them to transmit his message.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Weird how these 'world religions' only ever seem to be transmitted to new believers via other people - never via god. It is almost as if god doesn't actually exist

Let's imagine there is life on another planet of equal intelligence etc to humans - if god is omnipresent then they are just as much his 'creation' as humans are. Why would god wait to communicate his message until humans develop to technology to communicate with those people. Why doesn't he just tell them directly. He seems to be constantly chatting to folk in the bible - why is he so reticent to chat to folk directly in other parts of the world (or other worlds) - why does he wait for current believers to find them to transmit his message.

The idea of a unitary God or supreme being has cropped up independently a lot.
As has aim sure has that The divine is a kind of pantheon or that nature is divine.

[ProfessorDavey]

The idea of a unitary God or supreme being has cropped up independently a lot.
As has aim sure has that The divine is a kind of pantheon or that nature is divine.

That's not what I am asking. I've previously indicated why I think different cultures and societies may independently have come up with the idea of a god - both from 'god of the gaps' and to cement social cohesion/rules and us/them dominance. See reply 52.

I'm not talking about societies coming up with the notion of god - I'm talking about religions. Most religions claim they are both true and divinely inspired - so if the latter why can't god directly teach remote people's about that religion - why is transmission solely vie humans. Why has no christian missionary stumbled across a previously unconnected tribe and discovered they already know about Jesus. Never happens, but is should do if these religions are divinely inspired as the divine could just as easily inspire a remote tribe with the 'truth' of this religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Weird how these 'world religions' only ever seem to be transmitted to new believers, who've never previously encounter the religion, via other people - never via god directly. It is almost as if god doesn't actually exist

But certainly with Christianity. Religion results because of encounter and response. That is encounter with God. Not mere intellectual assent and then obviously you have to respond directly to God rather than mere intellectual response. That’s what we mean by the term the presence of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not what I am asking. I've previously indicated why I think different cultures and societies may independently have come up with the idea of a god - both from 'god of the gaps' and to cement social cohesion/rules and us/them dominance.

Simplistic, superior, patronising and ignorant.

[ProfessorDavey]

Simplistic, superior, patronising and ignorant.

So you clearly have no argument against my points, which are pretty standard anthropology explanations for the emergence of religions amongst early human societies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you clearly have no argument against my points, which are pretty standard anthropology explanations for the emergence of religions amongst early human societies.

They are your theses. We can either start with you justifying them or me critiquing them.

[ProfessorDavey]

They are your theses. We can either start with you justifying them or me critiquing them.

I did in reply 52 - to repeat (in response to question as to where belief in god and religion may have come from):

'As a consequence of the evolutionary benefits of human higher conscious neurobiology and a highly developed social structure, which is evolutionarily essential for animals that take many years to develop to the point of independence.

So humans have a highly inquisitive nature (as this is evolutionarily advantageous) - hence arises the god of the gaps. Things early human societies did not understand so not unreasonably (although wrongly) ascribed to some great power, i.e. a god.

Secondly highly developed social structures require rules and customs to make them run and to perpetuate them from generation to generation. Again a 'god' which agrees with the social norms of the group is great to create. It helps keep the minions in check (these aren't our rules, they are god's rule and you know what he does when he's angry - yup you remember that earthquake last week), and also allows a sense of belonging to develop - we have the one true god on our side, that tribe over there doesn't - we are better, safer, more worthy than they are - stick with us. And the structures and societal norms are perpetuated via customs and rituals - and so begins religion.'