Owangotang: I must not have made myself clear. Religion did not give rise to our attempts to explain things, rather it gave us our initial frame of reference regarding the unknown. It was from this initial frame of reference that our own curiosity, not religion, led us to scientific investigation.

That frame of reference was wrong, and religion generally upheld its validity, hampering any efforts by our curiosity to develop further understandings.


Religion certainly has impeded our collective progress throughout history, however it could also be argued that man's greed for power and dominion over one another is just as much to blame. The Dark Ages didn't just happen because everyone was perfectly content with the aggregate knowledge of the day.

Sure, alright, but at least greed for power has also been a driving force for scientific advancement too. Religion's only been a barrier.

Owangotang: Religion certainly has impeded our collective progress throughout history

Yes and no. It's very easy to say, "Science advances mankind, religion does not, and ofter resists science, ergo religion retards development," but it's overly facile. It's pretty obvious that in our past, especially in the ancient world, religion was the core element of social structure- civilization exists, at least in part, because of religion. Without civilization, there would be no science.

Don't get me wrong, even if religion was the scaffold that made society possible, society would remain even if religion vanished. But religion quite obviously played a pivotal role in social development, and we don't have any primitive atheistic societies around to use as a counterpoint or comparative anthropology.

Our brains are programmed to fling poo when we are annoyed. That doesn't mean that we should do it.

Smarshmallow: kronicfeld: I don't think he was saying it REQUIRED religion.

Well, I've never seen any evidence that religion did anything but stagnate "scientific" thought.

Seriously? Read a book about the development of scientific thought. Religion had an incredibly important role in shaping scientific inquiry and it is a gross overgeneralization to resort to a simple "religion=bad science=good" characterization. It's also a mistake to imagine that science and religion developed along two distinct tracks independent of each other.

Smarshmallow: Sure, alright, but at least greed for power has also been a driving force for scientific advancement too. Religion's only been a barrier.

I had typed out a response to this, but my browser crashed and then t3knomanser beat me to it. Religion cannot, and should not, be denounced as simply a barrier to human progress. This is not the most satisfying analogy but religion is a bit like training wheels. Yes, you're riding a bike but you are getting significant support to do so. Religion similarly supported early man by allowing humans to understand the world in their own terms, reducing fear and bolstering confidence. The question remains whether or not we will fully cast aside the training wheels and ride on our own.

attackingpencil: It's also a mistake to imagine that science and religion developed along two distinct tracks independent of each other.

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree there. The leading minds of the Enlightenment era were overwhelmingly non-religious. Even if we rewind back to the era of Thales, we're looking at people who were overwhelmingly non-religious.

Your strongest argument is really hinging on people like the Pythagoreans and the Platonists. They advanced mathematics a great deal, and built around it a mystical cult- a religion. The problem, of course, is that the Platonists rejected experimental analysis (making them utterly unscientific) and the Pythagoreans guarded their mathematical secrets as religious mysteries- mankind didn't benefit from them until scholars uncovered their work centuries later.

During the Renaissance, as experimental work was coming back into vogue and logical reasoning was becoming the main mode of scholarly discussion, the religious authorities jumped on the bandwagon. You have people like Aquinas and Augustine applying what would later become scientific principles to religious thinking. I've read Aquinas and Augustine- their results are awful.

t3knomanser: During the Renaissance, as experimental work was coming back into vogue and logical reasoning was becoming the main mode of scholarly discussion, the religious authorities jumped on the bandwagon. You have people like Aquinas and Augustine applying what would later become scientific principles to religious thinking. I've read Aquinas and Augustine- their results are awful.

Ok, this paragraph confused me for a number of reasons. First, Augustine was writing in the late 4th/early 5th century and Aquinas in the 13th, to conflate them at all with the renaissance is deeply flawed. Hell, to conflate them too strongly with each other is rather flawed, especially given the fact that Aquinas leans heavily on Aristotle, while Augustine was more Platonic.

Second, your timeline that "religious authorities jumped on the bandwagon" is truly incorrect. Religious scholars had been using logical reasoning for over a thousand years by the time of the Renaissance from Origen to Gregory of Nyssa to Eriugena to Anselm etc etc.

3. You don't seem to be aware of exactly how much the religious writers of the Middle Ages relied on the Greeks. Plato (or more accurately Plotinus) for the early years (what most people would incorrectly call the Dark Ages) and Aristotle for the scholastic period. It was only when the Greeks were abandoned (since they were wrong about pretty much everything) that scientific progress went forward.

4. To say that the "results" of Aquinas and Augustine "applying what would later become scientific principles to religious thinking" (which is a false characterization, really) were "awful" seems to me to be an overly pejorative judgement. You're really saying that the work of a theologian (Augustine) who, in a large part, developed the doctrine that is in use today by over a billion people was awful? Many would consider if some of the finest theology/philosophy ever written. Aquinas is basically the same way, only for a smaller portion of that billion people because non-Catholics generally do not use him.

attackingpencil: Ok, this paragraph confused me for a number of reasons. First, Augustine was writing in the late 4th/early 5th century and Aquinas in the 13th, to conflate them at all with the renaissance is deeply flawed. Hell, to conflate them too strongly with each other is rather flawed, especially given the fact that Aquinas leans heavily on Aristotle, while Augustine was more Platonic.

13th Century isn't technically Renaissance, but it's close enough for my point. For whatever reason, I got it in my head that Augustine/Aquinas were roughly contemporary. It's been awhile.

attackingpencil: You don't seem to be aware of exactly how much the religious writers of the Middle Ages relied on the Greeks.

I am, but this is Fark and I haven't finished my coffee yet. Bear with me. My philosophy minor is quite a few years back in the past at this point. I'm rusty.

attackingpencil: It was only when the Greeks were abandoned (since they were wrong about pretty much everything) that scientific progress went forward.

Yes and no. The methods were maintained, but the assumptions were discarded.

attackingpencil: You're really saying that the work of a theologian (Augustine) who, in a large part, developed the doctrine that is in use today by over a billion people was awful?

Absolutely. Again, I don't exactly have any of the critiques I wrote in college handy, but his logical reasoning was riddled with fallacies, logical leaps, and unexamined assumptions. This is true for both Augustine and Aquinas, but Aquinas irks me much more, because he's responsible for retrofitting telos to Catholic mythology, and that's just an awful combination. It was a bad idea when Aristotle had it, but it's even worse when blended with Christianity.

t3knomanser: 13th Century isn't technically Renaissance, but it's close enough for my point. For whatever reason, I got it in my head that Augustine/Aquinas were roughly contemporary. It's been awhile.

I wouldn't consider 300 years to be "close enough". The intellectual context of the 13th century was so vastly different than the 16th that it's almost silly to compare the two.

t3knomanser: Yes and no. The methods were maintained, but the assumptions were discarded.

The methods of someone like Aristotle were about as far away from modern science as you can get "why does a rock fall?" "Because it's in its nature to fall" is just description and that's what Aristotle did. Hell, even some Christian theologians got upset with him because he didn't actually explain anything (see: Augustine).

Crap hit post by accident:

t3knomanser: Absolutely. Again, I don't exactly have any of the critiques I wrote in college handy, but his logical reasoning was riddled with fallacies, logical leaps, and unexamined assumptions. This is true for both Augustine and Aquinas, but Aquinas irks me much more, because he's responsible for retrofitting telos to Catholic mythology, and that's just an awful combination. It was a bad idea when Aristotle had it, but it's even worse when blended with Christianity.

Ok, I think you're making a mistake in assuming that what Augustine is doing is the same as modern Philosophy. Also, I'd contest that most philosophy is riddled with the same problems. It's not like Kant doesn't have unexamined assumptions. Again, direct comparisons of Aquinas and Augustine aren't really helpful since they were nearly 900 years apart from each other.
Also, Aquinas didn't introduce telos to Christian doctrine. He may be the most famous person to introduce it, but it predated him by far and, in fact, could be said to be one of the central pillars of Christian dogma from the earliest days.

attackingpencil: It was only when the Greeks were abandoned (since they were wrong about pretty much everything) that scientific progress went forward.

Ballocks. Most of the Greek science *was* lost or destroyed at the beginning of the middle ages. The societies that held on to the Greek writings in the Middle East and Islamic Spain were the ones making the big contributions to science. The scientific revolution in the West was kicked off by Arabic translations of Greek writings coming back into Europe.

Religion=fear.

Talking to my 'moderate' to 'wacko' religious friends, fear seems to be the underlying tone, even though they won't openly admit it. any of them will now admit the creation of earth and all life on it can easily be explained scientifically, or as I call it "proof". It's hard to argue those facts and still have people think you're remotely credible.

The common tone they all seem to have it that fear of death, the fear of the unknown, what happens when you die. Does everything go dark, does you continue on, etc? Being religious gives you an answer to believe in, even though no proof exists.

As a social animal, human brains are pattern-recognition devices, tuned towards recognizing and interacting with other people. This "person" model has been a very useful tool to navigate them through their environments successfully, and more importantly, pass on their genetics. Since pattern recognition devices are prone to false positives, it isn't surprising that people should regularly apply this model to everything around them-- They see faces in just about everything and attribute human qualities to everything under (and including) the sun, whether it be old man winter, god of war, sprites, nymphs, ghosts, or even that damn coffee table that had the gall to bruise your shin. Unfortunately, that one tool is only so useful. Sure, your god may frown upon eating a particular food that may happen to be, at the time, particularly prone to some disease, or he may damn to hell those who participate in behavior that disrupts society, thereby endangering their group. Cleanliness may be next to godliness, but only science is able to develop antibiotics.

attackingpencil: He may be the most famous person to introduce it

He's the easy name to pin it to. It's still a shiatty idea. It was shiatty when Aristotle had it, it was shiatty when it got tied to the Christian mythos.

attackingpencil: Also, I'd contest that most philosophy is riddled with the same problems.

I wouldn't argue this. Also, I never liked Kant either. I was always more of an existentialist. Camus ranks as my personal favorite, if I had to pick.

t3knomanser: I wouldn't argue this. Also, I never liked Kant either. I was always more of an existentialist. Camus ranks as my personal favorite, if I had to pick.

Whateves everybody knows Hume is where it's at =)

Just to chime in again- the ancients had gods for pretty much every situation. Fertility goddess and idols etc where pretty much the fertility pills of the day (other concoctions too, but they were used in tandem). Yes, they studied the stars, and seasonal cycles but even then they had religious attachments. Look at astrology- which is pretty much the parent of astronomy.

Point being, I still think religion is the mother of science.

Mad Tea Party: Ballocks. Most of the Greek science *was* lost or destroyed at the beginning of the middle ages. The societies that held on to the Greek writings in the Middle East and Islamic Spain were the ones making the big contributions to science. The scientific revolution in the West was kicked off by Arabic translations of Greek writings coming back into Europe.

The west "re-discovered" the Greeks in the 11th century, the scientific revolution happened 500 years later. Aristotle was THE authority in the Latin west for 400 years and it didn't kick off some great wave of science.

And no, the abandonment of Aristotle and Plato was pretty much the tipping point in the Scientific Revolution. I know it goes against the whole Enlightenment narrative (as in the narative created during the Enlightenment, largely as a result of anti-Catholicism) but the Greeks were WRONG and thinkers needed to be freed from the constraints of Greek thought in order to allow scientific development to happen. The social and religious changes of the Renaissance (and to a lesser extent Catholic unease about the use of pagan philosophers) enabled this abandonment and kicked off the scientific revolution.

Cashew: Too bad extremists don't read New Scientist.

Unfortunately they do. Witness the most recent episode of the Discovery Institute latching on the misleadingly titles issue: Darwin Was Wrong. In particular an article (with a misleading title) about issues with solving the "tree of life" given the possibly rampant nature of lateral gene transfer. They quote mined it to hell, as they usually do. New Scientist in particular; given it's penchant for misleading, overhyped, and potentially inflammatory headlines; is one of their favourites to quote mine from.

Sgygus: There is a much simpler explanation for belief in God (and society's constant reinforcement of such belief) than the one in this article. To wit:

All mammals have a strong parent-child bond. A person's need to believe in God is a person's natural need to maintain a relationship that is innate to our emotional makeup.

At a certain age in growing up we realize that our parents are not really the all-powerful, all-giving loving beings that we think they are when we are babies. But (for most people) the desire to have that relationship with an all-powerful caretaker continues.

You're assuming of course that this precludes the issues discussed in the article. The best answer currently is that this, along with the known issues (pattern matching for instance) discussed in the article actually both explain the phenomenon.

Sgygus: The egg is the mammalian parent-child relationship. Religion is a cultural meme, a construct that lives off this innate parent-child relationship. People in power use religion for their own purposes.

This may be true but the article goes to a much deeper level, it probes why humans are predisposed to supernatural beliefs in general. Most religious beliefs seem to have started as much more primitive beliefs in things like totem spirit animals, spirits of your ancestors, etc. Erroneous pattern matching actually explains "seeing things that aren't there", we actually know that happens and why it happens. It's also a good explanation for how that extends to thinking things like ghosts exist.

maybe it's because there actually is a God.

attackingpencil: I know it goes against the whole Enlightenment narrative (as in the narative created during the Enlightenment, largely as a result of anti-Catholicism) but the Greeks were WRONG and thinkers needed to be freed from the constraints of Greek thought in order to allow scientific development to happen.

Yeah... [citation needed] if you're going to assert that every historical account of the Enlightenment is completely backwards because of an anti-Catholic conspiracy. It's curious how the "constraints of Greek thought" didn't stop the Islamic world from being the most advanced society at the time.

soakitincider: maybe it's because there actually is a God.

And his name is Zeus, and he rules over all the lesser gods as their king.

soakitincider: maybe it's because there actually is a God.

t3knomanser: And his name is Zeus, and he rules over all the lesser gods as their king.

Oh yeah? It's the FSM!

Mad Tea Party: attackingpencil: I know it goes against the whole Enlightenment narrative (as in the narative created during the Enlightenment, largely as a result of anti-Catholicism) but the Greeks were WRONG and thinkers needed to be freed from the constraints of Greek thought in order to allow scientific development to happen.

Yeah... [citation needed] if you're going to assert that every historical account of the Enlightenment is completely backwards because of an anti-Catholic conspiracy. It's curious how the "constraints of Greek thought" didn't stop the Islamic world from being the most advanced society at the time.

Every historical account of the Enlightenment? I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying that the history that the people during the Enlightenment wrote is flawed (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a good example) often because of anti-religious and specifically anti-Catholic bias. As far as citations, see: this (new window)and/or this (new window) both are good intros into the subject. I study the history of thought for a living (although I generally focus on earlier periods, I did a lot of history of science as an undergrad and it's still of interest to me) so I'd be happy to provide more if you'd like.

Mad Tea Party

I actually have to run some errands but I'll check back in later if you're still interested in discussing.

The religion-as-an-adaptation theory doesn't wash with everybody, however.

Neurologists like Jouvet, Lovelock, Spencer and Malinowski theorize that dreaming is the "origin of religion". They point out that until Freud, dreams were regarded to have unexplained, "other world" origins ... and that dreams are the foundation to religious beliefs in virtually all cultures.

attackingpencil: Every historical account of the Enlightenment? I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying that the history that the people during the Enlightenment wrote is flawed...

You've been claiming that much of Greek science wasn't lost at the beginning of the middle ages and that its rediscovery didn't help to trigger the scientific revolution. That's a very nonstandard reading of history.

That's not to say that the human brain has a "god module" in the same way that it has a language module that evolved specifically for acquiring language.

Which completely ignores the fact that there isn't a "language module" either. There is a distributed "language network" in the brain comprised of many different and disparate parts, most of those parts also participate in other cognitive functions as well. This article is pretty well informed as far as modern neuroscience is concerned about religious thinking and spirituality, but one thing that really really really irks me about neuroscience discussions is this adherence to the rather antiquated theory of localization of brain function.

I recently came to the conclusion that the supernatural (e.g. God) cannot be explained away logically unless it is definitely proved or disproved. Anyone want to share thoughts or links on this idea?

I wonder if Fark is the best forum for this question, but hey, I'm a lazy curious kind of guy.

harryjrf: I recently came to the conclusion that the supernatural (e.g. God) cannot be explained away logically unless it is definitely proved or disproved. Anyone want to share thoughts or links on this idea?

I wonder if Fark is the best forum for this question, but hey, I'm a lazy curious kind of guy.



Ooooooh, Fark is the best forum for this question!

Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? "I think the answer is yes," says Bloom.

I think I read a book about this once.

JRoo

There is only ONE god!

He is the SUN god!

Ra! Ra! Ra!

There is only ONE god!

He is the FUN god!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

CaptainSmartass: Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? "I think the answer is yes," says Bloom.

I think I read a book about this once.

Approves:

Fear needs a focus.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

Romans 1.18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Nice, Bevets. Way to troll with the Lord. Nothing like a some noonish argumentum ad verecundiam I-told-you-so.

so has anyone pointed out how evolution does not work that way? it certainly doesn't work that fast, human history is at tops 100000 years old (and I'm over exaggerating ) and human population have been growing exponentially since then, religion is hardly a factor in this process, the way I see it is more a subproduct of the million years process that evolved our brains to get consciousness and intelligence.

harryjrf: "I recently came to the conclusion that the supernatural (e.g. God) cannot be explained away logically unless it is definitely proved or disproved. Anyone want to share thoughts or links on this idea?"

Before we begin, when you say "Definitely disproved", are you asking for absolute disproof? Would you instead accept the scientific standard of disproof? I ask because the absolute standard is impossible to meet with any amount of evidence.

mantidor: human history is at tops 100000 years old (and I'm over exaggerating )

Um, modern humans have been around for about 130,000 years or so. So you aren't exaggerating. Human history is trivially short- civilization as we'd recognize it is only about 10,000 years old.

Recognizably human organisms- things in the same genus- have been around for about 2M years. The longest lasting, by far, was Homo Erectus, who was around for the better part of 1M years. Even Neanderthals were around for much longer than Homo Sapiens. In any case, 2M years is a long enough period of time for evolution to be significant.

t3knomanser
soakitincider: maybe it's because there actually is a God.

And his name is Zeus, and he rules over all the lesser gods as their king.




Odin disagrees.

Zamboro: harryjrf: "I recently came to the conclusion that the supernatural (e.g. God) cannot be explained away logically unless it is definitely proved or disproved. Anyone want to share thoughts or links on this idea?"

Before we begin, when you say "Definitely disproved", are you asking for absolute disproof? Would you instead accept the scientific standard of disproof? I ask because the absolute standard is impossible to meet with any amount of evidence.

I would start by asking why anyone expects science, which is by definition the study of the natural, to be able to touch claims of the supernatural? If you think science can shed any light on the topic of inquiry, then you have to think it is natural. This includes God.

soakitincider: "maybe it's because there actually is a God."

Why just one and not many? After all monotheistic religions are in the historical minority. If our predisposition to such beliefs was placed there by the one true god (which happens to be the one popular in the country where you grew up of course) then why would it seem to overwhelmingly favor polytheism, animism and such?

JRoo: There is only ONE god!

He is the SUN god!

Ra! Ra! Ra!

*smirk*

Kome: I would start by asking why anyone expects science, which is by definition the study of the natural, to be able to touch claims of the supernatural? If you think science can shed any light on the topic of inquiry, then you have to think it is natural. This includes God.

This.

Let us posit that supernatural phenomena exist. Our senses are quite clearly natural. Even if there were a soul, our thoughts still interact with the meaty matter of our brains. If we think something, or are aware of something via our senses, then there is a natural component to any supernatural event.

Put another way: if supernatural events are perceivable by humans, who are at least partially (mostly) naturalistic, there must be naturalistic extent to any supernatural event. This means that the supernatural is accessible by naturalistic examination.

There is only one way to exempt the supernatural from this examination, and that is by positing that the supernatural is irrational. Natural phenomenon arise from a series of natural processes; they obey causality and happen for a structured reason. If the supernatural were utterly unpredictable, nothing but noise and nonsense, with no reason or rationality to it, then it would be incomprehensible and invulnerable to rational inquiry.

"Ineffability" is a fancy way of saying "nonsensical".

Mad Tea Party: attackingpencil: Every historical account of the Enlightenment? I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying that the history that the people during the Enlightenment wrote is flawed...

You've been claiming that much of Greek science wasn't lost at the beginning of the middle ages and that its rediscovery didn't help to trigger the scientific revolution. That's a very nonstandard reading of history.

I never claimed that Greek science wasn't lost during the Middle Ages, you are correct that I am claiming its recovery did not trigger the scientific revolution. As I stated before, the Latin west rediscovered the Greeks in the 12th century, the scientific revolution happened 3-4 hundred years later. And no, it is not a nonstandard reading of history, it's different then the popular imagining of history but it is very much orthodox among actual historians. I know this because I am one. You cut it out of your response, but I linked to two very good books on the subject if you're interested.

To all that responded, I may have been vague in my initial post, so I will attempt to clarify.

I'm trying to determine whether God can be proven or disproven using logic.

However, I do see that it would require a lot of definiton, e.g. "What is God? How do we test and/or measure this existence?", and I'm a lazy Farker, so I guess I withdraw the question.

If this is ground that has been trodden on before, I'd love some references to further my curiosity. Thanks in advance.

harryjrf: recently came to the conclusion that the supernatural (e.g. God) cannot be explained away logically unless it is definitely proved or disproved. Anyone want to share thoughts or links on this idea?

1) You can;t definitely prove/disprove anything. Everything can only be ascertained within a probabilistic degree

2)I prefer to go with the "If I have seen no evidence of the existence of the supernatural then I will say it probably does not exist and choose to live my life as if it doesn't until further evidence forces me to reconsider"

t3knomanser: mantidor: human history is at tops 100000 years old (and I'm over exaggerating )

Um, modern humans have been around for about 130,000 years or so. So you aren't exaggerating. Human history is trivially short- civilization as we'd recognize it is only about 10,000 years old.

Recognizably human organisms- things in the same genus- have been around for about 2M years. The longest lasting, by far, was Homo Erectus, who was around for the better part of 1M years. Even Neanderthals were around for much longer than Homo Sapiens. In any case, 2M years is a long enough period of time for evolution to be significant.

I was mostly talking about the trivially short civilization part but you are right, thanks for the clarification. It just seems to me that religion was only important in these past 10000 years, before that it was so primitive and basic and so intertwined with science and medicine that it wasn't really religion as we know it. And so it really didn't matter in the evolutionary process, not as much as intelligence and consciousness.

harryjrf:
If this is ground that has been trodden on before, I'd love some references to further my curiosity. Thanks in advance.

It's very very well trodden on ground. I mean the base text really has to be Anselm's Proslogion then you could check out Aquinas' five ways. From there, you can check out the various critiques and refinements of their arguments (the ontological argument has some pretty fascinating stuff written about it in my opinion (warning: I'm a nerd)). I'm sure there's at least one decent book out there dealing with the arguments for and against God's existence but I've always been more of a primary sources guy, so I can't think of one off the top of my head.

mantidor: It just seems to me that religion was only important in these past 10000 years

Kinda a selection bias, though- we don't know much about human lives before that time. I think there's a strong argument to be made that religion is why civilization exists. Religion appears to be a sufficient condition, and perhaps a necessary one for civilizations to arise.

But you're right- it's tied into so many other things. Religious myths often too place in the night sky; the same stars were the instructions for when to plant, when to reap, etc.. It's not really what we'd think of as "religion"- the Babylonian legends (which provide a basis for some Christian ones) are a wonderful example of a very alien approach to religion. Even the ancient Egyptians had alien ideas: their solution to contradictory myths was simply that they were all true.

In any case, the role religion played in forming civilizations and cultures says nothing about the veracity or future utility of religion.