TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Is religion beneficial?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 »

on a related note

im reading this book now



basically it makes a case for religion being an unavoidable and necessary cultural/anthropological/sociological/biological/psychological part of human development from as far back as 1.5 million years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec necessary

this i doubt. but it was probably

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec unavoidable

pkc, the argument is basically that early (prehistoric) religion was a sort of pre-shamanism and that the first and most 'truly' (and still to this day) religious experiences came out of ecstatic states and trance states.

The author argues that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies (think aborigine & african bushman) collectivism is the essence of survival. Shared emotional bonds formed in these ecstatic religious experiences created unbreakable alliances between people that were necessary for survival (scarcity of resources and harsh conditions gave humans with better people skills and emotional capacity an advantage in natural selection)

The evolution of human emotion and the development of the human neocortex along with complex thought such as language runs parallel to the development of more complex religious ideas. As language came to be developed and with it more conceptual and signs detached from pure religious experiences, and as artwork and religious experience became a tool of the elite class in later more complex societies, religion became more and more a political tool.

This book claims that corruption of religious experience as a political tool was common at the time of the cave paintings at Lascoux, France




all the conceptual, dogmatic, and theological shit about the ordering and structure of morals and the universe is essentially not "religion" in the pure sense, according to this author. It is so called 'book religion'. "pure religion" he claims is this sort of belief that everything in the world is connected by some sort of life force and experienced in higher states of consciousness achieved through ecstatic experience that can come from things like drumming, keeping rhythm, intense pain/masochism, sleep deprivation, psychoactive drugs, stress, etc. It's a really basic and primitive thing.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec pkc, the argument is basically that early (prehistoric) religion was a sort of pre-shamanism and that the first and most 'truly' (and still to this day) religious experiences came out of ecstatic states and trance states.

or eating the wrong mushrooms

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec The author argues that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies (think aborigine & african bushman) collectivism is the essence of survival. Shared emotional bonds formed in these ecstatic religious experiences created unbreakable alliances between people that were necessary for survival (scarcity of resources and harsh conditions gave humans with better people skills and emotional capacity an advantage in natural selection)

see, i prefer other authors' ideas that religion came about because of a biological pre-disposition in humans which initially was a "fear of the unknown" which kept people alive (note, i havent really done my due diligence on this particular topic, im merely paraphrasing [crudely!] TAs Renegade and Arbiter). i find it a little problematic though to argue that these "shared emotional bonds" would not have existed anyway, as tribal collectivism will undoubtedly produce similar outcomes. i certainly think there's a big gap between identifying historical happenstance and illustrating that religion was "necessary" for early human survival.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i find it a little problematic though to argue that these "shared emotional bonds" would not have existed anyway, as tribal collectivism will undoubtedly produce similar outcomes. i certainly think there's a big gap between identifying historical happenstance and illustrating that religion was "necessary" for early human survival.

I'm definitely not doing justice to his ideas here in this format

here's the summary from chapter 2: "The Making Of Humanity and the Origin of Religion"

quote:

One of the major challenges to cultural ecology is to explain how and why religious behaviors became universal aspects of humanity. The fact that religious behavior involves great amounts of time and effort indicates that it should have had some important adaptive role that helped early humans survive. Physical anthropologists usually focus on skeletal changes, intellectual changes, and technological changes that helped people survive drastic climatic deteriorations in Africa millions of years ago. Ritual behaviors and other unique human emotions are generally overlooked. Yet these features can be viewed as important means for creating and maintaining strong emotional bonds between people in alliances that constituted mutual help relationships between distant bands. The ability to use these relationships in order to move to other band territories and be accepted by the resident populations was critical for survival in times of crisis. This is likely the real adaptive value of kinship, language, gift-giving, food sharing, and shared ecstatic ritual experiences. All these human characteristics probably evolved together as adaptive ways of dealing with life-threatening crises. The first material indication of these mutual-help alliances may be reflected in the movement of small amounts of stones used as tools over long distances beginning about 50,000 years ago; however, such alliances do not necessarily have to leave physical traces, and they would have been so adaptive that they may well have existed much further in the past. Additional unique human emotional features such as innate responses to drumming, music, dance, and drama undoubtedly enhanced the effectiveness of rituals in creating strong emotional bonds; and it is no coincidence that traditional rituals generally feature all of these other "arts". These arts, and especially ecstatic experiences, are the essence of our human heritage. To be truly human means to experience that heritage, to sing and dance adn experience ecstasy - as James Campbell put it, to "follow one's bliss". This was the essence of religion for our ancestors, and it constitutes quite a different perspective from the book religions of today. The physical and emotional changes that took place during human evolution were also accompanied by some major changes in the structure of the brain, including its division into two hemispheres with different functions and into three separate levels dealing with physical functions, emotional functions, and intellectual functions (the triune brain). Some researches suggest that people have specific emotional reactions to or symbolic associations with images such as water, fire, or horns. These are called archetypes, but the degree to which they are an innate part of the human psyche remains to be investigated. Whether the gods or any supernatural dimensions really exist is an open question. However, on the basis of personal experiences, many people are convinced that something odd certainly is part of the universe, whether we choose to call it magic, information, self-organization, the supernatural, or quantum spookiness. There is no lack of anecdotes of strange events that cannot be accounted for in terms of current mainstream science

Anyways, take what you will from it, but I think this book is pretty interesting because it gives a thorough history of the development of religion from its earliest forms, from the point of view of many disciplines - neurobiology, archaeology, sociology, anthropology, etc. I think the author is also pretty fair and objective in his conclusion, and sticks to his goal of research rather than trying to push an agenda onto the intellectual scene.

According to the "Encyclopedia of Wars" by Phillips and Axelrod, 7% of the wars that have been documented since humans were able to document wars had something to do with religion. Of that 7% 50% had to do with Islam. Not to mention Vox Day in "The Irrational Atheist" researched that only 2% of the killings done by states were done in the name of religion while 50% of the murdering of states in the 20th Century were done by atheistic countries. If any argument has feet to stand on it is that atheistic countries should convert to a religion to save the lives of their people. Not that I'm saying that religion always is beneficial but to to go around with the argument that religion is the great evil in the world and caused more problems in the world than anything else is just ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by weymouth "religion is the great evil in the world and caused more problems in the world than anything else" is just ignorant.

No one in this thread said that.

Yes, religion was beneficial. If it wasn't for religion, we would still be beating each other with sticks in caves.

HOWEVER, in the last 2000 years, religion has been everything BUT beneficial, and has caused a lot of wrongs.

Religion is, today, irrelevant, but it has been relevant for a long long time.

quote:

Originally posted by weymouth Not to mention Vox Day in "The Irrational Atheist" researched that only 2% of the killings done by states were done in the name of religion while 50% of the murdering of states in the 20th Century were done by atheistic countries.

that's thoroughly disingenuous and a non sequitur.

My quesion is if it is possible to have a future without religion?Iam talking at least a hundred years from now btw.
Also do you guys think thatthe human mind could ever evolve to the point that doesnt require religion?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer My quesion is if it is possible to have a future without religion?

There's always the possibility, however unlikely it is for religion to disappear.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Also do you guys think that the human mind could ever evolve to the point that doesn't require religion?

It could, but why would it? By "human mind", I take it you mean all that is involved in religious experience.

quote:

So, the question is thus: would humanity be better or worse off if religion had never been established?

Hard to say.

Science may have come about partly because of the religious belief in a universe that ran according to "laws" set into place by a god.

A lot of great art has been inspired by religion or ideas of transcendence.

But I think religion may have outgrown its usefulness today. I can't think of any purely survival-oriented purpose it serves in the modern world, although I suppose it still gives comfort to a lot of people in the face of death, and a sense of "purpose" to keep on going.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It could, but why would it? By "human mind", I take it you mean all that is involved in religious experience.

I guess my question goes more towards the whole idea of our current belief system, and weather will we be able to move on from this religious belief system that exists in our society and go to the next level.I am not sure if that means moving towards a whole new level of spirtuality or not but it is just an idea.

quote:

Originally posted by spacechica i never understood the difference between Catholicism and Christianity

You're a tard, honestly.

I think the mistake a lot of atheists make is that they do not look deep enough into the other side of things.

C.S. Lewis is a perfect example of a well read atheist (no longer one, mind you) that brought excellent arguments to the table in a number of written works. Then again, Lewis has brought some really great "pro-God" arguments since converting.


An atheist will also say "well I've read the bible, and I STILL think it's a load of shit".

In reality they've probably formed their entire view of the bible on Genesis (Aka Genesis: The first book of moses for all you jews). Which is unfair since any reasonable Christian will admit Genesis is a pile of crap and is almost entirely metaphorical. Having that belief about Genesis and creationism (which is almost entirely based on one book of the bible) I've been called a Jew, a heretic, a muslim and a devil worshiper by a countless number of Baptists, Evangelicals, Witnesses and Mormons on various message boards and in person when I've discussed this shit. Proof again that the die hard, know-nothing wings of Christianity are the most opinionated and by default the most out-spoken (yet most widely listened to) bunch of idiots that give atheists and agnostics the view that all Christians are dumbass hicks that aren't of sound mind.

Religion plays it's part in our lives whether it be to make fun of Christians or to live your life according to the words of Moses and Jesus.

There remains countless questions in philosophy that have yet to be explained away, and that religion (well, Christianity) has an answer for; Such as the word and use of said word: Perfection. A word that is used quite often in a descriptive sense, but a word atheists for instance deny can be applied to a being... Yet how can they go ahead and compare anything to perfection if they don't have a basis of a perfect being to begin with?

Anyways, it's a ridiculous time of day and I'm on a rant so I'll just leave you with some names to check out and hopefully some of you atheists take a look-see and you may simply be interested in the theological arguments presented by these guys, if you're open to it that is:

Norman L. Geisler
William E. Nix
C.S. Lewis
James Moffatt

They are all Christian apologists in their own right and offer some great insight into the faith as a whole, and from a rather wide range of stances. (IE: Geisler/Nix are hardcore conservatives, so spot the bias, Moffatt on the other hand is very very liberal).

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I think the mistake a lot of atheists make is that they do not look deep enough into the other side of things. C.S. Lewis is a perfect example of a well read atheist (no longer one, mind you) that brought excellent arguments to the table in a number of written works. Then again, Lewis has brought some really great "pro-God" arguments since converting. An atheist will also say "well I've read the bible, and I STILL think it's a load of shit". In reality they've probably formed their entire view of the bible on Genesis (Aka Genesis: The first book of moses for all you jews).

yeah, because reading the return of the king is gonna make me believe in elves and rings of power

as for the part that i've bolded, from where do you get that argument from? there are innumerable problems and contradictions (not to mention obvious lies) within the bible that only the truly gullible would believe it ever resembled the word of god.

no, i havent read all of it and no im not going to bother; its one of the worst works of scifi/fantasy that ive ever attempted to read.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex There remains countless questions in philosophy that have yet to be explained away, and that religion (well, Christianity) has an answer for

its easy to provide the answers when you can just make them up.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, i havent read all of it and no im not going to bother;

You've just lost any credibility when it comes to questioning the validity or value of the Abrihamic religions. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion on any subject when you won't even take the time to understand what it is you're discussing.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex An atheist will also say "well I've read the bible, and I STILL think it's a load of shit". In reality they've probably formed their entire view of the bible on Genesis (Aka Genesis: The first book of moses for all you jews).

Personally, I've read quite a few books (and I must've read each each of the gospels at least 4 times when I was a teen... my family was deeply religious, and we read the bible three times every week).

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Anyways, it's a ridiculous time of day and I'm on a rant so I'll just leave you with some names to check out and hopefully some of you atheists take a look-see and you may simply be interested in the theological arguments presented by these guys, if you're open to it that is: Norman L. Geisler William E. Nix C.S. Lewis James Moffatt They are all Christian apologists in their own right and offer some great insight into the faith as a whole, and from a rather wide range of stances. (IE: Geisler/Nix are hardcore conservatives, so spot the bias, Moffatt on the other hand is very very liberal).

Interesting. Anyway, the last good Atheist philosopher I read was Yujin Nagasawa, and he had some really interesting arguments against the existence of God. That's my way to thank for the recommendation and add something more to the discussion

"...The growing success of popular print accounts of 'The German State' after victory in the Franco-Prussian War and the formation of a German Empire was something about which Nietzsche was evidently concerned. He was also worried, though, about the increasingly 'religious' tone of representations of history in monuments, festivals and public imagery. There was, he believed, an excess of history. To distance himself from the history-loving middle class and scholars like Immanuel Kant, Leopold Von Ranke, Georg Hegel and Fredrich Schiller, Nietzsche outlined three models of history - two problematic, and one 'life affirming' - which he labels respectively the 'monumental', 'antiquarian', and the 'critical'.

A 'monumental' understanding of history entails the presentation of and support for a grand or master narrative of historical progression culminating in a foundation of myth for the present. He explains that for monumental historian,

...The great moments in the struggle of the human individual constitute a chain, that this chain unites mankind across millennia like a range of human mountain peaks, that the summit of such a long-ago monument shall be for me still living, bright and great - that is the fundamental idea of the faith in humanity which finds expression in the demand for a monumental history...Of what use, then, is the monumentalistic conception of the past, engagement with the classic and rare of earlier times, to the man of the present? He learns from it that the greatness that once existed was in any event once possible and may thus be possible again; he goes his way with more cheerful step, for the doubt which assailed him in weaker moments, has now been been banished.

*Source: Fifty Key Thinkers on History by Marnie Hughes-Warrington (Routledge 2nd Ed.)

Is religion beneficial? I dont know, let me ask this guy...



Or him..



I'll just go straight to the source...

I read about that guy this morning at school, fucking genius.

oops nvm. i meant the man who invented nike.

quote:

Originally posted by diggerz I read about that guy this morning at school, fucking genius. oops nvm. i meant the man who invented nike.

Yes, just like religion 'shoes for the masses'... hehe only joking

quote:

Originally posted by Alex In reality they've probably formed their entire view of the bible on Genesis (Aka Genesis: The first book of moses for all you jews). Which is unfair since any reasonable Christian will admit Genesis is a pile of crap and is almost entirely metaphorical.

Leaving aside the blatant assumption aboout atheists that you've made here...would it be unfair of me to say that Genesis only became metaphorical or allegorical once science advanced far enough to show that it was nonsense?
Before that, did people not think that Adam and Eve were real people?
This confusion about what is allegorical and what is literal is one of the main reasons why I think the Bible is not inspired by a god in any way. If the god of the bible exists, it is clear to me that he approves of confusion, either that or he lacks basic communication skills.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, because reading the return of the king is gonna make me believe in elves and rings of power as for the part that i've bolded, from where do you get that argument from? there are innumerable problems and contradictions (not to mention obvious lies) within the bible that only the truly gullible would believe it ever resembled the word of god. no, i havent read all of it and no im not going to bother; its one of the worst works of scifi/fantasy that ive ever attempted to read. its easy to provide the answers when you can just make them up.

You're just an ignorant atheist that doesn't know anything, but pretends to.



P.S. God told me that about you.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Leaving aside the blatant assumption aboout atheists that you've made here...would it be unfair of me to say that Genesis only became metaphorical or allegorical once science advanced far enough to show that it was nonsense? Before that, did people not think that Adam and Eve were real people? This confusion about what is allegorical and what is literal is one of the main reasons why I think the Bible is not inspired by a god in any way. If the god of the bible exists, it is clear to me that he approves of confusion, either that or he lacks basic communication skills.

You mentioned the word "inspired" and I think if you read a bit into Geisler or Nix you'd hear countless explanations as to how the bible IS inspired both divinely and by a human being's hand.

My assumption isn't unfounded either, it is the most controversial book of the bible and therefore it begs to be scrutinized the most. Countless morons I've tried to discuss this with in person and over the net can only ever seem to say "adam and eve" or "big flood" when asked which parts they think are BS.

I think your assumption about advances in science debunking Genesis is 100% true, but I can't see science burning it's way through the rest of the bible in quite the same way. Exodus and Deuteronomy for instance are backed up by other evidence from the period. (Albeit, there is some here-say in those books as well, I find it hard to believe Moses parted the water but I don't have a hard time believing he brought the exodus upon the people of Israel and that he was somehow in communication with a higher being).

I know my point of view is a dated one, and not a hip or cool one that makes me seem more up in the times. Atheism is cool nowadays in most westernized countries, but I don't really care and have devoted a large portion of my time for quite a few years now studying the subject on both sides of the aisle so to speak.

I'm not ignorant about it, and I'm not usually arrogant about the whole thing so long as you offer a decent argument instead of being a typical boring atheist like PKC who simply discounts everything you say as "made up" and refuses to read into it any further than a few parts of the bible. Sorry PKC, you are well founded on some things but I'm just going to have to completely ignore any bullshit you spew about this topic as you obviously know absolutely nothing Unless you'd care to offer an argument of substance that isn't a one liner trying to get into everyone's message signature.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.