quote:

Originally posted by RJT I think what it boils down to is that because Craig accepts divine revelation, the rest of his argument falls into place quite nicely and logically. However, because I do not, it's very easy for me to turn the "product of man" discussion around on him and say "Well, I think that what you feel is the product of a divine source is really a bunch of lies perpetuated by man in an effort to sustain the species and assuage fears of death." Neither position can be proven right or wrong - they both (perhaps oddly) rely on one sort of faith or another, which really just says that my materialism is really not all that different (at the level of core/fundamental reliance on an unprovable idea) from however you'd classify his version of faith/religion.

Yeah, that was my point when I said above in the thread that "atheism tells fairy tales too". When you define faith as a trust in something you can't prove atheism can be deemed as a faith too.

Anyway, my deep conviction is that transcendence is a necessity to mankind. Both personal and societal. It can appears as a faith in heaven or simply as a strong volition of being a better man who wants to let a clear moral legacy. Stupid atheism like irreligious libertinism and religious fundamentalism must be avoided.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Nah, the bacteria inside you will still eat up your remains.

That's assuming that your body's bacteria can survive the cold vacuum of space long enough to get the job done.

___________________
Everyone has an opinion. Mine just happens to be a little more informed than most.
Electronic Music Critic: Near-Daily Ruminations Of Music I Own, In Alphabetical Order!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I tend to agree that this is the more interesting question here. I find explanations of religion grounded in evolutionary psychology to be the most persuasive at this time, but it remains unclear whether religion itself offers (or offered) an evolutionary advantage or whether it was only a spandrel. Though, in truth, religion as we know it is probably the result of a number of characteristics, some of which are likely spandrels and some of which were likely selected for directly. The anthropologist Pascal Boyer has an excellent book on the topic. The text of a lecture by Boyer on why certain types of concepts appear repeatedly in diverse religions, including those which were completely isolated from major world religions, is available free online here (credit goes to Renegade for the link): http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/b...us_concepts.htm The work of Deborah Kelemen is also pretty interesting as it suggests that young children[1] and Alzheimer's patients[2] share a particular tendency to view particular objects of phenomena as the result of the actions of an agent, even in the (apparent) absence of any evidence to support that view. Kelemen calls this "promiscuous teleology," and I think that it can also be explained in evolutionary terms. Justin L. Barrett proposes the idea of a hyperactive agency detection device in this book, suggesting that there may be an evolutionary advantage in erring to the side of attributing an unexplained phenomenon to an agent (e.g. a predator) even if there is no direct evidence to suggest as much. This strikes me as a pretty good explanation of Kelemen's results from an evolutionary standpoint. It also supports the view of religious tendencies as largely a spandrel. I'm pleased to be able to say that it's quite an active area of research, so we can expect more insights to be forthcoming in the near future.

hehe, you and i and renegade have been here before, so ill just ask the one question.

in regards to renegade's hilarious example "rationally, there shouldn't be anything hiding behind those bushes...ow, my face!" - how does one go from the natural fear of the unknown to keep us alive, to a codified system of unprovable nonsense, of which some laws are completely contrary to the propogation of ourselves?

whilst i accept the idea of religion being possibly related to genetics, surely something else has to at work here? Surely a gene that rewarded rationalism and an understanding for the sanctity of the group and the other members of that group would be more successful in promoting "good" behaviour, rather than some imagined god that would punish you if you were bad?

I know this is an awfully simplistic view of things but I just typed out a shitload to moral hazard and im tired of typing

___________________