Humans have the the capacity to believe prior to any religion. It seems a belief in water over the next hill has adaptive benefit, because if most of us couldn't believe we wouldn't even try to seek water.
I think one unasked question (though hinted regarding the culture versus genes comment) is whether it's possible to live without religion if humans evolved to have religion. That implies it is biological. So to reject religion under the rationalization of, "We've outgrown it as a species," is not to necessarily reject any genetic or biological component. So the atheist will still be religious to an extent, and therefore to what extent is a person religious without religion?
The evolutionary and cultural anthropological comments are the most valuable in this discussion, but in my opinion they do not go far enough.We do not need to go back to the first king to study the evolution of religion. A new religion was created 2,000 years ago, and this one should be studied in greater detail to investigate: 1) the creation of a new religion and 2) the evolution of the religion and what purposes do they serve. Jesus and His 12 disciples created a new religion - How did this occur? Who did it serve? It has evolved in thousands of directions (sects) and now who do these sects serve? The same study could be made with Islam and Bahá'í faiths to compare. All were created around a dynamic figure. I believe that the questions of 1) Why were they created in the first place? and 2) How and Why did they evolve into what they are today?
Religion is often assumed, both by those who practice it and by those who criticise it, to be based upon a belief in God. This is particularly so in the West which has inherited the theistic emphasis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Like science, however, religion is more properly understood in terms of its aims and methodologies. Both science and religion provide systematic means for investigating the nature of existence, but whereas science is a logical approach to discovering the structure of things in the universe and how they function, religion aims at a direct awareness of what, if anything, underlies or transcends the powers of nature and human agency.
I’m not sure I understand your objection, but I’m happy to begin from a different point. Our experience tells us that the universe contains material and that this material is in a state of flux. We ourselves, being conscious of the universe of which we are part, provide living proof that the universe also has awareness (and is, in a sense, self-aware). Thus we have three fundamental aspects of nature: matter, energy and awareness. Corresponding to these three, we tend to presume the existence respectively of space, time and individual agency (whether with or without free will), but these latter three are conceptualisations without any clearly understood means of how they might map to reality. The three fundamental aspects are interrelated, and while one aspect may dominate a particular circumstance, the other two will always be present at least as potentialities. Together they give rise to the triad of seen, seeing and seer, where the transmission of energy associated with seeing produces an image of the seen in the awareness of the seer. Given that matter, energy and awareness are interrelated, it is reasonable to hypothesise that they derive from an underlying unity. Each of us exhibits the three aspects within ourselves; and in the case of awareness, we only ever directly experience our own. Thus if we wish to search for the underlying unity, the most obvious place to start is with ourselves. This line of reasoning in continued in the prologue of my book Black & White. I won’t be so presumptuous as to link to it, but the prologue can be read online using Amazon’s ‘look inside’ facility without having to purchase the book.
Religion is reason first, then submission, going far beyond reason and perception. And it is the ultimate truth inherently embedded in human genes, therefore it’s light can never be extinguished. It’s the highest level of cognition achieved by human mind using the same tools of sensory reception or methodology as in science in addition to use of intellect and experiential evidences.
Thank you for this series (Closer to Truth). I think the advanced alien civilization will have religion within it (e.g. a belief in a transcendent reality that one cannot know through reason/science/logic alone... must be intuited or experienced)... and they will better understand the limits of reason than we primitive apes do. They will also better understand the uses and misuses of evolution, etc.
Ok then, how can one intuit a transcendent reality and know that one's intuition is correct? Also, awareness/consciousness doesn't denote a "self" that is conscious, only that there is consciuosness
Right, self is not necessary. You intuit awareness/consciousness and it is some"thing" you do not know through logic, science, or math.... cannot know it from the outside looking in. 2) The best evidence for the intuition is that it feels even more real than your experience of the external world.... If you are in a video game simulation (you are an avatar) and you intuit the world outside the video game, there is nothing in the video game you can point to (i.e. science, logic, math) to prove your intuition is correct or incorrect. The most reason can do is outline its own limits.
Paul Stearns I guess I need your definition of intuition because as I understand it, intuition doesn’t work for me. My definition is it’s something you know by feel, without having to use reasoning. However, I don’t think it applies to consciousness since it is what-is-presently-happening. It is apparent. You don’t have to feel it, it is what is. Also I wouldn’t call consciousness a “thing” (object), but more like a process, a subjective experiencing of what is going on. Semantics is always an issue when having philosophical discussions but I’m not feeling your word usage. See what I did there lol
Hi Chris. Part 1 of 'Can Religion Be Explained Without God?' can be viewed here: www.closertotruth.com/series/can-religion-be-explained-without-god-part-1
Hi there. Part 1 of 'Can Religion Be Explained Without God?' can be viewed here: www.closertotruth.com/series/can-religion-be-explained-without-god-part-1
Dr Diamond is an awesome polymath. Note that he doesn't use these expressions, which, among many others, shouldn’t be in a scientist’s vocabulary because they are lame and lousy: the God gene, the God particle, intelligent design, common sense, to tell the truth, to be honest (with you), with all due respect, beg the question, you know (what I mean), don’t judge a book by its cover…. When some scientists venture from the physical into the metaphysical they do so at their peril. Why? Because science can *neither prove nor disprove* metaphysical ideas in religion, mythology, and the occult like God, gods, devas, angels, the Great White Brotherhood, ghosts, and so on. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Religion was created perhaps by mistake but most likely for the purpose of explaining the unknown world to ancient people. Even before religion as we now know it, people believed in Gods. Organized religion of today is the evolution of minds from ancient man. There were no true answers then and religion still doesn't have an answer just a claim(s) that is believed by billions in different ways. Yet not one of the countless of religions has ever proven that their God(s) exist, and because of that fact, they came up with Faith, "I can't show you, you just have to believe me and admit you're wrong"
Hmmm... I hesitate to disagree with such an eminent anthropologist as Dr Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel is a brilliant book), but I’m not convinced by the ‘cause of things’ origin for Religion, which Dennett also champions. Religion isn’t Science! D.S. Wilson in “Darwin’s Cathedral” explains religion in much more basic evolutionary terms of ‘multilevel selection’. Religion binds people together (etymology: ligo, ligere (Latin) to bind), and more successful religions facilitate individual investment in the group, over narrow self interest. Tribes that cooperated better, survived! Seems to me also more likely that all intelligent beings (including aliens) would attempt to envisage a Cosmos, much of which is deeply mysterious, about which they develop an oral tradition, which passes down the generations. We do the same in educating our children. Many aboriginal cultures use psychedelic ‘sacred’ plants which they would cite as evidence of the ‘spirit world’, the entities which inhabit it being culturally conditioned through the mythological stories told. Terence McKenna talked of ‘electric elves’ which he encountered using DMT, and consulted ‘The Mushroom’ on psilocybin, which he believed was sentient, and like a vast alien mind. Are these parts of our own minds!
Humans have the the capacity to believe prior to any religion. It seems a belief in water over the next hill has adaptive benefit, because if most of us couldn't believe we wouldn't even try to seek water.
I think one unasked question (though hinted regarding the culture versus genes comment) is whether it's possible to live without religion if humans evolved to have religion. That implies it is biological. So to reject religion under the rationalization of, "We've outgrown it as a species," is not to necessarily reject any genetic or biological component. So the atheist will still be religious to an extent, and therefore to what extent is a person religious without religion?
The evolutionary and cultural anthropological comments are the most valuable in this discussion, but in my opinion they do not go far enough.We do not need to go back to the first king to study the evolution of religion. A new religion was created 2,000 years ago, and this one should be studied in greater detail to investigate: 1) the creation of a new religion and 2) the evolution of the religion and what purposes do they serve. Jesus and His 12 disciples created a new religion - How did this occur? Who did it serve? It has evolved in thousands of directions (sects) and now who do these sects serve? The same study could be made with Islam and Bahá'í faiths to compare. All were created around a dynamic figure. I believe that the questions of 1) Why were they created in the first place? and 2) How and Why did they evolve into what they are today?
Religion is often assumed, both by those who practice it and by those who criticise it, to be based upon a belief in God. This is particularly so in the West which has inherited the theistic emphasis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Like science, however, religion is more properly understood in terms of its aims and methodologies. Both science and religion provide systematic means for investigating the nature of existence, but whereas science is a logical approach to discovering the structure of things in the universe and how they function, religion aims at a direct awareness of what, if anything, underlies or transcends the powers of nature and human agency.
Erol Rashit start again without falsely comparing two diametrically opposed ways of making claims about reality.
I’m not sure I understand your objection, but I’m happy to begin from a different point.
Our experience tells us that the universe contains material and that this material is in a state of flux. We ourselves, being conscious of the universe of which we are part, provide living proof that the universe also has awareness (and is, in a sense, self-aware). Thus we have three fundamental aspects of nature: matter, energy and awareness. Corresponding to these three, we tend to presume the existence respectively of space, time and individual agency (whether with or without free will), but these latter three are conceptualisations without any clearly understood means of how they might map to reality.
The three fundamental aspects are interrelated, and while one aspect may dominate a particular circumstance, the other two will always be present at least as potentialities. Together they give rise to the triad of seen, seeing and seer, where the transmission of energy associated with seeing produces an image of the seen in the awareness of the seer. Given that matter, energy and awareness are interrelated, it is reasonable to hypothesise that they derive from an underlying unity. Each of us exhibits the three aspects within ourselves; and in the case of awareness, we only ever directly experience our own. Thus if we wish to search for the underlying unity, the most obvious place to start is with ourselves.
This line of reasoning in continued in the prologue of my book Black & White. I won’t be so presumptuous as to link to it, but the prologue can be read online using Amazon’s ‘look inside’ facility without having to purchase the book.
cool story bro' ;)i find panpsychism unconvincing and am familiar with the vedantic influences behind what you are saying.
Religion is a triabl group identity which imcludes the social group bonding.
Religion is reason first, then submission, going far beyond reason and perception.
And it is the ultimate truth inherently embedded in human genes, therefore it’s light can never be extinguished.
It’s the highest level of cognition achieved by human mind using the same tools of sensory reception or methodology as in science in addition to use of intellect and experiential evidences.
Thank you for this series (Closer to Truth). I think the advanced alien civilization will have religion within it (e.g. a belief in a transcendent reality that one cannot know through reason/science/logic alone... must be intuited or experienced)... and they will better understand the limits of reason than we primitive apes do. They will also better understand the uses and misuses of evolution, etc.
How does one intuit a transcendent reality?
Good question. If we knew that, it wouldn't be intuition. I also intuit that I am currently aware/conscious.
Ok then, how can one intuit a transcendent reality and know that one's intuition is correct? Also, awareness/consciousness doesn't denote a "self" that is conscious, only that there is consciuosness
Right, self is not necessary. You intuit awareness/consciousness and it is some"thing" you do not know through logic, science, or math.... cannot know it from the outside looking in. 2) The best evidence for the intuition is that it feels even more real than your experience of the external world.... If you are in a video game simulation (you are an avatar) and you intuit the world outside the video game, there is nothing in the video game you can point to (i.e. science, logic, math) to prove your intuition is correct or incorrect. The most reason can do is outline its own limits.
Paul Stearns I guess I need your definition of intuition because as I understand it, intuition doesn’t work for me. My definition is it’s something you know by feel, without having to use reasoning. However, I don’t think it applies to consciousness since it is what-is-presently-happening. It is apparent. You don’t have to feel it, it is what is. Also I wouldn’t call consciousness a “thing” (object), but more like a process, a subjective experiencing of what is going on.
Semantics is always an issue when having philosophical discussions but I’m not feeling your word usage. See what I did there lol
I can’t seem to find part 1
Hi Chris. Part 1 of 'Can Religion Be Explained Without God?' can be viewed here: www.closertotruth.com/series/can-religion-be-explained-without-god-part-1
His book about the amusement of sex was very good and informative.
Religion can only be explained without gods.
Twirlip Of The Mists just like everything else..
Jainism, Buddhism, Sankhya etc are religions/philosophies without any God. West is not the whole world.
Hey, Jared! Tell me you hate religion without telling me you hate religion.
I missed part one.
Hi there. Part 1 of 'Can Religion Be Explained Without God?' can be viewed here: www.closertotruth.com/series/can-religion-be-explained-without-god-part-1
Dr Diamond is an awesome polymath. Note that he doesn't use these expressions, which, among many others, shouldn’t be in a scientist’s vocabulary because they are lame and lousy: the God gene, the God particle, intelligent design, common sense, to tell the truth, to be honest (with you), with all due respect, beg the question, you know (what I mean), don’t judge a book by its cover….
When some scientists venture from the physical into the metaphysical they do so at their peril. Why? Because science can *neither prove nor disprove* metaphysical ideas in religion, mythology, and the occult like God, gods, devas, angels, the Great White Brotherhood, ghosts, and so on. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Religion was created perhaps by mistake but most likely for the purpose of explaining the unknown world to ancient people. Even before religion as we now know it, people believed in Gods. Organized religion of today is the evolution of minds from ancient man. There were no true answers then and religion still doesn't have an answer just a claim(s) that is believed by billions in different ways. Yet not one of the countless of religions has ever proven that their God(s) exist, and because of that fact, they came up with Faith, "I can't show you, you just have to believe me and admit you're wrong"
Of course it can
advertisement for a bible in this video, hahahahhahahhahha
Hmmm... I hesitate to disagree with such an eminent anthropologist as Dr Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel is a brilliant book), but I’m not convinced by the ‘cause of things’ origin for Religion, which Dennett also champions. Religion isn’t Science!
D.S. Wilson in “Darwin’s Cathedral” explains religion in much more basic evolutionary terms of ‘multilevel selection’. Religion binds people together (etymology: ligo, ligere (Latin) to bind), and more successful religions facilitate individual investment in the group, over narrow self interest. Tribes that cooperated better, survived!
Seems to me also more likely that all intelligent beings (including aliens) would attempt to envisage a Cosmos, much of which is deeply mysterious, about which they develop an oral tradition, which passes down the generations. We do the same in educating our children. Many aboriginal cultures use psychedelic ‘sacred’ plants which they would cite as evidence of the ‘spirit world’, the entities which inhabit it being culturally conditioned through the mythological stories told. Terence McKenna talked of ‘electric elves’ which he encountered using DMT, and consulted ‘The Mushroom’ on psilocybin, which he believed was sentient, and like a vast alien mind. Are these parts of our own minds!
STOP DOING THE BLURRY FADE-IN!!!!
Michael Tellurian Hah I think this EVERY TIME
I guess it would have to be, since there is no god
Who cares??? It's Loony Tunes!
Diamond is doing a Icarous fly in this topic propus and vanity Koke a child