[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor


Ok, name one human culture that have ever existed that had no faith. One. Its human, its basic. You can no more deny it than deny your opposable thumbs.

And since your such a proponent of logic, would you mind going through my posts (there are like 2, so its not difficult) and pointing out where I am in error. I promise to be civil and dispute the manner in an apporpriate fashion

There isn't one. I would hazard a guess that all civilizations go through a period wherein they have beliefs in natural spirits, then pantheons of basic gods, then smaller pantheons of complex gods, followed by monotheism, followed by... well, you know where I'm going.

Think of it as cultural maturity and societies as children. Every kid has to learn to crawl before they walk, and how to talk before they can debate.

[aldo_14]

Stupid thought of the day - is the internet a culture?

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by mikhael

There isn't one. I would hazard a guess that all civilizations go through a period wherein they have beliefs in natural spirits, then pantheons of basic gods, then smaller pantheons of complex gods, followed by monotheism, followed by... well, you know where I'm going.
 

Only thing is, the amount of religious people in the world isn't getting smaller. In fact, it's getting larger. Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. The number of atheists isn't any larger, than say during the times of the old greeks. Look at the old philosophical texts, a lot of them are about as atheist as the modern world

[mikhael]

I'm suddenly reminded of a story by Robert Sawyer, in which two alien species land on earth and demand to talk to a paleontologist. When told by a scientist that many people don't believe in God because there is no direct, credible proof, the aliens are incredulous. They tell him that of course God exists and there's obvious proof for anyone to see.

The human and the aliens all turn out to be wrong, but its definately worth a read. For that matter, so are pretty much all of Sawyer's books. The man is brilliant.

One of them features a society of hominids (neandertals, actually) that developed with no belief in god or the supernatural. Their morals are based entirely on rational decisions making. Of course, they have no sexual taboos between adults and the men live apart from the women, coming together only to mate. Another good read: "Humans", "Hominids" and "Hybrids" are the titles, I think.

[Rictor]

I don't think of it as evolution. Evolution means betterment. Belief in natural spirits is not "better" than a pantheon of gods, which is not "better" than monotheism. And, aetheism is not better than any of those. Its not more sophisticated, its just more jaded. Not for any specific reason, just cause.

And not that it matters, but I don't percieve that as time goes on, humanity will become less spiritual. I think that, like me, they will see how science and faith can co exist because they exist for different purposes. As humanity becomes more sophisticated, we will regain our faith. Or so I believe.

edit:

Aldo, I think that though the Internet is not in and of itself a culture, it is a major part of a culture. This culture, for lack of a proper name, is the 90s Net/Globalization/Post Cold War/ One World culture.

[Flipside]

Difficult to say, since it is a blending of a large number of different beliefs and Morals, as the current topic shows rather well

I agree with Mik here, Religion is like a walking frame, it holds us up when we are unsteady on our feet. theres nothing wrong with religion par-se, but humans have always been famous as tool-makers.

Personally I think a few Morals are inbuilt, most Humans know it's wrong to kill another Human, just as most other animals don't kill each other. But Humans have this incredible ability to over-ride that 'OS' and behave in an almost fractal manner. It's this introduction of Chaos to human thinking which, in my opinion, makes most of the difference.

Take as an recent example, the debate on homosexuality, the word 'Morals' was bandied about a lot during that thread, but these kind of morals are subjective, they apply only to the person who is viewing the situation, every other person in the world may have different feelings about what they are seeing/reading etc. These morals, I feel, are imprinted onto you by your environment, I would say such things as 'Honour' and 'National Pride' and 'Thrift' are all subjective.
This doesn't mean they are bad, it just means they were put into place after your birth, even a very young child is aware of when their parent is in pain or is sad, and responds in kind, but thinks absolutely nothing about running around the house completely naked.

Flipside

[karajorma]

Myths perpetuated by the faithful.

1) Atheist morals can only be derived from science.

 An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. That's it. The definition of atheism.  Nowhere does it say that an atheist is a vulcan and has renounced all emotion in favour of science. That's a complete fabrication.

I don't cheat on my girlfriend because I love her, not cause some all powerful diety or scientific reasoning tells me not to. In fact the scientific part of my brain tells me that my love is mostly due to hormones flowing round my body in an attempt by my genes to trick my brain into staying with her for long enough to raise children. Guess what. I don't care!

 I don't care either that science tells me that I'd be able to father more children if I did cheat on her. To be honest I don't give a damn about that because I'm listening to my emotions.

 I don't kill people because I empathise with them. I wouldn't want someone to kill me. That's why I can put myself in their position. Empathy is very important for intelligent creatures that live in groups. In fact it's so important that we aren't the only creatures able to do it

From the
BBC Horizon website
Dr JANE GOODALL: There’s absolutely no question that chimpanzees understand the needs and the emotions of other chimpanzees and respond correctly. They can even understand the needs of another human being, so clearly they do have theory of mind.

Well if most chimps can decide not to kill their own kind (even though some do) without needing to resort to religious texts then I see no reason that I should need them either. If a chimp can arrive at a moral framework without the need for faith I see no reason I need it.
 If you don't believe that chimps normally act morally read up on a certain sadistic bastard called Frodo and see what happens when a chimp abandons that morality.

Prof MARTIN MULLER (Michigan University): It was in August of 1988, so we were with our ten males and they were patrolling. We could hear them screaming and very excited, and we heard them pounding, it sounded like they were pounding on the ground. And we realised that, that our chimps were with a chimp from their neighbouring community that they had killed and the pounding that they were doing was on his body, they were still pounding on his chest, and it was horrific. The whole front of the, of the chimpanzee was covered with thirty or forty puncture wounds and lacerations, the, the ribs were sticking up out of the rib cage because they’d, they’d beaten on his chest so hard. They’d ripped his trachea out, they’d removed his testicles, they’d torn off toe nails and finger nails, and it was clear what had happened, was that some of the males had held him down while the others attacked.

NARRATOR: Slowly it dawned on scientists that chimpanzees were not like us just because they could think, reason and use tools. They were like us because they could be cruel.

Prof RICHARD WRANGHAM: There is a sense in which this looks sadistic, the, the joy, this is kind of hard to take you know because again it’s got horrible echoes of what happens with humans at times. The males who attack, they do seem to take a certain joy in the attack, their drinking of the blood sometimes, or the biting, gripping with the teeth of the skin on part of the arm and then rearing the head back and taking the skin with it and tearing it all the way around. They look as though they’re in a state of, of intense excitement and maybe joy.

NARRATOR: Chimpanzees can be described as sadistic because they have theory of mind, they know when they’re inflicting pain. Not all animals have this ability.

Bet you'll never look at a chimp in a nappy quite the same again

2) Without God there can be no morals

So if someone were to conclusively prove the bible false tomorrow (say by using a time machine and proving that Jesus didn't perform any miracles) would the religious immediately go out and murder their children and cheat on their wives? Well some of them probably would because it was only the fear of going to hell that was stopping them from acting like animals. But most of them have plugged in to the same morality that I have and wouldn't.
 They may dress it up and say that they don't do those things because the bible says it is wrong but deep down even if the bible was proved false most people don't kill their children cause they love them, not cause they are scared of God or convinced by religious texts that it's wrong.

3) Without a God who's to say that your morality is better than mine? Isn't it just mob rule.

Yep. And the difference from the way things are now is...?

Even with religion no one can decide who is correct. It just ends up as my religion is better than your religion pissing contests. At least with God removed from the arguement the contest is about the matter at hand rather than what was written down in a book several thousend years ago.

[Stryke 9]

Rictor: There were several states with no "faith", most recently the Communist nations. Was there quasireligious political zealotry? Of course. That is where you'll find the universal, not in some need for the nebulous concept of a God (and, honestly, most of the gods were absolutely nothing like the Christian God, hell, a good number of them would better qualify as regular people with supernatural powers). The greater mass of people need a father figure watching over them telling them what to do, something to assuage their fear of the unknown, and a justification to hate those who are different from them. Religion provides all of these, as do political philosophies like fascism and Stalinism.

Presuming that in the long run totalitarian governments and other forms of political fanaticism don't overtake us all, yes, religion probably will stay, in one form or another. But it's important not to mistake why, and the events of the previous century in particular have made the reasons quite clear (though, really, there's evidence in every century of much the same).

Jaded? Hardly. The world is so much more interesting when you can't look at some glorious structure or improbable natual formation, glaze your eyes over, and say the big man in the sky did it. It's only when you look at the world from a standpoint of the real that you realize how damned intricate every little thing is.



Stu: Um, you're probably reading wrong. Atheism tended to get you a death penalty in Greek civilization, so even were it imaginable to most of the philosophers they certainly wouldn't have gone about making a show of it. There were a few who were critical of the religious dogma of the day, Socrates and co. in particular, but religion was pretty culturally endemic in the day. Also, have you seen Joe Average Christian? None of the Protestants (dirty heretics) I know even go to church, much less are capable of quoting passages from the Bible, and it'd be beyond most to even give a clear explanation of what's in the Old Testament. Religion is something paid lip-service to by the enormous majority of people, a cultural artifact rather than the result of any genuine convictions. Compare that to the extreme religiosity of even three centuries ago (never mind a thousand years, when people'd think nothing of hearing someone talk about a witch cursing their crops or seeing a satyr in the woods or any of a thousand other crossovers from the supernatural to everyday life that today'd merit a long trip to the nice place with padded walls),  and, well... guess it all matters what you define "religion" by. The name Jesus will probably still ring a bell in a hundred years, but that may well be it.

[YodaSean]

Originally posted by karajorma
Myths perpetuated by the faithful.


2) Without God there can be no morals

So if someone were to conclusively prove the bible false tomorrow (say by using a time machine and proving that Jesus didn't perform any miracles) would the religious immediately go out and murder their children and cheat on their wives? Well some of them probably would because it was only the fear of going to hell that was stopping them from acting like animals. But most of them have plugged in to the same morality that I have and wouldn't.
 They may dress it up and say that they don't do those things because the bible says it is wrong but deep down even if the bible was proved false most people don't kill their children cause they love them, not cause they are scared of God or convinced by religious texts that it's wrong.

*comes out of lurking mode*

If I understand right, you're saying that God has no relation to morals because certain morals are innate in humans?    

I think that most religious people would actually agree with this, but for different reasons.  It is my belief, at least, that it is God who gave all people morals(including those who don't believe in Him).  Not "acting like animals" out of fear of going to Hell would imply that one has their values in the wrong place, fear of divine punishment should not be the influence for one's actions.

Or perhaps I just misunderstood what you said

[Setekh]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Stupid thought of the day - is the internet a culture?

Yes it is, O great Alan.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Kazan
TrashMan: brain scans, behavior observation, etc


wormholes aren't accepted as a fact - it's just a theory

black holes are simple - it's a huge gravity well

the formulae to describe the behavior being complex doesn't mean the force is complex - the equasion describing gravity is com0plex by your definition im sure (rational polynomial function)  but gravity is a simple force

Doesn't that prove what I said - complex and at the same time simple?

And brai scans and behavior observation prove NOTHING....

[karajorma]

Originally posted by YodaSean
*comes out of lurking mode*

If I understand right, you're saying that God has no relation to morals because certain morals are innate in humans?    

I think that most religious people would actually agree with this, but for different reasons.  It is my belief, at least, that it is God who gave all people morals(including those who don't believe in Him).  Not "acting like animals" out of fear of going to Hell would imply that one has their values in the wrong place, fear of divine punishment should not be the influence for one's actions.

Or perhaps I just misunderstood what you said

Nope. You pretty much nailed it. You may disagree with me on the reason why humans have morals (evolution vs God putting it in as an innate ability) but you're not argueing the outcome. You'll be suprised at the number of times I've heard christians claim that because atheists don't believe in God they must be immoral (or amoral). That because we don't have a book telling us what to do we can't have morals.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by Stryke 9


Stu: Um, you're probably reading wrong. Atheism tended to get you a death penalty in Greek civilization, so even were it imaginable to most of the philosophers they certainly wouldn't have gone about making a show of it. There were a few who were critical of the religious dogma of the day, Socrates and co. in particular, but religion was pretty culturally endemic in the day. Also, have you seen Joe Average Christian? None of the Protestants (dirty heretics) I know even go to church, much less are capable of quoting passages from the Bible, and it'd be beyond most to even give a clear explanation of what's in the Old Testament. Religion is something paid lip-service to by the enormous majority of people, a cultural artifact rather than the result of any genuine convictions. Compare that to the extreme religiosity of even three centuries ago (never mind a thousand years, when people'd think nothing of hearing someone talk about a witch cursing their crops or seeing a satyr in the woods or any of a thousand other crossovers from the supernatural to everyday life that today'd merit a long trip to the nice place with padded walls),  and, well... guess it all matters what you define "religion" by. The name Jesus will probably still ring a bell in a hundred years, but that may well be it.

On the other hand, look at Joe Average Roman. Ever read Trimalchios Feast? They were pretty much exactly the same like yoour Joe Average Christian today, worse actually.

But to adress another point, I´m not sure deriving from logic and personal interests is as good as Mik wants to show. I mean, without religion, and irrationality, 90% of literature, art and music we have today wouldn´t exist. Sure, we had religious wars, the Spanish Inquisition and whatnot, but we also have the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Mozart´s Requiem and whatnot.

A logical, rational human kind would be like walking computers. Just to an extent more advanced. And another thing, history has already proven to us, that a culture without some religion-based morals, without some "higher" principles to base the culture on, will eventually be self-destructive. You may see a world without god as an inevitabiltiy, I see it as a utopia.

There have been ´godless´ periods in the history of man kind. The late Roman Empire for example. Look what happened to them.

And Stryke, you may have noticed that I didn´t mention christian relgiion. I mentioned Islam, which is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, and is already close to matching Christianity in size. But unlike Christianity, you Average Joe Islamist follows his religion to the letter.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by mikhael
I'm suddenly reminded of a story by Robert Sawyer, in which two alien species land on earth and demand to talk to a paleontologist. When told by a scientist that many people don't believe in God because there is no direct, credible proof, the aliens are incredulous. They tell him that of course God exists and there's obvious proof for anyone to see.
 

I´ll check them out. Assuming I can get them. Not a lot of SF is translated to estonian, and finding non-bestseller english books is next to impossible.

You should check out Stanislaw Lem´s "The Travels of Ijon Tichy". It has got a novella, in which the chief character meets a man who has created a matrix-like society. It provides some good insight into the nature of science vs. god.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Stunaep
But to adress another point, I´m not sure deriving from logic and personal interests is as good as Mik wants to show. I mean, without religion, and irrationality, 90% of literature, art and music we have today wouldn´t exist. Sure, we had religious wars, the Spanish Inquisition and whatnot, but we also have the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Mozart´s Requiem and whatnot.

Um, Stu, I was talking about religion not being a prerequisite for morals. I was not arguing against religion. I'm really fond of religion.

A logical, rational human kind would be like walking computers. Just to an extent more advanced. And another thing, history has already proven to us, that a culture without some religion-based morals, without some "higher" principles to base the culture on, will eventually be self-destructive. You may see a world without god as an inevitabiltiy, I see it as a utopia.

You might be looking for the word 'dystopia', not 'utopia'. 'Utopia' is a good thing.
You talk about higher principles and that there are none without religion-based morals. This is ridiculous. I can name two "higher" principles without ever mentioning religion: the betterment of mankind and the pursuit of a deeper understanding of the universe. There is no need to appeal to religion to find the value and beauty of Man's works upon this world (nor to find the horrrors and ugliness we likewise have inflicted). One only has to look at something like the Great Wall of China, or the incredible beauty of Manhattan to see that Mankind can create incredible things without resorting to appealing to the supernatural. We've put men on the moon and sent probes to take photographs of parts of the universe we have yet to personally visit. If these achievements are somehow of lesser 'value' than your Notre Dame and your Requiem, I suggest, perhaps that you do not give enough credit to mankind.

There have been ´godless´ periods in the history of man kind. The late Roman Empire for example. Look what happened to them.

And Stryke, you may have noticed that I didn´t mention christian relgiion. I mentioned Islam, which is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, and is already close to matching Christianity in size. But unlike Christianity, you Average Joe Islamist follows his religion to the letter.

I would have to challenge you on both these points.

The Roman empire did not fall because they were godless. They fell because they were ridiculously large empire built on conquest. Given the logistical difficulties they faced--including the time/distance issues, and the ridiculous cost of maintaining the sort of armies required to secure an empire built on conquest--collapse was inevitable. You can only stack the floors of a building so high before it collapses under its own weight. Such an unwieldy empire did not have the infrastructure to survive. Fragmentation was inevitable. One, indeed, could argue that religion may have helped speed this fall. Instead of having a common religious faith to unite the people, religious differences helped the fragmentation process.

Second, I have to argue the idea the average muslim (Islamist is not an appropriate word as it implies a militant, politicised Islam, in modern parlance) is any more attentive to the fine details of his religion than the average Christian, Jew or Hindu. In all cultures, the truly orthodox have, historically, been in the minority, whilst the majority have been of more moderate observance.

[TrashMan]

The Roman empire fell becoause of numeorus reasons, of which the least of all was logistics... But that's beside the point of this topic....

Stu, you say you see a world without God as Utopia...Well, I'd hate to live in your Utopia...

Sadly, more and more people are becoming atheists, beliving only what science sez. Ironicly, they belive science can explain (and will explain) all. Too bad the scientist are allso humans, and that humanity has proven dumb...

[karajorma]

Do I really have to point at the long post about chimps and morals to show Stunaep & Trashman that I've already pre-empted and answered their arguements?

[diamondgeezer]

Trash, you believe that everything can be explained by a 2000 year old book, written and constantly revised under some very dubious circumstances.

Atheists do not believe everything can be explained by science. Some people just prefer to put their trust in something they can see or hold or othersie quantify than in an invisible dude in the sky. An invisible guy who wears sandals, for that matter.

To put it simply - this desk in front of me? My computer? Those things I beleive in. The sun, the moon, the stars? Those I believe in also. The invisible guy who tells you what to do? Forgive me if I think you're a bit odd for believing in him.

[Rictor]

The thing which I want to emphasise, is that there is a huge difference between being religious and being spiritual.

Being religious means you follow a set of traditions, teaching, rituals and beliefs. Christianity, Islam, Judiasm and so forth.

Spirituality is the belief in "somthing else". Not founded on scientifc or logical grounds. Call is belief in the magical, he mysterious, whatever. Its faith, unburdened by codified laws. In some ways, I think that its more pure becuase it is not restrictive. This category is much broader than religion, because essentially a "person of faith" can pick and choose any elements of any religions or belief system that they so choose. They can also come up with new ones. Its personal, so who are you to interfere.

I think that humanity will move more towards the latter as time goes by. Much like the Reformation changed religion into a more personal affair, so it will be now and in the future. Of course, this is just my opinion, but we'll see how it turns out.

[Flipside]

Actually, I've always considered spiritualism just a Politically Correct way of saying you believe in the Force