Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Religion Part of Human Nature?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:14:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I say no. In fact, I have seen both Theists and Atheists claim that religion is part of human nature.

But if religion were part of human nature, then why aren't people either born with an inherent belief, or develop a belief, in Christ's salvation or Muhammad's prophesies? These beliefs are things that are externally imposed, that's why.

One of the common explanations as to how religion came about is to claim that the ancients invented primitive gods to explain natural processes, or even attributed the divine to natural things like the sun. They would explain that humans have a tendency to seek out patterns and indulge their curiosities and that's how they came to those ancient polytheistic beliefs. They would then assert that these ancient beliefs eventually developed into the religions we have now.

Except, here's the problem. Where the hell did ideas like Salvation, original sin, faith, heaven, moral commandments, dogmas, and rituals come from if religion is merely ancient man's attempt to explain nature? Doesn't that sound more like the scientific method which is inherent in humans? The desire to figure out how things worked? Obviously the ancients failed, but that was their goal.

Concepts like Salvation, Saviors, and faith cannot possibly have arose from people merely trying to uncover the workings of the world. It seems like something much different is going on here.

Thoughts?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:16:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know I thought Christianity and Theism was absurd until my mom started taking me to church around 3rd grade. So no, I don't think religion is part of human nature. It developed as a primitive way to explain the nature of the universe.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:17:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 8:14:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Where the hell did ideas like Salvation,

I see what you did there.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:29:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Religious tales are often as absurd as the Santa Clause story. It's funny how when everyone thinks of a religion that's not their own, it sounds like mythology - yet people seem to conveniently ignore all of the absurdities professed by their own dogmas. I don't think it's natural to believe in 'religion' at all, but I do think it's human nature to attribute things we do not know the answer to or fully understand yet as being mystical or attributed to a "higher power." I also think it's a coping mechanism for dealing with death and life's struggles, as well as a useful tool for politics (unfortunately) and can generally be used for good or to scare people into staying in line.
President of DDO
Suitecake
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:33:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suppose it depends upon how broadly you are defining 'religion' and 'human nature.'

When people claim (as I would) that religion is indeed part of human nature, they aren't claiming that the intricacies of Christian doctrine are impressed upon an infant's mind prior to birth (a result of the process of evolution). Rather, the religious impulse, the reckless conclusions of the desire for explanation, is central to humanity. This recklessness has resulted in some cases in very intricate, philosophical systems. In other cases, it's resulted in belief in the great JuJu in the sky, who does good things if you sacrifice to it, and bad things if you don't (which is to say, Judeo-Christianity sans philosophy).

The universality of religions leads one to believe that it is a fundamentally human impulse. The plurality of religions leads one to believe that that impulse is abstracted from the actual details of each particular religion.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:37:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 8:29:54 PM, Danielle wrote:
Religious tales are often as absurd as the Santa Clause story. It's funny how when everyone thinks of a religion that's not their own, it sounds like mythology - yet people seem to conveniently ignore all of the absurdities professed by their own dogmas.

I once came across a wonderful quote that basically said "You're an atheist to thousands of Gods; I'm an atheist to one more." I think it stems primarily from the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance (the possibility of aspects of my religion being false feels bad, ergo, I reject that possibility) and the human tendency to believe what are original influences say is true.

I don't think it's natural to believe in 'religion' at all, but I do think it's human nature to attribute things we do not know the answer to or fully understand yet as being mystical or attributed to a "higher power."

But now that many of the things we once thought of as lofty and mystical and impossible are explained by modern science, do you think the tendency to attribute things to the supernatural will still remain?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:38:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 8:14:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I say no. In fact, I have seen both Theists and Atheists claim that religion is part of human nature.

But if religion were part of human nature, then why aren't people either born with an inherent belief, or develop a belief, in Christ's salvation or Muhammad's prophesies? These beliefs are things that are externally imposed, that's why.

An innate capacity for religious belief does seem to exist, if civilisation were destroyed by a nuclear war that killed all adults and destroyed all traces of religion but left kids old enough to fend for themselves then they would grow up to build churches and pray to Gods. Even atheist adults who disavow all religious views still hold within them natural religious sentiment. This is why Richard Dawkins talks to his dead friends and and feels guilty that a certain sub-set of Oxford no longer prays to ease the passage of it's founder through purgatory.

There still remains that tiny little spark.


One of the common explanations as to how religion came about is to claim that the ancients invented primitive gods to explain natural processes, or even attributed the divine to natural things like the sun. They would explain that humans have a tendency to seek out patterns and indulge their curiosities and that's how they came to those ancient polytheistic beliefs. They would then assert that these ancient beliefs eventually developed into the religions we have now.

Except, here's the problem. Where the hell did ideas like Salvation, original sin, faith, heaven, moral commandments, dogmas, and rituals come from if religion is merely ancient man's attempt to explain nature? Doesn't that sound more like the scientific method which is inherent in humans? The desire to figure out how things worked? Obviously the ancients failed, but that was their goal.

The two are the same thing.

Concepts like Salvation, Saviors, and faith cannot possibly have arose from people merely trying to uncover the workings of the world. It seems like something much different is going on here.

Seriously, you are still at this stage? Religion attempts to provide both an explaination and a security blanket. The whole concept of salvation and saviours exist to explain the evils of the world and provide a hug to make us feel better about it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:55:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 8:37:36 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 2/21/2011 8:29:54 PM, Danielle wrote:
I once came across a wonderful quote that basically said "You're an atheist to thousands of Gods; I'm an atheist to one more." I think it stems primarily from the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance (the possibility of aspects of my religion being false feels bad, ergo, I reject that possibility) and the human tendency to believe what are original influences say is true.

Yes, I've seen that. Excellent quote and excellent points.

But now that many of the things we once thought of as lofty and mystical and impossible are explained by modern science, do you think the tendency to attribute things to the supernatural will still remain?

Of course. For one thing we'll never be able to come close to figuring out the answers to everything that we want the answers to. For another people still attribute the "why" of things to God, even if science explains the "how." Further still my point about how religion provides an excellent coping mechanism for death and the after life, which modern and even future science can probably never explain. It also serves a great purpose to a lot of people who rely on it - so y,es I still think these myths will be perpetuated, no matter how much science/logic attempts to defy the tales.
President of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 9:05:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 8:38:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/21/2011 8:14:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I say no. In fact, I have seen both Theists and Atheists claim that religion is part of human nature.

But if religion were part of human nature, then why aren't people either born with an inherent belief, or develop a belief, in Christ's salvation or Muhammad's prophesies? These beliefs are things that are externally imposed, that's why.

An innate capacity for religious belief does seem to exist,

I think that point is quite obvious as people must have the capacity in order to hold religious beliefs.

if civilisation were destroyed by a nuclear war that killed all adults and destroyed all traces of religion but left kids old enough to fend for themselves then they would grow up to build churches and pray to Gods.

Uh, I highly doubt that. Is there any particular line of reasoning that led you to this conclusion?

Even atheist adults who disavow all religious views still hold within them natural religious sentiment.

Yes, but when people like Dawkins say that they have a "religious reverence for nature," they mean in it a different sort of way. Like the same amount of passion and emotional attachment akin to religious belief, but the belief itself is not religious (nature obviously exists).

This is why Richard Dawkins talks to his dead friends and and feels guilty that a certain sub-set of Oxford no longer prays to ease the passage of it's founder through purgatory.

I've never heard of that. Source? That doesn't sound like Dawkins to me.

One of the common explanations as to how religion came about is to claim that the ancients invented primitive gods to explain natural processes, or even attributed the divine to natural things like the sun. They would explain that humans have a tendency to seek out patterns and indulge their curiosities and that's how they came to those ancient polytheistic beliefs. They would then assert that these ancient beliefs eventually developed into the religions we have now.

Except, here's the problem. Where the hell did ideas like Salvation, original sin, faith, heaven, moral commandments, dogmas, and rituals come from if religion is merely ancient man's attempt to explain nature? Doesn't that sound more like the scientific method which is inherent in humans? The desire to figure out how things worked? Obviously the ancients failed, but that was their goal.

The two are the same thing.

What is the same thing?

Concepts like Salvation, Saviors, and faith cannot possibly have arose from people merely trying to uncover the workings of the world. It seems like something much different is going on here.

Seriously, you are still at this stage? Religion attempts to provide both an explaination and a security blanket.

Sure, religion may provide people with comfort, but it only works if the religious belief is already assumed to be true. People don't invent beliefs they know are false to comfort themselves, they turn to previously established religious belief systems which are already held to be truth.

The whole concept of salvation and saviours exist to explain the evils of the world and provide a hug to make us feel better about it.

I disagree. Honestly, it sounds like a rather depressing worldview that I would never want to invent and it especially doesn't provide comfort.

I mean, think of a child or even an adult who lives in some indigenous land with no religious beliefs, do you think they would invent a deity who excludes those who don't believe in him and and don't follow his rules (rules that prohibit him from doing things he enjoys; you know, sins are usually things we love to do), and that he will only save those who believe in him?

Seriously, that would require a mentally retarded amount of cognitive dissonance to believe in a deity and his rules and means of salvation, that YOU YOURSELF INVENTED.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 9:16:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Religion is a part of human nature.

Society is a construct built on top of our own individual natures. I would consider the interaction between people to be human nature. This is what I am referring to when I say that it is human nature.

As long as you have people with authority who are able to get people to believe in what they say.. You are going to have organized religion. Organized religion is by nature a self perpetuating institution.

If you look at religion from the eastern way of understanding things.. Religion and philosophy are considered the same thing.

It would be absurd to say that it isn't part of human nature, because clearly it is a construct of natural processes that result from human interaction. Why would there be religion, and why would it constantly be with us if it wasn't part of human nature?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 9:26:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 9:16:53 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
As long as you have people with authority who are able to get people to believe in what they say.. You are going to have organized religion. Organized religion is by nature a self perpetuating institution.

I'm talking about supernatural and salvific beliefs on an individual level, not institutions and blind followers.

If you look at religion from the eastern way of understanding things.. Religion and philosophy are considered the same thing.

True, but I'm referring to "religion" as the West understands it. The reason religion in the East is considered to be the same as philosophy is because Eastern religion is actually very introspective, inquisitive, and philosophical as opposed to dogmatic and supernatural (though, there are certainly supernatural beliefs as well).

It would be absurd to say that it isn't part of human nature, because clearly it is a construct of natural processes that result from human interaction. Why would there be religion,

Yeah, I don't think human interaction is the cause of religious beliefs. Certainly, it can be used to transfer and spread religious beliefs, but religious beliefs don't arise out of human interaction.

and why would it constantly be with us if it wasn't part of human nature?

You would have a point if it was ubiquitous like the human tendency to eat and fornicate, but it's not.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 9:36:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 9:26:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/21/2011 9:16:53 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
As long as you have people with authority who are able to get people to believe in what they say.. You are going to have organized religion. Organized religion is by nature a self perpetuating institution.

I'm talking about supernatural and salvific beliefs on an individual level, not institutions and blind followers.


The human brain is a remarkable pattern finding machine. So remarkable in fact that sometimes it finds patterns that aren't there.

I doubt there are many people who genuinely believe in this stuff after a certain point. But I'd still say because of our own built in ability to perceive patterns, that it is still part of human nature. It just doesn't always show.

If you look at religion from the eastern way of understanding things.. Religion and philosophy are considered the same thing.

True, but I'm referring to "religion" as the West understands it. The reason religion in the East is considered to be the same as philosophy is because Eastern religion is actually very introspective, inquisitive, and philosophical as opposed to dogmatic and supernatural (though, there are certainly supernatural beliefs as well).

Alright, and I suppose so.. For the most part, really depends on which eastern religion or philosophy you are talking about though. =p

That said, I'll go by your definition.

It would be absurd to say that it isn't part of human nature, because clearly it is a construct of natural processes that result from human interaction. Why would there be religion,

Yeah, I don't think human interaction is the cause of religious beliefs. Certainly, it can be used to transfer and spread religious beliefs, but religious beliefs don't arise out of human interaction.


The inability to communicate a realized connection with the divine, yet the desire to communicate it will do wonders to the beliefs of other people, I think. Especially if they have faith in what it is you are saying.

and why would it constantly be with us if it wasn't part of human nature?

You would have a point if it was ubiquitous like the human tendency to eat and fornicate, but it's not.

Well, some people would rather waste away their lives playing WoW, and can go without having sex. Where do you think those 72 virgins come from?

That doesn't mean that the human tendency to perform coitus is not part of human nature. ;p
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 9:40:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 8:14:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I say no. In fact, I have seen both Theists and Atheists claim that religion is part of human nature.

But if religion were part of human nature, then why aren't people either born with an inherent belief, or develop a belief, in Christ's salvation or Muhammad's prophesies? These beliefs are things that are externally imposed, that's why.

One of the common explanations as to how religion came about is to claim that the ancients invented primitive gods to explain natural processes, or even attributed the divine to natural things like the sun. They would explain that humans have a tendency to seek out patterns and indulge their curiosities and that's how they came to those ancient polytheistic beliefs. They would then assert that these ancient beliefs eventually developed into the religions we have now.

Except, here's the problem. Where the hell did ideas like Salvation, original sin, faith, heaven, moral commandments, dogmas, and rituals come from if religion is merely ancient man's attempt to explain nature? Doesn't that sound more like the scientific method which is inherent in humans? The desire to figure out how things worked? Obviously the ancients failed, but that was their goal.

Concepts like Salvation, Saviors, and faith cannot possibly have arose from people merely trying to uncover the workings of the world. It seems like something much different is going on here.

Thoughts?

Response: In islam, we are informed that we are born Muslims. Islam means, " submission to the will of Allah". Thus a Muslim is one who submits their will to Allah.

Since we are born in obedience to human nature and our nature is from Allah, then we are born muslims because we naturally submit our will to human nature thus submitting our will to Allah. Islam is a religion of good morals and principles and Allah has created within our nature to prefer and desire to act out good morals and principles above any other behavior when we are born. However,due to our upbringing and environment, a person can learn and want to desire other thing, thus not following the nature of islam in which they were born in. This is what islam means when saying your are born in religion. I however can't speak for other religions.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 1:32:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 9:40:09 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/21/2011 8:14:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I say no. In fact, I have seen both Theists and Atheists claim that religion is part of human nature.

But if religion were part of human nature, then why aren't people either born with an inherent belief, or develop a belief, in Christ's salvation or Muhammad's prophesies? These beliefs are things that are externally imposed, that's why.

One of the common explanations as to how religion came about is to claim that the ancients invented primitive gods to explain natural processes, or even attributed the divine to natural things like the sun. They would explain that humans have a tendency to seek out patterns and indulge their curiosities and that's how they came to those ancient polytheistic beliefs. They would then assert that these ancient beliefs eventually developed into the religions we have now.

Except, here's the problem. Where the hell did ideas like Salvation, original sin, faith, heaven, moral commandments, dogmas, and rituals come from if religion is merely ancient man's attempt to explain nature? Doesn't that sound more like the scientific method which is inherent in humans? The desire to figure out how things worked? Obviously the ancients failed, but that was their goal.

Concepts like Salvation, Saviors, and faith cannot possibly have arose from people merely trying to uncover the workings of the world. It seems like something much different is going on here.

Thoughts?

Response: In islam, we are informed that we are born Muslims. Islam means, " submission to the will of Allah". Thus a Muslim is one who submits their will to Allah.

This question can really only be answered from a sociological perspective, not a religious one.

Since we are born in obedience to human nature and our nature is from Allah, then we are born muslims because we naturally submit our will to human nature thus submitting our will to Allah.

LMAO! We are born Muslims and naturally submit to Allah? Then how am I a Buddhist who doesn't even believe in God, let alone submit to one?

Islam is a religion of good morals and principles and Allah has created within our nature to prefer and desire to act out good morals and principles above any other behavior when we are born.

Tell that to the suicide bombers.

However,due to our upbringing and environment, a person can learn and want to desire other thing, thus not following the nature of islam in which they were born in. This is what islam means when saying your are born in religion.

Yeah, I don't think upbringing and environment can alter your desires. I'm pretty sure I'd desire food and sex no matter where I was brought up.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:01:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 9:05:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/21/2011 8:38:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/21/2011 8:14:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I say no. In fact, I have seen both Theists and Atheists claim that religion is part of human nature.

But if religion were part of human nature, then why aren't people either born with an inherent belief, or develop a belief, in Christ's salvation or Muhammad's prophesies? These beliefs are things that are externally imposed, that's why.

An innate capacity for religious belief does seem to exist,

I think that point is quite obvious as people must have the capacity in order to hold religious beliefs.

if civilisation were destroyed by a nuclear war that killed all adults and destroyed all traces of religion but left kids old enough to fend for themselves then they would grow up to build churches and pray to Gods.

Uh, I highly doubt that. Is there any particular line of reasoning that led you to this conclusion?

It seems reasonable given human nature, anthropology, psychology.


Even atheist adults who disavow all religious views still hold within them natural religious sentiment.

Yes, but when people like Dawkins say that they have a "religious reverence for nature," they mean in it a different sort of way. Like the same amount of passion and emotional attachment akin to religious belief, but the belief itself is not religious (nature obviously exists).

This is why Richard Dawkins talks to his dead friends and and feels guilty that a certain sub-set of Oxford no longer prays to ease the passage of it's founder through purgatory.

I've never heard of that. Source? That doesn't sound like Dawkins to me.


God delusion.

One of the common explanations as to how religion came about is to claim that the ancients invented primitive gods to explain natural processes, or even attributed the divine to natural things like the sun. They would explain that humans have a tendency to seek out patterns and indulge their curiosities and that's how they came to those ancient polytheistic beliefs. They would then assert that these ancient beliefs eventually developed into the religions we have now.

Except, here's the problem. Where the hell did ideas like Salvation, original sin, faith, heaven, moral commandments, dogmas, and rituals come from if religion is merely ancient man's attempt to explain nature? Doesn't that sound more like the scientific method which is inherent in humans? The desire to figure out how things worked? Obviously the ancients failed, but that was their goal.

The two are the same thing.

What is the same thing?


Seriously the words are all still on the screen, you get more like Godsands all the time.

Concepts like Salvation, Saviors, and faith cannot possibly have arose from people merely trying to uncover the workings of the world. It seems like something much different is going on here.

Seriously, you are still at this stage? Religion attempts to provide both an explaination and a security blanket.

Sure, religion may provide people with comfort, but it only works if the religious belief is already assumed to be true. People don't invent beliefs they know are false to comfort themselves, they turn to previously established religious belief systems which are already held to be truth.

Christianity did not just appear instantly, it's part of an evolutiuon of belief.


The whole concept of salvation and saviours exist to explain the evils of the world and provide a hug to make us feel better about it.

I disagree. Honestly, it sounds like a rather depressing worldview that I would never want to invent and it especially doesn't provide comfort.


It is a depressing view for you, but it works for millions of others.

I mean, think of a child or even an adult who lives in some indigenous land with no religious beliefs, do you think they would invent a deity who excludes those who don't believe in him and and don't follow his rules (rules that prohibit him from doing things he enjoys; you know, sins are usually things we love to do), and that he will only save those who believe in him?


Within a few generations yes.

Seriously, that would require a mentally retarded amount of cognitive dissonance to believe in a deity and his rules and means of salvation, that YOU YOURSELF INVENTED.

Yea... you are strawmanning yourself here.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:03:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Geo, Is knowledge part of human nature? Perhaps it is, or perhaps it is not. However, intelligence is undoubtedly part of human nature. It can be defined as the potential to learn. The higher the intelligence the higher the potential to gain knowledge. Therefore, knowlegde is a follow up of our natural property, i.e., intelligence. Do you agree?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:12:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think it's human nature to want to explain and understand everything. Religion is the outdated way of doing that.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:21:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:01:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/21/2011 9:05:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/21/2011 8:38:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/21/2011 8:14:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I say no. In fact, I have seen both Theists and Atheists claim that religion is part of human nature.

But if religion were part of human nature, then why aren't people either born with an inherent belief, or develop a belief, in Christ's salvation or Muhammad's prophesies? These beliefs are things that are externally imposed, that's why.

An innate capacity for religious belief does seem to exist,

I think that point is quite obvious as people must have the capacity in order to hold religious beliefs.

if civilisation were destroyed by a nuclear war that killed all adults and destroyed all traces of religion but left kids old enough to fend for themselves then they would grow up to build churches and pray to Gods.

Uh, I highly doubt that. Is there any particular line of reasoning that led you to this conclusion?

It seems reasonable given human nature, anthropology, psychology.

Human nature? No. Anthropology? What does that tell us? Psychology? What does that tell us.

Simply naming fields of study doesn't justify or verify an assertion.

That's like me saying God exists because science, cosmology, physics, biology.

Even atheist adults who disavow all religious views still hold within them natural religious sentiment.

Yes, but when people like Dawkins say that they have a "religious reverence for nature," they mean in it a different sort of way. Like the same amount of passion and emotional attachment akin to religious belief, but the belief itself is not religious (nature obviously exists).

This is why Richard Dawkins talks to his dead friends and and feels guilty that a certain sub-set of Oxford no longer prays to ease the passage of it's founder through purgatory.

I've never heard of that. Source? That doesn't sound like Dawkins to me.


God delusion.

One of the common explanations as to how religion came about is to claim that the ancients invented primitive gods to explain natural processes, or even attributed the divine to natural things like the sun. They would explain that humans have a tendency to seek out patterns and indulge their curiosities and that's how they came to those ancient polytheistic beliefs. They would then assert that these ancient beliefs eventually developed into the religions we have now.

Except, here's the problem. Where the hell did ideas like Salvation, original sin, faith, heaven, moral commandments, dogmas, and rituals come from if religion is merely ancient man's attempt to explain nature? Doesn't that sound more like the scientific method which is inherent in humans? The desire to figure out how things worked? Obviously the ancients failed, but that was their goal.

The two are the same thing.

What is the same thing?

Seriously the words are all still on the screen, you get more like Godsands all the time.

There's two fvckin paragraphs filled with countless nouns and you simply say "The two are the same thing." Ok, two what? That could refer to anything. Please be specific. Goddamn.

Concepts like Salvation, Saviors, and faith cannot possibly have arose from people merely trying to uncover the workings of the world. It seems like something much different is going on here.

Seriously, you are still at this stage? Religion attempts to provide both an explaination and a security blanket.

Sure, religion may provide people with comfort, but it only works if the religious belief is already assumed to be true. People don't invent beliefs they know are false to comfort themselves, they turn to previously established religious belief systems which are already held to be truth.

Christianity did not just appear instantly, it's part of an evolutiuon of belief.

If Jesus really is the founder, then yes it did.

The whole concept of salvation and saviours exist to explain the evils of the world and provide a hug to make us feel better about it.

I disagree. Honestly, it sounds like a rather depressing worldview that I would never want to invent and it especially doesn't provide comfort.


It is a depressing view for you, but it works for millions of others.

I mean, think of a child or even an adult who lives in some indigenous land with no religious beliefs, do you think they would invent a deity who excludes those who don't believe in him and and don't follow his rules (rules that prohibit him from doing things he enjoys; you know, sins are usually things we love to do), and that he will only save those who believe in him?

Within a few generations yes.

That is a bold assertion on your part and you provide zero reasoning or evidence to back it up.

Youre predicting what a hypothetical civilization will do and what specific beliefs they will develop over time.

Seriously, that would require a mentally retarded amount of cognitive dissonance to believe in a deity and his rules and means of salvation, that YOU YOURSELF INVENTED.

Yea... you are strawmanning yourself here.

How can I strawman myself?? That would mean I'm misrepresenting and attacking my own position. Absurd.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:27:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:12:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I think it's human nature to want to explain and understand everything. Religion is the outdated way of doing that.

This should be carried over to the "Religion is outdated..." thread.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:36:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:27:45 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 2/22/2011 2:12:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I think it's human nature to want to explain and understand everything. Religion is the outdated way of doing that.

This should be carried over to the "Religion is outdated..." thread.

I didn't see your thread. I agree with your contention though.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:38:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:12:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I think it's human nature to want to explain and understand everything. Religion is the outdated way of doing that.

What reason do you have for thinking that? I seriously doubt that it was necessary to create a complicated and confusing story about a God who gave birth to himself who exists as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit wrapped into one being that sent zombie to forgive our sins in which we have to telepathically communicate to God that you believe in him to get a ticket to heaven.

Do you really think these doctrines were created to explain the origin of the Universe and nature of reality? Doubtful.

Perhaps the ancient beliefs that had sun gods and fire gods, but the major religions have doctrines that are too extraneous and off-base to account for explaining the world.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Jarjar3000
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 3:13:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Psalm 37:31
The law of his God is in his heart;None of his steps shall slide.

Psalm 40:8
I delight to do Your will, O my God,And Your law is within my heart."

The fool has said in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

Psalm 14:1
Ohh Lord How you love me, you change my heart and soul, renewing my mind into something I could never imagine, You make me strong when I am weak, you encourage me when I'm despaired, You stick by me when everyone deserts me, You are my Lord You are my God.

Charles: I'm not a Christian because I'm afraid of hell, I'm a Christian because I love Jesus.

Geolaureate: The Pope
He looks like a Sith lord, I don't trust him.

Charles0103: Just like my God, my faith won't change.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 3:20:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 3:13:28 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
My head is a vacuum, and I have the education of 6 year old.

You spelled vacuum correctly. YAY!!!
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 3:22:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 3:20:25 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 2/22/2011 3:13:28 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
My head is a vacuum, and I have the education of 6 year old.

You spelled vacuum correctly. YAY!!!

Wow you're harsh sometimes. Haha.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 3:45:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 3:42:10 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/22/2011 3:40:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's fairly obvious to me that there's a religious impulse in humans.

Why?

Probably because the vast majority of people who have ever lived were/are religious or have/had "supernaturalistic" beliefs that would be construed as religious.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 3:48:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 3:45:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/22/2011 3:42:10 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/22/2011 3:40:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's fairly obvious to me that there's a religious impulse in humans.

Why?

Probably because the vast majority of people who have ever lived were/are religious or have/had "supernaturalistic" beliefs that would be construed as religious.

There was a time when slavery was widely accepted and practiced but that's not part of our nature. It is now seen as barbaric.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 3:48:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 3:45:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/22/2011 3:42:10 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/22/2011 3:40:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's fairly obvious to me that there's a religious impulse in humans.

Why?

Probably because the vast majority of people who have ever lived were/are religious or have/had "supernaturalistic" beliefs that would be construed as religious.

But would you say it's because it's part of human nature or because it was learned?