Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

A belief in God is biological

Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:59:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm seeing the idea that we are all born atheists being thrown around and that it is religion which has conditioned us to believe in God. This clearly contradicts with the Islamic concept of the fitrah which is that everyone is born with a belief in one god then conditioning corrupts this pure and biological belief. I think Christians might also have this concept of the belief in God being something natural and straightforward. Here is some proof that belief in God is biological.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 8:37:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
'Scientists are divided on whether religious belief has a biological basis. Some evolutionary theorists have suggested that Darwinian natural selection may have put a premium on individuals if they were able to use religious belief to survive hardships that may have overwhelmed those with no religious convictions. Others have suggested that religious belief is a side effect of a wider trait in the human brain to search for coherent beliefs about the outside world. '

That's the only relevant thing I could find from the article. It doesn't seem to support a theist's position, however.
turn down for h'what
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 9:21:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Modus tollens, brah.

1. We have a bio-epistemic drive to seek knowledge about everything about which we can gain knowledge.
2. This bio-epistemic drive can lead us to religious belief.
3. Religious belief is false.
4. We want our epistemic tools to be trustworthy.
5. Trustworthy epistemic tools would not lead us to put complete confidence in false beliefs.
6. Our bio-epistemic drives can lead us to put complete confidence in false religious belief.
7. Our bio-epistemic drives are not trustworthy.
8. We probably shouldn't put too much faith in our bio-epistemic drives.

You can be like "WHAT ABOUT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE" or "BUT WE DON'T HAVE COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN RELIGION" or "YOU'RE JUST PRESUPPOSING RELIGION IS FALSE WHICH IS A FALLACY". Whatever, man. Point is, it's just as possible that the causal arrow points from biology to religion (in the form of "our biology, by making us search for explanations of stuff, leads us to really shitty conclusions, like religion, because of how biased and stupid we are") as it is that the arrow points from religion to biology (in the form of "we are born with a belief in God because He implants it in our mind/soul before birth"). Basically, that makes "biological belief in God" what I like to call a "fecal theory", because it's a huge pile of poop.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 9:26:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I guess, since it's likely that there will be some kind of retort about false scientific theories, that I should point to falsifiability. If you're looking at end-states, then the middle theories aren't really relevant, because the epistemic tools in those cases eventually lead you to the right answer as information and processing ability accumulate. So, even if they're not completely trustworthy epistemic tools, you still choose those relative to "I'm biologically inclined to believe this", given the bad rap we get for being really biased and genetically disposed to believing really dumb stuff for evolutionary/in-grouping purposes--especially because religion is a really good social regulator. It's got a paternalist metaphysics, political and ethical plans, etc. It's a pretty useful grouping tool.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 1:09:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's become pretty much established and consensus opinion in the field of cognitive science of religion (which is, admittedly, a very young scientific field) that to believe in religion or "supernatural" entities is a very natural thing for us humans.

For example, see:

http://www.amazon.com...

There are several models of exactly how this works but, I think, one of the more popular ones is Justin Barrett's theory that religious beliefs are somewhat of a "byproduct" of the hyperactive agency detection device.

See:

http://www.amazon.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 3:12:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:59:37 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
I'm seeing the idea that we are all born atheists being thrown around and that it is religion which has conditioned us to believe in God. This clearly contradicts with the Islamic concept of the fitrah which is that everyone is born with a belief in one god then conditioning corrupts this pure and biological belief. I think Christians might also have this concept of the belief in God being something natural and straightforward. Here is some proof that belief in God is biological.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

http://www.foxnews.com...

Actually there is scientific research and thinking to the effect that a predisposition to be religious is hardwired into us by biology and evolution; however, many scientistic atheist thinkers are of course taking this not as validation of human spirituality, but rather as ammunition which they can use to "scientifically" explain away man's religious nature, dismissing it as a mere evolutionary adaptation conducive to the viability of the species. They, such scientistic atheists, lack a spiritual vision of reality in which matter, biology, and evolution are all ultimate and numinous reality, i.e., creativity and that aspect of creativity called the Divine, in process of literally incarnating, configuring itself in forms of life capable of realizing sublime potentialities. What scientistic atheists of course can't very well grok is that if everything, our genome, brains, and the evolutionary journey that has formed them, are simply the outcome of universal creative process and its divine dimension then it stands to reason that they will embody the fundamental drive of creativity and Divinity to actualization; i.e., a drive to cultivate a full awareness and actualization of our nature and integral relationship with God, which is the goal and definition of spirituality, is an inbuilt part of us. Ergo, if a "God spot" of the brain, or a "God gene", if any manner of biological mechanism that mediates our religious yearnings is finally discovered, if evolution has implanted within us a veritable religious instinct, it should indeed be hailed as vindication of faith, of the human quest for transcendence, and of God. But of course such vindication will never be acknowledged by scientistic atheists, therefore the biological hardwiredness of belief will continue to be used to make religion out to be a once beneficial but now outgrown "delusion", as Dawkins calls it. But, in fact it's scientistic atheists who are quite deluded, deluded by their dogmatic ideological commitment to materialism.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
WxGeo
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 12:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:59:37 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
I'm seeing the idea that we are all born atheists being thrown around and that it is religion which has conditioned us to believe in God. This clearly contradicts with the Islamic concept of the fitrah which is that everyone is born with a belief in one god then conditioning corrupts this pure and biological belief. I think Christians might also have this concept of the belief in God being something natural and straightforward. Here is some proof that belief in God is biological.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

http://www.foxnews.com...

Some good points there, plus the Bible says God's made his existence plain to all so that all are without excuse. I rather like the idea that given a set of circumstances and reliable noetics, belief in God is properly basic, so that evidence isn't needed. However, there's good evidence :-)
WxGeo
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 1:02:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:59:37 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
I'm seeing the idea that we are all born atheists being thrown around and that it is religion which has conditioned us to believe in God. This clearly contradicts with the Islamic concept of the fitrah which is that everyone is born with a belief in one god then conditioning corrupts this pure and biological belief. I think Christians might also have this concept of the belief in God being something natural and straightforward. Here is some proof that belief in God is biological.

I agree. I think the idea that we are all born atheist contradicts the concept of biological evolution of DNA. The human genome will react and respond to it's conditioning over the course of generations. That means that the religious educational systems throughout the world have most likely impacted the structure of human DNA in at least some breeds, but maybe not all. I highly doubt that we are all born atheist, because we all come from different breeds and cultures, and considering cultural religion dates back thousands of years (and realistically probably since the beginning of humanity (if there was one)), it is almost foolish to assume that we are all born atheist.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

http://www.foxnews.com...
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 5:24:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whether or not we have a biological impulse towards spiritual belief is irrelevant to question of whether it is possible to be born with any opinion whatsoever without having developed the necessary brain capacity for reasoning, learned a language system to perform it through and received enough information to make the necessary choices. A new-born child is a perfect-apathetic.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 5:42:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just because something is biological or natural does that make it right?

Nope. Plus, even if everyone was born a theist, that tells us precisely nothing about which religion is correct. All this would do is open a newer, deeper, and uglier can of worms. Is that not equally true?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 7:03:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:59:37 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
I'm seeing the idea that we are all born atheists being thrown around and that it is religion which has conditioned us to believe in God. This clearly contradicts with the Islamic concept of the fitrah which is that everyone is born with a belief in one god then conditioning corrupts this pure and biological belief. I think Christians might also have this concept of the belief in God being something natural and straightforward. Here is some proof that belief in God is biological.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

http://www.foxnews.com...

I can assure you that I was not born with a belief in god. I was told of it when I was older, amazed to find out about it- just as I was to find out about santa claus- and promptly ended my faith in both when I gained the reason to make sense of it and was sad to find that it didn't make any.

There is evidence to suggest that some people are more inclined than others, due to something biological, to believe in a god. But that doesn't say anything about the truth of religion(s), it doesn't tell us what exactly is being pronounced via our biology(whether it is a drive to know, a feeling of knowing, an easier time having faith/lack thereof, gullibility, etc.), and it definitely doesn't show that we all were born with a belief in god.

That said, I'm gonna continue doing what comes naturally for me- being an atheist.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 8:43:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is nonsense. Why have many people converted from athiesm to thiesm?
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 8:27:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:43:13 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
This is nonsense. Why have many people converted from athiesm to thiesm?

and vice versa..?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 6:28:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:43:13 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
This is nonsense. Why have many people converted from athiesm to thiesm?

Usually the conversion goes the other way. I highly doubt that most people who claimed to have been converted from atheism to theism were ever actually atheist; they often just try to use their "conversion" to convert more atheists.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 6:30:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 5:42:32 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
Just because something is biological or natural does that make it right?

I was just about to post this.
Nope. Plus, even if everyone was born a theist, that tells us precisely nothing about which religion is correct. All this would do is open a newer, deeper, and uglier can of worms. Is that not equally true?
Brilliant.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 7:46:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 3:12:22 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/20/2012 8:59:37 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
I'm seeing the idea that we are all born atheists being thrown around and that it is religion which has conditioned us to believe in God. This clearly contradicts with the Islamic concept of the fitrah which is that everyone is born with a belief in one god then conditioning corrupts this pure and biological belief. I think Christians might also have this concept of the belief in God being something natural and straightforward. Here is some proof that belief in God is biological.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

http://www.foxnews.com...

Actually there is scientific research and thinking to the effect that a predisposition to be religious is hardwired into us by biology and evolution; however, many scientistic atheist thinkers are of course taking this not as validation of human spirituality, but rather as ammunition which they can use to "scientifically" explain away man's religious nature, dismissing it as a mere evolutionary adaptation conducive to the viability of the species. They, such scientistic atheists, lack a spiritual vision of reality in which matter, biology, and evolution are all ultimate and numinous reality, i.e., creativity and that aspect of creativity called the Divine, in process of literally incarnating, configuring itself in forms of life capable of realizing sublime potentialities. What scientistic atheists of course can't very well grok is that if everything, our genome, brains, and the evolutionary journey that has formed them, are simply the outcome of universal creative process and its divine dimension then it stands to reason that they will embody the fundamental drive of creativity and Divinity to actualization; i.e., a drive to cultivate a full awareness and actualization of our nature and integral relationship with God, which is the goal and definition of spirituality, is an inbuilt part of us. Ergo, if a "God spot" of the brain, or a "God gene", if any manner of biological mechanism that mediates our religious yearnings is finally discovered, if evolution has implanted within us a veritable religious instinct, it should indeed be hailed as vindication of faith, of the human quest for transcendence, and of God. But of course such vindication will never be acknowledged by scientistic atheists, therefore the biological hardwiredness of belief will continue to be used to make religion out to be a once beneficial but now outgrown "delusion", as Dawkins calls it. But, in fact it's scientistic atheists who are quite deluded, deluded by their dogmatic ideological commitment to materialism.

If you could actually prove on even grounds that a spiritual reality exists, I'd be inclined to say that your argument flows rather well. Being skeptical of science-bearing atheists because of their materialist values, however, seems to be stretching it quite a tad. Using materialist as a derogatory epithet, especially in the manner of 'dogmatic', makes me feel that you're not really taking the wholesome amount of time to formulate your conclusion. 'Dogmatic' simply means one is inclined to lay down principles that are otherwise incontrovertibly true. Now, 'materialists' (as you like to call them) adhere closely to science and its fields of study thereof to buffer their 'materialistic' claims. Anything pertaining to the scientific method cannot possibly be 'incontrovertible' due to the very nature of scientific theories and laws are not stagnant in any sense until it's reached it's final stage of being completely irrefutable.

'Materialists' will often speak with the metaphysical certitude (I believe most of these predicaments are myths, but some perceive it as 'metaphysical certitude') that their principles are true, but I cannot recall a renowned 'materialistic' scientific atheist being ballsy enough to make the assertion that their said principles are not disputed.
turn down for h'what
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 11:46:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 6:28:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/23/2012 8:43:13 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
This is nonsense. Why have many people converted from athiesm to thiesm?

Usually the conversion goes the other way. I highly doubt that most people who claimed to have been converted from atheism to theism were ever actually atheist; they often just try to use their "conversion" to convert more atheists.

ROFLCOPTER!! I'm sure they were never true scotsman, either....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 6:04:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:43:13 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
This is nonsense. Why have many people converted from athiesm to thiesm?

Fear. Guilt. Brainwashing. Going through a difficult time, and convincing themselves that it was God that helped them get through it. Wanting one's prayers answered (see also: sickness/ impending death). Not knowing the answer to something, so ascribing God as the cause or meaning behind it. Peer pressure. So one could get married in the Church. A drug or near-death experience. Promises of Heaven. Self-righteousness. Convincing preachers. Because it sounds pretty.

There are a ton of reasons. Also, as someone mentioned, a bunch of theists also converted to atheism... what's your point?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 6:06:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 5:42:32 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
Just because something is biological or natural does that make it right?

Nope. Plus, even if everyone was born a theist, that tells us precisely nothing about which religion is correct. All this would do is open a newer, deeper, and uglier can of worms. Is that not equally true?

This.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 6:17:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 1:09:19 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's become pretty much established and consensus opinion in the field of cognitive science of religion (which is, admittedly, a very young scientific field) that to believe in religion or "supernatural" entities is a very natural thing for us humans.

For example, see:

http://www.amazon.com...

There are several models of exactly how this works but, I think, one of the more popular ones is Justin Barrett's theory that religious beliefs are somewhat of a "byproduct" of the hyperactive agency detection device.

See:

http://www.amazon.com...

All you did was post a picture of 2 books. You could have just said "Some scientists think a belief in God is biological" and that would have accomplished the same thing. Some people who study the relationship between cognitive science and religion feel differently from those authors, like these guys: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca...

I don't see how you can say that there's a consensus opinion that believing in religion is "natural." Anything that occurs in nature is natural, so yes, theism is natural. I'd be more inclined to believe that we're hardwired to find answers than we're hardwired to be theists. Of course a yearning toward the "supernatural" may be present, since we tend to classify everything we don't yet understand as supernatural. Once upon a time the sun sitting in the sky was considered supernatural. I think it's obvious that humanity has evolved to seek answers. But that's another thing -- Most of the science in this field operates from an evolutionary standpoint, therefore creationists (most theists) have no reason to accept that science, right?
President of DDO
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 3:45:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 6:04:46 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/23/2012 8:43:13 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
This is nonsense. Why have many people converted from athiesm to thiesm?

Fear. Guilt. Brainwashing. Going through a difficult time, and convincing themselves that it was God that helped them get through it. Wanting one's prayers answered (see also: sickness/ impending death).

Near death experiences is actually one of things that show that Allah exists. No matter how stubborn, rigid. or how much one denies God's existence. When he is in a very difficult situation and no one can help him or wants to help him, he throws his hands in the air and sincerely cries out to his Creator, Allah.

Not knowing the answer to something, so ascribing God as the cause or meaning behind it. Peer pressure. So one could get married in the Church. A drug or near-death experience. Promises of Heaven. Self-righteousness. Convincing preachers. Because it sounds pretty.

Allah is the cause of everything that occurs in this entire universe and earth and everything depends upon Allah. If you didn't notice everything in this universe depends upon something and that thing depends upon something. You cannot go infintely so the first one must be non-dependant and eternally existing. This is a simple proof Allah exists. Read the Quran, it is from Allah. It contains facts which the science (and historians) you trust so much is discovering now.

+ACCURATE HISTORICAL FACTS
-the lost city of Iram
-the dieties which the people of the queen of sheba worshipped
-the accurate chronological distinction between the rulers during the time of Muusa
(Moses) and Yusuf (Joseph)
+SCIENTIFIC FACTS
-The Quran mentions that all creation was made from water
-the Quran mentions that that the depths of the ocean is dark
-The Quran mentions that there are barriers in the sea
+LITERATURE
-palindromes within the Quran
-specific wording which when analyzed is very precise and opens up various meanings

Will you then not believe?

Read this: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 12:39:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 6:17:17 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/22/2012 1:09:19 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's become pretty much established and consensus opinion in the field of cognitive science of religion (which is, admittedly, a very young scientific field) that to believe in religion or "supernatural" entities is a very natural thing for us humans.

For example, see:

http://www.amazon.com...

There are several models of exactly how this works but, I think, one of the more popular ones is Justin Barrett's theory that religious beliefs are somewhat of a "byproduct" of the hyperactive agency detection device.

See:

http://www.amazon.com...

All you did was post a picture of 2 books. You could have just said "Some scientists think a belief in God is biological" and that would have accomplished the same thing. Some people who study the relationship between cognitive science and religion feel differently from those authors, like these guys: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca...


I don't see how you can say that there's a consensus opinion that believing in religion is "natural." Anything that occurs in nature is natural, so yes, theism is natural. I'd be more inclined to believe that we're hardwired to find answers than we're hardwired to be theists. Of course a yearning toward the "supernatural" may be present, since we tend to classify everything we don't yet understand as supernatural. Once upon a time the sun sitting in the sky was considered supernatural. I think it's obvious that humanity has evolved to seek answers.

But that's another thing -- Most of the science in this field operates from an evolutionary standpoint, therefore creationists (most theists) have no reason to accept that science, right?

Most theists are creationists (in the anti-evolutionary sense)? Really?

And how does anything you said contradict what I said? The article you posted has a lot of same material that are in those books.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!