No such thing as God.

[iconoclast]

urangutang, i'm saying it's overwhelmingly likely that the concept of God is an unfounded hypothesis about the nature of reality - origninating with primitive man's conscious recognition of the relationship between the artifact and the artificer. This occurance is demonstrated in the archeological record by a sudden change in the way of life of primitive man - about 35,000 years ago (in Europe.) Suddenly, small engravings, cave paintings, better tools and so forth are evident - even while man's skull size, and thus his brain capacity remains the same. Therefore, it must have been a conceptual development.
It may have been no more than a footprint in the mud that triggered the revelation - but it allowed man to ask, and answer such questions as who made me, who made the world - and what can i make? He inferred the existence of a great artificer in the sky - a god, the god, alah, jehova, buddah, vishnu, call it what you like.
perhaps lacking the sophistication to distinguish between a compelling, but ultimately fictional concept - and something that actually exists, the idea was employed as an objective authority for law, enabling a transition from hunter-gether tribes to multi-tribal and social ways of life - previously impossible between tribes with hierarchies premised upon threat and use of violence.
this is my understanding of the concept of god, and why i say supernaturalism is inherent to the concept. thus, it belongs to a magical world of imagination rather than the real world. i hope this explanation dispels the impression that my understanding of the concept is anything other that deeply serious and long considered. iconoclast.

[iconoclast]

Aedes, Are you saying that a global society - where government were constitutionally bound to honour a scientific conception of reality, and employ technology on merit to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, would be without anything to celebrate?

[iconoclast]

Didymos Thomas, Quote:

'iconoclast - the discussion is very interesting, and I appreciate your points. I hope that we can continue the discourse in a productive manner, and I do believe we can. To do so, I think we will both have to take things slow and really try to understand what the other person is saying. I think we can learn from one another.'

Okay. We'll take it in turns. One question - one answer. Discrete points - as concise as possible.

Please tell me. Does it not appeal to your reason to suppose that the concept of God originates in the evolutionary history of the human being as an explanation for thier/our existence?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Aedes, Are you saying that a global society - where government were constitutionally bound to honour a scientific conception of reality, and employ technology on merit to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, would be without anything to celebrate?

Don't turn this around. YOU are the one who continuously lambast the epistemological shortcomings of religion as if that's its only role in the world. And you have yet to propose some way in which absent religion humans will deal with their preoccupations with fear, death, birth, family, morality, origins, meaning, things that science really can only analyze but not help.

And to say that we've evolved to be religious is probably correct -- but that doesn't help anything because doing away with religion doesn't address the evolutionary necessary role. If robins evolved to eat worms, then you can't take the worms away.

[Didymos Thomas]

Please tell me. Does it not appeal to your reason to suppose that the concept of God originates in the evolutionary history of the human being as an explanation for thier/our existence?

It seems to me that God has roots in early man's attempt to explain his origin. But this is not the only application of God, even among early peoples. God and gods were used by the earliest people to explain natural events which they could not otherwise explain. God and gods were also used much as they are today, to give people social cohesion, and to help people understand life (and death and all of the stranger parts of this cycle). There are also those examples of spiritual experience, some with the use of mind altering substances and some without, which individual's claim point to the existence of God; such experiences have always been with mankind.

So, God's role in explaining man's origin is only one aspect of God's origination in the minds of men. God serves various social and personal purposes, and is reinforced by the claims of many spiritual individuals who have undergone rather unique experiences.

Really? Interacting with you is a act in frustrating futility. You just do not get it. I simply do not have the time to grab you by the intellectual reins, and lead you to the trough of enlightenment, so you can drink from the water of knowledge, that is for someone else to do, I simply do not have the patience.

Does this mean you're done trying to converse with me? Sounds fantastic.

[Solace]

I hate to jump on the iconoclast-bash bandwagon, cause I find a lot of what iconoclast has had to say to be very interesting, as well as accurate, but I have to agree with Aedes here. Establishing that a certain belief is evolutionarily based, and then suggesting that as a species we should rid ourselves of this belief, or even the influences of this belief, seems somewhat counterproductive. Perhaps Didymos has a point, that a common ground can and should be reached. As in, if there were a way to remove the negative influences of faith, ie: holy wars, unfair political maneuvuring, etc, and live with the positive ones, such as dealing with those preoccupations that Aedes mentioned in his last post, could we then move on to that better future that idealists such iconoclast hope to steer us to. (No offense intended by calling you an idealist, iconclast, I mean it with best intentions.)

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

urangutang, i'm saying it's overwhelmingly likely that the concept of God is an unfounded hypothesis about the nature of reality - origninating with primitive man's conscious recognition of the relationship between the artifact and the artificer. This occurance is demonstrated in the archeological record by a sudden change in the way of life of primitive man - about 35,000 years ago (in Europe.) Suddenly, small engravings, cave paintings, better tools and so forth are evident - even while man's skull size, and thus his brain capacity remains the same. Therefore, it must have been a conceptual development.
It may have been no more than a footprint in the mud that triggered the revelation - but it allowed man to ask, and answer such questions as who made me, who made the world - and what can i make? He inferred the existence of a great artificer in the sky - a god, the god, alah, jehova, buddah, vishnu, call it what you like.
perhaps lacking the sophistication to distinguish between a compelling, but ultimately fictional concept - and something that actually exists, the idea was employed as an objective authority for law, enabling a transition from hunter-gether tribes to multi-tribal and social ways of life - previously impossible between tribes with hierarchies premised upon threat and use of violence.
this is my understanding of the concept of god, and why i say supernaturalism is inherent to the concept. thus, it belongs to a magical world of imagination rather than the real world. i hope this explanation dispels the impression that my understanding of the concept is anything other that deeply serious and long considered. iconoclast.

Iconoclast- Let me start by recognizing your detailed thought processes which appear to be founded upon the tools of logic and rationality (quite refreshing), and are self-evident in the quality of your claims and arguments. Your analogical extension of artifact and artificer, and how that is simply a predicable behavior of humans questioning and reconciling their Natural World as it unfolds around them with great uncertainty is a standalone high quality hypothesis. If we access the same cognitive tool (logic) that produced this realization, then we should be able to ask the question how this realization offers any empirical evidence that suggests it is needed for any integral purpose as it pertains to the survivability of the species. My empirical interpretation of the Natural World reflects the understanding that it (nature) cannot indulge in processes that do not serve any discernible purpose, so if the cognitive ability to conjure or consider a rather fantastical interpretation of something greater then ourselves is simply just a side-effect from the sum of are parts suggests a Natural World that uses world-class strict processes that churns out whimsical creatures. Take a look at creatures other than Humans (animal world). The animal kingdom consists of consummate professional survivalists, unhindered from any useless ancillary abilities, and yet humans are inherently at risk for indulging in uselessness because of self-awareness, it does not follow well for survivability, which we can all agree is the only expectation from the Natural World.

[iconoclast]

Aedes, I answered the question the way i did in order to imply that the argument i'm making wouldn't necessarily require that every human being become a robot without so much a scientifically unjustified thought - but that political and economic decisions bearing upon the survival prospects of the species be scientifically premised. I agree that this would likely externalize religious ideas from the social world over the course of the generations to come but as i said in my reply to solace - i would not expect religion to disappear overnight, nor is this necessary.
The epistemological argument i'm making is necessary to demonstrate the illegitimacy of political and economic structures founded upon/implying a false conception of reality - and thereby make claim upon the right to govern. i find it frustrating in the extreme that i can not find agreement upon this simple point - but did myself suffer greatly developing this argument over the course of a number of years - and so understand that it might be difficult for you to wholly accept. for this i apologize, but as Neitzsche said: 'in the white hot crucible of our pain we are purified.'
You say: 'we've evolved to be religious' - and expanding on your point solace argues 'Establishing that a certain belief is evolutionarily based, and then suggesting that as a species we should rid ourselves of this belief, or even the influences of this belief, seems somewhat counterproductive.'
But that's not what i've argued. I merely suggest that religion occured to man in the course of evolutionary development. But here's the thing about evolution. Just as the individual dies to make way for the next generation - religion must make way for science - a better explanation of our existence, a better lingua franca, a more valid and objective authority for law.

[iconoclast]

Didymos Thomas, Thank you for your answer, but where is your question?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

The epistemological argument i'm making is necessary to demonstrate the illegitimacy of political and economic structures founded upon/implying a false conception of reality - and thereby make claim upon the right to govern. i find it frustrating in the extreme that i can not find agreement upon this simple point

I completely agree with this point of yours, I always have. But where we disagree is that I'm much more cynical about our ability to understand things. We can make extremely destructive or shortsighted decisions that are scientifically founded, and an epistemologically superior process of garnering knowledge does not always provide complete or even accurate knowledge. Remember that even small elements of bias, if unrecognized, can lead to apparently reliable results that are fundamentally in error. Furthermore, the more complex we try to make a decision, the more variables, and the more long-sighted, the more we have to rely on modeling and projections rather than empirical knowledge. This is dangerous, especially when making policy decisions that involve hundreds of millions of people over the span of decades.