Posts by cofty

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

Cold Steel - Interesting. I didn't realise Mormonism was so callous.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

I was just commenting on Jonathan Haidt's perspective on religion in another thread. He also disagrees with Sam Harris' direct link from belief to action - at least he thinks it is too simplistic.

He illustrates it in a threeway relationship between believing, doing and belonging.

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

In the mid to late 19th Century, French Sociologist, Emile Durkheim, did some ground-breaking work on the function of religion in human societies. - Steve2

Emile Durkheim is very much an influence of Haidt.

He coined the phrase Homo duplex to describe our dual individualistic and groupish natures. He thinks Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) societies dismiss the things that bind us as groups at our peril.

Of course he acknowledges that the things that bind us as a group such as religion also blind us to the virtue of other groups.

He lays out six foundations of moral intuitions and explains how they evolved and shape our world today. Very interesting stuff.

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

In his book "The Righteous Mind" Jonathan Haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.

To put it very briefly Haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans. Our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species. Despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.

His description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee. We have a "hive switch" that can be activated by group activities giving us a sense of belonging and common purpose.

He agrees with other researchers that religion and supernatural belief evolved as a by-product of a hypersensitive "agency detector". In other words our ancestors did well to assume random events were a result of purposeful minds. But he then goes one step further and proposes that religions are sets of cultural innovations that make groups more cohesive and cooperative. Groups that were able to put their gods to good use outperformed those who failed to do so. Groups with less effective religions didn't necessarily get wiped out they often just adopted the more effective variations.

This form of group selection is not opposed to the model of selfish gene. Individuals who possess genes that lead them to groupishness increase their chance of survival and successful mating.

So according to Haidt religion is not a meme or a parasite of the mind but a vital development in cultural evolution.

That is a very brief synopsis of Haidt's argument but even as somebody who has been very much influenced by Dawkins, Dennett and Harris I admit I find the idea interesting. I will add some more details of Haidt's evidence later.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

Saethydd - I agree, thanks.

John_mann please explain specifically why a tsunami is a necessary evil?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

Let's be more specific.

Do you think is impossible to build an all-loving and all-powerful being with the existence of natural evil such as a tsunami?

Yes.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

But if he is exists then by his own definition of love he is unloving.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

Off topic. Having all your family wiped out in a tsunami is a bad thing whether you believe in god or not.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

Possibly natural evil must be necessary and unavoidable to the existence of free-will. - JM

But it isn't.

We can have all the good stuff about an active planet without earthquakes and tsunamis. That would be trivially easy for god. Free will is not involved in any way.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

SBF - Why do you struggle so much with the concept of a conditional argument?

IF the god of christian theism exists - THEN he would be responsible for the destruction caused by a tsunami. These types of suffering could be referred to as "natural evil" to distinguish them from bad stuff that people do others. If you don't like the term don't use it. No problem. I know semantics is your hobby. The challenge to theism remains.