Beyond Disbelief: Religion as Human Invention

[zenzero]

Friend Sprinkles,
You state :
*My views on revealed religions (Christianity, Islam, many pagan religions past and present) go beyond mere disbelief in their dogmas. I actively believe that these religions are products of the evolution of ideas and rituals over time--ideas and rituals originally inspired in the human imagination by culture and natural phenomena*
Very true BUT what is important to understand is that all these imaginations are coming from the MIND itself.
To understand all these is to simply understand the mind itself as so one has to meditate to understand the mind.
Rest comes on its own.
Love & rgds

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think I agree with your sentiment, but wouldn't "physical effects" be more accurate in this sentence than "non-physical effects"? If we can observe the results, they are physical rather than non-physical, right?

You're right, thanks for correcting me. I suppose I should have said "physical effects through non-physical means".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And I agree, so I don't know why you felt compelled to point it out.

EDIT: remember, I believe in a naturalistic model of God.

Sorry. I was just throwing it out there, I didn't know if you agreed or not.

 

[View from Here]

religion is a human invention, to the extent anything unconscious can be an invention.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Excellent post Mr. Spinkles. Just a couple of comments...

The questions raised by the real deal theory are numerous: If one particular religion is the real deal, how can all the other religions be explained, if not by the human invention theory? If other religions can be explained by human invention, why can't this one? Why do gods reveal themselves to only certain tribes/peoples?

C.S. Lewis answers this inquiry by stating that certain religious truths (a man born as the son of God, Pandora's Box/Tree of knowledge) are embedded within us, as a priori knowledge, just as our understanding of right and wrong is embedded within us. They are truths in our reality, just as the law of gravity is. We all have a spiritual yearning and these pegan religions are just an immature expression of these religious truths.

Why are various scriptures/decrees contradicted by or incompatible with modern science? Why do gods reveal themselves through a few individuals, rather than appear in the sky before everyone simultaneously, regularly—on video? Why are many myths from seemingly disparate religions so similar?

I used to have this same objection. I used to defend my agnosticism with the notion that if God existed, and He wanted us to know about Him, it would be absolutely clear and understandable to everyone.

My belief now is that there is a reason why we can doubt God's existence. Our freewill depends on it.

 

[Random]

My belief now is that there is a reason why we can doubt God's existence. Our freewill depends on it.

That's good, there's ground for progress there; now, develop it fully to it's conclusion (intellectually). What do you end up with? Whose "will" determines the conditions of your own?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

That's good, there's ground for progress there; now, develop it fully to it's conclusion (intellectually). What do you end up with? Whose "will" determines the conditions of your own?

I'm not sure I understand your question but I will do my best to answer it. I am a Calvanist, and as so believe in predestination/election. However, I also believe in freewill. We must understand that God places us under influences and conditions that convert us to Christian faith. Our act is of freewill, but of course God is sovereign and has control of our environment (and knowledge of our will).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Excellent post Mr. Spinkles. Just a couple of comments...

Thank you, and thank you for taking the time to offer your ever pointed and thoughtful comments!

It's funny, you know, because I get the feeling that you and I have a lot in common personality-wise, and not just because of our similar age...and yet, judging by our frequent disagreement on this forum, one might get the impression that we were polar opposites. Yet I have many good friends who frequently disagree with me. What are friends for?

C.S. Lewis answers this inquiry by stating that certain religious truths (a man born as the son of God, Pandora's Box/Tree of knowledge) are embedded within us, as a priori knowledge, just as our understanding of right and wrong is embedded within us. They are truths in our reality, just as the law of gravity is. We all have a spiritual yearning and these pegan religions are just an immature expression of these religious truths.

You/C.S. Lewis claim that human beings have a priori knowledge that a man was born as the son of God, and that our understanding of 'right and wrong' is embedded within us. Can these claims be tested, or phrased in a more rigorous way so that they can be tested?

Is it not equally likely that certain religious truths are embedded within us, and Christian religions are just an immature expression of these religious truths?

I used to have this same objection. I used to defend my agnosticism with the notion that if God existed, and He wanted us to know about Him, it would be absolutely clear and understandable to everyone.

My belief now is that there is a reason why we can doubt God's existence. Our freewill depends on it.

I think that's special pleading. Does the obvious, daily presence of the Sun in the sky force people to believe in it? Does Condoleeza Rice shatter our freewill every time she appears on television and addresses people directly and in certain terms?

But, more to the point: why does (your) god care about preserving our free will? I still do not think that, ultimately, you have an answer for this other than in the form of an appeal to the will/incomprehensibility of things that are not known to exist. The human invention "theory", on the other hand, can answer the questions I posed, in terms of things that are known to exist, for not only your god but all gods.

 

[Yerda]

C.S. Lewis answers this inquiry by stating that certain religious truths (a man born as the son of God, Pandora's Box/Tree of knowledge) are embedded within us, as a priori knowledge, just as our understanding of right and wrong is embedded within us. They are truths in our reality, just as the law of gravity is. We all have a spiritual yearning and these pegan religions are just an immature expression of these religious truths.

I would like to read about this, where in his writings would I find it?

Spinks, what do you (and your theory) make of religion as a pre-human invention?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I would like to read about this, where in his writings would I find it?

Spinks, what do you (and your theory) make of religion as a pre-human invention?

I don't remember off the top of my head, but I will look into this for you.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It's funny, you know, because I get the feeling that you and I have a lot in common personality-wise, and not just because of our similar age...and yet, judging by our frequent disagreement on this forum, one might get the impression that we were polar opposites. Yet I have many good friends who frequently disagree with me. What are friends for?

That is a great complement as you are clearly a very intelligent person. If I am ever in Ohio, or you are ever in Arizona we must get together to down a few pints and revel in philosophy.

I am a big believer that people should delight in discussions with others they disagree with. It keeps us all sane and prevents us from being extremists.

You/C.S. Lewis claim that human beings have a priori knowledge that a man was born as the son of God, and that our understanding of 'right and wrong' is embedded within us. Can these claims be tested, or phrased in a more rigorous way so that they can be tested?

Not that I can think of. Most of C.S. Lewis's works (and most apologists for that matter) try to appeal to their audience's intuition. Testable evidence for Christianity is hard to come by.

Is it not equally likely that certain religious truths are embedded within us, and Christian religions are just an immature expression of these religious truths?

Not to me.

I think that's special pleading. Does the obvious, daily presence of the Sun in the sky force people to believe in it? Does Condoleeza Rice shatter our freewill every time she appears on television and addresses people directly and in certain terms?

But, more to the point: why does (your) god care about preserving our free will? I still do not think that, ultimately, you have an answer for this other than in the form of an appeal to the will/incomprehensibility of things that are not known to exist. The human invention "theory", on the other hand, can answer the questions I posed, in terms of things that are known to exist, for not only your god but all gods.

It makes our relationship with Him meaningful. If we were robots just acting out our lives according to our algorithms, the human story would not be nearly as powerful.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Recap:

I asked, why do the gods not reveal themselves to everyone, plainly--perhaps on a daily basis?

You suggested that this would disrupt our free will.

I then asked: Does the obvious, daily presence of the Sun in the sky force people to believe in it? Does Condoleeza Rice shatter our freewill every time she appears on television and addresses people directly and in certain terms?

To which you replied:

It makes our relationship with Him meaningful. If we were robots just acting out our lives according to our algorithms, the human story would not be nearly as powerful.

Are you suggesting that if God simply appeared to people, plainly, and spoke in plainly understandable language, the way Condoleeza Rice and countless other powerful figures do on a regular basis, that would make us 'robots just acting out our lives according to algorithms'?

And, in any case, the fact that a proposition makes something more 'meaningful' or 'powerful' is not really an argument in favor of its truth, but merely an argument in favor of us wishing for its truth.

Remember: if religion is a human invention, our answer as to why the gods don't appear before everyone plainly is almost trivially simple and straightforward.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Spinks, what do you (and your theory) make of religion as a pre-human invention?

Ah, well, if that were true, then like any scientific 'theory' (and I am using the term loosely; I don't expect my OP to be published in any journals anytime soon ) it would have to be modified. It would be the 'Primate Invention Theory', I suppose.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah, well, if that were true, then like any scientific 'theory' (and I am using the term loosely; ...

At best.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Recap:

I asked, why do the gods not reveal themselves to everyone, plainly--perhaps on a daily basis?

You suggested that this would disrupt our free will.

I then asked: Does the obvious, daily presence of the Sun in the sky force people to believe in it? Does Condoleeza Rice shatter our freewill every time she appears on television and addresses people directly and in certain terms?

Are you suggesting that if God simply appeared to people, plainly, and spoke in plainly understandable language, the way Condoleeza Rice and countless other powerful figures do on a regular basis, that would make us 'robots just acting out our lives according to algorithms'?

Christianity is harbored on the value of faith and what you propose would undermine our faith and make our belief in God mandated. Robots acting out our lives according to algorithms may be overstated. But it certainly would change things (particularly our relationship with God).

And, in any case, the fact that a proposition makes something more 'meaningful' or 'powerful' is not really an argument in favor of its truth, but merely an argument in favor of us wishing for its truth.

True, but it is important that it exists within a consistent, meaningful, and logical worldview. Also, I would prefer the term "hope" instead of "wising"...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ah, well, if that were true, then like any scientific 'theory' (and I am using the term loosely; ...

At best.

I invite you to respond to post #40.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

True, but that theory posits the unfalsifiable and unnecessary entity of Pixie dust to account for the 'delusional effect', which can be accounted for by things we already know to exist.

First, acknowledging it as true speaks volumes.
Second, 'unfalsifiability' has nothing whatsoever to do with being true or false.
Third, 'unnecessary' is little more than irrelevant name-calling.

It really is worth reading.​

 

[Mr Spinkles]

First, acknowledging it as true speaks volumes.
Second, 'unfalsifiability' has nothing whatsoever to do with being true or false.
Third, 'unnecessary' is little more than irrelevant name-calling.

Yet, acknowledging that it is true does not support your suggestions that 1) the OP is not falsifiable beyond 'any opinion'; 2) it conflicts with Popper's sense of falsifiability, because 3) it is 'perfectly compatible with the 'theory' of revelation refracted through the lens of human fallibility' In fact, I think these suggestions have been shown to be unfounded over the course of our discussion.

All that is shown by the 'Pixie dust' analogy is the following: any observation which falsifies an explanation also falsifies the role of unevidenced entities in that explanation--e.g., Pixie dust responsible for a 'delusional effect' which in turn causes religion, or Pixie dust responsible for a 'quantum effect' which in turn causes wave-particle duality. This is trivially true of any falsifiable explanation.