Poll: I accept the premise that we are born believers because of evolution.
Yes.
No.
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 07:00 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that the beginnings of religion developed in our proto-ape ancestors along with their expanding brain power. See this thread.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...f-religion
Perhaps if apes had cameras then they'd be taking photographs of waterfalls.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2016, 08:29 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 07:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-09-2016 07:00 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that the beginnings of religion developed in our proto-ape ancestors along with their expanding brain power. See this thread.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...f-religion
Perhaps if apes had cameras then they'd be taking photographs of waterfalls.

There is very strong evidence that we can and we do.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
11-09-2016, 09:36 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 08:29 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(11-09-2016 07:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Perhaps if apes had cameras then they'd be taking photographs of waterfalls.

There is very strong evidence that we can and we do.

Big Grin
Yes, that was my point.

I do like waterfalls, and my kids do like throwing rocks into the water.
Doing these things though, does not suggest some sort of religious ritual.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stevil's post
11-09-2016, 10:04 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 07:00 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  
(11-09-2016 12:03 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  BB, do we know for sure there was not any kind of simple verbal, but ritualized, praying to the Sun and/or animal spirits before the African exodus? Do we have evidence there was not or just a lack of evidence that there was?

There was what has been labelled a "paint workshop" found in the Blombos cave (on S Africa"s south coast) along with geometric designs on stones. These have been dated to around 100 ky ago. Does this not mitigate for sufficient sophistication to have a "spiritual" dimension in their lives as well?

Later thoughts:
Does it come down to semantics, to what is meant by the term "religion"? Is one small, isolated, related group praying to a naturalistic deity for a good hunt practicing a "religion", or does it take organised ritual involving many unrelated people, a set of rules and a hierarchy?

From your Wiki link:

So that's before the African exodus.

OK, the "citation needed" is the caveat here, as so often, in such a field we are theorising from possibly inadequate evidence or understanding.

I'm of the opinion that the beginnings of religion developed in our proto-ape ancestors along with their expanding brain power. See this thread.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...f-religion

To answer the OP using the info you provide, the origin of atheism can be found when the first proto-ape said there is a god thus making all the other proto-apes atheists at that very moment.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
11-09-2016, 11:02 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 05:02 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 09:07 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  It appears we are born and come pre-programmed with certain beliefs. Theists will say God put them there. Atheists will say evolution did it. But I'm not sure we can deny their reality any longer.

For someone who wants to write a whole book about atheism (or anyother given topic) it should be mandatory to know what atheism even is. It is certainly not defined by the belief in evolution. Atheism has no requirement to believe in evolution. So dont count on my $, i wont buy it unless you educate yourself about the topic you are going to discuss. But this ignorance is not my main beef.

This is my main beef:
This quote of yours below combined with the statement above implies that you must be an atheist by your own definition. But in your introduction you claimed to be a theist. How so?
Randy Ruggles Wrote:My book will not conclude that we are born with a belief in God because God put it there but because evolution did

I didn't say atheism was defined by belief in evolution. But an atheist is going to give a natural not a supernatural explanation and evolution has the most explanatory power. I'm not sure why you would object to something as trivial as that when it is most obviously true.

Regarding your main beef, I'm not sure I follow your logic. I guess you are saying that because I am a theist, I should say God put those beliefs there and because I am saying evolution did, I must be an atheist. I suppose my only explanation is that I am not proposing this hypothesis with any biases. It's not based on my personal beliefs and I've always had the ability to be very objective. I can literally say, "What if my beliefs are wrong? What is the alternate explanation?"

Think of it this way: If there really is no God, and if it's true, as the evidence seems to suggests, that most people are born with a predisposition to believe, and if it is further true that some people are not, how would you explain that scientifically? What makes the most sense? What conclusion would you come to? What causes us to be born without other things we no longer need?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2016, 11:26 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 07:40 AM)Walter Wrote:  Randy, I have some feedback.

Why did you come here and state that theism is the default? That is like saying that government or totalitarianism is the default. It is, very simply, a lie.

My wife’s Catholic faith came from her parents. Maybe others got there by reading early Church fathers or watching Jimmy Swaggart. I don’t know.

What I do know is that it is not the default, and you know it. 2,000 years out of 2,000,000 is, take a wild guess, cross out those zeros if you feel like it, 1/1000th of the time we have been running around trying to eat, mate and stay alive. Argumentum ad Orderum Magnitdum.

And then you have the gall to bring science into the discussion. Jesus Christ!

I said theism is the default because that is what current research shows. And not just from Justin Barrett either. Here's another study. There are several:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ogist.html

Of course your wife came to her Catholic faith from her parents. Religion must be taught. But we are talking about seeing teleology in nature which is different, although related, to religion.

Read some of the other comments I've posted. This is admittedly getting a little tedious having to address the same concern over and over again. I obviously can't give you all the evidence to support my position here. That's what the book is for. And who knows. Maybe when I do more research, I will discover I'm wrong and decide to shelve the whole project. But right now, the evidence appears to support my hypothesis.

Lastly, you say you know theism is not the default position and that I know it too. I'd like to know how you know both of those things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 01:46 AM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2016 03:48 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
With regards to Bruce Hood's findings I would be happier seeing an abstract of his research rather than an analysis in the Daily Wail. An analysis illustrated by an attractive naked woman in time honoured Daily Wail fashion. Just to give it a hint of spice. [Corrected having reviewed the picture without bleary-just-woken-up eyes and my daytime specs on.]

The Daily Wail, aka The Daily Fail, is well known for inaccuracy, misrepresentation and hyperbole. It appeals to the reactive audience rather than the contemplative but has developed a bit of a pseudo intellectual style for this type of subject.

But, no surprise that bits of the brain light up when the supernatural is thought of, like bits of the brain might like up when nice food is thought of. Or, for some of us at least, when naked women are thought of! For others it might be men, cars, beer, Pokemon . . .

I would not be surprised if part of my brain also lit up If I was asked to think about supernatural entities. But would it hear what that part was actually saying? How does that location compare with locations when we think of others things fundamental to human evolution I wonder?

If, as seems possible, the supernatural has been part of our mental environment from our earliest attempts to understand and explain our world then it has certainly been part of our thinking for a lot longer than has science.

That does not make it right, it could still be a 2 My old mistake of the imagination due to 1.999 My of understandable ignorance.

For that ignorance to continue, via active promotion, is neither understandable nor acceptable.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
12-09-2016, 02:06 AM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2016 03:39 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Randy, did you write that book, "Evolution: Fact or Fiction? - The Secret Truth Darwinists Don't Want You to Know" ? You have not responded to our critique of it. Have not mentioned it at all.

What say?

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gloucester's post
12-09-2016, 03:14 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 11:02 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 05:02 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  For someone who wants to write a whole book about atheism (or anyother given topic) it should be mandatory to know what atheism even is. It is certainly not defined by the belief in evolution. Atheism has no requirement to believe in evolution. So dont count on my $, i wont buy it unless you educate yourself about the topic you are going to discuss. But this ignorance is not my main beef.

This is my main beef:
This quote of yours below combined with the statement above implies that you must be an atheist by your own definition. But in your introduction you claimed to be a theist. How so?
I guess you are saying that because I am a theist, I should say God put those beliefs there and because I am saying evolution did, I must be an atheist.

You must not be an atheist, because i think theists should not believe in evolution, but because you said
#1 your book will conclude "evolution did it" and
#2 you said "Theists will say God put them there" and
#3 you said "Atheists will say evolution did it"

(11-09-2016 11:02 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I suppose my only explanation is that I am not proposing this hypothesis with any biases. It's not based on my personal beliefs and I've always had the ability to be very objective. I can literally say, "What if my beliefs are wrong? What is the alternate explanation?"
In your original quote there are no "ifs". You said you are going to write a book that is going to
Quote:My book will not conclude that we are born with a belief in God because God put it there but because evolution did
So if you dont believe what you are going to conclude after writing a book, then you are intellectually dishonest.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
12-09-2016, 03:56 AM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2016 06:55 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Professor Bruce Hood interviewed.

Quote:Many decades passed, and then when I arrived in Bristol about 15 years ago I set up a lab to study child development and I never really had abandoned this kind of interest or fascination with the supernatural. Rather than actually believing it as a plausible phenomenon, I became more interested in why do people believe in it. And in my studies on children I noticed that there were many misconceptions that they came up with. And along with other psychologists, this is not entirely my idea, I recognized that you could see the basis of adult supernatural thinking emerging naturally in the way that children reason about the world. So I became fascinated studying the natural way of understanding the world and how that could lay down the foundations of what are supernatural thinking.


Added:
Are those children re-enacting the ponderings of ancient humankind? Seeking seemingly logical explanations for things they are innocently ignorant of the true nature of?

Is sophism a perfectly normal mental tool, to be replaced, upon mature consideration and the acquisition of sustainable theory or actual fact, for some.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: