Religion
Related: About this forumCognitive Biases or Errors Are at the Heart of Religion
We humans make most decisions based on emotional, intuitive, or instinctive grounds. It's no wonder. The more primitive parts of our brains, the parts we share with other vertebrates and mammals, are all about survival, reproduction and food. If we don't pay attention to those needs, we die off.
We're lucky enough to have also evolved a hefty cerebral cortex that is capable of reasoning, rather than just reacting, but we often forget to use it for some of the most important decisions we make. Instead, we let our fast-thinking old parts of the brain handle most things.
It's amazing that we've managed to survive, really, because we have to be social, creative, reasoning critters. We're too weak to compete otherwise. We have to be able to figure out ways to overcome our weaknesses. But, when it comes down to brass tacks, we still often react like our ancient evolutionary ancestors.
It's a complex thing, decision-making. Sometimes we do well, but other times, we behave quite stupidly. Religion is one of those times. Lacking any evidence, we believe because it lets us forget some basic facts. We fear dying, so we believe that we'll go on after our bodies stop.
Humans are smart, but silly, emotional, error-prone primates.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Facts are facts and Religion is not based on facts.
violetpastille
(1,483 posts)Religion is something that we created along with our human language to control our environment and each other. It was a separation from the parts of us that we share with other beings and a stepping off into the abstract. The scientist and the theologian are more alike than different.
Our very ancient ancestors, our "primitive" ancestors were so well adapted to their environments that they didn't have a priest class as such. There were shamans but the shamans hunted and gathered along with everyone else with only rare exceptions.
With the rise of agriculture there came a leisure class and a priest/banking class. That's when the cognitive biases really got going. "Why do you get to sit around and boss and I have to move these boulders?" "Because I am noble" "Because I am holy."
All abstractions that require a lot of strategy and marketing to pull off.
The invention of "Religion" has less to do with emotions and intuitions and more to do with getting trapped in our own "reasoning" while trying to control the emotions and intuitions of the peasant class.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Any unprovable assertions are only that. Whether it is a declaration that a god exists, or a declaration that no god exists, it is an unprovable assertion.
And any claim that one position is more scientific or logical than the other is subject to the same biases.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that your assertion that religion belongs solely to the reptile brain, that would make religion hard wired in humans.
edhopper
(34,836 posts)that no gods exist.
You have been told this many, many, many times.
Of course atheism is more scientific, lack of evidence leads to the high probability that no gods exist.
What evidence do you have for any gods? What is your scientific basis for a god?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)It is simply one unprovable position.
edhopper
(34,836 posts)I am an atheist because there is no evidence for any gods. And plenty of counter evidence for most of the gods religions say exist.
That is the definition of science.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Define what constitutes acceptable evidence.
A signed letter?
A photo?
DNA evidence?
edhopper
(34,836 posts)has had even the slightest impact on the physical Universe.
Any evidence that there is not a completely physical explanation to the way the Universe works.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2018, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)
That is my belief.
What if the evidence that you seek is in an alternate or parallel universe?
MineralMan
(147,591 posts)It makes no sense. Created is not a noun. What does "The existence of created" mean? Created is the past tense or participial form of the verb "to create."
What did you intend to convey with that sentence?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)MineralMan
(147,591 posts)Created, which assumes a creator. So , still just a faith belief with no evidence to support it. For me, the universe just IS. It just exists. That, I know to be true. I do not know its origin, nor whether it has always existed. I make no claims because I have no evidence to support them.
edhopper
(34,836 posts)there was an intelligence behind the origin of the Universe. Postulated what ifs, when there is no evidence for them is evidence.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)there is no evidence of which you are aware.
edhopper
(34,836 posts)you are aware of?
Postulating that there could be evidence when none exists is the same as there being no evidence.
In science, which atheism is more like, when new evidence is presented, then the possibilities change.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)please.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The universe exists therefore it must have been created, therefore there must be a creator, therefore a creator exists, therefore something must have created the creator, therefore a creator creator must exist... Oh dear, this never ends does it?
edhopper
(34,836 posts)all the way down.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)We all have it, therefore every argument is null.