The Argument from Diversity

[spetey]

Hi folks,

First, I'm very pleased to have found this forum. I think more open debate, especially about religion, is crucial to the world's future. It is too easy in the days of the internet simply to find people who agree with you, and post only to their message boards, patting each other on the back for being clever enough to agree. So I salute you all for coming here instead!

Let me start with a little exercise in confronting religious plurality, what I like to call the "argument from diversity". Let's pretend that I believe in a god, but not the God of the Abrahamic tradition. Instead, I believe in Zeus, and the other Greek gods. Of course there aren't really any (or many) Zeus-worshippers these days, but let's pretend as an example, to stand in for all the other conflicting religions that really are out there today.

I suppose many of the Abrahamic tradition (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) would think Zeus-worshipping kind of silly, and perhaps worry that I won't go to heaven. Maybe you even fear I'll be damned for eternity. Nonetheless, pretend I believe in Zeus, and that I'm similarly worried about Christians (and Jews and ...), because if you don't worship Zeus properly--sacrificing lambs and such--you'll have to go to Hades and roll boulders up hills for all eternity, like poor Sisyphys.

Now here's the exercise: can you give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God--one that I don't already have for believing in Zeus?

Thanks for your patience... I look forward to a polite and engaging exchange.


spetey

[harvey1]

Now here's the exercise: can you give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God--one that I don't already have for believing in Zeus?

Sure, I can give you a few reasons.

1) Evolution of Selective Advantages: The Hebrew religion evolved over many centuries and many empires and religions ruled or had tremendous influence over the evolution of the Hebrew religion. As a result, the Hebrews were able to 'test' their beliefs against a wider spectrum of circumstances, and as a result, their religion developed into a religious strain that was able to wipe out its competitors, especially the Zeus religion (through the extension of Christianity which was originally a Hebrew religion). If truth conquers all, then one could argue that the evolution of Yahwehism was what gave it a strategic advantage over all of its competitors.

2) Evolution of Effective Analogies Which Formed the Basis of the Religion: The Hebrews made extensive use of agriculture in their religious beliefs (e.g., Pentecost: harvest of first fruits, the main harvest, etc), so by using nature as an analogy they were able to perceive subtle self-similar and other mathematical relationships that exist in nature at a fundamental level, thereby allowing them to evolve their religion that produced more analogies that later gave Yahwehism a tremendous advantages in terms of the philosophical soundness for the religion. For example, the Hebrews took large advantage of the analogy of the good shepherd lording over his sheep. Because of these kind of analogies, the Hebrews came to see God as a personal God and not merely a national aloff god (e.g., as Zeus). This is philosophical advantage since a God that cares for individuals would more than likely be 'God' in that a true God should be a mind of infinite comprehension (or at least for all practical purposes), and this is appealing for philosophical reasons (e.g., if God lacks this characteristic it leaves the question on how God could create something as complex as the universe in the first place).

3) Evolution of the Hebrew Scriptures: Perhaps what Yahwehism has that perhaps all other religions in the world lack is the continuity and evolution of their scriptures. This is similar to (1), however it is more than just borrowing beliefs or developing new beliefs to obtain a selective advantage. The Hebrew scriptures allowed the Hebrews to develop their stories and even compete between the competing priest lines (e.g., JEPD, etc). This represents a huge advantage of Yahwehism because with competition comes a diversity in opinion that was restrained in Grecian religions (and many other religions I might add). This diversity would be of nothing special had it not been for the attempts in the 5th century to unify the stories by some extremely clever people. What this did is create a sophisticated storyline for the Hebrews, and this storyline evolved even into the Christian era to make significant progress in understanding God and many of the issues surrounding the philosophy of religion. It is one thing for philosophers to sit around and talk about religion and the philosophy of religion, it is another thing having to live through the history of a people who were continually afflicted and having felt abandoned by their God through slavery and then return from a remarkable decree in the 5th century BC by Cyrus of Persia to return to the holy land! It is just an incredible story that even Hollywood could not match and philosophers cannot even dream of the impact.

It is important that religious beliefs actually to be lived because not all philosophical views offer enough comfort to the followers to maintain those beliefs. In order for a religion to exist, it must provide to the followers enough comfort while not sacrificing on explanation (the people needed both to deal with the tragedies as well as the successes of their history). The Hebrews are perhaps one of the most unfortunate and fortunate people on earth, and this mixture of frustration and gratitude needed to meld into a consistent storyline for the Hebrews, and this is what the Hebrew scriptures became.

Whether you are a believer, agnostic, or atheist, the Hebrew scriptures are truly a treasure of humanity. Like our own history (which is lost as far as we know), the history of the Hebrews brings out the depths of failure and success of our species. To believe in a God, is most certainly to come face to face with the Hebrew scriptures simply from the experiential level of facing the struggles and plight of survival that they contended with in their history.

In summary, Yahwehism could have been no better than a belief in Zeus, but the Hebrews had an appointment with destiny that no other group on earth experienced or could have experienced. If you believe experience is the way to find the truth, then I think you'd have to at least buy into the notion that the Hebrews were the most experienced culture in terms of their occupations, captivities, destructions, perils, and so many of the other factors that no nation on earth has shared (not even close). And, the really amazing thing is that they kept it together in a book which they even tried to unify to establish sense and meaning from all their experiences.

As a Christian, I see how Christianity was able to develop into the major religion it was to become because it was based on the Hebrew scriptures and it was able to so insightfully see the things that were waiting for a revolution in thought. Christianity benefited because of the Greek philosophy influence, so you can even say that Zeus also had his input on the Hebrew scriptures. This is why Christianity became so effective and was so prepared to conquer the weaker strains of religion that existed in other environments.

[spetey]

Hi harvey1! Thanks for joining the discussion.

1) Evolution of Selective Advantages: The Hebrew religion evolved over many centuries and many empires and religions ruled or had tremendous influence over the evolution of the Hebrew religion. As a result, the Hebrews were able to 'test' their beliefs against a wider spectrum of circumstances, and as a result, their religion developed into a religious strain that was able to wipe out its competitors, especially the Zeus religion (through the extension of Christianity which was originally a Hebrew religion). If truth conquers all, then one could argue that the evolution of Yahwehism was what gave it a strategic advantage over all of its competitors.

I don't think the beliefs were "tested" in the way we think of ideas being tested: by reasoning. They were tested insofar as many holders of them were able, militarily, to overcome their opponents. But force does not seem like a fair test of an idea. The church was also able to force Galileo to submit and recant his scientific views. Does that mean his ideas "lost"? The Nazis were able to take over a gigantic landmass; does that mean their ideas "won"? When the the Islamic Empire was it its height, would you have become a Muslim, since it had clearly won the battle of ideas? If China should gain world dominance in the next 50 years, as most experts predict, will you convert to Confucianism (or Buddhism or secular communism)? Put most generally: do you subscribe to the view that "might makes right"?

2) Evolution of Effective Analogies Which Formed the Basis of the Religion: The Hebrews made extensive use of agriculture in their religious beliefs (e.g., Pentecost: harvest of first fruits, the main harvest, etc), so by using nature as an analogy they were able to perceive subtle self-similar and other mathematical relationships that exist in nature at a fundamental level, thereby allowing them to evolve their religion that produced more analogies that later gave Yahwehism a tremendous advantages in terms of the philosophical soundness for the religion. For example, the Hebrews took large advantage of the analogy of the good shepherd lording over his sheep. Because of these kind of analogies, the Hebrews came to see God as a personal God and not merely a national aloff god (e.g., as Zeus).

But the Greek gods had a tremendous amount of harvest imagery! Demeter and Artemis were both goddesses of the harvest, for example. And Homer managed some darn fine analogies and metaphors; for my money, they're superior to those of the Abrahamic tradition (thoug there are certainly some great ones there, too!). But I don't think that religions should be judged for their truth based on the complexity or depth or pervasiveness of their metaphors. They can be judged on those grounds for literary merit, of course, but that's not what we're debating.

3) Evolution of the Hebrew Scriptures: Perhaps what Yahwehism has that perhaps all other religions in the world lack is the continuity and evolution of their scriptures.

I don't follow. There are many ancient texts from many religions. The I Ching, for example, remains largely intact after something like 3,000 years.

This represents a huge advantage of Yahwehism because with competition comes a diversity in opinion that was restrained in Grecian religions (and many other religions I might add).

I think you are mixing metaphors here; competition and diversity are related in literal, biological evolution. But competition often reduces diversity in social contexts, as MicroSoft demonstrates.

It is just an incredible story that even Hollywood could not match and philosophers cannot even dream of the impact.

It is, indeed, a moving story. But I think each culture has a fascinating story to tell--the ancient Greeks, for example. That doesn't mean that the ideas those cultures held were correct. And more generally, I don't think a good story is proof of truth. After all, The Odyssey is a great story, isn't it?

It is important that religious beliefs actually to be lived because not all philosophical views offer enough comfort to the followers to maintain those beliefs.

I don't think comfort is a reason to believe in something. I would be comforted to hear that cancer has been cured, but I don't think this is reason for me to believe that cancer has been cured. To do so is to commit the "wishful thinking" fallacy.

And anyway, believers in Zeus and the other gods drew great comfort for their beliefs. So it's still difficult to see a reason to believe in God that I don't have similarly for believing in Zeus.

Whether you are a believer, agnostic, or atheist, the Hebrew scriptures are truly a treasure of humanity.

Agreed. So, I think, are the Homeric epics. But again, this doesn't make either of them true.

In summary, Yahwehism could have been no better than a belief in Zeus, but the Hebrews had an appointment with destiny that no other group on earth experienced or could have experienced. If you believe experience is the way to find the truth, then I think you'd have to at least buy into the notion that the Hebrews were the most experienced culture in terms of their occupations, captivities, destructions, perils, and so many of the other factors that no nation on earth has shared (not even close).

No, I don't agree; I think just about every culture has a fascinating story to tell. Why is the amazing experience of the Hebraic tradition any more wonderful than the amazing experience of the Chinese or Greek culture? And even if somehow the story of the Jews is more moving, or does contain more "experience", I still don't see how that shows their religious views correct.

These are very interesting points of discussion, but for the reasons above, I still say that there is no reason to believe in God that isn't also a reason to believe in Zeus.


spetey

[harvey1]

See the post below...

[harvey1]

I don't think the beliefs were "tested" in the way we think of ideas being tested: by reasoning. They were tested insofar as many holders of them were able, militarily, to overcome their opponents. But force does not seem like a fair test of an idea. The church was also able to force Galileo to submit and recant his scientific views. Does that mean his ideas "lost"? The Nazis were able to take over a gigantic landmass; does that mean their ideas "won"? When the the Islamic Empire was it its height, would you have become a Muslim, since it had clearly won the battle of ideas? If China should gain world dominance in the next 50 years, as most experts predict, will you convert to Confucianism (or Buddhism or secular communism)? Put most generally: do you subscribe to the view that "might makes right"?

No, I don't. However, the Hebrews were rarely on top militarily, and certainly didn't have much of a chance to bring their religion to others outside of Palestine. By 'tested' I mean they had to endure these things, as well as study flow of 'tourists' and the ideas they brought due only to their central location between Egypt-Greece, Babylon-Egypt, Assyria-Egypt, etc. Add to this issue the changes that were taken place in the world during the 10-11 centuries (or more) that the Hebrew culture was being impacted by these factors, and you have a testing ground that did amount to 'reasoning'.

But the Greek gods had a tremendous amount of harvest imagery! Demeter and Artemis were both goddesses of the harvest, for example. And Homer managed some darn fine analogies and metaphors; for my money, they're superior to those of the Abrahamic tradition (thoug there are certainly some great ones there, too!). But I don't think that religions should be judged for their truth based on the complexity or depth or pervasiveness of their metaphors. They can be judged on those grounds for literary merit, of course, but that's not what we're debating.

I'm not saying that the Greeks lacked analogies and imagery of agriculture. What I'm saying is that the analogies that the Hebrews used had evolved over time and that their ideas mainly evolved around analogies. Let me give you an example. As extensive traders, the Hebrews were very familiar with the concept of a contract. The contract for the sale and purchase of import/export materials became one of the Hebrews most effective analogies that actually developed their concept of God from one of a Zeus-like being, to something that even today, I think, outperforms many modern conceptions of God:

"I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the [contract]between Me and the earth." (Genesis 9:13)

* A primitive notion that God has a contract with humanity not to flood the earth

"Now the LORD had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:1-3)

and later...

"On the same day the LORD made a [contract] with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates" Genesis 9:13

This is the contractual relationship with Abram. Still a pretty primitive notion.

"And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My [contract], you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My [contract] which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the [contract] between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My [contract] shall be in your flesh for an everlasting [contract]. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My [contract]." (Gen. 17:9)

So, now the contractual analogy with Abraham begins to evolve to where the Hebrew body must be marked in an obvious manner (circumcision). This additional analogy had a lasting impact on the Hebrew conception of a personal God (and not just a nationalistic God). The conception is that of a people of the eternal God. Still primitive, but getting there...

"So God heard their groaning, and God remembered His [contract] with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob." (Exodus 2:24)

The contract conception now evolves to where God has to rescue the Hebrews from the Egyptians. The lasting effect of whatever the Hebrews experienced (or grafted into their own story from one of the tribes of Israel) would have a lasting impact that is still the main storyline of the Hebrews (Jewish people) to this day.

"So Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, "All the words which the LORD has said we will do." And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. ... Then he took the Book of the [Contract] and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient." And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "This is the blood of the [contract] which the LORD has made with you according to all these words." (Exodus 24:3-8 )

So, the contractual relationship evolves to the point of God as a lawgiver. Not only does it identify them as a people, it now identifies them as a nation, one in which justifies their right to Palestine, etc. The conception of moral laws, while not the first moral codes to be introduced, was much more evolved than other moral laws because of the storyline. In other words, the Hebrews had strong religious incentives to keep the Law, and this had profound impact later. Of course, the Greeks did not evolve this notion, and hence some of the reason why they had a much more city-state view of their world. It was good for philosophy, terrible for evolving a sophisticated religion that met the religious needs of people.

" "The time is coming," declares the LORD , "when I will make a new [contract] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the [contract] I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my [contract], though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is the [contract] I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD . "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD . "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jer. 31:31-34)

So, here evolves the more sophisticated beliefs of forgiveness of sins, and the idea of having the code of law removed as a list of do's and dont's. The Hebrews were ready for a modern view of religion that saw God as much more universal and much more personal than they had previous thought of God. Analogies such as contractual relationships started to payoff.

"Likewise [Jesus] also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new [contract] in My blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22:20

Here's the new direction of this contract analogy that had the longterm effect of expanding the Hebrew national religion to encompass the world (which is why we are discussing this today). With this new contract of Christianity, there is a complete personal relationship with God that is based on forgiveness of sins and living each day with the belief that God is in our hearts and minds. The old Yahweh notion of God as a thunder god has been completely replaced.

I don't follow. There are many ancient texts from many religions. The I Ching, for example, remains largely intact after something like 3,000 years.

The I Ching is not an evolution of scriptures in nearly the same manner as the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrews had competing priestly lines that had to organize their storyline. If you know anything about scriptwriting, you know that having to put stories together in a convincing manner is not easy. The result is an evolution that adds insight of various authors and times that eventually hits upon new concepts completely alien to the former way of thinking. As an example, think about the 'warp drive' in Star Trek. It was an invention of the television series, but it inspired many scientists and now there has been years of research into warp drive conceptual development. Similarly, the Hebrews drive for a cohesive story drove them to develop ideas of God that, I believe, no other religion on earth was able to develop.

I think you are mixing metaphors here; competition and diversity are related in literal, biological evolution. But competition often reduces diversity in social contexts, as MicroSoft demonstrates.

Actually, Microsoft evolved in a very competitive environment, and during that time, a great deal of innovation took place in terms of operating systems. However, once monopolies develop, then you can have a stiffling of competition which eventually causes a drop off in innovation. Such is the case with religion. Prior to the Reformation, Europe had suffered from a major monopoly on their religious evolution, and this caused a stiffling of their understanding of God. After the Reformation, ideas became important again, and a result we saw the evolution of the Enlightenment and the freedoms that modern democracies are based. These were originally religious notions that had evolved after the Reformation.

It is, indeed, a moving story. But I think each culture has a fascinating story to tell--the ancient Greeks, for example. That doesn't mean that the ideas those cultures held were correct. And more generally, I don't think a good story is proof of truth. After all, The Odyssey is a great story, isn't it?

Absolutely. And, had the Greeks had been as fortunate to partake in the evolution that the Hebews had the opportunity, then no doubt some great religion would have emerged from Greece. But, the separation of city-states and a few other factors prevented them from an evolution of religion that occurred in Palestine. That doesn't discount their religious literature in any way, it's just that the religion never really got off the ground, so it offers less for modern folks asking real questions of God. Philosophy, on the other hand, evolved in Greece, and the input there is highly important. In fact, without Greek philosophy the Christian religion evolution that took place in early Europe would never have been enriched as much as it had (not to mention that Christianity evolved in large part in the Greek world during the height of their philosophical movement, so that also had a huge impact on Christian evolution).

But, I think we have a basic difference of view with regard to the evolution of ideas. For me, it is evolution of ideas that has a good opportunity to produce truth. This is seen especially in science. Of course with science it happens because of physical evidence is so apparent making experimentation and progress feasible, but evidence of the world is not limited to physical observables. The universe is pretty much self-similar in structure, hence the ability to capture simple analogies and expand upon those analogies in the right way (which can be 'tested' by its fruits) and this provides a great deal of truth production. That's why I don't discount other major religions. They were successful for a reason. Religions that succeeded mainly by military capabilities is another story since might doesn't make right. Christianity did make use of military force to convert certain regions of the world, but Christianity did most of its evolution and early conversion by being heavily persecuted, a situation that most certainly produces ideas that are extremely important for the human need for religion (i.e., if humans will even suffer persecution to believe those ideas, then those ideas may contain some valuable sense of meaning).

I don't think comfort is a reason to believe in something. I would be comforted to hear that cancer has been cured, but I don't think this is reason for me to believe that cancer has been cured. To do so is to commit the "wishful thinking" fallacy.

Well, I disagree. Comfort is a reason to believe something. For example, I believe humanity won't blow itself up come next year. This belief gives me a sense of comfort. If I really wasn't sure, then I would live very uneasy each and every day. What I won't do, however, is sacrifice rationality for comfort. If you are looking for truth, then comfort is a very important criteria for religion since comfort provides the most meaning. A universe without meaning is a universe without a God (at least one worthy of discussion). A universe with meaning (i.e., a universe with a God worth discussing) requires that there be comfort to that world.

Let me say it this way. Truth is based on satisfaction (i.e., meaning). If something is not satisfactory (e.g., 1>2), then we say it is untrue. The comfort level is not there to justify a belief in that thing. Similarly, if a belief is not satisfactory (i.e., the meaning is not there), then we have a right to reject it as long as it is rational to do so. In some cases the comfort is not there, but we are forced to accept it simply because it isn't rational to reject it. Rationality provides the most comfort, and we cannot reject rational thinking without rejecting a larger sense of comfort in the world.

And anyway, believers in Zeus and the other gods drew great comfort for their beliefs. So it's still difficult to see a reason to believe in God that I don't have similarly for believing in Zeus.

It didn't endure. The religion died because there was very little interest in it. There wasn't even a military invasion that brought about the demise of that religion. It must have offered very little for that to occur. Over a few hundred years the religion lost influence and then finally lost out to Christianity (i.e., Greece is mostly Christian today).

Agreed. So, I think, are the Homeric epics. But again, this doesn't make either of them true.

The Homeric epics are great literature, but they were not written over many centuries by a people subjected to captivity, destruction, etc, by Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, Hittites, etc, etc. The story you are reading in the Hebrews is the wisdom and insight gained by staying believers throughout. When you confront truth in fiery tests, it has a way of producing it.

Look at the history of modern democracies. Even within the last century there have been many changes as democracies become more sensitive to the plight of the minority, understanding the merits and demerits of free trade, the importance of building cottage industries, etc. Is this producing truth? Yes, in a way it is. It isn't philosophical or religious truth, it's truth of a different way that eventually produces truth in a philosophical or religious sense. For example, ending slavery is a moral truth that only came about because of the development of freedom within society. These things have a way of spilling over from one context to another. It is the development and evolution of society (or biology for that matter) that later have philosophical consequences (and vice versa).

No, I don't agree; I think just about every culture has a fascinating story to tell. Why is the amazing experience of the Hebraic tradition any more wonderful than the amazing experience of the Chinese or Greek culture? And even if somehow the story of the Jews is more moving, or does contain more "experience", I still don't see how that shows their religious views correct. These are very interesting points of discussion, but for the reasons above, I still say that there is no reason to believe in God that isn't also a reason to believe in Zeus.
spetey

We all have our own points of what convinces us on something. This issue is not something that I can prove, obviously. However, what I can do is provide the intuitive notions that I use to justify my beliefs.

To me, evolution is a very important concept in religion. Evolution is so effective at producing truth that evolutionary algorithms (genetic algorithms) are even being used in industry to produce solutions to problems that prior to were not solvable. The Hebrews, in my view, had a huge advantage over other cultures simply because of their location between empires, their use of analogies which took on an advanced understanding, and most importantly their experiences.

Thanks for the question. Very interesting discussion.

[spetey]

Hi again Christian Debaters! I'm back from vacation...

harvey1, your response is long and I can't procrastinate too much on this forum . So let me just hit what I consider some highlights.

On Hebrew culture. In summary, your argument here seems to be something like

1. The Jews experienced a rich diversity of historical events and other cultures.
2. Any culture with such an opportunity for an "evolution of ideas" must have the correct religion.
3. Therefore, there is reason to believe in the Abrahamic God instead of the Greek gods.

Spelled out this way, perhaps you can see where I disagree. I deny premise 2, first of all. How does having an "experienced" culture (let's use that term as shorthand) give any evidence that the religion of that culture is correct? Put it this way: surely the gypsies must have one of the most amazingly "experienced" cultures ever. But you don't take that as good evidence that astrology or Tarot are correct, do you? Second of all, by just about any measure the Greeks also had an "experienced" culture that came up with some amazing ideas, as you say. So it's not obvious that even if premise 2 were somehow true, the Abrahamic tradition would have an advantage over the Greek one. Perhaps I didn't correctly capture your argument in my little capsule summary. If so, I'd like to see a similar summary of your argument stated in such clear form.

On metaphors. Here your argument seems to be

1. The Abrahamic tradition employs powerful metaphors, like that of a contract.
2. Any cultural tradition that employs powerful metaphors is more likely to be true.
3. Therefore there is reason to believe in the Abrahamic God instead of the Greek gods.

And as you might guess, my response is similar. Premise 2 seems obviously false, as the existence of countless works of fantastic fiction demonstrate. Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Cervantes, Murasaki ... they all employed extended and powerful metaphors in works of fiction. Why can't the Abrahamic tradition be just that--another powerful story? And again, even if premise 2 is true, it's not clear that metaphors like "contract" are somehow more truth-conducive than Homeric metaphors like the wine-dark sea, or the nostos journey.

On the changing ("evolving") contract / scriptures. This seems very strange to me. Wouldn't you say that a story changing over time is evidence, if anything, of its falsity? Of course a screenwriter has the luxury to change her script over time, in order to fabricate a better story. But imagine a witness for a murder changing his story significantly from telling to telling, so that they are inconsistent taken as a whole. Isn't that evidence that the witness is just making stuff up?! Or at least that most of what the witness is saying is false?

Now this next bit, perhaps, is crucial to our discussion:

Absolutely. And, had the Greeks had been as fortunate to partake in the evolution that the Hebews had the opportunity, then no doubt some great religion would have emerged from Greece.

What do you mean by "great" here? I think this is key. If you mean "inspiring" or "lasting" or "culturally pervasive" or "popular", then I agree that the Abrahamic tradition is all these things, and has shown to be more lasting than the Greek tradition. But I don't care about those senses of "great"--I care about whether I have reason to think one of these religions is true or not. Presumably even if Greece had the chance to participate in the "evolution" that is important to you, and their religion became "great" in the sense of popular and inpsiring and stuff, that still wouldn't have made it true, right? So perhaps I didn't make this clear enough: I want a reason to think that the Abrahamic tradition is true--a reason that does not have an analogue on the Greek side.

But, I think we have a basic difference of view with regard to the evolution of ideas. For me, it is evolution of ideas that has a good opportunity to produce truth. This is seen especially in science.

I agree that this is near the heart of our discussion. To me, when it comes to ideas, "evolution" is either just a metaphor borrowed from literal evolution in biology, or else it just means "change". The former notion has nothing obvious to say about truth. In biological evolution genotypes are selected for based on how well they dispose their carriers to reproduce that genotype. And the latter notion of just ideas "changing" over time isn't enough to guarantee truth. Astrologers have been around a long time, slowly changing how they feel about the significance of Mars, disagreeing apparently like scientists, etc. But I don't think that's reason to think astrology is true. (Well, maybe it's some reason, but outweighed by a great many reasons to think it's not!)

I think perhaps you are too optimistic about the "evolution of ideas". Ideas can be "selected", so to speak, for lots of things besides truth. For example, some ideas become popular just because they are hugely reassuring and pleasant or fun to believe. This probably explains why astrology and such stuff are still around.

Yes, in the sciences things are different; there it seems theories are replaced by other theories that are typically better in a more obviously truth-directed way. But that is not true of many other human endeavors. As it happens I picked a religion that didn't last long, but as you say this could be merely a historical fluke--like, in biology, the countless species that were just as "fit" as their neighboring species but got wiped out due to a local earthquake, or genetic drift, or what have you.

And I could have picked a religion that is still around today. (I didn't in order not to step on anyone's toes.) I could have said "why believe in the Abrahamic God, and not Vishnu?" And it seems like there it's not just a matter of which one has lasted longer in the "evolution" of ideas, right?

That's why I don't discount other major religions. They were successful for a reason. Religions that succeeded mainly by military capabilities is another story since might doesn't make right. Christianity did make use of military force to convert certain regions of the world, but Christianity did most of its evolution and early conversion by being heavily persecuted, a situation that most certainly produces ideas that are extremely important for the human need for religion (i.e., if humans will even suffer persecution to believe those ideas, then those ideas may contain some valuable sense of meaning).

Sure, the religions succeeded for a "reason". But it need not be the reason that they're true. It may be the same kind of reason that astrology has lasted so long. And sure, the religions contain a valuable sense of meaning. I don't deny that. But again, so do many powerful stories. That the tradition is moving or emotional or metaphorically rich is again no evidence that they are actually true.

On second thought, maybe this stuff is really what's at the heart of our discussion:

Well, I disagree. Comfort is a reason to believe something.

It's a reason--is it a good reason?

For example, I believe humanity won't blow itself up come next year. This belief gives me a sense of comfort.

This is not an example of wishful thinking. Sure your belief that humanity won't blow itself up in 2005 gives you comfort, as it happens. But you don't believe it because it gives you comfort, right? You believe it because there's pretty good evidence that we'll manage to muddle through another year largely intact. After all, we've gotten through worse...

What I won't do, however, is sacrifice rationality for comfort.

Hooray! Here we're on the same page.

If you are looking for truth, then comfort is a very important criteria for religion since comfort provides the most meaning. A universe without meaning is a universe without a God (at least one worthy of discussion). A universe with meaning (i.e., a universe with a God worth discussing) requires that there be comfort to that world.

Oops, we slipped off into different pages again. I thought you wouldn't sacrifice rationality for comfort? So how does comfort show that a religion is true?

For one thing, I totally disagree that God is needed for there to be "meaning" in the world. Actually I think there is less meaning to the world if there is a God. But that's for another thread. Meanwhile the crucial issue here is: even if this life would somehow be more meaningful with a God, why does that make it true that there's a God? This life might also be a lot more meaningful if humans had no physical hardships ever, and could concentrate on wonderful spiritual stuff. But is that reason to believe that no humans are suffering hardships now?

Let me say it this way. Truth is based on satisfaction (i.e., meaning). If something is not satisfactory (e.g., 1>2), then we say it is untrue. The comfort level is not there to justify a belief in that thing. Similarly, if a belief is not satisfactory (i.e., the meaning is not there), then we have a right to reject it as long as it is rational to do so. In some cases the comfort is not there, but we are forced to accept it simply because it isn't rational to reject it. Rationality provides the most comfort, and we cannot reject rational thinking without rejecting a larger sense of comfort in the world.

You are equivocating here. Sometimes you are using "satisfaction" in a weird technical sense (is this a mutant form of Tarski, or something?) according to which "if something is not satisfactory, then we say it is untrue." So in this sense, the fact that people are starving around the world is "satisfactory" (ie true), right? Then you want to use "satisfaction" as "meaning". And then you want to use it as "comfort". But these three senses are all distinct and can't be conflated. The fact that people are starving gives me no comfort but it is nonetheless true.

And anyway, believers in Zeus and the other gods drew great comfort for their beliefs. So it's still difficult to see a reason to believe in God that I don't have similarly for believing in Zeus.

It didn't endure. The religion died because there was very little interest in it. There wasn't even a military invasion that brought about the demise of that religion. It must have offered very little for that to occur. Over a few hundred years the religion lost influence and then finally lost out to Christianity (i.e., Greece is mostly Christian today).

Not so. The Greek tradition got simply absorbed by the Roman tradition--much more directly than the Christian tradition absorbed the Jewish one--and that was an enormously powerful and influential religion that shaped, for example, how Christmas is celebrated today. But again even if the Greek religion had died out quickly, I don't think that's evidence of its falsity. The Greeks also knew the world was round, and that idea did die with them (in Europe anyway) pretty quickly. But that doesn't mean it "lost" in the "evolution of ideas" and was therefore false.

We all have our own points of what convinces us on something. This issue is not something that I can prove, obviously. However, what I can do is provide the intuitive notions that I use to justify my beliefs.

Well, we're discussing the merit of these justifications; my position is that comfort and the like don't justify these beliefs.

Or perhaps you are saying that no, you can't give a (truth-directed, not wishful thinking) reason to believe in God instead of Zeus? Of course that's an option--you can say "I just believe on faith." But then the Greek believer can say that too, of course, and we're at a horrible impasse--especially when we disagree over a tract of land, or the moral status of fetuses, or what have you.

Evolution is so effective at producing truth that evolutionary algorithms (genetic algorithms) are even being used in industry to produce solutions to problems that prior to were not solvable.

Genetic algorithms make a very particular optimization technique--a heuristic for covering large search spaces--that are not to be confused with the sense you give to "evolution of ideas".

I hope I've clarified some of my thoughts on the matter. And thanks again for the interesting discussion.


spetey

[canadianhorsefan]

I have a small reply. Let's say there were many god. Ancient Greeks believed they had human characteristics, right? Also, they believed the lived on Mount Olympus. Now, since they have human characteristics, they would be inclined to fight, correct? Now, since they live on Mount Olympus, which is on Earth, there is a chance you would see them fighting, right? If they had weapons, fragments would be scattered all over. Also, imagine finding a gigantic axe. But that's never happened. No Greek ever said, "Zeus and Artemis had a disagreement on how to help destroy the enemy. They had a brutal fight, which lasted about 3 centuries (their time is different), then they settled down, only to find out the war was long over," or something like that. However, if there is only one All-Mighty God, who is He to have diagreements with?

[harvey1]

On Hebrew culture. In summary, your argument here seems to be something like

1. The Jews experienced a rich diversity of historical events and other cultures.
2. Any culture with such an opportunity for an "evolution of ideas" must have the correct religion.
3. Therefore, there is reason to believe in the Abrahamic God instead of the Greek gods.

Spelled out this way, perhaps you can see where I disagree. I deny premise 2, first of all. How does having an "experienced" culture (let's use that term as shorthand) give any evidence that the religion of that culture is correct? Put it this way: surely the gypsies must have one of the most amazingly "experienced" cultures ever. But you don't take that as good evidence that astrology or Tarot are correct, do you?

You did not state my argument correctly. The argument is not that evolution of ideas produces truth, rather it is that the 'testing' of ideas under a wide-ranging circumstance that produces a more sound belief system, hence truth. This is akin to philosophical reasoning with the added benefit that you are only keeping the most meaningful religious beliefs.

In the case of the Roma, they do not have a centralized religion. They are a culture composed of many variations and migrations with only some main attributes that they've been able to hang onto, but certainly not in an evolutionary type of setting.

In addition, I would argue that as cultures evolve, they do adapt to their circumstances, and this does make their culture more resiliant to outside influences. The Roma are a perfect example of this kind of resiliancy. The 'truth' that is produced is not necessarily religious truth, it might be a byproduct of truth, such as ethical values, group cohesiveness, rich heritage, etc. These are evolutionary mechanisms by which to find meaning in the world, and whereas they may not produce religious truths in themselves, they are vehicles by which religious truths might be kindled. For example, biological evolution has produced culture through the process of evolving intelligent life on earth. Whereas the culture has not necessarily produced any truths of the world, the effect of culture has been to help homo sapiens to evolve, beat out their competitors, and eventually produce scientific truths. Culture was a step along the way to scientific truths to be produced.

However, it is only until former beliefs come up short through the testing process that new beliefs (evolved) can take their place. In the case of the Gypsies, this has never been a problem since their society was not tight enough that made these adjustments necessary. Their culture held them intact and they merely migrated to other regions in smaller groups if they had a problem in a particular region. As a group, they may someday interact directly on the internet (or whatever the internet evolves into), and who knows? Maybe they will evolve religious truths by casting aside former beliefs through a 'testing' process that they cannot migrate to a 'new region'. Albeit, this process might take a thousand of years since evolution advances slowly since the newly evolved ideas must integrate with the culture to see if those beliefs hold sufficient meaning.

The Hebrews were effective in their evolution until the Diaspora. After which, their evolution of ideas were greatly affected by this process, although not completely stopped. However, they had a serious impediment to their evolutionary movement since in order to keep their religion from fragmenting, they had to put a tight lid on the evolution of ideas, which is partly why Christianity and other evolving Jewish beliefs were rejected. Christianity also came to this problem, eventually, and this also formed Christianity into a stable set of beliefs as Christians confronted the Gnostic challenge. This stablization happens in biological evolution as well, as we see species survive for many millions of years with little evolutionary changes. It's actually needed for evolution to produce the results that God intended, but in the shortterm it is frustrating to see belief generation to be slowed. That's why it takes a culture like the Hebrews to advance their religious ideas since you need a millenium and evolving competition to see the spur more evolution and see the fruits of this process.

Second of all, by just about any measure the Greeks also had an "experienced" culture that came up with some amazing ideas, as you say. So it's not obvious that even if premise 2 were somehow true, the Abrahamic tradition would have an advantage over the Greek one. Perhaps I didn't correctly capture your argument in my little capsule summary. If so, I'd like to see a similar summary of your argument stated in such clear form.

Absolutely, and it did not occur in terms of their polytheistic religious ideas, but it happened in the context of philosophy with Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, etc. And, amazingly, the Hebrew religious culture and the Greek philosophical movement actually merged. First, the first contact came with Hellenistic Jews who became philosophers (e.g., Philo), and then later with Paul and the Christians who followed who advanced what the Hellenistic Jews had begun. Philo, it seems, had considerable influence on Paul and other Christian writers.

On metaphors. Here your argument seems to be

1. The Abrahamic tradition employs powerful metaphors, like that of a contract.
2. Any cultural tradition that employs powerful metaphors is more likely to be true.
3. Therefore there is reason to believe in the Abrahamic God instead of the Greek gods.

And as you might guess, my response is similar. Premise 2 seems obviously false, as the existence of countless works of fantastic fiction demonstrate. Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Cervantes, Murasaki ... they all employed extended and powerful metaphors in works of fiction. Why can't the Abrahamic tradition be just that--another powerful story? And again, even if premise 2 is true, it's not clear that metaphors like "contract" are somehow more truth-conducive than Homeric metaphors like the wine-dark sea, or the nostos journey.

Metaphors, parables, allegorical interpretation, etc, have been used in literature throughout time, and I am not arguing that the Hebrews had any corner on this market. However, you need to separate the impact of literature from the impact of religious scripture. In the case of literature, it might see a very low readership (or at least awareness) by the classes of people in a society, and the evolution of metaphors is purely based on a few authors and only so far as they wish to see those particular metaphors evolve. As generations change, these metaphors get lost. For example, unless you are very familiar with Emerson, it is unlikely that his metaphors will evolve from this point to be interactive with society as a whole. Emerson, as great of an author that he was, is now no longer a vital part of shared metaphors that will evolve further.

The Hebrew and Christian metaphors, which are much older than the Emerson metaphors, are not in the same category. These metaphors are expanded upon every weekend in synagogues and churches throughout the world, so we can see how powerful religious metaphors are compared to general literature.

Since these metaphors are active in society, they are advanced further than any comparable metaphors in general literature. In addition, the advancements are based on what 'sticks', that is, what is meaningful to the religious society, and this has a way of producing much more insight into the very structure of the world. As the intuitive creatures we are, our intuitive interaction with the world is more effective if society produces meaningful metaphors. The reason for this might be because meaningful metaphors are the most striking characteristics of our interaction with the world, and therefore they might have more fundamental qualities in terms of the self-similar structure of the world.

On the changing ("evolving") contract / scriptures. This seems very strange to me. Wouldn't you say that a story changing over time is evidence, if anything, of its falsity? Of course a screenwriter has the luxury to change her script over time, in order to fabricate a better story. But imagine a witness for a murder changing his story significantly from telling to telling, so that they are inconsistent taken as a whole. Isn't that evidence that the witness is just making stuff up?! Or at least that most of what the witness is saying is false?

Not at all. Science has a changing story too, but isn't that changing story a good thing? Of course, you might say that science is based on physical evidence, but my whole underlying point is that religious belief evolves in reaction to intuitive evidence that comes available to the insightful mind that seeks meaning in the world.

The more that stories are advanced by the process of editing them by an insightful individual, the more that those stories conform to the evolved beliefs of that society, hence the more they provide a future basis for more evolution. As an example, Jesus used David's example of eating holy bread for secular purposes to illustrate that God is not as caught up in the legalistic issues that had evolved in their society, hence legalism can be overthrown. Whereas today legalism seems trite, but to a culture that had not yet reached that point, these are major evolutionary strides which effected (and still effect) how our culture evolved our sense of freedoms and liberties which were very unique throughout the world.

Now this next bit, perhaps, is crucial to our discussion:

Absolutely. And, had the Greeks had been as fortunate to partake in the evolution that the Hebews had the opportunity, then no doubt some great religion would have emerged from Greece.

What do you mean by "great" here? I think this is key. If you mean "inspiring" or "lasting" or "culturally pervasive" or "popular", then I agree that the Abrahamic tradition is all these things, and has shown to be more lasting than the Greek tradition. But I don't care about those senses of "great"--I care about whether I have reason to think one of these religions is true or not. Presumably even if Greece had the chance to participate in the "evolution" that is important to you, and their religion became "great" in the sense of popular and inpsiring and stuff, that still wouldn't have made it true, right? So perhaps I didn't make this clear enough: I want a reason to think that the Abrahamic tradition is true--a reason that does not have an analogue on the Greek side.

By 'great' I mean a religion that has generated meaning for millions and been very successful at it through the ages. That's not to say religion is a popularity contest, "just believe it Wendy and it is true", rather it is a matter of striking a fundamental chord with humans intuitive drive for truth and meaning in a cold, harsh world that looks anything but meaningful. This is no easy challenge, and it gets more difficult as humans find meaning by avoiding the 'big questions' of life. Entertainment, for example, provides a temporary sense of meaning, so religious truths must compete with it. Sometimes religion has been at war with competitive routes to meaning (e.g., science), but this struggle has also been an impetus to evolve religion. As a result, many religions that could not adapt (or compete, even to the point of the unfortunate history of forced conversions) have vanished or been reduced to a few followers. It's a brute fact that religions have succeeded or died in a Darwinian type of survival for existence, and religion has been ruthless both at a societal level and in terms of individuals - sometimes having their lives wrecked by religious authorities.

These are sad events in the history of religion, but humans are still primitive and have not yet evolved all the ideas which will prevent evil oppression. But, we're getting there, slowly...

So, it is always necessary to advance religion at its forefront since religion does have a significant share in humanity's ugly past. Religion, though, because it has the millenia of evolution behind it, is in the best position to provide meaning (and truth) to humanity. What is needed is for religion to keep hiking up the mountain of meaning and truth, and not seek to turn back.

This is why creationism is so damaging to Christianity. It turns back the clock by not accepting scientific truths, which is never a good thing. Christianity has a lot to gain from adapting evolutionary processes, especially since it is the religion that emphasizes transformation from a sinful state to a righteous state. Fortunately, this is going to happen by the very nature of Darwinism that God instilled in the world, so I would expect one way or another, the future path of humanity will be a richer and more truthful religion.

[spetey]

Hi canadianhorsefan! Wow, your response comes from Lebanon... The wonders of the internet!

I have a small reply. Let's say there were many god. Ancient Greeks believed they had human characteristics, right? Also, they believed the lived on Mount Olympus. Now, since they have human characteristics, they would be inclined to fight, correct? Now, since they live on Mount Olympus, which is on Earth, there is a chance you would see them fighting, right? If they had weapons, fragments would be scattered all over. Also, imagine finding a gigantic axe. But that's never happened. No Greek ever said, "Zeus and Artemis had a disagreement on how to help destroy the enemy. They had a brutal fight, which lasted about 3 centuries (their time is different), then they settled down, only to find out the war was long over," or something like that. However, if there is only one All-Mighty God, who is He to have diagreements with?

The Greeks had plenty of evidence for when the gods fought: there was lightning and earthquakes. That was a clear sign of unhappiness on Mount Olympus! And Homer detailed many pieces of evidence--artifacts (shields handed out, etc) and first-hand accounts of the gods themselves. The gods were handing the Greeks stuff all the time! Great evidence--right?!


spetey

[spetey]

Ah-ha, harvey1, my old nemesis! Again, a pleasure to discuss this with you.

You did not state my argument correctly. The argument is not that evolution of ideas produces truth, rather it is that the 'testing' of ideas under a wide-ranging circumstance that produces a more sound belief system, hence truth. This is akin to philosophical reasoning with the added benefit that you are only keeping the most meaningful religious beliefs.

I agree that ideas can be tested for their reasonableness, and that this is a process somewhat akin to natural selection. But as for example Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene (the book that suggested this analogy of idea-evolution in "memes"), ideas can propagate for all sorts of reasons besides their truth--consider astrology. The suggestion in the background of my argument from diversity is that religious belief is like that--it was "successful", as you say, but not because true--rather because it gave comfort. If we had reason to think it was true, it should be easy to give reasons to believe it and not Greek mythology or Hinduism, right?

Maybe [the Gypsies] will evolve religious truths by casting aside former beliefs through a 'testing' process that they cannot migrate to a 'new region'.

Maybe they would have "evolved" a more concretely stated set of religious beliefs--but surely you don't think the beliefs would thereby be truth, do you? Surely, if the Abrahamic God exists, or if Zeus exists, or whatever, that is true whether or not the Gypsies come up with some other religion, right?

The Hebrew and Christian metaphors, which are much older than the Emerson metaphors, are not in the same category. These metaphors are expanded upon every weekend in synagogues and churches throughout the world, so we can see how powerful religious metaphors are compared to general literature.

The metaphors of Shakespeare are expounded upon every day in universities around the world. I daresay the metaphor of Juliet being like the sun is better known than the Biblical metaphor of the contract to which you referred.

But even if the Abrahamic set of metaphors were somehow more pervasive, I again don't see why that makes their content true.

Since these metaphors are active in society, they are advanced further than any comparable metaphors in general literature. In addition, the advancements are based on what 'sticks', that is, what is meaningful to the religious society, and this has a way of producing much more insight into the very structure of the world.

I agree that Abrahamic ideas have "stuck" and seem to give people "meaning". And again here my response is: fine. But why think the ideas are therefore true? Astrology, too, has stuck and given many meaning.

... my whole underlying point is that religious belief evolves in reaction to intuitive evidence that comes available to the insightful mind that seeks meaning in the world.

If this is your underlying point, that there is "intuitive evidence", you should be very clear about what this type of evidence is, and why Greek mythology and Hinduism and astrology don't possess it, but the Abrahamic tradition does. Does the fact that it's "intuitive" mean that it can't be shared with those who disagree? That it requires faith, and not reason?

By 'great' I mean a religion that has generated meaning for millions and been very successful at it through the ages. That's not to say religion is a popularity contest, "just believe it Wendy and it is true", rather it is a matter of striking a fundamental chord with humans intuitive drive for truth and meaning in a cold, harsh world that looks anything but meaningful.

I grant that the Abrahamic traditions are "great" and "successful" and "meaningful" in this sense. But (can you guess what's coming next?): why does that mean they are true? Why doesn't it serve as similar evidence for astrology or Hinduism?

... so I would expect one way or another, the future path of humanity will be a richer and more truthful religion.

To say it will be "more" truthful is to assume there already is "some" truth to it. Will astrology get "more" truthful as it sticks around?

Thanks again for your thoughts!

spetey