Adam and Eve

[Inigo Montoya]

From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.

What about it, folks? What does/can DNA, genetics, and Mendel do to establish Adam and Eve as the most plausible explanation for our origins?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 67 by mgb]

You should try to address the more well thought out aspects of religion instead of constantly reverting to this vitriolic nonsense.

What are some examples of "well thought out aspects of religion"? Most center around belief that a deity of some sort exists, and theism carries this a step further with belief that the deity takes some personal interest in the lives of its human followers.

Are you restricting your comment to religious beliefs in this category ... eg. a deity must exist, as opposed to way-of-life philosophies that may not technically be categorized as a "religion"? If so, what is "well thought out" about belief in a deity that can only be postulated to exist, but never shown to exist in the real world?

I fail to see how belief in such a deity, regardless of the other aspects of the religion, can be described as "well thought out." It would seem to fail to pass that criterium right out of the gate.

[Danmark]

Correct. The one guy who claims to have had divine revelation from a unicorn, telling him that the unicorn is God who created a flat Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago might be right and the 10 billion who didn't receive this 'divine revelation' may be wrong. But I wouldn't bet on it.

I have been away from this forum for a while and having come back I see the same old rhetoric; cherrypicking the worst parts of religion as if they were characteristic of all religion. To do this is to descend to the level of Dawkins' bombastic rhetoric or, worse still, the pernicious and shallow propaganda of Sam Harris. This kind of talk ensures the discussion will never go beyond juvenile knee-jerk soundbites. To portray religion in these terms is like portraying science in terms of phlogiston, and 'earth, air, fire and water'.

You may, as I do, have reservations about people who believe the earth is 6000 years old

Of course debaters emphasis the most obviously ludicrous claims of religion. Why not? That is the nature of debate. Certainly religion has its goofier and more obviously false claims. What are its reasonable ones?

Those who think themselves more 'sophisticated' and better educated than their fellow believers fall into a great error when they try to distance themselves from their brethren they see as uneducated boobs or quaintly have "reservations" about. The error is failing to recognize they all believe in an unsubstantiated fantasy about an obviously anthropomorphic 'god' who, according to their own scriptures, acts like a vengeful, thick-witted tyrant.

So please, share with us your 'sophisticated' and highly educated view of your 'god.' Do a good job of distancing yourself from Bible believing evangelicals and they will turn on you and claim you are not a Christian at all.

[mgb]

What exactly is thoughtful belief?

Leibnitz, Gibran, Plato, Weil, and a host of others. Many have written compelling work on how the concept of God is ultimately explanatory of human experience.

Passing on unsubstantiated notions and concepts as truth is wrong.

They are substantiated. Just not your kind of substantiation. See last answer.

It is how we get unscrupulous 'mediums' ripping off vulnerable people seeking solace after losing loved ones.

There you go; reducing thousands of years of religious thought to 'mediums'.

Who teaches that science will eventually explain the nature of being?

You've heard them. People who say 'we are nothing but' and 'we are nothing more than' when talking about neuroscience etc.

Science helps us find answers. Religion just invents them.

Ritual and mythology are as old as humanity itself. Myth is a language that is meant to explain human experience. The images may not be literal but they are congruent to the order of the world in many ways. Religion is not invented (except the most inferior forms of superstition).

Perhaps it would seem less like projection to address their arguments, rather than just make unsupported accusations.

Have you ever heard of a book called The God Delusion? It is little more than a cherry picking piece of rhetoric that presents the most shallow image of religion. One could as easily denigrate science by making reference to phlosgiston, 'earth, air, fire and water' and such things. It is easy to cherry pick and throw mud. Lots and lots of that here.

I smelled the overpowering scent of “woo�.

Woo? It is clear to me that you have scarcely thought about what you read. If this is the kind of rhetoric you are going to use I don't see any point in talking to you about it. You have clearly made up your mind already.

And schizophrenics are not the only sort of insane people. Some insane people are dangerous and some are harmless cranks, but they are all insane. Just so, religious folks seem to believe all sorts of nonsense, but it always seems to be based on unsupported superstitions, and ancient misconceptions.

Yep. Schizophrenic, superstitious...keep it up. I thought this was a debate forum where people have discussions about real issues. I can see that you are nowhere near to being able to listen to detailed arguments or even hear them through your wall of sarcasm and dismissal. I'm certainly not going to discuss these things with you who seem to think that putting up a wall of sarcasm and ridicule constitutes an argument.

[mgb]

What are some examples of "well thought out aspects of religion"? Most center around belief that a deity of some sort exists, and theism carries this a step further with belief that the deity takes some personal interest in the lives of its human followers.

...what is "well thought out" about belief in a deity that can only be postulated to exist, but never shown to exist in the real world?

I made that comment in response to something being said about people being conditioned by religious belief. What I mean by 'well thought out' refers to people like me who have thought about their beliefs in great detail for long years. I have looked at the materialist explanation and I have thought about it very carefully. I have read Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc. I have thought carefully about what is being said on both sides of the argument. I have analysed my own experience and perception of the world. I have looked at this from many points of view and I have come (in a thousand different ways) to the conclusion that theism is true. This does not mean I believe in 'talking snakes' (Hitchens) or 'skyhooks' (Weinberg) or that the world is 6000 years old. Neither do I believe that a bunch of neurons can create an intelligent, creative person. A person?.


But what I do believe is not something that would be listened to on this thread. Too many here who think shouting loudest wins. It is hardly possible to have a meaningful discussion in an atmosphere like this.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 73 by mgb]

I have looked at this from many points of view and I have come (in a thousand different ways) to the conclusion that theism is true.

I was raised in a Christian household and never questioned what I was taught until I finished my education and got a job where I had the chance to interact with people from various religious backgrounds ... Hinduism and Islam being the most popular among that particular group. Those interactions prompted me to study the origins of religious thought in humans, as well as the origins of the many different religions that humans have invented over the millennia. The result of that effort was that I came to the conclusion that theism cannot be true.

I came to this conclusion in my own head because I could find no evidence of any kind that supported the existence, now or in the past, of any of the thousands of gods that have been invented by the many religions. Similarly, there is no evidence or reason to believe that humans have afterlives, or that a supernatural being intervenes in the lives of humans, etc. These things are all postulated, in many different ways, by various religions, but none have any supporting evidence or justification. They must be believed purely on faith, and I find that hard to swallow.

Neither do I believe that a bunch of neurons can create an intelligent, creative person. A person?.

But why not? Why can't the interactions of many billions of neurons, memory elements, experiences, etc. collectively operate to create such a being? The brain is an incredibly complex system, and you seem to be saying that you don't believe that system can create consciousness, intelligence, creativity, etc. simply because you don't believe it is possible. But such a lack of belief based on personal incredulity does not preclude it from being possible, or the correct explanation. What other explanation would you offer for how the these human capabilities are created? If the brain is damaged these capabilities are also impacted, and we can relate many different functions now to specific brain regions, monitor the effects of stimulating different brain areas involved in specific brain functions, etc. It seems to me that the default position should be that intelligence, creativity, etc. are the direct result of very complicated interactions of physical brain components, until some evidence is found to suggest otherwise.

[mgb]

you seem to be saying that you don't believe that system can create consciousness, intelligence, creativity, etc. simply because you don't believe it is possible. But such a lack of belief based on personal incredulity does not preclude it from being possible, or the correct explanation

It is more than incredulity. Little Lisa can play the violin with great ease. How? Must be in the genes. Why is Jimmy always winning at pool? Genes. What about Van Gogh? How did he do it? Genes. And Mozart? Genes. And people who believe in God? Genes, one supposes.

Can't understand or explain something? Just plug a gene in there and fix the hole. In this way the Gene-Of-The-Gaps argument has come about. For me, explaining things exclusively in biological terms just doesn't work.

Questions concerning intelligence, creativity, mental states, music, evil, character traits, art, literature, religion, genius, insight and intuition etc are far more convincingly explained in terms of onthology and being. The background to all these things seems to stand apart from mere physical determinism. That a mind is a living, conscious entity that exists in a spiritual order of things is a far better and more coherent explanation for the higher things of the mind. Human beings don't seem to be just an accidental outcome of survival mechanisms. Philosophy and religion strongly suggest that there is a non physical order of being and this order is outside our minds and available to consciousness.

It seems clear enough to me that physical existence is a context. This physical context involves biological, physical, hormonal, chemical and social limitations in which human consciousness is moderated and, in many ways, abbreviated. In other words, the physical world, in its very physicality, constitutes a context wherein reality is experienced under strict limitations. A virtual reality of a physical kind.

You could compare this situation to a student in university. A university is a temporary context within the world at large. The university is not the 'real world' (as we would refer to it when I was in college). It is a very specific context designed to achieve certain ends. It is a concept within the world at large. This is exactly what the human physical world seems to be; a concept. Even society is a kind of concept, or collection of concepts. Matter itself seems to be a concept, since it is merely a geometric pattern in a field of energy (if it is a geometric concept whose mind is the concept in?).

If the human physical world is a concept, in the way an oxygen atom is a concept, what then is reality in its true form? This is what religion tries to address.

[Tcg]

If the human physical world is a concept, in the way an oxygen atom is a concept, what then is reality in its true form? This is what religion tries to address.

Religion tries to address the real world? When did this start?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 72 by mgb]

brunumb:
It is how we get unscrupulous 'mediums' ripping off vulnerable people seeking solace after losing loved ones.


mgb:
There you go; reducing thousands of years of religious thought to 'mediums'.

Why do you misrepresent what I have said? I was referring to what is wrong with indoctrination and the problem of unscrupulous mediums was one of the examples I quoted. Somehow you overlooked the other examples and twisted what I said into me reducing religious thought to mediums. I find that very dishonest. Is it that you have no meaningful counter to my argument?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 72 by mgb]

brunumb: Who teaches that science will eventually explain the nature of being?

mgb: You've heard them. People who say 'we are nothing but' and 'we are nothing more than' when talking about neuroscience etc.

How does your response answer my question in any way? That there are people expressing opinions about what we are hardly equates to teaching that science will eventually explain the nature of being. You are failing to make any case at all.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 72 by mgb]

brunumb: Science helps us find answers. Religion just invents them.

mgb: Ritual and mythology are as old as humanity itself. Myth is a language that is meant to explain human experience. The images may not be literal but they are congruent to the order of the world in many ways. Religion is not invented (except the most inferior forms of superstition).

Whatever myth is intended to be it has never actually explained anything. Every time some phenomenon has been explained through investigation, the answer has never been gods. Analogies may be a way of conveying the meaning of complex ideas, but they are not actually real. All religion is invented. They have evolved from the most primitive superstitions to keep track of our own intellectual progress. While people have argued the existence of gods for millennia, you can't argue them into existence. They exist or they don't. So far, there is no evidence to show that they exist. They remain firmly in the domain of superstition.