God according to New Scientist

[Blind groper]

I am half way through reading a special issue topic in New Scientist magazine. The God Issue.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... igion.html

Unless you subscribe, you won't be able to access the whole thing. So here are a few bits summarised by the blind one. Interested in your comments. These are not my ideas. I am a total non believer in religion. Just taken from the article.

1. Humans are born ready to soak up some religion or other. Young children are uttely credulous and will believe pretty much anything older people tell them. Religious ideas are particularly rapidly absorbed.

2. Religion is essential for the development of civilisation. it is noteworthy that small societies like the San of the Kalahari have religions in which morality plays no part. Their religious figures, like spirits, demons and small gods, have no interest in how people behave. This is probably because their own behaviour is controlled by the fact they are in a small, tight society, and other people keep an eye on them. Big societies, though, with thousands and thousands of people, have big gods. The big gods are enormously powerful, and watch everyone, and punish bad behaviour. This difference leads the researchers to think that religions are a tool by which society controls peoples behaviour. Without such control, large societal groups, like cities and nations, could not exist.

3. Atheists are the most distrusted people in religious society. The reason is not because they are godless and therefore evil. Rather it is because religious people see atheists as having no invisible watcher monitoring their behaviour and keeping them honest. Thus, to the religious, atheists are untrustworthy, unreliable, and dishonest.

4. Humans are more receptive to religion than to science. Religion is easy to accept. Science requires a lot more discipline and hard work. Religion comes naturally. Science does not.

There is more, but I will wait for a later post.

Anyone care to comment?

[mistermack]

Science does have an inbuilt disadvantage, compared to religion.

Religions have had thousands of years to develop their stories. They evolve, the successful stories persist, the one's that don't appeal die out. And they tell you what you want to hear.

Science has no such luxury. They have to report the facts, whether they are what we want to hear, or not. Very often not what we want to hear at all. As in the fact that the tiny Earth goes round the huge Sun. Or the fact that we evolved from a chimpanzee-like ape, in common with the chimpanzee.

No religion would have told us that. It's not what we would choose, so they wouldn't invent that stuff.
So religion is fine-tuned to appeal to our human emotions.

One other point about atheists being hated. I honestly think it stems from the fact that most religious people secretly have their doubts, they know that what they believe is really a ridiculous self-delusion, and it's a sort of self defensive hatred.
They feel slightly guilty that they couldn't handle reality, and it's made more obvious, by people who can.

[Animavore]

I'm more receptive to science than religion. I have been receptive to religion in the past. Not the one I was born into, I always found Catholic mass terribly dull and the religion heinous, the idea of God sending people to hell just for not believing in Him never sat well with me, but I was certainly receptive to Eastern religions. But my mind could always be swayed quite easily by alternate, naturalistic explanations. Like I used to believe in psychic abilities until I read about cold-reading and straight away I abandoned the idea. I didn't have to wrestle with the the new information. It didn't cause me upset to let it go. It made immediate sense to me. I cast my mind back on my experiences with "psychics" and I could see that that was in fact what they did.

Now I have met people who get quite angry if you mention cold-reading. Others who wave it off, "Well some frauds may do that but my one is real." At which point I'll change the conversation as I'm not keen on confrontation and tend to move toward common ground in my interactions with people.

I don't really see the notion of accepting a better explanation as difficult. It's going the other way that I can't do. I could never imagine myself deciding I want to believe something and ignoring facts to do so. As much as I'd like to believe in enlightenment, reincarnation and nirvana.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Although on the "religion is all bollocks" end of Atheism - I do agree that religion is essential for a society to progress from cave to condo. It's a cheap and easily enforced set of rules that the un-developed societies can use to create order (without all the complication of a judicial system). Religion uses / plays on the inbuilt desire of humans to know "stuff", which is of course the reason why human society has always sought to progress. Humans seem to need to place there world in order, whether that be based on fact or nonsense is secondary - and IMO that does make sense!

One of the failings of Atheism is that many have sought to argue away religion through logic and science, an approach that is doomed to (continue to) fail......the key will be to replace what religion provides, and the main one is to sell the "Rule of Law" as the future of society - rules made for men, by men and to delight in the fact that there will therefore always be failings and imperfections - but that where these are identified they are corrected (sooner or later)......not continued simply as dogma or justice dispensed on the whim of men in funny hats and dresses. Everything else is merely tactics, important though they are - the main thing to do is get the religious away from formal kiddy education and therefore (over time) marginalise them and their beleif system. Banning is counter-productive - the religous are their own worst enemy be silly to remove that weapon from the Atheist arsenal!

[Atheist-Lite]

Religions require scapegoats and atheists are a easy target because their contrarywise viewpoints make them highly visible.

[shiner]

If you openly argue the scripture you're an enemy, aren't you? The "average" IQ is 100 ,putting masses of "believers" below that score, IMO. I reckon its has to be a good (God?) thing, rather than them thinking for themselves. Blind faith baby, feel the light.

[Thinking Aloud]

I've read the same articles. Interesting reading, and there may be some truth in what's said. On the "religion is required for civilisations" article, it's worth adding that the writer concludes with the fact that some of the most peaceful, prosperous and stable nations are mostly secular, and attributes their success to having replaced the "divine watcher" with effective policing and justice, arguing that societies can move on from superstition in that regard.

There's also an article by that Botton guy, who argues that some atheists are way too keen to throw the baby out with the bathwater in disposing of religion - namely in the cultural and societal structure that religion has given the world, that atheists should perhaps aim to provide in a non-supernaturalistic form, if people are to find commonality with their fellow man without a sky fairy. (My interpretations and paraphrasing.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

T/A, I think that religion siphons off the energies that could go to more constructive activities, and that ending religion would allow those activities to step up and replace it. With this thought I would suggest that we already have replacements for religion, but that religion is stifling them.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I've read the same articles. Interesting reading, and there may be some truth in what's said. On the "religion is required for civilisations" article, it's worth adding that the writer concludes with the fact that some of the most peaceful, prosperous and stable nations are mostly secular, and attributes their success to having replaced the "divine watcher" with effective policing and justice, arguing that societies can move on from superstition in that regard.

I thinks it's called EVOLUTION - applies to societies as well as to monkeys .

There's also an article by that Botton guy, who argues that some atheists are way too keen to throw the baby out with the bathwater in disposing of religion - namely in the cultural and societal structure that religion has given the world, that atheists should perhaps aim to provide in a non-supernaturalistic form, if people are to find commonality with their fellow man without a sky fairy. (My interpretations and paraphrasing.)

I see no problem (as an Atheist who thinks the world would be a better place without religion) in recognising the benefits of religion (to societies and individuals) - the challenge for Atheism is to replace the source of those benefits (and to do that first have to recognise that they exist)......a well trodden path of religions getting replaced / removed from societies as they are recognised as being dumb as fuck - we seem to have survived OK without tree worship and also without Ra or Zeus! (albeit of course the Xtian God is really just (another) version of the same).....the trick will be to replace the current crop of (mainstream) religions with something not also Woo based......the minority religions / sects are (IMO) a good thing, as they say in large dayglo letters "WE ARE NUTJOBS"

[Thinking Aloud]

T/A, I think that religion siphons off the energies that could go to more constructive activities, and that ending religion would allow those activities to step up and replace it. With this thought I would suggest that we already have replacements for religion, but that religion is stifling them.

Or that those activities aren't attractive enough to persuade people not to spend their energy and money for the woo. Perhaps the "jam tomorrow" isn't tasty enough yet.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

T/A, I think that religion siphons off the energies that could go to more constructive activities, and that ending religion would allow those activities to step up and replace it. With this thought I would suggest that we already have replacements for religion, but that religion is stifling them.

Or that those activities aren't attractive enough to persuade people not to spend their energy and money for the woo. Perhaps the "jam tomorrow" isn't tasty enough yet.

I'm thinking it's the intensive marketing of "God" that does it. People who are disinclined to think for themselves will default to the most popular option. Right now that's religion.

[Thinking Aloud]

T/A, I think that religion siphons off the energies that could go to more constructive activities, and that ending religion would allow those activities to step up and replace it. With this thought I would suggest that we already have replacements for religion, but that religion is stifling them.

Or that those activities aren't attractive enough to persuade people not to spend their energy and money for the woo. Perhaps the "jam tomorrow" isn't tasty enough yet.

I'm thinking it's the intensive marketing of "God" that does it. People who are disinclined to think for themselves will default to the most popular option. Right now that's religion.

It's a shame that the world's biggest actual real conspiracy isn't targetted more often by the conspiracy theorists. I mean, huge international organisations, shady heirarchies, lying to millions, taking 10% of folks' incomes... It's the perfect con job - so huge that even a majority of those actually working the con don't know they're doing it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

T/A, I think that religion siphons off the energies that could go to more constructive activities, and that ending religion would allow those activities to step up and replace it. With this thought I would suggest that we already have replacements for religion, but that religion is stifling them.

Or that those activities aren't attractive enough to persuade people not to spend their energy and money for the woo. Perhaps the "jam tomorrow" isn't tasty enough yet.

I'm thinking it's the intensive marketing of "God" that does it. People who are disinclined to think for themselves will default to the most popular option. Right now that's religion.

It's a shame that the world's biggest actual real conspiracy isn't targetted more often by the conspiracy theorists. I mean, huge international organisations, shady heirarchies, lying to millions, taking 10% of folks' incomes... It's the perfect con job - so huge that even a majority of those actually working the con don't know they're doing it.

Conspiracy theorists don't deal in real conspiracies. However, the whack jobs do go after Mother Church, they just don't gain much ground.

[Animavore]

T/A, I think that religion siphons off the energies that could go to more constructive activities, and that ending religion would allow those activities to step up and replace it. With this thought I would suggest that we already have replacements for religion, but that religion is stifling them.

Or that those activities aren't attractive enough to persuade people not to spend their energy and money for the woo. Perhaps the "jam tomorrow" isn't tasty enough yet.

I'm thinking it's the intensive marketing of "God" that does it. People who are disinclined to think for themselves will default to the most popular option. Right now that's religion.

Maybe in America it is. Start talking religious stuff in Ireland and people start groaning, face-palming, rolling eyeballs, exchanging looks, concealing smiles... No one wants to hear it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

T/A, I think that religion siphons off the energies that could go to more constructive activities, and that ending religion would allow those activities to step up and replace it. With this thought I would suggest that we already have replacements for religion, but that religion is stifling them.

Or that those activities aren't attractive enough to persuade people not to spend their energy and money for the woo. Perhaps the "jam tomorrow" isn't tasty enough yet.

I'm thinking it's the intensive marketing of "God" that does it. People who are disinclined to think for themselves will default to the most popular option. Right now that's religion.

Maybe in America it is. Start talking religious stuff in Ireland and people start groaning, face-palming, rolling eyeballs, exchanging looks, concealing smiles... No one wants to hear it.

And that puts you a few laps ahead of us. Good on you!