The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. Friedrich Nietzsche
AtlasandLiberty why is it that you God followers always call names and resort to personal attacks? There are reasons if you care time look into it. It has to do with your denial of reality. Ernest Beckley spelled it out in the seventies.
Darren McGovern. Denial of Reality exists with Pinker and yourself...There are many many Scientists engaged in the reality of Consciousness and E=MC2. This Man Pinker should know this research but instead He has Atheist Mockery...I call him a Moron. And it is spot on perfect. P.S. I have had supernatural experiences which have changed my outlook permanently....Checkout book, Power of your Subconscious Mind or you can remain a self satisfied Moron.
Everybody has suppositions. When debating a critic there is always a point to start the discussion because the critic will always have conditions that he believes to be true regardless of proof. They just need to be defined. That is when internal critiques using the critics presuppositions can be used. The issue with debating a religious individual is that they criticize your position internally but ask that you critique their position externally. Which is the best chance they have for leveling the field. This is because they can not form any material proof for their beliefs outside their ideology. The last part of the video shows this dynamic. I will admit that this is a technique of winning an argument not debating for truth (whatever that may be defined). It hinges on the believers own knowledge of their belief and your ability to capitalize on that knowledge and logic.
We are herd animals, we want to belong to a herd and the leader is suppose to think for us. Religions - Cults - The Herd - We belong, follow and stop thinking.
"absolutely none, and also won't allow circular reasoning" "If all our beliefs are treated as guilty until proven innocent, you won't be able to prove any of them innocent, because you have nothing to begin with" YES YES YES YES YES
A religion is a set of stories, symbols and rituals that help people orient themselves to the mystery of life--the truth beyond perception. Religious institutions are groups of people who (generally) take these stories and symbols and turn them into polarizing dogmas that kill the mystery and block the light of truth. Most religion hating is really an aversion to the corrupting influence of institutions rather than to religion itself. This same corruption also happens within Science, when dogmatic assumptions (like the mind being in the brain for example) block free inquiry and experimentation to discover truth. Truth is one. Science and religion are meant to help us discover this. But Institutions (of every form) do everything they can to destroy awareness of truth, pitting us against one another based on polarizing beliefs that remain unquestioned. Based on many of the comments, I'd say they've been quite successful.
1. Religion is not a biological adaption but rather a byproduct of cognitive faculties 2. Religion is not one thing, we don't have a God module 3. Ways of thinking and feeling brought together in different combinations and cultures to create what we call religion 4. Belief in disembodied spirits made possible by 'theory of mind'/intuitive psychology/intentional stance 5. Pascal Boyer/Scott Atran most religious concepts consist of mundane concepts with one property struck out e.g. mind without body. You don't have to tell people that a saint will be pleased if you give it something it wants. Experiments verify this 6. An amulet an idol an object with supernatural powers will obey our intuitive physics with one quality crossed out or replaced like curing disease or listen to one's speech 7. People holding religious belief are not deluded they do not believe the laws of the universe are abrogated routinely which is why there is a sense of mystery with religious experience 8. a) An ability to entertain counterintuitive beliefs b) Connect these beliefs to existential issues c) Shared avowal of experiences - ceremony shares the religious belief and reinforces group solidarity i] group selection is unlikely (likeminded groups have greater survival value) ii] Religious systems exploit cognitive/emotional systems to weed out defectors/cheaters e.g. through public sacrifice - animals, abraham's son, circumcise son iii] Perceptual/cognitive tricks to induce person to group is evidence that religion is unnatural - non-relatives aspire to familial solidarity by likening the group to family e.g. brethern/brotherhood/family iv] Psychological essentialism - living things have essence that gives them their powers seen in children v] gestalt law of common fate - when objects move in parallel trajectory they're seen as part of a larger group e.g. praying to mecca creates a larger superorganism d) in snails, birds etc self-sacrificial behaviour can be observed when a parasite is present manipulating the snail to the parasite's benefit. Sacrificing control to a higher power can be a clever negotiating technique
I don't think Pinker and Dawkins' argument enables the conclusion that religion is false. Both use the framework of evolutionary psychology as a theory to explain and account for the phenomenon of religion among people, but we can turn this same framework to explain the phenomenon of atheism as well. However, this doesn't mean that we thereby prove atheism is false.
Let me attempt to explain the thought process behind this talk. Given that there is no evidence to believe in religious claims why do people nonetheless still believe in religions. Some religious people argue that the very fact that they are religious proves that their religion is true. This is a rebuttal of that idea. We can, and are, manipulated at times, be that by a parasite, or by a car salesman, or by a Priest, or a politician etc etc. And of course atheism as a concept can be used by politicians to manipulate in the same way. For example a car salesman may be an atheist to an atheist and a theist to a theist (their actual beliefs are irrelevant to their goal of selling a car). I personally would feel as uncomfortable voting for a politician who was an atheist but said they were a theist as I would voting for a theist who said they were an atheist. So in short this talk is not directly about whether religions are true or not.
@@JS-ln4ns No evidence means no reason to believe. It's absolutely water tight strict logic. Anecdotes aren't evidence. How many people believe a thing isn't evidence. How old a thing is isn't evidence. All you have proved is that humans believe stuff which is obviously untrue. Which is a well established factual statement and well evidenced.
I sold my soul to the devil for a dollar fifty and found it in his trash can later that week. Long story short, I got it back intact. I can listen to Pinker talk about religion now that I don't have a giant void in my head. I praise thee, ye holy Steven Pinker.
The video stopped at a crucial point. Dawkins was asking Derose why theism should be granted status of 'innocent until proven guilty"? I really wanted to hear Derose's answer- the discussion was getting to the heart of the issue at that point.
I think Pinker's view about the evolutionary place of religion is somehow better explained by the Terror Management Theory (TMT) and their evolutionnary perspective on this issue (Sheldon Solomon etc. in "The Worm at the Core"). Pinker says that religion is an evolutionnary by-product. This would be supported by TMT, in my opinion at least: In the first place, evolution has "given" us human mammals high(er) cognitive brain capacity. This higher capacity has led humans to be conscious of the fact that we are doomed and will inevitably die. We have an instinct of survival as every animal has, but unlike all other animals we all have this conscience of our own mortality from a rather young age on. Rituals and religion (as evolved product of them) have arisen out of this existential conflict in order to reduce the paralysing tension that stems from it. In other words, this psychological conflict has led humanity to construct "meaningfull" convictions about the universe and our "cosmological place" in it. Culture and religion give us humans at least the illusion of a meaningfull universe and a life that lasts longer than our phisical being ("legacy"-concept of Becker). Because our real life is as temporary and insignificant as any other animal life... This "unbearable" fact, I would say, is the main reason of culture evolution and very well described in its whole by Anthropologists like Becker.
+Zoda Ken "God is a Neutral Monad, QED".unless you are refeffing to QuantumElectroDynamics, i dont see where you have demonstrated anything. assertion is not demonstration. before you are talking about attributes of something, there should be some evidence of its existence
QED- "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" latin phrase "what was to be demostrated"... used totally inapprpriately here but nothing to do with quantum electrodynamcs..... incidentally the assertion that "God [or anything] is a neutral monad" is pretty meaningless...
A rather obvious hypothesis they seem determined not to examine, is that religion may have co-evolved with the human species in such a way that it's not parasitic, but actually beneficial. The fact that it's been around for so long, and so universally, surely begs the question why some non-religious society, (whatever that is), hasn't come along and out-competed us all.
I understand your science perfectly well and I know that chemicals are the matrerial component of emotions. So please don't try to educate me about something I knew when I was 12. (I'm 46). If you can use chemical formulae to design a relationship, go ahead and show me how to do that. But there's nothing practical about scientific reductionism in everday life, or at least, I can't think of any examples. But this is beside the point - You still haven't answered my genetic-based question why religion isn't a healthy meme, the same as all the other memes? I wasn't arguing that gods exist. I was arguing that religion isn't necesarily an unhealthy parasite.
Timothy Mostad There is some truth in that, but you are deliberately choosing only the negative aspects. If you look all over the world, you will find there was no civilisation which could become civilised without becoming religious. If you look at their arts - music, poetry, painting, or their sciences, or their laws, you find they were all rooted in religion and supported by religion. This turns your "How can religion do anything?" question on it's head - How could anything have happened without religion? Name one aspect of modern civilisation which was free of the influence of religion or could have existed without religion. Where did this happen? I don't expect religion will unite and don't see why it should. The sciences have to unite, because they chemistry and physics have to be sensible to each other. But no-one says that music has to unite, or that all the world's languages should be reduced to one. Why does religion have to do so? Even physics has not unified with itself. There is a huge gap between Einstein and Bohr. There have always been gaps. There always will be. Does that make physics wrong? There is no evidence that religion creates the most heinous crimes. A survey of suicide bombing showed that it \mostly done by secular terorists. Muslims only started later. Americans are arranging murder and torture on a massive scale, for no religious reason whatsoever. All the historical evidence is against you. But these are general criticisms you are making against religion. You still haven't answered my initial question why religion is a parasite, rather than a normal meme, like any other.
First of all, I’ve asked you twice already whether you’re prepared to address my original question at all. My original question to be clear, was not “Does anybody here think religion is good or bad?”, but, “Why is religion, as a meme, regarded as parasitical, rather than co-evolutionary?” My present feeling is you haven’t read enough genetics, particularly not Richard Dawkins, to understand the question. My point about music was a systemic point, but if you think that’s a poor comparison because of life and death issues, I only have to offer the example of criminal law. Now criminal law is frequently not unified. A murder in one country would be examined, debated and judged completely differently to a murder in another country, because of differing, non-unified legal systems. I repeat the question so you can answer it - Does the fact that a body of ideas does not match the assumption of another body of ideas make both of them or either of them wrong, because they’re not unified. Again, could you answer the actual question? Again, I asked you to give an example of any society which could become civilized without religion. You gave me none. I asked if there was anything about modern civilization which is not a product of religion. You offered no counter-example whatsoever. But rather than concede the point or address the point, you just continue your general rant about religion-bad-secularism-good, overlooking the rather obvious fact that previous to religion, the crimes you accuse religion of - murder, theft, etc… These were not crimes in those societies! Your values, like it or not, are religious values. A great deal of crime has indeed been provoked by religion and religious differences, yes, true, but you have to concede that previous to religion, the disapproval of these crimes wasn’t there much at all. “The agenda of religion to control wealth and resources” blab bla… Is there any other group you can point to who were UNinterested in controlng wealth and resources? Western liberalism? The communists? Which philosophy will you point to which guarantees world peace? Or do you have faith in technology? Big Agriculture? Big Pharma? These guys are inventing crimes religion never thought of. What about the military industrial complex who manage the economic fruits of scientific progress? Or who? How about the banks? They’re secular. Maybe they’ll look after you. Or the oil lobby which drives the petrochemical industry? Maybe they’ll look after the planer? Which secular organization can you point to who will take care of us? Because the fact is, religion isn’t running the show any more. Secular economics is in the driving seat. And it’s going to wipe out the whole planet. Which secular philosophy can you point to whose intentions are always kind and whose behavior is always beneficial to all? But go ahead - avoid those questions too. I’m a Buddhist living in Japan and I’m looking at millions of westerners blaming the Muslim world of terrorism while they wipe out countless unarmed civilians in illegal wars of their own making. Like you, they think they can improve the world with hatred and blame of other people. This never worked before and it’s not going to work now. What is your plan exactly? Will you kill off the religious people? Will you somehow remove religion from culture? This has all been tried by the communists and the results weren’t encouraging. What do you propose? But go ahead - avoid these questions too. I don’t see this going anywhere. You don’t know anything about genetics at all and you’re unable to address my initial question or any of my subsequent questions. You just want to foam at the mouth against religion as if everything that was at all religious was evil. I’m sorry, but it’s not convincing or even interesting and I’m not going to engage with it unless you start answering the initial question about genetics.
Japanese society is fairly civilised, and fairly religious too, with Buddhism, Taoist, Confucian and Shintoist influences. But it's still not as civilised as the USA. Which has been surveyed and confirmed to be the most religious country in the world. I'm soryr, but you are so eager to push your ideology that religion is the only problem and science is the only answer, that you keep running up against major empirical and historical counter-examples in your argumentation.
Timothy Mostad You're welcome to your opinions about religious Americans, but the fact reemains, when anthropologists asked the same set of questions abouit belief to a large number of countries around the world, the USA came out as the most religious. That presents you with a conundruim, which is, if religion's effect on society is so awful.... how come the US is doing, let's face it, relatively well, at least compared other countries?
Every organized religion in the world has individuals or groups who are there to guide followers through the trappings of their faith. By and large, their primary roles are similar: performing the rites and ceremonies that a particular religion requires, such as birth rituals, coming-of-age rituals, death rituals, and whatever else the religion tosses in. They are also the keepers of religious tradition and often take on the role of moral leader as well as teacher or "guide."
I don't think its that complicated to work out how a belief in a God came about. It had to do with our desire to want to explain things that we couldn't explain, especially natural occurrences with things like earthquakes, thunder, lightning, floods. Devoid of the knowledge we are lucky enough to have thanks to scientific discoveries, the best explanation for them, lets say in the aftermath of a huge earthquake, would be that some type of unseen over lord was somehow displeased with us, and he shook the ground in anger. In order to pacify this invisible God we had to offer it something precious as a kind of peace offering, so it wouldn't do it again. What greater gift could we offer it than a human life, maybe this is where child sacrifice began. When you think about it, Christianity itself is based upon a child sacrifice.. that of Gods only son Jesus.
religion connects human ontology into it origin from emergence ,a metacognitive processing about all powers that can be conceptualized by brain ,and those from unknown origins .
Being naturally social, rather than isolated creatures (think baboons, red pandas), it would benefit many to ascribe to a singular worldview rather than being alone.
+Scott Claremont I see what you did there. You are the Bruce Lee of mental Jiu-Jitsu. I think I just saw Dr. Pinker ripping up his credentials, throwing his hands up, and walking off into the woods.
In prehistoric times being ejected from the group meant certain death so eventualy instinc took over and I believe that we still unconsciously act upon that ancient but now useless fear. Even if one's sympathy goes toward the ostracised, belonging remains the prime force even to the point of denying one's individual thought processes in favor of dumb group thinking, some sheep paradigm it seems. I went through being socialy rejected so the loss of even those who had promised to stand by me, whatever, got me thinking and led me there: ''People are Strange'' - Jim Morisson
We are input-output entities and all a religion is is an “agreed upon” way of dealing with inputs and/or outputs that each individual dislikes. When enough of these individuals begin “sharing” with others these inputs/outputs, they then find some commonality among those inputs/outputs, as in “Yeah, I get angry and red when I hear or think about homosexuality” that they then rely upon to dictate how they will respond. That is all there is to a religion.
The temple board president, a very pious jew, was extremely distressed in receiving the news that his only son has converted to Christianity. He is so besides himself that he goes to talk to the Rebbe, the highest authority he knows. He says "Rebbe, Rebbe what have I done wrong? I brough him to Temple every day. I taught him everything that I was taught, gave him all I was given. Where, where did I go wrong?" The Rebbe says "Funny ting, my only son too, he has converted to Christianity. I, too, can not figure out what went wrong, after all I am the Rebbe, surely my teachings and guidance should have been sufficient." The Rebbe continues "There is only one thing we can do, we must speak to a higher authority still. The Rebbe and the Board President make there way to the sanctuary and they begin to speak to G-d. They say:"Oh, Adoni, where have we gone wrong, our only sons have shuned us and converted to Christianity, what shall we do? Where did we go wrong?" A big booming voice is heard from above to say; "FUNNY TING!"
If Pinker applied the same experimentation to the world of spirit as he does to the natural world he may come to a different conclusion. It's not either there is a natural world we can observe or there is nothing. It is actually that there is an observable natural world and a world of spirit. One is navigated by reason. The other is navigated by faith.
I feel like this should be the intro to some crazy hard EDM song. *BWAAAAA ZGZTZTYZYZTYTYZTBWAAAA-A-AA-A WZRGRWZRGRWZRGR BWUPWUPWUPWUPWUPWUPWUP BWUUUUUUPWUPWUPWUPWUPWUPWUP*
Brain can be damaged physically but mind, which is nonphysical, is most likely damaged by mind misfunctioning (as neurosis, etc.). And by its root in the brain.
I'm afraid the brain and the mind are demonstrably synonymous. You mention brain damage - this is very worthy of study and an obvious indicator of what is really the case.
Nothing happens in the mind that does not occur in the brain. The mind is an inner consciousness of brain activity. When your brain is anesthetized without consciousness, where is your disappeared mind?
i used to think dawkins was very well articulated but im starting to think its just him using accent, emphasis, melody.. but maybe he didnt have time to prepare for the discussion
I wish I could ask this guy my question. When he is talking about how groups manipulate with ceremonies etc., to make people feel they belong to the group. How come if a room full of folks claim that a sheet of paper, for example, is black the test subjects will agree even though they plainly see that the paper is white. The individual must want very much to be one with the group even where the belief don't make sense.
to :"Old Man from Scene Twenty Four" - sorry for the confusion. My dialogue, such as it is, given his lack of consistency and logic, is with Xavier, not you. I apologize for the confusion. But since we are talking, what's the significance of your user name? Are you an actor?
We certainly trust Technology and Mathematics. We know there to be limits to their ability to scrutinize and access reality, yet they constitute the basis of scientific inquiry, ultimately scientific truth. It is a certain personality that's religious, or that is atheist, or agnostic. I don't understand how anyone feels they really know the truth, because even by Darwin's own accounts we're accepting a model of the world, the best model that allows us to make predictions, and nothing else. Newton's model made great prediction and worked good enough, but it wasn't correct, in the sense that it didn't correspond with reality. There are real limitations in being a human being; I'm just not sure how anyone believes they've got it right. How we feel as if we know reality.
As far as I know I'm a being who thinks, and how and why I'm doing this I'm not aware of, especially without the tools of scientific inquiry, and therefore feel even more so as if I can't really know the nature of any phenomena with any certainty. I don't feel as if I know what reality is only what I think. What I think and what's real can be very different things. I don't need science to inform me of that, but nonetheless are brains are like lumps of tofu constructing the image of the world around us, how do I know my tofu is right? How do I know the lump of tofu in your head is constructing the same reality? Which I assume it's not if you think that I feel any less weary of the dicieness about the epistemilogical factors of human existence.
Joshua Amor You've got interesting points, but they all stem from treating the world and reality as a concept, whose concreteness can only be learned through quantification. You can access reality far more directly by quieting the mind of thoughts; you then won't be so convinced that you can only know through thought.
Because God did not have Abraham follow through with child sacrifice, never demanded it again from any of His followers, and explicitly forbade them from doing it.
Neil degrass tyson found an analysis that the higher education have less religious people. The number of religious people decrease when there is a higher degree associates, bachelor, masters, phd ect.
@Glenn Heston Good, so you've acknowledged your assertion. Now to the next point, that's not how falsifiability works. The appropriate answer is: "it's not within the domain of falsifiability, so we cannot comment on whether or not it's true or false."
Interesting how Richard Dawkins sets up the continuum to be from entirely cynical to mildly cynical and then asks where on this continuum the truth is…. So he is starting from a continuum that excludes sincerity in one’s beliefs be default.
I do not deny the lecturer is very neat in his arguments. There are some but's though. He begins by saying that religions of the world exploite the concept of a disembodied soul. I belive that Christianity, though suppressing flesh, is not against the body. Jesus has given His body for people not to reject it but to recapitulate it. St Paul called a community a body. I think the lecturer is using a positivistic view on religion of the early 19th century make, instead of the original idea explored from inside the religion.
+Joe Green It depends on how deep it went to hurt you. He speaks about something that is a value to me. And clearly, I see that his position is built on a one-sided viewpoint.
+TheBebikh "... I see that his position is built on a one-sided viewpoint." Yeah, the only viewpoint that has advanced the human condition. It's called science.
+Joe Green Both religion and science have been misused by the humanity. Crusades and inquisition were cruel but cruel were and the upshots of nuclear research. In the hands of people, many things have become corrupted. But one must not replace one with the other, by criticising religion he puts forward science as another belief. I see you do not need a religion, and not everyone, perhaps, needs it. And we are not all born scientists, we are just people. Science is preoccupied with things visible, whereas God is preoccupied with things invisible. Two things apart really, but necessary for our humanity.
+TheBebikh Read or listen to a little Daniel Dennet or Pinker et al. They, and I totally disagree with both being necessary. I refute that notion. Maybe the study of ethics is important, but religion is fiction.
A scaling up model of bodily incorporation from elements and cells, to family, tribes and nations etc, with all the pluses and minuses of actual human being's behaviours, by any names, will be the same sort of content in context. Because, existence is pivoted on no-thing, it's modulated circular logic of quantization and the substantiation of phenomena, including Mathematics, is a recirculating projection of re-evolving bio-logical chemistry, across time. Self-referencing is an alternative description of cyclical connection with the multi-phase state of dominant resonance, so it's an unavoidable consequence in any hypothesis of "things as they are". _____ "Spiritual" is a word for generalisation of attention focusing on "forces" of organised unseen behaviour, ie it may refer to functions without apparent embodiment, so the specific terminology used for Quantum-fields that cover the full spectrum of everything to nothing should begin with Bose-Einstein Condensates at Zero Kelvin sync-duration in Infinity/Eternity-now and start all over from continuous creation cause-effect e-Pi-i quantization identification of sync-duration wave-package orientation and positioning. The orientation and order of information arrangements is currently in the Spacetime, disconnection of Big Bang reasoning instead of holographic Singularity positioning Actuality. The labelling inherited in the culture of Humanity, is scrambled and defunct, against the purposes intended.
Steven is articulate and has done research to support his point of view. My research has show that religions have very different stages which are most often turned political in nature after the origin creates the concept. Where he goes astray is that he limits his scope of research to those that offer a materialistic view of life. There is so much cutting edge research showing parallel rise in consciousness among similar species. There is also intuitive predictions made by people ahead of random generated computer images showing that some mechanisms exist that are beyond material. HIs science is lacking. BTW shamans are not a religion. He should try some DMT and report on his experience.
at about 13:40 to about 14:20 maybe that's exactly why the geese do it!... don't be such a specist! ;) . The title is misleading. There is nearly no discussion of the psychology of religion. Pinker speaks the longest, and most of his subject is the evolutionary fitness of certain behaviors, from a biological perspective. Psyches themselves, when they aren't fictional, are ignored. Professor Derose at the end raises concerns of traditional philosophy, like "How can we construct a deductive sequence of reasoning without first premises?" In between we get the interesting experience of hearing Dawkins, prompted by Pinker's biological theories, not repeating well rehearsed arguments but instead "thinking out loud," applying his own expertise in biology to questions raised by Pinker, raising questions, fitting the pieces together in different ways, and occasionally letting his thoughts wander across speculative territory. For a few, this will be an very interesting video.
lol damn it cut off at the end just as Dawkins was about to ask the third guy a question that would have utterly pwned his argument that intuitive beliefs have to be given credibility because they are intuitive (in fact, this is a hugely reactionary position and it arguably is antiscientific at its core). Seems to me the stuff BTIIsaac is saying below is pretty New-Agey; the right doesn't have a monopoly on superstition, that's for sure. Think symbolically all you want, mythology is psychologically profound, dreams shrooms and shamanism, great stuff, but anyone who fails to draw a sharp epistemological line between that experience and the actual reality we inhabit, which is described by science, including our brains, is falling for a confused and deluded metaphysics - at best.
Colonel Hart What if that deluded metaphysical description of the world is the best thing an individual has found for the purpose of motivating them to live and giving their life meaning? Would you say they should stop believing in that case?
Delusions are expensive to maintain. They impose a cost on those who hold them and on those the deluded interact with. Elaborate mental scaffolding has to be constructed to prop up the delusion. Elaborate schemes have to be devised to explain away the reality that inevitably intrudes. In rare cases there may be individuals about whom one can say that their delusion is the best thing they have and worth the cost. But that would be for uncommonly bad realities and circumstances that befall some.
Khaja Ahmed I guess I speak of this after looking at the many reasonable christians and other religous people that I have observed to be constructive members of society. Many of these individuals are able to separate their beliefs from the clear cut reality that they interact with. In this way, I do not think they have to go through mental gymnastics to maintain their belief systems. By accepting what has been proven by science, accepting that the moral beliefs of others are worthy of considerstion, and keeping beliefs contained to a moral or metaphysical realm which does not interfere with reality, one can healthily hold beliefs which lie outside of scientific thought. Would you consider such thinking delusional? This may be different from the kind of delusional thinking that you are speaking of. Assuming that you do think it is delusional, I would argue that the cost is worthwhile given the conditoons that I have outlined.
I see your point and I think myths and other stories that are often at the core of religions or ideologies are important, but I wish people could find these stories meaningful without believing that they are literally true. I also have a problem with metaphysics in general because it more or less is one gigantic error of the type I mentioned above - mistaking what makes sense according to your subjective intuitions and the lawyerly logic you use to justify it in your own mind, for an accurate description of reality or even of how things "must be." It is fundamentally opposed to the epistemic humility of science, but you're right it is not as bad as believing things which blatantly contradict scientific facts, even if it sometimes leads to that.
Love Steven pinker. Religion is destructive to society. It caues so much harm. But it is good to understand why. Michael Shermer is another good psychologist
If you like Shermer, you may like Bruce Hood as well. he wrote The Science Of Superstition which is a great book and is very similar to Shermer's The Believing Brain.
It's not about religion it's about the truth that mindless things can't make you. It's not about religion, it's about the truth that only your Maker can cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by His true. No one else can
the argument that says 'we don't know 100% why were here, what is the nature of reality; therefore a god did it' is a logical fallacy called Argument From Ignorance. Since we don't know an answer, you can't just insert one as an assertion (especially one with poor evidence, non-falsifiable and circular). Science and neuropsychology are in the business of discovery - trying to explain why we think in certain ways. Intellectual honesty demands we accept evidence. Point 2, your use of capital letters shows you have already made a decision. You are not in a quest to honestly discover anything.
My parents used to tell me I was found under a gooseberry bush (a mindless thing). Then, when my little sister was developing, she was described as "a bun in the oven" (another mindless thing). But "the truth that mindless things can't make you" is hardly profound; all the grown-ups know where babies really come from.
+Bill Keon You can be absolutely sure that you were made to exist by a preexisting written set of directives that no natural thing is ever able to significantly sequence.
directive - NOUN An official or authoritative instruction: www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/directive Recombination of preexisting authoritative instructions made you? My parents had sex.
I don't mean to naysay the concepts presented here, but one could have picked up -- and retained -- 90% of this from a good, social-psychology-oriented, comparative religion text. One could start with Karen Armstrong's =A History of God=. My problem with Pinker (for years) has been that he writes and lectures like he thinks, I expect. He brings up very significant concepts, spends a sentence or two with them, and then heads off in another direction. Unlike, say, Jack Miles (=God, a Biography=; =Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God=) he does not build his writing or his lectures scaffolded layer by layer. Which makes Pinker's presentations (for me anyway) like discourses in disconnected dots the auditor may have grave difficulty hooking together.
Sorry, I clicked "dislike" on the video because at the end of it the discussion is literally cut in half right in the middle of a sentence (and an interesting one!). :) And also because the description doesn't bother telling anything about the source(s) of this material.
lol , I accept your story, honest mistake.. But just know you're lumped in there withh 44 angry, ignorant religious fuckwits that think this video is literally the work of the devil.
There are rational explanations to religions - we know that people made it all up - so obviously they were influenced by the times they lived in. Christianity and Islam were born when Kings ruled with an iron fist - the King was Master of his land, his word was the LAW(Islamic countries imposing religious law), a Subject's quality and quantity of life depended on the King/Master. Get down on one's knees and beg the Master for mercy - if pleased the King/Master will let you stay in his kingdom(Heaven) or else!(Hell). The King won't allow disloyal people in his kingdom - which is why their heavens are segregated. Master is always right, master must be obeyed, a servant may serve only One Master(hence the One God) - hence the hate against Gays, the denial of evolution, the hate against Atheists and those of other religions Notice the Terminology - Commandments, Submit, beg, mercy, wrath, Fear - all Slave/Servant words - totally absent in Hinduism/Buddhism Very, very primitive views of God - sad that these are the dominant views today
I would and could believe that religion is all made up also except for one very important thing that is NOT mentioned in the video that proves the video FALSE and it is this; we are here on a little blue planet floating around in space with no other planet around anywhere with life on it! and I not seeing anything in the process of evolving anywhere around me can NOT jump on the evolution band wagon without direct EVIDENCE of evolution happening in REAL time. there fore given the fact we are here and the LACK of evidence of evolution I would say a {power=God} FAR above mans abilities and wisdom made this planet and everything on it! AND that would have to be a CREATOR!! I wonder why he never mentions THOSE FACTS in the video? that would mean that the idea of God is very REAL and not a man made concept, now would it not? think about it! I do!
Timothy Mostad they made God in the image of the most powerful man they knew then - their king They built heavens that reflected their way of life - a king-like God ruling the heavens, rewarding his loyal subjects(heaven) & punishing the rest(hell) Very pimitive ideas of God You wrote well but dont use their terminology - king, kingdom are primitive ideas
Timothy Mostad looks like the idea is widespread - the most powerful man used as a template for God - the savior who will give the good life I think only hinduism & buddhism differ
I would love to see a panel discussion on the psychology of scientists are obsessed with disparaging religion. For starters, they always conflate religion in general with the particular religion that was presented to them as children, no matter how much they pretend otherwise. (Maybe, for instance, their parents forced them to go to church every Sunday, and this OCD attack on religion is their attempt at payback?) They always share with religious fundamentalists the inability to tell the difference between prose and poetry in the sense that they conflate religious mythology with religion itself. It may be that a high degree of mathematical intelligence precludes certain other sorts of intelligence from developing? We need a panel of psychologists to flush this out!
AAAH, it cuts off at the end, Dawkins was asking one of those super-pwnage "Your answer to this is gonna destroy your own argument" questions, and it just cuts off!! dammit man, The ol professor was gonna go all hulk smash on that wishy washy weirdo!
Hey you atheists, please answer this question. I truly would like an honest thinking answer, not hostility. Here's the question: If a real person were found to have said something is going to happen hundreds of years before it actually did, what do you attribute that to, when you have no concept of or framework for spirituality, like you atheists don't? How do you 'science only types' explain to your kids the existence of such a feat? Here is what I'm referring to: Isaiah 7:14 Amplified Bible (AMP) 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Listen carefully, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel (God with us).
+Oregon SunriseSis The new testament was written with copies of the old testament around all ready the writers were well versed in old scriptures so therefore wrote their stories to fit prophecies and on top of that the virgin birth story was actually a later addition to the new testament although i would have to look it up to confirm.
Empiricism (Pinker) portrays man as a robot or zombie with no central processing unit (a living mind). Empiricism portrays man as a robot or zombie with no central processing unit (mind). Such a man cannot perceive, feel or do anything. To do so requires the universal transcendentalism of Emerson or Leibniz. Even Kant came up short with his personal transcendentalism, which make no provision for a deity or even for a full-blown moral agent. Empiricism is the passive model of mindless anglo-american philosophy, foisted on us (evewn on Kant) by Hume and eagerly adopted by science , neuroscience, psychology, and by today's philosophers of "mind" such as Dennett and Searle, even sadly by Pinker, who at one time (in the Blank Slate) once realized that the mind is an active entity, but soon dropped that provision. The list is endless, and leaves anglo-american philosophy with a man who cannot think, do, feel or perceive, continued to this day by means of groupthink copycat academics. The problem can be solved by adopting a transcendental philosophy such as that of Leibniz (starting with his Monadology) and Emerson, in which mind (his CPU) enables a man to perceive, think, feel and do. -- see my website independent.academia.edu/RogerClough ---- Without governance the stars will fall. ------Without a single governor they will collide.
No. The world is entirely made, including brainmind, of monads, which, for the brain mind are part physical and part nonphysical. If the physical gets damaged, it can affect the mind. and vice versa.
+enlightened My favorite phrase is, "Ya know what I'm sayin'?" I use it like he uses "uh". Does that negate everything else I have to say then? You know what I'm sayin'??? ;P
Religion will survive Steven. I know how you would explain how the natural world and human race came into existence, through science and evolution. Evolution explains the human existence very well, but that's all it explains. How do you explain your own very special existence. Your own existence is a singularity, extremely important to yourself. How did that happen? Ask yourself three very simple questions 1) What happens to your existence when your body dies? (atheist answer, it will cease to exist) 2) What is the chance of you ever existing again? (atheist answer, no chance how could it) 3) What was the chance of you existing before you were born? (same situation as question 2, no chance of coming into existence, but you exist) Religion will survive Steven. Science will never explain your own very special (essential) existence to yourself. That singularity. It only explains the human race. Also science can never create your own existence. What was the chance of you existing before you were born?
"And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, Allah is all-aware of what they do." The Quran (10:36)
Lol, I doubt it. All religious believers believe their gods exist and all other don't and yet not one of them has any more evidence for their beliefs than any other religion...that evidence being nothing or old fiction (or in the case with the Qu'ran...ramblings of a murderer).
+Marco Polo I would think that the beliefs of any individual shaman constitute a religion, as long as they have some supernatural beliefs. Are you saying that different shamans believe different things? or something else? thanks
ChannelMath Shamanism is a practice, a way of being. Each shaman has different ways of expression, but there is no church and there is no laymen. They are appointed by "spirits" and gain their power through that. Shamanism itself has also evolved in the West as "core shamanism" which preys more on people for money in exchange for "spiritual favors".
ChannelMath It isn't. Shamanism is a practice much like spiritual practice while religion is an organized unit of people who believe the same thing and based on fear, not to mention the technical practices and sheer history difference between the two.
Thank you Steven excellent program we all learning I wish the whole world have the same imagination like yours a real positive thinking and I'll be sure that our planet will be much far advanced and farther away on technology better place helping on technology with everything but so far everything is halfway destruction just because more than half of the world is infected with negative from superstitious mind and predators that pray on people for lucrative intention with cartoon fairy tales inventions of deities that will get us nowhere
Metaphysics is bunk. The only valid propositions are mathematical statements and propositions based on experience. I have followed Pinker for about 10 years and it is a pleasure to be acquainted with his work. He, Dawkins, Dennett, and the rest of the Brights are a welcome antidote to much intellectual rubbish that prevails. If we make the mistake of conferring religion upon our AI robots they will become as insipid as our modern day woo woo artists. (All we need is a pack of AI Jerry Falwells.) Rather a pack of AI Richard Feynmans any day.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche
thanks for this!
He is now a symbol of secular tribalism overwhelming traditional individual fighting war against extinction by cultural imperialism
Since I was a kid I never believed in religion but I wanted to know why it arose...in my conclusion it gave people hope in life.
Meaning? Social cohesion? Feeling of immortality? Self-aggrandizement? Moral compass? Redemption from bad acts?
And that's not nothing.
Everyone who has been subject to undue influence by a religion could be helped by this excellent piece.
Or religion could assist the atheist moron by understanding Pinker can not explain E=MC2 and that consciousness some how arises...hhhmmm
AtlasandLiberty why is it that you God followers always call names and resort to personal attacks?
There are reasons if you care time look into it. It has to do with your denial of reality. Ernest Beckley spelled it out in the seventies.
Darren McGovern. Denial of Reality exists with Pinker and yourself...There are many many Scientists engaged in the reality of Consciousness and E=MC2. This Man Pinker should know this research but instead He has Atheist Mockery...I call him a Moron. And it is spot on perfect. P.S. I have had supernatural experiences which have changed my outlook permanently....Checkout book, Power of your Subconscious Mind or you can remain a self satisfied Moron.
Exactly, but Pinker is not allowed to cherry pick, therefore his biased viewpoint carries little credibility.
AtlasandLiberty Do you have any proof of your delusional supernatural experiences?
Everybody has suppositions. When debating a critic there is always a point to start the discussion because the critic will always have conditions that he believes to be true regardless of proof. They just need to be defined. That is when internal critiques using the critics presuppositions can be used.
The issue with debating a religious individual is that they criticize your position internally but ask that you critique their position externally. Which is the best chance they have for leveling the field. This is because they can not form any material proof for their beliefs outside their ideology. The last part of the video shows this dynamic.
I will admit that this is a technique of winning an argument not debating for truth (whatever that may be defined). It hinges on the believers own knowledge of their belief and your ability to capitalize on that knowledge and logic.
Just finished hearing this in its complete version. This is tremendous and real,Cannot say how much I enjoyed it
have a link to a complete version?
We are herd animals, we want to belong to a herd and the leader is suppose to think for us. Religions - Cults - The Herd - We belong, follow and stop thinking.
"absolutely none, and also won't allow circular reasoning" "If all our beliefs are treated as guilty until proven innocent, you won't be able to prove any of them innocent, because you have nothing to begin with" YES YES YES YES YES
A religion is a set of stories, symbols and rituals that help people orient themselves to the mystery of life--the truth beyond perception. Religious institutions are groups of people who (generally) take these stories and symbols and turn them into polarizing dogmas that kill the mystery and block the light of truth. Most religion hating is really an aversion to the corrupting influence of institutions rather than to religion itself. This same corruption also happens within Science, when dogmatic assumptions (like the mind being in the brain for example) block free inquiry and experimentation to discover truth. Truth is one. Science and religion are meant to help us discover this. But Institutions (of every form) do everything they can to destroy awareness of truth, pitting us against one another based on polarizing beliefs that remain unquestioned. Based on many of the comments, I'd say they've been quite successful.
How is "the mind is in the brain" a dogmatic assumption?
@Miguel Cisneros "Atheists can´t even describe what they mean by "mind" or "truth""
Yes we can.
@@psicologomiguelcisnerostruth is that which is supported by evidence as opposed to fiction, myth, superstition, religion
1. Religion is not a biological adaption but rather a byproduct of cognitive faculties
2. Religion is not one thing, we don't have a God module
3. Ways of thinking and feeling brought together in different combinations and cultures to create what we call religion
4. Belief in disembodied spirits made possible by 'theory of mind'/intuitive psychology/intentional stance
5. Pascal Boyer/Scott Atran most religious concepts consist of mundane concepts with one property struck out e.g. mind without body. You don't have to tell people that a saint will be pleased if you give it something it wants. Experiments verify this
6. An amulet an idol an object with supernatural powers will obey our intuitive physics with one quality crossed out or replaced like curing disease or listen to one's speech
7. People holding religious belief are not deluded they do not believe the laws of the universe are abrogated routinely which is why there is a sense of mystery with religious experience
8. a) An ability to entertain counterintuitive beliefs
b) Connect these beliefs to existential issues
c) Shared avowal of experiences - ceremony shares the religious belief and reinforces group solidarity
i] group selection is unlikely (likeminded groups have greater survival value)
ii] Religious systems exploit cognitive/emotional systems to weed out defectors/cheaters e.g. through public sacrifice - animals, abraham's son, circumcise son
iii] Perceptual/cognitive tricks to induce person to group is evidence that religion is unnatural - non-relatives aspire to familial solidarity by likening the group to family e.g. brethern/brotherhood/family
iv] Psychological essentialism - living things have essence that gives them their powers seen in children
v] gestalt law of common fate - when objects move in parallel trajectory they're seen as part of a larger group e.g. praying to mecca creates a larger superorganism
d) in snails, birds etc self-sacrificial behaviour can be observed when a parasite is present manipulating the snail to the parasite's benefit. Sacrificing control to a higher power can be a clever negotiating technique
Good
ruclips.net/video/xgT8LHyKIak/видео.html
@@firstal3799 thanks yoo
I don't think Pinker and Dawkins' argument enables the conclusion that religion is false. Both use the framework of evolutionary psychology as a theory to explain and account for the phenomenon of religion among people, but we can turn this same framework to explain the phenomenon of atheism as well. However, this doesn't mean that we thereby prove atheism is false.
Let me attempt to explain the thought process behind this talk. Given that there is no evidence to believe in religious claims why do people nonetheless still believe in religions. Some religious people argue that the very fact that they are religious proves that their religion is true. This is a rebuttal of that idea. We can, and are, manipulated at times, be that by a parasite, or by a car salesman, or by a Priest, or a politician etc etc. And of course atheism as a concept can be used by politicians to manipulate in the same way. For example a car salesman may be an atheist to an atheist and a theist to a theist (their actual beliefs are irrelevant to their goal of selling a car). I personally would feel as uncomfortable voting for a politician who was an atheist but said they were a theist as I would voting for a theist who said they were an atheist. So in short this talk is not directly about whether religions are true or not.
@@JS-ln4ns No evidence means no reason to believe. It's absolutely water tight strict logic.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. How many people believe a thing isn't evidence. How old a thing is isn't evidence.
All you have proved is that humans believe stuff which is obviously untrue. Which is a well established factual statement and well evidenced.
I sold my soul to the devil for a dollar fifty and found it in his trash can later that week. Long story short, I got it back intact. I can listen to Pinker talk about religion now that I don't have a giant void in my head. I praise thee, ye holy Steven Pinker.
The video stopped at a crucial point. Dawkins was asking Derose why theism should be granted status of 'innocent until proven guilty"? I really wanted to hear Derose's answer- the discussion was getting to the heart of the issue at that point.
Where Can I find the entire discussion?
Nature goes on forever for everyone and everything to return as everyone and everything an infinite number of times through evolutionary processes. 🌌
I think Pinker's view about the evolutionary place of religion is somehow better explained by the Terror Management Theory (TMT) and their evolutionnary perspective on this issue (Sheldon Solomon etc. in "The Worm at the Core"). Pinker says that religion is an evolutionnary by-product. This would be supported by TMT, in my opinion at least: In the first place, evolution has "given" us human mammals high(er) cognitive brain capacity. This higher capacity has led humans to be conscious of the fact that we are doomed and will inevitably die. We have an instinct of survival as every animal has, but unlike all other animals we all have this conscience of our own mortality from a rather young age on. Rituals and religion (as evolved product of them) have arisen out of this existential conflict in order to reduce the paralysing tension that stems from it. In other words, this psychological conflict has led humanity to construct "meaningfull" convictions about the universe and our "cosmological place" in it. Culture and religion give us humans at least the illusion of a meaningfull universe and a life that lasts longer than our phisical being ("legacy"-concept of Becker). Because our real life is as temporary and insignificant as any other animal life... This "unbearable" fact, I would say, is the main reason of culture evolution and very well described in its whole by Anthropologists like Becker.
Let's also add Feuerbach's theory of humans placing the most strived for characteristics of that culture on to that being.
Dawkins's theory is basically that religion exists because God is an extremely dank meme. I like it.
Dawkins literally coined the term "meme." Dank as fuck.
No one said it was ...?
+Zoda Ken "God is a Neutral Monad, QED".unless you are refeffing to QuantumElectroDynamics, i dont see where you have demonstrated anything. assertion is not demonstration. before you are talking about attributes of something, there should be some evidence of its existence
QED- "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" latin phrase "what was to be demostrated"... used totally inapprpriately here but nothing to do with quantum electrodynamcs.....
incidentally the assertion that "God [or anything] is a neutral monad" is pretty meaningless...
Carl Jung said it way before Dawkins. A pretty dank meme is an Archetype.
I'd like to add (at time 8:22) the act of sacrifice is also bonding in a way that disavows intuitive psychology
ruclips.net/video/thUt0TA7NL4/видео.html
@@solomonherskowitz yes I suppose if you intellectualize assumptions to support an agenda you'll end up with a mishmash like this
Coming up next... The Religion of Psychology. Or Psychology as religion. Environmentalism as religion. Darwinism as religion.
A rather obvious hypothesis they seem determined not to examine, is that religion may have co-evolved with the human species in such a way that it's not parasitic, but actually beneficial. The fact that it's been around for so long, and so universally, surely begs the question why some non-religious society, (whatever that is), hasn't come along and out-competed us all.
I understand your science perfectly well and I know that chemicals are the matrerial component of emotions. So please don't try to educate me about something I knew when I was 12. (I'm 46).
If you can use chemical formulae to design a relationship, go ahead and show me how to do that. But there's nothing practical about scientific reductionism in everday life, or at least, I can't think of any examples.
But this is beside the point -
You still haven't answered my genetic-based question why religion isn't a healthy meme, the same as all the other memes? I wasn't arguing that gods exist. I was arguing that religion isn't necesarily an unhealthy parasite.
Timothy Mostad There is some truth in that, but you are deliberately choosing only the negative aspects. If you look all over the world, you will find there was no civilisation which could become civilised without becoming religious. If you look at their arts - music, poetry, painting, or their sciences, or their laws, you find they were all rooted in religion and supported by religion. This turns your "How can religion do anything?" question on it's head - How could anything have happened without religion? Name one aspect of modern civilisation which was free of the influence of religion or could have existed without religion. Where did this happen?
I don't expect religion will unite and don't see why it should. The sciences have to unite, because they chemistry and physics have to be sensible to each other. But no-one says that music has to unite, or that all the world's languages should be reduced to one. Why does religion have to do so?
Even physics has not unified with itself. There is a huge gap between Einstein and Bohr. There have always been gaps. There always will be. Does that make physics wrong?
There is no evidence that religion creates the most heinous crimes. A survey of suicide bombing showed that it \mostly done by secular terorists. Muslims only started later. Americans are arranging murder and torture on a massive scale, for no religious reason whatsoever.
All the historical evidence is against you.
But these are general criticisms you are making against religion.
You still haven't answered my initial question why religion is a parasite, rather than a normal meme, like any other.
First of all, I’ve asked you twice already whether you’re prepared to address my original question at all. My original question to be clear, was not “Does anybody here think religion is good or bad?”, but, “Why is religion, as a meme, regarded as parasitical, rather than co-evolutionary?” My present feeling is you haven’t read enough genetics, particularly not Richard Dawkins, to understand the question.
My point about music was a systemic point, but if you think that’s a poor comparison because of life and death issues, I only have to offer the example of criminal law. Now criminal law is frequently not unified. A murder in one country would be examined, debated and judged completely differently to a murder in another country, because of differing, non-unified legal systems. I repeat the question so you can answer it - Does the fact that a body of ideas does not match the assumption of another body of ideas make both of them or either of them wrong, because they’re not unified. Again, could you answer the actual question?
Again, I asked you to give an example of any society which could become civilized without religion.
You gave me none.
I asked if there was anything about modern civilization which is not a product of religion.
You offered no counter-example whatsoever.
But rather than concede the point or address the point, you just continue your general rant about religion-bad-secularism-good, overlooking the rather obvious fact that previous to religion, the crimes you accuse religion of - murder, theft, etc… These were not crimes in those societies! Your values, like it or not, are religious values. A great deal of crime has indeed been provoked by religion and religious differences, yes, true, but you have to concede that previous to religion, the disapproval of these crimes wasn’t there much at all.
“The agenda of religion to control wealth and resources” blab bla… Is there any other group you can point to who were UNinterested in controlng wealth and resources? Western liberalism? The communists? Which philosophy will you point to which guarantees world peace? Or do you have faith in technology? Big Agriculture? Big Pharma? These guys are inventing crimes religion never thought of. What about the military industrial complex who manage the economic fruits of scientific progress? Or who? How about the banks? They’re secular. Maybe they’ll look after you. Or the oil lobby which drives the petrochemical industry? Maybe they’ll look after the planer? Which secular organization can you point to who will take care of us? Because the fact is, religion isn’t running the show any more. Secular economics is in the driving seat. And it’s going to wipe out the whole planet. Which secular philosophy can you point to whose intentions are always kind and whose behavior is always beneficial to all?
But go ahead - avoid those questions too.
I’m a Buddhist living in Japan and I’m looking at millions of westerners blaming the Muslim world of terrorism while they wipe out countless unarmed civilians in illegal wars of their own making. Like you, they think they can improve the world with hatred and blame of other people. This never worked before and it’s not going to work now. What is your plan exactly? Will you kill off the religious people? Will you somehow remove religion from culture? This has all been tried by the communists and the results weren’t encouraging. What do you propose? But go ahead - avoid these questions too.
I don’t see this going anywhere. You don’t know anything about genetics at all and you’re unable to address my initial question or any of my subsequent questions. You just want to foam at the mouth against religion as if everything that was at all religious was evil. I’m sorry, but it’s not convincing or even interesting and I’m not going to engage with it unless you start answering the initial question about genetics.
Japanese society is fairly civilised, and fairly religious too, with Buddhism, Taoist, Confucian and Shintoist influences. But it's still not as civilised as the USA. Which has been surveyed and confirmed to be the most religious country in the world. I'm soryr, but you are so eager to push your ideology that religion is the only problem and science is the only answer, that you keep running up against major empirical and historical counter-examples in your argumentation.
Timothy Mostad You're welcome to your opinions about religious Americans, but the fact reemains, when anthropologists asked the same set of questions abouit belief to a large number of countries around the world, the USA came out as the most religious.
That presents you with a conundruim, which is, if religion's effect on society is so awful.... how come the US is doing, let's face it, relatively well, at least compared other countries?
Every organized religion in the world has individuals or groups who are there to guide followers through the trappings of their faith. By and large, their primary roles are similar: performing the rites and ceremonies that a particular religion requires, such as birth rituals, coming-of-age rituals, death rituals, and whatever else the religion tosses in. They are also the keepers of religious tradition and often take on the role of moral leader as well as teacher or "guide."
I'm giving a didactic on this to the next group of doctoral psychology interns at work. This was helpful. Thanks!
Derose's definition for intolerable skepticism could be summarized as skepticism that claimants can't weasel around.
I don't think its that complicated to work out how a belief in a God came about. It had to do with our desire to want to explain things that we couldn't explain, especially natural occurrences with things like earthquakes, thunder, lightning, floods. Devoid of the knowledge we are lucky enough to have thanks to scientific discoveries, the best explanation for them, lets say in the aftermath of a huge earthquake, would be that some type of unseen over lord was somehow displeased with us, and he shook the ground in anger. In order to pacify this invisible God we had to offer it something precious as a kind of peace offering, so it wouldn't do it again. What greater gift could we offer it than a human life, maybe this is where child sacrifice began. When you think about it, Christianity itself is based upon a child sacrifice.. that of Gods only son Jesus.
religion connects human ontology into it origin from emergence ,a metacognitive processing about all powers that can be conceptualized by brain ,and those from unknown origins .
Being naturally social, rather than isolated creatures (think baboons, red pandas), it would benefit many to ascribe to a singular worldview rather than being alone.
What about the psychology of psychology Steven!?
+Scott Claremont I see what you did there. You are the Bruce Lee of mental Jiu-Jitsu. I think I just saw Dr. Pinker ripping up his credentials, throwing his hands up, and walking off into the woods.
+willfourth that made me lol
+Scott Claremont What's psychology Steven?
The psychology of psychology was and is phariseeism until it actually embraces neurodiversity non selectively.
The psychology of psychology is the same psychology of any other science, which is the desire to navigate the world.
In prehistoric times being ejected from the group meant certain death so eventualy instinc took over and I believe that we still unconsciously act upon that ancient but now useless fear. Even if one's sympathy goes toward the ostracised, belonging remains the prime force even to the point of denying one's individual thought processes in favor of dumb group thinking, some sheep paradigm it seems. I went through being socialy rejected so the loss of even those who had promised to stand by me, whatever, got me thinking and led me there: ''People are Strange'' - Jim Morisson
12:30 assumptions... you cant live without them. no idea why people are laughing.
We are input-output entities and all a religion is is an “agreed upon” way of dealing with inputs and/or outputs that each individual dislikes. When enough of these individuals begin “sharing” with others these inputs/outputs, they then find some commonality among those inputs/outputs, as in “Yeah, I get angry and red when I hear or think about homosexuality” that they then rely upon to dictate how they will respond. That is all there is to a religion.
The temple board president, a very pious jew, was extremely distressed in receiving the news that his only son has converted to Christianity.
He is so besides himself that he goes to talk to the Rebbe, the highest authority he knows.
He says "Rebbe, Rebbe what have I done wrong? I brough him to Temple every day. I taught him everything that I was taught, gave him all I was given. Where, where did I go wrong?"
The Rebbe says "Funny ting, my only son too, he has converted to Christianity. I, too, can not figure out what went wrong, after all I am the Rebbe, surely my teachings and guidance should have been sufficient." The Rebbe continues "There is only one thing we can do, we must speak to a higher authority still.
The Rebbe and the Board President make there way to the sanctuary and they begin to speak to G-d. They say:"Oh, Adoni, where have we gone wrong, our only sons have shuned us and converted to Christianity, what shall we do? Where did we go wrong?"
A big booming voice is heard from above to say; "FUNNY TING!"
Please can you give an honest and inform opinion about the Urantia Book? Thank you in advance
where's the rest, i wanted to hear the answer...?
If Pinker applied the same experimentation to the world of spirit as he does to the natural world he may come to a different conclusion. It's not either there is a natural world we can observe or there is nothing. It is actually that there is an observable natural world and a world of spirit. One is navigated by reason. The other is navigated by faith.
Yes
Herds do it. Geese do it. Even segregated creeds do it. Let's do it. Let's fly in formation.
I feel like this should be the intro to some crazy hard EDM song. *BWAAAAA ZGZTZTYZYZTYTYZTBWAAAA-A-AA-A WZRGRWZRGRWZRGR BWUPWUPWUPWUPWUPWUPWUP BWUUUUUUPWUPWUPWUPWUPWUPWUP*
Brain can be damaged physically but mind, which is nonphysical, is most likely damaged by mind misfunctioning (as neurosis, etc.). And by its root in the brain.
I'm afraid the brain and the mind are demonstrably synonymous. You mention brain damage - this is very worthy of study and an obvious indicator of what is really the case.
Nothing happens in the mind that does not occur in the brain. The mind is an inner consciousness of brain activity. When your brain is anesthetized without consciousness, where is your disappeared mind?
i used to think dawkins was very well articulated but im starting to think its just him using accent, emphasis, melody.. but maybe he didnt have time to prepare for the discussion
As a biologist, Dawkins is great. When it comes to religion, Dawkins is horrid. He needs to stick with this credentials.
Got any better audio?
I wish I could ask this guy my question. When he is talking about how groups manipulate with ceremonies etc., to make people feel they belong to the group. How come if a room full of folks claim that a sheet of paper, for example, is black the test subjects will agree even though they plainly see that the paper is white. The individual must want very much to be one with the group even where the belief don't make sense.
to :"Old Man from Scene Twenty Four" - sorry for the confusion. My dialogue, such as it is, given his lack of consistency and logic, is with Xavier, not you. I apologize for the confusion.
But since we are talking, what's the significance of your user name? Are you an actor?
The old man from scene 24 is a Monty Python reference.
We certainly trust Technology and Mathematics. We know there to be limits to their ability to scrutinize and access reality, yet they constitute the basis of scientific inquiry, ultimately scientific truth. It is a certain personality that's religious, or that is atheist, or agnostic. I don't understand how anyone feels they really know the truth, because even by Darwin's own accounts we're accepting a model of the world, the best model that allows us to make predictions, and nothing else. Newton's model made great prediction and worked good enough, but it wasn't correct, in the sense that it didn't correspond with reality. There are real limitations in being a human being; I'm just not sure how anyone believes they've got it right. How we feel as if we know reality.
+Joshua Amor "I know what reality is, but when I begin to explain I forget the words" or something like that. Reality isn't a concept.
Reality according to cognitive neuroscience is a concept, and is not completely accessible to an Embodied being like people.
I see. And how do you feel about that without the concept of neuroscience?
As far as I know I'm a being who thinks, and how and why I'm doing this I'm not aware of, especially without the tools of scientific inquiry, and therefore feel even more so as if I can't really know the nature of any phenomena with any certainty. I don't feel as if I know what reality is only what I think. What I think and what's real can be very different things. I don't need science to inform me of that, but nonetheless are brains are like lumps of tofu constructing the image of the world around us, how do I know my tofu is right? How do I know the lump of tofu in your head is constructing the same reality? Which I assume it's not if you think that I feel any less weary of the dicieness about the epistemilogical factors of human existence.
Joshua Amor You've got interesting points, but they all stem from treating the world and reality as a concept, whose concreteness can only be learned through quantification. You can access reality far more directly by quieting the mind of thoughts; you then won't be so convinced that you can only know through thought.
why did the video quit in mid-sentence?
And what of the Psychosis of Abraham, hearing the voice of God telling him to kill a son to prove his devotion?
Because God did not have Abraham follow through with child sacrifice, never demanded it again from any of His followers, and explicitly forbade them from doing it.
Neil degrass tyson found an analysis that the higher education have less religious people. The number of religious people decrease when there is a higher degree associates, bachelor, masters, phd ect.
It's more about self education
And yet outside of medicine, they tend to also be some of the most useless people.
Which year was recorded?
Group movement as in the circling of the Kaabah.
Excellent......enough said.
Anyone know where the rest is?
"Look who thinks he's nothing" lol
Where is this from?
However religions manage to influence people, it does not speak to whether in fact these religions are true or false.
ruclips.net/video/thUt0TA7NL4h/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/thUt0TA7NL4/видео.html
@Glenn Heston very strong argument there, how convincing.
@Glenn Heston "my assertions are true because I say so".
You sound religious.
@Glenn Heston "religion is false" is an assertion, it can be both an observation and an assertion. It's not either/or.
@Glenn Heston Good, so you've acknowledged your assertion. Now to the next point, that's not how falsifiability works.
The appropriate answer is: "it's not within the domain of falsifiability, so we cannot comment on whether or not it's true or false."
Interesting how Richard Dawkins sets up the continuum to be from entirely cynical to mildly cynical and then asks where on this continuum the truth is…. So he is starting from a continuum that excludes sincerity in one’s beliefs be default.
The psychology of atheism:
ruclips.net/video/xgT8LHyKIak/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/thUt0TA7NL4/видео.html
Good stuff in here, but Pinker's error is his belief that the mind is the brain.
I do not deny the lecturer is very neat in his arguments. There are some but's though. He begins by saying that religions of the world exploite the concept of a disembodied soul. I belive that Christianity, though suppressing flesh, is not against the body. Jesus has given His body for people not to reject it but to recapitulate it. St Paul called a community a body. I think the lecturer is using a positivistic view on religion of the early 19th century make, instead of the original idea explored from inside the religion.
+TheBebikh And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin again?
+Joe Green It depends on how deep it went to hurt you. He speaks about something that is a value to me. And clearly, I see that his position is built on a one-sided viewpoint.
+TheBebikh "... I see that his position is built on a one-sided viewpoint." Yeah, the only viewpoint that has advanced the human condition. It's called science.
+Joe Green Both religion and science have been misused by the humanity. Crusades and inquisition were cruel but cruel were and the upshots of nuclear research. In the hands of people, many things have become corrupted. But one must not replace one with the other, by criticising religion he puts forward science as another belief. I see you do not need a religion, and not everyone, perhaps, needs it. And we are not all born scientists, we are just people. Science is preoccupied with things visible, whereas God is preoccupied with things invisible. Two things apart really, but necessary for our humanity.
+TheBebikh Read or listen to a little Daniel Dennet or Pinker et al. They, and I totally disagree with both being necessary. I refute that notion. Maybe the study of ethics is important, but religion is fiction.
I would prefer NO RELIGIONS EN MASSE, just well educated sense of the world and your humanity. Soultrap is an interesting concept.
Do animals fear death?
As the skeptics might say " What would Blade Runner do? " ( It is soooooo dark here/ in our age and time)
A scaling up model of bodily incorporation from elements and cells, to family, tribes and nations etc, with all the pluses and minuses of actual human being's behaviours, by any names, will be the same sort of content in context.
Because, existence is pivoted on no-thing, it's modulated circular logic of quantization and the substantiation of phenomena, including Mathematics, is a recirculating projection of re-evolving bio-logical chemistry, across time.
Self-referencing is an alternative description of cyclical connection with the multi-phase state of dominant resonance, so it's an unavoidable consequence in any hypothesis of "things as they are".
_____
"Spiritual" is a word for generalisation of attention focusing on "forces" of organised unseen behaviour, ie it may refer to functions without apparent embodiment, so the specific terminology used for Quantum-fields that cover the full spectrum of everything to nothing should begin with Bose-Einstein Condensates at Zero Kelvin sync-duration in Infinity/Eternity-now and start all over from continuous creation cause-effect e-Pi-i quantization identification of sync-duration wave-package orientation and positioning. The orientation and order of information arrangements is currently in the Spacetime, disconnection of Big Bang reasoning instead of holographic Singularity positioning Actuality.
The labelling inherited in the culture of Humanity, is scrambled and defunct, against the purposes intended.
Sounds interesting
Poor Pinker, hear him chop up at the voice just because of the religious fanatics we have alive today.
was gonna listen, but the quality is too low
Steven is articulate and has done research to support his point of view. My research has show that religions have very different stages which are most often turned political in nature after the origin creates the concept. Where he goes astray is that he limits his scope of research to those that offer a materialistic view of life. There is so much cutting edge research showing parallel rise in consciousness among similar species. There is also intuitive predictions made by people ahead of random generated computer images showing that some mechanisms exist that are beyond material. HIs science is lacking. BTW shamans are not a religion. He should try some DMT and report on his experience.
I want to resurect a dead body. Does any one know how JC did it ?
+United by MAIDAN Hit me up in a couple of weeks when I have time and I'll let you know
He just yelled at Lazarus to get the fuck up.
at about 13:40 to about 14:20
maybe that's exactly why the geese do it!... don't be such a specist! ;)
.
The title is misleading. There is nearly no discussion of the psychology of religion. Pinker speaks the longest, and most of his subject is the evolutionary fitness of certain behaviors, from a biological perspective. Psyches themselves, when they aren't fictional, are ignored. Professor Derose at the end raises concerns of traditional philosophy, like "How can we construct a deductive sequence of reasoning without first premises?"
In between we get the interesting experience of hearing Dawkins, prompted by Pinker's biological theories, not repeating well rehearsed arguments but instead "thinking out loud," applying his own expertise in biology to questions raised by Pinker, raising questions, fitting the pieces together in different ways, and occasionally letting his thoughts wander across speculative territory.
For a few, this will be an very interesting video.
33:33
Pinky *IS* the brain! Love him. D.A., J.D., NYC
Our complex of hierarchies also plays a role in the concept of god. We have to create some alpha craft maker.
lol damn it cut off at the end just as Dawkins was about to ask the third guy a question that would have utterly pwned his argument that intuitive beliefs have to be given credibility because they are intuitive (in fact, this is a hugely reactionary position and it arguably is antiscientific at its core).
Seems to me the stuff BTIIsaac is saying below is pretty New-Agey; the right doesn't have a monopoly on superstition, that's for sure. Think symbolically all you want, mythology is psychologically profound, dreams shrooms and shamanism, great stuff, but anyone who fails to draw a sharp epistemological line between that experience and the actual reality we inhabit, which is described by science, including our brains, is falling for a confused and deluded metaphysics - at best.
Well put!
Colonel Hart What if that deluded metaphysical description of the world is the best thing an individual has found for the purpose of motivating them to live and giving their life meaning? Would you say they should stop believing in that case?
Delusions are expensive to maintain. They impose a cost on those who hold them and on those the deluded interact with. Elaborate mental scaffolding has to be constructed to prop up the delusion. Elaborate schemes have to be devised to explain away the reality that inevitably intrudes. In rare cases there may be individuals about whom one can say that their delusion is the best thing they have and worth the cost. But that would be for uncommonly bad realities and circumstances that befall some.
Khaja Ahmed I guess I speak of this after looking at the many reasonable christians and other religous people that I have observed to be constructive members of society. Many of these individuals are able to separate their beliefs from the clear cut reality that they interact with. In this way, I do not think they have to go through mental gymnastics to maintain their belief systems. By accepting what has been proven by science, accepting that the moral beliefs of others are worthy of considerstion, and keeping beliefs contained to a moral or metaphysical realm which does not interfere with reality, one can healthily hold beliefs which lie outside of scientific thought. Would you consider such thinking delusional?
This may be different from the kind of delusional thinking that you are speaking of. Assuming that you do think it is delusional, I would argue that the cost is worthwhile given the conditoons that I have outlined.
I see your point and I think myths and other stories that are often at the core of religions or ideologies are important, but I wish people could find these stories meaningful without believing that they are literally true. I also have a problem with metaphysics in general because it more or less is one gigantic error of the type I mentioned above - mistaking what makes sense according to your subjective intuitions and the lawyerly logic you use to justify it in your own mind, for an accurate description of reality or even of how things "must be." It is fundamentally opposed to the epistemic humility of science, but you're right it is not as bad as believing things which blatantly contradict scientific facts, even if it sometimes leads to that.
Love Steven pinker. Religion is destructive to society. It caues so much harm. But it is good to understand why. Michael Shermer is another good psychologist
If you like Shermer, you may like Bruce Hood as well. he wrote The Science Of Superstition which is a great book and is very similar to Shermer's The Believing Brain.
A Rep nice. I'll take a look at that thanks
Basically its all DOUBLE THINK
It's somewhat ironic that Steven Pinker is well known for debunking religion when he is himself basically Jesus
This is so corny
According to whom....a nut or two..???
gem.
and good use of Atran.
STEVEN!!
Sorry.. it's shit having to do this but it was on his latest video about a meat cleaver attack where you commented. Don't let them win.
Ok RUclips.. I see what you are doing.. posting comments in my name because I'm critical.. it won't work!
ruclips.net/video/thUt0TA7NL4/видео.html
It's not about religion it's about the truth that mindless things can't make you. It's not about religion, it's about the truth that only your Maker can cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by His true. No one else can
the argument that says 'we don't know 100% why were here, what is the nature of reality; therefore a god did it' is a logical fallacy called Argument From Ignorance. Since we don't know an answer, you can't just insert one as an assertion (especially one with poor evidence, non-falsifiable and circular). Science and neuropsychology are in the business of discovery - trying to explain why we think in certain ways. Intellectual honesty demands we accept evidence. Point 2, your use of capital letters shows you have already made a decision. You are not in a quest to honestly discover anything.
My parents used to tell me I was found under a gooseberry bush (a mindless thing).
Then, when my little sister was developing, she was described as "a bun in the oven" (another mindless thing).
But "the truth that mindless things can't make you" is hardly profound;
all the grown-ups know where babies really come from.
+Bill Keon You can be absolutely sure that you were made to exist by a preexisting written set of directives that no natural thing is ever able to significantly sequence.
+differous01 Recombination of preexisting written directives made you.
directive - NOUN
An official or authoritative instruction:
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/directive
Recombination of preexisting authoritative instructions made you? My parents had sex.
I don't mean to naysay the concepts presented here, but one could have picked up -- and retained -- 90% of this from a good, social-psychology-oriented, comparative religion text. One could start with Karen Armstrong's =A History of God=. My problem with Pinker (for years) has been that he writes and lectures like he thinks, I expect. He brings up very significant concepts, spends a sentence or two with them, and then heads off in another direction. Unlike, say, Jack Miles (=God, a Biography=; =Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God=) he does not build his writing or his lectures scaffolded layer by layer. Which makes Pinker's presentations (for me anyway) like discourses in disconnected dots the auditor may have grave difficulty hooking together.
It's called abstraction, the power of abstraction.
Sorry, I clicked "dislike" on the video because at the end of it the discussion is literally cut in half right in the middle of a sentence (and an interesting one!). :) And also because the description doesn't bother telling anything about the source(s) of this material.
lol , I accept your story, honest mistake.. But just know you're lumped in there withh 44 angry, ignorant religious fuckwits that think this video is literally the work of the devil.
There are rational explanations to religions - we know that people made it all up - so obviously they were influenced by the times they lived in. Christianity and Islam were born when Kings ruled with an iron fist - the King was Master of his land, his word was the LAW(Islamic countries imposing religious law), a Subject's quality and quantity of life depended on the King/Master. Get down on one's knees and beg the Master for mercy - if pleased the King/Master will let you stay in his kingdom(Heaven) or else!(Hell). The King won't allow disloyal people in his kingdom - which is why their heavens are segregated.
Master is always right, master must be obeyed, a servant may serve only One Master(hence the One God) - hence the hate against Gays, the denial of evolution, the hate against Atheists and those of other religions
Notice the Terminology - Commandments, Submit, beg, mercy, wrath, Fear - all Slave/Servant words - totally absent in Hinduism/Buddhism
Very, very primitive views of God - sad that these are the dominant views today
I would and could believe that religion is all made up also except for one very important thing that is NOT mentioned in the video that proves the video FALSE and it is this; we are here on a little blue planet floating around in space with no other planet around anywhere with life on it! and I not seeing anything in the process of evolving anywhere around me can NOT jump on the evolution band wagon without direct EVIDENCE of evolution happening in REAL time. there fore given the fact we are here and the LACK of evidence of evolution I would say a {power=God} FAR above mans abilities and wisdom made this planet and everything on it! AND that would have to be a CREATOR!! I wonder why he never mentions THOSE FACTS in the video? that would mean that the idea of God is very REAL and not a man made concept, now would it not? think about it! I do!
See when a person ask the right question instead of listening to evolution lies they get a whole different picture of the TRUTH do they NOT???
Timothy Mostad they made God in the image of the most powerful man they knew then - their king
They built heavens that reflected their way of life - a king-like God ruling the heavens, rewarding his loyal subjects(heaven) & punishing the rest(hell)
Very pimitive ideas of God
You wrote well but dont use their terminology - king, kingdom are primitive ideas
Timothy Mostad by any chance were you talking about the hindu religion? Asia - God kings - sounds like hinduism?
I am hindu myself
Timothy Mostad looks like the idea is widespread - the most powerful man used as a template for God - the savior who will give the good life
I think only hinduism & buddhism differ
My bio-pinecone has a dancing god in it!
$1 a peep!
Way to pull back the curtain!
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT LITTLE MAN PULLING LEVERS!!! (Oz the All Powerful)
guys, listen! nothing from nothing leave nothing. and i'm not stuffing, believe you me.
Nothing can exist from nothing that's why there's a creator called GOD
I would love to see a panel discussion on the psychology of scientists are obsessed with disparaging religion. For starters, they always conflate religion in general with the particular religion that was presented to them as children, no matter how much they pretend otherwise. (Maybe, for instance, their parents forced them to go to church every Sunday, and this OCD attack on religion is their attempt at payback?) They always share with religious fundamentalists the inability to tell the difference between prose and poetry in the sense that they conflate religious mythology with religion itself. It may be that a high degree of mathematical intelligence precludes certain other sorts of intelligence from developing? We need a panel of psychologists to flush this out!
I see a dragon in the middle pic... WINTER IS COMING!
AAAH, it cuts off at the end, Dawkins was asking one of those super-pwnage "Your answer to this is gonna destroy your own argument" questions, and it just cuts off!! dammit man, The ol professor was gonna go all hulk smash on that wishy washy weirdo!
Hey you atheists, please answer this question. I truly would like an honest thinking answer, not hostility. Here's the question: If a real person were found to have said something is going to happen hundreds of years before it actually did, what do you attribute that to, when you have no concept of or framework for spirituality, like you atheists don't? How do you 'science only types' explain to your kids the existence of such a feat?
Here is what I'm referring to:
Isaiah 7:14 Amplified Bible (AMP)
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Listen carefully, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel (God with us).
You're barking up the wrong tree, pal
I'm not sure why you're telling me...
Jon S.K. Neither am I this is such old news...
Luck
+Oregon SunriseSis
The new testament was written with copies of the old testament around all ready the writers were well versed in old scriptures so therefore wrote their stories to fit prophecies and on top of that the virgin birth story was actually a later addition to the new testament although i would have to look it up to confirm.
Empiricism (Pinker) portrays man as a robot or zombie with no central processing unit (a living mind).
Empiricism portrays man as a robot or zombie with no central processing unit (mind).
Such a man cannot perceive, feel or do anything. To do so requires
the universal transcendentalism of Emerson or Leibniz. Even Kant
came up short with his personal transcendentalism, which make no
provision for a deity or even for a full-blown moral agent.
Empiricism is the passive model of mindless anglo-american philosophy,
foisted on us (evewn on Kant) by Hume and eagerly adopted by science ,
neuroscience, psychology, and by today's philosophers of "mind" such as Dennett
and Searle, even sadly by Pinker, who at one time (in the Blank Slate)
once realized that the mind is an active entity, but soon dropped that provision.
The list is endless, and leaves anglo-american philosophy with a man
who cannot think, do, feel or perceive, continued to this day by means of
groupthink copycat academics. The problem can be solved by adopting a
transcendental philosophy such as that of Leibniz (starting with his Monadology)
and Emerson, in which mind (his CPU) enables a man to perceive, think, feel and do.
--
see my website independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
---- Without governance the stars will fall.
------Without a single governor they will collide.
So you get it. That's why they're falling but falling in order. controlled. by something other. O-T-H-E-R.
The "other" is nonphysical. So is your mind.
No. The world is entirely made, including brainmind, of monads, which, for the brain mind are part physical and part nonphysical. If the physical gets damaged, it can affect the mind. and vice versa.
sorry, I'm not a psychologist or medical doctor.
No doubt it affects it all the time, as does mind the brain.
his favorite word is "uh". heard it 60 times in the first 5 minutes of the video
enlightened gootchy, gootchy goo
+enlightened My favorite phrase is, "Ya know what I'm sayin'?" I use it like he uses "uh". Does that negate everything else I have to say then? You know what I'm sayin'???
;P
Self-deception: the shoulders of the giant lie on which religion stands.
12:00
Couldn't it be that the students reasoned that you have to be tough to take on boar? And a good swimmer to catch turtles?
Religion will survive Steven. I know how you would explain how the natural world and human race came into existence, through science and evolution. Evolution explains the human existence very well, but that's all it explains. How do you explain your own very special existence. Your own existence is a singularity, extremely important to yourself. How did that happen?
Ask yourself three very simple questions
1) What happens to your existence when your body dies? (atheist answer, it will cease to exist)
2) What is the chance of you ever existing again? (atheist answer, no chance how could it)
3) What was the chance of you existing before you were born? (same situation as question 2, no chance of coming into existence, but you exist)
Religion will survive Steven.
Science will never explain your own very special (essential) existence to yourself. That singularity. It only explains the human race.
Also science can never create your own existence. What was the chance of you existing before you were born?
love youtube
It's interesting how the most brilliant of minds are atheist. This is the best explination of religious delusion ever done.
"And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, Allah is all-aware of what they do."
The Quran (10:36)
Lol, I doubt it. All religious believers believe their gods exist and all other don't and yet not one of them has any more evidence for their beliefs than any other religion...that evidence being nothing or old fiction (or in the case with the Qu'ran...ramblings of a murderer).
: - ) here i made a portrait of alah for you. enjoy!
Richard Dawkins describes shaman as manipulating people through religion; shamanism isn't a religion. Just want to point that out.
+Marco Polo I find that he actually isn't that smart among his piers
+Marco Polo
I would think that the beliefs of any individual shaman constitute a religion, as long as they have some supernatural beliefs.
Are you saying that different shamans believe different things? or something else?
thanks
ChannelMath Shamanism is a practice, a way of being. Each shaman has different ways of expression, but there is no church and there is no laymen. They are appointed by "spirits" and gain their power through that.
Shamanism itself has also evolved in the West as "core shamanism" which preys more on people for money in exchange for "spiritual favors".
so I'd call each shaman's practice a religion
ChannelMath It isn't. Shamanism is a practice much like spiritual practice while religion is an organized unit of people who believe the same thing and based on fear, not to mention the technical practices and sheer history difference between the two.
He's wrong if religion is not an adaptive fiction then why has everysociety had it?
Has it tho?
nice curls
#onegodfurther
Thank you Steven excellent program we all learning
I wish the whole world have the same imagination like yours a real positive thinking and I'll be sure that our planet will be much far advanced and farther away on technology better place helping on technology with everything but so far everything is halfway destruction just because more than half of the world is infected with negative from superstitious mind and predators that pray on people for lucrative intention with cartoon fairy tales inventions of deities that will get us nowhere
Metaphysics is bunk. The only valid propositions are mathematical statements and propositions based on experience. I have followed Pinker for about 10 years and it is a pleasure to be acquainted with his work. He, Dawkins, Dennett, and the rest of the Brights are a welcome antidote to much intellectual rubbish that prevails. If we make the mistake of conferring religion upon our AI robots they will become as insipid as our modern day woo woo artists. (All we need is a pack of AI Jerry Falwells.) Rather a pack of AI Richard Feynmans any day.
what a load of aggressive assumptions with a pre-meditated approach to religious ideas