Figuring Out Religion

[MediumTex]

When I read the book, it hit me like an anvil.

It made me realize that it's not necessary to be unhappy simply because you feel trapped by dogmatic beliefs.

It also reminded me of how important it is to reverse engineer bad situations in life to help avoid getting into them in the first place.

What about the bad situations we are unable to reverse engineer? What about the really, really bad stuff that just happens to some people through absolutely no fault of their own?

How does a person who believes that religion is just a pragmatic self-help program--a warm, fuzzy bedtime story with no objective reality--come to terms with that?

The only meaningful (i.e., not nihilistic) explanation I've seen regarding bad things often happening to good people is that God in His sovereignty uses all things--both good and bad, including the effects of sin and human free will--to somehow work together to accomplish His ultimate plan. And in that view, everything that happens in our lives--good and bad--can be seen as a type of divine trial by fire that either consumes us or purifies us like gold, depending on how we spiritually receive it:

In the whole land, declares the Lord,
    two thirds shall be cut off and perish,
    and one third shall be left alive.
And I will put this third into the fire,
    and refine them as one refines silver,
    and test them as gold is tested.
They will call upon my name,
    and I will answer them.
I will say, ‘They are my people’;
    and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’(Zechariah 13:8-9, ESV)

I don't think that it's that complicated.

I think that unfortunately the world can just sometimes be a harsh place to both individual creatures (like ourselves), as well as to entire species (like our own), and there isn't really any "message" to be teased out of these unfortunate events.  They just happen, in the same way that it just happened that life on this planet included human beings.  God may have been behind all of this (in which case he would be behind the bad things that happen as well), but the only real evidence we have for this is based upon the narratives that we have ourselves projected and imposed upon a chaotic world.

If anyone has a grievance against God for bad things happening to good people, it would probably be the Neanderthals.  If God is in control of everything, I would say that the Neanderthals would have had reason to be very disappointed in God's plan for them.  It's easy to rationalize the extinction of an animal with no self-awareness, but when we start talking about a bipedal mammal with a brain larger than our own, it's less easy to rationalize them being wiped off the face of the earth if a kind and loving supreme being is in control of everything.

I think that one can see the world as an essentially chaotic and occasionally very "unfair" place without drifting inescapably toward nihilism.  I think that one's tendency toward nihilism says more about them than the nature of the world.  Some of the most cheerful and optimistic people you will ever meet have endured terrible tragedies along the way.  OTOH, some of the most gloomy people really don't have that much to be gloomy about.

***

So yeah, you could say that I was full of rage.  I was angry.  My whole species got wiped out, and those f-in Cro-Magnons never missed an opportunity to rub it in, especially when they would remind us that God made them in his image, and that we were just an evolutionary glitch in God's plan for them.  But here's the thing: I realized one day that I didn't have to let that define me.  I didn't have to let the knowledge get me down that my Cro-Magnon-descended friends and neighbors have a shot at immortality, while I just get to feed the worms.  So first I started attending motivational seminars and programs, and pretty soon I found that I had my own inspirational message to share, and that's what I've been doing for the past four years, and what can I say, I visualized success and I eventually became a magnet for that success.  And here's the thing: If I can do it, you can do it too.

[doodle]

Well, as a nihilist I don't believe in "gods plan" mostly cause I don't think nature has a plan. Natural selection (the process that created humans) is in fact the definition of "no plan"...it's a binary selection process of live/die/live/die repeated over and over again. I know that some people have the audacity to believe that we were created in Gods image and that somehow we have been placed here for a purpose....if that keeps you warm and cozy at night, then I envy you but I just cannot believe in that fairy tale when ALL the scientific evidence so heavily points out that this isn't the case. Compared to the age of our already fairly young planet, we humans have been around for an unbelievably short amount of time. I think if one were to condense the age of the planet into one calendar year, humans wouldn't appear on the scene until the last seconds of the last day of that year...like December 31st at 11:59:58 pm. There is also a very good chance that we won't be around in a million or so years, long since having been wiped out by a massive asteroid collision, or the eruption of a super volcano like that which is currently bubbling under Yellowstone park. And this wouldn't be anything new either....dozens of human species (one of which was the Neanderthal) that coexisted with us have already been gone into extinction. I guess these non-Homo sapiens human type species weren't part of "gods plan"?

I think the Universe or potentially the "multiverse" is an unbelievably fascinating and incomprehensibly vast place and I am grateful to be a sentient being that has the ability to observe it or experience it (albeit in a very limited manner through my five senses and feeble brain.) I guess what presently has me in a funk is that I am having trouble participating in the tired and worn out human games that we play to keep ourselves occupied and distracted from the fact that we are hurtling around the solar system on a spinning rock in the middle of a vast galaxy that is one of billions of other galaxies in what is most likely an infinite number of universes. I think this fact might be acknowledged by some people but not really felt. I personally am having trouble going back to intensely debating the outcome of football games or political elections or what happened to Sally and Joes relationship and pretending like they matter. I was born with the biological need to be social, yet the reality of our situation in this universe just makes me want to sit there paralyzed in awe with my mouth agape. I think I am just coming to terms with immensity that surrounds me and realizing for the first time how very, very, very little I am.

[Mountaineer]

Well, as a nihilist I don't believe in "gods plan" mostly cause I don't think nature has a plan. Natural selection (the process that created humans) is in fact the definition of "no plan"...it's a binary selection process of live/die/live/die repeated over and over again. I know that some people have the audacity to believe that we were created in Gods image and that somehow we have been placed here for a purpose....if that keeps you warm and cozy at night, then I envy you but I just cannot believe in that fairy tale when ALL the scientific evidence so heavily points out that this isn't the case. Compared to the age of our already fairly young planet, we humans have been around for an unbelievably short amount of time. I think if one were to condense the age of the planet into one calendar year, humans wouldn't appear on the scene until the last seconds of the last day of that year...like December 31st at 11:59:58 pm. There is also a very good chance that we won't be around in a million or so years, long since having been wiped out by a massive asteroid collision, or the eruption of a super volcano like that which is currently bubbling under Yellowstone park. And this wouldn't be anything new either....dozens of human species (one of which was the Neanderthal) that coexisted with us have already been gone into extinction. I guess these non-Homo sapiens human type species weren't part of "gods plan"?

I think the Universe or potentially the "multiverse" is an unbelievably fascinating and incomprehensibly vast place and I am grateful to be a sentient being that has the ability to observe it or experience it (albeit in a very limited manner through my five senses and feeble brain.) I guess what presently has me in a funk is that I am having trouble participating in the tired and worn out human games that we play to keep ourselves occupied and distracted from the fact that we are hurtling around the solar system on a spinning rock in the middle of a vast galaxy that is one of billions of other galaxies in what is most likely an infinite number of universes. I think this fact might be acknowledged by some people but not really felt. I personally am having trouble going back to intensely debating the outcome of football games or political elections or what happened to Sally and Joes relationship and pretending like they matter. I was born with the biological need to be social, yet the reality of our situation in this universe just makes me want to sit there paralyzed in awe with my mouth agape. I think I am just coming to terms with immensity that surrounds me and realizing for the first time how very, very, very little I am.

Whew!  Just be glad you are not a virus pondering its smallness in relation to its host, or the earth, or the universe.  I wonder if that virus would get its "cell-view" right?  Would it base its conclusions of its "virusesness" on the unproven theory of virus evolution and be in a funk because of its home cell spinning around and around in a seemingly purposeless sea of slime?  Or would it somehow have revealed to it the real source and purpose of viruses but choose to ignore the revelation?  It may even be pondering the ultimate virus question - why do viruses die and where do viruses go when they die?  After all, who do those naysayers who preach viruses do not have consciousness think they are? 
 
... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Desert, interesting article.  Thanks for linking to it.

I've pretty much thought that there wasn't much positive to come out of the Temperance movement, and I don't think this article has changed my mind.  Although it does a pretty good job of describing how bad the situation could be, back then, as well as how bad it is today in certain segments of society.

I can certainly understand how living in such a segment would make alcohol no fun anymore.  But what I'm missing is how a third party (say, the article writer, or me) giving it up actually helps anybody with their addiction problem.

If you wear an "I heart bacon" T-shirt, I will have to assume you don't have many Muslim or Jewish friends. Likewise, if you are posting about how "Mommy needs her wine," I will assume you don't know anyone struggling with alcoholism. At best, the progressive Christian social media world appears tone-deaf to many realities at the margins of society.

Really?  We're not allowed to even mention things that we enjoy if any one of our friends doesn't partake?  This seems heading right down the path of the worst of the Temperance movement.

When we take Communion with our friends and neighbors, we use grape-flavored Kool-Aid as a symbol of Christ's blood, shed for us.

Ah yes...  One other effect of the Temperance movement: throw out 1900 years of Church tradition, personally instituted by Christ himself, and drop wine in favor of grape juice, which of course hadn't even been invented in the time of Christ.  I guess once you've dropped the doctrine of the Real Presence, it doesn't much matter.  So at your local Baptist/Presbyterian/Non-demoninational church, you can get a swig of Kool-Aid once a month, or at your local Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Lutheran church you can have the blood of Christ.  I know which one I'll take.

[Tortoise]

Far more common than addiction to alcohol is addiction to food. It's a very real addiction. Should a neighborly Christian then avoid eating delicious meals in public places since someone might be an overeater struggling with the constant temptation to eat?

Some men are addicted to lust and ogle practically every attractive woman they see, even the ones who are moderately dressed. Does that mean that women should not be allowed in public places--or perhaps only if they wear a burka--so as to avoid exciting the lust of such men? We wouldn't want to cause those men to stumble, would we?

Not causing others to stumble is best handled with nuance on a case-by-case basis. Trying to be everything to everyone--while sweet and well-meaning--is an exercise in futility.

[kka]

Well, as a nihilist I don't believe in "gods plan" mostly cause I don't think nature has a plan. Natural selection (the process that created humans) is in fact the definition of "no plan"...it's a binary selection process of live/die/live/die repeated over and over again. I know that some people have the audacity to believe that we were created in Gods image and that somehow we have been placed here for a purpose....if that keeps you warm and cozy at night, then I envy you but I just cannot believe in that fairy tale when ALL the scientific evidence so heavily points out that this isn't the case. Compared to the age of our already fairly young planet, we humans have been around for an unbelievably short amount of time. I think if one were to condense the age of the planet into one calendar year, humans wouldn't appear on the scene until the last seconds of the last day of that year...like December 31st at 11:59:58 pm. There is also a very good chance that we won't be around in a million or so years, long since having been wiped out by a massive asteroid collision, or the eruption of a super volcano like that which is currently bubbling under Yellowstone park. And this wouldn't be anything new either....dozens of human species (one of which was the Neanderthal) that coexisted with us have already been gone into extinction. I guess these non-Homo sapiens human type species weren't part of "gods plan"?

I think the Universe or potentially the "multiverse" is an unbelievably fascinating and incomprehensibly vast place and I am grateful to be a sentient being that has the ability to observe it or experience it (albeit in a very limited manner through my five senses and feeble brain.) I guess what presently has me in a funk is that I am having trouble participating in the tired and worn out human games that we play to keep ourselves occupied and distracted from the fact that we are hurtling around the solar system on a spinning rock in the middle of a vast galaxy that is one of billions of other galaxies in what is most likely an infinite number of universes. I think this fact might be acknowledged by some people but not really felt. I personally am having trouble going back to intensely debating the outcome of football games or political elections or what happened to Sally and Joes relationship and pretending like they matter. I was born with the biological need to be social, yet the reality of our situation in this universe just makes me want to sit there paralyzed in awe with my mouth agape. I think I am just coming to terms with immensity that surrounds me and realizing for the first time how very, very, very little I am.

Except that natural selection can't explain very much.

First, there is the existence of the universe -- Big Bang cosmology proved that there was a beginning to the universe (all matter, space, and time), and this has been strongly confirmed by observational evidence.  Einstein proposed adding a fudge factor to his equations of general relativity to retain the idea of a static universe, but later called this his biggest blunder when the evidence for an expanding universe mounted.  Some claim that the possibility of a multiverse avoids the need for a beginner, but that is pure speculation and there can in principle never be any evidence for other universes.  The simplest conclusion is that there actually is a transcendent creator of our universe.

Then there is the existence of life.  After decades of study, scientific theories for how the complexity and information content in the living cell could form from non-living matter by natural processes are woefully lacking.  One hundred fifty years ago, scientists thought the cell was a simple blob of jello, but discoveries since the 1950s have shown that the cell is staggeringly more complex than anything engineered by humans.  Scientists recognize this design, but many insist that it is only apparent and not real.  However, our universal experience shows that design and information only originate from a mind and that the best explanation for life is an intelligent, purposive agent.

The diversity of life also argues for an intelligent source.  Mutation and natural selection can explain variations within a species, but extrapolating this to explain the diversity of all life is not supported by the evidence.  Again, it is the information content in life -- Bill Gates correctly states that "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created" -- that must be explained.  The abrupt appearance, without intermediates, of 2/3 of the basic body plans for all animal life during the Cambrian explosion is best explained by actual, rather than apparent, design.

There is also evidence for the design and uniqueness of humans -- the alleged australopithecene ancestors are very different, the homo genus appears suddenly and without transitional fossils, and later homo forms are all similar to the first.  Of all living things, only humans think abstractly, ponder our origins and destiny, make moral judgements, and seek purpose.

Some people believe that the universe created itself, the complexity and intelligence of human life formed from purposeless, non-living matter, and natural selection can explain the diversity of life, but I cannot believe in that fairy tale when the scientific evidence refutes it.

Yes, humanity and our place in it seems small and insignificant when compared to the size of the universe, but scientific discovery demonstrates that our universe must be just like it is for human life to even be possible for this brief instant in cosmic history -- almost as if it was designed with us in mind.

http://tinyurl.com/lrcz73a

[Tortoise]

Tortoise, I agree with your basic point.  But you raised another topic in the process ... "food addiction."  Is that real?  I mean, I suppose we're all addicted to food in the sense that we'll die if we don't eat it, but do you think there is such a thing as a food addiction?  How could one tell whether they were afflicted?  Would there be a BMI threshold above which I could claim food addiction?

Yes, I think food addiction is real. It's listed in the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on addiction.

Needing something to physically survive isn't the definition of addiction. Rather, addiction is the "continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences, or a neurological impairment leading to such behaviors." So I'm primarily thinking of people who continually eat far more than they need, despite the presence of an adverse consequence (obesity and its attendant health issues). Obesity isn't always caused by food addiction, but it often is.

[Tortoise]

Except that natural selection can't explain very much.

[...]

Good points regarding evolution vs. creation, kka. I don't know if this question has been posed yet in this thread, but is it possible for a Christian to believe in the idea that humans evolved from lower life forms through God's creative influence?

From a Biblical perspective, I don't think it is. And my argument actually has nothing to do with a literal interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis. It has to do with the concept of sin and the fall of man.

Sin and the fall of man is not just a tangential topic that makes a brief appearance in Genesis and goes away. It's absolutely central throughout the Bible and is mentioned repeatedly as the reason for the existence of death in this world. Sin is the whole reason why Christ had to bring Himself to us as the sacrificial Lamb of God.

If sin is real and is the cause of all death, then how can evolution from lower to higher life forms--which requires death as an integral part of the process--apply to any life form, let alone humans? If a Christian believes in both evolution and the fall, then at what point in evolution did the fall occur? And how did evolution occur prior to that point if death didn't exist yet? Evolution without any death implies exponential population growth, which in only a handful of generations leads to... well, a practically infinite amount of life occupying a practically infinite expanse of space.

[Mountaineer]

Except that natural selection can't explain very much.

[...]

Good points regarding evolution vs. creation, kka. I don't know if this question has been posed yet in this thread, but is it possible for a Christian to believe in the idea that humans evolved from lower life forms through God's creative influence?

From a Biblical perspective, I don't think it is. And my argument actually has nothing to do with a literal interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis. It has to do with the concept of sin and the fall of man.

Sin and the fall of man is not just a tangential topic that makes a brief appearance in Genesis and goes away. It's absolutely central throughout the Bible and is mentioned repeatedly as the reason for the existence of death in this world. Sin is the whole reason why Christ had to bring Himself to us as the sacrificial Lamb of God.

If sin is real and is the cause of all death, then how can evolution from lower to higher life forms--which requires death as an integral part of the process--apply to any life form, let alone humans? If a Christian believes in both evolution and the fall, then at what point in evolution did the fall occur? And how did evolution occur prior to that point if death didn't exist yet? Evolution without any death implies exponential population growth, which in only a handful of generations leads to... well, a practically infinite amount of life occupying a practically infinite expanse of space.

Here is a Master of Sacred Theology thesis that may interest some.  It is a long read, dealing with Darwinism.  Hopefully, the link will work; I've not tried to post something like this before.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l48uf89b05og5 ... Thesis.pdf

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Some musings on this beautiful Memorial Day:

The book, "On Being a Theologian of the Cross" is a commentary on the Heidleberg Disputation of 1518 ... you may wish to read the 28 theses, they are short and pithy but very deep, or read the book:

http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php

Book available at Amazon, paperback or Kindle:  "On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518"
by Gerhard O. Forde (Author)

As I have mentioned previously, according to God's Word, Christians are not to judge other people (that is God's work). However, we are all human and as such we sin. (Jesus was the only non-sinning human but he was fully God and fully human and unique.) Some of us sin by judging others, some of us lie, steal, commit sexual imorality, are hypocrites, are wishy-washy in our faith or have none, blame others for our condition, raise man to the level of God, etc. etc. etc. but the point is we all sin ... a consequence of the curse (many call it the fall of man). The "cross" is the only way out of this mess we are all in.

The book I referenced presents a discussion of the "theology of the cross" vs. the "theology of glory". Many, dare I say most, Christians that I know are pursuing the theology of glory (much focus on doing good works and gaining favor with God); that is not surprising given that we live in a culture that encourages us to be "good" people and promotes relativism vs. absolutism (e.g. anything goes, I'm OK, you're OK, do your own thing, tolerate all, to each his own, etc.). Good works are great for this age and do benefit others in a material/physical sense but you "cannot work your way to heaven" as the saying goes; the larger point is what best prepares you for the eternal age ... that is why the theology of the cross is so essential to understand ... even if you end up rejecting it.

A quote from the referenced book: "Those so addicted to self that they misuse the law of God as a defense against God will not likely be improved by better instruction or pious optimism. Current religiosity and ethics, especially those that replace the story of the cross with demands for social reform, have produced many a theology of glory. It still flourishes along with its attendant despair. There is no cure through the law." And another: "What God finally wants is for us to do what the law points to but can't accomplish: the freedom, joy, and spontaneity of faith, hope, and love."

So, basically it comes down to the Word of God is not primarily about a moral code (although the Bible contains the best moral code ever conceived), it is about the cross. The whole Bible relates story after story of how screwed up we humans are after the curse and points toward the cross as the only means of salvation.

Kant is very heavy into the supremacy of man as were many during the "Enlightenment". Unfortunately, "reason" gets one only so far. There are some things that cannot be explained by reason, perhaps such as a child learning to talk or man's thirst for the spiritual as many of us recognize there is something bigger than us.

The cliche "What would Jesus do?" is another indication "the theology of glory" is alive and well. We all know what Jesus would do ... He was God and thus could not sin, and, He already did it! - he saved all who believe. Those who ask WWJD are just expounding a "works" theology or trying to guilt others into the asker's way of seeing the world.

I do feel this is a very difficult subject to have a meaningful dialog about via the internet; it is easy to share words, much harder to convey thoughts. Best wishes for all of us to continue to explore "what is the meaning of life", or, "how can I make a difference", or, "figuring out religion" type questions.

... Mountaineer, a simultaneous sinner and a saint.

[MachineGhost]

One of your favorite quotes, I see. Every time you post it, I want to see that movie again.

What movie is it?

[MachineGhost]

But don't you see you are making assumptions that have led you to your conundrum?  Why do you take it on faith you evolved from protoplasmic slime?  I do not think that has been proven, just a hypothesis.  Why do you latch on to that "in faith" versus any other explanation of where you came from?  At least my "faith" is based upon rather firm empirical evidence, that in my humble opinion is far more "factual" than yours.  I puzzle over how those of professed little faith, in reality display so much faith via their comments.

Seriously?  You're going to discount all the circumstantial evidence at worst for evolution in favor of stories written by human beings long after the alleged deed?  At what point will you acknowledge the evidence of the historical Jesus that contradicts the fictitious Jesus that you believe has "rather firm empirical evidence"?!!  Wow, that's seriously delusional.  So in my view, you are guilty of the exact same tail wagging the dog expectations as doodle is.  Same coin; different side.

[MachineGhost]

Maybe it's depression but then why would I still be able to function effectively and have energy to do all the things I do?

Depression isn't a black and white situation but a greyscale.  You are very likely nutritionally and/or hormonally imbalanced.  I've found its really hard to feel optimistic about anything when the brain is not provided optimal support.  Even a car will run on crappy gasoline, but the ride won't be smooth.

[MachineGhost]

Rather, it's the combination of everything that makes up the idea of a person named doodle (Or Albert J. Pastaface, or whatever your real name is). It's not altogether unlike how a corporation can continue to exist even after changing leadership, firing all the employees and replacing them with different ones, moving to a new building, and changing industries. The corporation represents a shell holding all of its components, in the same way that you represent a shell holding your cells, ideas, beliefs, and memories. Even if all of those things change, the shell that holds them remains in existence until all of the components are destroyed all at once (i.e. death).

It sounds like you're thinking of corporate culture, which doodle seems to be lacking the equivalent of.  He needs a Primary Objective Function that isn't based on negativity, emptiness or lack of love.

[MachineGhost]

There is also evidence for the design and uniqueness of humans -- the alleged australopithecene ancestors are very different, the homo genus appears suddenly and without transitional fossils, and later homo forms are all similar to the first.  Of all living things, only humans think abstractly, ponder our origins and destiny, make moral judgements, and seek purpose.

Some people believe that the universe created itself, the complexity and intelligence of human life formed from purposeless, non-living matter, and natural selection can explain the diversity of life, but I cannot believe in that fairy tale when the scientific evidence refutes it.

Omission of evidence is not proof of the opposite; especially considering how hard it is to find fossils.  As that saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Evolution is hardly the extraordinary claim.  The reality of its effects is all around you.

And there's nothing special about homo sapiens that evolution cannot explain.  Being the first with certain unique features doesn't mean we're the final apex.  Though, I guess if you believe that the alien greys are time traveling humans from the future, it's all downhill from here!

It used to be fashionable that animals had no emotions because it supported religious human-centric hubris mysticism; now that's finally acknowledged as B.S. and being rapidly overturned.  What next to go?

[MachineGhost]

Good points regarding evolution vs. creation, kka. I don't know if this question has been posed yet in this thread, but is it possible for a Christian to believe in the idea that humans evolved from lower life forms through God's creative influence?

From a Biblical perspective, I don't think it is. And my argument actually has nothing to do with a literal interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis. It has to do with the concept of sin and the fall of man.

There you go.  Eventually, everyone has to choose whether to believe in evidence or fiction without conflating the two.  Most people are going to choose the latter due to a huge number of reasons that I'm sure has been elucidated in this thread already.  My core problem isn't people believing in the Light Bulb (well, until they become righteous), so much as they're simply unaware of the many neurological biases pushing them into that direction.  Unfortunately, it has knock-on effects.

[ns3]

My core problem isn't people believing in the Light Bulb (well, until they become righteous), so much as they're simply unaware of the many neurological biases pushing them into that direction. 

Have you ever heard a good theory about where the "neurological biases" come from. I can't think of any evolutionary benefit for it off-hand but I'm not well read on the subject.

[MachineGhost]

Have you ever heard a good theory about where the "neurological biases" come from. I can't think of any evolutionary benefit for it off-hand but I'm not well read on the subject.

Those behavioral traits that benefited survival, co-operation and altruism at expense of death, ostracism and selfishness got hardwired through natural selection.  What many don't understand is it does not take thousands of years to express changes; epigenetic heritability can happen within a generation.  Epigenetic heritability is passed down through the offspring up to three generations removed (so far).  Even now, the physical brain has been found to still be evolving compared to a decade or two ago; its not static.  Life (especially humans) is not fixed and immutable at some apex; evolution is still occuring in real-time.

And DNA is nothing mystical.  It's just four base letters.  Recently, two new base letters were artificially synthesized in the lab and inserted along the with the four natural base letters, creating a synthetic lifeform.

[ns3]

Have you ever heard a good theory about where the "neurological biases" come from. I can't think of any evolutionary benefit for it off-hand but I'm not well read on the subject.

Those behavioral traits that benefited survival at expense of death got hardwired through natural selection.  What many don't understand is it does not take thousands of years to express changes; epigenetic heritability can happen within a generation.  Both traditional genetic and epigenetic heritability are passed down through the offspring up to three generations removed.  Even now, the physical brain has been found to still be evolving compared to a decade or two ago; its not static.  We're not fixed and immutable at some apex; evolution is still occuring.

I noticed that you first responded with the one word answer "survival" which struck me as being not much different than the answer of "God".
So how does a neurological bias that pre-disposes one to believe in God (assuming that is what you are saying), benefit survival? That was my question.

[MachineGhost]

I noticed that you first responded with the one word answer "survival" which struck me as being not much different than the answer of "God".
So how does a neurological bias that pre-disposes one to believe in God (assuming that is what you are saying), benefit survival? That was my question.

Yes, but then I expanded on it as I felt it was too shallow.  There is a region in the brain that predisposes people to believe in the "God" concept.  It's likely to be related to co-operation since it promotes in-group social cohesion (but also wars against out-groups).  Same as with the "Democrat" and "Republican" brain regions.  And sexuality.  Keep in mind these are not black or white toggles, but a greyscale of permutations.  People like me and PS (KShartle?) are in the "middle" of the political greyscale, so we're not prone to following into "extremist" group delusions and justifying it with whatever is handy.  So obviously, we could not survive in Absolutist non-modern times unless we shaped up and conformed!  That's whats so great and wonderful about the lifeforce; no matter how much you apocalyptically beat it-suppress it-torture it-eradicate it, it will always find a way of re-expressing and re-asserting itself through the genes and epigenetics.

[ns3]

There is a region in the brain that predisposes people to believe in the "God" concept.  It's likely to be related to co-operation since it promotes in-group social cohesion (but also wars against out-groups).

So it's like two cavemen get together and realize they need to co-operate in order to survive. They agree to make a pact between them but they have no witness and no third party to enforce the agreement so one of them points up in the sky and says "God is our witness".

Could be, but it sounds no more or less plausible to me than the idea that God caused the predisposition in our brains.

[Mountaineer]

Good article on morals vs. moralism.

... Mountaineer

Moralism of the right & moralism of the left
June 2, 2014 By Gene Veith

United Methodists are considering whether or not to have an amicable split, so as to accommodate both sides of the moral debates that the denomination is struggling with.  As I know from personal and family experience, Methodists have always had a strong emphasis on morality.  It certainly has an evangelistic strain, with its roots in the Wesleyan revivals, but its moral focus can tend to moralism, an emphasis on moral rectitude that overshadows the forgiveness of Christ.

The prospect of a Methodist split shows what is happening across many denominations.  There is a moralism of the right, fixating on traditional sexual morality, personal vices, and family values.  And there is a moralism of the left, fixating on “social justice,”? care for the poor, and political liberalism.  (Note that it is possible to uphold what is “moral”? without succumbing to “moralism.”?)

But what–or, rather, Who–is often missing in moralistic churches of both the right and the left is Christ.  The right often relegates Him to the moment of conversion, whereupon Christians can then get to the real business of regulating their behavior.  The left reduces Him to a political liberal like themselves.  Both treat Him mainly as an example, rather than as Savior, Redeemer, and Sacrifice.

From  Amicable breakup of UMC needed, pastor group says [Methodist News Service].:

DALLAS (UMNS) — A group of United Methodist pastors and theologians is calling for an amicable split of the denomination, saying differences over homosexuality and other issues are irreconcilable.
The group describes itself as traditionalist and says its ranks include more than 80 members, including pastors of some of the larger United Methodist congregations.
“Are we not at a point where we can acknowledge, after years of dialogue and debate, the depth of our differences and together, progressives and traditionalists, give each other the freedom to pursue our understanding of God’s will?”? the group said in its statement.
The group makes clear its support for the church’s current official positions on homosexuality, including that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but says its disagreements with “progressives”? go farther, including to whether the Bible is the infallible word of God.
“I don’t think we will ever agree on the issues that deeply divide us,”? said the Rev. Chuck Savage, president of the Georgia United Methodist Foundation, in a press release accompanying the statement. “However, it is my hope that we will agree on a plan of separation that will serve both traditionalists and progressives well. My opinion is that if we can reach agreement on such a plan both progressives and traditionalists will emerge stronger.”?
Talk of a breakup of the United Methodist Church is not new, and discussions at the 2004 General Conference led to passage of a unity resolution.
But the Rev. Tom Harrison, part of the group releasing the new statement, said recent clergy defiance of church law by performing same-sex unions convinced him that going forward as one denomination isn’t realistic.
“You can’t play that way,”? said Harrison, pastor of Asbury United Methodist Church in Tulsa, Okla., in a phone interview. “It’s chaos. My argument really is rooted in the violation of our covenant together, the Book of Discipline.”?

[Mountaineer]

This might be of interest to the Cosmos fans:  https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/b ... -a-theory/

"When it was first introduced, the “big bang”? was sometimes an object of ridicule. But over the past decades, it has proven to be quite pliable, morphing to adapt to each new problem. Are these changes true improvements, or just rescuing devices?"

Or this podcast:  http://issuesetc.org/2014/06/03/2-a-rev ... kner-6314/


Both references above by:
Dr. Danny Faulkner joined the staff of Answers in Genesis after 26 years as professor of physics and astronomy at the University of South Carolina Lancaster. He has written numerous articles in astronomical journals, and he is the author of Universe by Design.

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

Scientists might not have all the correct answers about the origins of the universe....but I am absolutely certain that religion doesn't have the answers either.

[Mountaineer]

Scientists might not have all the correct answers about the origins of the universe....but I am absolutely certain that religion doesn't have the answers either.

Got to have faith, baby, faith!  Some things, particularly the most important, just cannot be proven. 

... Mountaineer