Religious Belief, Drug Addiction, Rationalization, believing your own lies

[NAO]

I recently saw an amazing display of genuine religious belief from a very intelligent, highly educated person. This seems so odd to me. It seems quite obvious to me that if any person examines the claims of any religion with genuine honesty it does not take very much at all to see right through them, and to see them as being false and contrived. When I see an intelligent person who still believes in these transparent myths, it is all the more befuddling.

I was talking about this with a friend who is a recovering cocaine addict that has been abstinent for 9 years. She believes in a god, and the basic narrative of the Bible, but was also astounded by the degree of deep belief we saw in this person.

I told her that I would LIKE to believe that stuff, because it would make me feel better about so many things, but that I could just could not because it is plainly not true. I used an example: I asked her if someone told her they would give her $100 million if she believed - REALLY BELIEVED - not just said she believed - but really believed - that the moon was made of green cheese, she could not do it, even though it would make her life so much better. I said, "you just can't believe something which you KNOW is NOT true".

At this point she explained how coke addicts are quite capable of believing their own lies. They will undergo massive, irrational transformations of their belief systems to justify their use and to justify increased use. She said that the mechanism was quite real, and still operative in her, and that if I really had $100 million, she could honestly believe the moon was made of green cheese.

So I am now wondering if this is the mechanism by which people are able to ignore all the evidence that their religions are false and continued to believe things that seemed ludicrous and antiquated centuries ago.

[Az]

1. Compartmentalization

Not claiming this is the case for everyone. But amongst scientists that believe there is a condition they come by that is called compartmentalization. Their brain seperates the parts of their life that differ with each other too greatly to reconcile. It does not attempt to resolve the conflicts as too much of the mind has become developed around each activity. The stress of colapsing one side or the other would be too catostrophic so the mind avoids such entanglements.

Keep in mind also that the issue is not an easy one to rectify. The debate has been going on for millenia and some of the greatest minds that have ever existed have pondered it. And the questions still exist in many minds to this day.

Being smart does not automatically make one an atheist. Being a moron does not automatically make one a theist. An entire life of experience goes into the process. And one cannot force the mind to believe things it doesn't and conversely cannot be made to not believe things it does. Belief comes about from a constant struggle in the mind. An emotional struggle. Not a logical one.

Our experiences are recorded by the mind as emotional experiences. The stronger the relevance to us the stronger the emotion. The stronger the emotion the more weight the brain records them as. As we grow we learn in this way. Eventually we collect enough experience to form our own views of the world around us. The explanations for things taught to us repeatedly recieve greater emotional backing. And in this way we become our own individual collection of beliefs.

We constantly test these beliefs with new experiences. If the new experience does not fit our model of the world our mind will discard it if the emotional weight of it does not overcome our existing beliefs resisting it. Sometimes ideas can tie into some of our beliefs but be rejected by others. Whichever side carries more emotional weight determines what our mind catalogs it as. Accepted fact or rejected idea.

If there are enough ties to accepted ideas a new idea can topple a dominant belief. But this is not a comfortable thing. It can be quite stressful. The mind suddenly finds itself scrambling to form a new world view. Identity is threatened. All manner of ways are sought to deal with such a crisis of faith. The mind will try to right itself and may yet purge the threatening data. It may lead to a split which causes the mind to walk the divided path of a compartmentalized mind. Or it may accept the new information as true and attempt to form a new path saving what it can of the old beliefs that still fit and letting go of the rest.

[NAO]

2. It is not so much a theism/atheism thing as a revealed religion thing

I don't think being intelligent and more importantly, honest, necessitates atheism, but I think it does require a rejection of all the revealed religions.

Each one has many specific issues that if honestly faced will be found to be irrational and absurd.

Then there is the general critique of revealed religion made by Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason which applies as well to Mormonism, which was founded decades after the book was written as it does to Christianity or Islam.

I went through the crisis of faith over 20 years ago. I felt my identity threatened. I also felt all of my personal and professional relationships threatened. The meaning and purpose of my life was on the line. But in the end I had to be honest. The truth is better than error, no matter what the cost.

There is a wonderful book consisting of personal accounts of this type of thing called "Leaving the Fold" edited by Edward Babinski. It's a delightful read, and a real eye opener on how people de-convert.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Richard Dawkins on faith, evolution and religious sensibilities:

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1

And one of my personal favourites:

Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long.
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted in Natalie Angier, "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist," New York Times Magazine, January 14, 2001

[Old Mouse]

3. In the future please post this in the atheist group

it is intolerant and inflammatory.

[Az]

4. It seems to be an honest question

Many people raised outside of religious environments look at the practices and beliefs of the more dogmatic denominations with a level of increduality. Because they were not brought up in such beliefs the leap from their sense of reason to those of the believers can often seem to be a chasm.

Thus when they find themself exposed to someone they believe to be intelligent who also has beliefs that are so utterly foreign to them it can be boggling. Imagine if you found yourself discussing matters with a Muslim that seemed to be extremely intelligent only to find him insisting that his wife remain covered head to toe, silent, and not allowed to go into public without his permission. You would wonder how such an intelligent person could condone such behaviour.

It is not intolerant. It is an honest expression of wonder expressed from someone that simply does not understand.

[Old Mouse]

5. Really?

So you honestly believe this statement is respectful and not insulting to another's faith? You really think a person of faith would not feel this to be degrading of their beliefs?

"...So I am now wondering if this is the mechanism by which people are able to ignore all the evidence that their religions are false and continued to believe things that seemed ludicrous and antiquated centuries ago..."

Ignorance of ones own intolerance is no excuse. It is incredulous to accept one claiming the viewpoint of higher intelligence could be in such denial of their own denigration of others.

This was not merely "wonder";this was "wonder why they could be so stupid"

Please, take this to the atheist group.

[Az]

6. I don't believe it is worded as gentlely as it could be

But I also do not believe the individual was saying these things out of malice. I believe it represents their honest ignorance of the situation.

Things that seem planely obvious to them are accepted by others. Most people believe that others see things with the a clarity approaching their own. They believe the things the believe are true. As a result when they see someone observing the same things as them and coming to a completely different conclusion they can be stumped as how this can be.

When I deal with a theist that has never heard of or met an atheist before (and yes they exist) I am bombarded by numerous questions that could easily be taken by me as insulting. I recognise in them the fact that they are simply ignorant of the matter. We are all ignorant of things. If they have never been exposed to something how could it be any other way? Atheists can have the same sort of situation. The can be ignorant just as well. It is the job of those who are not ignorant of a situation to turn the other cheek and try to educate the individual on the subject despite their unintentional faux pas.

[Old Mouse]

13. This is no mere faux pas

Understanding is built upon listening and learning what others believe... but his post, and the post of many atheists of late, have not been asking others to explain the inconstancies or paradoxes of their faith. They have been presumptuous declarations of what they have decided others faith actually IS. That is not an attempt at understanding, it is prejudice. I am being repeatedly told that atheism is complex, and that people of faith don't or can't understand it, but faith of any sort is simple and ignorant.

Everyone believes what they believe is true. That's why you cannot make statements that someones else's faith is stupid. If this person you defend is for some reason incapable of understanding the concept of non-denominational, weather or not it appears valid, he should recluse himself from the situations these discussions occur - not actively seek them.

There are other methods of research - ones that look less like intolerant evangelism - available if he wants to learn of global religious philosophies.

[Az]

14. Perhaps you are misunderstanding

Yes atheism is complex. But it certainly can be understood by a believer. It just requires a bit of effort. Same is true for nonbelievers of believers. Both are complex and can be understood if you apply some effort.

But understanding does not come instantly. Both sides are going to express things how they see them and over time hopefully some understanding can be had. Toes are going to be stepped on. While you call for tolerance on our side we call for tolerance on your side.

Really, the best advice I can give is to stop looking for the fight and look for the path to peace and understanding. You can always find a fight if you want to. Peace and understanding are a bit more difficult.

[Old Mouse]

15. Let me try again -

In recent years America's multi-culturalism has created an environment of tolerance not seen since before the dark ages. Of course bigotry and prejudice are still at unacceptable levels, but you can turn on your television or radio at almost any time of day and find people of different races and religions in conversations on faith.

Christians in all of it's many variations, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - they have all learned how to speak to one another without insulting the other's faith. They have learned how to speak respectfully, avoiding terms of degradation or insult despite the obvious contradictions of mythos. It takes effort to hold one's own beliefs on the validity of another's faith in check, but that is what active conscious participation is about.

The atheists don't get a free pass. They need to extend the effort of civility just as the rest of us do. We are all learning about our and other's faith, but no one particular theism or lack of theism allows them to designate someone else's faith as "stupid" "superstition" or "ignorance"

[Az]

17. They not only do not get a pass they don't get an invitation either

Yes the Abrahamic faiths have managed to come together in groups in order to fight their common foes. Its a wonderful thing. But it does not extend beyond much more than just their circle.

An example. Unitarian Universalists are the remnants of two old branches of Christianity. But their modern practice places them well outside the sphere typically associated with Christianity these days. Because of their nondogmatic approach they are not invited to interdemonational events (ie choirs, meetings, etc).

The same is true of the Atheists. In fact it is arguable that the reason the monotheistic faiths have come together is to collectively face the challenges brought by modern society. When faced with a common enemy they band together.

It would be marvelous if the atheists could be invited to such discussions. But it is only relatively recently in our history that we have even been able to speak openly without fear of violent retribution(and it still exists). It is fortunate for us that we blend in to the society so well. The only way we are found out is if we open our mouth as everyone else has the right to.

[Old Mouse]

20. Search on the dali lama and rabbis

and you'll see it's not a question of Abrahamic faiths.

These diverse and sometimes violently opposed religions have evolved framework that allows for dissuasion through avoidance of conflicting belief.

I have never seen, heard or read of anyone complaining about Atheists' lack of belief, only the lack of diplomacy.

[Az]

21. A technical point

Judaism is in fact an Abrahamic religion.

Diplomacy comes with acknowledgement and practice. We are not acknowledged in this society. Speaking our mind leads to retribution. We learn from how we are treated. We take the notion of treating others as we would have them treat us as a two way street.

[Old Mouse]

27. that's why i juxtaposed Judaism with Buddhism

Diplomacy is a personal discipline. You for example, practice it, and on these boards I see you receive a lot of (deserved) respect for your calm and respectful tone.

All organizations, religious and otherwise, must self-promote. The modern world is run on marketing and image, no matter the political or social agenda. Atheists cannot blame others for their perceived image, or lack of image.

[Az]

28. I have to take issue with this

Its true that marketting plays a major roll in modern society. It doesn't make it right or fair. If a marketting campaign was initiated to defame people because of the color of their skin the society would rise up and demand action. The government would smack such a campaign down with barely a second thought.

Atheists are not organized. We do not become atheists because of weekly meetings admonishing us of the damnation that awaits us should we start believing. In fact most atheists are refuges from organized religion. Thus the idea of organizing to promote their position is repellent.

This is in no way believers problem. But the fact that daily marketting to defame atheists takes place is our problem and should be something our society rejects. The fact that Pat Robertson speaks one word against gays and a flury of protest rises up indicates people are listening. But when he daily beats upon us nonbelievers there is not a peep.

Marketting works. Its very effective. I would love to see atheists gather together to promote our views. Then people would be able to clearly see the difference between secular and atheist. But we tend to loathe evangelyzing and thus we limit ourselves.

We The People does not mean just We The People that can shout louder than everyone else. Atheist marketting sucks. It doesn't mean the others can make us their boogeymonster.

[Old Mouse]

29. But I'm afraid that is the reality

whoever has superior marketing does indeed make the other party its bogeyman. That is why for all minorities or groups first line of defense is educating others and presenting an outward image.

its not right, and its not good, but branding works in conjunction with instinctive tribalization.

[Az]

31. So the question becomes

Do you strive for the furtherance of the current model or struggle towards something better?

[NAO]

30. The post was a response in kind to Evangelical Christianity

Evangelical Christians, even the kindest, most polite ones, when talking about their beliefs or evaluating the non-belief of atheists, will speak in the exact same spirit of this post.

They assume that the atheist is JUST PLAIN WRONG, they will tell the atheist that unless he accepts Jesus, he is going to BURN IN HELL. They will explain that theists of other varieties, such as followers of Islam, Judaism, or even some other brands of Christians are going to BURN IN HELL if they do not come around.

After telling the atheist this, they act shocked and offended when the atheist says, "your beliefs are mistaken, god is just pretend, the world is natural".

Which statement is more offensive?

****

...and a quote from Robert G. Ingersoll to give everyone a little refresher on the history of tolerance in the Christian Community....

from Heretics And Heresies
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/heretics_and_hericies.html

In those days the cross and rack were inseparable companions. Across the open Bible lay the sword and fagot. Not content with burning such heretics as were alive, they even tried the dead, in order that the church might rob their wives and children. The property of all heretics was confiscated, and on this account they charged the dead with being heretical -- indicted, as it were, their dust -- to the end that the church might clutch the bread of orphans. Learned divines discussed the propriety of tearing out the tongues of heretics before they were burned, and the general opinion was, that this ought to be done so that the heretics should not be able, by uttering blasphemies, to shock the Christians who were burning them. With a mixture of ferocity and Christianity, the priests insisted that heretics ought to be burned at a slow fire, giving as a reason that more time was given them for repentance.

[trotsky]

22. Would you say it might be "intolerant and inflammatory"...

to declare that today's hateful religious bigots are really atheists in disguise?

[Zhade]

24. This group is not just for believers.

Sorry, you don't get to call the shots.

And since the thread has not been moved or deleted...deal with that fact.

[NMMNG]

32. It would do no good to move it there

We have been informed we are not to utilize the A&A forum to criticize religion. Therefore anything you feel is "intolerant and inflamatory" would not be welcome there either.

[Old Mouse]

44. I hope you realize

That you are one of the only people who seems to have read what my topic asked!

Thank you for the clarification. It helps me to understand a lot of what has been going on.

Thank you very, very much.

[BiggJawn]

50. That's OK, Mousey...

Now that you "understand", I'm SURE you won't have any problem getting "Moses" to come in here and throw his stone tablets down, too, just like it happened in A&A.

"Every Knee shall Bend, Every Head shall Bow" over my dead body.

[Old Mouse]

56. actually...

Since there seems to be such a strong desire to and it seems such a cornerstone of atheistic communication to be able to freely discuss what is thought to be negative aspects of organized religion, I can't help but wonder if some sort of case could be made to allow uncensored posting within A&A.

I think it hurts us all for you not to have a forum to actively express your views.

[BiggJawn]

58. Well, thank you.

Sorry for being so snarky.
I agree, but like the fabled "flying pigs"....

[LaurenG]

7. What is it about religion or lack of religion

that scares the heck out of people? All truths can change (or be built upon) and most myths are based on partial truths. Why can't we just admit we don't know for sure and that our own faith or lack of it is a major cause of intolerance? Would any of us care if being wrong was not a "sentence" to hell. Spirit (our own or "Gods'", though I believe it is the same)is much bigger than our little minds can conceive of. We will all get where we need to be eventually. Thanks for the thought provoking post.

[Az]

8. Religion is not just an accesory

Religion is not a hair color. It has direct impact on many things.

For the believers in damnation hell is a very real threat. And compassion drives them to be concerned about their fellow human. For the nonbeliever the actions taken by religiously inspired individuals can have a direct impact on their life. Thus they see it as in their interest to limit or counter this impact.

Considering the parameters of some of the belief systems in this society I would be worried if we did not get in each other's faces. It would seem to indicate to me a collective lack of concern for humanity.

Yes we must all respect one anothers right to believe what they will. But human nature and compassion drive us to hope and work towards others appreciating the truth each of us find.

[LaurenG]

9. I think that Native Americans have an excellent grasp of

Spirituality. They honor earth and all that live upon it, have (has) died upon it and "great spirit". They aren't concerned with controlling others and believe in allowing others to learn the hard way and/or be forced out of the tribe if they refuse to learn.

I think that those that find religion offensive have more faith in themselves than those with a fearful religious outlook. Non believers don't want or need to be controlled by some dogma that doesn't match their own spirits direction.

I do think that "religion" is an accessory and that the spirit and spirituality are quite separate and different but they are not accessories. I would guess that it is "spirit" that holds the life force. I am quite sure that religion cannot save you from anything, the power of love in any of it's forms though, is a different story.

[Az]

11. Not all religions are the same

Your beliefs seem to allow you enough latitude to see wisdom in other's beliefs. But your beliefs are not the same as others. Some religions promote an exclusionary view of the world. That theirs is the only true way and that all others are in peril.

While religion may be an accesory to you to others it is everything. Some are willing to die for it and some are willing to kill for it. Such things are far more defining than an accesory.

As to the power of love it is indeed powerful. But when intertwined with strong beliefs it can be perilous. For belief can redefine the focus of love. I would welcome the love of a person who knows me for who I am. I would worry about the love of a person who does not know me but claims to love something about me defined by a belief system that I do not agree with. If it is not the person who I am that is loved then the thing being loved is completely at the whim of the belief system. If it is not my identity then I am at risk should they decided that their love of this thing defined by their belief is more important than who I am.

[LaurenG]

12. My point is very similar to yours

I do not give much credence to anyone who espouses fear. It is a measure to control others, nothing else (imo). I don't mind if others want to be scared into submission I just have a hard time buying into fear based religions (or politics for that matter, lol) myself. I personally don't need that in order to feel worthy or acceptable.

[trotsky]

10. What is it about religion that scares the heck out of people?

I dunno, maybe these kinds of things:
http://www.sts.tu-harburg.de/projects/WEL/0911/bildtafeln/Images_neu/WTC+FZ_g.jpg

[More Than A Feeling]

16. Why don't you just ask your religious intelligent friend?

Wouldn't it be better discussing this with the person whose faith you are speaking of? They would know more about their own faith and the reasons for it than a bunch of people on the internet, right?

[beam me up scottie]

18. Isn't that what internet forums are for?

NAO may be opinionated, but so are most of the other people on DU.

I have never seen him post anything hateful or insult anyone's intelligence.

His musings are really not much different than those of Richard Dawkins.


Edited to remove quotes.

[More Than A Feeling]

19. It's an honest question/suggestion.

It has nothing to do with NAO being hateful, insulting, or opinionated.

If something about his friend confused him, why not go to the source, rather than to people who can offer opinions, but don't really know NAO or his friend? Faith is such an individual thing, that perhaps real answers can only come from the person in question.

[beam me up scottie]

23. I guess I should have used the quotes

in a reply to the op.

They were more of an example of what I think NAO is getting at.

You don't seem to be offended by his op.

Sorry for the confusion.

:hi:

[onager]

26. People discussing in a discussion group?

What's the problem with that?

If I really wanted to "insult" somebody's beliefs, they wouldn't have any doubt I was doing so.

And I don't mean to insult anyone with this, but I sure am tired of reading Politically Correct, Campfire Girl versions Of American History:

(American Indians) aren't concerned with controlling others...

Really? This is from a website WRITTEN by a Lakota Sioux: http://www.lakhota.com/stories/story.history.htm

In the mid-18th cent., having driven the Cheyenne and Kiowa out of the Black Hills, the Sioux inhabited the Northern Great Plains...

Being an Evil Anti-Spiritual Western Materialist myself, I must gleefully note that the Lakota dominated their neighbors by mastering two key pieces of Evil Western Technology--horses (acquired from the Spanish) and firearms (from French-Canadian traders).

That's exactly why Custer & Co. never had any trouble recruiting Indian scouts. Many tribes had long-standing grudges against each other, usually arising from disputes about who would "control" whom.

[LaurenG]

34. Ok but now we are back to those practicing

survival and power mongering and not spirituality. You can find negative info on anyone or any group. This doesn't take away from the fact that before western civilization "struck" those who honored the earth spiritually were not trying to force anyone to accept any diety and if they were it makes them just as wrong as any one of us who would try to force everyone to believe as we do. It was a given in their society that something "breathed" them. Definitions most certainly get in the way when speaking about intangibles. I don't care what you call it, there is a force that keeps you living and who knows for certain what it is or what to call it. Energy can change form but it cannot be annihilated. That is what the Native Americans knew. The rest is just never going to be agreed upon, this of course is only my opinion.

[NAO]

33. The believer is a client and a critical source of revenue

for my company.

I'd really like to ask him, in a very non-inflammatory way, but with Christians I just don't know what to expect or whether they will flip out and decide to give their business to "brothers in Christ" rather than an "unbeliever".

It would have a direct, major, negative financial impact on several families if we lost this client, so even though I am very curious, I'm going to keep my mouth shut.

It's a sad commentary on our society when People of Reason cannot speak openly of their unbelief without fear of repercussions that would hurt their families, but that's how things are in the United States these days.

[justme1961]

35. Because there isn't any evidence that their religion is false.

A religion may believe in something that is improbable, but since religion is based in faith:

FAITH: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

then it is not falsifiable. In short: the attempt to disprove faith by scientific methods is just as falacious as the attempt to disprove scientific theories by faith.

You believe in human rights, yes? But human rights are an article of faith. A pure atheist is left with a very difficult row to hoe when they come to their own particular articles of faith, since they can't fall back on: "Because God says so."

But of course, they still have faith.

[cosmik debris]

36. I don't know what you mean

"A pure atheist is left with a very difficult row to hoe when they come to their own particular articles of faith"

I don't have any problems like that at all.

[trotsky]

37. It isn't necessary to disprove items of faith.

They haven't been proven yet.

[Az]

38. You are raising the qualities of faith to near mythic proportions

Faith is merely a set of beliefs that the mind learns it is supposed to hold to. It is what you think you are supposed to believe. A template. And when you stray from it you feel stress and emotional turmoil.

There is nothing mystical about faith. Atheists can have faith in things just as theists can. Its not just about gods. It can be about things you have trust in.

[Old Mouse]

39. Did you mean "the bind" or "the blind"?

One is sadomasochistic, and one is dismissive. You post has a wide spread of possible meanings depending on whether or not that was a typo.

[Az]

40. Meant mind, will correct

[Old Mouse]

41. Ah!

Then neither interpretation works...

[Old Mouse]

42. True, but

most who wish to refute theism use the least sophisticated interpretation of religion for analysis.

The original Christian philosophers suspected the human mind, a finite object, was insufficient to contemplate the existence or lack of existence of a single universal energy. That it could not be proven or disproven.

[Az]

43. You should hear it from the perspective of the Romans

We have quite a number of descriptions of the early Christians from their contemporary Romans. And the descriptions of them are not entirely high minded.

The early Christian sects are described as undergoing a number of rites that seemed to be designed to enter into communion with their deity. All manner of practice are described, some not so civil. Several rounds of internecine fighting left us with the dominant sects we have today.

So I have to say that I have a different view of the ancient founders of Christianity. I also note that our understanding of things has increased as we move forward in time. The ancients looked up at the sky in ignorance and desired to know more. We look up at the sky and we do know more, but there is still more to know.

[Old Mouse]

45. I'm not talking about the "wittinesses" or like minded sects

There was some sophisticated discourse. Christianity introduced the concept of mercy without gain into western human discourse, just as the age of Axis was evolving to deal with the questions the reality a new economy brought forth. People today tend to focus on the cults of the masses as it maintains our belief in open-ended progress, but there was philosophical discussion just as sophisticated as any that transpires today, possibly more impressive as they had no body of history to draw upon.

That sophistication however, was eventually killed, hacked up into little pieces and burned.

[Az]

46. Not quite

Scientific studies show that altruism is a part of the human psyche. Christianity is not the first religion to advocate human kindness. It was a succesful example but it was not in isolation.

[Old Mouse]

47. Mercy without reward

as man moved from a perpetual sustenance seeking existence to an orderly society with predictable result available to the greater population, the rise of the merchant class, abstract concepts we take for granted were first introduced into our culture. It is only the grace of leisure that allows contemplation.

Contrary to popular misinterpretation, pre-Axis age polytheism did not address social responsibility.

[Az]

48. Read Homer

The insistance of kindness to strangers plays an intergral part of the story. Including extending hospitality to guests in the extreme.

[Old Mouse]

49. I didn't know the Odyssey dealt with the issues of the common man

I thought it was about the rich and royal who didn't live a life of day-to-day survival. Joking aside, you are speaking of custom, not a decisive and purposeful act.

Jesus introduced mercy specifically NOT as custom. You speak of charity, (technically, not the same thing) As a custom it filled a required need of society, a specific survival necessity. it was the cultural equivalent to an insurance policy. "You had nothing so i gave you a little somtin' somtin' so, now you got my back"

Mercy without gain, profit, or reward had not been introduced pre-Axis as a separate and cherished ideal.

You shouldn't take Homer out of the context of the time. Read up on the age of Axis.

[onager]

51. Thanks for the usual dripping condescension, but...

This makes no sense at all:

People today tend to focus on the cults of the masses as it maintains our belief in open-ended progress, but there was philosophical discussion just as sophisticated as any that transpires today, possibly more impressive as they had no body of history to draw upon.

WTF? These people were "sophisticated" because they "had no body of history to draw upon?"

Just the opposite would be true. With no body of history to draw upon, they would be mighty UNsophisticated. And not have much to discuss.

They probably sat around the campfire and made funny noises at each other.

And I bet those noises sounded a lot like... "woo-woo."

(Edit for sp.)

[Az]

53. Sorry but I have to disagree with your interpretation

Culture is entwined in religious beliefs. The entire Greek/Roman pagan religions were an externalized demonstration of their culture. It was a form of collective dialog on the subject. To try to seperate culture from their religion .... well it doesn't strike me as reasoning as much as it does on insisting.

Add to this the fact that altruistic based philosophies rose up in other parts of the world and predate the rise of Christianity. Sorry I cannot accept the notion that Christianity is the source of the idea of being decent to one another. Civilization simply would not have arisen if such a concept was not already part of human nature.

[Old Mouse]

54. The greeks knew their religion was an elaborate fiction

That was the point. The religion was actively perpetuated to create a template for civilization to arise from primitive culture. Not a bad goal if you think about it. Swear by the gods you swear by!

The age of Axis was a global phenomenon. You should read Campbell or Armstrong. Hinduism rose simultaneously to the issue in the east, but even then mercy was seen as a method to reduce karmic burden, not an end in and of itself.

Jesus' application of mercy, or whoever wrote the sermons attributed to him, has been misinterpreted over the years to be some sort of extra commandment and a prerequisite to heaven, but the capability of repentance proves this untrue. Mercy without ulterior motive just didn't exist before then. We are not conscious beings by nature.

[cosmik debris]

57. I haven't read all Greek authors

So I would like to hear from you where you got the idea The the Greeks knew their religion was an elaborate fiction. I did spend several years getting a degree in Classical Literature from Baylor University, but I never heard anyone make a statement like that. Perhaps you could humor me by backing up that statement with a source or two.

And by the way some say that the Americans know that their religion is just an elaborate fiction too. But I don't believe it.

[Az]

59. Some very broad statements

To repeat the request above, where do you derive your special knowledge of Greek theologians? I can accept that the interpretations of their mythology was an externalized dialog on the nature of society. But insisting that they were cognitive of their manipulation of the society is more than I am ready to agree to.

As to your notion of mercy I suspect you are unaware of studies showing that human nature is altruistic. That is we are naturally concerned with the welfare of others including endangering ourselves for the sake of others. I would argue that it is an evolutionary adaption that social creatures such as ourselves have developed. It has been present throughout all of our recorded history and is not an invention of Jesus or any other religious leader.

I am not sure what you mean by your final statement.

We are not conscious beings by nature.

This seems quite a statement. I shall allow you to comment on it before I take issue with it as it so confonds me that I suspect something must be amiss.

[Old Mouse]

62. its no secret

Read Joesph Campbell.

As for the confusing statement, read Steven Pinker. I also had the great fortune to briefly work with Dr. Michael M. Merzenich, one of the world's top neuroscientists. A benefit of the job was regular lectures on cognition by neurologists involved with the project, including nobel laureates.

There is not a natural instinct for true altruism. Most instinctive behavior seems to be specifically designed for survival of a tribal group.

They tie together because all of our complex, non-instinctive behavior is the result of willfull determination to emulate what is believed to be a higher or greater power. Gods, kings and royalty, and unfortunately in our time, celebrities. The ancients, proving themselves more self-aware then people thousands of years later, knew the value of ceremony and repetition and reward on the human mind.

[Az]

63. I am familiar with Pinker, but

I suspect going back and reading his work is going to put a sizable gap in our conversation. Do you suppose you could explain your comment without having to dig out the Pinker?

[Old Mouse]

64. Please read my better constructed edit...

[Az]

66. You provide too much forethought to instances

The initial instinct is for selfpreservation. Once immediate harm is avoided concern is directed towards our fellow humans (or entities). This is at an instinctual level. Yes it is an evolutionary adaptation. It is not for altruistic purposes in the purest sense of the word. But the conscious descision to act in such a way does not stem from an individual cogitating on the cost benefit ration of a particular action.

Thus in the face of an emergency a person will strive to help those around them because they feel like it. They will feel as if it is a good thing to do.

Further studies show that not only is the reaction based on situational factors but observation of other's injuries can result in activation of our own pain centers. Literally we feel other people's pain. Again it is most likely a neurological social adaptation to improve the ties of our connections better enabling our species to survive. So in the purest sense of the word it is not somoene choosing to be empathetic. It is merely our natures to be so.

We are not just our instincts though. As we grow we collect experiences and lessons and meld them into our psyche. The ideas that hold the most emotional relevance to us gain the upper hand over time and depending on what ideas they support they may override or reinforce our natural social tendencies.

Thus some people learn that life is harsh and no one is on their side by themself and turn to a dark spiteful path. While others learn that by striving together we build a better life for all. The classic nurture vs nature conundrum. Which is the driving force in any specific is still hard to say. But then we seem to be a collection of things rather than a singular mote.

I wonder how you come to the conclusion that the ancients knew their actions were wise rather than simply being the beneficiaries of what simply worked. Are you suggesting that they consciously set up replication of ceremony in order to build cognitive paths in the mind? Could it not be that perhaps they were simply following in the traditions that they had learned from as their social framework evolved on its own unguided by conscious effort?

[Old Mouse]

75. I remember of which you speak

It is not altruism, it is helping one that looks similar, looks like a continuation of the gene line. Preservation of the gene line being one of the most powerful modifying instincts. The altruistic effect falls off the less one resembles oneself... tribalism.

And neural nets form with effort or unique experience. Desire, anticipate, achieve, reward. Repeat. Shots of happy hormones to the receptors with each little victory.

Each and every temple of the ancient greeks contained a completely different version of the entire mythology. At a temple for Hercules, the myths were written with him as the central and most important character. At the temple of Athena was a completely different set of stories, with her as the principal character. And the stories in one temple of Athena need not have any resemblance to the stories at another temple of Athena. We took a small sample of these hundred of version of mythologies and slammed them in Bulfinch's and gave Steve Reeves a nice living.How did the Greeks deal with this obvious inability for homogenization? Easy,They knew they weren't true. The importance was in the ritual and imagery. And yes, they knew why. Sophocles and Euripides, Plato, Aristotle . They knew. They were purposefully activating consciousness. Read Campbell.

[Az]

76. This seems to be turning into a cart/horse issue

On both subtopics.

Just because the initial impetus behind the development of our altruistic nature is self serving form the species point of view it does not mean we ware aware of the original objective behind our drives. So yes the origin is based on preservation it is only a part of the drive that makes up an individuals persona.

As our understanding of what our community is comprised of our sense of who is part of our tribe expands. Thus our drive to aid our fellows expands with it. It is still not tied to any singular teacher or philosopher (be they devine or otherwise). It is a growin awareness within the social construct.

As to the theory regarding the spread of Greek mythology it seems to presume knowledge rather than exploring. I will grant that the initial stories are constructs (in fact I place the initial works of Mark in this same category). But it is not a deliberate social engineering project.

The distribution methology was too chaotic. Once a story entered into society the practice of the time was for individuals to rework them. Over time initial stories developed in entirely new directions. The ones that resonate the best with society take dominance. In this way insite into human nature is drawn out through a developmental process.

The thing of it is you can have development of coherant ideas in this way that rise above the actual level of understanding of individuals. A single insite here combined with an insite there and the natural selection of public acceptance and you have a collection of very insiteful works.

[beam me up scottie]

60. "We are not conscious beings by nature"

"The greeks knew their religion was an elaborate fiction"

"Mercy without ulterior motive just didn't exist before then."

Where do you GET this stuff?

Do you just make it up as you go along?

[beam me up scottie]

61. WHAT "Age of Axis" ???

What are you talking about?

The only thing we could find was a link from a page on religion in a strange and limited web encyclopedia.

That led to some obscure reference from a teacher at a community college and he was referring to someone else's work when he mentioned it.

[cosmik debris]

52. You are re-writing history

If Cincinnatus were alive today he would disagree with you.

[cosmik debris]

55. In other words

Cincinnatus would not have wasted so much of his life on "social responsibility" if he had know that Jesus would not invent "social responsibility" for another 400 years.

[beam me up scottie]

65. I think Old Mouse is only

responding to Az now.

It's a good thing we all got together and voted him Lord of the Atheists.

No wonder some theists don't understand that atheism (and atheists) is more complex and varied than christianity.

They pick one example and stick with that.

I guess it's easier that way.

Less thinking involved.

[onager]

67. I'm still pondering the Greeks...

...not taking their religion seriously.

That would probably come as a big surprise to Socrates, who was put to death on the legal charge of "impiety."

Likewise the great Athenian atheist/scientist Anaxagoras, who only escaped death because he was a personal friend of Pericles. He was exiled for life because of "impiety."

BTW, how are we supposed to imagine Greek philosophy and learning got spread over much of the ancient world?

Roving bands of peaceful Philosophy Missionaries who went door-to-door urging people to read Plato?

No, I'm pretty sure the world owes that to the philosopher Aristotle's most famous student--Alexander The Great. And he spread Hellenic culture with a great big army.

[beam me up scottie]

68. I'm savoring the delicious irony

of the poster's comment claiming the Greeks "knew their religion was an elaborate fiction" in a thread where the same poster scathingly criticized the op for insulting christians by stating:

"So I am now wondering if this is the mechanism by which people are able to ignore all the evidence that their religions are false and continued to believe things that seemed ludicrous and antiquated centuries ago."

Can't beat that for entertainment value.

[cosmik debris]

69. Good catch!!

Old Mousie is being demeaning to the Greeks now. And after such a sanctimonious sermon he gave me on being demeaning. Is there anyone he will not insult?

[beam me up scottie]

70. But it's okay if

THEY do it, silly.
:spank:

[Az]

71. No its not

But they may not be aware of it. So its up to us to explain it.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

72. You go ahead.

I'll watch.

[cosmik debris]

74. Good luck with that

but I doubt that he will lecture me again. I don't think he likes me anymore. Was it the Cincinnatus stuff? Facts sometimes do interfere with theories.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Hey O!

Check out StellaBlue's thread on Dr. Dino!

I know he's a personal favorite of yours...

[onager]

77. Just saw it, thanks!

I have another favorite much closer to me--the Institute For Creation Research in San Diego:

Branches of the Creationist Tree

Genuine Christianity: Correct Practice:
True Christology True Science
True Evangelism True History
True Missions True Government
True Fellowship True Americanism
True Gospel True Family Life
True Faith True Education
True Morality
True Hope

Branches of the Evolutionary Tree

Harmful Philosophies: Evil Practices:
Communism Abortion
Nazism Promiscuity
Imperialism Pornography
Monopolism Genocide
Humanism Euthanasia
Atheism Infanticide
Amoralism Chauvinism
Scientism Bestiality
Racism Homosexuality
Pantheism Drug Culture
Behaviorism Child Abuse
Materialism Slavery

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/linke.html