Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308868426' post='2257840']
Case is a pretty relative thing language to language. Obviously writing systems like hangul, kanji, hiragana, katakana, probably written Chinese although I don't know much about that, and I'm sure lots of others don't even have case.
Then in languages like German, every noun is capitalized. I can't imagine having to write like that.

Anyway, case is relative, so I think that the capitalization (or not) of God is going to be more a function of language and common use than on any hard rules. To me, it's most proper to capitalize God in English when referring to the Christian conception of God. I think so for two specific reasons. First is that it is used as a placeholder for a proper name (i.e. it's a title, but mostly used as a name). Second, and to me more importantly, I think it implies reverence, and to me for sure when I'm writing it causes me to be more careful about using God's name because of the respect I have for it. I would not capitalize god when referring to polytheistic gods, since in that case it's no longer being used in place of a name, and second because I don't respect those gods because, like you, I consider those ones to be false.

Conclusion: since I'm a Catholic I will always capitalize God when referring to my God, but not when referring to false gods. I think it would be more grammatically correct to capitalize God when using it as a name (whether or not you believe in the concept).

Anyway, I'm sort of just rambling because I'm bored. Not honestly interested in getting into a debate on it. You will, of course, continue to do what you like with regards to case.
[/quote]

Your explanation for why you don't capitalise the "g" for gods other than your own would be the same reason that I don't capitalise it for any. Though it can be said to refer to one as a name, it can also be said to refer to another. If I called one god [i]God[/i], then I would have to call them all [i]God[/i], since they're undifferentiated in truth value to me.

But yeah...I just thought I'd clarify that because it doesn't have to do with childishness or disrespect for gods, but more with a respect for my own views, if that makes sense.

Edited June 24, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308868426' post='2257840']
Case is a pretty relative thing language to language. Obviously writing systems like hangul, kanji, hiragana, katakana, probably written Chinese although I don't know much about that, and I'm sure lots of others don't even have case.
Then in languages like German, every noun is capitalized. I can't imagine having to write like that.

Anyway, case is relative, so I think that the capitalization (or not) of God is going to be more a function of language and common use than on any hard rules. To me, it's most proper to capitalize God in English when referring to the Christian conception of God. I think so for two specific reasons. First is that it is used as a placeholder for a proper name (i.e. it's a title, but mostly used as a name). Second, and to me more importantly, I think it implies reverence, and to me for sure when I'm writing it causes me to be more careful about using God's name because of the respect I have for it. I would not capitalize god when referring to polytheistic gods, since in that case it's no longer being used in place of a name, and second because I don't respect those gods because, like you, I consider those ones to be false.

Conclusion: since I'm a Catholic I will always capitalize God when referring to my God, but not when referring to false gods. I think it would be more grammatically correct to capitalize God when using it as a name (whether or not you believe in the concept).

Anyway, I'm sort of just rambling because I'm bored. Not honestly interested in getting into a debate on it. You will, of course, continue to do what you like with regards to case.
[/quote]
I'm almost in agreeance with this.
A couple of slight differences of opinion though.
1. I thought the Christian god had a name, doesn't the bible call it YHWH?

I understand that some Christians use capital to highlight reverence, a personal reverance the author has with their belief in "God". So they capitalise He and Him and Good and Love due to this reverence. It does give me a slight chuckle at times when I see this behaviour because I know that when you love something or someone then it is hard to find words that can truly express your feelings. I often struggle when writing poems to my wonderful wife.
But
2. I do not use the lowercase to indicate that this god is a false god, or to highlight that I have lack of reverence for it. To me it is simply a case of following English grammar rules. God is a type of being, like human, or cat or cow, we do not use capitalisation when using these types of words.

I really don't know why anyone would care about what capitalisation other people choose to use. Clearly Christians like to use Capitals and non Christians don't. Should we then take it as a personal insult if others don't think like us? Are we always to take a stance of either you are for us or you are against us? Can't we just love rather than war?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308868426' post='2257840']
Then in languages like German, every noun is capitalized. I can't imagine having to write like that. [/quote]

After visiting YouTube and seeing a few comments written ALL CAPITALISED I JUST REALISED THAT IT COULD BE MUCH WORSE.

[attempt at a non lame joke]Maybe the Greeks woke up one day and realised that their text looked a little loud?[/attempt at a non lame joke]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308900650' post='2258013']
After visiting YouTube and seeing a few comments written ALL CAPITALISED I JUST REALISED THAT IT COULD BE MUCH WORSE.

[attempt at a non lame joke]Maybe the Greeks woke up one day and realised that their text looked a little loud?[/attempt at a non lame joke]
[/quote]
Maybe they thought it looked too quiet, but their attempt to louden things up failed really badly. They were busy at the time being destroyed by the Romans or something, I'm sure.

[mortify]

If presumably our ancestors were atheists in the true sense, i.e. they had no knowledge of God, then the first humans to come to belief in God, were a step higher in evolution. Apparently this trait allowed the believing humans to outlast their dumber atheist counterparts.

(tongue in cheek)

[Mr.Cat]

Our human ancestors didn't know the Earth revolved around the sun or where it came from. So their eventual belief that the sun revolved around Earth and was a few thousand years old helped them outlive their skeptical counterparts.

(Tongue and cheek... Tit for tat)

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308919673' post='2258049']
If presumably our ancestors were atheists in the true sense, i.e. they had no knowledge of God, then the first humans to come to belief in God, were a step higher in evolution. Apparently this trait allowed the believing humans to outlast their dumber atheist counterparts.

(tongue in cheek)


[/quote]

I don't know about that..it's too easy to tell a bunch of children that there is a god and that they shouldn't question that, wait for them to grow up and tell theirs. If that did aid in fitness, it wasn't because of intelligence. We're social animals, don't forget...

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308901161' post='2258014']
Maybe they thought it looked too quiet, but their attempt to louden things up failed really badly. They were busy at the time being destroyed by the Romans or something, I'm sure.
[/quote]

I guess the old adage "The [i]pen[/i] is mightier than the [i]sword[/i]" can only go so far...

[Mr.Cat]

In another discussion on the benefit or determent of religion, I sourced the "[i]Handbook of Religion and Health[/i]". It discusses potentially different benefits or determent to religion or spirituality from a scientific scholarly viewpoint.

Positive religion tends to benefit people... But it seems when religion runs it's course, that is rarely the end result.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308953768' post='2258291']
In another discussion on the benefit or determent of religion, I sourced the "[i]Handbook of Religion and Health[/i]". It discusses potentially different benefits or determent to religion or spirituality from a scientific scholarly viewpoint.

Positive religion tends to benefit people... But it seems when religion runs it's course, that is rarely the end result.
[/quote]

I don't have a problem with religion (any religion) per se (provided they cherry pick the better parts of their scriptures), but most seem to be stale these days. There are benefits such as community value and such, but most don't really respect the right that others have not to submit to a certain religion's teachings. I just thought I'd throw that out there.

While listening to Bart Ehrman's interview on his "Forged" about some parts of the Bible, it was mentioned that even atheists psychologically benefit from thinking about god. I though this was interesting, though I see it as pitting my higher ideals against the religion's and that the benefit comes from there.

[Mr.Cat]

Well it depends. According to the studies done. If a person believes but doesn't practice, it does have a deleterious affect on them. However, persons who don't believe but do practice, it likewise has a deleterious affect on them. It also discusses hypothetically why spirituality may benefit individuals, they suspect it may be related to the psychology and sociology of having a communal cause. So being religious or spiritual may not be necessarily what gives the benefit or determent. But even in non-religious matters there seems to be a religious behavioral pattern, which may make religiosity a natural human phenomena, the question that was posed to us is if it is good or bad. Ultimately the answer seems to be it's bad, moreover when left unchecked.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308954907' post='2258300']
Well it depends. According to the studies done. If a person believes but doesn't practice, it does have a deleterious affect on them. However, persons who don't believe but do practice, it likewise has a deleterious affect on them. It also discusses hypothetically why spirituality may benefit individuals, they suspect it may be related to the psychology and sociology of having a communal cause. So being religious or spiritual may not be necessarily what gives the benefit or determent. But even in non-religious matters there seems to be a religious behavioral pattern, which may make religiosity a natural human phenomena, the question that was posed to us is if it is good or bad. Ultimately the answer seems to be it's bad, moreover when left unchecked.
[/quote]

That's interesting...practiced in what way? Going to Chruch? Rituals and traditions? Or trying to emmulate their religious role model (to be generalised)?

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308953485' post='2258288']
I don't know about that..it's too easy to tell a bunch of children that there is a god and that they shouldn't question that, wait for them to grow up and tell theirs. If that did aid in fitness, it wasn't because of intelligence. We're social animals, don't forget...
[/quote]

Is it really that simple? I can tell you all of the people in my catechism class were kids like that, but none of them are Christian anymore! It's like what St Maximillian Kolbe once said, intellectually Catholicism can't be defeated. Our philosophy is sound, it's more reasonable to believe in God than not. But what poses the most danger, is corruption of morals. If a path is presented that gives license to man's base desires, it's very hard to combat. It's simply easier to live a licentious lifestyle than a virtuous one, and the lechers know it! They loath their weakness and so they hate the virtuous! It's like the Gospel of John says, people of sin hate the light of Christ because it brings out their sin, it makes them feel guilty, and they hate the feeling!

So yea, its not as simple as telling a kid, "Believe this!"

But going back to the original point, it is interesting to think about. Why would the primitive man or hominid have to attribute some kind of power the acts of nature? They could have seen lightening as a phenoma of nature that the only thing one needs to know, is that it ought to be feared! Heck, even dogs and cats view it that way! Why move to the extra step, what is the ultimate cause of this phenoma? I think what is often taken for granted, although is recognized by psychology, is that man has a natural incliniation towards what's greater than himself (i.e. God.) Isn't that interesting? You have inclinations towards food and water, which are known as hunger and thirst. These desires lead to realities, so what of the desire for God? Shouldn't it also lead to a reality? From a purely materialist stand point, it's rather interesting that we would ever evolve such an inclination. In some way, it must have aided our fitness, but how? If you think about, religious precepts tend to be contrary to fitness. Why should the Christian help the poor and sickly? Couldn't he save his resources and spend on himself and his own progeny? This is why its a silly thing to reduce human beings to speculated scientific rules. Humans have a supernatural end that supercedes merely ensuring our genes dominate the gene pool.

Anyway, as Mr T would say, I pitty the atheist!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308972241' post='2258371']
Is it really that simple? I can tell you all of the people in my catechism class were kids like that, but none of them are Christian anymore! It's like what St Maximillian Kolbe once said, intellectually Catholicism can't be defeated. Our philosophy is sound, it's more reasonable to believe in God than not. But what poses the most danger, is corruption of morals. If a path is presented that gives license to man's base desires, it's very hard to combat. It's simply easier to live a licentious lifestyle than a virtuous one, and the lechers know it! They loath their weakness and so they hate the virtuous! It's like the Gospel of John says, people of sin hate the light of Christ because it brings out their sin, it makes them feel guilty, and they hate the feeling!

So yea, its not as simple as telling a kid, "Believe this!"

But going back to the original point, it is interesting to think about. Why would the primitive man or hominid have to attribute some kind of power the acts of nature? They could have seen lightening as a phenoma of nature that the only thing one needs to know, is that it ought to be feared! Heck, even dogs and cats view it that way! Why move to the extra step, what is the ultimate cause of this phenoma? I think what is often taken for granted, although is recognized by psychology, is that man has a natural incliniation towards what's greater than himself (i.e. God.) Isn't that interesting? You have inclinations towards food and water, which are known as hunger and thirst. These desires lead to realities, so what of the desire for God? Shouldn't it also lead to a reality? From a purely materialist stand point, it's rather interesting that we would ever evolve such an inclination. In some way, it must have aided our fitness, but how? If you think about, religious precepts tend to be contrary to fitness. Why should the Christian help the poor and sickly? Couldn't he save his resources and spend on himself and his own progeny? This is why its a silly thing to reduce human beings to speculated scientific rules. Humans have a supernatural end that supercedes merely ensuring our genes dominate the gene pool.

Anyway, as Mr T would say, I pitty the atheist!
[/quote]

No, of course it's not that simple, and even applying evolutionary laws to people, especially when it comes to finding purpose and living our lives as if there were purpose, is not simple at all. I just don't think it's adequate for people to then resort to evolutionary theory as an excuse to justify treating homosexuality as if it were a natural disease.

There's an interesting documentary on the appearence of this psychology which allows for such things. Here's part 1:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnQaCxF-1IQ[/media]

The whole thing is about 1 hour long.

As for altruism, it's not an exclusively human feature, and has evolutionary explanations. I added a few links in the previous page in my response to Socrates.

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308973316' post='2258390']
As for altruism, it's not an exclusively human feature, and has evolutionary explanations. I added a few links in the previous page in my response to Socrates.
[/quote]

Not simply altruism, but self sacrifice. Like when St Maximillian Kolbe willingly offered to die in place of stranger in Auswitz. It's absolutely contrary to the very principle of evolution. Each organism has an innate desire to survive and propagate its genes. Thus when one lion overruns another, it kills the cubs of the vanquished. Self sacrifice is an utter termination and refutation of this principle. It reflects the supernatural reality of man's end, that there is more to us than mere flesh, and a greater purpose than ensuring my kids have a nicer house than myself.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308981870' post='2258484']
Not simply altruism, but self sacrifice. Like when St Maximillian Kolbe willingly offered to die in place of stranger in Auswitz. It's absolutely contrary to the very principle of evolution. Each organism has an innate desire to survive and propagate its genes. Thus when one lion overruns another, it kills the cubs of the vanquished. Self sacrifice is an utter termination and refutation of this principle. It reflects the supernatural reality of man's end, that there is more to us than mere flesh, and a greater purpose than ensuring my kids have a nicer house than myself.
[/quote]

That's merely one level. Kin selection (to a lesser degree) and multilevel group selection explain the appearence of the evolutionary basis for altruism. It's not all about individuals striving for themselves, even with other animals, so no, it's not contrary to the very principle of evolution.

[mortify]

[img]http://www.catholichomeandgarden.com/images/Costumes/saint%20maximilian%20kolbe.jpg[/img]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308955441' post='2258302']That's interesting...practiced in what way? Going to Chruch? Rituals and traditions? Or trying to emmulate their religious role model (to be generalised)?[/quote]It depends on their beliefs and spirituality I would imagine, at least this is what I remember from the [i]Handbook of Religion and Health[/i]. If I had spare money I might purchase it, its a very intriguing work. Some of it is available online for free thanks to Google.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308988878' post='2258522']
It depends on their beliefs and spirituality I would imagine, at least this is what I remember from the [i]Handbook of Religion and Health[/i]. If I had spare money I might purchase it, its a very intriguing work. Some of it is available online for free thanks to Google.
[/quote]

I saw, but only a few isolated pages.