Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists

[The_Queen]

But what you're saying with THAT is "people have the capacity for abstract thought, therefore God". It's a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't.  What I'm talking about is belief in a higher power.  I don't see how or why it would have evolved naturally.

There's this thing called death. It kind of sucks, and nobody really knows what goes on with the individual after experiencing it. We just know that once someone dies, they don't talk to us anymore, and that makes us sad. We also don't know if we have any degree of consciousness after death, which terrifies us. So, people being afraid the natural phenomenon create a supernatural phenomenon to assuage these feelings of melancholy and fear.

Once this idea comes into play, it really isn't too difficult to transfer it to a god. My neighbor is an asshole who beats his wife and kicks puppies, and yet he's rich. There must be something beyond the scope of our existence that can give him some comeuppance. So, the idea of god as this omniscient judge that holds everyone accountable for evil acts soon follows.

I'm not saying this is exactly how it developed, but I disagree with the notion that we are hardwired to believe in concepts of gods or after-lifes. I find it far more plausible that early peoples, guided by ignorance of earthly phenomenon (like lightning and earthquakes), guided by fears of dying, sadness over loved-ones, and just-desserts created early concepts of gods and after-lifes. From there, subsequent generations were indoctrinated to the point that it appears to be "hard-wired."

ETA: The practical point of this post being that your logic rests on a few assumptions. First, that people are, in fact, predisposed toward supernatural beliefs. Second, that this belief could only come from god, as opposed to temporal sources. If these two points are assumed, your logic holds up quite well. However, I just provided an alternative explanation that leads to the same result and requires neither assumption. Ergo, your logic rests on faulty assumptions and is inherently flawed.

[davedan]

Assuming that there is a hardwired belief in God (or a higher power) I would have thought that could be evolutionally useful for a social animal to control the group and to ensure that the group acted for the benefit of the community and rather than a particular individual.

Also if we are to assume a omnipotent God - if it wanted people to believe in it, we all would because being omnipotent it would have no impediment to its will. Further we would all believe in exactly the same God.

Which is why I said we should first define what is meant by 'God'.

UP do you believe in Odin? The Rainbow Serpent? Zeus? Mithras? Hercules? Haunuman? Vishnu? Ram? Krishna?

[RavynousHunter]

Personally, I believe in Goku.  He died for our sins.  Multiple times.

[Ultimate Paragon]

You guessed it!

So then would you be willing to concede that while belief in a creative force behind the formation of the universe may be rational, belief in a Christian God is not?

Not yet.

Queen, the main problem with your assertion is that we don't know how our ancestors thought.  There's evidence to suggest that Cro Magnons actually had larger brains than modern humans.  If their brains were different, why should we assume their thought processes were the same?

Dave, right now, I'm talking about God in the philosophical, abstract sense.  The "unmoved mover," as it were.

[davedan]

So what are the qualities of the 'unmoved mover' - the god of Aristotle?

1. That it created the universe from nothing?
2. That it itself was not created?
3. That it is sentient?
4. That it still exists and was not consumed/destroyed by the act of creation?
5. That it is omniscient?
6. That it is omnipotent?
7. Benevolent, disinterested or malicious?
8. Ineffable?

Which of the above fall within your conception of the 'unmoved mover'?

Also isn't your hardwiring argument simply a rehash of the ontological argument?

Edit: There is another problem with your hardwiring argument - You have based it on being unable to conceive of another reason for people having a generalised belief in a higher power other than the existence of a divine creator. Queen responded by putting forth a hypothesis which didn't require one (as did I but you elided my hypothesis). You now seek to dismiss that by saying that Cro-Magnon brains were different to ours and we don't know how they think. While that might dispose of Queen's hypothesis it must take yours with it too. Otherwise your are being internally inconsistent. Either way you are still without evidence.

[Sigmaleph]

But what you're saying with THAT is "people have the capacity for abstract thought, therefore God". It's a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't.  What I'm talking about is belief in a higher power.  I don't see how or why it would have evolved naturally.

Please address my earlier point as to why it's very dubious that a creator god would have planted it deliberately.

As for why it would evolve, think e.g. our ability to detect faces. People see faces in goddamn everything, because our brain has an overactive face-detection system. And it has that face-detection system because faces are a thing that's important to recognise in a social species.

Agency is roughly analogous to faces here. Our brain has good reasons to evolve a system that assumes events have an agent behind them, because in a social species a lot of important things that happen have agents behind them.

Of course the evo-psych is speculative, but there's at least a plausible reason why an evolved brain of a social species would be biased towards attributing agency to natural events. I don't really find any equally plausible reason why a creator god would put that bias in, for the reasons already given.

[The_Queen]

You guessed it!

So then would you be willing to concede that while belief in a creative force behind the formation of the universe may be rational, belief in a Christian God is not?

Queen, the main problem with your assertion is that we don't know how our ancestors thought.  There's evidence to suggest that Cro Magnons actually had larger brains than modern humans.  If their brains were different, why should we assume their thought processes were the same?

This is simply argument for argument sake and has no bearing on the points debated whatsoever. We also do not know where the concept of god originates, and it is simply rank speculation to assume that the concept of god is innate to human existence and not brought about by temporal factors. But, assuming arguendo that your point disproves my assertion, it also disproves your own (as we simply do not know), and we're right back to square one, with you bearing the burden of proving god's existence.

Second, you selectively apply this standard of uncertainty. If someone presents something you disagree with, for example that belief in god is not due to the existence of god, then you argue that we do not know with certainty and that is that. But, you have no problem arguing that the existence of god is innate to human existence, even though we cannot know which came first: humans without a belief in god or humans with a belief. You've done this before in other debates, and it really is bad form.

Third, this is where Occam's razor comes into play. My explanation relies purely on natural factors that we understand which are intuitive to a certain degree. Yours requires the existence of a god that wants its existence innately known by people, but not all people because atheists exist. Which assertion most conforms with our understanding of the world an requires the least outside complications?

[RavynousHunter]

Is it not possible that, while Cro Magnon brains were physically larger than our own, ours are more structurally complex?  For example, a dolphin, if memory serves, has a similar brain-to-mass ratio to humans.  However, most of that mass is basically thermal shielding to keep dolphin brains from freezing in the deeper, colder waters of the ocean.  Discounting that shielding tissue, their brains are more in line with other, less advanced mammals, which is evidenced by the fact that dolphins act more like animals and less like humans, or even many species of ape.  I'd be willing to bet money that the main difference is that our brains are more condensed and are focused more on our frontal lobe than a Cro Magnon.

[davedan]

From what I remember - and what I remember has most certainly been superseded, it is the surface area (ie how many folds there are in the cortex) which is more important than simple size per se for cognitive function.

However at the end of the day the relative size of the brain is a red herring for the reasons which have already been given.

[Ultimate Paragon]

There's a difference between my arguments in favor of hardwiring and Her Highness's arguments in favor of emotional comfort: mine has actual evidence to support it.  See, the Cro-Magnons had the so-called "God Gene" (VMAT2).  This implies that they too had faith hardwired into their DNA and brains.

[davedan]

It's funny that you are using the God Gene as an argument for God but ignoring the hypothesis behind it which is:

" The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level. (Stolen from Wikipedia)"

You seem to have ignored the 5th part of the hypothesis. In particular you must have overlooked it when you said " I can't think of anything else which would account for the hardwiring other than the existence of a higher power" - Because the 5th part of the hypothesis explains it without reference to a higher power.

[Art Vandelay]

There's a difference between my arguments in favor of hardwiring and Her Highness's arguments in favor of emotional comfort: mine has actual evidence to support it.  See, the Cro-Magnons had the so-called "God Gene" (VMAT2).  This implies that they too had faith hardwired into their DNA and brains.

Ahem.

The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level.

Pay close attention to #5. As you can see, the hypothesis that you claim is evidence of a deity is actually evidence that spirituality can have temporal benefits. Nowhere do any actual scientists who came up with this hypothesis claim that it's evidence that any deity actually exists.

Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain. PZ Myers argues: "It's a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.'"[2]

Carl Zimmer claimed that VMAT2 can be characterized as a gene that accounts for less than one percent of the variance of self-transcendence scores. These, Zimmer says, can signify anything from belonging to the Green Party to believing in ESP. Zimmer also points out that the God Gene theory is based on only one unpublished, unreplicated study.[3] However Hamer notes that the importance of the VMAT2 finding is not that it explains all spiritual or religious feelings, but rather that it points the way toward one neurobiological pathway that may be important.

As it turns out, while this gene could well be what facilitates spirituality (in all its forms, not just theism), it would seem that it's actual function is simply to enable higher order thought. As you can see, an important function with would give an evolutionary advantage. As such, to claim that it's there because there is indeed a god who wants us to belief in him but not be entirely certain about it is either intellectually dishonest or just stupid.

Finally, a quote from Dean Hamer, the guy who came up with the "god gene" hypothesis.

Hamer repeatedly notes in his book that, "This book is about whether God genes exist, not about whether there is a God."

Again, he and any other geneticists who worked on this never claimed that this gene is evidence of a deity, rather a large part of why spirituality is possible in humans.

Honestly now, I was able to find this information in less than 10 seconds. Remember what you said earlier in the thread about reading your sources to make sure the actually support what you're arguing? Yeah, you may want to consider that before you go claiming something is evidence of god.

Well, piss. Dave beat me to it. Eh, I'm sure it can't hurt to emphasise the point.

[Sigmaleph]

There's a difference between my arguments in favor of hardwiring and Her Highness's arguments in favor of emotional comfort: mine has actual evidence to support it.  See, the Cro-Magnons had the so-called "God Gene" (VMAT2).  This implies that they too had faith hardwired into their DNA and brains.

OK, no. This is not how, um, anything works.

Even if VMAT2 contributes to religious belief and spirituality and all that stuff (not equivalent to a hardwired belief in gods!), it's a single gene coding for a single protein that transports some chemicals around. The effects of that gene are going to be almost entirely dependent on everything else going on around; you can't expect the same neurotransmitter to have the exact same effect in brains that are structurally different. Hell, psychiatrists have a hard time finding drugs that have consistent effects on people who are not separated by 40,000 years of evolution.

Either Cro-Magnon brains are different enough that we can't understand their thought process, or they are similar enough that we can expect VMAT2 to work the same way. Both, though? No.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Okay, I'm tired and I have a headache.  I need some time to collect my thoughts.

[davedan]

Okay, I'm tired and I have a headache.  I need some time to collect my thoughts.

After an Aspirin and a good lie down, would you mind going through the qualities of the 'unmoved mover' for me please? Just so we can clearly define the parameters of the philosophical concept of the god we are talking about.

Not bugging you, I realise it's hard to hold up one end of the conversation when there is a group on the other end. But this is an interesting discussion. I will say that I find it interesting that you subscribe to the metaphysical concept of the 'unmoved mover' and are still a Christian because I don't think they are necessarily compatible.