Is Religion Adaptive? It's Complicated.

[m42]

As the resident psychologist, I reiterated my empirically based argument that belief in the afterlife is more or less an inevitable byproduct of human consciousness. Since we cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness, even non-believers are susceptible to visions of the hereafter.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-religion-adaptive

Do you agree, disagree, or neither? Why?

[kerrin]

I suppose if you limit this statement to western religions, but Eastern religions don't believe in an afterlife.

I might, also, take issue with what he calls an "empirically based argument". Naturalism lacks an explanation for 'rational inference' (http://www.individualism.com/community/showthread.php?t=105) (aka "claim of inference"). Therefore, his purely naturalistic argument also has no explanation for the logic he uses in his argument that claims: "[humans] cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness".

[kerrin]

Okay, I thought of a clearer way to disagree with the statement: "Humans cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness": It's self-contradictory. By making this statement he was able to conceptualize the absence of consciousness. It's similar to saying we cannot conceptualize nothing or we cannot conceptualize everything. Humans certainly are able to conceptualize such things otherwise we could not speak of them.

Am I off the deep end here?

[m42]

Am I off the deep end here?

I don't know. Do you believe conceptualization is a byproduct of reasoning?

[kerrin]

I don't know. Do you believe conceptualization is a byproduct of reasoning?
Why, yes I believe I do.

[m42]

Why, yes I believe I do.

I do agree that he contradicts himself. "Visions of the hereafter" would probably qualify as conceptualizations. ;)

I suppose my question to you is, do you feel the manifestation of such visions relies upon any measure of reasoning?

Wasn't it Ayn Rand who said:

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."

What do you suppose she might have meant by that?

[kerrin]

You always ask great questions!

I do agree that he contradicts himself. "Visions of the hereafter" would probably qualify as conceptualizations. ;)

I suppose my question to you is, do you feel the manifestation of such visions relies upon any measure of reasoning?
I would say the manifestation of such would, in some measure, rely on reasoning, sure, but could also rely on experience. If the universe is multi-dimensional and humans are multi-dimensional creatures who experience some things without a naturalistic explanation (see my previous problem with a purely naturalistic explanation for everything) then "visions of the hereafter" could be a result of both reason and experience. Some "visions of the hereafter" could exclusively rely on reason and some exclusively on experience. Most seem to rely on a combination. Perhaps I am rambling here...

Wasn't it Ayn Rand who said:

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
What do you suppose she might have meant by that?
I think this was her way of denying a priori knowledge (ie. Reason is learned through experience and is not a priori). Those who claim Reason is a priori can be conquered by it. A conquerable person will be no use to you.

How's that? Do you interpret that any different? Do you disagree? What are the implications that you see to the topic at hand?

[m42]

I would say the manifestation of such would, in some measure, rely on reasoning, sure, but could also rely on experience....


Seems logical.


I think this was her way of denying a priori knowledge (ie. Reason is learned through experience and is not a priori). Those who claim Reason is a priori can be conquered by it. A conquerable person will be no use to you.

How's that? Do you interpret that any different? Do you disagree? What are the implications that you see to the topic at hand?

I suppose it's however you wish to interpret it. The quote itself is irrelevant. I posted it to see whether your earlier thoughts would impact your interpretation of that quote. I'm really quite fascinated by the way you think. Mentally, you remind me of the Energizer Bunny. :)

As for the quote itself, I'm guessing it was more pejorative than scientific. I took it to mean that people may either choose to think or choose not to think. Those who choose not to think warrant neither our efforts nor our interests.

I chose a Rand quote because she was one of the more well known atheists. Atheists don't seem unable so much as unwilling to conceptualize an afterlife.

I believe our author is in dire need of expanding his horizons. Nothing a good heart-to-heart with a devout atheist won't fix. :twisted:

[kerrin]

I'm really quite fascinated by the way you think.
Your interpretations of and questions for my thinking fascinate me.

Mentally, you remind me of the Energizer Bunny. What does one say to this? Uh, thanks! So mentally I'm fluffy pink bunny? ;)

As for the quote itself, I'm guessing it was more pejorative than scientific. I took it to mean that people may either choose to think or choose not to think. Those who choose not to think warrant neither our efforts nor our interests.
Yes. If I had taken into account the context of Rand I probably would have made the same interpretation. Instead I was focused on the context of this current topic...oops...I need to apply a little more contextual dexterity.

Atheists don't seem unable so much as unwilling to conceptualize an afterlife.
This also would be my take on the atheist.

I believe our author is in dire need of expanding his horizons. Nothing a good heart-to-heart with a devout atheist won't fix.
Or a good mono a mono with you.

[m42]

So mentally I'm fluffy pink bunny? ;)

No. More that you seem to constantly analyze and reanalyze. I wonder that you aren't mentally exhausted. ;)


Or a good mono a mono with you.

Hah. I'd do poorly. I am neither convincing nor atheist. ;)

[kerrin]

No. More that you seem to constantly analyze and reanalyze. I wonder that you aren't mentally exhausted. ;)
A nice glass of red wine and sleep provide, what seems, ample rest. What is it 'they' say, "no rest for the weary".


Hah. I'd do poorly. I am neither convincing nor atheist. ;)
You'd be surprised. Your questioning could be quite convincing, but of course we return then to someone who is willing to answer.

[m42]

A nice glass of red wine and sleep provide, what seems, ample rest. What is it 'they' say, "no rest for the weary".

Rub it in. ;)

[kerrin]

Rub it in. ;)
Sorry, couldn't resist.

[m42]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

You'd better hope Cartesian dualism is just a myth. *muahahah*

[John Scott]

I am not ready to accept as proven the statement that we cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness.

My experience here in Japan with some some almost militant atheists is that they say "religion is for the weak", and then when a loved one died - in one case, a husband; in the other case, a daughter - both women turned very religious (Buddhist, in both cases).

So, I think the afterlife concept (in Buddhism, reincarnation) is supported largely by the refusal to believe that a very intelligent, creative person is simply the random combination of several chemicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body).

[kerrin]

...you seem to constantly analyze and reanalyze. I wonder that you aren't mentally exhausted. ;)
I suppose often I am. Any suggestions for how to avoid such mental exhaustion?

[m42]

I suppose often I am. Any suggestions for how to avoid such mental exhaustion?

No clue. It makes you interesting, don't change a thing. :)

[kerrin]

I am not ready to accept as proven the statement that we cannot conceptualize the absence of consciousness.
Nor am I.

I think the afterlife concept (in Buddhism, reincarnation) is supported largely by the refusal to believe that a very intelligent, creative person is simply the random combination of several chemicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body).
If one accepts that "a very intelligent, creative person is simply the random combination of several chemicals", how then does one attribute significant value to the human embryo without the afterlife/reincarnation concept?

[John Scott]

If one accepts that "a very intelligent, creative person is simply the random combination of several chemicals", how then does one attribute significant value to the human embryo without the afterlife/reincarnation concept?

The social contract which I adhere by says that all humans are to be protected; in exchange my freedom is guaranteed.

People say we can, "as a society" (collectively) decide how to distribute rights. But that is just opening the door to abuse.

Dawkins says that rights should be distributed according to sentience. According to Dawkins, a monkey with advanced sentience should have more rights than an unborn human child. Species arrogance, I think he called it when referring to human rights.

Animal rights? I thought I was alone in my view that animal rights are absurd. Ron Paul agrees with me, however.

Rights are a product of being a party to an agreement. Animals cannot be a party to an agreement, so they cannot be a party to the social contract. Thus, no rights.

"Do you, Lion, agree never to bite another animal?"

"Why certainly."

"Then you officially have rights. Wait. Is that a leg sticking out of your mouth?"

Americans have spend a ton of energy denying the humanity of others who they wanted to either kill or enslave. They denied that Native Americans were human because they didn't have "souls". I would have loved to see the scientific testing of souls.

In Roe V Wade, they admit the unborn child to be a human being, but denied it was a person because it had not been reached "ensoulment". Today, is is medically correct to state that life begins at conception.

Dr. Hymie Gordon, the late Mayo Clinic scholar/teacher/physician, declared: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews Roth, Harvard Medical School, observes: “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at
conception.”

Dr. Eugene Diamond, past chairman of the pediatrics department of Loyola University Medical School, Maywood, Illinois, says, “We no longer need to belabor the question of when human life begins; it begins incontrovertibly at the union of sperm and ovum."

The late European geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune stated, “The fetus is a human being. Genetically, he is complete.”

An embryo is a human life, but it can never be a "person" because there is not test so far that detects "souls", whatever the hell those are.

My defense of the unborn is self serving. I want my right to life defended, so I am not about to start denying others their right to life.

[John A Roark]

:biggrin:Applause. Kudos.
Sanity... it's a great thing.
Your stance is first-tier.

[kerrin]

Rights are a product of being a party to an agreement.
I agree. I would then ask the following questions:
What enables one to be party to an agreement? I believe it is Reason. What physiologically enables one to reason? The medical data would point to the cerebral cortex. Formation of the human brain is evident by the second trimester of a pregnancy. Therefore, I posit a human being possesses the presumed capacity to learn reason with the appearance of the cerebral cortex and at that time acquires rights.

If there is a soul the most likely place for it's location would also be the cerebral cortex, for where else would it be located? But this is a strange concept since a soul would be meta-physical, therefore impossible to prove or disprove its existence with empirical data. I only admit the possibility of a soul, its plausible location within a human, and take this into consideration as well.

How would you answer the question, some may have, about an agreement requiring consent, which an unborn human being is unable to do?