Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A just-so story about the origin of religious beliefs

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This one is about stones:

By 500,000 years ago, Homo had mastered the skill of shaping stone, bone, hides, horns, and wood into dozens of tool types. Some of these tools were so symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing that some scientists speculate toolmaking took on a ritual aspect that connected Homo artisans with their traditions and community. These ritualistic behaviors may have evolved, hundreds of thousands of years later, into the rituals we see in religions.

Agustín Fuentes, “How Did Belief Evolve?” at Sapiens

Some of us would be more impressed if the authors of this type of work attributed their own beliefs to these types of sources.

How about this: Belief that there is no design in nature comes from spending a lot of time reading boring useless papers and sitting in boring useless meetings, Eventually, homo academicus evolved to believe that all nature is like that.

There’s that’s a good enough thesis. Let’s publish it. But first we need to find a journal that is not run by homo academicus himself. Nah. Let’s do a Sokal hoax on this stuff instead. Any ideas?

See also: If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?

Evolutionary conundrum: is religion a useful, useless, or harmful adaptation?

and

Imagine a world of religions that naturalism might indeed be able to explain

Comments
KF, 21: what is the nature of the manifest biological complementarity of the two sexes? I'm all in favour of reproduction! But, again, same-sex interactions seem to be fairly common among animals so maybe a certain amount of that is "natural"? How is this connected to individual identity and to stability of a community given requisites of sound child nurture? I would hate to see society shun folks like Alan Turing so there must be some middle ground where people are not discriminated against because they have a different world view and practices. 22: let me add, what does morally governed nature suggest to you? Responsible, rational freedom? First duties, to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness and justice? First principles of right reason, and particularly the principle of distinct identity with its close corollaries? Sure, I think we can all agree/support most if not all of those ideals. But I think we can do that and still be supportive and loving of people whose personal lives and practices we don't share.JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom, 20 Certainly some people do have the views you express. For me, "Darwinism" isn't a doctrine or a directive; it's just a statement of how things happened. I believe in listening to, relating to and supporting other people in the best ways I can.JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Yes, JVL, anyone who has taken biology and anatomy understands that homosexuality goes against nature. So I understand why you wouldn't know that.ET
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
JVL, let me add, what does morally governed nature suggest to you? Responsible, rational freedom? First duties, to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness and justice? First principles of right reason, and particularly the principle of distinct identity with its close corollaries? KFkairosfocus
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
JVL, what is the nature of the manifest biological complementarity of the two sexes? How is this connected to individual identity and to stability of a community given requisites of sound child nurture? KFkairosfocus
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
@ JVL
While I frequently despair of somethings some humans do I am also amazed and pleased at some of the incredible accomplishment the human race has achieved which have nothing to do with eating, reproducing, etc.
The sad truth is, that according to darwinism, in the end, everything has to do with eating/ mating/ temporarily surviving longer than your peers. Though we may think we are acting in a good manner, darwinism has 'discovered' it is just another evolutive 'trick'. You donating your organs to a stranger has some 'evolutive explanation' related to survival/ mating/ selfish gene propagation/ spandrel result...etc though you are not aware. You are not even in control of your brain according to this repulsive doctrine. When you say 'good', evolution whispers 'cheated'.Truthfreedom
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
KF I was merely wondering if the use of the expression "against nature" could be use regarding same-sex behaviour since it's quite common in many different animal species. You and I pretty clearly disagree wether or not it's appropriate behaviour for humans but I think that's a moral/ethical/value judgement. And I really don't feel the need to argue about our differing views; we're not going to agree and that's fine. And let me reiterate: Humans frequently (mostly?) behave in ways NOT dictated by "nature" and I am very, very grateful for that.JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
PS: Notice, dear reader, how that central evil of our time subtly distorts even our understanding of reason. Namely, how we have warped our civilisation to sustain the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb. Once we soundly face this, all else will be cleared. Abortion on demand has become the crooked yardstick corrupting government, law, justice, institutions, media, education, professions and more, leading to a march of ruinous folly.kairosfocus
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
JVL, there is a manifest, built in purpose for our two complementary sexes. Disorders, perversions and the like are possible but to the sound eye the purpose is manifest; in a context where we are responsibly, rationally free, morally governed creatures, even in our reasoning. KFkairosfocus
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
EG, yet again, the pattern emerges, not only the now clearly habitual obsessions but the implication of nihilistic will to power that looms behind legal positivism: "who determines . . ."? In the first instance as repeatedly pointed out but studiously side stepped, it is a what not a who. That what is the rationally identifiable, inherently reasonable law of our morally governed nature. For instance, even your arguments cannot escape the expectation that we intuitively know and acknowledge that we are bound by built-in duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, respect for neighbour of like rational & responsible significantly free nature, fairness & justice, etc. So, there is an inescapable law of our nature that even governs our arguing, thinking, reasoning. A law that then extends to sound community and finds expression in civil law and government that act to uphold and protect the civil peace of justice. Where, justice can be seen as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Exactly those things which, when laid out in your presence you have consistently dodged using rhetorical techniques reminiscent of Wilson's Arte of Rhetorique and its evil counsel to side step what it is not convenient to address. Here, the core principle of law. Which principle then sets proper limits on civil law; those with primary or derivative law-making or regulatory or precedent setting powers in community are themselves subject to the built-in law. Accordingly, they are under the said duties and are duty bound to take care that rights, freedoms and responsibilities are in due balance. As a result, if they err significantly or they set out to impose a dubious agenda contrary to that built in rationally discernible law or they become crooked and corrupt or resort to making a false crooked yardstick the standard of straightness, uprightness and accuracy, there is an accountability before the common, built in law which is antecedent to either the Common Law or Constitutions or Parliaments or Courts or grand treaties or the historic corpus of Roman Law and its derivatives etc. (By pointing to the two traditions, I am highlighting the two main streams of civil law as yardstick examples.) Accordingly, the built in law implies a right of responsible, reasonable remonstrance, petition and reform. Where, stubborn resistance to remonstrance and reform opens up the issue of interposition and if necessary revolution as the frame for the US DoI of 1776 exemplifies. Where, bought with blood, we have the peaceful general election as a proxy for the judgement of the general public as to what is thought the best reform. However, the public can go wrong if it fails to do diligence by the identified, built in first duties. Hence, we are back to that built in law of our morally governed nature. Further to such built in WHAT, there is indeed a who. For, we are contingent creatures in a contingent world, morally governed and enlightened by sound conscience that illuminates sound, responsible reasoning that uses our freedom to think, warrant, acknowledge and rightly decide. So, we see a bill of requisites for the root of reality. That root must be capable of being source and sustainer of a fine tuned world in which cell based creatures have DNA code and algorithms in their cells; manifestations of language, purpose and design antecedent to life. Further, some creatures are morally governed, requiring that that root also be inherently good and utterly wise. Which further implies that soundness, goodness, power and wisdom cannot be severed from the inherent nature of that Root, recognisable as the God of ethical theism. And yes, IS-OUGHT is bridged through that unity, and the Euthyphro dilemma, so called is also answered by that unity. Where, we recall your dismissive language regarding God: fabricate and delusion. No, God as pivotal root of reality is not an arbitrary fabrication or tool of manipulation. He answers to the challenge of reality root. Namely, that the root of existence is the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and of our responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Many implications flow therefrom. And so, moral government is not arbitrary but reasonable, responsible and intelligible to those who seek the sound. KFkairosfocus
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom, 14: And infanticidal behavior. And cannibalistic behavior. And many other behaviors. According to naturalism, everything is ‘natural’. Of course, because only ‘nature’ exists. ‘Morals’ are also ‘natural’ and subjective. I'm not condoning or approving any behaviour; I'm just asking if homosexuality in particular can be said to 'go against nature'. Human beings can and usually do 'rise' above nature. While I frequently despair of somethings some humans do I am also amazed and pleased at some of the incredible accomplishment the human race has achieved which have nothing to do with eating, reproducing, etc.JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
@13 JVL
Are you sure? You do know that homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species.
And infanticidal behavior. And cannibalistic behavior. And many other behaviors. According to naturalism, everything is 'natural'. Of course, because only 'nature' exists. 'Morals' are also 'natural' and subjective.Truthfreedom
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT
ET, 11: It goes against nature. Are you sure? You do know that homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species.JVL
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
@10 Ed George So you are a totalitarian darwinist. You are insulting Kairosfocus because his brain chemistry is different than yours. He did not choose his brain. How do you dare to suggest certain chemistries are better than others? You discriminate against chemical diversity. You should feel ashamed.Truthfreedom
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Is masturbation radically perverse?
It could be.
Is homosexuality radically perverse?
It goes against nature. And please stop telling other people what they think. That is a sure sign of the desperation of a little-minded troll. But then again, we already knew.ET
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
KF
After this, I simply note: please open your eyes to see and acknowledge the manifest reality of radical, perverse, utterly demonic evil haunting our civilisation and indeed the whole world.
Who determines what is radically perverse? Is masturbation radically perverse? I would argue that it is a reasonable response to unattainable sexual desire. Is homosexuality radically perverse? I would argue that it is simply two people showing love for each other. Is premarital sex radically perverse? I would argue that it is an important means of two people determining compatibility. You see any sex act other than for reproductive purpose between a married couple as a radically perverse act. I argue that anyone who believes this is missing out on some of the best parts of a full life. Sex is fun. There is nothing radically perverse about two consenting adults, regardless of marital status, getting down and dirty. Bumping uglies. Knocking ankles. Hiding the sausage. Oral sex. Anal sex. Whatever. However, I agree that when someone has taken marriage vows, they are promising that they will be faithful to the other person. Breaking this vow is wrong. I have been married for 38 years and my wife and I still do the horizontal bop two to three times per week for no other reason than the pleasures of the flesh. If you choose to forsake this pure pleasure for puritanical reasons, I feel sorry for your wife.Ed George
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
EG, I could point out again, for cause, that you have begged the question by way of loaded, complex questions that presume conclusions about reality that should rather be warranted. Others have pointed it out, too. Your doubling down in response is predictable. Your continual harping on sexual perversities is also there, and as was long since pointed out is both repulsive and a manifestation of the delusion of trying to judge what is straight and upright by a crooked yardstick. I will not elaborate on such. Instead, I will let the testimony of the White Rose martyrs speak on the reality of manifest, radical, demonic evil, which has been particularly evident over the past 100+ years; but which is conveniently sidelined by too many who should know better. I also remind, that a further manifestation of such demonic evil is the ongoing widely unacknowledged holocaust of our living posterity in the womb at a global rate of about a million victims per week, per Guttmacher-UN numbers. Collectively, we are worse, more tainted, warped, deluded and enslaved by radical, manifestly literally and patently demonic evil than was the late, unlamented Third Reich of Hitler and co. We are collectively Nazis on steroids now, enmeshed in lies, perversities, crookedness and mass blood guilt on an unprecedented, global scale. Guilty, guilty, guilty are we. Our whole civilisation therefore needs exorcism, starting with a truth and reconciliation commission at which the truth will be exposed; beginning the process by breaking free from a web of lies. And we know whose native language is the lie, as he is father of lies. Be reminded of the Dominical warning, that because One spoke truth, some -- caught up in crooked yardsticks -- were unable to hear it and set out to do the bidding of the father of lies. KF PS: The White Rose martyrs speak, in words paid for in their blood, shed through judicial murder at the hands of kangaroo courts:
WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.
After this, I simply note: please open your eyes to see and acknowledge the manifest reality of radical, perverse, utterly demonic evil haunting our civilisation and indeed the whole world.kairosfocus
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
@6 Ed George
I have noticed a trend.
'You' have noticed nothing, 'you' are a 'neuronal residue' (according to materialism). Did you say you are not a materialist? What is your 'understanding' of 'reality'? Maybe you are an idealist?
I agree that my question is a loaded question,
Logical fallacy.
But only because there is only one logically coherent and consistent answer. And that is, Judeo-Christian religions would not have been as successful as they have been if they didn’t attribute socially negative behaviour to temptation by some evil intelligence (Satan, demons, etc).
Question-begging.Truthfreedom
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
EG I notice a trend too. When people get exasperated by your inane rhetorical questions, you chortle to yourself that they have been made ‘uncomfortable’.Belfast
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
KF
EG, loaded language disqualification, by which you imply fundamental falsity before the matter is examined. The question fails. KF
I have noticed a trend. Whenever anyone asks you an uncomfortable question you declare it a loaded question and refuse to answer. I agree that my question is a loaded question, but only because there is only one logically coherent and consistent answer. And that is, Judeo-Christian religions would not have been as successful as they have been if they didn’t attribute socially negative behaviour to temptation by some evil intelligence (Satan, demons, etc).Ed George
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
EG, loaded language disqualification, by which you imply fundamental falsity before the matter is examined. The question fails. KFkairosfocus
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
KF, do you honestly think that Judeo-Christian religions would have been as successful if they didn’t invent the idea of third-party (ie, Satan, demons, etc) temptation towards “sin”. Without that, they would have little more social cohesion strength that the Lions club, or the Legion.Ed George
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
EG, The OP rightly points to self-referential incoherence by way of implicit appeal to grand delusion. If a claim or argument radically undermines credibility of mind, it fails. As to claims that "religion" is rooted in the magic of social collusion etc, they simply bark up the wrong tree. We are contingent, reasoning, inescapably morally governed creatures. Indeed an implicit appeal of your argument (ultimately, fatal) is that we are duty-bound to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness, justice etc. That conscience attested law of our morally governed nature is no grand delusion on pain of instant absurdity. It points to the roots of reality, the only place IS and OUGHT can be bridged without ungrounded ought. That sets a bill of requisites for that root: capable of being a source of worlds and particularly of worlds with such creatures. Where, our world gives every strong sign of intelligent design, start with coded algorithmic [so, purposeful] information in cell based life, in a cosmos where the physics is fine tuned for C-chem, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet, cell based life. Many other signs of design and artistry confront us also -- just this morning I was looking at gradient fills in the sky. Design is manifest and points to designer. Further, to bridge IS and OUGHT, the root of reality is inherently good and utterly wise. Such things are not hard to see, it takes systematic, aggressive indoctrination backed by power to keep driving them out of the public square. But clearly, belief in a good God is a natural, responsible state of belief. KF PS: And we haven't got to the He is there and is not silent factor yet.kairosfocus
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
I doubt that we will ever know exactly how religion developed. But the idea that certain behaviours that are beneficial become ritualized is a valid observation. If I were to develop a “just so” story about religion I would keep it simple. Except in times of epidemic, I don’t think anyone would argue that anything that reinforces social cohesion is beneficial to society. And we all know that religion plays this role. We also know that nothing strengthens social cohesion like an adversary. The Germans and Japanese during WWII, the Russians during the Cold War, the muslims after 9/11, Satan, homosexuals, adulterers, etc.Ed George
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Actually belief in Darwin arises from a strictly Darwinian process. Belief in fashionable nonsense is an adaptation that leads to survival and food. If you don't believe, you don't get grants so you starve. It's also selected by mating and domestication. If you don't believe, you don't get friends and mates, and you are forcibly culled from the hive.polistra
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
1 7 8 9

Leave a Reply