If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?
| March 12, 2015 | Posted by News under Naturalism, Religion |
Here at Evolution News & Views:
Another claim we hear, from celebrity skeptic Michael Shermer for example, is that science — and he of course includes Darwinian mechanisms for evolution in that category — is objective knowledge that will save us from superstition. But in the United States, a 2007-2008 Baylor University survey reported that
traditional Christian religion greatly decreases credulity, as measured by beliefs in such things as dreams, Bigfoot, UFOs, haunted houses, communicating with the dead and astrology (Ch. 15, “Credulity: Who Believes in Bigfoot”).
They found that self-identified theological liberals and irreligious people were far more likely to believe in such things than other Americans. More.
20 Responses to If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hold the presses News Desk! In the comments to my prior post the materialist commenters all swore up and down that it must absolutely be the case that natural selection usually selects for behaviors resulting from holding true beliefs. Yet these same materialists also insist that the vast majority of humans throughout history have been motivated at a very basic level by false beliefs — i.e., religious beliefs and other superstitions.
It cannot possibly be the case that they are trying to have it both ways. Can it?
B.A. You make a very interesting point.
This is a complete misrepresentation. Behaviors resulting from beliefs (and beliefs themselves) cannot be selected for, since they are not heritable biochemically (via DNA). What can be shaped and affected by genetic factors is a well-functioning brain. In non-pathological cases its owner has a potential to develop individual beliefs and habits consistent with reality (as a bare minimum, the rules of “common sense”, which prevent you from being lethally stupid). Mind you, they are transmitted culturally, not biochemically, and they are rarely invented from scratch. We usually acquire them (already tested and accepted by other people before us) as we interact with our social and cultural environment.
We may also acquire a lot of cultural junk — a ballast of irrational ideas, myths and superstitions accumulated in the course of history. They may linger on for millennia if their net effect is neither particularly positive nor outright destructive. People may even mistake them for “The Truth” just because they are old enough to look venerable.
Of course you may have a perfectly normal brain but fail to use its full potential. It’s your private problem; natural selection doesn’t see it.
Mr Arrington, when I presented Dr. Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism to an atheist, the atheist said the following in response to me:
In response to him, I pointed out that atheists have a much lower reproduction rate than Theists,,,
I also pointed out that atheists ‘have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind’
Moreover, atheists have the lowest retention rate of any religion
After I cited those to him, I asked the atheist this:
He refused to answer the question and left the thread. And no wonder, either answer is a self defeater for the position of evolutionary naturalism!
of note:
… which doesn’t matter (see above), because religion is transmitted culturally, not genetically. There may be a temporary correlation between religiosity and reproduction rate, but it won’t be historically stable. My country is one of the most religious in Europe, but it’s also among those with the lowest reproduction rates.
Barry,
Here’s what I wrote:
Others made similar statements.
You continue:
Sure. Why do you think that is contradictory? We certainly don’t believe that human cognition is perfect, but we do argue that it is shaped by natural selection.
By the way, you still haven’t responded to my comment in that thread:
Piotr, so you believe in Dawkin’s notion of the meme as opposed to the gene?!?
of related note:
#7
Of course there are “cultural replicators”, whatever you call them. The reality of cultural inheritance is beyond dispute. We learn, remember, and make records, transmitting our knowledge, beliefs and ideas from generation to generation. You learn your mother tongue, social codes, religious tenets etc. from the community you are brought up in (and sometimes borrow them from other communities). Any problems with that?
Piotr, as long as a purely material basis is involved in forming thoughts and beliefs, your atheistic position fails utterly to account for reason:
As CS Lewis and Haldane put it:
Music:
Barry,
Do you believe a Creator designed our brains for recognizing the truth?
Do you believe that with all the religions and superstitions that we have “been motivated at a very basic level by false beliefs”?
Who’s trying to have it both ways?
(Also, I’d hardly consider religious beliefs as beliefs at a “very basic level” – very far from it. I think the very basic level would be stuff like: rocks aren’t edible, lions are dangerous, falling from great heights is dangerous, you can’t run through tree in front of you, etc etc)
LOL, Bornagain,
C.S. Lewis & Jack Haldane: what an unlikely mix! Have you read anything else by Haldane, or only as much as you need for your quotemine/copypasta job?
Piotr, your belief that religion is merely a “cultural replicator”, i.e. a ‘meme’, is contradicted by empirical evidence:
Thus, my response to the atheist, which I cited at 4, holds:
as to the Haldane quote, I consider Haldane a hostile witness to the point I was making. His quote is valuable precisely because he was such a staunch materialist and yet he concedes the very point I was making.
Of note: the modern synthesis, of which Haldane had a part in forming, is now falsified.
BA77
Empirical evidence? Like the b.s. paraded as evidence by Justin L. Barrett?
The tendentious wording of “Why the fist bird existed” already suggests that there was a “first bird” and that there was a “reason why”. Objection — a leading question!
Ah, yes. Evolution = a disorderly heap of blocks becomes a neat stack when hit by a rolling ball. Objection — a straw man!
From what we’ve already seen, Barret has a fertile imagination. Hearsay isn’t evidence.
He forgot to explore other “facts”, such as wishful thinking. “Would you rather die or live forever?” Any child who prefers the latter would be classified as a “born believer”.
Barry Arrington at 1 and bFast at 2: One way of addressing the problem is to consider it like this (and I will do so in a later post): naturalism can consider any position other than that
1) there is design in the universe and that
2) humans may have discovered its nature
– whether by our own efforts or because the designer(s) simply told us, because we could not otherwise figure it out (revelation)
Design explains morality (and for that matter, art, music, mathematics, and philosophy) far better than natural selection does.
People want to conform to a pattern more than they want to “succeed,” absent a pattern.
Kim Jong Un has the power of life and death over his subjects, but is there a less envied ruler in the world?
Elizabeth II, Queen of the Commonwealth, has no formal power but what reasonable, moral person would not prefer her state to his?
The contrast is a window into the real human world. The world in which North Koreans die every year for professing Christianity (or any form of ethical monotheism), despite the risks.
And elsewhere, people are free to profess any nonsense they wish, including new atheism. Ideally, the only teaching tool in this world is the consequences of their own foolish choices.
I will shortly outline some nonsensical naturalist theories about religion.
Of note: The Dr Olivera Petrovich video is no longer available, so I cite this reference to get the general drift of her lecture across:
Piotr, the trouble with your criticism of Barrett at 13 is that even atheists cannot escape the deep seeded belief that things exist for a purpose and are not an accident:
Thus atheists are in actuality suffering from the mental illness of denialism:
Although there are various methods for scientifically detecting design, basically, at its most foundational level, ‘design detection’ is an inbuilt, ‘natural’, ability that humans possess because of the ‘image of God’ that they have within themselves.
In the following video Dr. Behe quotes Richard Dawkins himself from his book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’, in noting that ‘design detection’ is a ‘natural’ for humans:
Moreover, Richards Dawkins is not the only atheist who seems to be afflicted with this mental illness of seeing the ‘illusion of design’ pervasively throughout life. And I note that they are seeing ‘the appearance of design’ even though they have never conducted any scientific experiments, or mathematical calculations, to scientifically ‘detect design’ in life, in anything man-made, or in anything otherwise:
Indeed, the atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, seems to have been particularly haunted by this illusion of seeing design everywhere he looked in molecular biology:
Thus, since these atheists are seeing the ‘illusion of design’, (seeing this illusion of design with what they claim to be to be the ‘illusion of mind’ I might add 🙂 ), without ever conducting any scientific experiments to ever rigorously ‘detect design’, then of course the ID advocate would be well justified in saying that these atheists are not really suffering from a mental illness at all but they are in fact ‘naturally detecting design’ because of the inherent ‘image of God’ that they have within themselves.
Verse and Music:
Of course, there is design in the Universe.
We do it!
The real questions are:
1) Do we have any evidence of the handiwork of advanced alien intelligences on Earth.
2) Why would advanced alien design look like 20th/21st century human design?
Why does “religion” get so many basic facts wrong?
If naturalism can explain religion, does that make it true?
It’s strange, but this seems to be Darwin’s legacy! No longer is experimental evidence required for things to be accepted as scientific facts.
Another question:
If naturalism can explain religion, shouldn’t it also be able to explain naturalism as well?
Does anyone else ever wonder why evolutionists apply their creative explanatory powers to everything but their own worldview?
I think the logic in that article is somewhat muddled. Certain beliefs are used as evidence of credulity. However several of those beliefs are based on solid evidence even though they are not mainstream beliefs. You might as well add belief in ID to that list. The evidence I am referring to can be found here:
Communication with spirits:
http://sites.google.com/site/c.....f_evidence
Sasquatch:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....eople.html
UFOs
Astronauts Say UFOs are Real
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....-real.html
High Ranking Government and Military Officials Say UFOs are Extraterrestrial Craft Visiting the Earth
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....itary.html
more: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/6.....ubject_ufo
Also, Carl Jung believed in astrology, he thought it worked by synchronicity.
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_jung
Every scientific controversy shows that the best interpretation of the evidence is a matter of opinion. It is not helpful to call someone who interprets the evidence differently “credulous”. Particularly if you are not familiar with the evidence yourself.