First of all, you mean that theism has been a human constant. Deism is a specific religious affiliation.
Second of all, I think that human belief in the divine is simple to explain. It doesn’t take much to see a comet shoot by in the sky and think it’s supernatural in origin- especially when you know nothing about space or, well, just about anything. The clever will always be willing to prey on the ignorant.
Ah yes, you are quite right. Thank you.
Sure, there are a variety of explanations. That was my point. Yet, in spite of scientific discovery, theism is still going strong. The scientist may understand comets and the universe better than he did 1000 years ago, but it doesn’t necessarily conflict with his faith in a supreme creator.
And we are all ignorant in some manner. There are still many things about the natural world even the most clever among us don’t yet understand. I can accept that, I don’t require explanations for everything. Some do. So what?
Yes. Why is a theist allowed to “know” that there is a God, but an atheist isn’t allowed to “know” that there is no God?
IMHO, the most likely “deeper meaning” is that’s what you get after millennia of murdering and persecuting people who don’t make a show of how religious they are. Just like cattle being bred for passivity, humans have bred themselves for religiosity.
I can answer that: It is possible to experience a real God, and many say they have, but impossible to experience a no God, or one that doesn’t exist.
Now if you don’t believe they experienced God, then that is another thread.
You’re right, and paintings in caves by the early cave men indicate they believed in a life after death. I think the answer is very simple, kazillions of people have said they experienced God, including me, so I would say they have experienced something that led them to believe in a higher consciousness. Just because a few skeptics think they are nuts doesn’t make them so. Therefor I think religions will change as they have in the past, but the core belief in God will remain forever.
You’re right, my saying you’re nuts doesn’t make it so.
It’s your claiming to experience the supernatural or divine that makes it so.
That’s what the leprechauns want you to think. You can’t be *certain *that the dog is doing it, and, if you’re really an agnostic, you should cut him some slack. There’s a chance he’s being framed.
The fact that the human brain predisposes us toward certain types of beliefs should make you MORE skeptical about religious claims, not less. It implies that our cognition has a built-in bias that we must work strongly to overcome if we are to see the world accurately.
It’s as though you’re saying “The fact that the human visual system tends to interpret ambiguous shapes as human figures keeps me from ruling out the possibility that ghosts are real. Why would we imagine that we see them if they weren’t actually there?”
As a minor note, even an atheist might defend religion in the larger context of defending freedom, i.e. being disturbed if government thugs start padlocking the meeting halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses, banning their literature and taking away their children. Even if one holds the JWs in utter contempt, it’s legitimate to be concerned about governmental abuses. It won’t be defending religion, as such, but the free practice thereof, if the distinction matters.
Any whack job who’ll go so far as to plant sock fibers in a dog’s asshole does not merit my reverence.
Who’s we? And why must it be overcome? And perhaps it’s the other way around. Maybe it is the non-religious that must overcome *their *handicap. Or not. Who knows? Why should I care?
Is it a fact? Ghosts seem to be as historically prevalent as theism and often goes hand-in-hand with it. As such, I bundle that up with faith in god as faith in the soul and the persistence of human energy. I don’t really know what’s possible as the concept of a soul is truly beyond current scientific understanding. I don’t believe in it in the same way I don’t believe in god, but, no, I don’t rule it out.
Yes, it does matter. In that context, I suppose I would defend religion. I seem to be doing as much on FB currently in a discussion on the Catholic position on immigration reform and their constitutional right to sermonize on social issues that affect our national policy. It’s sort of a weird position for me to take.
Certainly. It’s the old “when they came for the X I did nothing because I was not an X” principle. The same system that can haul off a JW for being a JW can haul me off for being an atheist. But that only means defending the right of people to practice it; it doesn’t mean defending it in the sense of pretending it is plausible or benevolent.
Makes it so what?
Some one has to experience the divine, might as well be me.
The better we understand how the universe works, the better we can predict which actions will have positive outcomes. Except, our brains didn’t evolve to understand how the universe works in general. They evolved to keep us alive in a very specific context – as tribal hunter-gatherers on the Africa grasslands. So they may lead us draw incorrect conclusions outside of that particular context. For example, they may tell us that eating lots of fat and sugar is the best thing to do, even though in our current time of plenty, it’s not.
Our tendency toward theological thinking might have served some purpose back in ancient human history, just like our craving for sweets and fats did, or it might simply be an accident of evolution. However, merely because we possess that tendency, that doesn’t mean that it provides us with an accurate picture of how the universe functions. Careful attention to evidence suggests that it doesn’t.
Stop trusting your brain so much. It’s unreliable and flaky. Everyone’s is.
I don’t understand the confusion.
When I say “You’re right, my saying you’re nuts doesn’t make it so- it’s your claiming to experience the supernatural or the divine that makes it so” I’m obviously referring to your being nuts.
It’s your experiencing the supernatural and divine that makes you nuts, not the harping atheists.
But I did experience the divine. How can you know whether I did or not? If I am nuts, then you must be omniscient. Tell me what I ate for breakfast.
Jesus. Side order of Holy Spirit.
lekatt, if we followed your logic there’d be nobody in insane asylums.
“But how do YOU know that I’m not speaking to John Kennedy’s ghost?”
When I say that I think you’re insane, I don’t mean that as an insult, I mean that literally.
“Ahsk not what JFK’s ghost can tell you, ahsk what you can tell JFK’s ghost.”
Yes. I don’t, but my lack of experience doesn’t disprove their experience, and they tell me they do, and they sure seem to be sincere, so why not?
No, I’m happy. If anything, I grudge them the cultural significance and ritual. That’s why I’m dating a (cultural, not religious) Jew.