|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 20:04:29 GMT
What else 'could' explain it? I imagine the following circumstances could perhaps play a part: Genetic predisposition Upbringing (not necessarily of a religious nature but might leave you more susceptible to religious thought from other sources) Intellectual interests (some might be drawn to theology) Personality (eg would a kind child be more drawn to certain aspects of Christianity?) Existential despair Trauma Urge to belong Urge to reject the status quo Reaction to oppression (eg "in the next life things will be better") Reinforcement of oppression, (eg "I am clearly meant to be at the top of society") If you look at it just as a case of indoctrination, that alone wouldn't explain the varieties of ways people react to that indoctrination. Some people buy into it as adults, some modify the belief, some don't think all that much about it, some reject it completely, some discard one set of religious beliefs but take up another (eg imagine a girl raised in a Christian household who becomes a Wiccan in her late teens). Then you have people who were not indoctrinated but become religious as adults. Of course cultures will often dictate the nature of that religious belief. Everything except genetic disposition comes under the broad brush of nurture. There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith, despite someone's claim ( a theist) on here recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 20:33:16 GMT
I imagine the following circumstances could perhaps play a part: Genetic predisposition Upbringing (not necessarily of a religious nature but might leave you more susceptible to religious thought from other sources) Intellectual interests (some might be drawn to theology) Personality (eg would a kind child be more drawn to certain aspects of Christianity?) Existential despair Trauma Urge to belong Urge to reject the status quo Reaction to oppression (eg "in the next life things will be better") Reinforcement of oppression, (eg "I am clearly meant to be at the top of society") If you look at it just as a case of indoctrination, that alone wouldn't explain the varieties of ways people react to that indoctrination. Some people buy into it as adults, some modify the belief, some don't think all that much about it, some reject it completely, some discard one set of religious beliefs but take up another (eg imagine a girl raised in a Christian household who becomes a Wiccan in her late teens). Then you have people who were not indoctrinated but become religious as adults. Of course cultures will often dictate the nature of that religious belief. Everything except genetic disposition comes under the broad brush of nurture. There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith, despite someone's claim ( a theist) on here recently. Of course the nature of that religion will be cultural
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 20:38:57 GMT
Everything except genetic disposition comes under the broad brush of nurture. There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith, despite someone's claim ( a theist) on here recently. Of course the nature of that religion will be cultural Citation{S} required. Remember that correlation does not imply causation. There may be many genetic tendencies shared by people of religious 'persuasion'.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 22:28:06 GMT
Citation{S} required. Remember that correlation does not imply causation. There may be many genetic tendencies shared by people of religious 'persuasion'. There is a citation in the link I provided. A quick google search will show you that this is not as cut and dried as you think, there exists evidence that religion may be genetically influenced.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 23:21:40 GMT
Citation{S} required. Remember that correlation does not imply causation. There may be many genetic tendencies shared by people of religious 'persuasion'. There is a citation in the link I provided. A quick google search will show you that this is not as cut and dried as you think, there exists evidence that religion may be genetically influenced. I don't accept that type of research because it is impossible to isolate the genetic component from the nurture, even in twins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 13, 2019 23:26:19 GMT
I'm lazy...
It's easier not to:
You can only roll the dice so many times praying for a 6... and realizing that you get a 6 once every six times, regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 23:28:08 GMT
There is a citation in the link I provided. A quick google search will show you that this is not as cut and dried as you think, there exists evidence that religion may be genetically influenced. I don't accept that type of research because it is impossible to isolate the genetic component from the nurture, even in twins. Cool, be aware though that qualified scientists who specialise in this field DO accept this type of research. Basically you are doing what you accuse religious people of and that is dismissing something simply because it does not fit YOUR narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 23:32:23 GMT
I don't accept that type of research because it is impossible to isolate the genetic component from the nurture, even in twins. Cool, be aware though that qualified scientists who specialise in this field DO accept this type of research. Basically you are doing what you accuse religious people of and that is dismissing something simply because it does not fit YOUR narrative. No, it is due to the difficulties and complexities of separating nurture from nature and the difficulties of associating specific genes to specific characteristics. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than that. Just ask the research scientists who have linked a complex combination of genes and maternal health issues in utero for evidence of gay being 'genetic'! Add to that the fact that is easier to isolate what being 'gay' is than being 'religious'!
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 23:37:42 GMT
Cool, be aware though that qualified scientists who specialise in this field DO accept this type of research. Basically you are doing what you accuse religious people of and that is dismissing something simply because it does not fit YOUR narrative. No, it is due to the difficulties and complexities of separating nurture from nature and the difficulties of associating specific genes to specific characteristics. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than that. Just ask the research scientists who have linked a complex combination of genes and maternal health issues in utero for evidence of gay being 'genetic'! Add to that the fact that is easier to isolate what being 'gay' is than being 'religious'! You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists do accept this type of research, and you are dismissing it for personal reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 13, 2019 23:43:51 GMT
Is there a difference between believing in God and believing there is a god?
It's not so much that I don't think there is a god...I don't. But more importantly, so what? I have no idea what a god is, what to believe about it nor what would be the point of believing it exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 23:44:17 GMT
No, it is due to the difficulties and complexities of separating nurture from nature and the difficulties of associating specific genes to specific characteristics. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than that. Just ask the research scientists who have linked a complex combination of genes and maternal health issues in utero for evidence of gay being 'genetic'! Add to that the fact that is easier to isolate what being 'gay' is than being 'religious'! You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists do accept this type of research, and you are dismissing it for personal reasons. No, I am not dismissing this type of research, as this type of research can be of use, just not in these complex circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 13, 2019 23:56:28 GMT
That isn’t awful. What is awful is the idea that not believing in him would somehow result in torture. What a terrible belief. I went to Catholic Church and School. Once I got out on my own I was like you. I turned my back on God. Something happened later in my life that changed me. I will not share it. I just pray that you're as smart as you think you are. I grew up in a protestant environment...a very pleasant, kind, nurturing environment with good parents, basically good siblings, a nice church and I was never abused. I transitioned from being pretty much a Christian theist when I was ~20 to an atheist by the time I was ~35. It took ~15 years of thinking. That was ~35 yrs ago. I doubt anything is going to change and cause me to believe in God again. I feel bad for people who were treated unkindly in a religious setting and lose their belief for that reason. That kind of decision should be done deliberately, slowly, with careful thought and not be a spur of the moment kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 23:57:20 GMT
You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists do accept this type of research, and you are dismissing it for personal reasons. No, I am not dismissing this type of research, as this type of research can be of use, just not in these complex circumstances. You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists DO accept this type of research in this type of situation and until you can provide something other than your personal assertions to back up your stance, then you ARE dismissing it simply for personal reasons. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your opinion and it's great you have one, but in this instance I think I will go with the assertions of the professionals who actually specialise in this stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 14, 2019 0:01:04 GMT
Simple reason: there is no evidence. In fact, none has ever been presented in the entire history of mankind. When you produce it I’ll change my mind. Until then, I’ll consider it untrue.
But there is plausible evidence for those who can see...
-Eucharistic Miracles
-Our Lady of Gaudalupe image from the year 1531 -Our Lady of Las Lajas (image on a rock from the year 1754) -Our Lady of Fatima (the miracle of the sun from Oct 13th 1917) etc
so those who say there is no evidence in the slightest for God's (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) existence are wrong 
but like I always say it seems to boil down to the following quote for many...
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas
or like one from the bible...
"Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’" - Luke 16:31
Unexplained events might be evidence of unexplained powers, but not necessarily evidence of God. Perhaps humans have the power to affect the world around them in ways that might appear miraculous. Perhaps one just has to have faith in humans. Because, "To the one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To the one without faith, no explanation is possible."
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 14, 2019 0:09:32 GMT
I'm not debating your argument. I'm saying those with a religious inclination won't accept it while those who lack that inclination probably wouldn't see much of an issue with it. Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. I see what you mean. What I would say is that I’m confident very few people would believe religious ideas if they were taught them after that were 20 for instance. Whereas almost everybody would believe any sort of discovery based in math/physics/chemistry/biology because you could present them with the findings. Religion IMO, largely only survives due to constant childhood indoctrination, so I don’t consider it something people are inclined to believe so much as they are tricked into accepting early on, and once their worldview is set, many of them will not allow themselves to be talked out of it. There is a principle for that but I can’t remember what it’s called right now. It’s the same thing as remembering a song lyric incorrectly for instance and being sure you are right even when somebody shows you the real lyrics. Assuming you believe humans evolved from lower life forms (that weren't religious) and the gene pool gradually evolved into what is considered human now, how do you imagine religion got started in the first place?
|
|
Huxley
Sophomore
@huxley
Posts: 258
Likes: 86
 
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 14, 2019 0:30:16 GMT
I went to Catholic Church and School. Once I got out on my own I was like you. I turned my back on God. Something happened later in my life that changed me. I will not share it. I just pray that you're as smart as you think you are. I grew up in a protestant environment...a very pleasant, kind, nurturing environment with good parents, basically good siblings, a nice church and I was never abused. I transitioned from being pretty much a Christian theist when I was ~20 to an atheist by the time I was ~35. It took ~15 years of thinking. That was ~35 yrs ago. I doubt anything is going to change and cause me to believe in God again. I feel bad for people who were treated unkindly in a religious setting and lose their belief for that reason. That kind of decision should be done deliberately, slowly, with careful thought and not be a spur of the moment kind of thing. What if you're wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 14, 2019 0:38:08 GMT
No, I am not dismissing this type of research, as this type of research can be of use, just not in these complex circumstances. You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists DO accept this type of research in this type of situation and until you can provide something other than your personal assertions to back up your stance, then you ARE dismissing it simply for personal reasons. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your opinion and it's great you have one, but in this instance I think I will go with the assertions of the professionals who actually specialise in this stuff. Upon what basis do these 'experts' define 'religion' in a way that bears any resemblance to a gene?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 14, 2019 0:46:22 GMT
You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists DO accept this type of research in this type of situation and until you can provide something other than your personal assertions to back up your stance, then you ARE dismissing it simply for personal reasons. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your opinion and it's great you have one, but in this instance I think I will go with the assertions of the professionals who actually specialise in this stuff. Upon what basis do these 'experts' define 'religion' in a way that bears any resemblance to a gene? Why don't you read the information provided. You made a claim that genetics has absolutely nothing to do with religion, I provided evidence that at least some of the relevant scientific community disagree with you. As far as I am concerned I have made my point, there is evidence that genetics has a part to play in religion. if you don't believe me, or want to start making straw men about there being some claim that religion resembles a gene, fine go ahead, it's no skin off my nose, my point has been adequately proven.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 14, 2019 1:43:52 GMT
I grew up in a protestant environment...a very pleasant, kind, nurturing environment with good parents, basically good siblings, a nice church and I was never abused. I transitioned from being pretty much a Christian theist when I was ~20 to an atheist by the time I was ~35. It took ~15 years of thinking. That was ~35 yrs ago. I doubt anything is going to change and cause me to believe in God again. I feel bad for people who were treated unkindly in a religious setting and lose their belief for that reason. That kind of decision should be done deliberately, slowly, with careful thought and not be a spur of the moment kind of thing. What if you're wrong? What if you’re wrong? The prospect of being wrong isn’t a convincing reason to believe something else unless you have further evidence of what is actually correct. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 14, 2019 1:50:13 GMT
Upon what basis do these 'experts' define 'religion' in a way that bears any resemblance to a gene? Why don't you read the information provided. You made a claim that genetics has absolutely nothing to do with religion, I provided evidence that at least some of the relevant scientific community disagree with you. As far as I am concerned I have made my point, there is evidence that genetics has a part to play in religion. if you don't believe me, or want to start making straw men about there being some claim that religion resembles a gene, fine go ahead, it's no skin off my nose, my point has been adequately proven. It is either a bullshit study or reported as such. TWO things: ANYONE who claims that hasn't the faintest idea about genetics. Fraternal twins have the same genetics as siblings ALL of whom inherit 50% of their genes from each at the rate of 50% not necessarily the SAME genes. In fact the chances of that happening are infinitesimal. It makes you wonder why ANY 'scientist' would include 'fraternal twins' in any study and think that they are any more related than regular siblings. It certainly compromises any result that they get as it is a false assumption and scientifically inaccurate. AND
|
|
