Why are we religious, if there is nothing there?

ScholarlySeeker said:
Lol! Yes indeed eh? The one sure thing is here I am, and I actually know it.....at least for now... so, this kinda opens up a can o worms doesn't it..... is subjectivity the actual only real we ought to worry about and think on? I can't convince anyone that I actually think, but I really do actually think, so therefore I know I am here, for now. I think...
Click to expand...
Alrighty then...if you are because you think, is a dog a dog because it thinks? Or maybe because a worm doesn't think, it doesn't exist?

I can accept that the total of what IS is far too much for my little pea brain (or is that P brane?) to fully and completely grasp, but whether or not I am capable of understanding - what IS simply is. Reality exists. It is there. It is real. What differs is the 8 billion and counting interpretations by those who believe they think while disregarding the views of all other sentient creatures.
 
juantoo3 said:
what IS simply is. Reality exists. It is there. It is real. What differs is the 8 billion and counting interpretations by those who believe they think while disregarding the views of all other sentient creatures.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that the 8 billion interpretations simply ARE, as well. They are part of reality.
 
Cino said:
I would like to point out that the 8 billion interpretations simply ARE, as well. They are part of reality.
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that Cino's post is also a little bit more part of reality......GRIN!
 
It really IS a post, after all.

Now the verb "to be" (the copula), that's where the buck stops. It's not really a verb ;)
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
I am therefore I am .. no .. I'm not God .. OR Jesus :)
Click to expand...

That's what I'm getting at, though it is hard to spot in English, which has all but lost grammatical case. The oddity of the copula shows itself better in this example, because vestiges of case marking remain in the English pronouns:

"Mary is she". The pronoun "she" is in the nominative, because the copula works differently from all other verbs:

"Mary sees her", "Mary meets her", ... the pronoun "her" is in the accusative case.

The copula does not really have a direct object, which in languages with case markings would be denoted by the accusative. (Though there are other case systems, such as in Turkish, which work differently).

Just fooling around with grammar, of course. Grammar really is a nerd-fest, even though billions of opinions about it vary.
 
Last edited:
Cino said:
I would like to point out that the 8 billion interpretations simply ARE, as well. They are part of reality.
Click to expand...
Good point, in the sense that all of those interpretations are the result of electro-chemical processes across neurons, axons and synapses. So why are there so many variant interpretations if they are all "seeing" the same thing? Does a dog see the same reality? Does a cat? Does a cow? Does a goldfish? Does a crow? Does a porpoise?

Being a part of reality does not by itself imply being able to "see" or comprehend the total of reality. Like most animals I can relate to my immediate surroundings, and like a lot of larger predatory animals my range of immediate surroundings is bigger than say a gnat or snail, but is still limited. Humans do have a tendency to extrapolate from what they are familiar with and project that onto what they do not know or understand, at least until becoming more familiar with subtle distinctions, presuming a need or interest - neither of which is a given. Humans have developed a means of sharing information / knowledge, though that practice is often imprecise and speculative.
 
juantoo3 said:
Good point, in the sense that all of those interpretations are the result of electro-chemical processes across neurons, axons and synapses.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I meant it in the sense, up an order of complexity, that billions of people really do think thoughts.

Even if they think about unreal things, the future, what could have been, etc, the reality is,they are really cognizing, thinking.
 
Cino said:
Yes, but I meant it in the sense, up an order of complexity, that billions of people really do think thoughts.

Even if they think about unreal things, the future, what could have been, etc, the reality is,they are really cognizing, thinking.
Click to expand...
OK, but that brings me back to the dog - running around the back yard seeking the best place to bury the bone in his mouth. Is he not also cognizing?

Ultimately, my point is that it is a species centric arrogance among humans to believe no other animals think or are cognizant. Animal reasoning abilities are limited compared to humans, but not altogether missing. Time, particularly future time, seems to be vague to other creatures, based on my reading of transcripts from Koko the gorilla, and supported with general though imprecise folk reasoning that dogs have no sense of time. Indeed, other than the urgency of the rain dance when I walk through the door, it doesn't appear to matter to my dog if I get home on time or two hours later - or two hours before. As long as he gets to go out and relieve himself and come back in to food and water, he's pretty much good to go.

I do sense animals have past time recollections, what might also be called experience, and typically among most mammals and some birds, negative past experience translates to avoidance of similar / same situations. To some lesser degree this is also true in reverse with positive experiences, and behaviorism generally calls this negative and positive reinforcement, respectively. (And behaviorism, treating humans as animals when it comes to reasoning - little of which has any basis in thinking or thought - is the foundation of advertising psychology à la John B Watson)

The mere act of thinking or reasoning is insufficient of itself to notate a threshold that separates humans from other animals, and the ability to think any form of thoughts is certainly no indication that any, let alone many or most, have a full or even significant grasp of the total of the IS. Even "our" vaunted "scientific facts" are mutable and changeable, and what makes sense to the multitudes today will be meaningless and laughable two hundred years from now, just as the "facts" of two hundred years ago are laughable to us now.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
What I find intriguing is the beginning of religion...

The question to me has long been "why are we religious, if there is nothing there?"
Click to expand...

OK l'm seeing a standard digest of arguments for the gentle weaning off of religion. The twist you added was a few circular logical fallacies e.g.:

"the beginning of religion" = from the outset you frame religion as a thing invented, in which case there is indeed nothing really there

"why are we religious, if there is nothing there" = full blown circular logic. There is nothing there. So why indeed are we religous?

In between, there's just a lot of pro-evolutionary palaeoanthropology stuff but l've not studied that field so l'll avoid commenting except to say, perhaps, that maybe we lived in caves to seek temporary shelter, maybe it was even hunters that used those caves while hunting (hence the paintings). Maybe there was temporarily a terrible cataclysm from space. Maybe we arrived on earth fully formed and various prophets taught us sciences e.g. Seth, perhaps also Euclid, Hermes were prophets too etc. etc. I mean, the fact is, evolution by genetic mutation has zero evidence as far as l'm aware. It's never been observed as far as l'm aware. I made a thread about it here: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19707/
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
OK l'm seeing a standard digest of arguments for the gentle weaning off of religion. The twist you added was a few circular logical fallacies e.g.:

"the beginning of religion" = from the outset you frame religion as a thing invented, in which case there is indeed nothing really there

"why are we religious, if there is nothing there" = full blown circular logic. There is nothing there. So why indeed are we religous?

In between, there's just a lot of pro-evolutionary palaeoanthropology stuff but l've not studied that field so l'll avoid commenting except to say, perhaps, that maybe we lived in caves to seek temporary shelter, maybe it was even hunters that used those caves while hunting (hence the paintings). Maybe there was temporarily a terrible cataclysm from space. Maybe we arrived on earth fully formed and various prophets taught us sciences e.g. Seth, perhaps also Euclid, Hermes were prophets too etc. etc. I mean, the fact is, evolution by genetic mutation has zero evidence as far as l'm aware. It's never been observed as far as l'm aware. I made a thread about it here: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19707/
Click to expand...
Standard Narcissistic Solipsism

That is both a direct observation and ad hominem, leveled in response to your attempted ad hominem and successful ignoratio elenchi fallacies

Nice talking to ya.


Next?
 
Last edited:
wil said:
First off I dont think I have the focus to work my way thru the thread.

Second I wonder about the essence of interfaith discussion as a means to what end?
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I can't speak for others, but to me this place was always about trying to find ways to get along. So often we hear the lament "can't we all just get along?" So few that utter those words make the attempt. That is what this place started as for me.

Life happens. Disillusion sets in. Reality slaps one upside the head. Idealisms get crushed. And one awakens one day to realize how often the same personalities abuse the privilege and walk all over (nay, stomp into the ground) those that allow them by means of "virtue."

I still hold a glimmer of hope, but Solomon was quite right...there's nothing new under the sun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top