Humans 'Predisposed' to Believe in Gods and the Afterlife

[grannymh]

All right, this is a LOT of ad hominem and strawmanning to unpack.

I never said that I only think that Catholicism is vicious.

It really does not matter how many groups are considered vicious.

Now, if I gave you the impression that I am an “anti-Catholic bigot”, I am sorry. This is not bigotry; the only reason that I am addressing Catholicism specifically is that I am communicating with Catholics.

There is a wide range of intelligent people on this Forum who are not Catholic.

If a religion promotes virtues that condemn actions that are not immoral, that religion is not morally sound. That is perfectly reasonable.

Here is a definition of virtue from the Catholic Catechism’s glossary… “A virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to do the good.”

Your claim that religious virtues are coherent is just plain false, not only concerning certain Catholic moral virtues, but also other religions. Is it coherent for Catholics to claim that you should love your neighbor as yourself, yet also that God condemns humans to eternal torture simply for not believing in him? How is that “loving”?

Is there something wrong with humans choosing to love one’s neighbor? If not, why is it being compared it to a negative choice of humans in regard to their personal relationship with God?

Perhaps I should clarify something here.

In any moral philosophy, you will eventually find at the foundation of objective facts a subjective observation.

It would be sincerely appreciated if you supplied your definitions of objective and subjective in regard to your statement: “In any moral philosophy, you will eventually find at the foundation of objective facts a subjective observation.”

In the case of Catholicism, the subjective observation is that “it is in the best interest of humans to do what God wants them to do”. You cannot prove that objectively. In the case of a secular view, the subjective observation is that “human well-being is good and human suffering is bad”. I cannot prove that either; it is merely the opinion of the majority of emotionally and mentally healthy humans that happiness is good and suffering is bad.

In the case of Catholicism, one of the comments can be that morality is based on the objective fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

One of the many examples of the secular view is the philosophy of relativism which is based on the subjective thinking that whatever feels good is good.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[John21652]

…

Planty, you should have quit while you were ahead. By that I mean you should have stopped where you admitted you have lost the debate and that you had much to learn, as you wrote in post #110, last paragraph. From here-on in it just gets worse.

Once again, you are reverting to childish argumentation. You are equivocating homosexuality with incest and polygamy, when they aren’t even close to being on the same moral ground. Again, see my posts in the gay marriage thread instead of using the tired old “slippery slope” argument.

In post #83 you wrote that *"…there are other moral evils that the Catholic Church condones. One example is discrimination against homosexuals. You may not think that the preclusion of homosexuals from marriage is not discrimination, but it is." *. I replied in post #101 that yes, it is discrimination. I agreed with you that it was discrimination and then I showed how moral discrimination is not simply the preserve of the Catholic Church. I pointed out that not all discrimination is wrong and I gave examples of other forms of moral discrimination that not only the Catholic Church, but secular governments abide by and enforce. Here, you seem to think that showing examples of when discrimination is morally justified is "childish argumentation". The childishness is in your inability to see the logical equivalence between the various forms of discrimination that take place on moral grounds. To demonstrate an obvious equivalence is not “equivocating”, as you so wrongly assert. Unless, of course, you have invented a whole new meaning for the word ‘equivocate’.

I could just as easily say the same for alcohol use! So what, if there is even a slight chance that certain behaviors could result in harm (due to irresponsibility), then we should place ridiculous restrictions on it, abstaining altogether? For your information, Catholics do not have a monopoly on sexual responsibility.

In post #83, 4th paragraph, you wrote about the Catholic Church’s “…unhealthy attitude toward sexuality in general.”. That statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of Catholic moral theology on the subject of sexuality and that ignorance demonstrates that you are blind to the results of the relaxation of sexual mores, which I wrote about in response to you, in post #101. You see, you wrote about high school teenagers contracting STDs and having sex. I pointed out to you that if the sexual morality were tighter, teenage sex wouldn’t be an issue. Now, in response, you state you could say the same thing about alcohol use and you assert that because harm may result from irresponsible behaviour that “rediculous restrictions” should not apply. If you wish to say the same about alcohol and give your personal opinion about the rediculousness of restrictions, then I can assert that despite the probable harm from irresponsible drivers under unrestricted traffic rules and regulations, tight restrictions are ‘rediculous’ and should not be in place. I trust you can see the equivalence of what I have just written? What it demonstrates is that even though some people think some restrictions are 'rediculous", on an objective analysis, the rules are necessary to avoid social harm. You advocate that the Catholic Church’s moral edicts on sexuality are ‘rediculous’ and ‘unhealthy’, but if adhered to they do avoid social harm through irresponsible behaviour. Your own subjective analysis cannot change that fact. You advocate nothing more than a bandaid solution to a wider problem and your bandaid involves an even greater relaxation of morality. Imagine what the outcome would be if we applied your thinking to the road rules!

And you think that that is a good reason to justify the death penalty?

In post #83 you wrote "Another example (of the Church’s moral wrongness)* is not relevant to modern Catholicism, but it was during the times of Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More. These “saints” condoned the execution of heretics, which is atrocious.* I responded by pointing out that at the time heresy was tantamount to treason against the state. Aquinas wrote in justification of the secular government’s powers to take life. Considering how many still support the death penalty for certain crimes, how is it that Aquinas’s support for a secularly recognised right is proof of the hypocrosy of the saints, as you suggest? Compare the death penalty with incarceration for life. Perhaps you assuage your own guilt by denying the validity of the death penalty yet willingly deprive an individual of freedom for life through incarceration. Methinks your way might be more cruel.

You also grossly misrepresened Sir Thomas More, a Catholic martyr. In his “Utopia”, published 1516, he argued against the death penalty. Look it up.

cont.d

 

[John21652]

cont.d

Yay, more strawmen!

You clearly stated in post #81that you had objectively analysed Catholicism and religious virtues. You specifically wrote “…It was not a subjective analysis; it was an objective analysis of the moral teachings of Catholicism that have been used to justify immoral actions.”. My response was that your conclusions were based on a subjective and conjectural analysis of Catholicism’s moral code. Pointing out the inherent contradiction is not creating a straw man argument. Please look it up.

The point of my “what if” thought was to illustrate that one interpretation of certain religious texts is as justified as another.

You have just given the all clear for Sola Scriptura, which gives rise to subjective interpretations of the Bible. The Catholic Church rejects this approach to moral philosophy and theology, which only arose through the reformation and it is this approach which distinguishes Catholicism from the rest of Christianity. Yet you label all of Christianity as dangerous and flawed. I suggest you do more study ino the history of catholicism and Christianity before you venture down this critical path of condemning all with such a broad sweep of your atheists brush. I say that because you wrote in post #83 about the “…different interpretations of religious texts **that are mythological and have resulted in hostility among sects to the point of bloodshed. Christianity is no exception.”**. Your assertion that the bible is myth is a typical atheistic conjectural claim that flies in the face of verified historical and theological scholarship. You make the claim, you provide the refutation. If you can’t, then your entire logical case is built on a mere opinion.

Unless you can prove to me that the Bible does not condone the killing of heretics, you are only proving my point.

Now this is indeed a typical straw man argument. The topic is man’s predisposition to believe in Gods and the afterlife. The supposed ‘contradiction’ you attempted to point out in Catholic moral theology was the Church’s morality as it pertained to homosexuality, which you described as wrongfull discrimination. Now, in order that I “prove you wrong” I must refute your claim that the Bible condones the killing of heritics. You have created an argument which has nothing whatsoever to do with either your original premise, which is that you objectively examined Christian virtues and it has less to do with my refutation of the obvious fallaciousness of your claim. In other words, you have shifted the goal posts yet again.

Also, I never said that I reject a moral order.

In your original post, you wrote that you “…know that society is negatively affected by the dangerous “virtue” of religious faith”. In post #83 you wrote “The bolded text above is perhaps the greatest reason that Catholicism is a moral threat to society. When your moral beliefs are based on foundations that are almost certainly false, they will be corrupt moral beliefs.” Those statements, even though built entirely on a conjectural edifice, is testament to your rejection of the entire western Judeo-Christian moral ethic. That is why I stated that you seem to be blind the the moral code which binds society together. I should have added your society, to make it patently obvious even to you what it is you are undermining, brick, by brick. For you to now assert that you have not rejected a moral code is contradictory.

I also accused you of either being intellectually lazy, or even intellectually dishonest. Here’s a classic example. You wrote this -

Oh please, not this argument again. Atheism does not logically lead to communism, nor does atheism lead to mass murder. The most peaceful countries on earth are primarily atheist. Not to mention the MANY wars that were caused by religion throughout history. This is not the place to discuss which religious position helps the world more anyway. Truth is the most important objective here.

In response to this -

Are Aesop’s Fables also a moral threat to society? Are the Viking Sagas? By far the biggest killers of the last century were the atheist Communists. This would seem to disprove any idea that religion is the sole or even primary cause of murder. It would seem humanity will commit evil religious or not. It might be that even though religion can be used to justify violence that it actually does more to inhibit it. The last century was very bloody and I think it would be hard to argue that religion (other than hatred of religion which drove the Soviets to massacre Christians) played any real role in the various conflicts.

Yet the quote you responded to was not written by me. It was written by exnhilo in post #108. You, without missing a beat, without giving any sign that you were responding to someone else, you have included exnihilo’s post and responded as though you were still responding to me. This is either intellectual dishonesty, or gross negligence, on a grand scale. Either way you have mislead readers and one must now wonder just how much of what you pass as ‘scholarship’ can be trusted as anything other than conjecture, based on uninformed personal opinion. Yet you have the audacity to tell us how important truth is.

cont.d

 

[John21652]

cont.d

As for the remark about Aesop’s fables and Viking Sagas, you misunderstood my point.

How many posters refuting your notions will you require before taking a long hard look at what you think you know and realise that others are not misunderstanding what you write?

It is one thing if religions teach moral lessons, however accurate they may or may not be. It is quite another when exclusively religious virtues like faith are used to justify immoral actions.

Again, conjecture and personal opinion. Faith is indeed a virtue and upon it are built the virtues which gave rise to the society you live in.

Faith is what caused Islamic terrorists to crash planes into the World Trade Center - specifically, faith that they would go to heaven for their pious actions.

I think your logic has failed again. Why bother going to all the trouble of gaining entry into the US, hijacking aeroplanes and crashing them into tall buildings just o get to heaven.? perhaps they had other, more worldly reasons for wanting to inflict harm on the US and getting to heaven was the reward for what they saw as a just cause? See the difference?

That is the kind of dangerous faith that I oppose.

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I’d describe that sort of ‘faith’ as fanaticism and very un-Christian. Have you heard of any Christians, particularly Catholics, crashing aeroplanes into tall buildings lately? Any Christians, Catholics in particular, letting off bombs anywhere lately? As a matter of fact, I’d recommend that you get a hold of the Catholic Catechism and read the sections that pertain to the dignity of the human person. Flying aeroplanes into buildings is very un-Catholic, as is blowing up innocent people with bombs.

That and the kind of faith that causes children to say, “God hates f*gs.”

So children who say “god hates f*gs” do so because of Christianity and they are morally equivalent to terrorists?! Wow!! That sort of statement is exactly what destroys your credibility and demonstrates your bigotry. If you go to this link Catechism, Part three, Section two, Chapter two, Article Six you would realise that your first assertion is wrong and you would have to at minimum, disassociate Catholic’s who accept Catholic virtues from your assertion. Your second assertion makes name calling equivalent to flying planes into tall buildings and is plain rediculous. Catholics are taught to avoid both behaviours. Look it up. Of course, such an emotion filled statement, devoid of logic, fits perfectly with the statement you made in post #81, which was “When I claim that society is harmed by religious virtues, I am referring to the specific religious virtues of Catholicism…”.

What piffle.

 

[Planty_Business]

From here-on in it just gets worse.

Again, I could say the same for your recent posts, as they are filled to the brim with strawmen.

For starters, you have completely missed my point about homosexuality and discrimination. You may think that discrimination against homosexuality is no worse than discrimination against bestiality, but you have provided no evidence whatsoever that this is so. You have just made the two equivalent (you’re right, I was using the term “equivocation” incorrectly; this was what I meant), which is not appropriate considering that bestiality is concerned with sexual acts performed between a human and a non-consenting animal, whereas homosexuality is concerned with sexual acts performed between two consenting adults who are doing no harm. Please read my posts on this matter before spouting (in your own words) piffle about the immorality of homosexuality.

That statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of Catholic moral theology on the subject of sexuality and that ignorance demonstrates that you are blind to the results of the relaxation of sexual mores, which I wrote about in response to you…

Great, now if only you could provide citations to sources that back up your viewpoint instead of insulting me by saying I have a “profound ignorance” of Catholic theology when I do not. Your uncivilized style of debate makes the ever-hated New Atheists look meek and mild.

Compare the death penalty with incarceration for life. Perhaps you assuage your own guilt by denying the validity of the death penalty yet willingly deprive an individual of freedom for life through incarceration. Methinks your way might be more cruel.

I never said I advocated either the death penalty or incarceration for heresy because, as I said before, I do not recognize heresy as a crime at all, and there is no reason that the Catholic Church/state should have either. How exactly would heresy be “treason” here? Treason against an imaginary God, sure, but that is irrelevant to secular law.

You also grossly misrepresened Sir Thomas More, a Catholic martyr. In his “Utopia”, published 1516, he argued against the death penalty. Look it up.

Duly noted.

 

[buffalo]

Again, I could say the same for your recent posts, as they are filled to the brim with strawmen.

For starters, you have completely missed my point about homosexuality and discrimination. You may think that discrimination against homosexuality is no worse than discrimination against bestiality, but you have provided no evidence whatsoever that this is so. You have just made the two equivalent (you’re right, I was using the term “equivocation” incorrectly; this was what I meant), which is not appropriate considering that bestiality is concerned with sexual acts performed between a human and a non-consenting animal, whereas homosexuality is concerned with sexual acts performed between two consenting adults who are doing no harm. Please read my posts on this matter before spouting (in your own words) piffle about the immorality of homosexuality.

Great, now if only you could provide citations to sources that back up your viewpoint instead of insulting me by saying I have a “profound ignorance” of Catholic theology when I do not. Your uncivilized style of debate makes the ever-hated New Atheists look meek and mild.

I never said I advocated either the death penalty or incarceration for heresy because, as I said before, I do not recognize heresy as a crime at all, and there is no reason that the Catholic Church/state should have either. How exactly would heresy be “treason” here? Treason against an imaginary God, sure, but that is irrelevant to secular law.

Duly noted.

Prove your claim - no harm is being done…

 

[Planty_Business]

My *response was that your conclusions were based on a subjective and *conjectural analysis of Catholicism’s moral code. Pointing out the *inherent contradiction is not creating a straw man argument. Please look *it up.

You just don’t get it, do you? My analysis was objective because I was pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church condones the condemnation of behaviors that would never be condemned in a secular context (that is, if God did not exist, and I see no reason to believe he does). *I am criticizing specifically the Catholic moral teachings that are purely based on religious beliefs - condemnation of homosexual behavior, for example. *Once again, if you want to talk about that, go to the appropriate thread. *In which, incidentally, I have not had the time to continue adding my thoughts because you have constantly made strawman attacks against me that I cannot take sitting down.

You have just given the all clear for Sola Scriptura, *which gives rise to subjective interpretations of the Bible. The *Catholic Church rejects this approach to moral philosophy and theology, *which only arose through the reformation and it is this approach which distinguishes Catholicism from the rest of Christianity…Your assertion that the bible is myth is a typical atheistic conjectural *claim that flies in the face of verified historical and theological *scholarship. You make the claim, you provide the refutation. If you *can’t, then your entire logical case is built on a mere opinion.

Okay, but what makes the Catholic Church’s approach to moral philosophy and theology true where Protestants get it wrong? *Outright divine authority? *How do you prove that?

Your claim that the Gospels are historically accurate is laughable. *I suggest you do some research yourself on the subject. *Bart Ehrman’s lectures on the historical Jesus are a good starting point.

But if you want some examples of the mythical nature of the Gospels, by all means, look up “The Hidden Story of Jesus”, a documentary made by a Christian who researches the remarkable similarities between Jesus as described in the Gospels and various divine figures and myths that predate the Gospels by centuries. *I have yet to hear a Christian’s response to these facts that is any better than “the devil tampered with the historical records” or some other hogwash.

This is all independent of the other logical flaws with Catholicism, mind you.

Now this is *indeed a typical straw man argument. The topic is man’s predisposition *to believe in Gods and the afterlife. The supposed ‘contradiction’ you *attempted to point out in Catholic moral theology was the Church’s *morality as it pertained to homosexuality, which you described as *wrongfull discrimination. Now, in order that I “prove you wrong” I must *refute your claim that the Bible condones the killing of heritics. You *have created an argument which has nothing whatsoever to do with either *your original premise, which is that you objectively examined Christian *virtues and it has less to do with my refutation of the obvious *fallaciousness of your claim. In other words, you have shifted the goal *posts yet again.

A refutation that you still haven’t provided, incidentally.

It’s funny how you point out that the topic at hand relates to “predisposition of humans to belief in gods and the afterlife”, yet you are the one who derailed the topic in the first place by asking me to do something that is, quite honestly, outside my realm of knowledge. *I am not a philosopher. *How exactly do you know, objectively, that secularism is bad for society, anyway?

For you to now assert that you have not rejected a moral code is contradictory.

I don’t want to get into yet another derail about the foundations of Western morals, but that foundation sure as hell isn’t Christianity. *If it were, America would not be the capitalist giant it is today; Jesus tells his followers to give away their possessions, to live simple lives, and to not worry about tomorrow. *All of which is advice that American Christians (and non-Christians) do not follow. *I recommend you watch youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s for some examples of the discrepancies between Western culture and Jesus’s teachings.

Anyway, I already admitted that many Judeo-Christian ethics are positive. Many of them are not, however, and some of those that are not are based purely on religious beliefs, as I have already said. The positive ethics, by contrast, are not dependent on any religion to be applicable to society. For example, I do not need to be Catholic to be consistent in following the Goldren Rule (nor do I need to be Confucian, its original source, incidentally).

I also accused you of either being intellectually lazy, or even intellectually dishonest. Here’s a classic example.

Oh, so the person who accused me of being a totalitarian for expecting decent behavior on the part of my fellow forum members, and who constantly attacks strawmen yet has too much hubris to admit that he has done so, is going to lecture me on intellectual honesty. You are a downright hypocrite.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was responding to you when I was actually responding to exnihilo. That was not my intention. Many posters do that, including me, and you are the only one who felt the need to criticize me for not spelling everything out for you. Silly me.

Sorry for the asterisks. I copied this message from a notepad I used, and the transition didn’t go too well.

 

[Planty_Business]

How many posters refuting your notions will you require before taking a long hard look at what you think you know and realise that others are not misunderstanding what you write?

I could say the same to you. Either actually take the time to point out the flaws in my reasoning regarding my response to exnihilo, or keep quiet.

Again, conjecture and personal opinion. Faith is indeed a virtue and upon it are built the virtues which gave rise to the society you live in.

How is belief in things that cannot be proven to the point of being willing to kill your child (the aforementioned Abraham story) a virtue? You and I seem to have different definitions of faith. Could you please tell me which definition you use, to avoid misunderstandings?

I think your logic has failed again. Why bother going to all the trouble of gaining entry into the US, hijacking aeroplanes and crashing them into tall buildings just o get to heaven.? perhaps they had other, more worldly reasons for wanting to inflict harm on the US and getting to heaven was the reward for what they saw as a just cause? See the difference?

Sure, they did have other worldly goals, but if they did not have faith that they would go to paradise for committing murder-suicide in the name of Allah, they would not have done so.

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I’d describe that sort of ‘faith’ as fanaticism and very un-Christian. Have you heard of any Christians, particularly Catholics, crashing aeroplanes into tall buildings lately? Any Christians, Catholics in particular, letting off bombs anywhere lately? As a matter of fact, I’d recommend that you get a hold of the Catholic Catechism and read the sections that pertain to the dignity of the human person. Flying aeroplanes into buildings is very un-Catholic, as is blowing up innocent people with bombs.

Christians have killed (or at least attempted to kill) abortion doctors, for one. Anyway, I can’t see how a religion that says that faith in God is more important than the lives of innocent children (Abraham story again, plus the Passover story and the “two bears mauling kids” story) respects the dignity of humans.

Intellectually honest Christians would kill in the name of their God. The Old Testament is chock-full of that.

So children who say “god hates f*gs” do so because of Christianity and they are morally equivalent to terrorists?! Wow!!

That is not what I said. If you had taken the time to actually read what I posted carefully, I said “that and”, not “that is”. I would never say that bigotry is equivalent to terrorism. I was giving an example of the kinds of faith that are immoral. These are two different kinds of faith that I am talking about.

What piffle.

Gee, aren’t you an intellectually honest, civilized debater! So nice of you to demonstrate another example of your extreme hubris!

 

[buffalo]

To interject again - Catholic teaching is also built on the natural law which shows homosexual acts are always disordered.

Your argument is rubbish for it starts with a faulty premise.

 

[Planty_Business]

To interject again - Catholic teaching is also built on the natural law which shows homosexual acts are always disordered.

Your argument is rubbish for it starts with a faulty premise.

Your argument is rubbish because “natural law” would never lead anyone to the conclusion that homosexuality is “always disordered”. Pure bigotry.

On another note, buffalo, I can’t find your second Ten Commandments challenge. Did you want me to read that link you provided? I did, and its logic is faulty because it assumes that faith is a good thing, even the source of all morals, which is ridiculous. The Catechism is not this almighty fountain of wisdom you and John claim it to be.

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps I should clarify something here.

In any moral philosophy, you will eventually find at the foundation of objective facts a subjective observation.

As I read your posts, I find some objective facts as events which took place in time and space. I would offer that it sounds as if you are observing these events subjectively. However, Catholicism is not a subjective religion.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[buffalo]

Your argument is rubbish because “natural law” would never lead anyone to the conclusion that homosexuality is “always disordered”. Pure bigotry.

On another note, buffalo, I can’t find your second Ten Commandments challenge. Did you want me to read that link you provided? I did, and its logic is faulty because it assumes that faith is a good thing, even the source of all morals, which is ridiculous. The Catechism is not this almighty fountain of wisdom you and John claim it to be.

OH my gosh :bigyikes:- we have to get really basic here. First step - Share with me your understanding of natural law.

Yes - the link was the Catechisms section on the 10 Commandments. The challenge was to read it and list the areas of disagreement and make an argument.

Then pick a section and refute it. It should be easy for you then.

Having faith in the right thing is very good. Having faith in the wrong thing is not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

planty

*My analysis was objective because I was pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church condones the condemnation of behaviors that would never be condemned in a secular context (that is, if God did not exist, and I see no reason to believe he does). I am criticizing specifically the Catholic moral teachings that are purely based on religious beliefs - condemnation of homosexual behavior, for example.

So you agree with those who say that if there is no God, everything should be permitted … as long as it is between consenting adults?

 

[wanstronian]

Navigating your way through the claims you will inevitably find yourself at Catholicism (which incidentally is why you post here)

There is much evidence, already posted for your benefit, that shows the evidence for God and how He came to meet man, and then sent His son to close the deal.

Catholicism possesses the “fullness of truth”.

You appear to be confusing evidence with woolly goal-seeking theology. I’ve seen plenty of the latter on this forum, none of the former.

 

[grannymh]

You appear to be confusing evidence with woolly goal-seeking theology. I’ve seen plenty of the latter on this forum, none of the former.

Before seeking evidence, figure out if you are interested in knowing God. The best evidence in the world will do nothing for someone who is bored with life.

 

[inocente]

ScienceDaily (July 14, 2011) — A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.

more…

We also have a tendency to go to war, if we didn’t then we wouldn’t tend to go to war, but having a predisposition doesn’t indicate that war is good and everyone should be doing it, perhaps it indicates the exact opposite. Research can often be interpreted in a number of ways.

The £1.9 million budget is paid by the John Templeton Foundation, which doesn’t automatically discredit the work, but it’s kind of like those studies which say cranberry juice is good for us that turn out to be paid for by cranberry juice producers, then next week the carrot producers have research which says the opposite, etc.

If humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife then there will be evolutionary reasons, the predisposition will either have (or have had) a survival advantage or else it could be an artifact of something else.

In the same way that debating stuff on CAF may or may not have a survival advantage.

 

[inocente]

If my first and strongest desire is simply to reproduce why would I spend time thinking up a complex shelter with aspects completely unrelated to shelter such as beauty.

Because two things are going on, the theory is more subtle. The underlying thing is the need to survive to reproduce, but that’s not how we developed to see it. For instance we eat food because we feel hungry and the food is tasty, not because we think “oh I need fuel to survive long enough to reproduce”.

 

[inocente]

Out of curiosity, have you ever seen any visions of God or the supernatural in general?

Happened to me, lasted some months, a strong feeling of a great unity, indescribable but I think it helped me learn a lot. Apparently “visions” are not that uncommon and your chances are roughly the same whether theist or atheist. One speculative mechanism is a temporary superhighway between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, although I guess some folk would want to explain it very differently.

 

[inocente]

As I have already said, Islam is rightfully hated the most out of all religions because of its despicable moral teachings.

Whoa, outside your own backyard do you have any empirical evidence of this widespread hatred and it’s righteousness?

Your argument is rubbish because “natural law” would never lead anyone to the conclusion that homosexuality is “always disordered”. Pure bigotry.

No, it follows logically from Thomas Aquinas including procreation in the catalog of goods. You could sensibly argue that the reasoning behind the inclusion is faulty, in which case natural law would have nothing to say about homosexuality (or condoms for that matter), but surely not that it’s rubbish or bigoted.

 

[grannymh]

If humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife then there will be evolutionary reasons, the predisposition will either have (or have had) a survival advantage or else it could be an artifact of something else.

In the same way that debating stuff on CAF may or may not have a survival advantage.

Personally, “predisposed” does not quite sound right. I believe that humans have had the capability to recognize the supernatural in some form since the beginning of true human [trademark pending] history. The instinct that there is something beyond what one sees in time and space is part of human nature.

The capability to recognize the supernatural is part of the intellective or rational principle in human nature along with the material principle of our anatomy.