Cockroaches hatch far more prepared to fend for themselves than mammals, and humans in particular. Cockroaches are also not endowed with sufficient intelligence to consider the existence of others; they are an instinctual creature.I think, like many evolutionary arguments, this would be quite a stretch. Cockroaches are excellent survivors and yet I doubt they have a sense of God.
What is intelligence? And why would intelligence have anything to do with survival in a material world where abstract ideas, such as God, could not even exist? One minute we survive based on instincts the next we are using intelligence.Cockroaches hatch far more prepared to fend for themselves than mammals, and humans in particular. Cockroaches are also not endowed with sufficient intelligence to consider the existence of others; they are an instinctual creature.
Sky fairy? Well that is not my or most people’s conception of God.It’s amusing that you find evolutionary arguments a stretch, yet consider the existence of an invisible sky fairy to be perfectly reasonable.
It’s odd that you give ready credence to a man-made credo of evolution but dismiss a natural prediliction, physiologically demonstrated, as an unreasonable response.It’s amusing that you find evolutionary arguments a stretch, yet consider the existence of an invisible sky fairy to be perfectly reasonable.
Bit of a non sequitur - the science shows a desire for a protector. The Christian God is far from the first deity to be invented to fulfil this desire; nor is it the only deity fulfilling this desire among the world’s population.The Catechism actually says man has a desire for God written in his heart. The science shows the same thing. So your denigration is not warranted by your own acceptance of the science.
Nor can any other point of view. Although it’s wrong to say that human desire interacts with the mind - it’s part of the mind, a product of brain processes. Science can say that much with reasonable confidence.Heart is used here because that is what makes the most sense since we are talking about desire. Science can not explain how human desire interacts with the mind in such a way that humans can chose to satisfy or not satisfy a desire or choose between which desires to satisfy at any one time.
This isn’t the sort of declaration that science would ever make - it would be more of a philosophical conclusion, and philosophy never proved anything.Science has yet to declare that men are compelled to follow their desire for the obvious reason that those who advocate such a notion would destroy utterly the culpability of man and scientists, despite their academic proclamations, still want to be able to at least punish those who they feel harmed them.
Yawn… here we are again. Pretty sure you made the same claim on the other thread, yet you still have nothing to back up your claim that abstract ideas can’t exist in a material world.What is intelligence? And why would intelligence have anything to do with survival in a material world where abstract ideas, such as God, could not even exist?
Not sure what you’re saying here - it reads a little like you’re claiming I said this, which of course would be either a lie or gross misunderstanding on your part. So maybe it’s an assertion you’re making, in which case, can you substantiate it?One minute we survive based on instincts the next we are using intelligence.
Clearly I was being flippant, but the “usual” conception of God is no more coherent or believable.Sky fairy? Well that is not my or most people’s conception of God.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with proof theory then?This isn’t the sort of declaration that science would ever make - it would be more of a philosophical conclusion, and philosophy never proved anything.
Well, I don’t, and you know it. I give credence to a settled scientific theory supported by an overwhelming amount of independent and mutually conforming evidence from a wide number of scientific disciplines. A far cry from a “man-made credo.” If only you would learn what evolution actually is instead of absorbing the lies of creationist websites, you may not make such a facile error.It’s odd that you give ready credence to a man-made credo of evolution…
A natural predilection does not constitue a reasonable response.… but dismiss a natural prediliction, physiologically demonstrated, as an unreasonable response.
Ostensibly, you are not in a position to evaluate my understanding of evolution theory. If you have any understanding of science, then you know nothing is ever settled. It appears you can snipe and jibe at another person’s position but cannot endure the like.Well, I don’t, and you know it. I give credence to a settled scientific theory supported by an overwhelming amount of independent and mutually conforming evidence from a wide number of scientific disciplines. A far cry from a “man-made credo.” If only you would learn what evolution actually is instead of absorbing the lies of creationist websites, you may not make such a facile error.
Really? Tell that yourself when you immerse hand in a fire and your natural response is to withdraw it. I would amend your assertion to “…a natural predilection does not always constitute a reasonable response” and it might make a little more sense.A natural predilection does not constitue a reasonable response.
The first sentence is simply ‘the desire for God is written in the human heart’. That should not be objectionable and is in line with the scientific finding. I’m not aware of the science delving into what exactly the people tend to believe. Are you?Bit of a non sequitur - the science shows a desire for a protector. The Christian God is far from the first deity to be invented to fulfil this desire; nor is it the only deity fulfilling this desire among the world’s population.
Do people see simply because they want to? I would say it is because they have the faculty of sight. If the belief is ingrained then what does want have to do with it? The only way want could factor in is if people want to not be at odds with what their faculties tell them then they should have faith in God. Would you say that homosexuals act on their desire because they want to? I have a sneaky suspicion most atheists who would make the argument you are making would suddenly flip when that is the subject of debate.But I think it’s fair to say, and the evidence does support this, that people believe in gods because they want to, rather than because there’s any real reason to.
I dont know how in a world limited to what physically exists anything could have ideas at all. Abstract ideas are abstractions of actual objects. There is no proof that anything purely physical can make abstractions. Let me know when a computer invents an abstract object.Yawn… here we are again. Pretty sure you made the same claim on the other thread, yet you still have nothing to back up your claim that abstract ideas can’t exist in a material world.
I’ve observed people claim evolution rules us and that desires are the mechanism by which evolution works. But if this is so intelligence could play no factor in our existence. 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. Evolutionists have a hard time incorporating intelligence and immaterial values into their story. It is clear that humans do have intelligence and immaterial values so evolutionist try to coopt them in their story.Not sure what you’re saying here - it reads a little like you’re claiming I said this, which of course would be either a lie or gross misunderstanding on your part. So maybe it’s an assertion you’re making, in which case, can you substantiate it?
From your viewpoint there is no God. So who, other than man, could create any ideas? I guess if monkeys have ideas we could have taken the idea of evolution from them. But while they might be part of the evolution narrative I dont think any human scientist claims to have gotten the idea from a talk with the brutes.A far cry from a “man-made credo.”
Yes, I thought it was a surprising statement, and one not supported by the article.I don’t see how this finding confirms Catholicism.
I conjecture that such a predilection can also ease or mitigate the human awareness of their mortality. If one were to believe in a hereafter or greater power, it could remove the complications of such comprehension of mortality.An atheist, or a theist who is willing to set aside apologetics, could argue that such a predisposition offered evolutionary advantages such a sense that the world had order, a sense of group togetherness, a sense that it was possible to control or mitigate events beyond human power, etc. I am not sure whether such explanations are testable or not. But other possible explanations exist besides “God intended us this way.”
I don’t hold any beliefs in any deities myself but I can’t help but feel that comments like the “sky fairy” comment might interfere with some one being able to receive some of the information that you have to contribute. I’m not saying that you should hold back on sharing an item of information for fear that some one may not like it. But I would like to discourage the use of descriptions that may misrepresent the beliefs of another.exnihilo;8139380:
Clearly I was being flippant, but the “usual” conception of God is no more coherent or believable.Sky fairy? Well that is not my or most people’s conception of God.
Pagans did invent gods and were proven false. Catholics believe in one true God because He came to meet us as well as the rest of Revelation.Yes, I thought it was a surprising statement, and one not supported by the article.
As others have pointed, the theory that humans are predisposed to belief in gods, the supernatural, and an afterlife is not a new one. But what is the significance of this predisposition?
A theist could argue that God created humans so that he would be specially aware of his presence. And that is a perfectly fine suggestion, although untestable. An atheist, or a theist who is willing to set aside apologetics, could argue that such a predisposition offered evolutionary advantages such a sense that the world had order, a sense of group togetherness, a sense that it was possible to control or mitigate events beyond human power, etc. I am not sure whether such explanations are testable or not. But other possible explanations exist besides “God intended us this way.”
Out of curiosity, have you ever seen any visions of God or the supernatural in general? Just how vivid and detailed was the vision, if so? I am not closed to the possibility of the existence of a deity or the afterlife, any more than you are closed to the possibility of your religion being based on myths. You and I both see reasons to think that the opposites of our worldviews are not feasible. So it seems to me that you are applying an unfair double standard against skeptics here. I admit that I can’t explain every NDE or religious experience for the same reason you probably admit that you can’t explain every hole in your beliefs (contradictions in the Bible, for instance). You and I simply aren’t experts on these issues, and we have no right to claim knowledge about such issues without the proper education. Just because I can’t answer every objection made by theists, it doesn’t mean I am wrong. The same goes for you.The problem with meaning is that humans can construct arguments from facts to come to whatever conclusion they want. This is why the skeptic wont believe no matter what the evidence is. He could see a vision but would dismiss it as a hallucination of the brain.
It is, to the extent that those falsehoods are comforting in some way. Is it any coincidence that there does not exist a religion that teaches that every single human being must mutilate him/herself for no reason whatsoever? At least Abrahamic religions have justifications for seemingly barbaric practices such as circumcision, dubious though those justifications may be.The problem I see with what you are saying is that you are then claiming that the brain is disposed to falsehoods.
I don’t make the only condition under which Christianity could be true ridiculous. (Christianity itself does that, as far as I am concerned.) It would not be ridiculous if God simply told every human being of his existence in a straightforward manner. It would conflict with what we know about this world currently, yes, but one would expect that in a religion in which the supernatural exists.Also with your reasoning you have to be careful that you dont prohibit the truth of something or make the only condition under which it could be true ridiculous. We could do the same thing regarding altruism. We could say that altruism is receiving no reward for your actions. We could then say that even anonymous acts of kindness are not altruistic because you could argue that the person doing the act receives personal satisfaction from the act. Thus altruism does not exist. But while showing in this way that altruism does not exist you have made it so that altruism could only be true if actors were indifferent internally to morality. This would be a rather nonsensical argument.
Sorry, but if you call evolution a “credo,” then your understanding of it is crystal clear - ie. that you don’t understand it, or that you are not aware of the amount of evidence in support of it, or that you simply reject it anyway, because it doesn’t fit with what you wish were true.Ostensibly, you are not in a position to evaluate my understanding of evolution theory. If you have any understanding of science, then you know nothing is ever settled. It appears you can snipe and jibe at another person’s position but cannot endure the like.
Well, this is just splitting hairs. In the context of your previous comment, my response stands.Really? Tell that yourself when you immerse hand in a fire and your natural response is to withdraw it. I would amend your assertion to “…a natural predilection does not always constitute a reasonable response” and it might make a little more sense.
It can be made to fit the scientific finding, but the latter does not specify a deity, so to assert that science has “caught up” with Catholicism, when science does not refer to any specific deity, is inaccurate. That’s all I was saying. I think we’re in violent agreement here…The first sentence is simply ‘the desire for God is written in the human heart’. That should not be objectionable and is in line with the scientific finding. I’m not aware of the science delving into what exactly the people tend to believe. Are you?
If you’re saying that some people can’t help believing in gods, then I can’t argue with that. But this is because those people put their own subjective opinions and desires ahead of the objective facts of scientific discovery. There is no objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural. I don’t think that it’s reasonable to draw a comparison between deity-believers and those who feel emotional and physical attraction to another person. I’m not sure why you’ve drawn a distinction against homosexuals here - they’re just people like anybody else, with emotions like anybody else. One has no more right to scrutinise their desires and actions than those of heterosexuals.Do people see simply because they want to? I would say it is because they have the faculty of sight. If the belief is ingrained then what does want have to do with it? The only way want could factor in is if people want to not be at odds with what their faculties tell them then they should have faith in God. Would you say that homosexuals act on their desire because they want to? I have a sneaky suspicion most atheists who would make the argument you are making would suddenly flip when that is the subject of debate.
I think you’re being deliberately difficult here. Of course evolution is a man-made theory. But it’s not a “credo” in the common sense of a “set of opinions or principles.” It is a massively robust theory with an abundance of supporting evidence. SoG was clearly using the word “credo” in a pejorative manner, as if it were a “theory” in the colloquial rather than scientific sense.From your viewpoint there is no God. So who, other than man, could create any ideas? I guess if monkeys have ideas we could have taken the idea of evolution from them. But while they might be part of the evolution narrative I dont think any human scientist claims to have gotten the idea from a talk with the brutes.
No, I do not take that stance, that would be ludicrous.I guess you could take the stance that ideas have always existed and thus man merely apprehended what always existed. Unfortunately always existing ideas lead us to the path of God.
Ah, it must be so nice for one to be able to simply and fully assess someone when they make an off-hand remark, especially one is prone to flippant remarks themselves. Hypocrite.Sorry, but if you call evolution a “credo,” then your understanding of it is crystal clear - ie. that you don’t understand it, or that you are not aware of the amount of evidence in support of it, or that you simply reject it anyway, because it doesn’t fit with what you wish were true.
Unfortunately, your statement is still unsound. It’s your prerogative if you want to stand by flawed logic.Well, this is just splitting hairs. In the context of your previous comment, my response stands.