The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Perhaps believing in gods that would smite or reward them conferred an advantage on early humans, as possibly they were more likely to follow commands. A better organized tribe would have been more successful. Possibly even a common belief in sky daddies helped organize humans into larger communities, helping ensure the survival of individuals.

The tribe mentioned above may have been more likely to follow the shaman's advice to seek shelter from an imminent storm, having conferred divine authority upon him.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I could rattle these off, one after another, all night.

ding is still struggling to make his first attempt.

I wonder what is handicapping him? Oh well... Looks like the requisite faither "declaration of victory" (found just above) that the faithers make in every science thread means he has given up.

 

[ding]

I could rattle these off, one after another, all night.

ding is still struggling to make his first attempt.

I wonder what is handicapping him? Oh well... Looks like the requisite faither "declaration of victory" (found just above) that the faithers make in every science thread means he has given up.

Cool story.

Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought. The other models that are not observed? They died off, and the more successful models propagated instead. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.

Natural selection does not create perfect models.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Or, alternatively, it may just be that faith in gods was and is just an artifact of the evolution of our sentience, abstract language, and introspective self awareness. It does not necessarily have to have conferred a functional advantage. It possibly was just not impactful enough either way to delete the advantages conferred upon us by the development of our sentience, and abstract language, and introspective self awareness.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Natural selection does not create perfect models.

Whoever said that knows his stuff. The successful models (itself a temporary state of affairs, as evolution marches on) only have to be better in some way(s) than the models they replace, for natural selection to replace one model with another.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Circling back to Survivorship Bias:

Deviant and/or unevidenced beliefs are often the most unshakeable beliefs. Why? Survivorship Bias.

If a person holds a belief that deviates from what the preponderance of evidence shows -- or adopts a belief, with absolute certainty, for which there is no evidence -- they have already demonstrated that argument and evidence are not going to sway them.

Everyone else who considered adopting these beliefs, and everyone else who adopted them and had a chance of being swayed by evidence and argument, has already put aside the deviant and unevidenced beliefs. Those that can be argued or evidenced out of these silly beliefs have already been argued out of them.

So who does that leave? "The Survivors". So, by understanding survivorship bias, we can gain more understanding of why the most deviant and evidence-free beliefs seem to be the most unshakeable, and the holders of these beliefs the most irrational and strident of people in the discussions of these beliefs.

 

[Anomalism]

they are effectively equal

Only if you want to play games with labels and gloss over reality in a dishonest way.

 

[Anomalism]

A successful model means the sum of its parts is successful. It does not mean every trait of the model has an advantage over every other possible trait.

Yes.

Like I said earlier, some traits lean more toward neutral. The argument he's making actually is interesting though. Perhaps it's not entirely neutral with religion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Only if you want to play games with labels and gloss over reality in a dishonest way.

Nope. By definition. We are both agnostic atheists. The special case of a gnostic atheist is someone who knows there are no gods.

If this semantical path doesn't appeal to you, we can just agree that we are both agnostic.

You may find the existence of gods to be less unlikely than i do. But that invokes a spectrum that is not well described by the simple terms we have been using.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes.

Like I said earlier, some traits lean more toward neutral. The argument he's making actually is interesting though. Perhaps it's not entirely neutral with religion.

It absolutely is interesting. Hypothesizing is half the fun.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His son shines over everyone.

This is the science section. Your magical incantations have no use here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Perhaps it's not entirely neutral with religion.

Right. Perhaps faith in gods did somehow confer a survival advantage to our ancestors.

However, that doesn't lend any moral value or any truth whatsoever to any of it. Killing off the competing tribe (and the shaman telling the killing tribe that they were agents of demons) also granted a survival advantage to the killing tribe's lineage. That doesn't mean any of that is moral or that the belief is in any way true.

When we no longer need archaic things and ideas that may have helped us in the past, we can put them aside. For example, slavery. Objectification of women. Killing your neighbor for his resources, or to keep him from competing with you for resources.

 

[ding]

Only if you want to play games with labels and gloss over reality in a dishonest way.

He's the worst when it comes to that. He doesn't even realize he's doing it or that he's doing anything wrong.

 

[ding]

Or, alternatively, it may just be that faith in gods was and is just an artifact of the evolution of our sentience, abstract language, and introspective self awareness. It does not necessarily have to have conferred a functional advantage. It possibly was just not impactful enough either way to delete the advantages conferred upon us by the development of our sentience, and abstract language, and introspective self awareness.

The overwhelming numbers and thousands of years of existence say otherwise. According to Darwin there would be a logical reason for that and it would have to be because it inferred a function and real advantage. Otherwise you are embracing randomness when evolution is based upon logical reasons.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The overwhelming numbers and thousands of years of existence say otherwise

No. It merely did not have to be enough of a disadvantage to extinguish itself from our lineage. It may merely be an artifact of our sentience and introspective self awareness. One example of this is color variance within a certain species. The variance itself may be an artifact of evolution and may not seem to confer any discernible advantage.

Perhaps faith in gods did confer advantage. But what you mentioned does not definitively show us this. And even if it did, that doesn't mean it confers any advantage now, nor does it lend any intellectual value, morality, or truth to belief in magical gods.

 

[ding]

Circling back to Survivorship Bias:

Deviant and/or unevidenced beliefs are often the most unshakeable beliefs. Why? Survivorship Bias.

If a person holds a belief that deviates from what the preponderance of evidence shows -- or adopts a belief, with absolute certainty, for which there is no evidence -- they have already demonstrated that argument and evidence are not going to sway them.

Everyone else who considered adopting these beliefs, and everyone else who adopted them and had a chance of being swayed by evidence and argument, has already put aside the deviant and unevidenced beliefs. Those that can be argued or evidenced out of these silly beliefs have already been argued out of them.

So who does that leave? "The Survivors". So, by understanding survivorship bias, we can gain more understanding of why the most deviant and evidence-free beliefs seem to be the most unshakeable, and the holders of these beliefs the most irrational and strident of people in the discussions of these beliefs.

You mean like religion has survived for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across all cultures? A preponderance of evidence like that?

 

[ding]

No. It merely did not have to be enough of a disadvantage to extinguish itself from our lineage. It may merely be an artifact of our sentience and introspective self awareness.

Perhaps it did confer advantage. But what you mentioned does not definitively show us this. And even if it did, that doesn't mean it confers any advantage now, nor does it lend any intellectual value, morality, or truth to belief in magical gods.

It's continued existence for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society says otherwise.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You mean like religion has survived for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across all cultures?

Which is precisely what one would expect, were it a mere artifact of our other, advantageous mental traits, like sentience and introspective self awareness.

Other anomalous artifacts of the human mind have persisted, like hallucinations, false memories, etc. And they are pervasive throughout the human race.

I am not saying that what you are saying is necessarily false.

 

[ding]

No. It merely did not have to be enough of a disadvantage to extinguish itself from our lineage. It may merely be an artifact of our sentience and introspective self awareness. One example of this is color variance within a certain species. The variance itself may be an artifact of evolution and may not seem to confer any discernible advantage.

Perhaps faith in gods did confer advantage. But what you mentioned does not definitively show us this. And even if it did, that doesn't mean it confers any advantage now, nor does it lend any intellectual value, morality, or truth to belief in magical gods.

According to Darwin there would be a logical reason for the continued existence of religion for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society and it would have to be because it inferred a function and real advantage.

 

[ding]

Which is precisely what one would expect, were it a mere artifact of our other, advantageous mental traits, like sentience and introspective self awareness.

I am not saying that what you are saying is necessarily false.

So you are saying that religion promotes advantageous mental traits, like sentience and introspective self awareness but you won't credit religion directly?

Seems dishonest to me.