The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

[Anomalism]

However, that doesn't lend any moral value or any truth whatsoever to any of it.

It would give it general value though. I agree that it's not evidence that gods exist, but on some level our morality and understanding of right and wrong is shaped by the realities of natural selection. Surviving and adapting is the goal, and our morality is designed to help us achieve that.

That doesn't mean any of that is moral

Well, I agree, but morality is subjective. It would be arrogant to claim a knowledge of objective morality, something that doesn't exist because morality is a subjective human invention. I guess that's kind of what religious people do.

When we no longer need archaic things and ideas that may have helped us in the past, we can put them aside.

You may not need a god or religion to find your balance in life, but many people do. Would you really force religious people to come to terms with their ignorance? You would destroy a lot of productive lives. You would seriously injure a lot of good people. According to my morality that's pretty fucked up.

Killing your neighbor for his resources, or to keep him from competing with you for resources.

We only don't do this anymore because it's not beneficial to go to war with major nations.

 

[Anomalism]

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.

It's obvious what it does. It encourages community and solidarity among people that share the religion. It encourages people to work together in communities of like-minded people, which is exactly how humans survive.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

No, it could just be because it is an artifact of other advantageous traits of our evolved consciousness. The evolved Consciousness persists oh, so naturally the anomalous artifacts persist with it

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You may not need a god or religion to find your balance in life, but many people do.

And many more just think they need it. Because it has been with them since birth.

 

[Anomalism]

And many more just think they need it. Because it has been with them since birth.

You say some unbelievably arrogant things sometimes. I think you're not even aware of it. You also didn't answer my question. Would you destroy the lives of the many good people that depend on their belief in god to feel grounded and balanced by forcing them to realize their ignorance?

 

[ding]

No, it could just be because it is an artifact of other advantageous traits of our evolved consciousness. The evolved Consciousness persists oh, so naturally the anomalous artifacts persist with it

If it were only an artifact of other advantageous traits and not as a result of religion in and of itself then according to Darwin religion would not offer any functional advantage and religion would have died out. So since religion HAS existed for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society, according to Darwin its continued existence was for a logical reason and that logical reason is that religion offers a functional advantage that atheism does not. Unless of course you don't believe that evolution is based upon logical reasons.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You say some unbelievably arrogant things sometimes.

. Do you not think that many people don't even realize that they don't need religion, since it has been with them since birth? What is incorrect or arrogant about that statement? This is a big kid discussion, if it makes you uncomfortable, that's a you problem.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

any functional advantage and religion would have died out.

Maybe it is dying out. humans have not been around for very long. Keep that in mind.

So when do you expect humans to stop hallucinating and having false memories? Are these artifacts also going to be extinguished, or can they persist in perpetuity?

 

[Anomalism]

Do you not think that many people don't even realize that they don't need religion, since it has been with them since birth?

I don't think it's my place to decide that. If somebody tells me or implies that they depend on god for the strength to tackle life I take them at their word. That's why you're arrogant. You think you understand other people better than they understand themselves. That's profound arrogance. You should seriously rethink this.

Would you rid them all of their ignorance, because it's your assumption that they only think they need god?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't think it's my place to decide that.

Okay. But i am, indeed, asserting it. I do indeed think it is true of some people. Some people have even said it about themselves, after freeing themselves from religious belief. I don't pretend to know which people are this way, i only know it is true of some people.

Is it even worth arguing about? Let's say we taught NO child anything about religion. Do you think this would result in:

1) increase in number of religious adults
2) exactly the same number as we have now
3) fewer

Easiest answer ever.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Would you rid them all of their ignorance, because it's your assumption that they only think they need god?

Only by "force" of compelling argument. Come on. Do you think i have intentions of concentration camps or something? Next thing you know you are going to go full goofy and start using the term "militant atheist".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's obvious what it does. It encourages community and solidarity among people that share the religion

And also inspire and facilitate murder of those who don't. This would also help the tribe lineage survive. Definitely a method by which religion has persisted. A "functional advantage" in murdering the "others".

Evolution? Natural selection?

 

[james bond]

The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?

By the simple brilliance of recognizing "survivorship bias". Survivorship bias causes us to miss the forest for the trees.

My favorite illustration of this -- for its simplicity -- is Abraham Wald's (who coined the term "survivorship") analysis of how best to armor our bombers during WW II. He was presented with the following information, which shows where returning bombers were hit by enemy strikes:

View attachment 548978
Without recognizing survivorship bias, one might think that the (limited resource, have to conserve weight) armor should be increased in the spots where the bullet holes are concentrated. This would seem to be where most bullet strikes occur, per the data. So more armor should be spent in those places, right?

No. One would better spend the armor on the places where returning planes show fewer strikes. Why? Because the bombers that were hit in those areas did not make it back. They splashed.

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.

Darwin's answer to the cause of that bias was the brilliant idea of natural selection.

Can we get you up in the plane above? Say 40,000 ft. high. You can get the armor where you wanted and the believers will fill the plane with holes as marked.

If you survive, then I'll buy Darwin's answer as evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We only don't do this anymore because it's not beneficial to go to war with major nations.

Or to go to prison for killing our neighbor to get his resources.

 

[Anomalism]

Okay. But i am, indeed, asserting it. I do indeed think it is true of some people. Some people have even said it about themselves, after freeing themselves from religious belief. I don't pretend to know which people are this way, i only know it is true of some people.

Is it even worth arguing about? Let's say we taught NO child anything about religion. Do you think this would result in:

1) increase in number of religious adults
2) exactly the same number as we have now
3) fewer

Easiest answer ever.

You asked me how you were arrogant. I explained it's because you're asserting that you understand other people and their needs more than they understand themselves and their own needs. I mean, you can obscure what it is you're doing by saying "some people" but it still is what it is. By the way, you went from "most of them" to "some of them" pretty quickly. Somebody is losing ground. Maybe what you're asserting really is kind of arrogant and difficult to defend.

Only by "force" of compelling argument. Come on. Do you think i have intentions of concentration camps or something? Next thing you know you are going to go full goofy and start using the term "militant atheist".

No, I don't think that. I was just asking if you would confront them with reality in a way they were forced to accept it if you were capable of that. I think you would destroy a lot more lives than you realize. I think you underestimate how many people would be lost and hopeless without the belief that there is an absolute moral power that can show them the way through life. It allows people to feel a sense of order and control in the chaos. It may just be an illusion, but it's an illusion that helps people.

And also inspire and facilitate murder of those who don't.

Don't blame religion for man's capacity for murder. That's just what people do. Religion is a convenient scapegoat for what people would have done anyway, which is kill other people they don't know or care about for their land and resources, or even just because they can.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You asked me how you were arrogant.

No, I did not ask you that, because I don't give two shits about your opinion of me. I am sure the reverse is true.

I asked you how the statement that invoked your opinion of me is arrogant.

I explained it's because you're asserting that you understand other people and their needs more than they understand themselves and their own needs.

And I explained why that is false, and why I don't have to read anyone's minds to know that this is, indeed, true of some people. It is just self-evidently true. If you grow up in Islam, you will almost certainly be a Muslim. Not a Christian, or a deist, or a Taoist, or an atheist. A Muslim. Same for other religions. If you grow up with no religion, likely you won't have any as an adult.

How can this be true, if not for the obvious fact that indoctrination (and lack of it) as a child matters? It's an obvious fact. I do not even have to claim that they would be better off without religion, to make this point, nor am I claiming that. I only have to assert that they could still be fine without it, or "balanced" (as was the word used in the statement to which I responded when making my original comment), and possibly just haven't given it a shot yet. Again:

Surely some people don't even know they don't really need religion, as it has been with them since birth.

No, I don't have to claim I know better than anyone about themselves or have to read anyone's mind. It's just a true thing that exists in humans.

 

[Anomalism]

I asked you how the statement that invoked your opinion of me is arrogant.

Weird flex but okay. Anyway, you're failing to acknowledge extremely key parts of my posts, repeatedly. I don't think you want an actual discussion with somebody you can't bully and I don't think you're willing to admit that you've lost ground. You start to become intellectually dishonest when you're pressured. Kinda disappointing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyway, you're failing to acknowledge extremely key parts of my posts, repeatedly.

You do quite a gallop. I am not going to respond to all of it. Sorry. I try to make it clear to which of your statements i am responding. With my thoughts of it. Can't offer you mich more than that.


What ground do you suppose i have lost? Instead of directly countering my argument for my statement (in bold), you say i am arrogant and presuming to read peoples minds and know what is best for them.

What i said was none of those things. In fact, your accusations are specious appeal to emotion. Apparently you think "winning ground" means "sick burn", or something.

You have mounted no argument whatsoever that my simple statement - in bold above - is not true. In fact, i think you agree that it IS true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Okay, lets hit the reset. Here is the series of two statements, the second in response to the first:

1 Some people need religion for balance, and some do not.

2 And there are others who think they need it, because they have never known any other way.

Seems non-offensive. Banal, even. And self-evidently true.

 

[Anomalism]

You do quite a gallop. I am not going to respond to all of it. Sorry. I try to make it clear to which of your statements i am responding. With my thoughts of it. Can't offer you mich more than that.

Fine. Maybe I'm expecting too much. That's a mistake I make often.

What ground do you suppose i have lost? Instead of directly countering my argument for my statement (in bold), you say i am arrogant and presuming to read peoples minds and know what is best for them.

What i said was none of those things. In fact, your accusations are specious appeal to emotion. Apparently you think "winning ground" means "sick burn", or something.

You have mounted no argument whatsoever that my simple statement - in bold above - is not true. In fact, i think you agree that it IS true.

I agree that there are probably people that think they need religion but could function without it if they had to. That's kind of a pointless point though, because it would be ridiculous and arrogant to try to determine the breakdown in an attempt to undermine the question that you still won't answer clearly. You want me to acknowledge that somebody exists that doesn't actually need what they think they need. Okay, probably. Now will you acknowledge that you would seriously hurt people if you could actually convince them their god doesn't exist? Is that what you want?

What ground do you suppose i have lost?

At first you tried to suggest the majority of those people that think they need it don't actually need it, and I've got you quoted above if you want to deny it. Now you're trying to get me to admit that maybe, surely, some people don't actually need it. You really don't think you lost some ground there? haha