Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

You would think by now that if there was one true religion then we'd all be its devotees. It simply makes no sense for it not to be in place by now. I don't care if it is or isn't theistic, there's been enough time for the entire world to get on board. If heliocentricity can gain near worldwide support then why can't the one true religion? This should be a no brainer. Theists should by all intents have the easier time simply because all they need is proof of their god(s). It shouldn't be this difficult. The fact that it is speaks volumes. Difficulty increases whenever you approach impossible.

History pretty much defines why there isn't just one.

A number of religions tend to have points where there is splinters from their belief systems where different interpretations of the same thing causes conflictions or from "leaders" not being the person people would have chosen to lead a particular group creating a civil dispute.

Further to this matter was Ancient Romes (Emperor Constantine) attempt to absorb other religions and cultures and attempt to re-write them to one religion. Why it was done? It was likely just politics, making it simpler to try and keep the many annexed provinces from having internal feuds based upon beliefs, where if one religion was treated well and another poorly it wouldn't result in civil unrest or war. As you can tell though, it didn't exactly work out well as the many different cultures did not want to adopt such changes.

It did lead to Catholicism though (and centuries of Tarriffs sent to Rome) and that lead to Protestantism due to Henry VIII's need for a male heir.

Unfortunately for this reason Religion is never something that we are going to be rid of although it would actually be difficult to imagine a world without it.

(Apr 23, 2017 08:25 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]History pretty much defines why there isn't just one.

I'm thinking all religion, like all organisms, has a common ancestor. Maybe it was the Sun, Moon, Earth, a lightning bolt or whatever but I definitely think it was very physically real. Of course once people turned into nomads they eventually settled in areas where for example, there are no volcanoes or other natural physical phenomena that may have contributed to their ancestor's religion. I feel religion is following an evolutionary track, bearing little resemblance to the first. 

If we know this to be true, that religions are in a constant state of flux, then I don't think there's anything else to say except we don't have any idea what if any, the true religion is? We can say a bird is an evolved dinosaur and accept it as fact, an admittance that dinosaurs existed and preceded birds but when have you ever heard of a religion that admits it has evolved from an forerunner?

Faint reverberation of 1983 potato chip advertising? "Betcha' can't [...genuflect to...] just one."

(Apr 24, 2017 04:14 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Faint reverberation of 1983 potato chip advertising? "Betcha' can't [...genuflect to...] just one."

If all religions stem from a common ancestor then I guess in essence all are genuflecting to the first.

(Apr 23, 2017 07:55 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]You would think by now that if there was one true religion then we'd all be its devotees. It simply makes no sense for it not to be in place by now. I don't care if it is or isn't theistic, there's been enough time for the entire world to get on board. If heliocentricity can gain near worldwide support then why can't the one true religion? This should be a no brainer. Theists should by all intents have the easier time simply because all they need is proof of their god(s). It shouldn't be this difficult. The fact that it is speaks volumes. Difficulty increases whenever you approach impossible.

Maybe religion is the advanced minds ability to prevent madness from taking hold when logic & understanding fail to gell into the conscious mind.
This would certainly support the "god religion" of the brain being found as it would be required like a flash drive of special algorythems to cope with large jumps in knowledge & understanding where there is an evolutionary need to hold on to fact concepts that hold no logical or connective reason.

without the ability to put unreasonable and illogical things together, some forms of mathamatics/science/modern technology & thinking would simply not be possible.

just a thought...

in theory this theory could be tested by studying a society where religion has been outlawed and abandonned, and then looking at how if at all that society moves forward in technology science and social consciouseness.
i would supposition that without religion as a flux between madness mass genocide and social collapse, and the massive jumps in mental ability, society might not be capable of holding its self together.(this is me purely musing the topic)

(Apr 24, 2017 04:29 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 24, 2017 04:14 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Faint reverberation of 1983 potato chip advertising? "Betcha' can't [...genuflect to...] just one."

If all religions stem from a common ancestor then I guess in essence all are genuflecting to the first.

If ancient artwork is any indication, the "Dreamtime" of Australian aborigines might be the oldest surviving spiritual orientation. Animism would have been an early explanation for life or its distinction from non-living matter. Fables would have been invented by adults for relieving the death and misery fears of children, as well as keeping them morally in line with tribal hierarchy and protocols for social interaction. A conditioning taken to be true by succeeding generations, upon youth reaching adulthood. Shamanistic beliefs springing from the earliest use of hallucinogenic flora / fungi would have been among those bottom-most origins for organized practices.

A shift or diversification from godless mysticism / forces to theism (whether humanoid, animal, or chimera) could have commenced after leaders utilized a claimed "godhood" status for themselves to insure their authority and that the wishes of the ruling class (and shamans now turned priests) would continue to be respected, as cultures became more complex and unruly. Or perhaps divine leader worship was preceded by and developed from nature worship of animals. The particular beast hunted down for food merely being a material reflection of the potent immaterial / universal concept behind it which was the actual deity.

Edward O. Wilson speculated that there was some kind of genetic template for inducing spiritualism / god habits -- a kind of biological version of a Platonic form or empty placeholder compulsion that was generalized and without allegiance to any specific possibilities for beliefs. But more likely such an abstract ancestor for the splintering range of future religions would have been grounded in "attaching sacredness to a variety of things" rather than an outright, fully developed god-module. And no localized "spot" in the brain at all, but a proclivity distributively realized in the overall "wiring" patterns.

Edward O. Wilson: Of course that is happiness, to find the godhead, or to enter the wholeness of Nature, or otherwise to grasp and hold on to something ineffable, beautiful, and eternal. Millions seek it. They feel otherwise lost, adrift in a life without ultimate meaning. [...] They enter established religions, succumb to cults, dabble in New Age nostrums. They push The Celestine Prophecy and other junk attempts at enlightenment onto the bestseller lists.

[...] Perhaps, as I believe, it can all eventually be explained as brain circuitry and deep, genetic history. But this is not a subject that even the most hardened empiricist should presume to trivialize. The idea of the mystical union is an authentic part of the human spirit. It has occupied humanity for millennia, and it raises questions of utmost seriousness for transcendentalists and scientists alike.

[...] Still, if history and science have taught us anything, it is that passion and desire are not the same as truth. The human mind evolved to believe in the gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology. Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to biology, which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms. The uncomfortable truth is that the two beliefs are not factually compatible. As a result those who hunger for both intellectual and religious truth will never acquire both in full measure. --Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge

(Apr 23, 2017 08:25 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]History pretty much defines why there isn't just one.  

A number of religions tend to have points where there is splinters from their belief systems where different interpretations of the same thing causes conflictions or from  "leaders" not being the person people would have chosen to lead a particular group creating a civil dispute.

Further to this matter was Ancient Romes (Emperor Constantine) attempt to absorb other religions and cultures and attempt to re-write them to one religion.  Why it was done?  It was likely just politics, making it simpler to try and keep the many annexed provinces from having internal feuds based upon beliefs, where if one religion was treated well and another poorly it wouldn't result in civil unrest or war.  As you can tell though, it didn't exactly work out well as the many different cultures did not want to adopt such changes.

It did lead to Catholicism though (and centuries of Tarriffs sent to Rome) and that lead to Protestantism due to Henry VIII's need for a male heir.

Unfortunately for this reason Religion is never something that we are going to be rid of although it would actually be difficult to imagine a world without it.

 

I like the approach of identifying the origin of religious thought and points of diversion.  

We can know man began by humanizing nature to convey stories important to their survival, so a pile of large rocks near a source of water, becomes the three sisters.  This is done because we remember best information that is stories about humans.    We still do this today by naming our cars or computers and talking about their personalities.  In an office where people share machines, this can be an important way to transmit information about a machine's quirks.  

I like best the original story of Adam and Eve that was written in cuneiform.  In cuneiform, Eden means "uncultivated plain" and Adam means "settlement on the plain",  Eve is the lady who makes live created from Adams rib, but in the original story she is a goddess speicalized in healing ribs.  

Now let us look at the science.  Eden where a river went out to water a garden, and then parted and became four rivers.  Geologists have identified this as a region in Iran but two of the rivers dried up and could not found before modern technology.  Geologists also know this area experienced a long drought. Now back to our story.

The river flooded and ate a goddess's plants.  She was so angry she cursed the river to death and the river almost died, but a fox was able to convince the goddess to let the river to live.  As part of the deal, she made man and woman from mud and breathed life into them, so they could help the river stay in its banks.  Simple enough, use science to determine what happened.     But there is a catch...

If you came from Egypt with the religion of Amenhotep the story is believable, except you know there is only one god.  Solution, correct the story about a flood and drought and a return to normal weather and cultivating the land. After all, it is obvious Ra is the only God.  The archives of Egypt say so.

We might want to understand what developing civilizations had to do with the increase of gods.     Again we can look at ourselves and the study of atoms, we are naming more and more parts that are discovered to make up atoms.  I am no more sure of all these parts than any Egyptian could be  sure of all their gods.  What happened was the original cause of these stories was forgotten, and man moved on to needing to understand their increasingly complex bureaucracies and civilizations, so they started naming new gods for each newly recognized concept.  Like we are naming the parts of atoms today.  Many gods who interact with each other results in a very rapid increase of concepts, and eventually this meant having so many gods, the whole belief system began falling apart.  Like Rome was falling apart with too many myths in an expanding empire, requiring a unified theory.  Egypt also had this problem, resulting in searching the archives for the true god and coming with Ra.  But the old priest hood crushed the new religion of one god, and those committed to the one god, fled to Ur, a city that was once a Sumerian city, and eagarly they studied the archives in the ruins of Sumer, realizing as we do, in the far past was the pure truth.     

As all holy books were writing, corrections to the stories were made.  Rome pulled all the stories together using the Roman Law of Nature rule.  This was a legal tool when settling legal problems between people from different city states with different laws.    The object is to take what is common in the different legal systems and come to a decision.  But this culturally biased religion did not satisfy the Arabs.  At the time of Mohammed Christians and Jews were living with them, and obviously these people worshipping the God of Abraham did not agree about Jesus and what is required to be in god's good graces, and equally obvious the diverse Arab tribes needed tp be unifying so Mohammed corrected the stories once again.    

Now know if you are male and are not circumcised, you do not have the benefit of a covenant with the God of Abraham and you better rush out and get circumcised right away.  God really cares about such things. 

He also enjoys the smell of burning flesh, so you better sacrifice your best lamb immediately. 

Anyone into using science to check biblical truth?  Drop the argument that God does not exist and pick up the argument about all the different things religious people say that can or can not be true.  To we have to be saved by Jesus to be moral, or we can use reason to be moral?

Nice Carol. 

You know, I jokingly started a new religion in the now old defunct science forum. I called it the Knutter religion. Knutter is short for we 'know nuttin' about the truth but we're good at substituting for it. So far I'm the only Knutter on Earth.   Knutterism, the only religion on Earth that admits we truly know nothing that's worth believing in or forming a religion over.

(Apr 24, 2017 09:07 PM)Carol Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 23, 2017 08:25 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]History pretty much defines why there isn't just one.  

A number of religions tend to have points where there is splinters from their belief systems where different interpretations of the same thing causes conflictions or from  "leaders" not being the person people would have chosen to lead a particular group creating a civil dispute.

Further to this matter was Ancient Romes (Emperor Constantine) attempt to absorb other religions and cultures and attempt to re-write them to one religion.  Why it was done?  It was likely just politics, making it simpler to try and keep the many annexed provinces from having internal feuds based upon beliefs, where if one religion was treated well and another poorly it wouldn't result in civil unrest or war.  As you can tell though, it didn't exactly work out well as the many different cultures did not want to adopt such changes.

It did lead to Catholicism though (and centuries of Tarriffs sent to Rome) and that lead to Protestantism due to Henry VIII's need for a male heir.

Unfortunately for this reason Religion is never something that we are going to be rid of although it would actually be difficult to imagine a world without it.

 

I like the approach of identifying the origin of religious thought and points of diversion.  

We can know man began by humanizing nature to convey stories important to their survival, so a pile of large rocks near a source of water, becomes the three sisters.  This is done because we remember best information that is stories about humans.    We still do this today by naming our cars or computers and talking about their personalities.  In an office where people share machines, this can be an important way to transmit information about a machine's quirks.  

I like best the original story of Adam and Eve that was written in cuneiform.  In cuneiform, Eden means "uncultivated plain" and Adam means "settlement on the plain",  Eve is the lady who makes live created from Adams rib, but in the original story she is a goddess speicalized in healing ribs.  

Now let us look at the science.  Eden where a river went out to water a garden, and then parted and became four rivers.  Geologists have identified this as a region in Iran but two of the rivers dried up and could not found before modern technology.  Geologists also know this area experienced a long drought. Now back to our story.

The river flooded and ate a goddess's plants.  She was so angry she cursed the river to death and the river almost died, but a fox was able to convince the goddess to let the river to live.  As part of the deal, she made man and woman from mud and breathed life into them, so they could help the river stay in its banks.  Simple enough, use science to determine what happened.     But there is a catch...

If you came from Egypt with the religion of Amenhotep the story is believable, except you know there is only one god.  Solution, correct the story about a flood and drought and a return to normal weather and cultivating the land. After all, it is obvious Ra is the only God.  The archives of Egypt say so.

We might want to understand what developing civilizations had to do with the increase of gods.     Again we can look at ourselves and the study of atoms, we are naming more and more parts that are discovered to make up atoms.  I am no more sure of all these parts than any Egyptian could be  sure of all their gods.  What happened was the original cause of these stories was forgotten, and man moved on to needing to understand their increasingly complex bureaucracies and civilizations, so they started naming new gods for each newly recognized concept.  Like we are naming the parts of atoms today.  Many gods who interact with each other results in a very rapid increase of concepts, and eventually this meant having so many gods, the whole belief system began falling apart.  Like Rome was falling apart with too many myths in an expanding empire, requiring a unified theory.  Egypt also had this problem, resulting in searching the archives for the true god and coming with Ra.  But the old priest hood crushed the new religion of one god, and those committed to the one god, fled to Ur, a city that was once a Sumerian city, and eagarly they studied the archives in the ruins of Sumer, realizing as we do, in the far past was the pure truth.     

As all holy books were writing, corrections to the stories were made.  Rome pulled all the stories together using the Roman Law of Nature rule.  This was a legal tool when settling legal problems between people from different city states with different laws.    The object is to take what is common in the different legal systems and come to a decision.  But this culturally biased religion did not satisfy the Arabs.  At the time of Mohammed Christians and Jews were living with them, and obviously these people worshipping the God of Abraham did not agree about Jesus and what is required to be in god's good graces, and equally obvious the diverse Arab tribes needed tp be unifying so Mohammed corrected the stories once again.    

Now know if you are male and are not circumcised, you do not have the benefit of a covenant with the God of Abraham and you better rush out and get circumcised right away.  God really cares about such things. 

He also enjoys the smell of burning flesh, so you better sacrifice your best lamb immediately. 

Anyone into using science to check biblical truth?  Drop the argument that God does not exist and pick up the argument about all the different things religious people say that can or can not be true.  To we have to be saved by Jesus to be moral, or we can use reason to be moral?

presses like button