Why We Believe in Gods - Dr. Andy Thomson

[H3LL]

It seems science is getting closer to explaining irrational religious beliefs.

A must watch video from Richard Dawkins' Foundation:

Why-We-Believe-in-Gods (http://richarddawkins.net/article,3779,Why-We-Believe-in-Gods---American-Atheists-09,Andy-Thomson)

YouTube Version (Available in HD):

1iMmvu9eMrg

Dr. Thomson's closing comments, anticipating court cases from the religious groups, gave me a big smile for the day:

"Bring it on!"


:D


.

[Puppycow]

Thanks for sharing this. I'm in the middle of watching it now.

[Moochie]

Yep, a good spend of an hour or so. Much to learn and wonder at. Someone recommend it to KK, quick! :)


M.

[Blackadder]

great lecture. I learned some new things here

[The Norseman]

Great link! Thank you!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Adds to what I've been saying for some time now. If you follow the evidence you find it overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, god beliefs are a human invention and there is no evidence god beliefs resulted from any real interaction between humans and gods.

While this is a no brainer to all atheists and most agnostics, fewer of those within those two groups think about the evidence for the origin of god beliefs when they're considering the 'possibility' of gods existing. Instead, these atheists and agnostics key in on the scientific principle that the scientific process doesn't result in 'proof' and one cannot prove the negative in a question such as, do gods exist.

With everything else in scientific investigation and a scientific evidence based belief system, one looks to explain things. In this case that would be explaining god beliefs. But instead we see many atheists and all agnostics giving the 'belief' itself a life of its own, independent from the individual.



There is a conflict between science and religion. Yes there is. Been saying that for a while as well. Cognitive neuroscience of religion as the next scientific advance which will challenge believers is a logical prediction. Comparing that to the 'ID in the classroom' battle was a great analogy. I will be incorporating that one into my forum debates on the issue of the reason to stop coddling god beliefs by claiming they are parallel to science and not contradictory because science doesn't go there.



Intelligence and education having a direct relationship to atheism is an interesting statement. I agree but we see quite an overlap that leaves the door open to protests. It may turn out to be there is a more narrow brain function related to god beliefs leaving intelligence and education out of the causal realm. OTOH, the more analytical and/or logical brain would seem to me to be predisposed to seeing god beliefs for the myths they are.


Thanks, H3LL. :D

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am unimpressed. The parts in the beginning about intentionality detection were interesting.

But really, what does any of this do? Since we are mostly atheists here, we interpret this information as "religious hijacking" of natural processing.

I think it is rather obvious that for those religions claiming Truth, we humans could only interact with it with our given minds.

Of course, his argument that of permissive teleology, secondary cognition, etc. explaining a development in the idea of a creator god and a disembodied mind is pretty convincing.

But of course, I disagree with his ethics analysis. It tends far too much to a Natural Law for my tastes, which I think we all agree is bunk. Though I did like is explanation of empathy.

However, this explains religion insofar as it is defined as being based on god and soul.

And his whole part about ceremony and commitment was rather superfluous, IMO.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am unimpressed. The parts in the beginning about intentionality detection were interesting.

But really, what does any of this do? Since we are mostly atheists here, we interpret this information as "religious hijacking" of natural processing.

I think it is rather obvious that for those religions claiming Truth, we humans could only interact with it with our given minds.

Of course, his argument that of permissive teleology, secondary cognition, etc. explaining a development in the idea of a creator god and a disembodied mind is pretty convincing.

But of course, I disagree with his ethics analysis. It tends far too much to a Natural Law for my tastes, which I think we all agree is bunk. Though I did like is explanation of empathy.

However, this explains religion insofar as it is defined as being based on god and soul.

And his whole part about ceremony and commitment was rather superfluous, IMO.RandFan's comments on the video in another thread are worth noting here.

Leaving aside the "perfect harmon" for a moment. You've a problem. A very significant one. Neuros science is quickly discovering that the self of our cartisian theatre is simply a deus ex machina. A mental conciet.

Parsimony and science gives an answer. Mysticm gives us a narative without any explanatory power. And the "perfect harmony"? Well, there are some universals but as the above video demonstrates, the universals are a function our evolved brain wiring and evolutions gives a very good explanation for why we are as we are (see Ramachandran's "The God Module").

I didn't think Dr T went into the neuroscience of god beliefs in a lot of detail. He didn't make as much of an evidence based case ad he made a concept based case. The evidence is overwhelming across multiple scientific fields, however, from anthropology to psychology and neuroscience. It would take hours to cover the science of god beliefs.