Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion.

"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.

"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."

Modern-day religions still embrace this idea of communities bound with the living and the dead, such as the Christian notion of followers being "one body with Christ", or the Islamic "Ummah" uniting Muslims.

Stuck in the here and now
No animals, not even our nearest relatives the chimpanzees, can do this, argues Bloch. Instead, he says, they're restricted to the mundane and Machiavellian social interactions of everyday life, of sparring every day with contemporaries for status and resources.

And the reason is that they can't imagine beyond this immediate social circle, or backwards and forwards in time, in the same way that humans can.

More of the article here: Link

-------------------------------------------------------
An interesting idea to ponder on so I thought I'd share.

Awesome stuff. I have always enjoyed views of religion within sociological and anthropological disciplines. This theory seems well fleshed out. My idea of the advent of religion comes in two simple statements.

Some religions are developed when men come into communion with spirits.
Other religions developed when men figured out it was a way to control others and profit at the same time.

Your first suggestion untrue, because there is no evidence to suggest that spirits exist.

The second might be true, but it it certainly isn't the only reason for the formation of religion.

Sounds good to me. Cultural Anthropology, I have found, usually has a very sound understanding of religion and spirituality. And, as evidenced from this article, never attacks it. Cultural Anthropology never treats beliefs as mental illness or ignorance, but rather views spirituality to be a quality of human existence. (Though it may attack negative aspects of a religion or belief system)

Meh as if I need you to validate my beliefs or theories Wombat *sticks tongue out* They are true to me. Your opinion would be more highly cherished if you added in some insight instead of just saying true or not true.

I did forget to mention that this 'transcendental social' might have also led man in creating music and then writing which of course led to the novel and other forms of literature. Art of other types as well. This article makes me think of the group KLF and their music for some reason.

It doesn't matter whether you need it or not. Your ideas are judged on their merit, not on their imporance to you.

They either are true or they aren't. It doesn't matter whether you think they are true or not.

When someone says that spirits exists, you can't give more "insight" than saying that there is no evidence to support such assertions.

You're forgetting a big one that this theory hits on... When man wanted more and wanted comfort. As an ex-believer I do know that it's comforting to have some magical dude up in the sky watching your six.

As for spirits, there is no proof of them and the claims for that are based on only personal experiences. The same one that many believers have used to justify their beliefs in god, gods, goddesses, and all the rest. Why there are so many different faiths, religions and all that happy stuff out there and not a single true faith.

I agree totally that this is one element to religious belief. It is part of the inherent philosophical questioning that comes with sentient self awareness. However, I also agree with clovis.

The supernatural and paranormal have an independent and verifiable existence outside of the human intelligence and spirit. Whether or not they are physical constructs of certain, as yet unrealised, physical abilities of the human mind is open to question, but their real physical existence in a form somewhat integrated with pure normal or natural reality is not.

There are entities which have the ability to interact with humanity on a paranormal or supernatural level. When they lay down laws for human social organisation, and physically intervene in human lives then god or gods is the best/ most culturally appropriate label to attach to them

Without reference to a single other individual on earth my own life contains enough evidence to attest to such realities. when you multiply that by the many other experiences of humans over many millenia it becomes obvious that somethings exist outside of common day to day perception. Some of these may be attributable to psychological or physical disorders, but again, just taking my life as an example, many are not.

Wombat, Ill go further than clovis.My experiences drive my life, not any preconceived beliefs. Certainly my beliefs reflect my lifetimes experiences, but there is no other way to begin to look at life than through your own eyes and experiences. I would add to clovis's point that many of my experiences do have independent witneses, or can be independently verified, so not only are they important to me, but they do have merit in what i guess is your implication that only Commonly Agreed on realities have merit.

Saying something is true or not true seems obvious, but only works for measurable, verifiable facts. The example i give to my students that "I am the tallest person in the class"is a fact. It happens to be an incorrect fact, but its a fact because it can be verified.

Next I say,
"I am the best looking person in the class " We then work out that this is not a fact. It can not be proven true or false because all measurements rely on opinion, taste, belief etc

This does not mean that it is not true. It may be. We simply cannot prove it one way or another using present scientific methodologies.

Thus many things in the paranormal or supernatural areas may well be true, but science neither attempts to, nor can , investigate their truth, because the measuring sticks required to do so do not exist in scientific terms. So judgement of paranormal/supernatural events (like my good looks) may only be measurable through the eyes of the beholders.

There are enough beholders, and enough opinions, supporting the existence of god, angels and many other supernatural/paranormal apparitions/ events to at least weigh heavily the possibility that they may have objective truth.

I cant really speak on spirits per se , but certainly angels and god(s) along with some form of paranormal connections throughout the universe, in both my personal and my cultural experience, do have an independent reality.

So if a sufficient number of people believe in something it becomes true?? That is reminiscent of the saying “A lie told often enough becomes truth”Vladimir Lenin.




[b]fullywired
[/b]

Wombat is annoying me now too. He's like the atheist equivalent of that Omnaka.


Your definition of truth seems to be rather close minded, Wombat.

"The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

"Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[1][2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

One has to argue if the "established standard of evaluation" is correct and absolute, also. History tells us it can't be, because we are constantly learning more.

But thats not what i said (exclusively) I said there are enough beholders( to be hold means to see or fix ones eyes upon.) I meant there are enough people who have physically seen, either manifestations of god, his angels or physical miracles which god has told them he will work and then has worked, to provide some physical proof that god exists.

This was my whole point. Religion is not entirely, and never was/ has been, exclusively the domain of people who construct a god from human psychological or other needs.

God manifests himself physically to some people. This was the stated experience of the writers of the bible and it is my stated experience. It is also the stated experience of many other people throughout history from the distant past to the present day.

Thus people like me, who would never countenance the idea of god or the paranormal/supernatural as a concept/constructed belief system, come to acknowledge his existence through his physical presence in their lives.

That is what the stories in the bible are. Not some made up allegorical tales, written for the moral edification and control of a populace. They are accounts by ordinary people like myself of their encounters with something extraordinary.

Once you have had one or more of these encounters you can recognise this immediately, both through the nature of the messages and through the nature of the messengers.

The other possibility is that all of us are insane/ deluded, but I have already explained many times that in my case (which is the only one I can personally attest to,) both those possibilities have pretty well been ruled out by independent observation, and by expert evaluation of my health.





You can choose to disbelieve our accounts, or dismis them as hallucinations (although many are self evidently not from their nature)

What you cannot do, as a number of people on this forum continually attempt to do, is say that such testimonies do not exist, or that they do not, either as individual testimonies or collectively, carry any evidentiary weight.

While eye witness accounts may not be enough proof in them selves to sway the balance of a skeptical public opinion, they must be taken into account. If they are simply dismissed as incredible, then of course there is little independent physical proof for the existence of god. Perhaps that is why some people go to such lengths to try and discredit both the accounts and the observers.

Very simply put, what i was saying was that if enough people (albeit a small percentage of the total population )see/experience something, then that moves what is seen/ experienced from purely subjective reality towards an objective reality (which exists in a reality outside the boundaries of just human imagination or even just human perception.)

Ok so that wasnt very simply put, but its about as concise as i can get, with a very complex subject.

One of my old lecturers once put it this way: Myth + Faith = Truth
*as best as I am aware, he was not a believer in any particular Faith, but rather he used this in the context of studying what cultures saw as "Truth". Just a thought.

Chaos Magic uses the same concept. Perception is Reality. Belief shapes Perception. Therefore Belief shapes Reality.

Exactly Wombat, this forum is a debate forum to exchange sound ideas IMO its not personal..... I am here to learn that which is sound and valid, not what someone thinks or beleives is true....

Who?

We are talking about issues with a definite truth value. 1 or 0, true or false. Either spirits exist, or they don't.

What are you talking about? Are spirits true, do they exist, or can they be verified using any criteria? No, no and no. Spirits are not falsifiable.

In reality, perception only changes what you believe is reality.

Except that he's right, or can you find me something that's both true and false simultaneously?

Check out argument falacies. You might then understand my point, even if you still disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

But since truth is PERSONAL, it would be very hard for me to show you something which is both true and false.

The statement below is false
The statement above is true

Truth isn't personal. What you think is true is personal.

Do those fallacies somehow prove your point?

From the viewpoint of the person who's perception has been changed - how would they know?

They wouldn't immediately know. They might figure it out later though. How's it relevant anyway?

Which fallacy? We're talking about whether something did or did not happen. That's absolute, there's nothing personal or subjective about it. Whether it's true to him or not is unimportant, unless you want to branch off in to philosophy and exotic theories dealing with alternate dimensions, because now we're just talking about opinions.

If I choose to think that World War II didn't happen, will I save millions of lives? If so you better get me a medal...

Because people only have their own personal reality to refer to.

If three people are in a room and two of those claim to see a fairy and the other does not - is the fairy real?

Depends on whether it is real or not. It doesn't depend on what anyone in the room thinks about it.

Then I'll put it another way. How do you define what is real?

[quote name='Mr Walker' date='May 1 2008, 03:17 PM' post='2275709']



God manifests himself physically to some people. This was the stated experience of the writers of the bible and it is my stated experience. It is also the stated experience of many other people throughout history from the distant past to the present day.




I take exception to your use of the word physically in this instance.,nobody has Physical contact with god

1. 1. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See synonyms at bodily.
   2. Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a physical dance performance.
   3. Slang. Involving or characterized by violence: “A real cop would get physical” (TV Guide).
2. Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
3. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

We look at the evidence and use reason and logic.

I see your point, though. You are saying that we cannot figure out the absolute truth (except for with logic), since we rely on our senses to observe our world.

Although this belongs into philosophy and is completely irrelevant from a practical standpoint, I agree.

But you are wrong when you go on from here, and conclude that truth is therefore defined by our perception. It's a non sequitur. The most you can conclude, in a purely philosophical framework, is that we can't know what the truth is. That is to say that none of the three people in the room can know whether the fairy exists or not. But the fairy still exists or doesn't exist regardless of whatever the people in the room think.

If more than one person believes in God/Religion then it is real to them. The same applies to most anything.

As far as religion being a figment of our imagination, Religion is very real, we see it everyday.

lollin @ the mindset that somehow figures Philosophy is not as every bit as important as other field's of science

Sure the practical uses might not be there but what a clumsy scale we use to weigh at times.

indeed Clovis, phlosophy is a wonderful discipline its a rigorous methodology of how do things work and interact how do we synthesise and make an all inclusive picture , its a painstaking , time consuming application through the use and understanding of the thinking apparatus and its limitations of looking at concepts and trying to make sense of life ....95 percent of the population are not exposed to philosopical thought until universtiy and then only 10% actaully get into it....it deals with the mechanics of thought and the thinking apparatus as a whole this is in essence philosophy...My area is religion and philosophy which examines religion from a philosophical view ..this discipline is for practical use and quite frankly i feel it should be taught early....having ones thinking apparatus in sound working order is always an asset...

Interesting article, Kratos.



...based on subjective experience, confirmed by subjective experience.



That's not true. Enormous research has been done in this field.



I was 100% sure that my "spiritual" experiences were reality, confirmed by scripture...but they were not.



...another possibility could be that we are human, and stuff happens we don't understand, so we fill in the blanks via our evolved imagination to interpret biological/environmental phenomena.

Mr. Walker, I hope you realize that it's not my intention to belittle your god experiences. I believe such experiences can help us cope with the harshness of life, and can have a profoundly positive effect on our lives and others, but those experiences can never be utilized as a litmus test for determining reality from non-reality .

Respectfully,

~V

Your final statement I agreed with up to the part where you mentioned reality and non-reality. Someone else or no one would have to tackle that issue though of 'what is reality?' It can be interpreted differently that is certain.

I will have to disagree with the notion, if it was implied, that subjective experience is somehow lesser or inferior, maybe when applied to science, but when applied to culture overall, then subjective experience is every bit as equal. Science is one aspect of culture and indeed permeates many aspects of it but culture overall passes beyond that and should not be limited to that one aspect.

Of course I think philosophy is important. I was just pointing out that the philosophical idea that there cannot be absolute certainty is irrelevant in practical terms, and cannot be used as an argument against the validity of science.

The practical standpoint is this: 'Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals'. Just because you have never had practice and consider spirituality as speculation does not mean this is true for everyone else. It is not irrelevant in the whole scheme of things even if it is irrelevant to you personally.

Y! Dictionary


I hope you take no offense but the following image below is who you remind me of (~_^)

Yes, I know what practical means. What is your point?

I repeat, for the the millionth time, that it does not matter what you think/feel/believe/have faith in/etc.. What matters is the evidence, and there is none.

I'll rephrase that:

...but those experiences can never be utilized as a litmus test for determining the existence of god or other 'paranormal' phenomena.



I understand what you are saying Clovis, but hypothetically speaking, if you were going to make a life changing decision...a decision what could mean the difference between life or death, would you make that decision based on subjective evidence?

Definition of subjective, as I have applied it: Source

~Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world:

~Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

~Existing only in the mind; illusory.

If my life changing decisions was based on someone else's subjective experience then no I would not apply that experience in making my decision. And 'subjective' as you defined is not a word that defines some of our experiences in spirituality. It is easy to see how those who never had such experiences would find it hard to believe but when you feel the Spirit physically then you know it is real.

Some will say it is only a chemical reaction in the brain or psychosomatic experience and that is all well for they clearly lack the experience to make a better judgment in these matters. Many are charlatans and say they can do this and this with spirits as well but that still does not negate actual experiences others have had. In the end no one can convince another that spirituality is real nor should they try but on the other hand those who disbelieve should not take it as fact that it is not real and in turn convince others that is the case.

Each to their own belief with none saying this is fact and you have to believe it or there is a defect in you. This is not directed towards you in any sense but at others who take this domineering attitude towards believers. The same accusation can be made towards believers who tell others they are completely wrong...I would just say they are inexperienced.

clovis 'evidence' represents the grounds for a claim, evidence answers how do you know and what do you have to go on...In a debate the claim and the evidence supporting or lack of evidence serves as the startig point, when its contested as Inner space is pointing out and then she is providing grounds for her claims , the debate can't go furtherr until you provide adequete evidence for your claim... Since science uses evidence to validate a claim or deem it sound , we use this in argumentation.... there is very good reason for ( justifing ones claims) to use arguments to serve as opps to compromise , deliberate and to arrive at a mutual understanding , to find a way to bridge gaps on topics that are thought to be otherwise unbridgable..... its productive and it leads to a better understanding of priniciples....


You have to keep in mind this area S & S deals in this type of argmentation( not the quarrelsome type) . where as spirituality and beleifs deals with those that share in the same beleifs....

Inner Space is in the field of neurology amoungst other things...We are very lucky to have her on here sharing her expertise........

Oh I do think Mr Walker was merely offering his viewpoint. It is understandable that someone who specializes in a narrow field of science might not be able to make heads or tales of Mr Walker's experience but to attempt to invalidate it by implying it was not real, which is what I inferred from her post, made me consider the fact that it is very real for I can empathize with most of what he says through my own experiences.

Tis fine if someone wants to argue (not the quarreling type) about the merit of someone else's experience but to say it is not real is another matter. Maybe it is just the way it was phrased because some do tend to offer their view as being the only truth there is on the matter but in the end it is their view regardless of their credentials. But I agree we are lucky to have her as well as everyone else who visits here.

the key point is viewpoint, what inner space is offering is evidence otherwise.. if one posts "viewpoints" with no supporting evidence besides subjective experince then they are also gonna meet with counters ....
of course we place limitations on imagination for very good reason...."not any ole beleif is fine " there has to t be some standard otherwise as we can see from human experince how out this has lead to harmful bahviors over the years.......
so we have disciplines in place to help us do this.. Mw is free to bleive as he chooses but its a "beleif" and opinion.... not based in fact ... ..it is important ti differentiate the difference...


its not personal, disagreeing is not a bad thing or negative thing, we use debate to get at the sound principles of any claim.... Its never personal hon....if anything its a great tool and process for discerning fact from fiction....MW i can say with confidence knows that its not personal to him in any way....

No need to reassure me it is not personal unless you are reassuring yourself This is just a forum to exchange ideas so not even sure why you would even mention that?

Either way it is not 'imagination' what some of us experience. And again no one has to use someone else's experience as the basis of any decision they make so 'harmful behaviors' plays no part in this. Only if someone is foolish enough to take the word of someone else and act on it without experiencing it themselves may harm arise. Something I do not advocate. And again it is not an 'opinion' if someone has actually experienced.

Disciplines to understand the world are one thing but to use it to invalidate another and claim they are wrong is another. You keep hinting at things like fact vs fiction but just because you have not experienced something does not make it fiction.

And I do agree 'not any ole belief is fine' (at least when it comes to making decisions for myself) but saying someone is imagining, or expressing fiction, well that is not fine.

There are many things science cannot even understand because they require repeatable controlled experiments. Those who use science though should do so with respect and not claim just because science cannot address something it therefore is not real. Again nothing personal but do you know how arrogant someone sounds when they state as a fact that someone else's spiritual experience is mere 'imagination' and 'opinion'? One presumes much when they do so and without being able to factually disprove someone else's experience it is only their opinion and not a fact that something is not real.

Even if it's collective, subjective, anecdotal evidence from people who inform you who's god you should surrender your life too, or else you shall surely die?



Please elaborate. I'm not sure I follow you.



So are you saying that you are able to discern the differences between a neurochemical reaction and a "real" spiritual experience. If so, what do you base that discernment on?



To each his own does not apply in certain religions. You are expected to submit to beliefs that indeed are based solely on collective subjective/anecdotal evidence. Christians, for example, are expected to spread the word that "their" god is "the" god, and if you don't believe in "this" god, you are lost.



Clovis, I'm not sure if you've read any of my personal experiences, but for most of my life I was a faithful believer, a Christian. I was sold out, baptised, filled with the "holy ghost", and redeemed by the blood!!! Yes...I "just knew" it was real, because it "felt" real, and the Bible told me so, oh...and so did others.

Intensive study led me out of the church, but I continued to believe in god. It wasn't until I furthered my studies in the neuroscience field, that I began to question my own experiences, i.e., visions of god, demons & angels. All the experiences I had were almost identical to the ones documented in the Bible, only mine were induced by higher than normal electrical activity in the temporal lobe region of my brain, which can be brought by any number of factors. My major symptoms were those of a religious nature. Again, like I mentioned to Mr. Walker...you don't have to be a believer in god to experience "spirituality" and all it's beneficial biological/psychological rewards.

No, I would not make any decision such as 'surrendering my life' solely based on the words of others. No one is asking anyone to make such a decision though.



The three definitions you gave for subjective do not accurately describe my experiences. They are not simply existing within the mind or illusory.



I never said that. As I have already stated science requires repeatable controlled experiments and many things fall outside of that range.



I am not expected to submit to nothing I choose not to. Anyone who submits soley on subjective/ancedotal evidence perhaps are making a mistake but that is for them to decide. Francis of Assisi said it best when he said 'when necessary use words' so I would disagree that Christians are expected 'to spread the word' in the way you might be describing. Bibles belong in private study, in church where people go to learn, and maybe in forums where people share their beliefs, but they do not belong in the world forced onto others. The Spirit is the best witness.



Assuming from your own words it sounds like all of that was based on 'beliefs that indeed are based solely on collective subjective/anecdotal evidence.' Not something I would make a case for as being 'real'.



I do not doubt your own experiences or the conclusions you have made as reasons you base your decisions on. And I agree no one has to believe in God to experience spirituality or that all spirituality is God based. In the end though just because your try at spirituality was not real for you does not make it so for everyone else. Just because your spirituality was your 'imagination' does not make it so for everyone else either.

Not that I am saying things don't fall out of that range but can you give examples?

Sure! Ghosts, Psychokinetics, Philosphy, THE BIBLE/Religion, as it relies on faith.

Do they fall outside of testability by science though? Philosophy is a separate subject so it is not quite the same.
But if ghosts and psychokinetics are testable at least for there existence even if a explanation could not be found (though I believe it would eventually).

I suppose you are correct there so, I cannot argue that.

I feel that science can only delve so far into these paranormal subjects before science abilities are rendered
useless. As I said the lot of it requires faith/belief. Which in itself is not conclusive evidence.

I think if such things exist an answer can be found. The new scientist article describes the biggest problems with belief though, our brains are pretty much programmed to lie to us.
Mind Fiction.
There is also this nice article on why people are willing to believe paranormal.
Lure of the Paranormal.
I found these quite interesting, especially in regards to religious experience.

Confabulation is clearly far more than a result of a deficit in our memory, says William Hirstein, a neurologist and philosopher at Elmhurst College in Chicago and author of a book on the subject entitled Brain Fiction (MIT Press, 2005). Children and many adults confabulate when pressed to talk about something they have no knowledge of, and people do it during and after hypnosis. This raises doubts about the accuracy of witness testimony (see "The unreliable witness"). In fact, we may all confabulate routinely as we try to rationalise decisions or justify opinions.

We often see things that are not there. Stunning visual illusions happen because of the way our visual systems try to make sense of the world. Even when we know how the illusion works, it does not go away. The illusions are the price we have to pay for a perceptual system that does very well in a confusing world. Paranormal experiences may be analogous; the price we have to pay for the way our brains look for connections in chance and probability.


I would say that is a very good explanation, and pretty much sums up how our minds work.

Good links Matt, thanks for the read.



Regards,
Tom

Of course they are...your major religions ask you to make (life changing) decisions based on subjective historical writings and faith.



How else do you experience. The interpretation of all experience always comes through the brain first. When you have a profoundly moving spiritual experience, what criteria do you use to determine if the experience was actually from god? How do you know that your experiences aren't from the devil himself, if you believe in him. After all, according to the Bible, 'he' can be disguised as an angel of light, right? So you use the "spirit" as your guide for 'knowing'....but based on what?



I agree, but I think you missed the point.



If you believe in the Christian god, you are expected to submit to the Christian god and adhere to its belief system. If you are Jewish, you are expected to submit to the Jewish god, and to adhere to its belief system, etc.



So do you just pick and choose what to believe in the Bible?

Ezk 3:18 "When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you give him not warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at your hand."

Mark 15:15-16 "And he said to them: Go into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believes not shall be condemned.


I agree, the Bible belongs in private study, and the beliefs contained inside should be held as personal belief only, but historically speaking, that has not been the case.



My point exactly.