If you have not read TSM, Time Space Material and Infinity, it is one of my most major arguments in favor of Gods existence, and I suggest you read it before this post, which is a continuation of some of the ideas.
A response I once heard to the spatial argument is that 3 dimensional space is in fact wrapped onto a 4th dimensional sphere. Therefore, the size of the universe is fixed. If you travel in one direction long enough you will end up right back where you started. Now, this model contradicts euclidean geometry and has some other problems, but I will leave those aside for the moment. Two things came to mind as a result:
1) You have invented a 4th spatial dimension (the radius of the sphere). Can we travel in it? Regardless of whether we can travel in it, something must travel in it for it to be considered space. This dimension is unlimited and is still subject to the Spatial argument dilemma.
2) In this sphere, several of the dimensions to measure position in space are angles (like theta and phi for spherical coordinates). These dimensions are fundamentally limited to 360 degrees. I wanted to argue that all spatial systems required at least one unlimited dimension, such that whatever spatial system you imagined, the Spatial dilemma still applied. Unfortunately and fortunately, some exist.
Take for instance two points in 3dim space set a fixed distance apart along an imaginary vertical line. Any point in space can be signified by angles from both of these points (relative to the connecting line) and a theta about the center line.
Fortunately, the problem with this is that as points appear farther and farther away, the measurements of the two angles must become more and more precise. For any point distance x away, a precision d can be found to map the point with the angles. Therefore unlimited or infinite precision also produces a spatial dilemma. For if you shrink your viewpoint down to the arbitrary level of precision you reach, the universe becomes arbitrarily large.
2b) This has an implication for the material argument as well, adding weight. As you break down matter/energy into smaller and smaller parts, you are increasing precision arbitrarily. Therefore the dilemma of matter also produces a spatial dilemma even in a spatially finite universe. (Even if the universe is a fixed sphere 1 billion light years in radius, if the breakdown of matter is infinite, a viewer from that size will perceive an infinite universe)
05 September 2013
04 September 2013
evolutionary benefits of religion
I am now reading "Kingdom Triangle" by J.P Moreland. Awesome book. The second chapter got me thinking, though...
The most ready argument in the hands of atheists/agnostics against theists is probably that humans invented religion as a psychological crutch and it survived because it brings societies together, enforces moral law, etc. This is essentially their explanation for why anyone believes in any sort of God - it's useful for survival. [Other common arguments are how 1) you're being intolerant / relative truth and 2) the ultimate 747 / how did God begin?]
The assumption both sides have always accepted is that religion is profitable for survival - atheists because anything so prevalent must be and theists because religion is a good thing. This assumption may very well be true. But I started arguing from the point of an atheist.
Religion burdens a person down with a long list of rules, occupies much of their time in worship, takes at least 10% of their money, mentally preoccupies them, gives them an intolerance of new ideas, restricts them to one social group, etc etc. Additionally, most of the benefits I just enumerated for religion are group benefits - things that are only beneficial if most of a group has them and often benefits other in the group, not the user directly. Richard Dawkins himself makes passing comment at these benefits but considers them quite small compared to individual benefits (ch5 of The God Delusion). All the problems with religion I listed are personal. Anyone violating a moral law benefits personally if he is not caught.
To be fair, Dawkins does have a decent argument for the origin of religion - as a by-product of many other useful concepts. For instance, it is beneficial for children to listed to their parents without question. Therefore they will, and will pick up any incorrect but not hurtful advice along the way. This generational 'waste buildup' to form legend may have started religion. Also, concepts such as authority/law and design/intention by a person may have all conglomerated into religion.
However, an atheist may argue much stronger personal benefits for his belief than accumulated generational errors. Freedom from useless beliefs, higher mental clarity, ability to create morals and social norms through calculation rather than tradition (this was Dawkins response to a Muslim man on atheistic morals), more free time and money, true appreciation for nature and science, mental freedom and clarity in knowledge of ones own true position in nature, etc etc.
Now, bear in mind that I do not necessarily think atheists are evolutionary advantaged over theists. Persecution and willingness to die for others may dampen it a little but having a correct view of reality, moral based on truth, not agreements which can be broken if you think you can get away with it, freedom from guilt, worry, fear, etc are all good. But as I demonstrated, an argument can be made for atheism.
The implications of this are very specific and very significant. If the human species developed widespread belief in god (some form of God) where that trait is evolutionary inferior to what we assume is the normal atheistic state, it begs some other cause - namely God himself. This is an external argument against atheism [ atheist tenets (assuming atheists are also evolutionists), conflict with the evidence of widespread religion].
Contrary to what you may think, if theism is evolutionary preferred, the argument does not work backwards. Traditional theism does not include evolution and as such the presence of atheism does not suggest it had an external cause superior to theism. Traditional Christians who believe in absolute truth believe other religions are incorrect, and atheism is merely grouped in the 'incorrect' category.
I feel like this post isn't finished but I don't know where to go next. If you see a gaping hole please let me know. Over and out.
The most ready argument in the hands of atheists/agnostics against theists is probably that humans invented religion as a psychological crutch and it survived because it brings societies together, enforces moral law, etc. This is essentially their explanation for why anyone believes in any sort of God - it's useful for survival. [Other common arguments are how 1) you're being intolerant / relative truth and 2) the ultimate 747 / how did God begin?]
The assumption both sides have always accepted is that religion is profitable for survival - atheists because anything so prevalent must be and theists because religion is a good thing. This assumption may very well be true. But I started arguing from the point of an atheist.
Religion burdens a person down with a long list of rules, occupies much of their time in worship, takes at least 10% of their money, mentally preoccupies them, gives them an intolerance of new ideas, restricts them to one social group, etc etc. Additionally, most of the benefits I just enumerated for religion are group benefits - things that are only beneficial if most of a group has them and often benefits other in the group, not the user directly. Richard Dawkins himself makes passing comment at these benefits but considers them quite small compared to individual benefits (ch5 of The God Delusion). All the problems with religion I listed are personal. Anyone violating a moral law benefits personally if he is not caught.
To be fair, Dawkins does have a decent argument for the origin of religion - as a by-product of many other useful concepts. For instance, it is beneficial for children to listed to their parents without question. Therefore they will, and will pick up any incorrect but not hurtful advice along the way. This generational 'waste buildup' to form legend may have started religion. Also, concepts such as authority/law and design/intention by a person may have all conglomerated into religion.
However, an atheist may argue much stronger personal benefits for his belief than accumulated generational errors. Freedom from useless beliefs, higher mental clarity, ability to create morals and social norms through calculation rather than tradition (this was Dawkins response to a Muslim man on atheistic morals), more free time and money, true appreciation for nature and science, mental freedom and clarity in knowledge of ones own true position in nature, etc etc.
Now, bear in mind that I do not necessarily think atheists are evolutionary advantaged over theists. Persecution and willingness to die for others may dampen it a little but having a correct view of reality, moral based on truth, not agreements which can be broken if you think you can get away with it, freedom from guilt, worry, fear, etc are all good. But as I demonstrated, an argument can be made for atheism.
The implications of this are very specific and very significant. If the human species developed widespread belief in god (some form of God) where that trait is evolutionary inferior to what we assume is the normal atheistic state, it begs some other cause - namely God himself. This is an external argument against atheism [ atheist tenets (assuming atheists are also evolutionists), conflict with the evidence of widespread religion].
Contrary to what you may think, if theism is evolutionary preferred, the argument does not work backwards. Traditional theism does not include evolution and as such the presence of atheism does not suggest it had an external cause superior to theism. Traditional Christians who believe in absolute truth believe other religions are incorrect, and atheism is merely grouped in the 'incorrect' category.
I feel like this post isn't finished but I don't know where to go next. If you see a gaping hole please let me know. Over and out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)