THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION
  • HOME
  • BEN'S BLOG
  • About The Book
    • BookStore
  • Reviews
  • About The Origin of Religion
  • The origin of spirit
  • FINAL CONCLUSION
  • Contact

BEN'S  BLOG
Click on "Archives" for all blogs since November  2013

Evolution vs Creation

5/7/2022

0 Comments

 
Creationism vs Evolution

Creationists love to argue that the formation of the first self-replicating molecules by means of natural evolution is manifestly improbable, with some suggesting the odds of improbability exceed the numbers of atoms in the universe. For creationists, self-replicating molecules must have been designed by some external intelligence. In the same breath, creationists conveniently fail to address the all-important question of where this intelligence itself came from. Who designed the external intelligence that, in turn, designed the self-replicating molecules? Creationists are often heard to say “it always existed,” or “we cannot know God’s way,” or “God is energy,” presenting such idioms as certain knowledge when they are purely speculative assertions, none of which have any basis in reality or in fact. I have heard it all.

As an amateur scientist and philosopher, I’ve studied probability theory and chaos theory. A lottery with odds set at 1,000,000:1 does not have to have a million draws to be won. In fact, the lottery could be won on the first draw, without the need for subsequent draws. The odds, or probabilities, might reach a million to one but the practical reality is that it is rarely necessary to have million draws before a winner is determined. Each of you (each of my readers) is the lucky winner in the odds of conception; only you, among the many millions of spermatozoa provided by your fathers, successfully reached your mother’s unfertilized egg. Similar odds are played often by countless fathers and mothers around the world. It’s good that probability is not the same as the sheer numbers would suggest are necessary for a winner to emerge. If it was otherwise, our ancestors would have had little time for any activity other than procreation. In fewer than one million attempts, your mother was impregnated, but the odds you would be the winning spermatozoa remained in the million-to-one range. The creationists confuse numbers with odds, or probabilities. Luck (randomness) can throw a surprise at you anytime.


Chaos theory must also be taken into account. It is an interdisciplinary theory stating that “within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals and self-organization.” Chaos theory ignores odds. It doesn’t matter if the odds are greater than the number of particles in the universe, including such particles as neutrons and dark matter particles. Odds do not prove anything. Probability is overrated and, for creationists, grossly misunderstood.

Randomness, and not intelligent design, has produced a universe that is 99.9% hostile to life, with thousands of different celestial objects colliding randomly over aeons of time. Earth could be wiped out in a random collision with another object. It is impossible to use reason to understand how an intelligent being would take a chance on randomness. Many species of living things on our planet earth have gone extinct because they could not adapt to a randomly changing environment. The ones that survive today are full of flaws, with many deformed, and other species exhibiting mental deficiencies and a plethora of illnesses. Humans are not an exception. All life forms contain the results of random combinations, often misconstrued as “mutations,” with a very few that are viable, at least for a while. The complex eye has many counterparts, from simple light detectors to a myriad of different designs which were sufficient for that particular species to survive. For some species with no need for vision, the remnants of eyes remain.
 
Nature is a mighty force but it is obviously not intelligent. Blind evolution tries all kinds of possible combinations. Most are unsuccessful. The partly successful combinations are bound to evolve or risk extinction sometime in the future. Evolution does not stop. All life on earth is constantly evolving and not ever under the direction of an extraterrestrial supernatural invisible hand.
 
Life forms’ survival sometimes depends on consuming and destroying other life forms. Randomness, or bad luck as well as good luck, reigns supreme. Nothing points to an intelligent design.

Picture
0 Comments

The Genesis Creation Story

3/16/2022

0 Comments

 
Theists often believe that creation of the world, as described in Genesis 1 and 2, are accurate descriptions of the beginning of our world but closer examination shows that Genesis 1 is a different story than Genesis 2. The sources of these stories are borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology and are obviously written by two different writers.
Let’s look at the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Genesis 1 starts with the earth “untamed and shapeless, then the “dome” was established. Let there be light! On the 2nd day, dry land appeared. Next came vegetation, including fruit trees and other plants and on the third day lights, the sun, the moon and stars, were created, followed on the fourth day by living creatures in the sea and birds. On the 5th day all other creatures and creeping things and man, in God’s image. (“Male and female he created them”). On the 6th day God completed the creation and rested on the 7th day.
Now let us look at the 2nd story starting at Genesis 2 to 4.  This version doesn’t mention the number of days but gives an order of creation which is decidedly different from Genesis 1. In the beginning God, made the earth and heaven. There were no shrubs or grass, no rain and no man to till the soil. A stream welled up to water the ground. Next, God formed a man from clay and blew in his nose to give him life (here is where “spirare,” translated as breath, the concept of the spirit originated (see my blog on “the origin of the spirit”).
Next, God planted the garden of Eden and placed Adam (single) in it. Trees were created and were “good for food.” The tree of life and the tree of knowledge were created. Four rivers are described which water the garden where Adam was placed to cultivate and take care of it. God then explained that Adam should not eat from the forbidden tree. God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone so he created cattle and wild animals, and invited Adam to name them. (Thus men and women were not created at the same time). God then put Adam in a deep sleep, took one of his ribs and created Eve. As you can read it for yourself, it is a completely different story with elements taken from other myths.
Now I ask you, can you take the Bible literally? Many biblical stories in the bible reflect older myths retold, such as Noah’s flood, a retelling of other older myths like the Mesopotamian Epic of Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
In conclusion, we can state that the bible is a very interesting book, written by many different authors, but it is not the unerring word of God. Humans passed on old myths which were distorted when retold.
 

Picture
0 Comments

Science has discarded the Soul.

3/3/2022

0 Comments

 

Hermes Solenzol, UCLA professor, neuro scientist wrote
: 
”We have lost our soul because we no longer need to believe that we have a soul. We have a mind, and neuroscience is showing how this mind results from the functioning of our brain. Without the brain, there is no mind.”
It is becoming clear, neuro-science research shows that consciousness is a function of the material brain and that the idea of a soul that detaches from our body after we die is wishful thinking. When information travels from our senses to our brain it is a physical action executed by the law of physics. How does firing neurons become something spiritual? The reverse is even more problematic. Say that our soul makes a decision to move a body part, then energy would have to appear out of the non-material sphere to fire the neurons to do so, that would violate the laws of thermo dynamics. Conclusion: physics does not permit a soul to exist. Don’t take my word for it but go to: https://theapeiron.co.uk/consciousness-is-overrated-e5970efbd3b0
Picture
0 Comments

Is Faith a Mental Illness?

1/19/2022

0 Comments

 
Many atheists, myself included, regard religion as a mental Illness. The definition of delusion, for example, as expressed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), states that delusion includes the following:
1.  It is a primary disorder.
2.  It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.
3.  The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.
4.  The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.
5.  The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
6.  The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are insignificant are of enormous significance to him or her and the social atmosphere surrounding the delusion is highly charged.

The difficulty with the diagnosis of delusions is that almost all of these features can be found in "normal" religious beliefs which hold exactly the same features, yet are not universally considered delusional. For instance, if a person holds a true belief, then they will, of course, persist with it. (Wikipedia)

I have changed my mind about delusions. If we accept the APA definition, it is tempting to conclude that most of the world’s population is mentally ill. Delusions are cultural phenomena that, in the past, were evolutionarily successful because they conferred some benefit on those harbouring the delusions. Humans have invented non-existent supernatural entities, for example, which have helped us to cope with the cruel forces of nature. We have invented gods and rituals in the hope that we could influence them. This is clearly an example of self-delusion.
There are many examples which show that we have inherited many tendencies which do not fit in current society: the urge to kill enemies, to rape, to eliminate competition, and many other tendencies. We must recognize these tendencies and deal with them appropriately. The strong urge to form religions and cults, such as Trumpism, is very difficult to eliminate.
So. I have changed my mind and concluded it is not correct to view religions or cults as a mental illness and that we should seek solutions to human problems by fighting some of the evolved delusions, which were helpful in the past, but are a deterrent in the current society.

Evolution doesn’t stop but, since it is random, we don’t know which direction it will take. Hopefully, the urge to cooperate and having empathy, which were also very successful up to now, will prevail, as the “survival of the fittest” marches on.
 


Picture
0 Comments

The Origin And Evolution Of Consciousness

1/6/2022

0 Comments

 
In a recent article of SCIENCE NEWS. JP O’Malley discusses a new book FEELING $ KNOWING  by Antonio Damasio, describes that consciousness is the link  between mind and body. Consciousness is how we experience a sense of self. It keeps us in the present, it remembers he past and give us the possibility of planning for the future. It is generally accepted that consciousness is created by neurons or nerve cells in the brain. But although the brain plays a major role it does not act alone.
 
Damasio, neuroscientist, Director of the University of Southern California’s Brain and Creative Institute, argues that our consciousness is generated by a variety of body structures such as feelings. For example the feelings of hunger, thirst, pain, well-being, desires and so on, are the foundations of the mind. This notion of homeostasis, a self-regulation concept, maintains stability in always changing conditions which allows planning and flexibility in our environment. It is very difficult to maintain coordination among digesting, respiration and other systems. Consciousness is a system that runs a survey of the whole organism

Consciousness is not exclusive to humans. We see it expressed in other organisms, for example the Octopus has great behavioural responses. They develop a mind, are self-aware and know how to protect themselves. Until we, if at all possible, introduce homeostatic and regulatory senses that would allow computers to create feelings, so it can detect its own inner states, we will not have computer consciousness.

Source: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/feeling-knowing-book-consciousness-origin-evolution?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=latest-newsletter-v2&utm_source=Latest_Headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest_Headlines
 
 

Picture
0 Comments

Proof of the non existence of God?

10/3/2021

0 Comments

 
Having been brought up in a protestant world, I often wondered why our neighbours went to a different protestant church. Our minister, when questioned, would indicate that ‘their’ church was wrong on the interpretation of the Bible and that ‘ours’ was the correct interpretation.

I went to Christian schools and bible studies were a big part of my life. During my twenties (more than 50 years ago), I started to wonder why there were so many Christian churches: Roman Catholic, Latin Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, CFC Catholics (Catholics for Choice), Protestant Adventists, Anglicans, Baptists, Reformed, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, and others, not to mention many non-denominational churches. The variety of Christian belief is stunning to consider. So, if you are a Christian, which “kind” of Christian are you and to which ‘correct’ church do you belong?

Among Christians there is a belief that God speaks to humans through the bible and uses, for example, ministers, priests, pastors and rabbis, who explain that their opinion is the will of God and therefore they assume the earthly authority of their heavenly father. Doesn’t it make you wonder why God speaks differently to all those diverse denominations? It is a wonder how God keeps it all straight in his mind. He must take great care to speak to each congregation differently, emphasizing one thing with one church and a subtly different one to the church next door. (BTW, Islam has the same problem: Sunnis, Shiites, Fatimids, Almoravids, and more). 

The only thing which would make sense, if there was a god, is to ensure that his spokesmen all conveyed the same message. The fact that so many different churches have different opinions and approaches to the rituals and disciplines of their brand of worship indicates they are all man-made concepts and therefore do not indicate the existence of the kind of god as depicted in the religions which are practiced. What do you say?


Picture
0 Comments

INTELLIGENCE  AND  DELUSIONS

8/1/2021

0 Comments

 
Why is it that many non-believers find it difficult to understand how highly intelligent people can believe in the supernatural (external to the natural world), whether it is religion, astrology or other similar phenomena, when there is no empirical evidence for it. I ask you to not comment unless you are willing to read the entire post.

Let’s start with the well known IQ (Intelligence Quotient) bell curve which shows the distribution of IQ in the population using a two-dimensional comparison. The horizontal x-axis shows the IQ level from left to right with 100 representing the mean (not the average) and the y-axis showing the frequency (the number of people at that IQ level).
The Stanford-Binet 5th edition IQ test describes IQ scores below 70 as representative of individuals who are impaired or intellectually disabled while 133+ is regarded as superior IQ.

Binet indicates that about 2% of the population scores below 70 while Levine & Marks classifies those with IQ ratings from 50 to74 as “morons” and those with scores between 25 and 49 are “imbeciles” and those with scores from 0-24 are described as “idiots.”

Why the above explanation? Well, if we assume that IQ is inherited, I propose that other personal characteristics, such as empathy, love, belief (of various sorts), delusions (of various sorts) and skepticism, are similarly inherited. However, such proclivities differ from person to person.

Let’s look at the distribution of delusion. The tendency for delusions is wide spread through the population. Many people believe in the supernatural, astrology and occult phenomena and millions believe that Trump won the 2020 election. Since we are all delusional to some degree, we’ll look where we fit on the IQ curve presented earlier. We might find skeptics on the one end and highly deluded individuals on the opposite end of the x-axis. We assume that there is a point where the degree of distance from the norm (the mid-point of the x-axis) becomes a clinical delusion.

Since there is no correlation of the bell curves for IQ and for the degree of delusion, it is possible that one can be highly intelligent on the IQ curve and also strongly delusional on the delusion curve. This seems to answer the question posed in the first paragraph.
I scored 128 on one test and 141 on another, suggesting that IQ tests are not accurate but are little more than approximations. I would probably score close to the skeptical side of the proposed delusional scale.
I hope to get a great response and if you like this post, please SHARE.


Picture
0 Comments

CONSCIOUSNESS  AND  SELF-AWARENESS

6/13/2021

0 Comments

 
The understanding of consciousness is the hard problem in neuro-science, since as of now, we have no comprehension of how it is produced in the brain or that it is not a material brain function but it is a  universal fundamental and an ubiquitous feature of the universe or an act of God.
 
Consciousness makes us self-aware, that is how an individual consciously knows and understands one’s own character, motives and desires. When waking up from a deep dreamless sleep one’s memory instantly informs us who we are. Memories are constantly recorded in our material brain. They are not always accurate and false memories can be created, they can also be changed or wiped out through accidents, disease, or mental problems but is the only information we have about our “self”. We found out that memory is totally dependent on the material brain by examining brain-damaged patients (Studies by Paul Broca), people suffering from mental illness, babies born with mental deficiencies and by observing the slow deterioration of awareness in patients suffering of Alzheimer’s disease. Rene Descartes’  Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), links self-awareness directly to the material brain as well.
 
When we contemplate that consciousness is separate from the material brain,  as in mind-body duality, or is an independent feature of universe, as in panpsychism and that the brain needs this external  force to create the self -awareness, we must realize  this phenomena needs the information of the memory stored in the material brain to create one’s  “self”. The obvious conclusion is that when the material brain is destroyed or died, so is the self-awareness no matter whether one looks at any definition of consciousness, ruling out any afterlife awareness.
I have seen some “philosophies” who deny the logical conclusion by   arguing that this awareness is somehow recorded in a soul which therefore contains the information (data) to become aware after death.
I see some real problems with that, what about babies, brain damaged people, mental illness, retardation, Alzheimers’ victims and so on. I have seen some “explanations” which are obviously not very logical such as babies grow up in heaven and all mental deficiencies are repaired, everyone will be obtaining a lifetime equivalent of mid-thirties. If you have a logical explanation about the above mentioned dilemmas please let me know.
 
This is not a reason or attempt to deny the existence any God or religion, nor any of the philosophies regarding consciousness or even the existence or not, of heaven or hell. It is simply pointing out that the current knowledge shows that individual self-awareness after death, is unlikely.

Picture
0 Comments

Consciousness

5/1/2021

0 Comments

 

Elizabeth Dawber has described the current progress on neuroscience research regarding the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Dawber’s research tries to shed light on a very difficult problem in science. She writes that, perhaps, science will advance to the point where one of the following three theories will be shown to be the best reflection of reality. According to this philosophy, new mysterianism, commonly known simply as ‘mysterianism,’ is a philosophical position that proposes that the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans. Specifically,  the unsolvable problem is how to explain “qualia.” MRI is one tool that may shed more light on the hard problem.

PHYSICALISM

With the help of MRI, we can tell where the brain activity appears when we are sad or happy. Neurotransmitters (chemicals) can be artificially introduced to produce emotions or stimulate parts of the brain to produce these neurotransmitters. This leads to the suggestion that there are interactions between neurons and their connections which underlie consciousness. It is still not clear how the interactions of these brain parts lead to consciousness but this theory is based on observation of the correlation between emotions and the activities of the brain.

DUALISM
This theory holds that, if the brain does not produce consciousness, then there must be an agent, external to the physical brain, that interacts with the brain to produce conscious experience. This approach infers that consciousness and the physical body are separate entities. Dualists claim that, when someone experiences enlightenment or psychedelic trips or mediation, such experiences indicate that there must be another realm beyond the physical world. Dualism suggests that we live in two worlds, one physical and the other non-physical.

PANPSYCHISM

Panpsychism claims that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the physical world and varies in particles depending on the complexity of the organism. In panpsychism, every material thing, however small, has an element of individual consciousness. Even those things that are not normally considered to be ‘living’ have some element of consciousness. Panpsychism attributes ‘more’ consciousness to more complex physical entities. Thus, humans are ‘more’ conscious than dogs, dogs are more conscious than their associated fleas and fleas are more conscious than the viruses they carry. Panpsychism attempts to “explain away” the phenomenon of consciousness.


CONCLUSION

The principle of Occam’s Razor (attributed to William of Occam) purports that, when attempting to explain any phenomena, no more assumptions should be applied than are necessary. In recognition of this principle, I would favour physicalism as it is the most simple and logical explanation. Physicalism leads to the conclusion that the material brain creates consciousness. I hope that further research will conclusively confirm that physicalism offers the best path toward an understanding of consciousness.
 
Dualism must first demonstrate that a supernatural, non-physical realm must exist, in order for the philosophy to make sense. Sadly, scientific evidence focuses on physical evidence. Humans have yet to devise any sort of technology that might demonstrate the existence of non-physical phenomena. Even an MRI machine that can identify minute interactions in living brains ultimately uses material forms of evidence.
 
The part of panpsychism that I like, is its view that consciousness is a fundamental feature of all life in the physical world. Dogs and fleas are self-aware, as many animals are. The lowly earthworm, if prodded with a sharp needle (in laboratory conditions; don’t try this at home), react. Panpsychists use this as evidence that consciousness, awareness, even bacteria act in ways that suit their environment. Even plants, as reported lately in Scientific American, have developed intriguing insect defending mechanisms, some by wrinkling their leaves so they are harder to walk on while others exchange gases to protect the plant from pathogens. Brassica, the genus of plants that includes cabbage and mustard, kill of patches of their own leaves where butterflies have laid eggs. Some kind of simple consciousness or awareness might be at play here. The problem with panpsychism is determining the ‘cut-off’ between entities that exhibit consciousness and those that do not. Where do we draw the line?
 
The purpose of consciousness and awareness, in all living matter, is to connect associate living entities with all other life forms on earth, or perhaps in the universe, enabling life to develop and survive. Since the ‘higher’ consciousness and awareness depends on material brains, individual consciousness dies with the death of the original organism. This conclusion is obvious to me. But the question of what is meant by reference to ‘higher’ and ‘more’ complex organisms remains.


Picture
0 Comments

DO UNTO OTHERS

2/7/2021

0 Comments

 
The Golden Rule is a very ancient “moral” statement. The earliest recorded mention of it, reflecting the ancient goddess Ma’at (pronounced ‘may-et’), around 2000 B.C., is most likely not the oldest version. It possibly is a “moral’ tradition dating back to a time before writing was invented.

The concept appears in all major world traditions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and still others. A form of the Golden Rule is fond in almost every culture.

The idea to treat others as you would like to be treated is, when examined closely, a very selfish concept which probably found its origin in the distant past when it was realized that, if one wanted to live peacefully in the tribe, it would be a very useful concept. All tribal rules, including localized concepts of morality, could stem from that concept, which is all compassing and does not rely on any “god” to be enforced but rather through the local tribe’s concept of morality.

The variations in the different traditions are obviously similar. Some traditions include:

“What you hate to be done to you do not do to another” (Egyptian)
“Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself” (Tamil)
“One should never do something to others that one would regard as an injury to oneself (Sanskrit)
“Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing” (Ancient Greece)
“Treat your inferior as you wish your superior would treat you” (Ancient Rome)
“What you do not wish for yourself do not to others” (Confucianism)
 
This one “moral” seems to be the base upon which all other tribal rules were built. It was necessary to enforce the concept. This rule applied to everyone, theist or atheist. It has arisen during human evolution as a concept that has been very beneficial to the only hominid genotype which skirted extinction. The rule seems to still be applied in modern human societies. Humanism has also adopted the “Do Unto Others” concept as applicable to all humankind. For versions of the Golden Rule, not a single one of these versions requires a god or any similar supernatural entity.

Picture
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Ben Vande       
    Weerdhof
    Andrews


    Retired Teacher
    Author
    Videographer






    Archives of
    previous Blogs

    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    February 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    Click RSS feed for previous blogs

Ben's Blog

About Origin OF Religion

About THe Book

BooKStore

Contact

  • HOME
  • BEN'S BLOG
  • About The Book
    • BookStore
  • Reviews
  • About The Origin of Religion
  • The origin of spirit
  • FINAL CONCLUSION
  • Contact