Is religion a delusion?

[Dr B]

The DSM-IV defines delusion as;
“a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary”

Another definition
"A delusion is a false, unshakeable idea or belief which is out of keeping with the patient’s educational, cultural and social background; it is held with extraordinary conviction and subjective certainty" (Sims, 1995).


So based on the DSM definition - Is religious belief really a delusion (in the proper sense of the definition)? If so, what kind of delusion is it?

Is it irrational? If so - what counts as rational?

Can a scientist be religious at the same time?

Could it be that as long as one does not use a non-evidence based belief system in their scientific reasoning - then all is well?

People have a right to believe in what they want - but they do not have the right claim what they want to be a factual truth. Thoughts welcome

{note I have put this here as it is more related to critical thinking than religion per-se}

[Dr B]

Also in relation to the DSM, if I hold a correct belief for a false / poor reason, is that a delusion?

[Tony Williams]

Scientists can certainly be religious, although in some extreme cases they must surely be approaching schizophrenia (like the US astrophysicist in a recent TV programme who was defending Young Earth creationism; when pressed, he simply said that if science conflicted with the Bible, the science must, by definition, be wrong).

Incidentally, New Scientist had an article in the 7 Feb issue ("Natural Born Believers": see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html ) which suggested that the human brain is primed to be religious.

[Matt]

Also in relation to the DSM, if I hold a correct belief for a false / poor reason, is that a delusion?

Just because you're paranoid...

We know that Philip K Dick thought that his phones were being bugged. We also know that eh suffered from amphetamine psychosis and a number of mental health issues at the time. However his phones were really being bugged. Was it nontheless a delusion on his part.

Under the DSM definition it's not.

a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary

It would seem that simply being true is enough to ensure that this belief doens't count as a delusion. We don't know whether "everybody else" believed - possibly not, and there is unlikley to have been incontravertable evidence to the contrary however I would say that these latter qualifications describe how the belif would react in the pressence of this opposition not that such opposition needs to be presdent for a belief to be regarded as a delusion.

Disregarding the definition requiring a belief to be false, it also says it must be based upon an incorrect inference about external reality. This we simply don't know. Bugging techniques at the time could be detected. Do he hear the effects of an induction loop muffling his conversations, did he imagine he see and extra mike hidden within his handnset or did he imagine one whilst the the other was employed. It's possible that specific details of this belief were delusions. At the same time we could consider what if he arrived at his belief through a vision. Could that vision actually be his subconcious tellign him he was being bugged after subconciously picking up on the real clues? Would it be a delusion to trust such a vision?

I think it's an interesting question not least because I don't ahve a simple answer. It'll be good to see what others think.

[Trinoc]

Point of information: Despite the name, schizophrenia is not a "split personality" in the sense of two conflicting personalities occupying the same brain. That would presumably be some sort of multiple personality disorder, and I don't think we can deduce that anyone holding both religious and scientific beliefs is necessarily suffering from this.

I'm baffled as to how someone can work in cosmology yet believe the Bible is literally true, but I don't think we can dismiss it as a mental illness. How would we like it if, as was doubtless the case not so long ago, atheism was classed as a disorder just because it went against the grain of what most people believed?

[Dubious Dick]

The DSM-IV defines delusion as;
“a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary”

Another definition
"A delusion is a false, unshakeable idea or belief which is out of keeping with the patient’s educational, cultural and social background; it is held with extraordinary conviction and subjective certainty" (Sims, 1995).


So based on the DSM definition - Is religious belief really a delusion (in the proper sense of the definition)? If so, what kind of delusion is it?

No. Not according to the DSM definition as I read it. That requires it to go against what most people believe, since most people still seem to believe in some form of religion, even if the minority against is growing. Also no in that it requires incontrovertible proof/evidence against which is not available. Those of us who have no religion do have to rely on probability and logical extrapolation from the absurdities of religions rather than absolute proof. Plus of course the 'can't prove a negative' issue.

Is it irrational? If so - what counts as rational?

Yes, in that behaving entirely rationally would positively require incontrovertible evidence.

Can a scientist be religious at the same time?

Seems unlikely if the Scientist holds true to pure scientific principles in requiring evidence before taking a stance. There is no incontrovertible evidence for religion. A Scientist can presumably hypothesise religion and try to test it, but believing without evidence is inherently un-scientific. Does not mean that a Scientist cannot be religious in his/her provate life but would have to exclude such beliefs from their scientific work. Presumably difficult.

Could it be that as long as one does not use a non-evidence based belief system in their scientific reasoning - then all is well?

As above, yes, but how would one reject all ones belief in this way? Very difficult especially if one belonged to a Church that holds certain things to be true because they are gods word>

People have a right to believe in what they want - but they do not have the right claim what they want to be a factual truth. Thoughts welcome

Yes, so long as what they believe does not require them to impose that belief on others, particularly by force. If they want to claim factual proof then the simple answer is "where is the factual evidence", and if the evidence is not there then they are de facto unable to support that claim.

{note I have put this here as it is more related to critical thinking than religion per-se}


Part of the problem here is with the word 'delusion' is that it has overtones of mental illness. If one were to define it as holding beliefs without evidence (and given that paring it down to a simple definition like that aids communication maybe a good thing), as it can be, then religion is clearly a delusion. Maybe it is more helpful to say it is an non-evidence based position, then we avoid the problem of appearing to be insulting?

It would seem that we have some sort of pre-disposition towards religious belief, but the most likely explanation seems to be that we have a tendency to try to understand and where we cannot we will try to fill that gap with something. Also some recent studies suggest that not all humans have religion in the sense that there is a god of some description out there (religion by definition requiring a deity).

[Mulder]

"a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality ..."

So what 'external reality' demonstrates unequivocally that religions are false? If you read the New Scientist article quoted above you will see that religiousity is actually the default mode of human thought. It takes a deliberate act of will to be an atheist. If you think of mental disorders as differing significantly from average human behaviour, atheists have thea disorder, not religious followers.

[Trinoc]

"a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality ..."

So what 'external reality' demonstrates unequivocally that religions are false?
1. "Unequivocally" sets the bar far too high. There is always room for doubt.

2. Religion as constructed is unfalsifiable. All we can say is that external reality fails to provide any plausible evidence for the claims of religion.

[Mulder]

2. Religion as constructed is unfalsifiable. All we can say is that external reality fails to provide any plausible evidence for the claims of religion.

So what if I infer that the sun is actually a god that crosses the sky every day, as many people used to millenia ago? That inference agrees with 'external reality'.

[Trinoc]

So what if I infer that the sun is actually a god that crosses the sky every day, as many people used to millenia ago? That inference agrees with 'external reality'.
No, it simply does not conflict with external reality, provided that you assign to your god the precise characteristics required to make it compatible with observation.

There is no testable evidence to say you are right, and plenty of circumstantial evidence to say you are wrong. We know from objective evidence that the Sun is a place where no life as we know it could exist - you could say your god is a form of life that can live in 6000K plasma, but that would be special pleading - and we know that the Sun is more or less stationary in the solar system (a slight wobble around the barycentre) and that the planets revolve around it.

You could claim that your god simply arranges things to appear this way to us, but then you would be making an untestable claim, so there wouldn't be any point in pursuing it scientifically.

[Mulder]

Where does it say that 'external reality' has to be tested scientifically? It says "... despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary". Firstly, who cares what everyone else believes - they could all be wrong! Secondly, who decides what constitutes proof - a mathematician? And who decides on the evidence - a judge and jury?

The idea of 'external reality' can depend on the knowledge and culture of the observer, not just science. If you talked to an Amazonian tribesman, who had only recently been contacted by the outside world, would you consider them delusional if they said the sun was a god?

As a definition, it is all over the place and makes little sense, like so much in psychiatry.

[Floppit]

...despite what almost everyone else believes...I think this is the crux. Religion, at least as I've known it, exists in groups and those groups perpetuate social pressure to conform to the religious belief. I believe it was Asch who did some classic work regarding the effects of conformity on beliefs in mainstream, non diagnosed (note my reluctance to say healthy!!) volunteers. It's normal for us flawed people to see things the way 'our' group does, throw confirmation bias and strong family attachments into the mix, plus fear of death and an external locus of control in the first place and VOILA - a god botherer is born. (There but for the grace of ...)!

I remember someone telling me that the DSM's value as a tool lay in where and when it's used. Without a presenting problem, either to the individual or society it's inappropriate to attempt to diagnose, the tool isn't built to give accurate results while applied 'willy nilly' amongst the general public - although HELL it would be fun!

If a person invents there own religion and can get bog all following but continues to individually claim god is a cockle shaped, marshmallowy, big thing then they will undoubtedly appear deluded. But taking a ready made off the shelf which is well supported by other big wigs (presidents...etc), well, I think that falls into the gullable section.

'pologies for laziness not referencing but it's a big enough classic and I will if anyone needs it. (I'm sure it was Asch??)

[Admin]

I consider religion a delusion (i.e. a false belief). Most religious claims are not testable, but where they are (talking to the dead, the power of prayer, etc.) the results are negative so the small amount of evidence that does exist doesn't support their claims.

On a wider note, I do not think that we're predisposed to religious belief per se. It seems that we, along with most of the animal kingdom, are predisposed toward superstitious (or magical) thinking. e.g. Skinner's pigeons/rats.

Superstitious thinking and rituals have been found in human civilizations universally whereas religion has not. IIRC, the Aborigines did not have religion although they had the same types of superstitious beliefs as everyone else.

[Dr B]

On a wider note, I do not think that we're predisposed to religious belief per se. It seems that we, along with most of the animal kingdom, are predisposed toward superstitious (or magical) thinking. e.g. Skinner's pigeons/rats.

Superstitious thinking and rituals have been found in human civilizations universally whereas religion has not. IIRC, the Aborigines did not have religion although they had the same types of superstitious beliefs as everyone else.

I agree with this and have been thinking along these lines for years now. Our brains can easily hallucinate as well and i am sure as a species, we have been having odd experiences for hundreds of years. In addition, I think all religion originally came from a form of causal reasoning (which simply went wrong along the way). So ancient people saw, let's say, the four seasons, they saw the sun / moon / stars etc - and made the mistake that there is an 'intention' underlying events (Theory of Mind attribution) from these objects.

Oddly, they were trying to explain (as a scientist today would) and to understand their environment - but they just did not have the mental tools to do it at that time.

[Mulder]

Might find this interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7745000/7745514.stm

[Dr B]

This is the confusion John and I talk about above - we are not born believing in God - but we are born with brains that use heuristics to bias perception and reason which can lead to fallacy and error (one of which is religious thinking).

It's an important distinction. 8)

[SorryImPsychic]

we are not born believing in God 8)

No we are not born believing in God BUT for the human "Religion" has been the most pervasive and persistent force.....if you think about it Religion is probably the first of human inventions.

[Dr B]

No we are not born believing in God BUT for the human "Religion" has been the most pervasive and persistent force.....if you think about it Religion is probably the first of human inventions.

it is definately based in primal / ancient thinking and not in rational thinking that is for sure. O0

[Trinoc]

it is definately based in primal / ancient thinking and not in rational thinking that is for sure. O0
Is it really ancient thinking? Could it not simply be a case of extending the first view a baby has of the world - that everything is provided and controlled by an external being (i.e. mother) - to apply to the world as a whole. The simplest solution is surely to make sure a child is introduced to viewing the world rationally as soon as it is able to comprehend the world at all, rather than telling fairy tales.

[Dr B]

Is it really ancient thinking?

Yes - its a form of bastardised causal reasoning gone wrong. The nature of the resulting delusions varies greatly around the world - but its all an example of a fast and dirty heuristic dominated form of reasoning.

[Trinoc]

Yes - its a form of bastardised causal reasoning gone wrong. The nature of the resulting delusions varies greatly around the world - but its all an example of a fast and dirty heuristic dominated form of reasoning.
I suppose I didn't mean I thought it was not ancient - it's been around as long as babies have existed - but that it was not a throw-back to ancient beliefs, rather that it is a way of thinking that happens afresh all of the time, and that we all go through in the first parts of our lives. It's just that a lot of people are encouraged never to grow out of it.

[Mulder]

Yes - its a form of bastardised causal reasoning gone wrong. The nature of the resulting delusions varies greatly around the world - but its all an example of a fast and dirty heuristic dominated form of reasoning.

Is heuristic your word of the month? I must admit, I rather like it too ...

[Dr B]

Trinoc

I dont think you've understood my point. Most current theories argue that we have two basic forms of reasoning processes in the brain.

One is fast and dirty - based on rules of thumb and heuristics. This can lead to error in reason (while in some contexts there can be benefits).

One is slower, and more considered - this leads to more rational thinking.

The argument goes that the latter one was not fully formed or did not have the information required with which to operate correctly.

Ancient people predominately used the first system to explain their observations as its all they had with which to understand the world.

[Dr B]

Is heuristic your word of the month? I must admit, I rather like it too ...

:smiley::smiley: Loads of good research in that field.O0

[SorryImPsychic]

One is fast and dirty - based on rules of thumb and heuristics. This can lead to error in reason (while in some contexts there can be benefits).

One is slower, and more considered - this leads to more rational thinking.

The argument goes that the latter one was not fully formed or did not have the information required with which to operate correctly.

Ancient people predominately used the first system to explain their observations as its all they had with which to understand the world.

You argue that it was lower level of cognitive development which contributed to the emergence of religious thinking and I guess it is this level on which this thinking continues to exist.

However, Religion has proved to be man's greatest evolutionary tool - it causes conflict and conflict is what really gets our brain firing at optimum speed.

Religion -> to conflict -> to warfare - and warfare leads to technological development and scientific advance = Survival.

Religion will only reach its Use-By Date when the human (if humanly possible) is ready to turn their weapons into plowshares. OR if the human needs to escape this Earth we will have the technology to do so. We never would have reached this point of development if we were sans Religion and all standing around chewing the cud so to speak.

[chaggle]

Religion -> to conflict -> to warfare - and warfare leads to technological development and scientific advance = Survival.


Religion is a GOOD THING because it leads to warfare? Now I've heard it all!

[Tony Williams]

However, Religion has proved to be man's greatest evolutionary tool - it causes conflict and conflict is what really gets our brain firing at optimum speed.

Religion -> to conflict -> to warfare - and warfare leads to technological development and scientific advance = Survival.

Religion will only reach its Use-By Date when the human (if humanly possible) is ready to turn their weapons into plowshares. OR if the human needs to escape this Earth we will have the technology to do so. We never would have reached this point of development if we were sans Religion and all standing around chewing the cud so to speak.

Religious conflict is an issue now, and has been at various times in the past. But conflicts happen for other reasons apart from religion.

The greatest war of all time was fought between 1939 and 1945, and religion played no part in its causes: it was basically about Germany and Japan trying to increase their importance by conquering other countries. The same applied to the other great conflict of the century, from 1914 to 1918; that was about rivalries between empires, every major country involved was Christian. And the Cold War from 1945-1990 was about two different approaches to socio-economic organisation: capitalism and communism.

Humanity does not need religion as an excuse for conflict. That happened the first time Stone Age men fought over a carcass or access to a waterhole, or just because members of another tribe were different and threatening, and that (greatly scaled up) has motivated conflicts ever since.

[Dr B]

You argue that it was lower level of cognitive development which contributed to the emergence of religious thinking and I guess it is this level on which this thinking continues to exist.

However, Religion has proved to be man's greatest evolutionary tool - it causes conflict and conflict is what really gets our brain firing at optimum speed.

Religion -> to conflict -> to warfare - and warfare leads to technological development and scientific advance = Survival.

Religion will only reach its Use-By Date when the human (if humanly possible) is ready to turn their weapons into plowshares. OR if the human needs to escape this Earth we will have the technology to do so. We never would have reached this point of development if we were sans Religion and all standing around chewing the cud so to speak.


This is ridiculous nonsense - the other posters have beaten me to it - but let us be clear - ridiculous....

Religion serves no survival value to the species per-se - though as we started to operate as cohesive social groups there may have been a need to adopt 'similar beliefs' (though not necessarily in the real sense) in order to obstain and maintain group membership.

However, it is likely that being a good hunter (for example) was a bigger plus....:undecided:

[tolman]

if you think about it Religion is probably the first of human inventions.
That seems extremely hard to support, unless you make a deliberate choice to define 'human' as happening just at the point where language had developed to the point where people could explain/enforce religion on other people, and relegate any previous inventions (tools, fire?), etc to being pre-human ones.

It's difficult to see how religion could have come before such human inventions as stories told to keep the children in line.

[SorryImPsychic]

Religion is a GOOD THING because it leads to warfare? Now I've heard it all!

No - you have not heard it all! I said:

Religion -> to conflict -> to warfare - and warfare leads to technological development and scientific advance = Survival.

Note: and warfare leads to technological development and scientific advance = Survival.

So as an evolutionary tool (amoral - not good or bad) Religion has served to drive science and technological advance.

[tolman]

So what war-derived tech would we have died out from the lack of if there hadn't been wars?

Weapon-wise, we are apparently capable of killing creatures up to and including whales using basic hunting tools (spears and clubs), so we don't obviously need war-derived weapons to defend us from the rest of the animals.

War doesn't seem to have given us many otherwise unobtainable advances in medicine, food production or general hygiene either, so I'm wondering what lines you're thinking on.

Certainly, war can accelerate the development of some kinds of technology, but it's always easier to point to actual or alleged spin-offs than to point to things that didn't get made because people were busy doing military work.

[SorryImPsychic]

This is ridiculous nonsense - the other posters have beaten me to it - but let us be clear - ridiculous....

Religion serves no survival value to the species per-se -

However, it is likely that being a good hunter (for example) was a bigger plus....:undecided:

It is difficult for me to continue a discussion when what I say is considered as ridiculous nonsense. But I will have one more shot at supporting my argument:

Religion has served to form the philosophical and administrative framework for Politics and social organization (no matter what the religious persuasion is). Once the Politics were in place we can have those "non-religious wars" you mentioned).

I mentioned earlier that religion -> conflict and the conflict drove neuronal activity. Consequently this forged neuronal paths that "grew our brains". You cannot underestimate the role that mental conflict plays in human advancement, and religious conflict was and still is the strongest driving force in the human. e.g. Capernicus in proving the phenomena.

By conflict, I mean both internal and external. And as soon as the human though of a power above - they could began to think, and think hard, about everything in between.

[tolman]

It is difficult for me to continue a discussion when what I say is considered as ridiculous nonsense.
But surely, you must have had a great deal of practice?

[SorryImPsychic]

But surely, you must have had a great deal of practice?

This comment is rude and uncalled for :'(

[SorryImPsychic]

That seems extremely hard to support, unless you make a deliberate choice to define 'human' as happening just at the point where language had developed to the point where people could explain/enforce religion on other people, and relegate any previous inventions (tools, fire?), etc to being pre-human ones.


Has there ever been a species that could not communicate within its own species? So do not assume that significantly developed language was the beginning of human communication and religion.

Can you name the first human invention? (remembering that fire is a discovery and the development of stones to tools is manufacturing.).

[Tony Williams]

Can you name the first human invention? (remembering that fire is a discovery and the development of stones to tools is manufacturing.).

Those are false distinctions. Stone tools had to be invented before they could be manufactured. The potential of fire may have been a discovery but methods of starting one had to be invented.

[SorryImPsychic]

So what war-derived tech would we have died out from the lack of if there hadn't been wars?

....we don't obviously need war-derived weapons to defend us from the rest of the animals.

What warfare has done is create situations which necessitate technological development/advancement. In peace there would be no need to do so.

One of the most significant war-derived technologies is witnessed by the advancement of surgical procedures necessitated by warfare.

If the human had proceeded on peaceful paths we could survive on clubbing our dinner to death.....but we would not be inclined to become technologically advanced people either. We'd be primitive and have compromised survival capabilities.

My point is that religion has served (evolutionary tool) to create the greatest conflicts, and it is "conflict" rather than "peace" that drives neuronal activity and thus technological/scientific advance which equals (believe it or not) survival.

[SorryImPsychic]

Those are false distinctions. Stone tools had to be invented before they could be manufactured. The potential of fire may have been a discovery but methods of starting one had to be invented.

Oh gosh - its semantics now :-[.

Stone tools are simply modified raw materials....for more efficient use. There are many well documented accounts of non-human primates using raw materials as tools e.g. Chimpanzees use of twigs as tools to extract termites. I don't think primitive humans use of tools can be classified as inventions - but it does come down to semantics I suppose.

Lighting a fire necessitated discovering how - not inventing how to light a fire. If they came up with matches then that would be an invention.

So, I ask again, can you name the first human invention?

[Nic]

SorryI'mPsychic,


Just a question, do you view religion from a neutral point of view and only support its validity in terms of human development, science and technology, or do you also perceive it as an individual's personal experiences?


In short, do you conform any religion and, if so, what are the basises of such beliefs, if any.

[SorryImPsychic]

SorryI'mPsychic,


Just a question, do you view religion from a neutral point of view... or do you also perceive it as an individual's personal experiences?


In short, do you conform any religion and, if so, what are the basis of such beliefs, if any.

Hi Nic - I have just finished responding to your post on Mulder's "I was a complete skeptic until..."

I view Religion from a biased point of view, rather than neutral one, because I do not believe in any religion myself and am very inclined to argue about religious beliefs.

[Nic]

Hi Nic - I have just finished responding to your post on Mulder's "I was a complete skeptic until..."

I view Religion from a biased point of view, rather than neutral one, because I do not believe in any religion myself and am very inclined to argue about religious beliefs.

Just another question, where does the Psychic bit in your username feature in your beliefs?

[SorryImPsychic]

Just another question, where does the Psychic bit in your username feature in your beliefs?

Nowhere - being psychic is a dubious claim.

[Nic]

Nowhere - being psychic is a dubious claim.

I'm not familiar with your history, are you a psychic?

[SorryImPsychic]

... are you a psychic?
Is the member Pebble a pebble?

[Tony Williams]

What warfare has done is create situations which necessitate technological development/advancement. In peace there would be no need to do so.
Well, your thesis seems OK except for two minor issues:

1. Religion is not the source of all warfare - battles over territory (and the resources in it) are both older and more important.

2. Warfare is not the source of all technological development - it just provides a temporary boost in certain specific areas. Consider astronomy (with giant telescopes and Hubble) or the LHC at CERN (for fundamental physics research). Even with the development of aircraft in the 1930s, the first modern stressed-skin retractable monoplanes weren't warplanes - they were US commercial aircraft deigned to get a speed advantage over their rivals. Warplanes lagged years behind.

I do admire perseverance as a virtue, but once a notion has been as comprehensively blown out of the water as yours has, it is not admirable to keep plugging away at it - quite the reverse.

[Tony Williams]

Oh gosh - its semantics now :-[.

Stone tools are simply modified raw materials....for more efficient use.
No, it's not semantics. Have you ever tried flint-knapping? Selecting the right materials and knowing exactly how to strike them together to create flints which are the right shape and sharp enough to be used requires specialist knowledge - I certainly can't do it.

Unless of course you regard a canoe, say, as just "modified raw materials".


Lighting a fire necessitated discovering how - not inventing how to light a fire. If they came up with matches then that would be an invention.
Well, religious people would point out that religion was purely a matter of discovering the truth about what was there.

Oh well, enough of trolls: I'll leave the discussions about your notions to others - life's too short to waste any of it!

[SorryImPsychic]

Well, your thesis seems OK except for two minor issues:

1. Religion is not the source of all warfare ....

2. Warfare is not the source of all technological development....

....once a notion has been as comprehensively blown out of the water it is not admirable to keep plugging away at it...

Do not view my arguments from our current perspective. I'm talking about pre-history and the role religion played in causing "conflict" (internal + external) which has resulted in forging intellectual and technological advance.

Once humans began to 'perceive' a greater spiritual power they were then left to determine what would appease or please this power. This is what really got the human thinking....As different religious beliefs developed so too did the conflict between religions. Religions then began to form the framework for Political systems....the rest is history.

Do I still have to shut-up :'(?

[Matt]

Oh gosh - its semantics now :-[.

Stone tools are simply modified raw materials....for more efficient use. There are many well documented accounts of non-human primates using raw materials as tools e.g. Chimpanzees use of twigs as tools to extract termites. I don't think primitive humans use of tools can be classified as inventions - but it does come down to semantics I suppose.

Lighting a fire necessitated discovering how - not inventing how to light a fire. If they came up with matches then that would be an invention.

So, I ask again, can you name the first human invention?

I think I'd need to probe your definitions first. As I started to read I, wasn't sure that I could name any invention that would satisfy your definition. mY friend invented a type of cable tie where the spare tail end that you cut off could be reused as a new cable tie. He has a patent and is recognised as an inventor but really his product is just raw materials. I mean he has to shape them to work, but the same has to be said for flint tools and the sticks chimps use to fish for termites.

Then however you expicitly state that matches are an invention. Lets take that back. Prior to matches we had tider boxes. The process was to strike steel onto fint to create a spark that would ignite dry tinder. Would that have counted as an invention? Prioir to steel people lit fires using flint on flint to create the spark that ignited tinder. Would that have counted as an invention?

Another primitive method was the bow drill. Using friction to create heat to ingnite tinder. Prioir to the box drill friction was still used but it ws a more tedious process.

[SorryImPsychic]

.... mY friend invented a type of cable tie where the spare tail end that you cut off could be reused as a new cable tie. He has a patent and is recognised as an inventor

Yes - I'd regard this cable tie as an invention because he created something that didn't exist previously as opposed to modifying materials that already existed....he had to conceive and create new components.


Then however you expicitly state that matches are an invention. Lets take that back. Prior to matches we had tider boxes.... Prioir to steel people lit fires using flint on flint to create the spark that ignited tinder. Would that have counted as an invention?

I'm not too familiar with the history of fire making but I would say that the earliest methods of lighting fires simply resulted from the discovery of the causal relationship between friction and ignition. The human was gradually able to improve on friction/ignition methods but it is not until matches do we witness true invention because ignition is chemically induced.

[tolman]

What warfare has done is create situations which necessitate technological development/advancement. In peace there would be no need to do so.
Quite - apart from housing, clothing, food preparation, medicine, agriculture, fishing, astronomy, domestication of animals, mathematics, philosophy, science, money, hygiene, education and art, what has peace ever done for us?

Even if conflict had spurred some developments, it's fairly clear that many other animals engage in one-on-one and group-on-group conflict without the need for any kind of religion.
It'd be a remarkable dumb argument that humans would be somehow miraculously above all that but for the influence of religion

[Matt]

Yes - I'd regard this cable tie as an invention because he created something that didn't exist previously as opposed to modifying materials that already existed....he had to conceive and create new components.



I'm not too familiar with the history of fire making but I would say that the earliest methods of lighting fires simply resulted from the discovery of the causal relationship between friction and ignition. The human was gradually able to improve on friction/ignition methods but it is not until matches do we witness true invention because ignition is chemically induced.

If chemically induced is your bench mark then flint on steel and the earliest two rocks methods both qualify.

[tolman]

If chemically induced is your bench mark then flint on steel and the earliest two rocks methods both qualify.
Maybe there's [another] arbitrary distinction being made, such that 'chemistry' only covers things made by people in white coats and safety glasses.

[Dr B]

It is difficult for me to continue a discussion when what I say is considered as ridiculous nonsense. But I will have one more shot at supporting my argument:

Religion has served to form the philosophical and administrative framework for Politics and social organization (no matter what the religious persuasion is). Once the Politics were in place we can have those "non-religious wars" you mentioned).

I mentioned earlier that religion -> conflict and the conflict drove neuronal activity. Consequently this forged neuronal paths that "grew our brains". You cannot underestimate the role that mental conflict plays in human advancement, and religious conflict was and still is the strongest driving force in the human. e.g. Capernicus in proving the phenomena.

By conflict, I mean both internal and external. And as soon as the human though of a power above - they could began to think, and think hard, about everything in between.

This is a completely different argument to that which you originally tried to foster. As there are even more issues with this...i will bow out of this and leave the others to continue your discussion. For my part - you have dodged most of my earlier points and just keep re-stating the same stuff

conflict to neuronal firing..........oh dear i see what is known as metaphorically laden thinking and it has no place in a scientific discussion

[SorryImPsychic]

If chemically induced is your bench mark then flint on steel and the earliest two rocks methods both qualify.

My distinction lies in the use of flammible chemicals to create fire as opposed to the creation of friction/sparks to ignite fire. I see your point about "chemically induced" in the sense of all electrochemical reactions.

I will depart from this discussion now - Dr B is not very pleased with my input.

[Matt]

My distinction lies in the use of flammible chemicals to create fire as opposed to the creation of friction/sparks to ignite fire. I see your point about "chemically induced" in the sense of all electrochemical reactions.

I will depart from this discussion now - Dr B is not very pleased with my input.

In striking a match mechanical friction heats red phosphorus to produce some white phosphorus vapour. This vapour readily oxidises in the air producing a high enough localised temperature to ignite sulphur.

With the tinderbox method mechanical friction shatters iron to produce fine particles of pure iron. These fragments readily oxidise in the air producing a high enough localised temperature to ignite tinder.

I fail to see the distinction between sulphur, a naturally occurring flammable chemical and the tinder which is cellulose, another naturally occurring flammable chemical. I also fail to see the distinction between the two processes that renders one an invention but not the other.

It's a shame that you're departing from the conversation as I'd like to explore this further.

[ZERO]

I think the seeking of power and dominance is the major cause of war and religion is sometimes used as a tool to get popular support or an excuse to act.
People in power show scant regard for religion if it gets in the way. Even the history of the popes bears this out and they're not even secular rulers.

Chimpanzees could be said to wage war and ants certainly do, without religious motives.

As for the first invention. If you don't want to count shaped stone tools then how about the first tools comprising two parts, like a stone axe or spear? I think it is a leap of imagination to put two dis-similar items items together to create a more efficient tool. That is certainly an invention.
Does this pre date religion?
What about sewing hides together? That would be early in our history too.

[Mulder]

Chimpanzees could be said to wage war and ants certainly do, without religious motives.

Sorry, can't resist - how do you know ants and chimps don't have religions?

[ZERO]

Sorry, can't resist - how do you know ants and chimps don't have religions?
They certainly keep it private if they do. Good for them. ;D

[Matt]

As for the first invention. If you don't want to count shaped stone tools then how about the first tools comprising two parts, like a stone axe or spear? I think it is a leap of imagination to put two dis-similar items items together to create a more efficient tool. That is certainly an invention.
Does this pre date religion?
What about sewing hides together? That would be early in our history too.

She doens't even want to count the bow drill which not only contain multiple components but is an actual machine.

[Matt]

They certainly keep it private if they do. Good for them. ;D

I bleive the creedocide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdGBDJwjLec) video has been posted before but this seems like a good enough time to give it another plug.

[Mulder]

Crows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg)make tools. I wonder if they thought of religion first, though?

[Tony Williams]

New Scientist magazine has a review of 'Supersense: why we believe in the unbelievable', by Bruce M Hood.

The purpose of the book is to examine the reasons for the human preoccupation with the supernatural, despite the lack of supporting evidence. The author
argues that we are all superstitous in some way, even if we don't recognise it. One example he gives - would you like to wear an item of clothing once worn by a notorious serial killer? He argues that most people would feel uncomfortable about this, even though there is no logical reason for such a feeling.

His thesis is that superstitious beliefs have an important role in human thinking, and conferred an indirect evolutionary advantage. The reason is that shared beliefs, superstitions and taboos help to bind a group together, to give them more of a shared outlook on life. And if the group is successful, individuals within it are more likely to survive. As a result, what he calls our "supersense" has evolved with us, to become an integral part of human nature.

An interesting theory which provides a good reason for the existence of
irrational beliefs, regardless of whether or not they have any actual validity.

[Dr B]

You know sometimes i think nothing is new...;D


One example he gives - would you like to wear an item of clothing once worn by a notorious serial killer? He argues that most people would feel uncomfortable about this, even though there is no logical reason for such a feeling.

15 years ago i was in a lecture when someone did this and I swear i have read about this somewhere else as well. Nice example though.

Yes we are all prone to it (the dirty heuristic thinking is hard-wired) but it is the secondary slower and more effortful rational processes where we differ.....O0 These ideas have been around for some time now - its important they remain in the public's mind - but i cant see anything new here.....

the social groups argument you say he makes is the same as the one i make above and many have made over recent years.

I have not read the article - but is this person seasoned in the field or another pop-science writer devoted to publicising other people's research?

[tolman]

One example he gives - would you like to wear an item of clothing once worn by a notorious serial killer? He argues that most people would feel uncomfortable about this, even though there is no logical reason for such a feeling.
I suspect I'd probably be reluctant to do that.

However, I think a huge amount of that reluctance would be coming from my worries about what other people might think of me if they knew:

Would they think I'm the kind of person who gets a kick out of collecting murder memorabilia?
Would they just think it was very bad taste?
If they're the kind of person with an unusually irrational reaction, would that also make them likely to be the kind of person who'd go on and on about it to other people and try to make me look bad?

Now, if I'd known the killer, and had borrowed an item from them which they'd forgotten about or were very unlikely to mention to anyone else, or if I'd come about the object some fully-anonymous way (solo dumpster diving, stealing in retaliation for something of mine they'd stolen or borrowed and wouldn't return, a gift from someone who told no-one else and then conveniently dropped dead, etc) I'd be hugely less reluctant, and might well be happy to keep/wear the item.

Of course, if I didn't personally know the serial killer, I would likely only happen upon their possessions and be aware of their provenance after the killer was found out, via a process which involved other people, (and where therefore there was at least the potential of people being aware of my ownership) and where if my posession of the items was known I'd be definitely vulnerable to the accusation of being a murder groupie (or worse) even if thet wasn't the case.

[DrS]

On a wider note, I do not think that we're predisposed to religious belief per se. It seems that we, along with most of the animal kingdom, are predisposed toward superstitious (or magical) thinking. e.g. Skinner's pigeons/rats.

Superstitious thinking and rituals have been found in human civilizations universally whereas religion has not. IIRC, the Aborigines did not have religion although they had the same types of superstitious beliefs as everyone else.


I agree with this So do I. In terms of pre-literate ancient civilizations, the consensus seems to be that mythic thought, and myth itself, is a precursor to religion, and arises out of ritualistic behaviour that could indeed be called superstitious.

In time, such a view would have it, stories developed to explain rituals, so in this sense I wouldn't fully agree that:
they were trying to explain (as a scientist today would) and to understand their environment - but they just did not have the mental tools to do it at that time.I myself would prefer to say, rather, that they were trying to explain their ritualism, and that the resulting explanations, their myths, shaped the world view by which they understood their environment, i.e. their religion. As this environment changed, so their myths changed as well to prevent a uneasiness at the lack of consistency in their explanations. This is why myth is dynamic, and why there are often so many variations to the same story.

As societies become literate, which many would link to becoming rational too, so their myths become fossilized in written form. They then become identifiable as mythic, perhaps because they are fixed in writing, or because the society has become rational, though this is a moot point if the two are linked.

it is definately based in primal / ancient thinking and not in rational thinking that is for sure. O0and I would only add pre-literate too.

[no_tomorow]

is delusion a religion ?::)

[Tony Williams]

is delusion a religion ?::)
Judging by the number of people who seem willing to believe almost anything for which there is no solid evidence (astrology, crystal healing, ley lines, alien abductions, etc etc), then a case could be made that they do indeed regard their delusions with a religious devotion.

[Trinoc]

Judging by the number of people who seem willing to believe almost anything for which there is no solid evidence (astrology, crystal healing, ley lines, alien abductions, etc etc), then a case could be made that they do indeed regard their delusions with a religious devotion.
But then, for delusion to be a religion, they would have to be worshipping the delusion as a delusion. If you include things which rational thinkers know are delusions but which believers think of as completely real, then you include just about every religion, cult or mysticism that ever existed.

[Tony Williams]

Exactly...8-)

[panama]

Going back to the original line of the thread...

A belief in a god is perfectly rational as an explanation for how and why the world is the way it is if you have no better theory. Our innate intelligence drives us to try and understand and explain the world we live in ( as per the myth making of aboriginal tribal societies above) and with the observational tools available to pre-modern man it is reasonable for him to theorise an external source as a creator, bringer of good and bad luck, judge and all the other "God" attributes. Religion is the formalisation of that belief and the interface by which man seeks to influence his god in his favour.

Less rational is persisting in believing in a god when there are better theories that fit more closely with observable data.