I believe that through this phase of argumentation, you’ve established that there is a subconscious fear of death. That claim is supported. One of my dispositions is skepticism, so whilst I am not completely (or 100%) sold on the idea, I think it would be incorrect to argue against that claim.
Now, I don’t believe that your claim “all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death” is justified/established, because I think that people attributing agency to different aspects of reality is the most logical explanation for the existence of God/gods and therefrom religions. This, I think, is largely to do with pattern recognition, a fundamental aspect of the human cognitive process. No doubt the subconscious plays a role in this, but we cannot be sure that the subconscious fear of death is primary. At the risk of being arbitrary, I believe that pattern recognition is based upon subconscious content.
I would agree with all of the above. I would add that his claim is causal: that religion was caused by a subconscious fear of death. Even if religion soothes a fear of death - which I do think is true in most cases - it does not mean that this is why it arose, what it’s purpose is, in part or in totality. It could be a side effect, it could even be a minor side effect. As far as we can tell indigenous religions often had an afterlife, but not always, but they all posit spirits and beings and focus on how one relates to these. There is nothing to indicate that first religions came out of afterlife needs, but rather arose as
systems for dealing with spirits and entities.
Some of these recognized by science, some not, and generally these relations included communication and influence beyond what is currently verified by science.
IOW religions at their core have to deal with relationships with other entities.
That a fear of death, conscious or unconscious may have affected
the specific beliefs in religions
is certainly possible.
But this should not be conflated with being causal of the religions
nor should religions be reduced to
solutions to the fear of death.
If religions were present as solutions to assuaging the fear of death, they were be vastly simpler and instead of afterlife issues being a side effect, and missing from some religions, it would be central. And it would be central by being mentioned much more than other issues in the texts and rituals. But the actual situation is that other things are mentioned much more in the texts, and the rituals and practices focus more on relationships with entities include family, deities and more. They also deal heavily with morals in many cases, certainly in the Abrahamic religions.
These are complex systems, relating to current life in myriad of ways, very focused on the relation to God and other creatures.
This is a constant in both theistic and polytheistic religions. Because of this, it is likely and a logical conclusion that this is one of the main contributors to religious belief, and the causal link does not require a leap. That it is logical is significant, because logic is a good indicator of validity (I restrain myself from saying “truth”). If we identify the most common features across all religions, it is likely to highlight the cause or causes of why they exist.
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
Here of course the distinction I tend to focus on is between the either/or self and the is/ought self. There are historical, cultural, experiential, demographic facts about any particular individual that can be configured into true statements about her from the cradle to the grave. For example, here and now, she either is pregnant or she is not. She either wants to give birth to the baby or she does not. There are laws allowing her too do so or there are not. Others react to her situation as they do or as they do not.
How then can this particular sense of self be construed reasonably as an “illusion”?
And what true statements can be made in regard to the morality of aborting the baby?
As for “ultimate truths”, that depends entirely on how this particular individual’s situation fits into an ontological grasp of existence itself.
And even here excluding an entirely determined universe; or a human reality that is subsumed in one or another manifestation of solipsism, sim-world, dream world, matrix.
Genetically, DNA-RNA wise, all humans are ‘programmed’ to live. [till the inevitable].
To live, all humans are “programmed” to avoid death. [truism like cup half empty - cup half ful].
To avoid death, all humans are ‘programmed’ with the fear of death and other instincts, e.g. food/nutrients, breathing, physical security, potential death, etc.
The fear of death is triggered when there is a threat to the above basic instincts.
To ensure humans can find food, ensure physical security and identify threats to death, all humans are programmed with ‘pattern recognition’ and other abilities which fan out to a myriad of activities.
Some forms of patterns recognized are attributed with ‘agency’. Example the pattern of ‘cause and effect’ is jumped upon as controlled by an agent, i.e. from primitive great beings, primitive gods, poly-gods, mono-god.
The above agent[s] are dressed up in religions.
From the above, the fear of death in 4 is more fundamental and primary than pattern recognition in 6.
Thus you should be able to work backward from 8 to 1 [the most fundamental].
Logic?? I have always emphasized on this and presented my arguments logically.
You are jumping all over without sequitur.
Note my logical argument 1-8 above.
Note my point 6 above which include other activities which fan out [like a river into its delta] to a myriad of activities.
But the fundamental of all these myriad of activities is still 4, i.e. the fear of death, so as to avoid death, to live in alignment with what is “programmed” in the genes via evolution.
Whatever the reasons you come up with for the deeper cause of religions, you will not be able to dig and pushed then in deeper than 5 above.
Also, when you respond, you should try to address what a person is actually saying. Not just talk over them as if what they say is inconsequential, then use what they say in your arguments. For example, pattern recognition is something that KT brought into the discussion, and it is a vital point. Now you are talking about it as though it is something you inferred. Without acknowledging how it came into the discussion, why or giving the person who thought of it any credit. You just take it and run with it, as if it was always part of your hypothesis.
How can you agree I am on the right track when you disagree from the above, i.e.
From my perspective, pattern recognition is as fundamental to human-beings as the fear of death, and is perhaps the basis of fearing death.
My 6-8 claims fear of death precedes pattern recognition while you claimed otherwise.
Note from your linked article;
In psychology and cognitive neuroscience, pattern recognition describes a cognitive process that matches information from a stimulus with information retrieved from memory.[1] en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern … psychology
The pattern recognition as a cognitive process involves the cognitive brain which is related to the ‘higher’ or the part that is evolved after the emotional and primal brain.
Fear of death is triggered from the ‘lower’ emotional and ‘lowest’ primal brain as instincts.
Therefore fear, and fear of death precedes pattern recognition by the higher cognitive functions.
Thus my argument re 1-8 still stands.
Yes, I am claiming every human action [other than procreation-sex related and nurturing] is reducible to the fear of death to avoid death so that the living person can live to produce and take care the next generation.
I am not expecting you to change your position.
The point is what I have presented is true and justified.
You are jumping over because you claim pattern recognition of the cognitive brain precedes and dominate the subconscious fear of death which is false.
Pattern recognition [a higher brain function] evolved to facilitate humans so that they can respond to fear of death arising from the threats of death more efficiently.
Where did I ever claim that?
It is so obvious and evident it was KT who raised the point about pattern recognition.
I am not interested in ‘pattern recognition’ as my fundamental premise.
To me pattern recognition is secondary to the primary basis [fear of death] of why people turned to theistic religions.
Therefore it is not a part of my thesis-proper.
I included pattern recognition in my argument specifically to highlight how it is secondary to the fear of death.
In my thesis proper I will mention ‘fear of death and other instincts/functions’ which the latter will include pattern recognition among other many functions.
I am very familiar with pattern recognition as a basis for a belief in God. I believe it was Michael Shermer who used this argument which to me is still shallow.
“Patternicity”
In 2008, Michael Shermer coined the word “patternicity”, defining it as “the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise”.[12][13]
“Agenticity”
In The Believing Brain (2011), Shermer wrote that humans have “the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency”, which he called “agenticity”.[14] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia#Related_terms
Note pattern recognition is also linked to schizophrenia, perhaps in its extreme form;
Apophenia has come to imply a human propensity to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling
Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things.[1] The term (German: Apophänie) was coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia.[2] He defined it as “unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness”.[3][4] He described the early stages of delusional thought as self-referential, over-interpretations of actual sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations.[1][5] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
Okay, but I didn’t say that you claimed anything. I think that if you integrate someone else’s points into your arguments you need to say where they came from. Like when you write an essay and use references for your sources or as you do when you provide links (though obviously not as formal as that). I like your idea re point 7. as you expanded upon pattern recognition nicely with cause and effect and logically concluded your point 8.
But, I don’t think you would have introduced them unless pattern recognition was brought into the discussion. There was no indication that your arguments were going in that direction - none what-so-ever. Ironically, maybe you don’t see the significance of your own point? The one point you made that makes things quite clear (perhaps even apparent), amongst all your other points you boast about, you don’t acknowledge.
I was being specific to those points of yours which I quoted.
Book smart… How can you be afraid of death if you’re unable to recognise it?
How cliche… You’re the one jumping, I specifically said “perhaps”, and I never claimed that.
To ensure humans can find food, ensure physical security and identify threats to death, all humans are programmed with ‘pattern recognition’ and other abilities which fan out to a myriad of activities.
Normally my point 6 would be;
To ensure humans can find food, ensure physical security and identify threats to death, all humans are programmed with a range of mental abilities which fan out to a myriad of activities.
I will not mention ‘pattern recognition’ specifically [note put it in ‘…’] if you have not brought it up to argue your case.
The range of mental abilities, would include many other mental instincts and abilities, e.g. intellect, reasoning, planning, computation, communication, language, basic morality, philosophy, etc., etc., beside ‘pattern recognition’.
The level of these activitities are not critical to my main argument.
Generally, I can avoid point 6 and just mentioned;
To avoid death, all humans are programmed with the fear of death and the threats of death. If details of threats are needed I will raise point 6.
Rather is book ignorance …
I have already explained.
The subconscious fear of death is the primary instinct as compared to ‘recognize’ which root is cognition by the cognitive brain. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition
All humans will eventually know the fact of mortality via real empirical evidences of death everywhere and will ‘recognize’ they are also mortals.
But recognition is at the conscious level of the higher brain, but this recognition as I had explained do not trigger the conscious fear of death since this in naturally and inherently suppressed most of the time except intermittently. Otherwise if the person have a persistent conscious fear of death, that is a psychological issue identified as Thanatophobia, which require treatment.
But my focus here is the subconscious fear of death which is an instinct which precedes any pattern recognition and other activities by the conscious mind.
The subconscious fear of death do not manifest consciously as a conscious fear of death because this path is suppressed, but the subconscious fear of death is so powerful and terrible that it leaks indirectly as very uneasy feelings of anxieties, despair, depression, Angst and the likes.
Theists rely on theistic religions to soothe this terrible discomforts which is very effective and works immediately.
Once this subconscious fear of death is soothed subconsciously, theists [with an inherent defense mechanism] will do their utmost to keep it there even to the extent of killing their own son [in case of Abraham] or even killing themselves [jihadists] to ensure the terrible existential pains do not bubble up from beyond their subconscious mind to the conscious mind. Theists will put up all other sorts of defenses against non-theists and other believers to ensure their balm [security blanket] is not taken away.
It is the same with you putting up all sorts of very weak defenses against my arguments which you are in no position to support. This is why I do not expect you to change your mind and facing a cold-turkey session.
That’s book ignorance…
Read Michael Shermer’s book.
I know that all along and to me ‘pattern recognition’ and ‘agenticity’ is a secondary root cause of theistic religions but NOT a primary root cause.
Since I am onto this subject, I make it a point to exhaust all materials related to the subject, so that I will not be caught as ignorant of the point.
I am always on the look out for anything I may have missed with the hope someone from the forum will point it out for deliberation.
As you are aware, both of us have been a long time in this subject [I believe I have spent more time on it] and I have had the opportunity to be informed by many of what I have missed [& I closed those holes] to the extent by now there would be very little I would have missed or is ignorant of.
That doesn’t explain how you interpreted what you claimed I stated - that is my point. Not what you think I should of stated. My claim was clear, and this is not the first time you’ve done this in discussion with me. If you interpret statements/claims as something that they don’t actually mean, that is a problem for your arguments in terms of analysis and synthesis.
Since you’ve done this with me, where my claim was very simple, isn’t it possible that it could be occurring with other forms of data and information which are complex, since they are more difficult to interpret?
I don’t think that you are doing it on purpose, but the fact that you didn’t actually answer my question is conspicuous. If you are doing it on purpose, then what you stated is a strawman argument.
You have misunderstood my points many times and even have changed some of them to suit your points.
I am not sure of what is the contention above.
I believe you were the one who started the doubt on my point earlier.
You have to explain if you think I am not right on your point.
Whatever the misunderstanding, my position is this;
Factually, ‘pattern recognition’ is preceded by the subconscious fear of death.
The subconscious fear of death to avoid death so as to enable humans to live to reproduce and nurture, evolve the faculty of ‘pattern recognition’ and many other instincts in all human beings.
I am not focused on “pattern recognition” [you and KT’s point] specifically, but rather would lump it together with other instincts and mental function within ‘many other instincts’ to deal with the threat of death to alleviate the impact of the subconscious fear of death.
So you are admitting to misunderstanding my initial claim?
You don’t understand what I’m asking you?
What is the point if you don’t understand what I’m saying? If you can’t grasp a simple contention like this, how will you understand more complex issues?
Why I don’t understand you is from the basis you are ignorant of loads of things related to this topic.
If you review back it is because you do not understand my point from your own lack of knowledge. Then it spin out of control to this. Besides this contention whatever it is [I have not given it serious consideration], is not significant to my proposed argument at all.
If you think whatever this point is critical to the argument, let’s retrace to the original divergent. Show me why you think your point is critical to show my premise is false?
