If there were no emotions

[Nevermore]

If humans had never had strong emotions, or any at all, would there be religions?

 

Note that when I say religions: I am not excluding agnosticism or athisim. These are more philosofical possitions then religiose belives.

 

To answer my own question: I don't think there would be any sort of religion. Mostly becasue (i think) religions are emotional crutches for those that need them. Others who are less emotional don't require religion and so can look at reality more objectivly and dissmis religions as an unknowable unknowen. If early humanity was less emotional then they never would have needed religion and so they never would have forced it upon their children (which, in my opinion, is the only reseon religions are still around).

 

Note: I never said being emotional, and thus religiuse, was bad. Just stating that I think the two are linked in that strong human emotions require religion.

 

Enough about me. What do YOU think?

[Peregrine]

No.

 

There is no logical/scientific evidence to support the existence of a god. The only reason religion exists is because the truth is not pleasant enough for some people. They fear death and nonexistence, so they invent a heaven to believe in. They fear the unknown, so they explain it with "god". They believe it blindly because they want to, because their emotions overcome reality.

 

And I will say that it is bad. At best, it's a relatively harmless lie that gets in the way of finding the real truth. At worst, it's one of humanity's most destructive inventions.

[Muennin]

Agreed in FULL, Peregrine. I thoroughly enjoy your "no frills/tell it as I see it" posts. Perhaps the saddest fact here is that religious ideologies, while they claim to include fellow believers into their welcoming arms, are all too ready to raise same arms against those who reject their specific ideals...or even worse, those who have seperate belief structures of their own.

 

Religious training can, and does, kill...Discriminately!

[Darnoc]

Intersting to mention is that almost every philosopher of the Rationalists (they tried to use only their Reason and logic) came to the conclusion that god did exist. Take Descartes for example. He was a pure rationalist. He first tears down all the fundaments and everything he believes in, to build everything a new.

 

His first conclusion was that he did exist (cogito ergo sum). So when he exists everything that he knows must come from things that he can experience. But because you can't be sure that what you experience is really true, those things which you came by your experience can't be trusted. So you can only trust something which doesn't come from your experience. Because we never experienced the absolute perfect being, which we define as god, the knowledge of such a being must come from somewhere else than our experience and therefore must be true. God exists.

 

Another rationalist (I don't remember his name) said that god must exist because of following reasons: When god really is the absolute perfectness and the highest and best we can think of, then he must exist. Because when he doesn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect anymore, because god lacks existence. So the absolute perfect being must exist. And this is god.

 

Berkeley came to it by something else. How can you be sure that something still exists when you can't experience anymore? How can you be sure that something is still there when you don't look at it anymore? How can you be sure that anything exists? So in order that everything exists there must be something "watching" everything and being everywhere at the same time. This being is god.

 

Kant had a different theory. We can't gain any truth at all about reality. So reality is a matter of believe. No knowledge we gain does tell any truth about the reality. No scientific findings tells us anything about reality. What we experience are only appearances and everything we think, explore etc. can only describe experiences which aren't existing in reality. Everything concerning reality is a matter of believe and religion. So there is the possibility of the existence of god, but because we aren't able to experience reality, we will never be able to tell.

 

So, when such persons which used their reason and logic came to the conclusion that either the possibility of god's existence exists or that he must exist, perhaps also when we would be pure beings of rationality we would come to the same conclusions. Who knows? Nobody can tell, because we aren't beings of pure rationality and never will be.

[eldowan]

I feel that fear is the cause of religion, and because of this fear, many people need something to believe in, so they can escape the fact that reality exists. They need to *know* that there is a reason behind things.

[Eltiraaz]

I would like to open this up by saying I would rather not live at all then have no emotions. If humans did not have emotion, we wouldnt be humans, we'd be organic robots.

 

However, I do believe that if we never had emotions, that in the early stages of our civilazation, we would still have religion, seeing as we would still need a way to explain what we did not understand. As technology progressed the religion(s) would be "disproven" and claimed redundant, seeing as we would not have any emotional attachment, it would not be a difficult severance.

 

I do believe, that if we did not have any emotions, then the world would be long over. Mostly because no emotion = no respect for nature = natural resources being gobbled without concern or pity = world overpolluted/over. :(

 

Thats kind of OT...

[Peregrine]

I would like to open this up by saying I would rather not live at all then have no emotions. If humans did not have emotion, we wouldnt be humans, we'd be organic robots.

 

Finally something I agree with you on.... despite their negative effects, we are far better off with emotion than without it.

 

However, I do believe that if we never had emotions, that in the early stages of our civilazation, we would still have religion, seeing as we would still need a way to explain what we did not understand. As technology progressed the religion(s) would be "disproven" and claimed redundant, seeing as we would not have any emotional attachment, it would not be a difficult severance.

 

Wrong. Only fear of the unknown makes us do that. Without emotion, we would simply say "we don't know" if we can't explain something. But unfortunately, fear makes many people unwilling to accept that, so they have to invent God to make themseleves feel better.

 

His first conclusion was that he did exist (cogito ergo sum). So when he exists everything that he knows must come from things that he can experience. But because you can't be sure that what you experience is really true, those things which you came by your experience can't be trusted. So you can only trust something which doesn't come from your experience.

 

WRONG. If we can't trust our own experiences, we can trust things we haven't experienced even less.

 

Because we never experienced the absolute perfect being, which we define as god, the knowledge of such a being must come from somewhere else than our experience and therefore must be true. God exists.

 

Except for the minor fact that God is an invention of our own minds. The fact that we have not yet experienced God can also mean that one doesn't exist at all. And in this case, does mean exactly that.

 

Another rationalist (I don't remember his name) said that god must exist because of following reasons: When god really is the absolute perfectness and the highest and best we can think of, then he must exist.

 

WRONG. Absolute perfection is an abstract concept invented to scale comparison of real things. The fact that we can describe this absolute perfection does not mean that it really exists in any form other than in our minds.

 

Because when he doesn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect anymore, because god lacks existence. So the absolute perfect being must exist. And this is god.

 

Circular logic. God exists and is perfect, therefore God must exist. Learn to debate please.

 

God can only be perfect/imperfect if he actually exists. Which he doesn't.

 

Berkeley came to it by something else. How can you be sure that something still exists when you can't experience anymore? How can you be sure that something is still there when you don't look at it anymore? How can you be sure that anything exists? So in order that everything exists there must be something "watching" everything and being everywhere at the same time. This being is god.

 

WRONG. God's existence violates this rule. We have not experienced God. Therefore God's existence is uncertian. If you're going to make arguments, at least try not to contradict yourself like this.

 

Kant had a different theory. We can't gain any truth at all about reality.

 

Translation: Kant is an idiot.

 

So reality is a matter of believe. No knowledge we gain does tell any truth about the reality. No scientific findings tells us anything about reality. What we experience are only appearances and everything we think, explore etc. can only describe experiences which aren't existing in reality.

 

Translation: Kant is an idiot. This argument of "nothing can be learned about reality" only applies as an abstract philosophical thought. Unfortunately for you and Kant, the hammer of reality shatters this argument quite nicely. Reality can be observed and understood, and you do it all the time.

 

Everything concerning reality is a matter of believe and religion. So there is the possibility of the existence of god, but because we aren't able to experience reality, we will never be able to tell.

 

Translation: God can never be proven 100%. But past a certian point of probability, you have to discard arguments like "I'm only dreaming" because they are so unreasonable that for all relevant purposes they are completely wrong.

 

In fact, your philosopher proves my point quite nicely here. If God's existence/nonexistence is uncertian, you have to look at probablility. That is the correct answer, not assuming that God exists.

 

So, when such persons which used their reason and logic came to the conclusion that either the possibility of god's existence exists or that he must exist, perhaps also when we would be pure beings of rationality we would come to the same conclusions.

 

Those people are idiots living in a dream world of their own creation, not reality. Abstract philosophy like that can not be applied to reality.

 

Who knows? Nobody can tell, because we aren't beings of pure rationality and never will be.

 

Unfortunately, as proven by your philosophers. If we had pure rationality, we could finally outgrow pointless concepts like religion and unrealistic philosophy.

[Eltiraaz]

 

However, I do believe that if we never had emotions, that in the early stages of our civilazation, we would still have religion, seeing as we would still need a way to explain what we did not understand. As technology progressed the religion(s) would be "disproven" and claimed redundant, seeing as we would not have any emotional attachment, it would not be a difficult severance.

 

 

 

Wrong. Only fear of the unknown makes us do that. Without emotion, we would simply say "we don't know" if we can't explain something. But unfortunately, fear makes many people unwilling to accept that, so they have to invent God to make themseleves feel better.

 

I dont entirely agree with you there. True fear of the unknown pushes people to invent/discover things about it, but not that alone. We dont understand something, since we are still technologically and socially advanced we need to fill that void with a story/legend/prophecy whatever. Its not necesarily fear of the unknown as much as the need to fill in the unknown with something, which I believe is a deidedly human characteristic, not neccesarily an emotion.

 

Finally something I agree with you on....

 

Yes, finally. ^_^

[Peregrine]

I dont entirely agree with you there. True fear of the unknown pushes people to invent/discover things about it, but not that alone. We dont understand something, since we are still technologically and socially advanced we need to fill that void with a story/legend/prophecy whatever. Its not necesarily fear of the unknown as much as the need to fill in the unknown with something, which I believe is a deidedly human characteristic, not neccesarily an emotion.

 

It's still emotion. A purely rational person would have no trouble accepting that they do not understand something enough to explain it. And would have no trouble leaving it at a partial explanation of the things they can explain correctly. Yes, it is human nature to want answers. But it's fear of the unknown that motivates people to create flawed or incorrect explanations instead of just accepting their limits.

 

Example: ancient humans didn't know what made the sun move. Therefore:

 

1) Entirely unemotional answer: the sun rises and sets on a specific schedule which we have observed. We don't know why it does that yet. We should study it more and attempt to discover what makes it move.

 

2) Emotional answer: the sun rises and sets on a specific schedule that we have observed. The sun brings good things to us, and must be a benevolent god. It's movement is the result of an eternal battle between the sun god and the god of darkness.

[Darnoc]

Translation: Kant is an idiot. This argument of "nothing can be learned about reality" only applies as an abstract philosophical thought. Unfortunately for you and Kant, the hammer of reality shatters this argument quite nicely. Reality can be observed and understood, and you do it all the time.

 

You are wrong, Peregrin. Completly wrong. As most human beings are. Imanuel Kant was the most genious mind of his generation and there are few until today who came to such a genious mind until this day (Einstein and Hawkins are some of those few). I don't think that you can surpass his ingeniousness. Neither can I.

 

That you say that Kant is an idiot proves to me that you are not able to understand the ingeniousness of what Kant has discovered. So, that you can understand, I prove to you step by step and logically, that Kant is right and will be right. Until today his theory was never disproven. And if you look closer at it, you will agree with me.

 

When you truly think that you can learn anything about reality, then you are as blind as most human beings. Everything you do experience goes through the filter of your senses and your mind. We look at the world from our perspective, not vice versa. Everything we do experience is filtered by our way of thinking.

 

Think carefully. Is what your senses tell you, really reality? No it isn't. There are so many things that we can't experience through our senses. So our senses do not tell us anything about how reality is like. They are only showing a certain appearances of reality. But appearances are never reality itself. Never.

 

Then this information reaches our minds. We begin to think in certain patterns. We divide and define our world in space and time, abstract things which only exist inside our minds. We can't know if such a thing like space or time does exist, ever existed or ever will exist. We only assume it, because we are forced to think in certain patterns with our limited minds.

 

Next we begin to connect certain appearances we experience. We draw conclusions of things that do not really exist. One of these ways of thinking is causality. Who tells that such a thing as causality really exists? We see a fire. We see a paper. The fire touches the paper. The paper is consumed by the flames. Ash is left. We draw the conclusion that the paper has the ability to burn. This is pure assumption. Nothing tells us that it lies in the ability of paper to burn.

 

Then we begin to identify. I know John. He is a collegue of mine. Next day I see John and say: "Ah, hello John. How are you?". Now how do I know that this person really is John? What tells me that he is really here or that he is the John I met yesterday? Nothing at all. I just assume that this is John.

 

Now you see, we can never gain any real knowlegde about reality. Everything goes through these filters and we walk through the world with glasses on our senses and minds which filter out the information we get. We do not really know if it so like my senses and my mind tells me how things are. We will never know. We, with our limited human minds, can never experience true reality. Everthing is relative (like Einstein said). Truer words were never spoken. Everything depends on the way you look on things. What we call "reality" is some appearances put together by us so that we don't go crazy. We couldn't live without making those assumptions I told you about.

 

I do observe reality all the time? What tells me that what I do observe is really reality? Nothing at all! Nothing! Only my limited human mind tells me all the time that what I observe is in fact reality. We are afraid of a certain thing, that is why we are telling ourselves that everything is true and real we experience. We are afraid of this certain thought: Maybe it is all different, maybe nothing does exist the way it does. Do you listen, Peregrin: We, the tiny little humans, are afraid, because we are so used to how things are. We are afraid of the unpleasant thought that perhaps nothing is true what we think to be true. And there is nothing, really nothing, that proves it otherwise. Only our assumptions and the fact that we are quite pleasant with our present way of thinking keeps us from going crazy.

 

And do you know what: We'll still stay tiny, little, afraid humans until we accept the fact that maybe everything is different than we thought. Kant was a visionary in some way. He showed a new way of thinking, a new way out of our limited minds. We are in fact prisoners of our limited human minds. It is time for us to step out, to put aside everything we thought to be true and real and to explore what lies beyond. We must go deep inside us, then the answer we will never find outside, where there are only the lies we think are the truth. And when we begin to explore what we are really capable of, expand our ways of thinking beyond what we believe now to be reality, we will come nearer to what is in fact the true reality. But sadly, most human beings are quite comfortable in their made up world of lies and assumptions. They will never step away from those lies and will comfortably sit in the dark of the cave (if you remember the cave allegory by Platon), afraid of exploring reality outside our dark cave, which we do think is reality. Our "reality" is only a shadow compared to the real reality. An sadly, a most comfortable shadow world to most people.

 

Wondering. This was the beginning of philosophy. Some philosophers may have forgotten this, most people living on this earth also. Children perhaps know more of the truth than we do. For them, everything is a wonder, everything is still new and they are willing to explore. Sometimes they see clearer what is in fact reality, while our minds and senses are already clouded by this false "reality". I begin to understand why Jesus said "Be like the children". And perhaps there is hope when some people follow this advise.

 

I don't know about you, Peregrin, but I have enough of all those lies and assumptions we experience and think ourselves every day. I have enough of sitting in the comfortable dark of the cave. I'm beginning to step out to the light, to reality. At least as far as it is possible with my still limited mind. And I am only beginning to experience the wonders lying outside. Things I can't explain, which I will perhaps never be able to explain. I see them every day, while a lot of people have become blind for them. How can we be so arrogant to think that we can truly gain any knowledge, that we in fact possess any knowlegde? How can it be that most people think that everything is explainable? The human race is blind. Blinded by our own lies. Someone must open our eyes again. It is really necessary.

 

PS

 

We could open a new Thread discussing if we really can experience reality. Perhaps I post my post into the Café Philosophique and then we can load our discussion guns again, Peregrin. I am really interested in your answer.