Why are there more theists, in the world then atheists?

Originally posted by Digi
I had no way of knowing you understood me the first time. Your comment about capitalization led me to believe you didn't, so I explained myself. No slight intended, just a misunderstanding.

I was no longer responding to shakya's original question, I was responding to your comments. Specifically, this one:
Theism offers 'answers' to questions humans sought after from the beginning that are yet (if ever) to be answered for sure, such as :''why am I here'',''what happens when I die''.
...which is from page 1, and is where our discussion started. I said more than religion could answer such questions, you asked what, and it led us here.

Speculation implies guesswork. It's a belief, no doubt, that's there's no inherent meaning. But not speculation. No grand purpose has made itself evident, so it's reasonable to say no single "right" purpose exists. The burden of proof is on those claiming that there is, to show how or why. Until then, "we make our own purpose" is the logical default position.

Agreed, they can't be answered with certainty. But atheism can provide answers as well. What happens when we die? We rot in the ground. Probably not the answer you're looking for, but an answer nonetheless.

First, you're using history and numbers to determine "superior" which aren't valid justification for superiority. Second, be careful what words you try to put in my mouth. Superior again implies "better" which is silly. How could anyone say one is better than the other? It sounds like a grade school fight, a "my dad could beat up your dad" style argument.

What I said was, there's more freedom in atheism to determine your own worldview. I stand by that. It's almost true a priori because there's an infinite number of rationales for creating meaning. In religion, however open-minded and all-encompassing, there's "meanings to life" that don't fit within the religion. Ergo, atheism allows for more freedom to determine purpose. For those who value personal freedom above all else, it's a definite draw of a non-religious worldview. Granted, you don't have to be atheist to leave the dogma of religion, but it's one route.

Fair enough.

Why are we here? Quantum fluctuations in which nonexistence is an unstable state created matter, which in turn led to planet and star formation. On our particular planet, millions of years of evolution allowed for intelligent life to form, and humans came into existence.

What are we here to do? Whatever we decide.

Where do we end up? In the ground, and eventually dispersed throughout the universe in either a Big Crunch or the heat death of the universe billions of years hence.

Why exist or care? The universe is an awesome place, and life is pretty cool and worth living.

Those are answers to the same questions, from a non-theistic worldview. It can be done.

Obviously religion appeals to more people, we can't argue with facts. but your consistent claim has been that atheism can't provide answers...and while it can't, technically (no doctrine to speak of) atheists can quite easily.

Agreed. This doesn't preclude atheists. I don't "know" any more than you about what comes after death or how we came to be. I just have a worldview and opinions on those things based on the universe around us and what we can learn from it.

We'd being lying if we said that atheism isn't in some way connected to scientific discovery. And science, by its very nature, seeking answers and constantly refining them to the best of our knowledge. it deals with likelihoods and probabilities, not certainties. That is its strength, because it allows for change and improvement in our understanding of the universe.

Religion is, by its very nature, dogmatic. One is clearly the "searching for answers" institution, and it isn't religion.

It's not unanswered. It gets answered every day by every sentient being. The answer differs from person to person, is all.

You know what this reminds me of? This kind of aggressive non compromising atheistic view which many hold, and some a lot more non-compromising than you?

It reminds me of Fred Hoyle who originally rejected the Big Bang theory proposed by (ironically) a Catholic priest Lemaitre, on the grounds that by accepting the Big Bang theory it would introduce the need for a creator.

I don't want to speak about the theory, just comment on a midset that theism is something that is totally unnecessary and stupid that anything that could possibly point towards it should be rejected from the onset.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know what this reminds me of? This kind of aggressive non compromising atheistic view which many hold, and some a lot more non-compromising than you?

It reminds me of Fred Hoyle who originally rejected the Big Bang theory proposed by (ironically) a Catholic priest Lemaitre, on the grounds that by accepting the Big Bang theory it would introduce the need for a creator.

I don't want to speak about the theory, just comment on a midset that theism is something that is totally unnecessary and stupid that anything that could possibly point towards it should be rejected from the onset.

The hell? If you're dead set on finding such venom in my post, I'm not going to dissuade you from it. I tried to highlight where we were in agreement, explain my position when we weren't, and tried to diffuse the earlier misunderstanding so that there wouldn't be any bad blood between us.

Disagreement doesn't need to be argument.

If I don't compromise on a point, it's probably because I remain unconvinced that my point needs alteration. No personal animosity is implied, but I'm also not going to concede to an alternative position that I don't find reasonable.

As it is, your reply here addresses none of my points, responds to or refutes none of them. It just seems like an attack. Although, to be fair, I'm a little unclear who the "I" is in the last paragraph...it seems to be referring to me, but it's never disambiguated. In might very well not be an attack, but you would need to clarify. In any case, unless we're going to get back on point, I think we're done here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is probably key.

Because you said this, we agree. Meh. It was probably inevitable that we'd come to a middle ground.

I don't know. I've "heard" of some coffee shop religions being precisely that: God is happy with whatever you do as long as you liked it. I think some flavors of pantheism are like that: just add to the collective "happiness" pool by doing whatever makes you happy.

Basically, there are a shit load of religions out there. Some churches only have 1 follower. It's that silly/diverse. Since we agree on the premise of my point, I don't think we need to discuss it further as I am probably wasting your time (and thread space) at this point.

I run into this a lot. We get overly hypothetical and philosophical on the forum (I'm not innocent of this myself) and forget that our hypotheticals don't represent any meaningful portion of the population. I tend to want to draw it back to what's actually happening, because in theories and made-up scenarios, a lot of religious approaches are harmless. In reality, we see a large influence in ways that I don't agree with.

But no worries.

Originally posted by socool8520
You probably would always end up with a mostly theistic population. I think without scientific knowledge of the world around you, it will always be easier to chalk things up to some supernatural creator(s).

I think it is deeper then that. Every animal that is alive today (including humans) has been molded by evolution. Therefore, theism has some evolutionary advantage. An evolutionary advantage is not always what you might imagine. Like we might think that intelligence would always be "picked" by evolution, but the world is not filled with intelligent species.

Originally posted by Digi
The hell? If you're dead set on finding such venom in my post, I'm not going to dissuade you from it. I tried to highlight where we were in agreement, explain my position when we weren't, and tried to diffuse the earlier misunderstanding so that there wouldn't be any bad blood between us.

Disagreement doesn't need to be argument.

If I don't compromise on a point, it's probably because I remain unconvinced that my point needs alteration. No personal animosity is implied, but I'm also not going to concede to an alternative position that I don't find reasonable.

As it is, your reply here addresses none of my points, responds to or refutes none of them. It just seems like an attack. Although, to be fair, I'm a little unclear who the "I" is in the last paragraph...it seems to be referring to me, but it's never disambiguated. In might very well not be an attack, but you would need to clarify. In any case, unless we're going to get back on point, I think we're done here.

I run into this a lot. We get overly hypothetical and philosophical on the forum (I'm not innocent of this myself) and forget that our hypotheticals don't represent any meaningful portion of the population. I tend to want to draw it back to what's actually happening, because in theories and made-up scenarios, a lot of religious approaches are harmless. In reality, we see a large influence in ways that I don't agree with.

But no worries.

What points are there for me to discuss? You're constantly claiming how atheism is better than any other way and that all others are redundant.

In what way should I refute your claims? Am I going to be convincing you that you're wrong?
No, because I simply don't know if there is a God or there isn't one or if religion is in general better.

Since you reject the possibility of spirituality or religion giving equally fulfilling answers to numerous questions, am I going to dissuade you from that? How exactly could I do that?
You keep saying there's more freedom to atheism to determine your own view - this isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Again, how exactly am I going to refute something which makes you feel spiritually fulfilled?

You have the habit of doing this, or claiming that spirituality and religion is redundant and humans can do without it. However, I don't.

I reject atheism because it doesn't allow me more freedom. It genuinely leaves me unsatisfied in the answers I am seeking mostly in the claim that just because something isn't apparent to me, that simply isn't there.

My comment clearly upset you, when in fact, it shouldn't have, as it wasn't posted in mean spiritedness.
Your numerous posts around the religion forum are exactly like the allegory I gave in my previous post.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What points are there for me to discuss? You're constantly claiming how atheism is better than any other way and that all others are redundant.

Quote where I've ever said this. Heck, I specifically stated in an earlier post that trying to determine which is "better" is silly. So please, quote me. I'm interested to see where I've said either of these things, when I know for a fact that I've said the opposite. In fact, here's the quote, from page 4:

Originally posted by Digi
Superior again implies "better" which is silly. How could anyone say one is better than the other?

So again, don't put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Since you reject the possibility of spirituality or religion giving equally fulfilling answers to numerous questions, am I going to dissuade you from that? How exactly could I do that?

Also a point I never made. I only said religion and spirituality aren't the only ways to find fulfilling answers to life. I never said they didn't offer fulfilling answers. You're making things up, or grossly misunderstanding my words.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You keep saying there's more freedom to atheism to determine your own view - this isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

True, but it's one I've backed with what I believe to be reasonable justifications. More freedom doesn't = better, though, nor does it mean religion can't be fulfilling. It means only what I said, that there's more freedom.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You have the habit of doing this, or claiming that spirituality and religion is redundant and humans can do without it.

Again, please quote me on this. In a technical sense, we can do without it, since many people live happy lives without religion. But it's also fact that many people don't live without religion, or don't want to.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I reject atheism because it doesn't allow me more freedom. It genuinely leaves me unsatisfied in the answers I am seeking mostly in the claim that just because something isn't apparent to me, that simply isn't there.

Atheism doesn't hold that nothing exists that isn't apparent to our senses. There's tons of stuff that we know to exist that we would never perceive with our senses, and probably more yet to be found. Atheism just rejects a divine being behind everything.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
My comment clearly upset you, when in fact, it shouldn't have, as it wasn't posted in mean spiritedness.
Your numerous posts around the religion forum are exactly like the allegory I gave in my previous post.

I'm not upset, I'm confused. It's like we're having two different conversations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it is deeper then that. Every animal that is alive today (including humans) has been molded by evolution. Therefore, theism has some evolutionary advantage. An evolutionary advantage is not always what you might imagine. Like we might think that intelligence would always be "picked" by evolution, but the world is not filled with intelligent species.

I don't quite follow. How does theism act as an evolutionary advantage? I could go with theism being a byproduct of self awareness and higher intelligence than other animals, but I think that theism only bridges the gap for answers when science is limited, which is why it is more widely accepted early in human development when science wasn't even close to being what is today. I also believe that no matter how many times evolution took place, it would happen that way.

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't quite follow. How does theism act as an evolutionary advantage? I could go with theism being a byproduct of self awareness and higher intelligence than other animals, but I think that theism only bridges the gap for answers when science is limited, which is why it is more widely accepted early in human development when science wasn't even close to being what is today. I also believe that no matter how many times evolution took place, it would happen that way.

My question is why. Why would evolution favor theist with humans over atheism. I'm guessing that there is an evolutionary advantage to theism. Maybe there is a different mechanism. I'm open to ideas.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My question is why. Why would evolution favor theist with humans over atheism. I'm guessing that there is an evolutionary advantage to theism. Maybe there is a different mechanism. I'm open to ideas.

2. Even if there isn't a transcendent dimension, studies have shown that people with an earnest/genuinely spiritual (not necessarily "religious"😉 perspective on life tend to handle adversity better than those who don't have said perspective.

As an example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/417k255vwh3m8274/

Google up "spirituality" "stress" "studies" for more.

I could have sworn that theism exists in humans because we evolved a "god-center" where the experience of God can be found (temporal lobe).

Atheists would activate the same area with whatever they have supplanted God with in their lives. Awesome euphoric and meditative experiences with music? Check. That's probably one of my favs, actually.

What is the evolutionary advantage? Why wouldn't it be advantageous to be able to feel calmed, relaxed, euphoric, happy, content, through a bit of calm and relaxed contemplation on the metaphysical? Seems very advantageous for a species to develop such a place in their brain. Life is difficult and very depressing if you think about it. Humans would have needed to develop something to counter that crappy mortal existence.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Maybe because there really is a transcendent level to reality, and humans have slowly, painfully, clumsily been aware of this all along.

2. Even if there isn't, studies have shown that people with a genuinely spiritual (not necessarily "religious"😉 perspective on life tend to handle adversity better than those who don't have said perspective.

As an example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/417k255vwh3m8274/

Google up "spirituality" "stress" "studies" for more.

Lulz, beaten to the punch. I would looking for that NPR article for far too long and you beat me.

But, yeah, that's what I was getting at. Now, love or spirituality being processed in the brain does not mean, for me, that it is 100% localized to the brain. I do believe there is a transcendence of consciousness and love. Most especially beyond the functions of the brain. That's because I think we have souls. 😐

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Maybe because there really is a transcendent level to reality, and humans have slowly, painfully, clumsily been aware of this all along.

2. Even if there isn't, studies have shown that people with a genuinely spiritual (not necessarily "religious"😉 perspective on life tend to handle adversity better than those who don't.

As an example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/417k255vwh3m8274/

Google up "spirituality" "stress" "studies" for more.

I generally agree with you. String theory, states there are 10 dimensions (3 spacial, 1 of time, and 5 curled up at the planck length). There is enough space for such a reality to exist, but when we look around at nature, humans seem to be unique. Other animal are not ritual in nature. Even Homo Erectus lacked ritualism. The reason I emphasize ritualism is because I think it is the only outward appearance of spiritualism, as we have spoken before.

Why are humans unique in this respect?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I generally agree with you. String theory, states there are 10 dimensions (3 spacial, 1 of time, and 5 curled up at the planck length). There is enough space for such a reality to exist, but when we look around at nature, humans seem to be unique. Other animal are not ritual in nature. Even Homo Erectus lacked ritualism. The reason I emphasize ritualism is because I think it is the only outward appearance of spiritualism, as we have spoken before.

Why are humans unique in this respect?

Well, since I'm clearly a theist, I think God began his dispensation among man when we developed enough as a creation to reciprocate, spiritually. I don't define "perfection" like the antitheists do in their "logic" proofs against perfection. I define it as an ascension or transcendence at a level sufficient enough to be beyond anything temporal. In this regard, God can still desire love from His "children" while still being perfect.

So, it was inevitable that evolution would lead to sentient beings that were capable of loving God back. That was His end-game all along. It took Him 13.7 billion years...at least with Homo sapiens (or an extra sapiens, if you want). 😄

Now, this is my theory and it is a mixture of some facts and spirituality. I see evolution as a very central tool to God's plan. Others see it is blasphemy. I think they are the ones blaspheming God's extremely intelligent nature. uhuh BTW, God loves math. 😐

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm guessing that there is an evolutionary advantage to theism. Maybe there is a different mechanism. I'm open to ideas.

Evolution does not always produce things because they have an advantage.

For example the "lunula" of your fingernail is white. This provides no advantage, it is a side effect of how the nail grows that never evolved away because it provides no evolutionary disadvantage.

You can reference Digi's argument to see how this might work with theism. Thought processes that are evolutionary advantageous may have theism as a side effect. So long as there is no evolutionary pressure against theism (virtually non-existent in the course of history).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Evolution does not always produce things because they have an advantage.

For example the "lunula" of your fingernail is white. This provides no advantage, it is a side effect of how the nail grows that never evolved away because it provides no evolutionary disadvantage.

You can reference Digi's argument to see how this might work with theism. Thought processes that are evolutionary advantageous may have theism as a side effect. So long as there is no evolutionary pressure against theism (virtually non-existent in the course of history).

Yes, it could just be a fluke, but that's boring. 😄

shakey/mindship/ddm:

I sort of think you guys are talking past the point when you are getting into evolution here. Humans, as in, animals that have theism, are not very old at all. Genetically, we have had little time, at all, to change and little survival pressure has been applied to our genotype. Changes in human behaviour from, say, 100 000 years ago until today are almost exclusively cultural (some changes, sure).

The problem is, you are taking the concept of "theism" as it exists in the modern context and trying to explain where it came from. A similarly problematic question would be like saying, "soccer is a sport of widespread popularity, therefore, it must serve some adaptive advantage evolutionarily", when its popularity is far better explained by cultural factors. "Theism" did not evolve into humans. There was never an evolutionary pressure on humans to be "theists". What would have evolved are the mental biases in terms of information processing that are congruent with theistic explanations for events.

So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly.

I always kind of assumed that there's more theists than atheists in the world because theists are smarter and survive while atheists get picked off by predators or kill themselves when they realize everything they do is meaningless because there's nothing after death.

Originally posted by inimalist
shakey/mindship/ddm:

I sort of think you guys are talking past the point when you are getting into evolution here. Humans, as in, animals that have theism, are not very old at all. Genetically, we have had little time, at all, to change and little survival pressure has been applied to our genotype. Changes in human behaviour from, say, 100 000 years ago until today are almost exclusively cultural (some changes, sure).

The problem is, you are taking the concept of "theism" as it exists in the modern context and trying to explain where it came from. A similarly problematic question would be like saying, "soccer is a sport of widespread popularity, therefore, it must serve some adaptive advantage evolutionarily", when its popularity is far better explained by cultural factors. "Theism" did not evolve into humans. There was never an evolutionary pressure on humans to be "theists". What would have evolved are the mental biases in terms of information processing that are congruent with theistic explanations for events.

So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly.

I feel like you are splitting hairs. Of course I am talking about mechanisms that lead to theism, and labeling it theism. I'm trying to keep things simple for two reasons; 1. this is an Internet forum, 2. my personal knowledge is limited, and I would find myself out of the conversation quickly.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I feel like you are splitting hairs. Of course I am talking about mechanisms that lead to theism, and labeling it theism. I'm trying to keep things simple for two reasons; 1. this is an Internet forum, 2. my personal knowledge is limited, and I would find myself out of the conversation quickly.

but those are different things

guns are widespread in human civilization and warfare, in fact, ubiquitous to the point that there is no society that does not use them almost exclusively for security and military matters.

Your question was based on the idea that theism is widespread in human society and history.

Now, if we are saying there is a biological advantage to theism, it is equivalent to saying there is a biological advantage to using guns. The problem is, this is actually impossible in the case of guns, as they have only existed for a few hundred years. There could never have been a biological selective pressure against not using guns. Similarly, there was never a biological pressure against not being a theist.

Like, maybe if you see this distinction as "splitting hairs", talking about the origins of cognitions in evolutionary terms is probably not a good idea. It'd be like trying to talk about 90s hip hop and saying the difference between the east and west coast is splitting hairs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Lulz, beaten to the punch. I would looking for that NPR article for far too long and you beat me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, yeah, that's what I was getting at. Now, love or spirituality being processed in the brain does not mean, for me, that it is 100% localized to the brain. I do believe there is a transcendence of consciousness and love. Most especially beyond the functions of the brain. That's because I think we have souls. 😐

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
String theory, states there are 10 dimensions (3 spacial, 1 of time, and 5 curled up at the planck length). There is enough space for such a reality to exist...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Other animal are not ritual in nature. Even Homo Erectus lacked ritualism. The reason I emphasize ritualism is because I think it is the only outward appearance of spiritualism, as we have spoken before.

Why are humans unique in this respect?

It's sometimes been said, fancifully, that Man is to be pitied for his (apparently) unique stature. That is, (subhuman) animals are mortal but don't know it, while the angels are immortal and know it. Only Man is mortal and knows it. And transcendent reality aside, perhaps theism offers evolutionary advantage simply because it is a means of defusing (somewhat) death terror. Ie, 'God' is a beneficial illusion.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly.

Originally posted by inimalist
shakey/mindship/ddm:

I sort of think you guys are talking past the point when you are getting into evolution here. Humans, as in, animals that have theism, are not very old at all. Genetically, we have had little time, at all, to change and little survival pressure has been applied to our genotype. Changes in human behaviour from, say, 100 000 years ago until today are almost exclusively cultural (some changes, sure).

The problem is, you are taking the concept of "theism" as it exists in the modern context and trying to explain where it came from. A similarly problematic question would be like saying, "soccer is a sport of widespread popularity, therefore, it must serve some adaptive advantage evolutionarily", when its popularity is far better explained by cultural factors. "Theism" did not evolve into humans. There was never an evolutionary pressure on humans to be "theists". What would have evolved are the mental biases in terms of information processing that are congruent with theistic explanations for events.

So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly.

I think we disagree, fundamentally (correct me if we don't). There would be a clear selection bias for a sapient species that could have a "god-complex" with which to cope. Along with brain power comes a much more problematic element: "thinking" about and analyzing bad stuff. The natural selection would be in favor of those that developed a way to cope with that.

Theisms evolved out of man's natural evolution. It is a byproduct of evolution. You may paint it as "seeing order in randomness" I see it as "seeing order where order exists on a much higher conscious plane than ever before in evolution". I say that that "vision" is so far developed as to actually be attributable to God.

Originally posted by Mindship
I prefer this view as well. I would say Consciousness (in the broadest sense of the term, hence upper-case 'C'😉 is the ground of being, not matter, with familiar awareness 'peaking' in the human brain (but ultimately culminating in the Godhead).

I can agree with that. Since I think all humans have the potential to become Godly, it should be no surprise that I would assume we could all transcend the corporeal into a higher state of consciousness...even to the point of being considered "Godly". Whether this ultimate forme is "one" or individual, I do not know. Nor is it fleshed out in my own religion. But that may very well be the ultimate conscious state: becoming 'one' with God. In other words, we all become God at our ultimate end.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we disagree, fundamentally (correct me if we don't). There would be a clear selection bias for a sapient species that could have a "god-complex" with which to cope. Along with brain power comes a much more problematic element: "thinking" about and analyzing bad stuff. The natural selection would be in favor of those that developed a way to cope with that.

then the onus would be on you to show some evidence of genetic change driven by pressure specifically relating to whether someone had a theistic view of nature.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Theisms evolved out of man's natural evolution. It is a byproduct of evolution. You may paint it as "seeing order in randomness" I see it as "seeing order where order exists on a much higher conscious plane than ever before in evolution".

except, if that were the case, we wouldn't see patterns in randomness. whether or not some cases we think are randomness actually reflect some type of divine whatever, the bias evolutionarily is clearly toward agency in randomness, and in fact, goes back so far in evolutionary history that almost all complex animals have it to some degree. The startle reflex can almost be seen as an adaptive behaviour related to this type of thinking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I say that that "vision" is so far developed as to actually be attributable to God.

LOL... you mean, excepting the fact that our eye is built backwards and all the visual processing errors that we experience?