Intelligence and Religiosity

[Jichard]

Let's review.

A number of us were discussing the facts that the modern scientific method was birthed by devout theists (Bacon, Kepler, Galileo) and that over the next couple of generations this method was built upon by more devout theists (Newton, Boyle, etc.), primarily British Puritans. These facts are matters of the historic record, but you repeatedly try to fight them.

False; I never fought those facts. I fought your attempt to ignore non-Christian pioneers of modern science.

In a non-sequitor response to these facts, you presented a link to McCauley's paper where he makes the argument that religious constructs are "natural" and scientific constructs are "unnatural".

Not a non sequitur, since it blocks any attempt to claim these scientific ideas were religious in origin. They weren't. Just because a religious person has an idea, that does not make the idea religious in origin, anymore than the fact that a male has an idea makes the idea male in origin.

He does not present evidence for these claims per se; rather, he constructs a logical argument to try to convince the reader of these claims.

McCauley's discussion of religious constructs is restricted to simplistic concepts as found in folk religions. I did not see any discussion in his paper of more sophisticated religious concepts in general or of the central doctrines of Christianity in particular. (If I've missed something here, please present a page number and quote from McCauley's paper.). Yes, McCauley probably intends his conclusions regarding simplistic folk religions to extend to all religions, including Christianity (as you do). But he has not shown that his arguments actually do extend to Christianity.

I already presented the evidence that the arguments extended to Christianity. You responded (as expected) by simply ignoring the evidence without reading it, since it was inconvenient for your position. I don't see why you need to pretend that you'll accept evidence, when (in fact) you' just dismiss any evidence you're presented with, without reading it:

Incorrect. McCauley's analysis extends to Christian religion as well, and his analysis is in line with other work on this subject. For example, it's in line with other research showing that th intuitive thinking involved in religion (incuding folk religions and religions like Christianity) is not the same thing as the analytic reasoning involved in science. Furthermore, religion employs the same concepts/categories as in everyday life, but modifies them slightly in order to make them more memorable. For further background on this, see:

"Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function"
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/religi...Boyer_2003.pdf

"Exploring the natural foundations of religion"
http://religionandcognition.com/cour...df?ckattempt=1

So really, its absurd for you to cllaim that people would have never come up with Christian thelogy apart from divine revelation. It seems you simply made that claim up, without any supporting evidence.

No, I didn't read these papers (though I did read your earlier linked paper on "naturalness" and "unnaturalness".) While your evidence for global warming is based on real science, your anti-Christian claims are based on the "soft sciences", which don't rise to the level of the "hard sciences". Richard Feynman made some cogent remarks on this topic in his 1974 CalTech commencement address.

In response to your view that all religions, including Christianity, are "natural constructs", I briefly presented just a few of the basic tenets of Christianity. These are very sophisticated and "unnatural", similar in sophistication to modern scientific concepts. I have thus presented a logical argument that McCauley's claims do not apply to Christianity. If you disagree with my conclusion, please engage my argument point by point.

I'm still waiting for evidence for your made-up claim that humans could not have come up with Christian theology without divine intervention. You've provided no evidence for that conclusion:

(McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)

And I really doubt you have any rational argument for that conclusion. It's likely just a faith position that you happen to hold.

[One Bad Pig]

Lucretius was in the libraries of all these early scientists as a matter of fact. He is the founder and first clear message of scientific methods.

Even assuming that your assertion is correct, the fact yet remains that these ideas did not catch on until the Renaissance.

[Kbertsche]

It looks like we need another review.

We were discussing a paper by MCCAULEY, not by someone else. I made the following observations of McCauley's paper:

He does not present evidence for these claims per se; rather, he constructs a logical argument to try to convince the reader of these claims.

McCauley's discussion of religious constructs is restricted to simplistic concepts as found in folk religions. I did not see any discussion in his paper of more sophisticated religious concepts in general or of the central doctrines of Christianity in particular. (If I've missed something here, please present a page number and quote from McCauley's paper.). Yes, McCauley probably intends his conclusions regarding simplistic folk religions to extend to all religions, including Christianity (as you do). But he has not shown that his arguments actually do extend to Christianity.

Your response to this comment was:

I already presented the evidence that the arguments extended to Christianity.

But this is not true.

1) You did not present any evidence that MCCAULEY HIMSELF addressed anything more sophisticated than folk religions in his paper. I take this as an implicit admission by you that my last sentence above is correct: MCCAULEY HIMSELF has not shown that his arguments actually do extend to Christianity.

2) You did not present any additional evidence that McCauley's arguments apply to anything more sophisticated than folk religions. You claim to have done so, but you have not. Yes, the papers that you recommended by Boyer and Barrett make claims similar to McCauley. But claims are not evidence. Like McCauley, Boyer's and Barrett's arguments seem to be restricted to simplistic concepts as found in folk religions. Like McCauley, I do not see any discussion in their papers of more sophisticated religious concepts in general or of the central doctrines of Christianity in particular. Again, if I've missed something here, please present page numbers and quotes from their papers.

[Kbertsche]

Even assuming that your assertion is correct, the fact yet remains that these ideas did not catch on until the Renaissance.

In addition to Lucretius, I'm sure that the works of Avicenna and other medieval Muslim scholars were in the libraries of the early scientists. These Muslim scholars were very advanced in mathematical reasoning, observational astronomy, and observational anatomy. Yet they did not have all the pieces to give birth to modern science themselves.

[shunyadragon]

In addition to Lucretius, I'm sure that the works of Avicenna and other medieval Muslim scholars were in the libraries of the early scientists. These Muslim scholars were very advanced in mathematical reasoning, observational astronomy, and observational anatomy. Yet they did not have all the pieces to give birth to modern science themselves.

The issue was the scientific methods and not scientific advances in science itself, because he was a philosopher not a scientist. Lucretius did not contribute to the advances in math and science. He described the scientific methods in his work. His views on infinities and the nature of the universe were also revolutionary.

Archimedes contributed to both.

[Jichard]

It looks like we need another review.

It looks like you need another review.

You said that humans could not have come up with Christian theology without divine revelation:

"(McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)"

"I've presented evidence. Please try to respond to my evidence directly, in detail, point by point (rather than indirectly through pseudo-scientific social science studies)."

I pointed out that you evidence for that claim:

"So really, its absurd for you to cllaim that people would have never come up with Christian thelogy apart from divine revelation. It seems you simply made that claim up, without any supporting evidence."

You responsed hat you had presented evidence:

"I've presented evidence. Please try to respond to my evidence directly, in detail, point by point (rather than indirectly through pseudo-scientific social science studies)."

Yet you haven't; you've presented no evidence that humans could not have come up with Christian theology without divine intervention. And you've repeatedly dodged requests to provide such evidence. You're now doing so again.

You know, you can just admit you never had any evidence for your claim right?

We were discussing a paper by MCCAULEY, not by someone else. I made the following observations of McCauley's paper:

Your response to this comment was:

But this is not true.

No, what I wrote was true, as you would know if you stopped quote-mining and actually looked at the rest of the post you quoted. The bolded portion is what you decided to quote:

"I already presented the evidence that the arguments extended to Christianity. You responded (as expected) by simply ignoring the evidence without reading it, since it was inconvenient for your position."

Bu, conveniently, your quote-mine left out my discussion of the evidence I had posted, and how you ignored it.

1) You did not present any evidence that MCCAULEY HIMSELF addressed anything more sophisticated than folk religions in his paper. I take this as an implicit admission by you that my last sentence above is correct: MCCAULEY HIMSELF has not shown that his arguments actually do extend to Christianity.

First, that's irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what I actually said in your quote-mine. You'r quote-mine of me was as follows:

"I already presented the evidence that the arguments extended to Christianity."

And I can support my claim there by providing evidence, regardless of whether that evidence somes from McCauley's paper or not.

Second, I already showed that in what I quoted, McCauley showed that his pointed extend to Christianity. Take what I quoted from McCauley's paper:
[INDENT]

"The Naturalness of Religion and the Unnaturalness of Science"
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...of-science.pdf

"Compared with scientific categories, those in religion lack theoretical depth. Contrary to first impressions, religious accounts of things differ little from everyday accounts. Religious systems import all of our familiar, commonsense psychology about agents' intentions, beliefs, desires, and actions for the explanation of phenomena throughout the natural and social worlds. Whether applied to other drivers on the road or to the rulers of the cosmos, this system performs quite nicely most of the time for understanding and anticipating agents' actions and states of mind. The rationale underlying an explanation of someone's illness as the result of an ancestor's interventions based on that ancestor's displeasure with the victim's conduct is as readily comprehensible to a child as it is to the most experienced religious official.

In the absence of cultural forms that foster the collective growth of humans' critical and imaginative capacities, human beings rely upon their natural cognitive dispositions, which often appear to be domain specific and comparatively inflexible in their application. CPS agents, stories about them, and rituals for controlling and appeasing them are the inevitable outcomes of a cognitive system that simultaneously seeks explanations, possesses an overactive agent detector, and, perhaps, most importantly, lacks scientific traditions. As Daniel Dennett (1998, p. 122) has remarked, " . . . until science came along, one had to settle for personifying the unpredictable--adopting the intentional stance toward it--and trying various desperate measures of control and
appeasement." (26-27)"

Christianity (especially through inheritance from Judaism) applies our familiar, commonsense psychology to God. Hence it attributing to God intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans (ex: jealousy, anger). Furthermore, Christianity (via Judaism) has a tradition of rituals for appeasing God; many Christians take Jesus' ritual sacrifice to be the final sacrifice for appeasing God's judgment, such that the Old Testament animal sacrifices no longer need to be done.

2) You did not present any additional evidence that McCauley's arguments apply to anything more sophisticated than folk religions. You claim to have done so, but you have not. Yes, the papers that you recommended by Boyer and Barrett make claims similar to McCauley. But claims are not evidence.

Incorrect. Boyer and Barrett cite studies that provide evidence in support of their claims. That's why, for example, Boyer's and Barrett's papers have in-text citations and a reference list. That's how scientific papers typically work: one other presents data in support of one's claims, or one cites previous sources/studies that provide evidence for one's claims. For someone who claims to be a scientist, I thought you would know this. And as someone who's written scientific papers and done scientific research, I do know this.

Like McCauley, Boyer's and Barrett's arguments seem to be restricted to simplistic concepts as found in folk religions. Like McCauley, I do not see any discussion in their papers of more sophisticated religious concepts in general or of the central doctrines of Christianity in particular. Again, if I've missed something here, please present page numbers and quotes from their papers.

Incorrect, once again. The papers discuss the concepts used in Christianity, including an omniscient deity, a deity as a concerned with morality, omnipresence without a physical presence, doctrines of purity and impurity (inherited from Judaism), and supernatural intentionality / supernatural agency in general.

For example, see pages 29-31 of: http://religionandcognition.com/cour...df?ckattempt=1
And pages 120-122 of: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/religi...Boyer_2003.pdf


Anyway, let me know when you finally have some evidence for you claim that humans could not have come up with Christian theology without divine intervention. Or you can just finally admit you have none, as opposed to continually dodging the topic.

[Kbertsche]

Jichard, you are missing and/or dodging my point. You have made the claim that Christianity is a "natural" product of the human mind and have presented references which supposedly support your claim. I do not see that your references do anything of the kind. I made the following statement:

Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.

There are two separate clauses in my statement:
1) Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science;
2) we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.

The first clause is the one which disagrees directly with you and with your references. This is what I am trying to discuss with you, but which you repeatedly avoid. I have presented evidence for this, which you have not responded to. You have not presented any good evidence for your claims (only other folks making the same unevidenced claims).

The second clause reflects my own belief and interpretation. It is a follow-on to the first clause. There is no point in considering or discussing this until we have discussed the first clause. I will not discuss this with you until we have thoroughly discussed the main question that you first raised and that we disagree on: Is Christianity "natural" or "unnatural"?.

I claim that "Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science." I have presented evidence for this. Where is your counter-evidence against this? (Not counter claims, not counter references, but counter evidence!)

[shunyadragon]

Jichard, you are missing and/or dodging my point. You have made the claim that Christianity is a "natural" product of the human mind and have presented references which supposedly support your claim. I do not see that your references do anything of the kind. I made the following statement:


There are two separate clauses in my statement:
1) Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science;
2) we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.

I believe both of these statements amount to assertions of belief based on circular assumptions, and, no, you have not presented 'evidence' to support these assumptions. Scientific advancements have been made by followers of virtually all religions, and non-believers in any religion involving the belief in god(s).

The first clause is the one which disagrees directly with you and with your references. This is what I am trying to discuss with you, but which you repeatedly avoid. I have presented evidence for this, which you have not responded to. You have not presented any good evidence for your claims (only other folks making the same unevidenced claims).

Your assertions amount to unevidenced claims. In other words if your going to make these claims you need to be able to propose hypothesis that can be falsifed objectively to support your claims.

The fact that some Christian scientists have made significant contributions to science does not offer any proof to your claims, because over the millennia believers in many different beliefs have made great discoveries and contributions to science.

[Kbertsche]

Your assertions amount to unevidenced claims. In other words if your going to make these claims you need to be able to propose hypothesis that can be falsifed objectively to support your claims.

The fact that some Christian scientists have made significant contributions to science does not offer any proof to your claims, because over the millennia believers in many different beliefs have made great discoveries and contributions to science.

Shuny, you seem to be conflating multiple discussions. (Very understandable, since Jichard abruptly switched topics when he couldn't argue against the origins of modern science.)

My claim is that "Christian theology is at least as 'unnatural' as science". The evidence that I have presented for this claim are the basic tenets of Christian theology itself. (See post #157 in this thread). The origins of modern science have nothing to do with this claim or discussion.

FYI, here are the examples that I mentioned in post 157, which is in no way a complete list:

Nature of God:
Transcendent and yet immanent (shared by Judaism, but not much else)
Trinity: three persons in one essence (unique to Christianity)

Nature of Christ:
Both fully God and fully man (unique; similar in sophistication and "unnaturalness" to the nature of a photon as both a wave and a particle)

Nature of man:
Created in God's image
Fallen, completely unacceptable to God, able to do nothing to please God
Yet so deeply loved by God that He sacrificed His own Son to save man

Salvation:
Undeserved, unable to be earned or merited by man in any fashion
A completely free gift of God

[oxmixmudd]

Christianity (especially through inheritance from Judaism) applies our familiar, commonsense psychology to God.

No - I don't think so Jichard. There is very little 'common sense' about the Christian concept of God. Chrisitan theology has God becoming a man, living a perfect life, and then sacrificing that life for the sake of those that for the most part ignore him and reject all that He is (such as yourself).

This is not 'common sense'.

Christian theology takes the concept of 'law' and discards it, looking instead for a complete reworking of the human soul from the inside out through a miraculous regeneration of the soul. We no longer 'appease' God's requirements by what we do, but rather, allow ourselves to be changed by Him into that which pleases Him.

This is not 'common sense'.

Christian theology asks that we do not respond to evil with evil, but rather with good. That we do not seek out our own revenge for wrongs suffered, but rather that we seek out the well-being of those that have hurt us.

This is not 'common sense'.

Christian theology tells us we must forgive those that have hurt us, no matter how many times they repeat the offense.

This is not 'common sense'.


I could go on. But there is in fact very little about Christian Theology that is 'common sense'. In fact, a good deal of what Christian theology teaches is completely contrary both to 'what makes sense' and what is 'common'. Just look around at how many, including those that by intent and confession ARE Christian, actually live out these - as you call them - 'common sense' notions of who God is or how we should follow Him.



Jim

[Kbertsche]

OK, Jichard, let's try to discuss your claims in a systematic, orderly fashion.
In this post, I wish to discuss only your claims about McCauley. Boyer and Barrett and can wait till a later post.

Here is what I said about McCauley:

He does not present evidence for these claims per se; rather, he constructs a logical argument to try to convince the reader of these claims.

McCauley's discussion of religious constructs is restricted to simplistic concepts as found in folk religions. I did not see any discussion in his paper of more sophisticated religious concepts in general or of the central doctrines of Christianity in particular. (If I've missed something here, please present a page number and quote from McCauley's paper.). Yes, McCauley probably intends his conclusions regarding simplistic folk religions to extend to all religions, including Christianity (as you do). But he has not shown that his arguments actually do extend to Christianity.

Here is what you claim about McCauley:

Second, I already showed that in what I quoted, McCauley showed that his pointed extend to Christianity. Take what I quoted from McCauley's paper:

"The Naturalness of Religion and the Unnaturalness of Science"
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...of-science.pdf
"Compared with scientific categories, those in religion lack theoretical depth. Contrary to first impressions, religious accounts of things differ little from everyday accounts. Religious systems import all of our familiar, commonsense psychology about agents' intentions, beliefs, desires, and actions for the explanation of phenomena throughout the natural and social worlds. Whether applied to other drivers on the road or to the rulers of the cosmos, this system performs quite nicely most of the time for understanding and anticipating agents' actions and states of mind. The rationale underlying an explanation of someone's illness as the result of an ancestor's interventions based on that ancestor's displeasure with the victim's conduct is as readily comprehensible to a child as it is to the most experienced religious official.

In the absence of cultural forms that foster the collective growth of humans' critical and imaginative capacities, human beings rely upon their natural cognitive dispositions, which often appear to be domain specific and comparatively inflexible in their application. CPS agents, stories about them, and rituals for controlling and appeasing them are the inevitable outcomes of a cognitive system that simultaneously seeks explanations, possesses an overactive agent detector, and, perhaps, most importantly, lacks scientific traditions. As Daniel Dennett (1998, p. 122) has remarked, " . . . until science came along, one had to settle for personifying the unpredictable--adopting the intentional stance toward it--and trying various desperate measures of control and
appeasement." (26-27)"

Christianity (especially through inheritance from Judaism) applies our familiar, commonsense psychology to God. Hence it attributing to God intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans (ex: jealousy, anger). Furthermore, Christianity (via Judaism) has a tradition of rituals for appeasing God; many Christians take Jesus' ritual sacrifice to be the final sacrifice for appeasing God's judgment, such that the Old Testament animal sacrifices no longer need to be done.

1) you claim that "McCauley showed that his pointed extend to Christianity." But this is not true.
A) McCauley's quote does not explicitly address Christianity.
B) McCauley's quote does not address any of the central or unique tenets of Christianity.
Try again. Please present a quote from McCauley's paper where he shows that the central, unique tenets of Christianity are "natural".

2) you claim that Christianity attributes to God "intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans". I agree, and I agree that this is "natural". But these ideas are not central or unique to Christianity; they are shared by virtually all religions. You might as well claim that "Christianity claims that humans exist."

3) you claim that Christianity "has a tradition of rituals for appeasing God". Again, this is true of virtually all religions and is "natural". But it is not quite accurate regarding Christianity; Christianity does not hold to rituals for appeasing God, but to one single historical event; the crucifixion of Christ.

4) as you rightly observe, "many Christians take Jesus' ritual sacrifice to be the final sacrifice for appeasing God's judgment, such that the Old Testament animal sacrifices no longer need to be done." Good; finally you have identified a central tenet of Christianity! I claim that this tenet is unnatural. I know of no other religion where the adherent can do nothing to appease God, but God sacrifices Himself to appease the adherent, while the adherent is still at enmity with Him. Can you explain how this is a "natural" perspective?

[shunyadragon]

OK, Jichard, let's try to discuss your claims in a systematic, orderly fashion.
In this post, I wish to discuss only your claims about McCauley. Boyer and Barrett and can wait till a later post.

Here is what I said about McCauley:


Here is what you claim about McCauley:

1) you claim that "McCauley showed that his pointed extend to Christianity." But this is not true.
A) McCauley's quote does not explicitly address Christianity.
B) McCauley's quote does not address any of the central or unique tenets of Christianity.
Try again. Please present a quote from McCauley's paper where he shows that the central, unique tenets of Christianity are "natural".

2) you claim that Christianity attributes to God "intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans". I agree, and I agree that this is "natural". But these ideas are not central or unique to Christianity; they are shared by virtually all religions. You might as well claim that "Christianity claims that humans exist."

3) you claim that Christianity "has a tradition of rituals for appeasing God". Again, this is true of virtually all religions and is "natural". But it is not quite accurate regarding Christianity; Christianity does not hold to rituals for appeasing God, but to one single historical event; the crucifixion of Christ.

4) as you rightly observe, "many Christians take Jesus' ritual sacrifice to be the final sacrifice for appeasing God's judgment, such that the Old Testament animal sacrifices no longer need to be done." Good; finally you have identified a central tenet of Christianity! I claim that this tenet is unnatural. I know of no other religion where the adherent can do nothing to appease God, but God sacrifices Himself to appease the adherent, while the adherent is still at enmity with Him. Can you explain how this is a "natural" perspective?

My disagreement in this argument is that your assertion that the unique beliefs of Christianity justify an 'unnatural' nature of Christianity. All religions have some common beliefs and some unique beliefs. The uniqueness of some beliefs does not justify that one or the other religion is uniquely true over other religions. This diversity of unique and common beliefs is most definitely natural features of all religions and cultures throughout human history.

What is common in all religions and cultures of the world is the evolution of beliefs from animism to anthropomorphic polytheism to Monotheism, and the evolution of sacrifice from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice, to symbolic sacrifice. The evolution of the Abrahamic religions in the Adamic cycle follow that trend.

My belief, Baha'i Faith, consider the natural evolution of the human spiritual nature in natural evolving cycles of Revelation includes common beliefs and the diversity of unique beliefs. The unique beliefs represent human cultural influence, and the natural differences in the progressive spiritual maturity of humanity. I also believe that the evolution of scientific knowledge is linked to the progressive spiritual evolution of humanity.

[Kbertsche]

My disagreement in this argument is that your assertion that the unique beliefs of Christianity justify an 'unnatural' nature of Christianity.

I am attempting to argue and show that many of the unique beliefs of Christianity are unnatural concepts. (I believe that some of these concepts are highly analogous to scientific concepts, which Jichard accepts to be "unnatural".)

All religions have some common beliefs and some unique beliefs.

Agreed.

The uniqueness of some beliefs does not justify that one or the other religion is uniquely true over other religions.

Agreed.

This diversity of unique and common beliefs is most definitely natural features of all religions and cultures throughout human history.

I disagree. You may believe and claim this, but where is your evidence for it? Do you believe and claim the same of science (that all scientific concepts are "natural" rather than "unnatural"?)

What is common in all religions and cultures of the world is the evolution of beliefs from animism to anthropomorphic polytheism to Monotheism, and the evolution of sacrifice from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice, to symbolic sacrifice. The evolution of the Abrahamic religions in the Adamic cycle follow that trend.

This progression is not accurate for the Abrahamic religions. Adam was a monotheist. I believe Abraham moved directly from animism to monotheism, without an anthropomorphic polytheism phase. Throughout the history of OT Israel, there was a complex series of back-and-forth moves between monotheism and polytheism/animism. The "natural" concept was polytheism/animism; the moves back to monotheism were due to divine revelation through the prophets.

Noah was involved with animal sacrifice. Abraham was involved with animal sacrifice (and nearly a human sacrifice). We don't see human sacrifice again till late in the OT, when Israel began to follow the "natural" concepts of its pagan neighbors. In Christianity, we go back to human sacrifice, but in a unique and "unnatural" form (one single human sacrifice, sufficient for all mankind, never again to be repeated).

[shunyadragon]

I am attempting to argue and show that many of the unique beliefs of Christianity are unnatural concepts. (I believe that some of these concepts are highly analogous to scientific concepts, which Jichard accepts to be "unnatural".)

I do not see the analogy with scientific concepts. I do not consider science unnatural.

I disagree. You may believe and claim this, but where is your evidence for it? Do you believe and claim the same of science (that all scientific concepts are "natural" rather than "unnatural"?)

I am uncertain her as to what evidence you are expecting. By natural features, I believe there is no evidence for anything but 'natural' occurrences for religious beliefs. Unproven claims for miraculous events would be considered 'unnatural.'

I consider science to be natural. It may help if you provide your definitions for what you consider 'natural' and 'unnatural.'

This progression is not accurate for the Abrahamic religions. Adam was a monotheist. I believe Abraham moved directly from animism to monotheism, without an anthropomorphic polytheism phase. Throughout the history of OT Israel, there was a complex series of back-and-forth moves between monotheism and polytheism/animism. The "natural" concept was polytheism/animism; the moves back to monotheism were due to divine revelation through the prophets.

There is significant text evidence for Biblical beliefs of Polytheism in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the OT, and archeological evidence. There have been threads on this topic I may refer you to. I rely on the main evidence as archeological.

Noah was involved with animal sacrifice. Abraham was involved with animal sacrifice (and nearly a human sacrifice). We don't see human sacrifice again till late in the OT, when Israel began to follow the "natural" concepts of its pagan neighbors. In Christianity, we go back to human sacrifice, but in a unique and "unnatural" form (one single human sacrifice, sufficient for all mankind, never again to be repeated).

The main argument is based on archeological evidence and text evidence in the OT, but there is also evidence in the text.

The near sacrifice by Abraham demonstrates the knowledge that they had at the time concerning human sacrifice.

In Judges human sacrifice is described carried out by Jephthah. It remains the trend in all cultures that that the archeological evidence indicates that this is the case.

It remains a bad argument that uniqueness justifies the truth of a religion.

[Jichard]

No - I don't think so Jichard. There is very little 'common sense' about the Christian concept of God.

False. Christians take commonsense, human theory-of-mind and apply it to God. Hence, for example, God having human-like emotions, as opposed to simply saying God's mind is incomprehensible. Basically, Christian theology applies something like the intentional stance to God, where God's (supposed) behaviors are interpreted as rational actions, explained by various beliefs, desires, and other such mental states. The beliefs and desires are thought to connect together in various commonsensical ways. For example, when God believes that X and God desires that X, this results in God having the motivation to do X. And if God dislikes Y, then this is reflected in God's negative statements regarding Y.

This common-sensical psychology is in contrast to other ways one could interpret God. For example, one could interpret God as having a very weird, incredibly irrational mind, where when God likes X, this results in God willfully performing actions God knows will not bring about X. Or God believing that X and God desiring that X, could result in God forming a motivation for not-X. Or God could be a non-mental entity with no mind at all, even though God acted in ways that might suggest God had a mind (basically, God would be a philosophical zombie]. Or God could constantly/always form false beliefs, even about the information that's directly accessible to God. Or...

Of course, the vast majority of Christians don't interpret God in the above ways. And that's because these are non-commonsensical interpretations of minds. We don't even interpret humans in the above ways. Instead, we have a sort of folk / commonsensical psychology that we apply to humans. From quite a young age, humans start interpreting humans, animals, etc. using this folk psychology. And Christian theology tends to apply this same sort of folk psychology to God. Of course, this is the case for the branch of Christian theology that views God as a personal being with a mind, as opposed to the branch of Christian theology that does not view God as being a mind (much as there are branches of other religions, where these branches don't view their deities/forces as being minds).

Chrisitan theology has God becoming a man, living a perfect life, and then sacrificing that life for the sake of those that for the most part ignore him and reject all that He is (such as yourself).

This is not 'common sense'.

First, please re-read the quote of mine you were responding to. I'll even add some bolding for you:

"Christianity (especially through inheritance from Judaism) applies our familiar, commonsense psychology to God. Hence it attributing to God intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans (ex: jealousy, anger)."

What you wrote does nothing to address that. You've not addressed that claim regarding "commonsense psychology".

Second, plenty of other religions have people who engage is self-sacrificial behavior, and plenty of other religions have deities who come in the form of an animal, including a human.

Christian theology takes the concept of 'law' and discards it, looking instead for a complete reworking of the human soul from the inside out through a miraculous regeneration of the soul. We no longer 'appease' God's requirements by what we do, but rather, allow ourselves to be changed by Him into that which pleases Him.

This is not 'common sense'.

First, please re-read the quote of mine you were responding to. I'll even add some bolding for you:

"Christianity (especially through inheritance from Judaism) applies our familiar, commonsense psychology to God. Hence it attributing to God intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans (ex: jealousy, anger)."

What you wrote does nothing to address that. You've not addressed that claim regarding "commonsense psychology".

Second, Christian theology does not discard the concept of law, in neither the divine command tradition nor the natural law tradition. Christians might take a different stance on the law then, say, their Jewish predecessors. But that's not the same as thinking they discarded the law. If you really think the concept of "law" was discarded by Christianity, then you'd think Christianity did away with laws in a legal context, and laws in a moral context. And it clearly didn't, given how often many Christians talks about behaviors like lying, adultery, etc. as going against God's law (including the law God [supposedly] wrote onto people's hearts.

Christian theology asks that we do not respond to evil with evil, but rather with good. That we do not seek out our own revenge for wrongs suffered, but rather that we seek out the well-being of those that have hurt us.

This is not 'common sense'.

First, please re-read the quote of mine you were responding to. I'll even add some bolding for you:

"Christianity (especially through inheritance from Judaism) applies our familiar, commonsense psychology to God. Hence it attributing to God intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans (ex: jealousy, anger)."

What you wrote does nothing to address that. You've not addressed that claim regarding "commonsense psychology".

Second, Christianity is not novel when it comes to the subject. If anything, Christianity doesn't go nearly as far as vrious other religions. For example, various Buddhists and Jains push the doctrine of non-violence/pacifism to even greater lengths, even when that pacifism is towards people who've harmed one. Similarly, various Buddhists and Jains ask people to show consideration for even those who've harmed them.

Third, in actual practice, Christians usually make sure to interpret Christian theology in a common-sensical way. For example, Christians usually won't make the claim that if someone is physically attacking you to take your money, then you should show them love by not fighting back and by giving them even more of your money in order to benefit them. So the whole "seek out the well-being of those that have hurt us", stuff, doesn't block self-defense. Nor does it, apparently, involve opposition to the death penalty. Or opposition to killing people in wars. Or... In actual practice, it seems to boil down to seek out the well-being of those who are mean to you, as long as doing that doesn't risk much for yourself or those you care about. And that's not that counter-intuitive an idea. It's called forgiveness, and it's found in plenty of other religions, where people forgive those who've wronged them (even if those people haven't repented) and treat those people nicely, up until the point that nice treatment becomes a risk to oneself or those one cares about.

Christian theology tells us we must forgive those that have hurt us, no matter how many times they repeat the offense.

This is not 'common sense'.

First, please re-read the quote of mine you were responding to. I'll even add some bolding for you:

"Christianity (especially through inheritance from Judaism) applies our familiar, commonsense psychology to God. Hence it attributing to God intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans (ex: jealousy, anger)."

What you wrote does nothing to address that. You've not addressed that claim regarding "commonsense psychology".

Second, you run into the same problem I mentioned above: Christians usually make sure to interpret Christian theology in a common-sensical way, that does not involve them making non-common-sensical sacrifices.

Third, there are plenty of other religions that involve sacrifice, and there are plenty of other religions who've seen that forgiveness makes sense. Otherwise, one would end with a never-ending, trans-generational cycle of retribution.

I could go on. But there is in fact very little about Christian Theology that is 'common sense'. In fact, a good deal of what Christian theology teaches is completely contrary both to 'what makes sense' and what is 'common'. Just look around at how many, including those that by intent and confession ARE Christian, actually live out these - as you call them - 'common sense' notions of who God is or how we should follow Him.

Let me know when you address the actual claim I made regarding Christian theology applying commonsense folk psychology to God.