Maybe the universe is theoretically determinable but practically/conceptually indeterminable. In that case, free will is just a state of mind that arises due to the limits of our conceptual faculties. I happen to agree with that viewpoint.
We're talking about converts here. They didn't believe in these new conceptions of God and really had no material incentive to. But something intrinsice about that belief system enticed them. You don't necessarily see the same among converts to Scientology, who are often tricked, lied to, and forced into staying (the horror stories are all over the internet). As for Scientologists, I was referring to their leaders/creators. They have a clear incentive to sustain their movement because their profiting materially from it. Jesus, Moses, etc. didn't.
just for reference, the universe is theoretically not fully determinable. Only likelihoods and probabilities.
I just hate it when people use the god of the gaps theory. In others, when you don't know something, the answer becomes "goddidit". I could easily say fairiesdidit with such logic. I figure myself as an agnostic atheist. If there is proof of a deity or such (and it has to be some damn good evidence), then I would believe in it. But thus far, there really isnt any proof. The burden of proof is on the theists, not me. As for religion, to me, it was something created during humankind's infancy period and has refused to go away because for so long we had no clue how things worked. And it seems we strive to be the most important thing in existence due to that ignorance. With that said, religion was acceptable, but I think it is something that pretty will wittle away or should. One thing I've learned is that one does not need religion or hope for a deity in order to be moral.
Do you believe that a God is necessary for morals? From what I've seen via experience and studied about human history is that morals change through time. In the case of religion, it usually remains constant unless it is hijacked by modernism or philosophy. (In the case for christianity, it was pretty much hijacked by western philosophy). And as far as I know from my experiences, I'm one of the few people I know that doesn't see Jesus as a model for moral perfection. As far as moralities are concerned with atheists, it varies. Atheism is essentially a rejection of a belief. It has no values. Does this mean atheists are immoral? Of course not. Each individual has a moral code, whether developed via a religion, book, experiences life, etc. Some atheists are for gay marriage. Others are not. Others support torture. Some atheists do not. It varies. As for me, i"m a secular humanist.
behavior that has been judged by evolved social convention and our collective modern common sense to be beneficial for human society.
Doing for others what you would want others to do for you. I think there are two basic mindsets for an agnostic, you are either in it as a collective or you're in it for yourself.
There are so many moral theories out there that don't appeal to religious doctrine, that this question just seems so short-sighted. Religions don't have a monopoly on morality.
How does it seem short-sighted? I asked how you defined morality. Your statement of "religions don't have a monopoly on morality" is completely false or perhaps true, based upon your definition of it. Since I'm not an atheist or agnostic and definitely not both, I asked the question to see what you thought. Without getting into a deep philosophical debate, my understanding is that most definitions of morality are based upon societal rules influenced heavily by whatever religion is prevalent in that society. One of the hypotheses (perhaps among many) is that when one sees themselves as independent of any real or imagined higher power, then they are free to live and act how they'd like. And many times (though not all), the way one would like to live and act concerns one's own well-being, and not that of the collective/society. The primary reason being: who are you to tell me what to do? Why can't I have sex with my cousin, divorce my wife, marry 7 women, have my child work in a factory instead of going to school, etc? The belief in the higher power/Imaginary Friend generally takes care of that question. Whether it's Jehovah, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. there is an implication that someone who created the universe/reached total enlightenment/was divinely inspired has told the populace how things should be run, and though generally it's countercultural to the way things have become, the people accept it. I can't think of a society (going back to Hammurabi) that codified a set of morals that encouraged people to do what they wanted to. In addition, the reason the morals had to be codified was because there's an inherent anarchy in letting people do what they want that's detrimental to society. There's a ton more I'd like to write, but I just wanted to respond quickly.
Many other organisms, animals, etc. function with some sort of governance. Wolves, for example, are a good example of this. But this is no evidence of a god or gods. Sometimes when we don't know an answer to the big questions, we form one based on our observations. The thing with gods though is that people did not look far enough. And it seems you are implying that the only for people to be moral is if their is a god. If people try to be moral out of fear of eternal damnation, then imo, they aren't moral. Would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed? Of course, once one says that there is a god or gods, then that opens up like 20 new questions. I guess in this case I prefer the Occam's Razor method. But as I said before, once you make a claim, you then have the burden of proof. In our early days, we didn't have high standards for proof. Just to add, the epicurus paradoxes/riddles help simplify the matter: 1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world. 2. There is evil in the world. 3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
