Please, God, confirm what I already believe!

[ydoaPs]

This NewScientist article is about recent experiments giving brain-scan evidence for how people's beliefs and the beliefs they attribute to God are related.

 

Excerpt:

The researchers started by asking volunteers who said they believe in God to give their own views on controversial topics, such as abortion and the death penalty. They also asked what the volunteers thought were the views of God, average Americans and public figures such as Bill Gates. Volunteers' own beliefs corresponded most strongly with those they attributed to God.

 

Next, the team asked another group of volunteers to undertake tasks designed to soften their existing views, such as preparing speeches on the death penalty in which they had to take the opposite view to their own. They found that this led to shifts in the beliefs attributed to God, but not in those attributed to other people.

 

"People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want," the team write. "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

 

"The experiments in which we manipulate people's own beliefs are the most compelling evidence we have to show that people's own beliefs influence what they think God believes more substantially than it influences what they think other people believe," says Epley.

 

Finally, the team used fMRI to scan the brains of volunteers while they contemplated the beliefs of themselves, God or "average Americans". In all the experiments the volunteers professed beliefs in an Abrahamic God. The majority were Christian.

 

In the first two cases, similar parts of the brain were active. When asked to contemplate other Americans' beliefs, however, an area of the brain used for inferring other people's mental states was active. This implies that people map God's beliefs onto their own.

 

Thoughts?

 

IMO, this was already pretty obvious. Just look at the religious attitude regarding women or slavery throughout the ages. This studies findings don't really surprise me at all.

[SH3RL0CK]

I would not put much stock into their inferences regarding how brain activity correlates to thought patterns. As I understand it, the correlation of brain activity to specific thoughts, beliefs, ideas, etc. is very, very,very poorly understood (I'm not an expert, please correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't think I am). As quoted

The experiments ... are the most compelling evidence we have to show that...

, the author (?) does not imply the evidence is conclusive. And I might even argue that the word "compelling" would be a poor choice of words as I don't personally find it all that compelling either.

 

However, I do agree from personal anecdotal evidence that statements like

people's own beliefs influence what they think God believes more substantially than it influences what they think other people believe

and

people map God's beliefs onto their own.

are probably true.

[ydoaPs]

I would not put much stock into their inferences regarding how brain activity correlates to thought patterns. As I understand it, the correlation of brain activity to specific thoughts, beliefs, ideas, etc. is very, very,very poorly understood (I'm not an expert, please correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't think I am).

 

I remember reading an article a while back where they were able to tell what word a person was thinking by way of brainscan.

 

edit: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16267-mindreading-software-could-record-your-dreams.html

Edited December 1, 2009 by ydoaPs

[iNow]

More here:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php

 

For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

 

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people's mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God's attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God's will and their own opinions.

 

<...>

 

Epley's results are sure to spark controversy, but their most important lesson is that relying on a deity to guide one's decisions and judgments is little more than spiritual sockpuppetry. <

more at the link

>

[SH3RL0CK]

I remember reading an article a while back where they were able to tell what word a person was thinking by way of brainscan.

 

edit: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16267-mindreading-software-could-record-your-dreams.html

 

Thanks for this information, its quite impressive (if this can be validated by independent researchers).

 

It is still a very big jump from a specific word or picture to being able to determine exactly how someone is adjusting an intrincate set of beliefs regarding a very complex issue such as the death penalty within their brain, so I'm still not accepting the findings as conclusive, but perhaps compelling isn't such a wrong choice of words. As technology improves who knows what may eventually become possible?

Edited December 1, 2009 by SH3RL0CK
correct typos

[Mr Skeptic]

Well it does make sense. People who worship God are supposed to derive their morals from Him. It would be quite contradictory for them to have different morals than what they perceive that God would have. The two must always point in the same direction. Any change in a perception of what God would want would immediately be followed by a change in what they believe to be right. Likewise, any change in what they themselves believe to be right must be accompanied by a change in what they perceive God would want, or a rejection of God as their moral standard. Only by rejecting God as their moral standard could they then believe to be right something different then they believe God would want.

 

The same effect would, I suspect, apply to any person and his moral compass, even a non-religious one like utilitarianism. Were you to modify what a utilitarian person believes to be right, would they not then say that such would provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

 

A moral compass does not "point north", it "points where you should go".

[bigbadjesus]

All that really means is that the same areas of the brain which we use to try to perceive what other people are thinking we use to try to perceive what god (or if you want to be more accurate, the consciousness of the universe) is 'thinking.'

[Mr Skeptic]

All that really means is that the same areas of the brain which we use to try to perceive what other people are thinking we use to try to perceive what god (or if you want to be more accurate, the consciousness of the universe) is 'thinking.'

 

Nope, actually you missed the major point of the study, which was that they use the same area for self and for God, rather than the area for other people for God.

[bigbadjesus]

Nope, actually you missed the major point of the study, which was that they use the same area for self and for God, rather than the area for other people for God.

 

I haven't slept just yet so excuse me, but yeah, thats what I meant to say. I did read the entire article.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

On the other hand, one could take this to confirm the idea that "God is inside of us all."

[ydoaPs]

On the other hand, one could take this to confirm the idea that "God is inside of us all."

 

Although that conclusion pretty much ignores the study as it was seen that "God"'s opinion changed with the test subject, but the opinion of other people from the POV of the test subject didn't. That coupled with "God"'s opinion being different from person to person really makes the idea you stated the equivalent of "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA."

[iNow]

On the other hand, one could take this to confirm the idea that "God is inside of us all."

 

Which one, and what are its characteristics? Therein lies another message from this study. It's little more than ambiguously defined three letter word which we all define based on our own thoughts, perceptions, and outlooks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

According to the born-again Christian evangelist I talked to a few weeks ago, most people do not in fact worship God but a false idol they create that is okay with their sins. So their "God" is created by them, hence its views are created by their mind. For the people who worship the "real" God, He's inside them.

[ydoaPs]

According to the born-again Christian evangelist I talked to a few weeks ago, most people do not in fact worship God but a false idol they create that is okay with their sins. So their "God" is created by them, hence its views are created by their mind. For the people who worship the "real" God, He's inside them.

 

And this guy worships the 'real' God. How convenient for him!

[vordhosbn]

Isn't trying to explain a matter of faith by scientific method flawed to begin with?

[ydoaPs]

Isn't trying to explain a matter of faith by scientific method flawed to begin with?

 

Not necessarily. I can have faith that the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it out of bounds for the scientific method to explain whether or not the moon is made of cheese.

 

To which matter of faith are you referring?

[vordhosbn]

Well, i am talking to the kind of faith that is often(but not always) associated with relligion, more specificaly the faith in some higher being, somehow affecting our reality.

[ydoaPs]

How does that relate to the thread?

[john5746]

It would be interesting to see more subjects and breakdown by fundie, moderate, atheist. For example, I think of Jesus being much more forgiving in some situations than I, but less tolerant in other situations. But, I also know some moderate Christians who profess similar sentiments - especially with the more forgiving side.

 

Of course, I would think most people would want to share the same moral standards as their god or mentor.

[vordhosbn]

How does that relate to the thread?

I'am trying to say, that if the concept of "God" can be completely different from person to person, and if it can include some things that are unprovable by definition, trying to "science out" a "believer" is a battle already lost. Not only that, but in my opinion it's not moraly justified to try to.

[ydoaPs]

I'am trying to say, that if the concept of "God" can be completely different from person to person, and if it can include some things that are unprovable by definition, so trying to "science out" a "believer" is a battle already lost. Not only that, but in my opinion it's not moraly justified to try to.

 

I'm still not seeing what that has to do with this thread.

[john5746]

I'am trying to say, that if the concept of "God" can be completely different from person to person, and if it can include some things that are unprovable by definition, trying to "science out" a "believer" is a battle already lost. Not only that, but in my opinion it's not moraly justified to try to.

 

So, you think the scientific knowledge that we have acquired in the last 500 years hasn't had any effect on religious belief? Really?

 

Also, it isn't just a YES/NO question. It is immoral to leave people in ignorance, for example: believing that sickness comes from sin, etc.

Edited December 18, 2009 by john5746
changed required to acquired. ugh

[vordhosbn]

I consider confidence of many people in science to be kind of religion itself. Most people does not have the needed educational basis to truly understand some scientific ideas, and yet, they act upon them, "believing" them to be true, on the sole basis of authority. So in a way, belief in science has replaced belief in God. I have noticed that in Bulgaria, for example (i don't know if it is similar around the world), there are many articles in media beginning "american/russian/british scientists have discovered" and then something completely ridiculous follows, or at least largely pulled out of context. Many people don't question such "research", and take such claims as proven truth. I would say, that such behaviour is pretty simillar, if not identical, to organized relligions.

Edited December 18, 2009 by vordhosbn

[iNow]

I consider confidence of many people in science to be kind of religion itself.

Therein lies your problem. You have a flawed understanding of science.

 

 

Most people does not have the needed educational basis to truly understand some scientific ideas, and yet, they act upon them, "believing" them to be true, on the sole basis of authority.

Nonsense. They accept these things based on evidence, and are perfectly willing to change their minds if evidences suggests that previous understandings were flawed.

 

 

So in a way, belief in science has replaced belief in God.

Not quite. Science has proven a better method at understanding our universe, and has led to much more significant progress and advancement than belief in god.

 

Also, for what it's worth, belief in god and religiosity are inversely proportional with education. In other words, the declining belief in god has less to do with science and more to do with a better educated populace. It also has to do with the fact that there is relative safety and security in our society (societies with more strife and problems tend to more often believe in god than those which are stable).

 

 

Many people don't question such "research", and take such claims as proven truth.

That also has nothing to do with science, and is instead related to that group of people who are too ignorant to question why they accept what they do.

 

 

I would say, that such behaviour is pretty simillar, if not identical, to organized relligions.

And that is because you are arguing against a great big giant strawman.

[vordhosbn]

I think, you may have totally misunderstood me. I do not question the objectivity and credibility of science and by saying "confidence of many people in science" I do not refer to the obviously educated audience of this forum, but rather to the more general population, which has poor understanding of the scientific principles, they believe in. I want again to put an emphasis, that i am not saying science is as credible as religion, but the general audience's understanding of it is at the same level, as the belief of early civilizations of God. If the village elders say there are gods, it must be true. If the "smart russian scientists" have discovered something, who am I to argue.

Basically what I am trying to say, is that most people just look for explanation of the world around them, and they turn with passion to science, as they do to religion.