People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

I believe in God.

I do not think I am broken in any sense of the word.

IMO, it's still an interesting and thought provoking discussion to have, though. I hope you're well, trip. Cheers.

 

Did we ever define 'god' in this thread?

Has god ever been defined... anywhere?

[ydoaPs]

I believe in God.

I do not think I am broken in any sense of the word. I didn't think it on the first or second page and I do not think that now.

Therefore, your statement cannot possibly be true.

 

does not follow

[zapatos]

People who believe in god are broken. Still sounds about right, doesn't it?

Still sounds about right to you. Still sounds too broad of a statement to me.

 

IMO, it's still an interesting and thought provoking discussion to have, though.

Absolutely. I probably got more out of this discussion than any other on this site. But I think new blood is required if it is to go much further. We beat this one into the ground. I wonder what the record is for most pages in a thread. This one must be near the record. And to think the OP started with three words.

 

Has god ever been defined... anywhere?

For the purposes of this thread, it was probably best that no serious attempt to define god was made.

[Villain]

does not follow

 

Ofcourse it does:

 

I think, therefore I am ->

I do not think, therefore I am not->

I do not think that I am broken, therefore I am not broken.

[immortal]

I still have problems with the Argument from religious experiences, the common structure of the experiences experienced by different religious people following different religions like Gnostic Christianity, Tantric Buddhism, Vedic Aryans, oral traditions of Judaism shows that the idea of God cannot be dismissed so easily, even though the empirical effects of the experiences cannot prove that a particular God exists, the sense of oneness in these empirical effects proves that a numinous exists. I would very much be happy to call this divinity as a God.

 

Also as I have argued these religious acts defy evolutionary psychology and raises the natural origin of such memes through evolutionary mechanisms.

 

"These experiences often have very significant effects on people's lives, frequently inducing in them acts of extreme self-sacrifice well beyond what could be expected from evolutionary arguments. "

[iNow]

I have argued these religious acts defy evolutionary psychology and raises the natural origin of such memes through evolutionary mechanisms.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you please restate this another way? Do you mean that religious beliefs and belief in deities may have evolved and been selected for throughout human history? If not, what do you mean? If so, how does this "defy evolutionary psychology?" Thanks for any clarification or help you can offer here.

[immortal]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you please restate this another way? Do you mean that religious beliefs and belief in deities may have evolved and been selected for throughout human history? If not, what do you mean? If so, how does this "defy evolutionary psychology?" Thanks for any clarification or help you can offer here.

 

Oops sorry, it should have been.

 

 

"I have argued these religious acts defy evolutionary psychology and raises doubts about the natural origin of such memes through evolutionary mechanisms."

[John Cuthber]

Ofcourse it does:

 

I think, therefore I am ->

I do not think, therefore I am not->

I do not think that I am broken, therefore I am not broken.

Nonsense.It makes no more sense than saying

"I think therefore I am

I think I am the king of Persia therefore I am the king of Persia."

 

Nope, it's much more likely that I'm mistaken in thinking that.

And the problem with people whose minds are broken is that they might well believe that they are the king of Persia and that the sky fairy is looking after them

[immortal]

If so, how does this "defy evolutionary psychology?" Thanks for any clarification or help you can offer here.

 

Its something which I have argued in the past where I question the origin of religion and religious acts itself and argue that both evolution by natural selection and cultural evolution cannot account for such behaviours and an external divine force is acting in keeping such memes in the meme pool and also of their origins. See #86, #89 from a different thread and also this.

 

I also oppose that religion is beyond the scope of science and it is wrong for science to model religion. Evolutionary psychology of Religion and Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomena by Daniel Dennett.

 

The following argument shows why the origin of religion based upon evolutionary psychology cannot account for behaviours displayed by religious people.

 

1. No matter how strong economically and politically a religious organisation is it will try to spread its message and their beliefs and the chances that their ideas are transmitted and accepted by other people around a wide population icreases. For example :- the church will always spread the message of the Gospel.

 

2. These bad religious ideas or practices don't cost much if the members of the religion as long as they don't take their religious ideas seriously but once if they start taking those religious beliefs and practices seriously then that is where the problem starts for those selfish genes who control our psychological behaviours.

 

3. We will have a small population of people who take those unreal beliefs and practices and their only purpose in the society will be to spread their message and make others to believe in those religious practices and make them that they too take them very seiously.

 

4. This will lead to more and more people following such beliefs and such people don't serve any purpose to society in any way because they don't have any interest in propagating their genes in the gene pool nor they have any interest to do something good for the society because their only goal is to have self-realization.

 

5. This is what we observe in the history of the world and such behavious are being displayed by people even today and more and more people are leaving their families destroying the social framework and its stability making up their mind to spend rest of their energy and life to attain salvation and deliverance and that is there only aim and don't have any interest in the affairs of the world.

 

6. If this is the case then religion seems to be a very bad idea and a hindarance for those selfish genes and hence evolutionary psychology cannot account for such behaviours because such behaviours doesn't in any way help in the reproductive fitness of those individuals who display those behaviours.

 

7. If we give an alternate explanation and say they are all suffering from a psychological problem then cultural evolution should have come in to keep a check on such ideas and prevent people to not to learn such behavious but I don't see that happening and we also have to accept the fact that it was these men with psychological problems who wrote those scriptures which later turned out to be the belief systems of many of the major religions of the world and the ultimate message that is given in those scriptures is that human beings should follow and learn to become like those men who took unreal human imaginary ideas developed by selfish genes controlling our psychological behaviours so seriously so much that they lost their reproductive fitness itself.

 

8. Therefore the two natural forces natural selection and cultural evolution cannot account for the origin of religion and an origin from a higher authority like God is one of a plausible explanation which we cannot rule out very easily.

 

 

[iNow]

Oops sorry, it should have been.

 

"I have argued these religious acts defy evolutionary psychology and raises doubts about the natural origin of such memes through evolutionary mechanisms."

But that's silly.

 

Its something which I have argued in the past where I question the origin of religion and religious acts itself and argue that both evolution by natural selection and cultural evolution cannot account for such behaviours and an external divine force is acting in keeping such memes in the meme pool and also of their origins.

That seems obscenely and unnecessarily convoluted... a nasty display of painful mental gymnastics and cortical contortion... and all just so you can attempt to rationalize a pre-existing belief. Or, as I said above, silly.

[immortal]

But that's silly.

 

 

That seems obscenely and unnecessarily convoluted... a nasty display of painful mental gymnastics and cortical contortion... and all just so you can attempt to rationalize a pre-existing belief. Or, as I said above, silly.

 

No, its not. What's silly is how you dismiss the whole of religion as pure human imagination and fantasies of a feeble mind and state that a group of people are broken based on this pre-existing belief of yours. Its definitely not as simple as that. Religious experiences even though its rare induce an irrevocable change in people lives which cannot be explained using natural causes. These religious experiences are not evidence of anything but evidence of empirical effects itself.

 

If you remain agnostic and if you investigate such cases by being in their shoes and look at things from their perspective you will realize that its not as simple as you think it is to conclude that they are somehow broken.

 

 

 

[iNow]

Religious experiences even though its rare induce an irrevocable change in people lives which cannot be explained using natural causes.

Except, it CAN be explained using natural causes. Just because you are ignorant of those causes or just because you choose to ignore them does NOT mean they do not exist.

 

If you remain agnostic and if you investigate such cases by being in their shoes and look at things from their perspective you will realize that its not as simple as you think it is to conclude that they are somehow broken.

Why do assume I have not done this already, and simply arrived at a different conclusion than you?

[immortal]

Except, it CAN be explained using natural causes. Just because you are ignorant of those causes or just because you choose to ignore them does NOT mean they do not exist.

 

That doesn't mean the idea of God is a pure imagination either.

 

Why do assume I have not done this already, and simply arrived at a different conclusion than you?

 

Its simply because of your vitriolic position on religion. If you had really investigated it, the conclusion should have been a little more honest.

 

 

 

MYSTICISM is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance.

 

 

A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behavior, and strong communities are essential for human happiness. And yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct and politically ruinous. While spiritual experience is clearly a natural propensity of the human mind, we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it. Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith.

 

- Sam Harris, End of Faith

[iNow]

Its simply because of your vitriolic position on religion. If you had really investigated it, the conclusion should have been a little more honest.

I'm not sure if "honest" is the right word here, especially since I am incredibly authentic with my thoughts on this topic. With that said, perhaps you will elaborate why you think I should have arrived at a different conclusion than I have?

 

By the way, your own quote from Harris contradicts the argument you're trying to make. You specifically mentioned religion. Harris was talking about the numinous and nuanced nature of consciousness. I was talking about belief in god(s), not religion. Your point fails on a few different levels.

Edited November 29, 2012 by iNow

[jp255]

iNow, do you think all deity believers to be broken or only a subpopulation of people within this group? This has probably been discussed somewhere within this thread, but it is so huge it'd be hard to find.

[iNow]

iNow, do you think all deity believers to be broken or only a subpopulation of people within this group? This has probably been discussed somewhere within this thread, but it is so huge it'd be hard to find.

It's a good question, and has been discussed, but as you said... This is a monster thread with a massive amount of posts, so it's cool that you ask again. I don't mind.

 

The basic conclusion we came to was that everybody is broken in some way, that these breaks differ in magnitude, but that certain types of breaks have a broader impact on society itself. The argument was made that belief in god(s) is a fairly specific "type of broken" and that the nature of this type of break is really quite profound. Oversimplifying for a moment, there is a certain level of dissonance required to maintain such a belief and to live ones life as if the entire universe revolves around such a baseless and unsupported worldview... a worldview and assertion that posits some all powerful consciousness or first cause for which there is neither empirical support nor even a clear concise definition (to help make the point more clear with a very remedial comparison, the word "god" is functionally equivalent to the word "garffenflozzip" ... it's fuzzy and ambiguous and ill-defined). A further challenge with this is that it is not only belief in the absence of evidence, but often belief in direct contradiction to evidence... an approach to existence that is rather broken.

 

Following this same line of thought, another topic that has come up here is how faith is perhaps the single worst reason to accept something as true. We spent a lot of time battling back attempts by theists to misuse the term faith. A very focused attempt was made to conflate "acceptance based on evidence and reason" with "faith in the religious sense." Essentially, some here tried to suggest that scientists have faith just as much as theists... They basically tried to conflate ones "faith that the sun will come up tomorrow" with ones "faith that an omnipotent omnipresent sky dictator controls the movements of quarks and cares whether you masturbate or eat beef." They tried to pretend that these were equivalent when they are clearly not. The former position is a reasonable conclusion based on past experience and overwhelmingly consistent evidence, and it is also a position that held provisionally and would be quickly abandoned if demonstrated to be false. One would change their mind and concede to being mistaken if the sun did not, in fact, rise tomorrow. That is not "faith." That is a provisional acceptance of an event as probable based on remarkably consistent past experiences. The latter, however, (this "faith in a deity") is the acceptance of a wholly unsupported personal wish... acceptance in the most absolute terms possible... that the equivalent of a fairy tale character or mythological figure is watching over us... a wish that is neither rooted in evidence nor diminished by it.

 

At the barest level, my assertion is that this type of thinking is broken. I stipulate without argument that we are all broken in various ways, but I contend that belief in god(s) is a very particular and profound type of broken... and I supplement this contention by sharing that this type of broken thinking is something that impacts all of us who share this finite existence together on this finite planet with other finite beings.

 

I've probably missed a lot of important nuance and counter points from the thread, and likely oversimplified my position so much that I am open to new lines of attack from those who disagree, but the above are some of the key points that I've tried to convey throughout it. Hope that helps. Cheers.

[ydoaPs]

What's silly is how you dismiss the whole of religion as pure human imagination and fantasies

 

 

Yes, it's far less silly to dismiss the whole of religion except one as pure human imagination and fantasy and disagree about which is the exception to the rule.

[jp255]

It's a good question, and has been discussed, but as you said... This is a monster thread with a massive amount of posts, so it's cool that you ask again. I don't mind.

 

The basic conclusion we came to was that everybody is broken in some way, that these breaks differ in magnitude, but that certain types of breaks have a broader impact on society itself. The argument was made that belief in god(s) is a fairly specific "type of broken" and that the nature of this type of break is really quite profound. Oversimplifying for a moment, there is a certain level of dissonance required to maintain such a belief and to live ones life as if the entire universe revolves around such a baseless and unsupported worldview... a worldview and assertion that posits some all powerful consciousness or first cause for which there is neither empirical support nor even a clear concise definition (to help make the point more clear with a very remedial comparison, the word "god" is functionally equivalent to the word "garffenflozzip" ... it's fuzzy and ambiguous and ill-defined). A further challenge with this is that it is not only belief in the absence of evidence, but often belief in direct contradiction to evidence... an approach to existence that is rather broken.

 

Following this same line of thought, another topic that has come up here is how faith is perhaps the single worst reason to accept something as true. We spent a lot of time battling back attempts by theists to misuse the term faith. A very focused attempt was made to conflate "acceptance based on evidence and reason" with "faith in the religious sense." Essentially, some here tried to suggest that scientists have faith just as much as theists... They basically tried to conflate ones "faith that the sun will come up tomorrow" with ones "faith that an omnipotent omnipresent sky dictator controls the movements of quarks and cares whether you masturbate or eat beef." They tried to pretend that these were equivalent when they are clearly not. The former position is a reasonable conclusion based on past experience and overwhelmingly consistent evidence, and it is also a position that held provisionally and would be quickly abandoned if demonstrated to be false. One would change their mind and concede to being mistaken if the sun did not, in fact, rise tomorrow. That is not "faith." That is a provisional acceptance of an event as probable based on remarkably consistent past experiences. The latter, however, (this "faith in a deity") is the acceptance of a wholly unsupported personal wish... acceptance in the most absolute terms possible... that the equivalent of a fairy tale character or mythological figure is watching over us... a wish that is neither rooted in evidence nor diminished by it.

 

At the barest level, my assertion is that this type of thinking is broken. I stipulate without argument that we are all broken in various ways, but I contend that belief in god(s) is a very particular and profound type of broken... and I supplement this contention by sharing that this type of broken thinking is something that impacts all of us who share this finite existence together on this finite planet with other finite beings.

 

I've probably missed a lot of important nuance and counter points from the thread, and likely oversimplified my position so much that I am open to new lines of attack from those who disagree, but the above are some of the key points that I've tried to convey throughout it. Hope that helps. Cheers.

Thanks alot for the summary, this thread was made long before I joined (I only just noticed the search option too). It's a very interesting topic, and I do agree with your statements in the second last paragraph.

[zapatos]

Thanks alot for the summary, this thread was made long before I joined (I only just noticed the search option too). It's a very interesting topic, and I do agree with your statements in the second last paragraph.

I think iNow did a very good job of summarizing this thread. If I remember correctly I believe the majority of participants in this thread agreed that a subset of believers could be excuded from the deserving the title 'broken'. That includes people who do not have the maturity, training, education, etc., to think logically for themselves. An example being children who are told by their parents that God exists, much like they are told by their parents that Santa Claus exists. Once we moved past children the concensus rapidly evaporated.

 

I would also like to point out that individually, there were participants in this thread whose view of the statement "People who believe in God are broken", ran from 'completely agree' to 'completely disagree', with plenty of positions in between.

 

From my own perspective, I feel that in order to be considered 'broken' you must be unable or unwilling to critically contemplate god's existence. I feel there are many who are never challenged or bother to do so, even as adults.

 

I used to believe that the US was primarily responsible for the downfall of Germany in WWII, mainly because that is how it was always presented to me as a kid. It wasn't until I started reading history on my own that I understood the impact of Russia on Germany's ability to fight. I don't feel I was 'broken' for my misguided belief prior to a more mature review of history.

[Moontanman]

I have been both a follower of this thread and a participant and broken accurately describes some theists as well as some non theists. I am going to use A Tripolation as an example of a relatively reasonable theist, Trip is someone I wouldn't mind living close to, I wouldn't expect him to try and convert me, I doubt he is going to break our laws of civilization to please his god. I don't understand why he believes in a god much less a specific god but I don't see him as part of the set of people who think that his version of God is some sort of all powerful being and no one else's God deserves any respect at all. If all theists were like Trip i doubt we would have been able to maintain this discussion for so many pages.

 

I do wonder how such a reasonable person can maintain his faith in something that has no evidentiary support but as i said he doesn't seem to be one of the my way or die and burn in hell types much less be one of those willing to help anyone who doesn't believe like he does to make that journey to hell...

 

What i am trying to say is that i respect Trip as a person even if i don't respect his beliefs. I could not label Trip as broken or delusional.

 

However there is a set of theists who are broken in a significant way, mostly i attribute this to YECs but even those who who don't worship a book can fall into this category.

 

I divide them in this manner, there is a group of theists who really don't understand why there is even a debate. They have been raised in a virtual vacuum and no real challenge of theism has ever been part of their lives. They simply believe what their religious leaders tell them and seldom if ever attempt to check out the details to see if they line up.

 

I can't call these people broken either, they are simply ignorant and see no reason to even consider gaining knowledge about their ideas about god. I think this group is steadily becoming smaller but at one time they were the largest group.

 

Then there are people who believe despite any problems of reality vs dogma, they seem to think that this is due to our lack of ability to understand and see no reason to pursue knowledge that is not a part of their belief system. They cannot see the connection between science and reality vs dogma and usually think the problem is due to humans lack of enough intelligence to understand the dogma.

 

Then there are people who think that science is flawed and is missing a supernatural reality that cannot be seen and touched, measured or experienced outside of religion. Often these people are quite out spoken but still mostly harmless and other wise reasonable people.

 

Then you have people who genuinely think science is misleading everyone and being used by Satan or some other power to mislead people purposely in an effort to actively oppose god. These people can be dangerous and often they try to impose their beliefs on others.

 

Then you have the people who think that actively lying in support of their dogma is not just ok but demanded by their dogma. They often mislead and misdirect people thinking that winning the battle against science or the negative power that opposes god is more important than any thing else.

 

Yet another group knows they are lying and they do so to make money and gain power. They will lie, cheat, mislead, and distort reality in any way they can to convert people so they can gain money and power. No matter how many times they are shown they are decimating lies they don't care and will continue to do so.

 

I am sure this list can be fused together and broken up in many ways but i see this as a pretty much fundamental break down of types of theists...

[tar]

Thread,

 

New blood, I can not give to the thread, I have probably said most of what I have to say already. However, there is a theory I have, that I have been skirting around, that I would like to attempt to put into words, for assessment.

 

Each of us, is aware of ourselves, others, and a context in which we are born into, exist and are subsequently removed from.

 

There therefore exists, in each of our consciousnesses, an awareness of all three. The actor, the stage, and the story.

 

Since we have the ability to know and care about our situation as viewer, participant and stake holder, ownership of any and all of the possible perspectives, is not an unreasonable assumption. That is, we can put ourselves into the shoes of any viewer, of any participant, and of any writer/producer/director that we can imagine.

 

When the passengers of flight 83 brought down the plane headed for a Washington target. they were aware of the larger story, other participants...a reality that was important and their responsibility, regardless of their continued existence in it.

 

This is proof to me, of a recognition that people can have, in "life after death". Not their own, but life non-the-less. Recognition, "belief" that the freedom and strength and values symbolized by, and brought into reality and maintained in Washington D.C. were "worth" dying for, to protect. The question then becomes "worth it" to whom? Friends, family, society, future generations... The statement is made to speak to all of humanity, to say to America's enemies "we have a good way, and will not have it taken away. A larger story. Greater than the lives of any person or planefull of people.

 

Theory is, we each have aligned ourselves with a greater story, by choice or circumstance. We care about how it turns out...regardless of our personal presence in the next act. We arrange our lives, our associations, our thoughts and actions, to be consistent with the way we would like to see the story go.

 

When a large group of people are following the same script, as in nations, companies, religions , "special interests groups", universities, philanthropic organizations, secret societies, scientific communities, and associations of all types, it brings into actual, empirical reality, a "consciousness" that is greater than the consciousness of any one of the participants. A consciousness that outlives and outshines its current members.

 

In this theory, God is the producer, director, story teller, the audience, and the critic...that an individual puts him/herself, in the shoes of.

 

And the characteristics and concerns that I place in this unseen other are bound to differ from those that you place in this unseen other. If I try to define this soul, it will fall woefully short of your expectations. And your description will not live up to my picture...unless we agree that we might be talking about the same soul, that trumps any individual's picture.

 

So the theory I am trying to lay out here, is that religion sets a name, and a framework, and specifics on the numinous, that we all, already are intimately familiar with. And in so much as this is an attempt at unifying individual knowledge of existence, and its unfathomable size and complexity and duration, with collective concerns along those lines, it is not necessarily "broken" to believe in the collective wisdom of the teachers and mystics who, from an objective viewpoint, are, and have been viewing this situation from a human's perspective, and we (even as atheists) can not offer any different perspective than that.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 30, 2012 by tar

[jp255]

I would also like to point out that individually, there were participants in this thread whose view of the statement "People who believe in God are broken", ran from 'completely agree' to 'completely disagree', with plenty of positions in between.

 

From my own perspective, I feel that in order to be considered 'broken' you must be unable or unwilling to critically contemplate god's existence. I feel there are many who are never challenged or bother to do so, even as adults.

 

I used to believe that the US was primarily responsible for the downfall of Germany in WWII, mainly because that is how it was always presented to me as a kid. It wasn't until I started reading history on my own that I understood the impact of Russia on Germany's ability to fight. I don't feel I was 'broken' for my misguided belief prior to a more mature review of history.

 

I agree with your perspective and your thoughts on broken, except for one change that I would make. I would remove "unable" from that sentence, since if someone is not aware that their belief might be false they do not have the choice to correct it (and if they did have the choice, how do I know that they wouldn't correct the belief?). Such a person would fall under the "unable" category and so I couldn't call someone broken for that. I, too, would also imagine there are people who have not critically analysed their own belief.

 

Your example about your misguided belief is an interesting one and raises the question "Why shouldn't we then take the broken description and apply it to other instances of belief justified with no evidence?" I wouldn't call you broken for your misguided belief, simply because I'd imagine that you weren't aware that your belief could be wrong. Until you read up on history, you had a genuine belief that you willingly did correct when you were able to critically question that belief. The ability to (and being in a state of awareness to) critically question a belief is something which, IMO, is not under our control as I think there are various factors which can influence it (education for instance). For this reason I don't consider the inability to question a belief as broken, instead I only consider unwillingness to question/correct as broken.

 

Would I consider someone unwilling to correct the belief that santa is real as broken?. maybe If were a character called Scrooge.

Edited November 30, 2012 by jp255

[MonDie]

Wow, this is still going!

 

The link I posted a while back might have been misleading. That video was part of a conference, and Dan Batson also spoke at that conference. He spoke about evidence suggesting that intrinsically religious people are actually more prejudiced than the extrinsics, but they try to hide it. In the experiment that provided that evidence, he also used a quest religiosity scale. He found that quest religiosity people truly are less prejudiced.

Here is the presentation. iNow might enjoy the statistics in the beginning.

 

Anyway, the various measures used for measuring religious belief suggest something. Religious belief is multi-dimensional, and each dimension has a different relationship to how you think and behave. This implies a lesson about analytical thought. You can argue that a particular aspect of religion might account for some behaviour observed among religious people. However, when you observe a correlation involving a vaguely defined variable (religiosity), you should pick apart that variable to figure out what it is about the variable that is relevant.

 

Anyway, I would say it is broken to be prejudiced and in denial about that prejudice. It's a sort of personal inconsistency.

Then again, hiding your prejudice isn't the same as being in denial about it.

It keeps changing my devil emoticon into the grinning emoticon. So, if there is an inappropriate grinning emoticon, it's there because of a software malfunction.

 

 

People who believe in god are broken. Still sounds about right, doesn't it?

You're right if holding an irrational belief is brokenness. Brokenness is not objective. Thinking something can be broken implies a preconceived concept of what it means to be in working order.

 

Ahhh, but here is a question. Is it ever conducive to a functioning society that some people hold irrational beliefs? If that is ever the case, how can part of the machine be considered broken if it's doing what it needs to do for the machine to function?

 

Imagine this. Somebody wants to blow up a bunch of people with their own self, but you tell them they will go to hell after the explosion. Granted, the religious belief might make them do some malfunctional things in the future, but I think such harms would be outweighed by their beneficent decision to not blow everyone up.

 

The evidence suggests that, compared to theists, atheists aren't any less motivated to behave ethically. However, this doesn't say anything about the cause-and-effect relationships between religious beliefs and ethical behaviours. There is evidence that people who believe in angry gods (as opposed to friendly gods) are less likely to cheat at a game. I'll concede, that's the only cause-and-effect suggestive evidence I know of. Nonetheless, maybe us atheists could become even more ethically inclined by believing in gods.

 

I used to believe that the US was primarily responsible for the downfall of Germany in WWII, mainly because that is how it was always presented to me as a kid. It wasn't until I started reading history on my own that I understood the impact of Russia on Germany's ability to fight. I don't feel I was 'broken' for my misguided belief prior to a more mature review of history.

You were misinformed, not broken. You were simply doing your best (or not) with the information you had.

 

Alternatively, we could say that you were broken, but through no fault of your own.

 

 

And the characteristics and concerns that I place in this unseen other are bound to differ from those that you place in this unseen other. If I try to define this soul, it will fall woefully short of your expectations. And your description will not live up to my picture...unless we agree that we might be talking about the same soul, that trumps any individual's picture.

 

So the theory I am trying to lay out here, is that religion sets a name, and a framework, and specifics on the numinous, that we all, already are intimately familiar with. And in so much as this is an attempt at unifying individual knowledge of existence, and its unfathomable size and complexity and duration, with collective concerns along those lines, it is not necessarily "broken" to believe in the collective wisdom of the teachers and mystics who, from an objective viewpoint, are, and have been viewing this situation from a human's perspective, and we (even as atheists) can not offer any different perspective than that.

 

I am digging this post. Yes, it is beneficial for people to understand where others are coming from. Alienation is bad for everyone. If I understand correctly, you are saying that people need to share common understandings to avoid alienation. The benefit of this is that people are more effective as a group.

 

You say that belief in God can serve as a common understanding. You also seem to imply that the human perspective is a common understanding.

I don't know whether or not a shared belief in God provides a greater sense of common understanding. The same result might be achieved be emphasising that we are all human. Actually, emphasizing the human perspective could actually yield better results because it has more potential for inclusion. i.e. everyone is seeing from the human perspective, theists and atheists alike.

 

However, something important to note is the phenomenon called group-think. Profound disagreements can create the friction that drives progressive thought.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[tar]

Mondays Assignment: Die,

 

I did not finish the talk you linked. It had no progress bar, or time listed, and I sort of like to know, how long the speaker has, to get to the point.

 

Anyway, the studies cited seemed to be basing their measure of religiousity on church attendence. This is somehow not what I have been talking about in this discussion. I have been looking at it from a personal philosophy type of point of view, and trying to "understand" what a person might "mean" by believing in God. And consequently attempting to psychoanylize myself, and a "standard" hypothetical human, in terms of what would be "normal" to believe in, and what would be broken, or indicate a brokeness in one way or another.

 

With the studies' taking religiousity as church attendance, the question then becomes, in my thinking, more of a social question, than a personal question of existence and belief in or non-belief, in a consciousness that controls the universe.

 

In this, the arguments against belief in God, as belief in non-existent sky pixies, do not really address the issue. In the social context, it is the belief in a common spirit, that is understood by all, that takes the cake. Like Santa Claus, you can know he is pretend, and does not exist, and still feel the Christmas spirit, around Christmas time, when everybody else is thinking along the same lines, lighting lights, and decking the halls with boughs of holly, and getting together and sharing song and food, companionship and gifts.

 

The fact that Reindeer don't fly, and there is no workshop at the North Pole where Santa and his elves toil to make all the gifts, has no real bearing on whether or not Christmas spirit is real.

 

More likely, in the studies, is the fact that when people get together with the same people every week, at church, and recite the same words and talk about the same ideas, and read from the same book, and sing from the same hymnals, there will be a tendency to align oneself with people that know the same stuff, and somewhat shy away from people that go by different rituals. It is in this social sense, where I think intolerance and prejudice might be bred. Same kind of intolerance that is exhibited between Yankee and Red Sox fans, who might, out of the stadium, get along perfectly well.

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

I'm not sure if "honest" is the right word here, especially since I am incredibly authentic with my thoughts on this topic. With that said, perhaps you will elaborate why you think I should have arrived at a different conclusion than I have?

 

I think DrDNA made a few very good points in the beginning of the thread.

 

Add to that the fact that quantum theory and the supernatural are quickly converging.

 

It's only a matter of time.

 

 

JohnC11 wrote: Ponder this: In the quantum world things don't exist until they are observed by a consciousness. Einstein tried his darnedest to refute that but science has thus far shown his objections to be unsubstantiated. Keep an open mind to all possibilities. The universe is stranger than we think it is!

So I really find your extreme intolerance towards religion quite unnecessary and claiming that people who believe in God are broken is definitely a dishonesty on your part.

 

By the way, your own quote from Harris contradicts the argument you're trying to make. You specifically mentioned religion. Harris was talking about the numinous and nuanced nature of consciousness. I was talking about belief in god(s), not religion. Your point fails on a few different levels.

 

Religion <=> Deities <=> Consciousness are all interconnected.