People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

[Villain]

Aren't we all broken in some sense?

Edited April 10, 2012 by Villain

[Phi for All]

I can understand faith. It seems to be the single uniform aspect of most religions, the belief in something that can't be directly observed.

 

I think worshiping a specific god in a specific way means you have to deny the validity of such worship when others do it for a different god, religion or sect. That's the part that seems broken to me. They can't all be right so how do you make the choice between them without some kind of irrational, broken judgement?

[Ophiolite]

I would rather say that they are directed by a combination of genetic and cultural influences towards a pattern of behaviour that has often been highly productive in the development and maintenance of civilisation. As with all such behavioural expressions resulting from nature and nurture the results are not always highly productive.

[Villain]

I can understand faith. It seems to be the single uniform aspect of most religions, the belief in something that can't be directly observed.

 

I think worshiping a specific god in a specific way means you have to deny the validity of such worship when others do it for a different god, religion or sect. That's the part that seems broken to me. They can't all be right so how do you make the choice between them without some kind of irrational, broken judgement?

 

Probably in the same way you would test a scientific claim, by measuring if it delivers what it promises.

[Phi for All]

Probably in the same way you would test a scientific claim, by measuring if it delivers what it promises.

The one thing I do know about God is that you can't use science to measure something that refuses to be observed in any scientifically meaningful way.

 

 

 

 

I've answered the way I have in order to avoid the personal attack angle inherent in the title. Decisions can be of a broken nature, but the people who make them are not inherently broken, imo.

[swansont]

I too have qualms with the title and begging the question, but I also think there's a broader reach to it. I think you have to include any superstition or belief that isn't testable. Are people who have a lucky pair of socks broken?

 

And I think my answer to that is "no". People want answers and people don't have time to empirically test every bit if understanding that comes along. We make shortcuts and simplify reasoning when it is expedient to do so, because nuanced though takes time. People can believe in a supreme being because they don't take the time to examine the situation (and they might not change their mind even should they do so) and what of someone who is uneducated and does not possess the skills to develop scientific understanding? It's not surprising to me that the conviction of religious belief tends to drop off with education levels.

 

There's also the poverty correlation, the details of which are discussed elsewhere, and that also comes with a poverty correlation with poor education. So the question becomes whether someone who is possibly poor and uneducated is broken because they believe in a god? Or that if they jump up, twirl around three times and spit after seeing a diseased person, that they won't get sick? Decidedly not.

Edited April 10, 2012 by swansont
typo/clarity

[ydoaPs]

Do people who have a lucky pair of socks broken?

 

Yes. Everyone knows the only lucky article of clothing is the "tighty-whitey".

[Phi for All]

Confirmation bias, and particularly attitude polarization, can often make some beliefs firmer when we're presented with contrary evidence. That seems broken to me, but then that's applicable to any situation where opinion or belief is in question, not just religion.

[Villain]

The one thing I do know about God is that you can't use science to measure something that refuses to be observed in any scientifically meaningful way.

 

 

 

 

I've answered the way I have in order to avoid the personal attack angle inherent in the title. Decisions can be of a broken nature, but the people who make them are not inherently broken, imo.

 

 

The basis of measurement would depend on what the religion is offering, but using science in the form of an experiment would probably not be a valid form of measurement as you have already stated.

 

I too have qualms with the title and begging the question, but I also think there's a broader reach to it. I think you have to include any superstition or belief that isn't testable. Do people who have a lucky pair of socks broken?

 

And I think my answer to that is "no". People want answers and people don't have time to empirically test every bit if understanding that comes along. We make shortcuts and simplify reasoning when it is expedient to do so, because nuanced though takes time. People can believe in a supreme being because they don't take the time to examine the situation (and they might not change their mind even should they do so) and what of someone who is uneducated and does not possess the skills to develop scientific understanding? It's not surprising to me that the conviction of religious belief tends to drop off with education levels.

 

There's also the poverty correlation, the details of which are discussed elsewhere, and that also comes with a poverty correlation with poor education. So the question becomes whether someone who is possibly poor and uneducated is broken because they believe in a god? Or that if they jump up, twirl around three times and spit after seeing a diseased person, that they won't get sick? Decidedly not.

 

Poverty and education might play a role in religions that ask you to be less of yourself. If I have money, which is often attributed to power, or I have worked hard to educate myself, education is hard work, I might feel entitled to think more of myself and therefore not want to give up 'me'. I have earned the right to enjoy the fruits of my labour so why should I bow down to someone else....

 

If religion is faith based, education should have little to do with it.

[iNow]

What inspired the thread is some of the arguments used to support belief in god or god(s). For example, "Because things are complex, god exists." Or, "because something cannot come from nothing, god exists." That led me to think about broken logic, and then... more simply... broken people.

[Xittenn]

I think the belief in 'God' is rooted in death, a state of being broken. People who dwell on this state are too concerned with being broken and focus on a solution that meets their needs. In all we are all broken, as there isn't a well defined state of fixed, but people who believe in God are especially broken because their belief comes directly from this state and doesn't really exist otherwise. That said I appreciate what faith has to offer even if I don't accept it. I am probably more broken, but this has nothing to do with my lack of faith!

[swansont]

Confirmation bias, and particularly attitude polarization, can often make some beliefs firmer when we're presented with contrary evidence. That seems broken to me, but then that's applicable to any situation where opinion or belief is in question, not just religion.

 

If everyone is susceptible to it, you either have to conclude that we're all broken, which is basically inconsistent (can something that has never worked be "broken"?) or that the premise is simply BS.

[iNow]

...or that brokenness is not a binary state, but exists along a spectrum...

[Xittenn]

Believers of God tend to affirm this broken nature by asking for God's redemption for being broken. If they want to label themselves I see no reason that they can not go ahead and do so. And if someone were to argue that in fact you cannot be broken if you were always broken, isn't it pretty broken to then claim to be broken if you are not?

[Phi for All]

If everyone is susceptible to it, you either have to conclude that we're all broken, which is basically inconsistent (can something that has never worked be "broken"?) or that the premise is simply BS.

Susceptibility ≠ guilty. Fighting confirmation bias is a sign of rational thought, imo. It's not always easy, but knowing you're prone to reject evidence that supports something counter to what you believe can help overcome your biases.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

iNow, you need to choose your thread titles better or at least give a bit more of an OP so as not to give the appearance of deliberately antagonising theists.
If this thread starts turning sour, it will be closed without hesitation. The flaming often found in the Religion forum needs to stop, so everyone can take this as a preemtive warning to choose your words wisely.

[Xittenn]

Science provides nothing in terms of self preservation, how is it rational to accept defeat?

[zapatos]

Everyone on this site believes in something. If you are broken for believing in God then you are broken for believing in anything else that could turn out to be untrue.

 

Anyone here believe in string theory? The Big Bang? Life on other planets? That we have been visited by aliens? That your spouse would never cheat on you? That man came out of Africa? That they know what the interior of the earth is made of?

 

What level of evidence is enough to make you believe in something? What did the scientific minds believe in 1000 years ago, or 500, or 50?

 

Something you believe in right now will turn out to be wrong. When it does you will realize you did not have sufficient evidence to believe, but that you were willing to believe anyway.

 

If theists are broken, then so is everyone else.

[iNow]

Why do you assume it is the belief characteristic that makes someone broken or not? Perhaps it's something more akin to irrational clinging to said belief, or refusal to accept contrary evidence and reject the belief as flawed, or use of nonsequitur logic to defend the belief, etc. Surely, those things are not common to all beliefs as you've just here now implied.

[zapatos]

Why do you assume it is the belief characteristic that makes someone broken or not? Perhaps it's something more akin to irrational clinging to said belief, or refusal to accept contrary evidence and reject the belief as flawed, or use of nonsequitur logic to defend the belief, etc. Surely, those things are not common to all beliefs as you've just here now implied.

I implied no such thing. You, on the other hand, are implying that they are common to all who believe in God. Surely that cannot be.

 

I am also not conceding the fact that people can be considered broken due to belief. I was stating believers are all in the same boat regardless of what it is they belive in. That is, if one set of believers can be considered broken, then so can the other set.

 

The reason I addressed the belief characteristic is because that is the only thing known to be in common between all members of all groups, whether a belief in God or a belief in the Big Bang.

 

To suggest that all people who believe in God are broken, then they must have something in common that makes them broken. The only thing they are known to have in common is belief. And they also have belief in common with people who believe in the Big Bang. We cannot say that all believers in God are irrational or refuse to accept contrary evidence, since there are so many different beliefs in God. A person who believes in the God of the bible is much different than the person who believes that God created the conditions that would allow our universe and has not been involved with us since.

 

My response would have been different if the OP had been "People who believe in God and who are irrational or refuse to accept contrary evidence are broken".

 

Of course at that point the OP could have been "People who believe in the Big Bang and who are irrational or refuse to accept contrary evidence are broken".

[iNow]

We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable. Such evidence for belief in god is absent. I find the comparison to be flawed, and any equivalence false.

 

Finally, are people who believe in god not irrational by definition?

 

(at least on this specific topic)

[zapatos]

We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable. Such evidence for belief in god is absent. I find the comparison to be flawed, and any equivalence false.

 

Finally, are people who believe in god not irrational by definition?

 

(at least on this specific topic)

Your evidence is good, their evidence is bad. Of course you will find the comparison flawed.

 

We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable to you. Such evidence for belief in God is absent for you.

 

The interpretation of the evidence pointing to the Big Bang could be flawed. Even the evidence could be flawed. The evidence is not proof, and you know that. But to you it is good enough.

 

People look at evidence of God and the interpretation of that evidence. Most know the evidence or interpretation could be flawed, but for them it is good enough.

 

You are drawing a line that says your level of required proof is sufficient for belief but their level is not. That seems exceedingly unfair to me. Why do you get to draw the line? Why not criticize everyone who believes in anything without absolute proof? Or perhaps we could accept that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about their beliefs without fear that they will be labelled as broken by those who have a higher standard of proof than they do.

 

I'm reminded of a George Carlin skit. He said that while driving, everyone feels that anyone who is going faster than them is an idiot, and anyone who is going slower than them is a jerk, and that the speed they are going is just right. Doesn't matter if I drive 60 and you drive 80, we both use the same model for determining who is and idiot and a jerk.

[A Tripolation]

We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable to you. Such evidence for belief in God is absent for you.

 

The interpretation of the evidence pointing to the Big Bang could be flawed. Even the evidence could be flawed. The evidence is not proof, and you know that. But to you it is good enough.

 

People look at evidence of God and the interpretation of that evidence. Most know the evidence or interpretation could be flawed, but for them it is good enough.

 

You are drawing a line that says your level of required proof is sufficient for belief but their level is not. That seems exceedingly unfair to me. Why do you get to draw the line? Why not criticize everyone who believes in anything without absolute proof? Or perhaps we could accept that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about their beliefs without fear that they will be labelled as broken by those who have a higher standard of proof than they do.

 

QFT. I'm tempted to make several accounts just so I can upvote this several times.

[iNow]

So, perhaps the fact that since such horrible standards of evidence are "good enough" for them is what makes them broken?