People who believe in god are broken

[the asinine cretin]

In that case I don't think you even need to get into the demarcation problem. One is a substantiated, if provisional, claim based on empirical data (i.e., the inference of the approximate number of baryons in the observable universe), the other is hardly different, epistemologically, from belief in the events documented in Gulliver's Travels. These things don't even enter the realm of rational discourse to begin with. Mohammed talks to beings from outer space (or some shit - whatever they think heaven is) and rides on a magic flying donkey? These are claims that some would want us to take seriously, and they'll dog on scientific insight to advance this petty cause? I can only laugh and cry.

 

Oh, and not only are people supposed to take this seriously and believe, but this (the angel thing anyway) is the basis of one of the most prominent cultural phenomena in the world - namely, Islam. The Book of Mormon was magically received and written down, or translated; the Bible was "inspired" in some sense that even professional theologians have a hard time actually defining much less substantiating. (It seems to me that inspiration is basically a thought-terminating cliche among intelligent Christians and merely a superstition among fundamentalists.) And the like. Magical holy books in the 21st century? Societies dominated by the teachings of these ancient tales? How does this make any sense at all? Even if these books didn't reek of their human origins, what the heck? Who can explain this to me?

 

Edit to add: Insofar as this is snide, I apologize. I'm not trying to be a dick. (Maybe it comes naturally.)

Edited May 26, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[Iggy]

In that case I don't think you even need to get into the demarcation problem. One is a substantiated, if provisional, claim based on empirical data (i.e., the inference of the approximate number of baryons in the observable universe), the other is hardly different, epistemologically, from belief in the events documented in Gulliver's Travels. Mohammed talks to beings from outer space (or some shit - whatever they think heaven is) and rides on a magic flying donkey? These are claims that some would want us to take seriously, and they'll dog on scientific insight to advance this petty cause? I can only laugh.

 

Edit to add: Insofar as this is snide, I apologize. I'm not trying to be a dick. (Maybe it comes naturally.)

If you're apologizing to me I can assure you there's no need.

 

The problem with your reaction is that religious people don't agree that only one of the claims is empirical. People will say, "yes, I know God. I experienced God." That degrades instantly into your opinion versus the religious person's opinion regarding the reality of the religious person's vision of Jesus. That's an argument you can't win.

 

Telling 80 or 90 percent of the population that you simply don't believe their experience of god because it is crazy doesn't illustrate why a belief in god is broken.

[the asinine cretin]

Telling 80 or 90 percent of the population that you simply don't believe their experience of god because it is crazy doesn't illustrate why a belief in god is broken.

I wasn't speaking of simple belief in God. My sentiment was that belief in the fantastic stories of religious traditions is not within the realm of rational discourse. I will say that the leap from an altered state/religious experience to "therefore, my favorite religious text is true," is obviously not valid. I suspect even people who believe that they experience a divine being in their lives can see that. I think the gist is that people aren't particularly reasonable and that cognitive bias reigns.

 

The problem with your reaction is that religious people don't agree that only one of the claims is empirical. People will say, "yes, I know God. I experienced God." That degrades instantly into your opinion versus the religious person's opinion regarding the reality of the religious person's vision of Jesus. That's an argument you can't win.

If a person can see that their pet supernatural/paranormal claims are of the same general kind as those made by psychics, UFO abductees, and people of other religions often with contradictory religious experience, they may face the fact that purely subjective data and a hopelessly self-referential worldview do not constitute a means of honestly understanding reality. There are mountains of reasons for seriously doubting each of the world religions. There are also many reasons for doubting the supernatural character of religious experience. This is in some ways acknowledged by some religious traditions. For example, some writings advise paying no attention to apparitions and other "extraordinary phenomena" because they may be demonic or self deceptions. Given what we now know about hallucinations, self-deception, the ease with which the mind can generate feelings such as awe, a presence, and the like, one would be irrational not to doubt even the most vivid supernatural "experiences" that could not be objectively verified in some way, which seems to be all of them. But sure, there aren't many who have the self-honesty and intellectual integrity to genuinely explore the undesirable possibilities.

 

P.S. I say this as one partial to the possibility of the supernatural.

 

P.P.S. I've just gotta give a shout out to bdwilson1000's video intro to the

. Edited May 26, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[MonDie]

That would be a fascinating discovery and it would answer the question of the thread. Belief in God could be the remnant of an instinct that is no longer functional... literally "broken".

 

Yes, it might provide some good answers, but the genetic basis for religion would probably be a complex pattern of genes, and we couldn't just rule out all of those genes as obsolete. The processes that lead to religion might be very fundamental, although they probably aren't as fundamental as reasoning since other apes have reason, but maybe not religion.

 

These are what I have thought of as possible adaptive functions.

Considering the existing evidence showing that contemplation of death reinforces religious beliefs, religion might have somehow given people more will to continue living.

Also, it might have played a role in relieving stress during illness because death wouldn't seem as bad if one thought they were going to an afterlife. It might have relieved the stress of losing loved ones too. For this concept, religion might have arisen from nurturing instincts.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

If the religious parts of our human world view come from a useful part of the world view of our ancestors I wonder, working backwards, if we could figure out what it was. A million years ago, or perhaps five, what was it about the way they lived that required an instinctual basis in thought and is expressed today as religion?

 

That would be a fascinating discovery and it would answer the question of the thread. Belief in God could be the remnant of an instinct that is no longer functional... literally "broken".

I explored this about 3 years ago here in the below thread. Unfortunately, throughout the discussion you'll see random strings of text in many of the posts. Those are Youtube video IDs that broke when the forum upgraded software (they used to play a relevant video in the post, but now do not). However, if you want to check it out, the thread is below.

 

When you see the Youtube ID in those posts, you can copy/paste it at the end of this prefix and load it to play: www.youtube.com/watch?v= <YT ID here>

 

 

How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms and Why So Many Believe in a Deity

www.scienceforums.net/topic/37248-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity/

 

EDIT: Not sure why the URL won't become clickable. Sorry.

 

EDIT: The thread was a little tense throughout because we were discussing it at a time that Religious conversations were actively disallowed here at SFN, and there was no Religion forum.

Edited May 26, 2012 by iNow

[MonDie]

P.P.S. I've just gotta give a shout out to bdwilson1000's video intro to the

.

EDIT: I'm into part ten. Most of the experiments were covered in my Social Psychology class, but we never covered Hallucinations or Anthropomorphism although those were broadly covered in PSYC101.<div>The textbook for the class was Social Psychology: Goals In Interaction (5th) (Kenrick, Neuberg, Cialdini). It was an easy class.

 

</div>

Edited May 26, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

Again... Where morals come from is a different topic, and there are different threads for that. Post reported again requesting a move.

[tar]

In that case I don't think you even need to get into the demarcation problem. One is a substantiated, if provisional, claim based on empirical data (i.e., the inference of the approximate number of baryons in the observable universe), the other is hardly different, epistemologically, from belief in the events documented in Gulliver's Travels. These things don't even enter the realm of rational discourse to begin with. Mohammed talks to beings from outer space (or some shit - whatever they think heaven is) and rides on a magic flying donkey? These are claims that some would want us to take seriously, and they'll dog on scientific insight to advance this petty cause? I can only laugh and cry.

 

Oh, and not only are people supposed to take this seriously and believe, but this (the angel thing anyway) is the basis of one of the most prominent cultural phenomena in the world - namely, Islam. The Book of Mormon was magically received and written down, or translated; the Bible was "inspired" in some sense that even professional theologians have a hard time actually defining much less substantiating. (It seems to me that inspiration is basically a thought-terminating cliche among intelligent Christians and merely a superstition among fundamentalists.) And the like. Magical holy books in the 21st century? Societies dominated by the teachings of these ancient tales? How does this make any sense at all? Even if these books didn't reek of their human origins, what the heck? Who can explain this to me?

 

Edit to add: Insofar as this is snide, I apologize. I'm not trying to be a dick. (Maybe it comes naturally.)

 

the asinine cretin,

 

I personally know the difference in character of a claim of falsifyable fact that we can all inspect together and the religious claims of imaginary flying donkeys. The later have the same laugh and cry effect on me, as they do you. But there is a large volume of reality to consider. And the most of it, lies outside my personal command. I make the assumption this is also the case for you. So from these assumptions I can join forces with you, and double (roughly speaking) the command of reality, that we could together have. The things you can show me are false, that I believed were true before comparing our knowledge, are easy for me to discard, and in the discarding, our combined knowledge of "objective" reality is increased. We can together, envision a slightly larger chunk of reality that we hold in common. And still together concede that the most of it, is NOT under our command.

 

And since we rely on each other so heavily, in commanding the small bits of reality that we do command, it is disheartening indeed to run into people who believe that flying donkeys with angels on them that have messages for us from the guy that is truely in command, are real. How can we join forces with people like that? They must be broken. They refuse to drop the pretence, even in the face of the fact that their claims CANNOT coexist, with all the other things, we together know are true. Their only resort is to negate all that we know together, as illusion. Which turns my laugh, into a cry.

 

But it begs for the question, "what command of the universe CAN I truely claim as mine?' and the next question, "what command of the universe CAN we together claim?", and the next question "who is a position to make an objective judgement on the case?"

 

Which opens the door for a "true" belief that one might join forces with the mind that commands the universe, that sets the rules, that makes the planets orbit the Sun, that commands the flowers to bloom and the rainbows to arch across the sky, and let THIS mind, who we are so obviously created by, who we are so obviously subservient to, who we are so obviously under the command of, exist...and look to this mind, to make the required objective judgement.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

it cannot be a mindless universe

Edited May 26, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

I'm not sure the scale of our knowledge surrounding reality is really relevant here. Isn't the central issue about what we positively assert as "known" versus what we hypothesize and conjecture to be possible or interesting?

[A Tripolation]

I'm not sure the scale of our knowledge surrounding reality is really relevant here. Isn't the central issue about what we positively assert as "known" versus what we hypothesize and conjecture to be possible or interesting?

 

Sure. But calling believers "broken" is an incredible jump in logic, mate. Almost fallacious. An attempt at poisoning the well, maybe?

[iNow]

Are they using broken reasoning? Yes, I think we've established that.

Are they using broken logic? Yes, I think we've established the flaws in their unfounded premises.

Are they breaking the consistency with which they approach the world? Yes, they are applying double standards and being hypocritical.

 

Am I claiming that people who do not believe in god are not broken? No.

Am I claiming that believers are broken entirely... everywhere... and in everything they do? No, and nobody else has claimed that, either.

 

However, in this context, it's really not a big stretch nor is it an "incredible jump in logic" to summarize the position as "people who believe in god are broken," especially since we've allowed the term broken to mean different things to different readers.

 

I could have asked, "Is there any good reason to accept the god conjecture as true," but then we'd still be unclear about what god meant, and have to concede that "good" is subjective.

 

I could have asked, "Is there any adequate evidence to accept the extraordinary claim that god(s) exists as true," but then we'd have gotten into the subjective discussion of what is adequate to one versus another.

 

I could have asked, "Are believers displaying double standards, accepting the extraordinary claim of god(s) as true when they would not accept other claims as true based on the same logic or evidence," but that would have been boring.

 

You can disagree, and you can think that "people who believe in god" are not broken. That's cool, but I'd like you to explain why. The point is that this is a discussion forum, and this has IMO been an engaging and interesting discussion, and impressively cordial and civil given the topic.

[zapatos]

Are they using broken reasoning? Yes, I think we've established that.

Are they using broken logic? Yes, I think we've established the flaws in their unfounded premises.

Just for clarification, I think it is important to point out that when you say "we", you are talking about a subset of the people involved in this thread.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

four posts concerning the foundation of morals have been moved into the pre-existing thread on morals.

This thread is already 44 pages long - let's continue to keep it focused. If you have an idea that needs airing but is not part of the OP please please open a new thread

[iNow]

Just for clarification, I think it is important to point out that when you say "we", you are talking about a subset of the people involved in this thread.

Let's say this another way then. "It" has been established, but some refuse to accept that despite their lack of valid counter points or refutations. Those who disagree are not approaching the discussion in good faith.

[Iggy]

I explored this about 3 years ago here in the below thread. Unfortunately, throughout the discussion you'll see random strings of text in many of the posts. Those are Youtube video IDs that broke when the forum upgraded software (they used to play a relevant video in the post, but now do not). However, if you want to check it out, the thread is below.

 

When you see the Youtube ID in those posts, you can copy/paste it at the end of this prefix and load it to play: www.youtube.com/watch?v= <YT ID here>

 

 

How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms and Why So Many Believe in a Deity

www.scienceforums.net/topic/37248-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity/

 

EDIT: Not sure why the URL won't become clickable. Sorry.

 

EDIT: The thread was a little tense throughout because we were discussing it at a time that Religious conversations were actively disallowed here at SFN, and there was no Religion forum.

Fascinating. I've got the first video -- Andy Thomson's lecture -- and the thread loaded and I'm genuinely excited to see what other people think about this

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37248-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity/

 

www.scienceforums.net/topic/37248-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity/

 

putting http:// before the url seems to make the difference

[zapatos]

Let's say this another way then. "It" has been established, but some refuse to accept that despite their lack of valid counter points or refutations. Those who disagree are not approaching the discussion in good faith.

Ouch! And I thought I was both open minded and had made valid counter points.

 

I believe you've won some battles, but you may be a little premature with the Mission Accomplished claim.

[John Cuthber]

Ouch! And I thought I was both open minded and had made valid counter points.

 

I believe you've won some battles, but you may be a little premature with the Mission Accomplished claim.

I think the assertion was "their lack of valid counter points"

and you seem to have proved it.

[zapatos]

I think the assertion was "their lack of valid counter points"

and you seem to have proved it.

How so?

[John Cuthber]

You didn't raise any counter points.

[Iggy]

If a person can see that their pet supernatural/paranormal claims are of the same general kind as those made by psychics, UFO abductees, and people of other religions often with contradictory religious experience, they may face the fact that purely subjective data and a hopelessly self-referential worldview do not constitute a means of honestly understanding reality.

That's right.

 

My point is that religious claims are of the same general kind as those made by psychics, UFO abductees, astrologers, etc. Supernatural religious claims are similar to the claims of pseudoscience because they are both unfalsifiable. Not only is that an essential reason they are similar, it is the most important and the least refutable reason they are different from scientific claims.

[zapatos]

You didn't raise any counter points.

I can't tell. Are you trying to antagonize me, or have you not been reading this thread?

[iNow]

I think you raised counter points, but they were each more than adequately addressed. Is that more fair?

[zapatos]

I think you raised counter points, but they were each more than adequately addressed. Is that more fair?

It is your evaluation of the outcome of this debate that is most troublesome. You made points and defended them against my counter points. I made points and defended them against your counter points. You still believe that your overall position is correct. I still feel that my overall position is correct.

 

Given this situation the only way I feel it is reasonable for you to declare that your position is validated is if I surrender or if an outside judge declares you the winner. I don't think it is reasonable for one of the participants to also judge the debate.

[tar]

It is your evaluation of the outcome of this debate that is most troublesome. You made points and defended them against my counter points. I made points and defended them against your counter points. You still believe that your overall position is correct. I still feel that my overall position is correct.

 

Given this situation the only way I feel it is reasonable for you to declare that your position is validated is if I surrender or if an outside judge declares you the winner. I don't think it is reasonable for one of the participants to also judge the debate.

 

Zapatos,

 

I am in agreement with you, on the basis that I am not yet satisfied either that all counter points have been fully addressed.

 

I am not so happy, for instance, with the equating of the concept of God, with the concept of the Easter Bunny.

 

Although they are both "imaginary" concepts, the role that each play in my worldview are very very hugely different.

I use again "my worldview", because its the one I have the most knowledge of, and use it, in the hope, that it is somehow understandable to other humans, that have similar equipment, that has evolved in the same environment (both gene-wise, and human culture-wise.)

 

And I entertain both the concept of the Easter Bunny, and the concept of God. Even though I characterise myself as an atheist, being that an anthropomorphic god, makes no sense to me. And because I demand of myself "reasons" for believing something to be real, I can dismiss quite easily the concept of the Easter Bunny, as I can dismiss the concept of any particular God that has impossible characteristics. Any characterization of God proposed by another, to me, is an immediate straw man, that can be taken apart with very little trouble, as soon as the proposer claims that only by faith, can you know his/her god. Proves to me only that the God mentioned is true to that person, and has come primarily from their subjective store of commonly held stories that depict as a being or beings, the totality of the world we truely know.

 

But this "totality of the world we truely know" is a concept that I hold in common with others. I would even guess that most, if not every person does "something" with this concept, and has in someway determined for themselves, their true relationship to this concept. A relationship that isn't conditional. A relationship that is real, and apparent and true, and does not require the permission of anybody, or anything else, to be the case. In my case, I feel alright about my relationship to reality and am rather sure, that while I am alive, it belongs to me and I to it, and when I die, at least it, will continue.

 

But, here is where the concept of God differs from the concept of the Easter Bunny. This concept of God is actually referring to what actually is the case, really is true, and is commonly experienced by everybody. Certainly not experienced in the same way, and certainly, going by the amount of differing opinions about its characteristics, not given the same attributes, by everybody.

So the belief in this God thing, that I, even as an Atheist, believe I can claim as mine, may be on some level, that same entity that religious people are basing their beliefs on. In which case, the Easter Bunny can't be compared to it.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

It is your evaluation of the outcome of this debate that is most troublesome. You made points and defended them against my counter points. I made points and defended them against your counter points. You still believe that your overall position is correct. I still feel that my overall position is correct.

 

Given this situation the only way I feel it is reasonable for you to declare that your position is validated is if I surrender or if an outside judge declares you the winner. I don't think it is reasonable for one of the participants to also judge the debate.

 

So you think you validated your position?