Why do believers believe?

[FM Arouet666]

Faith, to me, is nothing but fantasy. Believing in the boogie man, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny; memories of my childhood, as I matured to adulthood, I left my childish thinking behind. Why is religion different?

Talking burning bushes, reincarnation, walking on water, any different from childish fantasy? No rational human being could believe in such nonsense, unless rationality has been hijacked by a more powerful motivator.

I submit that we are all "hard wired" for rationality, an evolutionary edge against the cowering frightened hominids of our ancestry. Religion is a manifestation of resistance to our hard wiring. Nothing rational about believing in religion.

So what is the prime motivator? Love of god, care for humanity, a deep inner spirituality? Horse hockey! A very common human emotion, selfishness. A personal relationship with jesus is nothing more than a personal relationship with one’s own greedy desire to live forever. Jesus, the symbol of the most basic human desire, a more primitive hard wiring we call survival, in this life or for eternity.


:evilfrown:

[mestup]

1. "Only atheists should be allowed to run for public office."

A 93 yr old gentleman recently told me that. His simple logic (after putting in 93 years) is that "people who don't believe in Heaven would be motivated to make this life better!"

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Nobody NEEDs to believe something beyond this life, even boring lives.

Many people who lead what you would call a "boring" life have no belief there is something beyond this life that is better.

[fasttense]

20. "Everything is ultimately a matter of evidence."

That sorry old line that you have faith that your car will start, that the light will come on when you flip the switch, that the grocer will take your money.... There are hundreds of useless examples like that. They are false logic.

It is Not Faith it is Evidence that makes people believe these things. If your car didn't start when you turned the ignition you would stop doing it and take the car to the garage. If the light switch didn't turn the light on you would change the light bulb. You believe these things will happen because you have hundreds of previous examples to prove that they will happen. That is what is called evidence, not blind faith. You don't have blind faith in a magical car that starts without gas?

They need to think that there is something beyond this life that is better? Why do they need to think that? Out of boredom? That's just plain lazy. If they are bored they should do something about it. If they want something to look forward to they should make plans, learn a skill, improve the world. I think this waiting for the next life to get my reward is a way of avoiding responsibility in this life. I can't make things better, why try? I'll just wait for the next life. Sounds like a handy tool for power hungry dictators to keep people from taking action.

[trotsky]

29. You're confusing the types of faith.

Faith that your car will start is indeed based on the FACT that it has started however many times in the past, or maybe you have a rudimentary knowledge of the factors that would prevent your car from starting, and know that none of those are present, etc.

Religious faith is, as Mark Twain so perfectly put it, "believing things you know ain't so."

[FM Arouet666]

50. Deleted message

Just kidding, but I wonder what the pilgrim wrote. I hope he called me an asshole, I do so very much like to be compared to the stinky under carriage of humanity. :evilgrin:

[firefox]

2. Plenty of believers don't believe either

It is just if they did not go to church they would have no reason to wear a suit and they would not know anybody. The Christian god has not spoken to them, Jesus won't send them a thank you note for their money, and the angels never come even on their birthday.

Plenty of people are Christian by convenience and not only do not believe the stuff in the Bible, but only know half of what they are supposed to believe and believe only half of what they do believe.

That is not to say there aren't plenty of obedient Christians.

[julianer]

4. There is an excellent series of programmes

on the BBC at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/atheism.shtml

Jonathan Miller is a multi-talented intellectual. It's a shame but I don't think there is a link for the video but the site is interesting in itself. Check out the poll.

[izzie]

8. I did the poll and make an F on the test.

Does this mean I have to go to Church?

[Nostradammit]

5. Actually, everyone has a religion

Some people have very profound experiences for which there are no rational, measurable explanations. Religion is not necessarily a bad thing, in spite of all the horrible things "religious" people have done.

Belief in a greater power than oneself has saved many a life.

[jbnow]

7. Yes, "very profound experiences

for which there are no rational, measurable explanations" eventually convince you "God is". (With whatever words, but God is the quickest word to call it, since calling it "It" seems impolite)
However logical you might be logic shifts.

Life changes profoundly. That does bring believing and illuminates some religious teachings, but not "religion" as in a defined set of beliefs.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Profound experiences don't necessarily make religion or make one religious

[Nostradammit]

13. Yes -

And some people have very profound experiences for which there are no rational, measurable explanations.

:toast:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Yes and not necessarily make them religious. Not all people have religion.

[Nostradammit]

18. Yeah, actually, all people have a religion

Not having a religion is a religion, of sorts. Some revere intellect, some nature, and some little plastic bobbles, but we all have a religion. Believe it or not.

~

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Nope. I don't have a religion.

[Nay]

25. Me neither. None at all. I was born without that gene.

[funflower]

42. Guess we have to define "religion." Is it any belief system or a belief

system involving the supernatural?

[Bill McBlueState]

61. sure, if you define "religion" broadly enough

But to say that

*appreciating nature

and

*believing that a specific individual who lived 2000 years ago was the son of a god, and that you should believe whatever he said and do whatever he told you to do

are both "religion" is to dilute the meaning of the word beyond all utility.

[trotsky]

30. I don't.

That's quite a blanket statement - and I've just disproven it.

[izzie]

6. It answers questions to people why they are here

I am not saying it is right or wrong but it sure takes a lot of lives up setting things out of your mind when you can just say because God wants it. It cuts down on what you need to know, any reason that may be needed and makes life easy. When you hear a Christian say about some one just killed on the road by a drunk driver say--- It is Gods will-- it puts it more in line.

[ShrewdLiberal]

9. Many "believers" believe that it's one of the a priori intuitive beliefs

2+2=4 is an intuitive a priori belief; it's not infered from any other beliefs except itself.

"All bachelors are single males" is another example; it's not infered from any other inferences except its difiniens, or, as I prefer to call it, its semantics (meaning). Basically, its connotations.

Many believers believe that "God exists" is one of the a priori intuitive beliefs, which is not infered from anything else except itself. They believe it's intuitive. I happen to be one of them. Also, I happen to believe in the cosmological argument for God's existence, too. I think the ontological argument for God's existence, in its many forms, is weak.

Anyway, I'm an envolutionary theist. I don't believe in organized religions but I believe in a first cause for the Big Bang. Nothing can be the cause of it's own existence except God, in my estimation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Wrong about math.

2 + 2 = 4 can be derived from more fundamental postulates. Look up "Peano Arithmetic" for example. Postulates are not beliefs. Further, 2 + 2 equals 11 in ternary arithmatic and equals 10 in quaternary arithmetic and equals 1 in modulo 3 arithmetic. One can also joke that 2 + 2 = 5 for large 2's (ex. 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 which rounds to 5).

"All bachelors are single males" depends on your definition of "single". Just as a topical example, many unmarried gay males are in long-term committed relationships and can hardly be called single.

[ShrewdLiberal]

17. That's not what I meant.

You know 2+2=4 without thinking about why; it's intuitive. But the average person doesn't know 4598 X 6751 = ... intuitively. 4+4=8 is also intuitive in that way. We don't need to make inferences to know it--that's what I meant. I'm not wrong about that. Professors teach the basic beliefs of intuitive wholes in Philosophy 101, in an opening Metaphysics course.

[Zenlitened]

60. 2 + 2 = 4 wasn't intuitive for me until I learned to count. Then it became

... so easy to remember that it began to feel intuitive.

I suppose, if I had thousands of fingers, 4598 x 6751 = 31,041,098 might seem so simple as to be intuitive, too.

[ShrewdLiberal]

19. Just to add...

Another way to illuminate that 2 + 2 = 4 is an intuitive belief, an intuitive whole (basic belief) is this. I haven't a clue what you were refering to in your well-formed objection--the looking up "Peano Arithmetic" to find out about ternary arithmetic and quaternary arithmetic. I don't need to know either to know 2 + 2 = 4 is intuitively basic. Small children know it. Also, I did make a mistake when I said 2 + 2 = 4 is a priori necessarily intuitive. I meant to say it is a posteriori necessarily intuitive. Immanuel Kant did away with Leibniz' false notion that it's a priori.

If 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a basic a posteriori necessarily intuitive belief, then it seems to me there's no such thing as intuition. Which, if true, would illiminate a very important definiendum from our cognitive faculties, or noetic structures as a whole. Some children have to use their fingers to add 2 + 2 = 4. Some use their intuition. We build intuition through external means. I believe all human knowledge derives from imputs (phenomenal concepts) and affect our behavior (pyschological concepts), which help us act of our own volition through the outputs of our cognitive faculties.

It seems plausible to me that God gave the species man intuition (in our natural evolutionary development, which was implicit in the teleological design of the cosmos, the natural laws of nature) to be able to distinguish basic truths from falsehoods in our syllogism building, building the premiss sets necessary for generalized and particularized conclusion drawing, whether a priori necessary generalizations or specific a posteriori scientific inferences.

I don't believe Darwin was correct in his theory of natural selection. I believe we know truths and falsehoods and that our ancestors survived because of that, because of their intuitive capacities to distinguish right from wrong ethically and morally, and truth from fiction cognitively, and not because of mere biological concerns. That's another reason why I believe in God, aside from the cosmological factors.

Thanks for giving me more knowledge about mathematics. I'll check out your recommendation and see what's doin'.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Something fundamental to ponder: Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

[funflower]

44. Discovered.

[trotsky]

46. I'd say invented.

Mathematics is a language, one that can be used to describe the workings of the universe. Those workings exist regardless of our being able to describe them.

[funflower]

48. And they also work whether or not we discover them.

[Evoman]

65. Understanding 2 + 2 = 4 is not at all intuitive

We are taught to count. If you took a baby, cut off every finger but it his thumbs, and threw him in the jungle, he would not grasp it at all..ahem..assuming he survives. Hell, without language to express 2 and 2, you might not now what it means any more than an animal....feral children can't count unless they are taught. Just because something is easy (and easy to memorize), does not mean its intuitive

"I don't believe Darwin was correct in his theory of natural selection"

What do you think natural selection means? Your absolutely blind if you don't think he is correct...sure natural selection may not be responsible for all evolution (some people postulate that things like genetic drift and migration, etc are as much driving forces..though I disagree), but it is THE big one.

"I believe we know truths and falsehoods and that our ancestors survived because of that"

So a person who is unable to truth and falsehood is at a selective disadvantage for some reason. I.e. natural selection is correct.

[fasttense]

23. I like your line

"Nothing can be the cause of it's own existence except God."

[ShrewdLiberal]

24. Glad you like it

It seems somewhat plausible, doesn't it? That God is an uncaused cause of existence.

[fasttense]

35. God seems to be the only explanation for the start of the universe.

There has to be a beginning somewhere and that beginning has to be a creator of some kind. I'm not sure it is a god, but so far no one has offered a logical alternative.

[Az]

36. Um... that does lead to a natural question

Where did god come from? This is the problem with a divine answer to a question. It doesn't really give you an answer. It just gives you a new layer of questions.

As to a logical alternative... there are a number of physicists working on a number of pretty good explanations of where things came from. Take a look at M-Theory and Braine Theory as possible explanations for the origin of the universe.

[PsychoDad]

41. Where did god come from?

An interesting question.

It is only valid within the context of space time as we understand it- where time seems linear and the universe and all events within have a definite beginning and end. Step outside of the 4 dimensional box we call space-time and the whole idea of start-end, beginning-finish, came from-goes to, falls apart. Outside of our universe there is no time. All possible events have happened/will happen/are happening.

The question only makes sense if God is itself contained within our space-time, if it exists outside then our very ability to comprehend it and apply terminology to it starts to break down.

M-Theory and Braine Theories still do not exclude a possibility of a first cause, in fact they themselves are causes, which may or may not have been directed by some will.

Theist or non-theist, we both hit the wall of Plank time where what was/is beyond is beyond our ability to truly understand mathematically or philosophically.

Peace

[The Magistrate]

52. An Excellent Point, Sir

My own trepidation on the subject begins at the precise point you have identified: "...our very ability to comprehend it and apply terminology to it starts to break down."

Pushed a little further, Sir, this leads to the thought that there must be linitations on the ability of anything so outside our existance to exert any influence here, for there is no reason to suppose the breakdown of abilities does not apply on both sides of such a divide.

[PsychoDad]

59. Perhaps, But ....

I am reminded of the "Flat Landers" (was it Mr. Sagan who demonstrated this on NOVA?) The flat landers lived in a piece of paper and were 2 dimensional creatures. We could see them and all their surroundings, in fact we could see inside them, but they were incapable of even contemplating what a 3d creature like ourselves might be like.

Interaction with the flat landers might be possible, but those interactions would seem to the flat landers quite "paranormal", or improbable. Events that I'm sure no reasonable flat lander would accept as anything but phantasy.

I wonder if in this case, we aren't the "Flat Landers".

Peace :)

[SPKrazy]

64. That's Presuming God

isn't the universe, or the multiverse

and as Jesus said in the gospel of Thomas (paraphrased) "why do you look for the end, when you haven't figured out the beginning" (very paraphrased)

what is the beginning, but a construct of time, which may not be necessary in another dimension (if string theorists are right there may be 11 dimensions)

[funflower]

45. Branes are fun, but where did they come from???

It just gets weirder and weirder the farther back you go....

[The Magistrate]

54. Yes, It Does, Ma'am

My general reaction to fresh news from the world of physics nowadays is a desire that they stop: it makes my brain hurt....

[funflower]

57. Agreed. I can take it only in small doses.

:hi:

[funflower]

43. 2+2=4 is based on observation, while "God exists" is not.

And welcome to DU!

[opihimoimoi]

10. Pure Laziness...too easy to believe and too hard to THINK

[More Than A Feeling]

40. Read The Nature and Destiny of Man by Reinhold Niebuhr

and then tell me truthfully that he wasn't thinking when he wrote that.

[rockymountaindem]

62. It's possible to believe and think at the same time

Just ask Mr. Einstein over there...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. The single most obvious fact about believers

The single most obvious fact about believers is that most of them believe the main faith of their area or their parents (using a broad definition of faith, i.e. "christians, buddhists").

[whatever4]

26. I see your point, but I don't agree

That is to say, when you said "No rational human being could believe...",it made me think that there are unexplained and unexplainable facts of life, all around us. And, I've meet any number of very rational, intelligent and educated people who believe things wildly different than I do. So, to me, it's not that there are no spiritual realities, and to question our existence is the age old question. What you said basically denies the original question, with which I cannot agree. Thing is, we don't know. Period. To believe there is an afterlife or to believe there is not, are both EQUALLY ignorant and both rely on "faith". There is no "right" answer to which we are privy.

What messes us up are those that claim they DO know and they DO have the answer, so we'd better all live by THEIR rules. That's what's messed up. It's not for anyone to say. Not for ANYONE to say, any more than anyone else. Some people claim to know the "answers", along with large groups of other people, agreeing to agree in large numbers. I guess they figure it increases their chances of being "right", but I don't honestly see how.

The problem comes when those who feel they know engage in activities to shut up the rest of us that do not subscribe to their safe, communal "faith". They believe, basically, that we no longer have the right to the QUESTION itself, because they say they already have answered it. And we should shut up. That is what religion has become, and exercise in getting others to shut up. As if our beliefs threaten their salvation; what a handy idea, eh? Yes, we must ALL believe, else, it hurts them too. In fact, they'd fairly well KILL us, to ensure their salvation.

So I don't agree with you that it's ridiculous to believe in anything outside the physical world. I believe it's ridiculous for anyone to believe they KNOW any better than anyone else, or has the right to criticize. Nobody knows, and that's sorta the point. What they want is for everyone to stop asking the question, as if now it is an invalid question, and that is the MOST wrong.

[donheld]

37. Great response

I too believe nobody can know for a certainty which way it is.

[Nihil]

27. Because if they didn't, they'd be unbelievers not believers!

What you appear to have meant was "why do some people believe things
that they cannot prove?" ...

> I submit that we are all "hard wired" for rationality, an evolutionary
> edge against the cowering frightened hominids of our ancestry.
> Religion is a manifestation of resistance to our hard wiring.
> Nothing rational about believing in religion.

I think that this is close but needs a slight modification:
the "hard wiring" for rationality is basically a decision tree along
the lines of "if this then do that else if that then do something else".

Religion fulfils the "otherwise" clause at the end of the chain.
(i.e., once all of the rational "if-then-else" tests have failed, this
one mops up the leftovers with a convenient closedown operation of
the same order of a parent's exasperated "because I say so" closure.)

The logic chain can be extended as more knowledge is gained but at
the end of the "known" world is a placeholder called "religion" that
remains in place until we learn enough to push it out another level.

[LaurenG]

28. Personal experience is my reason

I have seen with my eyes, heard with my ears and felt in my heart the realness of something else. There is a force that cannot be defined, that science can't seem to prove and that many know is real.

I knew there was more to us than meets the eye when I was three. I didn't call it Jesus or God. I knew I had been somewhere else before I was born and I knew that my "friends" were there. I vividly remember feeling sad and missing them when I was three. I remember wishing I could go "home" and trying to explain that to my mom. I also told her that kids pick their parents and that I had picked her. I knew that I was small but that I really wasn't a kid inside. I used to think people were so strange because they took things way too seriously and pretended to have answers that they really didn't have.

I have no explanation as to why I remember this. One can write it off to whatever they wish but they were not in my skin and so there is no possible way that they will know how that feels.

I don't need to say more. We all have to figure it out for ourselves. We may all be wrong and then again we may not. That is the beauty of an open mind and heart. We all get to decide how much we really want to know.

[jbnow]

53. Were you my kid?

No, mine isn't in Ohio. But he talked to me about "home" a lot and how he really liked this world, it was nice, but he was glad we would go back. He used to compare this world with home and couldn't believe I didn't remember, he thought I was pretending since who could forget.

He forgot later too. I suppose we are meant to until it is time to remember.

But you are right...for true believing, for deep knowing, it is personal experience. WE could try to tell the story but that won't make much difference. It isn't the story of the experience that contains the meaning, it is the experience of the story.

But that believing differs from much of what we see in religion. Religion is external, being told what to believe and what is right and wrong. It can harden rather then open us.
Spiritual belief is from the inside out. It doesn't require faith, though it creates faith. It does not conflict with science, it doesn't come with external rules. It doesn't create hate.

People might say it's an easy out but the world made a lot more sense to me when I was agnostic.

[Bloodblister Bob]

31. They believe in God because they need a father figure. n/t

[Maat]

47. Not true, Bob.

I think Spirit (God) is an It!

[Az]

32. You are wrong

We are not wired for rational thought. Rational thought, reason, and other means of thinking have been learned. Our brains are wired for emotional thinking. Emotions are how we record the significance of events and things learned.

Evolution doesn't really care if something is true or not. It only cares about what works. What is effective. Emotions are the perfect way to convey importance. Fire burns, it creates a very strong emotional response. We learn to fear fire. But it also can keep us warm. That makes us feel good. So we learn to be wary of it but try to use it.

Reason and rational thought are useful tools to the mind. But they are not first order. That is our first response to things is emotional. We do quickly learn the value of rational thought. But alone it cannot overcome emotional value. It is merely our emotional value of reason that gives it strength.

As to your initial question about why do believers believe? We all believe. Belief is just the current state of understanding the mind has at a given moment. It's not a choice. It's a recognition. A recognition of what we currently happen to accept as true.

I will assume your question is directed at believers that believe in particular religious ideas. Often times belief comes from a lifetime of learning and experience. As Richard Dawkins suggests its rather interesting that the majority of believers in the world happen to share the same beliefs as their parents. This is no coincidence. We learn the basis of our understanding of the universe from our parents. This includes religion. The emotional impact of this initial education is strong indeed. Add to the emotional significance of being the initial explanation for the world the repetitive effect by most dominant religions. It creates a very strong emotional relevance to the beliefs.

Further more the day to day experience of the religion give it an immediate primacy. And direct sense of experience. A few simple word about why the beliefs are unreasonable are going to be as nothing to a life time of experience. The emotions connecting their beliefs to all aspects of their life are far to strong for a simple jab of rational thought to overcome.

Keep in mind that they have developed reason and rational thought as well. Their's is not based in the same premises and world view as nonbelievers. But it is reason none the less. And claiming they have none is a short trip to the ignore button (real world and virtual).

So where does the idea of god come from? Actually it's quite natural considering the nature of our minds and existance. Realise that we cannot experience another's experiences. We can see other humans and come to realise that they likely are experiencing something like what we are experiencing. But we cannot directly experience it ourself.

In fact when we are first born we are still forming our sense of self. When we first look out at the world around us we cannot distinguish self from say the table sitting over there. As far as our mind is aware that table may be part of us (whatever us may be).

Over time we begin to develop a sense of where we end and the world begins. We become an I. Soon after this we begin to notice that some of the other things are moving about on their own. They exhibit traits that we begin to catalog. Eventually we learn to attribute identity to these things. We project our sense of what it is to have identity onto them. They are people like us and they have identities like us.

But there are other things in the world that have seeming behaviour. Weather, nature, animals, etc. All these things we at one time or another apply a sense of identity to. Over time we have learned that there is no basis for these projections so they become less like projecting identities to people and more an imagined identity.

But some things are resistant to reason. Reason and in particular scientific reasoning likes to have evidence to refute things by. And things that would not leave evidence are tricky to refute. Thus over time we have accumulated a number of things that our mind naturally create that reason cannot so easily dismiss. Gods, ghosts, spirits, and a plethora of other things.

They persist because some people give these ideas identities. They are just as real to them as another person is to us. As far as their mind is concerned the ways and weaves of the universe are simply the nature of the identity they have given to god.

[shrike]

33. Actually, we go through life believing

And I'm not talking about religious faith.

The soul who persists against all odds, to create a great painting, to sail the ocean blue, does so because he believes he can. "Rationality" would tell him he can't. If you look at the numbers, the known facts, you'd probably conclude that there is no proof that he can accomplish what he's setting out to do. And you'd be right. There IS no proof. And he may fail. But he may succeed. He believes he will succeed, so he'll go ahead with this seemingly impossible task. Because he has faith, albeit in himself, or his ideas.

If you want to talk about hard-wiring and evolutionary advantage, one might argue that "belief," or faith, is an advantage because it keeps us from curling up into a ball and giving up; we never lose hope. Crazy ideas can do us harm, but they can also do us a lot of good. The species survives, advances, because some hopeful human said, "There's water over that hill. Enough for the whole tribe. You all may laugh, and yes, I can't prove it; I don't have a rational reason for thinking this way, but I do have a feeling ... that I'm right. I believe I am."

As for faith itself, faith and religion are different things. You are right in that it's an intuition, a feeling, a knowing (which some people do not have.) I've heard atheists say that they "know" there is no god and I understand exactly what they are talking about.

I remember reading a remarkable interview with a physicist, whose name I cannot recall, unfortunately. Brilliant man. In his 80s then, he was not a religious man, did not believe in an after-life, a soul. However, "I feel God's presence everywhere," he said. "I can't explain it, I can't define it. It's just a sense that I have."

[Az]

34. Rigid belief is more valuable evolutionarily speaking

A classic example. Two neanderthals sitting there in the jungle. Both notice a movement in the distance. The one wired to form beliefs quickly assumes it's something coming to eat him and runs away. The protoscientist decides to investigate further and realises his mistake about the time the sabertooth tiger is chewing on his leg.

Another area where rigid belief is favored is in child rearing. It takes a long time to raise a human child. And when there were dangers in the world far more common than now a human child was an easy target. Thus adherance to the parent/tribal word was an evolutionary advantage. It didn't matter that the parents didn't understand what made thing dangerous. What mattered for survival is adeherance to the rules.

[shrike]

38. Excellent example

I was thinking of "belief" more in terms of dreaming -- most things happen in life because somebody, somewhere, had a crazy idea -- but your point is an excellent one. Adherence to the rules can indeed save your ass.

[Inland]

56. One of the things that impressed me in the fifteen pages I managed

in Jared's book was how much evolutionary success came from a previously not so good trait that, after some sort of external change, became the key. Sweet almonds, social dogs, kernels stuck in corn ears.

So who knows if religious belief or rationality was useful or not useful to the cave guy. It might be we survived despite, not because, of one or the other.

[Darranar]

39. No rational human being could believe in rationality, either

except that that rationality has also been hard-wired.

What is your point, precisely?

[FM Arouet666]

49. What the hell was I thinking?

A saw a few posting asking this question. Who the heck knows, I was really tired when I posted the OT. :evilgrin:

Now, even more tired, I am trying to read all the responses.

My point? A basic quality of most life forms is a desire to survive, certainly a trait which predates higher forms of thinking, such as rationality.

Religion attempts to offer an explanation of the natural world and explain what occurs after death. Religion demands faith, faith driven by a primitive drive for survival. Religion offers a pleasant fiction in which we all survive forever in the embrace of a loving god.

As humans became more rational minded, science was born, a belief system which requires evidence over faith and offers no immortal reward.

The persistence of religion as a failed 'weltanschauung' is based on the reward, eternal life. What I find objectionable is all the harm done by the believer for a belief system which is fueled by a selfish desire for immortal existence.

Get over it! You are born, you life, and you die. That is the whole salami. No heaven, no hell, no sitting on a damn cloud with 72 virgins feeding you grapes because you slaughtered a bunch of people for allah, or defended the unborn in the fight against abortion.

Just a thought before I go to bed.

[LaurenG]

51. If you know the secrets of the universe, I will believe you

know what lies ahead. I realize this is your opinion and where you are in your life (and may always believe this). I just think no one knows yet, no one. I will ultimately go and it may be no where. However science can't prove it one way or another. Until then I will enjoy life as much as possible and try to understand and gather information that will make me a happier person while I exist.

:dilemma: :hi:

[FM Arouet666]

58. Agreed

Realize that my posts are out of frustration, the intolerant religious 'right' has created an atmosphere in which the non-believer feels threatened.

I would agree with you, science cannot prove what occurs upon our death. Science proves nothing, proof best reserved for mathematics and alcohol. However, science suggests that we fade into nothingness upon death, a state we occupied before our birth.

I agree again, enjoy life as much as possible, it would appear that this life is all we will ever have.

[Inland]

55. Since you answer your own question, you need nothing from us.

And you are one of those rational people, your answer that belief is a symptom of greed, selfishness, and irrationality just MUST be based on only the most stringent and compelling evidence.

Now, I could tell you that I've met some people that believe in religious stuff and that don't seem to be any more greedy or selfish or irrational than usual, but what's the point? I've probably got some pre-hominid, evolutionary dead end gene that's shorted my hardwiring.

[SPKrazy]

63. ROTFLMAO!

:evilgrin:

[neebob]

67. Why do you keep kicking these old threads, SPK?

God and Santa really have it in for you now.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

69. I noticed a LOT of old posts popping up

I've learned to check dates now, after making an idiot of myself getting into a very old thread..not just once but many times. I was HOT! I was in the zone! I was talking to people long tombstoned!

TG

[SPKrazy]

71. I Got Bored Last Night

started looking through threads from months ago and posted on a few
I guess since I haven't always been reading the R/T forum, they were new threads to me even though they were old

so rather than post something that had already been posted, I responded to posts in these threads

I know there are probably tombstoned people in there, and who knows I could have responded to the dead for all I know.

O8)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

73. Well, it HAS been awfully quiet around here

lately. Better raising the dead than hanging around bored...

[SPKrazy]

74. Yeah, It Was So Quiet

I posted on the religion groups forums

and on GD, which is where I would usually post before discovering the R/T forum and I can't quite break away from it, I think I'm addicted to it?

[Evoman]

66. Gah! Who keeps kicking these old posts up!

I answer them and then feel stupid when no one answers back!

[varkam]

68. I disagree...

j/k. Just thought I would answer so you wouldn't feel stupid :)

[Beetwasher]

70. "I submit that we are all "hard wired" for rationality,..."

I'm not so sure about that actually. There seems to be a primal, visceral motivation to believe that is more fundamental than rational thought. I would say we're hard wired to think in abstractions and can USE that to acheive rational thought, but I also think we're hired wired to experience FEAR as part of our survival mechanism and much of our superstitions and needs to believe (in god or whatever) are a result of our fears and our need to believe in SOMETHING that might protect us.

I think we're hard wired for both, the need to believe in SOMETHING and the ability to think rationally and these two forces push and pull at eachother.

[Silent3]

72. My two cents, as long as this thread has been raised from the dead...

I don't think humans are very rational by nature at all. Some of the components of rational thought are there in most humans, yes, to some extent probably inborn, to some extent probably picked up indirectly by the rational patterns which learning language tends to impart.

Thorough and disciplined rationality does not, however, seem like human nature to me. To be successfully rational, you need to do more than follow simple, logical connections. You need to be able to follow chains of logic, weigh probabilities, dig for inconsistencies, recognize common pitfalls of logic and avoid them. You need to understand things like "correlation is not causation". All of that seems like it depends a lot on culture, education, and individual talent.

What appears more basic to human nature is making broad (and often overly broad) generalizations. To not know or care about the difference between correlation and causation. To act as a social creature and put more stock in authority and hierarchy than in individual knowledge and logic. To misapply the social logic of hierarchy, personality, will, and emotion to the natural world, resulting in spirits and gods.

Why would we evolve like that? Probably because that kind of thinking has often been "good enough". As appallingly misguided and dangerous as such thinking can be, as a survival skill it's better than mere animal intelligence. Until humankind got to the point where it could intentionally, accidentally, or negligently unleash so much destructive force as we can now, we could afford a lot of irrationality, so long as the positive benefits of less-than-perfect human thinking, on the whole, even slightly outweighed the negative consequences, just enough to provide a competitive advantage.

[SPKrazy]

75. I Think That Right Brain, Left Brain

is also a factor in rationality vs. emotionality

dominant hemispheres of the brain= left is more logical, rational, right is more emotional, creative, intuitive.

these archetypes don't hold up 100% but there is evidence that hemispheric dominance is tied to personality

I guess I'd have to be right brained, because I am not logical and rational all the time.

I make a living with my intuition, listening skills, and ability to think outside the box.

I'd make a terrible accountant, mathmatician, or scientist because I don't think in a detail oriented way without great effort.