"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[stevevw]

That our superstitious inclinations, particularly during childhood, somehow indicate that there is merit to religious belief.

Well no, I initially was trying to show that religious belief came natural to us. But it seemed that you were thinking I wanted to imply something else at that stage. I only wanted to show that religious belief was a natural state of being human and was hard wired into us from childhood. I later stated that I wanted to take this a stage further with my opinion which I am entitled to. But this is different to the facts that were supported by the studies.

No we can't! "Common sense" often turns out to be wrong.

Common sense and logic are normally something that we use to assess things. We use it everyday and we seem to be able to get along fine making many decisions and coping OK. We dont stop and do scientific analyzes with evidence based data for everything we do in life. So common sense and logic are good for making quick assessments to get a good idea of what is acceptable and seems valid and what is not. We may check it for a second opinion but we can make some judgements as to whether it is OK or not. We do this every single day of our lives.

Otherwise we would be stuck in one position to cared to make a decision and trust anything. So when someone says that something is the case and we can check out the source then we can assess whether its a good source or not. If many sources say the same thing then we are building up some support for it being valid. If one person makes the claim and there are many others that contradict this then chance are it may be wrong.

I'm using your own reasoning against you.

No you are assuming that I was thinking certain things. Just because the study is saying that we have a natural tendency to believe in divine concepts doesn't mean we should go off with the fairies. I have said this several times. So you are assuming I am wanting to take things to that extreme. I stated that we are a multi dimensional being with body, mind and spirit. So we have to use our minds as well which means to think with reason and logic. I really think you are taking this debate into my side of things more than what I have done. I dont have to take things to the next level, you do it for me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well no, I initially was trying to show that religious belief came natural to us. But it seemed that you were thinking I wanted to imply something else at that stage. I only wanted to show that religious belief was a natural state of being human and was hard wired into us from childhood.

And I addressed that point in various ways in my previous comments, noting that our childhood inclinations are not necessarily immutable lifelong traits. If they were, it would be considered normal for an adult to throw a temper-tantrum like a toddler.

Common sense and logic are normally something that we use to assess things. We use it everyday and we seem to be able to get along fine making many decisions and coping OK. We dont stop and do scientific analyzes with evidence based data for everything we do in life. So common sense and logic are good for making quick assessments to get a good idea of what is acceptable and seems valid and what is not. We may check it for a second opinion but we can make some judgements as to whether it is OK or not. We do this every single day of our lives.

We rely on "common sense" in the absence of better quality information. But what counts as "common sense" is (1) potentially wrong and (2) subject to change. We don't elevate "common sense" as the highest standard of evidence.

No you are assuming that I was thinking certain things. Just because the study is saying that we have a natural tendency to believe in divine concepts doesn't mean we should go off with the fairies. I have said this several times. So you are assuming I am wanting to take things to that extreme. I stated that we are a multi dimensional being with body, mind and spirit. So we have to use our minds as well which means to think with reason and logic. I really think you are taking this debate into my side of things more than what I have done. I dont have to take things to the next level, you do it for me.

So you agree that superstitious inclinations do not necessarily indicate that religious beliefs have merit?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The important thing here is that we are hard wired to believe and this is a part of human thinking.

The latter part of this statement is true, but almost trivial. Yes, it's part of human thinking, and therefore worth studying.

The author also states that to not believe goes against the natural grain and takes a lot more work to do which says that those people are going against what should come natural.

It's also a lot of work to overcome natural cognitive biases, but ultimately, the work is worth the effort, as science amply demonstrates.

By contrast, disbelief is generally the
result of deliberate, effortful work against our
natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the
easiest ideology to propagate.

I take this is as a swipe against religion because it suggests, rather subtly, that religion is the result of lazy thinking.

 

[JGG]

No, if you break a rock, the pieces are still the same rock. They reincarnate by changing into a different rock (a new rock).

But how is the new rock created if rocks don't reproduce? Just out of this air? Rocks come from nothing?

Rock is slow. Everything about it takes a long long time. But, if it should happen, it will happen. So, in your example, some Cu (ion) will eventually be breathed into the rock.

What do you mean "if it should happen"? It does happen, right? There are an uncountable number of planets out there made of rock? Are these planets alive and reincarnating?

 

[stevevw]

And I addressed that point in various ways in my previous comments, noting that our childhood inclinations are not necessarily immutable lifelong traits. If they were, it would be considered normal for an adult to throw a temper-tantrum like a toddler.

No this is a different take on things now. You were trying to imply that natural belief in children was some sort of indoctrinated bias that was put there and something that was possibly wrong. That because we had this natural belief we should then start believing in crazy things. As you used in your example of being born naked we should then run around naked.

But now you have added a new perspective . Yes I agree children learn to reason and define what is acceptable and what is not as they get older and by the conditions their society will put on them. But the study also stated that adults have this natural belief in divine concepts that continues throughout their life. Though they may be conditioned to live and act a certain way by a material and naturalistic world they still seem to be hard wired to believe in divine concepts of dualism and divine agents and things like the afterlife. Studies show this type of thought comes natural and is default thinking in humans even in those who claim to not be believers.

We rely on "common sense" in the absence of better quality information. But what counts as "common sense" is (1) potentially wrong and (2) subject to change. We don't elevate "common sense" as the highest standard of evidence.

Yes I agree but what I am saying is we can trust ourselves to evaluate things without having to do a major investigation. Sometimes it can come down to intuition and gut feeling that we can rely on. We may get things wrong but generally we will get it right most of the time. Its the same for when we may choose anything that we want like insurance or a restaurant., We find out about their reputations, experience and assess who is better, more reliable and has the experience and reputation ect. We dont have to go and do major research as we can make a quick judgement based on these things using our reasoning and logic. Logic says the one with the most experience, good reputation ect would be better than one who is only new or inexperienced.

So with these studies a prestigious University which does comprehensive research by experts in their filed will be more trustworthy to do a better job than a lone scientific lab with a couple of researchers normally. If there are then many different studies all saying similar things the credibility increases. Even with climate change people were not stupid. They only had to use their common sense and logic and see that climate had changed and we were getting more climate related events. Those who were saying there was no problem were flying in the face of the obvious evidence for all to see. Its just that some exaggerated the truth.

So you agree that superstitious inclinations do not necessarily indicate that religious beliefs have merit?

Yes on their own they only tell us that belief in divine concepts comes naturally to us. It doesn't say anything about that there is really a God or an after life ect.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No this is a different take on things now. You were trying to imply that natural belief in children was some sort of indoctrinated bias that was put there and something that was possibly wrong.

Nope. I did not do that.

That because we had this natural belief we should then start believing in crazy things. As you used in your example of being born naked we should then run around naked.

That example was intended as a critique of your position.

But now you have added a new perspective . Yes I agree children learn to reason and define what is acceptable and what is not by the conditions their society will put on them. But the study also stated that adults have this natural belief in divine concepts that continues throughout their life. Though they may be conditioned to live and act a certain way by a material and naturalistic world they still seem to be hard wired to believe in divine concepts of dualism and divine agents and things like the afterlife. Studies show this type of thought comes natural and is default thinking in humans even in those who claim to not be believers.

Do I need to repeat myself again?

Yes on their own they only tell us that belief in divine concepts comes naturally to us. It doesn't say anything about that there is really a God or an after life ect.

Then what's the point you're driving at? We are already in agreement that superstitious inclinations need not warrant religious belief.

 

[juvenissun]

But how is the new rock created if rocks don't reproduce? Just out of this air? Rocks come from nothing?

What do you mean "if it should happen"? It does happen, right? There are an uncountable number of planets out there made of rock? Are these planets alive and reincarnating?

The nature of rock is gradually changing. When the change is completed (the nature of the old rock is gone), then a new rock is born. It is like all other life forms on the earth. The material all go in cycles.

You are correct. If rock is alive, then the planet must also be alive. All we need to do is to find out how does this form of life functions.

 

[bhsmte]

The nature of rock is gradually changing. When the change is completed (the nature of the old rock is gone), then a new rock is born. It is like all other life forms on the earth. The material all go in cycles.

You are correct. If rock is alive, then the planet must also be alive. All we need to do is to find out how does this form of life functions.

How does a rock die?

 

[stevevw]

Nope. I did not do that.

That example was intended as a critique of your position.

Thats the point, in relation to the above point your assumption of my position was wrong. I never once said that because humans naturally believe in religious concepts that we should run around becoming monks or say that God is automatically real. I think I must have restated this 5 or 6 times now.

Do I need to repeat myself again?

In what way. Remember all that is being said here is that belief in divine ideas is something that humans can do naturally or by default. It isn't saying that there is a God or that we should become religious and join a church. I think this is where you misinterpret things and assume that the studies imply something more. I personally believe that it implies something further but that is a separate thing. I cant seem to get past what the study states let alone talk about what I believe the implications are because you keep assuming the study is saying this or I am adding this into the study.

Then what's the point you're driving at? We are already in agreement that superstitious inclinations need not warrant religious belief.

OK fair enough we are in agreement. So I ask why do you think we have this natural belief in religious concepts such as dualism, life beyond death and divine entities.

 

[bhsmte]

Thats the point, in relation to the above point your assumption of my position was wrong. I never once said that because humans naturally believe in religious concepts that we should run around becoming monks or say that God is automatically real. I think I must have restated this 5 or 6 times now.

In what way. Remember all that is being said here is that belief in divine ideas is something that humans can do naturally or by default. It isn't saying that there is a God or that we should become religious and join a church. I think this is where you misinterpret things and assume that the studies imply something more. I personally believe that it implies something further but that is a separate thing. I cant seem to get past what the study states let alone talk about what I believe the implications are because you keep assuming the study is saying this or I am adding this into the study.


OK fair enough we are in agreement. So I ask why do you think we have this natural belief in religious concepts such as dualism, life beyond death and divine entities.

Because humans have a tendency to look for meaning for life and why we are here. Depending on how our psyche develops, we will come up with various answers.

 

[Colter]

How does a rock die?

Didn't we go to war in Irock?

 

[bhsmte]

Didn't we go to war in Irock?

Yea, I wonder how many rocks we killed?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The above article is one of several that I posted but you are only using this one as an example. Yet you claimed they were all rubbish and now you want to use one of your choice. Why this one is it because you think it is supporting evolution. Boyer doesn't state that the evidence for religious belief comes from an evolutionary process. He says we dont really know.
So is religion an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution? Perhaps one day we will find compelling evidence that a capacity for religious thoughts, rather than "religion" in the modern form of socio-political institutions, contributed to fitness in ancestral times. For the time being, the data support a more modest conclusion: religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities.

It seems Boyer is an atheists and of course he will have some views on how he thinks things developed through evolution. But I wanted to use various views on this topic. The basis of what he is saying supports what I have said in that religious belief is something that comes natural to us and is part of our normal cognitive processes as he said just like music, arts and language.

No they are not. This is what you are interpreting them as. There may be some articles that will say this as well and this may be some peoples view. But most of what I read doesn't state any hard evidence about how we may have got this natural religious belief. They just tell us that religious belief is a natural part of being human. I like you and others can then give an opinion as to how we think it may have arisen but that is just our own views on the topic.

It actually goes beyond this because they say that the type of language that is used when talking about religious concepts and divine entities is different to how we talk to other humans. So there is a different level of development around these ideas which are reaching out beyond the world around us into something beyond.

Which is.

What were my claims.

Nothing said here goes against religious belief. Like I said these studies are not stating that there is a God or that we should believe in a particular God and that is what I have said all along. You are assuming a lot here and taking things to another level with these studies. But just because this authors opinion says that normal human thought about religious belief doesn't state that there is one religion that is above others or that a God is what is driving things doesn't mean that there isn't a God or that there isn't one way to that God. You can also look at the evidence and say that because it is natural for humans to belief in some sort of divine agent that there may be a God out there and people have just mixed things up and turned that one God into their own versions.

The important thing here is that we are hard wired to believe and this is a part of human thinking. The author also states that to not believe goes against the natural grain and takes a lot more work to do which says that those people are going against what should come natural.
By contrast, disbelief is generally the
result of deliberate, effortful work against our
natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the
easiest ideology to propagate.
But there are several other links with more info if you want to cite them as well. It seems that you think what I posted was rubbish but now you can find some points that you think are OK because they support what you think. Yet you conveniently call anything that doesn't support you view as rubbish.

"Yet you claimed they were all rubbish and now you want to use one of your choice."
You asked me specifically why I thought you didn't read the articles you post. I cited this one because you posted it to support your claim that "Some people think there are no such thing as atheists.". The article doesn't support your claim at all.

You said,
"The basis of what he is saying supports what I have said in that religious belief is something that comes natural to us and is part of our normal cognitive processes as he said just like music, arts and language."
Then you said...
"But most of what I read doesn't state any hard evidence about how we may have got this natural religious belief."

I'm sorry Steve, but you don't get to agree with his conclusion then disagree with how he arrived at it. The whole reason he's saying religion "comes naturally" to people is because of all these cognitive processes that trick your brain into believing something for no good reason. You believe that you can have a "personal relationship with god" because of your tendency to anthropomorphize god. You think you can talk to god because of the way your conscious talks to itself and imagines it's having conversations with imaginary people. Religious rituals make you feel better because your brain is hardwired to associate that feeling with repetitive tasks. You don't get to cite this article as a proof that religion "comes naturally" to mankind and then say it's because "god is out there"...that's not why this article states that religion comes naturally.
You said...
"It actually goes beyond this because they say that the type of language that is used when talking about religious concepts and divine entities is different to how we talk to other humans."
It doesn't say anything about that in the article. Sorry.
You said...
"But just because this authors opinion says that normal human thought about religious belief doesn't state that there is one religion that is above others or that a God is what is driving things doesn't mean that there isn't a God or that there isn't one way to that God."
Actually, what the author is stating is why you believe in religion. It's not because your faith makes more sense than all the others, it's because of the way your brain is wired. It's his opinion, but he's basing it on all the facts and evidence he presented. You can say you think it's because of god...but there's nothing in this article to support that opinion. As a general rule, you shouldn't cite articles you disagree with.
You said...
" You can also look at the evidence and say that because it is natural for humans to belief in some sort of divine agent that there may be a God out there and people have just mixed things up and turned that one God into their own versions."
There's no evidence for that in this article. None.
You said...
"The author also states that to not believe goes against the natural grain and takes a lot more work..."

It sure does. Think of the clustering example I gave that shows people naturally trust more attractive people, even without having any reason to trust them. It's because of how our brains are hardwired...it comes naturally. It's illogical, wrong, but it definitely comes naturally to us. That's why it takes more work to overcome these natural predispositions and realize that you have no more reason to trust the attractive woman than you do the ugly woman.

A lot of your links are rubbish Steve...and it seems like you're just now finding out that you don't really agree with this one. Can you see now why I don't think you read these things that you post? Looking back, I'm starting to wonder if the reason you repeat the same thins over and over is because you don't really read the replies to your posts.

 

[juvenissun]

How does a rock die?

Many ways. For example: it gets dissolved away.

 

[quatona]

The nature of rock is gradually changing. When the change is completed (the nature of the old rock is gone), then a new rock is born.

Could you explain your stance on rock abortion?

 

[Colter]

Could you explain your stance on rock abortion?

Any rock more than 2 billion years old should be considered a living rock on moral principle.

 

[juvenissun]

Could you explain your stance on rock abortion?

Bring a rock into a laboratory and kill it there. Then the reincarnation ended.

 

[JGG]

The nature of rock is gradually changing. When the change is completed (the nature of the old rock is gone), then a new rock is born. It is like all other life forms on the earth. The material all go in cycles.

I don't understand. How is the change completed? How does the nature of a rock change? I still don't understand how the new rock is born. This is unlike how any other form of life reproduces.

You are correct. If rock is alive, then the planet must also be alive. All we need to do is to find out how does this form of life functions.

But we're asking you. If it's a rock then how does a rock life function?

 

[quatona]

Bring a rock into a laboratory and kill it there. Then the reincarnation ended.

How do you kill a rock? How do you distinguish between a living and a dead rock?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't understand. How is the change completed? How does the nature of a rock change? I still don't understand how the new rock is born. This is unlike how any other form of life reproduces.

But we're asking you. If it's a rock then how does a rock life function?

The composition and structure of a rock continuously change. When they changed into a status that it should no longer be called the name of the rock, then the rock is reincarnated into a new rock with a new name. Something like a cube of clay (artificially) changed into a brick or a wood changed into a coal.