From Science Magazine, 4/26/12.
"Many people with religious convictions feel that their faith is rock solid. But a new study finds that prompting people to engage in analytical thinking can cause their religious beliefs to waver, if only a little. Researchers say the findings have potentially significant implications for understanding the cognitive underpinnings of religion.
Psychologists often carve thinking into two broad categories: intuitive thinking, which is fast and effortless (instantly knowing whether someone is angry or sad from the look on her face, for example); and analytic thinking, which is slower and more deliberate (and used for solving math problems and other tricky tasks). Both kinds of thinking have their strengths and weaknesses, and they often seem to interfere with one another. "Recently there's been an emerging consensus among [researchers] … that a lot of religious beliefs are grounded in intuitive processes," says Will Gervais, a graduate student at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, in Canada and a co-author of the new study, published today in Science.
One example comes from a study by neuroscientist and philosopher Joshua Greene and colleagues at Harvard University, published last September in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. They asked hundreds of volunteers recruited online to answer three questions with appealingly intuitive answers that turn out to be wrong. For example, "A bat and ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" Although $0.10 comes easily to mind (it's the intuitive answer), it takes some analytical thought to come up with the correct answer of $0.05. People who chose more intuitive answers on these questions were more likely to report stronger religious beliefs, even when the researchers controlled for IQ, education, political leanings, and other factors.
In the same study, another group of volunteers wrote a paragraph about a time in their lives when either following their intuition or careful reasoning led to a good outcome. Those who wrote about intuition reported stronger religious beliefs on a questionnaire taken immediately afterward. If intuitive thinking encourages religious belief, as Greene's study suggested, analytical thinking might encourage disbeliefâ€"or so Gervais and his adviser, social psychologist Ara Norenzayan, hypothesized.
To test this idea, the duo devised several ways to subconsciously put people in what they considered a more analytical mindset. In one experiment with 57 undergraduate students, some volunteers viewed artwork depicting a reflective thinking pose (such as Rodin's The Thinker) while others viewed art depicting less intellectual pursuits (such as throwing a discus) before answering questionnaires about their faith. In another experiment with 93 undergraduates and a larger sample of 148 American adults recruited online, some subjects solved word puzzles that incorporated words such as "analyze," "reason," and "ponder," while others completed similar puzzles with only words unrelated to thinking, such as "high" and "plane." In all of these experiments, people who got the thinking-related cues reported weaker religious beliefs on the questionnaires taken afterward than did the control group.
In a final experiment, Gervais and Norenzayan asked 182 volunteers to answer a religious questionnaire as usual, while others answered the same questionnaire printed in a hard-to-read font, which previous studies have found promotes analytic thinking. And indeed, those who had to work harder to comprehend the questionnaire rated their religious beliefs lower.
Because people were randomly assigned to the analytical-thinking and control groups, and because the results were consistent across all their experiments, Gervais says it's very unlikely the findings could result from one group being more religious to begin with. Moreover, in two of these experiments, the researchers administered religious belief questionnaires to the participants a few weeks beforehand and found no difference between the groups.
The effects of the analytical-thinking manipulations were modest. "We're not turning people into atheists," says Gervais. Rather, when the questionnaire responses of all subjects in an experiment are taken together, they indicate a small shift away from religious belief.
"It's very difficult to distinguish between what a person believes and what they say they believe," says Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist and Nobel laureate at Princeton University who has done pioneering work on the contributions of intuitive and analytical thinking to human decision making. "All they have shown, and all that can be shown, is that when you're thinking more critically you reject statements that otherwise you would endorse," Kahneman says. "It tells you that there are some religious beliefs people hold that if they were thinking more critically, they themselves would not endorse."
To Gervais and Norenzayan, the findings suggest that intuitive thinking, likely along with other cognitive and cultural factors, is a key ingredient in religious belief. Greene agrees: "Through some combination of culture and biology, our minds are intuitively receptive to religion." He says, "If you're going to be unreligious, it's likely going to be due to reflecting on it and finding some things that are hard to believe."
"In some ways this confirms what many people, both religious and nonreligious, have said about religious belief for a long time, that it's more of a feeling than a thought," says Nicholas Epley, a psychologist at the University of Chicago. But he predicts the findings won't change anyone's mind about whether God exists or whether religious belief is rational. "If you think that reasoning analytically is the way to go about understanding the world accurately, you might see this as evidence that being religious doesn't make much sense," he says. "If you're a religious person, I think you take this evidence as showing that God has given you a system for belief that just reveals itself to you as common sense."
Follow ScienceNOW on Facebook and Twitter
Interesting Ben. Many of us non-believing persons (that is, in the typical revealed religions) would sense and anticipate the outcome of the above studies. My concern though, is the consequences within a country, or even a world, wherein too many of the citizens actually believe in one of the revealed religions such as Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. Although many of the consequences of belief are somewhat harmless, and even psychologically beneficial for some; and although religions have at times benefited man by infusing moral guidance to emerging and struggling societies, history is indicating that the time is approaching when the benefits to mankind of the revealed religions will be seen to be exceeded by their continuing harm. The revealed religions continue to be the cause of strife and warfare between nations and communities within nations. The vague writings, with conflicting messages, continue to be the cause of differing interpretations, and thus, eventually to conflict and suffering not only to believers, but to the non-believers caught in the middle.
Revealed religions, forced upon the young by selfish and ignorant adult believers, some being charlatans who, by their own acceptance of the absurdities of their religion, actually believe it is proper to infect the vulnerable young with the same disease. The result is to restrict learning about the truths in nature, about how ultimately to live in harmony with the diversities of mankind, about how to love all of mankind, some of which might be of differing ethnicities and religious persuasions.
A person infected with a revealed religion is inclined to feel quite different from the non-believer, and even at times somewhat superior, and therefore separate, giving weight to the contention that ultimately religions build fences, prepares one for non-acceptance of other’s, and in the end, prepares one for conflict. Believing in a revealed religion cripples one’s mind, shrinks one’s world, builds fences and walls, and gives one a limited view of the realities of life.
But yes, please forgive my little semi-rant Ben, as I think about the harmful consequences of the revealed religions.
Religions do build fences...i just cant believe we've evolved so very far and people still have faith in things that are all stories and lies and fears and have faith that its fact...i thought that thinking was for children
Quote from: Garden guy on May 25, 2012, 06:59:15 AM
Religions do build fences...i just cant believe we've evolved so very far and people still have faith in things that are all stories and lies and fears and have faith that its fact...i thought that thinking was for children
Nice try GardenGuy, please list the lies and fears for us...
If there is no God, then I haven't lost a thing, but if there IS a God, then every atheist is in serious peril. I have no problem with 'faith', before you sat at the computer, nobody analyzed the fact and/or principals by which the chair you are sitting in would hold your weight. Fact is you didn't think about it, you simply sat down. Thus is faith.
All of your science and the scientific 'proof' for your theories requires far more faith then I exercise by being a believer. The world just happened, the big bang, all of these pieces just fell into place, and that seems as illogical to me as your disbelief in any higher power.
Here is a scientific experiment for you... Take one watch, you choose the brand, take it completely apart so that all of the components are removed from each other. Place said watch in a box and launch it into space whilst tumbling around and around... How long will you wait for it to just 'fall into place' and become a watch again? Silly? Not at all because I gave you a huge head start by having preexisting components. None of the earths components were already intact and you want me to believe that you have the answer?
Sorry boys and girls, but your 'logic' reminds me of a Biblical chapter that actually speaks to this very subject: "While boasting of their wisdom they became utter fools," Romans 1:22, Weymouth New Testament.
The fool who knows he is a fool is that much wiser. The fool who thinks he is wise is a fool indeed. Buddha :D
For the most part, I agree with Gardenguy. Ock.......? Well, I'm disappointed in your thinking. I expected better from you. Your thinking, your argument, is too much for me. It goes too far. I don't have the energy or the time to bring it back. I rest.
Quote from: ronchamblin on May 25, 2012, 03:02:46 PM
For the most part, I agree with Gardenguy. Ock.......? Well, I'm disappointed in your thinking. I expected better from you. Your thinking, your argument, is too much for me. It goes too far. I don't have the energy or the time to bring it back. I rest.
Ron, I jokingly label myself a 'New Age Christian.' Maybe I'm the only one LOL. For me to deny what seems to be the obvious... that is, we are NOT alone, would betray these beliefs. However, I do not believe in a judgmental Christian lifestyle. Why judge one another when we are all burdened with our share of problems and screw ups. I think far too many churches have Jesus in a box, 'Step right up, come on down, get your Jesus right here,' sort of places. Somehow, I don't think that is how he intended for us to live. While my beliefs are totally within the Christian camp, I am open to constant learning, history, text, doctrine from myriad sources. This is why you'll see me quote Buddha, Tao, Hunkpapa Lakota medicine men, or other sources of inspirational thought. Were these guys Christian's? Probably not, but they spoke a lot of wisdom none the less.
Matt 7 - “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
I really don't care if you want to call that a typical Christian lifestyle choice, but it does make for a lot of peace.
Contrary to 'Garden Guy's' constant noise about historical myths, there is much evidence if anyone wants to search it out, and it needn't be solely found in the Septuagint, Torah, or Christian Bible.
For Example: Tacitus - A first century Roman historian, who chronicled the lives of several emperors.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44.
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in 64 AD during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source,
You might also consult:
Eusebius of Caesarea - A third century theologian who used the library in Caesarea for much of his research.
Flavius Josephus - A first century Jewish historian who documented the Roman empire. (though his history of Jesus is not firsthand and at least one story is considered a forgery)
Justin Martyr - A Gentile who lived in Palestine and later became a Christian. This theologian used Greek philosophy to explain Christian doctrine.
Philo of Alexandria - A Jewish philosopher and historian who lived in the first century.
Tertullian - An African theologian who wrote extensively in Latin. He was first to use the word trinitas to describe the Godhead.
Otherwise, why is it that so many people, spend so much time, trying to silence something that they believe isn't real? That is just not logical. I've never spent a minute trying to silence my daughters childhood belief in 'flower faeries,' who knows? Maybe they do exist. If religious belief is like the flower faeries, then it is of no consequence, if not, then every man and every woman needs to examine their heart. It is not for me to judge.
“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.â€
Lao Tzu, TAO
Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 25, 2012, 10:56:13 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on May 25, 2012, 03:02:46 PM
For the most part, I agree with Gardenguy. Ock.......? Well, I'm disappointed in your thinking. I expected better from you. Your thinking, your argument, is too much for me. It goes too far. I don't have the energy or the time to bring it back. I rest.
Ron, I jokingly label myself a 'New Age Christian.' Maybe I'm the only one LOL. For me to deny what seems to be the obvious... that is, we are NOT alone, would betray these beliefs. However, I do not believe in a judgmental Christian lifestyle. Why judge one another when we are all burdened with our share of problems and screw ups. I think far too many churches have Jesus in a box, 'Step right up, come on down, get your Jesus right here,' sort of places. Somehow, I don't think that is how he intended for us to live. While my beliefs are totally within the Christian camp, I am open to constant learning, history, text, doctrine from myriad sources. This is why you'll see me quote Buddha, Tao, Hunkpapa Lakota medicine men, or other sources of inspirational thought. Were these guys Christian's? Probably not, but they spoke a lot of wisdom none the less.
Matt 7 - “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
I really don't care if you want to call that a typical Christian lifestyle choice, but it does make for a lot of peace.
Contrary to 'Garden Guy's' constant noise about historical myths, there is much evidence if anyone wants to search it out, and it needn't be solely found in the Septuagint, Torah, or Christian Bible.
For Example: Tacitus - A first century Roman historian, who chronicled the lives of several emperors.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44.
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in 64 AD during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source,
You might also consult:
Eusebius of Caesarea - A third century theologian who used the library in Caesarea for much of his research.
Flavius Josephus - A first century Jewish historian who documented the Roman empire. (though his history of Jesus is not firsthand and at least one story is considered a forgery)
Justin Martyr - A Gentile who lived in Palestine and later became a Christian. This theologian used Greek philosophy to explain Christian doctrine.
Philo of Alexandria - A Jewish philosopher and historian who lived in the first century.
Tertullian - An African theologian who wrote extensively in Latin. He was first to use the word trinitas to describe the Godhead.
Otherwise, why is it that so many people, spend so much time, trying to silence something that they believe isn't real? That is just not logical. I've never spent a minute trying to silence my daughters childhood belief in 'flower faeries,' who knows? Maybe they do exist. If religious belief is like the flower faeries, then it is of no consequence, if not, then every man and every woman needs to examine their heart. It is not for me to judge.
“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.â€
Lao Tzu, TAO
Well said, Ock.
Quote from: ronchamblin on May 25, 2012, 02:43:52 AM
Revealed religions, forced upon the young by selfish and ignorant adult believers, some being charlatans who, by their own acceptance of the absurdities of their religion, actually believe it is proper to infect the vulnerable young with the same disease. The result is to restrict learning about the truths in nature, about how ultimately to live in harmony with the diversities of mankind, about how to love all of mankind, some of which might be of differing ethnicities and religious persuasions.
A person infected with a revealed religion is inclined to feel quite different from the non-believer, and even at times somewhat superior, and therefore separate, giving weight to the contention that ultimately religions build fences, prepares one for non-acceptance of other’s, and in the end, prepares one for conflict. Believing in a revealed religion cripples one’s mind, shrinks one’s world, builds fences and walls, and gives one a limited view of the realities of life.
There are two thoughts I had on these thoughts. The first is, it is true that strongly religious people have a pushback in regards to the world of science and the analysis of the physical world in general--but what many realize is that they do not have to. It's not the belief itself that cripples the mind, but the notion that there is this small window of what is considered true and holy and pleasing to God, and that anything that doesn't talk the talk outside of that window is thus contradictory. The world of science is looking at the world as we can see and feel and understand it, and yet most of us can realize that there is still a limit, that there are still things we don't understand and can't apply the scientific method to. There is certainly room for belief in God who created the world that we see through science and has allowed us to explore that world thusly, without necessarily looking towards religious and spiritual teachings to explain all of the hows and the whys of that physical world.
(Some of these hyperreligious people say with pride that the Bible is the only book you need. I ask them where in the Bible I can learn how to properly grow tomatoes in my garden!)
The second thought I had was in regards to the non-acceptance of others or the feelings of superiority over others. I think both of those traits are inherent in the human population in general; they just have different means of justifying those behaviors. Religious people and non-religious people both come up with excuses for very bad behavior. Oddly enough, the revealed religion that I have been infected with teaches against those very behaviors; even reminds its own followers to have humility, grace, gentleness, and kindness; to be at peace with all men. Perhaps its not the religious infections that cause divisions and walls, but the individual's own inherent intolerance and pride and selfishness and stubbornness that creates the problems to begin with.
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt" -John Henry Newman
Mystery is central to the Christian faith, and it's very clearly expressed in Catholicism and Orthodoxy especially (and I'm sure sure in other faith traditions too though I am not as familiar). I mean we are contemplating the infinite God with only finite mental faculties. Although we can know a lot by reason and scientific understanding, at some point people have to place God in the realm of faith because we are limited in our own understanding. Either we have faith in ourselves that we have the ability to know enough about the universe to rule out God, or we place our faith in God.
I think this study is more of an indication of the state of our culture than the validity of a belief in God. We as a people place great value in scientific knowledge and little value in "poetic knowledge." That is we place our value chiefly on what is quantifiable and observable. For some things like the development of new drugs, scientific knowledge works great, but some things have value not because they are quantifiable or directly observable. Some things have value just by its inherent nature. We can't scientifically quantify why Shakespeare's writing is beautiful or why freedom is precious. It is because that is its nature. We can see this modern western scientific mindset at play in the whole HHS mandate drama. On one hand, you have people who want to justify their positions based on polling numbers and the other side would tell you that freedom is not based on popular opinion but that is granted by the Creator. We as a people have grown uncomfortable with mystery.
So when I see an article like this I think first, like I said, it shows how uncomfortable westerners are with poetic knowledge not that faith in God is foolish, and I also see it as an attempt to label believers as stupid. Of course, that whole argument is ridiculous by its nature when you consider some of the great minds who had a strong faith like Thomas Aquinas (try reading Summa Theologia and see if he hadn't really thought deeply about his faith), George Lemaitre (the scientist who first person to propose the big bang theory who again obviously put some thought into the beginning of things and yet could be a faithful priest), or Blaise Pascal (whose Pensees is considered one of the great French masterpieces which he coincidentally wanted to entitle "Apologie de la religion Chrétienne"). Not to say the original poster was trying to imply believers are stupid, but undoubtedly that is what some on here seem to imply.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 25, 2012, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Garden guy on May 25, 2012, 06:59:15 AM
Religions do build fences...i just cant believe we've evolved so very far and people still have faith in things that are all stories and lies and fears and have faith that its fact...i thought that thinking was for children
Nice try GardenGuy, please list the lies and fears for us...
If there is no God, then I haven't lost a thing, but if there IS a God, then every atheist is in serious peril. I have no problem with 'faith', before you sat at the computer, nobody analyzed the fact and/or principals by which the chair you are sitting in would hold your weight. Fact is you didn't think about it, you simply sat down. Thus is faith.
All of your science and the scientific 'proof' for your theories requires far more faith then I exercise by being a believer. The world just happened, the big bang, all of these pieces just fell into place, and that seems as illogical to me as your disbelief in any higher power.
Here is a scientific experiment for you... Take one watch, you choose the brand, take it completely apart so that all of the components are removed from each other. Place said watch in a box and launch it into space whilst tumbling around and around... How long will you wait for it to just 'fall into place' and become a watch again? Silly? Not at all because I gave you a huge head start by having preexisting components. None of the earths components were already intact and you want me to believe that you have the answer?
Sorry boys and girls, but your 'logic' reminds me of a Biblical chapter that actually speaks to this very subject: "While boasting of their wisdom they became utter fools," Romans 1:22, Weymouth New Testament.
Ock,
That first argument you appeal to is famously known as Pascal's Wager. The basic line of reasoning goes like this:
1. It's probably a bigger pay off to the individual to believe in God.
2. Therefore, one should believe in God if one wants the largest pay off
The most enduring challenge to this argument can be put into the form of a question:
- Which god should I believe in?!
Assuming only one god exists, how do I tell which one is the best one to place my bets on?
The second argument you call forth, further on down the line, is famously known as the Design argument. The basic line of reasoning goes like this:
1. Many things on Earth appear carefully designed and arranged
2. The best explanation for this is that there's an intelligent designer
3. That intelligent designer is God
4. Therefore, God exists
A challenge question that has long endured, at it is quite difficult to answer, is this:
- Assuming an intelligent designer does exist, what reason do we have to believe that the intelligent designer is God?
And then, again:
-Which God?!
In other words, what reason is there to believe that this intelligent designer--assuming there is one--is the god of Classical Theism, as opposed to some other god or gods?
Neither personal experiences, nor recorded revelations, favor the god of Classical Theism. Every religion, especially the big ones, offers plenty of personal experiences and written texts.
If an appeal to personal experience, or an appeal to recorded revelation, is all that's needed to conclude that a god exists though...then that line of reasoning justifies the existence of any and all gods that have been personally experienced, or written about.
The implications here, for the various high stakes issues one encounters in civic and political life, are huge!
Meanwhile over on our news partner Channel 4, there is a story about the atheist community holding a rally as they filed suit to remove the 10 commandments from the Bradford County Court House. Again I might have a slightly different view, here is a reprint of my comment:
Do not worship any other god.
RELIGIOUS, PICK ONE AND STICK WITH IT.
Do not make idols.
RELIGIOUS, WORSHIPING A BUICK MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID.
Do not treat God's name lightly.
RELIGIOUS, BUT WE DON'T KNOW GODS NAME.
Dedicate or set aside a regular day each week for rest.
UNION SHOP RULES.
Give honor to your father and mother
....AND THEY'LL PAY YOUR TUITION.
Do not deliberately kill.
OR YOU'LL DO 20 TO LIFE IN BRADFORD COUNTY.
Do not have sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse.
GET CAUGHT AND YOU'LL WISH YOU WERE DOING 20 TO LIFE IN BRADFORD COUNTY.
Do not steal or take anything that doesn't belong to you.
MAKES SENSE WITH FLORIDA'S 'STAND YOUR GROUND' LAW.
Do not tell a lie.
MEANWHILE BACK TO THOSE SEXUAL RELATIONS...
Do not desire anything or anyone that does not belong to you.
DONALD TRUMP SUCKS.
As a Christian, I could understand the problem with the first 3, the rest of them... well, not so much.
Islam, Buddha, Tao? Bring them on! The more the merrier, and it allows us ALL to be PRO CHOICE.
Which brings me around to friend Ron's comments:
QuoteRevealed religions, forced upon the young by selfish and ignorant adult believers, some being charlatans who, by their own acceptance of the absurdities of their religion, actually believe it is proper to infect the vulnerable young with the same disease. The result is to restrict learning about the truths in nature, about how ultimately to live in harmony with the diversities of mankind, about how to love all of mankind, some of which might be of differing ethnicities and religious persuasions.
So you believe that to expose a child to religious belief, a belief that they themselves will one day be able to accept or reject is narrow minded? Wouldn't exposing a child to myriad beliefs, religious, pagan, modern, Darwinian, etc. be a superior way to raise a whole and wholesome, well informed society? I suspect that your experience with religion is of the backwoods, rattle snake handling, tobacco barn mentality type? That is NOT representative of all religious belief.
Plato asked the question, "Are you a body, or do you have a body?" The implications are obvious, the fact that we are not 'a body' but rather possess one, gives weight to the concept that somehow we are just visiting. He mentions in Phaedo, through the character of Socrates, that Belief in this or something of the like is a noble risk.†One labels Plato ignorant or absurd at their own peril.
Certainly Purplebike, as a historian, one searches for evidences to support ones beliefs, however, such a pursuit should NEVER be taken unless one is thoroughly aware that the evidence might disprove those same beliefs. I am quite content with my Christian beliefs, if you happen to be a happy Buddhist then let's be friends, bet we'll have some great conversations. I think the late Emperor Hirohito / Shōwa 裕仁 / 昭和天皇 expressed my take on this thread and 10,000 more like it. "If all people are brethren, then why are the winds and waves so restless?"
Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 26, 2012, 10:29:50 PM
Certainly Purplebike, as a historian, one searches for evidences to support ones beliefs, however, such a pursuit should NEVER be taken unless one is thoroughly aware that the evidence might disprove those same beliefs. I am quite content with my Christian beliefs, if you happen to be a happy Buddhist then let's be friends, bet we'll have some great conversations. I think the late Emperor Hirohito / Shōwa 裕仁 / 昭和天皇 expressed my take on this thread and 10,000 more like it. "If all people are brethren, then why are the winds and waves so restless?"
Ock,
Forgive me, I do not understand. I'm having a hard time connecting what is said here, to what was asked in my own direct response to your first post in this thread.
How do you respond to those questions I listed? I'm genuinely curious.
While I too tend to value diversity of opinion, and good conversation, those things are not the most important things at stake in evaluating Pascal's Wager, or the Design argument.
Some things that are more at stake include claims about existence, and truth, and then how those are handled when one applies one's personal views in the public / social arena, in ways that affect others' opportunities for equal treatment.
How, then, would you respond to those questions, as posed in my response to your appeal to Pascal's Wager, and the Design argument, respectively?
A child, or any individual, would not have a god if care had not been taken by someone to offer it. The particular god to which one becomes attached, if one is so inclined, depends on the culture within which one is born.
Several centuries ago, the intellectual climate was shaped to allow for the easy gift of a god to a child, an adult, or even a nation. The gift of a god could be tendered to any individual by any inspired and able individual who happened to be given the gift by another. Or, if one is to be fortunate enough to engage the god in the infancy of its creation, one could be given the gift directly by its creator, called perhaps a prophet, or the anointed one, who, as a consequence of solitude in a forest or desert, by powerful need and contemplation, and perhaps by the aid
of drugs direct from nature, was able over many weeks or months, to create the god which could evolve into one of the most powerful forces known to mankind, and this, only because it has engaged and satisfied a set of very
powerful forces within every human; the need for purpose, for forgiveness, for understanding, for help, for hope, for acceptance, for love, for confidence, and for a friend.
As the secrets of nature emerge into the intellectual store available to all, as the realities of the origins of religions creep into the consciousness of more individuals, it becomes more difficult for some to endure what they perceive to be lingering contradictions and absurdities in the world of the revealed religions. These individuals begin to realize that good behavior and proper engagement with all others on earth is a consequence of common sense, is a consequence of a stable human condition wherein the best rule is simply “Do unto others as you would have them do unto youâ€, a rule which predates any book of doctrine, a rule which emerges as a natural consequence of man’s will and need to survive as a species, forces which predate any system of religion.
The fences, the separations, the conflicts and suffering we talk about in earlier posts emerge from the perpetuation of these revealed religions, none of which are from any god, but are created by a man, a prophet, perhaps lost in the mists of history. By the habits of man, the new god is glorified and sculptured by man to an increasingly powerful god with the passage of time, the belief is perpetuated by the needs and intellectual shapes of men, a belief which still, throughout the centuries to this very day, by cultivating division and conflict, causes horrible suffering to millions of innocent people. And many wonder why some thoughtful individuals wish shame to those who still infect children with the idea of god and sin and hell, and ultimately about their separation from and opposition to their fellow human beings.
This is not the 5th century, but old habits change only with great difficulty. With the continued delusion, the destruction and suffering continues. The preachers and associates are happy, but the children ultimately suffer as a consequence of being taught untruths; to rely on a fictional god for guidance, for the making of decisions, instead of relying on themselves, instead of becoming self sufficient, responsible individuals. The children are infected with the notion that one must prepare for an illusory future life by engaging the absurdities of a revealed religion in this one; and this, instead of taking proper care of this life, enjoying to the fullest this life, which is the only one there is.
Quote from: ronchamblin on May 27, 2012, 01:58:31 PM
A child, or any individual, would not have a god if care had not been taken by someone to offer it. The particular god to which one becomes attached, if one is so inclined, depends on the culture within which one is born.
Bingo!!! Arbitrary, right? What separates a Hindu from a Buddhist from a Catholic from a Jew? Geography.
That's right Ben. Geography is the key to one's god. And you know, I've always liked guns and bombs, and the females of the species.... human species that is. So I've been thinking about how much I would have liked to have been born in one of the Muslim countries. I would be a Muslim. Then I would have had an excellent opportunity to become a terrorist, and then, if all went like it was supposed to go, that is, if the bomb went off while attached to my body, I would have had my 85 or so virgins of the species in the Muslim heaven.
Quote from: Purplebike on May 26, 2012, 09:57:10 PM
The most enduring challenge to this argument can be put into the form of a question:
- Which god should I believe in?!
- Assuming an intelligent designer does exist, what reason do we have to believe that the intelligent designer is God?
And then, again: -Which God?!
The one in which you cannot prove, does not exist.
Quote from: ronchamblin on May 27, 2012, 01:58:31 PM
...the children ultimately suffer as a consequence of being taught untruths; to rely on a fictional god for guidance,
...And in all of the cosmos, we will never find extraterrestrial life right? You are sure of this how? And you know it is not God? Forget the arguments of 'narrow minded' or '5Th Century' or 'evil religions', where is the evidence that there is no God?
In the universe there are two elements at play, energy and matter. Energy can convert to matter and matter can convert to energy, but there can never be an increase or decrease in either without outside assistance. To suggest that everything around us just happened, exploding out of nothing, would deny the First Law of Thermodynamics.
I and most of the believers I know would tell you that 'religion' has likely done as much evil as it has good through the century's, but at it's best, religion is man-made. The concept of God as that very point of eternal energy or light. I wasn't there when the world began (though sometimes I feel like it) and as a result can't “prove†God did it any more then the atheists can't “prove†he didn't. Somewhere at the dawn of time, something happened and the universe was created, and since nothing + nothing = nothing, until someone can provide proof of how this great cosmic 'accident' came along, I'm sticking was God as creator. Now if that disappoints you Ron, let's just say that within 30-50 years, you and I will BOTH know the truth.
Oh and Muslim Heaven? I believe that's 75 virgins Ron.
Ron, your argument is null. For one thing, you seem to assume that faith is only based on a person's upbringing as if he is suspended in a passive, childlike acceptance ad infinitum. However, we know that's untrue for most if not all free people, and it's easily proven by the phenomenon of adult conversion. I, like millions of others, was an adult convert to a faith tradition that has a much different understanding of God (monotheistic) than the tradition I was raised in (polytheistic). An adult has to decide for himself whether to accept the faith (or lack of faith) he was raised in, seek out a new faith, or let himself drift away from the faith of his childhood. What you're saying is actually demeaning the human intellect because you are saying that people cannot think for themselves.
You also talk as if no other cultures in history have the gift of knowledge and reason. Even in the so-called dark ages, people apparently had even knowledge to build beautiful cathedrals that have lasted for centuries and to found universities like Oxford and the University of Bologna. People have had the ability to ponder apparent contradictions and mysteries of religion for millenia, and then like now there were some who would accept and some who would reject. The fact that people can and have rejected religion at any point in time actually refutes your first point that religion is merely a product of culture precisely because it acknowledges that individuals have a choice.
Seeing as you are a book man, you may be interested in reading The Christ Connection by Roy Varghese which talks about how world religions are related to Christianity. I'm at the moment really enjoying St. Augustine's Confessions by which he tells about his own journey from unbelief to sainthood. The language takes a bit to get used to, but you really see the thought processes which he goes through in conversion. Again this is not something that he just does because of his culture. In fact, Christianity had only recently been legitimized in the Roman Empire. At any rate, there may be people giving him directions, but he like everyone else must find his own way in the world.