Faith/Religion/Spirituality - Self-Denial? And Philosophy

[thestrangequark]

Interesting idea. But also, unfortunately, wrong.

Indeed. Have you not considered the idea, horatio that not everyone has a "religion/belief, trust and meaning" part of the brain? Or that that part of the brain may be larger/more active/more dominant in some than in others?

No idea, you are the psychologist. I am just a layman who thinks that people who lack a sense of basic trust have to become neurotic.

What does that have to do with your original assertion?

 

[marillion]

Even atheists have a similar God notion. They might not call it God but sense of basic trust. It could also be the vague belief that the universe does somehow care or, to use the Christian notion, just a belief in the Holy Spirit, in human community.
I think that even the most rational cynic must believe just a tiny bit into something metaphysical. My idea is unifying one, that people consciously choose to follow this religion or be an atheist or whatever but underneath their conscious choice the 'religion, belief, trust and meaning' part of their brain cannot simply be deactivated.

Horsefeathers. Atheists don't believe in anything metaphysical. What you're talking about above is religious believers. Just because you can't imagine how it feels doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Agreed... The atheists I know don't seem to have any kind of belief in anything other than we are here because we're here (Roll the Bones reference, sorry!) and that it's all science based..

Aren't folks who have a kind of metaphysical belief more along the lines of pagans or at the most, agnostics? I'll freely admit to not knowing much about the metaphysical.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Interesting idea. But also, unfortunately, wrong.

Indeed. Have you not considered the idea, horatio that not everyone has a "religion/belief, trust and meaning" part of the brain? Or that that part of the brain may be larger/more active/more dominant in some than in others?

No idea, you are the psychologist. I am just a layman who thinks that people who lack a sense of basic trust have to become neurotic.

I thought we had already established that the way people "get through the day" is through cognitive dissonance. Every single action you take on a daily basis carries with it some risk of injury or death, and yet we don't pause every few seconds to weigh those risks. We use some basic mitigating behaviors we've been taught (e.g. looking both ways before crossing the street, paying attention while driving, don't leave a stove unattended, etc.) but we don't simply avoid every possibly risky behavior, nor do we fret about it endlessly--unless one is, as you say, neurotic.

But none of that requires "belief" or any kind of metaphysical element. It is most likely an adaptive trait we evolved so we can cope with being able to evaluate risks without being totally paralyzed by them.

 

[JarodRussell]

To be worried about death is something humans have only recently developed, isn't it? We are able to think greatly ahead, that's one of the things that separates us from the average animal. And fear of death is more the result of extreme personal experiences, but not the result of the abstract possibility of dying. People who lost relatives in a plane crash, or who themselves experienced a plane crash, will probably never fly again, for example.

When you don't actively think about it, you follow the normal course of things. It's like not thinking about that grass green crocodile on the firy red bicycle. You don't until someone or something reminds you of it. And most of the time, the inputs "car" or "street" are not the triggers for a panic reaction.

That said, we don't avoid risky behaviors simply because we don't think about it, because "weighing the risks" is a cognitive process that's relatively new and needs active processing. Unless your subconscious doesn't feel in danger, you don't fear anything.

You essentially "learn" neuroses over time, don't you?




Religious beliefs are induced by the society, I think. I once in a while catch myself in a dialogue with a god, simply because I grew up with that concept. But you are not born with the belief in a god.


What you are born with is the need to make sense with the world, based on your knowledge level. So if a lightning hits the tree after you thought something bad, and don't know the science behind lightnings, you get to assume that it's a sign of a supernatural power. Because that makes more sense than randomness.

AND you are born with an instinct for hierarchy structures. Humans come together in groups, and there is an alpha. So you also mirror that concept on the supernatural, which means there must be someone powerful above you giving the orders.

 

[Amaris]

...


Religious beliefs are induced by the society, I think. I once in a while catch myself in a dialogue with a god, simply because I grew up with that concept. But you are not born with the belief in a god.

...

I found this interesting, because I catch myself doing the exact same thing. Granted, for the first couple of decades in my life, God was a huge part of it. Now that I've set aside the very notion, I still find myself questioning or commenting. I guess old habits are hard to break.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread, since it's going to open the science vs. religion can again, or even worse, a political debate.

http://vimeo.com/31199049

The thing here is that there are people out there who question scientific method in favor of ignorance. Which is KINDA a trait of religious people (kinda because you don't necessarily have to be religious to be like that, and not everyone who is religious is like that).

Why are people doing that? I personally "enjoy" knowledge. I enjoy knowing and understanding things. And it's puzzling to me why and how some people just look up in the sky and say "Who cares? A wizard did it. That's all I need to believe."

 

[Avon]

i'm immensely disappointed with this thread. i thought the crazy, right wing, bigoted members of the board would've come in here and got it locked by now.

All this philosophising talk of what exactly constitutes atheism is very nearly a pleasant surprise.

 

[horatio83]

First of all, I totally agree that this postmodern "there is no truth, I believe whatever I want" position is horrible. People who don't "believe" in global warming are just plain stupid.

Here matters are clear but when you go into the area between religion and natural sciences, social sciences, matters become more fuzzy. You rarely get conclusive, unambiguous evidence so theory is more important in soft sciences ... and the zero-level of theory is always dogma, belief or however you wanna call it. Of course this doesn't imply that a theoretician is a lunatic magician, of course he uses his brain, checks the arguments, the internal validity of his theory and so on but in the end a certain theoretical structure just feels right and you basically make a leap of fait and committ yourself to this theory. This doesn't imply that you don't keep an open mind or won't abandon it one day but while you are working on it you believe in it.
That's why theoretical battles among scientists can become as nasty as political discussion, it is to some degree a matter of belief.

Of course this belief is not comparable with religious belief, I merely wanted to point out that theoretical work can feel a little bit like an act of belief to a theoretician.

 

[Mr Awe]

You simply can't function like that. You need to make assumptions about the behavior of people and the world we live in just to get through each day.

But that's the thing.
I don't like making assumptions and steer clear of them.

When I talk with people, I ask them questions in order to get to know them better... and if they seemingly state something that might require an assumption, I ask them to be precise and clarify what is it they meant because I don't like to guess.
This is something that certain people find a bit tedious as they 'feel' as if they need to 'explain every little thing' - but in order to formulate a response appropriate to the question they posed, I need them to point out the details, because otherwise, I'd be making assumptions (which is what I tell them) and the possibility of making a mistake increases.

But, you make an assumption about whether to believe them or not, right?

If you made no assumptions, you couldn't take anyone at their word. Their past behaviors would be no indication of future behaviors, etc. Every time you met someone, even someone you knew, it would be like the first meeting, back at square one. Why? Because you are making no assumptions, you are not believing anything about them.

You would also not believe in traffic laws, so you'd have to reevaluate them every time you were out on the road. Etc, etc, for everything you do all day long.

You may not want to call them beliefs, but you have them. You need them to operate in the real world. You build up a set of operating rules that you [ta da!] believe in. You believe that they'll work for you. You can't constantly re-evaluate every single thing in your life at every single opportunity.

These mental shortcuts known as beliefs (or assumptions, or possibilities as you call them) are necessary to live.

Mr Awe