Ronin

Fear (please refer to 7thangels post above) wrapped in the pungent coercion that the concept eternal damnation provides...in a light bernaise of self-importance. (Sorry, I'm a little hungry )

It really is as simple as that, SRB, despite any empty protestations otherwise.

You have mischaracterized my position, SRB, and built fallacious inquiries around it.

My previous posts reflect my position more accurately regarding pretense, delusion and the motivations that drive fearful humans to simply 'make believe'.

As an ex-catholic, I pretended along with the rest of them, until it was just too stupid for words.

You may have felt the same at some point.

So, if you wish to offer anecdotes as 'evidence', then I provide that I knew it was pretend and did it anyway for the reasons I've already listed.

I even know theists that admit to the farce, yet, do it anyway out of the uncorroborated theory that the masses of the asses need to have it or brutal chaos would prevail.

Talk about a wild worldwide conspiracy theory!

See, SRB, you almost have it now.

There is no God and the pretenders know this, yet (and this is very important), they succomb to the matrix of their indoctrination because to 'let on' otherwise trips the snare of cognitive dissonance, leaving them only to the nebulous defenses we so often see here.

Amie and SRB ~ Please accept this post as a reference to each of your offerings to this thread as it fully addresses the issues you both seem to have.

PS ~ LOL...is that a prayer, my dear!? Hrmmm...let me see...in order to grant your petition, I will require the broomstick of the wicked witch of the west...now...begone!

Ronin

Clutch, sorry, I just picked up on your post.

How do you square your statement with your own reference, "How We Know It Isn't So"?

Isn't this the same motivation to 'make believe' that I have given?

I'm just not sure that there is much room for difference in our positions, but, I'm looking forward to any insight you may have...pernicious or otherwise.

SRB

Why would religious people fear something which they don't believe exists? That makes no sense. They would only fear damnation if they really believed in such a thing.

It is certainly far from clear that religious people are all in a state of cognitive dissonance. Suppose they are. If a pair of someone's beliefs, p and q, are in cognitive dissonance then it is still true that he believes both p and q. So your claim that religious people are in a state of cognitive dissonance contradicts what you say about them not really believing.

If people only pretend to be, for example, Christians, then you should not say that Christians are pretending, but should instead say that there are actually no Christians in the world, only people who pretend to be Christians. Is that your position: that there are no Christians? You said that you yourself were once a Catholic, so presumably you think there are some Christians in the world? What proportion of professed Christians do you think are Christians?

SRB

Oxymoron

Sort of similar to the studies that show smoking is beneficial. Yes indeed, smoking can reduce stress, act as a mechanism for social bonding and have other positive short-term benefits. But the longer-term view is quite different.

The point is, just because something benefits an individual doesn't validate that thing as a good thing to do. Doing evil deeds might make an individual feel good about themselves, but I'm sure you wouldn't be caught supporting that.

I'm not suggesting that prayer is evil, just that you are quite wrong to connect the action of prayer, the alleged beneficial effects and the interpretation you put upon that.

SRB

I was brought up as a Christian and never doubted what I was told. I believed that I had experienced God through prayer. I often prayed and interpreted the results in such a way that everything was evidence that (petitonary) prayer works. There is usually some interpretation of the facts, however stretched, that can be taken in such a way that it squares with the idea that God is up there answering petitionary prayers (or not answering just to test us, etc). So as a religious person I thought I saw evidence all around me. Of course now I realise that my reasoning was flawed. To assess whether there is any real evidence that God is out there, you can't have a mindset where just about anything would count as evidence of God's work.

You never answered my question: is God ever persuaded to do something by a (petitionary) prayer that he wouldn't have done if no prayer had ever been said?

SRB

SRB

Suppose that I give an effective prayer that a child be cured from cancer (when I say "effective" I mean that the child would have died from cancer if I had not prayed, but in fact he survived after my prayer). Is the idea that it is better for humanity if the child lives in the case that I pray, but better for humanity if the child dies in the case that I don't pray?

If so, how on earth might that be explained? What is the benefit that arises in the case that I don't pray and the child dies, but wouldn't arise in the case that I do pray and the child dies?

Also, what's the deal with the number of people who pray? Religious people seem to think that the more people who make the same request, the better. It's hard to understand what difference that makes. God is not deaf, nor is he the kind of person who can be pestered into compliance. Can anyone shed any light on this?

SRB

Clutch

I don't understand. Are you saying that the title of Gilovich's book, as opposed to its content, shows some important point, here?

cf:

"Darwin argued that there is no one definite point at which a species originates."

"How do you square your statement with your own reference, "The Origin of Species?"

I don't know what to say, except that reading a book generally involves reading more than its title.Is this a quote from somewhere? Are these your own words?

Gilovich does not even mention the prospect of immortality, that I can see, and devotes about a page and a half, in total, to the "will to believe" and the fear of death. Even that is in the context of discussing alternative medicine, though elsewhere he briefly talks about de-falsification in the case of faith-healers. Bottom line: whoever you pinched the quote from is talking about roughly two or three pages out of the book.It would be, if that's what I had pointed out to you, and if that's what the book was about. My point, and Gilovich's, and the point of anyone who studies the matter, is that the mechanisms of forming and retaining unwarranted beliefs are hugely varied, operate in completely non-theistic cases, and are rarely correctly described as lying, pretending, or being deluded.

People who overlook regression in finding punishment an effective behaviour-control and reward an ineffective behaviour-control, are not lying. They are not pretending. They are not delusional. They are making a mistake: "overlooking a regression effect". The same sort of mistake can play a role in bolstering the unwarranted belief that prayer is efficacious.

People who find evidence for the notion of a "hot hand" in basketball (viz., most coaches and fans) are not lying. They are not pretending. They are not delusional. They are making a mistake: failing to understand that even random sequences are "streaky" in segments. The same sort of mistake can play a role in bolstering the unwarranted belief that prayer is efficacious.

Hence, your claim -- They're pretending! They're delusional! -- is a hopeless oversimplification. You're more on the right track with your new mention of self-importance, but that is just one among very, very many attitudes having a top-down effect on the perception, interpretation and recollection of data.


Edit: Ah, I see you took the quote from Kirkus reviews, which do tend to be a bit haphazard. But it makes sense of why the quote is such a poor description of the book: it's one sentence from a long paragraph, taken from the end, after all the central details of the book have already been listed. Selective focus on data is also a mechanism for bolstering unwarranted claims... and Gilovich discusses that, too.

Ronin

You misunderstand, SRB.

As with 7thangel's typically theistic imploring ~ "Paul said we are saved by hope, so it is just right to ecourage our brethren to live in hopefulness. Our salvation is about eternal life, unless we expereince that eternal life, or in the state of living eternally, we are still hoping. So we pray without ceasing.

Or should we live in fear? that will be stupid, right? ~

...the religious are fearful of reality. The reality of living and of dying and of the unknown that they do not have the impetus to attempt to figure out with the use of critical thinking skils.

And do not forget to consider those other motivators I have expressed that also lead theists to play 'make believe'.

No, this is where they pretend that p and q are in harmony, despite plain view evidence to the contrary and may be construed, depending upon their fervor, as simple delusion.

The Rabbits Foot/Prayer comparative analogy I presented is representative of how pretending leads to circuitous, nonsensical claims and then to cognitive dissonance.

Our respective personal anecdotes merely reflect the various stages of pretense involved with any particular theist.

Reality, however, is that which doesn't go away when one 'stops believing' in it.

Would you agree that I am pretending that my rabbit's foot can grant my claims or not?



SRB ~ you are making my point here.

We are all simply humans...born right the first time.

Any supernatural template that covers this fact is superfluous pretense.

Thanks for you great responses.

Ronin

Ah...rarely

Perhaps Gilovich needs to focus on the data I have provided, then...LOL!

Clutch

Er... yes, rarely. To describe the general case in terms that are only rarely correct is, hence, to say something false.