brahma

I lived most of my life in a third world country where information is hard to come by. Much of the population believed in one deity or the other, but much of the population was also illiterate. So I put two and two together and decided that the former was caused by the latter. How could a people that could not read know science, the technological breakthroughs that go on every day, how could they rationally explain the world that surrounds them. I was of the firm opinion that literacy and education was the answer to religion. Sure there were a few abberations, educated people who were religious, illiterates who were atheists, but the overwhelming pattern was that of ignorance and godliness going hand in hand.

Then I came to America. Oh My God, was I wrong! I was just watching TV and stumbled upon a pledge drive in progress and that was what prompted this thread. Answer me this my friends, "how can a sane, rational human being, educated and intelligent, free from coercion or duress, believe this garbage?". Not just believe, but pay good money to believe? What is this magnetic power these televangelists have that they can get away with all this? During the 30 minutes I watched the pledge drive, not one mention of the Bible or Jesus was made. They were not even trying, they were just asking people to call and apparently the people were calling.

I know that being literate does not mean that you cannot be ignorant too. But with all these resources at your fingertips; libraries, television, computers how could you claim ignorance? Of course literacy does not connote intelligence, but you dont need to be a genius to know horse dung when you smell it.

Was I wrong about ignorance being the reason for the existence of god and godmen? Am I being naive in assuming that these people who contribute are not under duress? What in holy hell is going on?

copernicus

I don't buy your premise that ignorance is a major factor in what drives people to believe in religion. Perhaps a better question would be "Fanaticism = Ignorance"? Fanatics are incapable of questioning that which they are fanatical about, but it doesn't mean that they are otherwise ignorant or stupid. I do believe that an education is usually necessary to promote critical thinking, but even those who have had a good education can be willfully ignorant. Even atheists suffer from ignorance and stupidity, albeit not necessarily in the area of religious belief.

You ask "how a sane, rational human being, educated and intelligent, free from coercion or duress, believe this [televangelist] garbage?". What makes you think that the victims of this nonsense are sane, rational, educated and intelligent? The reality is that televangelists prey on the vulnerabilities of their victims, many of whom are poor and face otherwise desperate circumstances. People give money to televangelists for the same reason that they buy lottery tickets. They are looking for a reward, and they really want to believe that their contribution will yield a payback. Perhaps it is a tax on stupidity, but we all tend to pay that tax at one time or another.

brahma

[Fanatics are incapable of questioning that which they are fanatical about, but it doesn't mean that they are otherwise ignorant or stupid.]

But doesnt that imply that anyone who believes in the existence of god is a fanatic? For otherwise they would have questioned and critiqued their faith and seen that there was not enough proof to justify their beliefs in most cases.

I agree that most victims of televangelists are poor desperate people who just need something to hold on to. However rich, intelligent people give to the church all the time. Even some renowned scientists were/are stauch supporters of the church.

I guess my real question is how a rational person can be deficient in this one area of their minds. You dont normally see a rational person doing something that looks so outrageous to you and me. What makes them not question this one area? Or to be more direct, "What makes a fanatic tick?"

You last few sentences reminded me of the quote, "The lottery is a tax on people who didnt pay attention in probability class".

emotional

The fuel of all religion is that THIS is not enough. By THIS I mean the natural existence. The picture of naturalism, of us existing just for the saking of being now and continuing our "selfish genes", can be very disturbing. "You mean that's all?" is the question most religious people asked me. It is the feeling that the natural, material, ordinary, non-magical existence is low and dull, and people wish for a HIGHER thing - it may be a leader, a social construct or a god. Mankind's evolution of the brain in such a way of being aware of oneself's mortality has fuelled a variety of escape routes, of which religion is a popular one.

Foxhole Atheist

From brahma:

“… Answer me this my friends, "how can a sane, rational human being, educated and intelligent, free from coercion or duress, believe this garbage?". Not just believe, but pay good money to believe? What is this magnetic power these televangelists have that they can get away with all this?…

Was I wrong about ignorance being the reason for the existence of god and godmen? Am I being naive in assuming that these people who contribute are not under duress? What in holy hell is going on?”

From the day that we are born, especially here in the US, we are indoctrinated with the concept of life beyond death. IMHO, that is the primary reason for the belief in and adherence to religious dogma.

Everyone desires immortality. And, just about all religions promise this.

This very strong desire for immortality, along with life long conditioning, leads to Cognitive Dissonance and hence, the ability of those one would consider intelligent and educated to believe as they do.

Tercel

Why shouldn't they believe? What exactly is so wrong with religion that you think no sane rational person should believe it? I am a Christian. I am also sane, educated, and far far above average in intelligence and rationality if my grades etc are anything to go by. I have studied the rational and evidential arguments surrounding Christianity to the best of my ability for the past three years and found it perfectly acceptable. I can understand if you have come to a different conclusion to me... but I don't understand why you think my conclusion is so crazy.

~shrug~ Personally I wouldn't trust televangelists as far as I could throw them. I imagine though that they are well trained though in the art of convincing gullible people to part with their money exactly like all other infomercials.

I think people are just gullible. They’ll believe what people tell them even when they should know better, and they don’t bother to critically assess the information they’re given.

Tercel

brahma

I think by now I have a quart of smirnoff in me, so forgive me if my post seems incoherent

First of all I fail to understand how one can 'examine the evidence' and come to the conclusion that christianity makes sense. That flies in the face of everything the bible teaches. The bible teaches you to have faith in god, to accept god's word unquestioningly. Nowhere in the bible does it say, "examine the evidence and believe in me if you are convinced". If you are examining the evidence to draw your own conclusions, then you are not a true christian - not according to me but according to the bible.

IMO the opposite of faith is proof. Once you have proof of something then you no longer require faith to believe in it. So if you believe something through faith, then where is the question of 'rational and evidential arguments' ?

I do not say your conclusion is crazy, just that you dont have evidence to back it up. If you do have evidence then you are breaking god's commandment of implicit faith. So either way, it makes no sense to me.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: brahma ]</p>

emotional

</strong>

1) There's no evidence, unless you're already tuned to search for "facts" to support your conclusion.

2) Sane, rational people too are bound to have their moments of irrationality, but they don't carry them over into the totality of life. Many a sane, rational computer programmer shouts at his computer "come on, finish it!" when he wants the scandisk operation to be done with fast. This is totally irrational, but it's a natural part of us. What is not so harmless is when such superstitions are carried over in toto. A sane, rational person does not believe in divine sovereignty. The notion that we are the centre of someone's interests in the Universe is parallel to geocentrism and special creation.

</strong>

Yet something went wrong here. Rationality is synonymous with naturalism, and the fact that you believe in the supernatural - when all the evidence in the Universe is against - points to some obstructing agent in your rationality. Also, it is very strange how you came to choose between this particular of theisms. The choice between naturalism and theism is straightforward enough, but the choice between Christanity and Islam is wholly arbitrary. It usually rests upon the accident of birth and upbringing.

</strong>

You must have some emotional factors helping you to find the case for Christianity perfectly acceptable. We all have our emotions and biases, and I'll be the first to admit that one of the reasons I'm an atheist is I simply detest that God of the theistic religions.

Rainfall -&gt; Rain-God; a valid conclusion, but in our day and age it's primitive. Explanations of the universe in the past were theistic and supernatural because people had not the knowledge and technology; but in our day and age we have found a naturalistic explanation for so many things, and those which we haven't will soon follow suit. It is a mystery to me how the flesh becomes an animate mind (the body/mind question), and it would be tempting to say "because God gives everybody a personality", but this would be simply giving up, just like saying about rain "because God makes it fall". We're only at the beginning of answering the body/mind question, but hey, this is just 2002, give it a few more centuries and then, if we don't find a naturalistic answer, we'll press God to the rescue. So far the epithet of Laplace, "I have no need for this theory", holds ever so true.

God - how needless a theory; like the constitutional monarch of Great Britain, who does not really rule but just caters for people's emotions. Parliament rules, the monarch is just a figurehead; nature rules, God is just an emotional filler, for man's need of Big Daddy, for mankind's better feeling.

emotional

I wish to clarify my first point about there being "no evidence, unless you're already tuned to search for support for your conclusion", lest it sound incendiary:

You read the Mayan Popul-Vuh, or the Hindu Mahabharata, or Greek mythology, or any other account of the fabulous, superstitious and supernatural. Do you now search for evidence that the Popul-Vuh or Mahabharata etc is true? Why do you search beforehand for evidence to support the truth of the Bible? Because you have presupposed that it is the Word of God and thus seek to establish its truth. You would similarly find "evidence" to support the truth of Mayan or Hindu mythology if you presupposed it to be the infallible revealed Word.

There is no reason to search for evidence for Judaism, Christianity or Islam any more than for those other pantheons. But the attraction of Scripture, by making the claim of being the Word of God and thus arousing a fear that we're missing something very important, drives people to do so. Without Scripture magnetizing the mind, all evidence leads to atheism, naturalism.

Triple Six

Brahma

You're right, there is a strong correalation between ignorance and religion. Otherwise why would missionaries make such an effort in 3rd world countries (with their lower levels of education) if they could get the same returns in their own countries? There are other factors at work as well, the most pervasive being indoctrination of religious habits from an early age and the politcal and social influence of some cults. This is worse in the US than Europe but it is weakening as more and more educated people openly question the cults rather the accept or ignore them as they did in the past.

It will take time but as education spreads, religion will be left to appeal to the unintelligent alone. Rather like WCW today.