Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 12-20-2002, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:
<strong>Addendum:

Scigirl,
your second post just now covered parts I had objected to in my initial response, so my apologies if I sound stupid in my last long response to you, since I wrote it before you made that second post.</strong>

Don't you just love cross-posting?

scigirl

Gurdur · 12-20-2002, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

No it does not strike out my particular argument at all. I think atheists can often hold irrational beliefs.
My claim is as follows:

Our brains, for whatever reasons, contain elements in them that allow us to believe illogical events. The cause is probably multifactorial - due to the incomplete wiring of our sensory systems, and the less-than-digital connections between all the different parts of our brains. These irrational beliefs end up often being religious ones, because of cultural upbringing.

But I think your argument is more that one must believe than one is allowed to do so if one so wishes.

um ? please clarify ?

Sorry if I sound silly to you, but all this time I've taken your basic thrust to be that neuro determines beliefs, not jsut allows them if so chosen.

Quote:

Plus there are logical reasons for accepting religion (heh do I get kicked out of FPF for saying that one?) if you buy into the idea that accepting authority has some logical basis for it (which I do).

We agree fully.

Someone (I forget who, maybe Dawkins) said before the 18th/19th centuries, there simply wasn't the intellectual knowledge necessary for a real atheistic viewpoint.

Quote:

I'm confused. You don't believe that at some stage, we did not in fact have religion? It doesn't appear that our immediate cousins have religion (although there really is no way to know whether they hold irrational beliefs I guess).

Is my writing so bad ?

I mean,
At one stage religion couldn't have existed at all, not even as vague superstitions.
Then it started developing slowly.

Given that it started from zero, then a mechanical neuro theory of belief has problems; how can it explain the development from zilch ?

Quote:

I agree with you, and find fascinating, your views on mysticism. I read your "Honorary PhD thesis" remember?

Now I am embarrased.

Perhaps if Kenny obliges by arguing with me, I will be forced into finishing the whole thing.

Quote:

I just don't think they are the whole story in regards to what I am talking about. Again, I am talking about our brain's ability to 'suspend disbelief' in the face of evidence or logic - like believing our family members are perfect, etc, etc. This feature of our brain in part explains why we can hold superstitious beliefs.

Yes, but must a particular person suspend disbelief ?

I myself do it often, when reading novels and looking at films; I'm a Tolkien and Pratchett fanatic. And I can suspend disbelief extremely well.

However, hit me with anything I regard as practical life, and suddenly I become a raving skeptic; more than that, I become very skeptic even about many things with no pressing practical relevancy to me.

You see what I'm driving at ? My power of choice ?

I'm sorry if my writing is sometimes unclear, as it seems to be; I often simply type in a torrid rush.

Gurdur · 12-20-2002, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

Don't you just love cross-posting?

scigirl

Actually, it embarrasses me.

scigirl · 12-20-2002, 06:52 PM

Gurdur posted:

Quote:

I'm aware that eventually one can construct a halfway plausible theory that is based on psychological determinism - the idea that all states of mind and all people in all things are driven eventually willy-nilly by meachanical forces beyond their "command"; but I fail to see that even then it's a very compelling case, even then it simply doesn't convince me, since one can also make a very good case for the evolutionary development of limited free-will, and simulate (very primitively) some of the mooted necessary mechanisms to it.

Could you explain this more? I'm going to have to really think about this question, because I think it's at the heart of our debate here.

scigirl

scigirl · 12-20-2002, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Sorry if I sound silly to you, but all this time I've taken your basic thrust to be that neuro determines beliefs, not jsut allows them if so chosen.

Well I guess the first one. I honestly don't think that I choose most of my beliefs, actually. Who would choose to like Nirvana for instance?

Now I choose what I do with that belief - in my case, I buy CDs. Other people may choose to ignore it. My actions enforce my belief, other actions may help to dissuade it. But the inital "attraction" to the sad rock group from Seattle was not, I don't think, a choice.

Quote:

Given that it started from zero, then a mechanical neuro theory of belief has problems; how can it explain the development from zilch ?

Well I guess the same way all other complex systems arised from nothing. I can imagine primitive religions that stemmed from no more than a couple faulty sensory modality systems and an appeal to authority. But then again, I do have a strange imagination...

Quote:

Yes, but must a particular person suspend disbelief ?

I myself do it often, when reading novels and looking at films; I'm a Tolkien and Pratchett fanatic. And I can suspend disbelief extremely well.

However, hit me with anything I regard as practical life, and suddenly I become a raving skeptic; more than that, I become very skeptic even about many things with no pressing practical relevancy to me.

You see what I'm driving at ? My power of choice ?

Ahhh ok maybe this is it: You do agree that some people lack the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy? We call them followers of the 700 club (haha

) and we give them haldol and other anti-psychotics.

So is it possible that there is a continuuom of awareness of reality versus non-reality? Which perhaps had some evolutionary advantage? I know that when someone is suffering from intense pain, they can make it go away if they are in certain situations or mental states in which they suspend their belief that they are in pain.

Perhaps something similar happens with religous beliefs...

scigirl

seebs · 12-20-2002, 08:25 PM

I do not believe we have the ability to eliminate "irrational" beliefs from our own minds; we can try, but the brain is very good at rationalizing things that are useful, or perhaps just that were statistically good bets 20,000 years ago.

I think it's possible to do pretty well, but there's a *huge* biasing factor; a belief inconsistent with your worldview is almost always "irrational", and a belief consistent with your worldview is almost always "rational". "Rational", applied to the beliefs of a given human, means "does not seem inconsistent with what I already believe".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2002, 08:25 PM	#56
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	I do not believe we have the ability to eliminate "irrational" beliefs from our own minds; we can try, but the brain is very good at rationalizing things that are useful, or perhaps just that were statistically good bets 20,000 years ago. I think it's possible to do pretty well, but there's a huge biasing factor; a belief inconsistent with your worldview is almost always "irrational", and a belief consistent with your worldview is almost always "rational". "Rational", applied to the beliefs of a given human, means "does not seem inconsistent with what I already believe".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.