Philosoft

Continuing the train of thought broached by Typhon...

My experience with cognitive science leads me to believe spiritual thinking is part and parcel of the human brain's preference for continuity and resultant pattern-building. Such phenomena can be easily seen in sub-conscious processes like basic vison. It is undisputed that a significant percentage of our visual field is simply a mental approximation of what is actually, physically there. The proof is easy. Suppose you were to look at a comb for a few seconds. If you were then asked to recall the number of spines (spokes? tines?) on the comb, you wouldn't be able to do it. You don't have the mental capability to represent the necessary detail. So your brain gathers at least the minimum necessary visual information from the comb and then fills in the rest as a template from what you already know about combs.

I think there are conscious processes that are analogous (and perhaps subordinate) to these subconscious processes. I think the scope of the world is far too vast and profound for subconscious pattern-building to account for everything. Thus, we can consciously create a mechanism (supernatural) that is fundamentally unknowable, and thus personally unimpeachable, to account for the gaps in large-scale perception.

Now, a disconnect can arise because conscious processes are willful, and thus difficult to individually select for. Hence, an individual who is capable of 'meta-thinking' about the degree to which his conscious belief is motivated not by data and reason, but by subconscious processes, is more likely to reject supernatural thinking.

What say you all?

Ryanfire

Unfortunately, most of the world is about as motivated as sheep, and have the intelligence of one. Follow others, belong to a group. Why figure out existence when others have done the work for you? I think we're all conscious of that.

"Ignorance is bliss".

why keep an open mind when you can make your own paradise? Why see a *detailed* comb when you can just envision it in your mind?

Makes death a lot easier to handle for them, that's the only explanation I can account for religion. You can examine the concious and sub-concious and basically it comes down to "fear".

We all know that death will become us, so lets make up fictional beings that will come save us because I'm afraid to die and become zero, nil, or absolute. (hence Needing God!) Don't have to look too far to see the motivations behind people.

Aquila ka Hecate

Ryanfire:
You'll only get agreement from me.

And its not that I've never felt that fear, either, but at the risk of sounding arrogant, I would now rather face that ultimate experience with my mind intact, unclouded by mystique and untestable,unprovable 'comforts'.

From what I have observed this far in life, those comforts are either abstracted only on a very shallow level, or are not there at all, which makes the decision moot for me.
I'd rather face my end head-on.

Yes, I really do agree that existential crises, or fear is the base motivator behind all religions.

Fear of non-conformity and hence social rejection, fear of being wrong,and fear of death.

(Edited for fear of pedants like myself nitpicking my spelling)

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Aquila ka Hecate ]</p>

Icarus

Typhon,

I believe I originally referred to you as Typhoon. I apologize for the mistake. (I doubt it went unnoticed that this is a perfect example of Philosoft’s “continuity and resultant pattern-building” observation.)

Additionally, I apologize for the delay. I doubt anyone has waited with stirring interest to see what I have to offer, but I still hope to not disappoint you after piquing your interest five days ago.

It seems to me that everyone is headed in the right direction. The final point in your most recent post is as good a springboard I could hope for. You wondered if our brain chemistry had a link in our development of supernatural beliefs. I, for one, would suppose so. Having said that, I can also envision how a resultant belief system would favor those primitive humans who had the capacity to experience so called supernatural phenomenon. So I see that it works both ways and reinforces itself.

It may very well be that the general propensity among humans to categorize particular natural phenomenon as mystical or supernatural may stem from little more than an evolutionary utility that stabilized the minds of early humanity. To me it seems that this trait is in fact a quite natural consequence of the interaction between animal survival instinct and sentience. I’m neither a biologist nor an anthropologist, but I’ll bludgeon you with wild speculation anyway (being a stock broker, most of my speculation is wild by nature. Occupational hazard.)

Being a visually based thinker, I find it interesting to imagine the experiences human beings must have confronted in the years, perhaps even centuries or longer, following the onset of self-awareness. As far as we can tell, for the first time in history evolution had allowed life to become aware of the living and to discriminate between life and death on more than simply an instinctual level. On an historical scale, they no doubt formed ideas about death very quickly and discovered connections leading to the inference that all living things will at some point cease to exist.

Possessing neither the knowledge that provides modern humans with the comfortable lifestyles we enjoy nor an advanced knowledge of the mechanics of the universe to buffer the mystery of the new reality that bombarded their conscious minds, it seems logical that the individuals who possessed, by random chance, a capacity for ecstatic experience—who could then readily infer a supernatural realm and, more critically, enjoy a calming assurance of extended life after death—would be better equipped to deal with the crisis of mind that humanity must have faced, having become aware of its own mortality.

It is impossible to know exactly how the mind of primitive man would organize this new knowledge within the framework of his pre-existing animal instincts of course; however, it seems likely that the conscious recognition of death would be incompatible with life’s instinctual impulse to perpetuate itself. The resulting tension may have only been ameliorated by an emerging belief system that incorporated delusions allowing humans the possibility of existence after death. When coupled with an equally remarkable inference that humans—uniquely equipped with sentience—were unique in all the world, it isn’t difficult to imagine the precursors of our modern religions naturally springing up as an early ontology of life. As previously stated, those humans capable of projecting these beliefs into esoteric experiences would have immediately found the positive reinforcement necessary to find the courage to brave the new world they inherited. Those without such an ability may have never escaped the inner conflict between their instincts and inferences.

I suspect this is why so many people see Rorshach blots along the receding boundaries of scientific understanding, rear their children on images of paternal deity, and wield religion as a sword of social and political oppression. Up to this point in history, these tendencies have seemed hardwired into our very existence, as some responses have pointed out. The growth of human knowledge has lessened the tension, however, to a point where some individuals can come to grips with their mortality, despite this tendency of dependence upon supernatural wishes of immortality. Sadly, many people cannot relinquish with their instincts and feelings that which their minds clearly realize is false. Thus, theism still thrives even in digital societies—though not as vibrantly as it used to.

Ultimately, I expect the realization of at least ‘clinical’ immortality to usher in a new era of history in which the capacity for ‘religious’ experience is rendered mute by the realistic prospect of life-spans beyond current limits of imagination. Only once this occurs will there be an impetus strong enough to persuade most people to relinquish their need for God. My only remaining doubt is whether I will be around to enjoy it.

Thanks for your patience,

Icarus

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Icarus ]</p>

Ryanfire

Icarus, an insightful post, very logical. I agree with you 100%

Man is starting to "grow up" now. And the adults must convince the children(religion) to stop being childish.

Won't it be fun?

-Ryan

Gemma Therese

Ryanfire,

Don't over-estimate yourself. All the atheists in the world cannot "abolish" religion / belief in God.

Gemma Therese

Ruy Lopez

from Gemma Therese on't over-estimate yourself. All the atheists in the world cannot "abolish" religion / belief in God.
---------------


I am an infidel who has no intention of abolishing peole's belief in God.. That would be unkind. What will happen to believers; they do not seem to have the confidence and mental strength of non-believers.
================

Ryanfire:
I would agree an overwhelming majority of religious believers appear motivated by fear and ignorance; but there are quite a number of exceptions. Good examples are Mother Teresa, Gandhi, St. Ignatius of Loyola and a few people I have personally known. I know they have no fear as the patterns of their lives are similar. These people generally do not care about scripture; they know it is folly and are beyond that. They are spiritual and at peace.

Like others on this board, I also have no fear of death as it is inevitable. This frame of mind visited me when I realized that the religion of my birth is nonsense.

Ryanfire

demon-sword:

It is rather unkind to keep programming the same people.

That programming is introducing a concept of god into their life, to better control them, and the populous of the world. I'm sorry, but religion has been done.. and done... and done... It just does not work anymore. Why do we have a government?

It is rather unkind to kill people over a belief. Sept 11. They can use god as a scapegoat for that attack. They may not be true believers of their faith, but you still introduced that concept of god into their life.

It is rather unkind to instill a system of living, based on beliefs, and not truth.

Science has already proved genesis wrong, won't be long before the rest of the bible(already has imo) is proved wrong too. It's not something I hope for out of hate, but out of love for life.

What's the best way to get a smoker to quit? Introduce a small patch, gives them enough nicotine to fix their craving. Slowly from there, they will go off it.

The same will be done for religion, small steps.. through time it will be gone. I'll estimate it gone within 10-20 years. Religion has been smoking for a long time, it will take much time to go off it too. Quitting cold turkey would be harsh.

Religion cannot prove any of their beliefs are true, so forever burden the proof on science.

Evolution my dear watson.

Synaesthesia

Although the physiological account of religious experience is interesting, I don’t think it’s the whole story. Is anyone familiar with the memetic theory? Religions actually evolve to be more tenacious, more pleasing. They not only create a need for themselves, they shape themselves to our needs.

Icarus

Ryanfire,

Feeling a bit masochistic today, are we?

I think it a bit early to expect a substantial shift away from theism in its strongholds, but it can and is being accomplished slowly through open dialogue, e.g., this bulletin board, education, and R&D in both pure and practical sciences.

A major shift may occur some day soon, but I'm not holding my breath. I'd be long dead, I'm afraid.

Icarus