Religious lies. Why do so many knowingly accept them?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

From the various true believers who have pushed or explained their religions to me, I think there are multiple sources of this phenomenon of accepting an orthodoxy:
1) Being raised in it -- I especially get this from those who went through Catholic school
2) Becoming part of a supportive group
3) Having the kind of mysteries that hurt your head explained and simplified -- at its worst, extreme intellectual laziness
4) The glow of perceived virtue
5) Inability to deal with death of family members or one's own death
6) An inclination to believe in the supernatural, in fate, in luck, in omens
7) The emotional pull of the more eloquent scripture (of whatever tradition, not just Biblical)
8) A need for an 'other', 'bad', 'lost', group at which to aim invective
9) Inability to imagine no beginning and no end to the universe (a specific from #3)
10) A need for purpose, order, identity
11) A need for ultimate justice, a happy ending, in a universe that seems either hostile or completely sterile
12) The Freudian idea that God is a replacement for a remote or antagonistic father
13) Specific from #11, a secret confidant to whom one may pray when life is unstable or painful -- with the hope of getting a break
I'm sure there's a ton more. The believers who really puzzle me are the clearly intelligent people who have highly developed critical thinking skills in some areas but who have an orthodox belief system in place. Read Wm. F Buckley's Nearer My God to Thee for an example (I think that's the title.) It's about his devout Catholicism, which was clearly, to him, the most important facet of life and identity. Just don't expect to find any exposition of why Catholicism is true.

Nice work.

I highlight your suggestions that speak to peer and family pressure and the fellowship angles more than the rest, which does not really answer the question of how Christians, for instance, can come to adore a genocidal son murdering God.

If some of your other suggestions, which I am sure apply, were more valid then we would likely see more people moving from church to mosque etc. than we do.

This kind of map would not be so clear cut if that were not the case.

Richard Dawkins What if scientists worked like religions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

From the various true believers who have pushed or explained their religions to me, I think there are multiple sources of this phenomenon of accepting an orthodoxy:
1) Being raised in it -- I especially get this from those who went through Catholic school
2) Becoming part of a supportive group
3) Having the kind of mysteries that hurt your head explained and simplified -- at its worst, extreme intellectual laziness
4) The glow of perceived virtue
5) Inability to deal with death of family members or one's own death
6) An inclination to believe in the supernatural, in fate, in luck, in omens
7) The emotional pull of the more eloquent scripture (of whatever tradition, not just Biblical)
8) A need for an 'other', 'bad', 'lost', group at which to aim invective
9) Inability to imagine no beginning and no end to the universe (a specific from #3)
10) A need for purpose, order, identity
11) A need for ultimate justice, a happy ending, in a universe that seems either hostile or completely sterile
12) The Freudian idea that God is a replacement for a remote or antagonistic father
13) Specific from #11, a secret confidant to whom one may pray when life is unstable or painful -- with the hope of getting a break
I'm sure there's a ton more. The believers who really puzzle me are the clearly intelligent people who have highly developed critical thinking skills in some areas but who have an orthodox belief system in place. Read Wm. F Buckley's Nearer My God to Thee for an example (I think that's the title.) It's about his devout Catholicism, which was clearly, to him, the most important facet of life and identity. Just don't expect to find any exposition of why Catholicism is true.

Good post.

One thing I often notice that fits in with many of these points is that 'when things are going wrong, God is an answer'. Somehow many people's psychological makeup allows them to make statements like 'but it's ok because God', and this simple precept can endure for very long periods of time.

I don't know.. maybe to some extent self-delusion is an evolved mechanism that confers survival advantages. After all, evolution doesn't particularly care for one ontology or another.

There may be some advantage to delusional thinking but that advantage has yet to be discovered. I do not discard that notion out of hand because it works for/in religions as well as with other aspects of life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqYHiejTVM&t=369s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

Regards
DL

 

[Learner]

edit: Apologies ... disregard previous edit

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From the various true believers who have pushed or explained their religions to me, I think there are multiple sources of this phenomenon of accepting an orthodoxy:
1) Being raised in it -- I especially get this from those who went through Catholic school
2) Becoming part of a supportive group
3) Having the kind of mysteries that hurt your head explained and simplified -- at its worst, extreme intellectual laziness
4) The glow of perceived virtue
5) Inability to deal with death of family members or one's own death
6) An inclination to believe in the supernatural, in fate, in luck, in omens
7) The emotional pull of the more eloquent scripture (of whatever tradition, not just Biblical)
8) A need for an 'other', 'bad', 'lost', group at which to aim invective
9) Inability to imagine no beginning and no end to the universe (a specific from #3)
10) A need for purpose, order, identity
11) A need for ultimate justice, a happy ending, in a universe that seems either hostile or completely sterile
12) The Freudian idea that God is a replacement for a remote or antagonistic father
13) Specific from #11, a secret confidant to whom one may pray when life is unstable or painful -- with the hope of getting a break
I'm sure there's a ton more. The believers who really puzzle me are the clearly intelligent people who have highly developed critical thinking skills in some areas but who have an orthodox belief system in place. Read Wm. F Buckley's Nearer My God to Thee for an example (I think that's the title.) It's about his devout Catholicism, which was clearly, to him, the most important facet of life and identity. Just don't expect to find any exposition of why Catholicism is true.

Good post.

One thing I often notice that fits in with many of these points is that 'when things are going wrong, God is an answer'. Somehow many people's psychological makeup allows them to make statements like 'but it's ok because God', and this simple precept can endure for very long periods of time.

I don't know.. maybe to some extent self-delusion is an evolved mechanism that confers survival advantages. After all, evolution doesn't particularly care for one ontology or another.

There may be some advantage to delusional thinking but that advantage has yet to be discovered. I do not discard that notion out of hand because it works for/in religions as well as with other aspects of life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqYHiejTVM&t=369s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

Regards
DL

The advantage, it would seem, is that it exercises, enriches and strengthens the brain. Exactly how that improved brain gets used is another matter entirely. It may not necessarily gravitate toward scientific understanding. It may gravitate toward pseudo knowledge, the environment being the selector.

A lot can be selected for over 200,000 years, as long as homo sapiens have been around. Maybe homo sapiens were initially nothing more than bipolar hominids, clever, manic, hyper sexual. What we have today is what is left over after uber millenia of natural selection. The crazies are gone but the near crazies are still around.

Delusional thinking is not necessarily a bad thing. Only the environment knows for sure.

 

[Hermit]

Religious lies. Why do so many knowingly accept them?

A vanishingly small number of people accept lies they know to be lies. They do accept lies they mistake for truths, though.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There may be some advantage to delusional thinking but that advantage has yet to be discovered. I do not discard that notion out of hand because it works for/in religions as well as with other aspects of life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqYHiejTVM&t=369s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

Regards
DL

The advantage, it would seem, is that it exercises, enriches and strengthens the brain. Exactly how that improved brain gets used is another matter entirely. It may not necessarily gravitate toward scientific understanding. It may gravitate toward pseudo knowledge, the environment being the selector.

A lot can be selected for over 200,000 years, as long as homo sapiens have been around. Maybe homo sapiens were initially nothing more than bipolar hominids, clever, manic, hyper sexual. What we have today is what is left over after uber millenia of natural selection. The crazies are gone but the near crazies are still around.

Delusional thinking is not necessarily a bad thing. Only the environment knows for sure.

I see little good in delusional thinking given the immoral religions it has spawned.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good. Yes.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Religious lies. Why do so many knowingly accept them?

A vanishingly small number of people accept lies they know to be lies. They do accept lies they mistake for truths, though.

Yes and that speaks to their gullibility when it extends to belief in talking serpents and donkeys or 72 virgins in heaven.

Regards
DL

 

[Hermit]

Religious lies. Why do so many knowingly accept them?

A vanishingly small number of people accept lies they know to be lies. They do accept lies they mistake for truths, though.

Yes and that speaks to their gullibility when it extends to belief in talking serpents and donkeys or 72 virgins in heaven.

So, can we agree that in fact a vanishingly small number of people accept lies they know to be wrong? In other words, that the title of your thread is wrong?

 

[remez]

Inside out on a two way street. I mostly agree with you. This is not a challenge just a perspective on education and "free thinkers" are also guilty of the same.

For the vast majority of people, education consists not of being taught how to think, but what to think.

I feel this is a misconception. Most people outside of education only hear about the curriculum content. This content in no way reflects the teaching practices that ever challenge students to think for themselves about the content of the curriculum.

Now at the higher levels of academia the liberal views of those in power do indeed dictate how and what you should think. Almost all opposing views are punished or forbidden to be heard. Free speech is just about dead.

People who reach adulthood with the ability to criticize their beliefs through reason are few; People who reach adulthood without a vast baggage of false beliefs are fewer still.

Most beliefs these days are formed on social media without thoroughly reasoning through the issues. They simply believe what they think they learned through social media. Almost completely unguided by critical thinking.

The impressive thing is that so many people today actually do manage to reject some of the falsehoods they have been taught as children. The default position is unquestioning acceptance, and it is unsurprising to find that it is commonplace.

I strongly agree, BUT that occurs both ways. I find that most of the "free thinkers" who oppose me haven't really thought through their own epistemological foundations of scientific naturalism. BECAUSE when challenged to defend their epistemology, they ignore my requests or have no idea what I'm referring. It just has to be true because that is what you grew up to understand. The myth that science has buried God is believed without critically examining their own poor philosophic foundation for that belief. I've tried to addressed it many times.

Here 's what I mean......

It would look like what it looks like, if you don't have sophisticated equipment to help get another viewpoint. From a local observer's viewpoint, the world looks flat and doesn't move. It's the sky that appears to move. So it was good science for its day. The church resisted change because the old observations happened to be consistent with some Bible passages.

Clearly Galileo was a Christian scientist. Thus it certainly wasn't solely a science vs church issue as so many of you have come to believe. The church actually encouraged Copernicus to publish his heliocentric theory. Yet this myth still exists amongst you "free thinkers."

Examine today's set of affairs. You are believing against the scientific evidence that the universe did not have a beginning because it has theological implications. My how the tables have turned.

Theistic science would make sense if there were good evidence for God.

Ignores the fact that you can "SOMEHOW" conclude this from an epistemology of scientific naturalism. Which needs a defense for your conclusion to be true. You are just believing it to be true. For certainly I would claim the universe is evidence of God's existence. Yet "SOMEHOW" you claim I have no evidence.

That belief itself seems so important that the act of believing (having faith) becomes a sacred thing is unfortunate.

Like simply believing that only scientific naturalism can supply all knowledge. Like beleiving the Galileo affair was solely about church vs. science. Like beleiving theism has no evidence.

 

[Hermit]

That belief itself seems so important that the act of believing (having faith) becomes a sacred thing is unfortunate.

Like simply believing that only scientific naturalism can supply all knowledge.

Let's start with a couple of (for the sake of brevity necessarily oversimplified) definitions.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

 

[remez]

That belief itself seems so important that the act of believing (having faith) becomes a sacred thing is unfortunate.

Like simply believing that only scientific naturalism can supply all knowledge.

Let's start with a couple of (for the sake of brevity necessarily oversimplified) definitions.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Close but too simplistic.
Your definitions would remove forensics from science and evidence from faith.
I prefer the synonym of trust instead.


Faith from same source.....

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction;

 

[Hermit]

Let's start with a couple of (for the sake of brevity necessarily oversimplified) definitions.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Close but too simplistic.
Your definitions would...

They are not my definitions. I got them out of a dictionary.

 

[remez]

Let's start with a couple of (for the sake of brevity necessarily oversimplified) definitions.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Close but too simplistic.
Your definitions would...

They are not my definitions. I got them out of a dictionary.

I know.
I quoted the same source as you.
But to limit scince to that narrow definition does a great injustice to science.
What does any of this have to do with my oringal post anyway?

 

[Hermit]

But to limit scince to that narrow definition does a great injustice to science.

No, it does not. At its core science is about observation and experiment in the real, physical world. It is also about testability and reproducibility in the real world. We could go into more epistemological detail, but I don't think that is necessary at this stage.

As for the alternative meaning of faith you mentioned, it does not apply to the word when it is used in the religious context.

What does any of this have to do with my oringal post anyway?

In the context to the bit you quoted immediately above the sentence of yours I quoted, it looks as though you meant to say that science is not the only method by which knowledge can be gained - that knowledge can be gained through faith as well. I thought I'd give you the commonly accepted definitions of 'science' and 'faith' in the hope that you will then explain how faith can do that. I expected you to go on and tell us how we can test knowledge gained through faith.

 

[remez]

As for the alternative meaning of faith you mentioned, it does not apply to the word when it is used in the religious context.

First. You chose the alternative. I presented the primary definition, go back and check it out.
Second. Your subjective "does not apply" lament does not apply here in the context of the theism I've presented.
Thirdly. Since you are so into narrowing the context, I'm only referring to Christian Theism only.

What does any of this have to do with my original post anyway?

In the context to the bit you quoted immediately above the sentence of yours I quoted, it looks as though you meant to say that science is not the only method by which knowledge can be gained - that knowledge can be gained through faith as well.

Misinterpretation on your part. Trust in part, is an act of intellectual ascension to knowledge based on the evidence. Not the other way around.

I was directly asserting that scientific naturalism is not the sole pathway to knowledge. The point was that for you, "free thinkers", to just BELIEVE in scientific naturalism would hypocritically place you in the blind faith camp you're complaining about. And it is from that foundation only, that you claim theists have no evidence. Please go back and read it again.

 

[abaddon]

I was directly asserting that scientific naturalism is not the sole pathway to knowledge. The point was that for you, "free thinkers", to just BELIEVE in scientific naturalism would hypocritically place you in the blind faith camp you're complaining about. And it is from that foundation only, that you claim theists have no evidence. Please go back and read it again.

And who believes that? Are you referring to where I said that any belief held for the sake of believing is unfortunate?

 

[remez]

I was directly asserting that scientific naturalism is not the sole pathway to knowledge. The point was that for you, "free thinkers", to just BELIEVE in scientific naturalism would hypocritically place you in the blind faith camp you're complaining about. And it is from that foundation only, that you claim theists have no evidence. Please go back and read it again.

And who believes that? Are you referring to where I said that any belief held for the sake of believing is unfortunate?

Sort of.....The context was from post 29.

 

[abaddon]

That belief itself seems so important that the act of believing (having faith) becomes a sacred thing is unfortunate.

Like simply believing that only scientific naturalism can supply all knowledge. Like beleiving the Galileo affair was solely about church vs. science. Like beleiving theism has no evidence.

I actually don't believe any of that. I don't see how "scientific naturalism" can supply all knowledge, I actually put science alongside things like poetry, art and other subjective experience. And I don't think the Galileo affair was solely about church vs. science, it was a brief sentence because the main point was something else (that religiosity wasn't the reason to believe geocentrism among ancient persons). Finally I didn't say theism has no evidence, I said it has no good evidence... "good" meaning convincing to anyone except persons who want to believe it. As someone drawn to pyrrhonic skepticism cuz I feel like it, though a bit exaggerative perhaps, is a useful philosophical tool, it's weird that you're attributing the act of believing, in and of itself, as a sacred thing to me.

You ought to try to not read minds, you're not very good at it.

 

[Hermit]

I was directly asserting that scientific naturalism is not the sole pathway to knowledge.

Yes, you were indeed. I replied that scientific knowledge, being based on observation and experiment as well as reproducibility, is testable. If it fails the test, such knowledge will be rejected. This has happened repeatedly. If the results of an experiment cannot be reproduced, such knowledge is at best questionable. More likely knowledge based on such an experiment will simply be ignored. I then asked how knowledge based on faith could be tested for validity. So far I heard nothing from you.

The point was that for you, "free thinkers", to just BELIEVE in scientific naturalism would hypocritically place you in the blind faith camp you're complaining about.

Speaking for myself, my belief is limited to regarding knowledge gained through observation, experiment and testability as superior to any other because it has this wonderful property of allowing us to weed out knowledge that tests prove to be incorrect. I do not believe that such knowledge will ever enable us to discover an absolute or objective truth. It will forever remain provisional - subject to falsification. Blind faith does not enter into any of it. Therefore hypocrisy does not either.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yes and that speaks to their gullibility when it extends to belief in talking serpents and donkeys or 72 virgins in heaven.

So, can we agree that in fact a vanishingly small number of people accept lies they know to be wrong? In other words, that the title of your thread is wrong?

No. A few exceptions does not forgive the what, 3 billion Christians and Muslims, who still knowingly believe or say they believe the lies.

I do admit that it is impossible to know the real numbers as it is based on the level of delusion individual have.

Regards
DL