Explaining the religious mind

[rousseau]

In the past year I've read two books related to religion. One is a History of Christianity, and the other is a collection of letters written by a female member of a monastery in the 17th century.

They've both been interesting works which have brought similar themes to light, but the collection of letters has been especially interesting because it's a direct look into the mind of someone from the era who was extremely devout. They're interesting because in her writing you can see how fully and completely enamoured she is with the idea of God. The world is majestic, and everything, no matter how minute, is painted with an ethereal quality.

The History of Christianity is a little more indirect, and the aspects of social history in it are focused around the time of Jesus, but during that part of the book you can tell that many members of Roman society, and later medieval Europeans, are looking for an explanation of the world around them. These are people who live in a pre-scientific world where essentially nothing about the natural world is known, and the natural outcome of that dynamic is a creator.

Where the two books intertwine is that any human society, in lieu of an evidence based explanation, needs to rationalize their own existence in some way. So ancient Romans, and even our 17th century woman were people who were inclined to believe a story about themselves which gave their existence a back-story.

Put another way, to understand the religious mind you need to put yourself in the shoes of someone who was living in a pre-scientific world, where myths of the ancients held sway, and nothing in your environment really made sense. These were people in an entirely different mode of existence to many in the modern world.

And now, because of two thousand years of inertia, and many pockets of our planet where science hasn't taken root, lots of people are still living in a non-scientific mindset, where the explanation is 'God'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The religious mind is not a scientifically curious mind. That much has become obvious to me over the years. But I have to remember that we are not all in possession of the same mental faculties. Our brains are all different. For some people, the religious way is the only way. Hopefully that is changing.

 

[Tigers!]

That much has become obvious to me over the years. But I have to remember that we are not all in possession of the same mental faculties. Our brains are all different. For some people, the religious way is the only way. Hopefully that is changing.

How big a survey did you take to determine "The religious mind is not a scientifically curious mind."? Just in my circle of what you would call religious people I can think of 2 dozen of us who are scientifically curious. We look forward to the latest finding of the space probes and dabble in maths and science.

 

[skepticalbip]

That much has become obvious to me over the years. But I have to remember that we are not all in possession of the same mental faculties. Our brains are all different. For some people, the religious way is the only way. Hopefully that is changing.

How big a survey did you take to determine "The religious mind is not a scientifically curious mind."? Just in my circle of what you would call religious people I can think of 2 dozen of us who are scientifically curious. We look forward to the latest finding of the space probes and dabble in maths and science.

You are right. I think Joedad overstated his idea. Most religious people are curious and enjoy learning about new findings of science unless the particular findings contradict some aspect of their faith (for some this covers quite a large field). The religious mind is much less likely to employ the scientific method to questions in their daily life even if they do in their working life. Humans have an amazing ability to compartmentalize.

 

[rousseau]

One of the biggest problems in human psychology is that people don't know what a fact, or evidence actually is, and they don't realize the significance of those concepts.

Once you make the basic realization that aspects of the universe can be a binary true or false, based on evidence, then you begin a life of empiricism. But for many people, it's not that they're willfully ignorant, but rather it's that their mind doesn't have the conceptual framework in place to dissolve their own belief systems.

Growing as a human being necessitates experience and learning, and the things we learn have a profound effect on our belief systems. If we don't learn the right things at the right time, it's literally impossible for our belief systems to change.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You are right. I think Joedad overstated his idea. Most religious people are curious and enjoy learning about new findings of science unless the particular findings contradict some aspect of their faith (for some this covers quite a large field). The religious mind is much less likely to employ the scientific method to questions in their daily life even if they do in their working life. Humans have an amazing ability to compartmentalize.

That's probably better stated, and perhaps I know too many YECs which skews my opinion, two of which are engineers. They do absolutely not embrace scientific findings that do not agree with their fundy views. One is a quality engineer and one is a mechanical engineer, so neither of those fields would much come in conflict with religious dogma anyway.

I do find a lack of scientific curiosity among them all, however, even aside the denial I get from the YECs. They could not tell you what CERN is, would not know the distance to the sun or proxima centauri, think their bodies will come back to life one day intact and attend church regularly. That's what I mean by lacking scientific curiosity. Also get a lot of "That's what they say" responses when I pass along some bit of scientific knowledge that comes up in conversation.

They're great folks mostly, if I can be so judgmental, but I wouldn't want them on my jury if I had the choice.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are right. I think Joedad overstated his idea. Most religious people are curious and enjoy learning about new findings of science unless the particular findings contradict some aspect of their faith (for some this covers quite a large field). The religious mind is much less likely to employ the scientific method to questions in their daily life even if they do in their working life. Humans have an amazing ability to compartmentalize.

That's probably better stated, and perhaps I know too many YECs which skews my opinion, two of which are engineers. They do absolutely not embrace scientific findings that do not agree with their fundy views. One is a quality engineer and one is a mechanical engineer, so neither of those fields would much come in conflict with religious dogma anyway.

I do find a lack of scientific curiosity among them all, however, even aside the denial I get from the YECs. They could not tell you what CERN is, would not know the distance to the sun or proxima centauri, think their bodies will come back to life one day intact and attend church regularly. That's what I mean by lacking scientific curiosity. Also get a lot of "That's what they say" responses when I pass along some bit of scientific knowledge that comes up in conversation.

They're great folks mostly, if I can be so judgmental, but I wouldn't want them on my jury if I had the choice.

I can see why our ideas about religious folks differ somewhat. We have very different experiences in which sections of them we know. I have only encountered one YEC that I knew personally (a one time neighbor) but I haven't seen or heard from her in over twenty years. On the other hand, I know very few other atheists, most people I know are theists but not the devout kind that make a point of being in church every Sunday.

 

[fromderinside]

Ain't it neat. Creation and humans already spoke english. Wow. If things go much further that blond surfer dude with a swastika tattooed on his arse will be the original Christ in what remains of my lifetime.

 

[rousseau]

That's probably better stated, and perhaps I know too many YECs which skews my opinion, two of which are engineers. They do absolutely not embrace scientific findings that do not agree with their fundy views. One is a quality engineer and one is a mechanical engineer, so neither of those fields would much come in conflict with religious dogma anyway.

I do find a lack of scientific curiosity among them all, however, even aside the denial I get from the YECs. They could not tell you what CERN is, would not know the distance to the sun or proxima centauri, think their bodies will come back to life one day intact and attend church regularly. That's what I mean by lacking scientific curiosity. Also get a lot of "That's what they say" responses when I pass along some bit of scientific knowledge that comes up in conversation.

They're great folks mostly, if I can be so judgmental, but I wouldn't want them on my jury if I had the choice.

I can see why our ideas about religious folks differ somewhat. We have very different experiences in which sections of them we know. I have only encountered one YEC that I knew personally (a one time neighbor) but I haven't seen or heard from her in over twenty years. On the other hand, I know very few other atheists, most people I know are theists but not the devout kind that make a point of being in church every Sunday.

Hard to imagine the horror (ok I exaggerate a bit). Around here most are a-religious, the belief that alcohol gets you drunk and that child-rearing is the number one virtue.

 

[Underseer]

That much has become obvious to me over the years. But I have to remember that we are not all in possession of the same mental faculties. Our brains are all different. For some people, the religious way is the only way. Hopefully that is changing.

How big a survey did you take to determine "The religious mind is not a scientifically curious mind."? Just in my circle of what you would call religious people I can think of 2 dozen of us who are scientifically curious. We look forward to the latest finding of the space probes and dabble in maths and science.

Yes, there are religious people who care about science, but exceptions do not invalidate a generalization.

The problem with religion is that "god did it" is an emotionally satisfying answer for most theists (at least in my experience), and so more often than not, "god did it" shuts down scientific curiosity.

Case in point: Newton tried to explain why the planetary orbits are stable. He got frustrated, and from the moment he said "god did it" (or more specifically, that only God could explain why the planetary orbits were stable), he stopped seriously looking. Years later, when LaPlace found the real answer, it turns out that the correct answer should have been well within the prodigious mathematical abilities of a genius like Newton, but he seemed to stop looking the moment he told himself "god did it."

Pascal's scientific works similarly became less valuable/important from the moment he became obsessed with the afterlife and started becoming satisfied with "god did it" as an answer.

Look, I get that for some theists, their religion is a source of curiosity. They believe that they are becoming closer to "god's work," but surely you have noticed that for most theists, this is not the case. For most theists, "god did it" is answer enough, and so they stop looking for answers once they have that thought.

 

[Tigers!]

Look, I get that for some theists, their religion is a source of curiosity. They believe that they are becoming closer to "god's work," but surely you have noticed that for most theists, this is not the case. For most theists, "god did it" is answer enough, and so they stop looking for answers once they have that thought.

There is a difference between "God did it" and "How did God do it" or "What did God do"?
I most prefer the latter 2 to the first.

Pascal's scientific works similarly became less valuable/important from the moment he became obsessed with the afterlife and started becoming satisfied with "god did it" as an answer.

Less valuable/important in whose's opinion? If I recall correctly Pascal's best work on the cycloid was done during the period you would call "obsessed with the afterlife". It is nice though that you acknowledge that theists "can do" scientific work.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How big a survey did you take to determine "The religious mind is not a scientifically curious mind."? Just in my circle of what you would call religious people I can think of 2 dozen of us who are scientifically curious. We look forward to the latest finding of the space probes and dabble in maths and science.

Yes, there are religious people who care about science, but exceptions do not invalidate a generalization.

The problem with religion is that "god did it" is an emotionally satisfying answer for most theists (at least in my experience), and so more often than not, "god did it" shuts down scientific curiosity.

Case in point: Newton tried to explain why the planetary orbits are stable. He got frustrated, and from the moment he said "god did it" (or more specifically, that only God could explain why the planetary orbits were stable), he stopped seriously looking. Years later, when LaPlace found the real answer, it turns out that the correct answer should have been well within the prodigious mathematical abilities of a genius like Newton, but he seemed to stop looking the moment he told himself "god did it."

Pascal's scientific works similarly became less valuable/important from the moment he became obsessed with the afterlife and started becoming satisfied with "god did it" as an answer.

Look, I get that for some theists, their religion is a source of curiosity. They believe that they are becoming closer to "god's work," but surely you have noticed that for most theists, this is not the case. For most theists, "god did it" is answer enough, and so they stop looking for answers once they have that thought.

Kepler is an example of another religious mind that had to abandon its religiously inspired model when the data proved that the model was not correct. He too had to come to terms with why his god had created an "imperfect" heavens. But at least he took the data and advanced science.

We see that on this forum among theists. At one time their god made two people and animals and plants in a magic garden thousands of years ago. Today they argue that that same god made helium and hydrogen and lithium in a cosmic event billions of years ago.

That square religious wheel is getting rounder all the time.

 

[Atheos]

The problem here seems to be a question of how one defines "religious." To me the very definition of the word implies faith-based acceptance of an authoritarian answer as a replacement for investigation and discovery.

I think that's what Joedad was originally suggesting in post # 2 of this thread. It is this nuance of meaning for the word that sometimes tends to get all the attention.

But that doesn't encompass the entirety of the word. Religion also references motivations and actions. I don't necessarily subscribe that somehow it is more noble to take measures to see that widows and orphans are adequately fed and clothed because of religious beliefs than simply because as a fellow human being one has the empathy to do so. But somehow religion tends to absorb that aspect of what it means to be a human being.

In the end I suppose the religious notion that an unfalsifiable god is at the heart of existence and is responsible for all we see is not in itself a road block to discovery. But for many it becomes one when scientific inquiry treads on sacred beliefs. This is why there remain pockets of junk science masquerading as investigation such as is perpetrated by hucksters such as Ken Hamm. It is why many fundamentalists protest to have evolutionary science removed from public school curriculum (or even big-bang cosmology for that matter).

I do believe that religion tends to posit unquestioned answers, where scientific inquiry attempts to investigate unanswered questions.

 

[abaddon]

To me the word “religious” implies nothing but devotion, adoration of something more-than-human, ceremonies/rituals designed to maintain or improve a “right relation” or a greater “oneness” with whatever they consider to be the most grand thing about existence.

After familiarizing myself with Taoism, Buddhism and western religious naturalism, the whole “religion is about ‘god did it’” stuff looks like the talk of insular eurocentrics. Taoists see the universe as self-creating so "god did it" would be an alien idea, Buddhism advises against grasping at any beliefs so "god did it" would be a hindrance, and many religious naturalists have a metaphysic that is very exactly philosophical naturalism and scientific curiosity is part of the practice (and that it's a practice with the characteristics named in my first sentence is why it's religious and not "just philosophy").

Religion is not a synonym of theism, supernaturalism or dogmatism. If you believe that words mean what they mean, don’t use the word “religious” when you mean something more specific. Don’t start off saying “religion” and then within a sentence or two switch it to “theism”.

A few exceptions don’t disprove a generalization, but the problem is that probably no generalization about religion or religious people or "the religious mind" really works. Not because of a few exceptions within any religion but because there are whole religions that are exceptions. And not everyone reading the posts here are fellow eurocentrics.

The OP made a generalization about “the religious mind” when he’d meant fundamentalist theists. Because of it he’s now got generalizations about the atheist mind and how they mean their words instead of about the nebulous something-or-other that he meant by “the religious mind”.

I would advise being aware of the eurocentrism, or we get provincial in our generalizations and so not really descriptive except in a self-serving way. We should say “fundy theists” if that’s what is meant.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/pf-2015-11-03_rls_ii-27/

26% of American Christians seem to think of God not as a personal being, but as an impersonal force. So what the religious "mind means" may not be so easy to define. There has been so little work done to describe what believers mean when they adopt this position is hard to say. Or how it affects their day to day lives.

Something big is going on here under the radar. A lot of people are seemingly abandoning that old time religion in large numbers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/pf-2015-11-03_rls_ii-27/

26% of American Christians seem to think of God not as a personal being, but as an impersonal force. So what the religious "mind means" may not be so easy to define. There has been so little work done to describe what believers mean when they adopt this position is hard to say. Or how it affects their day to day lives.

Something big is going on here under the radar. A lot of people are seemingly abandoning that old time religion in large numbers.

Religious loyalty used to mean survival. It still does, but only for a very small number of people who cannot conceive otherwise. When I consider the rituals I experienced as a kid I'd be embarrassed to put a child through that same, superstitious, nonsensical crap today.

It's obvious to most people that one can survive quite comfortably as an adult without any religious affiliation whatsoever. That's what has changed.

 

[jonJ]

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/pf-2015-11-03_rls_ii-27/


26% of American Christians seem to think of God not as a personal being, but as an impersonal force. So what the religious "mind means" may not be so easy to define. There has been so little work done to describe what believers mean when they adopt this position is hard to say. Or how it affects their day to day lives.

Something big is going on here under the radar. A lot of people are seemingly abandoning that old time religion in large numbers.

But what the heck is 'an impersonal force'? I believe in millions of impersonal forces, but I don't feel at all compelled to call any of them 'gods'. And what difference could it possibly make to anything if I did?

I suspect that nearly all the people who ticked the 'impersonal force' box would still claim their god has wants and desires; in other words, they simply don't know, or don't want to acknowledge, what 'impersonal' actually means. And I would interpret these figures to mean that 22% of US Christians who believe in a personal god are too embarrassed to say so in public.

Which is still a good result.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/pf-2015-11-03_rls_ii-27/


26% of American Christians seem to think of God not as a personal being, but as an impersonal force. So what the religious "mind means" may not be so easy to define. There has been so little work done to describe what believers mean when they adopt this position is hard to say. Or how it affects their day to day lives.

Something big is going on here under the radar. A lot of people are seemingly abandoning that old time religion in large numbers.

But what the heck is 'an impersonal force'? I believe in millions of impersonal forces, but I don't feel at all compelled to call any of them 'gods'. And what difference could it possibly make to anything if I did?

I suspect that nearly all the people who ticked the 'impersonal force' box would still claim their god has wants and desires; in other words, they simply don't know, or don't want to acknowledge, what 'impersonal' actually means. And I would interpret these figures to mean that 22% of US Christians who believe in a personal god are too embarrassed to say so in public.

Which is still a good result.

Exactly what it means will take further surveys and investigation. I kind of suspect that the Biblical/Quranic ideas of God are so disturbing to many they have backed of from the idea of a personal
God with will, intent and who orders massacres, and predetermines at random the elect and damned et al. There is only so much you can do to preserves appearances of a caring, good God here. So we have this bastard sort of pantheism. A lot of people seem to be creating their own theology that abandons the traditional God of massacres and the omnipotent potter who creates some pots to honor, others to dishonor.

 

[rousseau]

To me the word “religious” implies nothing but devotion, adoration of something more-than-human, ceremonies/rituals designed to maintain or improve a “right relation” or a greater “oneness” with whatever they consider to be the most grand thing about existence.

After familiarizing myself with Taoism, Buddhism and western religious naturalism, the whole “religion is about ‘god did it’” stuff looks like the talk of insular eurocentrics. Taoists see the universe as self-creating so "god did it" would be an alien idea, Buddhism advises against grasping at any beliefs so "god did it" would be a hindrance, and many religious naturalists have a metaphysic that is very exactly philosophical naturalism and scientific curiosity is part of the practice (and that it's a practice with the characteristics named in my first sentence is why it's religious and not "just philosophy").

Religion is not a synonym of theism, supernaturalism or dogmatism. If you believe that words mean what they mean, don’t use the word “religious” when you mean something more specific. Don’t start off saying “religion” and then within a sentence or two switch it to “theism”.

A few exceptions don’t disprove a generalization, but the problem is that probably no generalization about religion or religious people or "the religious mind" really works. Not because of a few exceptions within any religion but because there are whole religions that are exceptions. And not everyone reading the posts here are fellow eurocentrics.

The OP made a generalization about “the religious mind” when he’d meant fundamentalist theists. Because of it he’s now got generalizations about the atheist mind and how they mean their words instead of about the nebulous something-or-other that he meant by “the religious mind”.

I would advise being aware of the eurocentrism, or we get provincial in our generalizations and so not really descriptive except in a self-serving way. We should say “fundy theists” if that’s what is meant.

This is all true, I could have been more careful with my words. Let's say 'explaining the Christian mind' or something similar. I'm sure someone will be able to pick that apart somehow, but hopefully readers pick up my intent rather than their interpretation.

If we want to broaden our generalisation of the true religious mind outside of euro-centricity I think we can still do so, though, and it would probably be useful to try. And at that I'd think the description in the OP would still be helpful.

 

[bilby]

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/pf-2015-11-03_rls_ii-27/


26% of American Christians seem to think of God not as a personal being, but as an impersonal force. So what the religious "mind means" may not be so easy to define. There has been so little work done to describe what believers mean when they adopt this position is hard to say. Or how it affects their day to day lives.

Something big is going on here under the radar. A lot of people are seemingly abandoning that old time religion in large numbers.

But what the heck is 'an impersonal force'? I believe in millions of impersonal forces, but I don't feel at all compelled to call any of them 'gods'. And what difference could it possibly make to anything if I did?

I suspect that nearly all the people who ticked the 'impersonal force' box would still claim their god has wants and desires; in other words, they simply don't know, or don't want to acknowledge, what 'impersonal' actually means. And I would interpret these figures to mean that 22% of US Christians who believe in a personal god are too embarrassed to say so in public.

Which is still a good result.

These results certainly indicate that a lot of people either don't understand the questions, or are hugely inconsistent, to the point of providing contradictory answers to consecutive questions. Shit, 2% of people claimed to be atheists who believe in a personal god; and a further 5% claimed to be atheists who believe in god as an impersonal force. That's like having 7% of the respondents claiming to be married bachelors.