Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perhaps then this particular bipolar is not actually disorder but rather, a natural human trait that doesn't require fixing. All children who believe in Santa, or stories are bipolar by your definition. So If we are to go by that definition, then as you describe... bipolar is normality.

Of course it's normal, and I've stated so repeatedly, referring to it as a behavior or a condition, not a disorder or an abnormality. What makes it undesirable presently is the density of the human population. If I'm living with a small family band eons past my mania, accompanied by its high energy levels, inventiveness and promiscuity is going to work for me and the small band I live with, not against me. Remember that we were all once warrior farmers and foragers, protecting ourselves from the clan or the tribe living in the next valley.

I often find it a little intriguing when nature is explained in the form of it having agency.

So you believe that when Michelangelo sculpts or Shake-speare writes they are just channeling a god?

 

[Tharmas]

I'm a fan of Dawkins' gene-level selection theory myself. But I'm more interested in others views on the topic than explaining my own view.

I read Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene in 1980 and I’ve never re-read it, so my views are forty some years out of date, but I remember it as a clever take on natural selection. However, as time has passed and I’ve learned a lot more about genetics and developmental biology, I’ve become skeptical. Dawkins’ metaphor seems less useful as a conceptual tool.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no expert, nor do I claim to be. So what follows is my opinion.

Dawkins’ analogy works best in a Mendelian “one gene per trait” world. It is understood that Mendel carefully selected traits of his peas that could be described in such a way – with individual genes manifesting themselves in individual pea plant traits. Even so, there is perforce a good deal of subjectivity in his analysis: how many wrinkles does a pea have to have before you call it wrinkly? His conclusions have been deemed outside the realm of statistical probability.

The whole truth is, there are almost always multiple genes affecting individual traits, and many other factors as well, such as enzyme production, that affect the expressions of genes. There are also environments factors, and I’m not talking strictly about epigenetics. Diet, obviously, and many other environmental factors affect the expression of the genotype in the development of an organism.

[Ironically, I personally seem to be the victim of a mutation in one particular gene that gives me a grave disability. However, ongoing research is turning up many other factors that regulate the severity and expression of said disability.]

For reference about the complexity of developmental biology, see Lewontin, Richard, et al, Not In Our Genes (1984, revised 2017), and Lewontin, Richard, The Triple Helix (2002).

 

[rousseau]

I'm a fan of Dawkins' gene-level selection theory myself. But I'm more interested in others views on the topic than explaining my own view.

I read Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene in 1980 and I’ve never re-read it, so my views are forty some years out of date, but I remember it as a clever take on natural selection. However, as time has passed and I’ve learned a lot more about genetics and developmental biology, I’ve become skeptical. Dawkins’ metaphor seems less useful as a conceptual tool.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no expert, nor do I claim to be. So what follows is my opinion.

Dawkins’ analogy works best in a Mendelian “one gene per trait” world. It is understood that Mendel carefully selected traits of his peas that could be described in such a way – with individual genes manifesting themselves in individual pea plant traits. Even so, there is perforce a good deal of subjectivity in his analysis: how many wrinkles does a pea have to have before you call it wrinkly? His conclusions have been deemed outside the realm of statistical probability.

The whole truth is, there are almost always multiple genes affecting individual traits, and many other factors as well, such as enzyme production, that affect the expressions of genes. There are also environments factors, and I’m not talking strictly about epigenetics. Diet, obviously, and many other environmental factors affect the expression of the genotype in the development of an organism.

[Ironically, I personally seem to be the victim of a mutation in one particular gene that gives me a grave disability. However, ongoing research is turning up many other factors that regulate the severity and expression of said disability.]

For reference about the complexity of developmental biology, see Lewontin, Richard, et al, Not In Our Genes (1984, revised 2017), and Lewontin, Richard, The Triple Helix (2002).

I think if you asked Dawkins he'd tell you that most of what you wrote above is in line with the gene centered view. At times you'd be looking at selection for a 'cluster' of genes, not just one gene.

I think what usually throws people off is his use of the world 'selfish'. He's not at all implying that people are always selfish, but that's usually what people conclude without understanding the core theme of the book.

For the record I've read Lewontin, but only briefly.

 

[BH]

I think most religions now and in the past had some type of welfare system intertwined in their theologies that appealed to their prospective followers. For example, in the Jewish scripture the poor had the right to glean fields and have access to relief give as poor tithes by those better off. Your debts were cancelled after so many years and there limits on what creditors could take from you. Other religions in the Middle East had similar rules. So people had very earthly reasons to be heavenly minded.

In my opinion I think the reason monotheism won out among the Jews was that there really wasn't that many of them in the land of Israel to begin with and if you had many Gods worshipped you had many wanna be priests taking money and resources for their own shrine or temple and pay. It really was a waste of resources for them maintaining such, better to consolidate into fewer shrines and one temple with one priesthood. Had more money for both the priests and to do relief work for the community instead of wasting it on a bunch of shrines or temples very few people ended up using or needing anyway. You see this today in my town. We have a church on every other block but most only have five to ten members with the preachers preaching for next to nothing. The money to keep these churches going could be better used if they consolidated and not so much money and time maintaining just the buildings for example. It would in the end free up more money and time to do good deeds and works in the community and your clergy may end up better educated because the larger churches could afford books for libraries.

 

[lostone]

I keep wondering how and why the major religions can survive, when there has been no new input into them for 1500-2000 years. The only thing keeping them afloat is questionable scholarship. At least Mormons and the Scientologists have some new input, dubious though that may be. How long can the majors keep recycling the same BS? Jesus has not come back and God remains hidden. 2000 years?

 

[SIB]

I try and use what we know to describe things we don't know, What's the agent for cells being created me. The same agent that had the universe create the earth. It not unreasonable anyway.

I wonder why theist don't say "my god created us the way it seems the rock record suggests." Seems pretty simple to me. The belief in some thing more just makes more sense than the reverse. There is no need for it to be based on human emotional need tho.

 

[DBT]

Children don't have the life experience or understanding of the world with which to sort fact from fiction that normal, functional adults should be able to do.

 

[Learner]

I keep wondering how and why the major religions can survive, when there has been no new input into them for 1500-2000 years. The only thing keeping them afloat is questionable scholarship. At least Mormons and the Scientologists have some new input, dubious though that may be. How long can the majors keep recycling the same BS? Jesus has not come back and God remains hidden. 2000 years?

Just my theist view iostone of the above. This imo has been an argument that could get expressed in a contextual perspective which could be a little misleading. When using this narrative point, one could fall into the feeling, giving the impression that it's 'each of us individually' who's been waiting that long.

NO individual ever waits for 2000 years! The longest wait for a human depends on their life span. Let's say120 years was the life span of this individual. Then 120 years is how long it took for that individual before meeting his or her maker (as the convention goes).

In the whole realm of things, from Adam to our current existence - 2000 years is not long and indeed many yearn for Jesus's return very soon, which understandably people will portray that feeling, of taking that long. According to the bible, a sequential order of events that was prophesied must happen before Christ's return (perhaps for another discussion ).

 

[Learner]

I try and use what we know to describe things we don't know, What's the agent for cells being created me. The same agent that had the universe create the earth. It not unreasonable anyway.

Yes it's not unreasonable in anyway, it's a neutral statement.

I wonder why theist don't say "my god created us the way it seems the rock record suggests." Seems pretty simple to me.

They do, but they'll argue about what's being interpreted in the 'rock record'.

The belief in some thing more just makes more sense than the reverse. There is no need for it to be based on human emotional need tho.

This is the 'crucial element' that escapes those who derive conclusions from a 'computer logic mindset' (for lack of better phrasing this moment). Emotions reveal truth in people's character. Children recognise the feeling of being safe through genuine compassion and love when they receive it. Theists also read the trait of characters through their psychological state of mind, relating to a particular environment scenario for example. A process not too dissimilar I suppose, to 'character profiling' used by the FBI.

An 'air of irony' as I see it when it's often said " people only believe their faith because of emotions" to which I am absolutely fine agreeing to this and saying this is true. Your statement on the emotions (argument) doesn't harm the theists belief at all, if you're looking from the perspective I outline above. Contrary to your statement, it would actually be important to bring forth the elements of emotions - adding to the data information understanding past (fortunately some people do ).

 

[Copernicus]

I keep wondering how and why the major religions can survive, when there has been no new input into them for 1500-2000 years. The only thing keeping them afloat is questionable scholarship. At least Mormons and the Scientologists have some new input, dubious though that may be. How long can the majors keep recycling the same BS? Jesus has not come back and God remains hidden. 2000 years?

But there really wasn't any input into them 1500-2000 years ago either. They were always ever kept afloat by questionable scholarship. The point is that the scholarship did have more practical value back then. The mythological stories that went behind the Sumerian creation of the Zodiac worked as a kind of calculator for instructing people on when to plant and harvest crops. Religion was the underpinning of human science back then, but reliance on spirits and gods as the explanation for the forces of nature has been replaced by the rise of physical theories to explain natural phenomena. We have had a couple of millennia of the explanatory gaps getting smaller in which to hide our gods. We discovered that we could explain the weather and the stars a lot better if we ditched the god explanations. Religion still works as a coping mechanism for most people. It helps them to deal with the reality of their inescapable mortality.

The interesting thing was that the major theme of the Gilgamesh epic that inspired much of the Hebrew Pentateuch was about overcoming mortality, and that yearning for immortality hasn't left us. Perhaps that is the most important factor that guarantees a continuing presence of religious belief in people's lives.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Religion still works as a coping mechanism for most people. It helps them to deal with the reality of their inescapable mortality.

The interesting thing was that the major theme of the Gilgamesh epic that inspired much of the Hebrew Pentateuch was about overcoming mortality, and that yearning for immortality hasn't left us. Perhaps that is the most important factor that guarantees a continuing presence of religious belief in people's lives.

And that was more true 2000 years ago when human life was even more tenuous, and so I wonder if that isn't the case anymore. We're living longer which gives us time to make peace with our mortality. As a kid it can be scary for sure.

I think the two primary sustaining factors today are community identity and money. Human ignorance still plays a big part. I can remember my mother's final days when she would cry out to her god to "take me know." It was sad as she was in so much discomfort and just wanted to die. After she passed away we were inundated by religious panhandlers trying to cash in on her passing as she would send money to different 'causes" during her life.

 

[BH]

I think a lot of the believers who still belief in literal six day Genesis creation think Satan has somehow faked the geological record and evidence of prosperous and large populated civilizations during the supposed flood and right after. In essense, they deny the scientific method can deliver any reliable truth claims or that it can under only certain circumstances where perhaps God forbade the devil from interfering with results. Thats why science and its laws of chemistry, physics, cannot tell us the age of the earth right but still works when it comes to things like medicine, your home chemistry set, ect. God gave the devil permission to mess with science so it wouldnt give an accurage Earth age of 6000 years but he did not give him permission to interfere with science when it comes to medicine, auto and air mechanics, ect.

The problem with this is other world religions have a devil figure or demonic type creatures too. They could be doing the same thing the Jewish and Christian Devil is doing and messing with science and the archeological record too to convince those people their religions are false.

 

[Tigers!]

I think a lot of the believers who still belief in literal six day Genesis creation think Satan has somehow faked the geological record and evidence of prosperous and large populated civilizations during the supposed flood and right after.

It must be an American thing. I have met many believers in Aust. NZ, Sth Africa, UK and have never met one who believes that.

 

[James Brown]

I have. I was raised that way.

 

[rousseau]

So you could say that you reject the truth in favour of your belief ? Or aren't interested enough in science to investigate how belief works?

How would you explain belief from the standpoint of evolution?

Not sure what you are getting at with the first two questions. As for beliefs and evolution, belief is just like any other behavior. Natural selection never stops and environments which select for behaviors never stop changing.

I was just being cute with you. A lot of times members at this forum seem to fall into the same patterns that the religious are accused of. Being staunch in their beliefs. But then I'm not convinced that most of the discussion that happens here doesn't amount to activism, and not real discourse.

How would you say that the environment that's driving selection is changing for us?

Of course it's activism. None of us are standing on street corners shouting but we are interacting with each other within a larger agora, being observed and judged.

There was a time when I had a hard time believing that people would ever do anything useful collectively if they couldn't grasp how the world actually works. So my activism has usually been about real understanding. But anymore I'm convinced that it's always political, we're just not interested in actually understanding each other and the world.

It's even in some of the ads that have appeared on this site, saying things like who's winning the culture wars. If we have to frame discourse as a 'culture war', I don't have a lot of hope that we're ever going to accomplish much with language.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There was a time when I had a hard time believing that people would ever do anything useful collectively if they couldn't grasp how the world actually works. So my activism has usually been about real understanding. But anymore I'm convinced that it's always political, we're just not interested in actually understanding each other and the world.

It's even in some of the ads that have appeared on this site, saying things like who's winning the culture wars. If we have to frame discourse as a 'culture war', I don't have a lot of hope that we're ever going to accomplish much with language.

That's understandable. I don't see it in such binary terms. But I am convinced that our species is just like any other species, generally speaking. We just bounce along, we're not proactive. Sometimes I wonder how our lives would be different if there were no spoken language. Probably wouldn't change anything.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Latest Gallup poll. Only 74% of Americans now believe in God

Belief in Five Spiritual Entities Edges Down to New Lows

Americans' belief in five religious entities -- God, angels, heaven, hell and the devil -- have all edged down since 2016, continuing a longer-term trend.

news.gallup.com

 

[Copernicus]

Latest Gallup poll. Only 74% of Americans now believe in God

Belief in Five Spiritual Entities Edges Down to New Lows

Americans' belief in five religious entities -- God, angels, heaven, hell and the devil -- have all edged down since 2016, continuing a longer-term trend.

news.gallup.com

It is interesting that only 12% of Americans admit to being atheists, whereas the remainder of the 26% of non-believers are in the "not sure" category. It's not that that category doesn't contain atheists. Many who will admit to not believing in God would rather not characterize their non-belief as unshakable, even if it really isn't shakable in practice. There is probably also a lot of uncertainty among non-believers over what can be meant by the word "God" in trying to answer the survey question. Even more interesting is that at least 70% of the population believes in an afterlife. Most people still cling to the idea that mental activity is fundamentally separable from brain activity, despite overwhelming evidence that the opposite is true.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

According to Pew research, 19% of Americans self identify in not brlieving in God. 10% of self identified nonbelivers self identify as atheist or agnostic. 9% believe in a higher power or spiritual force. 33% of self identifying belivers in God claim their God is a higher power or spiritual force, not the God of the Bible or Quran it would seem.

Key findings about Americans’ belief in God

The overwhelming majority of Americans, including a majority of the religiously unaffiliated, say they believe in God or a higher power.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[James Brown]

"Hey, I may not believe in God , the soul, or an afterlife, but don't you dare call me an atheist!"