• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

How is that any different than my taking a tree and turning it into a chair?
If the chair continues to grow branches then we could say that it has the same qualities as the tree. If it doesn't, then a quality of the tree is missing from the chair.
Why does the moon go through phases? The moon goes through phases because it’s in the nature of the moon to go through phases.

But, when you really analyze what the moon does, it doesn't go through phases any differently from that of any body that reflects light. It is actually only from the perspective of an observer of reflected light that its phase can be known, and nobody actually views it from the same perspective. Based on this more objective view of what it means for something to go through "phases", it might be interesting to reflect on how so many physicists came to buy off on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum particles--that only the act of observation determines the state of a quantum particle. Scientific investigation gives us a truer window into the nature of reality than religious faith does.
 
How is that any different than my taking a tree and turning it into a chair?
If the chair continues to grow branches then we could say that it has the same qualities as the tree. If it doesn't, then a quality of the tree is missing from the chair.
Why does the moon go through phases? The moon goes through phases because it’s in the nature of the moon to go through phases.

But, when you really analyze what the moon does, it doesn't go through phases any differently from that of any body that reflects light. It is actually only from the perspective of an observer of reflected light that its phase can be known, and nobody actually views it from the same perspective. Based on this more objective view of what it means for something to go through "phases", it might be interesting to think about how so many physicists came to buy off on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum particles--that only the act of observation determines the state of a quantum particle. Scientific investigation gives us a truer window into the nature of reality than religious faith does.
I agree. Playing the "phases of the moon" card was my feeble attempt to illustrate that an answer, however clever, can be void of information that answers the question or furthers the discussion in any substantial way. I was attempting to equate "quality of the tree" with "nature of the moon."
 
How is that any different than my taking a tree and turning it into a chair?
If the chair continues to grow branches then we could say that it has the same qualities as the tree. If it doesn't, then a quality of the tree is missing from the chair.
Why does the moon go through phases? The moon goes through phases because it’s in the nature of the moon to go through phases.

But, when you really analyze what the moon does, it doesn't go through phases any differently from that of any body that reflects light. It is actually only from the perspective of an observer of reflected light that its phase can be known, and nobody actually views it from the same perspective. Based on this more objective view of what it means for something to go through "phases", it might be interesting to reflect on how so many physicists came to buy off on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum particles--that only the act of observation determines the state of a quantum particle. Scientific investigation gives us a truer window into the nature of reality than religious faith does.
any object that responds to light is an observer, living or not, including any other object.
 
...any object that responds to light is an observer, living or not, including any other object.

I agree. I think that words like "observer" connote a misleading metaphor. Perhaps we need a new term like "entangler", because the macro apparatus that records a quantum event is likely entangled with what it records. That's the point I think Sean Carroll was trying to make in his book Something Deeply Hidden. He made the point that entanglement seems to spread at the speed of light, so entanglement itself is an observational phenomenon.
 
It is difficult to limit what an otherwise reasonable person might believe.
The golden rule has been mentioned. Is the golden rule unreasonable, even in an authoritarian culture?
If you mean "do to others what you would wish them to do to you", then yes. It assumes (unreasonably) that everyone else agrees with your opinions about what they should want.

A better rule is "do to others what they would wish you to do to them". This rule does however require more effort, as you need to find out what they want, rather than just assuming that they want the same things you want.
Your 2nd rule has the same problem as the 1st. "It assumes (unreasonably - your word, not mine) that everyone else agrees with your opinions about what they should want."
 
It is difficult to limit what an otherwise reasonable person might believe.
The golden rule has been mentioned. Is the golden rule unreasonable, even in an authoritarian culture?
If you mean "do to others what you would wish them to do to you", then yes. It assumes (unreasonably) that everyone else agrees with your opinions about what they should want.

A better rule is "do to others what they would wish you to do to them". This rule does however require more effort, as you need to find out what they want, rather than just assuming that they want the same things you want.
Your 2nd rule has the same problem as the 1st. "It assumes (unreasonably - your word, not mine) that everyone else agrees with your opinions about what they should want."
No it doesn't.
 
I will agree that the golden rule only has a chance of working where humans have a fully developed and functioning PFC. Otherwise it's Lord of the Flies.
 
In a reasonable culture reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion on what it means to be reasonable, right?

Reasonable usually means reasonable to me.
 
It is difficult to limit what an otherwise reasonable person might believe.
The golden rule has been mentioned. Is the golden rule unreasonable, even in an authoritarian culture?
If you mean "do to others what you would wish them to do to you", then yes. It assumes (unreasonably) that everyone else agrees with your opinions about what they should want.

A better rule is "do to others what they would wish you to do to them". This rule does however require more effort, as you need to find out what they want, rather than just assuming that they want the same things you want.
"If you wish to do it to them."

Now, no effort is required, but what you get is a function of systemic willingness to give.
 
So what is the benefit from holding this false belief?
Assumption rather than fact. There isn't necessarily any benefit. In my view it's result of mass psychosis - in the same way that millions of people can be convinced that staying locked in their homes and not being allowed to hug their grannies while governmental elites rape the economy. That was beneficial for no-one, but millions did it regardless.
 
Well thank goodness millions didn't die from the pandemic. Sure, some people had a case of the sniffles, but it wasn't like emergency rooms and intensive care units were overwhelmed.

Yep. Nothing happened.
 
Well thank goodness millions didn't die from the pandemic. Sure, some people had a case of the sniffles, but it wasn't like emergency rooms and intensive care units were overwhelmed.

Yep. Nothing happened.
So the question has become "Why would a reasonable person believe in pandemics?" Fact is if I'm in the cult and my irrational behavior is constantly and consistently reinforced by what I'm being told pandemics are fake news. It takes actual knowledge and rational behavior to affect change.
 
Whay woid a reasonable resn immerse themselves in an endless stream of factional simplistic streaming TV? An endless stream of gratuitous sex and violence?

Why do some believe drgs are a gateway to enlightent whatever that means?

Why do people believe TV advertising for supplements and consume multiple supplements evry day?
 
So what is the benefit from holding this false belief?
Assumption rather than fact. There isn't necessarily any benefit. In my view it's result of mass psychosis - in the same way that millions of people can be convinced that staying locked in their homes and not being allowed to hug their grannies while governmental elites rape the economy. That was beneficial for no-one, but millions did it regardless.

I disagree, and I would call it a fairly normal delusion rather than "mass psychosis". If there were no benefit, then belief in gods and the supernatural would not be so widespread across humanity. The belief has explanatory power, because it helps people to rationalize the things they observe in their lives that they can't explain. That is, it provides a narrative framework for their very existence. Moreover, the social network of religion serves as a kind of safety net for coping with life's tragedies. It gives us rituals to support life events like birth, coming of age, marriage, and death. It can also provide (or supplement government support) for the needs of the sick, the elderly, and the poor. Whether or not the religious doctrine makes sense or has anything to do with reality is irrelevant in term of the benefits that the institution of religion provides. That's why people can often fear and hate atheists. They don't know how they would cope without the perceived benefits that they receive from religion. So they have a powerful incentive to cling to their religious belief and ignore any cognitive dissonance that might arise from it.
 
Whether or not the religious doctrine makes sense or has anything to do with reality is irrelevant in term of the benefits that the institution of religion provides. That's why people can often fear and hate atheists. They don't know how they would cope without the perceived benefits that they receive from religion. So they have a powerful incentive to cling to their religious belief and ignore any cognitive dissonance that might arise from it.
-Drags out Hobby Horse again-

We all have a brain region called the prefontal cortex. This most recent evolutionary addition to our brain, when it is mature, acts like desktop does on our computers. It's a brake. Simply put, it lets us make choices, lets us choose our behaviors. The prefontal cortex does not mature in humans until the mid to late twenties, being later for males. That very nicely explains play and impulsive behavior in children and relatively young adults.

But the prefontal cortex never matures in many people. It continues to mature, become more dense, beginning to act as a brake on impulsive behavior throughout the life of the organism, but it never completes that development. As a result we are all, for the entirety of our lives, at least a little bit bipolar.

It's safe to observe that to this bipolar condition, particularly mania, and for those of us who have observed it personally, we owe our existence today. I believe that a few hundred thousand years ago all humans were bipolar. We were primarily impulsive, promiscuous, clever, inventors who slept little and died relatively young. A growing population as opposed to simple family groups very much selected against remaining primarily bipolar, which is where we are today.

Religion and belief in supernaturalism generally, and the behavior that accompanies it, is simply an undesirable legacy of our bipolar condition.
 
Last edited:
Religion and belief in supernaturalism generally, and the behavior that accompanies it, is simply an undesirable legacy of our bipolar condition.

If I understand your position properly, you seem to be saying that everyone is manic-depressive, and that explains why there is such widespread belief in gods. I honestly think it has a lot more to do with our instinctive belief in a dualistic reality--mental vs physical--and our nature as a social species. Animism, the belief that physical objects have spiritual properties, is ubiquitous in human cultures. Sometimes we call this "magical thinking". That has explanatory power, because it serves as a kind of naive explanation of physical forces. Our nonphysical spirits cause our bodies to interact with physical objects, so one can impute the same motive powers to physical objects. It is easy to imagine that our spirits can leave our bodies and even become reborn in other bodies or go off to live in some kind of spiritual realm. As for the attraction of social benefits of organized religion, I've already explained that.

I don't see much reason to believe that a chemical imbalance in the brain has anything at all to do with why people believe in spirits and the special type of spirits they refer to as gods. Moreover, to support your position, you would need to show that the alleged chemical imbalance is greater in people of religious faith than in those of little or no religious persuasion. At this point, I don't think you have any evidence at all to support you.
 
Religion and belief in supernaturalism generally, and the behavior that accompanies it, is simply an undesirable legacy of our bipolar condition.


I don't see much reason to believe that a chemical imbalance in the brain has anything at all to do with why people believe in spirits and the special type of spirits they refer to as gods. Moreover, to support your position, you would need to show that the alleged chemical imbalance is greater in people of religious faith than in those of little or no religious persuasion. At this point, I don't think you have any evidence at all to support you.
In addition it would need to be shown that the alleged chemical imbalance is "undesirable". It is assumed by atheists that this alleged chemical imbalance makes religious persons behave "undesirably". What if the boot is on the other foot and it is the atheists who are chemically imbalanced?
 
Back
Top Bottom