Why people need God for morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2016, 09:15 AM
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 07:45 AM)Velvet Wrote:  It would be a delusion if you hold the belief despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Not necessarily. The line between delusion and mistaken beliefs wouldn't be crossed just because superior evidence to the contrary exist. Belief in and of themselves are not delusional, but rather what underpins those beliefs. Any belief, not matter how ridiculous can be a mistaken belief, instead of a delusional no one. Two people can hold the same belief, one may delusional, and the other mistaken.

The question is what distinguished one from the other. And it's not merely the existence of superior evidence to the contrary.

Let's assume you encounter a person who believes the earth is flat, based on a variety of intuitive assumptions of his own, he's never been challenged to consider otherwise. Maybe the man doesn't speak good english. And it proves quite difficult for you to communicate this "superior evidence" for a round earth to him, he is not able to understand and grasp this, as result of a communication barrier between you two. In this instance the man may just be holding onto a mistaken belief, rather than accounting for this belief as a product of a delusion.

Perhaps in regards to another belief someone holds, where there might also be superior evidence to the contrary, yet this superior evidence is quite complicated, and difficult to understand, those false beliefs the person holds, can't be accounted for as a delusion. Just another set of mistaken beliefs.

In my experience, not necessarily in regards to you, but for other atheists who often through around the delusional claim, that they haven't even remotely thought that through, or it's implications.

Not to mention the problem of painting the vast majority of the worlds population as delusional, and what that says about the way our brains work, and then excluding yourself from this process. It's to say that brains formulate a variety of beliefs, based on a multitude of factors, environmental, biological, cultural, intuitive based, etc......but some small sliver of people have figured out a means to have their brains operate differently than the vast majority of brains.

Quote:As far as I'm concerned religious views are the revenant of some evolutionary strategy for survival regarding how to deal with the unknown, and thats why it would be intuitively true, because the paleolithic savannah probably showed itself not a good place to experiment with the unknown.
I agree to some extent, that religious beliefs are a product of a variety of evolutionary factors, but not necessarily for the sake of dealing with the unknown, only the unknown/uncertainity, in regards to factors that would impact one's survival. Such as would be case in our desire for meaning, and placement in our world, where as uncertainty in this regard might leave one aimless, and hopeless, or malaadjusted Cultures might create a variety of religious stories, to reiterate those themes, meaning and placement to subsequent generation, providing maps of meaning.

No human creatures is particular above this, though their frames here that serve the same purpose, might not be referred to as "religious".

It also doesn't particularly follow that whatever evolutionary currents underpins religious beliefs, begun in the Paleolithic Savannah, but much more ancient than that.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2016, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2016 10:10 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 09:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not necessarily. The line between delusion and mistaken beliefs wouldn't be crossed just because superior evidence to the contrary exist. Belief in and of themselves are not delusional, but rather what underpins those beliefs. Any belief, not matter how ridiculous can be a mistaken belief, instead of a delusional no one. Two people can hold the same belief, one may delusional, and the other mistaken.

The question is what distinguished one from the other. And it's not merely the existence of superior evidence to the contrary.

Let's assume you encounter a person who believes the earth is flat, based on a variety of intuitive assumptions of his own, he's never been challenged to consider otherwise. Maybe the man doesn't speak good english

Fair enough, so how your case would be mistake instead of a delusion? While the appeal for some explanation and meaning might be intuitively embedded as an evolutionary factor the same would be true for the need of avoid being deceived, and still you have more than enough tools and access to comprehend the evidence.

Quote: I agree to some extent, that religious beliefs are a product of a variety of evolutionary factors...

...No human creatures is particular above this, though their frames here that serve the same purpose, might not be referred to as "religious".

It also doesn't particularly follow that whatever evolutionary currents underpins religious beliefs, begun in the Paleolithic Savannah, but much more ancient than that.

I haven't said that it necessarily started on the paleolithic time, instead, my focus saying this was the rather obvious implications of not having such an evolutionary trace on a dungerous place and time like that, I do not wish to continue this branch of the conversation further as I have no interest in the specificity of religion origins in human evolution.

Nonetheless, there's great info here, which includes the fact that elephants have ritualistic practices towards the deceased.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2016, 10:27 AM
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Far as I'm concerned religious views are at the very least intuitively true, ... , even if they are actually false.
Consider

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
03-11-2016, 10:29 AM
Why people need God for morality
Oh, I was wondering how this old old necroed by a mainly pop in got to be so many layers deep, and I see clearly how by just a name glance.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2016, 10:39 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2016 10:42 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 10:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(03-11-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Far as I'm concerned religious views are at the very least intuitively true, ... , even if they are actually false.
Consider

He means we (humans) have a tendency to make up religions and consider them as true, regardless if they aren't.




That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Velvet's post
03-11-2016, 10:59 AM
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 10:39 AM)Velvet Wrote:  
(03-11-2016 10:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Consider

He means we (humans) have a tendency to make up religions and consider them as true, regardless if they aren't.

He may accidently have been so ambiguous as he was, but his history on this board suggets otherwise.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
03-11-2016, 11:58 AM
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 09:55 AM)Velvet Wrote:  Fair enough, so how your case would be mistake instead of a delusion? While the appeal for some explanation and meaning might be intuitively embedded as an evolutionary factor the same would be true for the need of avoid being deceived, and still you have more than enough tools and access to comprehend the evidence.


That wouldn’t be true, our evolutionary produced brain doesn’t care if we’re deceived or not, in fact it’s prone to believing deceptive things when it benefits our survival. Things like cognitive dissonance, negativity bias, biases, and prejudices in general are all product of evolutionary factors, that don’t tend to place such a high value on truth, as some of us we would like it to.

You might be entirely deceived when it comes to your beliefs regarding objectivity, rationalism, being neutral, in your own self-assements in how you determine whats true, etc… And those evolutionary factors that’s shaped our brain, might work hard to preserve this deception, because such beliefs might be important for you to hold as true, to feel content, and make it through the day. The brain as the result of evolutionary factors, works quite hard to preserve the beliefs we value, true or not.

Our brains are led to believe things, hold things as true, based on a plethora of stimuli both conscious and unconscious, you don’t get to stop your brain from these basic processes, and instruct it to filter out certain stimuli based on whether it constitutes as “evidence” or not. We don’t possess such mastery. What tends to actually occur is that you’re led to believe a variety of things based on similar neurochemical processes as every other brain, then after the fact start to label the stimuli that led to those conclusions as “evidence”. Rather than your brain only believing things are true based on evidence, your brain after the fact just labels whatever you believe led you to that conclusion as “evidence”, at least for those who value the term as much as you do.

Trying to imagine that it works differently, would require a bit of magical thinking. As much as atheists tend to be proponents of Darwinism, they tend have an anti-Darwinian/pragmatic perspective on their own thought processes, and beliefs, perhaps as the result of the popularity of outdated enlightenment era views.


Quote:I haven't said that it necessarily started on the paleolithic time, instead, my focus saying this was the rather obvious implications of not having such an evolutionary trace on a dungerous place and time like tha

No, you didn't say that, but I think it's important to keep that in mind when speaking of how our brains work, so we don't attempt to distinguish ourselves too much from our distant relatives.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 10:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(03-11-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Far as I'm concerned religious views are at the very least intuitively true, ... , even if they are actually false.
Consider

Yeah, I think that's a classic example of what Orwell called "doublespeak" (and/or "doublethink").
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2016, 01:55 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2016 03:44 PM by Velvet.)
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 11:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That wouldn’t be true, our evolutionary produced brain doesn’t care if we’re deceived or not.
That's a lie.

Quote: in fact it’s prone to believing deceptive things when it benefits our survival

There's no such situation in which being deceived can benefit our survival, deception (if you don't know what it means), imply intentionality from the deceiver, the deliberate intention of making one believe what the deceiver knows its not..

Being deceived is not ''not being very exigent about the truth'', please stop confusing such simple concepts.

Quote:Things like cognitive dissonance, negativity bias, biases, and prejudices in general are all product of evolutionary factors.

And they don't imply on any sense that our brain would rather to fall victim of deception, especially cognitive dissonance which would be the exactly opposite process.

Deception is an exploitation of ours failures in reasoning and sensing, affirming that an organist could benefit from deception its completely stupid.

Quote:You might be entirely deceived when it comes to your beliefs regarding objectivity, rationalism, being neutral, in your own self-assements in how you determine whats true, etc…


Unlikely because science is testing the methods every day, my own tests included, and the methods are until now showing to be quite reliable.

Using the same skeptical critical inquiry we were able to produce real life models that make predictions, and those predictions confirm (or deny the validity) of the models.

We don't use this reasoning only to philosophy but for actual real life and experiments, everyday, If we were preserving false self-assessments, those would produce very obvious discrepancies from the expected results in our daily experiences.

The military aircraft that I fix will all eventually start to fall from the sky malfunctioning due to my totally wrong methods of knowing what is true from what is not, then I would know that I've been deceiving myself in my methods and/or reasoning, but for now they are all flying as they should.

Quote:And those evolutionary factors that’s shaped our brain, might work hard to preserve this deception, because such beliefs might be important for you to hold as true, to feel content, and make it through the day. The brain as the result of evolutionary factors, works quite hard to preserve the beliefs we value, true or not.

There's no evolutionary factor that work hard to preserve deception, because there's no evolutionary benefit from being deceived.

Things deceived get eaten by tigers because of their stripes, no animal would benefit on any way to be eaten by tigers and orchid mantises.

[Image: tumblr_o9smfzUYUw1szqwnwo1_500.jpg]

Quote:Our brains are led to believe things, hold things as true, based on a plethora of stimuli both conscious and unconscious, you don’t get to stop your brain from these basic processes, and instruct it to filter out certain stimuli based on whether it constitutes as “evidence” or not. We don’t possess such mastery. What tends to actually occur is that you’re led to believe a variety of things based on similar neurochemical processes as every other brain, then after the fact start to label the stimuli that led to those conclusions as “evidence”. Rather than your brain only believing things are true based on evidence, your brain after the fact just labels whatever you believe led you to that conclusion as “evidence”, at least for those who value the term as much as you do.

That's why things must be falsifiable, and tested.

You have no idea of how skepticism actually works in scientific method and think we are just arrogant children who think only our toys actually work.

That's not the case, we are (unlike theists) constantly testing our own reasoning and methods.

We are constantly trying to safeguard ourselves from our biases.

Quote:at least for those who value the term as much as you do

I thought you would have already learned by now that inferring that you know what I value more than myself tells us more about you than about me.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Velvet's post
06-11-2016, 07:40 AM
RE: Why people need God for morality
(03-11-2016 01:55 PM)Velvet Wrote:  There's no such situation in which being deceived can benefit our survival, deception (if you don't know what it means), imply intentionality from the deceiver, the deliberate intention of making one believe what the deceiver knows its not..

Being deceived is not ''not being very exigent about the truth'', please stop confusing such simple concepts.

Clearly there is, hence the our brains proclivity of cognitive dissonance, biases, scapegoating, etc…. Now I’m using deception a bit more loosely, akin to believing falsehoods here, and whether or not someone intentionally lied to you or not, is not particularly important.

You can easily imagine any number of scenarios is which falsehood might contribute to fitness. Such a falsehood getting you to feel content, and satisfied, and insuring your overall emotional well being in that community. Perhaps a falsehood can lead to solidarity in a community, need achieve certain goals. Such as motivating your troops in war, to see your enemy in the most grotesque terms possible, true or not.

Evolution doesn’t think in terms of truth and falsehoods, it thinks terms of survival and reproduction, and has created factors, that when falsehoods are needed, the brain is receptive to such falsehood, in the form of cognitive dissonance, and deep biases, which are clear obstacles to deciphering truth, produced by our evolutionary backgrounds.

Quote:And they don't imply on any sense that our brain would rather to fall victim of deception, especially cognitive dissonance which would be the exactly opposite process.

If the brain did not want to fall victim to falsehoods in some instance, than cognitive dissonance, no biases would exist. Cognitive dissonance is the brain ways to telling you not to believe the alternative to your valued beliefs, even if the alternative is true

Quote:Unlikely because science is testing the methods every day, my own tests included, and the methods are until now showing to be quite reliable.

Using the same skeptical critical inquiry we were able to produce real life models that make predictions, and those predictions confirm (or deny the validity) of the models.

We don't use this reasoning only to philosophy but for actual real life and experiments, everyday, If we were preserving false self-assessments, those would produce very obvious discrepancies from the expected results in our daily experiences.

The military aircraft that I fix will all eventually start to fall from the sky malfunctioning due to my totally wrong methods of knowing what is true from what is not, then I would know that I've been deceiving myself in my methods and/or reasoning, but for now they are all flying as they should.

Let’s ask another set of questions, is scientific thinking a purely human thing? Or are other non-human animals capable of thinking scientifically? Do you think that all humans beings think scientifically? Why not? What so different about their brains and those who think scientifically?

Quote:You have no idea of how skepticism actually works in scientific method and think we are just arrogant children who think only our toys actually work.

I’m more interested in how this things work given the neurochemical makeup of brains, and if some subset of people found a means to get their brains to operate differently than others brains, if so then I want to hear more about this miracle.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: