katja z wrote: I'm not saying I have a problem with his explanation. My point was that I would have a problem with it if I were a believer. Well, I'm guessing I would, I've no way of knowing

As we've already seen in this thread, they don't seem to have a problem. Paarsurrey seems to think we (atheists) should, however. I've no idea why.

katja z wrote:

michael^3 wrote:Well if happiness is nothing but a right mix of chemicals in the brain, why should I be offended to discover that the practice of religion brings about this right mix? As a believer I would naturally conclude that god wanted it to be that way.

No reason. Except if somebody suggests this is the sole benefit of religion, and that was my point. If I were a believer, I'd consider that religion was important for more important reasons (truth and meaning and all that), not primarily as a source of serotonin.

It's not the primary reason, it's just the only thing a scientist can measure.

Feeling good I might consider as a nice side effect, not as a valid reason to believe.

michael^3 wrote: It's not the primary reason, it's just the only thing a scientist can measure.

Actually, there are a few other things that can be scientifically measured, and are found to be absent. Prayer fulfillment is one that comes immediately to mind.

Shrunk wrote:

michael^3 wrote: It's not the primary reason, it's just the only thing a scientist can measure.

Actually, there are a few other things that can be scientifically measured, and are found to be absent. Prayer fulfillment is one that comes immediately to mind.

Hi friends

I don't get your point. How would you measure prayer fulfillment, an idea, a piece of Philosophy, reality of the things one sees in the dream?

Thanks

paarsurrey wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

michael^3 wrote: It's not the primary reason, it's just the only thing a scientist can measure.

Actually, there are a few other things that can be scientifically measured, and are found to be absent. Prayer fulfillment is one that comes immediately to mind.

Hi friends

I don't get your point. How would you measure prayer fulfillment, an idea, a piece of Philosophy, reality of the things one sees in the dream?

Thanks

It's quite simple actually. You pray to god/allah/fairies for a cookie. Then you measure the amount of cookies received.

paarsurrey wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

michael^3 wrote: It's not the primary reason, it's just the only thing a scientist can measure.

Actually, there are a few other things that can be scientifically measured, and are found to be absent. Prayer fulfillment is one that comes immediately to mind.

Hi friends

I don't get your point. How would you measure prayer fulfillment, an idea, a piece of Philosophy, reality of the things one sees in the dream?

Thanks

There have been experiments you can read about where they tried prayer, in hospitals too. Search a bit! Guess what were the results.

paarsurrey wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

michael^3 wrote: It's not the primary reason, it's just the only thing a scientist can measure.

Actually, there are a few other things that can be scientifically measured, and are found to be absent. Prayer fulfillment is one that comes immediately to mind.

Hi friends

I don't get your point. How would you measure prayer fulfillment, an idea, a piece of Philosophy, reality of the things one sees in the dream?

Thanks

It depends. If all you are praying for is guidance on how to tackle some sticky situation you encounter in life, it is hard to say whether this was answered or whether you merely made up your own mind. I strongly suspect the answer from God will typically be compatible with what you might have decided for yourself though.

Praying for things to actually happen in your life though, that is trivially easy to measure the success of. I pray for rain. Does it rain, yes or no? I pray for money. Does my financial situation improve, yes or no? I pray for a loved one to be cured of cancer. Do they die, yes or no? Simple.

Animavore wrote:Twaddle. I never believed in the supernatural at any stage in my life. In fact, believers make me uncomfortable. This goes directly against your argument. When I see someone closing their eyes, raising their hands in the air and crying out to the ceiling I think to myself What... in blazes name... is he at?
When I see someone in front of a wall gyrating or going down on their knees while making lots of weird postures I want to go up to them, tap them on the shoulder and say What the hell are you at? Is there something wrong here? Do you need and ambulance?

That sounds like Fundies/bornagains behaviour. Do you feel the same about people who just quietly say a little prayer in an undemonstrative fashion..without all the Fundie/bornagain, talking in tongues etc, hysteria?

Yes I know technically there maybe no difference in the delusion. And it seems quite reasonable to ask someone behaving like that if they need an ambulance. I'd think the same thing about anyone behaving in such an extreme fashion..eg a mentally ill person, in the street.

But I wouldn't think a person who just took a few quiet moments to reflect about something, needed an ambulance..in church or in the street. I mean someone may just close there eyes for a few moments..who knows what's actually going on in their head. It might have nothing to do with actual woo belief.

Yes I know this thread is basically about belief. But you are describing the visible behaviour. And how the hell does one actually define belief in someone's head, based on outward behaviour. I haven't the foggiest really. I don't think it's necessarily just one clear cut thing.

I just started a thread called "Why do some people need to believe?" in the Psychology & Neuroscience section.

The question is, what part does the need to believe in something, play in the survival of our species.

The other question is, if the need to believe is built into humans, is there an unknown negative effect experienced by, for example, atheists, that are yet to manifest itself in future generations? This thought is still a bit vague in my mind but I just wanted to mention it in passing incase someone wants to comment/trash it/laugh.

Adco wrote:
The other question is, if the need to believe is built into humans, is there an unknown negative effect experienced by, for example, atheists, that are yet to manifest itself in future generations? This thought is still a bit vague in my mind but I just wanted to mention it in passing incase someone wants to comment/trash it/laugh.

You mean what if it's like the inbuild need to eat, there may be consequences if you don't fulfill it? FWIW, I'm a third-generation atheist, no negative effects so far

michael^3 wrote:Well if happiness is nothing but a right mix of chemicals in the brain, why should I be offended to discover that the practice of religion brings about this right mix? As a believer I would naturally conclude that god wanted it to be that way.

If you subscribe exclusively to a particular religion you might well be offended, or at least rather disappointed, to discover that the practice of any religion brings about the right mix.

You might have to conclude that God also wants those other f##kers to be happy too. Good gracious!

I can see that this might be acceptable to a "Cherry picking theist" but it seems oddly incongruent with the desire to submit to any prescriptive religion, particularly one as self-righteous and totalitarian as paarsurrey's.

Adco wrote:
The question is, what part does the need to believe in something, play in the survival of our species.

Zero.

Adco wrote:
The other question is, if the need to believe is built into humans, is there an unknown negative effect experienced by, for example, atheists, that are yet to manifest itself in future generations?

No one has shown that there is a built in need to believe, only that there seems to be a tendency to believe that could be attributed to other innate human traits that evolved to promote individual survival.

paarsurrey wrote:Human brain is naturally more comfortable believing

Carl Sagan wrote:For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, no matter how satisfying and reassuring. Which attitude is better geared for our long-term survival? Which gives us more leverage on our future? And if our naive self-confidence is a little undermined in the process, is that altogether such a loss? Is there not cause to welcome it as a maturing and character-building experience?

~The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark.

michael^3 wrote:

katja z wrote:paarsurrey, I actually posted the link to an interview with Lionel Tiger a few days ago. Well, since the discussion seems to be here, I'd love to ask you a question:

Are you, as a believer, comfortable with Lionel Tiger's views on religion? Doesn't he belittle your belief by suggesting that it is basically an equivalent of a Prozac pill - not something big and important, but just something to give you an extra dose of serotonin?

Isn't it great that god rewards belief with extra happiness? What could possibly be wrong with that.

cough-cough-Job-cough-cough

Oldskeptic wrote:

Adco wrote:
The question is, what part does the need to believe in something, play in the survival of our species.

Zero.

Adco wrote:
The other question is, if the need to believe is built into humans, is there an unknown negative effect experienced by, for example, atheists, that are yet to manifest itself in future generations?

No one has shown that there is a built in need to believe, only that there seems to be a tendency to believe that could be attributed to other innate human traits that evolved to promote individual survival.

I might be reading this totally wrong. Your comments sound contradictory. I read: humans as a species need zero beliefs to survive but individually they have a tendency to believe so as to promote survival. Individually or collectively, whats the difference. There are sufficient individuals to make it a collection of humans and therefore the species. Please clarify.

Adco wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Adco wrote:
The other question is, if the need to believe is built into humans, is there an unknown negative effect experienced by, for example, atheists, that are yet to manifest itself in future generations?

No one has shown that there is a built in need to believe, only that there seems to be a tendency to believe that could be attributed to other innate human traits that evolved to promote individual survival.

I might be reading this totally wrong. Your comments sound contradictory. I read: humans as a species need zero beliefs to survive but individually they have a tendency to believe so as to promote survival. Individually or collectively, whats the difference. There are sufficient individuals to make it a collection of humans and therefore the species. Please clarify.

(My bold)

There's no contradiction - OldSkeptic is spot on. There are certain traits that promote individual survival. You could say that the tendency to believe in gods is a side effect of those traits.

There's no need to suppose religion has an actual survival advantage - only that it hasn't got us extinct. Yet

katja z wrote:
There's no contradiction - OldSkeptic is spot on. There are certain traits that promote individual survival. You could say that the tendency to believe in gods is a side effect of those traits.

Sure. Would you say there are certain traits in all individuals. If yes, then all individuals make up our species and therefore there are certains in our species that allow/cause us to believe in a higher being. (excluding atheists)

There's no need to suppose religion has an actual survival advantage - only that it hasn't got us extinct. Yet

Lets not call it religion but the belief in something higher. And it might still get us wiped out one day.

Some confusion here, methinks.

Belief is a useful survival trait. Not belief in anything, but belief. For example, believing our parents when we are young protects us from danger. It is almost certainly from this principle that belief in a deity stems in most. Being told by our parents that particular authority figures outside the family, such as the liars for jeebus that spread this bollocks, are to be trusted is something that is going to be believed, because of the source.

So, believing what our parents tell us is useful, but the knock-on effect is that we believe others as well. This does not suggest for a second that believing in an idiotic conception of a celestial peeping-tom is evolutionarily useful, but that's a specific belief, and is simply a progression from the utilitay of believing those whose concerns are your safety when you need to believe them in childhood.

hackenslash wrote:Some confusion here, methinks.

I'm not too confused, just not able to put the question across properly.

Belief is a useful survival trait. Not belief in anything, but belief. For example, believing our parents when we are young protects us from danger. It is almost certainly from this principle that belief in a deity stems in most. Being told by our parents that particular authority figures outside the family, such as the liars for jeebus that spread this bollocks, are to be trusted is something that is going to be believed, because of the source.

I was refering to the general concept of belief and not any specific belief. Religion came about as a result of this trait and is the end result of what we now have to put up with. Thanks, that does make sense about listening and believing in a parent or role model etc. Just a pity that this could be seen as a weakness in humans to allow themselves to be lead around by the short and curlies.

So, believing what our parents tell us is useful, but the knock-on effect is that we believe others as well. This does not suggest for a second that believing in an idiotic conception of a celestial peeping-tom is evolutionarily useful, but that's a specific belief, and is simply a progression from the utilitay of believing those whose concerns are your safety when you need to believe them in childhood.

Agreed. Religion is more likely to lead to our extinction than anything else.

Adco wrote:I was refering to the general concept of belief and not any specific belief. Religion came about as a result of this trait and is the end result of what we now have to put up with. Thanks, that does make sense about listening and believing in a parent or role model etc. Just a pity that this could be seen as a weakness in humans to allow themselves to be lead around by the short and curlies.

It isn't seen as a weakness. It is a weakness. Like many things that are useful in childhood/development, it becomes less than useful as you get older. Trust becomes gullibility, especially when the memes implanted by parents are themselves rooted in gullibility, such as religious beliefs.