A thing about religious (and other) people and the illusion of free will

[Ahriman]

IDK, could be fun, and as a demonstration.  Think of some normative statement from a religion you don't believe in, that you actually agree with.  You don't have to tell me what it is.  Just consider why you agree with it.  Do you think you only agree with it because you were taught to?  Think of some normative statement you've accepted from a single authoritative individual in your life ( a parent, a close friend, a hero).  Do you think you accept it on the basis of their having said it, or because you think they got it right?

I picked up the idea that "there is a lot of evil in the world" from my father, and I definitely think that shit's true.

[Ahriman]

I have to ask if Ahri thinks that a baby with Christian parents will exhibit an 'innate religious impulse' to be a Muslim.  What happens then?

If you are asking me…

Honestly, there are so many different religions in the world that we can’t be born with all of them, and we are not born with even one religion, just like how we are not born to speak, write or read languages, which there are so many of.

I don’t know what would happen, but I don’t think people are just born with any religion, so they can’t be born a religious person such as a Muslim.

If babies were not born with the innate ability to speak, write, or read, then they would never speak, write, or read, at any point in their lives.

[ShinyCrystals]

@The Grand Nudger Again, interesting thoughts. I do agree that supreme beings are deontological tools, and with that, I do see it as a means of power, power for humans who want such power since supreme beings do not truly exist. As for being born with religion or not, I do think it children when they reach an age higher than that of babies do tend to believe family, friends, teachers, etc. so easily, as that is just how they work. Plus, as far as religion on supreme beings go, I'd say that it is easy for people to be lead to believe a supreme being exists, partly because the human mind is centered on emotion rather than logic; people tend to not do research on things, and they technically are affected by many factors in their surroundings that may affect their predisposition to believe in a supreme being and gain support from such a being without knowledge of how to do things themselves.

I think it could be that people accept what others say because they think that they are right, and with that, they do not know better themselves. I also think in your question before that while religious ideation is more so a natural thing, teaching people things plays a big part of shaping such a thing, so it would make sense they would agree with people who teach them unless they are taught otherwise. is a Yes, they are at a young age, and also, even older people would do such a thing themselves, as it happens to them, too. Still, I have seen politicians be believed in because people simply think they are right, and that those politicians say things that they may want to hear rather than the truth, which is something I think is the case with religion with supreme beings as well. Some people just don't have the will to do things themselves, or even research things to know what is going on. They just rely on others, which may or may not include supreme beings like God themselves. I am not sure if I am right on your questions, if "right" is even the right word. Still, the human mind does work in a way that allows for religious beliefs to be easily shaped, especially about, but not limited to supreme beings, even if those beliefs are not right. The human mind can surely be a weird thing to have.

[arewethereyet]

If you are asking me…

Honestly, there are so many different religions in the world that we can’t be born with all of them, and we are not born with even one religion, just like how we are not born to speak, write or read languages, which there are so many of.

I don’t know what would happen, but I don’t think people are just born with any religion, so they can’t be born a religious person such as a Muslim.

If babies were not born with the innate ability to speak, write, or read, then they would never speak, write, or read, at any point in their lives.

Speaking and writing are also physical abilities.  They also learn to crawl, climb, walk, and run if there are no disabilities to prevent them.

Being religious is not akin to being born with the eventual ability to walk and talk.

[The Grand Nudger]

@The Grand Nudger Again, interesting thoughts. I do agree that supreme beings are deontological tools, and with that, I do see it as a means of power, power for humans who want such power since supreme beings do not truly exist. As for being born with religion or not, I do think it children when they reach an age higher than that of babies do tend to believe family, friends, teachers, etc. so easily, as that is just how they work. Plus, as far as religion on supreme beings go, I'd say that it is easy for people to be lead to believe a supreme being exists, partly because the human mind is centered on emotion rather than logic; people tend to not do research on things, and they technically are affected by many factors in their surroundings that may affect their predisposition to believe in a supreme being and gain support from such a being without knowledge of how to do things themselves.

In the understanding of religious ideation as a defining human trait....the human mind is centered on dinner, and not becoming dinner.  The wall between logic and emotion is convenient but fictional, and religious ideation is a feature - not a bug.  

I think it could be that people accept what others say because they think that they are right, and with that, they do not know better themselves.

This statement assumes a "better" that is not, in many peoples opinions, in evidence.  In making this seemingly simple statement you've indicated a commitment to the fundamental reality of what religious ideation argues over.  That there really is ...some...better way™.... for things to be.  Is it emotional to have a disagreement over accepted (purported) facts?  Is it illogical?

I also think in your question before that while religious ideation is more so a natural thing, teaching people things plays a big part of shaping such a thing, so it would make sense they would agree with people who teach them unless they are taught otherwise. is a Yes, they are at a young age, and also, even older people would do such a thing themselves, as it happens to them, too. Still, I have seen politicians be believed in because people simply think they are right, and that those politicians say things that they may want to hear rather than the truth, which is something I think is the case with religion with supreme beings as well. Some people just don't have the will to do things themselves, or even research things to know what is going on. They just rely on others, which may or may not include supreme beings like God themselves. I am not sure if I am right on your questions, if "right" is even the right word. Still, the human mind does work in a way that allows for religious beliefs to be easily shaped, especially about, but not limited to supreme beings, even if those beliefs are not right. The human mind can surely be a weird thing to have.

I want to put a pin in something.  Of course, times a million, supreme beings say things people want to hear.  It's their whole reason for being.  To affirm the religious ideations of the adherent.  What you're talking about here is the human mind being malleable - which is, again, not a bug, but a feature. In this understanding, religious ideation palpably drove us to create a world that did not exist. We saw the world as it was, we thought about how it should be, and we went to work.

It's worth pointing out that there was a time where we were anatomically modern, but not fully modern. A long time. That time is associated with a glacial rate of change. People..apparently, either accepted the world as it was or could not organize in a manner sufficient to make changes that would survive in the record down to today. A Looooooong Time. Then we start showing signs of religiosity. Signs of counterfactual hope, and within a few short tens of thousands of years we go from "animals" - to what we are today. The grand winners a billion year long calorie war. Religious ideation is a very successful survival strategy. We can stand here today on the backs of alot of more detailed and accurate information about the world and say it's in error, but that's probably because we're judging it by the wrong set of metrics. The religious would obviously insist that we should judge by those metrics and against all evidence say that their religions have succeeded by them - but I like to take a wider view. Religion is false, and neccesarrily false, as a statement about how the world is or the world works. If it were true there would be no need or cause for religion. It's how the world should be, and self evidently not how the world is. That's why talking about the truth of religion (or the natural religious inclination) gets sticky. Because it isn't aiming at the kind of truth we're aiming at when making the criticism to facts of how things are.

[The Grand Nudger]

If babies were not born with the innate ability to speak, write, or read, then they would never speak, write, or read, at any point in their lives.

Speaking and writing are also physical abilities.  They also learn to crawl, climb, walk, and run if there are no disabilities to prevent them.

Being religious is not akin to being born with the eventual ability to walk and talk.

It very much is, though ahri wont be content with that viewpoint and has before and will again spew hilarious bullshit about it.

Religiosity might often center itself around magic, but it is not magic.  It comes from our very physical brains.  Like a camel, theyre horses designed by committee. We're not doing something, when we engage with our religiosity, that defies the same explanations as those that explain why we walk or talk. It is...literally...the same explanation.

[ShinyCrystals]

@The Grand Nudger Again, interesting thoughts. I do agree that supreme beings are deontological tools, and with that, I do see it as a means of power, power for humans who want such power since supreme beings do not truly exist. As for being born with religion or not, I do think it children when they reach an age higher than that of babies do tend to believe family, friends, teachers, etc. so easily, as that is just how they work. Plus, as far as religion on supreme beings go, I'd say that it is easy for people to be lead to believe a supreme being exists, partly because the human mind is centered on emotion rather than logic; people tend to not do research on things, and they technically are affected by many factors in their surroundings that may affect their predisposition to believe in a supreme being and gain support from such a being without knowledge of how to do things themselves.

In the understanding of religious ideation as a defining human trait....the human mind is centered on dinner, and not becoming dinner.  The wall between logic and emotion is convenient but fictional, and religious ideation is a feature - not a bug.  

I think it could be that people accept what others say because they think that they are right, and with that, they do not know better themselves.

This statement assumes a "better" that is not, in many peoples opinions, in evidence.  In making this seemingly innoccuos statement you've indicated a commitment to the fundamental reality of what religious ideation argues over.  That there really is ...some...better way™.... for things to be.  Is it emotional to have a disagreement over facts?  Is it illogical?

I also think in your question before that while religious ideation is more so a natural thing, teaching people things plays a big part of shaping such a thing, so it would make sense they would agree with people who teach them unless they are taught otherwise. is a Yes, they are at a young age, and also, even older people would do such a thing themselves, as it happens to them, too. Still, I have seen politicians be believed in because people simply think they are right, and that those politicians say things that they may want to hear rather than the truth, which is something I think is the case with religion with supreme beings as well. Some people just don't have the will to do things themselves, or even research things to know what is going on. They just rely on others, which may or may not include supreme beings like God themselves. I am not sure if I am right on your questions, if "right" is even the right word. Still, the human mind does work in a way that allows for religious beliefs to be easily shaped, especially about, but not limited to supreme beings, even if those beliefs are not right. The human mind can surely be a weird thing to have.

I want to put a pin in something.  Of course, times a million, supreme beings say things people want to hear.  It's their whole reason for being.  To affirm the religious ideations of the adherent.  What you're talking about here is the human mind being malleable - which is, again, not a bug, but a feature.  In this understanding, religious ideation palpably drove us to create a world that did not exist.  We saw the world as it was, we thought about how it should be, and we went to work.

Did I say religious ideation and the human mind being malleable are bugs? If so, my bad, I did not mean to say such a thing.

But yeah, humans creating a world that did not exist as we thought it was, that is definitely the case; especially back when humans first came into existence on Earth, when we did not have much knowledge or anything that could make us not believe in supreme beings, as such things had to be developed, and they were not developed right away. Even if free will did exist back then, people weren't thinking independently, nor were they ready to do so, if you know what I mean. I mean, people are about born with religious ideation, but not with actual knowledge. On the subject of people wanting to hear what they want to hear; I think that is partly, but not completely because the human mind functions more on emotion rather than logic as I said, and logic definitely was not much of a thing back when humans started their existence back then to make them think more critically and realize there is no need for a god, was it not? In fact, we learned many things own our own, apparently more than what religion could teach us about the world, all over the course of human history. Religion beliefs about a supreme being was just easier for humans to come up with, it seems.

But about features, and the human mind being malleable, there is one other thing I think is a factor that can be included with the human mind being malleable; being raised. Not just by family, but friends, non-friends, other people, even the environment or the world around the person in question. We are shaped by external factors as we live our lives throughout time. We also are affected by internal things and are shaped by how we react to things, like a person's own will power or personality traits. The combination of external and internal factors end up making us who we are in life. I think both religious beliefs on beings like supreme beings and actual learning and gaining knowledge do affect how are lives are shaped, to a degree. It seems not only the mind is malleable, but lives are malleable.

That said, many things morality based, as well as ethnics and other things, are learned more than just being born with. I do think it can be born with to an extent, but some people do nto learn these things in life, and that leads to them deciding to do bad things, in regards to whether they don't know, don't care or don't apply it to other things like treating people of other races fairly like they should. That is at least one reason why bad things caused by people happen in life.

Still, anyway, I do think freedom, especially independent thought, has to be earned through learning, for otherwise, more bad choices leading to more bad actions would happen, and people would not really be responsible. It's hard to have independent thought or be free as a child without proper knowledge gained, and even then, some adults don't learn such things and thus, can't really think for themselves. That makes me think people; or some people in society do not truly display free will as I said. They are too dependent on others without having the will to do things or even research things on their own; whether the other person is a supreme being or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's the dilemma. We propose that people are indoctrinated through education. By people telling them stuff. We also, apparently, think that -other- people telling them -other- stuff is different, and the solution to the problem that people telling people stuff creates. We can and do think for ourselves -even in ignorance, regardless of whether or not those thoughts are "free" in the sense of free will. In the case of ignorance, we just think for ourselves over a more limited field - and we own the results. We think about the shit we know, and not the shit we don't.

Religious ideation isn't fundamentally wrong or illogical or emotional, even you think that there's a better way as you criticize others notions of better ways. The current crop of religions are really bad representatives of the set, is all. Credit where credit is due. They put in the work to be horrible, because they think that the world really should be horrible. More horrible than it is, even, in a funhouse mirror equivalence.

[ShinyCrystals]

There's the dilemma.  We propose that people are indoctrinated through education.  By people telling them stuff.  We also, apparently, think that -other- people telling them -other- stuff is different, and the solution to the problem that people telling people stuff creates.  We can and do think for ourselves -even in ignorance.  In that case, we just think for ourselves over a more limited field.  We think about the shit we know, and not the shit we don't.  

Religious ideation isn't wrong.  The current crop of religions are really bad representatives of the set, is all.  Credit where credit is due.  They put in the work to be horrible, because they think that the world really should be horrible.

Of course. I should have said something like that before, especially on religious ideation being wrong, and that the current crop of religions are bad representatives as you said. Also, yes, I rather meant that people think for themselves in a more limited field as you also said. Quite a shame people think that way, as said people may assume things they don't know, or just listen to someone who also has a more limited field of things, and is also not qualified to tell others things because they don't know themselves. Yet, people will believe it anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, consider the alternative. Thinking for Yourself™ - which is to say having a wholly disparate viewpoint from your people.

-but what are you going to do with it?

People thinking for themselves doesn't really amount to change in the world. That's the advantage that religiosity has over independant thinking, and it's not inconsequential.