Why Do Otherwise Intelligent People Succomb to Religion?

[Excited Penguin]

Wow, it sounded so grammatically incorrect, though.  xD

I think that's the point, though. What a wonderful word...

[Neo-Scholastic]

Y'all have your own cons like thinking that atheism is the only rational position.

Believing despite the lack of evidence and in the face of contrary evidence isn't exactly rational.

The simple statement, “atheism is the rational response to a lack of evidence’, presupposes ontological and/or epistemological naturalism. However, the tools of naturalistic inquiry do not allow anyone to step outside naturalism to confirm its veracity. From a purely logical perspective it is no different than quoting Scripture to confirm the reliability of Scripture.

[Angrboda]

Indeed, love comes before logic because we are emotional creatures first, and rational creatures second. However what comes from religion is not love, but something that appears to the religious brain like love does to the brain of a person in a relationship with a real person. The acts and thoughts of the believer generate a response in the brain which is pleasurable and psychologically addictive. It is like love in that way, except the object of such brain behaviors is wholly imaginary.

[Edwardo Piet]

True, genuine, non-desperate, non-attached, deep and meaningful love with real persons is rare. But I do love it when it is found. And it need not last forever, but it's worth every second that it lasts

[Neo-Scholastic]

I was speaking about love in a more abstract way as in most value. Some people love transcendent principles like Justice and value it more than their own lives. As such all the resources of their intellect will be directed towards it such as defining and then discerning it. The same rule applies for truth, pleasure, security, self esteem, liberty, etc. I think an honest look at what pious people most value versus what nominal believers would reveal a big difference in where their reason leads them. Likewise confirmed nonbelievers versus earnest seekers.

[Angrboda]

I was speaking about love in a more abstract way as in most value. Some people love transcendent principles like Justice and value it more than their own lives. As such all the resources of their intellect will be directed towards it such as defining and then discerning it. The same rule applies for truth, pleasure, security, self esteem, liberty, etc. I think an honest look at what pious people most value versus what nominal believers would reveal a big difference in where their reason leads them. Likewise confirmed nonbelievers versus earnest seekers.

Am I hearing the echo of a No True Scotsman amongst those words? I believe I am.

"Only real men believe in God!"

[Neo-Scholastic]

Come now, you know better than to cut off discussion by crying “No True Scotsman” especially when I wasn’t even going there. It is a fact of life that what people do and say in public does not always match what they truly believe or reveal their motivating desires. One philanthropist may donate funds in order to aggrandize himself. Another may do so because of his genuine concern for the beneficiaries. Who is the more generous person? In accordance with this line of reasoning, I think a pious believer has more in common with an earnest seeker than with a nominal believer. Both a pious believer and an earnest seeker have a desire to understand principles and truths that may go beyond what is merely apparent. Likewise a nominal believer and confirmed non-believer have many similarities. Both look to and put their trust in their own powers and seek comfort and gain only within the natural sphere. I’m not trying to be judgmental; I have throughout my life been at least three of the above: nominal believer, seeker, and confirmed non-believer. I’m still working on achieving actual piety.

In many ways my belief that ‘love comes before logic’ is similar to Godchild’s ASK (Ask Seek Knock). Before you can know the truth you must first want to know the truth. If you’re not interested in asking the question, “Is there more?” then it’s not surprising that all of your reasoning will not reveal anything more to you than what you think there already is. Nor will you seriously entertain arguments suggesting otherwise; the slightest problem will serve as the basis for dismissing an opposing view. For example I often feel that many atheists are too quick to dismiss rational demonstrations of God and justify those dismissals with the slimmest objections. Likewise if you hope to find more, then all of your reasoning will be directed to finding something and you won’t stop until you find it. There can be little doubt that some people fool themselves with the ‘answer that satisfies’. For example, I feel too many believers are too quick to enthusiastically embrace highly suspect Kalam-style proofs.

Nevertheless perseverance often gets rewarded with genuine truths. It took quite a bit of challenging study for me to gain enough confidence to stand-up as a believer. If it were possible to determine, I would be willing to lay money down that my conversion from atheist to theist was the result of deeper and more thorough intellectual consideration that most AF members did to de-convert.

[abaris]

Come now, you know better than to cut off discussion by crying “No True Scotsman” especially when I wasn’t even going there.

I for one wouldn't do that. But your original argument seems rather weak to me. That's why I didn't reply to it the first time round. Theists claim to have values, but I often find them despicable and exclusive. Such as supporting capital punishment, looking down on the poor and needy, or going all out bigot on people not conforming with their world view.

That's why no true scottsman comes in with a vengeance. I for one despise Sam Harris or Ayn Rand, but I own up to them being or having been atheists. See, it doesn't make someone anything because you think so. What makes them is what they identify with.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You are misapplying NTS. The fallacy applies either 1)when a proponent excludes one particular type from the kind to which it belongs on the basis of an accidental feature or 2) when an opponent expands the definition of the kind to include accidental features.

[Anomalocaris]

The question came up and I thought it worth exploring. I put this thread in the psychology form because I’d like to discuss it from that angle rather than from religion.

Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for religion? Why doesn’t the logic and reason immediately preclude gullibility? One might ask why otherwise intelligent people scratch mosquito bites.  Answer that question and you’ll be closer to answering the other.

The answer is to be found in the word "otherwise".