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

[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.