Understanding the Religious Mind

[Whirling Moat]

Peace...

(Warning relatively long post..)

We all gather information in multiple ways. As individuals we tend to have our choice approach to what we choose to believe and how we arrive at such choices. We all have a epistemological stance which is developed by factors such as education, experience, cultural practices, etc.

For many, rationalizing to firm truth is the only way to go...For others there is nothing more convincing than experience.

Most religious people opt for a combination of the two, however the distribution of experience over rationalization heavily favors experience. A believer typically is brought closer to the doctrine through episodes of experiencing what they perceive as God on a personal level. The experience alone is convincing, however often the belief is further buttressed by study and rationalization. The objective as it relates to any rationalization is supporting the experience with proofs, such as positive feelings which resulted as a direct outcome of the experience, and demonstrating the veracity of the doctrininal aspects of the religion.

Let us say you meet someone, you talk for hours, dance, dine, and laugh together and when the night is over you agree to another date. Afterward you conclude.."I think this person really likes me"...The experience led the way to this belief, reasoning firmed the position. "Why else would they spend so much time with me, laugh at my jokes, and agree to another date?".

For many theists, through prayer and an invitation, what they perceive as God enters into their lives. A relitionship is formed, and through this relationship which includes praying for assistance and guidance and subsequently finding relief in one form or another, the relationship is concretized and belief becomes justified.

Lets ask the obvious question...Is it really God entering into the person's life, or is it an illusion created and substantiated by mere belief? This seems like a great question...Now let me change a few terms around and show you why believers aren't falling over themselves to ask the question in this manner...Let us return to the scenario where you meet someone and after the experience instead of being convinced that you are liked, you begin to ask "Does the person really like me and want to spend time with me or am I making these things up?" Would you investigate? Would you call the person and ask them to prove it to you? Wouild you ask them to prove that they weren't really faking it? Or would you dare not do this because you do not wish to jeopardize the continuation of a very beneficial relationship?

Atheists...you are asking believers to question God while they are benefitting from belief. You are asking Believers to critically examine something which they have come to know by experience. There is no motivation to critically examine the belief from your direction as an atheist..They are examining with the intent of proving the doctrine. They like it..It works for them.

There are few ways to break through, the screaming and top of the lungs approach wont work since it is difficult convincing someone that their experiences are not real and that the benefits aren't real. One way to do this would be convincing the person to change their epistemological stance in general..To stop accepting experiences as real no matter how convincing until they have proven them first and foremost by the agency or reason..The only problem I see one facing is this scenario is dealing with the fact that most of us accept as highly probable, the things we experience.


Whirling Moat

[Strongbad]

We all gather information in multiple ways. As individuals we tend to have our choice approach to what we choose to believe and how we arrive at such choices. We all have a epistemological stance which is developed by factors such as education, experience, cultural practices, etc. For many, rationalizing to firm truth is the only way to go...For others there is nothing more convincing than experience.

And for some of us, there is nothing more convincing than actual evidence.

Most religious people opt for a combination of the two, however the distribution of experience over rationalization heavily favors experience. A believer typically is brought closer to the doctrine through episodes of experiencing what they perceive as God on a personal level. The experience alone is convincing, however often the belief is further buttressed by study and rationalization. The objective as it relates to any rationalization is supporting the experience with proofs, such as positive feelings which resulted as a direct outcome of the experience, and demonstrating the veracity of the doctrininal aspects of the religion.

This is a combination of confirmation bias, apophenia, and wishful thinking. When a person is indoctrinated as a child, their "beliefs" are very easy to "confirm" as an adult.

For many theists, through prayer and an invitation, what they perceive as God enters into their lives. A relitionship is formed, and through this relationship which includes praying for assistance and guidance and subsequently finding relief in one form or another, the relationship is concretized and belief becomes justified.

(bolding mine)
What they mis-perceive as God enters into their lives. The "relationship" is a form of self-deception.

Lets ask the obvious question...Is it really God entering into the person's life, or is it an illusion created and substantiated by mere belief?

Obvious answer: Yes, it is an illusion.

This seems like a great question...Now let me change a few terms around and show you why believers aren't falling over themselves to ask the question in this manner...Let us return to the scenario where you meet someone and after the experience instead of being convinced that you are liked, you begin to ask "Does the person really like me and want to spend time with me or am I making these things up?" Would you investigate? Would you call the person and ask them to prove it to you? Wouild you ask them to prove that they weren't really faking it? Or would you dare not do this because you do not wish to jeopardize the continuation of a very beneficial relationship?

Slick analogy, but the difference is that you are basing your beliefs upon an interaction with a real person, not an imaginary friend. You may be wrong, and the other person may not be as attracted to you as you are to them, but at least you have actual justification to believe that there is the potential for a relationship.

Atheists...you are asking believers to question God while they are benefitting from belief. You are asking Believers to critically examine something which they have come to know by experience. There is no motivation to critically examine the belief from your direction as an atheist..

(bolding mine)
You are confusing "knowledge" with "belief", and believe it or not, there IS a difference. The motivation to critically examine beliefs is quite simply a search for the truth.

They are examining with the intent of proving the doctrine.

They are examining with the intent of confirming what they have been taught, without a shred of evidence.

They like it..It works for them.

Which is fine, until they start cramming down other people's throats or insisting that other people abide by their "morals" or killing other people that don't share their "beliefs".

There are few ways to break through, the screaming and top of the lungs approach wont work since it is difficult convincing someone that their experiences are not real and that the benefits aren't real. One way to do this would be convincing the person to change their epistemological stance in general..To stop accepting experiences as real no matter how convincing until they have proven them first and foremost by the agency or reason..The only problem I see one facing is this scenario is dealing with the fact that most of us accept as highly probable, the things we experience.

I agree - it is virtually impossible to convince someone that what they have been indoctrinated to believe, and have spent years "rationalizing" to confirm their beliefs, that they just might be wrong.

[Doubting Thomas]

Let us return to the scenario where you meet someone and after the experience instead of being convinced that you are liked, you begin to ask "Does the person really like me and want to spend time with me or am I making these things up?" Would you investigate?

The problem with your scenario is that in the dating situation, you can actually see the person you're out with, you can talk to them and they talk to you in return. You can see their facial features, study body language, and genuinely see if they're interested in you or not. In the human/god relationship scenario, it's all one-way communication, you never see the god you're supposedly having a relationship with, and the only way you know what this god wants is by either making it up in your mind or listening to what other people have made up.

It would be like playing that high school game of, "Hey, ______ says they like you. Do you want me to tell them you like them?" but never actually seeing the person who supposedly likes you, not knowing even what they look like, and not even knowing if they actually exist. You'd just have to rely on your friends' word that everything they're telling you is on the level. And not only that, this mystery person likes everyone, and then you hear conflicting stories about this person's likes and dislikes, which all happen to coincide what each person decides they like or dislike. But supposedly this person has ESP, so you can talk to them in your thoughts but they never reply, and you just have to accept that people are being honest when they say this person is listening to you.

Frankly, what kind of relationship is that?

[downbeatplumb]

There are few ways to break through, the screaming and top of the lungs approach wont work since it is difficult convincing someone that their experiences are not real and that the benefits aren't real. One way to do this would be convincing the person to change their epistemological stance in general..To stop accepting experiences as real no matter how convincing until they have proven them first and foremost by the agency or reason..The only problem I see one facing is this scenario is dealing with the fact that most of us accept as highly probable, the things we experience.

Ah but the senses can be deceived people hallucinate, missinterpret, imagine and lie.

The only way to definitively prove the existance of something is through the scientific method.

Everything else is hearsay.

[prayforme]

Folks experience things and then slap an interpretation on those experiences. If you were raised to be (insert religion here), you are more likely to interpret an experience through that lens because it is what is most familiar and comfortable to you. When your family, friends, and the community around you is saturated in (insert religion yet again), there is constant pressure to do so. This "relationship" you describe is nothing more than a sense of belonging to a particular group of people. Even if you weren't raised into a religious system, folks get pulled in (converted) in large part due to a need for support in troubling times. The church, temple, or what not becomes a place where people can seek that special attention - a form of catharsis, if you will. Those individuals then begin to attribute their emotional well-being to some higher power, at which point they become hooked.

It's not that difficult to understand the religious mind. I once asked my mother, a born and raised moderate Christian, why she believes what she does. She says it gives her hope. I then asked her if what she believes is actually true.. she did not give me a straight answer. The religious mind perceives, interprets, and rationalizes events based on what is convenient (or beneficial as you put it) and discards the rest.

[maxbjork]

Not all Atheists are anti-theists. Personally, I think the world would be a lot better place if everyone thought critically-- but I certainly don't think there's much use trying to de-convert a theist. Certainly there are exceptions, but most modern Christians are extremely passive.

With this new wave of atheists sweeping Europe and some of North America, I think it's pretty obvious where this world is heading. What Whirling Moat needs to understand is that using the scientific method IS experience. It's just a method to understand experiences accurately, and confirm that they are in fact true.

[KichigaiNeko]

I am to understand that theists have an extra gene that makes them liable to believe anything..so conversion is out of the question.

[Kayenneh]

Since I know a few people that have had quite extensive hallucinations, I can safely say that the hallucinations feel very real. Seeing and feeling are of course only electical impulses and transmittor substances in our brains, but so are hallucinations. They are just signals gone awry. To know if something is real or not, we can use electrodes attached to the head, MRI-scans, someone to observe, trying to copy the situation by carfully considering the parameters and limitations of the situation. The difference between religious "feelings" and hallucinations is that the persons suffering from hallucinations seems to know the difference between reality and ghosts of the mind. If a patient starts to believe in his hallucinations, he's declared mentaly ill..

[Doubting Thomas]

It's just like how schizophrenics hear voices in their head. It's their own mind, but to them it's very real. And it can be terrifying when the voices tell them to do terrible things. At least we know this now; 100 years ago that person would be considered to be possessed by demons.

[Faith No More]

The only problem I see one facing is this scenario is dealing with the fact that most of us accept as highly probable, the things we experience.

I am agnostic for the exact reason that I don't take for granted my experiences as probable. I know that I am a human, looking through human eyes and interpreting facts with a human brain. The human brain is so prone to seeing what it wants to that anything I thought I could have felt as god could easily be dismissed as a delusion. We are beings of finite intelligence and the universe is a complicated place. To comment on god's existence one way or the other is irrational in my opinion(and by god I mean a general god, not the christian god, whom I dismiss as wholly fictional).

The desire to be part of something bigger than yourself and to have meaning in your life is one of the strongest emotional impulses we humans have. Because of that, we will do anything to see such purpose, regardless of whether it is there or not. Therefore, religious 'experiences' should not be used to dictate belief.