Are humans hardwired to believe in something greater?

[Storm]

Humans are hard-wired to seek answers, we don't like not knowing and that has led primitive humans to simply invent answers when the real answers are not immediately readily apparent. As we've evolved though and become more rational, or at least had the ability to be more rational, people have started to realize that simple emotional discomfort over not knowing isn't sufficient to adopt or invent emotionally comforting answers. Just because our brains are wired a certain way, that doesn't mean we can't over-ride that wiring with the intellect that we've evolved.

*sigh*

Why don't you start by overriding the Dunning-Kreuger effect?

 

[jeager106]

Is a Jungian archetype the same thing as being hardwired. I suspect it could be argued that fear of the dark is an Archetype but it is the same as being hardwired to believe in something? Same with hunting, gathering.

 

[jeager106]

*sigh*

Why don't you start by overriding the Dunning-Kreuger effect?

So I'm incompetent and don't know it?
I had to look that up.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More accurately: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate." (wiki)

 

[Storm]

So I'm incompetent and don't know it?
I had to look that up.

Not you.

 

[Cephus]

*sigh*

Why don't you start by overriding the Dunning-Kreuger effect?

Wouldn't that be nice? But the only way to really override these cognitive biases is to point them out to people who suffer from them. Many aren't aware that such things even exist. Unfortunately, many, even when informed, really don't care. There are a lot of theists here who, when you point out the logical fallacies in their faith, say they're going to believe anyhow.

The fact that you understand Dunning-Kreuger exists suggests that you really ought to reject the whole "God is my best friend" superiority crap that plagues religion. Have you?

 

[jeager106]

Not you.

O.K. I get it.
I don't feel God is my best friend at all. More that He is incharge of something.
Of exacly what I'm not sure.
Perahps to bring about the "world to come".
Nice thought anyway.

 

[Storm]

Wouldn't that be nice? But the only way to really override these cognitive biases is to point them out to people who suffer from them. Many aren't aware that such things even exist. Unfortunately, many, even when informed, really don't care. There are a lot of theists here who, when you point out the logical fallacies in their faith, say they're going to believe anyhow.

The fact that you understand Dunning-Kreuger exists suggests that you really ought to reject the whole "God is my best friend" superiority crap that plagues religion. Have you?

That's nice, dear.

However, the fact that you think that atheism somehow immunizes you against Dunning-Kruger is the perfect encapsulation of why I consider so many of your 'questions' completely unworthy of response.

 

[Cephus]

That's nice, dear.

However, the fact that you think that atheism somehow immunizes you against Dunning-Kruger is the perfect encapsulation of why I consider so many of your 'questions' completely unworthy of response.

There is no immunity except awareness. That is the only way to fight against fallacy and irrational thinking. You have to understand what it is and purposely look for it in your own positions so that you can take steps to excise it from your thoughts. It isn't perfect but it's certainly better than simply embracing the absurdity.

And let's be honest, you have no answers, you're just rationalizing why you're not going to reveal even more of your ignorance.

 

[Sapiens]

That's nice, dear.

However, the fact that you think that atheism somehow immunizes you against Dunning-Kruger is the perfect encapsulation of why I consider so many of your 'questions' completely unworthy of response.

David Dunning and Justin Kruger concluded that, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".

 

[Sapiens]

David Dunning and Justin Kruger concluded that, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".

When combining personal experience with various studies of education and religion and intelligence and religion, I think it not unreasonable to group most of the atheists I know in the latter category with few exceptions. On the other hand, it is with somewhat significantly more (and more notable) exceptions, and thus somewhat greater difficulty, that I'd group the religionists into the former, their distribution being much more bimodal.

 

[Storm]

There is no immunity except awareness.

Indeed.

And let's be honest, you have no answers, you're just rationalizing why you're not going to reveal even more of your ignorance.

The first 3 demonstrations of your rabid devotion to maintaining your ignorance were precisely what resulted in the conclusion that your questions merit no response.

 

[Cephus]

The first 3 demonstrations of your rabid devotion to maintaining your ignorance were precisely what resulted in the conclusion that your questions merit no response.

And yet you keep responding. Imagine that.

 

[Storm]

David Dunning and Justin Kruger concluded that, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".

True enough.

However, we can only draw conclusions about others from the information they provide us, yes?

When combining personal experience with various studies of education and religion and intelligence and religion, I think it not unreasonable to group most of the atheists I know in the latter category with few exceptions.

Absolutely. In the real world at least. Cyberspace seems to be a skewed sampling, as is far too often the case. Witness the typical behavior of straight men on dating sites and subsequent popularity of backlash blogs....

On the whole, I find atheists to be delightful partners for discussion and enormously helpful opponents in debate, as my ideas are familiar enough to me that I can miss inconsistencies. Some of my favorite spiritual passages and narrative commentary come from Babylon 5, the magnum opus of known atheist J Michael Straczynski (at least at the time, I've not kept tabs on that).

My comment was not meant for atheists or atheism.

On the other hand, it is with somewhat significantly more (and more notable) exceptions, and thus somewhat greater difficulty, that I'd group the religionists into the former, their distribution being much more bimodal.

I would say trimodal, actually. But I do think that the cultural presentation of the conflict obfuscates a great deal, particularly in America.

 

[Storm]

And yet you keep responding. Imagine that.

To the hubris, sure. Not the questions. Imagine that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Without going into citing scientific research I will just say that I was watching a t-v show in which scientist that study the brain via the latest electronic devices have suggested that humans are hardwired to seek out or believe in something all powerful, something greater than mankind.
If God created Adam and Eve it might be that we could conclude that we are hardwired to believe in a Creator more powerful and all knowing that gave us life on this earth.
That premise could explain why all cultures tend to believe in something greater than man.
Just off hand I know of no culture, going back in history as far as we are able, that doesn't believe in something greater than man.
Thoughts on that?

The phenomenom is certainly real. But one of the reasons for the big cultural crisis in 19th century Europe were the anthropological findings that show how malleable that instinct is, how arbitrary those beliefs ultimately are.

That evidence and just plain logic show that the instinct of seeking belonging in "something greater" used to be an adaptative advantage and arguably still is, but probably does not correspond to any actual deities - or at least to none that like being acknowledged accurately.

So I see that as evidence that all deities are indeed human creations, and have probably always been. Witness how readily humans lend deity-like attributes to pretty much anything: sports teams, places, pop musicians, fictional characters, you name it.

We simply are born craving for the hope of transcendence and can't help but attempt to believe in it. With exceptions, apparently.

 

[jeager106]

Sapiens said: ↑
David Dunning and Justin Kruger concluded that, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".
Like ^^^^^ this.


Storm says:Absolutely. In the real world at least. Cyberspace seems to be a skewed sampling, as is far too often the case. Witness the typical behavior of straight men on dating sites and subsequent popularity of backlash blogs....

On the whole, I find atheists to be delightful partners for discussion and enormously helpful opponents in debate, as my ideas are familiar enough to me that I can miss inconsistencies. Some of my favorite spiritual passages and narrative commentary come from Babylon 5, the magnum opus of J Michael Straczynski, a staunch atheist (at least at the time, I've not kept tabs on that).

Cyberspace is indeed a skewed sampling. One can claim to be anything on the net, I could even be a 300 pound phatt black chick, tho I have no idea who would claim to be what they were not.
In my limited experience thus questionable opinion, I posit those that represent themselves as what they are not suffer from some sort of personality disorder.
I remember one fellow on an ourtdoor sports board who claimed he won medals in vietman, was a lawyer, picked on others all the time untill he ran into someone who knew him well. He was never in the military & once worked as a legal aid to a lawyer.
He got drummed off the site.
Beats me why people do such.

 

[Storm]

That evidence and just plain logic show that the instinct of seeking belonging in "something greater" used to be an adaptative advantage and arguably still is, but probably does not correspond to any actual deities - or at least to none that like being acknowledged accurately.

I don't think it's quite so simple as that, which I'm sure just shocks you to the core.

If you look at religions being mutually exclusive (and I freely admit that many modern adherents claim as much), then you're right, of course.

But if what if we look at religion as a species trait with variation, much like language? Ignore popularity, strip away millennia of cultural baggage, and we're left with a pretty unequivocal, unanimous statement that there's something greater than humanity, so much greater that we can never hope to understand it. We can never comprehend, but we can touch it with effort, and doing so is beautiful enough to transform a mere human forever.

We don't need to fight, and never have. It's just a byproduct of our evolution that's no longer advantageous.

So I see that as evidence that all deities are indeed human creations, and have probably always been.

I find it more accurate to think of them as inadequate depictions.

We simply are born craving for the hope of transcendence and can't help but attempt to believe in it. With exceptions, apparently.

There are always exceptions, but I'm not convinced atheism legitimately among them.

In another thread, I was speaking to @Sapiens about how the much decried 'moderates' strike me as less moderate than merely habitual. Unlike love of music or science or activism, love of religion is simply expected, and untold numbers simply go along with that. Can you imagine if the other great human pursuits were so glutted with apathetic hangers-on turning them into mere social functions for sheer boredom?

And even if atheism is the exception, it's certainly better than those whose genuine, passionate faith is corrupted by those who want it for a weapon.

 

[Cephus]

But if what if we look at religion as a species trait with variation, much like language? Ignore popularity, strip away millennia of cultural baggage, and we're left with a pretty unequivocal, unanimous statement that there's something greater than humanity, so much greater that we can never hope to understand it. We can never comprehend, but we can touch it with effort, and doing so is beautiful enough to transform a mere human forever.

You dramatically overstate your case. There is a BELIEF that there's something greater than humanity. It doesn't make that belief actually so. This is why theists get criticized so heavily for these massive leaps of illogic.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think it's quite so simple as that, which I'm sure just shocks you to the core.

Yeah. You may just have made an alcoholic out of me. Where are all of life's certainties now?

If you look at religions being mutually exclusive (and I freely admit that many modern adherents claim as much), then you're right, of course.

But if what if we look at religion as a species trait with variation, much like language? Ignore popularity, strip away millennia of cultural baggage, and we're left with a pretty unequivocal, unanimous statement that there's something greater than humanity, so much greater that we can never hope to understand it. We can never comprehend, but we can touch it with effort, and doing so is beautiful enough to transform a mere human forever.

We don't need to fight, and never have. It's just a byproduct of our evolution that's no longer advantageous.


I find it more accurate to think of them as inadequate depictions.


There are always exceptions, but I'm not convinced atheism legitimately among them.

Atheism proper isn't an exception. It just somewhat correlates with some of them. Probably not in a causal or even enabling way.

You seem to be talking about the perception of Transcendence. I have somewhat taken to talk about "The Sacred" in recent months, which I find a better concept to use than that of the Divine. Maybe it is something like that, but I suspect not. You seem to believe in something pre-existing, not in a potential or clear direction to follow.

In another thread, I was speaking to @Sapiens about how the much decried 'moderates' strike me as less moderate than merely habitual. Unlike love of music or science or activism, love of religion is simply expected, and untold numbers simply go along with that. Can you imagine if the other great human pursuits were so glutted with apathetic hangers-on turning them into mere social functions for sheer boredom?

And even if atheism is the exception, it's certainly better than those whose genuine, passionate faith is corrupted by those who want it for a weapon.

Religion is currently plagued by some very serious, very deep conflicts that I wish were clarified already. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of "Secular Buddhism".

I don't think it is too much of an exageration to say that many people feel both a strong aversion for the concept of religion (let's leave for later the task of defining it) and a deep need of engaging in its practice.

Needless to say, such a conflict is quite regrettable.