• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

As to beliefs ...

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Although this was not intentionally planned seemingly, as a youth and subsequently, I began to take an interest in psychology, and as to how the mind and senses could be fooled - and relatively easily it seems. This was around the time (1970) when Richard Gregory was publishing works concerning perception and visual illusions, and hence such and similar reading did inform as to some possible visual and auditory illusions that we might experience. No doubt things have moved on from then, but this perhaps ensured I mostly didn't mistake any of my experiences for something that they weren't, or enabled me to believe things that were probably not true. Such that a knowledge of how we might be deluded and deceived in so many ways might have prevented me from forming any sort of religious belief, when the doctrinal approach of reading and learning any particular religion seems to rely on nothing of the sort - just have faith - that all the written and spoken words are truth.

This former I would maintain is the safer approach to beliefs - at least knowing firstly how our minds work and how they might be deceived in so many ways - before one embarks on pursuit of some 'ultimate truth'. I looked but no pursuit took place, given I did seem to realise how much I could never know.

Perhaps this approach is hardly feasible for all, but I would suggest that for those who would claim to be honest in all things then this approach as to having beliefs is a more serious one - in knowing the pitfalls first before setting out on a journey that could be more like caving than much else, that is, descending a rabbit hole.

And this isn't about me but simply about the dangers of not recognising the frailty of our human nature, which so many just do not seem to understand.

Any comments?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Although this was not intentionally planned seemingly, as a youth and subsequently, I began to take an interest in psychology, and as to how the mind and senses could be fooled - and relatively easily it seems. This was around the time (1970) when Richard Gregory was publishing works concerning perception and visual illusions, and hence such and similar reading did inform as to some possible visual and auditory illusions that we might experience. No doubt things have moved on from then, but this perhaps ensured I mostly didn't mistake any of my experiences for something that they weren't, or enabled me to believe things that were probably not true. Such that a knowledge of how we might be deluded and deceived in so many ways might have prevented me from forming any sort of religious belief, when the doctrinal approach of reading and learning any particular religion seems to rely on nothing of the sort - just have faith - that all the written and spoken words are truth.

This former I would maintain is the safer approach to beliefs - at least knowing firstly how our minds work and how they might be deceived in so many ways - before one embarks on pursuit of some 'ultimate truth'. I looked but no pursuit took place, given I did seem to realise how much I could never know.

Perhaps this approach is hardly feasible for all, but I would suggest that for those who would claim to be honest in all things then this approach as to having beliefs is a more serious one - in knowing the pitfalls first before setting out on a journey that could be more like caving than much else, that is, descending a rabbit hole.

And this isn't about me but simply about the dangers of not recognising the frailty of our human nature, which so many just do not seem to understand.

Any comments?

Learn to identify doxa as cultural beliefs and not just a particular kind like religion but in general as we are all products of nature and nurture.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Although this was not intentionally planned seemingly, as a youth and subsequently, I began to take an interest in psychology, and as to how the mind and senses could be fooled - and relatively easily it seems. This was around the time (1970) when Richard Gregory was publishing works concerning perception and visual illusions, and hence such and similar reading did inform as to some possible visual and auditory illusions that we might experience. No doubt things have moved on from then, but this perhaps ensured I mostly didn't mistake any of my experiences for something that they weren't, or enabled me to believe things that were probably not true. Such that a knowledge of how we might be deluded and deceived in so many ways might have prevented me from forming any sort of religious belief, when the doctrinal approach of reading and learning any particular religion seems to rely on nothing of the sort - just have faith - that all the written and spoken words are truth.

This former I would maintain is the safer approach to beliefs - at least knowing firstly how our minds work and how they might be deceived in so many ways - before one embarks on pursuit of some 'ultimate truth'. I looked but no pursuit took place, given I did seem to realise how much I could never know.

Perhaps this approach is hardly feasible for all, but I would suggest that for those who would claim to be honest in all things then this approach as to having beliefs is a more serious one - in knowing the pitfalls first before setting out on a journey that could be more like caving than much else, that is, descending a rabbit hole.

And this isn't about me but simply about the dangers of not recognising the frailty of our human nature, which so many just do not seem to understand.

Any comments?


What, if anything, do you believe in?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Although this was not intentionally planned seemingly, as a youth and subsequently, I began to take an interest in psychology, and as to how the mind and senses could be fooled - and relatively easily it seems. This was around the time (1970) when Richard Gregory was publishing works concerning perception and visual illusions, and hence such and similar reading did inform as to some possible visual and auditory illusions that we might experience. No doubt things have moved on from then, but this perhaps ensured I mostly didn't mistake any of my experiences for something that they weren't, or enabled me to believe things that were probably not true. Such that a knowledge of how we might be deluded and deceived in so many ways might have prevented me from forming any sort of religious belief, when the doctrinal approach of reading and learning any particular religion seems to rely on nothing of the sort - just have faith - that all the written and spoken words are truth.

This former I would maintain is the safer approach to beliefs - at least knowing firstly how our minds work and how they might be deceived in so many ways - before one embarks on pursuit of some 'ultimate truth'. I looked but no pursuit took place, given I did seem to realise how much I could never know.

Perhaps this approach is hardly feasible for all, but I would suggest that for those who would claim to be honest in all things then this approach as to having beliefs is a more serious one - in knowing the pitfalls first before setting out on a journey that could be more like caving than much else, that is, descending a rabbit hole.

And this isn't about me but simply about the dangers of not recognising the frailty of our human nature, which so many just do not seem to understand.

Any comments?
I think you are deceiving yourself if you think you can learn how not to be deceived.

The reason I say this is because we all assess reality and truth based on a paradigm of reality and truth that we have already developed and hold to in our minds. And however flawed that paradigm may be, we will use it to determine reality and truth for ourselves going forward. And it's very difficult for us to re-assess these internally held paradigms because we can't step outside of ourselves and look back in with an unbiased mind's eye. So, we are what we think we are. And reality is what we think it is. And these will determine what we think the truth of reality is going forward because they are what we have to work with.

If we are honest, we already know that these internal paradigms of ours are limited, and flawed, and cause us to misperceive and misunderstand ourselves and the world around us all the time. But because we have no easy means of assessing them, or rebuilding them, most of us simply prefer to ignore their shortcomings whenever possible. Whatever we think real is becomes reality to us. Whatever we think the truth is becomes the truth to us. And we're only going to correct ourselves if we're forced to by some specific circumstance.

We can pretend that we are gathering all the evidence and that we're testing it scientifically or philosophically or whatever, and so are developing the "correct" paradigm through which to assess reality and truth. But the truth is that we don't actually have any way of doing that. Because whatever biased paradigm we currently hold is going to be determining what we think the "evidence" is. And is also going to be setting whatever bar we hold for determining the truthfulness of that evidence. There's just no way around ourselves and our innate cognitive biases and limitations.

All we can really do is just stay as honest and open-minded as we can. And try not to hold too tightly to whatever paradigm of reality and truth it is that we are holding onto in our minds and using to assess them. ... Don't allow our egos to constantly auto-defend it, as our ego will certainly do if it's left unchecked.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I think you are deceiving yourself if you think you can learn how not to be deceived.

The reason I say this is because we all assess reality and truth based on a paradigm of reality and truth that we have already developed and hold to in our minds. And however flawed that paradigm may be, we will use it to determine reality and truth for ourselves going forward. And it's very difficult for us to re-assess these internally held paradigms because we can't step outside of ourselves and look back in with an unbiased mind's eye. So, we are what we think we are. And reality is what we think it is. And these will determine what we think the truth of reality is going forward because they are what we have to work with.

If we are honest, we already know that these internal paradigms of ours are limited, and flawed, and cause us to misperceive and misunderstand ourselves and the world around us all the time. But because we have no easy means of assessing them, or rebuilding them, most of us simply prefer to ignore their shortcomings whenever possible. Whatever we think real is becomes reality to us. Whatever we think the truth is becomes the truth to us. And we're only going to correct ourselves if we're forced to by some specific circumstance.

We can pretend that we are gathering all the evidence and that we're testing it scientifically or philosophically or whatever, and so are developing the "correct" paradigm through which to assess reality and truth. But the truth is that we don't actually have any way of doing that. Because whatever biased paradigm we currently hold is going to be determining what we think the "evidence" is. And is also going to be setting whatever bar we hold for determining the truthfulness of that evidence. There's just no way around ourselves and our innate cognitive biases and limitations.

All we can really do is just stay as honest and open-minded as we can. And try not to hold too tightly to whatever paradigm of reality and truth it is that we are holding onto in our minds and using to assess them. ... Don't allow our egos to constantly auto-defend it, as our ego will certainly do if it's left unchecked.
Where did I say that this inoculates me or anyone as to deception? I just think that having some knowledge of the various ways our thinking and our experiences can go awry will, from the start, aid in sorting the more truthful beliefs arising from those less so. I should have mentioned as well, as to philosophy having some value, certainly as to those fallacies regularly used in arguments. But having some knowledge of how even our senses can produce deceptions probably is not that widely known I suspect - or wasn't until the last several decades of research determined such.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Where did I say that this inoculates me or anyone as to deception? I just think that having some knowledge of the various ways our thinking and our experiences can go awry will, from the start, aid in sorting the more truthful beliefs arising from those less so. I should have mentioned as well, as to philosophy having some value, certainly as to those fallacies regularly used in arguments. But having some knowledge of how even our senses can produce deceptions probably is not that widely known I suspect - or wasn't until the last several decades of research determined such.

Well, in general is more about the level of cognition a person has and if they have been exposed to a wide array of critical thinking and not just science.
But @PureX point stands. In effect for a skeptic like me truth, evidence and all those are belief system just like religion. I just try to be honest about mine and how I have faith in the end, even though I am in practice more of a naturalist than a supernaturalist,
In short we don't know that we know. We believe we know.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Well, in general is more about the level of cognition a person has and if they have been exposed to a wide array of critical thinking and not just science.
But @PureX point stands. In effect for a skeptic like me truth, evidence and all those are belief system just like religion. I just try to be honest about mine and how I have faith in the end, even though I am in practice more of a naturalist than a supernaturalist,
In short we don't know that we know. We believe we know.
But as you well know, religious beliefs are mostly imposed upon children, and usually dependent upon where they live rather than them having a free choice over such. So although it is not too feasible, those who do know how we can be fooled or simply misinterpret experiences should be better off rather than worse off when dealing with beliefs that often don't have a firm basis.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
But as you well know, religious beliefs are mostly imposed upon children, and usually dependent upon where they live rather than them having a free choice over such. So although it is not too feasible, those who do know how we can be fooled or simply misinterpret experiences should be better off rather than worse off when dealing with beliefs that often don't have a firm basis.


Do you not think most religious people question their own beliefs, when they reach adulthood?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Do you not think most religious people question their own beliefs, when they reach adulthood?
Possibly, but many or even most of these will probably feel pressured to stay with their faith because it tends to be part of their culture. I don't have any figures as to this, do you?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Possibly, but many or even most of these will probably feel pressured to stay with their faith because it tends to be part of their culture. I don't have any figures as to this, do you?

No, I don’t have any figures. But then I am not the one making presumptions about what motivates “many or most” of a given group.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
No, I don’t have any figures. But then I am not the one making presumptions about what motivates “many or most” of a given group.
So you think people (the majority) get a choice as to what religious belief they have as a child or later in life?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
So you think people (the majority) get a choice as to what religious belief they have as a child or later in life?


No child gets to choose their parents. Or their country, or the political or economic climate into which they are born. In adulthood, we all have a choice whether to accept without question what we have been taught, or to examine the beliefs and values we were brought up with, and ask ourselves what they might mean to us.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
No child gets to choose their parents. Or their country, or the political or economic climate into which they are born. In adulthood, we all have a choice whether to accept without question what we have been taught, or to examine the beliefs and values we were brought up with, and ask ourselves what they might mean to us.
In relatively free countries this might be so but I suspect not so in so many others, given that pressures from their culture will often make such moves away from any faith they were brought up with either detrimental to relationships or worse.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
In relatively free countries this might be so but I suspect not so in so many others, given that pressures from their culture will often make such moves away from any faith they were brought up with either detrimental to relationships or worse.


Not sure what countries you have in mind here. Everything, absolutely everything, is harder for those born into places where life is precarious and hardship ubiquitous. Faith in God, or the prospect of divine justice, is often one of the few comforts of the poor.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Although this was not intentionally planned seemingly, as a youth and subsequently, I began to take an interest in psychology, and as to how the mind and senses could be fooled - and relatively easily it seems. This was around the time (1970) when Richard Gregory was publishing works concerning perception and visual illusions, and hence such and similar reading did inform as to some possible visual and auditory illusions that we might experience. No doubt things have moved on from then, but this perhaps ensured I mostly didn't mistake any of my experiences for something that they weren't, or enabled me to believe things that were probably not true. Such that a knowledge of how we might be deluded and deceived in so many ways might have prevented me from forming any sort of religious belief, when the doctrinal approach of reading and learning any particular religion seems to rely on nothing of the sort - just have faith - that all the written and spoken words are truth.

This former I would maintain is the safer approach to beliefs - at least knowing firstly how our minds work and how they might be deceived in so many ways - before one embarks on pursuit of some 'ultimate truth'. I looked but no pursuit took place, given I did seem to realise how much I could never know.

Perhaps this approach is hardly feasible for all, but I would suggest that for those who would claim to be honest in all things then this approach as to having beliefs is a more serious one - in knowing the pitfalls first before setting out on a journey that could be more like caving than much else, that is, descending a rabbit hole.

And this isn't about me but simply about the dangers of not recognising the frailty of our human nature, which so many just do not seem to understand.

Any comments?

Take #2.
Any complex field of many factors have to treated as such, but because of the psychology of "lazy" shortcuts in the brain, most people will in effect make the complex too simple.
That applies to us all if we have well enough functioning brains. I do "lazy" shortcuts all the time, but because I have learn to monitor my own thinking I can catch some of them.

So here is a complex model of psychology with shortcuts for in the end amount of text as relevant for a human with a well enough functioning brain.
A brain is coded for behavior in 4 variants. Instinctive, motor training, copied physical behavior, copied mental behavior.
The problem with the last one, is that it starts before we reach abstract cognition. And there is the problem for that, namely there is no universal abstract cognition. It is in effect modular for different task and situations.

So here it is for the sub-culture of Western secular humanistic non-religious people and the concept of truth.
So some of them are products of that sub-culture of having learned a limited method of how to understand the world objectively as for truth, but for some contexts they don't test if they are subjective, because they are conditioned to believe they are objective as such, because they believe they can do it, even when they don't.
So for truth, objective truth is universal for all humans as a variant of ultimate in effect, so they do ultimate truth in effect.

Truth as objective, universal, absolute, logical, rational and all those have limits, but it is not just some religious people, that do that for the different beliefs of truth.

In effect there are in practice many different limited versions of truth, but most people are a product of a cultural non-reflective conditioning for some behaviors even for truth. And that is not limited to only religious people.

So your conditioning is to treat in effect religion as a special behavior, and not a variant of general psychology, but for which you can observe the same general psychological behavior in some non-religious humans.
And all I am, is a different case of condition. :)
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Take #2.
Any complex field of many factors have to treated as such, but because of the psychology of "lazy" shortcuts in the brain, most people will in effect make the complex too simple.
That applies to us all if we have well enough functioning brains. I do "lazy" shortcuts all the time, but because I have learn to monitor my own thinking I can catch some of them.

So here is a complex model of psychology with shortcuts for in the end amount of text as relevant for a human with a well enough functioning brain.
A brain is coded for behavior in 4 variants. Instinctive, motor training, copied physical behavior, copied mental behavior.
The problem with the last one, is that it starts before we reach abstract cognition. And there is the problem for that, namely there is no universal abstract cognition. It is in effect modular for different task and situations.

So here it is for the sub-culture of Western secular humanistic non-religious people and the concept of truth.
So some of them are products of that sub-culture of having learned a limited method of how to understand the world objectively as for truth, but for some contexts they don't test if they are subjective, because they are conditioned to believe they are objective as such, because they believe they can do it, even when they don't.
So for truth, objective truth is universal for all humans as a variant of ultimate in effect, so they do ultimate truth in effect.

Truth as objective, universal, absolute, logical, rational and all those have limits, but it is not just some religious people, that do that for the different beliefs of truth.

In effect there are in practice many different limited versions of truth, but most people are a product of a cultural non-reflective conditioning for some behaviors even for truth. And that is not limited to only religious people.

So your conditioning is to treat in effect religion as a special behavior, and not a variant of general psychology, but for which you can observe the same general psychological behavior in some non-religious humans.
And all I am, is a different case of condition. :)
And all I was asking was to be more skeptical as to forming beliefs - especially religious ones - when we should know that the human mind is not perfect, has many flaws, and has a tendency to go for easy solutions - like the religious apparently being more intuitive than analytical. Children can't do all this - hence why I am so opposed to religious education for younger children.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Not sure what countries you have in mind here. Everything, absolutely everything, is harder for those born into places where life is precarious and hardship ubiquitous. Faith in God, or the prospect of divine justice, is often one of the few comforts of the poor.
Well a bit of searching reveals:


In the Islamic religion, it is believed that everyone is Muslim at birth.


That apostasy even exists is a bad mark (totally ridiculous really) against Islam, but even if many aren't so enthusiastic as to the death penalty for such, it might affect their leaving Islam.


The share of Indians who switch religions is modest and does not appear to be a major factor in demographic change. While India’s constitution guarantees citizens the freedom to “practice, profess and propagate” their religion, nine Indian states have laws that restrict proselytizing and conversion to Islam and Christianity. Such laws were introduced during the final decades of British occupation in the 1930s and 1940s and proliferated in the 2000s. In a 2020 Pew Research Center survey of nearly 30,000 adults across India, very few indicated they had switched religions since childhood. Among adults who say they were raised as Hindus, 99% still identify as Hindu. Fully 97% of those raised as Muslims are still Muslims in adulthood. And among Indians who were raised as Christians, 94% are still Christians.

These two examples alone must count for a large number, even perhaps a majority of believers.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
And all I was asking was to be more skeptical as to forming beliefs - especially religious ones - when we should know that the human mind is not perfect, has many flaws, and has a tendency to go for easy solutions - like the religious apparently being more intuitive than analytical. Children can't do all this - hence why I am so opposed to religious education for younger children.

Well, it is a bit more complex than that, because it is not really about religion as such. It is about what narratives we have for the world and how we ought to live in the world and interact with each other.
And religion is a subset of that and not the only way to in effect claim objective authority.
So what you are saying is that the children shouldn't be taught objective authoritative systems, but that even include that critical thinking and skepticism can be taught as with objective authority.
 
Top