• 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!

Why is belief in gods so much more common in humans than non-belief?

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
"Is it an admission on the part of the non-believers that "belief in G-d" naturally existed in humans from millions of years or from inception?
So, however, the non-believers try, unless they give a positive proof/evidence or argument, this will remain in the humans being as a natural asset.
Their made-up suppositions are of no avail."

paarsurrey said that, not me.

Right, please?

:D
And yet the non-believers have failed to give a positive proof/evidence or argument in their favor. Right, please?

Regards
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
But here’s where it goes wrong: although that snap decision based on a False Positive is relatively safe, it is also not based on reality. It makes an association between A and B (that A is somehow connected to B) that is not true.

Not very sure on that, humans would have had to hone their senses pretty well to take out all the apex predators all that long ago. If you are going to be living around godzilla sized weasels and short faced bears, you are not second guessing a few wind noises. Just imagine for a couple minutes how honed the senses of a hominid must have been in the Pleistocene. I'm sure they were almost clairvoyant compared to us in our distracted world of buzzing nonsense. I think religion may have been inspired by things you're completely leaving out, an honest sense of mystery and sense of being truly grateful when they succeeded in different things. If you and the group could take down the aurochs and everyone actually lived, well you were sure to kiss the earth and bow to stars knowing that you aren't lying there mangled, and thank the spirit of the animal for all the meat. I honestly think what happened is that we lost those two things thousands of years ago.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
At the risk of being accused of trying to hi-jack your thread, I, for one, would be intrigued to see what kind of responses non-believers (i.e. atheists and agnostics) give to the question: Would the world today be (a) better off, (b) worse off, or (c) neither, if "absence of belief" had had the upper hand and believers had always been few and far between or rare and quickly mocked or stifled into silence?

Whadd'ya think?

No idea, but it would have removed one reason at least to separate us from others. Can't envisage that? Only if one supposes that morality is ordained by the divine perhaps. :rolleyes:
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Why is belief in gods so much more common in humans than non-belief?

Is it an admission on the part of the non-believers that "belief in G-d" naturally existed in humans from millions of years or from inception?

Proof of this? Perhaps their words are still ringing in the ether to inform us when and where such beliefs developed. But I'd like to know when such ideas first formed - such great minds at work. :oops:
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Why is belief in gods so much more common in humans than non-belief?

I suspect it is our inbuilt search for meaning in all things - apart from the threats that we are confronted with - and when we can't explain adequately, we will often invent plausible reasons as to why things occur. Tie some effects with causes and voila, we have a new belief - even if it is false - and we had enough of those for a very long time (like until perhaps a century ago). And as mentioned earlier, once a religious belief forms, it often survives because it has value for a group and hence is passed on. God is a very easy explanation for life after all.

I had an idle thought some years ago that perhaps such beliefs also were used to separate one group from another - just like they do nowadays and always have done - my god is superior to your god (or non-existent god). And that has hardly changed either. :rolleyes:
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
And your refutation(s)? Can you bring your expertise in human cognition to bear on the question, and explain why you think it works some other way?

They believe in God because they are spiritual. Then you have those who reason away what is deep inside them because of various reasons... one being, they can't justify a God when something bad happens to them.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Why is belief in gods so much more common in humans than non-belief?


The simple answer is: because humans, like most animals, are very prone to superstition due to our evolutionary history of being a prey to dangerous animals. That gave us instinctive tendencies of injecting agency in otherwise random events ("they are out to get me!" or "this is about me!") and also to engage in the cognitive fallacy of type 1 errors: the false positive.

The two combined proved a majorly fertile feeding ground for believing in "spirits" and "souls" and "gods" and other mythical beings.


Imagine that you are a small hominid on the plains of Africa some 3 ½ million years ago, let’s say an Australopithecine. Now, suppose one day, while you're foraging in the open near to the trees, that you hear a rustle in the grass close to you. Suddenly you need to know, “is it just the wind, or is it a dangerous predator?”

Let’s suppose that you make a snap decision that it is a dangerous predator, and you quickly scamper to the nearest tree for safety. If it was just the wind, then you’ve made what’s called a Type I error in cognition, or a “false positive.” You thought the rustle was connected to something, and it wasn’t. You were wrong, but this type of error is relatively harmless, in that mostly, you’ll go a bit hungry at worst, for want of something to eat because you’re afraid to come out of your tree and forage.

But what if you think that the rustle was just wind, and it’s really a dangerous predator, and you stick around – you’re lunch. Now you’ve made a Type II error in cognition, a false negative, and you’ve just taken yourself out of the gene pool before you’ve reproduced. Why can’t we just stick around long enough to collect enough data to get the answer right? Well, the answer is that predators don’t hang around waiting for prey to collect more data – that’s why the stalk.

We are the descendants of, we evolved from, those who most consistently made Type I errors, and went on to reproduce, rather than Type II errors and got eaten.

But here’s where it goes wrong: although that snap decision based on a False Positive is relatively safe, it is also not based on reality. It makes an association between A and B (that A is somehow connected to B) that is not true. That’s the basis of superstition, and magical thinking. And that’s what we’ve evolved to do. And it’s the basis of the sort of thinking that leads to animism, superstition, and belief in gods. Because the difference between the wind and a predator is "intention," which is something that we unconsciously attach to the object of our false positive.

And that's why more humans believe in gods, spirits, ghosts and a host of other not demonstrably true things than do not. And that's why I think that people who opt for true rational thinking can escape that trap.

Exactly!

(I didn't read this OP before writing down my initial reply to thread question!)
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Imagine that you are a small hominid on the plains of Africa some 3 ½ million years ago, let’s say an Australopithecine. Now, suppose one day, while you're foraging in the open near to the trees, that you hear a rustle in the grass close to you. Suddenly you need to know, “is it just the wind, or is it a dangerous predator?”

Let’s suppose that you make a snap decision that it is a dangerous predator, and you quickly scamper to the nearest tree for safety. If it was just the wind, then you’ve made what’s called a Type I error in cognition, or a “false positive.” You thought the rustle was connected to something, and it wasn’t. You were wrong, but this type of error is relatively harmless, in that mostly, you’ll go a bit hungry at worst, for want of something to eat because you’re afraid to come out of your tree and forage.

But what if you think that the rustle was just wind, and it’s really a dangerous predator, and you stick around – you’re lunch. Now you’ve made a Type II error in cognition, a false negative, and you’ve just taken yourself out of the gene pool before you’ve reproduced. Why can’t we just stick around long enough to collect enough data to get the answer right? Well, the answer is that predators don’t hang around waiting for prey to collect more data – that’s why the stalk.

We are the descendants of, we evolved from, those who most consistently made Type I errors, and went on to reproduce, rather than Type II errors and got eaten.

But here’s where it goes wrong: although that snap decision based on a False Positive is relatively safe, it is also not based on reality. It makes an association between A and B (that A is somehow connected to B) that is not true. That’s the basis of superstition, and magical thinking. And that’s what we’ve evolved to do. And it’s the basis of the sort of thinking that leads to animism, superstition, and belief in gods. Because the difference between the wind and a predator is "intention," which is something that we unconsciously attach to the object of our false positive.

And that's why more humans believe in gods, spirits, ghosts and a host of other not demonstrably true things than do not. And that's why I think that people who opt for true rational thinking can escape that trap.

Now explain the Bible, written by 40 authors over 1,500 years, containing the love of God, scientific accuracies and fulfilled prophecy!
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I find these "theories" that anti-theists come up with to try to explain the origins of religion to be insulting and elitist more than anything else.

Have you considered that this "insult", only exists in your head? That that is just how YOU take that info in?
The real quesiton is if it is meant to be insulting.

I can tell you that it isn't. What the OP describes, are just the honest findings of fields like psychology etc. And it is behaviour that is not just apparant in humans, but in most animal species.

It's also really not only about religion. It's about ALL superstitious beliefs. From religion all the way to homeopathy. This applies to atheists just as much as it applies to theists. Because it concerns the human condition. If you are a human, then you have to deal with human psychology. And this happens to be part of human psychology.

Psychologists etc didn't come up with these ideas to explain away religion...
Psychologists merely concluded these ideas based on their behavioural and psychological studies of not just humans, but plenty of other animals as well. And the explanatory model that came out of that data, just happens to be a model that can explain why humans invent and believe in religions.

If you want to take it personal, that's upto you off course.

It's always some sort of cognitive malfunction in the view of your ilk,

"your ilk"?
Again, these are scientific findings. If you wish to argue against it, you're arguing against the science, not against the mere opinions of someone who supposedly doesn't like religion....

and the elitism comes in because you think the small number of people in the group you're a part of have somehow managed to escape this "trap". (Sounds pretty religious to me. Like an atheist Neo).

You can't escape this "trap", because you can't escape your human psychology.
At best, you can be aware of the flaws of human psychology and try and keep it in mind and try to avoid it.

If it was such a negative thing to our survival, natural selection would've selected against it long ago. No species exists where the majority of its members has a cognitive malfunction.

It seems you completely misunderstood what was actually said.
Nobody is saying that it is a negative thing to our survival. In fact, what is being said is the exact opposite.

Here's the example again:

You hear a noise in the bushes. Is it just the wind? Or is it a dangerour predator sneaking up on you?

Person A infuses the noise with agency ("it's out to get me") and engages in a type 1 cognitive error (the false positive), and then runs like hell.

Person B doesn't engage in those, and instead stays in place while gathering more data to see if it really is a tiger or not.


If it's not a tiger, then both A and B live. A ran for nothing, but both A and B live.
If it IS a tiger, then A who ran away, lives. B is lunch.


So, yes, in evolutionary history, those being prone to infusing otherwise random events with agency and engaging in type 1 cognition errors, had an evolutionary advantage over their peers, who didn't ran and instead stood around in their scepticism, gathering more data.

This is why tendencies to superstition are seen throughout the animal kingdom - especially in those species that are lunch to other species.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
But I'm not going to come up with pseudo-scientific ideas that are insulting to try to explain your disbelief.

Again, that most animals are prone to type 1 cognition errors and unjustified infusion of agency in otherwise random events, is anything but "pseudo" science.

Most animals factually are prone to superstition, because of that underlying reason.
Ever seen the pigeon experiment? You should look it up. Just google "superstitious pigeon experiment". Or type it into youtube, you should have no problem finding it.

Most animals exhibit this behaviour.
This behaviour just happens to explain why humans have a tendency to be religious.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
except that every atom scientifically shouts out there is a Designer and Creator

No, it doesn't. Especially not "scientifically".

and if it were not so there would be no order or structure in life just a random mess.

Doesn't follow. At all.


Yet we see in entities such as the human body, intelligence so complex and intricately evolved that it is impossible to be a result of randomness.

Argument from incredulity / ignorance.

If I built a house and then left it over the centuries unattended, the weather and elements over thousands of years would reduce it to rubble eventually

Yes. Because it's a house, which has nothing to do with any processes of biology.


But if I placed. Ricks, mortar, the frame and materials for a house on the ground and waited for the same thousands of years a home would not appear by itself


Why would you expect otherwise?
And why would you even think for a second that this is an appropriate analogy?

This is aking to arguing against gravity because "when I drop a hammer in the space station, it just floats there instead of falling down".

because the one essential lacking element is that to build this home a builder is required and without that builder the home coukd never build itself.

No. The one essential missing element in your analogy, is that your nonsense isn't biological and thus not subject to processes of biology. That makes it kind of an incredibly dumb analogy to biological things that ARE subject to processes of biology.


You aren't even comparing apples and oranges.
What you are doing, is more like comparing organic apples with plastic oranges....
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And yet the non-believers have failed to give a positive proof/evidence or argument in their favor.

You don't need any supporting evidence for the position of disbelief on the grounds that the positive claim hasn't met it's burden of proof.

As The Hitch so elegantly stated once: what is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
They believe in God because they are spiritual. Then you have those who reason away what is deep inside them because of various reasons... one being, they can't justify a God when something bad happens to them.


Tom Cruise disagrees with you on your god and his "spritituality" tells him that he is an Operating Thetan.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Now explain the Bible, written by 40 authors over 1,500 years

People tell stories and write them down.

Is there any other explaining necessary?

, containing the love of God,

Yeah, like condoning and regulating slavery, being homophobic, ordering genocide and infantacide and engaging in it himself as well, ...

Some "love".

scientific accuracies and fulfilled prophecy!

Not a single one.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually, it's more like "we seem hardwired to believe nonsense".
Because this doesn't just explain religious beliefs. It also explains beliefs in things like homeopathy, astrology, tarrot card readers, voodoo, alien abduction, etc.

It covers all area's of superstition.

I think it's a need or desire to find answers and/or comfort for what seems inexplicable. I like to think I'm a fairly rational person, yet I have strong religious beliefs. To me they are an interface to the workings of the universe, a colorful explanation. Who doesn't like colorful and entertaining stories? I believe in reincarnation, because if the elements formed in a star can be recycled, why not our atoms? For some reason it works for me. Belief in "nonsense" is not bad in and of itself; it's what we do with those beliefs and how far we take them. If I want to believe in a blue dude with 4 arms who rides a bull bareback, there's no harm to me, as long as keep in mind what that represents to me. When I start to impose my beliefs on others, and try to make them live their lives accordingly, that's a problem.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Have you considered that this "insult", only exists in your head? That that is just how YOU take that info in?
The real quesiton is if it is meant to be insulting.

I can tell you that it isn't. What the OP describes, are just the honest findings of fields like psychology etc. And it is behaviour that is not just apparant in humans, but in most animal species.

It's also really not only about religion. It's about ALL superstitious beliefs. From religion all the way to homeopathy. This applies to atheists just as much as it applies to theists. Because it concerns the human condition. If you are a human, then you have to deal with human psychology. And this happens to be part of human psychology.

Psychologists etc didn't come up with these ideas to explain away religion...
Psychologists merely concluded these ideas based on their behavioural and psychological studies of not just humans, but plenty of other animals as well. And the explanatory model that came out of that data, just happens to be a model that can explain why humans invent and believe in religions.

If you want to take it personal, that's upto you off course.



"your ilk"?
Again, these are scientific findings. If you wish to argue against it, you're arguing against the science, not against the mere opinions of someone who supposedly doesn't like religion....



You can't escape this "trap", because you can't escape your human psychology.
At best, you can be aware of the flaws of human psychology and try and keep it in mind and try to avoid it.



It seems you completely misunderstood what was actually said.
Nobody is saying that it is a negative thing to our survival. In fact, what is being said is the exact opposite.

Here's the example again:

You hear a noise in the bushes. Is it just the wind? Or is it a dangerour predator sneaking up on you?

Person A infuses the noise with agency ("it's out to get me") and engages in a type 1 cognitive error (the false positive), and then runs like hell.

Person B doesn't engage in those, and instead stays in place while gathering more data to see if it really is a tiger or not.


If it's not a tiger, then both A and B live. A ran for nothing, but both A and B live.
If it IS a tiger, then A who ran away, lives. B is lunch.


So, yes, in evolutionary history, those being prone to infusing otherwise random events with agency and engaging in type 1 cognition errors, had an evolutionary advantage over their peers, who didn't ran and instead stood around in their scepticism, gathering more data.

This is why tendencies to superstition are seen throughout the animal kingdom - especially in those species that are lunch to other species.
But what does this have to do with the origins of religion? The behavior described just sounds like cautiousness and not "superstition". Of course, religion isn't just superstition, either.

I didn't misunderstand the OP at all. Religion is essentially being presented as the outcome of a cognitive malfunction.
 
Top