How do we explain differences in belief?

[fallingblood]

The only way to explain the fact that both of our mental models work very well is to conclude that the difference between our beliefs (i.e. God) doesn't really matter.

I agree fully. I personally choose to believe in God or a supreme being. For me, that is where I leave it. If I take God out of my mental model, it really doesn't effect it. My basic beliefs would remain intact.

I think for most people, their mental models would still be just fine if God was taken out of the equation. The only major difference would be how they justify their beliefs.

 

[fallingblood]

Even if religious viewpoints did model reality fairly well, in my opinion the naturalistic viewpoint models it at least as well, and since it's simpler (not invoking anything supernatural), it's preferable under Occam's razor. One can always add layer after layer to any religious viewpoint without affecting how well it models reality, but there's no reason to believe in anything that's not necessary to explain the data. Well, no strictly logical reason. I think most religious belief is based on emotion at some level.

I do have to agree with this to a point. Not everyone who believes in a God believe in supernatural events. Many Christians, for an example, are becoming more liberal with their religious views, and the supernatural side is slowly disappearing.

For me, I believe in God, yet when it comes to a supernatural event, I am very skeptical.

 

[Penumbra]

However, if we want, we can ask a deeper question: how is it that our mental models can differ so much yet still produce very good agreement with reality? Usually, if two models have different fundamental assumptions, one will work well and the other will work poorly. But both apparently work well; why?

The only way to explain the fact that both of our mental models work very well is to conclude that the difference between our beliefs (i.e. God) doesn't really matter.

I disagree with the premise that both models have very good agreement with reality.

Broadly speaking, I think some mental models are much more accurate than others, whether due to having more information available, or adhering to a more rigorous methodology, or both.

The concept that people of an opposing worldview have that worldview due to having "hardened hearts" seems tantamount to a declaration of being unable to win a given debate, or that one's own position is not properly evidenced or reasoned. It's emotional appeal rather than logical argumentation.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I disagree with the premise that both models have very good agreement with reality.

Broadly speaking, I think some mental models are much more accurate than others, whether due to having more information available, or adhering to a more rigorous methodology, or both.

The concept that people of an opposing worldview have that worldview due to having "hardened hearts" seems tantamount to a declaration of being unable to win a given debate, or that one's own position is not properly evidenced or reasoned. It's emotional appeal rather than logical argumentation.

And yet both people are able to function in such a way as to successfully reproduce on a wide spread scale. Clearly, whatever it is that religion includes it must include a working model for reality that is capable of being reproduced in humans.

Whether or not that mental model leads to greater or lesser agreement with extant reality... Well, I will play Devil's Advocate for a moment: I am a sollipsist. Prove to me that you exist.



In terms of what my personal opinion on the matter: I do tend to agree that most religions contain less truth value than other competing world views. But the core of the argument is essentially correct: Isolate the variable "Theism" and look at the reproductive success of the competing world views. Non-theist world views reproduce just as successfully (some might argue that in modern times that the direction is swinging; that theism had its time where it was more successful; I'll leave that argument to sociologists) as theist world views. This means that theism as a variable contributes nothing to how viable your mental model is.

MTF

 

[-Peacemaker-]

In any trial during which an expert witness is called, the opposing side will usually also call an expert witness. That's for every kind of expert witness, not just psychologists or psychiatrists. You may as well chuckle that both sides call civil engineers and that "physics" so controversial.

Fair enough. I don't have any problem with science based on the scientific method.The only issue with psychology is that from what I've seen it's at the point in it's development that mathematics was when they invented the number zero. In other words, they know very little about the subjects they're studying

 

[Penumbra]

And yet both people are able to function in such a way as to successfully reproduce on a wide spread scale. Clearly, whatever it is that religion includes it must include a working model for reality that is capable of being reproduced in humans.

Whether or not that mental model leads to greater or lesser agreement with extant reality... Well, I will play Devil's Advocate for a moment: I am a sollipsist. Prove to me that you exist.

I'll pass on that game of non-falsifiability.

As for the rest of it, I do think some religions are useful for reproduction. Doesn't mean all worldviews have good agreement with reality, though.

 

[idav]

The only way to explain the fact that both of our mental models work very well is to conclude that the difference between our beliefs (i.e. God) doesn't really matter.

When dealing with reality it doesn't usually make a difference what the underlying cause is. Answering where we come from doesn't change the fact that we are here and should live with one another civily. We are usually trying to accomplish similar things we just use different tools.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree with most of what Penguin said, but it is still the case that different classes of individuals are more-or-less predisposed to religion. Scientists, for example, seem less predisposed to it than laymen, and that may well be because their mental model of reality clashes somewhat with religious belief. Methodological naturalism predisposes one to philosophical naturalism. If one lives in a society that is deeply hostile to atheism, then belief in God can have an impact on one's safety, comfort, and ability to find work and happiness. So I would say that one's individual circumstances determine whether a mental model with God matters.

 

[Paroxys]

And yet both people are able to function in such a way as to successfully reproduce on a wide spread scale. Clearly, whatever it is that religion includes it must include a working model for reality that is capable of being reproduced in humans.

Interesting criteria for determining "functionality." Though any system necessarily engenders itself. Otherwise that system would no longer exist anymore.

Whether or not that mental model leads to greater or lesser agreement with extant reality... Well, I will play Devil's Advocate for a moment: I am a sollipsist. Prove to me that you exist.

Will you accept Cogito Ergo Sum? Lol.

In terms of what my personal opinion on the matter: I do tend to agree that most religions contain less truth value than other competing world views. But the core of the argument is essentially correct: Isolate the variable "Theism" and look at the reproductive success of the competing world views. Non-theist world views reproduce just as successfully (some might argue that in modern times that the direction is swinging; that theism had its time where it was more successful; I'll leave that argument to sociologists) as theist world views. This means that theism as a variable contributes nothing to how viable your mental model is.

Out of curiosity, what do you precisely mean by "reproductive success?"
1. Mere success rates at reproduction. A Boolean measure.
2. Average number of children by religious vs non-religious couples.
3. Total number of children conceived by religiouos vs non-religious couples.
4. "Quality" of children children conceived by religious vs non-religious couples.
5. Etc.

Why is this standard necessarily better than say "truth value" or say another standard of comparison like say "benefit to humanity"?

Fair enough. I don't have any problem with science based on the scientific method.The only issue with psychology is that from what I've seen it's at the point in it's development that mathematics was when they invented the number zero. In other words, they know very little about the subjects they're studying

Sometimes even science based on the scientific method is absurd. xkcd: Significant
Unfortunately a result of the terrible system of advancement in academia and the terrible system in which journal articles are selected for publication.

Also, I feel its somewhat unfair to compare psychology as a whole to math (for one thing, I wouldn't call math a science, a point which is debatable). People are much much much more complicated than numbers. And some branches of psychology are rather quantifiable and specific, it really depends on what you're specifically looking into. I.e. Clinical psychology, which is the branch you likely refer to when they bring psychologists to testify whether a person is insane or not, is often very subjective. Psychologists who study language or memory, or neuroscience, or the senses, just to name a few are all typically quite rigorous.

 

[idea]

However, if we want, we can ask a deeper question: how is it that our mental models can differ so much yet still produce very good agreement with reality? Usually, if two models have different fundamental assumptions, one will work well and the other will work poorly. But both apparently work well; why?

The only way to explain the fact that both of our mental models work very well is to conclude that the difference between our beliefs (i.e. God) doesn't really matter.

For me personally (I've lived with both) the religious model works much, much better.

You could say some people live with the knowledge of chocolate cake, while others live without chocolate cake... sure, you can do fine without chocolate cake, but... life is so much better with it

some people learn to play the piano, others do not... some people are artists, some are not, some people _________ fill in the blank... different interests for different people. There are a billion different careers / houses to live in / shoes to wear etc. etc. - all of which "work"

 

[lunamoth]

I don't believe in God for explanation. I believe I God for inspiration.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Sometimes even science based on the scientific method is absurd. xkcd: Significant
Unfortunately a result of the terrible system of advancement in academia and the terrible system in which journal articles are selected for publication.

Also, I feel its somewhat unfair to compare psychology as a whole to math (for one thing, I wouldn't call math a science, a point which is debatable). People are much much much more complicated than numbers. And some branches of psychology are rather quantifiable and specific, it really depends on what you're specifically looking into. I.e. Clinical psychology, which is the branch you likely refer to when they bring psychologists to testify whether a person is insane or not, is often very subjective. Psychologists who study language or memory, or neuroscience, or the senses, just to name a few are all typically quite rigorous.

Truer words have never been spoken

 

[waitasec]

I don't believe in God for explanation. I believe I God for inspiration.

i would agree, but first you need to define inspiration.
surely people have been inspired to do bad things in the name of god...

 

[waitasec]

Truer words have never been spoken

truer than luke 6?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

truer than luke 6?

hehehe....truer than your interpretation of it

 

[Oneatatime]

Rather than take the original thread off-topic, I've posted my tangent here:


No, that's not it.

You've got a mental model of how things works that includes God and agrees pretty well (I assume) with reality.

I've got a mental of how things works that doesn't include any gods and also agrees pretty well with reality.

We've both found fairly workable approaches to life. If we don't inquire any further, we could both do just fine with our differing mental models.

However, if we want, we can ask a deeper question: how is it that our mental models can differ so much yet still produce very good agreement with reality? Usually, if two models have different fundamental assumptions, one will work well and the other will work poorly. But both apparently work well; why?

The only way to explain the fact that both of our mental models work very well is to conclude that the difference between our beliefs (i.e. God) doesn't really matter.

How does one objectively measure how close their or someone elses reality matches the real reality? OK we can apply science to some things and a person rejects something which is strongly supported then it could be said that this persons reality has been comprimised but not everything can be addressed by science. There is also the problem that science sometimes gets things wrong even when it's supported by a large body of evidence.

There are numerous things which twist our perception of reality and while some things remain relatively constant these are only part of our existance.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Rather than take the original thread off-topic, I've posted my tangent here:


No, that's not it.

You've got a mental model of how things works that includes God and agrees pretty well (I assume) with reality.

I've got a mental of how things works that doesn't include any gods and also agrees pretty well with reality.

We've both found fairly workable approaches to life. If we don't inquire any further, we could both do just fine with our differing mental models.

However, if we want, we can ask a deeper question: how is it that our mental models can differ so much yet still produce very good agreement with reality? Usually, if two models have different fundamental assumptions, one will work well and the other will work poorly. But both apparently work well; why?

The only way to explain the fact that both of our mental models work very well is to conclude that the difference between our beliefs (i.e. God) doesn't really matter.

Isn't this more of an issue of indifference toward whether or not God is real as opposed to a staunch belief that he's not real? Is a belief in atheism simply used to justify this indifference?

 

[Jeneshisu]

In response to the original question.... You can't.

If someone has only delved in one religious path or only delved in one sincerely, then they won't be able to understand other spiritual choices.. at all. Until they can experience the contrast for themselves, efforts spent in explaining it to them will be ultimately.. fruitless.

 

[waitasec]

hehehe....truer than your interpretation of it

that's besides the point

 

[waitasec]

Isn't this more of an issue of indifference toward whether or not God is real as opposed to a staunch belief that he's not real? Is a belief in atheism simply used to justify this indifference?

1st of all no one believes in atheism, it is a world view
2ndly i don't think so but you seem to take issue with it if it were by implying a justification for it, why?
indifference is a neutral position having no biased opinion, what's wrong with that?
i agree with:

that the difference between our beliefs (i.e. God) doesn't really matter.

for the fact there is nothing a believer can do that i cannot in terms of contributing to the world in a positive way. nothing at all....
beliefs don't matter it's what the beliefs justify that matter...