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

[paarsurrey]

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.

The proof is that belief in G-d existed in the human societies in every part of the world, even in parts that had no contact with others. It was a natural part of the human psyche to believe in G-d. Right, please?

Regards

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But what does this have to do with the origins of religion?

It provides a very plausible and sensible explanation for why humans are prone to both invent and believe in religion. It also explains why humanity has invented/claimed thousands upon thousands of gods through history.

The behavior described just sounds like cautiousness and not "superstition".

The tendency of superstition, is the byproduct of a brain that is prone to engage in false positives and infusion of agency in otherwise random events.

Of course, religion isn't just superstition, either.

Except that it is. Here's a dictionary defintion:

Superstition
noun
- a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
- a system or collection of such beliefs.
- a custom or act based on such a belief.
- irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
- any blindly accepted belief or notion.

I didn't misunderstand the OP at all

Your posts suggest otherwise.

Religion is essentially being presented as the outcome of a cognitive malfunction.

Yes. Just like all other forms of superstition.
Because that's exactly what they are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think it's a need or desire to find answers and/or comfort for what seems inexplicable.

I'm sure that plays a role as well, especially in the development of the "lore" of a religion.

I like to think I'm a fairly rational person, yet I have strong religious beliefs.

Well, to be honest with you, I don't think anyone is irrational on purpose....

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.

Unless you believe that that blue dude wants you to fly airplanes into buildings or what-have-you, off course.

When I start to impose my beliefs on others, and try to make them live their lives accordingly, that's a problem.

Indeed.

Aside from that, regardless of any impact on your or other people's lives...

I think truth and rationality is its own reward.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, to be honest with you, I don't think anyone is irrational on purpose....

Thanks.

I think...

Unless you believe that that blue dude wants you to fly airplanes into buildings or what-have-you, off course.

I wouldn't necessarily fault the religion or the God. Any tool or object or belief can be turned to evil. If there's a way, someone will find it. [/QUOTE]

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Your views are both simplistic and circular.

Circular because you equate being spiritual with believing in God, which I don't think is something that can be demonstrated. The Dalai Lama seems like quite a spiritual person to me, and he doesn't believe in God. And there have been believers in gods throughout human history whose beliefs don't look spiritual at all, but rather like efforts at manipulating those gods through sacrifice, ritual, and the like.

And simplistic because you think that the only people who don't believe in gods are one's to whom something bad happened which seeks justification. And that is not so. There are those who don't believe in gods, for example, for the very simple reason of never having been taught to. And there are others who lost their beliefs from simply looking deeply into what their beliefs actually mean (see Bart D. Ehrmann, for example, or Charles Templeton, Canadian founder of Youth for Christ).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes. Just like all other forms of superstition.
Because that's exactly what they are.

I'm done here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks.
I think...

I'ld say all of us are irrational at times. And as I said, I don't think anyone does it on purpose

I wouldn't necessarily fault the religion or the God. Any tool or object or belief can be turned to evil. If there's a way, someone will find it.

Sure. It's just that religion tends to have the uncanny ability of making otherwise good people do the most reprehensible things, while being absolutely convinced that what they do is not only good and right, but in fact a moral and ethical duty / obligation.

For example, I don't think that christians in nigeria would be burning "witches" if it wasn't for a religion that tells them that first, there is such a thing as witches and second, that they must die.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm done here.

I posted a generic dictionary defintion of what "superstition" means in order to show that religious beliefs fit that term.

All you have done is say "nah-uh!!!".

You are welcome to show how in your opinion religious beliefs don't fall within the realm of superstition.

 

[Jainarayan]

Sure. It's just that religion tends to have the uncanny ability of making otherwise good people do the most reprehensible things, while being absolutely convinced that what they do is not only good and right, but in fact a moral and ethical duty / obligation.

For example, I don't think that christians in nigeria would be burning "witches" if it wasn't for a religion that tells them that first, there is such a thing as witches and second, that they must die.

I don't disagree except for one point... it's the religious leaders, those who want to maintain control, that do this. And by centralized I mean the pastor or imam in that Nigerian village or town who calls the shots. Decentralized religions, those with no central authority, those that have largely autonomous sects don't seem to be at risk for this. I think organization of religions and a leadership, even a small local one is the problem.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The proof is that belief in G-d existed in the human societies in every part of the world, even in parts that had no contact with others. It was a natural part of the human psyche to believe in G-d. Right, please?

Regards

Hardly. There are many things that are apparently natural to believe but which aren't necessarily true or good for us. It is perhaps natural to believe in hierarchies - as in expecting many others to be better than ourselves in some manner, especially leaders - but that doesn't always mean they are or that these are beneficial to us. Mention of Hitler here (allowed since he is one of the supreme examples), as being one such who brought destruction upon those who elected him into power.

The argument ad populum is hardly one any reasonable person should use. How about viewing such societies as not being fully mature yet, when so many of the more advanced societies are dropping their religious beliefs like hot potatoes.

I think it is natural to form beliefs, especially where they are useful, but that doesn't mean that they also don't come with costs - which is my position concerning religious beliefs - and where we might have fared better without some of these.

 

[Kenny]

Your views are both simplistic and circular.

Circular because you equate being spiritual with believing in God, which I don't think is something that can be demonstrated. The Dalai Lama seems like quite a spiritual person to me, and he doesn't believe in God. And there have been believers in gods throughout human history whose beliefs don't look spiritual at all, but rather like efforts at manipulating those gods through sacrifice, ritual, and the like.

And simplistic because you think that the only people who don't believe in gods are one's to whom something bad happened which seeks justification. And that is not so. There are those who don't believe in gods, for example, for the very simple reason of never having been taught to. And there are others who lost their beliefs from simply looking deeply into what their beliefs actually mean (see Bart D. Ehrmann, for example, or Charles Templeton, Canadian founder of Youth for Christ).

No more circular that what you presented and no more simplistic than your deduction.

And, as others who lost their beliefs from simply looking deeper, you have atheists who became believers because they looked deeper.

No logic in anything that you have presented.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No more circular that what you presented and no more simplistic than your deduction.

And, as others who lost their beliefs from simply looking deeper, you have atheists who became believers because they looked deeper.

No logic in anything that you have presented.

Then I guess the question is, what are the ratios of those moving from religion to none, from none to religion, and from one religion to another, as a result of this "looking deeper?" Now, that's a hard question to answer, but according to Pew Research in 2017:

"At present, the best available data indicate that the worldwide impact of religious switching alone, absent any other factors, would be a relatively small increase in the number of Muslims, a substantial increase in the number of unaffiliated people, and a substantial decrease in the number of Christians in coming decades." The Changing Global Religious Landscape

Now, I don't know what this suggests to you, but to me this strongly suggests that people are not finding some "existential truth" with this soul searching, but are rather finding what is there inside themselves, or in those moving to unaffiliated, what is not there that they imagined was. Because if there is an "existential religious truth," and "looking deeper" is a means of finding it better, then these numbers should be going the other way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I posted a generic dictionary defintion of what "superstition" means in order to show that religious beliefs fit that term.

All you have done is say "nah-uh!!!".

You are welcome to show how in your opinion religious beliefs don't fall within the realm of superstition.

A superstition is technically something like knocking on wood or using hand signals and talismans to ward off the evil eye, but I see some like to use it as a catch-all smear term for religion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well then, we're not so far apart after all. I, too, care about actions, although I accept without question that our beliefs inform our actions - hopefully mitigated by our reason.

So what actions are you concerned with, in the context of this thread?

It's not actions I'm concerned with. I was mostly criticizing your hypothesis, is all.

 

[Kenny]

Then I guess the question is, what are the ratios of those moving from religion to none, from none to religion, and from one religion to another, as a result of this "looking deeper?" Now, that's a hard question to answer, but according to Pew Research in 2017:

"At present, the best available data indicate that the worldwide impact of religious switching alone, absent any other factors, would be a relatively small increase in the number of Muslims, a substantial increase in the number of unaffiliated people, and a substantial decrease in the number of Christians in coming decades." The Changing Global Religious Landscape

Now, I don't know what this suggests to you, but to me this strongly suggests that people are not finding some "existential truth" with this soul searching, but are rather finding what is there inside themselves, or in those moving to unaffiliated, what is not there that they imagined was. Because if there is an "existential religious truth," and "looking deeper" is a means of finding it better, then these numbers should be going the other way.

I'm not sure you read the report.

1) "The number of Christians is projected to rise by 34%, slightly faster than the global population overall" -net gain
2) I have participated in more than 2 dozen pew surveys--their questions and what answers are possible... I can vouch that they can only give a cursory viewpoint but hardly something you can vouch for.
3) Is it really "seek deeper" or more off "I am enjoying the video games options and I am being indoctrinated in the public education system.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not sure you read the report.

1) "The number of Christians is projected to rise by 34%, slightly faster than the global population overall" -net gain
2) I have participated in more than 2 dozen pew surveys--their questions and what answers are possible... I can vouch that they can only give a cursory viewpoint but hardly something you can vouch for.
3) Is it really "seek deeper" or more off "I am enjoying the video games options and I am being indoctrinated in the public education system.

Gotcha, Ken. I did read the report, and yes, I understood what it said very clearly. And what I clearly understand, and you somehow seem to have missed while trying to trip me up, that Islam will be growing even faster, compared to the overall global population.

And of course, you ignore completely the reasons for that, which is the indoctrination of children by parents, but let that pass...

As to whether "I am enjoying the video game options," you've known me for some time now, and you know, if nobody else does, that I do in fact spend a lot of time thinking about my philosophy, and not playing games. And in fact, I don't play any video games at all...nor watch TV.

And by the way, do you have a source for statistical information about religion that you feel is more reliable and honest than Pew? You seem to imply that they are not quite up to your standards of reliability.

 

[Kenny]

As to whether "I am enjoying the video game options," you've known me for some time now, and you know, if nobody else does, that I do in fact spend a lot of time thinking about my philosophy, and not playing games. And in fact, I don't play any video games at all...nor watch TV.

I wasn't talking about you, nor were you--please don't move goal posts. You made a global statement--you tell me how many youth and millennial are into . There are always variations on both ends.

And by the way, do you have a source for statistical information about religion that you feel is more reliable and honest than Pew? You seem to imply that they are not quite up to your standards of reliability.

As I said... there is some cursory information that is good.

Just as a logical conclusion:

1. How do you measure religious growth in China or India? 2.7 billion
2. As has happened so often, my response was required on a question and none of the 4 really had my viewpoint (the nature of questionnaires.) Thus the answers are automatically skewed.
3. Questions that were, in my view, important but never asked.

It is what it is.

However, your OP remains, simplistic and only adapted to your viewpoint.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Human beings have two kinds of reasoning -- logic, and intuition. We use both. Sensing the existence of some sort of divine is the use of intuitive reasoning. Those who do not believe have basically short curcuited most of their normal intuition, and are overly dependent on logic, rather than having a healthy balance. (The reverse imbalance is just as bad.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A superstition is technically something like knocking on wood or using hand signals and talismans to ward off the evil eye

Or praying to a spirit or deity, believing that they will magically change the world in your favor.
Or thinking that uttering a few latin words over a cracker, will physically changed the molecular composition of said cracker.
Or thinking that uttering a few latin words while pouring some water on someone's face, is going to have some supernatural effect of some sorts.

It's the exact same thing.

, but I see some like to use it as a catch-all smear term for religion.

No. Like most theists, you simply recognise superstition in every superstitious belief, except your own, which you consider "special".

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. Like most theists, you simply recognise superstition in every superstitious belief, except your own, which you consider "special".

This could be turned around on you anti-theists when you think you're so logical and reasoned but you're just as irrational as those you decry. I find your type very hypocritical. You have the same mentality as fundamentalists as you're both as close-minded and arrogant as each other.

Also, I don't pray to the gods and spirits to ask them to bind the laws of reality for me, nor do I believe in miracles.