Religion-Psychology?

[mosquito]

What interests me the most is the specific value of
the belief.

For what you believe, anything is fine if it aids
(or at the very least does not harm) me or those I
care about.

For what I believe, someone else's opinion should not
matter if my belief does not harm them.

mosquito

[tek]

I believe that the number of religions does have an impact. To the extent that there are more than one religion with completely different beliefs, only one (if that) will be right...

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
about religious topics,theology,biblical studies,archeological studies,history,Etc., your religious ideas ,in my opinion,have very LITTLE WEIGHT. HOWEVER, any poker advice by U would certainly be VERY SIGNIFICENT and a poker player would be a fool NOT to adhere to your ideas relating to poker.
HappyPokering, [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]SittingBull

[/ QUOTE ]

In the realm of argument, I believe this post to be an example of "Poisoning the well". In this case it says -- without any evidence -- that the other speaker is not qualified to make any argument at all.

An intelligent comment would be to speak to the validity of another's argument, not to the qualifications of the arguer.


GG

[PairTheBoard]

David Sklansky: "Actually it all started when someone asked why poker players tended not to be religious. I answered that it was because being religious was not compatible with the clear thinking that pokers players need to use."

Especially: " being religious was not compatible with the clear thinking "

David, you got a LOT of good responses from Clear Thinking religious minded people who simply refused to accept the premises of your arguments. To many clear thinking Religious People their relationship to religion is NOT about being "right" or possessing "The" Truth. It's about Their experience with something that they've found Works in their life.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"You are assuming that any objective evidence for a particular religion cannot be significantly stronger than those for other religions and therefore those that believe in the religion are irrational. This is a bold assertion that I do not think people can simply assume to be true unless at least some analysis of the evidence has been done."

It is logically possible that the specific beliefs of one particular religion have objective evidence behind it that is convincing enough so that all the other religions and non religions are (even combined), a big underdog for any of them to be right (when they disagree about those beliefs). But if that were true the vast majority of people who are acknowledged experts in evaluating evidence would be expected to agree with those beliefs. Since they don't your above argument is ridiculous, though stictly speaking logically unflawed.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I was only interested in trying to figure out what makes people who believe this stuff tick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out this book:William James

From the book review on Amazon:

"I am neither a theologian, nor a scholar learned in the history of religions, nor an anthropologist. Psychology is the only branch of learning in which I am particularly versed. To the psychologist the religious propensities of man must be at least as interesting as any other of the facts pertaining to his mental constitution. It would seem, therefore, as a psychologist, the natural thing for me would be to invite you to a descriptive survey of those religious propensities."

When William James went to the University of Edinburgh in 1901 to deliver a series of lectures on "natural religion," he defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine." Considering religion, then, not as it is defined by--or takes place in--the churches, but as it is felt in everyday life, he undertook a project that, upon completion, stands not only as one of the most important texts on psychology ever written, not only as a vitally serious contemplation of spirituality, but for many critics one of the best works of nonfiction written in the 20th century. Reading The Varieties of Religious Experience, it is easy to see why. Applying his analytic clarity to religious accounts from a variety of sources, James elaborates a pluralistic framework in which "the divine can mean no single quality, it must mean a group of qualities, by being champions of which in alternation, different men may all find worthy missions." It's an intellectual call for serious religious tolerance--indeed, respect--the vitality of which has not diminished through the subsequent decades. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Product Description:

The culmination of William James' interest in the psychology of religion, The Varieties of Religious Experience approached the study of religious phenomena in a new way -- through pragmatism and experimental psychology. The most important effect of the publication of the Varieties was to shift the emphasis in this field of study from the dogmas and external forms of religion to the unique mental states associated with it. Explaining the book's intentions in a letter to a friend, James stated:

"The problem I have set myself is a hard one: first, to defend...'experience' against 'philosophy' as being the real backbone of the world's religious life...and second, to make the hearer or reader believe what I myself invincibly do believe, that, although all the special manifestations of religion may have been absurd (I mean its creeds and theories), yet the life of it as a whole is mankind's most important function."

Drawing evidence from his own experience and from such diverse thinkers as Voltaire, Whitman, Emerson, Luther, Tolstoy, John Bunyan, and Jonathan Edwards, The Varieties of Religious Experience remains one of the most influential books ever written on the psychology of religion.

************************************************** ****

On a side note, just because the book is stated to be the 'most influential' does not necessarily mean that the book is the best and most extensive text on the subject, or the most up to date, or the best scientific treatise, etc. But I'm sure it is an interesting and worthwhile read, it's on my list anyway - perhaps it should be on yours.

-Zeno

[Wozza]

I think that to talk about 'objective evidence' for any religion is to miss the point. Religion is, by definition, an act of faith. You can't 'prove' that one is more correct than the other. To even infer that one belief system has the edge over another because more people believe in it is like saying white wine tastes better than red because more people drink white.

I have no problem with religion per se. Everyone has to believe in something (I belive I'll have another beer).

What I do feel, however, and I think that this is where David was heading, is that anyone who believes, for example, that some guy called Noah built a floating zoo a few years back is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. It's hardly rational and poker is the most rational of games.

If you have the genetic make-up that predisposes you to a faith based religion then it may well be that you are not the type of person that would do well at poker.

Who would you rather play against? A table full of theology students or a table full of guys studying maths and computer science?

[quinn]

I just have a few points that should be brought up:

1. Some specific beliefs that some religions have are highly more defensible than others. Instead of considering how many people are smarter than you and have different religious beliefs from you, why not consider the accuracy of the specific beliefs?
e.g.
"Dinosaurs walked with man." - no defense
"Christ was the son of God." - compelling defense
First of all, no credible historians actually believe that Jesus didn't exist.
a. Since Jesus claimed to be the son of God, there are only two possibilities: he was the son of God or he wasn't. Now, if he wasn't the son of God, then he either thought he was and was just wrong, or he was lying to everyone. Most people would agree that Jesus' wisdom was far too great for him to be a petty liar, and that insane people aren't capable of that kind of wisdom either. So a lot of people see Jesus as a big favorite to be the son of God.
b. What about the fact that Jesus had nonbelieving Romans assured that he had raised from the dead? (the romans were guarding his tomb around the clock and when they opened it up, he was gone).
c. What about the fact that Jesus had people going around proclaiming that he was the messiah, even at the cost of their own lives?

In hold em, it's a 220:1 or so shot for anyone to have pocket aces on a given random hand. But let's say you're playing a no limit tournament, and on the first hand, there is a raise, reraise, another reraise all-in, and then a call. Consider the caller. Are we really going to believe that he's a 220:1 dog to have aces? Of course not, now we think he's maybe only a 2:1 dog to have aces.

The same principle can be applied to faith. Without enough information, the odds of God existing are incalculable. But what if time and time again, a person prays to God and sees their prayers answered in such ludicrous ways that it would be ridiculous to think that God was not directly affecting things?

As far as merely hoping that your religious beliefs are true, that seems reasonable for some religions but not others. Christians are generally sure of their beliefs, because they believe that they actually communicate with God.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
I just have a few points that should be brought up:

1. Some specific beliefs that some religions have are highly more defensible than others. Instead of considering how many people are smarter than you and have different religious beliefs from you, why not consider the accuracy of the specific beliefs?
e.g.
"Dinosaurs walked with man." - no defense
"Christ was the son of God." - compelling defense
First of all, no credible historians actually believe that Jesus didn't exist.
a. Since Jesus claimed to be the son of God, there are only two possibilities: he was the son of God or he wasn't. Now, if he wasn't the son of God, then he either thought he was and was just wrong, or he was lying to everyone. Most people would agree that Jesus' wisdom was far too great for him to be a petty liar, and that insane people aren't capable of that kind of wisdom either. So a lot of people see Jesus as a big favorite to be the son of God.
b. What about the fact that Jesus had nonbelieving Romans assured that he had raised from the dead? (the romans were guarding his tomb around the clock and when they opened it up, he was gone).
c. What about the fact that Jesus had people going around proclaiming that he was the messiah, even at the cost of their own lives?



[/ QUOTE ]

Please God, not this again!

[Zeno]

Since the title of this thread is "Re: Religion-Psychology?" I think the following is appropriate, gleaned from a very recent Internet headline/article:


[ QUOTE ]
Jackson Promises Fans Victory in Call


By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent


SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Michael Jackson made a speakerphone call late Sunday to some 200 fans gathered for an event to support the singer, telling the group, "God and the truth are on our side. We will be victorious."


[/ QUOTE ]

I leave the analyses of the above statement to the more salient posters to maul over, eviscerate, dissect or otherwise explain. I trust an objective exegesis will be forthcoming.

-Zeno