Religion-Psychology?

[David Sklansky]

"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?"

Everything above is exactly correct. Here is the problem. Firstly if the next person you met claimed to be the daughter of God what odds could you lay she was mistaken? Maybe we can agree on a trillion to one. If she then goes on to do things that only the best magicians can do and also produces 1000 witnessesses who tell you she did things that no magican can do, how would you alter your initial trillion to one? I suspect you would agree that the evidence, compelling as it is, still makes her a million to one or so underdog. Baye's theorum.
On the other hand if you prayed to her to have the ability to run a three minute mile and to be able to close your eyes and wake up on the moon, a double success would make her a giant favarite to be who she said she was. But I know the ludicrous ways you say your prayers were answered did not resemble such things. If they did (or if even if you were delusional and you just THOUGHT they did) you would be illogical if you DIDN'T believe in a Christian type God. I have already written that if someone demonstrated to me even one undeniable true miracle (PS Perfect mental telepathy wouldn't count. Precognition would. See why?) I would believe as well.

[beset7]

For the fantatic, religon is escape from reality.

For the everyday religious person, it is a socio-cultural context within which to experience community, meditation and collaborative action. You do not deny that prayer, communal meals, counseling, etc have value? Well, many of us experiences those things within a particular cultural context (a Church, Synagogue, or what have you) that draws upon a certain set of rituals and mythologies within which to give these experiences form.

That experience of community and contemplative reflection is what makes most us tick. I think the average american agnostic/atheist has a somewhat skewed image of practicing religious people due to a lack of context/experience.

Most of the Catholics I know, for example, could care less whether the Pope really has some sacramental power coming down to us from St. Peter; or whether the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived in the womb of St. Ann. But they know the faith brings their families together during the year for Eucharist, Marriages, Funerals, Baptisms, etc. They know that for an hour and half each sunday they might experience a little calm and have an opportunity to reflect.

If you are looking for what makes us "tick" you might want to look at sociological factors in addition to psychological ones. My research hypothesis would be you would find such an inquiry more useful. JMO of course.

[David Sklansky]

"Most of the Catholics I know, for example, could care less whether the Pope really has some sacramental power coming down to us from St. Peter; or whether the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived in the womb of St. Ann. But they know the faith brings their families together during the year for Eucharist, Marriages, Funerals, Baptisms, etc. They know that for an hour and half each sunday they might experience a little calm and have an opportunity to reflect.

If you are looking for what makes us "tick" you might want to look at sociological factors in addition to psychological ones. My research hypothesis would be you would find such an inquiry more useful. JMO of course."

Posts like this drive me crazy. What do you have to do with the people I am talking about?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
For the fantatic, religon is escape from reality.

For the everyday religious person, it is a socio-cultural context within which to experience community, meditation and collaborative action. You do not deny that prayer, communal meals, counseling, etc have value? Well, many of us experiences those things within a particular cultural context (a Church, Synagogue, or what have you) that draws upon a certain set of rituals and mythologies within which to give these experiences form.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're absolutely right, but you have to admit it's a pretty bizarre construct for creating this kind of social fabric. My gut reaction to it is "come on folks, there is something good in here, but can we all just grow up a little and quit the charades?"

You might think there was a more mature way of approaching social networking and the experiences you mention than to get a bunch of people to pretend to believe in some system of mythologies that no sane person can accept as anything but a bunch of stories, little different from any other mythological system that has existed or continues to exist.

I'm all for pursuing happiness with social interaction and pursuit of beneficial value systems. But why can't the religious organizations finally get away from all the silly lies and unjustifiable and unhealthy absolutism (Bible is the infallible Word of God, etc.) and get on with the good stuff that you mention?

eastbay

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]

Posts like this drive me crazy. What do you have to do with the people I am talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

You stated you were surprised to learn that there were a lot of clear thinking religious people who play poker, this surprised you, you wanted to know what made them tick. I offered up an explanation, as I am a religious person who plays poker, that has more to do with culture, sociology and family then psychology. Sorry if it bothered you.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]


I think you're absolutely right, but you have to admit it's a pretty bizarre construct for creating this kind of social fabric. My gut reaction to it is "come on folks, there is something good in here, but can we all just grow up a little and quit the charades?"

You might think there was a more mature way of approaching social networking and the experiences you mention than to get a bunch of people to pretend to believe in some system of mythologies that no sane person can accept as anything but a bunch of stories, little different from any other mythological system that has existed or continues to exist.

I'm all for pursuing happiness with social interaction and pursuit of beneficial value systems. But why can't the religious organizations finally get away from all the silly lies and unjustifiable and unhealthy absolutism (Bible is the infallible Word of God, etc.) and get on with the good stuff that you mention?

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I do admit it's bizarre. Your questions are excellent and I've often asked them of myself and I have no real satisfactory answer. They are particularly relevant in this day and age where the gap between theory/dogma and the faith as it is actually practiced has grown wider and wider. So much of the reluctance to "grow up a little and quit the charades" is inspired by tradition and ritual familiarity I would hypothesize. It's no excuse but it's a hard hurdle to jump.

I think one of the most successful examples of a secularization of all the valuable aspects of religion mixed in with a little Freud is the 12-step movement. Unfortunately you have to have a compulsive disorder of some kind to be lucky enough to end up there.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have already written that if someone demonstrated to me even one undeniable true miracle


[/ QUOTE ]

No true miracle is undeniable. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, saw the miracles Christ performed, as well as those performed by the apostles after Him, yet did not believe.

In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Abraham tells Lazarus concerning his brothers that even if someone came back from the dead they would not believe. They have Moses and the prophets, and that is sufficient.

The Bible says you already have overwhelming evidence. Existence itself is an undeniable miracle. "The heavens are telling of the glory of God".

Have you ever seen or read Contact by Sagan? I saw the movie and thought Sagan, probably unintentionally, made this point. The Foster character, after spending many hours visiting other parts of the universe and talking with aliens, was still beginning to doubt the experience was real after spending some time being talked out of it.

Suppose God performed whatever miracle you require to prove His existence. Intellectual belief is not the way of salvation in the Bible. The book of James says that "the demons believe and tremble". Faith involves trust and committment. When Abraham believed God, he trusted that God would somehow perform what He had promised,i.e., perhaps by raising Isaac from the dead. So if God performed this miracle for you, the next day you may well be wondering why you had such a strange hallucination. If you refuse to see the evidence that confronts you every second of every day, you do not have an intellectual problem.

In Romans chapter one, Paul states that God makes Himself known to everyone through what has been made, that He makes it evident to them. Chapters 2 and 3 continue this thesis, showing that people know God through the law and through their own conscience. You don't need to respond that God hasn't revealed Himself to you, I'm not going to argue the point. But if you sincerely want to know the truth, God will reveal it to you, though I expect in a way that might surprise you.

Hebrews 11:6
anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

[Wozza]

Quinn wrote: "Christ was the son of God." - compelling defense.

- Objection, m’lud. Hearsay.
- Sustained. Move on Mr. Quinn.

Why do so many people take the bible at face value? It is almost entirely allegorical. Noah’s arc was mentioned earlier. It isn’t meant to be taken literally, for God’s sake. It’s a bloody parable! Likewise everything else within the Gospels.

People make the most basic of errors even to the point of accepting the term ‘Son of God’ as meaning that God was Jesus’ dad. Notwithstanding that the bible has been translated across many hundreds of years through 4 or 5 different versions before it even gets to English (via Hebrew, Greek, Latin), the difficulties in interpretation are manifest. For example, the translation of the Hebrew for ‘son of’ and ‘servant of’ is a matter of context. The King James version of the bible refers to ‘son of’ and the New King James version refers to ‘servant of’. Even updating within the same language leads to confusion.

‘We are all God’s children’, ‘Our Father which art in heaven’ – do we take these terms literally? Of course not. We are speaking metaphorically.

And I just love the argument that:
1. Jesus was a pretty smart dude.
2. Therefore he can’t have been barking mad.
3. Therefore he was telling the truth. QED.

This comic book, Sunday school version of religion (Christianity, in this case) drives me to distraction…

[David Sklansky]

"If you refuse to see the evidence that confronts you every second of every day, you do not have an intellectual problem."

See now you are one of the guys I am talking about. The "evidence" I see everyday (never any miracles, evolution being explained by DNA, quadrillions of stars we will never interact with, etc etc.) speaks volumes against the existence of the Christian, or even Jewish or Islamic God. Religions that claims that God is omnipotent, sometimes interfes with our lives, answers prayers, sends us to heaven or hell based on our beliefs, puts a small subset of humans (those born within the last 2000 years) in a different category from animals or aliens etc. etc. Forget the even more farfetched Jesus story.

Your evidence (the fact that we are here) might argue for some entity who detonated the big bang and maybe even got DNA started. But that is it. And anyone who actually THINKS otherwise (as opposed to merely believing blindly) either can't think straight or is ill.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

evolution being explained by DNA


[/ QUOTE ]

DNA explains some things about the variety of biological life. It explains nothing about the existence of the universe or the origin of life. What explains DNA?

[ QUOTE ]

quadrillions of stars we will never interact with


[/ QUOTE ]

Does this represent clear thinking? Perhaps you can explain why the number of stars is evidence against God? Remember the quote from the Bible? Why doesn't the number of stars prove God? I remember from Contact, and other idiocies of Sagan, how he thought that the fact the universe is so big meant the space was wasted. I still can't imagine why he would think that. Does God have to create in such a way that Sagan will be pleased? Doesn't the vastness of space indicate the bigness of God? If he's omnipotent, how could He run out of space? Is that clear thinking? Does that represent an intellectual difficulty? And how do you know we will never interact with them? And why does that, even if true, have anything to do with God's existence?


[ QUOTE ]

Religions that claims that God is omnipotent, sometimes interfes with our lives, answers prayers, sends us to heaven or hell based on our beliefs, puts a small subset of humans (those born within the last 2000 years) in a different category from animals or aliens etc. etc. Forget the even more farfetched Jesus story.


[/ QUOTE ]

You lump many objections into one accusation, apparently assuming what you're stating is true. How clear is that? For instance, most Christians don't believe God sends us to heaven or hell based only on our beliefs. We believe that all humans are sinful, and that is the primary reason for condemnation. God owes nothing to anyone. I don't know what you mean about a small subset within the last 2000 years, but God can save anyone at anytime. He chose the nation Isreal during Old Testament times, and many who were not Hebrew became converts. But again, even if what you said is true, God owes nothing to anyone. And exactly why is the Jesus story farfetched. Because it's miraculous? Isn't that what you want?


[ QUOTE ]

Your evidence (the fact that we are here) might argue for some entity who detonated the big bang and maybe even got DNA started


[/ QUOTE ]

You see, you just answered your own implied question about DNA and evolution. Do you bother reading your own posts?