The Feel Good God

cavedave

Some people seem to believe in god because it makes them feel good.

"Carl Sagan wrote to say he had reread my Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener and was it fair to say that I believed in God solely because it made me "feel good." I replied that this was exactly right, though the emotion was deeper than the way one feels good after three drinks."
Martin Gardner

"Why do I go to church? It’s like asking, why did you marry that woman? You make up reasons, but it’s probably just smell. I love the smell of candles. It’s an aesthetic thing.” Taleb

What is your opinion on theism for aesthetic reasons?

JCB

cavedave wrote: »

Some people seem to believe in god because it makes them feel good.

What is your opinion on theism for aesthetic reasons?

I would say it's an important part for some people as we can see from people more focused now on 'spirituality' than organised religion.

I don't think some people like to believe in a God that makes demands on them or restricts their lifestyle. Because that doesn't make them feel good.

Technically placing huge value on material items is the ultimate feel good 'god' though.

Dades

Perhaps God is more like an inhaler to an asthmatic.

It may not make you feel good, but having it around makes you more comfortable. Occasionally in an emergency you might need it. Take it away, and all of a sudden you're on your own...

A simplistic example, I know.

cavedave

I respect Gardner and Taleb a lot which is why I posted their views. I just don't understand how you can decide to have faith in something though. I would have thought by definition faith is automatic. The revelations of mother Theresa having lapses seems to show my understanding is wrong though.

Dades Perhaps God is more like an inhaler to an asthmatic.

That would seem like the god as a comforter idea.

JCB

Technically placing huge value on material items is the ultimate feel good 'god' though.

JCB

Dades wrote: »

Perhaps God is more like an inhaler to an asthmatic.

Of course the obvious question to ask is why are so many people 'asthmatic' in the first place? Is it from peoples' genes? Do atheists lack this gene? Or do other things cloud the performance of this gene for atheists?

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

Of course the obvious question to ask is why are so many people 'asthmatic' in the first place? Is it from peoples' genes? Do atheists lack this gene? Or do other things cloud the performance of this gene for atheists?

Certainly a lot of religious people seem to see God as "the answer", where as atheists obviously don't.

Quite a few of the Christians on the Christian forum comment that they had hit rock bottom and belief in God turned there life around when nothing else would. They seem to view that as support for the idea that he is real.

An Fear Aniar

Yes, God feels good. It's like being in a relationship - "I'm happy because you love me".

But you never have to worry about being dumped, ever. Not gonna happen, no matter how bad you behave. It's beautiful.



.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote: »

Quite a few of the Christians on the Christian forum comment that they had hit rock bottom and belief in God turned there life around when nothing else would. They seem to view that as support for the idea that he is real.

Firstly, general apologies to everyone because I'm about to make essentially the same post as I made on this recent thread.

But I think its just that we're getting to the crux of the matter. Consider the logic. Someone finds the only thing lifting life from rock bottom is their faith. Let's assume the people in question are now in a reasonably happy state of mind. The argument for atheism then effectively amounts to saying 'you should just be miserable again'. It makes perfect sense to me that someone would say that their personal contentment is proof of God. The alternative requires them to accept that the universe is structured in a way that makes them deeply unhappy.

I think we need to be clear that its not a light thing to suggest that the reality of the universe is something that would make most people profoundly uncomfortable about their own lives. In fact, if you reflect on it, our contention is very pessimistic indeed.

I know that we would equally contend that people are better off dealing with whatever reality is, as at least that way we are pursuing real solutions to problems. But that contention needs a lot more substance to it than features in most discussions I've participated in here. Like, you need a practical answer to cover someone asking 'so how does accepting that we've no divine purpose mean I'll spend another year sober and not beating my wife?'

Let it be clear, I'm not suggesting that reality has to be taken off the agenda. Any old religion seems good enough to do the job for people, but I really would like to feel that we can do better than follow systems of thought that are so obviously fantastic 1.

But, looking at the incredulity stakes, can we take on board that we're suggesting something extreme if we accept that most people operate best when deluded. The human desire for a god is only circumstantial evidence at best, in a context where we know we all have delusions about something. For the sake of argument, many Irish people base an amount of their personal identity around the illusion that the administrative county boundaries we inherited from the British have some enduring significance. But, for all that, what we are essentially suggesting is that everyone except us is a little bit nuts.

1 'fantastic' as in

a: based on fantasy : not real b: conceived or seemingly conceived by unrestrained fancy c: so extreme as to challenge belief :

cavedave

Schuhart

The human desire for a god is only circumstantial evidence at best, in a context where we know we all have delusions about something.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

* John Stuart Mill

Gardner and Taleb are no fools though...

For the sake of argument, many Irish people base an amount of their personal identity around the illusion that the administrative county boundaries we inherited from the British have some enduring significance. But, for all that, what we are essentially suggesting is that everyone except us is a little bit nuts.

My area football team is clearly superior to yours. You will be humiliated when some people i don't know perhaps from vaguely near where i was born beat some people you don't know.

PDN

Schuhart, I think there is some truth in what you are saying. However, it is not so simple as religious people being prepared to believe a fiction so long as it makes them happy.

Most of us have an innate sense that the Universe should make sense and that things that are true should also work better than things that are false. And, of course, in many areas of life that is indeed the case. If I understand how the internal combustion engine works then I am more likely to be able to maintain my car and keep it on the road than if I think a little man lives inside the engine and I have to pour honey into the petrol tank to keep him sweet.

So, when a philosophy or ideology, or even a religion, seems to help the Universe make sense and to work well for life, we tend to see that as a indication of its truth. The alternative - that the Universe does not make sense and that a lie might work better than the truth, goes against the grain of how we instinctively feel things should be.

Sapien

When you say "make sense", don't you really mean: make us feel happy, comfortable and significant? Because the first is a fundamental assumption of science, and there is precisely no reason to believe the second.

bus77

Sapien wrote: »

When you say "make sense", don't you really mean: make us feel happy, comfortable and significant? Because the first is a fundamental assumption of science, and there is precisely no reason to believe the second.

Michael Collins! Up at 6 every morning for mass. Felt significant enough to take on the British empire and comfortable enough to do it from the saddle of a bike.

Case closed.

eoin5

pdn wrote:

Most of us have an innate sense that the Universe should make sense and that things that are true should also work better than things that are false. And, of course, in many areas of life that is indeed the case. If I understand how the internal combustion engine works then I am more likely to be able to maintain my car and keep it on the road than if I think a little man lives inside the engine and I have to pour honey into the petrol tank to keep him sweet.

So, when a philosophy or ideology, or even a religion, seems to help the Universe make sense and to work well for life, we tend to see that as a indication of its truth. The alternative - that the Universe does not make sense and that a lie might work better than the truth, goes against the grain of how we instinctively feel things should be.

I'd say thats true for most people, and many of those people wont change their persistant state of the universe even if all evidence points against it. If your first rationalisation is the little man in the engine then if someone brings you to an engine factory your beliefs about engines should change. People such as the ID croud fail to have malleable views on their universe as they have placed much of their happiness in it and I reckon their overall happiness suffers when Dr KnowItAll pokes holes in it. Its like saying you know the engine guy. Its a desperate affair.

On rationalisation, its an innate automatic function of the brian. It connects dots that arent there. Its something we should all be made aware of. Its through problems with the brain that we can see how it works:

John Bradshaw wrote:

When unable easily to make sense of a situation, we tend to confabulate; confabulation is not deliberate lying, but rationalisation. A dementing patient with Alzheimer's disease forgets daily encounters with her neighbours, and when questioned may reply that everyone has sold up and left the neighbourhood. Someone instructed under hypnosis to open a window at a certain point in time may do so, and when asked afterwards why she did it, may reply, 'It was getting stuffy in here.'

It's possible via certain techniques to present a picture of, say, a chicken claw exclusively to the left hemisphere of a commissurotomy patient, where language is elaborated, and a snow scene exclusively to the nonverbal right side. When such a patient had to choose from an array of alternative related pictures, one by each hand, the left hand appropriately chose a shovel, and the right a chicken. When asked why, the verbal left hemisphere, oblivious of the snow scene perceived by the nonverbal right hemisphere, confabulated and replied, 'A chicken claw goes with chicken, and you need a shovel to clean out the chookshed.' Thus each hemisphere may be privy after commissurotomy, to its own discrete information, when that information is fed exclusively to one side.

Schuhart

cavedave wrote: »

Gardner and Taleb are no fools though...

Indeed, and as PDN (also no fool) said on another thread In a world where everyone is crippled in some way then those who use a crutch are smart, not weak.

PDN wrote: »

Schuhart, I think there is some truth in what you are saying. However, it is not so simple as religious people being prepared to believe a fiction so long as it makes them happy.

Indeed, I am probably stating the idea too bluntly. I would assume that for theism to bring peace of mind, the belief would need to be sincerely held.

I’m mostly trying to find some way of bridging what I see as the gap in the atheist/theist dialogue, in the hope that might spark useful discussion. I mean, at this stage we’ve all seen the same arguments repeated many times. I feel the essential atheist case – that the claims of any individual religion seem incredible – is valid. But equally I feel we have to acknowledge the essential theist case as I would state it – that religion gives many, and possibly most, people great satisfaction and it is rather extreme to state that reality is something most people should find discomforting.

PDN wrote: »

Most of us have an innate sense that the Universe should make sense and that things that are true should also work better than things that are false.

Indeed, that essential belief is one we very likely share, even if it takes us in different directions. As eoin5 points out, the human mind can even sometimes see order where it may not exist. At the same time, I feel we do all expect that things should work according to some kind of sense. I feel my car should start when I turn the key, and it not to be a random action (which some might feel is an incredible belief for the owner of an old Escort).

PDN wrote: »

So, when a philosophy or ideology, or even a religion, seems to help the Universe make sense and to work well for life, we tend to see that as a indication of its truth. The alternative - that the Universe does not make sense and that a lie might work better than the truth, goes against the grain of how we instinctively feel things should be.

I feel that is the essential connundrum. Is it fair to say the issue comes downstream - in the various arguments that atheists make about the credibility of this or that religious tradition. I feel the instinct you speak of is undeniable - but so are the products of reason which (at their simplest) point out that all religions cannot be true and hint that maybe none of them are.

The problem (to which I have no immediate answer) is how those two points can be reconciled as 'your religion is wrong, get miserable' is too glib to be a resolution. Hence many people, rightly, reject it.

Fanny Cradock

Schuhart wrote: »

I feel the instinct you speak of is undeniable - but so are the products of reason which (at their simplest) point out that all religions cannot be true and hint that maybe none of them are.

Ah! But to take a different viewpoint. Even if all religions cannot be true, the same products of reason used to reach this conclusion do not preclude the possibility that there is an intrinsic truth to the divine aspect found in these religions. As by way of analogy, lets say that the police receive 10 different calls from 10 unconnected people. Each of these phone calls relates to a previously unknown man named Bob. When the police interview the 10 callers each one gives a different account about Bob and what he did. As all accounts clearly can not be true should the police automatically conclude that none of them are?

Logical though your statement on the inability of all religions to be true may be, any subsequent suggestions you glean from this are definitely borne out of subjective reasoning on your part. I would argue that these suggestions are grounded firmly in your initial stance on God in exactly the same manner my subsequent reasoning is based upon my theistic (specifically Christian) beliefs.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah! But to take a different viewpoint. Even if all religions cannot be true, the same products of reason used to reach this conclusion do not preclude the possibility that there is an intrinsic truth to the divine aspect found in these religions. As by way of analogy, lets say that the police receive 10 different calls from 10 unconnected people. Each of these phone calls relates to a previously unknown man named Bob. When the police interview the 10 callers each one gives a different account about Bob and what he did. As all accounts clearly can not be true should the police automatically conclude that none of them are?

Are these ten callers also making preposterous unfounded claims about the supernatural nature and origin of the universe?

An Fear Aniar

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah! But to take a different viewpoint. Even if all religions cannot be true, the same products of reason used to reach this conclusion do not preclude the possibility that there is an intrinsic truth to the divine aspect found in these religions. As by way of analogy, lets say that the police receive 10 different calls from 10 unconnected people. Each of these phone calls relates to a previously unknown man named Bob. When the police interview the 10 callers each one gives a different account about Bob and what he did. As all accounts clearly can not be true should the police automatically conclude that none of them are?

Good analogy. Bob's got three letters in his name as well. Very clever.


.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

Are these ten callers also making preposterous unfounded claims about the supernatural nature and origin of the universe?

I'm pretty sure they were just on about Bob. But let me just phone up the Sergeant on that night and find out for you.

Anyway, if nothing else, Zilla, at least your posts to me are consistently unpleasant.

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Good analogy. Bob's got three letters in his name as well. Very clever.

Thanks. It's welcoming opinions like your that encourage people on to this forum. Well done!

Zillah

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Good analogy. Bob's got three letters in his name as well. Very clever.


.

Thanks. It's cutting sarcastic comments like yours that encourage people like me to keep using this forum. Well done!

Feelgood

Someone looking for me?

Black Swan

"If it feels good, do it!"* An old saying from the 70's that my Da told me once.


*So long as no one is hurt.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they were just on about Bob. But let me just phone up the Sergeant on that night and find out for you.

Perhaps you missed the fact that my post was intended as a criticism on the validity of your analogy?

Anyway, if nothing else, Zilla, at least your posts to me are consistently unpleasant.

Thanks. It's welcoming opinions like your that encourage people on to this forum. Well done!

Its dispicable that you only welcome opinions that coddle you. Very typical of the intellectually stagnant religious.

gramlab

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As by way of analogy, lets say that the police receive 10 different calls from 10 unconnected people. Each of these phone calls relates to a previously unknown man named Bob. When the police interview the 10 callers each one gives a different account about Bob and what he did. As all accounts clearly can not be true should the police automatically conclude that none of them are?

Presumably these 10 people then go away and spread their story to as many as possible and a few of the stories catch on. Does this give any insight into the truth about Bob or just that these people met/heard about/saw a Bob but whatever he told them, or showed them can't have been all that spectacular if none of them are capable of agreeing with other witnesses versions of the stories?

eoin5

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they were just on about Bob. But let me just phone up the Sergeant on that night and find out for you.

Anyway, if nothing else, Zilla, at least your posts to me are consistently unpleasant.



Thanks. It's welcoming opinions like your that encourage people on to this forum. Well done!

Zillahs got the nail on the head though, if that kind of logic was to be applied to people who see stars when they have a concussion does it mean that there are real stars that only concussed people can see? Its a non-sequitur with some power of suggestion thrown in. Its the same logic for ghosts, werewolfs, iraqi killer spiders etc.

cavedave

Zillahs got the nail on the head though, if that kind of logic was to be applied to people who see stars when they have a concussion does it mean that there are real stars that only concussed people can see? Its a non-sequitur with some power of suggestion thrown in. Its the same logic for ghosts, werewolfs, iraqi killer spiders etc.

So say you have reached the conclusion that no personal god exists. Personal god being the one each religion claims as their imaginary friend. Also say the evidence points to humans being hardwired (evolved) to believe in some higher power. What does this mean for atheism? If belief in god is some sort of vestigial organ can you even reason yourself out of it? Would that not be like trying to reason yourself out of being distracted by sudden movements in your peripheral vision. Yes nowdays those movements are unlikely to be a tiger but you cannot convince your low levels of consciousness that.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Logical though your statement on the inability of all religions to be true may be, any subsequent suggestions you glean from this are definitely borne out of subjective reasoning on your part. I would argue that these suggestions are grounded firmly in your initial stance on God in exactly the same manner my subsequent reasoning is based upon my theistic (specifically Christian) beliefs.

Aren't you essentially saying that because of your predisposition to believe in a god, you see what seems to be an "intrinsic truth to the divine" in the multitude of religious claims? That to me sounds like subjective reasoning, whereas any objective viewing of the "Bob phone call" scenario would deduce that in all likelihood it was a prank.

cavedave wrote: »

If belief in god is some sort of vestigial organ can you even reason yourself out of it? Would that not be like trying to reason yourself out of being distracted by sudden movements in your peripheral vision. Yes nowdays those movements are unlikely to be a tiger but you cannot convince your low levels of consciousness that.

The problem is that it used to be much easier in our evolution for the hardwiring to work. While it was at it's peak - when the "great" religions were being formed - the gods and their laws were sharply defined. Now we understand so much more about our place in the cosmos, what really lives in the clouds and under our feet, the timeline of the planet, biology etc, the god as defined by religion is no longer a tiger in our peripheral vision - he is an elephant, standing quietly in the room, sipping a gin and tonic.

An Fear Aniar

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they were just on about Bob. But let me just phone up the Sergeant on that night and find out for you.

Anyway, if nothing else, Zilla, at least your posts to me are consistently unpleasant.



Thanks. It's welcoming opinions like your that encourage people on to this forum. Well done!

No, well done you! I've contributed nothing. It is a good analogy. I just think some of the people here take this whole thing a bit too seriously.

Lighten up, ffs.


.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah! But to take a different viewpoint. Even if all religions cannot be true, the same products of reason used to reach this conclusion do not preclude the possibility that there is an intrinsic truth to the divine aspect found in these religions. As by way of analogy, lets say that the police receive 10 different calls from 10 unconnected people. Each of these phone calls relates to a previously unknown man named Bob. When the police interview the 10 callers each one gives a different account about Bob and what he did. As all accounts clearly can not be true should the police automatically conclude that none of them are?

The police should conclude that there is probably something going on here, but it isn't what any of the calls believe.

No one denies that something is happening with humans in relation to religion. But it clearly isn't what the believers themselves think, because they all think different things for the same phenomena.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would argue that these suggestions are grounded firmly in your initial stance on God in exactly the same manner my subsequent reasoning is based upon my theistic (specifically Christian) beliefs.

As they should be.

A person should never reach for a implausible explanation when a plausible one is at hand.

Assuming God or gods don't exist isn't a flaw in the reasoning, it is in fact the correct starting position.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they were just on about Bob. But let me just phone up the Sergeant on that night and find out for you.

Anyway, if nothing else, Zilla, at least your posts to me are consistently unpleasant.

You are missing the point that one cannot simply ignore the implausibility factor of a claim.

Claiming there is a man breaking into your house who looks tall, white, with a scare on his face, is not the same as claiming you are in communication with a super powerful entity who created the universe.

aidan24326

Wicknight wrote: »

Quite a few of the Christians on the Christian forum comment that they had hit rock bottom and belief in God turned there life around when nothing else would. They seem to view that as support for the idea that he is real.

That seems to me to be a very common theme, confusing what is subjectively personal with what is evidently real (or not, as the case may be). Reminds me of that woman on the LLS when Dawkins was on, she was adamant that the strength she gained in adversity, from her belief in god, was solid evidence that he/it is real. I find that kind of thinking muddled to say the least.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As by way of analogy, lets say that the police receive 10 different calls from 10 unconnected people. Each of these phone calls relates to a previously unknown man named Bob. When the police interview the 10 callers each one gives a different account about Bob and what he did. As all accounts clearly can not be true should the police automatically conclude that none of them are?

Like Wicknight said, it would tell the police that something is going on, but the fact the accounts all differ makes each of them on it's own unlikely to be true.

And yes, the police would almost certainly conclude that none of them are likely to be true, but that the situation may require further investigation to ascertain what exactly is going on.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

Perhaps you missed the fact that my post was intended as a criticism on the validity of your analogy?

Its dispicable that you only welcome opinions that coddle you. Very typical of the intellectually stagnant religious.

I would certainly be willing to consider and discuss any criticisms you may offer during a discussion. But it appears that Zilla don’t roll that way. Pithy retorts are more your thing.

There is a sad irony in the fact that you feel the need accuse me of accepting only those opinions that coddle my beliefs when it is you who borders on conniptions at a suggestion contrary to what you hold to be true. If you actually read my post you would see that I haven't rejected Schudart's idea, I've merely suggested an alternative theistic perspective.

OK. There are a lot of replies here, so I'm just going to pick a couple that stood out.

Wicknight wrote:

You are missing the point that one cannot simply ignore the implausibility factor of a claim.

I don't believe I am missing the point, Wick. I actually understand where you are coming from. Again, all I've suggested is a different opinion without dismissing anyone else's.

Dades wrote:

Aren't you essentially saying that because of your predisposition to believe in a god, you see what seems to be an "intrinsic truth to the divine" in the multitude of religious claims? That to me sounds like subjective reasoning, whereas any objective viewing of the "Bob phone call" scenario would deduce that in all likelihood it was a prank.

I admit that my reasoning is subjective. I think I said as much in my post.

Yes, it may well turn out to be a prank, but it also may suggest that there is something going on. I would think that this type of belief may eventually lead to agnosticism.

Schuhart

I’m late in rejoining the thread, but I think I’ll actually use Fanny’s earlier post to base my response around. I’m probably substantially saying the same as the other atheists, but I’m trying to put it as neutrally as possible to see if that takes us anywhere different. (I’ll be following this up by calculating the exact square root of 2 and then, if time permits, the largest possible prime number).

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Even if all religions cannot be true, the same products of reason used to reach this conclusion do not preclude the possibility that there is an intrinsic truth to the divine aspect found in these religions.

I actually don’t think this particular comment takes us anywhere we haven’t been. At the end of the day, people don’t believe (I’d assert) because reason does not preclude the possibility of a God. They believe for some other positive motive. The fact that ‘reason does not preclude’ is just the window of opportunity that allows that positive motive to prevail.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As all accounts clearly can not be true should the police automatically conclude that none of them are?

I think the main point has already been made – that the police will conclude that something has happened to cause those accounts, but the cause is very likely something else altogether. This is very much what I feel about faith, although I still counsel a degree of caution from fellow atheists that we need to spend a little time (and a little patience) considering what that something else altogether might be. I have no mysterious end product in mind when I say that. I just think we need to be careful not to assume what we would like this to mean.

I’d suggest a better analogy might actually be UFO/ghost sightings. If only people with a history of mental illness reported UFOs, then we might easily reach the conclusion that they were pure fantasy. However, if we find that people who would in other situations be regarded as reliable witnesses reporting UFOs, then it is something that requires explanation. From what we know, there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life close enough to visit Earth. Hence, we are more likely to expect the explanation to be quite mundane. However, we cannot ‘preclude the possibility’ that an alien race has technology far beyond our understanding that lets them travel faster than light.

Now, far more people (I would guess) follow a religion than report UFOs. Hence the situation is, as I see it, we need to account for why so many otherwise perfectly reasonable people do this. And, I feel, we have to do better in explaining it than simply appealing to delusion.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Logical though your statement on the inability of all religions to be true may be, any subsequent suggestions you glean from this are definitely borne out of subjective reasoning on your part.

Well, bear in mind this is not the key point I’m making here. The key point I’m making here is that atheists tend to be in one context, where reason suggests most and possibly all religions to be false. Put another way, you cannot prove a god from first principles (and please don’t try – you know it will end in tears). Theists stand in another context, where religion provides a meaning to life not easily replaceable (perhaps not replaceable at all) if God is taken to be a false concept.

What I’m trying to do is see if it’s actually possible to link or bridge the gap between those two contexts. What might be interesting is if theists could outline what those personal meanings or benefits of religion are – and if atheists could listen to what’s been said, without scoffing about the valuing of those benefits being a sign of weakness.

CPT. SURF

Most of us have an innate sense that the Universe should make sense and that things that are true should also work better than things that are false.

The section in bold is the complete opposite of my philosophy. In fact, I consider this desire to make "sense" of the Universe to be akin to madness.

Fanny Cradock

A good and appreciated post, Schuhart.

An Fear Aniar

limerick_woody wrote: »

so Atheists share a blind belief in, well, nothing at all

No one's really an atheist - it's impossible. We're hardwired for theism.


.

Dave!

Huh? Care to elaborate on that?

Tar.Aldarion

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

No one's really an atheist - it's impossible. We're hardwired for theism.


.

No, that's bollocks, to put it succintly.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

No one's really an atheist - it's impossible. We're hardwired for theism.


.

Bullsh!t


.

Zombrex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

No one's really an atheist - it's impossible. We're hardwired for theism.


.

Ooooh ... provocative :pac:

An Fear Aniar

There's been some visceral reactions to my comment which sort of proves my point and indicates that you all know what I'm talking about when I say that this "God-sense" is hardwired into humans.


.

Dave!

Oh I know what you mean, but I asked you to elaborate because you don't seem to think we can overcome this, and that we are all tied to religion because of evolution.

Well we are hard-wired to propagate our genes as much as possible -- so why do we still love sex when wearing a condom?
We're hard-wired to have as many children as possible -- so why are we monogamous? Or if monogamy is hard-wired into us by evolution because it's the best scenario for producing regular offspring -- then why are so many people unfaithful?

Dades

I shifted you all here, so continue at will.

Much as we enjoy off topic discussion, "hard-wired for religion" just didn't sit right in the "all aboard the atheist bus" thread.

Dave!

pffft, damn atheists and their rules :mad: *mutter mutter mutter*

Dades

You have to admit, they're not followed religiously..!

Dave!

*cringe*

Out.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

There's been some visceral reactions to my comment which sort of proves my point and indicates that you all know what I'm talking about when I say that this "God-sense" is hardwired into humans.


.

So reaction to blatant stupidity equates to a hardwired "God-sense", I'm not sure I agree.


.btw the dot signifies my arrogance

robindch

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

you all know what I'm talking about when I say that this "God-sense" is hardwired into humans.

Will you be staying around to elaborate, or will you be doing your usual runner?

Malari

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

There's been some visceral reactions to my comment which sort of proves my point and indicates that you all know what I'm talking about when I say that this "God-sense" is hardwired into humans.


.

Yes, I know what you mean, which is not quite what you said.

Kind of the Dawkins "rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators" idea? That doesn't make being an athiest impossible, though. Maybe a god-sense would have some preservation effect and that's why most people evolved to think that way. Simply believing what your parents and elders say is helpful in most situations. This is by no means a definite though.

Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

An Fear Aniar

robindch wrote: »

Will you be staying around to elaborate, or will you be doing your usual runner?

What's there to say? There's not a lot I can add.


.

An Fear Aniar

Malari wrote: »

Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

Malari

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

No, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt of having at least had a thought process. I don't think you can go from thinking that a god-sense exists to stating atheism is impossible?