Awareness of reasons for 'god belief'

looksee

The other answer to give is that many people who are atheist or lack belief in a god are aware of, and have normalized for, the powerful drivers in our biological and mental make up that leave us prone to god belief. Things like "The intentional stance" and "Pattern Seeking behavior" and "Hyper active agency detection" and so forth.

The above quotation is something Nozzferrahhtoo said in another thread. It seems like an interesting point for discussion so I have taken the liberty of carving it off from the other thread, hope this is ok with everyone?

I will check up on the meanings of the phrases he quoted, but in the meantime the 'pattern seeking behavior' of finding a human face in any splodge or mark is one that we would pretty well all be aware of, I think? I should imagine that this is paralleled by the need to find a reason for everything (and succeeding, if god belief is used).

The question would seem to me to be, why these drivers are there?

nozzferrahhtoo

looksee wrote: »

The above quotation is something Nozzferrahhtoo said in another thread. It seems like an interesting point for discussion so I have taken the liberty of carving it off from the other thread, hope this is ok with everyone?

It is fine with me But a couple of my other quotes were also carved from other threads today and pasted into another one. So if at any point I lose track and reply to something from one thread on another and lose track of which thread is which.... please forgive me in advance everyone

looksee wrote: »

I will check up on the meanings of the phrases he quoted

I will give a quick summary and hope that others will correct me where I mess up. I will include an answer in my descriptions as to why those drivers are there too.

1) Hyper active agency detection.

Imagine 1000s of years go in our evolutionary history there is a human sitting near some bushes. The bustles suddenly rustle. the human can either

a) Assume it is nothing. If he is right, everything is ok. If he is wrong. He gets eaten.

b) Assume it is a threat with an agenda against his person. If he is wrong.... ok he looks a little silly. If he is right..... he has a good chance to react in time to survive.

Evolutionary selection is going to tend towards detecting agency where none is actually present therefore. Clearly getting eaten is more of an evolutionary dead end than looking a little silly.

As such we are likely evolved to be hyper-sensitive to detecting agency, even where none exists. Our common house hold dog is doing this too when they run to the window barking at nothing more than the wind in the leaves or snow sliding off the roof tiles.

And it is not a large leap to apply this faculty to something it was never evolved to be applied to in the first place.... the universe.

2) Intentional Stance.

Another evolved trait we have is the ability to represent the minds of others in our own mind.

And work out what their intention is towards us, what they might be thinking. When you ponder a question in poker like "I am bluffing and I think he knows I am bluffing but I wonder does he know I know he knows I am bluffing" is actually quite a complex social procedure at the level of the brain.

Alongside this we have a tendency to personify things, even the inanimate. Catch yourself next time you are pleading with your car to start on a winter morning and even promising it the best oil money can buy at it's next check up if only it will start. Or how angry we sometimes get personally at the thing we stub our toe off.

These things combined with a few other social traits mean we have a tendency to personify quiet a lot of things. And like Agency Detection it is an easy leap to turn the application of this to the universe itself.

3) Pattern Seeking

The cargo cults are a good one to look towards for this. We actually watched whole religions being created in real time here. But our natural pattern seeking trait leading to superstitions is not even something we observe solely in humans. The Skinner experiments showed it in pigeons too for example.

We are evolved pattern recognition machines. We are evolved to connect dots and other seemingly random things into a coherent whole that we can process and react to better. Sometimes two things really are connected, sometimes they are not. But when they are we learn something useful about our environment.

When an antelope sees a dot behind some leaves it is meaningless. If it sees three or four seemingly disconnected dots however their brain is able to connect them in a pattern and go "Yikes! Hiding Leopard!"

So we have this brain that is constantly, even without you realizing it, trying to connect things in a pattern all the time. And alas it is just as prone to finding patterns that are not actually there, as it is to find genuinely useful ones. Clearly Natural Selection found it to be advantageous to HAVE this faculty, but not advantageous enough to refine it all that much.

And it leaves us prone to all kinds of nonsense therefore.... from thinking taxi drivers are arrogant ass hole drivers who think they own the road..... to thinking medicines with no shown efficacy of any sort actually work...... to thinking psychics really do predict the future or learn things about our past..... to.... yes.... thinking some unseen intelligent agency is at work behind the universe.

looksee

Sorry! I intended for this to be a new thread, but posted it in this thread:o I will ask for it to be made a new thread, see what happens!

Thank you for the explanations.

nozzferrahhtoo

No problem, it is a subject I am heavily into I love studies of the brain and the senses it uses to view the world and how. And why it might have evolved that way.

Pattern Seeking is a great one for example. Not only is it used, like I just did above, to discuss a lot about religion (Shermer and Dennett talk a lot about Intentional stance and Agency Detection for example) but VS Ramachandran has been trying to form a "Theory of Art" to explain why we react to Art like we do. And pattern seeking is a large part of the 7 or 8 "laws" he has suggested for it. I strongly recommend watching a few of his longer lectures on you tube. If only just to revel in his amazing accent. I could listen to him read the phone book and be happy

Which is great because I remember not SO many years ago when a theist would be deriding science in a conversation about religion, I would often hear lines like "Science can never study or explain Love. Science can never study of explain Art" and now it seems we are doing _exactly that_ and I get those little mantras almost never any more.

robindch

Thread created as per looksee's gentle request!

looksee

The original point has now been moved to another thread, though your replies are still here I think it is an interesting area, may be we could continue in the other thread

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

The above quotation is something Nozzferrahhtoo said in another thread. It seems like an interesting point for discussion so I have taken the liberty of carving it off from the other thread, hope this is ok with everyone?

I will check up on the meanings of the phrases he quoted, but in the meantime the 'pattern seeking behavior' of finding a human face in any splodge or mark is one that we would pretty well all be aware of, I think? I should imagine that this is paralleled by the need to find a reason for everything (and succeeding, if god belief is used).

The question would seem to me to be, why these drivers are there?

The flip side (or what I would consider to be the flip side) of this is also interesting, in my view. You have followers of, for example, Joseph Smith, who know he was a convicted conman, but still followed him. You have L Ron Hubbard saying things like "if you want to get rich, start a religion", he then starts a religion and people believe it.

I came across an article some years ago, and can't find it anymore, that talked about suicide cults. Apparently, I think according to diaries found subsequent to the mass suicides, they found that some of the people that "drank the kool aid" didn't actually believe the cult leader, but just went along with it anyway...

To me these people represent a rejection of the awareness that atheist "normalise for" according to Noz. Why they do so is interesting, and indicates just how strong the drivers are.

MrP

looksee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is fine with me


I will give a quick summary and hope that others will correct me where I mess up. I will include an answer in my descriptions as to why those drivers are there too.

1) Hyper active agency detection.

Imagine 1000s of years go in our evolutionary history there is a human sitting near some bushes. The bustles suddenly rustle. the human can either

a) Assume it is nothing. If he is right, everything is ok. If he is wrong. He gets eaten.

b) Assume it is a threat with an agenda against his person. If he is wrong.... ok he looks a little silly. If he is right..... he has a good chance to react in time to survive.

Evolutionary selection is going to tend towards detecting agency where none is actually present therefore. Clearly getting eaten is more of an evolutionary dead end than looking a little silly.

As such we are likely evolved to be hyper-sensitive to detecting agency, even where none exists. Our common house hold dog is doing this too when they run to the window barking at nothing more than the wind in the leaves or snow sliding off the roof tiles.

And it is not a large leap to apply this faculty to something it was never evolved to be applied to in the first place.... the universe.

2) Intentional Stance.

Another evolved trait we have is the ability to represent the minds of others in our own mind.

And work out what their intention is towards us, what they might be thinking. When you ponder a question in poker like "I am bluffing and I think he knows I am bluffing but I wonder does he know I know he knows I am bluffing" is actually quite a complex social procedure at the level of the brain.

Alongside this we have a tendency to personify things, even the inanimate. Catch yourself next time you are pleading with your car to start on a winter morning and even promising it the best oil money can buy at it's next check up if only it will start. Or how angry we sometimes get personally at the thing we stub our toe off.

These things combined with a few other social traits mean we have a tendency to personify quiet a lot of things. And like Agency Detection it is an easy leap to turn the application of this to the universe itself.

3) Pattern Seeking

The cargo cults are a good one to look towards for this. We actually watched whole religions being created in real time here. But our natural pattern seeking trait leading to superstitions is not even something we observe solely in humans. The Skinner experiments showed it in pigeons too for example.

We are evolved pattern recognition machines. We are evolved to connect dots and other seemingly random things into a coherent whole that we can process and react to better. Sometimes two things really are connected, sometimes they are not. But when they are we learn something useful about our environment.

When an antelope sees a dot behind some leaves it is meaningless. If it sees three or four seemingly disconnected dots however their brain is able to connect them in a pattern and go "Yikes! Hiding Leopard!"

So we have this brain that is constantly, even without you realizing it, trying to connect things in a pattern all the time. And alas it is just as prone to finding patterns that are not actually there, as it is to find genuinely useful ones. Clearly Natural Selection found it to be advantageous to HAVE this faculty, but not advantageous enough to refine it all that much.

And it leaves us prone to all kinds of nonsense therefore.... from thinking taxi drivers are arrogant ass hole drivers who think they own the road..... to thinking medicines with no shown efficacy of any sort actually work...... to thinking psychics really do predict the future or learn things about our past..... to.... yes.... thinking some unseen intelligent agency is at work behind the universe.

Thanks for that, I have come across most of those ideas before, but not applied all of them to religion, it really does make sense.

looksee

MrPudding wrote: »

The flip side (or what I would consider to be the flip side) of this is also interesting, in my view. You have followers of, for example, Joseph Smith, who know he was a convicted conman, but still followed him. You have L Ron Hubbard saying things like "if you want to get rich, start a religion", he then starts a religion and people believe it.

I came across an article some years ago, and can't find it anymore, that talked about suicide cults. Apparently, I think according to diaries found subsequent to the mass suicides, they found that some of the people that "drank the kool aid" didn't actually believe the cult leader, but just went along with it anyway...

To me these people represent a rejection of the awareness that atheist "normalise for" according to Noz. Why they do so is interesting, and indicates just how strong the drivers are.

MrP

And the people who are taken in by the tv evangelists who blatantly ask for money, and people send it. Why do they send it, is it because of the 'religious' aspect that gives it credibility, or what are they hoping to achieve?

nozzferrahhtoo

looksee wrote: »

And the people who are taken in by the tv evangelists who blatantly ask for money, and people send it. Why do they send it, is it because of the 'religious' aspect that gives it credibility, or what are they hoping to achieve?

There is also quite a prevalent "Well it can't hurt" mentality in our species too. A mentality that is cashed in on by everything from psychics and fortune tellers, to homeopathic and other alternative medicine woo merchants, to evangelists and other purveyors of unsubstantiated woo nonsense, to even certain aspects of more legitimate industries like the insurance industry.

And the mentality is clear enough. "Nothing bad will happen if I do X, but WHAT IF something good happens......" so they do X. Even sometimes when they know inside themselves it is a con, a canard or a load of woo tosh.

I guess for a rational species, we are not very rational at the best of times

robindch

A few more posts moved over

nozzferrahhtoo

Not much talk around here of the recent debate with Nugent and Bacik against Patrick Masterson and Peter Hitchens.

The topic was "Is Theism Reasonable" but it appeared to me only Nugent actually addressed that topic. The others went around on mad tangets. Which is funny because Peter decided at one point to suggest Nugent was off topic, when in fact he was the only one mostly on topic.

But on the subject for being aware of reasons for god belief, Hitchens was honest on one thing at least. He basically admitted his only reason for it is that he can not abide the alternative personally. He admits he just can not stand the idea that his loved ones really are dead, or that bad dead people are beyond justice for their actions.

So I guess if we are going to list reasons for god belief I guess we can not end a thread without mentioning the Hitchens of the world… people who invent such beliefs because it is more palatable then reality. I guess we can do little more than feel sympathy for them.

Comically however he decided to bring up the opposite of this thread, in that he wanted to know the “reasons for atheism”. He then made a rather absurd claim that no atheist ever answers this query.

No idea which "atheists" Peter Hitchens claims (alleges) to have spoken to who "never answer the question as to why you are an atheist". I find the exact opposite is true that they all, in great numbers, are only too happy to speak to that question.

Atheist Ireland and boards.ie and City Data Forums are chock full of atheists answering that question. Some at great length. There ae multiple books on the subject. There are even numerous comments on his own Blog to this effect.

So either Peter has some filter in operation around him that is preventing all these atheists from getting to him somehow (perhaps even a filter he is not even aware exists)......... or he is outright lying to us here. I can only leave it to the observer to decide which it is from their perspective. However given I KNOW I have been in contact with him in the past and HAVE answered that question that he claims none have answered.... I know which I conclude it is. Others without my direct anecdotal experience will have to decide for themselves.

A commenter on the video of the debate, a user who is attempting to troll everyone who posts on that particular video (Who is now being counter trolled by a “BOT” version of me that I designed some time ago, where only every 5th post is actually from me the rest is automated…. Which has sent him into all kinds of contortions…. Trolls do not like being trolled it seems… but I have to admit it is hilarious to watch)…. Tried to suggest that this is Peters attempt to talk about online and offline attitudes and that he REALLY means that no atheist OFF LINE has ever answered the question. But again…. There are books abound….. I do not believe Peter has been cotton wool protected from all atheists in reality… and in fact there was the debate with his own brother to be held up as example.

So despite Peter’s outright and transparent lies, there are many atheists self aware enough to talk at great length about their reasons for atheism… while his own reasons are admittedly as weak as reasons come… that of preferring a fantasy to the reality that operates around him.

looksee

I don't think I could talk about my reason for being an atheist at great length. I do not have any belief that there is a god. Its a simple negative, what is there to talk about? I could, and do, get into lengthy debates as to why a belief in god does not make any sense, but I do not need any of those arguments for my own sake, its a simple lack of belief.

nozzferrahhtoo

Perhaps you can not, or would not, but MANY do and can. And I just question Hitchens' honesty when he says no atheist ever answers it when asked. This forum alone, let alone other forums and book shelves, are FULL of atheists doing just that. Hitchens' own late brother did it publically and privately. Hitchens is simply not being honest with us here. And I suspect he well knows it.

But it is amazing to watch someone without any apperent embarrasment or apology admit they believe what they believe pretty much solely because it is more palatable to them than reality. I am not sure what maintaining that level of internal cognitive dissonance would do for my sanity to be honest. Knowing I was deluding myself but NEEDING The delusion would literally rip me apart mentally.

Perhaps I simply am not at the level of intelligence high enough to pull off self delusion. Hitchens for all his faults and transparent dishonesty and hate.... is anything but a stupid man. Perhaps he has just reached a level of IQ and intellect that he can mentally survive a level of self delusion that would tear an inferior human like me in two.

Canadel

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I guess if we are going to list reasons for god belief I guess we can not end a thread without mentioning the Hitchens of the world… people who invent such beliefs because it is more palatable then reality.

Peter Hitchens (lest anyone mistake him for his magnificent brother) has a fear of the unknown. Atheists have a fear of the the known.

vibe666

something else that (imho) plays a big part in this is that people HATE to admit that they're wrong. anyone who has spent long enough on boards.ie will have at least witnessed, if not been part of some quite heated arguments in which people will still continue to argue a point that tthey have already lost. i believe it is a similar response to people not wanting to admit to having been conned by someone/something.

Canadel

vibe666 wrote: »

something else that (imho) plays a big part in this is that people HATE to admit that they're wrong. anyone who has spent long enough on boards.ie will have at least witnessed, if not been part of some quite heated arguments in which people will still continue to argue a point that tthey have already lost. i believe it is a similar response to people not wanting to admit to having been conned by someone/something.

With religion, there is also a case of people wanting to be conned, choosing to be conned. You see this most clearly with highly educated and intellectual believers; compartmentalization.

Also, the falsity of faith is far more comforting than the alternative for a lot of folk. The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you.

nozzferrahhtoo

Canadel wrote: »

Peter Hitchens (lest anyone mistake him for his magnificent brother) has a fear of the unknown. Atheists have a fear of the the known.

Although I do not use the word "atheist" to describe myself, quite a few others insist on doing so. And as someone who is identified often by that word I can not say I identify with the generalization you have offered here. Nor have I met an atheist (and I have met MANY through the work I do and have done) who seem to either.

Perhaps you can lend some substance to it and elaborate on what you think you mean?

vibe666 wrote: »

something else that (imho) plays a big part in this is that people HATE to admit that they're wrong.

I have to admit I love being wrong. Because I love learning new things. And I love removing old things. And being wrong does BOTH at the same time. There is nothing better in human discourse than seeing where you are wrong, and therefore becoming more right.

I know I am wrong about something. Because I know I am not perfect. So I use discourse with other human beings to help me weed out those things. I do not see someone proving me wrong as having "beaten" me or having "won" against me. Quite the opposite. If a person goes away from a conversation having learned nothing, but having shown me I was wrong..... then *I* am the "winner" there and they have gained little to nothing.

Alas I think there is something more complex than people merely not wanting to be wrong, but that there are people who are far from magnanimous when they show someone else to be wrong. They are snide and mean and arrogant and snotty about it. And it is THIS that makes people not want to admit to being wrong.

I wonder what the world would be like if somehow you could install this App in everyone's neck top computer, that the person who "wins" in any argument or debate is the one who is shown to be wrong and has learned something better or new. Imagine what the tone and content of threads across the forum would be like in the light of this small change?

Canadel

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Although I do not use the word "atheist" to describe myself, quite a few others insist on doing so. And as someone who is identified often by that word I can not say I identify with the generalization you have offered here. Nor have I met an atheist (and I have met MANY through the work I do and have done) who seem to either.

Perhaps you can lend some substance to it and elaborate on what you think you mean?

Sure.

You know what, I was wrong to say that Hitchens has a fear of the unknown. He in fact has a fear of the known and is a classic example of a person engaging in compartmentalization which I mentioned in my previous post. He knows exactly where his dead loved ones are i.e. decaying in the dirt, but as you said yourself:

he basically admitted his only reason for it is that he can not abide the alternative personally....so I guess if we are going to list reasons for god belief I guess we can not end a thread without mentioning the Hitchens of the world… people who invent such beliefs

As for atheists fearing the known, well, just look at the example above with Hitchens. It's his knowledge and thus fear of the known which compels him to believe. He knows the truth, but rather than fear it or face up to it like an atheist would, he takes the easy way out. He's a dishonest atheist. A cowardly atheist.

Of course it's not entirely true to say that all atheists fear the known. But I still think it's true to say that atheists fear the known more than the unknown. And that believers fear the unknown more than the known.

looksee

I wonder what the world would be like if somehow you could install this App in everyone's neck top computer, that the person who "wins" in any argument or debate is the one who is shown to be wrong and has learned something better or new. Imagine what the tone and content of threads across the forum would be like in the light of this small change?

That's an interesting thought. It might have some odd side effects, but I see where you are going with it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Canadel wrote: »

As for atheists fearing the known, well, just look at the example above with Hitchens.

How is a theist an example of atheists fearing the known? You have really lost me there I am afraid and I have no idea what you now mean.

I do not see atheists fearing "the known" any more than theists or any other human really. And I am not seeing why.... or even if.... you actually think otherwise.

Canadel

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How is a theist an example of atheists fearing the known? You have really lost me there I am afraid and I have no idea what you now mean.

I do not see atheists fearing "the known" any more than theists or any other human really. And I am not seeing why.... or even if.... you actually think otherwise.

Because rather than accept and face "the known", Peter Hitchens' claims to understand the unknown.

Atheists look for answers outside of "the known", but only those based on rational and logical reasoning. Theists provide those answers by abandoning those scientific tools and claiming they have found the answers themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

Still not seeing he "fear" part here though. You are now talking about how atheists explore the unknown using rational tools. I would agree with that. But I am still no wiser what you originally mean by "Atheists fear the known".

Sorry to keep beating on this one, I just genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.

MrPudding

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So despite Peter’s outright and transparent lies, there are many atheists self aware enough to talk at great length about their reasons for atheism… while his own reasons are admittedly as weak as reasons come… that of preferring a fantasy to the reality that operates around him.

I find it hard to believe that he never had a conversation about his brother's beliefs, or lack thereof...

MrP

Bristolscale7

I don't have time to dig it up right now but there's a famous quote from Miguel de Unamuno, the Catholic philosopher that goes something like, the fear of nothingness is scarier than the fear of hell.

Kiwi in IE

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I don't have time to dig it up right now but there's a famous quote from Miguel de Unamuno, the Catholic philosopher that goes something like, the fear of nothingness is scarier than the fear of hell.

What could be so scary about nothingness? There is literally nothing to fear. The idea of spending eternity in the company of any of the various gods touted by organised religions, is a much more unpleasant prospect than non existence.

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What could be so scary about nothingness?

There are a lot of people out there who are not so much scared of "nothingness", but scared of purposelessness, so there's a void there which religion helpfully fills by suggesting, not only do they have a grand purpose in this life, but an even more magnificent one in the next. The religions function as teleological service providers - the details frequently don't matter, but the sense of purpose does.

The Bishop Basher

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What could be so scary about nothingness? There is literally nothing to fear. The idea of spending eternity in the company of any of the various gods touted by organised religions, is a much more unpleasant prospect than non existence.

I don't believe a fear of dying and death being followed by a vast expanse of nothingness is a reserve of the religious. It's a very common human trait shared by those of faith and none I would have thought.

Humans tend to fear the unknown of death. That fear doesn't make those people any less then those who don't. In fact it makes them a little more human in my opinion.

That said it's very easy to adopt a fearless position while alive and well. It's not so easy when death is imminent. I never thought I had a fear of death till i almost drowned in my teens. There were moments of abject terror before an incredible acceptance, serenity and calm took over. At that point I accepted my death and was ok with it but i didn't want to die and i was scared of both the process and the outcome for those few moments. It was a perfectly normal rational fear given the circumstance in which I found myself and my fear at that moment had little or nothing to do with any religious beliefs or lack of. I was far too busy just trying to survive to think about much else. Thankfully I was plucked out of the water by a rescue boat just before i lost consciousness.

Our desire to live and survive is both innate and incredibly powerful. It's a trait we share with many other living creatures and whether by design or by chance, a fear of death and dying is an integral part of our natural and essential desire to survive.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What could be so scary about nothingness? There is literally nothing to fear. The idea of spending eternity in the company of any of the various gods touted by organised religions, is a much more unpleasant prospect than non existence.

I wouldn't say I fear nothingness, but I fear becoming nothing. In fact, I'm terrified of it. The closer I come to ceasing to exist the less sanguine I am about it; I don't want to end, I don't want to be no more. Every near death experience has only convinced me further; there is no good reason to go gently, there is no good night. I'll kick, scream, bite, beg, give everything I have, for five more minutes even if I'm wracked with pain.

That more than anything else is what I think makes people take refuge in religion, the fact that after the struggle there will be something, anything, as long as they get to continue in some form; anything is better than the prospect of no longer being.

Kiwi in IE

Swanner wrote: »

I don't believe a fear of dying and death being followed by a vast expanse of nothingness is a reserve of the religious. It's a very common human trait shared by those of faith and none I would have thought.

Humans tend to fear the unknown of death. That fear doesn't make those people any less then those who don't. In fact it makes them a little more human in my opinion.

That said it's very easy to adopt a fearless position while alive and well. It's not so easy when death is imminent. I never thought I had a fear of death till i almost drowned in my teens. There were moments of abject terror before an incredible acceptance, serenity and calm took over. At that point I accepted my death and was ok with it but i didn't want to die and i was scared of both the process and the outcome for those few moments. It was a perfectly normal rational fear given the circumstance in which I found myself and my fear at that moment had little or nothing to do with any religious beliefs or lack of. I was far too busy just trying to survive to think about much else. Thankfully I was plucked out of the water by a rescue boat just before i lost consciousness.

Our desire to live and survive is both innate and incredibly powerful. It's a trait we share with many other living creatures and whether by design or by chance, a fear of death and dying is an integral part of our natural and essential desire to survive.

Absolam wrote: »

I wouldn't say I fear nothingness, but I fear becoming nothing. In fact, I'm terrified of it. The closer I come to ceasing to exist the less sanguine I am about it; I don't want to end, I don't want to be no more. Every near death experience has only convinced me further; there is no good reason to go gently, there is no good night. I'll kick, scream, bite, beg, give everything I have, for five more minutes even if I'm wracked with pain.

That more than anything else is what I think makes people take refuge in religion, the fact that after the struggle there will be something, anything, as long as they get to continue in some form; anything is better than the prospect of no longer being.

I understand what your both saying and I don't in any way mean that I feel ambivalent about death. Of course I don't want to die, and I'm sure that if faced with a situation where it were tested, my survival instinct would be very strong. On saying that though, I fear the death of those I love much more than I fear my own. I find the prospect of having to go on living without certain people worse than the prospect of nothingness. I also don't think I'd be fighting to stay alive if I had a terminal illness and was in constant pain. I have not been in the situation, so it's very hard to say for definite how you would react until faced with it, but I imagine in certain circumstances that I'd want euthanasia. I just don't have a problem with the fact we don't know what happens after death, and that in all probability, nothing happens. It's unavoidable that we will all die. Whatever happens to us will be the same thing that was happening to us in 1850 or 1630. I don't see the point in making up, or believing already made up stories to convince ourselves that we have knowledge of another life somewhere else after death when we don't have that knowledge.

fisgon

Absolam wrote: »

That more than anything else is what I think makes people take refuge in religion, the fact that after the struggle there will be something, anything, as long as they get to continue in some form; anything is better than the prospect of no longer being.

I think this is very true. There are many reasons why people believe, but the fundamental one is Death. In the end that is what all religions come down to, explaining death, what happens after, giving hope for continuation.