Religious Faith and Human Nature

[Jagella]

If there's one thing I know about people, it's that they can play the truth to get others to dance to that melody. If you're good at lying, then you can have a great advantage over other people. Business leaders and politicians prove so every day. Therefore I think it's wise to take great care in believing what we are told. The higher the stakes of believing are, then the higher we should raise the bar. That's why many people will tell you that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The truth of this maxim rests on the commonsense notion that the more something is out of the ordinary, then the more unlikely it is to be true. For instance, a claim that a man is walking down the street near your house is likely to be true because we know men walk down streets everywhere every day, but a claim that Joe Biden is walking down the street near your house is obviously far less likely to be true. If you're prudent, then you'd want very good evidence to believe Biden is walking down the street, otherwise you may go off on a wild goose chase making a fool out of yourself.

In the context of religion, however, such wisdom is generally eschewed if the extraordinary claims are the dogmas of a person's religion. Followers are strongly encouraged to believe the tenets of their religion regardless of how weak or strong the evidence is for those tenets. In fact, belief based on weak evidence is often seen as a virtue! If a wise and caring God exists, then I think she would want us to be very careful regarding what we believe setting the bar very high for our belief. She's God--she can meet the toughest standards for truth. So religions encouraging their followers to believe in the face of doubt does not seem to fit the notion of a God. What we know about human nature then dictates that the more faith is encouraged in a God, the more likely that God is the creation of crafty men aiming to deceive others.

 

[danieldemol]

Hi @Jagella
Some of those who encouraged belief in others may have had delusions of grandeur or other irrational reasons for promoting belief.

In other words they are not all aiming to be deceivers even if what they promote is not true.

In my opinion.

 

[MyM]

If there's one thing I know about people, it's that they can play the truth to get others to dance to that melody. If you're good at lying, then you can have a great advantage over other people. Business leaders and politicians prove so every day. Therefore I think it's wise to take great care in believing what we are told. The higher the stakes of believing are, then the higher we should raise the bar. That's why many people will tell you that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The truth of this maxim rests on the commonsense notion that the more something is out of the ordinary, then the more unlikely it is to be true. For instance, a claim that a man is walking down the street near your house is likely to be true because we know men walk down streets everywhere every day, but a claim that Joe Biden is walking down the street near your house is obviously far less likely to be true. If you're prudent, then you'd want very good evidence to believe Biden is walking down the street, otherwise you may go off on a wild goose chase making a fool out of yourself.

In the context of religion, however, such wisdom is generally eschewed if the extraordinary claims are the dogmas of a person's religion. Followers are strongly encouraged to believe the tenets of their religion regardless of how weak or strong the evidence is for those tenets. In fact, belief based on weak evidence is often seen as a virtue! If a wise and caring God exists, then I think she would want us to be very careful regarding what we believe setting the bar very high for our belief. She's God--she can meet the toughest standards for truth. So religions encouraging their followers to believe in the face of doubt does not seem to fit the notion of a God. What we know about human nature then dictates that the more faith is encouraged in a God, the more likely that God is the creation of crafty men aiming to deceive others.

I don't think that weak evidences can be seen as a virtue. Belief without proof doesn't sound very good to me. Soo true what you said when religions that encourage their followers to believe in doubt doesn't fit the notion of God. I am very happy in what I know and believe.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In the context of religion, however, such wisdom is generally eschewed if the extraordinary claims are the dogmas of a person's religion.

When you describe 'The context of religion' as eschewing wisdom its like projecting one kind of thing onto a lot of people who aren't involved at all. Religion isn't the same thing in different places. There isn't a single religious context. In some religions belief is strongly encouraged, but religion does not imply belief.

In some cases wisdom is eschewed, such as when a child, slave or subject is taught only what to think not how. That is not actually Theology, either and is not Religion, either.

Since we're in the Theology: most of most of Theology is the working out based upon axioms, of what God must and must not be. It is a thinking discipline that works like playing Minesweeper or Checkers unconnected to pushing opinions onto anyone. In strict philosophy and strict theology you begin with axioms and explore where they take you voluntarily following paths of discovery. Theology is this game: "Assuming God exists then what does that imply and how do we identify God?"

I think Theology should not be about arguing that God exists. Some people attempt to prove from axioms that God exists, but that isn't strictly theology. It is only marginally theological and is not philosophical, as it presumes an end from its beginning. It is seeking to support a goal rather than exploring where the axioms lead. That is something to be discussed or debated in religious debates and is unrelated to the theological.

Followers are strongly encouraged to believe the tenets of their religion regardless of how weak or strong the evidence is for those tenets.

That is sometimes true. That is not universally true. I think its Ok provided people are encouraged to think for themselves and to question things they believe, but if they aren't then I think its not. I think people naturally need a bit of incubation time, but then we must be allowed to hatch our own thoughts. Anything else is spiritual late term abortion, suffocation of the mind. We must risk people disagreeing with us. Otherwise what is the point?

In fact, belief based on weak evidence is often seen as a virtue! If a wise and caring God exists, then I think she would want us to be very careful regarding what we believe setting the bar very high for our belief. She's God--she can meet the toughest standards for truth. So religions encouraging their followers to believe in the face of doubt does not seem to fit the notion of a God. What we know about human nature then dictates that the more faith is encouraged in a God, the more likely that God is the creation of crafty men aiming to deceive others.

Where I live, yes. That is often the case, but that is not 'Theology' and is not 'Religion'. Religion is very broad and is a tag for identifying groups of people. It can't define everything, so it loosely categorizes people.

But the problem is more general. Its not just in churches. Its everywhere. Everywhere you go people want to control each other. It doesn't have its basis in faith or God or church or religion or theology. It manifests there, and there is a war against this problem. It is one of the oldest enemies of humanity.

 

[Jagella]

Some of those who encouraged belief in others may have had delusions of grandeur or other irrational reasons for promoting belief.

Yes, that's another possibility, but as far as I'm concerned, being sincerely misinformed is as bad as being deliberately deceived if not worse. In the case of deception, only one party is mistaken, but in the case of a delusional religious prophet, both parties are mistaken! From the history I know, tragic results from religious beliefs are more common when the prophet sincerely believes what he's saying rather than his acting as a conman.

 

[Jagella]

I don't think that weak evidences can be seen as a virtue. Belief without proof doesn't sound very good to me. Soo true what you said when religions that encourage their followers to believe in doubt doesn't fit the notion of God. I am very happy in what I know and believe.

That's correct. Now if only we could explain that principle to Jesus. We are told that people are blessed if they believe the Gospel without seeing. I'm not surprised that the Gospel writers had Jesus say that considering the evidence we have for Jesus. I've often wondered how Jesus would have reacted if Thomas had answered that if believers are blessed, then he was going to believe the Pharisees.

In any case, I've rarely been blessed for believing without evidence, and that goes for believing Jesus.

 

[Jagella]

When you describe 'The context of religion' as eschewing wisdom its like projecting one kind of thing onto a lot of people who aren't involved at all. Religion isn't the same thing in different places. There isn't a single religious context. In some religions belief is strongly encouraged, but religion does not imply belief.

Yes, there are different religions, but they act in very similar ways. That's why they're all called "religions." So this debate is about religion in general.

But the problem is more general. Its not just in churches. Its everywhere. Everywhere you go people want to control each other. It doesn't have its basis in faith or God or church or religion or theology. It manifests there, and there is a war against this problem. It is one of the oldest enemies of humanity.

Yes, religion is not the only vice, but it is a vice nevertheless. That's why I spoke of "human nature" in the OP. (Did you read the OP?) Since as you say human nature very commonly involves deception, people are foolish to be quick to believe claims on weak evidence, and that includes religious claims. That's what I said in the OP, and you're just repeating it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, there are different religions, but they act in very similar ways. That's why they're all called "religions." So this debate is about religion in general.



Yes, religion is not the only vice, but it is a vice nevertheless. That's why I spoke of "human nature" in the OP. (Did you read the OP?) Since as you say human nature very commonly involves deception, people are foolish to be quick to believe claims on weak evidence, and that includes religious claims. That's what I said in the OP, and you're just repeating it.

People in Europe used to think that Christianity was the model of what all religions must be similar to, and so people began to refer mistakenly to other groups behavior as religion. Since then its become more widely understood that all people everywhere do not have the same ideals as Christianity or the same kind of thing happening. For example Japanese have tea ceremonies and those red gates. There is nothing like this in Christianity. There aren't tea ceremonies. Vice is vice, virtue is virtue, and religions are religions not religion.

I realize it sounds like I'm being pedantic, but you have to be sometimes. The religions are not the similar enough to be called a shared human vice: just like not all tools are screwdrivers.

Some religions contain a virtue. Saying that "Religion is a vice" means that virtue is vice, which makes no sense. What makes sense is to say that a particular religion has a vice but not all religions. You could try to argue that all religions share some vice in common, but calling all religion a vice does not make sense as religions are too different to be called a vice.

 

[wellwisher]

That's correct. Now if only we could explain that principle to Jesus. We are told that people are blessed if they believe the Gospel without seeing. I'm not surprised that the Gospel writers had Jesus say that considering the evidence we have for Jesus. I've often wondered how Jesus would have reacted if Thomas had answered that if believers are blessed, then he was going to believe the Pharisees.

In any case, I've rarely been blessed for believing without evidence, and that goes for believing Jesus.

If you were an entrepreneur, with a new idea, you cannot initially see the final tangible concept with your eyes. Any new idea will begin as an image in the imagination or sometimes even just a hunch. If seeing outside your self was the only allowable criteria, all new ideas would be taboo and would be nipped in the bud, since none would have reached tangible fruition, this early, to where the concept can be seen, outside ourselves, by everyone.

Humans would be stuck at the beginning of civilization or more likely, stuck in the natural world, since the natural world was already there, before humans. They could see this from day one. Faith is the belief in things not seen. Faith deals with the front end of the creative principle and has been the driving force for cultural evolution since civilization began.

Such people, who have first sight, have been discriminated against for eons, due to having an inner vision that appears to transcend their point in time.; sees the future of the iPhone. Those who can only see with the external world with their eyes, often get spooked; primitive fear of novelty, and cannot settle themselves from fight or flight, until the idea is materialized enough for them to see. At that point even a baby can see. The hard part is turning faith into works, so all can see.

We if took away all forms of faith; seeing without the eyes, culture would stop evolving and attempt to seek perfection with what it can see, until there is only dogma, but nothing ever new. The result would be stagnation. Religions were designed to help humans exercise our inner vision; evolved parts of the brain, so civilization is not stagnant or settles on perpetual dogma. The Scriptures are called living documents; can evolve.

If you look at the Catholic Church, it generated lots of art and innovation due to the acceptability of faith. It was OK to be creative, so all can benefit. Even though the idea of the new will be temporarily resisted by the external only seers, the internal seers must turn the other cheek. The flock is blind and cannot yet see, so they know not what they are doing. You need to make it ,so they can see, so they can lose their fear of novelty. Jesus said the enemies are of your own household. The emotion appeal of the external seers, designed to sabotage you, by shaking your vision of what can be, must not enter your mind. Allowing collective doubt to enter your house; mind, can be dangerous to your vision. One must not take anything negative to heart; household, so you remain calm and then move forward toward fruition.

 

[Jagella]

People in Europe used to think that Christianity was the model of what all religions must be similar to, and so people began to refer mistakenly to other groups behavior as religion.

Thanks for the etymology, but I'm referring to religion in a broad sense understanding religion as beliefs in gods, miracles, or afterlives.

Since then its become more widely understood that all people everywhere do not have the same ideals as Christianity or the same kind of thing happening. For example Japanese have tea ceremonies and those red gates. There is nothing like this in Christianity. There aren't tea ceremonies.

Yes. I'm well aware that there are differences in religions, of course, but there are many common traits amongst them.

Vice is vice, virtue is virtue, and religions are religions not religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The religions are not the similar enough to be called a shared human vice: just like not all tools are screwdrivers.

Aren't all terrorist organizations (including the USA) vices? Aren't racist groups vices? Yes, some classes of human groups can justifiably be seen as vices. Religion is no different in that regard, and I think religion is a vice.

Some religions contain a virtue. Saying that "Religion is a vice" means that virtue is vice, which makes no sense.

That apparent contradiction is easily reconciled by removing your assertion: "Some religions contain a virtue." The fallacy in your argument here is to insert an unsupported assertion that contradicts what I'm arguing creating an apparent contradiction. If you create a contradiction, then it is your contradiction, not mine.

What makes sense is to say that a particular religion has a vice but not all religions. You could try to argue that all religions share some vice in common, but calling all religion a vice does not make sense as religions are too different to be called a vice.

What religion is free of vices?

 

[Brickjectivity]

religion in a broad sense understanding religion as beliefs in gods, miracles, or afterlives.

That is a narrower thing than religion. Possibly if you believe to be a vice all religions that deal with an afterlife or with gods or with miracles then its best to state that. I'd understand what you were trying to say. Religion though is too vague. Only specific religions revolve about those things.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The study of religion is often a search for commonalities between people. There can be some very different centers about which religions turn. A religion might be about hunting for example or about farming or sex. It doesn't have to be about gods, miracles or afterlives..or origins. It can be about preparing children to be successful. It can be a religion about human suffering.

What religion is free of vices?

What human is free of vice? What atom is free of vice? What word is free of vice? This does not mean humanity is a vice or atoms are a vice or that words are a vice. We need humans, atoms and words.

 

[Jagella]

That is a narrower thing than religion. Possibly if you believe to be a vice all religions that deal with an afterlife or with gods or with miracles then its best to state that. I'd understand what you were trying to say. Religion though is too vague. Only specific religions revolve about those things.

I'm not interested in arguing semantics. I explained already what I mean by "religion."

The study of religion is often a search for commonalities between people.

For the purposes of this debate, the "human commonality" under discussion is believing outlandish claims on very weak evidence especially when those outlandish claims involve gods, revelations from gods, or miracles..

There can be some very different centers about which religions turn. A religion might be about hunting for example or about farming or sex. It doesn't have to be about gods, miracles or afterlives..or origins. It can be about preparing children to be successful. It can be a religion about human suffering.

That's getting ridiculous. Aside from TV evangelism, what religion is about sex?

What human is free of vice? What atom is free of vice? What word is free of vice? This does not mean humanity is a vice or atoms are a vice or that words are a vice. We need humans, atoms and words.

When I read your post about farming religions, I thought it couldn't get any worse--until I read this.

But this isn't a debate about whether we need vices; it's a debate about religious faith and human nature. Does religious faith fail to take into consideration people's tendency to lie? That's what I want to discuss.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not interested in arguing semantics. I explained already what I mean by "religion."

Yes, you meant that all religions were about gods, miracles and an afterlife and that all religions were a vice and that you didn't want to hear anything else.

 

[Jagella]

Yes, you meant that all religions were about gods, miracles and an afterlife and that all religions were a vice and that you didn't want to hear anything else.

I'll be happy to debate you about the meaning and nature of religion on another thread devoted to that topic. When you engage in a debate, it's best to stick with the topic.

If it helps, we can discuss Christianity in particular and how it may disregard the human tendency to deceive. Does Christian faith make people vulnerable to deception?

 

[wellwisher]

Religion has a connection to natural instinct. Animals have faith in their inner voice of instinct. The wolf can be forced to live among the humans, but the first chance it gets to escape, it will beat feet, since the approximation offered by humans is second tier to their natural instincts. They know when they feel hungry and will use this inner feeling to begin hunting or foraging. They go not need the prosthesis of a clock to approximate this by an outer voice.

Before the fall from paradise, natural instinct ruled, even for the pre-humans; humans before civilization. Natural instinct is connected to our DNA. Our DNA is an internal script based on the truth within long term selection in terms of fitness and learning. Religions appeared on the scene as way to to maintain this connection to the natural inner voice of instinct, as humans became unnatural. When the bible speaks of Good punishing humans they had become unnatural and unwilling to learn how to return. They were not selected or deselected, less they screw up natural human DNA, by adding to the DNA.

As far as the merit of seeing is believing, science is not the same today as it was 20 years ago or 100 years ago. Scientists had eyes 100 years ago and could see the world. The question is why didn't they come to the same conclusions as today? Humans have been taught misinformation through the majority of history of science. What was taught then would be proven wrong, with the atheists of each generation telling us that this version of seeing was the final word. The herd lost natural instinct and would become willing to swallow the latest science fad, since it provided a short term external way to orientate oneself.

If you ever had any exposure to psychology, the unconscious mind has a mind of its own, apart from the ego and conscious mind. Subroutines, for example, can cause compulsive behavior that the neurotic patient wishes to shut off and/or improve upon. The unconscious goes beyond the personal unconscious to the collective unconscious connected to natural human nature.

Theoretically, there are parts of the deep unconscious mind that are connected to natural human instinct, albeit, repressed, in part, due to the philosophy of science, which doubts all internal data. Religious leaders like the Buddha and Jesus both spoke of the inner man versus the outer man, with the inner man connected to unconscious data processing still engrained in our DNA. DNA is very conservative and if human instinct was once part of humans, it is still there, even if unconscious. Religion deals with this, providing ancient command lines that can access these deeper areas, via the ego interface.

Both Buddha and Jesus preached the need to disconnect the ego, from the illusions of cultural bling and prestige, such as the science of the day, being called infallible. Why expect the present of science to be any better in terms of the final truth? What makes now different? The truth within the natural inner self, is written on our DNA and has been preserved. This data needs to be accessed from the inside, via faith and then process by a mind-brain link to the DNA, through unique commands lines.

Human DNA is like a history map of all evolution from single cells. It not only have physical attributes encoded, but also behavioral attributes. The brain can read this code and recall the past in terms of behavior; deja vu. But it is buried deep behind the temporal cultural laws, that most people do not have access.

The faith of the faithful, is built upon within our DNA. If we apply the science of evolution to 6000 years of religion, the impact of faith should be engrained on human DNA, since religion was a key part of potential behind the natural and unnatural selection processes. Culture may not be conscious of this, since it uses selective thinking and ignores the science of DNA, when needed. Religions, unlike culture, still stays close to old steady state of thousands of years, ago. This will most likely be added to the DNA, since it has a long term time stamp on its side. Science is telling us to be unnatural instead, based on short term fads that lack the same level of engrained DNA time support. However, reason has been a long term affect and is engrained on our DNA. There is a reason religious books do not like change. The DNA needs time for its writing process.

Genealogy is important in Genesis since this implies DNA, which at that time, science associated with a blood connection. This was not a bad guess. These long term records implied a consistent mind set of traditions, for engraining onto the DNA. Science should marvel at this since it has implications for the present.