What is the Psychology/Mechanics of Religious Belief?

[David Davidovich]

That's a lot of exclusion.

Well, sorry, but I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with anyone about other religions, even if I tried.

 

[David Davidovich]

Generally, the mechanics of belief are essentially childhood indoctrination which results in responding to any doubts or challenges through confirmation bias and other forms of cognitive dissonance.

I partially agree with that because lots of people become very religious later in life.

There is not so much a notion of "highest principles", rather a necessary adherence to doctrine - which is why we find religionists at the same time claiming the moral high ground and defending actions like slavery and torture, often rationalised through a kind of Nuremberg Defence ("If god says it's ok, then it must be ok - who am I to argue?")

Sectarianism within a religion is not really any different to differences between religions, it's just a matter of details.

Since you pointed out what I said about the "highest principles," that brought to mind that what was I actually referring to was something that I read in an article a while back ago. Also, I tried to look up the article, but what I found looks like what I had read previously:

Activity in the parietal cortex, an area of the brain involved in awareness of self and others as well as attention processing, seems to be a common element among individuals who have experienced a variety of spiritual experiences, according to a study published online May 29 in the journal Cerebral Cortex.​

Also, the article said:

Spiritual experiences can be religious in nature or not, such as feeling of oneness in nature or the absence of self during sporting events. Researchers at Yale and the Spirituality Mind Body Institute at Columbia University interviewed 27 young adults to gather information about past stressful and relaxing experiences as well as their spiritual experiences. The subjects then underwent fMRI scans while listening for the first time to recordings based on their personalized experiences. While individual spiritual experiences differed, researchers noted similar patterns of activity in the parietal cortex as the subjects imagined experiencing the events in the recordings.​

Where the brain processes spiritual experiences -- ScienceDaily

 

[David Davidovich]

This is exactly what believers think. Maybe excluding your last sentence which is not a very good generalisation in my opinion.

My last sentence wasn't a generalization, but it involved real-life experiences.

 

[The Hammer]

Well, sorry, but I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with anyone about other religions, even if I tried.

You seem to be doing well enough with me.

 

[David Davidovich]

You seem to be doing well enough with me.

But not about religions other than Christianity.

 

[The Hammer]

But not about religions other than Christianity.

I believe in you

 

[The Hammer]

I partially agree with that because lots of people become very religious later in life.



Since you pointed out what I said about the "highest principles," that brought to mind that what was I actually referring to was something that I read in an article a while back ago. Also, I tried to look up the article, but what I found looks like what I had read previously:

Activity in the parietal cortex, an area of the brain involved in awareness of self and others as well as attention processing, seems to be a common element among individuals who have experienced a variety of spiritual experiences, according to a study published online May 29 in the journal Cerebral Cortex.​

Also, the article said:

Spiritual experiences can be religious in nature or not, such as feeling of oneness in nature or the absence of self during sporting events. Researchers at Yale and the Spirituality Mind Body Institute at Columbia University interviewed 27 young adults to gather information about past stressful and relaxing experiences as well as their spiritual experiences. The subjects then underwent fMRI scans while listening for the first time to recordings based on their personalized experiences. While individual spiritual experiences differed, researchers noted similar patterns of activity in the parietal cortex as the subjects imagined experiencing the events in the recordings.​

Where the brain processes spiritual experiences -- ScienceDaily

Try this book on for size.

How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist by Andrew B. Newberg

 

[ppp]

Hello. I'm new to this forum and I hope that this topic is in the correct forum. But I have a question particularly for nonbelievers, however, by no means it is a challenge question. Also, believers are free to post in this topic too.

So, what I would like to ask particularly to nonbelievers is: What is your view on the psychology/mechanics of religious belief and what exactly do you think that believers in God are technically believing in in regard to their desire, their love, their adherence to what they believe is God?

And the reason why I ask is because there are various versions of Christianity, which have contradictory and conflicting policies and doctrines, but yet, within these various versions of Christianity, there are people who are sincere and very serious about worshipping God and having a relationship with God. However, for the most part, the people in these various versions of Christianity believe that their way or interpretation of believing and worshipping God is correct while often times believing that Christianity outside of their version of Christianity is incorrect.

And to expound upon these ideas, it seems as if in reality, belief and devotion to God (for many) is believing in the highest principles in your mind that make you feel safe and hopeful about life, along with the highest principles in your mind that produce community and caring and good deeds for others and with others. And of course, this would be in contrast to the darkness and the hopelessness that exists in our world.

So, does anyone have any thoughts about this?

I don't think I disagree with anything you said there. Though I do think that they are believing that an actual extant god exists, and believing in the promises that they think that god made. It breaks my heart that so many of them think that they are worthless, helpless and hopeless without their god, and that the only way that they can have value is through his regard. I remember learning in a social work class long, long ago that feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and worthlessness are the major keys to suicide. They see the world a bleak place. It is no wonder that they cannot bring themselves to accept that non-believers have hope and joy in life.

 

[firedragon]

My last sentence wasn't a generalization, but it involved real-life experiences.

I was referring to your last sentence. Trying to stay etc etc. Not your whole post.

The point is, theists think of atheists the same way you think of theists. Exactly the same thing.

 

[KWED]

I partially agree with that because lots of people become very religious later in life.

"Lots" is a bit of an over statement. Plus most converts to a religion were already followers of another faith from infancy. The numbers that embrace any kind of religion for the first time as adults are statistically irrelevant.

Since you pointed out what I said about the "highest principles," that brought to mind that what was I actually referring to was something that I read in an article a while back ago. Also, I tried to look up the article, but what I found looks like what I had read previously:

Activity in the parietal cortex, an area of the brain involved in awareness of self and others as well as attention processing, seems to be a common element among individuals who have experienced a variety of spiritual experiences, according to a study published online May 29 in the journal Cerebral Cortex.​

Also, the article said:

Spiritual experiences can be religious in nature or not, such as feeling of oneness in nature or the absence of self during sporting events. Researchers at Yale and the Spirituality Mind Body Institute at Columbia University interviewed 27 young adults to gather information about past stressful and relaxing experiences as well as their spiritual experiences. The subjects then underwent fMRI scans while listening for the first time to recordings based on their personalized experiences. While individual spiritual experiences differed, researchers noted similar patterns of activity in the parietal cortex as the subjects imagined experiencing the events in the recordings.​

Where the brain processes spiritual experiences -- ScienceDaily

I have had many "spiritual experiences", some of then so profound as to reduce me to tears. However, none of them made me think they had a source external to my brain. Some of them were chemically induced and deliberate but still essentially relied on adjusted levels of naturally-occuring brain chemicals so one can understand why some people experiencing naturally occurring imbalances in electro-chemical activity in the brain might think something more "supernatural" was going on.
The brain can produce pretty much any experience imaginable (or even beyond imagination) for its owner. Some people believe that those experiences have a source external to the brain, despite there being no evidence of rational argument for that. If you have been told all your life that there is a god who produces such "spiritual experiences", if you have one it is highly likely you will attribute it to said god.

 

[KWED]

Science Says: Religion Is Good For Your Health

Essentially a self-fulfilling prophesy. Most religions contain prohibitions on certain behaviours and lifestyles. If any of these result in health issues, then one would expect to see some correlation.
However it is worth noting that despite the clickbait headline, the actual article acknowledges that there is little research on the issue and what there is tends to be inconclusive because of the difficultly in producing controlled data, and even defining terms.

And of course, just because it might have some health benefits doesn't make it true, and one has to balance any claimed benefit with all the disadvantages.

 

[KWED]

Edit: I mean, I'm pretty scientifically literate, I am also Religious.

So which religion do you follow, that accepts all the known or best explanations for observations rather than magical ones?

 

[KWED]

God is not a physical phenomena. God is a metaphysical phenomena. Being a philosophical materialist, you cannot allow for the validity of this realm of existence.

So presumably you accept the validity of any and all "metaphysical" claims? Yikes, that must be pretty confusing.

Also, if you reject any means of validating claims, how do you know what you claim is valid, is valid - or do you accept that nothing is valid, which makes your claims about a "metaphysical realm" utterly meaningless.

And that's the abject failure of materialism as a philosophical paradigm.

A bit like saying "And that's the abject failure of poetry as a fuel".

 

[Sheldon]

I liked your post, however, I didn't realize that other animals were prone to superstitious thinking. Also, I looked up information about the pigeon and got a lot of results for it, however, I didn't want to take the time to read those studies. However, do you know of any other studies with other animals? And if so, could you elaborate on that a little?

"What do chimp ‘temples’ tell us about the evolution of religion?"

<LINK>

 

[KWED]

I'm happy for you to give me, or refer me to, any satisfactory demonstration that "metaphysical phenomena" of this supernatural kind occur outside of the individual's brain ie have objective existence, are real.

I don't know of any.

But if you always demand objective evidence for the imaginary, you're never going to believe imaginary stuff exists.

 

[blü 2]

But if you always demand objective evidence for the imaginary, you're never going to believe imaginary stuff exists.

Golly! Why didn't I think of that!!??

 

[Sheldon]

So presumably you accept the validity of any and all "metaphysical" claims? Yikes, that must be pretty confusing.

The real irony is when he relentlessly accuses all atheists of bias, even though he disbelieves in all the deities atheists do, except one, and can't offer any objective difference between his and all the others, no matter how often he's asked.

Also, if you reject any means of validating claims, how do you know what you claim is valid, is valid - or do you accept that nothing is valid, which makes your claims about a "metaphysical realm" utterly meaningless.

He says "it works for him", I kid you not.

A bit like saying "And that's the abject failure of poetry as a fuel".

Or perhaps like holding a deck of cards, and saying "and that's the abject failure of a deck of cards, to have an invisible 53rd card".

 

[Sheldon]

My last sentence wasn't a generalization, but it involved real-life experiences.

Sorry, not sure of the context here, but it occurred to me that a magic show is a "real life experience", but this doesn't make magic real of course.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human being studied by another human especially with machines they design and use by a human using their mind control is laughable.

Seeing you make science comments about human behaviour in chosen organised chosen group gatherings is also laughable. As if those gatherings do no harm to anyone then why are you claiming it science advised?

If a human claims a type of group hurt them science is one of those groups.

What law deals with your choice and behaviour? Oh that's right science claiming you don't have rights to argue against their group.

So you have science who enjoys as peer pressure to own reasons to ridicule others Naming it science.

Yet a human observed another human is a human. Human organised wants is a human choice.

You use science as if it owns the answers to everything yet you are just a human. And many times not a nice thinking human as a lot of science so called advice is destructive first.

If you review why you use the advice yourselves.

So science says to a human if you hear voices it's because your brain was changed. I hear voice naturally and unnaturally.

The only unnatural voice is a sciences condition caused by machines.

I've had a spirit contact that didn't speak. Yet it affected my physical body without my control into such a loved and not judged aware status that I knew it owned a form of it's own presence and own control.

As human experiences own a huge list of types of body changes and guess what yes I know I'm a human having the experience. If I wasn't then it can't happen.

So your advice is that if you remove the human out of the experience science owns no explanation itself

As the natural human and not the scientist is first the human seeking proof as the proof that you don't own. The supernatural humans experience themselves is proven it's not science.

As what and who the teaching human and advice was for was the scientists doing all the research themselves.

If a humans gets physically changed they do and have. You say the supernatural effect is the human. As a human is a human it proves it wasn't the human as the body shouldn't have changed.

 

[Sheldon]

But not about religions other than Christianity.

Not to worry, though it's odd how often competing theists and apologists tell me I am an atheist because I haven't sufficiently studied their specific religion, when it is clear that most theists have likely only studied the one they adhere to, and even where they study more than one it's unlikely to encompass all. this would be less disconcerting of course, if any theist or apologist could offer an objective difference between the deity they believe in and all the others, but in almost 4 decades of asking that has never happened.