Inside the *BLACK BOX*. What *are* they thinking?

[PanAtheist]

What do you think goes on inside "the faithful"s heads?

Cal thinks it's "psychosis".
That, somehow, the brains of these folk are physically flawed, and this is the cause of their crazy actions.

PanAtheist thinks it is a conscious, reckless act of people discarding their reason and realizations, for expiditious reasons best known to each individual crazy-person, which is repeated again and again and again.

(NB, I also think, that in very *primitive* societies, "theism" was sprang out of an understandable primitive failure to recognise the fundamental differences between oneself and not-oneself.)

But what do *you* think?
And more to the point, how can we find out?

[a different tim]

I think it's a side effect of an evolved tendency to see patterns where there may not be any, and to attribute causes to things that we don't in fact know the causes of. It's been preserved because it is useful for survival even though it's factually wrong.

I expect to find out when I have a suitably large collection of living theist brains in jars that I can do unnecessarily cruel experiments on.

[PanAtheist]

I expect to find out when I have a suitably large collection of living theist brains in jars that I can do unnecessarily cruel experiments on.
Please let us know how that goes! :D

[UnknownUser]

For some it is simply the reiteration of prepubescent brainwashing by their parents, removing all space for capable thought. For others it is, as tim said, the false recognition of patterns not truly there, like if you listen hard enough to TV static you can 'hear' things. Others unfortunately willingly destroy their intelligence for such a false cause...

Each person has a different reason for being a theist, but all of them enslave the mind to utter domination by a dogma......

[Silentknight]

I think it's a side effect of an evolved tendency to see patterns where there may not be any, and to attribute causes to things that we don't in fact know the causes of. It's been preserved because it is useful for survival even though it's factually wrong.
It may also relate to Zahavi's Handicap Principle (http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap/handicap_principle.html).

I came across this as I was reading Richard Dawkins' chapter on Viruses of the Mind. I found this excerpt to be particularly interesting.

The premise of Zahavi's idea is that natural selection will favour scepticism among females (or among recipients of advertising messages generally). The only way for a male (or any advertiser) to authenticate his boast of strength (quality, or whatever it is) is to prove that it is true by shouldering a truly costly handicap - a handicap that only a genuinely strong (high-quality, etc.) male could bear. It may be called the principle of costly authentication. And now to the point. Is it possible that some religious doctrines are favoured not in spite of being ridiculous but precisely because the are ridiculous? Any wimp in religion could believe that bread symbolically represents the body of Christ, but it takes a real, red-blooded Catholic to believe something as daft as the transubstantiation. If you can believe that you can believe anything, and (witness the story of Doubting Thomas) these people are trained to see that as a virtue.
Therefore the more ridiculous or logically impossible a religious belief, the more it is valued. Religious people pride themselves on being able to believe things that are hard to believe, hence faith, the firm belief in something for which there is no proof, is considered an attribute. Anyone can be rational or skeptical, but in their minds it takes a truly fit individual to shoulder the highly costly handicap of religious zealotry and still be able to function. (Ironically when confronted with science these same people are often struck with a sudden attack of incredulity.)


Most people stay with whatever religion they were raised into from birth. Children are usually taught religious doctrines at a young age, when their minds are programmed by evolution to quickly assimilate new information such as language and its use. Once it's in there, it's REALLY hard to crowbar out. I imagine that asking theists to give up their religious beliefs would be like asking any one of us to stop using our native language and start speaking Latin.

[Gathercole]

I think it's a side effect of an evolved tendency to see patterns where there may not be any, and to attribute causes to things that we don't in fact know the causes of. It's been preserved because it is useful for survival even though it's factually wrong.
We shouldn't make the mistake of equating religions as we know them today with an evolved propensity of the brain. Even Judaism has only been around for a mere 150 human generations... less than 1% of the time humans have been on the earth. Before the very recent spread of the salvationist religions, peoples' beliefs were much more localized and not as extreme.

Why did salvationist religions only spread so recently? Somehow, they probably required high population densities and cities... they are probably better looked at as exploiting a feature of the human brain than as being the purpose of it.

[The Judge]

Interesting points here and a rather psychoanalytically inclined idea occurred to me:
Depending on the time scale you're talking about Gathercole, it could well be that the spread of salvationist religions, as you term them, have grown in relation to certain existential crises inherent in the growth of populations where the community is increasingly less important and a human being is only a useful as it's productive output. This has resulted in a backlash in the form an emergence of the cult of the individual in an attempt to re-assert the long lost meaning and significance that religions once gave to life and that industrial age living threatens.

I agree with ADT's ideas too. more specifically these are pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia) and apophenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia) which are psychological mechanisms which allow for the feeling of recognition and perception of interconnected meaning respectively, the latter of which is what goes into overdrive in certain kinds of psychosis where delusions of reference occur. These do indeed have psychological value from an evolutionary perspective, but appear to have been hijacked by peddlers of religions for years in an attempt to offer meaning and salvation to lives that are wanting in precisely these areas due to the existential crises evoked by modern living.

Of course I don't adhere very strictly to psychoanalysis at all, it's interesting from various view points, but it's not as evidence-based and cohesive as cognivitsm. Perhaps an amalgamation of the two as in the cognitive analytic paradigm could provide a more balanced perspective of exactly these questions.

[Gathercole]

"Salvationist" religions is a term from Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael. The term refers to the big modern religions, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, which teach that the world is a place of suffering and evil (or an illusory place) and the ultimate goal is to escape it ("salvation"). People argue back and forth about whether these religions were encouraged by the powerful, but there's no question that they are the best thing that ever happened to them. What could be better for the rich than a religion that glorifies being poverty? It's like borrowing money from someone, and telling him he'll be paid back after he dies.

This is why I think civilization was a necessary prerequisite for salvationist religions. Only in civilization did people recognize themselves as members of a class called "the poor" which differed fundamentally and consistently from "the rich." In tribal societies, poverty is a temporary state that affects everyone, due to the inability to store food.

[postbicameral]

Why is that the religious people never post in threads like this one? It's pretty laughable how the few theists in these forums pick and choose not only which threads to argue in, but which posts to argue and which to ignore.

[Choobus]

Why is that the religious people never post in threads like this one? It's pretty laughable how the few theists in these forums pick and choose not only which threads to argue in, but which posts to argue and which to ignore.
Why? Why do child molestors prefer nambla to the police? Why do African Americans prefer to go to chris rock shows instead of KKK meetings. Why do 100 lb weaklings decline to fight mike tyson for 5 american dollars? Theists are total cunts rather misguided and they suffer real mental harm when their delusional state is made so obvious that even their considerable powers of denial are tested. If they weren't responsible for so much nasty shit I'd feel sorry for them.

[postbicameral]

That's the weird part. Theists believe that an omnipotent being created the freaking universe. The ramifications of that belief are staggering. For example, it would mean that magic is real. It would mean that at any place and time, the god could cause all of the known physical laws of the universe to just... stop.

I would think, if I were a theist at least, that with that kind of shit at stake I would want to get all of the facts and make the most accurate call that I could before I started buying into it. It's just so damn silly!

Had to edit my italics tags...

[Realityhack]

I think it's a side effect of an evolved tendency to see patterns where there may not be any, and to attribute causes to things that we don't in fact know the causes of. It's been preserved because it is useful for survival even though it's factually wrong.
We shouldn't make the mistake of equating religions as we know them today with an evolved propensity of the brain. Even Judaism has only been around for a mere 150 human generations... less than 1% of the time humans have been on the earth. Before the very recent spread of the salvationist religions, peoples' beliefs were much more localized and not as extreme.

Why did salvationist religions only spread so recently? Somehow, they probably required high population densities and cities... they are probably better looked at as exploiting a feature of the human brain than as being the purpose of it.
I am not convinced that is true. Yes most large religons are from the recent past... because um... thats when there were large populations. Small tribal groups are not likely to form an international religion.

But as far as being as extreme? WTF are you getting at there? Lots of early religions involved litaral human sacrifice. Many involved erecting various monuments to the gods that were not at the time exactly easy given the amout of spare time and size of the prodjects. Those are prity extreme religions.
As for ancient man I for one definately do not know enough about their religious practices to say but I would not rule out their being just as extreme. Religion has a tendency to get linked to power and no good can come from that (IMO).

[Philboid Studge]

Like a big dummy, I launched a new thread (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=99491#p99491) that really belonged in here.

Although I didn't your address your "And more to the point, how can we find out?"

I dunno. I suppose we can start data sets of the pscyhe profiles of captors, particularly those who experienced capture-bonding; then compare with x-psychotics ... ADT's idea about brains in jars sounds good too.

[Realityhack]

Its going to be very diffrent for diffrent groups of thiests. A handfull of many posible reasons for any given thiests beleif may be:

Taught as a child and never bothered to question it. (little to no chance of posting on forums like this)

Feels special knowing something 'others don't'. (highly likely to post on forums like this, more likely to be YEC, etc.)

Needs to beleive in a rewarding afterlife to escape current life or feeling meaningless.

Needs to feel someone cares about them and what happens to them.

Some type of truama. Saved from something after coinsidentaly praying (or someone else was), raped by a priest (I know but that can actualy drive some of them TOWARD religion for who knows what reason), abused by a parrent etc (jesus loves me / escape see the one above)

Just plain gullable. The kind of person who bleives in crystal therapy etc. Typicaly combined with the second reason in my limited experience.

Literaly delusional and this is their chosen delusion (rare despite what cal might say, often they just start their own little cult).

Subconsiously socialy preasured into it. Not psychologicaly strong enough to question or break from the group (massive numbers here). Lots of fun experiments to show how persistant the problem is etc.

Feel guilty questioning others they respect like a parrent (ie. But if it was all wrong then mom was crazy and I can't accept that).

Commitment and consistancy. They jumped around sining like wackos and gave $20 a week to the church for several years. If they admit its wrong they would have to admit that that was all useless... so they don't admit its wrong... so they keep doing the stuff... so the commitment gets larger... etc. (all subconsious cognitive disonence).

Unwilling to accept that bad people just die. No punishment the just die like everyone else.

Unwilling to let go of loved ones who have died (same as beleiving in ghosts which is also very common. BTW the southpark on John Edwards kicks ass!!)

Brainwashed into beleiving that gut instinct is just as good as brains (ie grew up american). Typicaly an agravating factor rather than a sole reason.

I bet people can add several to that list.

[Realityhack]

I kindof forgot...

IMO the main reason is the one I sited above of not questioning the group and 'athority figures' (which I forgot to include) Yes they were all indoctronated as children but most children belived in santa as well. But the group accepts droping that bleif. Athority figures like parents endorse the dropping of the bleif so its ok.

Many experiments show how willing people are to go for athority figures. In fact they can do serious psychological damage to themselves because someone in a position of athority asked them to. Thats one of the things you have to be careful about in human subjects research.
There are many experiments showing how willing people are to go along with the group as well. One I recall put several people around a table. All were plants except one. Cards were passed around with two lines on them. Some with lines the same lenght and some with lines of clearly diffrent lenghts. The experiment was set up so the subject is the last to get the cards. Each person says wither they think the lines are the same length. But of course at some point you start having the plants lie. ALL of them, about the same card (actualy it may have been lying about every card) anyway, almost all subjects go along with the group opinion despite the fact that it is clearly wrong. And something like 10% actualy come out thinking their opinion actualy WAS wrong.

This is a massively powerful psychological bias (with reasonable evolutionary explanations) which is likely a very large factor in religion in the US and certain other places. In other areas being atheistic isn't really going against the group as the group is more mixed and perhapse expresses its opinion a bit less. Thus it becomes more of a folkway or even less than that vs. being more of a Morie in the US and various theocracies.

[Philboid Studge]

The New Yorker has a review of Daniel Dennet's new book (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon) here. (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?060403crbo_books)

Anybody read this book? The reviewer is lukewarm to it, though he raises a lot of interesting points relevant to this thread.