Is calpurnpiso right?

I'm new but I've enjoyed reading posts for a couple of months now.

I've been reluctant to dive in, but this thread is as good a place as any to thrown in my two cents on this topic about what causes irrational belief systems and, specifically, those that include deities/invisible friends. I would agree with others that this thread is damn good fun to read. Creative thought like this is hard to come by in today’s world.

Feel free to haze me for my naivety, or if you think I’m stating the obvious, if you must. But here goes.

I've long thought that some people actually born "needing god" in a deep, yearning way. Or, more precisely, with a propensity to "need god." In the same way that some people are born with a greater propensity to "need alcohol" or "need people" in an addictive way. So that, when they are exposed to religion, it is more “sticky.”

Of course, unlike alcohol and people, there is no god. But this innate emotional need overpowers reason -- creating the receptivity to any convenient belief system that meets the need.

That’s why I find the idea of the recent theory of a “god gene” such a fascinating possibility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Admittedly, I like it because it conveniently fits my long-held notions. And it would be a nice, simple answer to why most people in all civilizations have developed and institutionalized these irrational beliefs.

On a personal note, it explains to me why, even though like my siblings I grew up in a very evangelical christian environment, it didn't "stick." Even though it did with the rest of my family. Maybe I didn't get this god gene and everybody else did.

If that is, indeed, the case, lucky me!

Fiatlux wrote

I've long thought that some people actually born "needing god" in a deep, yearning way. Or, more precisely, with a propensity to "need god."
...That’s why I find the idea of the recent theory of a “god gene” such a fascinating possibility.... It would be a nice, simple answer to why most people in all civilizations have developed and institutionalized these irrational beliefs.

The God Gene theory has one key thing in common with cal's Delusion Virus theory: it proposes a biological cause without giving evidence of it. If there's a God Gene, shouldn't there be hereditary strings of believers? shouldn't we be able to track atheists in a family the way we can track, say, the color-blind? Same with the Delusion Virus theory: if it's contagious, as it seems to be (wildly so), why are some people immune in spite of being surrounded by believers. You sound like you came from a veritable petri dish of evangelicals.

The advantage of the pre-traumatic stress disorder theory is that it does not claim to be the cause of theism, but rather it is a culturally-induced condition that delivers so much comfort (an afterlife, for starters) that it takes both courage and rogue-thinking to break free of it. No wonder there are so few of us.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm still being dodged about the "other-religions" question. Do Buddhists and Taoists suffer from R-psychosis (or pre-TSD), and if they do, is it the same "type" of R-psychosis as Christians?

Also, HMS you talk about being able to track the "God Disease" through a family like any other mental illness. From just looking at members of this forum, the majority of atheists (here) come from a religious background (I was highly religious until around 15-16). What do you make of this? How do you explain atheists "getting cured"? No other mental illness can go away by not believing it anymore. You can't cure schizophrenia by talking about it, or showing the logical inconsistencies of schizophrenic thought. Religion seems more of an aspect of cultural conditioning, like Democracy and NASCAR. I'm sorry, but calling an aspect of cultural conditioning a "disease" seems to be bigotry (which was my initial attack on Cal; that he was a bigot. Cal's most likely not a bigot, but this line of thinking skates pretty close to the line).

Rhinoq

Rhinoqulous wrote

I'm still being dodged about the "other-religions" question. Do Buddhists and Taoists suffer from R-psychosis (or pre-TSD), and if they do, is it the same "type" of R-psychosis as Christians?

I didn't think I was dodging you. I don't know enough about Buddhism or Taoism, or many other isms to answer each specifically. But I'm saying that any religion that rests on a series of fantasies (a mythology) has, perforce, a congregation of deluded people, and delusion is a mental illness. Of course there are degrees. My AA-joke aside, I can't really say there are Unitarian psychotics because I don't think theism is a requirement in that church.

Rhinoqulous wrote

Also, HMS you talk about being able to track the "God Disease" through a family like any other mental illness. From just looking at members of this forum, the majority of atheists (here) come from a religious background (I was highly religious until around 15-16). What do you make of this?

I don't subscribe to the God gene theory, and that's one of the reasons.

Rhinoqulous wrote

How do you explain atheists "getting cured"? No other mental illness can go away by not believing it anymore. You can't cure schizophrenia by talking about it, or showing the logical inconsistencies of schizophrenic thought. Religion seems more of an aspect of cultural conditioning, like Democracy and NASCAR. I'm sorry, but calling an aspect of cultural conditioning a "disease" seems to be bigotry (which was my initial attack on Cal; that he was a bigot. Cal's most likely not a bigot, but this line of thinking skates pretty close to the line). --Rhinoq

Point taken. Maybe I am leaning toward bigotry here; let me give that more thought. The "cured" thing is an enduring question: How atheists spring from theistic families. I'm just glad I'm one of the acorns that fall far from the tree.

For the record, I never compared R-psychosis to schizophrenia. Far from it. I compare it to PTSD, which is in fact cured largely by talk therapy. (A good friend of mine is a psychiatrist at a midwestern Veterans' Hospital, so I have a lot of telling anecdotes about that.)
I agree that religion is a form of cultural conditioning; my question to you is: why does a fantasy-based system have such amazing stickiness (to use Fiatlux's great word)? After all, to express your belief in Democracy, you only have to vote. To join the NASCAR multitudes, you worship the internal combustion engine. Both are real. But to believe in Christ? I think the parallel breaks down.

First off, let me say 2 things.

1) I really like how you're thinking about the pre-TSD. It's an imaginative theory. I must say that I am absolutely terrified of death. I hate, hate, hate the thought of dying.

2) I think this whole Cal's whole pathogen theory, while really very fun, is really not really very smart.

To respond to your questions:

If there's a God Gene, shouldn't there be hereditary strings of believers? shouldn't we be able to track atheists in a family the way we can track, say, the color-blind?

I'm not saying that it is something as set-in-stone as color-blindness. What I'm thinking is an inherited "propensity" to need deep emotional fulfillment that the mind interprets as spiritual fulfillment. In the same way that inheriting a gene for alcoholism doesn't automatically make you an alcoholic (the actual use of alcohol is what contributes to that), so does the availability and use of religion make those with the god gene addicted to their beliefs.

I'm not saying my theory is correct. It's just a model that has been making a lot of sense to me.

Yeah, it was asking too much to apply Mendel's Laws of Inheritance to a theoretical God Gene in a family's DNA. Both you and Rhinoq called me on it. I withdraw the question.

Fiatlux wrote

I must say that I am absolutely terrified of death. I hate, hate, hate the thought of dying.

That makes you a living, breathing, posting challenge to my Pre-TSD theory: If fear of death nurtures religious belief, then how did you become an atheist? or were you always one (lacked the God gene)?

I was never very religious. For a while, I believed in a deist-type god, but I realized that a god that doesn't interact with humans is not really different from no god at all. My advice for those afraid of death is to consider the vast scope of our universe and think about how insignificant yet lucky you are. The odds of you being born are next to zero, so be glad that you get a few years to experience life. Mark Twain once joked "I was dead for billions of years before I was born and never suffered the slightest inconvenience."

[Philboid Studge]

Rhinoq wrote

I'm still being dodged about the "other-religions" question. Do Buddhists and Taoists suffer from R-psychosis (or pre-TSD), and if they do, is it the same "type" of R-psychosis as Christians?

Hey Rhinoq. First, I think it's clear that this is a theory-in-the-making. As such, there will no doubt be refinements along the way and challenges like yours can only help. I have no problem thinking of pre-TSD as a broad spectrum illness. Neurotics can include casual believers (perhaps only there for social reasons) to those who truly think they are interacting with supernatural entities; Psychotics are those who hear voices, see visions, obsess over Scripture, bomb abortion clinics, etc; Psychopaths are the martyrs, suicide-bombers, Scientologists ...

If it's true that the neurosis is caused by the pre-trauma of death, it stands to reason that there will be various strains across cultures, since different cultures handle death differently. This should be no more of a stretch than calibrating different forms of influenza, say.

Buddhists might be carriers of a particular strain. At its core is the assurance that an ill-spent life will be re-lived -- a second chance, then another ... They've elevated the idea, though, because the ultimate goal is to break the cycle of re-birth by living a fully enlightened life. In a sense, it's a middle ground between the happy talk you get from Xianity and the full-blown acceptance of the fact that we just ain't coming back.

I'm not so sure about Taoism. They may not be neurotic or psychotic at all. Is there any overtly delusional thinking going on there? At least they appreciate the fact that ultimate reality defies human language.

How do you explain atheists "getting cured"? No other mental illness can go away by not believing it anymore. You can't cure schizophrenia by talking about it, or showing the logical inconsistencies of schizophrenic thought.

Plenty of neuroses -- certainly many phobic disorders -- are 'cured' by rational exploration of the fear or obsession. Not really so different than what most of us have gone through.

I'm just spit-balling here, as this is, as I say, an inchoate theory -- and an intriguing one. (Maybe saliva is the vector?)

Hey Fiatlux. Welcome.

It seems odd that a Buddhist or a Hindu would be afraid of death. In fact, the goal of those religions is to reach a state of non-being by escaping the cycle of reincarnation. They invented a solution for a non-existent problem.

[Rhinoqulous]

HMS Beagle wrote

I didn't think I was dodging you. I don't know enough about Buddhism or Taoism, or many other isms to answer each specifically. But I'm saying that any religion that rests on a series of fantasies (a mythology) has, perforce, a congregation of deluded people, and delusion is a mental illness. Of course there are degrees. My AA-joke aside, I can't really say there are Unitarian psychotics because I don't think theism is a requirement in that church.

Fair enough, but I don't think every aspect of religious belief will fit into your pre-TSD theory. As for psychosis, God genes, memes, and whatever else, I fear I've lumped all the different flavors of theories people are endorsing and lumping them into my responses to you, HMS. I apologize, and will stick to your rather interesting concept of pre-death trauma in future posts.

The "cured" thing is an enduring question: How atheists spring from theistic families. I'm just glad I'm one of the acorns that fall far from the tree.

Same here. I was raised in a fairly fundamentalist family. Not too fun. I'm the only one of my family to "turn away" from religion, though some of my siblings are not overly religious, but still believe in a god.

For the record, I never compared R-psychosis to schizophrenia. Far from it. I compare it to PTSD, which is in fact cured largely by talk therapy. (A good friend of mine is a psychiatrist at a midwestern Veterans' Hospital, so I have a lot of telling anecdotes about that.)
I agree that religion is a form of cultural conditioning; my question to you is: why does a fantasy-based system have such amazing stickiness (to use Fiatlux's great word)? After all, to express your belief in Democracy, you only have to vote. To join the NASCAR multitudes, you worship the internal combustion engine. Both are real. But to believe in Christ? I think the parallel breaks down.

The "reality" of religion I would say is going to church. It's the set rituals and dogma of Sunday morning. It's communion, standing and sitting, praying, etc. Face it, most theists don't get much beyond the base rituals of their faith; beyond that, they don't think about it (at least this is what I've observed). Of course, you have exceptions with people like Thomas and Lurker who rationally think about their faith (and that new theist, what's his/her name, include him/her too).

As for stickiness, that is a good question, and you may have something with pre-death trauma (at least as far as Christianity goes). I also see religion as a connection to family and community, not just as a "Get out of Death Free" card.

I'm starting to see why I'm commonly mistaken for a theist here, from all the posts I make defending religious beliefs from certain theories. I should start ending all my posts with reminder that the author, though he may defend certain aspects of religious belief, is in no way religious himself or suggests anyone actually try religion. It's best left to the experts. :P

Rhinoq, Weak Atheist and Defender of Logical Consistency

Me: I must say that I am absolutely terrified of death. I hate, hate, hate the thought of dying.

HMS: That makes you a living, breathing, posting challenge to my Pre-TSD theory: If fear of death nurtures religious belief, then how did you become an atheist? or were you always one (lacked the God gene)?

_____________________

Now that I've had a little time to think about this, I'm not so sure that my hatred of the idea of death is a challenge to your Pre-TSD theory, but rather somewhat of an affirmation of it. I wasn't always an athiest. I didn't fear death nearly as much when I was a young pup and believed in heaven and the streets paved with gold. Because I wasn't going to cease to exist, but instead to enter an eternal reward with grandma and grandpappy and maybe, if I was lucky, my pet dog fluffernutter that got squished by the UPS truck.

Now that I've realized how irrational that is, and how random and arbitrary death can be, I hate the idea of dying. One reason for that is because I cannot comprehend what not being conscious means. It's the equivalent of a divide-by-zero error in my brain. Secondly, I love life. I love thinking and enjoying the world. I want to be a part of this forever. But I know I can't and that once it's over, it's over.

Thus my fear of death is magnified because is no longer insulated by the protective soma of christianity. But I can't go back there, because it such obvious horseshit.

One concept you threw out catches my imagination: that of, as you call it, "rogue thinking." Perhaps this is why I became an athiest. Maybe combined with a lack of a god gene, maybe not. Or maybe there's a rogue thinking gene that overpowered my god gene and broke me free. All I know is that I went from fundamentalist believing (and even arguing for a young earth against my evolutionist biology teacher in my (Kansas of all places) high school classroom) to being agnostic almost overnight. And finally transitioned to complete athiesm. I can't point to the exact moment of my "conversion," but it had a lot to do with my beliefs impacting with the real world and the cognative dissonance that ensued. Also, finding out that there were smart, happy people in the world that didn't share my beliefs.

Here's another thing to consider about genetics, and that is the universal concept of the "black sheep." Perhaps there is something genetically trackable about this phenomena. A recessive gene or something. And perhaps an evolutionary reason for it. Maybe the occasional rogue thinking black sheep helps shake up the gene pool and keep things from becoming too homonogized. Maybe black sheep are nature's evolutionary agent for progress, in that they are never content with the status quo.

I know I'm way off the speculative deep end here, but, what the heck, that's what this thread is all about, no?

[Rhinoqulous]

Hey Philboid, may your bong-water stay fresh and never spill.

Like Brick commented, I don't think Eastern religions, such as Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism fit the pre-TSD theory very well. In buddhism, the point is to stop existing, so it's not really adopting religious beliefs to counter death; it's adopting religious beliefs in order to get a guaranteed death (except for the Buddhists who believe in an after life, I can't keep track of all the damn sub-sets of religions anymore). As for Taoism, I'm more familiar with Philosophical Taoism and not Religious Taoism. PT doesn't really say one way or another about an after-life and gods; RT I know has "ghosts" and other spirits, as well as a strict diet, but not sure about gods (though I think RT do have priests). Wait, RT would fit into this, because they're obsessed with living forever, but not as a spirit (through proper diet).

I do have to admit that this whole pre-death trauma is interesting. I may have come off a bit hard on the idea initially because of its connection to Cal, whom I admit I have a bias against. I'll think about it, and get back to everyone on the morrow.

Rhinoq

It seems to me that:

A) In humanity's attempt to understand the world in pre-historic times, the idea of gods was formulated to explain things that they did not understand, and to possibly gain some kind of control over nature's actions through the act of appealing to these gods with prayer, worship, rituals, sacrifices, etc.. It may be that this was a natural response to the unknown since it seems to have happened in all (or almost all) cultures.

B) That these ideas were passed on culturally, with each generation being exposed to these ideas throughout their most impressionable years as a form of brainwashing.

C) Due to the prevalence of these ideas within each culture and the seriousness with which they were conveyed, there most have been very strong negative reinforcement to challenge them even absent the brainwashing, especially considering the positive reinforcement derived from the sense of community and the desire to belong. The lack of exposure to alternative explanations probably also played a role.

E) As one culture came into contact with another, they discovered that they might have the same types of gods but with different names, so their ideas weren't fundamentally challenged.

F) Obviously, wherever there were conflicts between various beliefs, it became a matter of survival of the fittest - sometimes because one group defeated another and sometimes because one set of beliefs provided things the other lacked (or was more attractive and compelling somehow).

G) As humanity learned more about how nature operated and was able to control more of nature using reason as opposed to sacrifice (for example) there came to be less and less of a need for some of the minor gods (eg; the ability to control flooding might diminish the power of the river god in people's lives). This may have been a factor in the success of monotheism over polytheism (increased understanding had left only the larger questions of "Creation" and life and death unresolved).

H) It is only relatively recently that the idea of using scientific method to understand nature has begun to challenge superstitious beliefs that have existed for thousands of years -- and it is only even more recently that the results of this type of inquiry have proposed possible answers to the larger questions.

Conclusions:

1) It may be the nature of humans to provide supernatural explanations for things that they are ignorant about when these explanations might not seem any more bizarre (to them) than the thing they are attempting to explain (lightning might be fairly frightening and bizarre to someone who doesn't understand why it is happening). It may just be a result of a need to have more control over their world. In some respects, this is how I think religion began.

2) The religions which exist today proved to be the "fittest" for what they were intended for and the most resistant to attack. The success of monotheism results from the fact that it limits its venerability to attack to the larger questions.

3) The fact that people still believe in these religions may be because:

* ignorance regarding how to reason using logic, ignorance of the scientific method, and ignorance about what has been discovered by application of that knowledge (all to varying degrees - though some only know enough to make them dangerous).

* the cultural inertia of the "fittest" religions combined with early brainwashing and the same kinds of positive and negative reinforcement covered in "C" above.

* their perception that the results of scientific inquiry have not definitely ruled out supernatural occurrence or discounted their answers to the larger questions.

I think that another aspect to consider is that most of them don't think about it too much beyond the social aspect. Many of them may not believe in various aspects of their own religion (or even be aware of them and how they might conflict with reality or reason), but they say they believe because they have a greater need for the social comforts they feel they are getting out of it. I've found that when confronted with some of the more unbelievable aspects, many will fall back and say they might not believe that detail, but they believe in the larger ideas.

There are also people who, by their personality, are followers (or people that don't want to stand out or rock the boat or take a chance, etc.). There even are people that spurn knowledge and glorify their ignorance (while promoting their so-called "common sense"). Many of these same kind of people would rather think that they are a part of some greater purpose than take responsibility for coming up with one of their own. They are afraid they would be lost without some external control to guide them through life and religion provides an easy answer to allay their fears (including fear of death). One of the reasons that I believe so many of them are so intolerant of other religions and the non-religious is because it is a way to convince themselves of their own doubts.

Well, that is my two cents.

As a challenge to help HMS and Philboid along with their theory, maybe you can tell me what predictions the PTSD theory makes about theists and atheists and what scientific tests you would propose in order to validate your theory ? After all, maybe atheists have PTSD based on the perceived trauma of meeting their creator, and your viewpoint is just an elaborate denial of that perceived truth ? How could we tell the difference ?

Oh, and just for fun, I'm interested in any other potential mental diseases I may be unknowingly harboring :)

[calpurnpiso]

One must realize the brain is what produces ALL our thoughts and CREATES the mind. PTSD is just another name used to define an anomaly ( disease) this brain is affected by. I can simply hide behind Thomas and hit him on this temporal lobes, the right spot, and undoubtedly he'll succumb to Christian visions while he is out. I'm certain he'd be certain something supernatural occurred while he was out!. The samething would happen to a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, et al...if I proceded to sneak behind them and hit them on the brain! Some may not have seen anything but I'm certain those infected with the RVirus will experienced this trauma differently. Many versions of inner trauma causing dreams but the same hammer hitting them with equal force.

Now, the timing of the hit can produced different results ( thinking reactions of the brain). Let's say I hit Thomas after he awakes from a nap...or let's say I hit him after he arrives from Church on Sunday..well, the visions produced by the trauma will be very DIFFERENT. In one he may have angels visiting him, the other Jesus may have whispered something in his ear....a demon may have danced a top of a drum on another, on another he'll have simply a headache and the visions may have already sunk into the subconscience so he would not remember them etc.

PTSD, is not much different that a person being slowly consumed by alzheimers or other neurological disorders. Thought this one is sudden. One must also observe this other newly found disorder "post partum depression". This is so utterly ridiculous, a woman is being tore appart, her body chemistry changing, a creature is being rejected by her body and then expulsed with all of that blood and pain! ..and these idiots are surprised the woman is suffering from depression! Alas, the depression is caused IMHO, by the religious virus in EVERY case!..let's see how many atheist women giving birth suffer from PPD?

Why don't these blind psychiatrists do research on this?. It is obvious Andrea Yates was not well from a very young age, and his parents infecting her with Christ-psychosis really screw her up, then the coup de grace was her marriage to another infected Christ-psychotic. Results?..despair, Christian guilt anguish and imoral delusional teachings plaguing her already sick brain...so, she drowned her children!..of course the retarded "neurologists" obviously infected by the invisible Christ-psychosis brain disease blame "PPD" as the cause...! I'm certain she had other neurological problems, but the principal trigger was Christ-psychosis. Why don't these ignorant "neurologists also blame PPD for the actions of Jim Jones, Doe of Heaven's Gate, Koresh, Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, the lady that stone her children and idiots like Tom Cruise exhibiting his delusional thinking and ignorance?

One must realize that the brain construction took 1/2 billions years of trial, error and good amount of chance to evolve into the organ we use for thinkin and makes matter be aware of its own existence. Our biological computer. ALL animals have one, some creatures have two!..what does this tell us if we reason with a healthy brain? We can AFFECT this organ with drugs, trauma or disease for it to produce, irrationalities, stupid delusional thinking, and the delusions of our choosing!! Alas, but why to think rational and accept this obvious and testable fact? Too much work and thinking! So in our lazy natural selves it is better to believe Zappy the god of Genesis ( for Abrahamic folks) zapped everything into existence, so we can enjoy the delusions without worrying about the fact that when we died we are no more. It doesn't take that much thinking to create DELUSIONS. But non existence can be beautiful!..returning to the originator of thoughts while the brain desintegrates each particle is going its own way disipating into the essence of matter. It is a FACTUAL trip, a revelation of science, we atheists could look forward to take....:)