God, Fantasy and Belief

[Gary Wassner]

I think you may be misunderstanding my intent, Boll. I am not expressing my beliefs necessarily. What I am trying to point out is that we make assumptions all the time, and many of those assumptions are reliant upon the sense that actions are not value neutral. If we assume that, then we need to justify that. The easiet way to justify that is to fix in our minds the concept of a transcendent being who epitomizes all that is good. That concept has become ingrained in our consciousness over time, and we often don't even realize that we are assuming the existence of this kind of ideal, hence we often claim we are atheists, agnostics, non-believers when in fact our entire personal moral system relies upon the belief in the ultimate - right and wrong, good and evil -that transcends time and place, society, history etc. We accept this intuitively and unconsciously when it comes to morality but reject it consciously and rationally when it comes to religion and faith.

I just find it interesting to disect this issue.

Morals may very well be modified survival traits. I am not at all claiming that they are not. You miss my point. But regardless, what we choose personally to ground those traits when they become conceptualized is what i am interested in. Surely all societies must develop rules in order to survive. And it's fascinating to learn how they enforce them. Some use physical force and some psychological force. Organized religion is just one of the means to enforce order on a chaotic world. And today, much of the effect of the past centuries of such education has resulted in this ingrained sense of right and wrong that is ultimately based upon the judeo-christian model. Though we may consciously reject the model, we still suffer the effects of it.

I hope I explained myself a bit more clearly?

 

[Boll Weevil]

Ah yes...I get it. Thanks. You're not saying that's necessarily what you believe, merely that it is used as a belief bedrock system either deliberately or subconsciously by individuals and society. And you are questioning the howness and whyness of this?

Is that close enough?

Cheers

BW

 

[Gary Wassner]

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[sephira]

To my knowledge no stable society has existed without some provision for the worship of a god or gods. Again, this provision is rooted in the nature of the human person: Is it fair to say that we (society) fear man is limited and his fate is ultimately not in his own power to determine? If so, why?

 

[Gary Wassner]

I believe that China is a stable society, and I believe that they do not worship God in the way most other cultures do. Though we might want to argue that communism and Mao are the gods of their society.

 

[sephira]

I believe that China is a stable society, and I believe that they do not worship God in the way most other cultures do. Though we might want to argue that communism and Mao are the gods of their society.

That's just the government (not my definition of "society"). The actual citizens of China seem to be very religious, from Buddhism, Taoism (a concept that doesn't involve a god so much as just eternal harmony in balance....guess that would make balance the "god") even to Islam and Christianity. China is religiously diverse, but quietly so.

And yes, communism is a god ruling with an iron fist for that society.

So another question, would a godless society necessarily end in chaos? Why can't we just trust ourselves to be "good" and "moral" without interjecting GOD.

And does believing that we are just pieces of a larger puzzle and that collective whole is more powerful than the individual players mean I believe in god?

 

[Gary Wassner]

I tend to agree with you about China, though I really have no first hand experience with regard to their general population. I know that so many Russians were passionately religious throughout the reign of the Soviet Union, regardless of party politics.

Yes, Sephira, in the context of my discussion, I would have to say that you definitely qualify as a believer though you may not have called what you belive in God. And that was precisely my point.

I would also tend to think that many readers and lovers of fantasy have a similar underlying sense of belief, though perhaps quite non-traditional.

 

[Eperitos]

I tend to agree with you about China, though I really have no first hand experience with regard to their general population. I know that so many Russians were passionately religious throughout the reign of the Soviet Union, regardless of party politics.

Yes indeed. In fact the USSR was so unsuccesful at rooting out the Orthodox faith, that they just ended up trying to replace it.

The Communists tried to replace Christianity with so called rationalist scientific beliefs. People were so reluctant, even in that environment, to give up their religious beliefs that the USSR ended up promoting science like it was a religion. For example having holidays where those who were followers had days off.

 

[Davis Ashura]

Thank you, Boll. My sentiments exactly. Opinion is not the yardstick. The majority is not the yardstick. The herd can be taught to follow just about anyone when its personal safety and welfare is at stake, sad to say. And it can be even more easily coerced to follow.

So what should the yardstick be? What are our personal yardsticks? Again I ask, who are our gods and what shape have they assumed for us today? The god of Marxism has faded, the God of our fathers is ineffective and we see corruption everywhere. Rome fell ages ago. So who are our gods today? The god of nothingness? Nihilism? Surely we all have gods. The god of self indulgence? Who? Tell me?

Would it be too simple to say that I'm a Christian who has faith, but also strong moments of doubt? I have been reading a lot about the coming "Singularity" recently - the idea that human technology has been on a near exponential growth curve and that soon, we will reach a point where the growth in knowledge becomes so astronomical that we won't be able to 'see past the event horizon'. It presupposes that humans are hard-wired for all actions in the sense that everything that is 'me' is physical. Nothing that is 'me exists outside of my brain. It is a terrifying concept, although Dawnstorm seems non-plussed by it. When I read things like that, I have my doubts as far as my faith goes, especially because I'm educated enough as a physician to recognize the possible truth in that position.
I once argued with Scott Bakker that we won't truly understand how the human brain works for at least another hundred years. What I failed to take into account was the possibility that our knowledge will remain exponential. In that case, it is very likely that within fifty years, it will be possible to 'prove' that all human behavior is physical. In that case, the idea of choice really does go out the window since we would be 'free' to choose to change our behavior without messy morality or 'feelings that something is right or wrong', but by simply flipping a switch.
Where would God fit in there?

 

[Davis Ashura]

Interesting aside. Western Europe is currently undergoing a rather dramatic shrinkage in her white population. It is also true that Western Europe is devoutly secular or at least areligious, and very few white, young people go to any Church. I wonder if these two facts are causally related ie lack of religious belief in some way disinclines an individual (given adequate material needs) toward having children. If so, it would seem that the areligious would eventually be bred out. Is this evolution?

 

[Gary Wassner]

Interesting Radone. The religious remain alive and the non-believers become scarcer and scarcer due to their non-belief. Ironic, right? Well, it's obvious that if you don't practice birth control then you will undoubtedly have more children than those who do. But does lack of faith compell you to intentionally bring less children into the world? I don't know about that.

Hard wired is the catch phrase of the month. I was reading in the paper this morning: Hard-wired to prefer cute critters. A psychology prof at EMory Univ discovered that 'cute' pictures increase brain activity associated with pleasure and postive emotion.

So 'cute' is no longer a relative term? We all now define cute in the same way? Is that true for beauty as well? Or is this hard-wiring just behaviorial conditioning over long periods of time? I think sometimes we make much too much out of the brain activity the machines measure, as if responses in the brain are sui generis. They are responses, and they can be conditioned as much as anything else. So what does this prove? All this talk about hard-wiring is getting ridiculous. Sure, much of what we do and much of how we react has little to do with conscious choice. Reactions, spontaniety etc. may well have to be unconscious for us to survive. And we can probably condition a population to do just about anything if the process is intense enough. Still, didn't the Soviet Union try and try to purge the population of its religious inclination, and it just didn't work. So maybe the need for a transcendental meaning is hard-wired too, from centuries of other conditioning.

Has no one ever discussed the possiblity that genes and whatever causes the hard-wiring can evolve in conjunction with stimuli over time? Evolution, right. Sure, much of what we do and much of how we react is motivated by knee-jerk biological responses. But is everything we do? We seem to make choices daily. We seem always to have to decide between options. Are we deluded? Are we all in the twilight zone? I am typing now. The phone rings. I can let it ring or answer it. I can never trace the path back far enough to know if I answered that call because I was hard-wired to feel resonsibility. But I still answered the phone. Me. I picked it up and a whole new set of contingent circumstances began. Free will may have a different meaning under the circumstances, but I don't see that it is annihilated by any of this. We just have to define it differently.

All of this gives me a headache. Am I hard wired for headaches? Maybe I need some coffee. The cafeine stimulates the brain. Maybe my hard-wired choice to drink coffee negates the headache hardwiring and sets off a whole new set of circumstances. Am I hard wired to question these things, or am I just questioning them because my hard wiring went bad? Maybe I need drugs. Should I talk to my doctor to do some genetic tests on me to see if I have a propensity for drug abuse? Or am I just hardwired to be a hypochondriac?

 

[Davis Ashura]

Interesting Radone. The religious remain alive and the non-believers become scarcer and scarcer due to their non-belief. Ironic, right? Well, it's obvious that if you don't practice birth control then you will undoubtedly have more children than those who do. But does lack of faith compell you to intentionally bring less children into the world? I don't know about that.

I can't answer that question either. It's an interesting observation because the 'blue' states in the US are also less religious than the 'red' states, and also are on the cusp of a significant decline in population.

Hard wired is the catch phrase of the month. I was reading in the paper this morning: Hard-wired to prefer cute critters. A psychology prof at EMory Univ discovered that 'cute' pictures increase brain activity associated with pleasure and postive emotion.

I'm also frustrated with this phrase because I don't think it is defined properly. It seems to imply that our choices are not the product of free will but simply the product of evolution forcing our brains to think in certain ways. It's a software package pre-written that strongly predisposes us to certain behaviors. In this case, we 'like' cute things because our brains have a software package that makes us like cute things as defined by the society in which we live. Choice plays a minimal role in this.
I don't think that is really what is meant. Rather, when I read 'hard-wired', I think of a more expansive idea: that is all that is 'me' exists in discrete physical packages that can be translated and decoded. "Me" is a physical process, but what does that mean 'me' actually is? Am I just a brain who's current software package is 'me', but with enough knowledge can be easily re-written. The idea of 'self' seems shattered in such a place since we then cease to be discrete 'individuals' but discrete software packages.

Has no one ever discussed the possiblity that genes and whatever causes the hard-wiring can evolve in conjunction with stimuli over time? Evolution, right. Sure, much of what we do and much of how we react is motivated by knee-jerk biological responses. But is everything we do? We seem to make choices daily. We seem always to have to decide between options. Are we deluded? ...
Free will may have a different meaning under the circumstances, but I don't see that it is annihilated by any of this. We just have to define it differently.

All of this gives me a headache.

I'm with you on that one.

 

[Boll Weevil]

If there is no difference between actual and perceived free will what practical difference does it make?

And to get really fizzy on all this: We can regard the universe as one big science experiment from start to finish. Just like those reactions in chem lab, when you mix substance A with substance B it always turns blue, explodes or melts. Always. Hence we do what we do always. If this universe is on a thirty billion year loop, in thirty billion years an exact replica of me will be writing this same thing. In other words we cannot escape our predetermined laws of physics fate. But wait...that's Newton talking.

What about quantum mechanics? The multiverse theory, sub-atomic particles describe a probabilty of where they might be, which collapses to an actual event. The electron observed/unobserved experiment. Now we have a free will get out, because we are all made of sub-atomic particles hence it is possible that it is indeterminate as to precisely what we will do.

But in either case the perceived actuality will be no different. But perhaps the quantum model makes us feel better.

And now I will randomly throw squirrels out of my office window..nobody, not even the universe at its sneakiest expected that.


"DIE SQUIRRELLY FIENDS DIE"

 

[Gary Wassner]

I am sure you have squirrel hating genes in your family somewhere!

Or genes for randomly insane behavior.

Or genes for breaking rules.

Or genes for cruelty.

Are you sad when the squirrels hit the ground? Maybe you have genes for squirrel compassion.

Gosh, this is so confusing.

 

[sephira]

If there is no difference between actual and perceived free will what practical difference does it make?

None at all, nada, nilch....moving on to the next unanswerable question.

And to get really fizzy on all this: We can regard the universe as one big science experiment from start to finish. Just like those reactions in chem lab, when you mix substance A with substance B it always turns blue, explodes or melts. Always. Hence we do what we do always. If this universe is on a thirty billion year loop, in thirty billion years an exact replica of me will be writing this same thing. In other words we cannot escape our predetermined laws of physics fate. But wait...that's Newton talking.

Channeling dead scientists again, are you, Mr. Weevil? Can you summon Plato? I'd like to hear his take on all of this.

And now I will randomly throw squirrels out of my office window..nobody, not even the universe at its sneakiest expected that.

While your action may be unexpected, blame no one but yourself when the laws of physics kick in and it's equal and opposite reaction time for the squirrels. I'd be watching you back if I were you!


Now, back to the idea of "survival of the religious". I find research into finding if a true "god/faith" gene exists extremely fascinating. Most likely because I believe I was passed over when those were handed out. And if it does exist, and some humans don't have the holy gene, what do they have in its place?

I almost have to think this gene is possible. Because I know for a long time, I tried so hard to "believe" and to have "faith"....but nothing came. I was attempting to force something that just didn't exist for me, but clearly does for others.
If the faith gene is ever proven to exist in my life time, will I become something akin to a faithfully handicapped person? And does that mean if I am wrong and there really is someone standing outside the pearly gates, can I hand him my card stating my genetic downfall as an excuse and be allowed inside anyway? Ooooh I can see it now! LOL!

**Disclaimer, apologies for myself, far too much eggnog last night. Makes ones head fuzzy the next day in regards to fancy-smanchy scientific talk, therefore I inject poor attempts of humor into conversation.
Gonna shut up now.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I like the idea of this religious disability. I wonder if you could get special dispensation on the exams in religious school? Time and a half to pray, the right to use computer graphics to help visualize the Divine, notes from the Big Teacher to help you study. The possibilities are infinite

I am sure someone will isolate the 'faith' gene soon and then we will all know whether we believe or not because we are deranged or presupposed.

 

[Boll Weevil]

Sephira,

Plato's view:A denial of free will was implicit in Plato's argument that, because no one would deliberately choose a worse over a better course of action, people's decisions are determined by their understanding (or ignorance) of what constitutes the good.

..and now I'll have to go and lie down, channelling dead scientists/philosophers is sooo exhausting.

The pesky squirrels are at my door with torches and pitchforks, again. And the police, seemingly people have been complaining about the "squirrel rain." Messed up the sidewalk, so it did.

 

[sephira]

BW,
Miss Cleo just called and wants her clients back.

And the mess on the sidewalk, guess that answered my next question...No, they obviously weren't "flying" squirrels....or if they were, they weren't very good at their supposed talent, and in that case, their death really wasn't your fault at all....the squirrels should blame the misfortune of bad genes.

Would churches have faithfully handicapped parking places? You know, because those who aren't predisposed to pray might need a little extra leverage in getting them inside the chapel....closer parking, easier access?
And maybe a discount at those Christian bookstores too!!!!

 

[Dawnstorm]

Causality isn't easy to gauge when it comes to human behaviour. If you observe a significant correlation between reproduction rate and faith (which you'd have to define; time-span and all), you don't have any information yet on how they're related.

Gary's point about birth controly is certainly an important factor.

But the problem is this: Religious people can have atheist children. Atheists can have religious children. While this is possible under the application of Mendel's laws, I doubt it's purely genetic.

So what is the relationship between reproduction rate and faith? Is faith an independant variable influencing the dependant variable reproduction rate (via the mechanism of birth control)? Is reproduction rate the independent variable influencing faith (by providing more people for interaction and - therefore - increasing social pressure and frustrations, increasing the demand for "rules" - note that this - in itself - brings with it a lot of hypotheses that need to be tested)? Are both faith and reproduction rate dependant variables of some hidden variable (can't think of anything)? Is the correlation between faith and reproduction rate dependant on some interaction effect between the independant variable (whether it be faith or reproduction rate) and some other independent variable ("public opinion" as expressed in mass media, for example)?

The tricky thing is that non of these relationships are mutually exclusive. Whether "faith" or "reproduction rate" is the independant variable depends on research design. There are statistical methods to differentiate between "better" results, though.

Faced with that kind of chaos, I can understand the attraction of naturalistic metaphor's, such as hard-wired. If you could actually tackle the problem of faith entirely in terms of the natural sciences, this would be a lot easier to resolve. I doubt it, however. With all our knowledge about genetics and evolutionary principles, we haven't really mastered evolution. We can explain a lot after the fact, and we can use this knowledge to exert influence but we can't reliably predict evolution.

What, I think, the social sciences can add to science is a better understanding of relations where it's not clear which way the arrow of causality points.

I do think you've asked an interesting question, Radone.

A psychology prof at EMory Univ discovered that 'cute' pictures increase brain activity associated with pleasure and postive emotion.

This says nothing, really. What definition did he use for "cute"?

I suspect a hidden circle argument: if it's cute, there's this brain activity; if there isn't this brain activity, it isn't cute. Ultimately, this sounds to me like:

When we perceive something as cute, our brain reacts in ways as if we perceived something that's cute.

Out of interest, did he define "cute" in terms of subjective assessment of probands, in terms of behavioural science (big eyes - mother instinct - relationship)?

The problem, here, is that we cannot use our everyday-conceptions of "cute", and apply it to his findings. The question of what "cute" means, in this case, is a question of research design.

I think sometimes we make much too much out of the brain activity the machines measure, as if responses in the brain are sui generis.

I agree; we jump to conclusions and mistake that for science.

Free will may have a different meaning under the circumstances, but I don't see that it is annihilated by any of this. We just have to define it differently.

To me, "free will" and "biological determinism" have always been two sides of the same coin; a dualism, aspects of a thing. Not tow opposed principles, a duality, I guess.

I guess, I agree, here: the difference is in the definition.

 

[Boll Weevil]

Dawnstorm,

Kudos to you, now I understand why you are titled "master obsfucator".

Never don't think that we do not fail to not enjoy such non-specific unrelated counter-factuals. Nor for these reasons are required to not understand those that might, but did not, come after or before the event didn't happen.

We would have not been able to salute you, had we not have been going to be doing something yesterday instead.

BW